MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session June 27, 1995 The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 9:10 a.m., on Tuesday, June 27, 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst ASSEMBLY BILL 520 Makes various changes to provisions relating to actions for medical malpractice. Rick Bennett, Executive Director of NevCAP, which is a coalition of physicians, their medical liability insurers and other health care professionals, stated A.B. 520 is a bill relating to medical liability. This bill is a result of concerns over increasing liability premiums. Assembly Bill 520 provides for a claims study at an estimated cost of $75,000. The results of the study would be presented to the 1997 session of the Legislature. Bill Bradley, representing the Nevada Trial Lawyers, stated the proposed claims study will provide the status of medical malpractice insurance in Nevada. He remarked if the study reveals the problem is with the tort system, the trial lawyers will address the issue at that time. Mrs. Evans voiced her support for the claims study and suggested a small legislative oversight committee be appointed to work with the Insurance Commissioner. Mr. Bradley said the idea of an oversight committee is good but pointed out that while the Insurance Commissioner will be involved, the study will be conducted by an independent third party. Mrs. Evans continued with the suggested composition of the oversight committee: two members from the Judiciary committees in the Assembly and Senate and two members from the Interim Finance Committee (both houses, both parties). She further proposed to include language in the bill to allow the Insurance Commissioner to promulgate regulations. Mr. Marvel asked what is the time frame for completion of the study. Mr. Bradley said the interim period would be sufficient time to prepare a report to be presented to the 1997 session of the Legislature. Mr. Bradley testified the proposed appropriation of $75,000 needs to be increased to $100,000. Mr. Bennett said the projected completion date of September 1, 1996 is probable. He stressed the importance of an independent party to conduct the study. He remarked related to the criteria for the study, there is disagreement as to what should be included and what should not be included. The main issue centers around whether incident reports should be included and whether the study should include closed cases as opposed to both open and closed cases. Mr. Bradley noted since attorney's fees are subject to the attorney/client privilege, there is concern among trial lawyers with the requirement mandating inquiries into attorney's fees. He added the Nevada Trial Lawyers cannot agree to that mandate. Ms. Tiffany asked what is the anticipated outcome from the study. Mr. Bradley replied the intent of the study is to understand what the driving factor is behind the premium increases. He referred to a document detailing the study done in Minnesota. That study evaluated severity and frequency of claims and if the severity and frequency were increasing that was justification for the increased premiums. Ms. Tiffany stressed there are important issues in addition to increased claims premiums. Ms. Tiffany said she was disappointed the study only relates to physician premiums and not to reducing the individuals' insurance premiums. Mr. Bradley stated there is a bill pending called the "lawyer pays" bill . Any lawyer who files a frivolous case will be held personally liable for that case. Ms. Tiffany reiterated her concern with reducing the individual's cost to expand medical coverage. Mr. Bennett responded the concerns regarding medical liability premiums is related to both the direct cost to the physician and the indirect costs relating to defensive medicine. He noted the issues of cost and access and said the study will do more than just look at the claims and reserve issues. Suppose the study determines that indeed the insurers are setting aside reserve funds appropriately then the focus would be on the tort system. Mr. Bennett surmised regardless of what is found to be the overriding factor for the increased premiums, and the cost and access issues that come from that, it is hoped the information will be there to correct the situation. He pointed out one of the problems with more patients being covered by managed care, is the reimbursement for physicians is being capped. Physicians can do many things to lower costs to the patient; however, there is no way to gain control of their medical liability premiums. Ms. Tiffany concluded $75,000 is not enough money to conduct a study that will produce the quality and confidence needed. Mr. Close concurred with the need to increase the appropriation to ensure a comprehensive study. He asked what assurance of absolute confidentiality could be provided. Mr. Bradley concurred with the need for confidentiality for both claims that have been settled as well as pending claims. Mrs. Evans asked the committee to consider a 3-part amendment: include the 4 person oversight committee, language to give the Insurance Commissioner authority to draft regulations to effectuate the study and allow the Insurance Commissioner to request from IFC funds needed over the $75,000. Mr. Close suggested also amending the bill to include the confidentiality clause. MRS. EVANS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS. AMEND TO INCLUDE THE FOUR PERSON OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, LANGUAGE GIVING THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER AUTHORITY TO DRAFT REGULATIONS AND ALLOW THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO REQUEST FROM IFC ANY FUNDS NEEDED OVER $75,000. MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. ****************** SENATE BILL 401 Revises provisions governing regulation of gaming. Bill Curran, Chairman of the Gaming Commission, gave an overview of the status of gaming in Nevada. He noted the salaries for the members of the Gaming Commission are not included in the unclassified pay bill. The gaming industry is expanding very rapidly and innovation in the industry is unparalleled. He continued in Clark County alone there are 14,000 new hotel rooms expected within the next 18 to 24 months. Gaming is the biggest taxpayer - it provides over one half billion dollars a year in taxes and fees to the state. Mr. Curran said the other members of the Gaming Commission are: Augie Gurrola, Debbie Griffin, Bob Lewis, and Bill Urga. He noted a significant change for the members of the Gaming Commission. There was a time when the decisions involving gaming were made on Fremont Street and on Virginia Street. That is no longer the case. Now the members have to respond to Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street. One of the tasks of the commission is to work with people in the financial market to demonstrate an effectively regulated industry is important. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what is the difference between the duties of the Gaming Control Board versus the Gaming Commission and how often and under what statute are meetings scheduled. Mr. Curran said the Gaming Control Board consists of three members - full-time state employees who regulate the state agency. They are the hands on people who are in day-to- day contact with the industry. The Gaming Commission has a legislative function, much of the time of the commission is spent in adopting regulations. Mr. Curran pointed out by statute meetings have to be held at least once a month. The Control Board has to meet in the first half of the month and the commission has to meet in the second half. Special meetings are very common. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what is the procedure for a new applicant for a gaming license. Mr. Curran responded the Gaming Control Board does the investigation and makes recommendations, and the commission makes the final decision. Ms. Tiffany asked if the members of the commission get cost of living or longevity pay. Mr. Curran stated the members of the commission do not get longevity pay or health insurance. He added the commission does not have any staff or office facilities. With the salary the members receive they pay their own secretaries. Mr. Curran noted the members have to be in a good financial situation in order to serve on the commission. The members have to provide clerical assistance from their own resources. He commented it would be a mistake to provide the commission members with state employees. The commission composed of business lay people is very wise. Ms. Tiffany inquired if the commission members receive per diem and travel expenses. Mr. Curran noted the commission members are reimbursed at the same rate as state employees. He added in the six years he has been on the commission he traveled to Washington, D.C. twice; that was paid by the state. Everything else the commission members have to pay for themselves. Ms. Tiffany questioned where the hearings were held and asked if the members have an office in the state office building. Mr. Curran said the commission meets in the Gaming Control Board offices. The meetings are alternated between Carson City and Las Vegas. The special meetings are held depending on where the licensee and the people who are interested are located. Mr. Curran commented on the high profile position of the commission members and the importance of having a well-regulated industry. APPROPRIATIONS ACT Mark Stevens presented a hand-out to the committee on the appropriations act (Exhibit C). He noted he had copies of the first 14 pages of the appropriations act. Mr. Stevens outlined the sections beginning on page 16. Section 30 indicates the monies must be expended in accordance with the allotment, transfer, work program and budget provisions of NRS 353.150 to 353.245. Section 31 lists the budget accounts that have the ability to transfer money between the fiscal years upon recommendation of the Governor and approval of the Interim Finance Committee. He noted one change is the deletion of the food stamp budget which was merged with the Welfare Administration budget. Section 32 involves the Legislative Fund and indicates monies can be transferred between fiscal years. Section 33 outlines the capping language for the Welfare Division. He referred to the addition of subsection 2 which provides any reductions approved by Congress in the block grant allocation will be subject to the "spending cap" imposed on the Welfare Division. Subsection 5 provides the Welfare Division will now be responsible for any children placed under Title IV-E at the Rite of Passage if costs in this area exceed the amounts budgeted the Welfare Division will be allowed to request additional funds. Section 34 allows monies to be transferred among the various budgets of the Welfare Division with approval of the Governor and the IFC. Section 35 allows for money to be transferred among the various budgets within the Department of Prisons. Section 36 allows agencies within a department to transfer funds between divisions up to the amount budgeted for vacancy savings. Section 37 is language that the Board of Regents of the University System shall comply with any request by the Governor to set aside appropriations should that be necessary in the interim period. Section 38 is a standard appropriation to the Public Employees Retirement System for administration of the legislators' retirement system. Mr. Stevens continued Section 39 indicates amounts cannot be committed for expenditure after June 30 each fiscal year. Section 40 allows a temporary loan to the Prison Warehouse Account to not exceed $4 million. That must be repaid to the General Fund if it is borrowed. Section 41 states the State Controller shall keep the books open until the last Friday of August after the close of the fiscal year. Section 42 provides the State Controller will designate up to $50 million in unreserved fund balance when reporting the amount available at the close of the fiscal year. Section 43 is a provision that places into law transfers of funds between budget accounts. Section 44 indicates the State Board of Health will set fees based on the budget approved by the Legislature. Section 45 is the $5,777,746 general fund appropriation recommended by the Governor to restore the contingency fund balance to $8 million. Section 46 is an appropriation of $500,000 to the legislative fund for the cost of the 1995 session. Section 47 deals with $8 million to be set aside in the contingency fund to address un- projected increases in inmate population for the Department of Prisons and the Division of Parole and Probation. Section 48 is language that allows the Forest Fire Suppression Account to obtain a temporary advance from the general fund once the federal agencies have been billed for state fire fighting expenses and those funds have been approved. Section 49 gives the Governor the authority to reserve appropriated amounts should revenues fall below projections. Section 50 deals with the isolation of funds appropriated for the Challenge Grant Program and allows the agencies to balance the funds forward for a maximum of three fiscal years. Section 51 provides the necessary language to comply with the Cash Management Improvement Act. Mr. Stevens explained the language contained herein was compromise language to allow money to be paid out of the interest earnings within the state treasury. Section 52 is the result of deliberations by the Human Resources/K-12 subcommittee concerning Medicaid managed care and pursuing the possibility of obtaining a waiver for a demonstration project discussed in a separate meeting. Section 53 delineates the effective date. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Price asked why caps were placed on the Welfare Department initially. Mark Stevens stated the caps occurred in 1981 or 1983 due to a large supplemental appropriation requested by the Welfare Division. Mr. Stevens indicated the Welfare Department, at that time, had options to control costs but those options were not taken so the caps were implemented and have been modified several times since then. Mr. Price asked with regard to Section 52, why is specific language delineated therein. Mr. Stevens stated the issue of Medicaid managed care was an issue in the Human Resources/K-12 subcommittee and Section 52 is an attempt to address those concerns. Mr. Stevens clarified the language in Section 52 does not mandate the demonstration project but allows review of this subject. Mrs. Chowning asked with regard to Section 50, the language appears to be contrary to the recommendation of the subcommittee and the vote of the committee as a whole. She stated the intent of the committee was not to halt the Challenge Program. Mr. Stevens stated if the Council of the Arts did not have Section 50 of the appropriations act they would have to provide the monies for one fiscal year only. Section 50 allows the Council of the Arts to balance forward the obligated general fund monies for three fiscal years since the Challenge Program operates on a three year cycle. After that period, the funds revert. Mr. Stevens explained the language in Section 50 allows the Council of the Arts to implement funds for a 36-month period and is provided at the request of the Council of the Arts. Ms. Giunchigliani asked with regard to Section 52 if a bill was passed that created a Health Care Advisory Committee to the Standing Committee. Mr. Stevens indicated he did not recall another bill designed to review the subject of pursuing a demonstration waiver involving the Medicaid program. Ms. Tiffany asked if Section 48 addresses the problems the committee heard with regard to the audit of the forestry division and the fire suppression account. Mr. Stevens stated the Forestry Division has requested authority to obtain a temporary loan from the general fund for fire suppression costs. Instead of placing that provision in statute, it was placed in the Appropriation Act so the Legislature could review the utilization of this provision and if utilization was appropriate the matter would be placed in statute during the 1997 session. Also, the advance from the general fund would be limited to outstanding bills already approved for payment. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the rationale was for maintaining the contingency fund at $8 million as set forth in Section 45. Mr. Stevens explained the amount is not required to be set at a specific figure but the fund has traditionally been $8 million at the close of the legislative session. Also, Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to know if the $8 million set aside for the Department of Prisons would be restrictive enough based on the intent of the committee in the event inmates would be sent out of state. Mr. Stevens replied as long as amounts allocated are related to an unprojected increase in inmate population for the Department of Prisons it could be utilized whether in or out of state. He reminded the $8 million could also be tapped by the Department of Parole and Probation. Mr. Spitler interjected the Department of Parole and Probation was added due to residential confinement procedures. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for an explanation of Section 42, the unreserved fund balance. Mr. Stevens responded Section 42 sets aside $50 million of the general fund surplus for stabilizing the budget. Therefore, when the state's accounting records are closed and the Controller produces an annual report, a subtraction of $50 million is made from the unappropriated general fund balance and set aside as a reserve if available. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the $50 million was different than the "rainy day" fund. Mr. Stevens stated the $50 million would be derived from the general fund surplus projected by the Legislature each session; whereas, the "rainy day" fund is not included in the general fund surplus reported by the Controller. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the $50 million so referenced could be utilized for other program areas. Mr. Stevens agreed sums could be transferred from the general fund surplus when revenues fall below projected amounts. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the K-12 program could use funds from the $50 million reserve. Mr. Stevens answered only if the K-12 program revenues fall short. Ms. Giunchigliani asked with regard to the LCB budget and the Legislative Commission Budget, Section 32, if $70,000 was the only amount available for interim studies, would there be access to any other funds if the Legislative Commission approves more than $70,000. Mr. Stevens stated the Legislative Commission Budget does have authority to transfer funds from other budget categories if the $70,000 is exceeded. Also, he noted Section 11 lists the appropriations provided to the Legislative Commission and each division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and Legislative Interim Operations. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for a copy of the full appropriations in this regard. Chairman Arberry brought the motion back to the floor. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 326 - Makes appropriation for establishment and maintenance of branch office of department of motor vehicles and public safety in Laughlin. Assemblywoman Segerblom stated A.B. 326 attempts to implement a DMV service office in Laughlin. Ms. Segerblom informed Laughlin was the third largest gaming center in the state with $500 million in gaming revenue being derived from Laughlin. She indicated Laughlin was the largest unincorporated town in Clark County with 8,000 permanent residents and 5.25 million visitors per year. Residents of Laughlin are required to drive 90 miles in order to obtain a license plate for their vehicles. Ms. Segerblom asserted because of this hardship, many vehicles in Laughlin have California and Arizona state license plates. She explained having a DMV service in Laughlin would be very important to the state of Nevada and the eight casinos and the Chamber of Commerce in Laughlin are pushing for this legislation. Ray Sparks, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated the DMV has a travel team for the drivers license division that goes to Laughlin every other week for two days to service residents. However, the registration division provides no service in Laughlin. Mr. Sparks stated a fiscal note pertaining to A.B. 326 provides for a permanent office established in Laughlin staffed by both registration and drivers license personnel. Another fiscal note on A.B. 326 provides for the cost of a registration travel team that would travel to Laughlin once per week for two days per week. Mr. Sparks informed the on-going costs between these two options are close noting the primary difference is the first year cost to establish an office. The establishment of an office for the first year would be $185,000 and the on-going cost being $121,000. The travel team option first year cost would be $136,000 and $114,000 per year for on-going costs. Also, the travel team could service other areas since they would not be going to Laughlin five days per week. Mr. Close asked if any discussions have been instigated with the hotels in Laughlin to assist in the financial aspect of having DMV there. Ms. Segerblom stated no such discussions have taken place because the intent of A.B. 326 and establishing a DMV center in Laughlin is to service the residents of Laughlin not hotel guests. The travel teams going to hotels is to service the employees at the hotel. However, there are many residents in Laughlin who are retired and do not work in the hotels. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 326 BY PROVIDING FUNDING FOR THE TRAVEL TEAM. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Arberry acknowledged A.B. 326 had already been voted on and referenced a handout provided to the committee previously indicated the amount was $120,000 and asked how the $136,000 and $114,000 figures were computed. Mr. Sparks replied the fiscal note so referenced relates to Assembly Bill 712 which is the drivers license travel team to go to the hotels in Clark County. Chairman Arberry disagreed. Mr. Sparks indicated the cost previously referenced was intended as an amendment to Assembly Bill 712 but would provide an additional travel team to go to Laughlin for an additional four days per month. Chairman Arberry clarified the same travel team would increase the frequency of service in Laughlin from once every other week to once per week. Mr. Spitler asked if the travel team the committee voted on included registration. Mr. Sparks stated the committee voted for the travel team to address registration only since the driver's license travel team is already funded through Assembly Bill 712. Mr. Dini asked if the on-going cost between a travel team and an established office is only $7,000 per year more, the practical application he sees would be to establish a permanent office. Further, the programs can require cross training as well in order to fully service the residents in Laughlin. Mrs. Evans asked Mr. Sparks what payments were paid out to the licensing division of DMV on an annual basis. Mr. Sparks stated the cost for the travel team was approximately $100,000 per year currently. Mrs. Evans indicated the travel team costs more than establishing a permanent office. Chairman Arberry asked for a motion to rescind the committees' previous action on A.B. 326. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO RESCIND THE ACTION TAKEN ON A.B. 326. ASSEMBLYMAN EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE VOTED NO. Mr. Price asked if the state could establish an office in Bullhead City, Arizona. Mr. Sparks stated that was an option and Nevada DMV has discussed the possibility of joint facility with the Arizona DMV. However, Arizona was not interested in pursuing the establishment of a joint state office. Chairman Arberry requested clarification on the bill asking if the sum of $175,000 would put a DMV office in Laughlin. Mr. Sparks stated the amounts in the bill came from the concept of A.B. 326 last session. The numbers have been up-dated for an office in Laughlin; therefore, the numbers in the bill were intended to fund an office and the estimates DMV has come up with are only slightly higher than the amount reflected in the bill. Mr. Sparks advised if a DMV office was established in Laughlin, it would allow the existing travel team to provide service elsewhere. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 326 TO ESTABLISH A PERMANENT DMV OFFICE IN LAUGHLIN AT THE COST OF $185,000 FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND $121,000 FOR THE SECOND YEAR AND CROSS-TRAINING BE PROVIDED FOR DRIVERS LICENSE AND REGISTRATION DUTIES. ASSEMBLYMAN EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * SENATE BILL 468 - Provides for certain post-retirement increases in benefits for surviving spouses of supreme court justices and district court judges. Donald J. Mello, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, stated S.B. 468 was the product of budget sessions wherein the Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means committees suggested a change to the judicial widows benefits to provide for post-retirement increases commensurate with those benefits granted to widows under PERS. Mr. Spitler asked Mr. Mello for a brief update since 1991 wherein a substantial increase was initiated and $2,000 was actually negotiated at that time. Mr. Spitler asked what was being done now under S.B. 468. Mr. Mello reiterated S.B. 468 would allow the widows to receive post-retirement benefits that PERS widows receive which is the lesser of the cost of living increase or 2% per year. Mr. Close asked how many widows would be affected by S.B. 468. Mr. Mello replied there were 12 widows involved. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED DO PASS S.B. 468. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * SENATE BILL 501 - Revises provisions governing cost allocations for state agencies. Stephanie Licht, Executive Secretary, State Board of Sheep Commissioners, stated S.B. 501 represents a cooperative effort between the Department of Administration, the Director of the Department of Business and Industry, the Attorney General's Office, and the Sheep Commission to address issues related to state cost allocation with respect to sheep inspections and wool-grower accounts. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Section 2 of the bill exempts the Sheep Commission in perpetuity from state cost allocations. Ms. Giunchigliani stated if not, that would involve a sunset provision to the bill. Ms. Licht indicated she would have no problem with the inclusion of a sunset provision if the committee so desires. Mrs. Evans asked for clarification on Section 2 wherein the language sets forth the Attorney General "shall not charge the State Board of Sheep Commissioners . . . for any services provided." In that instance, where is the charge or bill allocated. Ms. Licht clarified the provisions provides the Attorney General would not charge the State Board of Sheep Commissioners if the services and the amounts thereto are agreed upon by both agencies. Mr. Dini disagreed with the suggestion for a sunset clause eight years from now adding the statute could be reviewed every year if necessary. Mr. Close asked why four bienniums were needed by the State Board of Sheep Commissioners to accomplish the provisions of S.B. 501. Ms. Licht replied if state cost allocations were removed by the end of the next biennium, the State Board of Sheep Commissioners would be $1,500 in arrears. Further, revenues are down and the sheep industry is currently in dire straights due to the retirement of the wool act in that 10,000 sheepherders across the United States have been forced out of business. In addition, 25% of ewes have been lost to predators this year alone. Ms. Licht stated four bienniums would be necessary to allow the State Board of Sheep Commissioners to get back on their feet and produce some reorganization on the board. Mr. Spitler expressed the language in Section 1, subsection 2, wherein if any allocation is so deemed, it must be reimbursed to the general fund, and inquired if that language would make the State Board of Sheep Commissioners a general fund agency. Ms. Licht stated not that she was aware of. Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 501. SENATE BILL 571 - Revises provisions governing allocation of money in unemployment compensation administration fund. Stan Jones, Administrator, Nevada Employment Security Division, testified S.B. 571 has two important aspects. First, the bill provides capability to enlarge participants who can enroll in the claimant employment program. Secondly, S.B. 571 would allow the Nevada Employment Security Division to re-invest a portion of the reserve into the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund. Mr. Jones stated by enlarging the pool of participants in the claimant employment program the needs of employers will be better met. Mr. Jones informed the industrial base in Nevada is growing at 3% per year and there are 793,000 individuals in the labor force. Mr. Jones indicated the reinvestment of portions of the reserves will help stabilize the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund and possibly lower future unemployment insurance rates paid by employers. Mr. Jones concluded S.B. 571 will also promote job creation and minimize the cost of unemployment to employers and meet the needs of skilled workers. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how much of the reserves would be re-invested. Mr. Jones stated the Nevada Employment Security Division carries a reserve of over $2 million. Mr. Spitler asked if "other unemployed persons" was defined in the statutes. Mr. Jones stated no such definition existed in the statutes. Mr. Jones stressed under current language, "other unemployed persons" cannot be assisted by the Nevada Employment Security Division. Mr. Hettrick asked what is the anticipated cost of adding other unemployed persons to areas in which they could be serviced. Mr. Jones replied the budget of the Claimant Employment Program would not be changed. Mr. Hettrick asked how the Nevada Employment Security Division could add more persons to serve without a cost. Mr. Jones stated the budget is not changed since nine additional staff have already been approved. Mr. Hettrick asked if the base of the increase of nine additional staff was to service "other unemployed persons." Mr. Jones stated no the additional staff was not included in the base of the program. Mr. Hettrick stated he did not understand how that could occur. Mr. Jones indicated the State of Nevada Employment Security Division was left with a large reserve last year and that would help serve persons who do not fall under the category of Nevada Employment Security Division. Mr. Hettrick asked if the persons so described would include persons from out-of-state and inmates recently released from prison. Mr. Jones indicated that was correct and in fact, the division anticipates working closely with the Life Skills Program with persons unemployed with no attachment to the labor market. Mr. Hettrick asked if the reserve funds were enough to handle these additional persons without a problem. Mr. Jones stated he believed so. Mr. Close asked if the money transferred to the state controller would be from the reserve accounts. Mr. Jones stated that was correct. Mr. Close asked if the reserve funds were reinvested into an Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund would the Nevada Employment Security Division have access to those funds. Mr. Jones stated no those funds are strictly for the use of unemployment benefits. ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 571. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN DINI AND EVANS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 565 - Revises provisions governing granting of probation or parole to person convicted of harassment, stalking, or crime constituting domestic violence. Chairman Arberry acknowledged Assemblyman Batten was not present to testify on the bill. However, Carlos Concha, from the Division of Parole and Probation was available so the committee would proceed to discuss the fiscal aspect of the bill. Mr. Concha, Acting Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation stated A.B. 565 provides that those persons charged with a domestic violence offense would be placed under a house arrest program. Mr. Concha stated the amendments set forth that any electric monitoring would be under the direction of the Division of Parole and Probation. Mr. Concha expressed concern regarding misdemeanor cases under A.B. 565 which would create a huge fiscal impact by requiring the Division of Parole and Probation to hire a number of employees for that purpose. However, if the bill does not address the misdemeanor area, the impact will not be as great. Mr. Concha provided an example wherein during the month of May, 1995 in Washoe County, there were 60 arrests for domestic violence or a form of misdemeanor/felony batteries. He stated Clark County would be triple this amount so the Division of Parole and Probation would be dealing with thousands of arrests. Mrs. Chowning stated she was under the impression the provisions of A.B. 565 were already underway in Clark County and costs relating thereto have been allocated. Mr. Concha concurred some practices are being done in Las Vegas on misdemeanor cases at the municipal court level. However, A.B. 565 directs the Division of Parole and Probation will assume the authority of house arrests and approve the equipment for privatization of the house arrest equipment. Mrs. Chowning stated she was in favor of the concept and asked if Mr. Concha expressed his concerns with the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Mr. Concha stated his concerns were addressed to the judiciary committee. He concluded he supports the bill without the Division of Parole and Probation tied to the same. Chairman Arberry announced A.B. 565 would be held at the request of the sponsor. The meeting recessed at 11:10 to reconvene at 5:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means June 27, 1995 Page