MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
June 23, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, June 23, 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 M. Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Leonard V. Nevin, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Robert Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst
Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John F. Mendoza, Chairman, Public Service Commission of Nevada
Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Terry Page, Director of Regulatory Operations, Public Service Commission of Nevada
Stan Warren, Sierra Pacific Power Company, WESTPAC
Alan H. Glover, Nevada Power Company
Daryl E. Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association
Frederick J. Schmidt, Consumer Advocate, Office of Advocate for Customers of Public Utilities
Marcia C. Cobian, Executive Director, Nevada Telephone Association
Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
J. Scott Miller, Administrator, Department of Museums and History
Steve Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Mary L. Peterson, Acting Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, State Department of Education
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Will Keating, Executive Officer, Public Employees' Retirement System of Nevada
James T. Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance
P. Forrest Thorne, Deputy Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration
David R. Thomas, State Risk Manager, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration
James L. Wadhams, Nevada Rural Hospital Project
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Scott M. Craigie, Chief of Staff, Governor's Office
Ron Swirczek, Administrator, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Industrial Relations
Brooke A. Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
John E. Jeffrey, Direct Marketing Association
Senator Raggio announced four bills were scheduled.
SENATE BILL (S.B.) 28: Requires legislative auditor to conduct performance audit of public service commission of Nevada.
Senator Leonard V. Nevin, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2,
distributed a one-page copy of the project goals of the Public Service Commission of Nevada (PSC) (Exhibit C). He called attention to Senate Amendment No. 755 to S.B. 28 (Exhibit D) and said the figure $30,000 should be changed to $80,000.
Senator Nevin asserted a study should be undertaken by the PSC to set goals and directions for the future due to the rapid changes in the industry.
John F. Mendoza, Chairman, Public Service Commission of Nevada, said it was his understanding the amendment to S.B. 28 would add $200,000 to the basic figure of $80,000. He pointed out the purpose of the study of the PSC and the employment of a private consultant are included in the amendment.
Judge Mendoza declared the goals of the study are very clear, as depicted on the handout. He stated it has been 12 years since the last study of the PSC. He asserted significant changes were made to the basic operation and structure of the agency as a result of the last report.
Judge Mendoza echoed Senator Nevin's opinion there are rapid changes in the industry due to technology, federal regulations and efforts toward deregulation. After extensive discussions the PSC prepared a request for proposal (RFP) and received responses ranging in cost from $80,000 to $225,000. He said that was the basis for the request for $200,000 of funding for the study.
Judge Mendoza explained the $200,000 would come from the PSC trust fund. He said the Budget Division turned down the proposal due to fiscal constraints, so the proposal was brought to the legislature. He emphasized the funds are available.
Judge Mendoza said other issues have arisen since the original bill was drafted which appear in some of the provisions of the amendment. He stressed the sole purpose of the request by the PSC is to become a more effective agency during changing times.
Judge Mendoza illustrated the changes through the involvement of the cable companies in the telephone business or through the "wheeling" of power. He voiced his understanding the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) Audit Division, in consultation with the PSC, would hire a private consultant to make the study.
Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau, described the procedures to be used in the study. He said the project would identify areas in need of review and the concerns of the PSC would be integrated into the review. He acknowledged the LCB did not have expertise in some of the areas targeted by the PSC which would necessitate the employment of a consultant.
Mr. Crews explained some of the findings would be kept confidential in accordance with chapter 218 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He said at the conclusion of the review the preliminary draft would be discussed with the PSC and then it would be presented to the audit subcommittee of the legislative commission and then on to the full commission.
Mr. Crews stated the study would be done under open standards in full discussion with the PSC. He said the Audit Division would require approximately $80,000 for its portion of the review and $200,000 for the consultant. He indicated the portion to be contracted out would be handled in a manner similar to what was done for the audit of the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) due to some of the technical concerns addressed by the PSC. It would be in the nature of a performance audit of the PSC.
Senator Raggio asked what the parameters of the study would be. Mr. Crews replied the goals listed on Exhibit C would be addressed.
Mr. Crews said the entire cost would be $280,000. If any funds were left over they would go back to the PSC.
Judge Mendoza averred he was concerned that there would not be enough funding to accomplish an adequate study. He said the principal purpose was the management study of the PSC. He said members of various public utilities have advised the PSC they would have no objection to an increase in the millage tax in order to fund any additional needs for the study.
Senator Raggio asked what the target date for the study would be. Mr. Crews envisioned having the study ready for the next legislative session.
Terry Page, Director of Regulatory Operations, Public Service Commission of Nevada, said the RFP was sent out within the last 6 months. He estimated a reasonable time in which to finish the study would be a year or less from the time the contractor was selected. He figured it would take 90 days to select the consultant after the bill became effective on July 1, 1993.
Mr. Page said $280,000 would be distributed to the legislative auditor and the auditor could allocate the funds in the manner he deemed most effective. He said the goal of the PSC is to attain the goals listed.
Senator Jacobsen asked if anyone in Nevada had the capability to do the type of study contemplated. Mr. Crews offered the opinion it would be necessary to go outside of the state for the type of specialty required. Senator Jacobsen voiced his concern that people from outside the state do not have adequate knowledge of the state and the lifestyle. He opined many of the goals could be accomplished by the LCB.
Senator Raggio asked if the intention was to increase the amount stated on the amendment from $30,000 to $80,000 and to use the list of goals in lieu of those listed on the amendment. Judge Mendoza suggested that the amendment be discarded and the original bill be changed from $80,000 to $280,000 and that the testimony given today be used as the basis for the study.
Senator Raggio asked if that would satisfy Mr. Crews. Mr. Crews replied he did not believe the amendment was necessary if S.B. 28 was changed to $280,000.
Senator Raggio suggested the committee might be more satisfied if the goals were included in the bill. Judge Mendoza said the only objection to that was because some of the issues are incidental and not the core. He worried the consultant might put too much emphasis on incidental issues.
Mr. Page pointed out there is the potential for legislation affecting cable television and telephones and to be too specific might set an unwanted limit.
Stan Warren, Sierra Pacific Power Company, WESTPAC, offered support for S.B. 28. He concurred with Judge Mendoza's reasoning for the study. He said those in the industry believe the changes in the industry mandate a study.
Alan H. Glover, Nevada Power Company, echoed Mr. Warren's sentiments and endorsed the study.
Daryl E. Capurro, Managing Director, Nevada Motor Transport Association, stated as one of the entities regulated by the PSC he offered full support to the study and the discussion that just took place.
Frederick J. Schmidt, Consumer Advocate, Office of the Advocate for Customers of Public Utilities, said his office does about 90 percent of its business before the PSC. He said the sponsor of the bill had indicated to him that the purpose was not to audit on a performance basis. He requested that the legislative intent be made clear. He recalled that the last time the PSC was audited it was done by an out-of-state expert who came to the conclusion that there was no need for an Office of Consumer Advocate, that an independent staff under the PSC would suffice in that role.
Mr. Schmidt said the legislature and an initiative petition did not agree and created the Office of Consumer Advocate anyway. He stated he did not want to face the same debate in 2 years because the cost of $280,000 would pale in comparison to the cost of a debate over the continuation of his office. He said his office is presently being audited by LCB, although not on a performance basis.
Mr. Schmidt declared if there is going to be performance evaluation of his office it would only be fair to allow his office be involved in the definition of the scope of the RFP.
Senator Raggio asked if there was any attempt to include that aspect in the study. Senator Nevin replied there was not. He suggested the only thing that should be investigated was to determine the working relationship between the two agencies. He said, "There would be absolutely no audit of the Office of the Consumer Advocate." Judge Mendoza confirmed that the PSC had no intent to make such a study.
Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Schmidt could see a benefit to the consumer as a result of such a study. Mr. Schmidt replied he did and the $280,000 might be well-spent money in view of the recent rate increases.
Marcia C. Cobian, Executive Director, Nevada Telephone Association, offered written testimony (Exhibit E) in support of S.B. 28.
In the absence of further testimony on S.B. 28 Senator Raggio closed the hearing. He opened the hearing on Senate Bill 305.
SENATE BILL 305: Makes appropriation to department of museums and history for employment of technical services unit.
Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said S.B. 305 came about as a result of an interim study of state parks. He explained that even though parks are not specifically addressed in the bill the measure would provide $360,000 to the Department of Museums and History for creation of a technical services unit that would assist all state agencies in cultural-resource type functions. He conceded state parks would be one of the major users.
J. Scott Miller, Administrator, Department of Museums and History, explained the money would be used for salaries for six individuals from different fields and the costs for the unit. He said this type of thing is done in several states, typically through the museum system. The unit is comprised of people versed in biology, archeology, exhibition and interpretation. He said the unit would make a cost-only analysis of the activities listed in the bill.
Mr. Miller said the activities undertaken by state parks and other agencies often fall on the museum system. He explained it is primarily because museums house many artifacts and historical materials. He said:
At that time [during the interim study]...it was perceived to be a means to save the state money. Frequently, when we contract out, large sums of money are paid to outside organizations to come in and do the sorts of things that we have the talent to do internally. However, when we put this proposal together...it was prior to our current fiscal situation and...it was prior to the point in which we were reduced staff-wise....
Mr. Miller asserted the proposal still has validity. He declared the group would be unable to function at this point without the internal infrastructure support which has been lost through budget reductions. He included accounting and registrar capabilities as support which do not exist now. He recommended review of the idea in another biennium.
Senator Raggio asked if it would be feasible for Mr. Miller to develop a more specific plan during the interim. Mr. Miller replied it could be done.
Senator Raggio asked if the matter had been discussed with Senator Thomas J. Hickey who had proposed the bill. Mr. Welden said he had discussed the matter with Senator Hickey who agreed that $360,000 was a lot of money at this time. He was cognizant of the fact the full unit would be necessary to function effectively and it would be best to discuss the idea now and then return in 2 years to determine if it would be economically feasible.
Steve Weaver, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, offered support of S.B. 305. He read a memorandum dated March 31, 1993, from John Richardson, Administrator of the Division of State Parks (Exhibit F).
Senator Jacobsen inquired if the matter had any correlation with the Desert Research Institute (DRI). Mr. Miller responded no attempt had been make to correlate with DRI. He explained the role of the Department of Museums and History is the long-term care and preservation of the state's history, natural history and archeological history. He acknowledged DRI does much work in those fields but their role is different. He said if a need should arise for a relationship with DRI, the connection would be undertaken.
Senator Glomb indicated her belief the type of unit under discussion should be ongoing. She asked if the appropriation being considered was just a onetime appropriation. Mr. Miller confirmed her appraisal. He explained the initial aim had been to determine whether or not the unit would be cost-effective for the state. He opined it would be cost-effective and the success of the unit would determine future use.
Senator Raggio said the committee would take note of the merits of the unit and would accept the recommendation that the bill not be processed during this session. Mr. Miller said he would be happy to put together an oversight document for the committee's consideration. Senator Raggio suggested Mr. Miller include the unit in the enhancement portion of his next budget.
Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 305 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 553.
SENATE BILL 553: Requires board of trustees for each school district to administer examinations for achievement and proficiency to certain pupils.
Mary L. Peterson, Acting Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research and Evaluative Services, State Department of Education, noted that Senate Bill 67, which has already passed, changed the grade levels of proficiency testing from grades 3, 6, 9 and 12 to grades 4,8 and 11.
SENATE BILL 67: Changes grades during which examinations for achievement and proficiency must be given to pupils.
Ms. Peterson explained the reasons for the changes were to make the state program more consistent with national programs and for "developmentally appropriate reasons." She said S.B. 553 focuses on one group of students, those who will be in the ninth grade next year. She said they were last tested in sixth grade and under the provisions of S.B. 67 would not be tested again until the eleventh grade.
Ms. Peterson proposed testing the students next year even though not required by law. She said S.B. 553 would guarantee that those students would be tested next year and the results would be reported to the State Department of Education.
In the absence of testimony in opposition to the bill, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 553. He opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 19.
ASSEMBLY BILL 19:Makes various changes regarding public employees.
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), pointed out A.B. 19 has been extensively amended. He said the original fiscal note no longer has any significance. He indicated the bill now deals only with the issue of insurance for retirees.
Mr. Gagnier said the intent is to set up a sliding scale for the contribution the state pays for state retiree health insurance. He reported this had been a long-time goal of SNEA. He said in a recent past session the legislature had provided that people who had worked for the state for only 5 years could retire and draw the same health insurance benefit as an employee who had worked for the state for 20 years. He called that inequitable.
Mr. Gagnier stated A.B. 19 would provide a sliding scale. He said the assembly had encouraged SNEA to propose a bill that would be cost-neutral. He asserted that has been accomplished through a proposal cited on Exhibit G.
Mr. Gagnier declared the proposal set forth on the last page of A.B. 19 is the same amount as that included in Senate Bill 390 which has already been passed.
SENATE BILL 390: Specifies amount payable by state for group insurance for retired public employees.
Mr. Gagnier explained that after January 1, 1994, if a person retired with more than 5 years but less than 6 years of service the person would receive 25 percent of the base amount set by the legislature. He explained the column on Exhibit G labeled "Count" referred to the number of people currently retiring for a given year.
Mr. Gagnier said the bill does not cover everything desired by SNEA but it is cost-neutral and sets a policy. He said the proposal should not increase the cost either now or in the future and the formula is the same as the retirement formula.
Mr. Gagnier acknowledged the Department of Administration has indicated there might be a slight cost. He attributed that to a difference of opinion as to the number of people who will retire. He said the retirement system ran some statistics upon which he based his estimate. He admitted there had been more people who retired last year but he felt that was due to the cutbacks.
Mr. Gagnier pointed out there was no way to determine whether all those who retire would take the insurance. He said the administration planned for an increase of 6 1/2 percent, but he surmised some of those who retire while the spouse is still employed may elect to take the spouse's insurance. He noted many younger employees who retire go to work for another entity.
Will Keating, Executive Officer, Public Employees' Retirement System of Nevada (PERS), concurred with the statements made by Mr. Gagnier. He said the Public Employees' Retirement Board has considered the legislation and supports its passage.
Senator Raggio asked for an explanation of the rationale in which the Department of Personnel would pay an amount in excess of 100 percent toward the cost of premiums. Mr. Gagnier said the bill had been assigned to a subcommittee in the assembly which worked toward two goals. One goal was to make the measure cost-neutral. The other was to assure that no current retiree would suffer a reduction nor would a current retiree receive the additional benefits. He explained:
The 100 percent is the base amount that you include in law. That's what all current retirees will continue to get regardless of their years of service; they will get that 100 percent. It is only, then, in the future that people with more than 15 years of service, and on up to 20, would get more than that.
The only reason that formula is there was to assure that current retirees were unaffected by this legislation either negatively or positively. If this legislation were applied to current retirees there would be a substantial fiscal note.
Senator Raggio asked if the cost of insurance for a person with 20 years of service would be $119. Mr. Gagnier replied that would not be the cost, that is just the amount appropriated. He said the cost for a retiree is considerably more than that.
Senator Raggio asked if more would be paid for insurance for a retiree than would be paid for an employee in active service. Mr. Gagnier replied, "No, the current amount that you pay for an active employee is $213." He explained Senate Bill 389 provides that the $213 will continue through the first year of the biennium.
SENATE BILL 389: Specifies amount to be paid by certain public employers for group insurance for public employees for next biennium.
Mr. Gagnier said the amount provided for retirees is considerably less. He pointed out an employee who retires under age 65 must pay the same amount as an active employee. The plan in A.B. 19 would pay that employee a maximum of $163 toward that amount.
Mr. Gagnier added:
If a retiree is over 65 and his cost goes down because he's eligible for Medicare, the difference between the amount that is set in this bill and the amount that his insurance costs will go into the fund to keep the fund healthy...and try to hold down future expense.
Senator Raggio asked if purchased service was excluded from the bill. Mr. Gagnier responded affirmatively.
James T. Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance, offered firm support for the concept. He asserted it is bad policy to pay the same for a retiree regardless of the length of service and it is good policy to reward longevity.
Senator Jacobsen said he had received an amendment (Exhibit H) that should be considered as part of the bill. He made copies available to the committee and to Mr. Gagnier and Mr. Keating.
P. Forrest Thorne, Deputy Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration, acknowledged considerable effort had gone into the formulation of A.B. 19 to make it revenue-neutral. He admitted there was a disagreement on the distribution for future retirees. He said the schedule used to determine the number of future retirees was based upon retirees in the prior fiscal year.
Mr. Thorne said the Budget Division considered the existing retiree group and the number of years of service which resulted in a difference in the first year of the biennium of $35,342. He asserted that would increase to $76,000 in the second year of the biennium.
Mr. Thorne said:
The problem with this schedule not being cost-neutral is that if the distribution of retirees by years of service remains fairly consistent, each year there is an added cost. So this won't be a cost that stays flat. It goes from $35,000 the first year to $76,000 in the second year, and it would continue to progress in the cost to the state.
Senator Raggio asked what kind of progression there would be in the future. Mr. Thorne replied it would rush up for two reasons, one for the added cost because of the formula, and another because the discrepancy would grow as the contributions for retirees was increased. He said:
So as the contribution for a flat-dollar amount that you authorized for contribution goes up that would increase the disparity or the added cost in each additional year.
Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Thorne could estimate the costs in the following biennium. Mr. Thorne estimated the incremental amounts
each year if the contribution remained flat at about $110,000 in the third year and $155,000 to $160,000 in the fourth year.
David R. Thomas, State Risk Manager, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration, said another factor should be added. He suggested if the intent is to encourage longevity and it succeeds, there will be more retirees with longer years of service and they will receive more. He said that would also cause an increase in the cost.
Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Thomas agreed with the cost estimates made by Mr. Thorne. Mr. Thomas answered he did.
Senator Raggio asked if the Governor or the Budget Division had a position on the bill. Mr. Thorne replied the division did not have a position. He admitted the concept to reward longevity has some merit. He said the division is neutral on the bill.
Senator Glomb asked what the alternative would be. Mr. Thorne replied there would be no change from the current status in which the same amount is contributed toward the insurance for all retirees, regardless of length of service.
Senator Glomb asked if that was revenue-neutral. Mr. Thorne replied:
That's the basis on which we're making a comparison. We're comparing the cost as it is now with a flat contribution regardless of length of service to what the cost would be with a variable contribution based on length of service.
Mr. Gagnier disagreed. He explained:
The provision of law providing for 5-year vesting in the retirement system has been in effect for less than 4 years. So the number of people who have retired with 5-years vesting, or between 5 years and 10 years, is very low. They're using that as their base.
That figure will increase over the years, so the number of people retiring with between 5 and 10 years, which is the former vesting limit, is going to grow. And that's the group, that under this proposal, is going to get less. But if you don't change it, they're going to get more.
We don't think that this cost is going to go up. If anything it could go down because you're going to have more people in that bracket.
Mr. Keating concurred with Mr. Gagnier. He reiterated the cost-neutral schedule used was based upon the number who retired in 1992, and the previous 4 years had been similar. He suggested the Budget Division was presuming that the trend was going to change.
Dr. Richardson expressed irritation. He stated there had been several subcommittee meetings in the assembly and this was the first time he had heard the figures denoted by the Budget Division. He said there had been a discussion of the cost to implement the bill in the subcommittee but it was not going to be charged to the General Fund, it was going to come out of the trust fund.
Mr. Thorne responded he had referred to the contribution made by the state through the authorization for the payment. He said contrary to the statement by Dr. Richardson, the figures had been supplied to the subcommittee by Mr. Thomas.
James L. Wadhams, Nevada Rural Hospital Project, offered an amendment to A.B. 19. He explained:
An issue arose in...May that precipitated a need for this legislative change. The legislature in 1987...changed the statutes to allow hospitals to form inter-local agreements with the approval as to the formation by the attorney general and with insurance regulatory review by the insurance commissioner. In NRS 277 [chapter 277 of Nevada Revised Statues] the list of kinds of insurance that could be purchased or dealt with through that mechanism did not include health insurance.
The rural hospitals, because of their geography and the small numbers of employees that any one hospital may have, have tried to come together to pool their activity and purchase insurance in combination.
The passage of this [NRS] 277.055 that is the subject of the amendment created an interpretation of... [chapter] 277 [of NRS] and [chapter] 287 [of NRS] that precludes the hospitals from joining together to purchase insurance....
Mr. Wadhams declared the purpose of the amendment is to address a problem that had been identified by Insurance Commissioner Teresa Rankin. He said she participated in the drafting of the amendment. He asserted the amendment would solve the problem. He noted the programs would remain under her review and subject to the approval of the attorney general.
Senator Raggio asked if there was any opposition to the measure. Mr. Wadhams responded he had heard of none. He acknowledged there had been an argument that it could be done under the existing statutes. He stated the commissioner takes a contrary position with which he agrees. He asserted the amendment would resolve that difficulty.
Senator Raggio stated the problem is more procedural in nature because of the rule that an amendment must be germane to the bill. He asked if there was any reason why the amendment could not be processed as a bill. Mr. Wadhams conceded that could be done. Senator Raggio said he would confer with legislative counsel on the question.
In the absence of further comment on A.B. 19 or on the substance of the proposed amendment, Senator Raggio closed the hearing. He offered the opinion that adoption of the amendment would set the wrong precedent. He said he would entertain a motion for a bill draft request (BDR) if the committee wished to process the amendment.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED THAT PROPOSED AMENDMENT NUMBER 1055 TO A.B. 19 BE CONVERTED TO A BILL DRAFT TO BE INTRODUCED BY THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO DO PASS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT NOTICE WOULD BE GIVEN SUBJECT TO ANY OPPOSITION AND IF ANY OBJECTION WAS BROUGHT TO THE CHAIR A HEARING WOULD BE HELD AND THE COMMITTEE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THE BILL FOR DO PASS.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Coffin asked if the action could include a request for expeditious handling of the bill. Senator Raggio indicated he would ask Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst, to do so.
Senator Glomb asked if the bill would require any kind of expenditure. Senator Raggio replied he did not believe so.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio asked the committee to look at S.B. 28.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND BY PROVIDING FOR A TOTAL OF $280,000 TO BE PAID BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU AUDIT DIVISION AND DO PASS S.B. 28.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio said he would entertain a motion to indefinitely postpone S.B. 305.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 305.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio turned to S.B. 553.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 553.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio asked for a motion on A.B. 19.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 19.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, came forward to go over an amendment to Senate Bill 375.
SENATE BILL 375: Makes various changes relating to regulation of trade practices.
Mr. Malkiewich distributed the amendment (Exhibit I. Original is on file in the Research Library.) previously approved by the committee. He reported since that time the Nevada Supreme Court found the statute unconstitutional, overly broad, vague and thus unenforceable. He gave the committee a second document (Exhibit J. Original is on file in the Research Library.) which he indicated addressed those concerns and also reflected certain changes regarding exemptions.
Mr. Malkiewich offered to explain the new amendment which he suggested should replace the former amendment. He said the Office of the Attorney General assisted in finding a way to clarify the definitions.
Mr. Malkiewich called attention to the first proposal to amend section 4 of S.B. 375 which he read from Exhibit J. He said the court had struck down chapter 599B of the Nevada Revised Statutes because there was no legislative intent or statement of purpose. Those provisions will be added under the bill.
Mr. Malkiewich explained the terms were defined more precisely under the amendment to section 18.
Senator Raggio asked Senator Callister if the new proposal addressed the concerns of an ad hoc committee with whom he had been in conference. Senator Callister stated his belief that the amendment would address those concerns as much as possible for those who are representing "untraditional" clients.
Senator Callister explained the amendment would continue to exempt an issuer or a wholly owned subsidiary of an issuer which has a security that is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. He pointed out the previous amendment exempted a company who participated in the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange (AMEX), or the NASDAQ (National Association of Security Dealers Automated Quotations).
Senator Callister explained the problem arose because there is a two-tier level of requirements for access to NASDAQ and AMEX. Some existing telemarketers, who have an exemption under chapter 599B of NRS now, would be able to continue with the exemption because, he said, it only bars those telemarketers with capitalization of less than $4 million and 200 shareholders. The New York Stock Exchange requires $18 million in capitalization, a minimum of 2,000 shareholders and a minimum volume of sales of shares at $100,000. He stated the New York Stock Exchange requirements should be adequate.
Senator Callister pointed out, "They do have some level of self-monitoring that you don't find on NASDAQ or AMEX." Senator Raggio stated the constituents who had voiced concern to Senator Callister should review the amendment. Senator Callister agreed to contact them and obtain their approval. Senator Callister endorsed the new language regarding flexibility.
Senator Raggio announced the meeting would continue immediately following the floor session. He recessed the hearing at 10:55 a.m.
The meeting resumed at 1:55 p.m. Senator Raggio asked the committee to review a proposed bill (Exhibit K. Original is on file in the Research Library.) for class-size reduction. He asked Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, to give an overview.
Ms. Botts said the draft would appropriate funds for class-size reduction and authorize expenditures from the trust fund for class-size reduction from estate tax funds. She pointed out the intended goal will still be a ratio of 15 to 1, but funding will be provided at a ratio of 16 to 1 for selected kindergartens most at risk of failure and for first and second grades due to budget constraints.
Ms. Botts called attention to the third "Whereas" in which it is suggested some flexibility in the range of class sizes would continue to be allowed but would state a goal to reduce the size when possible. She said the ratio in Washoe County ranges from 12 to 20 although district-wide the ratio was under 16 to 1.
Ms. Botts recalled concerns that funding for the Clark County School District might not be sufficient to allow the district to reach 16 to 1. A clause was added last session and in this proposal that would supply funds first to schools or classes most at risk. She said Clark County has been able to provide lower ratios in high-risk schools.
Ms. Botts noted the succeeding "Whereas" clauses state the intention to ultimately reduce the ratios of pupils to teachers in the third grade and on through grade 12. Senator Raggio asked if there was a clear understanding in the measure that the legislature would not be providing funding for reduction of the size of third grade classes. Ms. Botts responded the second "Whereas" addressed the matter of funding for class-size reduction only for selected kindergartens and first and second grades.
Senator Raggio suggested the words "as a goal" should be added in the final "Whereas" after the word "intends." Ms. Botts agreed that would be appropriate and admitted the draft had not been written by a bill drafter. She pointed out the use of the word "intend" had been used successfully on previous bills without any provision for funding.
Ms. Botts described the body of the bill as proposed by Exhibit K. She said section 1, subsection 1 was the same as existing legislation. In response to a query by Senator Glomb she explained the ratio is set for "core curriculum" but not for all classes taught throughout the day. She said subsection 2 provides for flexibility and sections 3 and 4 are also existing law.
Ms. Botts pointed out subsection 5, a new provision, sets out reporting requirements for the State Department of Education for grades kindergarten (K) through 3. She said the provision was included due to some past difficulty obtaining the information. The only report required by the original bill had been for a report to the legislature in odd-numbered years. She opined both the Budget Division and the Legislative Counsel Bureau need the information on an annual basis.
Ms. Botts said section 2 deals with money matters, including an appropriation from the General Fund for $25,323,436 for the first fiscal year. Subsection 2 authorizes the expenditure of $10.3 million of trust fund monies derived from estate tax and interest for class-size reduction and scholarship funding for 90 prospective teachers.
Senator Glomb asked if the mandate in section 2, subsection 1 would require further funding from the General Fund in order to maintain the class-size reduction. Ms. Botts responded existing law allows the State Board of Examiners to make a request from the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) that any money in the trust fund for class-size reduction be reverted to the General Fund. She said last June $15 million was reverted to the General Fund.
Senator Coffin asserted the administration had not reverted the funds in a timely fashion and had delayed requesting permission from the IFC until after the school year had already started. Ms. Botts recalled the distribution had been made late but she thought the request had been approved by IFC in June.
Continuing her review of the proposal for a bill draft, Ms. Botts noted $10.2 million would be authorized for class-size reduction from the estate tax fund plus $25.3 million would be appropriated from the General Fund in order to hire 980.5 teachers for the coming school year.
Ms. Botts explained section 3 provides funding to hire 1,034 teachers for class-size reduction for the second year of the biennium, $27.7 million from the General Fund and $10.9 million from estate taxes. There are also provisions for 90 scholarships for each year.
Ms. Botts said the language in section 4 is the same as the bill passed in 1991 mandating funds be distributed first to schools or classes with at-risk pupils. It includes a requirement for separate reporting of class-size reduction funds and sets other regulations on the use of those funds.
Senator Callister asked how much of the wording in the "Whereas" portion was new. Ms. Botts responded the wording for the second "Whereas" was new and provided some clarification regarding available funding, and the third "Whereas" was new and sets a goal while retaining some flexibility. Senator Raggio reiterated the intention to include the words "as a goal" in the last "Whereas." He suggested additional wording might be needed to include "to the extent funding is provided."
The committee discussed the necessity for schools to seek a variance when funding was not available to achieve the goals stated by the legislature. There was some concern over whether a school could obtain a mandate for funding if the school had not obtained a waiver. It was pointed out the law already provides for utilization of waivers.
Senator Raggio declared it must be made clear that the intention is to reduce class size when funding is available. Ms. Botts suggested the committee could change NRS 388.700 to say 16 to 1 in at-risk kindergartens and grades 1 and 2. She explained a variance procedure would still be necessary in districts that grow faster than estimated or which are unable to reach the goals set. She indicated the second "Whereas" was included to cover that concern.
Senator Callister concurred the second "Whereas" should be adequate. Senator Raggio reiterated the words "as a goal" should be included.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED THAT THE PROPOSAL BE DRAFTED AND INTRODUCED BY THE COMMITTEE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE WORDS "AS A GOAL" IN THE LAST "WHEREAS."
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O'DONNELL ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio suggested the bill could be expedited if the committee wished to recommend the bill for do pass upon introduction.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS THE MEASURE.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O'DONNELL ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Ms. Botts recalled that the reversion of the $15 million from the trust fund to the General Fund had not been approved by the IFC until November 1992 even though the school districts had been notified earlier that the funds would not be available.
Senator Raggio turned to a discussion of the Distributive School Account as proposed by Exhibit L. (Original is on file in the Research Library.)
Ms. Botts explained the first change was a result of a discussion in the subcommittee that the Department of Taxation estimate of assessed valuation published on April 1 did not include the final estimates of net revenue from mine operators which are due on June 15. She said there had been some problems due to large discrepancies between the estimates. A discussion between the Department of Taxation, the school districts and the staff from the LCB resulted in a proposed change that the estimates from mine operators be due on June 1 for use in development of the budget.
Ms. Botts explained the first section pertains to local school district budgets and it would change the date on which school budgets are due from June 1 to June 15. That would allow the information from mine operators to be taken into consideration.
Ms. Botts said section 2 changed the date for estimates for mine operators from June 15 to June 1. Because the estimate is not due in conjunction with payment of the tax, no problem is anticipated.
Ms. Botts described the change in section 3. She said the State Department of Education collects data from every school district on each licensed employee. Because the data is not received until after the employee has begun work, the previous language was unworkable, she said. The proposal is to change the wording to require the report on employees to be made before November 15 of each year and to delineate data on the salary and assignment of each licensed employee.
Ms. Botts explained the apportionment to which a school district is entitled is computed by subtracting the local funds from the 25-cent portion of property tax and by subtracting the local school support tax from the total basic support. She said Eureka County revenue from the two sources was greater than the total basic support which left a negative number. She said there is a provision in the law that the apportionment, which equals the difference between the basic support and local funds available, or 10 percent of basic support, is the amount paid. She said the state has had to pay Eureka County an amount equal 10 percent of the basic support even though the revenue from local sources was sufficient.
Ms. Botts suggested that provision be removed and additional language added to state that no apportionment would be made if the local funds exceeded the total basic support. She acknowledged the wording was awkward because it made reference to a negative number when the local resources were subtracted. She said she would work with the legal division of LCB to find better language.
Ms. Botts reiterated the intent that the state should not have to add an extra 10 percent if local resources were sufficient. She recalled the 10 percent had been included several years ago when a local school district, possibly that in Douglas County, had sufficient local wealth that state aid was not necessary. She surmised the provision for at least 10 percent state aid was included to allow the state to maintain some control over the school district. She said it was no longer felt that was a necessity.
Senator Raggio asked if the language was consistent with other appropriations for the Distributive School Account (DSA). Ms. Botts replied it was.
Ms. Botts said there were no changes in section 5 until item (g) where the section deals with required financial reports. She explained more information was needed regarding fringe benefits which was not being collected currently.
Ms. Botts indicated section 6 was new. She said it would require costs attributable to special education be kept in a separate fund. She pointed out it would not include federal funds for special education which are already tracked in separate funds. She said it would enable the State Department of Education to make a more accurate estimate of the cost of special education.
Ms. Botts described section 7 as "the meat of the school-funding bill." She noted it sets forth the basic support amount per pupil per school district for the coming year. Senator Raggio asked why Eureka County was still included. Ms. Botts replied many suggestions to resolve the Eureka County problem were unconstitutional or politically unpopular. She said a proposal to separate net proceeds from ad valorem taxes had been considered but noted such a resolution would require a constitutional change.
Ms. Botts explained, "If we gave Eureka County...a true basic support number, it would take some dollars away from all of the other districts.... We have kept them [Eureka County] at an artificially low number...." She indicated the easiest solution would be to combine Eureka County with another county but it might be an unpopular solution. She suggested it will take some difficult political choices to resolve the problem. The problem has been treated in the manner suggested for the past 4 years.
Ms. Botts said section 8 sets forth the aggregate average basic support for the second year of the biennium and describes the method to reach those amounts.
Returning to a discussion of section 7, Senator Glomb inquired why there was such a wide disparity in the amounts allocated to the various school districts. Ms. Botts explained local wealth is taken into consideration. She added the remote areas often have extremely high transportation costs, some of the classes in those schools are very small and the costs for administration are very high. Senator Glomb suggested there may be some very high costs unique to the urban areas such as those related to gangs.
Senator Callister pointed out section 8 indicates the average per pupil expenditure in Esmeralda County is nearly $6,400 while the average in Washoe County is less than half. He asked if those figures represented actual expenditures. Ms. Botts replied those figures represent the guarantee and may be only 75 to 80 percent of actual expenditures. She reiterated it is far more expensive to educate a child in Esmeralda County, where the high school children must be sent to Nye County, than in Washoe County. She averred salaries are generally higher in the rural areas in an attempt to attract and keep good teachers.
Ms. Botts called attention to a new provision at the bottom of page 5 setting forth the requirement for the estimate of net proceeds from mining. She stated rural districts are heavily dependent upon the mining income and the information is vital to their planning.
Ms. Botts said page 6 depicts the estimates for support. Other provisions include the ad valorem adjustments due to assessed evaluations, estimated enrollment and net proceeds from mining.
Ms. Botts said section 9 sets forth the special education unit funding with a chart showing the number of units allocated to each district. She noted 40 units are allocated to the State Board of Education to delegate to unique situations or problems when a district's allocation is insufficient. She explained that a unit is a teacher providing services to an assigned class or caseload of special education children. Regulations set forth the maximum class size or caseload and are dependent upon the severity and type of the handicap.
Ms. Botts stated section 10 establishes the appropriation from the General Fund to the DSA for each of the next two years and describes the provisions for work programs, transfers and reversions.
Ms. Botts noted section 11 authorizes the receipt of $67 million of other funds into the Distributive School Account. She said the other sources include annual slot taxes, out-of-state sales tax, federal mineral land-lease revenue and interest earned on the permanent school fund. There are provisions for transfers or augmentation of those funds.
Section 12's language has appeared in past school funding bills, Ms. Botts explained. The section provides that up to $600,000 may be used to meet the state's matching requirement under the Child Nutrition Act. She said the provisions of section 13 are also from the present bill and detail how funds can be advanced from the General Fund to the DSA in order to pay allotments to the districts.
Ms. Botts said section 14 sets limits on the amounts to be spent for the adult high school diploma program. She indicated it would be higher than 1993 expenditures because the Clark County School District cut the program when budget cuts were made. The program limits the expenditures for adult programs in facilities or institutions operated by the Department of Prisons at $3.2 million.
Ms. Botts said the final sections set forth methods to reduce the guarantees and provides the date of effectiveness. She reiterated the document was a draft and could be subject to change after the school districts review the accuracy of the amounts set by the formulas. Adjustments may also result from changes in the local school support taxes.
Mr. Miles pointed out the amounts in section 10 depend upon the final decision regarding revenue estimates. He explained that as sales taxes go up the numbers go down, and as sales taxes go down the numbers increase.
Senator Coffin asked if section 15 was new. Ms. Botts explained she felt the Governor had clear authority under NRS 353.225 to reserve funds from the DSA. She explained when the Governor addressed the fiscal crisis of the state he indicated the Office of the Attorney General had advised him he did not have clear authority to reserve those funds. She said a bill is pending to expand the Governor's authority to reserve funds under certain limits to be placed by the legislature. Section 15 was added to included clearer language in the event of a another fiscal crisis.
Senator Coffin declared he could not accept the provision. Senator Glomb approved of the section because she felt otherwise funds for the Department of Human Resources would be cut, which she asserted could not afford any more cuts. Senator Raggio said the Governor had indicated he wanted the provision clarified. The committee discussed the issue.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADOPT SECTION 15 AS A POLICY.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Coffin suggested that delegating authority to the Governor which should be the legislature's responsibility may be unconstitutional and may constitute a de facto line-item veto. He offered the opinion a special session of the legislature should have been called the last time there was a fiscal crisis. Senator Glomb agreed a special session should be called when the state faces another such fiscal crisis. However, she offered the opinion the inclusion of the language in section 15 ought to be appropriate.
Senator Raggio recalled that when the legislature adopted NRS 353.225 in 1983 it was with the understanding that the power to effectuate the reserve by the Governor included the DSA. He agreed it should be made clear.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL AND COFFIN VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION AND TO RECOMMEND DO PASS TO THE FLOOR.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O'DONNELL ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR COFFIN VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Scott M. Craigie, Chief of Staff, Governor's Office, said the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) had requested funds for a workplace safety education and information program. He stated the budget office and the Governor had denied its inclusion in the original budget.
Mr. Craigie acknowledged that the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) package mandates a $1,000 deductible for those with high accident rates. He said the Governor's Office feels it is important to continue the DIR educational program regarding safety. He produced a memorandum (Exhibit M. Original is on file in the Research Library.) showing that 1 in 6 workers was involved in an accident in 1992 and 98 percent are the result of unsafe working conditions or unsafe acts.
Mr. Craigie recommended the continuation of DIR workplace safety educational programs at the level of expense, $350,000 per year, presently in place. He suggested the funds be appropriated for the first year with a requirement that the agency return for review prior to release of funding for the second year of the biennium.
Mr. Craigie pointed out three plans were included with the memo. He said the agency originally requested $500,000 which has been reduced to $250,000. He noted the source of the funds would come from a SIIS assessment to the employer and would not come out of the General Fund.
Senator Raggio remembered the program had been adopted in principal for the last biennium. He stated the Senate Committee on Finance had not closed any SIIS budgets yet. He suggested the agency should report to the IFC following the first year prior to the commencement of the authorization for the second year in order to allow the IFC to measure the effectiveness and the value of the program. He suggested the report should be made prior to May 1.
Mr. Craigie reiterated his recommendation to continue the present program. He acceded to the recommendation to report to the IFC.
In response to a question by Senator Callister, Mr. Craigie explained the funding came from premiums and an assessment on self-insured companies. He said DIR makes the assessment.
Senator Callister asked if anyone knew what the percentage was on assessments versus premiums. Ron Swirczek, Administrator, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Industrial Relations, responded last year approximately 80 percent of the assessments were applied against employers covered by SIIS while 20 percent were applied against self-insured employers. He said:
This year, because of the number of self-insured employers that have left the system, that will probably be somewhat reduced, so it will be somewhere around the mid-70s to maybe a 70-30 split.
Senator Glomb recalled she had voted against the measure when it came before the IFC because testimony from business had indicated the expenditure was not necessary. She recollected testimony that materials had already been developed that were not being used. She indicated she would only support a minimal budget. She asked if the committee would be voting on one of the three options included in Exhibit M.
Mr. Craigie responded about six agencies in the state government have some of the highest accident rates in the state and they will have to pay the $1,000 deductible. He asserted less than 2 percent of the employers in the state generate 22 percent of the cost to the system. He declared those unsafe workplaces are the responsibility of the workers and the employers, and he averred the program would support all other efforts to have a beneficial impact on worker safety.
Senator Glomb asked if the group described contributed its share. Mr. Craigie replied those employers contribute about 17 percent of the premium and 22 percent of the costs. He explained the 2 percent responsible for those figures will contribute their proportionate share under the new bill.
Mr. Swirczek interjected those covered under SIIS would pay higher premiums with more of the money going toward the educational program. He provided the committee with a pamphlet (Exhibit N. Original is on file in the Research Library.) which he said was part of the initial $350,000 program. He stated 400,000 pamphlets have been distributed to all Nevada employers. He said 3,600 employers have since called for follow-up information. He alleged the program is beginning to work.
Mr. Swirczek related the next step will include a billboard program similar to the "buckle-up" signs for automotive safety. He declared the program progresses from an awareness to being effective.
Senator Coffin stated he wanted to be sure the program was correct. He called the price "incredible" for a brochure with 16 pages with 10 color photos to produce 500,000 at 10 cents each.
Senator Raggio concurred the time had come to make every effort to disseminate the information to the public and to employers in order to assist in the reform of SIIS.
Senator Raggio asked if a consensus had been formed on Senate Bill 375. He invited those with an interest to come forward. He pointed out Senator Callister had been working with many on an amendment which had been presented earlier in the day. He wanted to know if those on the ad hoc committee had come to an understanding.
Brooke A. Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, said there was concurrence in the language of the redraft designed to address the problems identified by the Nevada Supreme Court. She offered support for S.B. 375 with the amendments proposed by Mr. Malkiewich.
John E. Jeffrey, Direct Marketing Association, said his objection was the same as he has stated earlier regarding the portion of the bill pertaining to publicly traded corporations. He asserted a large number of the 3,900 companies in the association are listed on the AMEX or NASDAQ exchanges. He said the association had submitted language which was adopted. He said the new amendment includes language which would include only the New York Stock Exchange.
Senator Raggio interjected the committee was setting aside language as deemed necessary from the constitutional issues raised by the Supreme Court. Mr. Jeffrey had no argument against that.
Mr. Jeffrey voiced another objection regarding the number of pages in a catalogue. He said the existing law requires 100 pages whereas his association recommended 24 because 24 is standard.
Senator Raggio requested comment from the Office of the Attorney General. Ms. Nielsen responded the language has been debated for quite a long time among all the parties. Senator Raggio said he was specifically referring to the language providing flexibility. Ms. Nielsen replied:
That, we think, will address a concern that was raised initially.... As we have discussed...all along, under the intent statement of the bill, the 3,900 companies, most of them come under telemarketing regulation. We have assured them of that. That's why we put in we agreed to this provision that our office would...make the legal determinations in that regard.
Senator Raggio asked how the company would know by the language whether it was required to register. Ms. Nielsen said the Office of the Attorney General would issue letters in answer to the question. She explained all the exemptions and definitions in the law and the intent statements would be reviewed. She reiterated the belief that the type of business the companies represented by Mr. Jeffrey are engaged in are not telemarketers as defined under the law.
Senator Raggio declared:
For the record, you're saying that notwithstanding the specific language in the bill where the criteria is...set forth that you would utilize the flexibility language...and that you would make those determinations whether or not those criteria do exist?
Ms. Nielsen replied:
And that's based upon our belief that it is not the intent under this law to bring in those 3,900 or so companies that he refers to.
Mr. Jeffrey responded having that on the record did not give him comfort. He cited a case in Las Vegas in which a photography studio was closed down on the busiest day of the year due to "overenthusiastic regulators." He indicated he was trying to formulate an exemption to deal with companies that advertise nationally which may or may not take care of the problem.
Senator Glomb alleged some legislation regarding the industry is needed and it could not wait any longer. She declared the committee had "bent over backwards" to accommodate all parties.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 375.
Senator Raggio agreed the committee has done all possible. He stated that the bill must be processed in the senate and go to the other house. He opined the previous action would have to be rescinded before amending the bill.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION ON S.B. 375 WHEREBY IT WAS AMENDED WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 894.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAWSON AND O'DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE .)
* * * * *
SENATOR CALLISTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 375 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio asked the representative from the Office of the Attorney General if the measure would meet the concerns expressed by the Nevada Supreme Court. Ms. Nielsen replied:
Yes, sir, it definitely does. The model for the amendments you're now reviewing was the California statute. We have even tightened up the language of the California law to make it more clear and that is the statute that the Nevada Supreme Court referred to with approval. We think it does address those concerns.
Senator Glomb asked if the chair would consider the possibility of making the bill an emergency measure to move it along. Senator Raggio pointed out it could not be moved as an emergency measure with the type of reprint presented but he agreed to expedite it.
Senator Raggio told Ms. Nielsen the first paragraph in which the attorney general is given some flexibility would require a clear statement that it would be used to respond to the concerns expressed today and would not be handled in an intransigent manner.
He asked if that was what she had indicated. Ms. Nielsen replied, "That's correct, senator. I would agree with that."
Senator Raggio asked Ms. Nielsen if she had any concern that the granting of authority in that manner would pose a constitutional problem. Ms. Nielsen replied, "No, we've considered that. If the amendment says `legal interpretation' that is what the attorney general does so we think that is absolutely within our authority to make the legal interpretation that this requires."
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAWSON AND O'DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * *
There being no further business before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 3:40 P.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Judy Jacobs,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
June 23, 1993
Page 1