MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session May 26, 1995 The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 1:40 p.m., on Friday, May 26, 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 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Mr. Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst ASSEMBLY BILL 177 Revises provisions governing best interests of child in termination of parental rights. Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, District 24, testified A.B. 177 deals with the best interest of the child in cases of custody and foster care. She explained she introduced this bill at the request of a Judge Scott Jordan, a family court judge from Reno. She distributed to the committee a copy of a letter from Judge Jordan and Judge Charles McGee in support of A.B. 177 (see Exhibit C). She noted this bill served as the foundation for other proposed legislation regarding the best interests of the child. It had received broad support from members of the community. She explained there was no fiscal note attached to this bill, as had originally been contemplated. She urged the committee to move do pass. Mr. Hettrick inquired about language in the bill stating that if a child was out of the home in placement for any 18 of 24 months, it must be presumed the parent or parents have demonstrated only token efforts to care for the child. He expressed concern about cases where parents have attempted to demonstrate care for the child but have been precluded from doing so by the courts or the state. He expressed concern that the language was inflexible. He questioned whether parents could be damaged in some way by this language. Ms. Nancy Angres, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, stated she did not believe anyone would be damaged by this language. She explained it created a presumption which was rebuttable. If the child was out of the home in foster care for 18 of the past 24 months this presumption could be rebutted by evidence (e.g., that the parent was ill or incapacitated for those 18 months). Mr. Spitler stated he received a letter which indicated A.B. 177 would move the burden of proof of the parents' fitness from the state to the parent. Ms. Angres noted termination of parental rights could be brought by anyone. A.B. 177 simply created a rebuttable presumption, not a foregone conclusion that someone would lose their parental rights because a child had been out of the home for 18 months. Ms. Angres said she was aware of the letter Mr. Spitler had referred to. The concern addressed in the letter was a six-month presumption on failure of parental adjustment. She said that was an issue which could be resolved on the Assembly or Senate floors. Chairman Arberry asked for public testimony. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, expressed support for A.B. 177. She noted her organization was working with the law firm which had sent the letter Mr. Spitler mentioned previously. She reiterated the concern was with the six- month provision. She stated she had spoken with Assemblywoman Freeman about this concern and believed the issue could be resolved. She urged passage of the bill. Mr. Spitler questioned why the bill could not be amended in this hearing. Assemblywoman Freeman said the final language had not been developed. Ms. Angres stated the amendment would be to return to the current statutory language relative to the six-month presumption. The bill draft would require merging two statutes. MR. FETTIC MOVED DO PASS A.B. 177. MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. CHOWNING AND MRS. EVANS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 379 Increases amount of longevity payments to state employees and requires state agencies to pay fees for issuance of certain licenses required of certain state employees. Mr. Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified on behalf of A.B. 379. He noted two unrelated issues dealing with state employees were addressed in this bill. He explained the fiscal note to this bill had been updated. Mr. Gagnier stated the first portion of the bill addressed payment of license fees for state employees who are required, as a condition of employment, to be licensed or certified. He explained licensing became a condition of employment for a number of state employees (e.g., highway maintenance employees, psychologists, social workers) subsequent to their initial date of hire. He noted the Board of Psychological Examiners proposed legislation which would authorize licensing and associated fee increases for psychologists. Mr. Gagnier noted the original bill had been modified in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs to address initial costs rather than ongoing costs. The fiscal impact of the revised bill is unknown. Mr. Gagnier explained the provision for longevity pay had been reduced from $150 to $100 for the initial payment in the amended version. He stated the payment was much less than originally anticipated by SNEA and represented a minor increase since longevity pay for state employees was first enacted in the mid- 1970s and has never been increased since that time. Mr. Gagnier distributed to the committee a comparison of average longevity payments in other public jurisdictions throughout the state based on a 1992 survey. The average longevity payment for all entities is $900.74. The average state longevity payment is $158. Mr. Gagnier expressed support for A.B. 379. Mr. Spitler asked if the state would be required to reimburse employees for normal drivers licenses. Mr. Gagnier stated the intent of the bill was that it would not apply to normal drivers licenses. Mr. Spitler inquired whether a licensed professional (i.e., a psychologist) who was employed by the state would be precluded from having a private practice if the state had paid for their professional license. Mr. Gagnier stated the majority of psychologists working for the state do have outside practices. Social workers, however, are not allowed to have outside practices because their licenses were "grandfathered" at the time the social worker licensure legislation was passed, and their qualifications are not sufficient for them to have a private practice. Mr. Spitler asked if this issue was addressed at previous hearings. Mr. Gagnier stated there had been no previous discussion on this issue. Mr. Spitler inquired how longevity payments were made. Mr. Gagnier replied longevity payments were made twice per year in July and late December. Mr. Spitler asked if longevity checks were separate from regular paychecks. Mr. Gagnier stated he did not know if longevity checks were separate from paychecks. He said the explanation to the fiscal note presented an accurate depiction of the number of eligible employees. He pointed out about 40 percent of classified state employees had reached the top step of their salary grade and would receive no further merit increases. Mr. Spitler asked if the state would be reimbursed a pro rata share of license fees if licensed employees left state service prior to the expiration of their license. Mr. Gagnier stated that suggestion had not been offered previously, but he had no objection to it. Mr. Hettrick said he was opposed to A.B. 379. He expressed his belief professional licensure was a condition of employment and individuals had the right to choose or not choose state employment. He said license fees were not reimbursed in the private sector. He expressed the same sentiment about longevity pay. Mr. Gagnier noted it was common practice for many private industry employers to reimburse employees for license fees (e.g., Bar Association and continuing legal education fees for attorneys) and to make longevity payments. Mr. Gary Yoes, Political Action Coordinator, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), expressed support for A.B. 379. He noted at the SEIU leadership conference which took place in December 1994 the issues contained in A.B. 379 were adopted as part of its work site fairness plank. He noted while increasing longevity payments should not be construed as a substitute for a fair salary increase, it was a small way for the state to say thank you to the hard working blue ribbon workers in the state who have elected to dedicate themselves to state service for over eight years. He urged passage of A.B. 379. ASSEMBLY BILL 455 Revises provisions governing sick leave for state employees. Mr. Gagnier expressed support for A.B. 455 but noted it had not been requested by SNEA. He explained once state employees accrued 90 days of sick leave, they could only carry over to a new year one-half of the sick leave accrued in that year with the balance going to the chronic sick leave account for long-term illnesses. A.B. 455 proposed revising the 90-day limit to 180 days. Mr. Gagnier also noted state employees who retired after ten or more years of state service, were eligible for payment for accrued sick leave in excess of 30 days, up to a cap. Originally A.B. 455 proposed eliminating the 30 day requirement and increasing the cap. The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs chose not to raise the caps and not to eliminate the 30 day requirement. Mr. Close questioned how an employee would be covered if his or her illness extended beyond 90 days. Mr. Gagnier responded the accrued sick leave in the chronic illness account would become available to the employee. He explained a retiring employee would not receive payment for accrued sick leave in the chronic illness account. Mr. Yoes expressed support for A.B. 455. Mr. Dini asked if the fiscal note was accurate. Mr. Ghiggeri said based on the amendment from the Government Affairs Committee it appeared the fiscal note should be revised downward. He suggested the Department of Personnel could provide more accurate fiscal information. ASSEMBLY BILL 628 Revises provisions relating to verification of insurance for motor vehicles. Mr. Dennis Austin, Assistant Chief of Registration, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, expressed support for A.B. 628. He noted the bill might require a budget adjustment if funds were moved to the General Fund from the Highway Fund. Chairman Arberry questioned whether someone would be charged for not returning a form verifying contract of insurance to the department. Mr. Austin stated the fee structure would not be revised. He explained the statute already provided for penalties of $100 for failure to have a contract of insurance and $50 for failure to return the form for verification within the time specified. The bill would revise the penalty from a registration penalty to a civil penalty so money could be transferred to the General Fund to allow a portion to be used by the Insurance Advocate's Office. Ms. Birgit Baker, Administrative Services Officer, Department of Business and Industry, testified A.B. 628 was the vehicle to accomplish budget closings as recommended by the joint General Government Subcommittee. She explained the Consumer Advocate's budget was closed with funding from the verification of insurance account. Changing the registration fee to a civil penalty and returning the account to the General Fund permitted the funds to be used to fund the Consumer Advocate's Office. Chairman Arberry expressed concern that drivers who did provide proof of insurance could still be assessed a penalty for not returning the verification form. Mr. Austin explained the $100 reinstatement fee would be assessed against drivers who had no insurance. The $50 penalty would be assessed against drivers who failed to respond to a request to provide proof of insurance. He noted the $50 penalty could be appealed to a hearings officer, who would decide whether or not to waive the penalty. Chairman Arberry stated he had received complaints from drivers who paid the $50 penalty and did not receive a refund once they provided proof of insurance. Mr. Austin reiterated it would be up to the hearings officer whether or not to uphold the penalty. He pointed out the $50 penalty was assessed in cases where drivers had insurance but failed to respond to the request for verification. Mr. Spitler asked what would happen to this fund if the Consumer Advocate's Office was abolished. Mr. Austin said he did not know the answer to the question. Mr. Ghiggeri stated the Public Safety Subcommittee recommended that excess funds in the verification of insurance account over $500,000 revert to the Highway Fund. The General Government Subcommittee recommended that funding be utilized from the excess money in the verification of insurance account to fund the Consumer Advocate for Insurance position. Mr. Close noted the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety did not have sufficient ability to enforce verification of insurance or to fine drivers under the statutes, which was the reason for shifting the penalty to a civil action. He stated it was important to remove uninsured drivers from the highways. Mr. Spitler said he agreed with Mr. Close. He pointed out the shift from a penalty to a civil action would add the need for attorneys to become involved, which could add to costs. Ms. Giunchigliani explained the intent of the General Government Subcommittee was to move the Consumer Advocate for Insurance from the Insurance Division budget to the Department of Business and Industry budget. The focus of the position would be advocacy rather than litigation. It was estimated court appearances would be minimal. ASSEMBLY BILL 629 Makes supplemental appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for operating expenses of Nevada Historical Society. Ms. Janet Johnson, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, explained A.B. 629 would authorize a supplemental appropriation of $10,000 to cover operating expenses for the Nevada Historical Society for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1994. She explained there had been shortfalls in the budget as the result of repairs to the building. Mr. Spitler asked Ms. Johnson to provide the committee with a list of repairs. She agreed to do so. SENATE BILL 201 Makes appropriation to Office of State Treasurer for automated check distribution machine, computer hardware and office equipment. Mr. John Adkins, Deputy Treasurer, testified S.B. 201 was for a one-time appropriation of $19,000 for five pieces of replacement equipment needed for daily operations, including a letter folding machine, a photocopier, a continuous feed printer, and two computers. Chairman Arberry expressed his understanding this appropriation was recommended in the Executive Budget. Mr. Adkins said Chairman Arberry's understanding was correct. MR. MARVEL MOVED DO PASS S.B. 201. MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FETTIC, MR. HETTRICK, AND MR. PRICE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 226 Makes appropriation to Office of the Attorney General for applying for federal grants concerning family violence. Mr. Spitler noted an amendment had been requested to A.B. 226. Mr. Ghiggeri explained the proposed amendment would allow for a portion of the funding to be directed to expenses related to the Nevada Domestic Violence Prevention Council. MR. DINI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 226. MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FETTIC, MR. HETTRICK, AND MR. PRICE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 227 Makes appropriation to Office of Attorney General for computer hardware and software and communication enhancements. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED DO PASS A.B. 227. MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FETTIC AND MR. HETTRICK WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. ASSEMBLY BILL 229 Makes appropriation to Office of Governor for computer equipment and software. MR. SPITLER MOVED DO PASS A.B. 229. MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FETTIC AND MR. HETTRICK WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 231 Makes appropriation to Division of Wildlife of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for construction of airplane hangar at Minden airport. Mr. Dini noted honor camp crews would be used to construct the hangar. Mr. Price expressed his opinion it was unfair to Nevada contractors to utilize honor camp crews on a project as elaborate as this. He said he had done some research into prefabricated hangars and suggested those be considered. Mrs. Brower recalled the committee had previously requested information of alternatives to constructing a hangar. Ms. Tiffany said it was her understanding the Division of Wildlife had agreed to share the hangar with another agency. Chairman Arberry stated action on this bill would be deferred until the committee received further information. ASSEMBLY BILL 234 Makes appropriation to Division of Water Planning of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for office equipment and computer hardware and software. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED DO PASS A.B. 234. MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Spitler said he understood the request was for $45,000 rather than $91,160. Mr. Stevens explained $45,906 of the $91,160 would be used for a geographic information system. He noted the committee had requested additional information from the agency about the geographic information system, which the agency provided. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FETTIC AND MR. HETTRICK WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 252 Makes appropriation to the Office of State Public Defender of the Department of Human Resources for computer hardware and software; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 252 provides for a $57,200 appropriation to the Public Defender comprised of $35,000 to fund business process reengineering (BPR) and $22,200 for computer hardware and software. He noted the committee had questioned the need for a BPR in this office. He also pointed out the Public Defender's budget was partially funded by the counties for services provided to counties. There was also some question about whether the bill should be amended to reflect only the General Fund share of the costs to be funded. Mr. Marvel agreed the BPR was not needed in this office. Mr. Stevens added legislation was pending in the Senate which would provide a BPR for the entire Department of Human Resources, of which this agency is a part. Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not support funding the BPR but questioned whether it was appropriate to issue an unfunded mandate to the counties. She questioned whether the proposed appropriation would adequately fund the software purchases. Mr. Stevens stated $22,200 was allocated for hardware and software. He pointed out part of the cost of services provided to the counties was for data processing. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested those costs be included in billing to the counties. Mr. Stevens stated proposed legislation outlined the obligation of each county for the Public Defender's services which could include funding for data processing costs. The other option was to make a General Fund appropriation for the entire cost. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the cost impact to the counties would be. Mr. Stevens answered the Public Defender had indicated 43 percent of the costs could be paid by the state and 57 percent by the counties, or $9,546 from the General Fund and $12,654 from the counties. Mr. Close suggested the bill require receipt of matching county monies prior to expenditure of funds. MR. MARVEL MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 252 TO REMOVE FUNDING FOR THE BPR, LIMIT THE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION TO $9,546, AND REQUIRE RECEIPT OF COUNTY MATCH PRIOR TO EXPENDITURE. MR. CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FETTIC AND MR. HETTRICK WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 72 Revises provisions relating to imposition of certain taxes for capital projects and financing construction of schools. ASSEMBLY BILL 350 Revises provisions governing use of taxes levied for capital projects of school districts. Mr. Stevens reported A.B. 72 and A.B. 350 related to "pay as you go" financing for schools. A.B. 72 would limit the pay as you go plan to a 20-year period. This requirement would have to be included in language adopted by the voters. An amendment to A.B. 72 had been proposed by the Nevada Association of School Boards. Ms. Giunchigliani noted Mr. Henry Etchemendy of the Nevada Association of School Boards had testified A.B. 72 was not that organization's bill. She questioned if the Nevada Association of School Boards had requested A.B. 350. Mr. Stevens responded A.B. 72 was recommended by the Interim Committee on Laws Relating to Financing Infrastructure and A.B. 350 was from the Interim Committee on Laws Governing Taxing Districts. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether both bills were necessary. Mr. Stevens said the focus of A.B. 350 was preventing school districts from using pay as you go financing to pay the interest on debt, as was being done in White Pine County. He pointed out the situation in White Pine County should be taken into consideration by the committee in relation to action on this bill. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if A.B. 72 was the bill which the school boards were most interested in. Mr. Stevens said Mr. Etchemendy did not testify in opposition to A.B. 72, but he had proposed an amendment to the bill. Mr. Stevens explained the bill would limit pay as you go plans to a 20-year period and the voters would vote on specific periods of time when they voted on pay as you go plans. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the rationale was for requiring a specific time period. Mr. Marvel said the requirement was to impose a definite time limit on the pay as you go plan rather than allowing the length of the plan to be indefinite. Ms. Tiffany asked if "infrastructure" included buildings. Mr. Stevens said in some instances financing would be invested until sufficient funds were accumulated to construct a school. In those instances it would not be specifically stated that a school was to be constructed. In the case of a bond issue the types and numbers of schools to be constructed would be specified and voted on. Ms. Tiffany questioned whether all counties could use pay as you go plans. Mr. Stevens said his recollection was all counties had this option, but there were different provisions for large school districts than there were for small school districts. He noted not all counties were using pay as you go plans. Mr. Stevens reiterated the focus of the legislation was to change the time limit from 10 to 20 years and have a time certain for obligating the property tax, after which time the voters would have to reinstitute it. Mr. Close expressed concern that voters are not advised when the obligation ends. He suggested a guarantee to the voters that the tax bill would be reduced by the amount of the increase once the obligation was fulfilled. Mr. Price noted it might be possible to include a simple statement that the obligation had ended on the tax bill. Mr. Marvel pointed out debt service was delineated on tax bills. Mr. Close reiterated the taxpayers were not receiving tax reductions when the obligation was fulfilled. He questioned whether the taxpayers could be guaranteed the obligation would go away after 20 years. Mr. Dini stated as a practical matter voters were choosing to pass new bond issues which extended the original obligation. In effect, then, the obligation never is fulfilled and there is no tax reduction. Mr. Ghiggeri stated the Capital Improvement Program recommended by the Governor is predicated on continuing the current $.15 property tax. He explained additional bonds would be issued over the biennium to fund the Capital Improvement Program since certain previously issued bonds will be paid off. MR. MARVEL MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 72. MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the amendment was to delete the language in lines 3 through 5 on page 2 which would restrict rehabilitation of older schools. Chairman Arberry responded affirmatively. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FETTIC AND MR. HETTRICK WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 88 Makes appropriation to Eighth Judicial District for expansion of its program of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs. Mr. Stevens stated A.B. 88 would appropriate $350,000 for drug court ($250,000 in Clark County and $100,000 in Washoe County). He noted this appropriation was not recommended in the Executive Budget. MR. DINI MOVED DO PASS A.B. 88. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FETTIC AND MR. HETTRICK WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 310 Makes appropriation to Aging Services Division of Department of Human Resources for production, publication and distribution of directory of transportation services for aged and disabled persons. Mr. Stevens reported A.B. 310 would provide for a General Fund appropriation of $8,500 in each year of the biennium to fund the distribution and publication of a directory listing all public and private transportation services for aged and disabled persons. He explained this appropriation was not recommended in the Executive Budget. Ms. Giunchigliani noted there were several suggested amendments to this bill, including publishing a pamphlet rather than a directory. Chairman Arberry asked if the proposed amendments would impact the amount of the appropriation. Ms. Giunchigliani said the cost of printing a pamphlet should be less than printing a directory. Ms. Tiffany noted Mr. Hettrick had expressed some concerns about this bill. She recommended holding action on this measure since Mr. Hettrick was temporarily absent from the hearing. Chairman Arberry agreed to do so. ASSEMBLY BILL 530 Revises provisions regarding renewal of drivers' licenses. Mr. Stevens explained amendments had been proposed to A.B. 530 to allow the Drivers License Division to keep the entire $1.50 fee for renewing drivers' licenses by mail to offset its associated costs, to allow a statement of an eye doctor or state agency authorized to administer eye tests in lieu of an eye test, to appropriate $30,700 to pay for initial costs, and to clarify the effective date. Chairman Arberry questioned why the fiscal note was $199,979. Mr. Ghiggeri responded the amendment proposed $30,700 to fund initial costs. It is hoped the $1.50 fee to the division will offset ongoing costs. He noted the appropriation from the Highway Fund should be made July 1, 1995. Ms. Giunchigliani noted the agency had also requested funding for a data mailer. Mr. Ghiggeri explained the data mailer was the form to be mailed. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if any adjustment was required to the budget. Mr. Ghiggeri said no budget adjustment was necessary other than a work program to be processed by the division to give it authority to deposit the money in the Drivers License Division account and to offset expenses. Mr. Allard asked if the constitution required the fees to be deposited to the Highway Fund. Mr. Ghiggeri said the Drivers License Division is authorized to keep funds collected on the photo license fee. He stated he would have the amendment reviewed by the Legal Division. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 530. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the bill also require the establishment of a separate account to track this funding. Mr. Ghiggeri said it was proposed a separate category would be established within the Drivers License Division budget for this funding. MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. FETTIC AND MR. HETTRICK WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 200 Revises provisions governing organization of Department of Information Services and Administration of state communications system. Ms. Tiffany requested discussion on A.B. 200. She noted it appeared several departments were creating individual statewide networks. She said she would like to see a central focus for this effort and it made sense for that central focus to come from the Department of Information Services. She expressed support for A.B. 200. Chairman Arberry noted there was some concern about the Department of Information Services' ability to perform the function. Ms. Tiffany pointed out the department would only be providing oversight. Chairman Arberry suggested Ms. Tiffany work with the department to draft some appropriate language. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Dale Gray, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means May 26, 1995 Page