MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session May 8, 1995 The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Monday, May 8, 1995, Chairman Arberry presiding in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman Mr. John W. Marvel, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman Mrs. Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mr. Jack D. Close Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. Lynn Hettrick Mr. Bob Price Mr. Larry L. Spitler STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens Gary Ghiggeri SECRETARY OF STATE - PAGE 77 Secretary of State, Dean Heller, presented a revision to his original budget request (Exhibit C). He referred to a recent survey sent to approximately 100,000 "customers" of the office of the Secretary of State. The results of the survey indicate customers want quicker service and more efficient telephone response. As an example, the Status Unit within the Commercial Recording Division receives 1,500 phone calls per day - only 500 get answered. He is requesting four new half-time positions. This would allow the office to extend service hours (6:00 a.m. to to 7:00 p.m.) Ms. Giunchigliani asked for details of the results of the survey. Mr. Heller said the survey was mailed in April, 1995 and to date the office has only received a few responses. He said he would provide the committee with the responses to date as well as the completed results later. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the existing phone system in the Secretary of State's office is adequate. Mr. Heller said it is adequate. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned what would be the fee for expedited same day service. Mr. Heller explained for each dollar invested in the office of the Secretary of State, the return is $6 in revenue. The expedited fee for same day service will be $100. Ms. Tiffany remarked in previous testimony before the subcommittee Senator O'Donnell stated Mr. Heller wanted the micro computer specialist to remain in the Secretary of State's office. Mr. Heller said that is not accurate. During his testimony in the subcommittee, he responded to a comment about the Controller's Office wanting autonomy in their office. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Secretary of State's office was on the original list submitted by the Governor for Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR). Mr. Heller said the supplemental request is not general fund dollars - it is funds generated from the expedited fees. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how will the BPR be appropriated. Mr. Heller said the BPR will be coordinated through DIS. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the proposed revision to the campaign disclosure forms will have a budgetary impact. Mr. Heller said there is no fiscal impact. SENATE BILL 387 Makes supplemental appropriation to department of employment, training and rehabilitation for personnel and operating expenses. John Orr, Assistant Director of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, testified S.B. 387 is a request for a $59,500 supplemental appropriation to manage cash in the federal account for the Nevada Equal Rights Commission. The money would be refunded through federal receipts in FY 1996. The supplemental became necessary because the federal government changed the way the Equal Rights Commission was funded. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the program is front-funded based on the expectation of the closings, and at what point will the case be reconciled. Mr. Orr said there is a cap. The current contract allows for 916 closures. That amount will be reached in July or August. Mr. Spitler questioned if the repayment is guaranteed. Mr. Orr assured the committee this is a reimbursement contract. ASSEMBLY BILL 148 Requires establishment of programs to provide grants of money to conservation districts. Frank Soares, Chairman of the State Conservation Districts, gave an overview of the activities of the state conservation districts in Nevada (Exhibit D). Rod Mier, District Manager for the Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District and a representative for the Nevada Association of Conservation Districts testified conservation district projects represent $7 million worth of benefits to the residents of the state of Nevada. Mr. Dini noted amendments to the Clean Water Act provided the conservation districts would be the lead agency for the federal government. Mr. Mier responded the EPA and the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection have recognized the conservation districts in that capacity. Chairman Arberry asked for further clarification of the request for $400,000. Mr. Mier said $300,000 per year is needed to provide for matching funds for federal and other types of programs. The matching funds are expected to be 25 percent of the total project cost as brought forth from the EPA and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Counties and land owners are expected to provide matching funds. It is anticipated the $300,000 will be matched in triplicate and perhaps more as sponsors are incorporated into projects. The $140,000 is a request for $5,000 for each district. Some of the funding requested will be used for administrative support. Assemblywoman de Braga clarified A.B. 148 seeks funding for the 28 conservation districts statewide, a total of $140,000; $5,000 to each district. Through the years the soil conservation service has expanded their focus from 90 percent rural projects to currently 60 percent rural and 40 percent urban projects. Nevada is one of the few western states that does not provide funding. In order to comply with the legal requirements, districts need a source of funds to support routine activities. Mrs. Chowning asked why the conservation districts are mandated by the state to provide certain functions yet the state provides no funding. Chairman Marvel asked if the counties provide matching funds. Mr. Mier said there is no mandated match. Some counties provide administrative support to various districts. Ms. Giunchigliani noted there is a budget for Division of Conservation Districts and asked what is that role. Mr. Mier responded the division does provide some assistance to the districts but there is no funding that transfers through the state to the conservation districts. Ms. Giunchigliani commented there may be a duplication of services and suggested local governments should provide the funding. Mr. Mier said local governments do have a responsibility. The conservation districts provide millions of dollars in technical assistance to the state. Ms. Giunchigliani asked since the inception of the conservation districts in 1937, have they ever received any state funding. Mr. Mier said he did not know. Chairman Marvel asked what is the involvement by the conservation district in the Las Vegas wash area. Mr. Mier remarked the Clark County Conservation District is involved in the Las Vegas wash project. Bryant Robison, Clark County Conservation District said for the last 15 years he has driven 60 miles one way twice a month to attend a board meeting at his own expense. Previously, there were more volunteers but today with the increased paperwork the need for reimbursement of administrative costs is greater. Ms. Giunchigliani asked that a list be provided to the committee detailing the mandates from the state directly to the local conservation districts. Pam Wilcox, Acting Administrator of the Division of the Conservation Districts, testified the budget for the Division of Conservation Districts supports the State Conservation Commission. The commission regulates the local conservation districts. They are required to have elections, regular meetings, adhering to all the requirements of the open meeting law. The money requested will provide $5,000 per district. Chairman Arberry asked for clarification on the two separate requests - one for $300,000 and a second for $140,000. Ms. Wilcox said there are districts receiving substantial support from counties and grants, there are others that have a budget of $100 per year. The $140,000, or $5,000 per district, was set as non- competitive and each district would receive the same amount. The request for $300,000 is competitive matching money and is less important than the $140,000 request for basic stipend funds to "stay in business". Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification of the role of the State Conservation Commission. Ms. Wilcox said the state commission is policy-setting and regulatory. It requires the local districts to submit budgets and hold meetings. Ms. Giunchigliani asked that a list be provided to the committee of all 28 districts' budgets and what portion of the funding is from local government. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the $100,000 budget for the State Conservation Commission be directed to the local districts. Ms. Wilcox said the $100,000 in the budget is for staff who provide support services to the districts. Chris Freeman, Division of Conservation Districts, testified the request for $140,000 is intended to be operational funds, travel, per diem, etc. Mr. Fettic asked for clarification on the $3 million per year appropriated through the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Mier responded the Natural Resources Conservation Service under the Department of Agriculture has approximately a $3 to $4 million budget in the state of Nevada annually. The conservation districts are responsible for directing the services of that organization to local issues. Mr. Fettic asked who actually receives the distribution of the money. Mr. Mier responded the distribution is to the federal agency. What ends up in the hands of the state is the direct services provided by their technicians. Mr. Fettic asked if the EPA relies on the conservation districts for information. Additionally, if the information was not provided by the conservation districts, where would it come from. Mr. Mier said if the conservation district did not provide information, the EPA would mandate issues to local land and property owners. Chris Freeman noted by statute the State Conservation Commission is coordinator and liaison between the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the state. The Natural Resource Conservation Service is the technical arm of the conservation districts support. Mr. Mier concluded conservation districts will, funding or no funding, continue to do the fine job that has been done in the past. He urged the committee's support and guaranteed the state a good return on the money. Gail Bowers, Chairperson for the Washoe-Storey Conservation District, testified 5 years ago Washoe County threatened to discontinue funding to the district. The district proved their value and the funding was reinstated. Since that time, the Washoe-Storey Conservation District has been involved as liaison between the taxpayer and local government to negotiate conservation easements. Eddie Venturacca, Chairman of the Lahontan Conservation District, provided an overview of the projects sponsored by the district. Chairman Marvel asked for information on the mercury clean-up project on the Carson River. Mr. Venturacca said his district is working with the EPA on the project. Pam Wilcox, said the districts have been involved generally but are not involved in the specific superfund project. James Nakada, Supervisor with the Nevada-Tahoe Conservation District, said his district receives federal funding as well as funding from other sources but supports this bill to assist other districts that do not have the funding sources. Previously when the Governor's reorganization plan proposed to eliminate the state commission, $5 million in federal funds would have been diverted to other states. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, BENEFIT SERVICES FUND - PAGE 481 David Thomas, State Risk Manager, presented a revision to budget account 1338 (Exhibit E). During previous testimony, the joint subcommittee suggested the actuary revisit the trend assumptions that were proposed and include changes requested by the Committee on Benefits. Mr. Thomas referred to Decision Unit E-128. The Committee on Benefits suggested the position of executive director be established in a new budget account - 1330, the Committee on Benefits Fund. This account is established strictly for the committee's position of executive director. Chairman Marvel asked if the new budget account was presented to the Governor. Mr. Thomas said it was developed in the last two weeks but has been submitted to the Budget Office. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification of the reserve fund. Mr. Thomas responded the reserve fund is split into two different types of reserve - incurred but not reported reserve and a rate stabilization reserve. Bruce Dane, WF Corroon, explained at the end of FY 1995, an amount of money was available in excess of the incurred but not reported reserve was used to establish a rate stabilization reserve. The purpose of the rate stabilization reserve is to allow the Committee on Benefits to balance the budget on a year to year basis without the need to resort to either significantly cutting the benefit levels or increasing the employee cost-sharing level. It is anticipated the rate stabilization reserve will be used to fund unexpected increases in costs. The revised actuarial proposal review was done using level trend rates for the next two years. It is possible that those rates will increase in the next few years. The rate stabilization reserve could also be used in the instance of large claims. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the rate stabilization fund is $10 million in FY 1996 and $24 million in FY 1997. Mr. Dane said the rate stabilization reserve is $6,491,000 in FY 1996 and $6,629,000 in FY 1997. Mr. Thomas clarified the amount of $10 million and $24 million are the funding for vendor contract increases and claim trends. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what is the claims trend percentage and the medical percentage. Mr. Thomas said the claims trend percentage is 4.5 percent in each year and the medical trend rate is 5 percent, dental is 5.5 percent, and vision is 4 percent. Ms. Giunchigliani requested clarification on the role of the rate stabilization reserve fund on the rates employees actually pay. Mr. Thomas stated the proposed budget anticipates an increase in the state contribution of 4.5 percent in each year. At this point, based on the actuary's advice, there will be no increase in the employee contribution rate. Ms. Giunchigliani commented the 4.5 increase was not necessary if the committee was able to build a reserve. Mr. Dane noted the primary reason for the reserve was the level trend rates were used for 1996 and 1997. If those rates pop up in 1997, as is likely, and there are no additional funds to meet that need, then additional funds would be needed from the state either by cutting benefits or increasing employee costs. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the rates will not be increased during the biennium because of the reserve account. Mr. Thomas said yes. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned if the rates are stabilized, the dollars in the reserve may not be used to change the benefits in any way during the biennium. Mr. Thomas said, "I can't say that". Mr. Comeaux, State Budget Director, clarified it is the intention of the Committee on Benefits to utilize the reserve to absorb additional costs that may be incurred as a result of the trend or the cost increases being more than the 4.5 percent that the budget is based on. It is not the intention of the committee to use that reserve to increase benefits but if trends increase at the beginning of the fiscal year, the rate stabilization fund would be depleted by the end of the year if it was used to absorb those costs. If, early in the biennium, trends double then the reserve will not be adequate to cover the costs and the committee may look again at reducing benefits or increase dependent premiums. The reserve is available from the "surplus". It is a reasonable amount to use as a buffer against those increased costs. Ms. Giunchigliani commented the committee requested this budget be revised and this reserve is another way to build a higher trend than what is needed in the budget and a "surplus". Mark Stevens remarked if the trend rate stays at 4.5 percent that is about $6.5 million available to the Committee on Benefits with no restriction. The concern is the money in the rate stabilization fund be used only for that purpose. There could be some restriction placed on the reserve through the authorizations act or letter of intent from the Ways and Means Committee. If it is approved with no restriction, the Committee on Benefits could utilize this fund for increased benefits or dependent premiums. Mr. Comeaux said it is the intention of the Committee on Benefits to leave dependent premiums at their existing levels and to only use this rate stabilization reserve to serve as a buffer in case costs do go up. He noted the Committee on Benefits would be happy to have a letter of intent or language in the appropriations bill specifically restricting the reserve for that purpose. Ms. Giunchigliani further asked how 10 percent was chosen to build the reserve. Mr. Thomas said he would provide that information. Chairman Arberry asked for an explanation of the proposed changes to the budget for the Benefit Services Fund. Mr. Manning, Budget Analyst for the Budget Division, responded the recommended expenditures in the base are tied back to the actual numbers. Chairman Arberry recognized the budget office staff was not prepared to give testimony and said the committee would take a break to discuss the matter with Mr. Comeaux. Perry Comeax, Director of the Department of Administration, said based on the instruction from the Ways and Means Committee, the Committee on Benefits' actuaries revisited their trend assumptions. The trend being a combination of utilization and cost. Originally, the assumptions used in Executive Budget were 11 percent for the first year of the biennium and 8 percent the second year. The trends included in the proposed revised budget are 4.5 percent for each year of the biennium. The revised projections for medical are 5 percent, dental 5.5 percent, vision 4 percent and HMO's 5 percent to equal an average trend of 4.5 percent. The administration is recommending the state contribution in the Executive Budget be reduced. The total reduction for group insurance is $7,685,847 for active employees and $1,094,567 for retired employees' group insurance. Chairman Arberry asked what is the monthly contribution rate. Mr. Comeaux said the FY 1996 monthly rate for active employees is $236.69 and for retired employees is $133.35; for FY 1997, $247.24 for active employees and $139.35 for retired employees. The largest revenue item in the proposed revised budget is a combination of the state contribution and the receipts from employees through dependent coverage or the direct payment from other employees. The Committee on Benefits compared the revenue levels to the actual receipts by the plan in FY 1994. Those revenue levels tie into what should be received using the new contribution rate and the dependent premiums at their existing levels. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Comeaux to provide the back-up calculations on the amount derived in the proposed revised budget. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for an explanation of the increase from $73 million to $83 million in the category "other non-state" in the proposed budget revision. Mr. Comeaux responded the difference is a combination of the 4.5 percent increase in the state contribution that is recommended and the additional dependent premiums. The category "other non-state" is a combination of the state contribution and the dependent premiums that are paid by the employees directly. He added not all of the state contributions and dependent premiums are reflected in the base budget - some are included in later decision units. For example, under Decision Unit 200, Caseload Increases, the additional amounts reflected are tied to new employees and their dependent premiums. The amount of the contribution actually collected would be determined within the payroll system. Ms. Giunchigliani further questioned the transfer from Decision Unit 128 in Budget Account 1330 in the amount of $64,257 to Budget Account 1338 in the amount of $74,000. Mr. Comeaux concurred that was an error. Ms. Giunchigliani referred to the contractual costs and asked what percentage is for claims and what percentage for contractural services. Mr. Thomas noted $45.5 million is for claims. Mr. Comeaux said self-insured contract costs are $21.7 million in the first year of the biennium and $23.7 million in the second year. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why out of a $45 million in claims close to half is for contract services. Mr. Comeaux said claims are $58.8 million in the first year and $65.4 million in the second year of the biennium. Ms. Giunchigliani said Mr. Thomas just said claims were $45 million. Mr. Thomas said of the $21.7 million for vendor contracts in the first year - over $13 million is HMO premiums. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what is the rate per person for the HMO. Mr. Thomas said it is the same contribution by the state but is different premiums. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what is the amount paid by the state for overhead administrative costs by HMO's. Mr. Thomas said administrative costs are not separately identified in the HMO premiums. Mr. Comeaux referred to the revised budget "incurred but not reported" (IB&R) reserve of $12.8 million in the first year and $14.2 million in the second year and noted the reserve is equivalent to approximately 2.5 months of claims that allows for the services already provided but for which the plan has not been billed. The actuary noted this reserve is necessary to make the fund technically solvent. The second reserve, the rate stabilization reserve is in the amount of $6.5 million in the first year and $6.6 million in the second. The surplus in the Benefits Services Fund was the excess amount in the reserve over and above the amount necessary to fund an IBNR at the appropriate level and was due to lower claims costs than were anticipated. He continued the actuarial assumptions were based on the theory that claims would climb as a result of the Committee on Benefits restoration of certain benefits that had been reduced previously. Claims are going up. The $6.4 million as the reserve for rate stabilization is what was left of the $8 million that was present in the fund a couple of months ago. If the legislature approves the 4.5 percent increase in state contributions, if dependent premiums are maintained at the current level and if claims increase at the average 4.5 percent then at the end of each of the fiscal years the reserves would total over $19 million in the first year and $21 million in the second. The rate stabilization reserve is necessary because the actuaries believe the low trend rates are temporary and those trends could increase dramatically in the next two years. If the rates do increase and if the reserve was not present, the Committee on Benefits would have three choices. One, would be to leave premiums and benefits as they are and spend down the IBNR reserve or reduce benefits or increase premiums. The Committee on Benefits is trying to avoid the roller coaster that state employees have been on. Mr. Dini asked if the amounts combined in the IBNR and the rate stabilization reserve are the same as the balance forward for FY 1997. Mr. Comeaux answered affirmatively. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Comeaux to provide the committee with the actual reserves from 1993 and 1994 and the breakout of the medical and dental claim costs for 1992, 1993 and 1994. Mr. Close asked for justification why personnel expenses and costs for informational services are increased over the original budget submitted. Mark Stevens referred to the summary of Budget Account 1330 (Exhibit F). There is a new unclassified executive director position proposed for the Committee on Benefits at a salary of $60,000. That position would be accountable to the Committee on Benefits. Mr. Stevens requested a list of the duties of the existing personnel in Risk Management Division versus what the duties will be after the inclusion of the new executive director position as well as an organizational chart. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director of the State of Nevada Employees Association, testified the drastic increase in dependent rates created a morale problem in state government. Also, the new proposed budget is $7.5 million less than the Executive Budget proposal. There is a senate bill requiring the state to pay for the first dependent. The $7.5 million in the original Executive Budget would pay for the first dependent and lower the dependent premiums. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - PAGE 681 Mr. Spitler disclosed he is an employee of Sprint Telephone Company. John Mendoza, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, testified he was presenting a revised budget (Exhibit G). Due to the requirements of the open meeting law, the Governor revised his original budget proposal and replaced the two commissioners originally eliminated. Additionally, expected changes resulting from increased regulation of the telecommunication and electric industries indicates a workload more appropriate for five rather than three commissioners. Mr. Mendoza continued the Governor's revised budget contains the following positions: two commissioners, two commissioners' assistants and one management assistant III. Chairman Marvel asked if the requested positions had been approved by the PSC. Mr. Mendoza said no. The commission was split. Three commissioners wanted to downsize to four - two commissioners and two administrative assistants. After examination by the Governor, he and Mr. Comeaux recommended the five commissioners contained in this budget request. Judy Sheldrew, Commissioner, Public Service Commission, outlined the provisions of Public Law 103-305 which impose limitation on state regulation of motor carriers effective January 1, 1995. The PSC is not totally preempted from regulating transportation and may continue to regulate property carriers relating to financial responsibility standards. The PSC cannot, however, regulate for rates, routes and geographic areas or the types of commodities with the exception of hazardous materials. The PSC can regulate passenger carriers. She added S.B. 442 has been introduced to align state law with federal requirements. Ms. Sheldrew said the PSC regulated 288 general commodities carriers out of a total of 478 for passengers, tow cars and household goods. The commodities represent 60 percent of the total workload. The PSC reduced the budget from the highway fund by 60 percent, a prorata reduction attributable to the federal preemption. Ms. Sheldrew continued when the Governor proposed his original budget containing the reduction of the number of commissioners from five to three, the commission submitted a revised budget proposing to reinstate 4 positions, two commissioners and two commissioners' assistants. The Governor, however, added the management assistant III position. She noted an updated request for the total vacancy savings be increased by $2,000 for the utility rate specialist position. In total, the vacancy savings is $285,000 per year. In conclusion, Ms. Sheldrew asked for consideration of the PSC budget request for unclassified salary adjustment contained in (Exhibit G). ASSEMBLY BILL 514 Revises provisions governing smoking areas in public buildings. Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, testified A.B. 514 stipulates the smoking area in public buildings is discretionary. She referred to subsection 3(b) line 21 which amends "the person in control of a public building... changing "may" to "shall" designate a smoking area. This allows an exception for school districts. There is also a stipulation making this change effective only if the federal OSHA regulations are adopted. The bill also sets a time limit of 10 years if the OSHA regulations have not been adopted then the NRS statute would not be moot. Ms. Erdoes testified in response to a request from the University of Nevada System, a recent Attorney General's opinion stated the smoking area designated in a public building that was required pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 202.2491 could be outside as long as it was a covered area. The main thrust of the bill, however, concerns the federal OSHA regulations that are currently proposed requiring that if you allow smoking in a workplace you provide two things: a separate area with ventilation apart from the ventilation of the rest of the building and negative pressurization. Chairman Arberry asked what is the time frame for implementation if OSHA regulations are adopted. Ms. Erdoes said if the OSHA regulations require all public buildings to have a smoking area and of a certain type, then the federal government would allow time for adaption of that law. The problem is with Nevada's law. Our law requires a public smoking area in each building. We cannot guarantee there will be a period provided for implementation of the regulations. Mrs. Chowning asked for further clarification on the exemption of school districts. Ms. Erdoes responded the bill states, "the school district which prohibits the use of tobacco need not designate an area". When the requirement of a mandatory smoking area in a public building is removed, it is made discretionary anyway. Chairman Arberry commented this law was previously adopted with the help and compromise of all parties concerned and expressed his concern in the possible revision. Randall Todd, State Epidemiologist, State Health Division, stated he was testifying on behalf of Donald Kwalick, M.D., State Health Officer. His testimony is enclosed as (Exhibit H). This bill removes language in NRS 202.2491 that forces managers of public buildings to provide designated smoking areas. Mr. Todd stated it is the position of the State Health Officer that environmental tobacco smoke is not a debate about smokers' rights or accommodating smokers. It is first and foremost a serious health issue. At issue with the State Division of Health is doing something that is good for the health of Nevadans should be done now, not in the year 2,000 or when the federal government gets around to mandating it. He proposed an amendment striking section 2, lines 43 through 46, which delays implementation until the federal government mandates. Chairman Arberry remarked on the enormous fiscal impact on remodeling public buildings. Mr. Todd said with his proposal there is no fiscal impact. It does not require a smoking area, it allows the building manager to not provide one if they so choose. Sam McMullen, representing Phillip Morris Company, outlined the proposed OSHA regulations which would require a separate room, separately ventilated. OSHA received 100,000 letters in response to the regulation, five to one against. OSHA is required to respond to each comment. He projected a timeframe of at least 2 years for OSHA to consider this issue and as is common with most federal laws, a time is allowed to adjust to the policy. He expressed his concern of the impact of the regulation on the economy and the requirements on business. Mr. Dini asked for statistics on the impact of secondary smoke. Mr. McMullen said there is debate about the soundness of the science that the Environmental Protection Agency utilized in the study of environmental tobacco smoke or indoor air quality. SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT - COURTS Ms. Giunchigliani, co-Chairman of the Subcommittee on General Government, presented the joint subcommittee's report (Exhibit I). CHAIRMAN MARVEL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT. MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. ****************** Chairman Arberry requested the committee consider S.B. 387 which provides a $59,500 supplemental appropriation to the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation. CHAIRMAN MARVEL MOVED DO PASS. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. **************** Chairman Arberry requested the committee consider the introduction of BDR 38- 2014 which creates an account for support of child care services. CHAIRMAN MARVEL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 38-2014. MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. ***************** Chairman Arberry requested the committee consider the introduction of BDR S-2026 to repay indebtedness of White Pine County School District. MR. DINI MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-2026. MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, MR. ALLARD, AND MR. CLOSE VOTED NO. ************** Chairman Arberry requested the committee consider the introduction of BDR S-027 which makes a supplemental appropriation to the Division of Child and Family Services for unanticipated costs for detaining parolees in county facilities. MRS. EVANS MOVED THE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-027. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. ************** There being no further business, the committee adjourned at 11:03 a.m. . RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Linda Corbett, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means May 8, 1995 Page