The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, May 28, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. There were no signatures on 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

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman (Excused)

Mrs. Vonne Chowning (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted Senate Bill (S.B.) 184 had been heard the previous day. Concerns had been raised about the proper source of funding and what financial impact the bill would have since the prison budget had been closed. She provided copies of draft amendments (Exhibit B) to committee members.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani reported she and staff had met with other officials involved. Proposed amendments were drafted to ensure the Division of Parole and Probation was included.

Testimony had been received that offenders would pay for the drug court service but she was not sure what that amount was supposed to be.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said testimony during the closing of prison budgets indicated the prison population had decreased by 300 inmates. The committee left the system that flexibility but earmarked it into a specific line item. The suggestion was, because with a cap of up to 150 prisoners, the system should be able to use those dollars to pay for the costs of the drug court.

The intent was for the prison system to present a plan for approval by the State Board of Prison Commissioners, a review by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) and approval by the Governor. Also the intent was to continually track the funds and that way if there were savings down the road, those savings could help fund future needs such as staffing or construction of the third phase of the Cold Creek Prison. The plan could provide more flexibility.

One item to be dealt with was the issue of the 1-year minimum custody. In section 4, an amendment would require the funding for payments to be accrued from the savings incurred as a result of operating the drug court program. Documented savings would be required to be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Administration and upon recommendation of the Governor and approval of the IFC, be transferred from the identified area to the Director’s budget for the payment.

Ms. Giunchigliani said further amendments would specify that there should be a certified program for treatment of alcohol or drugs. Language had been deleted and other language added but most of the language presented by Scott Scherer to the committee was incorporated as suggested amendments. Those amendments included ensuring oversights were in place, as well as provisions for house arrest, progressive loosening of supervision as inmates went through the program. She suggested the amendments should be reviewed on the Floor of the Assembly in case there were any questions.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 184.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

********

Chairman Arberry requested Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to present the bill on the Floor of the Assembly.

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) stated the bill had been heard earlier in the week. The bill provided exemptions from the business license tax. The major issue involved extras that worked on movie locations.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 259.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she had missed the testimony on the bill and asked what the fiscal impact of the bill was. She noted she did not normally support exemptions, but the ones addressed by S.B. 259 appeared to make some sense. Staff stated the fiscal note indicated a cost of approximately $6,000 in the first year of the biennium and $8,000 in the second year.

Chairman Arberry requested Assemblywoman Cegavske to present the bill on the Floor of the Assembly.

Mark Stevens explained S.B. 279 extended the reversion date on the appropriation made to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV) concerning the Project Genesis account. The funds addressed by the bill were included in The Executive Budget.

Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division requested an amendment to the bill. He reminded committee members that the Department of Personnel had completed a major reclassification study for the DMV. Another bill previously passed and currently in the Governor’s Office provided reimbursement for the costs of the reclassifications. Unfortunately, the FY 1998 costs were calculated incorrectly. Additional funding of approximately $10,800 was needed to meet FY 1998 stale claims.

Mr. Hataway requested S.B. 279 be amended to cover those costs. Chairman Arberry asked if the amendment was in writing. Mr. Hataway replied he would work with staff for the amendment language.

The Chair asked if the bill was amended and passed from committee that would be acceptable. Mr. Hataway agreed.

Chairman Arberry requested Assemblyman Parks to present the bill on the Floor of the Assembly.

*********

Mark Stevens stated the bill involved a one-shot appropriation to purchase modular furniture for the remodeled DMV office in Carson City. When the Senate Finance Committee took action on the bill, they recommended a letter of intent be sent to the department that would require DMV to appear before the IFC and inform them on the plan of how the appropriation would be used.
Mr. Stevens stated he was not sure the plan on how to utilize the appropriation had been completely worked out. Senate Finance had wanted to be apprised of how the money would be used.

Chairman Arberry requested Assemblywoman de Braga to present the bill on the Floor of the Assembly.

********

Staff noted the bill had been heard in committee a few days previous. It extended the reversion date of the appropriation made for the Integrated Financial System (IFS) and also made an appropriation for the upcoming biennium from the General Fund and the Highway Fund for completion of the IFS project. The appropriations were included in The Executive Budget.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what dollar amounts were involved.
Mr. Stevens responded the bill had been amended but funding had not been changed. He referred committee members to section 4 of the bill on page 2. The largest appropriation from the General Fund was found on line 22 at
$10.5 million.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 305.

SPEAKER DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

********

Mark Stevens stated S.B. 401 would add three family court judges to the Eighth Judicial District in Clark County and provide a salary appropriation.

Chairman Arberry noted an amendment had been proposed for the bill so it would be held until a later time.

********

Mark Stevens reported the bill had been heard the previous day. It would authorize a study of the funding formulas for higher education. The bill did include a General Fund appropriation of $150,000 within section 6.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 443.

SPEAKER DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the bill should be amended and passed because during the hearing testimony indicated at section 3, line 25 the "may" should be made a "shall." She had raised the question during the hearing and supporters stated the intent was that the provisions of the bill should be open to the public.

Assemblyman Parks noted he was not sure a thorough response had been given during testimony on how the $150,000 would be used.

Chairman Arberry stated after discussing the change with staff, the changing of one word would not make that much difficulty for the LCB Legal Division so the motion should be to amend and do pass the bill.

Speaker Dini stated the legal staff was overwhelmed with drafting amendment language and making amendments for one word just added to the burden. He stated he did not know why the intent could not be shown that all meetings were to operate under the Open Meeting Law. During a study he had worked in 1986, several meetings were held and they were all done under the Open Meeting Law. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied she appreciated that but the issue had been brought up. If something said "may" it did not mean it was mandatory. The bill provided for a study and it should be public. Mr. Crowley had agreed to the amendment in the hearing. She offered the motion could be to do pass with a letter of intent if the concern was to ease drafting time.

Chairman Arberry requested Assemblyman Beers to present the bill on the Floor of the Assembly.

********

Mark Stevens stated the bill would add three family court judges to the Eighth Judicial District in Clark County. It included an appropriation in section 3 of $199,500 for salary costs in the last 6 months of the upcoming biennium.

The judges would be elected in the year 2000 elections and begin to serve in the last 6 months of the second year of the biennium.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 401.

SPEAKER DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Arberry asked Assemblyman Hettrick to present the bill on the Floor of the Assembly.

********

Mark Stevens told committee members the bill had been heard a couple of days previous. It referred to providing services related to mental retardation to persons with related conditions. The amount of funding necessary to implement the statutory change was included in the budget for the Mental Health/Mental Retardation Division in the Appropriations Act.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 469.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND CHOWNING WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Chairman Arberry requested Assemblywoman Leslie to present the bill on the Floor of the Assembly.

********

Mark Stevens noted the bill was not in the bill books as yet. The summary stated the bill made various changes concerning controlled substance and impaired operation of vehicles. Senator Jon Porter had testified on the bill.

The cause for the bill had been an incident in which someone that got in a traffic accident and was under the influence of marijuana, but the law enforcement officers were not able to charge the person with any violation.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 481.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTING NAY. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND CHOWNING WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Chairman Arberry requested Assemblyman Marvel to present the bill on the Floor of the Assembly.

*********

Mark Stevens stated the bill had been heard in committee the previous day where the Attorney General had testified. The bill involved technology-related issues. Testimony had indicated the necessary funding would be drawn in recoveries from other court cases. Those recoveries were already in hand. One particular recovery would provide the necessary funding.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 485.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND CHOWNING NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Chairman Arberry requested Assemblyman Price to present the bill on the Floor of the Assembly.

********

Mark Stevens stated the bill had been heard the previous day in committee. It involved General Fund and Highway Fund appropriations for the radio project at DMV and the Nevada Department of Transportation.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 504.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND CHOWNING WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Chairman Arberry requested Assemblyman Beers to present the bill on the Floor of the Assembly.

Staff stated Assembly Bill (A.B.) 72 had been heard on April 20, 1999. The bill regulated securities. Mr. Stevens noted he had not reviewed the bill recently.

A fiscal note on the bill indicated an impact of $173,000 in the first year of the biennium and $158,000 in the second year of the biennium for the Secretary of State’s Office.

Assemblyman Goldwater stated there was no appropriation in A.B. 72. The $173,000 and the $158,000 were just estimates from the Secretary of State if new staff was hired. It was the opinion of many that the office could do an adequate job with existing staff, if the exemption were simply removed.

Staff stated there was no appropriation in the bill, only a fiscal note that indicated additional costs would be incurred based on the legislation. The bill could be passed without providing an appropriation.

Speaker Dini stated he had notes from the hearing that indicated collections would offset the expenses.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 72.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS, CHOWNING AND GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Chairman Arberry asked Assemblyman Goldwater to present the bill on the Floor of the Assembly.

********

Staff stated S.B. 544 had been heard recently concerning the state health plan and reconstitution of the old Committee on Benefits. He provided copies of a letter from Randy Waterman, Acting Risk Management Director (Exhibit C) based on testimony that took place when the bill was heard, Mr. Waterman was present to answer any questions concerning amendments that might be needed to the bill.

There were some points on which the committee would need to decide.

Randy Waterman provided committee members with copies of pages 7 and 11 from the second reprint of S.B. 544 with annotations of changes that were needed (Exhibit D). The changes needed were technical amendments to the bill that accomplished the intent.

One amendment provided the intent of extending Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1984 (COBRA) coverage for those legislative employees who worked only every other year. The current COBRA provisions left a gap in coverage. Senator Rawson had requested the amendment, which allowed coverage through the gap for legislative session employees. The original amendment would have still allowed a 2-month gap in coverage and the technical amendments at lines 1 and 4 of page 1 of Exhibit D would complete the coverage cycle.

On line 8 of page 1, Exhibit D the words "plus allowable administrative fees" were inserted. Currently everyone covered under COBRA paid not only
100 percent of their premium, but also a 2 percent administrative fee allowed by federal law. The change was made for consistency and cost recovery.

At line 21 of page 1, Exhibit D was a technical change of the word "shall" to the word "may." The change had been discussed earlier. In Section 12.5 two other occurrences of the word "shall" were changed to "may." The "shall" at line 21 had been an oversight.

On page 2 of Exhibit D at line 22 the word "professional" was inserted before the word "employee." The change was a technical correction to an oversight made earlier. Within the bill other sections provided for classified employee representation on the board and the original intent of the bill was to include a professional employee of the university system on the board of directors also.

Assemblyman Perkins, as Acting Chair asked if there were any questions from the committee.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she had also distributed a proposed amendment for consideration. She stated Section 12.5 was added to the bill as it progressed through the legislative process that allowed groups of
300 employees to opt out of the state health plan. Her personal concern had been that everyone was working to get the insurance system back on its feet and then section 12.5 would allow groups of employees to pull out of the system. Her amendment would change the effective date of section 12.5 from January 1, 2001 to July 1, 2001 so that the Risk Management Division had adequate history for review to determine whether or not the proper funding had been established and allow time for legislative review.

Chairman Perkins asked if Mr. Waterman concurred with the suggestion.
Mr. Waterman replied he supported the suggestion personally for a couple of reasons. It would allow all the changes to go through an entire budget cycle. It would also allow for another legislative review of how all the changes had impacted the health plan and how effective they had been. If select groups were allowed to exit the plan prior to the next legislative session the opportunity for review was lost.

Assemblyman Parks noted the location of the change being discussed was in section 49 on line 37.

SPEAKER DINI MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 544 WITH ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY MR. WATERMAN AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI AND DO PASS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND CHOWNING AND CHAIRMAN ARBERRY WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

Chairman Arberry returned.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated proposed amendments to the bill were essentially those presented at the hearing on the bill. Legal staff was making one correction to Amendment 1189.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani drew attention in the bill to where the series of issues had to occur before a district would be eligible to receive emergency funds. The Department of Taxation first had to affirm that the school was at the assessed value cap. Concurrently the Public Works Board was to review whether structural damages had occurred. The original draft of the amendment had an "and" instead of an "or."

The technical change had been provided to legal staff and should be completed very soon.

The bill would for the first time ever, establish a capital improvement fund in
K-12 schools for emergency situations. It placed $16 million in general obligation bonds into the fund.

Language was added to Section 16 to provide an "up front" payment that was paid back when the bonds were issued. In addition the bill authorized a local board of trustees to capture one-eighth percent of sales tax that was enabled in the 1997 Legislature. The sales tax percentage was required to be enacted by the county commission. The intent of the requirements was two-fold.

There had been an argument that Clark and Washoe Counties were subsidizing rural counties. The intent was to provide the counties with a tax assessment to assist with funding and defray the argument. The quarter-cent sales tax allowed under law in 1997 would be split. The county commission was allowed one-eighth and the board of trustees could enact the other one-eighth. The intent would ensure that a maintenance of effort had been made in the local school district.

In addition, the funds must be used for extra-ordinary maintenance and repair or improvement. That allowed some of the districts, even though funding was minimal in some areas, to focus on prevention so they would never get to the circumstance of being in need of emergency assistance.

Everything regarding room taxes and real estate transfer taxes that had been enabled in the 1997 Legislature had not been changed with A.B. 597.

Assemblyman Marvel referred to section 6, above subsection 2 that required imposition of additional sales tax. He also referred the committee to subsection 2 that required "--- shall enact an ordinance." His opinion was that phrase formed terrible policy. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded A.B. 353 of the 1997 Legislature gave the rural counties with a population of 100,000 or less the ability to assess up to one-quarter cent of sales tax for school construction. What happened as a result was that in rural counties the county commissions were not approving the school districts requests for use of the sales tax and used the funds for whatever they wished.

Two different public hearings were held with over 35 people present at both hearings. The recommendation was made and the Taxpayers’ Association concurred that it was time to at least enable the school trustees in those circumstances to approve by a super majority vote the one-eighth percent sales tax for extraordinary maintenance repair and improvement. If that was done then the county commission was required by A.B. 597 to enact the sales tax as an ordinance.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani acknowledged the provision created a different policy issue, but if the bill passed the rurals had to be empowered with every possible tool. The intent was to no longer send children to condemned buildings for their education.

Assemblyman Marvel expressed his disagreement. His belief was that the county commissions were the policy-making group and they should not be mandated to enact an ordinance. They could be requested to take an issue under advisement. That was the reason he had favored the provisions of
S.B. 48 that allowed ending fund balances of 30 percent to be provided to the rural counties so that situations such as the one in White Pine County would not occur again. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she appreciated
Mr. Marvel’s views but boards of trustees were elected just as county commissioners were. The bill required a two-third-majority vote and the trustees would have to stand tall if the people of their county did not agree with the decision.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani argued further that Storey and Lincoln Counties had gone to their commissions. Even though some counties were at the property tax cap in their funding base, less than 20 cents of the base rate was being used for schools. Funds were used for every other program in the county other than the schools. She added the bill was not a new tax and did not provide a lot of money. If the county had already captured their one-quarter cent sales tax, the school district in that county could not utilize it. The bill provisions could only be utilized in those counties that had not enacted their allowed one-quarter cent sales tax. It was not an increase because it only provided the allowed tax to be split between the two publicly-elected boards. Assemblyman Marvel disagreed. He opined the county commission was the fiscal-policy group and should be the ones to make the decision.

Assemblywoman de Braga stated the legislature had recently favored helping counties and school districts that made an attempt to help themselves first. There had to be some good faith effort.

Assemblywoman de Braga referred to section 3, subsection 1(c) and asked if the only change was to remove the word "and" and replace it with the word "or." If that was the case, it did not seem to work. The change would make the word "or" apply to subsections 1(a) and 1(b) as well. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied she was looking at a re-draft and Mrs. de Braga was looking at the original amendment. Mrs. de Braga agreed. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained section 3, subsection 1(b) would ultimately read:

"the combined ad valorem tax rate imposed by the county is at the limit imposed by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS)"

Assemblywoman de Braga agreed that would probably work because it would require subsections 1(a) and 1(b) to be met and also either subsection 1(c) or 1(d).

Assemblyman Hettrick said he also had a problem with the policy issue in Section 6 that allowed the board of trustees to enact sales tax. He stated he understood what the bill was trying to accomplish and agreed with the intent, but he did not agree with the policy issue. He did not believe a board of trustees of a school district had the same notice requirements to the public in terms of imposing a tax. The average person who noticed a posting for a board of trustees meeting would not show up thinking a tax issue would be on the agenda. Once the tax passed by the board of trustees the county commissioners were required to enact an ordinance.

Assemblyman Hettrick referred committee members to section 7, subsection 4 that said:

He opined the word extraordinary also needed to preface the words repair and improvement as well.

Assemblyman Hettrick stated he would like some assistance with what was in NRS 354.611 where a tax was to be deposited in terms of how the money could be used. He asked if NRS 354.611 specified how the tax could be used.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied the extraordinary maintenance, repair, and improvement had already been passed by the legislature. The provision was not new language.

NRS 354.611 required the tax could only be used for extraordinary repair, improvement and maintenance. That statute also provided the fund so it dealt with the fact that the funds could not supplement current maintenance dollars. That statutory change was established by the legislature in 1995 and was why the bill was tied to that statute because it was already current practice.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani referred to the question about proper posting language and stated if there was some specific language that could be requested of the bill drafters, she would consider the addition to the bill.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the whole point to enabling the board of trustees with the policy issue and requiring the commissioners to follow was because certain county commissions were not enacting the provision currently. With A.B. 597 the commissioners could still use their one-eighth percent tax and the trustees would also have one-eighth of a percent to use.

The 1997 Legislature’s provisions of one-quarter percent sales tax had been intended for use in school construction, but rural county commissioner’s were denying schools that opportunity with one possible exception. The current bill provided the county with an additional one-eighth percent sales tax they were not originally supposed to receive under A.B. 353 of the 1997 Legislature.

Assemblyman Hettrick stated he understood the intent of the bill, but he did have a problem with the policy change. He suggested A.B. 597 be changed to strike the two-thirds vote by a board of trustees and change it to an affirmative vote and then "request the imposition of the tax from the county commissioners." If the county commission failed to enact the sales tax for schools, require the imposition of the tax to go to a vote of the people in the next election. He added he had a problem with a school board of trustees raising taxes. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied she appreciated what Assemblyman Hettrick was attempting to do but they would have to "agree to disagree."

The rural county would probably never get another dollar if they were not allowed to use every dollar they could to prevent deteriorating and crumbling buildings if they were not empowered to establish a maintenance of effort. That was the issue in the 1997 Legislature. A.B. 353 of the 1997 Legislature was an opportunity for everyone to come together without a north/south or rural/urban split to ensure children had a safe and clean quality school building to attend.

Assemblyman Marvel commented he represented five counties and he would not want to impose tax-generating authority to five different school boards. That was why S.B. 48 was a good bill.

Chairman Arberry voiced his concerns after listening to all the dialogue regarding the bill. He asked how the legislature could be assured the school boards would not go out-of-control. Then situations like White Pine County occurred and the state had to bail them out. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani countered the intent of A.B. 597 was to absolutely prevent that. The bill required the funds to be used for only extraordinary repair, maintenance and improvement that was already in statute. The funds were required to be deposited into the fund established in 1997. She commented she did not think school boards went out-of-control any more than county commissioners did. Another White Pine-type situation would occur if funds were not provided to counties to prevent their school buildings from falling apart.

Chairman Arberry asked what safeguards would be established to ensure the boards did not go out-of-control because currently it appeared open-ended. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded the bill required any funds used to have the joint referral, review, and approval of the Department of Taxation and the Public Works Board. If an assessment was done on school facilities and it was found that funds had not been used on or did not help prevent the further deterioration, then the school board would not be allowed to access the capital fund. Assemblyman Marvel commented the "horse was already out of the barn."

Assemblyman Beers noted the way the bill was written, the money could be used for ordinary improvements which could include additional salaries or anything like that. Understanding the reference to NRS 354.611, it might have been an error in previous legislation. He opined the statute should say, "extraordinary maintenance and extraordinary repair." Delete improvement and make that change to NRS 354.611. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated
NRS 354.611 was a policy decision of the legislative body. NRS 354 already specified the funds could not be used for salaries or currently ongoing programs. Districts had already been allocating and tracking the funds solely for those purposes.

Don Hataway, Budget Division offered a consideration for section 6 of
A.B. 597. He noted the committee might be getting bogged down in the mechanics of the situation versus the intent of the school district taking advantage of all available resources.

In section 3, the Department of Taxation would look at whether the school district had used all available resources at their disposal. Perhaps section 6 could say that the legislature recognized one-eighth of one percent of the gross receipts as part of the available resources. Then regardless of the mechanism of who did what the tax would be one yardstick to measure whether the school district had taken advantage of all available resources.

Mr. Hataway stated his concept of what the Department of Taxation would look at under section 3 was "all available resources including the enabling legislation of 1997."

Assemblywoman Cegavske noted in the workshop on the bill one item discussed at length was the site-based management problem. She said discussion had centered around the fact of where money had been given to school districts it had not been used on the repairs for which they were requested. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded she did not remember the discussion and noted site-based management groups only occurred in a handful of buildings in the district. They had on authority over the actual maintenance or facility use. Site-based management groups dealt with instructional issues.

Chairman Arberry requested Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Assemblyman Hettrick and Assemblyman Marvel to meet very soon and try to arrive at a compromise. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied she would be happy to do so but she suspected Mr. Marvel would not agree with any compromise. The bottom line was that A.B. 597 needed to move. Chairman Arberry agreed stating the commitment was present and was why he was providing an opportunity for both sides to meet before a vote was taken on the bill.

Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 9:32 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cindy Clampitt,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: