MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session April 10, 1995 The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:06 a.m., on Monday, April 10, 1995, Chairman Marvel 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. 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 COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Mr. Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst SENATE BILL 278 Makes appropriation to State Public Works Board for design of Phase II of Lovelock Correctional Center. Mr. Bob Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons, explained S.B. 278 would appropriate funding to complete design and construction of Phase II of the Lovelock Correctional Center. Chairman Marvel asked when it was anticipated Phase II would be completed. Mr. Bayer stated completion was scheduled for April 1997. Chairman Marvel asked if that opening date would be soon enough. Mr. Bayer replied the inmate population was projected to again be at emergency levels by that time and the department would be in a situation similar to the current situation in terms of housing inmates, i.e., exceeding Stickney agreement limits and expanding into temporary housing facilities. Chairman Marvel inquired how many housing units would be added by completion of Phase II. Mr. Bayer said Phase II would house a total of 754 inmates in Units 3, 4, and 5. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many beds were currently available at Lovelock Correctional Center. Mr. Robin Bates, Chief, Classification & Planning Division, Department of Prisons, responded there were 560 beds in Phase I. Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the status of housing currently available for employees at Lovelock Correctional Center. Mr. Bayer said housing was available in Lovelock, including a new apartment complex. He indicated he did not know if there was enough housing available to support prison employees. He expected some employees would be commuting from Winnemucca. Ms. Giunchigliani noted she did not support the Lovelock prison expansion. She expressed concern that housing for employees had not been adequately addressed. She asked Mr. Bayer to report to the subcommittee regarding the number of employees who would be hired in conjunction with Phase I and Phase II and what housing was available for those employees. Mr. Bayer pointed out current Lovelock residents had submitted applications for positions at Lovelock Correctional Center. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would also like to be provided with information about women and minority hiring at the Lovelock Correctional Center. Mr. Bayer explained that information would not be available until the positions were filled. Chairman Marvel asked if the core facility could accommodate the additional 754 beds. Mr. Roger Grable, Deputy Manager, Public Works Board, answered the addition of Unit 5 could create problems with sewage handling and water supply systems because the water storage tank may not be large enough to meet fire codes. Part of the appropriation being requested would be used to study this problem. Chairman Marvel inquired whether the core facility could adequately accommodate the additional 500 beds in Units 3 and 4. Mr. Grable responded affirmatively. He explained the core facility was designed to accommodate 1,000 beds plus over capacity design of approximately 1,350. Chairman Marvel questioned whether the core facility would have to be expanded. Mr. Grable said the only risk was associated with the core facility sewage disposal system. Expansion could require the addition of two settling ponds. Mrs. Brower noted Mr. Bayer had indicated the $790,000 appropriation was to complete project design. She asked how much had previously been spent on the design. Mr. Grable stated nothing had been spent toward design of Phase II. The Phase I development included design consideration for expansion of the facility to 1,000 beds. He noted infrastructure was already in place for Housing Units 3 and 4. Housing Unit 5 would add 250 beds but would affect the current infrastructure. S.B. 278 included $680,000 for the cost of design changes to bring the present design up to current code and accommodate the additional 250-bed housing unit. In addition, $90,000 was included for the cost of a sewage study and $20,000 was included for a water system study. Mrs. Evans said $790,000 seemed a high cost for more design work. She asked for an explanation of the cost. Mr. Grable responded the design work was already done for Units 3 and 4. The $680,000 was to cover the architect fee to alter the current design to bring it up to code and add Unit 5. Mrs. Evans said she did not quarrel with the fact that additional design work was needed, but the cost seemed to be excessive. Mr. Grable pointed out the $680,000 included the finish design work on two Prison Industries buildings. Mr. Close inquired whether there was an architect on the Public Works Board staff. Mr. Grable answered there were four architects on staff. Mr. Close asked the reason for hiring outside architects. Mr. Grable explained each staff architect carried a workload of approximately 22 projects and they had no time to dedicate to the Lovelock project. Mr. Close asked how much of the $680,000 was for architectural fees. Mr. Grable replied the fees would go to structural, civil, and mechanical engineers as well as to the architect. He said he did not know how much would go to the architect but agreed to provide the information to the committee at a later time. Mr. Spitler noted the legislative history connected with why engineering and architectural design was not sent out to competitive bid was interesting. The Commerce Committee was considering the introduction of legislation to change this process. Mr. Spitler asked if the impact of design changes on security had been addressed. Mr. Grable said the design of Phase I had taken Phase II into consideration. Units 3 and 4 would be exact mirror images of Units 1 and 2. The existing guard towers were installed with that design in mind. The addition of Unit 5 would change the sighting plan for Units 3 and 4. The $680,000 design fee would include consideration for a separate guard tower to cover the new lines of sight, if required. Mr. Spitler asked if additional staffing for a new tower had been taken into consideration. Mr. Bayer said the request for funding for Phase II would include the cost of staffing an additional tower. Mr. Spitler expressed his belief future inmate population projections should take into consideration actual parole rates versus the Parole Board's projections of parole rates. Mr. Fettic asked how many employees would be hired as a result of Phase I. Mr. Bayer said 176 employees would be hired. Mr. Fettic asked how many additional employees would be required when Phase II was completed. Mr. Bayer said approximately 100 additional employees would be required. Mr. Allard inquired how much of the appropriation was dedicated to code changes. Mr. Grable said he did not know the answer to the question. Mr. Allard asked what the code changes were. Mr. Grable responded code changes were fire related and would require upgrading duct work and alarm systems. He agreed to obtain additional information from the architect. Mr. Allard asked if this would be design work only. Mr. Grable answered affirmatively. The architect would provide the plan set and specifications. The construction would be put to bid. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Grable to prepare a comparison of the original design costs and the new design costs. Mr. Grable said the total cost of site work and design to date was $2,471,308. The total cost of construction management to date was $812,382. The combined total fees paid to date were $3,283,690. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the Prison Industries buildings could be used to house inmates. Mr. Grable stated the Prison Industries structures were outside the secured area. Further, they were not secure structures. Retrofitting those buildings to house inmates would not be cost effective. Chairman Marvel noted Prison Industries had a sophisticated program in place for which those warehouse buildings would be necessary. Mr. Allard asked if the plot and grading plans for Phase II were complete. Mr. Grable stated the ground was ready for construction of Units 3 and 4. Additional work would be required for construction of Unit 5. Mrs. Brower asked where the 754 additional prisoners would be coming from. Mr. Bates responded approximately 70 percent of the offenders would be from the Clark County metropolitan area. Approximately 20 percent to 25 percent would come from Reno, Carson City, and Douglas County. The remainder would come from the rest of the state. Chairman Marvel asked how many of those inmates could be classified as "transient." Mr. Bates answered nonresidents (i.e., in Nevada less than 12 months) represented approximately 50 percent of the inmate population. Mr. Grable introduced Mr. Eric Rickey, the new manager of the Public Works Board. Chairman Marvel welcomed Mr. Rickey. ASSEMBLY BILL 155 Prohibits person who has received refund for hunting license from being denied bonus points for additional chances to obtain hunting tag. Assemblyman Brian Sandoval, District 25, testified A.B. 155 was amended in the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining to apply only to resident hunters. Mr. Sandoval explained in Nevada hunters were required to apply for a game tag as well as a hunting license. The application fee was $25 and the license fee was $20. Hunters who were unsuccessful in obtaining a tag would receive "bonus points" which would give them a better chance of obtaining a tag the following year. Hunters who were unsuccessful in obtaining a tag and who requested a refund of the hunting license fee forfeited their bonus points. Some sportsmen felt it was unfair that they were required to pay for bonus points through the purchase of a hunting license. Mr. Sandoval noted there had been opposition to A.B. 155 in the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining. One issue of contention was that the Legislature should not be micro managing the affairs of the Division of Wildlife. He said A.B. 155 was not attempting to manage the division's affairs. Secondly, it was argued there would be a rush by sportsmen to request refund of their license fees, creating a loss of revenue to the Division of Wildlife. He explained the universe of hunters who hunted only one animal was not large enough to adversely impact division revenue. He noted in 1994 approximately 45,555 hunting licenses were issued; 311 hunting license fee refunds were requested. Chairman Marvel asked if a fiscal note had been prepared on this bill. Mr. Sandoval stated because of the speculative nature of the number of hunters who would request a refund a fiscal note would not be accurate. He stated even if this bill created a doubling in the request for refunds the net loss to the division would be $6,000. Chairman Marvel noted the purpose of this hearing was not to dispute the merits of the bill but to consider the fiscal impact on the division's budget. Mr. Sandoval added opposing testimony also included the statement that hunters had an obligation to support habitat and game management. He stated he did not dispute this philosophy, which was the genesis of the regulation that hunters forfeit bonus points in order to obtain a refund of their hunting license fee, but participation should be elective. Mr. Sandoval said A.B. 155 addressed the issue of fairness. Hunters should not be forced to pay for a hunting license which they cannot use. Mr. Allard asked if the Division of Wildlife withheld $5 of license fee refunds as it did with tag refunds. Mr. Sandoval said when applicants for tags were unsuccessful in obtaining a tag the division would refund $15 of the $20 application fee. The balance of $5 would be retained by the division to defray the cost of administering the bonus point system. When hunters requested a refund of the hunting license fee, the division returned the entire $20. Mr. Allard questioned whether a portion of the hunting license fee should be retained to cover administrative costs. Mr. Sandoval stated the bill addressed the present policy of the division. Mr. Allard inquired whether any additional work was required of the division in allowing hunters to keep bonus points on refunded licenses. Mr. Sandoval said he did not know the mechanics of administering the bonus point program. Ms. Tiffany asked if the bonus point program represented an artificial method of raising the price of a hunting license to fund another program. Mr. Sandoval replied the bonus point system and forfeiture of bonus points on refunded license fees was implemented as a revenue generator. He expressed his opinion the division recognized the value of bonus points to hunters who hoped they would improve their chances of obtaining a tag the following season. Ms. Tiffany questioned whether this revenue was funding another program. Mr. Sandoval said division representatives were better equipped to answer the question. He said he understood statutorily the division was obligated to spend the revenue in a specified manner. Mr. Close asked how bonus points increased the chance of obtaining a tag. Mr. Sandoval stated the regulations provided that bonus points would accord holders an increased opportunity to obtain a tag in a subsequent drawing by allowing him or her one additional draw number for each accumulated bonus point. Ms. Giunchigliani commented the committee should consider allowing the division to retain some portion of the refund to cover administrative costs. Mr. Sandoval stated if that was the most beneficial way to address the issue, he would not object to amending the bill accordingly. He asked the committee to keep in mind that some hunters had paid for hunting licenses for several years without receiving a tag, therefore their expenses were more than $20. Mr. Sandoval introduced Mr. Floyd Arterburn, one of his constituents. Mr. Arterburn testified it was unfair of the Division of Wildlife to charge for bonus points. He suggested a better alternative to raising revenue would be to increase hunting license fees. Mr. Arterburn noted he had brought this matter to the attention of Assemblyman Jim Gibbons during the 1993 legislative session. At that time, Mr. Gibbons expressed his support for this issue. He urged the committee to pass A.B. 155. Mr. Spitler asked if some people could get a tag every year, while others never got a tag. Mr. Sandoval explained the tags were issued according to a lottery system. Lucky people got tags frequently; unlucky people did not. Mr. William Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, said the preceding testimony was accurate. He stated the division's estimate of the fiscal impact of passage of A.B. 155 was approximately $6,000 since the bill applied to residents only. If the bill applied to nonresidents, the fiscal impact would be approximately $174,000. He said the division was not concerned with retaining a portion of license fee refunds to cover administrative costs because $5.00 was already retained from the application fee refund. Mr. Molini agreed the purpose of selling bonus points was to generate revenue. He noted half the western states had similar programs. Chairman Marvel asked if passage of A.B. 155 would require an adjustment to the division budget. Mr. Molini responded license revenue currently included in the Executive Budget would be reduced by approximately $6,000. Chairman Marvel inquired whether the division had calculated retention of some portion of the refund to cover administrative costs. Mr. Molini reiterated a $5.00 nonrefundable processing fee was already imposed along with the application fee. That fee would cover the cost of administering the bonus point program. Mr. Allard questioned whether there would be any additional cost to the division associated with issuing the license fee refund. Mr. Molini said there would be some additional costs in refunding the license fees. Mr. Hettrick asked how many tags were issued. Mr. Molini said in 1994 approximately 15,000 deer tags were issued. Mr. Hettrick noted 15,000 tags represented a small portion of the 45,555 hunting licenses issued. Therefore, the impact of this legislation would be slight. Chairman Marvel called for public testimony. Ms. Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation, urged the committee not to pass A.B. 155. She stated the regulation would be best handled at a meeting of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners where interested parties could testify. She noted the issue of bonus points had been heard several times. She suggested this issue be studied to determine how the Division of Wildlife budget would be impacted. Mr. Larry Johnson, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, testified a poll of hunting and sportsmen's groups around the state indicated those groups overwhelmingly opposed A.B. 155. He noted the Nevada Trappers Association and the Muledeer Foundation supported A.B. 155 for resident hunters only. Chairman Marvel asked Mr. Johnson to provide the committee with a list of the groups polled. Mr. Johnson agreed to do so. Mr. Johnson stated hunters who left their money in the system to support Nevada's wildlife would be penalized by those who requested refunds but yet were allowed to retain their bonus points. He said passage of A.B. 155 would defeat the spirit of conservation. He questioned why this issue had been presented to the Legislature rather than to the Wildlife Commission, which was an appropriate forum for this discussion. He suggested legislating the bonus point program was not necessarily appropriate. He urged the committee not to support this measure. Mr. Don Cavin, Member, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, explained a hunting license afforded the opportunity to apply for 16 big game hunts in Nevada and 9 separate species of big game. Bonus points were given for each category. Mr. Cavin noted New Mexico had attempted to issue tags differently to resident and nonresident hunters, but a nonresident hunter sued the state on the basis that much of the land in New Mexico was federal land, as is the case with Nevada. New Mexico now issued tags equally to residents and nonresidents. He urged the committee not to differentiate between residents and nonresidents. Chairman Marvel asked if New Mexico treated its wildlife as a state resource or a federal resource. Mr. Cavin said he thought wildlife was treated as a federal resource since it was on federal land. ASSEMBLY BILL 160 Makes various changes to provisions governing issuance of restricted nonresident deer tags. Mr. Molini testified A.B. 160 was the result of an effort on the part of the Division of Wildlife to generate additional revenue. He explained a limited number of deer tags were available to nonresidents who utilized a Nevada resident guide. The division initially recommended increasing the number of tags issued from 250 to 300 and increasing the fee from $250 to $500. The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining amended the bill to increase the number of tags issued to 16 percent or 400 tags, whichever was greater, and increase the fee to $300. Mr. Molini stated the projected revenue based on the division's initial request ($87,500) was included in the Executive Budget. The amended bill would generate $30,000 less revenue than initially projected. Mr. Allard asked if the 16 percent would be subtracted from rifle tags only. Mr. Molini responded this bill applied to rifle tags only. Mr. Allard asked if a $5.00 administrative fee was retained from refunds on application fees for this tag. Mr. Molini answered affirmatively. Mr. Dini inquired whether resident guides had been opposed to increasing the fee to $500. Mr. Molini stated the guides did object to the $500 fee. Mr. Dini asked how Nevada's fees compared with those of other states. Mr. Molini said he did not know how fees in other states compared with Nevada's. He explained this program was somewhat unique in that it set aside tags for guides' use. Mr. Dini said he was a proponent of charging nonresident hunters more and leaving more game for Nevada hunters. Mr. Close asked why the bill would remove language stating that nonresident deer tags which are not issued must be returned to the quota of rifle deer tags for nonresidents. Mr. Terry Crawforth , Deputy Administrator, responded the nonresident guided drawing occurred prior to the regular drawing, therefore the nonresident guided tags were not being subtracted from the regular tags. This change in the language was for housekeeping purposes. Mr. Hettrick asked if all nonresident tags were sold. Mr. Crawforth stated generally close to all 250 tags were sold. In 1994 only 216 tags were sold due to per guide percentage restrictions. All 250 tags were sold in 1995. Mr. Hettrick inquired whether more than 250 applications had been received. Mr. Crawforth replied applications generally totaled approximately 500. Mr. Hettrick stated the demand for tags would not indicate that increasing the fee to $300 would cause a reduction in nonresident hunters. Mr. Fettic inquired whether increasing the fee to $350 would help the division recoup the $6,000 which would be lost if A.B. 155 was passed. Mr. Molini said increasing the fee to $350 would more than compensate for the $6,000. Mr. Close asked when the fee was last increased. Mr. Molini said the fee had never been increased. Mr. Allard questioned how the ratio between resident and nonresident tags was calculated. Mr. Molini answered Wildlife Commission policy was to reserve 10 percent of the total quota for nonresidents. Mrs. Chowning asked how long the fee had been assessed. Mr. Molini said he believed the original legislation was passed in 1989. Chairman Marvel called for public testimony. There was none. ASSEMBLY BILL 182 Makes supplemental appropriation to Supreme Court for anticipated shortfall in revenue from administrative assessments. Mr. Don Mello, Director, Administrative Offices of the Courts, testified A.B. 182 would provide a supplemental appropriation of $282,000 to the Supreme Court to offset a shortfall in administrative assessment fee revenue. He proposed revising the bill. He explained the total need to the Supreme Court resulting from the shortfall in fee revenue was $273,626. Of that amount, it was proposed $177,198 be transferred from budget account number 101-1487, $71,000 be transferred from budget account number 101-1496, and $25,428 be the allocation from the General Fund. Chairman Marvel commended Mr. Mello for working with Fiscal Division staff to reduce the General Fund appropriation. Mr. Dini asked if the Supreme Court was doing anything to enforce assessment fee collections. Mr. Mello said proposed legislation was scheduled for hearing in the Senate Finance Committee. Chairman Marvel requested introduction of a bill to make changes concerning fines and traffic citations. MR. DINI MOVED TO INTRODUCE A BILL TO MAKE VARIOUS CHANGES CONCERNING FINES AND TRAFFIC CITATIONS (BDR 1- 1717). SECONDED BY MRS. CHOWNING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 243 Makes appropriation to Department of Education for support of nonprofit public broadcasting stations in Nevada. Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education, testified during the 1991 legislative session the department received funding to support public broadcasting entities within the state. The one-shot appropriation ($200,000) being requested by A.B. 243 would be used for similar purposes. The appropriation would be divided into two grant pools with 75 percent devoted to grants for public television and 25 percent devoted to public radio. The department recommended the funds, if appropriated, be distributed under the same provisions and guidelines as the funds distributed during the 1991-93 biennium (see Exhibit C), including a definition of public broadcasting entities, schedule of distribution of funds, and stipulation that funds must not supplant any funds currently being received. Dr. Rheault introduced Mr. Lamar Marchese, President, Nevada Public Broadcasters Association. Mr. Marchese stated the public broadcasting system in Nevada included two urban stations (KNPB in Reno and KLVX in Las Vegas), each of which operated rural translators. Nevada has three public radio stations in Las Vegas (KNPR, KUNV, and KCEP) and one in Reno (KUNR) which serve the entire state through a system of rural translators and associate stations. Mr. Marchese noted the Legislature had a record of showing support for public broadcasting. In 1983 the Legislature established an interim committee to study public broadcasting. The interim committee recommended funding public broadcasting on a matching basis with nontax base sources of revenue. Beginning in 1987 and continuing through 1991 the Legislature appropriated sums between $50,000 and $150,000 to be divided among eligible participants. Governor Miller has recommended $200,000 in the Department of Education budget to support public broadcasting. Mr. Marchese said he appreciated the Governor's endorsement, especially since the House of Representatives has recommended a $140 million decrease in funding for public broadcasting over the next two years. The United States Senate has recommended a decrease of $55 million. Chairman Marvel asked how much federal funding was anticipated to be lost. Mr. Marchese replied the state currently received approximately $1.6 million in federal funding for public broadcasting. He expected a reduction of 10 percent to 15 percent in Fiscal Year 1996 and 25 percent and 30 percent in 1997. Mr. Marchese pointed out the $200,000 appropriation was not intended to offset reductions in federal funding but rather represented support which the state has provided historically. He said public broadcasting was structured as a public/ private partnership. Financial support came from government, foundations, corporations, businesses, and individuals. Ms. Tiffany asked if public broadcasters operated from their own studios. Mr. Marchese responded each station was individually licensed and operated their own facilities. Ms. Tiffany inquired how public broadcasters were different than UNLV. Mr. Marchese stated UNLV and UNR had radio stations. Other stations were licensed to nonprofit boards of directors which were independent from any other institution. Programming was different on each station. Ms. Tiffany questioned why the funding was being passed through the Department of Education. Mr. Marchese stated there had to be some conduit through which the funds could flow from the General Fund. Ms. Tiffany inquired why some revenue source other than the General Fund was not used. Mr. Marchese stated this was how the Legislature had recommended funding public broadcasting in the past. Ms. Tiffany asked what would happen to public broadcasting if it did not receive this General Fund revenue. Mr. Marchese said public broadcasting would survive without the funding. No funding was allocated to public broadcasting in 1993. He noted public broadcasting was providing an important statewide service which deserved state support. Mr. Allard asked if public broadcasting would look to the state for funding to offset federal reductions. Mr. Marchese said it would not. Mr. Tom Axtell, General Manager, KLVX, Channel 10, stated he had worked in public broadcasting in five states. Nevada was the only state which did not make an investment in educational programming. He said his station operated approximately 7,800 hours per year. In addition, eight closed-circuit television channels broadcast approximately 13,000 hours of educational programming to kindergarten through twelfth grade schools in the Las Vegas Valley. The station also offered distance education classes which served approximately 150 students in rural areas of Clark, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine Counties. Mr. Axtell said KLVX produced professional development classes for professional educators and a cable program where licensed school teachers answered questions from latchkey children to help them with homework. Hundreds of students were enrolled in General Equivalency Degree programs. Mr. Axtell stated funding for KLVX represented a mix of viewer support, federal funds, and support from Clark County School District. He suggested it was important for Nevada to invest in educational delivery. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Channel 10 was owned by Clark County School District. Mr. Axtell responded Clark County School District was the holder of the broadcasting license for Channel 10. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the school district provided the major portion of the funding. Mr. Axtell said the school district provided slightly less than 50 percent of the operating budget. Mr. Sherman Rutledge, General Manager, Radio Station KCEP, explained increased programming was designed to enhance the civic and social elements of its 75 percent minority listenership. Community outreach was an important component of programming. He noted attempts at private fundraising had been minimally successful. The station was operating with limited staff and old equipment. He invited committee members to visit KCEP. He encouraged the committee to support A.B. 243. Mr. Jim Pagliarini, General Manager, KNPB, Channel 5, explained funding for public broadcasting flowed through the Department of Education budget because much of public broadcasting programming was educational in nature. He stated if this appropriation was not made the public broadcasters would have to give up programming which was not profitable, e.g., political debates and community outreach efforts. Ms. Pat Miller, Vice President, KNPB, Channel 5, urged the committee's support for A.B. 243. She emphasized the importance of public broadcasting in providing community education. Mrs. Evans inquired how many other states supported public broadcasting. Mr. Pagliarini responded 45 of the 50 states provided support for public television. Next to individual donations, state governments represented the single largest source of support for public television. Ms. Elizabeth Livingston, Nevada Women's Lobby, expressed support for A.B. 243. Mr. Mike Bryant, Channel 5 volunteer, noted public broadcasting provided access to programming which was not available in other venues. He urged support for A.B. 243. ASSEMBLY BILL 271 Makes appropriation to account for local cultural activities. Mr. Sam Folio, President, Musicians Union Local 368, testified in support of A.B. 271. He said this legislation represented a statement by the Legislature that the arts, music, dance, and performance art were for all Nevadans, urban and rural, and of diverse backgrounds. He noted this funding was lost in 1993, resulting in the discontinuance of philharmonic concerts throughout Nevada and the loss of music and dance programs for senior citizens and the disabled. Without this program hundreds of Nevada schoolchildren might never experience an opera or ballet. Mr. Folio stated participation in the arts was a valuable part of life which should be cultivated. He urged support for A.B. 271. Mr. Nicholas Cutrone, Recording Industry Music Performance Trust Fund, explained the purpose of the trust fund was to promote free live public and educational performances. He urged passage of A.B. 271. He explained the trust fund had administered this program in the past. Mr. Dan Trinter, President, Las Vegas Musicians Union, explained funds from this program had been used for concerts in schools, convalescent hospitals, hospitals, and at public events with the goal of exposing the public to live music. Mr. Al Shay, Reno Musicians Union, said he had participated in two concert tours throughout the state as part of this program. He expressed his belief that musical training could be beneficial to children. He urged support for A.B. 271. Mr. Jack Jeffrey, Southern Nevada Labor Council, noted there was no administration fee for this program. All state funding went directly to programs. ASSEMBLY BILL 342 Prohibits consideration of unobligated money of school district as revenue source in preparation of state budget. Hearing of this bill was deferred until April 19, 1995. ASSEMBLY BILL 387 Makes various changes concerning sale lease or exchange of state land. Mr. Stevens explained an amendment to A.B. 387 was proposed in response to the committee's concerns. The amendment would allow the Interim Finance Committee to take actions on leases during the legislative session. Currently the Interim Finance Committee was only authorized to take action on leases when the Legislature was not in session. Four leases not included in the original legislation were added to the amendment. He noted the amendment should be corrected to indicate the term of the Fleet Call of Utah, Inc. Lease was for five years, not for ten years. Additionally, the language "leasing of certain water rights appurtenant to state land" related to the Silver Lake Water Distribution Company lease should be adjusted to read "leasing of certain water rights." Finally, since the Washoe County lease has not received Board of Examiners approval, language should be added to the bill to indicate the lease becomes effective upon approval of this act or upon approval of the Board of Examiners, whichever is later. He noted the usual procedure was for leases to be approved by the Board of Examiners before they were approved by the Interim Finance Committee. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether leases would still require Board of Examiners approval. Mr. Stevens said leases would still require approval of both the Board of Examiners and the Legislature. Mr. Dini stated this measure would be helpful to allow the Legislature to approve leases in a timely manner. Chairman Marvel concurred with Mr. Dini. Mrs. Evans expressed concern about the lease cost to Friends In Service Helping (FISH). She noted FISH was a charitable organization and the cost seemed excessive. Mr. Stevens stated legislation had been proposed in the Senate to allow certain leases to be less than fair market value. If that legislation was passed, the FISH lease could be renegotiated. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS. MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. MR. SPITLER ABSTAINED. * * * * * There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Dale Gray, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means April 10, 1995 Page