MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-Second Session
May 21, 2003
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 9:21 a.m., on Wednesday, May 21, 2003. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. 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 Chairman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. David Goldwater
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Lila Clark, Committee Secretary
Connie Davis, Committee Secretary
Senate Bill 127 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing hazardous materials. (BDR 40-296)
Mr. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said S.B. 127 concerned the Division of Environmental Protection. The bill was a result of the Subcommittee of the Legislative Commission studying industrial accidents. Mr. Stevens said there were costs included in the bill but Mr. Biaggi had indicated that those costs would not come from the General Fund. He said that non-General Fund revenue would pay for any expenses related to the legislation.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 127.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblymen Goldwater and Parks were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 246 (1st Reprint): Makes supplemental appropriation to Supreme Court of Nevada for unanticipated shortfall in money for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 resulting from deficit in collection of administrative assessments. (BDR S-1223)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 246 was the supplemental appropriation to the Supreme Court which was necessary due to administrative assessments being received in a lesser amount than was anticipated or budgeted during each year of the biennium. Mr. Stevens said the amount included in The Executive Budget of $500,748 had been amended to $610,000. Mr. Stevens said he had recently reviewed the amount of funds in the bill and the amount necessary had changed a small amount but staff felt it was close enough to the $610,000 so staff would not recommend amending the bill, but passing it as it was.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 246.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater and Assemblywoman McClain were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 247 (1st Reprint): Makes appropriations to restore balances in Stale Claims Account, Emergency Account and Reserve for Statutory Contingency Account. (BDR S-1236)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 247 would restore the fund balances in the Statutory Contingency Fund, Stale Claims Account, and the Emergency Fund. Mr. Stevens said the bill had been amended by the Senate and staff recommended the bill be passed.
SPEAKER PERKINS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 247.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblymen Goldwater and Parks were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 413 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning securities issued by the University and Community College System of Nevada. (BDR 34-1034)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 413 was the University’s revenue bond bill. Mr. Stevens said staff recommended no amendments to the bill.
SPEAKER PERKINS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 413.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblymen Goldwater and Parks were not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 415 (1st Reprint): Removes certain restrictions on use of money in Estate Tax Account in Endowment Fund of University and Community College System of Nevada. (BDR 32-1264)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 415 would remove the restriction on the Estate Tax Endowment of the University and Community College System of Nevada. Mr. Stevens pointed out that in The Executive Budget and the approval of the budget by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee that the endowment would have to be spent down below the amount that was statutorily required. Mr. Stevens said the bill in its present form would remove the restriction on how much money would have to be placed in the Endowment Fund before monies could be spent.
Mr. Stevens went on to say that both committees closed the University’s budgets with the Estate Tax that was built into the budgets approved by the money committees to be transferred to the state General Fund as a General Fund revenue and that General Fund appropriations be provided to the University during the upcoming biennium in lieu of authorized Estate Tax revenues. Mr. Stevens said S.B. 415 would not need to be amended but statutory language would need to be passed during the current session and S.B. 415 would be the best vehicle in which to do that. Mr. Stevens said statutory language was needed that would have the University transfer on a monthly basis the Estate Tax revenues that were included in each year of the biennium, and if there were insufficient funds in one month and more than enough funds in a subsequent month that the funds would be made up. Mr. Stevens said language was needed that would indicate that the amounts transferred would not exceed the amount of funds in the Estate Tax Fund. Mr. Stevens said that the University’s projection was that the Estate Tax account would be approximately $8 or $9 million short of what had been authorized in the budget and that totaled $89.2 million. Mr. Stevens stated that Estate Tax revenues were very volatile and there could be one very good month that could make a large difference in available funds. He said no one knew how much money would come in but the language would allow the funds to be transferred on a monthly basis to the state General Fund based on the amount of money that was in the account. Mr. Stevens pointed out that General Fund appropriations had been provided to replace funds on the expenditure side of the University System budget.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if S.B. 415 would provide a “hole” that would have to be filled from General Funds in the next session of the Legislature.
Mr. Stevens responded that there was approximately $40 million built into the second year of the biennium in Estate Tax revenues and there would probably be only a small amount of Estate Tax money received in the next biennium.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 415 WITH THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY MR. STEVENS TO ALLOW FOR THE PAYMENT ON A MONTHLY BASIS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN HETTRICK, MARVEL, AND BEERS VOTING NO. (Mr. Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
Senate Bill 416: Authorizes issuance of bonds and other securities for completion of Fish Hatchery Refurbishment Project. (BDR S-1212)
Mr. Stevens said S.B. 416 would authorize issuance of bonds for Fish Hatchery renovations. He said it had been discussed previously by the Committee and S.B. 416 would authorize $14 million for projects involving all of the fish hatcheries throughout the state.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if a similar bill had been passed in the 2001 Session of the Legislature.
Mr. Stevens responded that a much smaller amount was appropriated in the 2001 Session. He said the Trout Stamp was increased in the 2001 Session and the amount included in the budget was $14.5 million. He said the bill was for $14 million. Mr. Stevens said he had a list of the projects that the Department of Wildlife planned to complete with the funds. Mr. Stevens said the bonds would be retired from Trout Stamp revenues.
Mr. Marvel said the bonds were General Obligation Bonds and he believed they should be revenue bonds. Mr. Stevens said that as he understood it the funding source for the repayment of the bonds was from Trout Stamp revenues but he could get more information for the Committee.
Chairman Arberry said S.B. 416 would be held until Mr. Stevens could clarify the funding source.
Assembly Joint Resolution 16: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to provide that State Treasurer is ex officio State Controller. (BDR C-1109)
Mr. Stevens said A.J.R. 16 would amend the Nevada Constitution to provide that the State Treasurer would serve as the ex officio State Controller. The bill would serve to combine the Controller’s and Treasurer’s functions within the Treasurer’s Office.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.J.R. 16.
SPEAKER PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLYMEN GRIFFIN, BEERS, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS VOTED NO. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Arberry held the bill.
Assembly Bill 297 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing payment of hospitals for treating disproportionate share of Medicaid patients, indigent patients or other low-income patients. (BDR 38-885)
Mr. Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said A.B. 297 was the disproportionate share inter-governmental transfer bill. He said the bill established a mechanism so the disproportionate share distribution would be set up into perpetuity. He said that currently the issue had to be revisited each legislative session. Mr. Abba said the bill would enact the suggestions that had come out of an interim study that had been commissioned by the Legislative Committee on Health Care. He said that Section 3 of the bill, page 2, established the amounts of the intergovernmental transfers that were to be transferred. Mr. Abba said that on page 5 of the bill the cost pools that the interim study had recommended were in place. Mr. Abba said that $66.6 million was set as the disproportionate share (DSH) pool for the University Medical Center (UMC); item (b) was the DSH pool for the private hospitals in counties with populations of over 400,000; item (c) was the DSH distribution for counties with populations of less than 400,000 that did not have a public hospital and that would include Washoe Medical Center. Mr. Abba said items (d) and (e) were the DSH pools for a combination of rural public and rural private hospitals. Mr. Abba said that the amounts stated in the bill reflected a DSH distribution of $76 million. He said the actual DSH distribution that was anticipated for the upcoming biennium was less than $70 million so there were mechanisms built into the legislation that allowed for proportionate reductions based on the availability of DSH.
Mr. Abba said page 7 of the bill showed that the distribution of DSH was predicated upon uncompensated care costs and there was a definition of that. He said that was the DSH distribution through the participating hospitals and said there was a description of what uncompensated care costs were and that was the impetus of the study. Mr. Abba said the study used that assumption to develop the DSH pools that he had described.
Mr. Abba referred to Exhibit C, “DSH/IGT – 2003 Legislature Comparison of Alternate Versions of SB235 & AB297.” He said Exhibit C summarized for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 the estimated benefit by hospital that was participating in DSH based upon the A.B. 297 first reprint and what the state benefit was estimated to be based upon the first reprint. Mr. Abba noted that the estimated benefit to the state was very similar to the amounts that had been built into The Executive Budget, which the full committees of both the Senate and Assembly had approved. Mr. Abba said the net benefit to the state was used to pay Medicaid costs in the Medicaid budget.
Mr. Abba said there had been testimony on a proposed amendment from representatives for Sunrise Hospital. He said the amendment that had been proposed was based upon S.B. 235, which was very similar to A.B. 297, and said the differences in the two bills were minor. Mr. Abba said that the amendment to S.B. 235 would require an audit by the Legislative Auditor on an annual basis on all major hospitals. Major hospitals were hospitals with over 200 beds and the audit would be an annual audit of cost to charge ratios for each major hospital. Mr. Abba said the other distinct difference with the proposed amendment to what was contained in A.B. 297 was a mechanism for DSH for hospitals located in counties with a population of over 400,000. The language in the amendment proposed to make those distributions based upon Medicaid days or Medicaid utilization. Mr. Abba said that would change the amounts that would be distributed between the University Medical Center, Lake Mead, and Sunrise Hospitals. Mr. Abba said the other distinction in the proposed amendment was that the issue of the distribution of DSH would have to be revisited beginning July 1, 2005, and it would be required that the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy make some determinations on Medicaid utilization, how DSH should be distributed in those larger counties, and that the Interim Finance Committee would be the body that would make a decision on the ultimate percentages for distribution.
Assemblyman Marvel asked for clarification on whether there would be an annual audit by the Legislative Auditor required.
Mr. Abba responded that the audit had been requested in the proposed amendment.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if anyone had discussed the proposal with Mr. Paul Townsend, Legislative Auditor.
Mr. Abba said that staff had not discussed the audit proposal with Mr. Townsend and he believed the testimony from Sunrise Hospital was that they had not discussed the audit proposal with the Legislative Auditor.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if Mr. Townsend had the time or manpower to conduct annual audits.
Mr. Abba stated that the amendment proposed an annual audit and the major hospitals that would be audited would transfer $50,000 to the Legislative Counsel Bureau to pay for the audit. Mr. Abba said that meant there was a possibility that the audit could be contracted out.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 297.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 533 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing the recordation and taxation of property. (BDR 32-122)
Mr. Stevens referred the Committee to Exhibit D, “Proposed Amendments to A.B. 533.” He said Exhibit D contained all of the amendment proposals that he had received, including one from the Legal Division on a technical issue. Mr. Stevens said that he had invited Mr. Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to the meeting because there were a number of fiscal issues related to the bill, particularly Section 33, page 31. That section proposed to increase the commission that the county Treasurer could collect from 6 to 8 percent. That change would impact the revenues that went to local governments and to the school districts. Mr. Stevens said that Mr. Zuend could explain how much money that might generate. Mr. Stevens said it would be a substantial sum of money and staff wanted to be certain that the Committee was conscious of that section when it determined whether to pass the bill. Mr. Stevens said there were many sections of the bill that did not have a fiscal impact but there were approximately three issues that did have a fiscal impact.
Mr. Ted Zuend introduced himself and said that under existing law there was a 6 percent commission that the county received for assessors to assess personal property in their counties. Mr. Zuend said the commission “came right off the top” of the money available to local governments and went into the county funds. Mr. Zuend said that Section 33 proposed an increase of 2 percent in the commission, which would go directly into the assessor’s budget to finance some technical innovations in how they did their assessments. Mr. Zuend said there would be a net effect on all local government money of approximately $3.2 million and of that amount approximately $900,000 would be attributable to the school operating rate and the current state debt portion of 15 cents per $100 of assessed value. If the rate was increased the amount generated would also increase.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Zuend to comment on the loss of revenue for both the school districts and the loss due to the veterans’ exemption.
Mr. Zuend said Sections 6 and 40 of the bill would index the blind exemption to inflation. Sections 4 and 39 would index the surviving spouse exemption to inflation. He said those amounts were relatively nominal. The blind exemption would be $3,400 for all governments and $1,000 for the state interest in the property tax rate, and the surviving spouse would be $21,300 for all local governments and $6,400 for the state interest in the tax rate.
Mr. Zuend said that the bill originally included coverage for all veterans but the bill was amended in the Assembly Taxation Committee to cover war veterans only, not all veterans. The bill would cover all veterans who were associated with a conflict. He said that currently the veterans’ exemption covered only those who served in World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Gulf War. The bill would add veterans of conflicts such as Grenada, Kosovo, Panama, Somalia, and Iraq. Mr. Zuend said there was guesswork involved in the estimates of the costs because there were over 200,000 veterans in Nevada and currently there were approximately 20,000 who took advantage of the exemption. Mr. Zuend said that since the exemption covered veterans of Vietnam, World War II, and Korea, most veterans were already covered. Mr. Zuend said that the likelihood of many veterans taking advantage of the proposed exemption was fairly small. Mr. Zuend said that he assumed the propensity to apply for the exemption would continue if war veterans were added and the bottom-line result was that it was approximately $1.2 million for the entire property tax rate and approximately $356,000 for the state rate and the school operating rate. Mr. Zuend said that the exemption figures were based on the assumption that there would probably not be as many war veterans who might take advantage of the proposed exemption as those already covered. Mr. Zuend said he used a factor of approximately two-thirds additional in the pool that would be eligible for the exemption.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed the Taxation Committee considered the issue of expanding the exemption and made a decision to limit the exemption to a more known group, see what the effect would be, and then expand the exemption in the 2005 Legislature. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani pointed out that Mr. Zuend had budgeted on a potential loss of $356,000 but that could potentially be much higher.
Mr. Zuend said that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani was correct in her analysis. He said that based on some Veterans’ Administration estimates there were over 200,000 veterans in the state but only approximately 10 to 15 percent of those took advantage of the existing exemption. Mr. Zuend said his guess was that at least one-half or more of the veterans were from the periods already covered by the existing exemption.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the Committee would love to do more for veterans but at least the bill got the process started and the impact could be monitored. She suggested that Mr. Fulkerson might gather some data over the interim to bring to the 2005 Legislature to expand the exemption.
Assemblyman Griffin asked if A.B. 533 was the bill that included changing the requirement of printing the tax roll in the newspaper. Mr. Griffin said he did not know if there was an appetite currently to remove the requirement of printing the tax roll in the newspaper. He said notification and posting processes should be as broad as possible.
Assemblyman Marvel asked what the justification was of raising the percentage of commission from 6 to 8 percent.
Mr. Zuend said that apparently there was a bill that allowed county recorders to receive an additional commission on the work they did for technological improvements in their offices. Mr. Zuend said the provision in A.B. 533 mirrored that provision to allow assessors additional resources to provide technical enhancements within their offices. Mr. Zuend said the bill was the cleanest vehicle that could be found to do that without finding a new source of revenue.
Assemblyman Marvel said there would not be a “hit” on the General Fund although it would remove funding.
Mr. Zuend said funding would be removed from the funds available for the schools. He said the school rate would be affected and schools would be more dependent on the Distributive School Account.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that there would be a $900,000 loss if the commission was increased and she asked if that had been discussed in the Taxation Committee.
Assemblyman Marvel said that Assessor Dawley was in the audience and could probably explain the effect.
Mr. Dave Dawley, Carson City Assessor, testified that the funds from the increased commission would be used for technology enhancements and if the funds were not used they would go back into the General Fund at the end of the year. The funds would not be rolled over to be used the following year as was done in the technology fund for the county recorders’ offices.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the assessors’ offices currently had a technology fund.
Mr. Dawley said that the assessors’ offices did not have a technology fund. He said the fund would not only be used for the assessors’ offices; it would also be used for other departments if it was necessary for them to access the equipment the assessors had. That would allow other departments to share the assessors’ information.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the assessors’ offices had appealed to the county commissioners for funding for technology.
Mr. Dawley said he was unsure. He said in Carson City there was an account that the assessors’ offices accessed to receive technology funds but he did not know how other assessors handled requests for funds from their counties.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she understood that the assessors needed up-to-date equipment but she was unsure she wanted to take funds from school funding at that point in time. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the fund could be established but not funded with the 2 percent increase. She said that way the assessors could plead with their county commissioners for funds.
Mr. Dawley said he was unsure but he knew that most counties were having to cut their budgets and funds might not be available.
Assemblyman Parks asked Mr. Zuend how he had calculated the number of Veterans who might access the proposed veterans’ exemptions in the bill.
Mr. Zuend said the current exemption covered many veterans including some veterans that were clearly not war veterans. He said Vietnam veterans were covered from January 1, 1961, through a date in 1975 and it included any veteran who served, even if his time was spent guarding Fort Knox during that period. Mr. Zuend said the existing exemption was a “broad sweep.” Mr. Zuend said the amendment would apply to those veterans who received documentation that they actually participated. Veterans who did not actually participate in a campaign, such as Grenada, would not be eligible unless they were actually associated with the combat. The exemption would be limited to those who actually took part in the campaign. Mr. Zuend said that Gulf War veterans were already covered under the existing statute. Mr. Zuend said that given the current propensity for veterans to claim the exemption, he assumed that the pool would be increased by approximately two-thirds of the existing pool of veterans. Mr. Zuend thought the estimate may be on the high side but he did not want to underestimate the fiscal impact because of the effect that would have on school funding.
Assemblywoman Chowning said she tended to support the increase in the veterans’ exemption because only approximately 10 percent of veterans claimed the exemption and that would have approximately 35,000 veterans claiming the exemption. She asked if her calculations were correct.
Mr. Zuend responded that the calculations were not correct. The calculations were predicated upon the existing exemption and, assuming that the increase would be approximately two-thirds of the existing exemption, the calculation was fundamentally based on those who claimed the exemption rather than on the potential pool of all veterans. Mr. Zuend said 356,000 would be the possible number of claimants of the exemption based upon his imprecise method of estimation.
Assemblywoman Chowning asked about the two-thirds estimate and the 10 percent figure.
Mr. Zuend said the 10 percent was the number of veterans currently eligible for an exemption who actually claimed the exemption. He thought those figures had come from Veterans’ Affairs. The two-thirds number was the potential maximum increase anticipated based upon the amendments in A.B. 533. He reiterated that the estimate involved guesswork because he had not gone into great detail trying to identify the number of veterans associated with all of the wars because it would be very difficult to do. Mr. Zuend said he believed the two-thirds figure was on the high side of how much eligibility would be added by A.B. 533. He conceded that the impact would be less but given its impact on the school fund he used a higher estimate rather than a lower estimate.
Assemblywoman Chowning said her point was that the fiscal impact was an absolute speculation or guess and she believed the exemption should be granted to Nevada’s veterans.
Assemblyman Parks said he believed the impact would be in the neighborhood of 17 to 25 percent. He said his feeling was that the impact would be approximately one-half of what Mr. Zuend had suggested and no numbers were available. Assemblyman Parks said his “gut feeling, being an old number cruncher myself” was that the impact would be approximately one-half of the projections made by Mr. Zuend. Mr. Parks said he did appreciate Mr. Zuend’s logic and understood it.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that nothing should be passed that would further impact budgets. She would prefer to err on the conservative side. She said she believed the bill was needed by the assessors.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO DELETE SECTION 16, ACCEPT THE TECHNICAL CHANGES IN SECTION 67 THAT HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE LEGAL DIVISION, NOT EXPAND THE VETERANS’ EXEMPTION, ALLOW THE TAX ROLL TO BE PUBLISHED ONCE ONLY IN COUNTIES WITH A POPULATION OF UNDER 100,000 AS THAT WOULD ASSIST THE RURAL COUNTIES, AND DELETE SECTION 33.
Ms. Giunchigliani said newspapers would need some notice that the revenue previously generated by the printing of the tax roll would be lost. She said she believed the larger counties had the resources to offer the public access to the information. She suggested allowing the assessors to create a fund for the development of technology but it would not be funded with an increase in the commission.
Assemblyman Griffin said he supported the amendments Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had suggested but he was not only concerned about the rural counties. He said that although technology was changing how people accessed information he believed there were still rural areas in all of the counties and the tax roll should continue to be published once a year in the newspaper.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Arberry asked if the motion was to require the publication or remove the requirement for the publication.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani clarified her motion. She said the rural newspapers depended upon the publication as a revenue source and she suggested that to assist the rural counties the publication would continue for them but would not be required in the urban areas.
Assemblywoman McClain concurred with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani. She said that every time the “volume” of newspaper containing the tax roll was published in southern Nevada many calls were received by the County Commission. The County Commissioners would report that the publication was required by state law. Ms. McClain said then she and other legislators would receive telephone calls from constituents who were furious because of the money spent on the publication.
Assemblyman Marvel asked Mr. Dawley what the cost was to publish the tax roll in Carson City.
Mr. Dawley replied that the cost in Carson City was $16,500. He commented that in the rural counties, Lyon County in particular, the law currently stated that the publication had to be made in the current paper. In Lyon County the list was published in Yerington. The residents of Dayton or Fernley received no notice other than the assessment notice. Only the residents of Yerington received the publication and the outlying areas did not receive the publication.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI AMENDED THE MOTION TO LEAVE THE SECTION REQUIRING PUBLICATION AS IT HAD BEEN.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI RESTATED THE MOTION TO DELETE SECTION 16, ACCEPT TECHNICAL CHANGES PROPOSED BY MS. JAN NEEDHAM, NO EXPANSION TO THE VETERANS’ EXEMPTION, DELETE SECTION 33 BUT ALLOW FOR THE CREATION OF A TECHNOLOGY FUND THAT WOULD NOT BE FUNDED WITH AN INCREASE IN THE COMMISSION, AND SECTION 19 TO REMAIN THE SAME.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Griffin said he would vote for the bill as amended but he had reservations. He believed the tax roll should be published once yearly in the newspaper.
Assemblyman Marvel asked if the publication could be optional and Ms. Giunchigliani responded that it was already optional.
Assemblyman Parks said that Section 19 as it currently read was optional and left the decision to the discretion of county commissioners. Mr. Parks said that Clark County spent $334,000 the prior year to publish the roll in the newspaper and that was estimated to have reached less than 20 percent of the property owners in Clark County.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 464: Establishes Commission to Review the Compensation of Legislators. (BDR 23-1319)
Mr. Stevens said A.B. 464 would establish a commission to review compensation of legislators. He said there had been amendments proposed to amend the bill to pay for each day of session and to review the compensation paid each session. He said there were other amendments proposed as well.
Chairman Arberry said he had seen a news clipping that morning that reported that the supervisors in California had just raised their salaries from $32,000 to $112,000 and California had a larger deficit than Nevada.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said there had been an amendment proposed in Section 6 that the health insurance coverage would also be reviewed. She asked if the Committee was interested in having the Commission review the insurance coverage. Ms. Giunchigliani said considering health insurance benefits could be added to page 3 (d).
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 464.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Beers said he had a “hard time” paying a panel $80 a day to review the salaries, which he believed the Legislature should do. He said it had been more than 28 years since legislators had a pay increase.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Hettrick withdrew the previous motion and second.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE BIENNIAL SALARY PAID TO LEGISLATORS BY $1,200.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Griffin said he agreed with Mr. Beers that the consideration of a pay increase for legislators should not be done by a commission. Mr. Griffin said that he believed that legislators were either going to raise taxes or cut education in the current session of the Legislature. He said he did not know if there was ever a correct time to talk about increasing legislative salaries but he believed that the current time was the wrong time to discuss increasing salaries and he would be voting no.
Chairman Arberry stated that he had been trying to get the legislators a salary increase for approximately ten years and it was never a good time. He said he knew it was a poor economic time but elected officials in other states were receiving raises even when their deficits were worse than Nevada’s deficit.
Mr. Griffin said he totally understood the problem. He had four children and spent $750 per month for health insurance while he served in the Legislature. Mr. Griffin agreed there might never be a good time to ask for a raise but in the current session either taxes were going to be raised or education funding cut and in either one of those circumstances he felt spending more funds on legislative salaries was inappropriate.
Mr. Beers pointed out that the Economic Forum estimated that the revenue from existing taxes was going to be $340 million so discussion of cuts to K-12 education were preposterous.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she agreed with Mr. Beers. She said she understood the dilemma faced and she thought most legislators would “step up to the plate” to do the correct thing for the public. She said it was the first time ever that business had asked to be taxed and it was not like the Legislature was not doing something that had been requested for the previous six months. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said legislators would confront the issue when they stood before their constituents and she believed that was absolutely proper. She said each legislator could make their case when they chose to run for re-election. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed the public would support paying legislators for the actual days that they worked. She said there was not a single person that did not believe people should be paid for the days that they worked. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that Mr. Beers’ motion did not cover 28 years of no increase in pay. She said the current legislators would not always be there and the legislators should plan for the future. Ms. Giunchigliani said she believed it was shameful that legislators would not stand up and say that they should have a salary increase. She said the increase would not be effective for two years and each legislator would still have to go before his or her voters and explain the increase.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN GRIFFIN, ANDONOV, AND ASSEMBLYWOMEN GIBBONS, LESLIE, AND McCLAIN VOTING NO. (Assemblyman Goldwater was not present for the vote.)
********
Mr. Stevens referred the Committee to Exhibit E, “Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau Differences Closing Report.” Mr. Stevens said a meeting would be held later that day to resolve differences with the Senate in the budget closings. Mr. Stevens said there would be one correction to page 15 of the Differences Report. He said the Assembly closing was not reflected accurately in the Differences Report and staff was working to correct that.
Mr. Stevens said the first difference regarded the Washington office. He said the Assembly deleted the Washington office and the Senate did not.
Mr. Stevens said the second discrepancy related to the Ethics Commission. He said the Assembly divided the expenses of the Commission 35 percent state General Fund and 65 percent local governments for cities and towns above a population of 10,000. The Senate did not. The Governor recommended General Fund appropriation and the Senate continued that.
Mr. Stevens said the issue in the State Treasurer’s Office was $151,000 in mailroom charges that was recommended by the Budget Division to be added to the Treasurer’s budget. That was currently assessed as an overhead charge in the mailroom. The Senate followed the Budget Division’s recommendation in a budget amendment and placed that money in the Treasurer’s Office budget and the Assembly did not. The Assembly left the money in the mailroom as an overhead charge.
Mr. Stevens said the major differences in the Prepaid Tuition Account in the Nevada College Savings Account on page 2 of Exhibit E was the marketing and advertising monies that were built into those budgets for a total of approximately $335,000 over the two budget accounts. The Senate left that in the budget as recommended; the Assembly Committee removed it.
Mr. Stevens said that the Senate passed the Millennium Scholarship program per the Governor’s recommendation and the Assembly Committee eliminated some expenses that were prioritized by the Treasurer’s Office based on staying within the 2 percent maximum administrative allowance.
Mr. Stevens referred the Committee to page 3 of Exhibit E regarding the Rural Drug Courts. The Assembly made provision for the monies that were in Parole and Probation, $525,000 for Clark and Washoe Counties, to be brought into that particular budget. The Assembly Committee provided six months of state General Fund support and then funded the remaining amount through administrative assessments in A.B. 29. The Senate did not concur in that action and retained the General Fund as recommended by the Governor.
Assemblywoman Chowning commented that the Senate agreed to fund the Drug and Specialty Courts with the A.B. 29 assessments of $5 million plus the Senate agreed to the $1.3 million General Fund plus the six months start-up costs.
Mr. Stevens said there would not be six months start-up costs because the entire General Fund appropriation was included in the Senate closing. The Assembly Committee provided for six months of General Fund support and then administrative assessments would take over. Mr. Stevens said the Senate provided for 24 months of General Fund support and then added on in addition to that the monies that would be derived from A.B. 29. Mr. Stevens said the six months equaled approximately $337,000.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that she was tired of having the courts make agreements with the Assembly each session of the Legislature and then go to the Senate and attempt to get an increase. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she believed the Committee should hold very firm to the very generous agreement it had made. She said the courts would be collecting the assessments far sooner than the six months funding.
Mr. Stevens commented that the Assembly passed the budget as recommended by the Subcommittee and the Senate full committee might make changes.
Mr. Stevens said that in the Other State Programs budget $5 million had been eliminated in the Assembly closing as that was utilized in the Distributive School Account for all of the signing bonuses that were not approved by the Assembly and instead, $9 million per year was provided for negotiation purposes for skill-based pay and an additional one-fifth per year retirement credit would be provided for teachers in at-risk schools and schools in need of improvement. Mr. Stevens said that all of that money was pooled and used for that purpose in the Assembly closing; $5 million of that was in that particular budget.
Mr. Stevens said the other item involved the System for Accountability Information in Nevada (SAIN) computer system and he would get more information on that before the meeting with the Senate that afternoon. He said $287,500 and $11,900 had been added by the Senate.
Mr. Stevens said in the Student Incentive Grants the Senate Committee provided funding for both Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) and Special Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (SLEAP) programs at the minimal level and the Assembly closed the budget eliminating the SLEAP program, which was the major difference in the closings. Mr. Stevens said there were more savings in the Assembly closing than in the Senate closing.
Mr. Stevens said that in the Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, page 4 of Exhibit E, the Committee on Ways and Means approved decision unit E-277, which funded three positions and associated costs that were recommended in the budget. The Senate Committee only approved an increase in the attorney’s position from .51 to a 1.00 full-time equivalent (FTE) and did not approve the remaining portions of E-277, and that was the major difference in that particular account.
Mr. Stevens said that in the Commission on Economic Development account, page 5 of Exhibit E, the major difference was that the Assembly Committee, based on information from the Agency, estimated a $300,000 balance forward in Train Employees Now (TEN), which were training funds for businesses that moved into the state and qualified for the program. Mr. Stevens said that the Assembly Committee reduced the amount of General Fund dollars that would be provided to the TEN program by $300,000 and replaced that with balance forward funds. That action was designed to give the Economic Development Commission $500,000 in each year of the biennium and indicated that legislation should be introduced that would remove the non-reversion clause that currently existed on those funds. The Senate Committee did not take that action but it did recommend submitting legislation that would prevent the Commission on Economic Development from carrying over more than $750,000.
Mr. Stevens said in the Rural Community Development program the Assembly Committee reduced the out-of-state travel by $2,000 in each year, which was the same funding level provided in the current fiscal period.
Mr. Stevens said that in the Vital Statistics budget the Assembly Committee provided additional funds related to A.B. 1 of the 18th Special Session related to medical errors and the Senate Committee did not.
Mr. Stevens said that approximately the next ten pages of Exhibit E related to the prison system, all related to food inflation. He said whatever decision was made on food inflation would eliminate all of the differences in the prison accounts.
Mr. Stevens said the Division of Investigations, page 15 of Exhibit E, was the closing that needed to be corrected by the Assembly. He said that in general the Committee on Ways and Means added back 15 of 21 positions that were recommended by the Governor to be deleted. That action was based on information provided by the Nevada Division of Investigations (NDI). The Senate Committee voted to reinstate 13 positions of the 21 that were recommended for elimination but they were all currently vacant; that meant that it was a different mix of positions than were eliminated by the Assembly Committee. There were more investigator-type positions eliminated in the Senate closing than in the Assembly closing. Mr. Stevens said that represented the major difference between the two accounts. He said the Committee on Ways and Means reinstated 15 of the 21 recommended eliminated positions and the Senate Finance Committee recommended reinstating 13 of 21 positions marked for elimination but the mix of positions was much different.
Mr. Stevens said in the Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers budget, page 4 of Exhibit E, the Assembly Committee approved decision unit E-277 as recommended by the Governor, which funded three positions and associated costs. The positions approved were an attorney position, a legal Research Assistant, and an Administrative Aide position. The Senate Committee approved a one-half time attorney position, from .51 to 1.00 FTEs, and did not approve the remaining positions.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she appreciated the Senate attempting to save some dollars but it was difficult to find attorneys for the salaries that were paid in that office, let alone a one-half time position. She said it was unrealistic. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that since the office had been privatized there had been an increase in caseload and there was justification made for the three positions as the Governor had recommended. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani recommended staying with the Assembly’s position until the Senate’s rationale could be determined. She added that she thought the office needed the personnel.
Mr. Stevens said the Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers was paid with a Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) assessment and the worker’s compensation insurers did receive a credit on their insurance premium tax for the assessment they paid to DIR. Mr. Stevens said that indirectly part of that was lost revenue to the General Fund so it was an indirect General Fund “hit.”
Mr. Stevens said that in the Department of Wildlife budget, page 16 of Exhibit E, the Governor had recommended $200,000 in additional General Fund dollars to replace room tax monies that were included in the Wildlife budget in the current biennium. The Assembly Committee approved the Governor’s recommendation to include that additional $200,000 in the General Fund in each year. The Senate Committee eliminated that $200,000 and used reserve funds.
Mr. Stevens said that the Assembly Committee approved the National Guard Benefits account as recommended by the Governor. The Senate Committee added $12,000 in each year of the biennium to increase the tuition reimbursement rate to 50 percent.
Mr. Stevens stated that the major difference in the Veterans’ Home account was in the license plate charge. He said the Assembly Committee eliminated that from the budget and that was related to A.B. 192 that had been passed by both houses and signed by the Governor. The Senate Committee did not take that action.
Assemblywoman Chowning said the funds should go to the Veterans’ Home Gift Account because all the funds were not able to be used due to the delays in opening the home. She said there were people that needed items that were not included in The Executive Budget and the license plate funds were intended to cover those. Assemblywoman Chowning said it was insane to think that those funds should go into the General Fund. When people purchased the license plates they did not envision that their dollars were going to go into the General Fund. Assemblywoman Chowning urged that the Committee stay with the way it had closed the budget.
Mr. Marvel asked what the reserve would be on the Wildlife Account if the Assembly accepted the way the Senate closed the account.
Mr. Stevens said he could not recall what the reserve amount would be. He said there was a fee bill just coming over from the Senate. Mr. Stevens said he would have the information for Mr. Marvel before the afternoon meeting.
Mr. Stevens said the final budget on the list was the Public Employees’ Benefits Program. He said staff had made a $1 change so that it would be included in the Differences Closing Report. The issue was A.B. 286 that had been passed by the Committee on Ways and Means and was currently in the Senate Finance Committee. Mr. Stevens said that A.B. 286 would commingle state and non-state participants in the program at a cost of approximately $4.5 million in total funds per year, approximately $2.8 million in the General Fund. Mr. Stevens said the Senate had not taken that action; it was currently reviewing the bill, and that would need to be discussed in the afternoon differences meeting.
There being no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:38 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lila Clark
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: