MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session March 27, 1995 The meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Monday, March 27, 1995, Chairman John Marvel presiding in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman Mr. John W. Marvel, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman Mrs. 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 Mr. Lynn Hettrick Mr. Bob Price Mr. Larry L. Spitler COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, excused GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: None Chairman Marvel reported Assemblywoman Giunchigliani was absent due to a death in the family and requested she be recorded as excused. ASSEMBLY BILL 181 - Makes appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada for support of health service corps. Robert Daugherty, Dean, of the University of Nevada School of Medicine, delivered a historical summary of the bill, stating the school was asking for the restoration of funds that were cut from the Nevada Health Service Corps' budget two years ago. The Nevada Health Service Corps is a program that pays health professionals' educational loans off in return for their working up to two years in a rural community. To date the corps has placed 20 physician's assistants, nurse practitioners, physicians and nurse-midwives throughout rural Nevada in sixteen different sites. The program is administered through the Office of Rural Health and the Area Health Education Center(AHEC) office. Dr. Daugherty introduced the administrators of the program, Ms. Carolyn Ford, Director of the Office of Rural Health and Mr. Gerald Ackerman, Director of the Area Health Education Center in Elko. He reported the bill will help continue the funding of the establishment of two-way television throughout their rural hospital system. Placing physicians in isolated rural facilities has led to frequent employment turnover. Two-way television will serve rural medical personnel for continuing education, instant consultation with university faculty and other physicians throughout the state, and communication with medical students who are placed on four week assignments with rural physicians. In response to Chairman Marvel's question regarding whether this fell through the cracks in the Governor's Recommendation, Dr. Daugherty replied affirmatively saying it was not in the budget. Mr. Gerald Ackerman, Director of the Northeastern Nevada Area Health Education Center, distributed a handout describing telemedicine (Exhibit C). He defined telemedicine as the practice of health care delivery diagnosis, consultation, treatment, transfer of medical data, and education using interactive audio, visual and data communications. Telemedicine provides health practitioners access to specialty services and consultations, access to tertiary care centers, clinical faculty relationships, administrative training and support and connectivity to library resources and continuing medical education. Chairman Marvel asked whether this was part of the AHEC program. Mr. Ackerman said it was in addition to the medical school's program. Mr. Spitler asked Mr. Ackerman for a breakdown. Dr. Daugherty stated that $50,000 of the loan repayment money was deleted from the budget during the cuts two years ago. Fifty thousand dollars would be applied to the loan repayment and the remainder would be used for upkeep and maintenance of the telemedicine system. The funds would provide for a technician who would travel to various rural communities in order to keep the system operating. Mr. Spitler asked whether the money would be applied to their base within the next budget cycle. Dr. Daugherty indicated this was what the university originally proposed but the final bill did not reflect their intent. Chairman Marvel requested Dr. Daugherty to provide the committee with a detailed breakdown. Mr. Ackerman stated the university was working closely with the Nevada Rural Hospital Project and had received grants to build upon their existing resources. In response to Chairman Marvel's question regarding continuing education, Mr. Ackerman replied it compliments the program. He maintained everything is done through the university and community college system. Benefits include the reduction of travel time for rural residents, access to specialty services and linking faculty and medical students who are on assignment. Assemblyman Dini commended the program, noting the occurrence of longer commitments by rural physicians. He stated he supported keeping the program in place. Ms. Carolyn Ford stated when the program was created by the Legislature in 1989, she testified the program needed to assist with administrative funding as well as the loan repayment and scholarship funds. A mechanism was needed to support the medical personnel in the rural areas. They have thereby requested funding to continue for a director of the program as well as secretarial staff and the addition of a new technician. Ms. Ford distributed the Nevada Health Service Corps History of Funding (Exhibit D). She reported approximately 260,000 additional dollars have been matched to the program through federal and local resources. Due to the budget cuts, the program has not been able to fully fund people that have approached her for loan repayment and scholarship requests. She has consequently turned to communities and asked for their support and assistance. Dr. Daugherty pointed out that Ms. Ford wrote the original AHEC grant and Mr. Ackerman wrote the REA grant that funded the television system. Chairman Marvel commended them for such an excellent program. ASSEMBLY BILL 183 - Authorizes issuance of revenue bonds for construction of building for applied technology center at Truckee Meadows Community College. Dr. Rita C. Gubanich, Interim President of Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) and Mr. Stephen Salaber, Director of Planning and Budget testified on behalf of A.B. 183. A report entitled International Game Technology Applied Technology Center for Truckee Meadows Community College (Exhibit E) was distributed. Dr. Gubanich indicated the project was a joint venture between TMCC and the TMCC Foundation. The 35,000 square foot building will house occupational programs for the welding, environmental technology, heavy equipment mechanics programs, and a portion of the electronics program. Enrollment in the programs is presently limited due to lack of space and safety issues. The total cost for the project is approximately $3.5 million. The community, through their Foundation Capital Campaign, has raised approximately $700,000 toward this project. A.B. 183 will allow the college to finance the match of $1.2 million which will be funded by student capital improvement fees. The college and foundation will be continuing its campaign to raise the additional $1.5 million. TMCC's plan is to have the project coincide with construction of Phase VI, the Advance Technology Center. The 1993-95 legislative session approved a portion of the 115,000 square foot building, a 35,000 square foot library which will be completed this fall. The Governor's proposal recommends approval for the remainder of the project at a cost of $11.8 million. This facility will house classrooms and lecture rooms for business computing labs, computer assisted drafting labs and computer assisted art labs. Dr. Gubanich indicated the projects will be partners in the state's economic diversification needs as both will help local businesses by providing students with the training and education needed to be competitive into the 21st century. In reply to Chairman Marvel's question regarding whether the projects would be entirely funded by revenue bonds, Dr. Gubanich stated $1.2 million is the college match which will be funded through student improvement fees; another $1.5 million remains to be raised. Chairman Marvel asked what portion of student fees went to capital improvements. Dr. Gubanich replied 4.50 percent. Mr. Spitler requested data concerning which university buildings were financed through revenue bonds. He asked if the project was originally presented to the Regents for prioritization purposes. Dr. Gubanich indicated the building was on the master list; the Regents were aware of the project. The college went forward with the Advanced Technology Center knowing it was a capital campaign project; it was outside the Board of Regents Approve List but was on their master plan and has been approved by the Public Works Board. Mr. Close asked about maintenance costs once the building has been built. Mr. Salaber replied the college had $40,000 budgeted for utility and service costs and three janitorial positions that the state will pick up. Dr. Jim Richardson representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance urged the committee's support for passage of the bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 263 - Authorizes issuance of revenue bonds for improvement of student union building at University of Nevada, Reno. Mr. Ashok K. Dhingra, Vice President, Administration and Finance, University of Nevada Reno, testified on behalf of the bill. He reported the university is requesting an authorization to issue $1.4 million in revenue bonds for the renovation of their Student Union Building. The renovation will make the building more functional for the students, will provide a large lounge for interaction and studying purposes and will incorporate a new information center. The project will improve the accessibility for disabled students and visitors assuring compliance with federal standards. Mr. Dhingra maintained the project was approved by the Board of Regents who plan to retire the $1.4 million in revenue bonds through the capital improvement fee. He indicated $7 that goes towards the capital improvement fee. In response to Chairman Marvel's question regarding their payoff period, Mr. Dhingra replied it was fifteen years. Mr. Spitler asked whether the Board of Regents had approved the project before it was introduced to the Legislature. Mr. Dhingra said they had. Mr. Close asked whether there would be an increase in their base funds once the renovation was complete. Mr. Dhingra replied there would not be. Mr. Spitler asked whether there would be an ongoing cost associated with the project. Mr. Dhingra stated there would be no additional ongoing costs to the state from this project. Dr. Richardson wanted to go on record in support of the project. He urged the committee's positive action on the bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 315 - Makes supplemental appropriation to School of Medicine Sciences of the University and Community College System of Nevada for certain unforeseen expenses relating to Family Practice Residency Program and Family Medicine Center. Mr. Tom Andres, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Dr. Daugherty appeared on behalf of the bill. Mr. Andres testified the university, the system and the Department of Administration request a supplemental appropriation of $135,829 to cover expenses for the present fiscal year relating to the family practice residency program and the family medical center. The supplemental is required to offset a projected shortfall in the Medicaid administrative fees. The shortfall is a product of a restructuring of that fee in fiscal year 1994. The Interim Finance Committee supported a similar request for fiscal year 1994 and in that year the supplemental was $158,000. Dr. Daugherty noted the university's budget was built on a projected administrative fee for Medicaid which had since decreased causing a shortage of $208,000 this year. Through salary savings (not replacing a nurse and some other personnel), the school has experienced a shortfall of $135,829. Dr. Daugherty said this had been discussed with Mr. Comeaux and Mr. Hataway last fall and agreement had been reached to approach the 1995 Legislature for a supplemental appropriation. Chairman Marvel requested Dr. Daughtery to obtain a letter from the Budget Office supporting the request. Mr. Mark Stevens testified the Fiscal Division held a letter indicating the Governor's support of the supplemental appropriation, however, it was not included in the Executive Budget. If approved, the $135,829 would come off the fund balance that is recommended in the Executive Budget. Chairman Marvel acknowledged this budget was a victim of Medicaid's rule changes. Dr. Daugherty concurred indicating the administrative fee was essentially cut in half leaving the school with the shortfall. Mr. Close asked whether the Governor suggested ways to deal with problem. Mr. Stevens stated he had not and stressed this would be a reasonable request by the committee. Chairman Marvel stated he would draft a letter to the Budget Division to that effect. Mr. Andres delivered a short dissertation on how their Medicaid program was managed. Begun 10 years ago, the program has 11,000 recipients and has been the base of their family medicine program in Las Vegas and Reno. He reported problems began when the Welfare Division cut the administrative fee. He pointed out the request was for the current fiscal year, not for the next biennium. Chairman Marvel noted there had been tremendous savings in the Medicaid budget. Dr. Daugherty concurred, saying basically aid to dependent children and mothers were in the program. He reported the savings to be in the range of $1.5 million per year. Assemblyman Hettrick asked how the expense would be handled in the next biennium. Mr. Andres stated it was in the budget. He stated the next biennial budget (95-97) had been built on the $3.15 level along with the appropriate General Fund support. He stated they are not anticipating any more cuts. He noted the cut was imposed upon them without any opportunity to appeal. ASSEMBLY BILL 210 - Makes various changes regarding preparation of governmental budgets. Assemblyman Jan Evans, Assembly Fiscal Analyst Mr. Mark Stevens and Bill Drafting Adviser, Ms. Kimberly Morgan testified on behalf of the bill. Input for the bill came from Chairman Marvel and Arberry, Senators Rhoads, Rawson and Callister during the interim period between the 1993 and 1995 legislative sessions. Joining in for a few of the work sessions were Speaker Dini and Senator Raggio. Mrs. Evans noted A.B. 209 is very similar to A.B. 194, Mr. Ernaut's bill. A.B. 210 deals with revising the deadlines for the submission of materials from the Executive Budget office to the Legislature. She called the committee's attention to page 4, section 4 of the bill which sets forth the Legislature's agreement with the Budget Division regarding before session activities. The recommendation of the Interim Committee was that the Legislature try to get more accomplished in advance of the session by setting forth December 1 as a deadline for the base budget and December 15, an "estimated range of the costs" for maintaining the current level of services into the next biennium. Mr. Stevens shared his opinion regarding the impact this would make. He stated section 4 is designed to provide additional information to the money committees in advance of session. If the adjusted base budget is available to the money committees in December as well as the range of costs for elementary, secondary and higher education and other major items in the budget for the maintenance piece, legislators can combine the information with the December 1 revenue projection from the economic forum to determine what dollars are left for enhancements. Mr. Stevens pointed out the Fiscal Analysis Division will be able to brief the money committees on the revenue projection from the Economic Forum, the amount of money in the adjusted base budget, the range of costs that are anticipated in the maintenance piece, how much is available for enhancements and priorities can then be established for where the money should go. Chairman Marvel noted the Fiscal Division had been working under a gag order. In the past the Fiscal Division was invited to budget hearings by the Department of Administration and were made aware of the contents of the budget before the State of the State address. Mr. Stevens stated they were, however, prevented from providing the information to any member of the Legislature. He stated the bill would allow the Fiscal Division to provide additional information in advance of session with the Governor releasing the enhancement piece which is usually the initiatives that he or she would be including in the Executive Budget. Assemblyman Allard asked what the impact would be should the bill pass mandating the session begin on the first Sunday in March. Mr. Stevens stated if the current dates for providing the budget to the Legislature in January, the money committees could possibly meet before the Legislature began. The other option would be to move all the dates so the Legislature does not get the information until just before they met in March. Mr. Stevens remarked he thought it would work either way; it depended how the legislators decided to handle the matter. Mr. Spitler asked how the bill would make the session more effective. Mrs. Evans said base, maintenance and enhancement would not have to be handled all at one time. She noted tightening up on the base was very important and called attention to A.B. 209 where this was being addressed. Mr. Stevens added the bill was designed to get the Budget Division and LCB fiscal staffs to reconcile what was in the adjusted base budgets in advance so less discussion would be necessary during the legislative session. Mr. Spitler said he could understand the fiscal staff working on the base budget in advance so the legislators did not have to spend as much time on routine items. He believed some of the line items in the base budget were set up to bury items such as contracts going into operating expenses. He noted if questions were not asked, one would not know what had been rolled into the category. He remarked he had been paying close attention to the base budget for that very reason. Mr. Price suggested using language that could be used should the legislature decide to meet annually. Ms. Morgan stated they would be happy to revise the draft to accommodate the notion of annual sessions. She noted the Study Committee neglected to consider this. Mr. Hettrick suggested the start date language be changed to "45 days prior to the legislative session." Mrs. Evans explained section 4, subsection 4 which allows for the creation of the budget subcommittee. She referred to page 6, lines 36-41, stating there presently were no deadlines on when legislation was to be received from the Executive Branch. She reported this had been a problem in the past because many major pieces of legislation were not made available to legislators until very late in the session. Ms. Morgan stated Executive Branch agencies were given a deadline to submit their bill draft requests to her office. They have an exception for any measure that is necessary to carry out the budget; this is the hole the provision is intended to close. Mrs. Evans reported if emergency conditions warrant a late introduction, there is still a mechanism for accommodating the Executive Branch; the chairmen of the money committees can still be approached. Mr. Spitler asked for clarification regarding the base budget should a newly sworn Governor decide he wanted it changed. Mr. Stevens said the base budget was developed based on a set of definitions. The definitions used this time were brought to the SCR-46 Committee by the Budget Division and everyone was in agreement as to what the definitions were for the base budget. He indicated by the end of this legislative session, if the same budget format is utilized (base, maintenance, enhancement), the definitions will have to be reviewed and agreed upon. The next base budget will then be constructed based on the new definitions. The definitions for the base budget provide for actual expenditures in FY94 and there are certain exceptions that can be made to actual expenditures. Mr. Spitler said a Governor could come on board and challenge federal mandates which would change the base budget through the whole budget cycle. Mr. Stevens said it would be seen in a decision unit either in a maintenance or enhancement component as a negative. The base budget would stay intact. It would be a negative decision unit to reflect that challenge of a mandate. In response to Mr. Close's question regarding the capital improvement budget, Mr. Stevens replied this bill would not impact it in any fashion. Mr. Close asked whether a bill would be required for any supplementary increase of the budget over and above the base (page 7, line 9). Mr. Stevens replied the capital improvements program, after it is approved by the money committees, will be put in bill form and voted upon on the floor. Mrs. Evans presented an amendment on page 8, line 20, that had been proposed by Ms. Morgan. The line in reference states, "it shall hold its initial meeting on or before January 5 of each odd numbered year." Ms. Morgan offered the following language to provide flexibility: "the budget subcommittee shall conclude its activities before the next regular legislative session is convened." Chairman Marvel commented it made a lot more sense. Mrs. Evans directed the committee's attention to page 9, line 41, "not later than October 15." She noted it was presently November 15 of each year. Mr. Stevens reported amendments submitted by the Budget Division. Section 4 one page 4, line 31 indicates the Budget Director will provide to the Fiscal Analysis Division on or before December 1 each agencies suggested base budget." Mr. Stevens noted the date was not met during the present budgetary cycle; the Budget Division prefers to see a December 15 date. To provide the division some front end time, they have indicated they would prefer to change the date budgets are due in their office and the Fiscal Analysis Division from September 1 to August 15. This will allow them two weeks on the front end and two weeks on the back end to accomplish putting the adjusted base budget together and providing the estimated range of cost for the maintenance piece. Ms. Janet Johnson, Budget Division, concurred with Mr. Steven's comments and reported her office totally supports the process. In order for the division to submit a budget that is clean and accepted by December 1, it almost has to be done by November 1. To do an agency request and build a base budget from September 1 to November 1 puts their time limits almost to the point of being impossible. She noted the base budget cannot be built in isolation; there are several elements of the maintenance and enhancement pieces that will impact the base budget. There are occasions when changes may have to be made to the base budget even after the fact. She concluded the dates indicated by Mr. Stevens are workable and they would like to proceed with it. Referring to section 10, Mr. Spitler asked how many committee meetings were anticipated. Mrs. Evans said the committee met once but the language does not limit the frequency. She said they planned this session's date by conferring with members of the money committees in conjunction with orientation. She said the flexibility will continue and predicted next year's meeting would last no longer than one day. Mr. Price maintained there were adequate statutory provisions that require an employer to allow legislators to attend these types of pre-session meetings. Mrs. Evans contended the Budget Division's request for additional time (from September 1 to August 15) was reasonable. She was concerned, however, about changing the date from December 1 to December 15. While sympathetic to their demands and workload, she also had to be understanding about the workload for the legislature's fiscal analysts. Giving the Budget Division two weeks or fifteen days takes away from the time allocated to the legislative staff. She proposed splitting the difference by changing the date from December 1 to December 10. Mr. Marvel asked whether the Budget Office was delayed this year due to inexperience on the part of their staff. Mrs. Johnson agreed and hoped the experience provided this session would help out during the next session. She proposed more discussion on the topic, however, indicated they were amenable as to whatever would work for both sides. Mr. Marvel suggested Ms. Morgan, Mrs. Johnson, Mrs. Evans and Mark Stevens work together on an amendment that would accommodate all sides. ASSEMBLY BILL 194 - Requires periodic fundamental review of each state agency to determine whether there is justification for its existence, costs and programs. Assemblyman Pete Ernaut noted the similarity between this bill and A.B. 201 from last session. The bill basically asks for an overhaul of each state agency once every ten years. He indicated each state agency should go through a fundamental review in order to justify its existence, realign its mission statement and make sure it complies with all the applicable goals and requirements. Mr. Ernaut yielded to Carole Vilardo of the Nevada Taxpayers Association. During the interim hearings she suggested there should be a fundamental review of state agencies. She stated fiscal accountability was critical and urged passage of the bill. Chairman Marvel suggested A.B. 209 and A.B. 194 be combined. He commented he, Mr. Arberry, and the Interim Committee were somewhat disappointed in the agency mission statements and performance indicators. Mr. Ernaut added he had no pride in authorship and had no problem combining his bill with A.B. 209. Chairman Marvel asked who would have oversight over whether zero based budgeting was being accomplished. Mr. Ernaut replied, according to the way his bill was written, it would be the Interim Finance Committee. Mr. Hettrick, referring to page 2, line 16, "on or before December 20," suggested the language be changed to read "30 days prior to the start of any session which will consider a proposed budget." Mr. Arberry noted A.B. 209 allowed the staff more flexibility and asked for Mr. Ernaut's opinion. Mr. Ernaut declared the bills accomplish two separate goals. A.B. 209 used Gestapo power to bring people to testify and would probably be more costly to administer than A.B. 194. He added A.B. 209 dwells on the base budget while A.B. 194 works from the base budget, the mission statement, performance indicators, strategies and goals. Referring to A.B. 194, Mr. Allard believed key language to remain should there be a merger was, "each agency of the state must be periodically reviewed to determine whether there is a continuing justification for the existence of the agency." Ms. Vilardo stressed her association's support for "the performance" embodied in the final bill. She believed program and performance auditing was critical in establishing the base budget and agreed merging the two bills was viable. Mr. Eric Cooper of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce stated his organization supported the concept of agency review and felt this was a good bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 209 - Provides for fundamental review of base budgets of state agencies by legislature. Mrs. Evans, representing the work of the Interim Committee on S.C.R. 46, acknowledged the bill's similarity with A.B. 194. She stated the committee fully shared Mr. Ernaut's ideas and concerns and were clearly headed in the same direction. Mr. Stevens compared A.B. 209 and A.B. 194. In respect to who is to determine the agencies to be reviewed, the Interim Finance Committee makes the choice by December 15 in A.B. 194. In A.B. 209, the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, determines which agencies will be reviewed before the end of the legislative session. The Interim Finance Committee has the ability to modify the list of agencies if addition is needed between sessions. He noted the S.C.R. 46 committee felt it was necessary to start before September 15 in order to get the review done by the start of the next legislative session. The second area of concern was the timetable established for review of each agency. In A.B. 194 all agencies must be reviewed once every ten years. In A.B. 209 there is no timetable established and the decision is left to the Legislature. He advised thought must be given to how much time should be allocated to this process by members of the Interim Finance Committee. A.B. 209 does not require that agencies be reviewed every ten years. Agency numbers can range from thirty to ninety, depending on how much time is to be allocated to the process. The third area is how membership on a review committee is determined. In A.B. 194 membership consists of members of the Interim Finance Committee and other members of the Legislature and in A.B. 209 the majority of the members must be on the Interim Finance Committee. The fourth area is the required level of review. In A.B. 194 each agency must justify its existence and every expenditure of the budget requiring a great amount of time. In A.B. 209 the level of review is flexible and determined by the review committee. Each subcommittee that is formed can determine its own approach. In respect to Review Committees, Mr. Stevens indicated reports were due in A.B. 194 by December 20, before the start of the legislative session, and in A.B. 209 there was no specific date mentioned, only that reports were due before the session began. Mr. Stevens concluded the committee needed to review the timetable issue, level of review required and whether it should be set in statute or left to the subcommittees. Mrs. Evans pointed out A.B. 194 locks agencies into a schedule. She liked the flexibility in A.B. 209 as it did not tie the Legislature into a schedule. She noted the interim committee did not recommend adding staff to the fiscal division, however, it would have to be considered if they were to work with IFC, other study committees and executive agencies on the preparation of the budget. She remarked the committee must be realistic in their demands on the fiscal division. Chairman Marvel asked Mr. Stevens if the legislative auditors could play a role. Mr. Stevens said he would confer with Gary Crews; it depended on how he viewed their role. Chairman Marvel suggested this would be a way of cleaning up agency's mission statements as the auditors are more performance oriented. He was not sure how stringent their operating schedule was. Responding to Mrs. Evans' comments on A.B. 194, Mr. Stevens stated his office could perform the ninety plus budgets workload. He stressed his division would need relief on the Interim Study Committee front as they would not have the time due to their normal heavy workload. Mr. Price asked whether the procedures of other states were examined by the study committee. Mrs. Evans reported Colorado had been one of the target states because of their efficiency. They did not specifically examine sunset clauses. Mrs. Chowning asked whether state boards would be included in the review process. Chairman Marvel felt the burden on the staff would be compounded. Mr. Allard asked whether performance audits could be performed on state agencies every ten years. Mr. Stevens said the audit division is better suited to perform a straight performance audit than the fiscal analysis division. He mentioned this function was not the intent of A.B. 209. Mr. Stevens explained the S.C.R. 46 committee recommended the fiscal and budget divisions to agree on the adjusted base budget in advance in order to reduce the amount of discussion during the legislative session. Chairman Marvel suggested appointing a subcommittee to examine the merits of merging the two bills. Committee members proposed for inclusion were the Chairman, Mr. Ernaut, Mrs. Evans and Mr. Arberry in addition to the Nevada Taxpayer's Association. Ms. Vilardo testified her association supported the concept of A.B. 209 and wanted the final bill to employ methods that would ensure state agencies are conducting their business by statute in the most efficient way. She felt the marrying of the legislative counsel fiscal and audit divisions in some of the responsibilities would work to the state's advantage. Mrs. Evans closed by saying legislators were going in the same direction in their desire for fiscal accountability and better oversight. She hoped the committee would recognize the bulk of the work was performed by the Chief Fiscal Analyst on the S.C.R. 46 Committee, Mr. Stevens and commended him for his quality work. Chairman Marvel seconded Mrs. Evan's remarks. ASSEMBLY BILL 13 - Requires submission of proposal to issue general obligation bonds to provide grants to local governments and department of transportation for projects for controlling erosion and restoring natural watercourses in Lake Tahoe Basin (BDR S317) Requested by Chairman Marvel to explain the amendment to the committee, Mr. Hettrick stated the bill allows the $20 million bond issue to go to statewide ballot. The amendment changes were as follows: 1. Language to be changed to "...not more than $20 million"; 2. To indicate that the Board of Examiners shall issue the bonds and determine how they will be paid for; 3. Indicating that the expenses of the bonds on page 2, subsection 3 indicates the expenses will be deducted and balance of funds will be directed and; 4. the new subsection 4 explains this is not to be included within the state's debt limit. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 13. ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ASSEMBLY BILL 147 - Makes various changes to provisions governing license agents of division of wildlife of state department of conservation and natural resources. (BDR 45-555) ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 147. ASSEMBLYMAN EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER AND ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE VOTED NO. Chairman Marvel entertained a motion to rescind the action on A.B. 147. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO RESCIND THE ACTION ON A.B. 147. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Marvel entertained a do pass motion on A.B. 147. ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 147. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Marvel called for discussion. Mr. Close objected to the increase in license fees. He did not have objections to the other aspects of the bill. Mr. Allard stated he shared the concerns of Mr. Close and did not feel raising the fee by fifty cents would cause more licensees to sell hunting and fishing licenses. He acknowledged it would be tacked on to the license and fees of the hunters and fishermen and he felt it would make a difference to them. He noted hunters send a clear message they do not want fees or licenses raised at this time. Mr. Hettrick said he did not object to the fact that persons get reimbursed for essentially selling licenses for the state of Nevada. He did not feel hunters minded paying for services they receive as long as the services remain good. He said if the bill should fail, the committee should consider removing the fifty cent increase and revoting because it allows for more people to sell tags if they choose to. ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED A.B. 147 BE AMENDED BY STRIKING THE FIFTY CENT INCREASE ON LINE 21, PAGE 2, AND RETAINING THE FEE AT FIFTY CENTS. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Marvel entertained a motion for amend and do pass. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 147. ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 161 - Authorizes person to fish using second combination of hook, line an rod under certain circumstances. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 161 ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. MS. TIFFANY VOTED NO. Referring to line 16, Mr. Arberry asked for clarification on the $10 stamp fee. Mr. Hettrick stated all stamps coincide with the issuance of the license. The stamp is good until the license is no longer valid; it is like a prorate. THE MOTION CARRIED. MRS. TIFFANY VOTED NO. BDR 39-1895 WHICH AUTHORIZED GRANTS OF MONEY TO CERTAIN COMMUNITY CENTERS FOR TRAINING RETARDED PERSONS TO ASSIST IN PAYMENT OF PROSPECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL EXPENSES WAS INTRODUCED. ASSEMBLY ARBERRY MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 39-1895. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Janine Sprout, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means March 27, 1995 Page