The hearing of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday April 27, 1999 by Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. 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. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Bob Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr. John Marvel

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Cynthia M. Cendagorta, Committee Secretary

Chris Giunchigliani, Assemblywoman District Nine, said A.B. 373 was a bill reported out of Health and Human Services that had a fiscal note. She had some suggested amendments she distributed to the committee (Exhibit C). The genesis of the bill was that as more and more group homes were locating in many of the districts throughout the state, there were concerns from some of the elderly about the types of charges that were being applied to them and what kind of care they were getting. Section One stated if the home was licensed, it would have to post what the charges were and what kind of care the person would receive in that facility. There was testimony that if a person had a home and divided it up into a couple of rooms to rent out, they might be able to charge those with more means more for the same level of care than those who earned less. A very simple remedy was to have the homes post the charges and the level of care.

Section Three dealt with licensure. The Health Committee felt they needed to allow the State Board of Health to create regulations to license referral agencies. They also recognized in that field individuals were being placed that might have different levels of need. Therefore an individual with a health background should be the person considered for a license. Ms. Giunchigliani said the wording might need to be adjusted and referred to Exhibit C. She wanted to make sure some of the nurses who did referrals were not prohibited from doing so. To address that concern, Line 2 was added to allow for those individuals who were geriatric care managers who happened to be licensed as a nurse or social worker, to also be captured in the bill.

Mrs. Chowning asked if what the bill was trying to accomplish was to allow those people to provide referrals and receive compensation for those referrals. She asked if that compensation would also be included in the amendment. Ms. Giunchigliani said that was exactly what had been occurring, since some individuals were holding themselves out as a referral agency with no experience. There were people who would go to hospitals and nursing homes and basically solicit bodies for group home placement. Those people were then being paid by the group home for placing the individuals in their home. The Health Committee felt the state should not be rewarding someone to do that kind of referral, so they took out that language in the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani addressed Section Four, which would delineate when the referral fee would be prohibited. The women in the geriatric program she had worked with researched and did case management as a public guardian or on behalf of hospitals or a client. The bill was not intending to prohibit them from being compensated for the work they did. The Health Committee put in a fining process since there were individuals acting as licensed referral agencies who were not. The fine would only be a civil charge, and the funds would go back into the agency completing the actual investigations. Section Four dealt with revocation of the license of the facility. If a person was operating a residential group facility and their conduct was detrimental to the health and safety of the residents, the division would then be able to suspend or revoke the licenses of all of the facilities that person was operating. The language was intended to narrow that revocation to those facility operators who had exploited, abused or neglected the elderly.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she was recommending Section Six be deleted, which would also reduce the fiscal note commensurably. Mr. Beers asked if the bill was the legislation enabling suspension of a license, or if there was already legislation elsewhere enabling that. Ms. Giunchigliani said there was already a Nevada Administrative Code that allowed a license to be revoked. Her understanding of the bill was if a person were caught exploiting, abusing or neglecting an elderly person, there would be no question the person would lose their license.

Ms. Giunchigliani said there was some concern to make sure there were proper fire and safety precautions installed in the homes. The homes would be checked out prior to licensing. It was felt that an operator of a home should have a fire exit plan even if that operator was only taking in one or two residents. The Health Division was also authorized to enter and inspect buildings and premises operated within 72 hours after the division was notified that a facility was operating without a license. If a home was found to be operating without a license, there would be a fine of up to $10,000 levied. Upon a second offense, a $20,000 fine would be levied and the person would not be allowed to apply for a license for at least six months.

Ms. Giunchigliani added if Section Six was deleted Section 12 would also need to be deleted. She stated that the provisions of Subsection Three would go into effect January 1, 2000. Mrs. Chowning asked if deleting Section Six meant just Subsection D. Ms. Giunchigliani answered no, that section was currently the law, and subsection B was currently in another bill. Subsection B required all homes to be licensed instead of just a registered and a licensed facility. Because that issue was being dealt with in a totally separate bill, it did not need to be included in A.B. 373 any longer. The existing language would still be in statute but would be removed from this particular bill.

Donna Shilinsky, an independent private geriatric care manager, gave the following testimony:

Ellen Lingelbach, a registered nurse, gave the following testimony:

Kim Spoon, private guardian, geriatric care manager and licensed social worker, referred to written testimony she submitted to the committee (Exhibit E). She also noted she was a private guardian if the committee had any questions they would like to refer to her on that topic. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would be happy to work on the legal language of the bill with those who just testified.

Richard Panelli, Chief of the Bureau of Licensure and Certification, Nevada State Health Division, testified on behalf of the Department of Human Resources. He referred to prepared testimony he handed out to the committee (Exhibit F). On page six of the handout, he referred to an amendment to delete Section Six. Mr. Panelli advised that part had the heaviest portion of the fiscal note. If that portion of the legislation were deleted if would remove approximately $194,800 from the fiscal note. The Health Division did not currently regulate referral agencies, however the division had received several complaints concerning referral agencies. Licensing referral agencies would have a fiscal impact, which would have to be offset by fees. The cost of developing regulations, including public hearings, workshops and carrying out the oversight and complaint investigations would be approximately $39,000 in the first year and $36,500 thereafter. Facilities which were operating without a license were difficult to bring into compliance because the Health Division’s only option was to turn over those cases to the District Attorney for further action. Deterrents such as the monetary fines proposed in the legislation were a good alternative. The division currently investigated all complaints received concerning residential facilities for groups, based on an established care-driven system. Modifications to Nevada Revised Statute 449 to require that complaints concerning facilities operated without a license be investigated within 72 hours would have a fiscal impact on the division as well. That impact would also have to be offset by fees. The cost to investigate complaints, based on past experience, would be approximately $39,000 in the first year and $36,000 thereafter. The division recommended that A.B. 373 be modified or amended by deleting lines 37,38, and 39 on Page 5, Section 10, Subsection 3 (a) because NRS 449.150 already provided for the division to investigate complaints and health facilities.

With no further business to come before the committee concerning the bill, the hearing on A.B. 373 was closed.

Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, supported A.B. 584. He said he had been the Chairman of the Legislative Commission’s Committee to Study the Construction and Maintenance of Highways and Roads. The committee was charged with the responsibility of determining the extent of the shortfall in funds required to maintain the state highway system and to accommodate the state’s growing population. The committee paid special attention to taxes on motor vehicle fuels because they produced the greatest amount of money for the highway fund. Tom Stevens, Director of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) briefed the committee and testified regarding the extent of the need for new funding sources to construct and maintain the state’s highway system. Mr. Stevens noted Nevada had a current backlog of highway maintenance needs of $47 million and that over the next ten years Nevada’s highway funding plan showed $5.6 billion in revenue but $7 billion in expenditures and $1.4 billion in projects to be considered.

Mr. Neighbors said the bill made simple and straightforward changes in the law although it was a lengthy bill. The drafter took advantage of the opportunity to rewrite the state’s statutes regarding the gasoline tax, making them easier to read and understand. In substance, A.B. 584 made only two changes in the law. First, it transferred the responsibility for collecting the gasoline tax from the Department of Taxation to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. It also transferred the point at which the taxes were collected to the terminal rack. That was the positive impact. The gasoline tax produced over $300 million per year for the state highway fund and the county road fund. As a revenue producer it was surpassed only by sales and gaming taxes. That fact alone made the bill one of the most significant pieces of legislation to come before Ways and Means this session. Even a three percent error out there would represent $9 million in lost taxes to the State of Nevada. Because of its size, the gasoline tax was an attractive target for tax evaders. Three years prior the Council of State Governments studied the problem of fuel tax evasion, and concluded the loss to state government alone amounted to $1.5 billion per year. The study stated the losses where so large they threatened the ability of states to maintain and improve their transportation system.

Mr. Neighbors stated the fuel tax evasion took many forms. In some cases it meant filing fraudulent returns, and in others it meant failing to file returns at all, failing to pay the amount due or fraudulently reporting the locations at which the fuel was sold. Much of the fraud was carried out by sophisticated criminal syndicates. A.B. 584 will help to stem tax evasion in two ways. First, it centralizes the responsibility for collecting motor vehicle fuel tax in a single agency. The responsibility at the time was divided between the Department of Taxation, which collected the tax on gasoline, and the Department of Motor Vehicles which collected taxes on special fuels such as diesel. That division weakened any effort to crack down on evaders. Mr. Neighbors said he believed by making the change proposed in the legislation they would free the Department of Taxation to concentrate on the collection of General Fund revenues and bring new focus to the fuel tax collection program. Second, the bill moved the point of collection to a higher level in the distribution chain. That change reduced the number of taxpayers the agency had to deal with, reduced the number of returns filed, and made it easier to identify and deal with the problems of inconsistency. The potential increase in revenue was large, and could amount to anywhere between $8-10 million escaping taxation. In 1995, the legislature moved the point of collection for special fuel (diesel) to the terminal rack. After that change revenues increased by $12 million, which was almost 25 percent of the total collection. A.B. 584 would discourage tax evasion, making the tax system more equitable, and would also provide the revenue the state needed to improve the transportation system and accommodate the growing population.

Carol Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayer’s Association, spoke in support of A.B. 584. Part of the bill was a result of Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s bill, A.B. 204 of the 1997 legislature. That bill required agencies to look at the consolidation of tax and fee collections. She referred to the minutes from the October 2, 1998 meeting (Exhibit G) at which the committee looked at all of the alternatives. The solution presented in A.B. 584 was the most efficient way to move the point of collection to the terminal rack, which made the audit operation more efficient as well. The bill was a win-win situation for both the state and the people who had to report the tax. The entire system was therefore simplified. The bill would have been implemented immediately in the first version, but had been cancelled to make the transition later.

Darryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association, supported A.B. 584. Moving the point of collection to the terminal rack provided the best method of eliminating evasion of the tax and consolidated the collection. The fact of the matter was the committee would not see 25 percent evasion on the gasoline tax. The federal study that was completed determined that percentage of evasion to be between 3 and 8 percent. At 3 percent, the state was losing almost $10 million. The problem everyone recognized was moving it from the Department of Taxation to the Department of Motor Vehicles would entail changes in both of their budgets. There was no desire to impact that biennium’s budget for either agency, but instead give them some lead-time to prepare for that. The amendment at Section 114 accomplished just that. With that change, there was no big impact with respect to either department’s budget. The fact of the matter was that was probably the last step to squeeze out as much evasion of fuel taxes as possible. The largest component of taxation in the state was the gasoline tax, and diesel tax brought in over $65 million. At that point, and with the passage of the bill, the state would be able to say it was collecting all it could from the taxes the state had, without considering increasing taxes.

Mr. Capurro said in the DMV budget there was funding that provided for a tracking system for the collection and distribution of those taxes. Diesel taxes all went to the State of Nevada, and there was no distribution to local government. That was not the case with gasoline. Mr. Neighbors urged the committee to keep the funds in the DMV budget to keep that tracking system. He urged the committee to implement that provision on diesel, even if that was before gasoline came on board. Mr. Capurro said the bill was a good one, and he did not know of any agencies or people in opposition of it.

Ms. Evans asked if the January 1, 2002 deadline gave ample time to make the transition between the two departments to work out the budgetary problems. Mr. Capurro answered it did and also provided the DMV the opportunity to start on July 1, 2001 to adopt the regulations necessary to do that. There was a timeline he had handed out that clarified how that process would be done (Exhibit H). Mr. Capurro believed it was an orderly transition that would result in the highest efficiency the department could get.

Mr. Beers asked if the concept of collecting the tax at the rack was separable from having DMV be responsible for collecting it. Mr. Capurro said those two issues were separable, and what made sense was the fact that if the functions were consolidated into the DMV, then all highway fund related taxes were being collected by that agency, instead of being collected by another agency. That also allowed the agency to concentrate the audit effort. At the present time, an auditor may go out to audit used fuel or diesel taxes, and two weeks later another auditor might go to the same facility to audit gasoline taxes. Also, the DMV did far more field audits, which were much more definitive than the Department of Taxation had done in regards to that issue. Most of the Taxation audits were desk audits, not field audits. The bill would essentially consolidate the functions into one agency which already collected all of the rest of the highway fund taxes.

Ms. Vilardo said A.B. 204 called for the consolidation of all tax collections. Moving from that bill to the bill in question, it was found the agencies needed to create the mechanisms, and create some affinity before anything could be arbitrarily moved. The ideal situation was that eventually it would be nice to see a Department of Revenue, and see those tax collection functions consolidated. One of the key elements was that Parole and Probation would be moved out of DMV, in order to affect a move of DMV as a sub-function of the tax collection function, which would become a Department of Revenue. Those things did not work out, and there were policy issues involved. Ms. Vilardo said she hoped the committee would go through the 204 report (Exhibit G), because she felt the case was made for the logical and effective transition to a Department of Revenue.

Mr. Neighbors said in the past doing that had been an almost insurmountable obstacle because it was difficult to compute the 9 cents most of the counties had. With the new sophisticated equipment, the department felt everything would be in place and ready to collect the tax at that time.

Mr. Dini noted the fiscal note showed General Fund money being used to fund the transfer. He asked why highway money was not used since it would all go to the highway fund. Mr. Capurro asked if Mr. Dini was referring to the fiscal note for the original bill, because the bill had been amended. In the past around $800,000 had been appropriated to the Department of Taxation from the highway fund for the purpose of the collection of the gasoline tax. There had been some leakage from the highway fund to a General Fund agency, which Mr. Capurro felt had some constitutional problems associated with it. In essence, that was why that fiscal note was there on the original bill but did not exist on the amended bill for either year of the next biennium. The first element of any sort of work on the part of either agency would be to allow DMV to start the regulatory process on July 1, 2001. The actual collection of the tax by DMV would not take place until January of 2002, so it would not affect the present biennium on either budget. Mr. Dini asked why they were doing it then. Mr. Capurro said if they were to collect anywhere from $6-9 million in each year of the next biennium, he would agree to do it immediately, but the reality of the situation was that neither department could gear up that quickly. Mr. Dini asked what it would cost DMV to gear up for the collection. Mr. Capurro said the department would come to the committee in the next biennium for an appropriation to cover that function.

Ms. Evans asked if the department had given him any idea of what the costs might be. Mr. Capurro said the department would probably come to the committee asking for more auditors, with respect to that issue. The theory was, if an auditor brought in at least his cost, he had justified his position. However, in the case of DMV, they had brought in far more than their own cost. At that point, the state would want to add as many auditors as it could.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she thought the process was orderly and was the correct way to go about collecting those revenues. In that case, delaying the implementation made sense.

Ms. Vilardo stated there was a collection allowance which was allowed. The Department of Taxation was able to collect roughly $1 million from that allowance. The actual cost of collection was $224,000 per year. Not only did the department collect revenue, but it also was used to generate revenue. The DMV would be allowed to keep 1 percent of the collections from the fuel tax, which was what they were allowed on special fuel, to offset the cost of operation for the collection of fees. The most important thing, in the end, was to become more efficient and generate more revenue for the purpose for which it needed to be used.

Clay Thomas, Assistant Chief of the Motor Carrier Bureau for the DMV and Public Safety, supported A.B. 584. Amendments to the original bill which required fiscal consideration by the agency had been delayed until July 2002. The reasoning for the delay was to avoid possible budgetary concerns during the closure of the budgets of the DMV and the Department of Taxation during the current biennium. It also intended to ensure the successful implementation of that program by the agency via the gradual implementation schedule. There was no fiscal impact to either department during the 1999-2001 biennium. As such, any future issues would be addressed during the 2001-2003 biennium budget process.

Peter Krueger, Nevada Petroleum Marketers Association said his organization was a part of the public who received the benefit of the bill. He wanted to stress the importance of the consolidation of taxes, and said there were numerous cases where auditors from DMV did special fuels audits, and then after that interruption, the Department of Taxation came and did an audit. In terms of the fiscal note, the advantage of the bill was it would generate revenue to the highway fund. He urged the committee to support the bill.

Mary Walker, representing Carson City, Douglas and Lyon Counties spoke in support of A.B. 584, although the counties did have one concern. Currently, Taxation charged ½ percent for administration of collections for the 10-cent optional regional construction tax. Then there was an additional 5.3 cents of tax which was collected that was formula driven. In contrast, the DMV charged 6 percent for the administration of collections on the Motor Vehicle Privilege tax, which was very different from what the DMV was currently charging local governments. Ms. Walker requested the committee look at the impacts on the counties and cities in regards to that, to make sure that the costs charged to the local governments were the actual costs of service.

Clay Thomas, DMV & PS, said pushing the implementation date out afforded the DMV an opportunity to meet with members of the industry to decide what the best way to administer the program was. The DMV was not adverse to working with industry to determine what was appropriate to administer the program.

Carol Bloomstrom, Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors (AGC), supported A.B. 584. Highway fund needs across the state were broad, and there was no appetite in the state to increase taxes. The AGC was hoping to capture some of the taxes that had been previously authorized by the committee with the bill.

With no further testimony to be given before the committee, A.B. 584 was closed.

Sam McMullen, Retail Association of Nevada, said the bill was aimed at cleaning up an area of consumer products that had seen some scandals in other states. Although it had not yet happened in Nevada, it did occur in other states. That had left a feeling of lack of confidence in an area known as the offering and selling of service contracts, which would be when a person bought additional repairs and coverage on top of a product warranty. Mr. McMullen said he had also presented a proposed amendment which would clean up a couple of things that would be important to the Retail Association. The association had worked from November with the Division of Insurance to try and make sure their concerns were resolved. The division had worked with the Retail Association, and felt comfortable regulating information and disclosure concerns, as well as general consumer protection.

Mr. McMullen said Amendment One exempted much of Title 57 of the Nevada Revised Statutes from those contracts, except for the provisions below Line 34. The second amendment was aimed at the privacy of the holder, deleting the requirement of the address being listed. Section Three was to clarify the purchase price did not need to be pre-printed on the service contract. Section Four referred to the language drafted in Amendment Five, and talked about insured and insurance policies specifically applied to service contracts. Mr. McMullen said the bill added a new level of regulation to his organization, but he felt it was a reasonable and responsible way to address the issue.

Alice Molansky-Harman, Commissioner of Insurance, said she thought the providers of the contracts should be commended for coming forward to be regulated, and essentially eliminating those providers who were not reputable. The division had maintained a neutral position on the bill, with the recognition there would be a fiscal impact on the division. With the bill, it was essential the Division of Insurance be able to address the problems of consumers, which was primarily reflected in the fiscal note that was submitted. The note indicated the revenues would be $44,000 for the biennium or $22,000 for each year. That amount was based on assumptions there would be 40 applications each year at $500 each, and 80 policy or contract filings each year at $25 each. The division included three positions in the fiscal note, two of which were compliance investigator positions, which were essential since they were on the front line of dealing with the public who had problems with a contract. The third position was that of an actuary I, who would be responsible for reviewing the registrations of the providers as well as reviewing the contracts themselves.

Jim Jeppson, Division of Insurance, said the division felt there would be a number of functions for which the division would be responsible if the bill passed. One of those functions was developing a process for companies to register to provide service contracts in the state. The review of the registration applications would also include a review of the contracts that were actually provided to the consumers. The bill contained many requirements for the service contracts. For example, to establish reserve accounts or to purchase a contractual liability insurance policy. The reserve account could be satisfied with bond, securities, cash or an irrevocable letter of credit. Companies could also satisfy the financial responsibility by providing financial statements showing they had net worth at a certain amount. That review would probably commence immediately if the bill was passed, and would continue as more and more service contract providers began offering their products in the state.

Mrs. Chowning asked why the need to exempt service contracts for goods existed if the purchase was less than $350. Mr. McMullen said the division basically followed a model developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. There were some changes involved, but those changes were, for the most part, a product of working with other legislatures and legislators. That bill left a blank for that amount, and did assume there would be some limit under which there would not be as much of a risk. There was no magic to the $350 but it seemed to be an amount underneath which a consumer would not need that additional regulation. Mrs. Chowning said she was also looking at home protection contracts that were sold which were service warranties on items of repair such as a compressor or water heater. Those items, in many cases, were less than $350, as was the price of the insurance policy. Mrs. Chowning wanted to make sure all cases were covered and not exempted under the $350.

Ms. Molansky-Harman answered that number would not impact the contracts for home protection. The contracts were required to be issued by a company that was specifically licensed to sell those kinds of insurance contracts, or by a regular licensed insurer. The exemption would not impact those agreements, which included many items within the household.

Mr. McMullen said the bill did not cover warranties, but instead covered additional, separately-stated costs for a service contract after a warranty expired. If a product was sold, and the dealer wanted a warranty after the original ran out, there had to be a separate contract created. To the extent someone would warranty auto repairs, it was not covered in the bill, which spoke only to service contracts after warranty.

Chairman Arberry asked if the fees would take care of the positions. Ms. Molansky-Harman answered they would not. The division had projected $22,000 in each year of the biennium as a result of the registration fees and the fees for filing each contract. The positions, according to the fiscal note, did show the need for a General Fund appropriation of $164,910 in the first year of the biennium, and $138,614 in the second year. Chairman Arberry asked if the division had an opportunity to look at the amendments, and asked if they affected the fiscal note. Ms. Molansky-Harman answered the amendments would not.

Mr. Hettrick said most of the dealers who sold goods would have contracts on equipment that was greater than $350, so even if they sold something under $350, they would be licensed under the bill. The protection therefore would extend downward, simply by the fact they were licensed and using the same contract.

John Sande, Jones Vargas, representing the Nevada Franchise Automobile Dealer’s Association, said the association had no position on the bill other than the fact they did not wish to be regulated by the bill. He had given a proposed amendment (Exhibit I). The bill would affect the automobile dealers in the state, and there were approximately 94 dealers in existence at that time. At $500 per dealer, plus the $25 per contract, there would be well over $50,000 annually to be regulated. The association’s contracts were extended warranty contracts, and were issued either by the dealer or the manufacturer, or in some cases an affiliate. Those contracts were not done by a third party, and the dealers were regulated by the state already. There were certain federal disclosures the dealers must comply with in selling automobiles, and there was no problem there that needed to be solved. The impact on the industry was huge and the association requested it be deleted from the bill. Mr. Hettrick said he bought a car with a warranty that was offered by a third private party.

Wayne Fedante, Executive Director of the Nevada Franchise Automobile Dealer’s Association, said the only warranties he was aware of were factory warranties and extended warranties thereof. He was not sure he knew what Mr. Hettrick was referring to. Mr. Sande clarified his amendment would not apply to that, and Mr. Hettrick said he had no problem with that.

Mr. Dini asked if the bill was subject to veto by the addition of the fee. Mr. Sande said, based upon what he heard the Governor say the other day, there was a good chance that it would be vetoed.

With no further testimony to come before the committee, the hearing on A.B. 673 was closed.

MR. DINI MOVED DO PASS.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE BILL PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, said the bill implemented the change in the purchasing assessment that was required as the result of operating the new IFS System, and was built into the budget closings of the General Government subcommittee.

MRS. CHOWNING MOVED DO PASS.

MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assembly Bill 674: Revises provisions relating to hazardous materials. (BDR 40-808)

Mr. Stevens said the bill was the digital signature bill for which the Secretary of State provided testimony. The Secretary of State did indicate the cost for the bill would be handled by the expedite fee, so it could be handled by Interim Finance whenever that expense came due.

MR. HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assembly Bill 458: Makes various changes relating to crimes involving theft of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-1287)

MR. PERKINS MOVED DO PASS.

MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Perkins asked if the committee had an accurate fiscal note. Mr. Stevens said there was a $450,000- $500,000 impact according to the Department of Prisons. That would be for additional inmates that might be incorporated for vehicle theft. Mr. Perkins said he wanted to make sure the record was clear he took issue with the fiscal note. The bill did not create new crime, but instead reclassified old car crime and gave law enforcement new tools. He was not buying a fiscal note of any sort on the bill. Those budgets really should not be impacted by the legislation.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Senate Bill 281: Makes supplemental appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for shortfall in salaries and operating expenses. (BDR S-1441)

Mr. Stevens said the bill was a supplemental appropriation for the Director’s office to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The dollar amount on the bill could be reduced from $35,000 to $13,918.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS.

MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Stevens said the bill was a supplemental appropriation to the Department of Museums, Libraries and Arts, and had a number of different supplemental appropriations included for the various divisions. Funding was required by the division and department to pay their bills.

MR. DINI MOTIONED TO DO PASS.

MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Stevens stated the discussion point was whether to approve the $40,000 contract for the data processing support or to hire a state funded position. If the state hired a position, some of the General Fund costs would be absorbed by the Arts Council and Micrographics. The committee did spend some time discussing the level of funding to add for in-state travel and training based on the addition of a new position. On the in-state travel side, the committee started out with $4,336 in the Governor’s Recommendation, and after adding the position the department indicated it needed $1,800 additionally and in March the department indicated another $1,950 was required. That would total $8,086 in the in-state travel category. On the training side, there was nothing built into the Executive Budget. When the position was discussed in February, the department indicated an additional $600 was needed and in March raised that amount to $2,000 based on information received from the Department of Information Technology.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the committee just left it at the contract services option what the dollar amount would be. Mr. Stevens said if they did not add the position, the committee could go with the Governor’s recommended amount and that would be it. Mr. Stevens said if the committee went with the state-funded position then the decision point became how much in-state travel and training would be added.

MR. DINI MOTIONED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. PERKINS.

Mrs. Chowning said by approving the state employee, then some of the costs were allocated back to other areas so the General Fund did not take such a hit. She asked if that was accurate. Mr. Stevens said it was, and added there was actually a reduction in the cost of $6,200 in the first year and $751 in the second by cost allocating some of those costs out to other agencies.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Stevens said the only consideration in that budget was adding the computer support position in the administrative account.

MR. HETTRICK MOTIONED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Stevens said the account had the same parameters as the last budget.

MRS. CHOWNING MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Stevens said there were a number of small adjustments included in the budget. One was the $10,461 adjustment based on the division’s projected number of licenses. The cost for the broker’s manual was eliminated in the second year of the biennium because it was issued every other year. Based on the fact the expenditures were projected higher than the projected revenue, the division reevaluated its need for some enhancements and E125 was eliminated.

MR. BEERS MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. HETTRICK.

Mrs. Chowning and Mr. Parks disclosed they could not vote on the motion.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

MR. DINI MOVED GOVERNOR RECOMMENDATION.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. CHOWNING.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

MR. HETTRICK MOVED GOVERNOR RECOMMENDATION.

MRS. De BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

MR. PARKS MOVED GOVERNOR RECOMMENDATION.

MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Stevens said there was an adjustment based on the housing division indicating the update sessions recommended in decision unit E 175 would not provide a benefit to them, and therefore that was eliminated.

MRS. CHOWNING MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Stevens said The Executive Budget contemplated eliminating the inclusion within the Division of Agriculture, but had since reconsidered and advised the council could be administered within the Division of Agriculture. This would reinstate council budget in The Executive Budget. It was estimated the Division of Agriculture as revised would charge around $9,000 in each year of the biennium to provide administrative support for that particular budget.

MRS. De BRAGA MOVED GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. BEERS.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Stevens said there was a question on this account concerning the Nevada Network. That information had been provided to staff and there was no staff recommendation at the time.

MRS. CHOWNING MOVED GOVERNOR RECOMMENDATION.

MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Stevens said the projects that were contemplated to be funded form this account during the upcoming biennium that were military-related projects. There were a number of large projects, including the Readiness Center in Carson City. That change, as recommended would allow the Department of Military to accept those dollars for those construction projects.

MR. PERKINS MOVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Parks asked if all of those dollars were federal dollars. Mr. Stevens answered they were.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

With no further business to come before the committee, the hearing adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Cynthia M. Cendagorta

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

_____________________________

Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE:__________