MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 27, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 11:25 a.m., on Sunday, June 27, 1993, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. EXHIBIT A is the Meeting Agenda.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Mrs. Jan Evans
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. David E. Humke
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Robert E. Price
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
SENATE BILL 86 - Requires development of state plan for educational technology.
Mr. Stevens explained the request for appropriation had been removed from SB 86 and apparently no additional funding would be required.
MR. DINI MOVED DO PASS ON SB 86.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE BILL 507 - Makes appropriation to Nevada Racing Commission for certain operating expenses.
Mr. Stevens explained SB 507 requested a supplemental appropriation of $61,413 for the Racing Commission for previously incurred expenses.
Mrs. Williams pointed out this appropriation was to cover contractual obligations which had already been incurred.
MRS. WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS ON 507.
MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 193- Provides for registration and investigation of homes providing certain health care to not more than two persons.
Mr. Stevens said the Health Division and the Aging Services Division had been working on a compromise for AB 193. He reminded the committee a fee increase on group homes would be required to finance AB 193.
Mr. Stevens explained the compromise would be to require the facilities to register with the Health Division rather than to be licensed. Facilities would be required to pay a $50 registration fee. Additionally, the bill would be amended to allow the Health Division to enter the facilities to investigate complaints. He noted the Aging Services Division currently had that authority.
Mr. Stevens stated the amendments would not require additional expenditure of funds from the Health Division. The Health Division indicated, however, it might need to return to the 1995 Legislature to recommend licensing the facilities, which would require additional positions and an additional expenditure of funds.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if facilities providing care to three or more people would continue to be licensed. Mr. Stevens answered affirmatively. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would prefer to have the facilities licensed in order to ensure the safety of vulnerable seniors; however, under the financial circumstances, she was willing to agree to the amendment.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON SB 193.
MRS. WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Humke said he did not believe this legislation was necessary since there was a bill pending in the Commerce Committee (SB 434) which would require facility operators to be licensed.
Mrs. Evans invited Ms. Mary Liveratti of the Division of Aging Services to address the question of whether the legislation was necessary. Ms. Liveratti said her understanding of the bill pending in the Commerce Committee was that it would exempt operators of facilities which were not required to be licensed from the licensure requirements.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted the two bills were not in conflict. The Division of Aging Services believed both measures needed to be addressed separately and both were necessary.
Mrs. Williams said she agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani's assessment. Additionally, one of the concerns of the measure heard in the Commerce Committee was licensing of out-of-state owners.
THE MOTION PASSED. MR. DINI, MR. HUMKE AND MS. TIFFANY WERE OPPOSED.
ASSEMBLY BILL 536- Makes appropriation to Legislative Counsel Bureau for reproduction of certain publications.
Mr. Stevens stated this legislation was processed every session. It would appropriate $40,000 for the cost of reproducing volumes of the Nevada Reports. He noted the committee had also heard testimony that some volumes of the Nevada Revised Statutes were out of print and there had been committee discussion regarding whether or not to increase this appropriation to accommodate printing of those volumes. The Legislative Counsel had requested if additional funding was available, that it be used to cover the cost of printing the statutes from 1977 forward. The additional cost would be approximately $27,414.
Mr. Stevens added the Constitutional Debates were also out of print. Reprints would cost another $8,000 approximately.
Fiscal staff recommended approval of at least the $40,000 appropriation.
Mr. Dini noted the Legislative Counsel Bureau realized a profit on the sale of these materials.
MR. DINI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON AB 536.
MR. PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 409- Makes various changes relating to state financial administration.
Mr. Stevens explained AB 409 proposed various changes regarding the procedures for requesting Interim Finance Committee approval. He reported the recommendations of a subcommittee consisting of Chairman Arberry, Mr. Dini and Mr. Marvel which had reviewed AB 409 and a similar bill (AB 560). He noted this legislation would directly impact items to be heard by the Interim Finance Committee.
Mr. Stevens said the statutes currently provided that requests for funding which cumulatively affected a category by 10 percent or $25,000, whichever was less, would have to be approved by the Interim Finance Committee. Requests for less than $2,000 were exempt from this requirement. AB 409, as originally drafted, would amend the statute to remove the cumulative aspect and require approval of single requests of $100,000 or more. The subcommittee recommended this aspect of the statute not be amended. The subcommittee also recommended increasing the threshold limits from 10 percent or $25,000, whichever was less, to 15 percent or $50,000, whichever was less. Requests for less than $5,000 would be exempt from this requirement. Currently requests for less than $2,000 were exempt.
Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether state employees could be transferred from classified to unclassified positions without Interim Finance Committee approval if AB 409 was passed. Mr. Stevens replied if an employee was reclassified from one occupational class code to another, Interim Finance Committee approval would be required. If an employee was transferred within his or her current class series, Interim Finance Committee approval would not be required. Classified employees could not be transferred to unclassified positions without Interim Finance Committee approval; unclassified positions cannot be established by the Interim Finance Committee.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if AB 409 would allow the Executive Branch to make legislative decisions in crisis situations. Mr. Stevens responded AB 409 would direct the Executive Branch to follow guidelines established by the Legislature in the event budgets needed to be reduced during the interim period.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if AB 409 would mean giving away legislative authority. Mr. Stevens explained that if this legislation had been in place during the past interim, it would have guided the Governor in reducing the budget.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that action was a legislative responsibility which should have been handled in a special session.
Ms. Judy Matteucci, Budget Director, stated without legislative guidance, there would be a question of whether the Executive Branch was assuming legislative authority. The Executive Branch needed statutory guidance specifying at what point the Legislature wanted the Governor to solve an interim budget problem and at what point the Legislature wanted to be called in to a special session. Without such language in the statute, there was little restriction on the Executive Branch and those restrictions would be left to the determination of the courts. The Supreme Court had recently indicated the current statute (NRS 353.225) was too broad.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated she was attempting to clarify what was the Legislature's responsibility and what was the Executive Branch's responsibility. She asked if AB 409 was an attempt to establish the steps the Governor could take in a crisis situation and at what point the Legislature should be called to a special session. Ms. Matteucci answered affirmatively.
Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether the Legislature did not currently have the authority to determine whether a crisis necessitated a special session. Ms. Matteucci noted during the recent fiscal crisis the legislative leadership had indicated it did not want to be called in to a special session. However, other states experienced similar fiscal emergencies and this issue was challenged in the courts. The Nevada Supreme Court chose not to make a ruling on this issue but the courts in other states determined the Governor could not address a fiscal crisis without guidelines from the Legislature. AB 409 was modeled after a Michigan statute which had withstood a court test.
Ms. Matteucci suggested if the Legislature did not want the Executive Branch to have the ability to deal with any fiscal crisis, it should repeal NRS 353.225.
Mr. Price indicated he would oppose AB 409 in general floor session. He suggested the summary contained in the bill be changed to read "Transfers legislative authority to the Governor under certain conditions." He attested to Ms. Matteucci's statement that the legislative leadership had not wanted to be called in to a special session but said legislators ought to do their job whether it was politically popular or not. He said he was opposed to any measure which would transfer legislative authority to the Governor.
Mr. Dini said he did not understand Mr. Price's position. He noted, according to previous testimony, if the Legislature established guidelines, a court challenge could be avoided. He said he believed the public would prefer the Governor was able to deal with budget emergencies in a reasonable manner rather than have the Legislature hold a special session.
Mr. Price responded legislators did not want to deal with politically tough issues; however, it was the constitutional responsibility of the Legislative Branch to deal with fiscal crises. He noted polls indicated over 70 percent of the citizens of Nevada favored annual legislative sessions. He questioned whether the average citizen understood the difference between the constitutional responsibilities of the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. He noted the Governor did not receive the extensive input regarding agency budgets on which to base decisions that the Legislature did.
Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out a special session could serve not only to cut budgets but also to fund them properly. She said the Legislature had the responsibility to properly fund the budget.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked what would be included in the guidelines. Ms. Matteucci suggested including the guidelines in the General Appropriations Act. They would include the extent to which appropriations could be reduced without the specific approval of the Legislature or the Interim Finance Committee, the budget priorities and the provisions for legislative oversight of the reductions.
Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether those guidelines would allow the Governor to cut funding from the Distributive School Account. Ms. Matteucci said that would depend on the specific guidelines established by the Legislature.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she hoped to have the opportunity to debate the issue of including guidelines in the General Appropriations Act. She agreed with Mr. Price that the Legislature was giving up its constitutional authority.
Mr. Dini pointed out including the guidelines in the General Appropriations Act would create "session" law, which would become ineffective at the end of the biennium.
Mr. Humke expressed agreement with Mr. Dini. He said the bill represented a middle ground. While it constituted a grant of legislative authority, it did not mean the Legislature was relinquishing its fundamental power on a permanent basis. This was a practical measure because many people in Nevada did not want to see the Legislature conduct annual sessions and the Governor should have some authority to make budgetary changes.
The meeting was adjourned until 3:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
C. Dale Gray
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
June 27, 1993
Page 1