MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
June 22, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:15 a.m., on Tuesday, June 22, 1993, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst
Marion Entrekin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Brian R. Hutchins, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Transportation, Office of the Attorney General
Jerry Zadny, Ph.D., Administrator, Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation Division, Department of Human Resources
Brooke A. Nielsen, Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General
Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration
Senator Raggio opened the hearing for discussion of Senate Bill (S.B.) 551.
SENATE BILL 551: Revised provisions governing approval by board of directors of department of transportation of certain purchases by department of transportation.
Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said S.B. 551 requires the Board of Directors of the Department of Transportation to approve purchases of $50,000 or more made by the department. She explained this issue came to light during the budget closing process. There was a bill passed during the last session of the legislature that required the board to approve purchases in excess of $25,000 for equipment for the construction and maintenance of highways. The board delegated that authority to the director which meant that the board did not actually approve such purchases during the last 2 years. During the closing action, it was indicated the authority should be retained by the board and not delegated to the director, and the amount should be set at $50,000 rather than $25,000.
Brian R. Hutchins, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Transportation, Office of the Attorney General, provided clarification of how the Department of Transportation operates under the present law regarding the purchase of equipment. At the present time the board, which consists of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, state controller, attorney general, and three at-large members meets up to five times a year. The department submits to the board a budget which contains an itemized listing of equipment the department expects to purchase. This is the same document that is submitted to the legislature. The board is, therefore, made aware of the cost and quantity of equipment to be purchased.
Ms. Botts said the list referenced by Mr. Hutchins reflects only a listing for the mobile equipment or "rolling stock." Equipment costing another $1.5 million was not listed in the itemized listing. The auditors for the Legislative Counsel Bureau brought to the attention of the Fiscal Analysis Division some very expensive purchases that were made and wanted to see evidence of legislative or Interim Finance Committee (IFC) approval for these purchases. This evidence was not available.
Mr. Hutchins said the department does not oppose any efforts that are made to seek additional oversight and, if approved, will comply with the terms of S.B. 551.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 551 and opened discussion on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 431.
ASSEMBLY BILL 431: Makes various changes concerning mental illness and retardation.
Jerry Zadny, Ph.D., Administrator, Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation Division, Department of Human Resources, said A.B.431 was a measure requested by the division to make a variety of technical changes to the mental health statutes of the state.
Dr. Zadny reviewed the bill with the committee. Section 1 suggests a change in the meaning of the word "client". Currently a client is anyone who seeks and can benefit from treatment and training in any of the division's facilities. The division wishes to narrow the meaning down so that a client will refer to an individual that is currently in treatment and training and has not been discharged.
He explained the way it is presently written creates an entitlement to services in the state which he does not believe the state can afford. The change will protect the state against the liability
from individuals who are not in treatment but want to be served, and the state does not have the resources with which to serve them.
Senator Glomb said she would have problems setting that kind of policy. She pointed out that due to budget cuts clients had to be discharged but the people still need service and are a very vulnerable part of the population who deserve this service.
Dr. Zadny concurred there are individuals that could benefit from services and said:
As a prudent manager of state affairs, all of us would want to limit the investment the state makes and do so in a predictable fashion. If we have language like this on the books we could face the kind of situation that Arizona got itself into with a class action with the courts telling them how much to spend on their mental health system. I do not see much of an appetite in Nevada for doing that.
Dr. Zadny said section 2 would rename facilities in the state. He said about 6 years ago they went to regional designations such as north, south, and rural and the division wants to rename the facilities along those lines.
Senator Raggio asked what this would do from a substantive standpoint.
Dr. Zadny responded it would align the law with stationery that has already been printed. When the division tries to explain the programs in federal grant applications or to individuals unfamiliar with the history, it is easier to talk about a location by regional designation.
Dr. Zadny provided the committee with an overview of sections 3 through 5 of A.B. 431. He then referred to section 6, page 3, lines 12 through 16 and said under current law when the division experiences an unspent balance in the community training center budgets at the end of a fiscal year, the law requires that the money be apportioned to the centers. This is not done in a way that is related to the activity or the work that has been done. It is simply a windfall for the centers. It has been the division's practice not to do that but instead to revert the money. The division wants the language stricken so that their practice of reverting the money is consistent with statute.
Senator Raggio said the community training centers perform a very important function and have a great deal of community support. He asked why it is necessary to change that policy. He also asked why the law has not been properly followed as written.
Dr. Zadny replied:
I believe historically it was not that much, $1,000 or less, because folks tried to manage it right down to the wire. Most recently when we experienced budget reductions the pressure was on to save money....The first time I had an opportunity to look at this it seemed to me it would be the wish of the taxpayers to revert the money
and let the legislature and executive branch make a decision how it should be spent. Even though the centers are very valuable to us it really amounts to a windfall. It is part of that budget you have already set the rates you intend to pay for a certain number of people to be served....If you served a lot of people, it would give you a lot of whatever is left over and whoever served a fewer number would get a proportionately smaller share of it. We do not do that in our other budgets. We simply revert and go back to the overseeing authorities for guidance on how the money should be spent.
Dr. Zadny provided an overview of sections 7 through 9 but said section 10, page 4, line 33, is substantive. He stated during the last session of the legislature the law was changed so that a misdemeanant could be sent to Lake's Crossing for an assessment of competency and services to regain competency to stand trial. The statute at that point specified 60 days as the time the court has to return the person to trial after regaining competency. After discussion with the judges and other concerned individuals, the division believes that 30 days is more practical. He added there is no point in having these individuals remain in the Lake's Crossing facility when they could have been discharged much sooner and the beds made available for other people.
Senator Glomb asked why the law specified 60 days in the first place. Her concern is that 60 days may be required to determine the individual has reached a competency level.
Dr. Zadny replied this was a measure put together by one of the judges and supported by the judiciary, but he did not know what the rationale was for picking 60 days except it might have been to be consistent in how long felons are retained at Lake's Crossing. He believed the reasoning behind this deadline is an expedient one to allow the courts enough time to schedule a trial and prepare proper notifications.
According to Dr. Zadny, section 11, page 5, lines 29 through 33, contains a substantive change. A few sessions back the division created the authority for mental retardation agency directors to request from the Budget Division an advance from the state's General Fund because they rely almost entirely on Title XIX reimbursements. Because there is a delay in obtaining the funds, they often have cash flow problems. This would add the community training centers to this provision because more Title XIX funds have been placed into their budget. He explained this has a fiscal impact because the money is on loan to the agencies until it is paid back.
Dr. Zadny concluded his coverage of the provisions of A.B. 431 by advising the committee that sections 12 and 13 follow through with the name changes previously mentioned.
After ascertaining S.B. 431 is a division bill, Senator Glomb advised Dr. Zadny she believed it would have been appropriate for him to have advised the subcommittee working on the budget that the bill was coming through. She objected to not having time to review it before it came before the committee. She referred to section 1 that changes the definition of the word "client" and reiterated her concern for those individuals that are not currently in treatment or training at the present time but who need service. She pointed out these individuals are not in a treatment program due to budget cuts but still have legitimate need of treatment. She thinks the provisions of section 1 are wrong. She will not vote for the passage of this bill. She asked how long the definition of the term "client" has been in statute.
Dr. Zadny replied for a very long time.
Senator Glomb said this has served the state well. She feels the change in the definition is being done as a protective measure brought on by the budget cuts.
Dr. Zadny disagreed and said the change is suggested not as an issue of social policy but to adhere to needs while being cognizant of the state's resources.
Senator Coffin commented there were 1,000 people thrown out of mental health services in southern Nevada. This issue would be very relevant to those who may still require mental health services. He was very much opposed to the action taken at that time, and he will not support a change in statute at this time. He feels it is not right to do this to these people and stated, "We can't just cover our tracks with a piece of legislation. We have about 1,000 people floating around...some have already committed suicide....I think it will be a mistake to pass this bill."
At the request of Senator Callister, Dr. Zadny explained the provisions of section 1, page 1, to the committee once again.
Senator Callister pointed out by taking away the right of treatment for individuals who are not currently in a treatment or training program, the division will immunize themselves against potential legal action by anybody that has not been admitted for treatment.
He does not agree with this.
Dr. Zadny said he understands the concerns that have been expressed but as a prudent manager felt he had to offer this alternative for consideration.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 431.
SENATOR CALLISTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 431.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Rawson noted the name changes that were proposed by S.B. 431 can be accomplished at the time the reorganization bill is acted upon.
Dr. Zadny requested a policy statement be issued by the legislature directing the division to disburse the money that is left at the end of the year to the community training centers.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio reopened the hearing on S.B. 551.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 551.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio opened the hearing for discussion of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 661.
ASSEMBLY BILL 661: Makes various changes relating to unarmed combat.
Senator Coffin noted A.B. 661 came out of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means unamended, and it continues to limit boxing contests to 12 rounds in length to which he is opposed.
Senator Raggio remarked there is no one present at today's hearing to respond to committee questions or to testify regarding the provisions of the bill. He closed the discussion and requested A.B. 661 be held until an explanation can be provided.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing for discussion on Senate Bill (S.B.) 476.
SENATE BILL 476: Creates recreational trail advisory board and provides funding for recreational trails.
Senator Rawson stated he was concerned about potential constitutional problems with the funding mechanism suggested by S.B. 476. He has talked to both the Office of the Attorney General and legislative counsel who have indicated they will not raise an objection to the passage of this bill.
Senator Rawson continued to state S.B. 476 will establish funding by trying to estimate the amount of fuel used off road and calculating the gas tax percentage to go into the "trails" fund. He pointed out the bill proposes to establish a 5-member advisory board to be appointed by the Governor to work in conjunction with the Division of State Parks and a funding source to allow the development and maintenance of facilities and trail heads.
Senator Rawson said an amendment to S.B. 476 is required to remove any broad power on the part of the advisory board to condemn property to establish trails at will. It will also require the board to obtain permission from the property owner before a trail can be placed across their property.
Ms. Botts stated the bill provides for the state's share of funding for the National Trails Program by applying the portion of motor fuel tax attributable to fuel consumed in the recreational use of off-highway motor vehicles for the construction, maintenance and management of the trails.
Ms. Botts further commented the federal Symms Recreational Trails Act of 1991 authorizes up to $30 million nationally over each of the next 5 years to establish and maintain trails. Nevada's share of the funds is estimated between $300,000 and $400,000 annually although Nevada will only receive $83,224 this year. S.B. 476 will enable Nevada to maintain its eligibility for the federal trail funds.
According to Ms. Botts, the suggested amendment to S.B. 476 contains a $12,000 General Fund appropriation which will be a loan to the Division of State Parks to begin a study to determine how much fuel is consumed by off-road vehicles for recreational purposes. The loan would be repaid in the second year of the biennium from a combination of federal funds and state gasoline tax monies.
Senator Rawson said there is concern about taking money from the highway fund; however, the money to be used as a match with federal funds is money that has been paid by individuals who buy gasoline for off-road use. He feels it is appropriate that this money be used to further off-road projects.
Senator Coffin asked:
Isn't it true that people that use their vehicles off the road are entitled to claim a refund for the taxes that they pay on the fuel they consume? We don't know exactly how much has already been refunded, but it will continue to be refunded out of the highway fund.
Ms. Botts replied it is her understanding if fuel is used for off-road purposes such as agricultural and mining activities, there would still be a refund. There would no longer be a refund for fuel used for off-road recreational purposes.
Senator Callister indicated his support for this bill which he feels is a unique way to provide a minimum amount of revenue to
fund a project the public desires. He pointed out S.B. 476 will allow the state to take advantage of some existing trails and, with modest expenditures, enhance them to make them usable by a number of groups to provide excellent recreational opportunities within the state.
Senator Jacobsen clarified the question that arose concerning the existing rebate for fuel purchased for off-road recreational purposes. He said there is a stipulation that the fuel has to be delivered in bulk and it has to be in excess of 200 gallons. An individual that purchases gasoline at a service station cannot obtain a refund.
SENATOR CALLISTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 476 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 815 TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A LETTER OF INTENT TO DEVELOP A STATE TRAIL'S PLAN WITH A LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT FUNDING FOR TRAILS BE SPLIT 30 PERCENT MOTORIZED, 30 PERCENT NONMOTORIZED, AND 40 PERCENT MULTIPLE USE.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Coffin stated he would oppose the passage of S.B.476 because he does not think this is the time to take money out of the state's highway fund, where it is used for the maintenance of the state's highways, and place it into recreational use.
Senator Glomb stated she is prepared to vote in favor of the "amend and do pass" motion but has a problem with the letter of intent for a 30-30-40 split.
Senator Rawson clarified he suggested a 30-30-40 split because that was the consensus of a coalition of individuals that recognize an appropriate use of the trails in the state. They suggested 30 percent of the trails be used for vehicles that are motorized, 30 percent for nonmotorized vehicles, and 40 percent of the trails would be for multiple use. The national system has developed around this same allocation. The new advisory board would also have the authority to report to the legislature if a change should be needed.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 328.
ASSEMBLY BILL 328: Provides that number of years of judicial service required for justice of supreme court or district judge to qualify for pension benefit be the same as for member of public employees' retirement system.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 328.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 8.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 8: Urges Congress not to require states to provide services or benefits unless it provides related funding.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 8.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Jacobsen indicated it would be proper to send a copy of the resolution to the state's congressional delegation in the United States Congress.
Senator Raggio agreed this should be done as a part of the motion. For the record, he said he would vote for this resolution but does not believe the passage of this bill in this state will be meaningful or have any impact in Congress. He believes the message should be sent in a more forceful manner. He further stated the Congress would not act until enough states near the point at which a constitutional convention would be called to mandate a constitutional amendment.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio reopened the hearing on A.B. 661.
Brooke A. Nielsen, Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General, said she telephoned the staff of the Nevada Athletic Commission and was briefed regarding the major provisions of A.B. 661.
Ms. Nielsen said section 2 of the bill would raise the bond requirement for licensees from $2,000 to $10,000. It is their current practice to require a $10,000 bond and the passage of A.B. 661 would conform the statute to what is currently being done. She continued with a brief outline of section 3.
Senator Coffin said section 3 involves a substantive change and commented:
I am not sure that a sparring partner in the jargon of the boxing business can in any way be called a trainer. There is a definite difference. The reason we license these sparring partners is sometimes they are...in serious danger of further mental decay. You have to watch out for that. If the sparring partner gets hit a little too often, you could end up with a walking zombie hired to be punched around. I am not sure that wouldn't involve a very substantive amendment.
Ms. Nielsen could not elaborate regarding this issue but would inquire specifically whether this would change the individuals that are licensed.
Senator Raggio believed the present law would cover even amateur boxing contests but the bill appears to change the law to cover only professional contests. He asked Ms. Nielsen if she could explain the reason for this.
Ms. Nielsen said her understanding is at the present time the athletic commission is not engaged in licensing the referees and physicians at amateur bouts and for that reason the commission wants this measure to be repealed. The athletic commission feels they should not be involved in that type of bout. For more specific information, she will have to inquire with the athletic commission. She said it was unfortunate that no one from the commission could be here to address this type of question.
Ms. Nielsen continued her review of the bill before the committee.
She commented section 8 would shorten the statutory limitation from 15 to 12 rounds in length.
Senator Coffin said he would have to question whether or not this is present practice and whether or not the State of Nevada does want to conform to a practice set by a fight promoter.
Senator Raggio stated A.B. 661 would be held until some of the concerns expressed by the committee can be properly addressed.
Budget and Planning Division - Page 178
Senator Raggio wished to discuss with Judy Matteucci, Director, Department of Administration, a departmental study the Budget Division identified as a critical issue. He also referenced other studies that are shown in the Base budget under data processing. He pointed out these are listed on the budget closing action sheet on page 1 of Exhibit C. He asked:
In view of legislative action taken on the consolidation of the Department of Finance and Administration and some of the items that have been separated from that, is the departmental study a study that could be deferred? I know you have identified it as functionally desirable.
Ms. Matteucci responded:
You need to keep in mind this does not have much to do with whether there was going to be a Department of Finance...and it didn't have anything to do with information services. It is tied to the work in benefit services which is highly computerized and the Budget Division to see if there is a way to combine those two systems and more cost effectively run our data processing systems for both budget and the benefit services. The information services...had nothing to do with this departmental study. It was entirely separate.
If you look at the ongoing systems maintenance that is to continue the budget system. Part of our budget system is still left on the mainframe. One of the concerns we have is if you combine the two systems whether or not we could more cost effectively run the computer systems within our department as opposed to continuing this other system. I think this will be money well spent. We are getting more technologically advanced in being able to produce information for your staff quicker than in the past when we performed computations by hand.
Senator Raggio asked about the preaudit automation that was identified as functional and desirable and asked Ms. Matteucci if this could be deferred.
Ms. Matteucci answered this is a study to determine whether or not the agency documents that are now hand reviewed on a significantly sampled basis could be more effectively reviewed through an automated system. She stated it would expedite processing and is only a study, not the implementation. She believes in the future an automated review system will be needed that will be fed automatically into the controller system.
Ms. Matteucci commented, "If you think that is something you could legitimately defer that is fine...knowing that next time we will be here with that study, but it will put us back a couple of years in implementing it."
Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, referred the committee to the budget closing action sheets reflected on pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit C and presented a thorough review of this material for the committee.
Senator Raggio asked if the support positions of economist and demographer could be deleted from the budget.
Ms. Matteucci said she requires the economist position because of the Budget Division's continued involvement in economic information, and she does not have an economist currently on staff. She pointed out this position was placed in the budget but would not be funded from the General Fund. She stated the demographer position could remain in the Department of Taxation but pointed out the demographic work will remain limited due to the lack of funds for contracting out this work.
Mr. Miles said if the economist is added to the budget, General Fund dollars would also have to be included.
Senator Raggio asked, "What is the total cost of cutting back an economist position.
Ms. Matteucci replied, "$42,810 the first year and $50,128 the second year of the biennium."
Senator Raggio asked, "If we put the economist back into the budget, which of the support positions can be deleted?"
Ms. Matteucci said the Management Analyst I position could be deleted but she wants to retain a clerical position as well as the economist. She also agreed to delete the preaudit automation costs.
Senator Glomb said she had some concern about the necessity of having to hold the line on spending across the board in all other accounts yet the Budget Division is asking for funding of approximately $1 million to fund studies and projects. She asked if there was a way to prioritize some of the studies.
Ms. Matteucci replied they had just agreed not to do the preaudit automation study at a cost of $100,000. She drew Senator Glomb's attention to the fact the Budget Division has only eight professional individuals to perform all of the work that is needed to prepare the budget and do all of the other ongoing activities required during the interim. She stated this is something they cannot continue to do without the additional data processing assistance.
Senator O'Donnell said he understands Senator Glomb's concerns and suggested it might be appropriate to allocate the money for the study and project needs but address the needs immediately in the interim study to come back to the IFC for approval if necessary. He, too, has reservations regarding the expenditure of the funds needed for the studies without some direction.
Ms. Matteucci answered:
We do have direction. We supported an ongoing interim study to work with us on the development of the budget. That is why we have the budget format we have now. The legislative oversight committee worked with us, and we proposed that be continued. I have not seen that study and do not know where that study recommendation is. Perhaps it is not going to be continued. We have for the last biennium participated in a legislative branch study to develop these things. We have a system that has been designed and needs some modifications but it also needs these adjustments that we have put in here [Exhibit C].
Putting it off...if you don't provide the money and we are unable to do this, you are going to have the same information as you had last time....We have worked with the legislature for 6 years on developing a new budget system, and these are the next steps that need to be implemented.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADJUST THE BUDGET TO ACCOMMODATE THE ITEMS INDICATED BY STAFF (EXHIBIT C) WITH THE DELETION OF THE PREAUDIT AUTOMATION ITEM FOR $100,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 AND THE DELETION OF THE ECONOMIST AND MANAGEMENT ANALYST I POSITIONS SHOWN UNDER ENHANCEMENT 420.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Internal Audit Division - Page 184
Senator Raggio said there has been continuing discussion between the money committees regarding this item and the chairmen can report a consensus was reached. He said they have acceded to the request for a centralized internal audit function but he understands all existing internal audit positions within state agencies will continue to function as in the past. Also, the internal audit function will not have authority over the constitutional officers.
Mr. Miles said there had been a request earlier for the legislative auditor to help draft the language that will be a part of the reorganization bill that will outline the duties of the internal auditor.
Ms. Matteucci requested that the position not be required to be a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). She said it could be someone that has an accounting degree and 4 years of progressively responsible experience. She added if the person is a CPA that would be better but she does not want other qualified individuals to be excluded from consideration.
Senator Raggio said he was reminded that the CPA requirement was included but there was a sunset on this. He opined it would be important to determine how this position will be utilized.
Ms. Matteucci said she has some concerns about hiring a CPA although she will make every effort to do so.
Senator Glomb said the position should be filled by a CPA.
Senator Raggio said this could be handled by a letter of intent stating it is the legislature's specified requirement but in an absolute necessity someone with equivalent credentials would be considered.
Senator Glomb said, "We should wait to fill the position unless we can do it right and hire someone that will follow professional standards. Why this and not enhancing the legislative auditor function rather than creating another audit team?"
Ms. Matteucci replied:
We have two branches of government. The executive branch needs to do something in order to respond to the legislative auditor. The legislative auditor has pointed out a number of areas....Every audit you see says that agencies do not have appropriate internal control. This is the executive branch's response to develop internal controls, and it cannot be done by the legislative auditors.
Senator Glomb believed the reason agencies are unable to respond is they do not have their own internal staff to take care of financial issues.
Senator Jacobsen asked if this position would work in conjunction with the existing legislative audit staff, and Ms. Matteucci answered in the affirmative.
Senator Raggio said the existing agreement with the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means does require a CPA and suggested to Ms. Matteucci that she come before the IFC if this cannot be met.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR (EXHIBIT C) WITH A LETTER OF INTENT INDICATING THE LANGUAGE RECOMMENDED BY THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR IN CONNECTION WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE INTERNAL AUDITORS SPECIFYING THE CREDENTIALS OF A CPA AND REQUIRING IFC APPROVAL IF THE SPECIFICATION CANNOT BE MET.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR GLOMB VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio opened the hearing for discussion of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 386.
ASSEMBLY BILL 386: Revises provisions of Senate Bill No. 97 of this session concerning management of solid waste.
Mr. Miles said this bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance regarding sections 4 and 5 on pages 2 and 3. He stated section 4 would provide $27,000 to the Department of Taxation for computer systems for the collection of a $1 fee on the purchase of a new tire. Section 5 authorizes a temporary position for an 18-month period to transfer the collection procedure to the Department of Taxation.
Senator O'Donnell stated he had a concern regarding A.B. 386 regarding the tax on new tires that are placed on a used vehicle.
Senator Raggio stated A.B. 386 will be held an additional day to allow time for Senator O'Donnell to clarify his question regarding the tire fee.
Senator Raggio opened the hearing for discussion of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 8.
ASSEMBLY BILL 8: Requires, upon request, granting of leave of absence without pay for state employees to care for newborn or newly adopted children.
Senator Raggio said the federal law allows 12 weeks of leave without pay to care for newborn or adopted children. The State of Nevada Employees Association concurs with this time frame to be granted to state employees as well.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 8 AND ALLOW A 12-WEEK PERIOD OF LEAVE WITHOUT PAY TO CARE FOR NEWBORN OR NEWLY ADOPTED CHILDREN.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio opened the hearing for discussion of Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 14.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 14:Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to exempt contracts for protection or preservation of cultural resources or historic properties from debt limitation.
Senator Rawson said the committee still has to be sensitive about the amount of debt that would be involved with this measure.
Senator Glomb asked, "How can you exempt a debt? A debt is a debt."
Senator Raggio said the constitution already exempts certain property from the debt limit. This involves bonding and what is included within the computation of the 2 percent debt limit which is constitutional. He said at the present time anything that deals with the preservation of property or natural resources is excluded from the debt limit. A.J.R.14 would also exclude from the debt limit matters dealing with cultural resources or historic properties whether or not owned by the state.
Senator Raggio commented he has some reservations concerning A.J.R. 14 even though the goals are well-intended. He stated for a long period the legislature has resisted the effort to carve exemptions from the state's constitutional debt limit and any exemptions carved should be well thought out and be within the arena of the preservation of natural resources or property as it presently exists. Due to the state bond limit, he believes caution should exist regarding what is excluded. He suggested A.J.R. 14 be held for further review.
Senator Raggio wished to note for the record that the Nevada Supreme Court issued an opinion which casts some doubt on the constitutionality of the telemarketing statute. He understands the opinion deals with the issue of vagueness and the enforcement of the statutes. He said this is being addressed by legislative counsel.
Hearings and Appeals Division - Page 308
Mr. Miles referred the committee to the budget closing action sheet reflected on page 1 of Exhibit D.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER AND SENATOR RAWSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Workers' Compensation Hearings Reserve - Page 313
Mr. Miles referred the committee to the budget closing action sheet reflected on page 2 of Exhibit D.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER AND SENATOR RAWSON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting subject to the call of the chairman at 10:40 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marion Entrekin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
June 22, 1993
Page 1