The Committee on Constitutional Amendments was called to order at 4:39 p.m., on Thursday, May 13, 1999. Chairman Robert E. Price presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Robert E. Price, Chairman

Mr. Harry Mortenson, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bernie Anderson

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Sheila Leslie

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Don Gustavson

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Richard Finn, professor at Western Nevada Community College, said the money he was attempting to get from the fees was not for the police academy at the college or any law enforcement. He reiterated testimony made at the hearing for the resolution on April 1.

Chairman Price asked Mr. Finn if he had seen the amendment proposed by his legislative intern, Danielle Cook (Exhibit C). The amendment changed section 3 of the resolution, adding the clause: "The money so collected must be used by the community colleges solely for costs related to occupational educational courses and the replacement of obsolete educational equipment. A community college that received money pursuant to this subsection must account for the money separately and use the money to supplement and not replace the money that the community college would otherwise expend for those purposes."

Mr. Mortenson wondered what amount of money the sponsors anticipated if the fee was $10 per crime.

Mr. Finn said community colleges were designed to serve a specific geographic population. There was no available estimate as to what revenues might be generated.

Mr. Mortenson said there must be a total estimate that might be imposed.

Chairman Price pointed out future legislatures would decide on the amount imposed per crime.

Mr. Finn reiterated it was hard to project possible revenues. He said some laws could become decriminalized, while the number of certain violations would increase. He guessed several million dollars could be raised. He stated the language Ms. Leslie desired in reference to separate accounting for the dollars was included in the amendment.

Mr. Anderson said fines collected from crimes currently went into the state distributive school fund, and only the interest from that fund was available for spending. He pointed out some courts were not following guidelines for collection of those fees. He asked at which court levels the collection would take place. Mr. Anderson also wondered if the sponsors had considered the cost of administrating the fine.

Mr. Finn responded all three courts would be responsible for collection.

Danielle Cook, legislative intern to Chairman Price, stated the idea behind the resolution was to ensure community colleges had enough money to pay for new technology. She said the students of community colleges attended school for job training and updating job skills.

Mr. Anderson appreciated the intent of the resolution and the utilization for the fines collected. He asked if the sponsors were familiar with the distributive school fund. He said community colleges were beneficiaries of that fund, along with all the other schools in the state.

Ms. Cook responded she was familiar with the fund and was aware the community colleges were receiving monies from it.

Mr. Finn reiterated the monies generated from the criminal fines would be allocated specifically for new technology, not for the college in general.

Angelique Behmer, a student from Western Nevada Community College, expressed her support for the bill.

Brian Doran, deputy administrator of the Administrative Office of the Courts, did not testify in opposition or support of the resolution. He wanted the committee to consider the number of fees already being collected by the courts throughout Nevada. In a 1990 case, McVay v. City of Las Vegas, the court discussed the constitutionality of fines. District Court Judge Nancy Becker ruled administrative fees were unconstitutional as a form of tax. However, in the Supreme Court, it was decided as long as 51 percent of the assessments were given to the judiciary, the fees were constitutional and not a tax. He did not know how the courts would interpret the fine imposed by A.J.R. 16.

Carole Vilardo, president of the Nevada Taxpayers Association, recommended the language in the bill be as general and generic as possible because it was a policy statement written into the constitution. She was concerned because a taxing mechanism was being created in the constitution, which had not previously occurred with the exception of the fuel tax in Article 9. Ms. Vilardo was concerned with creating expenditures and revenue measures in the constitution and not by statute.

Mr. Mortenson wanted to clarify no other taxes were outlined by the constitution.

Ms. Vilardo responded the constitution was not used to create specific revenue. The constitution referenced taxes in a general manner, and mandated them to be "uniform and equal" but did not specify how to spend revenues or impose taxes. She said the establishment of a fee would normally be found in statute, not as an amendment to the constitution. Ms. Vilardo said constitutions were policy documents and were not specific in nature. She was also concerned about unforeseen problems with the resolution. As a constitutional measure, it would require 5 years to fix.

Mr. Mortenson asked if A.J.R. 16 was needed to allow the taxation of criminals.

Ms. Vilardo did not think a constitutional amendment was necessary.

Mr. Anderson stated Article 11, section 3, of the constitution pledged penal fines for educational purposes. In addition, criminals were forced to pay for several activities in which they participated, and were also forced to pay for their incarceration under certain circumstances. He did not think a statute imposing taxes on criminals would be constitutional on the state or federal level.

Mr. Mortenson asked if the community colleges could receive money from criminals without a constitutional amendment.

Mr. Anderson said the Nevada Supreme Court would most likely overturn any action. He pointed out the courts were not collecting the fees, fines, and forfeitures already imposed by the legislature on criminals. The result was reduced income for the state distributive school fund. He said the constitutional amendment was necessary because all monies currently collected from criminals had to go to the distributive school fund.

Mr. Mortenson commented he agreed with Ms. Vilardo’s statement and did not feel it was good policy to specify expenditures in the constitution. He suggested the sponsors of the resolution come before the legislature in the next session.

Chairman Price suggested the committee take action on the resolution, with the possibility for further amendment in the Senate.

Mr. Doran suggested the committee look at Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) chapter 176 and assessment fees. A bill draft could be made to try to garner dollars from the 49 percent residual of the administrative fees already being collected in the courts.

Mr. Anderson encouraged the sponsors of the bill to look at revenue from another area besides the judiciary. He suggested the computer industry might be a place to look for revenue possibilities.

Chairman Price closed the hearing on A.J.R. 16.

Chairman Price said the resolution was identical to A.J.R. 7, which had already been passed by the committee. He suggested an amendment be made to put Ms. Giunchigliani and Senator O’Connell onto the bill as joint sponsors, rather than the Senate and Assembly Committees on Government Affairs.

Mr. Anderson recommended S.J.R. 8 be processed, because it was first requested as a bill draft.

The meeting of the Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Kelly Gregory,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman

DATE: