MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 22, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 8:15 a.m., on Tuesday, June 22, 1993, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. EXHIBIT A is the Meeting Agenda. EXHIBIT B is the Attendance Roster.
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
SB517Makes various changes relating to department of transportation.
Mr. Rudy Moreno, Assistant Director of Administration Division of the Department of Transportation, testified SB517 was a clean-up bill revising the Department's revolving account which was originally established in 1957 to process the department's payroll, small bills and travel advances. He indicated the department had a revolving travel fund and this legislation would establish a payroll revolving account for the department to process its payroll.
Mr. Moreno pointed out there had been an implied authority for the department to pay travel advances from the revolving account, but this legislation specifically included that as an authorized use. He stated Section 3, which was also originally set in 1957, placed a $50,000 limit on informal contracts and the department would not have to advertise through the formal process. He indicated the department would like to increase the limit to $250,000 to reflect the change of times between 1957 and 1993. He noted the State Treasurer and State Controller were both in agreement with Sections 1 and 2 of SB517. He stated the Associated General Contractors were in agreement with Section 3.
Chairman Arberry asked why the amount in Section 3 needed to be increased. Mr. Moreno responded $50,000 did a very large contract in highway work anymore. He explained $250,000 would better reflect the cost factors for the 1990s and would allow more flexibility with contractors. Mr. Arberry inquired if the current
practice was to set a contract limit of $100,000 or $250,000 for other agencies. Mr. Moreno answered he was not sure what other agency limits were.
Mr. Bob Seale, State Treasurer, testified the Treasurer's Office concurred with the changes made in SB517.
Ms. Pam Miller, Associated General Contractors (AGC), stated Section 3 was inserted into SB517 at the AGC's request. She remarked NDOT had agreed the $50,000 limit was no longer adequate to take care of the small maintenance jobs. This would allow the agency the flexibility to bid out.
Mr. Jack Tedford, a contractor from Fallon and member of AGC, testified the contract limit increase to $250,000 would permit NDOT, especially the agency's maintenance departments, increased flexibility in dealing with small maintenance problems on the roads. He emphasized the costs and time constraints of putting a mile of overlay to repair potholes. The process of designing and bidding, if done on another highway contract, would be more time consuming and would result in a more expensive project. He explained what then would occur was the pothole project was piggy backed onto another contract or incorporated with other small projects in the area. If the project could be completed through informal contracts, it would be more cost effective. He noted it would permit the projects to be quickly put out to bid and to get the maintenance done. This would also allow joint venturing between maintenance crews and contractors which could not be done as easily through the formal system. He concluded this provided more work for smaller contractors to bid on.
Mr. Marvel asked if Mr. Tedford believed $250,000 would be reasonable. Mr. Tedford indicated he did. He commented $50,000 did not go very far with highway maintenance these days.
Vice Chairman Spitler closed the hearing on SB517.
SB360Authorizes temporary advance from state general fund for authorized expenses of Nevada equal rights commission.
Mr. Carlos Romo, Assistant Director for Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC), stated Mr. Romero was unable to attend the hearing, but he had reasons to oppose the bill. Mr. Romo explained the federal dollars received by the NERC as reimbursement from EEOC were not always received in a timely fashion. Sometimes the funds took up to six months before receipt. He stated any expenses incurred by the NERC were legitimate state expenses, and Mr. Romero believed the expenses should be covered by state monies, including general fund dollars, until the EEOC reimbursement funds were received.
Mr. Romo emphasized a majority of the expenses were based on the state's credit. He pointed out the agency had $133,000 expended in excess of the funds received from the federal EEOC office which exceeded the 25 percent. He noted the excess funds would be reimbursed eventually, but the NERC was not in control of reimbursement nor could the NERC predict when the monies would be received.
Mr. Spitler asked what the schedule had been regarding billing and receipt of the reimbursements. Mr. Romo responded the NERC could receive a quarterly advance, but the federal dollars had taken even longer. Mr. Spitler inquired how this situation was currently being handled. Mr. Romo replied payments were covered by state advances with payback when reimbursement funds were received from EEOC. He commented the NERC had been receiving calls from the State Treasurer and State Controller regarding payback and so far the situations had been handled, but the 25 percent advance limit would not be sufficient.
Vice Chairman Spitler asked if SB360 failed, how it would impact the agency's ability to function. Mr. Romo explained the 25 percent advance from the state would not be sufficient to cover the expenses incurred.
Vice Chairman Spitler closed the hearing on SB360.
SB196Establishes program for payment of bonuses to certain state employees.
Senator Len Nevin, District 2, testified SB196 was brought forward as a bill to provide an incentive to state employees. He explained when the end of the fiscal year drew near, state agencies had a tendency to attempt to close out any remaining balances because they were afraid if the funds were not expended, they would lose the funds in the next budget cycle. He stated SB196 would establish guidelines should any state agency save funds, the moneys would be reverted to the general fund and 10 percent, not to exceed $2,500, of the returned amount would be given as a one-time bonus back to the agency. The bill also established guidelines under which the funds could not be returned. He pointed out if a position was not filled, it would not be considered a savings under this legislation.
Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified the amendments resulted from extensive meetings with both Dan Miles, Fiscal Division, and Judy Matteucci, Budget Division. She indicated the association supports SB196 in the amended version, because the best source of savings for the state was state employees and agencies. She pointed out the issue of bonuses and legitimate savings were addressed and considered when amending the bill. She explained the mechanism for this legislation to take effect would be through cashflow reports submitted through IFC on a Savings Request Form. She stated the Savings Request Form would identify the savings, how long it took to implement the savings and how the savings were actually realized. She explained IFC would have the last say on whether it was a reversion or realized savings.
Ms. Vilardo indicated on page 2, Section 4, line 37 through page 3, line 3, specific language identified what would normally be a reversion and would not be considered as qualified savings. This would not impact the way budgeting was currently being completed. She clarified the bonuses would not be added to the base salaries to prevent any impact on future budgets. She pointed out the mechanism of reporting directly to IFC was to assure the legitimacy of the savings reported and also to make the committees aware of the savings which could be applied to other agencies. This legislation would permit an avenue to make employees part of the process of improving state government.
Senator Nevin pointed out this legislation would allow for another look at budgeting during the interim period.
Mr. Marvel asked how different SB196 was from a similar 1991 bill. Ms. Vilardo stated SB196 differs considerably. She noted the 1991 bill was actually reintroduced this session and would be withdrawn from Senate Finance because it would have added the bonus to the base salary and, therefore, impact future budgets. The senate bill did not eliminate reversions as qualified savings either. Mr.
Marvel expressed his approval of the bill and noted it was something many people were striving for to create some efficiency in state government.
Ms. Tiffany indicated she liked the bill indicating it was straight out of Reinventing Government. She asked if this was modelled after any other state's programs and, if so, what performance indicators on the success were available. Ms. Vilardo responded four states had a similar program, but nothing exactly like it. She commented Nevada also had a Merit Award Committee in place statutorily which was scheduled for elimination this session. Ms. Tiffany asked if the individual versus departmental approach was more favorable. Ms. Vilardo indicated yes, there were distinct advantages for the individual approach. It would make employees part of the process and would provide them with an incentive to be involved. Employees would appreciate a little extra in their paycheck rather than a new copy machine for the department.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented in Section 4 it appeared the department head would choose the employee. She voiced her concern this would pit one employee against another based on the efficiency within the department. Ms. Vilardo pointed out the desire was to stop the "robot mold" type of doing business. The approach was to reinvent the mindset, to stop micromanaging each area of government and to let the agency heads do what they were hired to do. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated a big portion of the concept of reinventing government was through empowerment. She suggested employees should choose their own department heads in that there would be a cooperativeness. She pointed out, too often once a person became a manager, they became afraid to be creative or to allow the creativity within the agency. She stated the concept of creativity in government to achieve better efficiency needed to be explored. Savings could not be equated to dollar savings only, because it was too narrow a viewpoint.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there would be some avenue for employees to report waste or ways in which they were blocked from doing their job more efficiently or effectively. Ms. Vilardo indicated that approach had not been investigated, but the focus for SB196 was a radical departure and was a "crawl before you walk" type of action for state government. She indicated this concept could be evolved into the types of programs Ms. Giunchigliani discussed.
Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated this would be viewed as merit pay and the term "bonus" was being misinterpreted. She remarked empowerment of people involved cooperativeness rather than putting one employee against another. She stated a token $100 to one employee would not necessarily help the department. Ms. Vilardo emphasized this would not be merit pay or built into the base salary. It would be a straight one-shot amount.
Mr. Humke stated he liked the bill and it could be viewed as one piece of the puzzle. He asked if the Budget Division agreed with the current version. Ms. Matteucci stated the Budget Division did not support SB196. She explained there had been discussion to make it more palatable than the first version, but the problem was the state reuses reversions and the funds become part of the revenue string. She elaborated whatever portion of the reversions which would be removed from the general fund would become a cost to the general fund. She voiced the concern of the potential impact to the general fund. Senator Nevin indicated the fiscal note was eliminated in the amendment.
Ms. Matteucci indicated another concern was it would be unfair to assume only general fund agencies which have reversions would have employees who deserve bonuses. She emphasized the Administration did recognize there needed to be some way to give incentives to state agencies in order to prevent unnecessary spending at the end of the budgetary cycle.
Mr. Humke asked if the safeguards discussed would be adequate. Ms. Matteucci stated the safeguards would restrict how much money could be given as bonuses, but any funds given would still be taken out of the revenue stream without replacement for future spending.
Senator Nevin explained Senator Raggio had some of the same concerns voiced by Ms. Matteucci, but the safeguards were put in place with the second version and he was more comfortable with the bill.
Ms. Vilardo pointed out by providing this type of incentive where 10 percent of any savings were given as bonus while the remaining 90 percent was reverted, the state still retained savings and more funds added into the general fund.
Mr. Heller inquired if the program would include both classified and unclassified employees and what mechanisms were in place to assure fairness. Ms. Vilardo replied the form which would be utilized for IFC evaluation allowed for further investigation of information provided.
Ms. Matteucci reiterated the Administration's opposition to SB196.
Mr. Gagnier stated SNEA was not for or against the legislation. He clarified incorrect testimony provided to the committee. He explained the Merit Award Board was in place and had been providing cash awards to state employees. He indicated he would provide a list of names with merit amounts and the reasons the awards were given over the last biennium. He emphasized the board was not being abolished because it did not function or did not work. He commented if the board was abolished it would be a big mistake because it had been one of the best merit programs in the state government.
Mr. Marvel requested Mr. Gagnier provide the committee with the list.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on SB196.
AB727Revises provisions governing purchase of municipal securities by Nevada.
Mr. Bob Seale, State Treasurer, explained there were some revisions made to the bill as a result of discussion with Bond Counsel and the Budget Division (see EXHIBIT C). He stated AB727 would expand the authority of the municipal bond bank and would allow school districts and other agencies which currently could not participate in the bond bank to participate. He emphasized the impact could be significant on the ability of those local agencies to save considerable amounts of money. He stated the municipal bond bank had been involved with numerous activities which made significant differences both at the state and local level.
Mr. Seale testified the state recently sold $125 million worth of municipal bonds which created a one-shot windfall of $4.5 million to be placed into the general fund in the 1993-95 biennium. He noted AB727 was a bit of "nip and tuck" legislation.
Chairman Arberry asked if the $4.5 million would go into the general fund this fiscal year. Mr. Seale clarified it would go into the general fund for the 1993-95 biennium not this fiscal year. He explained it would be "swept" on July 1, 1993 and would be considered accessible revenue within the general fund for the next biennium. Mr. Arberry reiterated this would be a benefit to the state general fund. Mr. Seale emphasized it would absolutely be a benefit. He quipped, "The check is in the mail!" Mr. Seale explained the actual amount received would be interest rate related and relative to the sale, but the state believed the variation would be small.
Mr. Heller asked for some clarification regarding the language in Section 3, stating when securities were in default, the state may "... withhold from any appropriation or transfer of money to which the municipality is otherwise entitled ...". Mr. Seale clarified there were some amendments proposed which would tighten this language. He stated the language attempted to ensure state taxes would not be taken. He indicated all bonds going through the municipal bond bank would require judicial confirmation. This would clarify the legislation. The desire would be to enable bond sale rather than disable it.
Mr. Heller noted, in Section 3, subsection 2a, the language "the Treasurer shall forward the amount necessary to make the payment from any available money." He asked if these would be taken from general fund dollars. Mr. Brian Krolicki, Deputy Treasurer, explained a proposed amendment would be to create a reserve fund within the municipal bond bank so the fund would be created when the bank was created. He emphasized this would not be general fund dollars.
Mrs. Evans inquired about Nevada's policy on refinancing bond debt. She commented with interest rates dropping so low over the past few years, how much savings, if any, had been actualized for the state by refinancing the outstanding debt. Mr. Seale testified refinancing within the municipal bond bank had occurred twice. One was two years ago where $2.7 million was actualized and the other was the $4.5 million discussed earlier. These asset sales were as a result of changes in the marketplace.
Mr. Seale explained debt was issued in the State of Nevada from a number of sources of which the municipal bond bank was one. He noted the State Treasurer was the administrator responsible for this account. Debt was also issued out of the Colorado River Commission, the Department of Budgets for general obligation debts, and the Department of Commerce for housing. He emphasized debt refinancing applicable to one account would also be applicable to the other accounts. He stated the other account administrators, for whatever reasons, chose not to refinance debts at this time. He believed there was a significant amount of money available through refinancing, but he did not have control of those other accounts.
Mrs. Evans remarked it would be interesting to know what money might be achieved should those debts be refinanced. In such tight financial times, she suggested it might be prudent to have some serious examination and evaluation into those areas. Mr. Seale suspected there would be a significant amount of money to be saved in refinancing, but it was an interest-sensitive issue. He noted not all savings would revert to the general fund, because not all money sources were the general fund, but savings on payments were savings on payments. He concurred with Mrs. Evans that the state should pursue this with vigor.
Ms. Matteucci responded refinancing had occurred in the general obligation bond account to achieve some savings. She noted approximately $650,000 would be reverting to the general fund at the close of FY93 as a result of refinancing of debt. She explained, when looking at refinancing, it must be determined exactly how much more debt the state would assume compared to the level of savings earned or the "present value savings." She stated the Administration had determined if a present value savings of at least three percent could not be achieved, it would not be worth going to market to refinance.
Mrs. Evans inquired what mechanisms were in place to evaluate the market. Ms. Matteucci replied the state had a group of financial advisors which assisted the Budget Division in evaluating and suggesting bonds for refinancing consideration. She testified the evaluations were done two to three times per year.
Mrs. Evans requested if, by the end of 1993, the committee could have a report on all the types of debt the state currently had and the status of the accounts.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if, on page 2, Subsection 2a and 2b, the withholding of dollars would include the Distributive School Account. Ms. Matteucci pointed out the amendments proposed by the Budget Division, in a letter dated June 17, 1993 to Mr. Arberry (see EXHIBIT C), would restrict the intercept mechanism which was the budget division's concern on this bill. She emphasized the restrictions were suggested in order to assure operating funds allocated to a specific purpose could not be intercepted. This amendment would better define "applicable local revenues."
Chairman Arberry asked if both Ms. Matteucci and Mr. Seale were in agreement with the three amendments proposed and submitted to the committee for AB727. Ms. Matteucci agreed to the amendments. Mr. Seale concurred with the amendments if no further ones had been submitted by the Budget Division.
* * * * *
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS AB727.
MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Stevens noted if it was the committee's desire to bring forward the $4.5 million from reauthorization of the bonds, an additional amendment might be required to assure the monies go to the general fund in FY93.
Ms. Tiffany asked if this $4 million was earmarked for education. Chairman Arberry stated it was not earmarked for anything specific. It would be placed into the general fund for appropriations in general.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
* * * * *
AB763Repeals provisions establishing permanent net proceeds fund.
Mr. Stevens explained this bill would transfer the mining trust fund balance into this fiscal year and would eliminate it in the future which would increase the revenue in the general fund by about $800,000 per year. He indicated Ms. Matteucci had included these funds in the revised revenue estimate in May 1993 and it was also built into the revenue scenario by the Fiscal Division.
* * * * *
MRS. WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS.
Mr. Marvel explained the trust fund was established for a purpose. It was to attempt to keep the proceeds out of the operating budget. He emphasized mining taxes were not the most viable tax source and could go away tomorrow. He explained if the state became dependent on unstable revenues which then went away, the state would be in another big hole. The rationale was to keep the funds there as contingent or emergency funds. He suggested a sunset on this bill which would recreate the contingency later.
MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Arberry asked for the committee's opinion on a sunset for AB763. Mr. Humke stated he believed the trust fund was a good idea when it was created and was still a good idea regardless of the small amount of funds in it. He emphasized the type of emergency it was established for was not currently occurring.
Ms. Giunchigliani indicated she would not support this legislation because it would establish another precedent of raiding a trust fund for the purpose of trying to offset some costs within the budget. She stated it was bad policy.
Mr. Stevens explained this was a bill from Administration. He stated testimony from Administration indicated undoing the trust fund would be appropriate because a different vehicle for rainy day funds had been established by the Legislature.
THE MOTION FAILED BY VOICE VOTE. MRS. WILLIAMS, MR. DINI AND MR. PERKINS VOTED YES. MR. PRICE WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
Mr. Stevens explained if AB763 did not pass, $2.5 million in revenues would need to be generated in addition to what was currently in the budget.
Mr. Marvel emphasized he would vote for the bill, but wanted to be on the record as being opposed to the concept and principle.
Speaker Dini suggested amending the bill to transfer the balance for two years with the trust fund becoming effective again on July 1, 1995.
* * * * *
SPEAKER DINI MOVED TO SUSPEND NRS 362.172 FOR TWO YEARS.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Spitler asked how long it would take to get specific information on how to amend AB763 to suspend the statute for a period of time and assure the trust fund would be reinstated. Mr. Stevens indicated he could have the information by the next day. Mr. Humke noted this would not be a simple sunset amendment and suggested a trailer bill which would reinstate the trust fund in 1995.
THE MOTION DIED FOR A LACK OF A VOTE.
* * * * *
Chairman Arberry held the bill pending clarification on the proposed amendment.
SB84 Makes order for payment of money belonging to school district void if not presented for payment within certain time after issuance.
Mr. Stevens explained the committee had voted out SB84 DO PASS, but a conflict notice had been received. He stated an amendment was drafted to resolve the conflict and now the bill would need to be passed out AMEND AND DO PASS. Mr. Spitler asked what the conflict addressed. Mr. Stevens replied it was a conflict with AB96.
* * * * *
MR. HUMKE MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION.
MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MR. PRICE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
* * * * *
MR. SPITLER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.
MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MR. PRICE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
AB723Revises provisions regarding group insurance for public employees.
Chairman Arberry commented there were some amendments submitted by NSEA (see EXHIBIT D).
Ms. Lindsey Jydstrup, NSEA, explained the information provided some suggested amendments which would remove the fiscal note. Discussions with the Budget Division indicated the full fiscal note could not be removed because of the retired employees portion. She noted the retiree issue was dealt with in SB278 which passed both houses. Therefore, the portion of AB723 which had dealt with the retirees was removed and no fiscal note was attached. She encouraged the committee to amend and rerefer the bill to Government Affairs.
Chairman Arberry requested the committee review the proposed amendments in order to take action the next day.
AB193Revises definition of "residential facility for groups" for purposes of licensure and regulation.
Mr. Stevens explained staff had been requested by committee to investigate the fiscal impact of AB193. He stated the bill would license small nursing facilities or group homes of less than three beds. He indicated it would have a fiscal impact on the Health Division which was responsible for licensing all facilities. He explained there were thirteen categories of facilities. One category was group care which would be impacted by AB193. There would not be a general fund impact, but there would be a related fee increase by adding the new facilities under the new regulations. He estimated there would be between 35 and 55 new facilities. Currently, there were 200 existing facilities in the group care category. If AB193 was approved, the licensure fees would increase from $250 to $400 and would fund the personnel required to complete the licensure responsibilities.
Chairman Arberry commented the funds had been somehow removed from the bill and the division had submitted a letter indicating there were no costs attached to AB193. Mr. Stevens explained the Fiscal Staff discussed the letter with Aging Services and the Health Division and the Health Division believed at least a half-time position would be needed depending on how many new facilities needed licensing.
Speaker Dini remarked on one hand the Legislature was trying to keep health care costs down and on the other hand this additional licensure fee was trying to be passed. He stressed 90 percent of the facilities take care of one or two people in their home for a small fee and would not meet the requirements set by the State Fire Marshal which would result in their elimination. He said the bill should not be passed. It would destroy many people.
Mr. Humke testified he had heard from a constituent who had a mother in one of these homes which would be impacted by AB193. The constituent was violently opposed to the bill. Additionally, he indicated the testimony before committee on this bill had been weak and speculative. He stressed the licensure increase for all homes was ridiculous and obscene. He stated he would move to indefinitely postpone AB193 at the appropriate time.
Chairman Arberry emphasized it was up for discussion only, at this time.
Ms. Giunchigliani testified AB193, along with two other bills, was part of a comprehensive package being offered by the Division of Aging Services as well as the Health Department. She explained there had been an increase in group homes perceived as "mom and pop" operations which were actually business people purchasing homes and charging over $2,500 per month for care. She stated the quality of care was not being monitored because the state had no opportunity to go in and certify a minimum level in these homes. She pointed out there was the potential of these elderly people being ripped off and not cared for adequately. This legislation would permit the Health Division access to these group homes to assure safety with the intent of making sure the people were being provided with adequate care.
AB445Provides for creation of earthquake safety council.
Mr. Stevens stated staff had been asked to see if this bill could be processed if the general fund appropriation was removed. He indicated discussions with the Department of Emergency Management showed it could be administered through the department without any general fund appropriations. He stressed if the bill was processed with the appropriation, Section 11 would need to be amended out. Mr. Spitler noted the number of members would also need to be changed from 17 to 18 by adding the State Health Officer.
* * * * *
MR. SPITLER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MRS. EVANS WAS OUT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
AB474Requires registration of employee leasing companies.
Mr. Stevens explained there were some amendments related to SIIS.
* * * * *
MR. SPITLER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MRS. EVANS WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
AB729Revises provisions concerning fees charged for information obtained from central repository for Nevada records of criminal history.
Mr. Ghiggeri explained AB729 was drafted at the request of the DMV subcommittee and provided for charging for employment related criminal history checks for employees of criminal justice agencies. It would also provide for exemptions for foster parent licensing. He noted, subsequent to drafting of this legislation, research into the Child Welfare budget showed funding in that budget account for the 1993-95 biennium for the division to make the payment for the fingerprint checks for foster care. He stated the bill could be amended to remove the exemption.
Mr. Spitler remarked there was a conflict on line 11 with AB368 regarding "reasonable fee." He asked if Ms. Giunchigliani had looked into the conflict. He indicated he would support AB729. Mr. Stevens stated staff needed to know if the bill would be processed in order to pursue amending and researching the issues to assure there would be no conflicts.
Mr. Humke asked if testimony from local law enforcement agencies had shown they provided large sums of money to develop this system. Ms. Tiffany explained the city and county people had testified they supply the information to the system. She asked if the local entities supply the majority of the information on the front end, why should they have to pay to have it extracted at the back end.
Ms. Giunchigliani emphasized the argument on the front end was related to the personnel screen to get the job and the information provided was added to the system for future access. She noted the point was an equity issue of anyone required to be fingerprinted for employment should be paying. She pointed out payment could be from either employee or employer. Therefore, the counties would have a choice to assume the cost or pass it on.
Ms. Tiffany reiterated input into a criminal history database required more information than just fingerprints and should be addressed as a separate issue.
Chairman Arberry asked the committee what action was desired on AB729. Mr. Stevens asked if the foster care portion should be deleted and the issue of "reasonable fee" researched with a report back to committee by staff the next day. The committee requested staff to proceed with those actions. Ms. Giunchigliani requested clarification on the fingerprinting versus criminal history issue also.
Speaker Dini wondered how much more the bill requested. He pointed out when gaming employees' fingerprints were sent in, $45 was assessed and he was not sure why another fee was necessary. Ms. Giunchigliani replied criminal justice was the only division exempted in the state and it was an issue of equity of supporting the program.
Mrs. Chowning commented her notes showed AB729 would impact about 2,000 people and if the fee was set at $15, an additional $30,000 would be generated.
Ms. Tiffany pointed out another issue the subcommittee had looked at was funding to compensate for the future growth of the criminal history system which would change and expand.
Mr. Perkins indicated the arguments presented by the criminal justice agencies about accessing their own information might not be as valid as it would first appear. He explained if there were 30 or 40 criminal justice agencies in the state, they were not necessarily accessing their own information. On the whole, the information database would be a conglomeration of many agencies including their own.
Chairman Arberry requested staff research the concerns of the committee and report back the next day.
Chairman Arberry requested a motion to approve Ways and Means Committee minutes for March and April 1993.
* * * * *
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR MARCH AND APRIL 1993.
MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
* * * * *
AB290Requires state board of education to establish pilot program for increased management of public schools by educational personnel.
Chairman Arberry explained the amendment would be to reduce the fee from $20,000 to $10,000 per year. Mrs. Evans clarified this legislation was on site-based decision making which was presented by Dr. Paslov and herself. She noted there was some expense incurred for training programs and the appropriation was reduced to a cover those costs.
Ms. Giunchigliani commented the school districts could currently bargain this type of a program if they chose to and if the appropriation was not approved, the language could be adjusted to reflect the State Board could solicit from districts. This might assist the bill supporters later on.
Mr. Heller stated similar legislation was proposed in SB91. He asked if there had been any discussion about both bills being processed. Mrs. Evans replied SB91 did not have a fiscal note. Mr. Heller remarked there was merit in both SB91 and AB290. Ms. Giunchigliani clarified the senate bill was more extensive and related to the necessary procedures, whereas the assembly bill was the enabling and seed money mechanism. She emphasized if both bills passed, they would not be in conflict with each other.
* * * * *
MRS. EVANS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.
MRS. WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
* * * * *
AB608Provides for designation of Six-Mile Canyon Road in Storey and Lyon counties as state highway.
* * * * *
MRS. EVANS MOVED DO PASS.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI ABSTAINED. MR. HELLER WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 10:43 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
Kerin E. Putnam
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
June 22, 1993
Page 1