MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session May 24, 1995 The meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 7:30 a.m., on Wednesday, May 24,1995, Chairman John Marvel presiding in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman Mr. John W. Marvel, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman 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: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Brian Sandoval Assemblyman David Humke Assemblyman Bernie Anderson Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: See attached guest list ASSEMBLY BILL 361 - Clarifies that Indian children are exempt from application of certain provisions governing child custody, adoption, termination of parental rights and placement in foster care. Chairman Marvel explained A.B. 361 would be heard out of order as Assemblyman Brian Sandoval, the prime sponsor of the bill, had other commitments later in the morning. Mr. Sandoval reported the bill had a zero fiscal impact. Previous testimony in the Judiciary Committee confirmed the fact (from the Division of Child and Family Services) that there was not a fiscal impact. The bill incorporates the federal Indian Child Welfare Act into Nevada law and concerns adoptions, termination of parental rights, foster care and protective services. Ms. Paula Brinkley of the Reno/Sparks Indian Colony representing the Intertribal Council, testified in support of the bill and hoped it would facilitate the passage and enforcement of federal law into state law. Mr. Fettic questioned the appropriateness of the bill being heard before Ways and Means as it had no fiscal impact. Chairman Marvel said since the bill lacked a fiscal note, he would entertain a motion for Do Pass. MR. HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS OF A.B. 361. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 69 - Provides partial exemption from business tax for businesses that employ certain pupils. Mr. Dennis Allard testified A.B. 69 provides a tax incentive to businesses who hire high school students. If a business hires a high school student, the hours worked by that student are exempt from the business activity tax. Additionally, for every hour worked by the student the business can deduct it from the pool of hours used in calculating the total number of hours worked by all employees pursuant to NRS 3648.150. Mr. Allard delineated how the bill would address the following concerns. Crime is a voracious leach preying upon both youth and society in general and building new prisons is not enough. Mr. Allard indicated A.B. 69 could stop crime before it happens by teaching children basic skills and giving them jobs. Approximately 70 percent of the student population do not go on to college and if they are not provided with skills for attaining jobs, society will later pay in the form of criminal incarceration. Mr. Allard testified if A.B. 69 passes, every business will become a potential classroom and every employer a teacher. The potential savings in facilities, utilities, faculty, juvenile incarceration and the court system are more than enough to offset any loss in revenue. The bill is a win/win proposition for schools, employers, students and the state. Referring to the bill's fiscal note (Exhibit C), Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Allard for clarification. Mr. Allard said the Department of Taxation's fiscal note indicated the fiscal impact of A.B. 69 totals $190,000 for FY 1995-96 and $166,950 for FY1996-97. Mr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent of the Department of Education, remarked the state's future economic stability will depend upon its educational system to provide a quality work force for jobs created by its business community. He stated the bill recognizes the need for incentives for business to become more involved in a partnership with education. Mr. Rheault felt the cost of the bill was small in comparison to the potential impact that well trained students can have on Nevada's economy. Ms. Tiffany asked whether a compliance auditor needed to be added to the Department of Taxation's staff. Mr. Michael Pitlock, Executive Director of the Department of Taxation, said he did not feel the bill would cause any administrative burdens to the department. As the plan will be part of a structured program by the school district, it will be very easy for the auditors to verify the qualifications for the exemption and will not place a burden on the department's new computer system. Mr. Pitlock noted the fiscal note was lower than the original note because an amendment changed the amount of the exemption dealing with the other full-time person that would be exempt in addition to the student. Ms. Tiffany asked for the meaning of "meaningful work." Mr. Allard replied "meaningful work experience" would include the exposure to a variety of different skills within an occupational area. He cited the example of the Youth Apprenticeship Training Program for Automotive Technicians which entailed an academic and auto tech course at the high school followed by a two year work experience sequence with auto dealers in Las Vegas. Mrs. Chowning shared her experiences with work/travel programs in Europe. She hoped the bill would provide incentive and help decrease school drop out levels. In reply to Mrs. Chowning's question regarding school credits for students, Mr. Allard said as the programs already exist, the bill was more of an incentive to get businesses involved. Mr. Rheault said the students are awarded credit for the program based on the number of hours of supervised experience they receive. He estimated 2,500 students receive work experience training in Nevada. Ms. Giunchigliani was concerned regarding the following terminology within the bill: "employs the student." She asked whether the wording would affect the students in terms of worker's compensation. Mr. Rheault stated the business would be employing the student and the state will cover the worker's compensation cost. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for an explanation of lines 6 through 8. Mr. Allard replied for every hour the student works, an hour would be deducted from the FTE for an existing or part-time employee. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the deduction was applied to employees already on the payroll. Mr. Allard responded it was an added incentive to businesses. Mr. Close felt the bill would reduce the number of school drop outs and give youth the opportunity to experience an occupation before choosing it. He felt if performance indicators proved positive, he wanted the program expanded to the college level. He noted many college students experience the same problems of obtaining occupational experience before finally selecting their occupation. Mr. Allard remarked community colleges had asked to be included in the bill, however, due to the impact on the fiscal note, he chose to expand areas at a later time. Mrs. Evans asked how the program was to be promoted to businesses. Mr. Allard stated he hoped the press would provide assistance and deferred to Mr. Rheault for the school district's efforts. Mr. Rheault said the district would count on school personnel to spread the word to businesses. Mr. Pitlock stated part of the fiscal note is a one-time notification by the Department of Taxation to their business tax accounts (65,000 entities) of the existence of the exemption. Ms. Brower, speaking on behalf of the bill, felt the program taught young people the value of a dollar and how taxes work. Mr. Mike Rask, representing the Nevada Council on Occupational Education, urged passage of the bill. Mr. Rennie Ashelman, representing the Southern Nevada Homebuilders, stated the organization enthusiastically endorsed the bill. He pointed out the great need for trained craftsmen and explained the employer will be spending more money on paperwork and supervisorial tasks than they will receive from the tax rebate. Mr. Harvey Whittemore, representing the Nevada Resort Association and Citibank, stated he was heavily involved in drafting the original business license tax. His clients closely examined exemptions as the exemptions could swallow the tax should they get too far afield from the original intent of the legislation. Mr. Whittemore felt the bill was a very narrowly crafted bill through the Partners in Education Program, and in behalf of his clients who felt the children of the state were the future of the state, recommended passage by the full committee. Ms. Mary Santina Loud, testifying on behalf of the Retail Association of Nevada, urged support of A.B. 69. She stated the program would help fill a void by educating upper and mid-level management posts within the retail industry. Mr. Bill Gregory, representing the Las Vegas chapter of Associated General Contractors, echoed the support of others in regard to A.B. 69. Mr. Phil Stout, Executive Director for the Nevada Association of Independent Businesses, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Bill Christ of Fallon, Nevada said the bill reminds him of "Nevada Goals 2,000." Mr. Christ believed the federal government should have to work for their own legislation and not have it handed to them. He questioned whether this meant Nevada would be funding a federal project. Chairman Marvel stated A.B. 69 was a separate issue. Mr. Allard remarked the bill was intended to provide a tax incentive to employers and did not have anything to do with "Goals 2,000." MS. TIFFANY MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 69. MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTED NO. ASSEMBLY BILL 99 - Authorizes participation by State of Nevada in Conference of the States. Assemblyman David Humke, District 26, Washoe County, presented testimony on behalf of the bill in the form of prepared text (Exhibit D). Mr. Humke explained the Conference of the States is a bipartisan meeting of governors and legislative leaders to discuss the balance of power and responsibility between state and federal governments. The conference would provide a forum for the 50 states to speak with a unified voice to the federal government. He pointed out all citizens will benefit from discussions that attempt to balance the system and bring government closer to those it serves. Mr. Marvel mentioned he had been receiving many calls from constituents who felt the conference was a constitutional convention. Mr. Humke indicated it is not possible to change the federal Constitution without following the procedures set forth in Article V. Any outcomes from the conference will be suggestions that have no binding authority. There will be no attempt to rewrite the Constitution; specific issues such as gun control and abortion will not be discussed, nor will the conference be driven by special interests or ideologues with hidden agendas. As co-chairman of the Elections and Procedures Committee (EPC), Mr. Close alerted the committee to the fact that paragraph 7, line 19 was added by the EPC because of their concern regarding the constitutional convention. Mr. Humke felt the bill as amended made it clear that the Nevada delegation is not authorized to participate in a constitutional convention and if such a convention were to be called, the Legislature would need to take the affirmative act of participating in such a constitutional convention. Mr. Price pointed out there was no clear language currently in the Constitution as to what the requirements would be for anyone to participate in a constitutional convention. He noted one of the fears had to do with how the delegates would be selected. Mr. Price asked whether there was a need for the Legislature to move forward this session in that there was no conference scheduled for the present year. Mr. Humke stated he did not intend to withdraw the bill and would insist there be a vote taken on it. Since there will be no meeting in the biennium, he suggested the committee amend out the funding for travel. In response to Mr. Price's question in regard to whether the meeting of several legislators from different states could mutate into a constitutional convention, Mr. Humke said it could. He said every meeting of the National Conference of State Legislators of which there are fifty states represented could turn into a constitutional convention. He warned the committee members not to attend on state taxpayer funded reimbursement provisions. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she did not support the bill because of the issue of the constitutional convention potential. She felt there were already other conferences and organizational meetings (like NCSL) where legislators could get together to debate checks and balances in state and national government. Ms. Giunchigliani did not like the idea of a delegation of six people making commitments on behalf of the state; she felt it was the responsibility of elected officials to make those decisions. Mr. Humke responded the Conference of the States is devoted only to an examination of federalism (the balance between the federal government and the states). Mr. Fettic testified he too had received many calls from constituents. The common thread among the calls related to the power of the federal government and how it interfered with their lives. Mr. Fettic said the public's main fear was that of a constitutional amendment. He asked Mr. Humke to clarify the language in lines 23 through 26 on page 3; how a delegation from Nevada could get caught up in a constitutional convention. Mr. Humke said it could not; the bill states if this begins to happen, those attending must leave. Ms. Jan Gilbert, representing the League of Women Voters of Nevada, stated their opposition to participating in a constitutional convention. Ms. Gilbert testified the language on page 3 will disallow them to participate. She felt communication among states and the federal government was very important and urged the committee to support the bill. Mr. Bob Tonelli, Executive Director of United We Stand America for Nevada, a nonpartisan, nonprofit, national organization dedicated to educating the public stated his opposition to the bill. He recommended the bill be voted down or tabled. Mr. Price said the various conferences Nevada legislators attend were of great benefit as they provided a healthy exchange between legislators who share many of the same problems and ideas. Mr. Tonelli indicated his primary concern was over who was backing the conference and how it came about. Ms. Janine Hansen, State President of the Nevada Eagle Forum, referring to a "Status Report on the Conference of the States" (Exhibit E - on file in the LCB Research Library) pointed out the conference had been postponed until at least 1997. Of the 14 states who have passed the resolution, 7 did not even hold hearings; 12 of those passed with essentially no opposition. After the public became aware of the concerns regarding the conference, only 2 states passed resolutions and 20 have defeated it. The conference is not being held this year due to a grassroots outpouring of opposition. Ms. Hansen stated her organization does not want the Constitution changed, they want the Constitution enforced. Mr. Don Fotheringham, writer for the New American Magazine, testified in opposition to A.B. 99. He reported Governors Leavitt and Nelson attended a steering committee meeting for the Conference of the States on April 21 with the intention of trashing the resolutions. When they arrived at the conference the two governors were overridden by the private interests and were prevailed upon to proceed no matter how long it took. Mr. Dan Joseph representing Gun Owners of America testified in opposition to the bill as they felt it would lead to a Constitutional Convention. Mr. Greg Hamilton representing the Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Nevada testified in opposition to A.B. 99 (Exhibit F). Ms. Carolyn Nelson of Reno testified in opposition to A.B. 99. Ms. Nelson submitted the resolution by the Daughters of the American Revolution (Exhibit G) which stated, "The Constitution of the United States of America grants the states all of the rights necessary for their sovereignty, thus obviating the need for a Conference of the States; . . ." Ms. Lynn Chapman, four times past president of the American Legion Auxiliary testified in opposition to A.B. 99. She read a section of Resolution 63 made at the National Convention of the American Legion (Exhibit H) and distributed a copy of Resolution 449 adopted by the 85th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States held in Chicago, Illinois, August 1984 (Exhibit I). Mr. Ken Hopkins testified in opposition to A.B. 99. He delivered a short history on how the federal government confiscated gold in 1933 (due to a financial emergency declared by the Congress and President) by suspending the Constitution. He noted many of the emergency issues and legislation that were declared in 1933 are still in effect today. He urged committee members to review the War and Emergency Powers Act (Exhibit J - on file in the LCB Research Library). Mr. Stan Lusak of Fallon, Nevada concurred with the previous speakers in opposition to A.B. 99. He felt the constitutional convention's goals were held in hidden agendas and Nevadans should be against any conferences not honest and upfront with precisely stated goals. Mr. Paul Pressnall representing the Citizens Against the Constitutional Convention testified in opposition to A.B. 99. Mr. David Horton representing the Committee to Restore the Constitution testified in opposition to A.B. 99. He agreed the sentiment of trying to stop erosion of the Constitution was sound. He felt the target is not to restore a balance, but to enforce the terms of the Constitution which provides that the state is the source of all authority. He distributed an article appearing in the Nevada Sentinel dealing with the Council of the City of Philadelphia's request to the Legislature to reject the Conference of States (Exhibit K). Mr. Ike Yochum representing the Independent American Party testified in opposition to A.B. 99. Mr. Brendan Trainer representing the Libertarian Party of Northern Nevada testified in opposition to A.B. 99. He asked those opposed to A.B. 99 in the audience to stand up. Mr. Humke defended the credibility of the Council of State Governments. He stated the council is devoted to putting forward the goals and objectives of all three branches of government. ASSEMBLY BILL 317 - Makes various changes related to juvenile courts, sentencing, crimes and punishments. Ms. Margaret Springgate, Legal Counsel, Governor's Office, distributed proposed amendments to A.B. 317 (Exhibit L). She stated the Governor had approved deleting "h" which dealt with the person from the Association of Counties. She explained the second page of amendments dealt with the language pertaining to residential confinement. She said the fiscal note presented to the committee was basically already included in the Governor's budget. The DCFS reduction of $180,000 was not included in the Governor's budget. In the Department of Prisons' budget the residential confinement portion is included in the Governor's budget. The provisions on the increase because of the juveniles were not included in the Governor's budget. The Sentencing Commission's provisions in the Governor's budget is contingent upon having the sentencing analyst position approved in the Department of Administration budget. If not approved, the Department of Prisons will need another computer person to deal with the Information Sentencing Commission's needs. Mr. Ben Graham of the Nevada District Attorney's Association urged the committee to process the bill. Mr. Spitler asked where the staff would be placed in Department of Prison's budget and where was the support being picked up. Ms. Springgate said the provisions of the additional operating costs are not currently in the Governor's budget. Ms. Ann Andreini, Executive Assistant, Governor's Office, said the numbers 13 in the first year and 27 in the second year were offenders who would be absorbed into the general population of the prison. Mr. Spitler commented he had not seen these numbers incorporated into any records. Ms. Janet Johnson of the Budget Office indicated the Governor's Recommendation would give the prison the extra 27 beds. She stated the Department of Prisons felt the 27 could be absorbed given that recommendation. Mr. Spitler noted the numbers concerned him a great deal and would wait and see where they were at the end of the week. He felt the limits were being stretched as to the limits of what the prisons could physically hold. Ms. Giunchigliani was curious as to why the amendment did not address the judicial side of the Sentencing Commission. Ms. Andreini understood Ms. Giunchigliani's concerns regarding the politicization of the Sentencing Commission. She said legislators were included on the body (in addition to law enforcement and judiciary representatives) so that stakeholders could contribute their points of view to the Commission's evaluation and decision making processes. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the Legislature makes the laws the Commission should be enforcing and, therefore, saw that as a partnership. She did think county commissioners or legislators had the qualifications to determine sentencing. She felt sentencing decisions should be left up to experts. Ms. Springgate said the entire bill was a process that took over a year to develop. The original Sentencing Commission only included two legislators. The number of legislators was increased after meetings were held during which time they expressed their concern that there was not enough representation. Mr. Arberry asked how often the Commission would meet. Ms. Springgate replied the Governor recommended the Commission meet four times a year. Mr. Dini pointed out section "J" would have to be changed to comply with the Legislature's present co-speaker structure. Ms. Springgate responded this was addressed in Judiciary Committee deliberations. Legislative Counsel Bureau staff member, Dennis Neilander, felt having the language was adequate, however, the Governor's Office would accommodate Mr. Dini's suggestion. Mr. Dini noted it could be worded to cover both situations. Chairman Marvel asked Mr. Humke and Mr. Anderson (co-chairmen of the Assembly Judiciary Committee) whether they had an opportunity to review the amendments. Mr. Anderson said he did not see any major flaws. Mr. Humke said there was a split decision on the legislative sentencing commission. After a lengthy discussion, the majority of the Judiciary Committee accepted the first reprint as is contained in the bill (calls for the Executive Branch and civilians to be non-voting members). Mr. Humke stated the basic argument related to changing sentencing structures. Ms. Giunchigliani stressed the recommendations for changes would still have to be adopted by the Legislature. She would not support the Commission if it did not give voting rights to all the individuals who were serving on it. She expressed her curiosity as to why more legislators were added. Mr. Humke said it was felt the rural parts of the state needed representation and thus a third assemblyman was added. The committee felt that more than likely the other four legislators would represent the two urban areas. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the bill would be jeopardized if she made a motion to delete the legislators from the Commission. Mr. Humke felt it would. Mr. Anderson felt there needed to be some representation from the Legislature in order for there to be feedback into the process. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she supported the bill and did not want to jeopardize it with her previously voiced concerns. Mrs. Evans asked what the compelling reasons were for establishing a Sentencing Commission. Mr. Humke said the Truth in Sentencing process requires close examination, thus the need for a Commission. He added Truth in Sentencing needs monitoring; there are other important policy departures in the area of juvenile law that need to be monitored that are contained in A.B. 317. Mr. Dini said legislators give continuity from one session to the next and can provide the Commission with assistance with whatever guidelines they may want to develop for the future session. Referring to page 14 of the current version of the bill (top of the page), Mr. Humke noted the Judiciary Committee made one change that affected representatives of the Defense Bar. The original bill said "the State Public Defender shall sit on this Commission." The Judiciary changed the language to "This member of the Defense Bar will be selected by the State Bar of Nevada" (subsection C, number 1). Mr. Humke stated this was in conflict with what the Governor's Office representatives wish which is "the State Public Defender." Mr. Humke explained the State Public Defender represents those rural counties where they have a contract. Some rural counties opt out and use a private appointment system where they appoint an attorney or group of attorneys; some use the service of the State Public Defender. Washoe and Clark counties have their own county based Public Defender and have to go through the State Public Defender to get their wishes known. For this reason, Mr. Humke felt the Judiciary Committee's measure as to the representative of the Defense Bar was superior. Mr. Humke voiced his opinion concerning legislators serving on interim committees. He believed the Sentencing Commission was a highly specialized interim committee. Speaking from his own experience of serving on committees composed of all legislators or a mix of legislators and non-legislators, it had been far too easy to vote for some program that has a high price tag or makes a major policy decision. With non-legislators serving on a legislative type committee (a committee designed to draft legislation), the same phenomenon can be even worse, especially with non-elected persons. He noted non-elected persons can tend to vote for more outlandish policy departures and higher costs. Mr. Hettrick pointed out the bill passed by the Assembly Judiciary Committee stipulated one of the three assemblypersons was designated to reside in a county with a population of less than 100,000. He said the proposed amendment did not include language pertaining to rural county participation and suggested after "j" a sentence be added that says, "At least one legislator must be appointed from a county with a population of less than 100,000." Mr. Humke said it was the feeling of the majority of the Judiciary Committee that as they could not dictate to the other groups that appoint members to the Commission that they should appoint a rural representative, the committee can state in statute that one or more shall be rural. Speaking on behalf of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Anderson said the sensitivity to the rural question was based upon what was happening with the disparity between the programs in the rural areas in comparison to the two urban areas and how they utilize the system. The committee wanted to guarantee a rural point of view. Ms. Giunchigliani hoped the Commission would be composed to represent all point of views including female and minority. Mr. Humke stated the legislative representatives will be selected with attention to gender so both will be represented. Mr. Anderson pointed out the Judiciary Committee deleted a representative of the Department of Prisons, however, included a representative of Parole and Probation. He stated the rationale being Prisons carry out sentences and do not participate in the shaping of the sentence. ASSEMBLY BILL 566 - Extends period during which committee on benefits shall review history of claims paid from state's group insurance for certain public officers and employees. Mr. Bernie Anderson testified on behalf of A.B. 566. He explained the legislation was a continuation of a bill that would sunset and ask for an additional two year study of the issue of dealing with claims allowing public employee groups into the group state insurance policy. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether there were any preliminary results of the study. She said there was a concern last session regarding retirees entering the state retirement pool could have a negative effect on premiums. Mr. Anderson agreed that this was a legitimate fear and was the reason the legislators had agreed to the sunset last session. The two year extension will provide the opportunity for a longer actuarial. Mr. Doug Byington, representing the Nevada Association of School Administrators, informed the committee A.B. 566 was a continuation of A.B. 628 (last session's bill). He noted line 6 read "other than retired employees." He said the bill affects active members of the insurance pool who are presently set aside and rated separately. Mr. Byington explained the existing study was being carried on in order to determine what impact it is having on the system; if the employees need to pay a higher rate, so be it. The present ruling states if the group is within 5 percent they will pay the state rate. Ms. Debbie Cahill with the Nevada State Education Association speaking on behalf of A.B. 566 said the state is facing a crisis. She reported the Carson City School District just received notice that their health insurance rates are increasing 15 percent next year. The Mineral County district's contract will be rising 23 per cent. She indicated in some cases the districts are continuing to pay the full premium but they are increasing the deductible; in some cases the district pays for the employee but there is no dependent coverage. Mr. Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, spoke in opposition to the bill. He indicated the bill did not apply to retirees as they have a separate law. As the Legislature considers A.B. 328 as amended, the retirees who come into the state insurance program will be separately rated. He said A.B. 566 applies to local government groups and their retirees who come in (both active and retired) and proposes to extend the period. He read from the State Risk Manager's memo: "If current trends continue and the experience of the non-state agencies continues to be significantly different than the experience of state employees..." Mr. Gagnier noted Risk Management is recognizing it is already significantly higher and so to propose that this period be extended means that the state will continue to subsidize these groups. He felt the amount of money appropriated by the Legislature to cover state workers insurance would not be sufficient and the state would continue to subsidize local governments within the group. Mr. Gagnier said SNEA would like to see that stopped. ASSEMBLY BILL 511 - Specifies proportion of wages of offender assigned to center for restitution to be paid to victim for restitution. Assemblyman Larry Spitler, Assembly District 41, testified on behalf of A.B. 511. He reported he had been working with the Department of Prisons and they have agreed to work with him during the biennium to completely readdress restitution in general. Mr. Spitler felt the system needed major adjustment. He notified the committee he was recommending not to move the bill forward because of the fiscal note. Mr. Spitler said In 1997 the issue will be: "Do we in fact have restitution centers or in fact, are these only facilities where someone compensates the state for their care." Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the restitution centers could adopt some of the new regulations in the interim. Mr. Spitler said not in the interim as they were strapped to their budget by the formulas presently in place. ASSEMBLY BILL 316 - Increases maximum amount of annual fee which may be imposed on each lot in a mobile home park; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. Mr. Mark Stevens explained the bill involved a fee increase necessary to implement the recommendations included in the Executive Budget. If the bill is not to be passed the committee needs to make adjustments in the Manufactured Housing budget. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 316. MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. MR. SPITLER AND MR. FETTIC VOTED NO. ASSEMBLY BILL 243 - Makes appropriation to department of education for support of nonprofit public broadcasting stations in Nevada. Mr. Stevens stated the bill would appropriate $200,000 to support public broadcasting stations in Nevada. The $200,000 is built into the Executive Budget as a one-shot appropriation. Mr. Arberry felt $100,000 should be added to the bill to help some of the smaller broadcasting stations. MR. ARBERRY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 243 BY ADDING $100,000 TO THE RECOMMENDED $200,000 APPROPRIATION. MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. MS. TIFFANY, MR. ALLARD AND MR. HETTRICK VOTED NO. SENATE BILL 413 - Makes appropriation to state public works board for program of capital improvements for office of the military. (BDR S-2010) Mr. Stevens said the bill would carve out a portion of the CIP program for armory projects. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 413. MR. PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 236 - Makes appropriation to division of parole and probation of department of motor vehicles and public safety for replacement and purchase of various equipment (BDR S- 1538). Mr. Ghiggeri advised the committee they could hold the bill, amend it to the $405,000 level and pass it or amend it with the $405,000 and include $332,000 for the first part of a five year implementation of the data processing program for the Division of Parole and Probation. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the sub-committee's portion be removed before the bill was processed (sub-committee's closings had not yet been recommended). Mr. Stevens advised the committee could go either way. Chairman Marvel suggested the bill be held. ASSEMBLY BILL 239 - Makes appropriation to department of prisons for maintenance and minor construction projects. (BDR S-1530) Mr. Ghiggeri said A.B. 239 was a one-shot appropriation recommended in the Executive Budget in the amount of $504,669. Subsequent to the inclusion of the recommendation in the Executive Budget there was a revised recommendation from the Budget Office to increase the amount to $622,006. The majority of the increase was attributable to correcting septic tank problems at the Humboldt Conservation Camp in the amount of $266,000. The suggested amount revises the $622,006 amount to $555,224. MR. ARBERRY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 239. MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 237- Makes appropriation to Nevada commissioner for veteran affairs of department of motor vehicles and public safety for replacement of backhoe at Boulder City veterans' cemetery. (BDR S-1535) Mr. Stevens said A.B. 237 and A.B. 238 were being presented for reconsiderat ion as the committee had questioned the total cost of the backhoe and whether the private funds necessary for the project were in hand. According to the Commissioner of Veterans Affairs the backhoe's cost was anticipated to be $54,900. The bill would provide state funding of $42,000. The balance of $12,900 would be from donated funds and are in hand and will be applied to the purchase of the backhoe. MR. CLOSE MOVED DO PASS ON A. B. 237. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 238 - Makes appropriation to Nevada commissioner for veterans affairs of department of motor vehicles and public safety for improvements to veterans' cemeteries. (BDR S-1534) Mr. Stevens indicated A.B. 238 was held due to questions on whether funds were included for preburial vaults. The Commissioner of Veterans Affairs has indicated the preburial vaults were eliminated due to lack of funds for the project, however, a projection of costs for 200 vaults at the Fernley Cemetery would be $44,400. The state would have to provide one half of the dollar amount for that purchase. The federal government will match the cost by 50 percent. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 238. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 240 - Makes appropriation to bureau of alcohol and drug abuse in rehabilitation division of the department of employment, training and rehabilitation for equipment. (BDR S-1528) Mr. Stevens said A.B. 240 would provide $275,000 to the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. MR. ARBERRY MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 240. MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 241 - Makes appropriation to commission on postsecondary education for computer hardware and software. (BDR S-1489) Mr. Stevens said A.B. 241 is a Governor's one-shot appropriation bill included in the Executive Budget for $17,300 to the Commission on Postsecondary Education for data processing equipment. The one shot will provide 4 personal computers, 4 printers, and related software. The new equipment will replace equipment personally owned. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 241. MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 254 - Makes appropriation to aging services division of department of human resources for equipment. (BDR S-1523) Mr. Stevens said A.B. 254 was a one-shot included in the Executive Budget for the Division of Aging Services providing for $9,070 in equipment that would include a recording system, overhead projector and two personal computers. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 254. MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 303 - Requires State Board of Education to adopt program to provide pupils with skills to make transition from school to work. Mrs. Evans explained amendment "f" on page 2, line 23 which added the word "curriculum". The other change from the previous version is in section 2, line 37 on page 3: remove "high school". MR. DINI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 303. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL 389 - Revises provisions governing payment of medical expenses of offender incarcerated in state prison (BDR 16-1775) MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO RESCIND THE COMMITTEE'S PREVIOUS ACTION ON A.B. 389. MR. PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Marvel requested the committee to reconsider A.B. 389. Mr. Hettrick indicated there was concern regarding the bill's impact on the budget. The savings went from $280,000 annually to $600,000. Mr. Hettrick said he would like to put the new language in that would allow the state to save $600,000 per year. MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 389. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBITTED: ______________________________________ __ Janine Sprout, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means May 24, 1995 Page