MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
March 10, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:07 a.m., on Monday, March 10, 2003. Vice Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steven Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Michael Chapman, Program Analyst
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Catherine Caldwell, Committee Secretary
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani called the meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. The roll was called. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that there was a quorum and instructed the secretary to mark Committee members present as they arrived. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the agenda would be taken out of order. She said the first item on the agenda would be the Public Utilities Commission budget hearing, after which the original agenda would be followed.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (224-3920) – BUDGET PAGE – PUC-1
Don Soderberg, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, introduced himself and his budget team, Crystal Jackson, Commission Secretary, Donna Wickham, Assistant Commission Secretary, and Jefferey D’Amario, Systems Operation Manager and lead information technologist. He said that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) budget was essentially unchanged for FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005. The budget covered the PUC expenditures for the next biennium, the reduction of the reserve balance surplus, and the stabilization of the mill assessment rate. Mr. Soderberg said that the budget was based on a relatively flat two-year spending pattern with some instances of underspending. He said The Executive Budget recommended enhancements for two unclassified salaried positions. The proposed enhancements were based on a Department of Administration compaction analysis of supervisory duties, and a decrease of one position that had been envisioned as supervisory and upgraded in the 1999 Legislative Session. Mr. Soderberg noted that they assigned no supervisory duties to that position and they decided it was a better management practice to pay the position on a par with like agency positions.
Mr. Soderberg said that the budget was predicated on the repeal of Section 28 of A.B. 661 that increased the number of commissioners from three to five by October 2003. Mr. Soderberg said that their budget provided for three commissioners and one utility hearing officer. He noted that the utility hearing officer position would not have a full complement of staff, as would a commissioner. The Commission’s calculations determined that three commissioners and one utility hearing officer would give the PUC the resources equivalent to three and one-half commissioners. Mr. Soderberg believed that was sufficient to discharge their current and projected duties over the next biennium. He said if Section 28 of A.B. 661 was not repealed, they had developed a budget module for the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) that allowed them to fund the increase in commissioner positions required prior to October 2003 when A.B. 661, Section 28, would go into effect.
Mr. Soderberg opened the Floor to questions.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the budget was relatively flat. She asked Mr. Soderberg to discuss the large customers that had actually left the existing utility system and what impact that had on the groups that remained.
Mr. Soderberg replied that neither Sierra Pacific, Nevada Power Systems, nor any other large customers had left. He said they had received a number of applications and that essentially all the entities that had applied once had let the applications lapse and applied a second time. The second round of applications was in the approval process. Mr. Soderberg added that he could not yet judge the success or failure of that provision in A.B. 661 because the analysis was different. The Commission’s staff analysis of the current applications in southern Nevada showed a significant benefit to the remaining customers, based on the date and financials of those applications.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked how many applications were pending review, discounting the second round of applications. Mr. Soderberg said he did not have an exact number but thought it was slightly over ten. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Soderberg to provide the analysis to Committee staff. Mr. Soderberg said he would have the analysis of the completed applications sent to Legislative Counsel Bureau staff.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Soderberg to discuss the status of the bill draft request (BDR) to repeal Section 28, A.B. 661. Mr. Soderberg said a bill draft request had not yet been introduced. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if a bill draft request was on the BDR list. Mr. Soderberg confirmed that the Governor’s Office had included it with one of the larger bills.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the Commission testified it could handle its work with one hearing officer and some support staff as well as with the two additional commissioners. Mr. Soderberg confirmed Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani’s comment.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Soderberg to discuss placing the Transportation Services Authority (TSA) under the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and what effect that would have.
Mr. Soderberg said the Commission had evaluated the idea from a broad perspective. He noted they would have five commissioners similar to what had been in place with the former Public Service Commission in the 1980s and 1990s. From a “big-picture-back-of-the-envelope standpoint,” and from what they understood of the TSA budget, a merge would cost about $300,000 the first year, over and above the PUC proposed budget, and approximately $75,000 per year after that. He noted that they had recently received more definite questions on the proposal from the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) fiscal staff. He said the Commission’s next task was to address those questions and communicate with the Department of Business Industry.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the TSA budget would not be funded from the General Fund, but from the Highway Fund. She asked if the merge would affect the General Fund.
Mr. Soderberg said he did not believe there would be any General Fund effect. He added he believed that the TSA was largely funded from the Highway Fund and reserves from the Taxi Cab Authority. The Commission did not expend any General Fund dollars so there would be no positive or negative impact on the General Fund.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the Commission was seeking one more hearing officer and asked how many hearing officers they currently had.
Mr. Soderberg responded that they had none at the present time. He said the authority to use hearing officers was granted to the Commission as part of a larger 1997 legislative session telecommunications bill. There had also been disagreement regarding how that authority would be enacted, and securing authority was time-consuming. Mr. Soderberg said that when he began his term as Chairman there was little time to pursue the process, and because the position was not part of the unclassified pay bill, it had not been filled.
Mr. Soderberg said regulations allowed him to dispatch cases to a competent individual unless there was a statutory prohibition. Mr. Soderberg had dispatched two such cases to individuals as a test for the system. He said that one series of telecommunication cases had been settled between the parties and involved no hearing time. The renewable contract cases were assigned to their acting general counsel in the Las Vegas office. He said there was some hearing time involved, and the process had worked well. He said that over the last few months they had learned a great deal from the process and were prepared to hire a dedicated hearing officer.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked who handled the Commission’s administrative proceedings. Mr. Soderberg said the formal hearings were handled by one of the three commissioners as assigned. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani reaffirmed Mr. Soderberg’s statement that a commissioner could handle all of the components that went into a hearing. Mr. Soderberg confirmed Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani’s statement. He said that in their system, Commissioners also acted as hearing officers, and that differed from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), or other states where commissioners voted but did not actually handle the underlying proceedings.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked how many general counsels the Commission had. Mr. Soderberg said they had one general counsel, two assistant general counsels, and an administrative attorney assigned to the office.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the Commission had prepared a budget to present to the IFC if the repeal of A.B. 661, Section 28, failed to pass. She asked if the Committee had anticipated deleting the hearing officer if that were the case.
Mr. Soderberg stated that if they had two additional commissioners they would not need a hearing officer. He said he would like to discuss with Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) fiscal staff how to put those positions into the unclassified pay bill. Currently the Commission could not hire any commissioners because the appropriate classification did not exist. He said their total number of employees would increase by eight if they got two commissioners instead of one hearing officer. There had been some preliminary discussions regarding the possible TSA merge. Mr. Soderberg said the Commission would shift from six commissioners and two agencies to five commissioners and one agency and that would create a need for at least one or more hearing officers to handle the additional transportation responsibilities.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Soderberg to discuss the mill assessments.
Mr. Soderberg said that with the exception of two unique programs, the Commission’s budget was funded entirely from the mill assessment on the state-regulated utilities. He said the Commission’s statutory mill assessment maximum was 3.5 mills. From the 1990s through the early part of the 2000s there were considerable variations in the mill assessment. Mr. Soderberg said the Commission’s intent was to keep the mill assessment between 2.25 mills and 2.50 mills. He said there had been several discussions with the entities that paid the mill assessment and though the assessment found its way into consumer rates, the regulated utilities experienced some budgetary gymnastics if it changed every year. He added that the PUC notified the utilities of the mill assessment at the end of May for the upcoming fiscal year. The utilities had to move quickly to make the appropriate adjustments when there were notable rate fluctuations. The PUC hoped to establish a steady, level or near level mill assessment through the years, and to work down the surplus accumulated from mill assessment fluctuations. Mr. Soderberg said that by achieving that goal they could keep the mill assessment consistent, and accommodate the utilities with their budgetary matters.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what Mr. Soderberg thought their ultimate reserve level should be.
Mr. Soderberg said that, in the budget they were presenting to the Committee, their reserve should be between $1.8 million and $2.4 million. He said currently their projection was much higher.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the Governor recommended a reserve level of $3.8 million and that the current reserve level was $5 million. Mr. Soderberg agreed. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the 2.50 mill assessment generated the $5 million reserve. Mr. Soderberg said the 2.50 mill assessment that was approved May 2001 generated the $5 million figure.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the PUC testified it needed to reduce the mill assessment to 2.25 in order to reduce the reserve. She asked Mr. Soderberg if their budget was based on that reduction.
Mr. Soderberg said that they developed their budget using the 2.25 mill assessment. He added in order to reduce the reserve they were under collecting what they actually needed, and that a 2.25 mill assessment would shrink the reserve. Mr. Soderberg said they adjusted the mill assessment figure every year and, to avoid raising the reserve level, would consider lowering it if the PUC spent less than it had budgeted. He said they intended to reduce the surplus slowly by lowering the mill assessment so that there were no abrupt changes or anomalies in any one year.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the Committee needed to confirm, either with the budget division or the PUC staff, that their budget was based on a 2.50 mill assessment. Mr. Soderberg testified that the budget before the Committee was based on a 2.50 mill assessment. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the PUC would provide the Committee a budget that anticipated a 2.25 mill assessment, and that would help them with their closing.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what the Bureau of Consumer Protection assessed as a mill levy. Mr. Soderberg said .75 was the statutory maximum. Mr. Marvel noted that a merger with the TSA would be a budgetary nightmare and they had a different source of revenue.
Mr. Soderberg said when the TSA was under the Public Service Commission the budget accounts were kept separate, and commissioners were delegated so that a portion of each commissioner’s work and salary was assigned to transportation. Mr. Soderberg stated that method had caused some budgetary gymnastics. Mr. Marvel indicated he did not see much logic in a merge.
Assemblywoman Chowning moved the discussion to the Railroad Safety Program portion of the PUC budget. She noted that in decision unit E-710 they asked for equipment replacement and for three vehicles; one for the Gas Pipeline Program inspection program, and two for the Rail Safety program. She asked Mr. Soderberg to clarify if they were replacing all their vehicles by replacing the three utility vehicles. She asked how many miles were on them.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked Mr. Soderberg to discuss the PUC performance indicators, Public Utilities Commission budget page PUC-1. She said they appeared to have made excellent progress in the number of track units and cars that were inspected between the Projected and Actual FY2002 columns. She noted there was almost a 400 percent increase for FY2004. She asked Mr. Soderberg if FY2002 was an anomaly, because the FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005 Projected columns showed a reduction for those indicators. She asked Mr. Soderberg, if they had done so well in FY2002, why they would project so large a decrease for FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005. Mrs. Chowning also asked Mr. Soderberg to explain why they projected inspection of 900 HAZMAT cars but only 600 were inspected. She noted that those inspections were extremely important to the safety of Nevada’s citizens and workers. She asked Mr. Soderberg to address those questions.
Mr. Soderberg said he would address Assemblywoman Chowning’s question and let Ms. Wickham discuss Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani’s questions regarding the vehicle replacement program.
Mr. Soderberg said that the statistics in The Executive Budget were a function of two factors. The first factor was management technique. Mr. Soderberg explained that they had four federally certified individuals who worked independently and had different specialties. He said the PUC had improved its management practices and given those individuals increased accountability for reporting which then gave the PUC a better grasp of their responsibilities, goals, and expectations. Mr. Soderberg said that the second factor contributing to the decreased projections was turnover and the federal certification process. He said that the inspectors had to be federally certified and not many certified individuals were available to hire. When the PUC had turnover in that area it typically hired individuals who had some level of expertise, but who were not federally certified. During the lengthy certification process, the statistics decreased because much of the work had to be handled by their federally trained inspectors that were also training the new hires. Mr. Soderberg said that unless they could reduce the turnover and hire federally certified employees, they would continue to have fluctuating statistics.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked Mr. Soderberg if the current inspectors were federally certified. Mr. Soderberg said that all four of their inspectors were certified. Mrs. Chowning summarized that if there was no turnover, the PUC projections would continue to show positive percentages. Mr. Soderberg said that Mrs. Chowning was correct.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Wickham to discuss the replacement vehicles.
Donna Wickham, Assistant Commission Secretary, Public Utilities Commission, introduced herself to the Committee. She said the PUC had four vehicles in the Rail Safety Program and three in the Gas Pipeline Safety Program. She said the Rail Safety Program vehicles had not been replaced during FY2001 or FY2002. During the upcoming biennium, the PUC requested replacement of two rail vehicles in FY2004 and one gas pipeline vehicle in FY2005. She said the PUC had a schedule they could provide fiscal staff that detailed the life expectancy and mileage on the current vehicles. As additional justification for vehicle replacement she said that with a full complement of staff the inspectors checked the rail daily and drove on very rough terrain. The vehicles were not driven on streets or roads. She said the inspectors were in dire need of new vehicles. She noted that the replacement vehicles would not affect the General Fund. They would be assessed back to a federal grant program supporting the gas pipeline or back to the railroads themselves.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Wickham to provide the detailed vehicle replacement information to fiscal staff. She asked if the PUC used the state policy for replacement vehicles, which she believed was 80,000 miles. Ms. Wickham confirmed that they did use state policy.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that Ms. Wickham had also explained that wear and tear on the vehicles was unusual because they were driven up and down rail lines. She said they were not “Hummers or anything.” Ms. Wickham agreed there was unusual wear and tear on the vehicles, and that they were not “anything like Hummers.” She said the inspectors would like that. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani replied, “Don’t even go there.”
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for questions from the Committee. She thanked the PUC presenters for their budget presentation and for allowing the Committee to take them out of order.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on Budget Account 3920 and said the next order of business was A.B. 4.
Assembly Bill 4: Revises provisions governing licenses to hunt, fish, or hunt and fish. (BDR 45-129)
April West, Legal Assistant and intern to Assemblywoman Gibbons, introduced herself for the record. She said A.B. 4 reduced the amount of time a person who was 65 years of age or older must reside in the state of Nevada to qualify for the reduced-fee license to hunt, fish, or hunt and fish. She said A.B. 4 revised the five-year residency requirement to six months, which was the standard residency requirement for most states. She said the bill was before the Committee because of a concern for lost revenue to the state resulting from the reduced residency time. Ms. West said that there should be no fiscal impact to the state because more people with the reduced residency time would be buying the license.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Ms. West. She asked for testimony from the audience.
Francis Piccinini introduced herself to the Committee. She represented Mark-Fore and Strike Sporting Goods in Reno. She said that, “forever and ten days,” the state residency requirement was six months. She said it was changed to five years for seniors two sessions ago. She said that meant that a child could move to Nevada, live here six months, and receive a reduced-fee junior license, whereas a senior citizen had to live here five years to get a reduced-fee senior license. She did not think that was right. She said seniors had contributed their entire lives and were entitled to some benefit for having survived the world for 65 years.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Piccinini if she had been able to discover what had driven the increase. She noted that they went to a five-year residency requirement for senior citizens to compensate for the senior reduced rate.
Ms. Piccinini said she went to the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) and asked for an explanation for the increase to a five-year residency requirement. She said they explained that the change was the result of so many seniors moving to Nevada who had not lived several years in the state, contributing to the economy. She added that research said they did not have a solid understanding of what drove the change although they believed it had to do with the increase of seniors moving to the state. Ms. Piccinini said there was no real research information available.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the Committee had a fiscal note on the bill. She said the Committee had recently heard testimony on the Wildlife Division budget that they had experienced a serious decline in hunting and fishing license applications across the state and in all age categories. She said that part of the problem was from a notable decline in mule deer populations as a result of the drought. As a result not many tags had been drawn. She added that regardless, the Wildlife Division expected a consistent decline in license applications.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for questions from the Committee.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked if $7 was the cost for a combined fishing and hunting license, and what the fee was for someone 65 years and older who had met the residency requirement. Ms. Piccinini said the senior-discounted combination hunting and fishing license was $8. Mrs. Chowning said that the bill book noted the fee was $7. Ms. Piccinini said there was a commission built into the license fee that paid the licensing agents $1 for writing the license. Mrs. Chowning asked how much the senior was saving. Ms. Piccinini replied that a regular combination license was $39 and a senior license was $8, therefore, the savings to seniors was $31.
Ms. Piccinini testified that the residency requirement had always been six months. She said she had heard that the residency requirement was raised to five years because it was linked to state park discount passes. She said there was no link, and that it was “apples and oranges.” Ms. Piccinini said she realized there were many senior citizens who could afford to buy a regular-fee license and there were also many who could not.
Mrs. Chowning thanked Ms. Piccinini.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Assemblywoman Gibbons and Ms. West and asked if there were further questions.
Assemblywoman Gibbons noted that there were concerns from constituents that people were asked to supply a social security number to receive a license and asked Ms. Piccinini to address that issue.
Ms. Piccinini said it was a state requirement linked to a federal law, and had to do with “deadbeat dads.” She noted that social security numbers were required and that a twelve-year-old had to provide a social security number. She said she followed instructions from the state, but that the requirement was linked to “deadbeat dads.”
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Ms. Piccinini for her input. She said that social security numbers were required for many professional licenses but wondered why they were required from children. Ms. Piccinini said that children were legally required to have a social security number. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that with so much identity theft people should be very cautious.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that representatives from the Wildlife Division were present and asked for comments on A.B. 4.
Gene Weller, Deputy Administrator, Division of Wildlife, introduced himself and thanked the Committee for the opportunity to testify. He said they were there to express concerns about A.B. 4. He noted that the Wildlife Division was a user-funded agency and therefore was always concerned when its funding sources were eroded. He gave some background for a historical perspective. He said in the mid-1990s the Division’s Board of Wildlife Commissioners developed a pioneer-type license to reward long-term residents. When the original bill was put forward it proposed an age of 65 years and a state residency requirement of 25 years. He said the proposal was patterned after four other western states that had pioneer-type licenses. The residency requirements for a reduced-price license ranged from 25 to 50 years. One justification for that type of license was that seniors were considered a high-user group. They had the time and ability to get out, and affected wildlife more than the general population. The second justification for the pioneer license was the concern over increasing numbers of retirees moving to Nevada and stepping right into a low-cost license category. A.B. 212 was passed by the 1995 Legislature but due to other concerns, the residency requirement was dropped to 5 years, making the low-cost license available at 65 years of age and with a 5-year residency requirement.
Mr. Weller said they currently sold about 10,000 senior resident reduced-price licenses for hunting, fishing, and hunting and fishing combination, and the revenue was approximately $60,000 a year. When they prepared the fiscal note the loss was figured by using approximately 430 people over the age of 65 who bought a full-price license. He said when those individuals met the 5-year residency requirement it reduced revenues to the Division by about $7,500 a year.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the 430 people over 65 who had not yet met the 5-year residency requirement would eventually roll into the reduced revenue bracket. Mr. Weller agreed that was the assumption.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for questions from the Committee.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Weller and asked if anyone else wished to testify on A.B. 4, either for or against. With no further testimony forthcoming on A.B. 4, Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani declared the hearing closed. The next order of business for the Committee was A.B. 19.
Assembly Bill 19: Provides for issuance of "United We Stand" special license plates. (BDR 43-217)
Mrs. Chowning addressed the Chair and members of the Committee. She testified that the purpose of A.B. 19 was to reflect public solidarity after the acts of terrorism viciously committed against the country on September 11, 2001. She said the words “United We Stand” would be prominently displayed on the license plate and the colors of red, white, and blue, symbolizing the flag of this country, must be on the special license plate. She had a display sample of the proposed plate showing how it might appear. She said the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Nevada Highway Patrol had worked together on the design and production of the example. She noted that as a result of the testimony in the Transportation Committee, people had begun calling to place orders.
Mrs. Chowning said the bill was in Committee because of the fiscal impact. She noted that the Lake Tahoe plate had raised $1.8 million and other license plates had raised $100,000. The firefighter plate had raised $75,000 that went to a burn center. The specialty license plates brought in revenue without cost to the state, and purchasers paid $25 the first year and $20 to renew. The bill stipulated that the revenues would go to the Division of Emergency Management. Mrs. Chowning requested that the money be moved as quickly as possible to local cities and counties. She said that federal money for homeland security had not come to the states and local governments as quickly as had been anticipated. Nevada cities and counties were bearing a great financial burden for homeland security efforts. She noted on page 5, lines 4 through 7, of A.B. 19, that the purpose of the funds was to “provide financial assistance to this state or to local governments in this state to support preparedness to combat terrorism, including, without limitation, planning, training, purchasing supplies and equipment.” Mrs. Chowning said that specially equipped fire trucks with hazardous materials (HAZMAT) suits were extremely expensive. Clark County had only two and if there were a catastrophic emergency right now, there would only be two of these trucks available. Mrs. Chowning said, “Ladies and gentlemen, that is not enough.”
Mrs. Chowning said she hoped the funds raised from the proposed specialty license plate would be used as matching funds to leverage federal homeland security dollars. She suggested the revenue for the “United We Stand” specialty plates go to the State Emergency Response Commission. They had a 25-member board and worked directly with Nevada’s local emergency commissions. She noted that often when bills were drafted there was not sufficient time to work out all the details and thought her proposal would be a better fit for the funding. She asked, with the Committee’s permission, to amend A.B. 19 and wanted to work with staff to develop the exact language.
Mrs. Chowning directed the Committee to Section 6 of A.B. 19. She said the bill would expire if there were not 1,000 applications received by October 1, 2005. The specialty plates would “go away at no cost, no harm, no foul.” She added that she did not think that that plate would go away.
Mrs. Chowning asked for questions.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that with regard to subsection 5, Section 2, Mrs. Chowning wanted to work with staff to re-divert the collected fees to a better location, for example, the Emergency Response Commission.
Mrs. Chowning said yes, subsection 5, Section 2, was correct.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the $25 fee noted in subsection 4 was a standard charge for specialty plates. She asked if the price had been $25 for a long time and if they anticipated raising it.
Mrs. Chowning said the fee for the “United We Stand” license plates was $35 in addition to all other applicable registration and license fees, and governmental service taxes. The initial issuance of the plate carried an additional $25 fee. She said the $25 fee had been in place for a long time, as, for instance, for the University plates. She noted that the University plates had raised about $300,000 for scholarships. Mrs. Chowning said the difference in fees was for renewals. Most of the specialty plates were now renewed at $20. She said that the DMV was there to answer those types of questions. The intricate design of the proposed plate, with many colors in the sheeting, would require about 400 to 450 plate orders to break even. She said with a 1,000-plate production minimum there should be no costs whatsoever.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the 1,000-plate minimum was set in the 71st or the 70th Session, and if that was standardized for all of the special plate bills.
Mrs. Chowning said the minimum was established in the 71st Session and was standard with all plates. She added that 1,000 plates was a reasonable minimum since it required people to take the specialty plate process seriously. It helped curb those individuals who might think “Well, gee, I have a good idea for this, so let’s just go for it.”
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for questions from the Committee. There were none. She thanked Mrs. Chowning for her presentation. She asked if anyone else wished to testify on A.B. 19. She invited the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to testify and asked them for the total number of specialty plates in production.
Martha Barnes, Administrator for Central Services and Records Division, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), introduced herself. In response to Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani’s question she said they had 22 specialty plates, and that the number would increase because there were several specialty plate bills coming before the legislative session.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if all the plates were subject to the 1,000 minimum or only those passed since the 71st Session. She also asked if the 1,000 minimum was in the regulations. Ms. Barnes said that the 1,000 minimum was for the current session. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani said standardizing a minimum production limit might be something for the Committee to consider.
Mrs. Chowning said she had a “State of Nevada Special License Plates” handout for the Committee that could also be found on the DMV Web site (Exhibit C). She said there were about 15 special plates that raised funds. Mrs. Chowning said the DMV Web site was excellent. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it was also an easy place to register your car. Speaker Perkins asked the DMV to send the Committee a list of the special plates and how many of each were in their inventory. Ms. Barnes asked if he wanted that for each member of the Committee. Speaker Perkins said it would be helpful. He said they could evaluate each plate’s popularity and prioritize one special plate against another for future reference. Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the DMV could send the list to Mr. Stevens, who would make sure the Committee got copies.
Assemblyman Parks expressed concern that the special plate revenues were not always directed to the designated recipients. He noted the example of the veterans’ tags. He understood that all the fees from the veterans’ plates should go to the Office of Veteran’s Services and he did not think that was the case. Mr. Parks hoped that corrections would be made to that area.
Mrs. Chowning said that the total revenue generated via the veterans’ plates was $291,018.66 as of December 31, 2002. She said the veterans said that some of the money had gone into the General Fund instead of directly to the Veterans’ Home account. She said she did not know the details or the amount of money, but there was a problem. She said in response to that problem there was a bill being developed to ensure that the special plates revenues were directed appropriately.
Mr. Parks asked if there was a bill before the Transportation Committee. Mrs. Chowning said there was. Mr. Parks asked if the Transportation Committee would introduce it. Mrs. Chowning said that the bill would come either in the form of a DMV bill, as an amendment to one of their bills, or an amendment to another bill that was in committee.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for further questions. She asked if there was anyone else who wished to testify on A.B. 19. With no further testimony forthcoming on A.B. 19, Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani declared the hearing closed. The next order of business for the Committee was Assembly Bill 73.
Assembly Bill 73 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions concerning certain crimes committed against older persons. (BDR 15-357)
Assemblywoman McClain said that A.B. 73 had been presented in the Assembly Judiciary Committee and that some provisions had been added to it. She said A.B. 73 related to crimes and the first point of the bill was to lower the age limit from 65 to 60 for enhanced penalties against older persons. She said that kept Nevada in line with other related state statutes and the federal Older Americans Act. The second point of the bill was to insert language that authorized a court to require a person found guilty of certain crimes against older persons to pay the cost of investigating and prosecuting the crime for very complex cases. The Assembly Judiciary Committee amended the language out of the bill because of concerns about restitution becoming a goal. Ms. McClain asked Ben Graham to address the fiscal issues.
Ben Graham introduced himself and indicated he was testifying on behalf of Clark County and the Nevada District Attorney’s Association. He thanked the Committee for hearing Assemblywoman McClain and himself. He said A.B. 73 was sponsored by the Attorney General’s unit that primarily investigated issues of physical and economic abuse of seniors. Mr. Graham said the bill would bring the state of Nevada’s legal age threshold for seniors into conformity with the federal government’s and other states’ laws. He said that if the bill were passed he would become one of those protected citizens and would not have to be “age enhanced another five years before it would kick in.” The bill would have a minimal fiscal effect to the state of Nevada. The primary effect of the bill would be as a deterrent to crimes against older persons. Mr. Graham said that A.B. 73 had provisions in the bill to allow for potential recovery of investigation costs if assets were available. The concern raised in the Assembly Judiciary Committee had to do with restitution. The Committee felt such language was not necessary. Mr. Graham reiterated that the bill should bring no significant cost to the state, was requested through the Office of the Attorney General, and dealt with elder abuse.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Graham for his testimony. She said the essential issue of A.B. 73 was alignment with the Older Americans Act and other states by reducing the age of 65 to 60 when referring to older persons. She said the earlier definition would cease on October 1, 2003, and the new definition would go into effect.
Mr. Graham said that was their understanding of the legislation.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for questions from the Committee.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any other individuals who wished to testify either for or against A.B. 73. With no further testimony forthcoming on A.B. 73, Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani declared the hearing closed. The next order of business for the Committee was A.B. 111. She turned the meeting over to Chairman Arberry.
Assembly Bill 111: Makes various changes related to processing and sale of dairy products. (BDR 51-539)
Chairman Arberry thanked Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani and greeted the Committee. He asked who was present to speak on behalf of A.B. 111.
Robert King, Acting Executive Director, State Dairy Commission, Department of Business and Industry, introduced himself and Anna Vickrey, Environmental Health Specialist, Dairy Commission Environmental Inspection Program. He said he had been the Acting Executive Director since May 2002. A.B. 111 sought to amend Nevada Revised Statutes, NRS 584, through technical changes to effectively implement S.B. 505 of the 2001 Legislative Session. The amendment would require disclosure of governmental actions taken against distributor licenses where such disclosures were not currently required. A new definition of “dairy foods manufacturing plant” was added at the beginning of NRS 584.008. The term “dairy food manufacturing plant” was used in statute and administrative code and was not clearly defined in either place. NRS 584.067 deleted the requirement that fluid milk products be classified into three separate classes. The deletion gave the Commission flexibility to have more than three classes of fluid milk. At the beginning of NRS 584.077 a reference to all provisions in the chapter was placed where licensing criteria were established.
Chairman Arberry asked Mr. King if the Commission’s fees were built into the budget.
Mr. King responded that the fees were built into the budget. He said there were no increased fees. He said the issue was to insert the fees into the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) since they were in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) and had been collected for the last five to seven years.
Chairman Arberry asked if there were any questions from the Committee. He asked if there was any testimony in opposition to A.B. 111. He thanked Mr. King for his testimony and declared the testimony portion of the hearing regarding A.B. 111 closed.
Chairman Arberry asked if it was the pleasure of the Committee to move on A.B. 111.
Assemblyman Marvel moved to do pass A.B. 111.
assemblyman Beers seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
********
Chairman Arberry said there was an emergency measure bill for Committee consideration and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani would give a brief discussion in order for the Committee to move on it quickly.
Assembly Bill 263: Revises provisions governing notice requirements for change in health insurance program for public employees.
(BDR 23-1313)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani presented A.B. 263. She said it was best to hear the bill publicly rather than behind the Bar. They were requesting to pass A.B. 263 as an emergency measure in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and to move it to the Senate if it passed on the Assembly Floor. The purpose of A.B. 263 was to assist the Board of the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP) in the establishment of rates by March 13, 2003. A.B. 263 would reduce the notification time period from 60 to at least 30 days so that if retirement bills were moved in the next few weeks the Board could anticipate the rate structure. She said the action was made very public, and public employees were aware of the bill.
Chairman Arberry thanked Ms. Giunchigliani. He noted that the Committee needed to make a motion to suspend the rules in order to do something out of the ordinary. He asked for a motion to suspend the rules.
Assemblywoman Chowning moved to suspend the rules.
Assemblyman parks seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
********
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani moved to do pass A.B. 263.
Assemblywoman Chowning seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
********
Chairman Arberry asked the Committee to consider introduction of the following bill draft request:
Assemblywoman GIUNCHIGLIANI moved TO APPROVE COMMITTEE introduction of BDR 34-903.
Assemblywoman Chowning seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
********
Chairman Arberry said the next order of business for the committee was A.B. 74.
Assembly Bill 74: Provides for revolving fund to finance remediation of brownfield sites. (BDR 40-518)
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, said they had heard A.B. 74 last Monday, and it was related to Brownfield sites. He said Allen Biaggi, Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, had discussed the bill with them. Mr. Biaggi said there were expenses, but that they were from federal funds.
Assemblyman Marvel moved to Do pass A.B. 74.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani seconded the motion.
Chairman Arberry asked for comments.
Assemblywoman Gibbons said she had a note that the Committee was to change Section 12, page 2, to comply with the Brownfields Revitalization Act.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said Section 10 explained that fund meant, “. . . the Fund for Brownfield Projects. . .” and was all-inclusive.
Chairman Arberry asked if there was any more discussion.
The motion carried unanimously.
********
With no further business to come before the Committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 9:01 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Catherine Caldwell
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: