MINUTES OF THE
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	July 1, 1995


The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 10:07 a.m., on 
Saturday, July 1, 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Maurice Washington

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Mr. Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst

SENATE BILL 199:  -	Makes appropriation to fund to stabilize operation of state 
government.

Mr. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, stated S.B. 199 was an $81.9 million 
appropriation, included in the Executive budget, to bring the balance in the "rainy 
day" fund to the maximum of $100 million. 

	* * * * * 

MR. MARVEL MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 199.

MR. CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION

THE MOTION CARRIED.  MR. FETTIC WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

	* * * * *


SENATE BILL 575:  -	Contingently provides for increases in compensation of 
legislators commensurate with increases in salaries of 
certain state employees.

Mr. Stevens stated S.B. 575 was the Senate bill which addressed the issue of 
legislator's compensation.  His understanding was this would require the vote of 
the people.  Mr. Stevens pointed out A.B. 739 also provides for increased 
compensation of legislators.  See (Exhibit C).

Mrs. Evans stated discussion has been held in the Ways and Means Committee 
with regard to an increase in legislator's compensation. She had worked with 
Mr. Close and Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, to come to a 
compromise, and they had proposed the draft amendments to A.B. 739.  
Mrs. Evans suggested the committee discuss S.B. 575 in comparison to the 
Senate's proposal in S.B. 575.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked with regard to the amendment, to what the $9,000 salary 
would equate.

Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, answered by stating the 
$9,000 equated to $150 per day for the first 60 days of session.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the $100 per month would be after-session pay.

Ms. Vilardo responded in the affirmative.  She pointed out there were four 
provisions to A.B. 739: (1) increase compensation during the legislative session to 
$9,000 per year, (2) legislators participating in interim committees would receive 
pro-rata share of $9,000 per year which equated to $150 per day, (3) a provision 
 of $100 per month for expenses such as postage, phones or stationary to help 
offset expenses incurred by legislators when not in session, and (4) parallels what 
was done in 1991 with regard to vesting rights in the retirement system after five 
years for legislators.  Additionally, she expressed that the committee would be 
establishing a new base from $130 per day to $150 per day from which to receive 
a cost of living increase not to exceed 4%, after 10 years.

Ms. Vilardo continued saying that S.B. 575 was originally part of S.B. 84 which 
was a comprehensive bill from the interim committee to address compensation of 
elected officials.  The Senate Government Affairs deleted the section relating to 
compensation for elected officials except judges.  Ms. Vilardo stated their 
organization could support A.B. 739 in the amended version.

Mr. Fettic asked if the amendment does away with the tie in to the salaries of State 
classified employees.

Ms. Vilardo stated the amendment was not an amendment to S.B. 575.  It was an 
amendment to A.B. 739.

Mr. Fettic said he could not support a bill which would tie legislator's compensation 
to salaries of classified employees.

Ms. Vilardo expressed a concern that there had been a more consistent pattern in 
increasing classified employees' salaries than there had been for increasing 
compensation for legislators.

Mrs. Evans clarified one of the key differences between S.B. 575 and A.B. 739 
was that the committee would be linking the legislator's increase in salary to the 
consumer price index, not to exceed 4%, in A.B. 739.  Another difference to be 
decided by the committee was that A.B. 739 stated it was for future legislators, 
and there was no benefit to legislators currently holding office.  Additionally, S.B. 
575 had a provision that it would only take effect if it was also approved by a vote 
of the people.  A.B. 739 would be decided by this legislative body for the purpose 
of increasing compensation of future legislators.

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 575.

Mrs. Evans asked if the committee was comfortable with the proposed 
amendments to A.B. 739.

Mr. Marvel remarked that he felt the committee needed to go ahead with the 
amendments because there needed to be a way to entice young people to run for 
political office.

Chairman Arberry agreed.

Ms. Giunchigliani echoed the same sentiments as Mr. Marvel and Chairman 
Arberry.  

Chairman Arberry reminded the committee that A.B. 739 was approved the 
previous day do pass as amended and the bill would proceed to the whole 
Assembly floor for a vote.

Ms. Tiffany stated in working with candidate recruitment it was virtually impossible 
to get qualified, quality young people to serve in public office.  She pointed out that 
she is paying in order to serve due to living expenses caused by maintaining her 
home in Clark County and in Carson City while she serves.  She supports A.B. 739 
for those reasons.

ASSEMBLY BILL 617:  -	Requires reporting to superintendent of public instruction 
and to legislature on adequacy of current supply of 
textbooks and expenditures necessary to maintain 
adequate supply of textbooks.

Mr. Stevens outlined a proposal for an amendment.  Staff suggested amending 
page 2, subsection 2, line 9, by inserting after "legislative commission"  
"department of administration" and delete subsection 3.  This would require the 
report to be distributed to the Legislative Commission and the Department of 
Administration.

	* * * * * 

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 617.

MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  MRS. BROWER WAS NOT PRESENT FOR 
THE VOTE.

	* * * * *

ASSEMBLY BILL 671:  -	Provides exemption from property tax for certain tangible 
personal property used in business.

Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, testified in support of A.B. 671 
and introduced Michael Pitlock.   A.B. 671 would allow the exemption on 
consumables on personal property tax.  Consumables, by definition in this bill, 
would include tissues, pens, staples, and paper clips.  Current law requires 
businesses to report these types of items on the declaration form.  She cautioned 
the committee that "consumables" would have to be tightly defined, but currently 
there was no definition which everyone could agree on, and defining language 
needed to be included in this legislation.

Mr. Michael Pitlock, Executive Director of the Department of Taxation, testified that 
this particular area of the property tax was inconsistently applied.  For example, 
small companies spent an inordinate amount of time trying to comply with the law 
and create very detailed records of the amount of consumable supplies.  
Conversely, large companies reported $0 in the category.  He agreed clarity was 
needed in the law.  He testified that Clark County supported the bill.

	* * * * * 

MR. MARVEL MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 671.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  MR. PRICE AND MRS. BROWER WERE NOT 
PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

	* * * * *

The committee recessed at 10:42 a.m. to be resumed at the call of the chair.

Chairman Arberry reconvened the committee at 3:13 p.m.

SENATE BILL 428:  -	Requires establishment of program for self-sufficiency of 
applicants for and recipients of aid to families with 
dependent children.

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2, stated 
S.B. 428 was crafted after research and information obtained from line workers, 
recipients and staff personnel and from taking a hard line look at what Congress 
was currently considering.  They wanted to be certain they were in compliance 
with what initially might happen with the welfare system regarding block grants. 
 They wanted to provide a mechanism/safety net for individuals who might not 
meet the criteria and standards within S.B. 428.  Safety nets were provided in the 
bill, he said, to assure the unemployable or those unable to obtain the necessary 
skills are taken care of.

S.B. 428 was a pilot program, crafted for 3,000 people.  Current welfare roles are 
almost 58,000.  The net cost for Nevada would be approximately $1.5 million in 
FY 1997, the program's first year of operation.  The pilot program will operate for 
Mr. Arberry five-year period, which is a requirement by the Federal Government for 
welfare reform projects requiring federal waivers.  Another requirement was that 

the program must be cost neutral.  The program would save approximately $7.3 
million in state general funds over the five-year period.

Senator Washington said the program was structured on a poverty level.  The 
national poverty level was set by the Federal Government.  Because of Nevada's 
diversity in its economic base and its tax structure, the poverty level was redefined 
because of its tourist base and casino industry with entry level jobs.

Factors which would keep people in poverty were lack of education, job skills, 
substance abuse, child care and medical benefits.  Associated factors were 
parenting skills and the number of family members.  

From these factors, an individually tailored self-sufficiency plan would be developed 
(Exhibit D) based on a recipient's needs.  The plan would take into consideration 
the lack of education, lack of job skills, whether or not an immediate family was 
close by to assist, whether a G.E.D. (high school diploma) was missing, or whether 
substantial child care was unavailable.  A tailor-made plan would be developed and 
the recipient would be asked to comply with the plan and its stipulations.

The stipulations would require the recipient to comply with the plan, and the 
recipient's necessities/needs would be provided for a two year period or less.  Once 
the recipient became employed, realizing a lot of jobs were entry level and would 
not pay a sufficient amount of money to take care of medical benefits and child 
care, over the next 12 months while the recipient was being trained by the 
employer, an incentive was added for the employer to hire them.  The state, which 
was already covered under Medicaid, would extend their Medicaid (medical) 
benefits for 12 months.  In addition, the state would extend child care benefits over 
12 months.  Nevada would also limit the one vehicle disregard and use the 
Governor's proposed 50 percent disregard allowing the recipient to keep more of 
their earned income and continue to receive some AFDC cash assistance while on 
the entry level job over the 12 month period.  

The incentives were packaged into the program so the recipient would stay on the 
job.  If they should lose their employment through no fault of their own (a slow-
down, economic down-turn, lay-offs, or company would go out of business), the 
recipient would have the opportunity to go back on the rolls for an additional six 
months.  

If the recipient had worked beyond the 12 months, a safety net would be provided 
by unemployment security which would take effect at that time.  

Another aspect of the reform proposals would be if a recipient had a low aptitude 
and was not able to be trained or not was able to retain education, they would be 
exempted from any self-sufficiency program.  Other exemptions were built into the 
program for non-needy caretakers and for those with physical and mental 
disabilities. 

The self-sufficiency plan would be developed not only by eligibility workers but also 
by social workers.  In developing the plan, Clark County's social services were 
studied.  The state level plan had already been implemented in Clark County, he 
said, and to some extent in Washoe County.  The plans had been very successful, 
he informed.  The plans were based on a limited period of time based on their 
available funding.  In Clark County, the time was 30 days and in Washoe County, 
the time was approximately 12 months.

The family cap has been controversial.  It serves two purposes:  the self-sufficiency 
plan would keep it cost neutral, and because of behavioral patterns,  Senator 
Washington said only about $56 would be reduced from an AFDC check for an 
additional member to the family.  All other entitlements would increase 
substantially based on that member of the family, such as WICK, an increase in 
food stamps, an increase in housing assistance and an increase in energy 
assistance.  All other entitlements would reflect the increase in the family.

The $56 would make a difference in the fiscal note, and also a difference in 
behavior patterns.

S.B. 428 provided for presumptive fathers.  The provision in the bill encouraged 
fathers of children to participate in taking care of their responsibilities.  The system 
currently does not encourage participation of the father, but discourages him from 
being a part of the household.  "Household" had been redefined to take care of 
those fathers with earned wages who were not participating in the functioning of 
the family and negating their responsibilities.  

Revocation of drivers license and business license would encourage presumptive 
fathers to pay child support, he continued.  Welfare had a tendency to focus on 
women and children, and it was felt the increase of benefits would encourage the 
father to participate in the self-sufficiency plan.  A provision has been included in 
the plan if the mother would designate the presumptive father, and the father 
would participate in the plan, he would be given the skills necessary to be 
employed.

He concluded by stating S.B. 428 had tried to cover all areas which would help the 
 individuals eligible for employment and assist those who were ineligible for 
employment and also be a fiscally sound plan.  

Mrs. Evans asked for questions from the Committee.

Assemblyman Allard felt S.B. 428 balanced responsibility with assistance.  He 
asked for an explanation of the incentive for the employer.

Senator Washington explained after the 24 month period, to get the applicant to 
become employed, the business sector must play a part.  To train an entry level 
individual and provide medical benefits were great expenses for the employer.  
Some of the expenses could be offset and an incentive to the employer to hire 
these individuals be provided by making sure their medical was covered for the 
additional 12 months.  A three month enrollment, a 24 month self-sufficiency plan 
and a 12 month transitional period would amount to a little over 36 months over 
a 60 month period.

Assemblyman Allard asked what the savings would be on the $1.5 million fiscal 
note.

Senator Washington reiterated the savings would be approximately $7.3 million 
over five years.  Savings would probably not be noticed until mid-way through the 
proposal which would be fiscal year 1999.  The plan would not start, however, 
until fiscal year 1997 when NOMADS (Nevada Operations Multi-Automated Data 
Systems) was operational and functioning.  


Ms. Tiffany asked how many times would a recipient be allowed to restart the job 
opportunity and what would happen when there was a complete failure after 24 
months.

Senator Washington responded to her question by pointing out if there was no job 
loss because of the recipient's negligence, the recipient could go back on the rolls 
for six months if the recipient was not eligible for unemployment security.  For 
those people who go beyond 24 months, the social workers would determine 
whether or not the individual was able to meet this 24-month criteria.  With input 
from the social worker and the division's input, the time could be extended.  A cap 
would have to be put on it so those individuals who were part of the self-
sufficiency plan would understand that 24 months was the goal.  

The fiscal note was based on 24 months and on 100 percent conversion, he said.

Ms. Tiffany asked if it was an unfunded mandate to the county if after 24 months, 
the recipient was not capable.

Senator Washington acknowledged her point was a concern, but he informed both 
counties were consulted.  The counties were working on a plan at their county 
level, and the counties realized the plan would work.  Even though there may be 
some "fall out," the counties were willing to take that chance.

Ms. Giunchigliani informed in the Human Resources Committee a bill had been 
brought forth which was a plan the Committee felt was non-advocacy oriented for 
two people who were running a social welfare program.  She did not know if the 
plan had been acted upon.  The status may have to be verified, she said.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Senator Washington to highlight where S.B. 428 differed 
from the bill already passed (the Governor's proposal).  Senator Washington noted 
there were some differences, and he would provide the information later in the 
meeting.  He did say, however, during the Governor's proposal, a comparison was 
done to determine the differences between the two proposals.  There were 
similarities in the plan.  He felt S.B. 428 went one step further in adding sanctions. 
 
Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed Senator Washington's support of the Governor's 
welfare reform.

Mrs. Evans noted the 24 month time limit and asked how many people were on 
welfare and what percentage of those people  were on the roles longer than 24 
months.  Responding to her question, Senator Washington stated based on the 
numbers of the Welfare Department, close to 50,000 people were on the roles.  
The 50,000 were broken into three groups.  Fifty-three percent of the people on 
the welfare roles had a typical length of stay of about 23 months.  The age group 
was between 16 to 24 or 25 years of age, he said.

Mrs. Evans questioned Senator Washington's meaning of "redefining the poverty 
level."  He noted poverty had always been equated with an economic value, and 
 tieing it in with social implications would be substance abuse, lack of training and 
job skills as a result of a lack of a GED or a completed education, or a lack of 
opportunity to gain higher education.  All of the factors were taken into 
consideration in developing the proposal for the self-sufficiency plan.


Continuing, Mrs. Evans described the emphasis in the program on getting people 
working.  When Mr. Jones from Employment Security testified in Health and 
Human Services, he was concerned about the fiscal note and how it might impact 
his department.  The merits of the bill and the program would be one part, but the 
determination of the full fiscal impact would have to be made since job training, 
education, job placement, drug and alcohol counseling and treatment program were 
under consideration.  All of the numbers would be necessary for the Committee.

Senator Washington referenced the summary of S.B. 428 (Exhibit E) and said Steve 
Abba and Pepper Sturm, Legislative Counsel Bureau, could explain the numbers.

Since there was other testimony, Mrs Evans said that could be done at a later date 
in a Work Session due to other people waiting to testify.

Mr. Spitler questioned on Page 4, line 21, the definition of a "suitable family 
home," and asked if it would be defined by regulation.  Senator Washington was 
sure that it would be.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked which section defined poverty.  Senator Washington said 
it was on Page 2, Section 1, subsection 7, lines 3 through 11, and it was part of 
the legislative declaration.  Continuing, Ms. Giunchigliani questioned the intent of 
Section 13.  She asked if waivers would need to be required.  Senator Washington 
said there were waivers which would have to be requested and applied for in order 
to get the 50-50 match.  

Ms. Giunchigliani asked the type of waivers he was referring to, and Senator 
Washington said the waivers were listed in the bill in Section 34.

Ms. Giunchigliani questioned the likelihood of receiving the waivers.  Senator 
Washington was certain the department would testify regarding the waivers, but 
given the current climate and feeling for welfare reform, the Clinton Administration 
was granting waivers for welfare reform to the states.  Because of the mood and 
the climate, it was felt this would be a good time for Nevada to request waivers.

Referring to Section 14 in the fiscal note, Ms. Giunchigliani asked if an indication 
was given as to the number of staff needed and she also asked what the fiscal cost 
would be.  Senator Washington said they did, and they gave testimony to it.  The 
staff and the provisions of the plan and provisions of the bill would be only 
allocated by the monies that are necessary.

Currently, for the three-month review, there was a fiscal note of a little over 
$400,000.  

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was money in any of the budgets the Committee 
was dealing with for the funding on S.B. 428.  Senator Washington replied there 
would be a general fund appropriation of the Welfare budget in the amount of $1.5 
million.  

Mr. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, testified as he understood the First Reprint of 
S.B. 428, it was a second year cost between $1.5 and $1.6 million that was 
currently not in the appropriations act and would have to be included.  That would 
be an additional amount.


Senator Washington apologized and said it was not an appropriation included in the 
budget but would be an appropriation included in the bill.

Mrs. Chowning agreed with what Senator Washington was trying to do, but did not 
see how it could be accomplished in such a short period of time.  She referenced 
Section 23, the wording, "the welfare division shall require GED training," and on 
Section 26, "shall require parenting skills," Section 27, "shall require job training 
program," and wondered who would pay for those services for all of the people.

She also did not see the program called a "pilot program" in the bill.   

She referenced a comment regarding "an errant father who had not paid child 
support," and questioned the removal of a business license and asked how that 
person could continue to work and pay child support without the business license.

Responding to Mrs. Chowning's questions, Senator Washington reminded S.B. 428 
was a self-sufficiency plan, and pointed out an individual might not have necessary 
needs or they may not be lacking in all the areas - they may only be lacking in one 
or two of the areas.  For instance, they could lack resources for child care and 
additional education, and they might not have a substance abuse problem therefore 
only two areas that were missing in their lives.  The individual could have a need 
for child care, additional education and substance abuse treatment.  Each plan 
would be tailor made to that particular individual.

The current system was a catch-all; the person applied and received entitlements. 
  S.B. 428 would tailor make the plans for compliance, or, for complying with the 
planner signing the contract, they received the entitlement plus the additional 
benefits of receiving an education, etc.  The incentives would hopefully give them 
discipline to help them realize that they had to comply in order to meet their target 
date of 24 months.  

Continuing, Senator Washington said the money had been allocated as part of the 
$1.5 million appropriation for parenting classes (about $244,000 in FY 1995).  For 
the mentoring job, training requirement expectations, in Section 27, would be 
approximately $4.6 million.  The figure should be cut in half because it was split 
50-50 between the state and federal government, and, since it was based on a 
pilot program, it would be cut even further.  For test and control 3,000 additional 
recipients would receive additional training and education services.  

The intent was not to take away their business license, referred to in Section 41, 
 but to have the presumptive father take hold of his responsibility, and if he knew 
he would lose his business license because he had failed in his child support, the 
man would probably take note of it and catch up with his child support payments 
as quickly as possible.  The method had worked in other states.  

Mrs. Evans announced there was limited time for questions and testimony, and 
asked the Committee to be concise.


Mr. Price referenced the language in S.B. 428, "requires acceptance of employment 
upon completion of training," and asked if there was any bottom line to the pay for 
that employment.  Senator Washington said the bottom line would be the national 
minimum.  But the jobs being sought after were not the fast food chain jobs; the 
jobs being sought would have substantial opportunity for promotion, for salary 
increases and for increased benefits for longevity on those jobs.  In that section of 
the bill, it was left up to the recipient as far as accepting a job based on their moral 
and ethical standards.  If someone had a problem with "a bartending job," they 
would have the opportunity to deny the job.  Most of the jobs where individuals 
had been placed were substantial or good-paying jobs.

Mr. Price referenced language, "No benefits increase for birth of additional 
children," and he asked for the philosophy behind that phrase since he had always 
felt Welfare, to a large degree, was to help children.

In response to Mr. Price, Senator Washington said for the most part, the philosophy 
of welfare had always been for the benefit of women and children.  That 
philosophy was not being changed, he said.  Senator Washington reiterated the 
fiscal note savings in fiscal year 1997 were based on a $59 cash benefit for one 
child.  The other reason to include the additional child exclusion in the bill was to 
change social behavioral patterns by making recipients realize and understand that 
the responsibility for an additional child was a decision they had made themselves.

He contended all other entitlement increased - AC (Women, Infants, Children), food 
stamps increased, housing assistance increased, Medicaid increased, energy 
assistance increased.  So a cash subsistence reduction of only $59 was being 
discussed.  The program would have a significant impact on social behavior.  
Assemblyman Price expressed doubt and pointed out that children were born 
regardless of circumstances and many families had unplanned children who, he felt, 
should not be punished for the actions of the parents.  He did, however, feel S.B. 
428 was an excellent program.

Mr. Close had two financial questions.  He asked if  the matching money from the 
Federal Government was renewable after five years.  Senator Washington replied 
it was.  Referring to Page 8, Section 31, "the Welfare Division may refer all 
outstanding claims of the division to a private entity for collection,"  Mr. Close 
asked Senator Washington if he could expand.

Responding to Mr. Close's request, Senator Washington said sometimes the 
Welfare Division was overburdened and did not have the opportunity to collect a 
lot of misappropriated funds or collect overpayments or bad debts so a provision 
was added to the bill that would give the Welfare Division the discretion to contract 
with outside agencies to collect bad debts.  Welfare already used outside agencies. 
 
Ms. Tiffany referred to (Exhibit E), Costs or (Savings) Projections Fiscal Note and 
noted in 1999 the $8 million for Cash Assistance Time Limitations category.  In 
year 2000 there was a $42 million savings.  If there were 3,000 people on the 
program in 1997 and in year 2000, the savings was $42 million, she asked how 
many people would be on the plan.  Senator Washington said there would still be 
3000 on the plan because it would self perpetuate itself.  When questioned how 
the $42 million could be saved, Senator Washington said it was because that many 
people were being taken off the roles, and it could be explained by Steve Abba, 
Legislative Counsel Bureau.  Ms. Tiffany said it would be cumulative rather than a 
status quo.  The baseline would always be 3000, and Senator Washington said it 
would have to work that way.  Ms. Tiffany referenced $47 million in FY 2001 and 
$100 million five year total, and clarified the figures were based on the same 
baseline of 3000.


Mr. Steve Abba, Chief Program Analyst, explained part of the bill required a phasing 
in of additional AFDC recipients into the employment and training program so each 
year there would be more and more  AFDC caretakers  coming into the program. 
 The first year there would be 3000 additional recipients  who would receive 
training in the program versus the current budget in the Welfare Division's 
employment and training program.  That would provide training to all AFDC 
recipients who had children above the age of three.  The phase-in would add 
additional recipients who had children under age three after the second year  with 
children under the age of two, then the next year caretakers with children under the 
age of one.  Constantly increasing was the number of people being added to the 
roles.  

He explained on line 16 the additional monies going into employment and training 
were for the additional people coming into the program.  The reason for the 
significant savings in the year 2000 was that it would be the first time recipients 
who had received services from the self-sufficiency plan would leave the rolls after 
24 months.

Ms. Tiffany expressed concern regarding where the people would be placed for 
jobs, and the answer was casinos.  They had a job placement in place at present 
in the north and the south, and she was concerned about training a group of people 
so they could be employed in the casinos.  She asked if there was discussion on 
how to place people in the city, county, schools, hospitals, utilities, and banks.  

Responding, Senator Washington pointed out Section 28 referred back to the 
regional offices for development for completion of successful job training.  He 
added testimony was provided from both chambers, business sectors, and from 
Nevada Business Associates that sufficient jobs were available and the companies 
would like to hire.  However, the problem was there had not been the employable 
base which had the attitude, the necessary skills or the necessary education level. 
 Senator Washington said they did not wish to focus on casino jobs even though 
the MGM Hotel and the Silver Legacy had a massive program.

Assemblyman Fettic referred to (Exhibit E) Costs or (Savings) Projections, and 
asked Senator Washington to confirm S.B. 428 would require spending money for 
three years and the plan showed turn around in the year 2000 when money could 
be saved.  Assemblyman Fettic also confirmed the plan would require the spending 
of $1.5 million in 1997, $2.9 million in 1998 and $2.8 million in 1999; and starting 
fiscal year 2000, the savings would be $6.9 million, then $7.6 million and $7.3 
million.  Senator Washington responded Assemblyman Fettic was correct.

Senator Washington added Nevada faced a tremendous fiscal dilemma from the 
Federal Government regarding block grants which would put states in a position to 
have to do something with their current welfare roles.  Because 53 percent of 
current AFDC recipients are employable with some assistance, most states were 
going to the 24 months to help them with the basic needs and get them employed 
as quickly as possible.  If that happened, the state would be faced with a 
tremendous loss of money if the current welfare roles were maintained and 
continued to increase.

There were no further questions from the Committee.

Mrs. Evans asked for testimony from those in support of S.B. 428.  


Mr. Ray Bacon, representing Nevada Manufacturers Association, confirmed 
manufacturing did have substantial growth rate and were having a hard time finding 
people, and the Association thought that some of the training programs in S.B. 428 
were likely to take people from the welfare roles to the work roles.  Growth rate 
in manufacturing was approximately 13 percent annual job growth.  The jobs were 
there.

There was no further testimony in support of S.B. 428.

Mrs. Evans asked for testimony from those in opposition to S.B. 428.

Ms. Jan Gilbert, representing the League of Women Voters of Nevada, testified in 
opposition to the legislation and said she was also representing the people who 
could not be there: John Sasser, Nevada Legal Services, and Ron Rentner, with the 
Lutheran Advocacy Ministry.  She asked to go on record as saying the Assembly 
had given S.B. 428 an extensive hearing for which she commended them.  The 
Senate rushed through the hearing and many points in the bill were overlooked.

She had supported the Welfare Reform task force and she had been a part of the 
Task Force which worked 15 months to generate a plan.  In addition to many other 
plans, the Task Force had studied the plan being considered in S.B. 428, which, 
she said was based on the Wisconsin plan.

She, however, was in favor of the plan presented in the Governor's budget.  In the 
long run, people would remain off welfare.  Regarding the fiscal note, she pointed 
out in the bill there were alcohol and drug abuse prevention programs, and there 
was not a fiscal note on line 13 of the fiscal note.  Her group was told by the 
division there should be money for drug and alcohol prevention.  There was also no 
money on line 13, development of placement services.  Money should be on that 
line.

The two-years-and-you-are-out provision would put the women and children in a 
position where they would be without any source of assistance, and the counties 
had a limited amount of money to assist indigent people.  Their money also would 
run out, and at that point, many of the women would be going back into abusive 
situations.  Many women left abusive situations in order to go on welfare, and 
information suggested the women would probably have to go back in order to 
support the children.

Ms. Gilbert said when she looked at the $100 million saving on the time limits over 
the five year period, she thought it was to the detriment of women and children 
because the $100 million would not be going to those families.  The family cap 
was very severe, she felt. 

Ms. Gilbert said they were willing to amend S.B. 428 to create a bill which would 
be an addition to the Governor's welfare reform proposal, but Senator Washington 
rejected the amendments.

Only 25 percent of welfare recipients had public housing, she declared.  Public 
housing, child care and health care were benefits which women must have or 
needed in order to get off of welfare.  In the Welfare Reform task force, a minimum 
wage job would give a woman $721 per month.  Her child care expenses for two 
children would be at least $300.  Money for child care must be found, Ms. Gilbert 
declared.


She supported case management and the self sufficiency plan.  The Nevada 
Association of Social Workers were opposed to S.B. 428 because there was no 
mention in S.B. 428 that licensed Social Workers would do the work.  That was 
an amendment which the Social Workers submitted, and although the eligibility 
workers were proficient at what they were doing, they were not able to evaluate 
a person's needs as a Social Worker would be able to do.

Ms. Gilbert concluded her testimony by urging the committee to oppose S.B. 428.

Since S.B. 428 was patterned after the Wisconsin plan, Mr. Marvel asked 
Ms. Gilbert if the plan was working in Wisconsin.  Responding, Ms. Gilbert said 
most of the proposals just received their waivers which must be tracked for five 
years.  Therefore, there was very little data.  The only data Ms. Gilbert saw that 
was successful was the GAIN program in Riverside County which the Governor's 
proposal was based on and they were seeing some cost savings over the five year 
period.  They were changing the income disregards, allowing recipients to keep 
more of their money while on Welfare for a period of time, then easing them off. 
 That was the GAIN proposal.  They were the only ones who had shown any 
savings, and Ms. Gilbert felt it was because the waivers had just been initiated over 
the last five years, and they did not have the information.

Ms. Myla Florence, Administrator, State Welfare Division, and Mr. Mike Willden, 
Deputy Administrator for Administrative Services, assumed the testimonial table. 
 A spread sheet was prepared by the Welfare Division over recent weeks (Exhibit 
 E.)  She emphasized the estimates prepared were their best estimates.  Many 
factors influenced the methodology to use in the estimates, and she did not want 
to reside in a capped budget under many of the assumptions.  She pointed out 
Lines 38 and 39 were costs for required data processing revisions as well as 
training costs for welfare division staff, and question marks were listed.  

S.B. 428 would require a great deal of work with Welfare Division Staff who were 
currently in the process of becoming a seamless worker in preparation for 
NOMADS.  S.B. 428 would be another major undertaking with regard to staff 
training, she said.

Important issues with regard to S.B. 428 were no provisions for economic 
recession when jobs were not available.  She strongly recommended consideration 
of economic hard times.  

Another issue was Section 13, residency.  She did not believe a waiver would be 
approved with any criteria related to residency.  The federal law required that an 
intent to reside was sufficient for determination of eligibility.  Consequently the 
provisions of showing vehicle registration ownership  or drivers license possession 
were not materially tied to the program requirements.

She pointed out Section 13, subsection 4, which dealt with family caps, and said 
New Jersey had shown an increase in the rate of abortions since they instituted a 
family cap.  

Referring to Section 23 relating to school attendance and academic progress,  
Ms. Florence said she had some concern about the eligibility workers being required 
to do more than just verifying attendance.  


In Section 33 which related to sanctions, children would be penalized for the 
behavior of their parents under the proposed sanctions.  AFDC was intended to be 
a public assistance program for dependent children.  Leaving children in need was 
very risky for Nevada's children, she believed.

There would be an impact on counties and community based organizations, she 
believed, because when public assistance was removed from the family, the needs 
would remain and would have to be attended to by local government or local 
community organizations.

Ms. Florence continued her testimony by requesting Section 43, which related to 
drivers license suspension,  be eliminated since Assemblyman Fettic's bill had 
passed.  Much tighter notification requirements were in the bill, A.B. 345, and also 
stronger due process provisions.  In subsection 2 of Section 43, the Department 
of Motor Vehicles would have to suspend a license without a preliminary hearing. 
 Ms. Florence believed the suspension of drivers licenses for individuals who were 
not current with payment of their child support was an effective enforcement tool, 
and Ms. Florence believed A.B. 345 provided for that in a better way.

A task force was formed to examine the issue over a 15 month period.  
Ms. Florence was to work towards designing a program which would emphasize 
employability and skill training of welfare recipients, and hopefully be able to move 
them to self-sufficiency.

A lot of effective provisions were in Senator Washington's bill, she admitted, but 
given the fact that S.B. 428 had come out so late in the session and was so far 
reaching, she preferred to examine the merits of the other proposals contained 
within S.B. 428 during the interim while implementing the provisions of the 
Governor's package and the agency budget.

Mrs. Evans referred to lines 38 and 39 of (Exhibit E), and noted there would be 
some expense.  Line 13 was pointed out because even though S.B. 428 called for 
drug and alcohol treatment, no money was allocated.  

Ms. Florence responded alcohol and drug abuse prevention and job placement were 
felt to be more appropriately provided by the Department of Education, Training and 
Rehabilitation.  Ms. Florence believed they submitted a fiscal note to the staff, and 
it was not incorporated into the spread sheet (Exhibit E).

Regarding data processing, NOMADS should be fully implemented by January of 
1997, and hopefully DIS would be able to support the system on their own.  Since 
it was so uncertain, Ms. Florence did not quantify.  They were also unable to 
calculate the training costs.

Mrs. Evans reiterated her earlier question of what percentage of welfare recipients 
were on the welfare role for the 24 month period.  The figure received was 53 
percent, and Mrs. Evans asked Ms. Florence to verify.

February 1994 showed 92 percent of AFDC families were on welfare for less than 
24 months.  March 1995 figures showed something on the order of 85 percent of 
the families were on 24 months or less.  While the numbers might change from 
study to study, the majority of people were on less than 24 months.


Ms. Florence said they did not have a good handle on, and National studies were 
just beginning to come out from the recycling of welfare spells.  While one may be 
on for 23 months, they may come back on in 16 months for a period.  Recent 
studies examined the "spells" of welfare and the recurrences.

Ms. Tiffany confirmed with Ms. Florence that welfare reform was in her budget. 
 Ms. Tiffany pointed out one of her concerns when the subcommittee was closed 
was "we not just gave you what you needed for eligibility workers and social 
workers, we gave you more than what you needed and more than what you asked 
for and more than was in the Governor's budget."

Ms. Florence responded she would never say the subcommittee gave more than 
what was needed.

Ms. Tiffany changed her wording to "more than what the Governor recommended."

Ms. Florence stated the action of the committee was to provide five additional 
social workers.  Five were requested and five additional were received.  Eligibility 
workers were in accord with the Governor's recommendation.

Ms. Tiffany noted part of the reason it was decided to add five more social workers 
was because the subcommittee was not sure what would happen regarding welfare 
reform, and where emphasis was going to be placed.  Mrs. Tiffany was, therefore, 
surprised that Ms. Florence took Senator Washington's proposal to task by saying 
she did not have enough staff and questioned the training when that issue had 
already been reviewed to make sure that some of that was in her budget.

Ms. Tiffany reminded Ms. Florence she had said there were no provisions for 
economic hard times, and asked if there were provisions for economic hard times 
in the Governor's budget.

Ms. Florence responded the Governor's budget did not limit the length of benefits 
and therefore there would not be a need.

The money was built into the budget, but it was considered for economic hard 
times, Ms. Tiffany acknowledged, so the savings would not be seen as in Senator 
Washington's proposal.

Ms. Florence said the savings calculated in S.B. 428 were principally related to the 
time limitations whereas in the Governor's proposal, a slowing of caseload growth 
was the result, and not a dramatic decrease in numbers of individuals eligible 
because their period of benefits had been terminated.

Ms. Tiffany added there was an escalation period allowing them to keep cash and 
allowing them to have medical benefits and ultimately be weaned off, and she 
admitted there was a transition period in the Governor's budget.

Similar transition benefits were in both packages, Ms. Florence agreed.

Regarding Ms. Florence's concern with not having numbers for the data processing 
and training and re-engineering sections, Ms. Tiffany felt the same problem existed 
in the Governor's welfare reform package.


Ms. Florence thought it should be kept in mind that S.B. 428 had a large number 
of eligibility changes.  In the Governor's package, they were not changing eligibility 
that much except in two areas where earned income was increased and focusing 
on employability which was part of what her staff was now trained to do.  So the 
effort involved with S.B. 428 was more far-reaching.

Ms. Tiffany was surprised, she said, that Ms. Florence would take a position that 
looking at school attendance, academic progress, drivers license suspension, and 
the type of requirements in S.B. 428 was required for social behavior change.  She 
asked if Ms. Florence felt that was bad or wrong.

Ms. Florence stated she was merely pointing out that making determinations on 
academic progress was far different than school attendance, and, even at that, 17 
different school districts define their school attendance policies and their standards 
for academic progress differently.  Ms. Florence indicated that may be something 
that a social worker would have to deal with.

Ms. Tiffany said from her humble lack of professional background, her point of 
view was this was not any more than a philosophical difference from what 
Ms. Florence had seen with the Governor's budget, and Ms. Tiffany said 
Ms. Florence was certainly employed by the Governor and needed to support his 
financial or fiscal issues.

Ms. Florence said some of the proposals were incorporated in the Governor's 
package two years ago.  However, consensus could not be gained around the 
issues.  Ms. Florence thought the merits of the issues could be debated a number 
of ways.  She felt it would be valuable to spend a great deal of time doing that. 
 These proposals had only been examined since May 3rd.

Ms. Tiffany assumed if S.B. 428 passed that Ms. Florence would support it.

Ms. Carol Jackson, Director of the Department of Employment, Training and 
Rehabilitation, clarified she was never talked to regarding S.B. 428 by anyone from 
anybody's office.  Therefore, regarding the numbers, the fiscal note for the Bureau 
of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Employment Security Division was based on the 
AFDC population of 18,142 stated in S.B. 428.  For FY 1997 the figures could be 
adjusted to reflect the project's operation for only six months.  If the numbers were 
not exactly accurate, she said, it was because they did not have enough 
information to prepare a proper fiscal note. 

Referring to Senator Washington's earlier statements, Ms. Jackson informed the 
$1.5 million appropriated to BADA in Senate Finance was designated for 
approximately 1700 individuals on a waiting list testified to by Dorothy North, 
Chairman of the Drug Commission.  Priority of the individuals would be for women, 
women with children, pregnant women, HIV and drug users.  No money was 
funded for the life skills program for drug and alcohol abuse from Ms. Jackson's 
department.  

Mrs. Evans offered the information came from the General Government 
Subcommittee chaired by Ms. Giunchigliani and Ms. Tiffany.


Ms. Jackson continued her testimony and said S.B. 571, claimant employment 
program, would allow other unemployed individuals to be served and not just ones 
recently unemployed.  Ms. Jackson asked to go on record that individuals in the life 
skills program would also be helped under S.B. 571 because of parole and 
probation as they referred clients to her department.  

Moving into fiscal notes of the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, it was based on 
the population of 18,142.  Section 11 and Section 22 required the participants to 
become involved in alcohol and drug abuse testing.  The drug testing was 
approximately 71 cents per test, and the fiscal note was derived from the testing 
of that population at a little over $5 million.  National information showed with the 
welfare population, approximately 16 percent were hard core cases for drugs, and 
they would require some type of in-house treatment.  The cost of treatment for 16 
percent of the 18,142 individuals was $1,897 per individual which came to 
approximately $4.7 million.  The first fiscal note based on a five-year projection 
was $10.2 million based on the total AFDC population.  The second year it dropped 
 to $5.2 million, the third year $5.7 million, the fourth year $6.1 million and the 
fifth year $6.6 million.  

With alcohol and drug abuse treatment, you are required to pay the dollar amount 
up front.  When an individual was put in treatment, the dollars for that treatment 
must be paid the day the individual goes into treatment, Ms. Jackson said.  

The next fiscal note was on employment security and was based upon information 
submitted by Mr. Stan Jones and his staff because they had been involved with the 
welfare population for a little over 25 years working with various programs.  Based 
upon that, 15 percent of the total population being worked with (the 18,142) she 
projected the department would have 2700 individuals to work with  in on-the-job 
training, work experience and job development.  Of the 2700 population, they 
believed that 900 or one third would be put into direct placement and require very 
little services or job development.  They felt the second one third would go directly 
into work experience which meant it would be subsidized with a minimum wage, 
and usually their exposure was a work place with a public employer.  If they were 
put into the work experience, there would be a cost of approximately $1400 for 
those 907 participants.  

Additionally, on-the-job training individuals, the third population, was reviewed.  
Some subsidizing of the wage would be done and the cost would be approximately 
$1800 times (x) 907 for the participants.  

Job development would cost approximately $300 per individual because they 
would need some type of help to get to work which would account for the total 
population of the 2,700 that were participating.

Ms. Jackson continued.  The first year the fiscal note would be approximately $3.7 
million for 1997.  For 1998 it would be approximately $4 million.  For 1999 it 
would be approximately $4.5 million.  These numbers could be adjusted based 
upon the type of population.  

Mrs. Evans said the Committee was trying to get a feel for the validity of the fiscal 
note so Committee would know what they were facing if the program was done, 
and, if additional dollars were needed, they had to know how many additional 
dollars.


Mr. Hettrick broke the figures down by explaining if the population was figured at 
18,000 and the number of people which would be dealt with would be 3,000 then 
all of the numbers would be divided by six.  If a half year was being considered, the 
figure would be divided in half again, therefore, the numbers could be divided by 
12.  Dividing the numbers by 12 would leave fairly small numbers to be dealt with, 
he said.

He continued, in the first year where the figure was $3.7 million for jobs, the figure 
would actually be $300,000; in the second year the figure was $4 million, and 
would actually be $350,000; in the third year the figure was $4.5 million, and 
would be approximately $400,000 or a little less.  Mr. Hettrick did not get the 
figures at the first part of Ms. Jackson's testimony.

Ms. Jackson agreed that Assemblyman Hettrick's figures were probably correct, 
but she explained her department had no information to adjust the numbers since 
her first knowledge of the number "3,000" was in the present Committee meeting.

Senator Washington said whether or not the bill would go forward, it was ironic 
that all of a sudden the divisions were talking and collaborating when they had 
never come together before.  The divisions had always fought independently for the 
"pot" instead of helping the one recipient that affected all three of the divisions. 
 If S.B. 428 did not do anything else, it finally got the divisions to the table to say, 
"the same recipient receiving the AFDC check was the same recipient unemployed 
 and the same recipient with a drug and alcohol abuse problem."  For that, he 
thanked the people who testified.

Mrs. Evans said in the 15 month task force meetings all the parties were part of the 
working group.

Ms. Jackson informed this started approximately 14 months ago when the first 
pilot program with all the agencies working together started at the Sparks office 
of the Employment Security Division.  Most of the pilot project had been transferred 
to the Las Vegas area to start working with partnerships there, and they had been 
meeting on that.

Mrs. Evans noted when Ms. Florence made her presentation before the Committee, 
the hand-out material indicated Ms. Jackson's close participation and involvement 
in the programs.

Mrs. Evans closed the hearing on S.B. 428.

SENATE BILL 556:  -	Provides additional circumstances for creating 
unincorporated towns and revises provisions governing 
establishment of basic ad valorem revenue for certain local 
governments.

Mr. Donald L. "Pat" Shalmy, County Manager for Clark County, introduced Mr. Guy 
S. Hobbs, Comptroller and Director of Finance for Clark County, and Mr. Mark 
Brown.  Mr. Shalmy, Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Brown were present at the meeting to 
urge the Committee to support S.B. 556 First Reprint.  

Mr. Shalmy explained the genesis of S.B. 556.  They felt an incorporated town 
would give the mechanism to have a tax base and revenue to channel back into the 
community as it developed.  The Spring Valley portion of the bill corrected an 
inequity in the tax structure, he said, from the 1981 legislative session.  Spring 
Valley was formed in 1983 and did not have a tax rate to be able to support its 

own services.  Therefore, Spring Valley's taxes were either exported or subsidized 
by other areas.

Mr. Hobbs would give a fiscal analysis, he announced, and Mr. Brown would 
discuss the property from the owner's point of view.

Mr. Guy S. Hobbs, Clark County Comptroller, stated the bill had three parts.  The 
first part enabled unincorporated towns and counties of 400,000 population or 
more to be established where there were no residents which would allow working 
 with the developer in putting together agreements on service delivery and 
development agreements.  Part of the urgency of the bill had to do with that.  The 
master plan had been approved for Summerlin South development and initial zoning 
for a portion of the project had been more recently approved.

The second part of the bill would allow a new unincorporated town to receive 
supplemental city/county relief tax and motor vehicle privilege tax.  The 1981 tax 
shift formulas indexed the receipt of supplemental city/county relief tax and motor 
vehicle privilege tax to the tax rate that was in effect in fiscal year 1980-81.  Since 
Spring Valley came into being after 1980-81, it had never had a 1980-81 tax rate 
so it was unique in the urban valley area.  It was the only government which did 
not receive sales tax and motor vehicle privilege tax, and the residents in those 
areas pay sales tax at the cash register and register their cars the same as other 
residents.

Mr. Hobbs continued.  The third part of the bill would phase in the redistribution of 
supplemental city/county relief tax in recognition of the fact that there was a finite 
pie every year.  A finite amount of sales tax revenue which was generated and 
added one or two more participants to it diluted the portions received by all of the 
other participants.  Therefore, an amendment was suggested by Clark County 
which would phase in the impact of the redistribution of sales tax over the next five 
years.  

With zero fiscal impact in fiscal 1995-96, which is the fiscal year beginning July 
1, one-fourth of the total amount would be phased in fiscal 1996-97, up to 50 
percent the next year, 75 percent the year following, and up to 100 percent of the 
full value in the fiscal year 1999-2000.

The distribution formula for the motor vehicle privilege tax would not be changed 
until fiscal year beginning July 1, 2000.  One of the concerns regarding this tax, 
unlike supplemental city/county relief tax, was that the school district also 
participated in the receipt of motor vehicle privilege tax.  Discussions with the 
school district regarding language will be conducted and recommendations in this 
area will be presented at a future legislative session.  

The fiscal impact to all of the other participating entities was approximately $2 
million once it was fully phased in.  The biggest impact would be to the city of Las 
Vegas.  The phase in would not begin until fiscal year 1996-97 and would be 
approximately $300,000 and would increase by $300,000 for each of the next 
couple of years to the full amount of about $1.2 million by the year 1999-2000. 
 He reiterated the motor vehicle privilege tax would have no fiscal impact until after 
the beginning of the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2000.


Mr. Marvel did not understand why S.B. 556 was before the Ways and Means 
Committee because he did not know how it would impact any part of the state 
budget since it was purely a local matter as it was a redistribution of funds in Clark 
County.

It was purely intra-county revenue distribution to Mr. Hobbs' knowledge, and he 
had talked with NACO and several other local government representatives.  It did 
not have an impact elsewhere in the state that he was aware of.

Ms. Giunchigliani referred to the school district and asked what impact would occur 
in the present two years and how was it arrived at.

Mr. Hobbs said the school district did not participate in supplemental city/county 
relief tax distribution.  The only other tax which would be redistributed eventually 
by the bill would the motor vehicle privilege tax, and there would be no change in 
the distribution formula until fiscal year beginning July 1, 2000.  It was their intent 
to make sure the school district was held harmless.  

Ms. Giunchigliani thought the language for the "hold harmless" was supposed to 
have been in the legislation.

At the Senate Government Affairs Committee meeting on June 23rd, there was an 
attempt to include language to address the hold-harmless issue for school districts, 
but the language was not sufficient at that point to hold it harmless without it 
causing problems elsewhere in the formula.  

Ms. Giunchigliani said her entire district was in the city of Las Vegas, and she 
would not be able to support S.B. 556, however, she asked the rationale of what 
the county was seeking - what was the rationale for fixing this situation now after 
the current law had been in effect for 12 years.

Mr. Hobbs responded to her question by noting they were just coming off the tax 
shift in 1981.  In 1983 and 1985 through 1987 in the legislative sessions, 
additional fine-tuning was being done to the tax system.  It was not felt in those 
years that it was the appropriate climate for making additional changes to a tax 
structure that was just very recently almost completely overhauled.  Also, the 
experience with Spring Valley was fairly new.  They did not  have the data which 
was now available, and it had been growing as well.  

In 1991 and 1993 legislative sessions, they were dealing with other matters of 
revenue distribution which involved intercounty revenue distribution in the state, 
and it was not an opportune time to have something that divided southern Nevada.

Ms. Giunchigliani had heard there was a willingness to amend the Spring Valley 
portion out.

Responding, Mr. Hobbs said during earlier discussions it was agreed to separate the 
dialog on the two portions - Summerlin because it was something that had yet to 
be, and it did not have an immediate fiscal impact on anybody.  Spring Valley was 
in existence, and changing that right of way would have an immediate fiscal 
impact.  They indicated immediately they were willing to discuss the two portions 
separately.  The reason they were done together was they were almost exactly the 
same situation from a formula basis as far as the tax distribution formula.  
Summerlin was in a position today where Spring Valley was 12 years ago.  It was 
exactly the same thing affected by exactly the same laws.  


Mr. Hobbs continued.  It was important to note they were not changing the tax 
structure; they were using the existing tax structure, but trying to provide a 
mechanism for one town where the residents had been contributing the revenue for 
a number of years to participate in the distribution, and another town which would 
be in the same situation some number of years down the road if it was not 
addressed now.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked the real need of the county for the legislation, and it 
sounded as though they were changing the ability to be able to incorporate as well 
as annex.  Mr. Hobbs said that he did not know whether legally it precluded 
annexation.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked the long-term effect on the city by S.B. 556.  Mr. Hobbs 
replied some loss of revenue.  It could be looked at from the standpoint of "what 
if it were an unincorporated town" versus "what if it were a part of the city of Las 
Vegas."  That decision was more the developer's decision to make as far as which 
entity they decided to be a part of.  But if you looked at it that way, there could be 
a substantial opportunity of costs associated with the city of Las Vegas.

From our perspective, Mr. Hobbs said, if Summerlin South were part of the city of 
Las Vegas, there would be a huge real dollar loss to Clark County and the other 
cities within Clark County.  

Ms. Giunchigliani thought the taxpayers should be looking at benefit delivery 
services and how to properly pull those together so the taxpayers would benefit. 
 She could not explain to the taxpayers she represented that she had voted for 
something which gave out money that would raise their taxes in the long run 
simply over a somewhat philosophical debate as well as a power struggle between 
city and county.  She felt frustrated because there was not enough time to review 
the bill.

Assemblyman Dini clarified the bill affected counties of 400,000 or more in 
Sections 1 and 2, but in Section 4, the bill did not discuss counties of 400,000. 
 It amended the general law, and he asked if the net result would be that if an 
unincorporated town wanted to be developed, would the city and every other 
county have to give up the revenue to form the unincorporated town.  S.B. 556 
appeared to Assemblyman Dini to be general law pertaining to the entire state.  Mr. 
Hobbs agreed but only if the local government applied to the Nevada Tax 
Commission to have the allowed ad valorem established.

Assemblyman Dini asked if the year 2000 would kick in another fair share for all 
the other small counties in the north that took the beating two years ago.  Would 
the state get into that situation again with S.B. 556, he asked.  Mr. Hobbs replied 
S.B. 556 would affect the intra county distribution of the motor vehicle privilege 
tax, not intra county.

Mrs. Evans asked if the land in question which contained no residents was 
presently in the county or in the city.  Mr. Hobbs responded the land was presently 
in the unincorporated county.  

	* * * * * 

MR. MARVEL MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 556.


MR. CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION.

	* * * * * 

Mrs. Evans asked for further questions.  She asked if Mr. Mark Brown had a 
question.  Mr. Brown replied he merely wanted to announce he supported the bill.

	* * * * * 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI AND MRS. BROWER
VOTED NO.  MR. ARBERRY WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

	* * * * *

Mr. Marvin Leavitt, representing the City of Las Vegas, testified in opposition to 
S.B. 556 because the city of Las Vegas would be losing money if it passed.

Mrs. Evans asked for additional comments from the audience.  There were none. 
 She asked for a count of those in opposition to S.B. 556.

SENATE BILL 428:  -	Requires establishment of program for self-sufficiency of 
applicants for and recipients of aid to families with 
dependent children.

	* * * * * 	
MR. DINI MOVED THAT S.B. 428 BE SENT TO THE FLOOR
WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.

MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI  VOTED NO.
MR. ARBERRY WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

	* * * * * 

Mr. Price asked the status of the state employees' bargaining act.

Mr. Marvel believed the bargaining bills were in the Government Affairs Committee.

Mrs. Evans indicated the bill had been referred to Ways and Means, and the bill 
was A.B. 466.

Mrs. Evans announced A.B. 466 would be held in abeyance.  

The Committee recessed at 5:13 p.m. to be resumed at the call of the Chair.

Chairman Arberry reconvened the Committee on Ways and Means at 
9:55 p.m.

Mr. Stevens called attention to two bills which were referred to 
the Committee on Ways and Means.  S.B. 204 started out as the 
SMART plan and was revised by the Senate Committee on Finance. 
 S.B. 495 is an administrative assessment bill that the Senate 
Committee on Finance worked on.  S.B. 581 is an appropriations 
bill.  

Mr. Stevens pointed out staff from the university system was 
present to answer questions regarding S.B. 204.  

SENATE BILL 204:  -	Makes appropriation to University and 
Community College System of Nevada and to 
department of education for purchase of 
computers and related communications services 
to improve access to INTERNET, and to 
increase use of interactive video.

Joseph Crowley, President, University of Nevada, Reno, explained 
the bill started out as the SMART plan for the Department of 
Education.  The chancellor for the university system and the 
superintendent of schools were asked by the Senate Committee on 
Finance to explore combining Distance Education and SMART.  The 
superintendent and chancellor agreed on some principles which 
focused on the delivery of educational programs from the 
university system network to public schools.  Although a noble 
effort was made, it was explained to the leadership of the 
Senate that the differences between SMART and Distance Education 
were too great to be combined, at which point both programs 
died.  Senate leadership took the notion to deliver educational 
programs through the network to the schools and amended S.B. 204 
to produce what is presently before the committee in the form of 
an appropriation to the university and community college system 
as well as one to the state Department of Education to provide 
interactive television delivery of classroom instruction and 
access to libraries.  It enhances access to the Internet.  
Presently there are 25 teacher accounts on the Internet from the 
public schools.  The potential of the bill would allow the 
number to grow to 6,000 or possibly 7,500.  The bill would 
provide instruction to the schools.  The $3 million portion of 
the bill would be moved through the Department of Education to 
the schools for end-user equipment, teacher certification 
courses, and specialized math courses.

Mr. Marvel pointed out the university system network was more 
advanced than other systems and would eventually become a 
statewide network.  He inquired if the university system would 
have a proprietary interest in the university system network  in 
the future.  Dr. Crowley responded no and indicated the network 
would be available to everyone.

	* * * * * 

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 204.

MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

	* * * * * 


Ms. Giunchigliani stated she was offended by what has happened 
and pointed out there was a big fight over the network and the 
amount of money raided from the SMART plan.  Now there is an 
amendment at the end of session that looks like the university 
system is getting $5 million and K-12 is overlooked again.  She 
inquired what the real story was.  Dr. Crowley said the real 
story was what he just explained.  Ms. Giunchigliani concluded 
the issues were not resolved, so the Senate went back and gave 
the university system $5 million, and the SMART plan was killed. 
 Dr. Crowley reiterated the SMART plan as well as Distance 
Education died.  Ms. Giunchigliani inquired about the purpose of 
the bill.  Dr. Crowley said he explained that previously.  Ms. 
Giunchigliani stated she did not understand and asked if the 
university system received their Distance Education funds from 
the bill.  Dr. Crowley responded the university received some 
Distance Education funding, but the primary focus changed to 
delivering classroom instruction, Internet access, and other 
uses of the Nevada network to the public schools of Nevada.  
Ms. Giunchigliani asked who killed the SMART plan.  Dr. Crowley 
said nobody killed the SMART plan.  There was simply no appetite 
for it on the Senate side.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted the Assembly 
had a choice on whether or not the districts linked up with the 
State Board of Education.  Dr. Crowley pointed out the bill came 
from the Senate, and they had no interest in the bill.  Ms. 
Giunchigliani remarked it was her understanding the bill 
originally came from the Assembly.  Dr. Crowley noted there was 
a letter of intent attached to A.B. 224 which would allow the 
usage of some of the $27 million for purposes that were 
originally set forth in S.B. 204.  Ms. Giunchigliani inquired 
what the rationale was to kill the bill.  Dr. Crowley responded 
he did not know because he was not privy to the discussion.  He 
was told to do what he could with what was remaining.  

Robert Dickens, Ph.D., Director of Governmental Relations, 
University of Nevada, Reno, stated it was his understanding A.B. 
224 passed the Senate with an additional $5 million in addition 
to the $29 million, for a total of $34 million.  There was a 
letter of intent accompanying A.B. 224 which directs the use of 
some of the $34 million for some of the SMART functions through 
the State Department of Education. 

Chairman Arberry stated that was not correct and he was unaware 
of a letter of intent involving the use of A.B. 224 funds for 
SMART-related purchases.  

Mr. Dini pointed out there was $11 million in SMART, and the 
Senate gave $5 million to the university system and $3 million 
to the Department of Education to fund the university system and 
K-12 data processing needs.  He stated Dr. Crowley was a victim 
in that he was told to make the bill work for $5 million to the 
university system and $3 million to K-12.  Dr. Crowley agreed 
with the comments made by Mr. Dini.  The state superintendent 
also submitted a list of needs which are covered in the bill. 
 


Mr. Close asked if the bill was a one-shot appropriation.  
Chairman Arberry responded yes. 

Ms. Tiffany noted she had a conversation with the university 
staff, K-12 staff and staff to see if the $11 million for the 
SMART system could solve two needs, one being the K-12 system 
for pupil records and the other an extension for ongoing 
interactive learning.  During the meeting it became apparent the 
function which was grafted to the K-12 system to give the 
appearance of a joint purpose was not, in fact, a joint purpose. 
 It was a way to expand the statewide network.  The K-12 
functions were for some in-service training and some interactive 
classrooms, but they were not on the list of priorities to 
continue the Distance Education.  It was the expansion of the 
network, expansion of Internet and two functions low on the 
list.  Ms. Tiffany inquired if the goal was to get $5 million 
for interactive learning, why not phrase it correctly instead of 
grabbing at $5 million for something that did not make sense. 
 If the $5 million was removed from the $11 million, the SMART 
system would be in jeopardy.  The result will be a function of 
K-12 which is not a priority and a second system will be in 
jeopardy for pupil records.  Now the Internet presents another 
angle to try to expand the network.



Dr. Crowley explained it was not the intention of the university 
system to seek to utilize money that was intended for use by the 
SMART system.  Staff was asked by Senate leadership, who had 
little appetite for the bill, to explore the marriage of 
Distance Education and the SMART system.  It was apparent at the 
meeting which Ms. Tiffany attended that the purposes were too 
different and the marriage could not be made.  That was reported 
back to Senate leadership, and they developed the notion of a 
Nevada educational network that would have as its primary focus 
the delivery of classes, programs, and Internet access to the 
public schools of Nevada.  Staff at the university believe the 
partnership is valuable, but the Senate has no interest in the 
bill.  

Ms. Tiffany noted Ms. Peterson said the Department of Education 
did not need Internet as one of the functions for K-12, and she 
wanted to focus on pulling the systems together for licensing, 
accountability, test scores and pupil records.  Ms. Tiffany 
commented Ms. Peterson said she would take the Internet but did 
not know how it would be paid for.  

Dr. Crowley stated when the decision was made in the Senate to 
create out of S.B. 204 the idea of the Nevada educational 
network, the superintendent was asked to submit a list of 
projects for which state Department of Education money would be 
used.  He believed Internet was among eight or nine proposals 
given to Senate leadership by the superintendent.  The cost of 
the request was estimated to be $2 million, and the bill 
provided $3 million.

Ms. Tiffany asked if personnel costs were taken into 
consideration.  Dr. Crowley indicated the bill provided for a 
pilot project, and the bill has a provision for the agencies to 
report back to the legislature in January 1997 with the results 
of the pilot project.  There are personnel costs which have been 
trimmed back.  Contracts will not be let which go beyond the 
second year of the biennium.  If the program stops in January 
1997, so do the contracts.  Ms. Tiffany queried what will happen 
to the hardware if the project does not continue.  Dr. Crowley 
remarked the choice was up to the legislators.  If the concept 
of a partnership is determined to be valuable, it will be 
approved; if it is determined to be not valuable, then it will 
not be approved.  He expressed his support for the program.  

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked another pilot project will be created 
for something that K-12 does not need.  The intent was to 
provide accountability for all the bills passed since 1989, and 
they were never given the computer capacity to gather the 
information.  Dr. Crowley noted K-12, at worst, would have the 
availability to access the Internet for 7,500 teacher accounts 
and the equipment to deliver interactive classroom instruction 
to Nevada high schools.  Ms. Giunchigliani stressed that was not 
a priority; the basics needed to be provided first.

Chairman Arberry called for a vote on the motion.

	* * * * * 

THE MOTION CARRIED BY A SHOW OF HANDS.  MR. DINI, MR. 
FETTIC, CHAIRMAN ARBERRY, MR. MARVEL, MR. PRICE, MR. 
HETTRICK, MR. ALLARD, AND MRS. CHOWNING VOTED YES.  MS. 
TIFFANY, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, MR. CLOSE, AND MRS. BROWER 
VOTED NO.  MR. SPITLER ABSTAINED, AND MRS. EVANS WAS ABSENT 
AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.  


	* * * * * 

SENATE BILL 495:  -	Makes various changes to provisions 
governing collection of fines and 
assessments.

Mr. Stevens explained S.B. 495 changed the administrative 
assessment that is currently imposed.  A major feature of the 
bill would change the administrative assessment from a sliding 
scale to a flat fee of $25.  

Mr. Burke noted the synopsis previously provided to the 
committee members addressed each section of the bill.  The bill 
was originally written in response to the Legislative Counsel 
Bureau audit of the court system.  Section 1 provides that the 
lower court shall provide the court administrator with requested 
information.  This is to insure that the court administrator can 
respond to requests for information.  
Section 2 provides that the clerk of the Supreme Court shall 
charge $50 for petitions for rehearing.  The court estimates 
that this will generate $35,000 per year for the general fund. 
 

Section 3 provides that the court shall order as a condition of 
probation or suspension of sentence that the defendant pay all 
fines and administrative assessments included in the judgment 
entered against him.  They have also added a 15% collection fee 
for the counties in order to help collect the revenue.

Section 4 is a major section of the bill and changes the sliding 
scale of $10 to $100, depending on the amount of the fine, to a 
flat $25 fee.  It also adds that the defendant will pay the 
administrative assessment, even if the judge or justice suspends 
a fine in exchange for community service.  Currently, if the 
defendant is sentenced to community service, he pays nothing. 
 The flat $25 assessment should generate in excess of $1 million 
in additional revenue per year.  The caveat is that presently 
approximately 67% of the collections are $10 assessments.  The 
North Las Vegas court administrator stated if the collections 
are changed to a flat $25 fee, they will be collected at the 
same rate as the $10.  

Mr. Marvel inquired who drafted the bill.  Mr. Burke indicated 
the bill was originally prepared by the Administrative Office of 
the Courts in response to the audit.  Mr. Marvel asked if the 
bill covers the shortfall as determined by the audit.  Mr. Burke 
stated Section 4 was added because the North Las Vegas court 
administrator requested the add-on which was approved by the 
Senate Finance Committee.  The Senate Committee on Finance 
directed that the court administrator work with the counties, 
all other courts, and any other entities.  Mr. Marvel pointed 
out the administrator of the courts was to develop the plan for 
the collection of the assessment fees and asked if legislation 
was necessary at this point in time.  Mr. Burke explained there 
were several portions of the bill which did respond to the audit 
but several points of the audit were deleted from the bill.  One 
of the later sections of the bill gives authority to the 
Department of Motor Vehicles to deny the issuance of licenses 
and registrations and to collect delinquent fines.  Mr. Marvel 
asked if the $25 fee would be a panacea to the problem of 
collections.  Mr. Burke expressed concern about using historical 
collections.  If the North Las Vegas court administrator's 
assumptions were correct, it would bring in an additional $1 
million.  If the collections did not come in, the Supreme Court, 
which is partially funded through the assessment and the general 
fund, would need to come to the Interim Finance Committee for an 
additional allocation.  Mr. Marvel concluded the courts needed 
a uniform way of collecting assessment fees.  

Mr. Spitler expressed concern that the bill puts all the 
administrative fines and assessments ahead of restitution.  It 
is incomprehensible that the victim, once again, is at the 
bottom of the list for repayment, and the courts become a profit 
center guaranteeing they are first in line to receive the money. 
 Mr. Spitler noted he would be reviewing laws on restitution 
because it was shameful that restitution was considered a low 
priority.

Mr. Dini noted he was at the legislature when the fees were 
split prior to this, and the court said 51% of the fees needed 
to go to the Supreme Court or the legislature would be sued.  
Now the Supreme Court is to receive 51% of the remaining fees. 
 Mr. Stevens noted the split on the state side was 51% to the 
court and 49% noncourt, and that percentage would be retained. 
 The court wishes to divide the 51% portion differently.  Mr. 
Dini stated he did not feel the bill solves the problems 
addressed in the audit.  The courts did not have permission to 
adopt the state statute into their ordinances.  Only the city of 
Wells asked to adopt the traffic court laws.  Mr. Stevens noted 
the bill started out to address the audit concerns; however, it 
had grown into something more than addressing issues outlined in 
the audit.

	* * * * * 

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 495.

MR. FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE, WITH 
MS. TIFFANY AND MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE 
VOTE.  

	* * * * * 

SENATE BILL 581:  -	Makes appropriations to Gerlach General 
Improvement District for expenses relating to 
replacement of water tank and to department 
of education for pilot program for certain 
preschool and kindergarten children.

Mr. Stevens stated S.B. 581 would be coming from the Senate 
Finance Committee.  He pointed out Section 1 of  S.B. 581 would 
provide $91,000 to the Gerlach General Improvement District to 
replace a water tank.  Section 3 would provide a pilot program 
for at-risk preschool children in three or four elementary 
schools.  

Mrs. Chowning did not understand how an Assembly bill for 
$900,000 going to three schools showed up in a Senate bill.  She 
said A.B. 653 should be funded rather than this project.

Sam McMullen, lobbyist for the Washoe Regional Water Planning 
Coalition, explained Gerlach had raised approximately $600,000 
to buy water tanks, and the bill helps them to acquire the 
additional funding to finish the project.  

Mr. Marvel asked if funds were provided to Gerlach in 1991 for 
a water tower.  Mr. Stevens indicated during the 1991 
legislative session SCCRT reserve funds in the amount of $50,000 
were allocated to the Gerlach General Improvement District for 
treatment of the water hot springs project to comply with 
federal and state standards.  

Mr. Stevens drew attention to S.B. 210 which would provide 
$675,000 for the Human Resources BPR.  It was Mr. Stevens' 
understanding that the $300,000 BPR for Business and Industry 
was amended into S.B. 210, but the $250,000 public safety/prison 
BPR was not included.  The committee would need to address 
whether the $250,000 BPR for public safety/prisons be amended 
into S.B. 210.

There being no further business, Chairman Arberry recessed the 
hearing at 10:42 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:


                                                    
Bobbie Mikesell 
Committee Secretary
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
July 1, 1995
Page