MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session April 19, 1995 The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 7:08 a.m., on Wednesday, April 19, 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 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 95-G7 - LEGISLATIVE BUILDING EXPANSION Assemblyman Joe Dini, District 38, testified one of the most important issues of this legislative session was the remodeling of the legislative building. He said every corner of the present 25-year-old legislative building had been filled, and the Legislature desperately needed an addition to the building. Mr. Dini explained the history of the proposed expansion. The Legislature has remodeled the interior of the legislative building every session since it opened. Building expansion was discussed as early as 1979, when Graham Erskine prepared a plan for a 39,000 square foot addition. This plan was considered over the next five years but never approved. In 1989 the Legislature approved Phase I of a proposed expansion, purchasing what is now the Sedway Office Building and remodeling portions of the legislative building to create leadership offices and larger hearing rooms. Plans were developed for Phase II of the project--a major addition to the legislative building, adding to the front of the building, behind the building, and over the chambers of the two houses. This proposed $25 million to $30 million addition was discussed during the 1991 session but deferred to allow funding of the new Grant Sawyer State Office Building in Las Vegas, the construction of a correctional center in Lovelock, and the remodeling of the old Supreme Court building for the Attorney General, among other projects. With the recession of the early 1990s causing a massive shortfall in the state budget, there was simply no money available in 1993 to fund this project. Mr. Dini explained why it was necessary to approve this project now. First, the Legislature is out of space. In addition to filling the legislative building and the Sedway Office Building, the Legislature is currently renting space off premises to store inventory for publication sales. The existing space occupied by Assembly members is inadequate. Assembly members now represent almost three times as many voters as they did when the legislative building opened, but the lack of space makes it difficult for constituents to have access to their elected officials. Mr. Dini stated he was not in favor of big government, but Nevada is growing faster than any other state in the country. The Legislative Branch has grown more slowly than the population of the state and more slowly than the Executive Branch, both in budget increases and number of employees. The Legislature will need more space, even if it doesn't increase its number of members. With each Assembly member projected to be representing 40,000 people by the year 2000, membership may need to increase. The Nevada Constitution allows up to 75 members. He questioned where another 12 legislators could be accommodated without an addition. Mr. Dini explained the benefits of an addition. It would allow more space for the public to meet with legislators. It would allow more space for larger hearing rooms, again allowing greater attendance by the public. The Legislature could use modern technology to increase access through video-conferencing and cable television and move publications inventory back into the building, saving rental costs and increasing efficiency. There would be room for the growth that will occur. Mr. Dini noted the greatest benefit of the addition would be orderly planning for the future. He stated the Legislature could wait until the need for space reaches critical proportions, or plan for the growth which will occur, addressing the need for space at a time when money is available for "one-shot" appropriations and a building addition is included in the Executive Budget. Mr. Dini acknowledged the committee's reluctance to spend money on the Legislature when there are so many important programs that need funding. He noted the Legislature had hardly been extravagant in its spending, having cut a $30 million project in half, even though it was initially proposed four years ago. While 63 elected officers use the legislative building, the Supreme Court building houses five elected officers. The Capitol building also houses only five elected officers, and one of them also has an office in the legislative building. The Attorney General uses two buildings. Mr. Dini stated he was not criticizing those officers or questioning their use of space but only pointing out that the Legislature has given other branches of state government enough space to carry out their missions, but tied its own hands with an inadequate and out-of-date building. Mr. Dini noted it is not easy to approve a project like this. The easy thing to do is to avoid controversy and let some future legislature make the decision. He said committee members were not elected to make easy decisions. They were elected to make the right decisions. He urged approval for funding of the legislative building addition. He reiterated there will never be a better opportunity to address this important need. Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained a possible timetable for construction of the addition and some of the features and benefits of the addition. He distributed to the committee members copies of a schedule for building addition design and construction and four different versions of how to structure the interior of the building. He emphasized that these drawings are only intended to show general possibilities. If this project is approved, Legislature will provide input on how to proceed with programming and design. Mr. Malkiewich stated over the next few months internal "pre-design" work to develop details for the various options would occur. If the project is approved, two tasks would proceed simultaneously. The first is the selection of and contracting with an architect. Concurrently, meetings would be held with leadership, the building subcommittee, or whomever the Legislature designates to finalize a draft of the plan. With the tight schedule presented in this plan, the proposal would have to be nearly finalized when the architect is selected in order to save time on preparing the construction documents and save money in architectural fees. The intent is not to have an architect develop a plan but to turn the plan into a building. Following architect selection, work on the construction documents and preparation of the legislative building for construction will be accomplished during the period between August and December. This will include moving staff and the mainframe computers out of the building and locking down the rest of the building so that it will not be disturbed by the excavation occurring in the back parking lot. In early 1996 the construction contract will be put to bid with construction to begin in February of 1996 and move in scheduled for late 1996 to early 1997. Mr. Malkiewich referred to the four versions of the proposed addition. He noted all versions constitute additions to the immediate east of the existing building, with a basement and three floors. The basement in each plan is the same, and is shown in rough detail in the first page following the schedule. This in itself would represent a substantial improvement, in that it would allow the Legislature to move all of its publications back into the building. This will save money on rental charges and increase efficiency. Mr. Malkiewich explained each plan proposed building to the east and limited modifications to the interior of the existing building. Because of asbestos and lead to contend with in modifying the existing building, substantial savings would be realized by putting most of the money into the addition. He noted the first version showed the revised first floor of the building. The most dominant feature of the added area is the addition of the Legislative Counsel Bureau Legal Division. It was contemplated one division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau would be moved into the addition, leaving the other divisions in the Sedway Office Building. By adding to the east, even the divisions remaining in the Sedway Office Building will be closer to the legislative building. Other changes to the first floor included a larger, centrally located room for the press, a large area for publications and gift sales, and a larger message center, which is relocated from the second floor. In this version, as well as one of the other plans, return to a "north/south" division of the building between the two houses rather than a "second floor/third floor division" is contemplated. Many legislators have commented on the limited amount of interaction caused by having the houses separated by floor. This plan includes large hearing rooms in the addition to the second floor of the building. These hearing rooms illustrate a common theme running through these proposals: public access. Mr. Malkiewich said this addition will increase public access by adding larger hearing rooms, a change that also affects public safety by avoiding overcrowding. Each floor of the addition can be equipped with video conferencing equipment, greatly expanding the ability to take the Legislature to Las Vegas and other parts of the state. The rooms can be "cable ready" allowing "C-Span" type coverage of legislative hearings. The current building is in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, but there is much room for improvement. The addition provides flexibility that existing space does not allow, and allows changes that asbestos makes cost prohibitive in the existing building. Mr. Malkiewich stated legislators will be representing 40,000 people by the year 2000. The addition not only creates a reasonable-sized office for legislators, it allows for public meeting and gathering places. He added this was a frugal proposal. It would create standard-sized offices for most legislators. The additional space could accommodate the constitutional maximum of 75 legislators, but almost all of the offices are a standard size with a reception area in front and a legislative office in the back. Virtually all of the third floor addition would be dedicated to adding these offices, with space allocated for caucuses, a large joint hearing room and a public lounge. Mr. Malkiewich suggested the face of the existing building could be changed to make it more consistent with the architecture of the Capitol Complex and Carson City's plans for turning downtown into an historic walkway. All of these versions show room 119 being eliminated to address the space problems of the senate's front desk. Mr. Malkiewich asked the committee to consider the possibility of a legislative library with reference materials for the legislators, the staff and the public within the legislative building. The basement could be connected to the parking garage, perhaps avoiding some of the falls people have taken in the winter. Working space could be provided for legislative interns. Showers and locker rooms could be included in the design as well as a snack bar. Mr. Malkiewich stated while funding was not available for all of the foregoing possibilities, much of it could be done. Mr. Malkiewich reiterated there is simply no room for expansion in either present building. The legislative structure is not efficient. And there will never be an opportunity like this again. The Governor has recommended this project in the Executive Budget. He asked the committee to support this project. Mrs. Evans asked what room would be used for teleconferencing. Mr. Malkiewich answered all hearing rooms could be equipped to have teleconferencing capability. He explained the rooms designated for teleconferencing on the plans were to house equipment. He noted if the project was approved a legislative committee would be established to finalize which conference rooms would be equipped for teleconferencing. Mrs. Evans said teleconferencing capability was a particularly important goal of this project. Chairman Marvel asked how parking would be restructured. Mr. Malkiewich responded the building addition would eliminate the parking area immediately behind the present building. He said the parking garage and the two parking lots adjacent to the Sedway Office Building would have to be utilized more fully. He noted parking was a concern which would have to be addressed with Carson City. At this time there is more than adequate parking available for the legislative building. The number of reserved spaces could be reduced to minimize the net loss of parking spaces. Mr. Close expressed concern with the design and construction time schedule since completion was scheduled close to the beginning of the 1997 legislative session. Mr. Malkiewich acknowledged this was a tight schedule and would require a great deal of work. He explained modification of the existing building could be limited until the addition is complete in the event the existing building had to be used for the 1997 legislative session. He added the building may be ready for use even though it has not technically reached completion. Chairman Marvel inquired whether savings in off-site rent had been projected. Mr. Malkiewich replied those savings had not been projected. He agreed to provide the information to the committee. Mrs. Evans commented it was critical to expand the legislative building now. She cited the inefficiency of having policy makers located in one building and staff members in another. She added for the record contrary to some impressions, the legislative building is not only used during the bi-annual legislative sessions but is used constantly throughout the year by state agencies and members of the public. She expressed the hope the committee could reach a decision on this project soon in order to help Mr. Malkiewich initiate the necessary work. Mr. Dini stated he had served on the building subcommittee. He reiterated there was no room for expansion in the existing building and space was growing limited in the Sedway Office Building. He said there was no alternative but to proceed with this construction. He urged the committee to approve this project. Chairman Marvel echoed Mrs. Evans' remarks about the use of the building throughout the year. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Assembly chambers could accommodate growth. Mr. Malkiewich stated the chambers were designed to accommodate the constitutional maximum. The proposed addition would allow enough office space for 75 legislators. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the air conditioning system could be improved. Mr. Malkiewich stated the air conditioning system in the addition would be better than the existing system because of improved technology. He was reviewing whether the existing system could be improved by connecting it with the new system. Mr. Price noted there had been concern when the existing building was constructed because people felt the Legislature at that time had adequate space in the Capitol Building. ASSEMBLY BILL 88 Makes appropriations to certain judicial districts for programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs. Judge Jack Lehman, Clark County District Court, explained the Clark County drug court program. He stated the program was modeled on the Dade County, Florida, drug court program, which was directed at drug users rather than drug suppliers. The Florida program was begun with a $1 million budget raised from revenues from fines for traffic citations, etc. Judge Lehman said the program began with acupuncture treatment in the detoxification stage followed by counseling and regular appearances in "drug court." The drug court concept was directed to first-time offenders convicted of possession or being under the influence of controlled substances. The purpose was to take these offenders out of the criminal system and place them in an active treatment program for which they would be required to pay something toward their participation. If participants completed the program, their charges would be dismissed and their record sealed. Judge Lehman noted Miami's program was seven years old. The recidivism rate of the program's over 6,000 graduates was approximately 23 percent. The Clark County drug court program was started October 19, 1992. It contracted with a clinic called Choices Unlimited which offered acupuncture in the first two to three weeks (i.e., the detoxification stage). If use is substantially reduced in that time, participants move on to the next phase of the program (counseling and drug testing). At the end of a year, if participants have been totally drug free for a minimum of the last three months in the program, they graduate. After two and one-half years there have been 197 graduates from the program with 2 recidivists. Judge Lehman stated it was expected the recidivism rate would not continue to remain so low and over time would probably approach the Miami rate, which has remained fairly steady. He pointed out the average recidivism rate for offenders who went to jail or prison was between 70 percent and 80 percent. Judge Lehman explained the $250,000 appropriation requested in A.B. 88 would allow for expansion of the drug court program to serve an additional 200 participants. He said approximately 440 people were currently participating in drug court. Chairman Marvel asked how successful Judge Lehman had been at collecting fees for program participation. Judge Lehman stated he would allow participants to graduate from the program if they had not completed payment, but he would not dismiss their charges or seal their records. Those graduates would be given a payment schedule and monitored to ensure payments were being made. So far, every graduate has made full payment for program participation. Judge Lehman stated the clinic was paid $1,200 per year per participant. That amount covered participants indefinitely if they required additional treatment following graduation. Judge Lehman added he supported funding for a similar drug court program in Washoe County. Chairman Marvel asked how many people had been deterred from further criminal behavior. Judge Lehman replied the recidivism rate would indicate the drug court program was more successful than incarceration at deterring further crime. He added the cost of incarceration in the Clark County Detention Center for a year is $13,000. The cost in the state prison is approximately $18,000 per year. Further, when prisoners were released they were still addicts and resorted to criminal behavior to support their habit. Mr. Close asked what the annual budget for the program was. Judge Lehman responded the annual budget was approximately $350,000. Mrs. Brower inquired how the clinic had been chosen to provide treatment. Judge Lehman attributed a substantial portion of the success of the program to the clinic. He explained the clinic had been created in Washoe County in 1990 by Dr. Graham Simpson, who had modeled the private program for treatment of addictions after the Dade County program. Judge Lehman approached Dr. Simpson about the possibility of developing a clinic in Las Vegas. Chairman Marvel questioned whether drug court would have any impact on the Governor's proposed alcohol and drug abuse program. Judge Lehman responded the Governor had indicated he was in support of the drug court program. Chairman Marvel inquired whether anyone from the Clark County drug court program had met with the Governor when he was formulating the Executive Budget. Judge Lehman answered "no." Ms. Tiffany asked if the program had requested state funds previously. Judge Lehman replied legislation had been drafted in 1993 but there was no funding available. Ms. Tiffany inquired why the program did not seek funding from Clark County prior to seeking state funding. Judge Lehman stated Clark County set aside funds from DUI and traffic school to pay for drug court. Ms. Tiffany suggested there might be alternate sources of funding from Clark County. Judge Lehman stated the county had informed him it would be difficult to provide additional funding for drug court. Chairman Marvel questioned whether the program could become self-supporting eventually. Judge Lehman responded there was a strong probability federal funding would be available in the next two years as a result of the crime bill passed in the last session of Congress. Ms. Tiffany inquired whether the program was currently receiving federal funding. Judge Lehman answered "no." Ms. Tiffany questioned whether more effort could be directed toward writing federal grants. Judge Lehman stated the program had applied for all available federal grants. He explained most drug courts throughout the country had been started with local funding. Ms. Tiffany asked if participants' medical insurers were paying for participation. Judge Lehman stated the clinic checked all participants for medical insurance funding. Ms. Tiffany questioned whether "deadbeat" dads could pay for juveniles' participation. Judge Lehman said there were no juveniles in the program. He noted a juvenile drug court was about to be started in Clark County, for which federal funding would be available. Ms. Tiffany asked if the $250,000 would fund additional staff. Judge Lehman stated the program was operating with existing staff. No staff had been added to run this program. The $250,000 would go to the clinic to add participants. Judge Jim Stone, Washoe County District Court, testified he handled an average of 800 to 1,000 criminal cases per year. Of those cases, 60 percent to 70 percent were drug related. There were currently only two treatment programs where offenders could be deferred (at their own expense). Another alternative to incarceration was probation. Probation was revoked in approximately 20 percent of cases and offenders were incarcerated. Judge Stone noted the appropriation requested in A.B. 88 would directly affect the Department of Prisons budget since fewer people would have to be incarcerated. He stated the program was cost effective and was necessary. Chairman Marvel asked if Washoe County had access to a clinic similar to the Las Vegas clinic. Judge Stone said Washoe County was in the process of developing a drug court program. Several treatment options had been reviewed, one of which is Choices Unlimited, the same clinic used by Clark County. Judge Stone noted Washoe County Commission had been approached for funding for the drug court program. Chairman Marvel stated the committee would review any program which could eliminate the need to construct additional prisons. Judge Stone stated drug court programs in Clark County and Washoe County could reduce the prison population by approximately 100 to 150 per year. Chairman Marvel said he had received a letter from Judge Gamble noting the District Judges Association had voted unanimously in support of A.B. 88. Ms. Tiffany questioned how performance indicators could be developed which would measure the impact on inmate population and the Governor's crime program. Judge Stone said the committee could look at other programs throughout the country whose statistics showed the number of participants who were not going to prison. Ms. Tiffany stated she would like to see performance indicators which demonstrated how many of the 650 participants would otherwise have gone to prison. Judge Peter Breen, Washoe County District Court, testified by sentencing offenders to prison he had been personally responsible for spending millions of state dollars appropriated to the prisons and the Parole and Probation Division to handle the exploding crime problems. He said most of that money had been wasted because offenders were being recycled back into the criminal justice system. Judge Breen pointed out the drug court program combined treatment, imprisonment, threat of punishment, and motivation to stay off drugs. He stated while statistics regarding the success of drug court could not be systematically codified, it was his experience the reduction in crimes committed by people supporting a drug habit was a benefit to society. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the participants in drug court had been convicted of felonies. Judge Breen responded affirmatively. Ms. Giunchigliani said in her opinion the benefit of the program was that it kept these felons out of the prison system. She suggested the state, therefore, had an obligation to provide funding for the program. Judge Breen noted the drug court in Portland, Oregon, saved nearly $700,000 per year in the cost of providing Parole and Probation supervision of people on probation. The purpose of drug court was to supervise offenders through treatment and regular appearances before the drug court judge. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the language of A.B. 88 was flexible enough to allow Clark County and Washoe County to develop drug courts which would meet their individual needs. Judge Breen stated the Washoe County drug court would require a "guilty" plea. Chairman Marvel called for public testimony. Ms. Betty Wallace, Chief Executive Officer, Step 2, testified in support of A.B. 88 and the success of drug court. Mr. Richard Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney, expressed strong support for the drug court program. He stated the war on drugs was not working and alternative approaches had to be tried. He noted 75 percent to 90 percent of felony crimes involved drugs. Nationally, $18 billion was spent last year in the war on drugs. The amount of this appropriation was minimal in comparison. Sheriff Dick Kirkland, Washoe County, echoed the prior testimony. He expressed strong support for drug court. ASSEMBLY BILL 342 Prohibits consideration of unobligated money of school district as revenue source in preparation of state budget. Mr. Larry Spitler, District 41, testified he had been surprised to learn in 1991 that money which was allocated to school districts could be taken back by the state. He attempted to pass this legislation in 1993, but it was not heard. He said he was committed to introduce this legislation in 1995 because the issue deserved discussion. Mr. Spitler noted the Legislature, in the current session and in previous sessions, had sought to maintain adequate state financial reserves. Several times those reserves had been key to avoiding cuts in public services, in keeping tax rates stable, and in ensuring the state's favorable bond rating. For the same reasons, Nevada's local governments also need to develop and maintain financial reserves, and all local governments in Nevada have the latitude to do so without infringement by the state. But while all local governments so benefit, the school districts do not. Only public schools have had reductions in funding because the state has, in effect, taken over $31 million in school district balances from Fiscal Year 1992 and Fiscal Year 1995. Only public schools have been penalized because they sought to stabilize their budgets through development of adequate balances. The state's practice of taking away school district fund balances has created a disincentive to sound financial management. He questioned why school districts should save money to pay cash for capital investments if such savings was vulnerable to appropriation by the state. Mr. Spitler noted for the first time in recent memory the Executive Budget did not act to take school district balances in the next biennium, for which the Governor and Budget Director should be favorably recognized. However, it is still clear from recent testimony by members of the Budget Division that state manipulation of school district balances is also the means by which basic support per student can be raised or lowered to achieve the desired appearance of increase or decrease in funding availability to districts. Mr. Spitler said the state's confiscation of school district balances constitutes a tangible disincentive to sound fiscal management and should be ceased by statute. He questioned whether it would be right for the federal government to intervene in the management of the state's fund balances. He submitted that no level of government should act to take away funds that have rightfully been placed in the charge of another. He pointed out A.B. 342 required no state appropriation and, in the long run, would be a great stride in strengthening the state-local fiscal partnership. Ms. Tiffany asked if the Superintendent of Public Instruction was in favor of this measure. Mr. Doug Thunder, Director of Fiscal Services, Department of Education, stated the department was in support of A.B. 342. Ms. Tiffany inquired how the school districts proposed to spend remaining fund balances. Mr. Mike Alastuey, Clark County School District, stated A.B. 342 represented a positive step for local responsiveness to local needs in public education without the need for an additional state appropriation. He said currently the state could use local school districts' savings accounts to cut state payments for education. This practice penalizes local school districts, students, parents, and taxpaying citizens seeking to conserve funds for future investment to meet continually emerging needs. He distributed to the committee members a description of how the confiscation mechanism works together with an accounting of funds confiscated in 1991-1993 and 1993-1995 (see Exhibit C). He explained either the state would use the estimate of ending fund balances to increase the opening balance for the following year, enabling a cut in state aid, or manipulate state support per student by increasing or decreasing balances. Mr. Alastuey said providing for operational costs of instructional technology (i.e., software, training, and technical support) was beyond the reach of school districts in terms of capital investment. In response to Ms. Tiffany's question, he said programs for language different students was something Clark County School District would like to use its ending fund balances for. In addition, providing opportunities for students at risk of failure, and providing additional resources to offer comparable educational programs to all students on different year-around scheduling tracks represented expenditures which all school districts faced. Currently, because school districts cannot manage ending fund balances without the guarantee of nonintervention by the state, a mechanism of building reserves to accommodate new school openings, adapt alternative schedules, or invest in instructional technology is not available to school districts. Mr. Alastuey questioned how local school boards could be expected to manage for demographic, technological, and other changes without the ability to manage local school district fund balances. He noted Nevadans have long held the principle that local citizens should determine the nature and management of services provided by local governments. The state's past practice of confiscating local school districts' savings accounts is a direct contradiction of this principle. He urged passage of A.B. 342. He said it represented an opportunity for the state to make an excellent gesture in support of K-12 education without the necessity of an additional appropriation. Chairman Marvel asked Mr. Alastuey if he could offer a trade-off for the state guarantee. Mr. Alastuey stated bond rating analysts saw the state guarantee as somewhat jeopardized in terms of bond rating because of the state's high level of dependency on sales tax revenue. Ms. Giunchigliani disclosed she is a public school teacher on leave of absence but not personally affected by A.B. 342. Therefore, she would participate in discussion and voting on this measure. Ms. Giunchigliani noted Nevada had a constitutional obligation to fund school districts, which were totally dependent on that funding. She asked if there had been any policy or statutory guidelines regarding levels of ending fund balances. Mr. Alastuey stated there were a number of guidelines. The Government Finance Officers Association recommended 5 percent to 8 percent unreserved. Moody's and Standard and Poor's recommended 5 percent. The Clark County School District has sought to implement an internal regulation to build up to 2 percent over the next three years. Chairman Marvel inquired whether Clark County School District's bond rating had ever been lowered. Mr. Alastuey said the bond rating had not been lowered but Clark County School District had been categorized by Standard and Poor's as having a negative outlook by virtue of diminished balance. Ms. Giunchigliani stated A.B. 342 went to the heart of the issue of local control. She suggested local school boards needed to be able to set their funding based on their determination of needs. The state's confiscation of ending fund balances restricted their ability to meet the needs of their community. Mr. Alastuey noted growth created necessary plant expansion for local school districts just as it did for the state. Chairman Marvel asked if the economic forum would help stabilize the problem of the state's dependence on sales tax. Mr. Alastuey said it was the intent of the economic forum to provide a balanced view in terms of level of expectation of additional revenue. But the economic forum's assistance with estimates did not decrease the state's dependence of sales tax. Ms. Tiffany asked if ending fund balances could be used for positions or salary increases. Mr. Alastuey said Clark County School District proposed treating ending fund balances the same as any available resource. Ms. Tiffany noted if local school districts increased staffing levels or salaries there would be an impact on state funding. Mr. Alastuey responded school districts were charged with meeting the needs of their communities and they should have the resources to meet those needs. He pointed out funding per student had not increased over the past several years. Ms. Tiffany said she would be more comfortable with this measure if the limits of expenditure of these funds was more tightly defined and if it did not impact ongoing expenses for the state. Mr. Spitler stated he appreciated Ms. Tiffany's concerns. He pointed out local school boards were elected bodies. He said he did not feel it was his responsibility to manage their actions or to dictate to them how funds should be managed. He pointed out this was money that was originally allocated to the school districts and was now being taken back. Ms. Tiffany stated the money was not allocated when there was a guarantee. She reiterated she was not opposed to the school districts being able to access the fund balances. She noted the funds could be used for several expenditures which would not impact state expenses. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would be in favor of fully funding the state guarantee. She said the school districts' ending fund balances were a separate issue from the state guarantee. She argued against restricting the school districts' use of the ending fund balances. Chairman Marvel asked if ending fund balances would be subject to negotiations. Mr. Alastuey answered affirmatively. Mr. Fettic said he was concerned the per student funding had not increased but he was also concerned that funding be spent for students and not for salaries. Mr. Alastuey stated, for clarification, the amount of total dollars per student for all purposes has remained constant over the last few years. Mr. Rick Keester, Director, Business Services, Douglas County School District, stated he was in support of A.B. 342. He said the issue for Douglas County was that the state should not be confiscating money which the school district had saved for the purpose of building new schools. He added Douglas County School District had always had the ability to spend ending fund balances on salaries. The school districts were not asking for additional funds but simply not to confiscate savings balances. He urged support for A.B. 342 to place into statute the treatment of ending fund balances incorporated in the Executive Budget. Mr. Wade Johnson, Comptroller, Lyon County School District, expressed agreement with Mr. Alastuey and Mr. Keester. He noted Lyon County School District had adopted a plan to allow individual site administrators to carry over ending fund balances and the program was working quite well. He strongly endorsed A.B. 342. Ms. Tiffany asked what amount of ending fund balances came from savings. Mr. Johnson answered future expenditures would be projected and amounts would be cut from other areas to come up with that amount of savings. Mr. Keester said it was not possible to identify the source of savings. It was simply revenue which was not spent. Mr. Harold Ridgeway, Deputy Superintendent, Elko County School District, reminded the committee Nevada is the fastest growing state in the nation. Every school district is struggling to open new schools. Allowing school districts to retain ending fund balances would allow them to do a better job of planning for community needs. He encouraged passage of A.B. 342. Chairman Marvel asked if anyone knew generally how ending fund balances might be distributed to various expenditures (i.e., capital improvements, operations and maintenance, salaries, textbooks, etc.). Mr. Ridgeway said he could not provide a specific breakdown because that decision would be made by the school board. He noted technology was a priority for Elko County. The funds would also be used for opening new schools or acquiring portable classrooms. Mr. Roger Means, Washoe County School District, noted the Washoe County School Board had a policy in place to maintain a 2 percent ending fund balance for prudent business practice. Over the past five years it had not reached 2 percent. It hoped to reach 1.5 percent in the coming year. He expressed support for A.B. 342. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, stated school boards throughout the state were supportive of A.B. 342. ASSEMBLY BILL 98 Establishes within Department of Prisons position of coordinator of programs for treatment of offenders who abuse alcohol or drugs. Dr. George Kaiser, Medical Director, Nevada Department of Prisons, introduced Dr. Jeanette Sanders, Senior Psychologist, Nevada Department of Prisons. He explained A.B. 98 would provide funding for a Substance Abuse Coordinator position. Dr. Kaiser explained approximately 75 percent of the inmate population had a substance abuse problem; 22 percent of males and 40 percent of females were incarcerated because of a substance abuse defined crime. In 1990 Prison Medical Services received an Edward Byrne grant to establish the Substance Abuse Coordinator position. The Substance Abuse Coordinator subsequently developed a pilot substance abuse treatment program at Southern Nevada Correctional Center. The 1991 Legislature and Department of Prisons established a DUI treatment program at Indian Springs Conservation Camp, for which the pilot program was a model. Substance abuse education and prevention programs were also initiated at Indian Springs in 1991. A program for women was established at Silver Springs Conservation Camp. All of these programs were subsequently certified by the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) and all of them were developed, supervised, and coordinated by the Substance Abuse Coordinator. In 1993 the Substance Abuse Coordinator established a computer education program at several institutions using grant funds. Other programs developed and supervised by the Substance Abuse Coordinator include programs on family issues, self-esteem, and parenting. Dr. Kaiser stated the Substance Abuse Coordinator position was crucial to provide leadership, supervision, and coordination within the prison as well as networking within the community substance abuse resources. Other duties of the position include grant writing and coordination of quality assurance activities. Chairman Marvel asked what educational background was required to qualify for this position. Dr. Kaiser answered the position would likely require an individual trained at either a master's or Ph.D. level in psychology or related field. Additionally, the position required BADA certification as both an administrator and counselor. Chairman Marvel inquired whether a person meeting those requirements could be hired for the recommended salary. Dr. Kaiser answered affirmatively. Chairman Marvel questioned why this matter was not handled budgetarily rather than statutorily. Dr. Kaiser stated the position was included in the Executive Budget. Chairman Marvel said it appeared there was no need to process this legislation. Dr. Sanders explained the position was recommended by the Governor to be included in the residential treatment camp budget. There was some question whether that portion of the Executive Budget would be approved by the Legislature. Mr. Ghiggeri stated no action had been taken by the subcommittee studying that portion of the budget. Mr. Perry Comeaux, Budget Director, stated the position was recommended in the Executive Budget. He said he did not understand the necessity to establish the position statutorily. Mr. Stevens speculated the reason for the bill draft was that the position was recommended by an interim study committee which concluded its work before the Executive Budget was developed. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if this position would be affected if the residential treatment portion of A.B. 317 was not passed. Dr. Sanders said it was unclear at this time if the position would be affected. Ms. Giunchigliani stated this issue should be clarified. She suggested the position would more appropriately be placed in the administrative budget. * * * * * Chairman Marvel requested a committee introduction of a bill revising provisions governing smoking areas in public buildings. MRS. EVANS MOVED TO INTRODUCE A BILL REVISING PROVISIONS GOVERNING SMOKING AREAS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS. MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 81 Provides for study of effectiveness of programs for treatment of alcohol and drug abuse. Ms. Liz Breshears, Chief, Nevada Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA), indicated she was not appearing in favor of or in opposition to A.B. 81, but rather, to provide information to the committee. She explained A.B. 81 was generated by the interim study committee which examined substance abuse treatment in the correctional system. It originated from the question "How effective is treatment." She said while she could provide statistical data from studies conducted in other states, funding has never been allocated to conduct similar research for evaluation of Nevada programs. Therefore, A.B. 81 represented a public policy issue, i.e., how to fund evaluation of the outcome of publicly funded treatment. Ms. Breshears stated study results could answer questions regarding efficacy of treatment, i.e., the cost benefit of treatment. She noted, for example, California conducted a study which demonstrated that for every dollar invested in substance abuse treatment, $7.14 in other costs were saved, primarily through the criminal justice system. Study results could also determine alcohol and other drug use, criminal activity, and health and health care cost post-treatment. One hospital in Nevada studied its own patient load and determined emergency room visits decreased 62 percent post-treatment and total hospital days decreased 73 percent post-treatment. Ms. Breshears said a study could examine employment and income. She stated Ohio had determined absenteeism was reduced 89 percent, on-the-job injury was reduced 57 percent, mistakes in work were reduced 70 percent, and incomplete work was reduced 81 percent. Ms. Breshears said the most significant recent study (Cal Data Study) was done at a cost of $2 million. She noted A.B. 81 recommended funding of $100,000. Ms. Breshears reported one of BADA's new measurement indicators was percent of people with no substance use at six month follow up. Outcome study funding would provide a vehicle to collect and analyze data to provide this information. The other option of using study funding from the current appropriation would reduce substance abuse treatment services. She pointed out the rapid population growth in Nevada and request for services continued to escalate. Funding has not kept pace with population growth, and in fact, Nevada has dropped from 37th to 39th of the states in the nation in terms of per capita funding contributed by the state. Ms. Breshears stated BADA currently collects discharge data which describes progress at the end of the treatment episode. A.B. 81 would provide funding which would allow the agency to extend that system to actually follow up six months and twelve months later. The research would be contracted to a qualified and independent research entity, i.e., one of the universities. Chairman Marvel asked how the $100,000 figure had been determined. Ms. Breshears replied that amount was based on a projected budget from the University of Nevada, Reno, combining personnel and computer costs. She explained the survey would be conducted via a computer assisted telephone interview system and the results would be analyzed by computer. A small portion of the funding would cover the cost of supplies, printing, travel, telephone, and materials. Mrs. Evans asked how much of the data collected could be captured through existing data bases. Ms. Breshears said the one area which BADA could track currently--with patient consent--was recidivism within the prison system. She noted collecting any information which identified an individual as having been through drug treatment required their consent. Ms. Breshears stated a small amount of research on recidivism has already been done. She noted statewide over 6,700 individuals were treated annually, not all of them prison inmates, for which it would be helpful to have statistical information. Mrs. Evans noted the Legislature had formerly appropriated funding for a study of juvenile justice. In that study, much of the data had to be collected manually since the information was not automated. Additionally, information was not categorized uniformly throughout the state. She asked if information for the proposed study was readily obtainable. Ms. Breshears suggested the study should address specific questions and utilize existing data bases in order to spend the funding most effectively. She noted the BADA client system was contained in a consolidated data base. A significant amount of demographic information was collected on admission and discharge. Ms. Tiffany questioned whether a telephone survey as opposed to a data base analysis would provide useful information. She asked what and which programs would be studied and what entity would be the titular head of the study program. Ms. Breshears stated the study was proposed to be funded through BADA because every publicly funded program in the state must be accredited by BADA. The intent of the legislation was to determine how effective state and federally funded drug treatment programs were. Ms. Tiffany inquired whether the answers to her questions could be found in the testimony of the interim study committee hearings. Ms. Breshears stated, in response to Ms. Tiffany's concern about not having a data base analysis, there were not data bases available. The programs which would be surveyed would be all of those programs funded through BADA. She was unsure what entity would act as the titular head of the program. She noted the proposed legislation did not include private for-profit hospitals or entities which were funded from other sources. Ms. Tiffany questioned whether federal funding was available for this study. Ms. Breshears stated BADA had received federal funding of approximately $900,000 over the past three years which was specifically to assist need, assessing incidence and prevalence of substances in Nevada, and focusing on special populations, i.e., pregnant women. She said there was no federal outcome funding. A.B. 81 was in response to a desire for information on how well money was being spent in Nevada. Mr. Spitler asked why data was not currently being collected. Ms. Breshears said data could be collected by moving funding from services to data collection. She noted there was some concern about agencies collecting their own data. It was preferable to have an independent contractor collect the data. Mr. Spitler asked how the $100,000 would be spent. Ms. Breshears stated the original cost projection was $200,000 over two years. The interim study committee determined to reduce the amount to $100,000 over two years. Mr. Spitler inquired what would not be included in the study which the additional $100,000 would have provided. Ms. Breshears said the $200,000 study would have been more comprehensive. The $100,000 could provide for a less comprehensive study or a smaller target population. Mr. Spitler asked how much money was spent statewide for all alcohol and drug abuse programs. Ms. Breshears said BADA did not have that information. Mr. Spitler asked Ms. Breshears to provide the information which BADA did have. She agreed to do so. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if BADA provided drug rehabilitation services. Ms. Breshears answered BADA contracted with service providers. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether service providers could collect data on an ongoing basis. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether there were drug rehabilitation programs in the prisons which were not funded by BADA. Ms. Breshears stated the women's program at Silver Springs was not funded by BADA. It was funded by the Department of Prisons. BADA was asked to fund one prison program when prison funding was cut two years ago. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it was mandatory for inmates to participate in drug rehabilitation programs. Ms. Breshears said participation was only mandatory for inmates who fit DUI drug treatment program parameters. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would like to know how many drug rehabilitation programs were operating in Nevada and which were funded by BADA. She questioned whether A.B. 81 was beneficial at this time until data bases were available. She indicated she would not support diverting funds from direct services. Ms. Breshears stated unless a program was funded by BADA it was not required to be accredited by BADA. BADA had no knowledge of unaccredited programs. Mr. Fettic commented no empirical evidence had been provided to support the accuracy of claims that drug rehabilitation would reduce problems in the prisons, schools, etc. Mr. Spitler stated he assumed BADA's measurement indicators were collected by the service providers which were funded by BADA. Ms. Breshears noted new measurement indicators had been added to the budget for which the collection systems were not in place. She said the projections were based on national research or research done in other states. It was not based on Nevada research. Mr. Spitler inquired whether there was a degree of confidence in the projections. Ms. Breshears said the projections were not based on hard data. Mr. Spitler questioned whether the agency would be able to achieve the results set forth in the measurement indicators. Ms. Breshears stated her belief Nevada's publicly funded system was as effective as systems in other states. Chairman Marvel called for public testimony. Ms. Betty Wallace, speaking on behalf of treatment providers, stated funding to providers was directed to services rather than to data collection. She added BADA funding constituted only a portion of revenue for providers. The balance was raised from other sources. She noted programs had anecdotal data which evidenced their success, i.e., individual case studies, but they also needed empirical data to be credible. She urged support for A.B. 81. Ms. Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter, noted the in-patient program in the prison system could provide statistics demonstrating its success. ASSEMBLY BILL 87 Makes appropriation to Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Rehabilitation Division of Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation for support of certain programs of treatment for criminal offenders who abuse alcohol or drugs. Ms. Breshears stated A.B. 87 had also resulted from the interim study committee which examined criminal justice system and substance abuse treatment. The measure, as amended, would provide $90,000 to fund startup or operating costs of treatment programs pursuant to NRS 453.580 (the drug court statutes). The funds would flow through the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) and would be divided equally among the court administrators of each district within certain criteria. She noted, for example, a drug court established prior to 1994 with a separate appropriation would be excluded from this bill. Therefore, if A.B. 88 was approved, Clark County would be excluded. She explained A.B. 87 was a companion bill to A.B. 88 and would allow rural court districts to receive startup funding for drug treatment. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the rural counties would be able to do with the small amount they would receive. Ms. Breshears stated each district would receive approximately $12,800, which would cover full treatment costs for approximately 50 individuals statewide or allow districts to associate with local drug treatment programs. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether there were local drug treatment programs in each county. Ms. Breshears said local programs were available to each of the district courts. Those treatment programs would be required to be accredited by BADA. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested there should be matched funding from the local governments or courts for this program, as there was in Clark County and Washoe County. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned why this funding would flow through BADA when funding would be provided directly to the courts under A.B. 88. Ms. Breshears said she believed the interim study committee envisioned BADA as part of the client data collection system. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Clark County drug court was accredited. Ms. Breshears said it was not. Ms. Giunchigliani noted the larger counties did not require BADA certification while the smaller counties did. Ms. Breshears acknowledged this was a concern. Mrs. Brower asked if the rural counties were in favor of this measure. Ms. Breshears stated the testimony from local judges before the interim study committee suggested some of the rural counties were prepared to establish drug courts. Funding would be divided equally among districts which applied for assistance by January 1, 1996. Balances remaining in the fund would be reverted to the General Fund. Mr. Allard inquired whether any of the $90,000 would be used by BADA for administrative costs. Ms. Breshears stated 100 percent of the funding would flow through to the districts. Mr. Allard asked what would preclude local counties from starting their own drug courts as Clark County and Washoe County had done. Ms. Breshears said nothing precluded local counties from starting their own programs. Mr. Spitler inquired whether courts could apply for BADA funds currently available. Ms. Breshears said they could apply for funds if they had an accredited drug treatment program in place. Mr. Dini noted some rural counties had local drug treatment programs in place which were receiving matching funds from BADA. Ms. Breshears replied no grants went to district courts, but the majority of drug treatment programs worked closely with the law enforcement system. Mr. Dini stated the local programs were quite effective in light of the limited funding available to them. He said A.B. 87 funding would be very helpful to the rural programs. Chairman Marvel called for public testimony. Ms. Betty Wallace, Chief Executive Officer, Step 2, expressed support for A.B. 87. She noted a lot of work could be done with $10,000. ASSEMBLY BILL 94 Requires revocation or delay in issuance of driver's licenses of certain juveniles who unlawfully purchase, consume or possess alcoholic beverage. Mr. Bruce Glover, Chief, Drivers License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, testified A.B. 94 had been requested by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. He said he was appearing to address the fiscal note attached to the bill. The fiscal note included funding for one position and associated equipment. Mr. Glover noted while statistical data was difficult to obtain, based on information from the Carson City Juvenile Probation Department, he estimated this measure would apply to approximately 5 percent of juvenile drivers. He noted other measurers were pending which would require the department to take action on juveniles' drivers licenses. The position included in this fiscal note could be responsible for the actions required by all of those measures as well as A.B. 94. Mrs. Chowning noted juvenile licenses had been revoked pursuant to statute for several years. She questioned why a position was now required. Mr. Glover responded he would research this question and report back to Mrs. Chowning. Mr. Hettrick questioned what would happen to the position if the other measures were not passed. Mr. Glover stated the Drivers License Division could not assume any more workload without adding a position. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Glover to provide to the subcommittee a list of all the measures pending which might have a budget impact. Ms. Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, stated unless intervention and sanctions for juvenile offenders were considered, the greatest opportunity to lessen the number of adult criminal offenders was being ignored. She suggested a juvenile's first contact with the criminal justice system should have a great enough impact to make it his or her last contact. The results of many studies indicate if the cycle of crime can be interrupted at the first juvenile offense, many adult recidivists can be eliminated. Study results also indicated license sanctions for possession and consumption of alcohol by minors was effective. She noted the privilege of driving was particularly important to youths, and the revocation of that privilege is especially effective in changing behavior. License revocation was being considered as a sanction for many other offenses. Ms. Stadler provided a written transcript of her remaining testimony (see Exhibit D). Chairman Marvel stated he would like to see a consolidation of the various bills to which Mr. Glover had referred so the committee could make an informed decision on these measures. Ms. Betty Wallace, Chief Executive Officer, Step 2, requested that sanctions be made "sure and swift." ASSEMBLY BILL 230 Makes appropriation to Department of Prisons for expenses related to opening of Lovelock Correctional Facility. Mr. Ghiggeri noted the committee had previously received information regarding suggested revisions to A.B. 230. Subsequently, the Department of Prisons indicated it wished to add a request for additional funding in the amount of $79,551 for various equipment items. Mr. Ghiggeri recommended adding funding for two of those items: a card catalog to keep a record of keys ($1,200) and a pneumatic wrench for work on large trucks ($643). Other items requested but not recommended by fiscal staff include air compressors (for welding - $359; for painting - $509; for grounds maintenance - $13,381), a jack hammer for grounds maintenance ($1,085), and a dynalift highlift ($62,374). Chairman Marvel asked what the total appropriation recommended by fiscal staff would be. Mr. Ghiggeri stated the total recommendation was slightly over $2 million. Chairman Marvel asked if the bill had to be amended. Mr. Ghiggeri answered affirmatively. Mr. Ghiggeri noted he had provided committee members with information delineating what funding would be used for. He also recommended two reversion dates, one for relocation costs, startup supplies, and training and one for equipment, assuming startup costs would be expended by the end of the first year of the biennium but equipment costs would be needed in both years. MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND THE BILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND DO PASS. MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Dini questioned why funding for compressors was not recommended. Mr. Ghiggeri explained he had removed duplicate items from the list of requested equipment. He also attempted to justify equipment purchases according to the price and amount of expected use. Mr. Allard asked if training costs were covered by this measure. Mr. Ghiggeri replied funding for training in the amount of $32,784 was included in this bill. The department had agreed that amount would be adequate to cover training for Phase I. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. CLOSE AND MR. PRICE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * SENATE BILL 278 Makes appropriation for design of Phase II of Lovelock Correctional Center. Mr. Ghiggeri reported passage of S.B. 278 would provide funding for design of Phase II (Housing Units 3, 4, and 5) of the Lovelock Correctional Center. He noted testimony from the Department of Prisons was heard previously. The department indicated if Phase II was to be completed to house the inmate population projected for 1997, design for the project should have begun April 1, 1995. Ms. Giunchigliani expressed opposition to S.B. 278. She noted the department had not yet answered several of the committee's questions regarding Phase II, and the committee should be judicious in moving forward with the Lovelock Correctional Center expansion. Mr. Hettrick commented the base facility at Lovelock was constructed to accommodate 1,250 inmates. That facility had already been paid for. It was inappropriate at this time to decide against moving beds into the facility. Therefore, in order to use the taxpayers' money to the best advantage, there was no alternative to adding beds to the present facility. He expressed support for S.B. 278. He added the time frame for this project was critical. Mrs. Evans expressed agreement with Mr. Hettrick's comments. She noted for the record while she would support S.B. 278, she was enormously disappointed with the quality of the testimony given by the agency in defense of their request. Mr. Allard concurred with Mrs. Evans' statement. Ms. Giunchigliani stated it was irresponsible for the committee to say, "Yes, but." She suggested it was premature to move forward on this project. Mrs. Brower agreed the agency had not properly answered questions posed by the committee. She proposed that in the future new prison construction be considered in southern Nevada. Mr. Perry Comeaux, Budget Director, said he understood the committee's frustration with the lack of information provided on this measure. He expressed agreement with Mr. Hettrick's comments that the present facility was designed for additional beds and the new beds should be added there. Based on current inmate population projections, the prisons would again be at emergency operating capacity in January 1997. Adding housing units to Lovelock Correctional Center is the only viable option for providing necessary beds. He recommended if the committee was concerned about the cost of design that a provision be added to the bill requiring an absolute accounting of expenditures. He reiterated if design of the project was not begun immediately, the beds would not be available by April 1997, which would be three months beyond the prison system's capacity. MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND THE BILL TO REQUIRE THE PUBLIC WORKS BOARD TO RETURN TO THE COMMITTEE WITH A DETAILED PRESENTATION REGARDING EXPENDITURES, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT EXPENDITURES CAN BE LOWERED, AND DO PASS. MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. MRS. CHOWNING, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, MR. PRICE AND MR. SPITLER WERE OPPOSED. MR. CLOSE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 210 Makes various changes regarding preparation of governmental budgets. Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 210 resulted from the interim study on methods of establishing a legislative budget office. He noted some amendments to the bill were proposed. Mr. Stevens said Assemblywoman Evans had met with the Budget Director to develop a compromise to the original bill language. First, the date by which the Budget Director would provide the Fiscal Analysis Division each agency's adjusted base budget would be changed from December 1 to December 15 of each even- numbered year. The change was designed to allow the Budget Division additional time to develop the agency budgets. Mr. Stevens explained the information presented by the Budget Division, together with the Economic Forum's revenue forecast, would be reviewed by a budget subcommittee comprised of members of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance. The subcommittee would present information to the money committees in advance of the legislative session. It was proposed language requiring the subcommittee to hold its initial meeting on or before January 5 of each odd-numbered year be deleted in order to leave the language permissive so the subcommittee could meet at its discretion. Mr. Price suggested setting deadlines by time, e.g., 45 days prior to the beginning of the legislative session, rather than by a specific date. He noted there were several bills pending which would change the starting date of the legislative session. Mrs. Evans said she would like time to think about Mr. Price's suggestion and to discuss it with the Budget Division. Chairman Marvel suggested holding action on this measure. ASSEMBLY BILL 35 Reorganizes Nevada Rural Housing Authority. Chairman Marvel noted Ms. Tiffany had some questions about this measure which had been addressed. Ms. Tiffany stated she met with the sponsors of the bill and she was now satisfied and comfortable with this measure. MS. TIFFANY MOVED DO PASS. MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. CLOSE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 106 Provides for forfeiture of good-time credit on account of frivolous civil action. Chairman Marvel noted the only means of testing the constitutionality of this measure was to pass it. MR. FETTIC MOVED DO PASS. MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she was preparing an amendment to A.B. 106 to address the constitutionality of the measure. Chairman Marvel stated the bill could be amended on the floor. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned passing of a potentially unconstitutional measure if it could be corrected in committee. Chairman Marvel suggested holding action on A.B. 106. Mr. Fettic and Ms. Tiffany withdrew their motion and second. ASSEMBLY BILL 155 Prohibits person who has received refund for hunting license from being denied bonus points for additional chances to obtain hunting tag. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO AMEND THE BILL TO ALLOW THE AGENCY TO RETAIN A $5.00 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR PROCESSING REFUNDS FOR HUNTING TAGS. MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. CLOSE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 160 Makes various changes to provisions governing issuance of restricted nonresident deer tags. MS. CHOWNING MOVED DO PASS. MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. MRS. BROWER WAS OPPOSED. MR. CLOSE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:07 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Dale Gray, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means April 19, 1995 Page