The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 9:00 AM, on Sunday, May 30, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr. presided in Room 3137 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. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

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 Chair

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, explained that S.B. 329 provided for a General Fund appropriation for a building in Elko County for the California Trail. The bill requested a $3 million appropriation effective July 01, 2001. He indicated that some believed the action would be precedent setting in appropriating money beyond the current biennium. Alternatively, he stated that through a 4-year window, if federal, local, and county funds could be acquired the state could authorize $3 million in General Obligation Bonds, effective July 01, 2001.

Mr. Perkins inquired if a 4-year window was too broad a time limit, as he was concerned that the state’s bonding capacity would remain inactive for a long period of time.

Chairman Arberry suggested that the bill be amended to include a 2-year window for non-state funds to be collected.

Mr. Marvel accepted the motion to amend the bill, including a 2-year window.

Mr. Stevens explained the bill had been derived from the Senate Finance Committee and the standing committee on education, which had met during the interim.

Mrs. de Braga asked if the bill called for the appointment of the state Board of Education.

Mr. Perkins replied negatively.

Assemblyman Hettrick recalled that the sponsor of the bill had offered amendments to the bill which clarified the language of the bill and the manner in which the coins would be distributed.

Mr. Stevens then indicated that excess funding would exist following the actions of the Committee on Ways and Means and he explained that the committee needed to consider a motion for a Bill Draft Request (BDR) containing certain items. He stated most of the items were bills that had been heard in committee during the current session. The BDR would include:

• Assembly Bill 148: Makes appropriation to City of Las Vegas for programs for children after regularly scheduled school days.

Mr. Stevens recalled that the committee’s suggestion had been to provide the appropriation of $150,000.

• Assembly Bill 171: Makes appropriation to White Pine County for expenses related to trial of Thomas Coleman. (BDR S-501)

He noted that it was proposed the committee provide a $110,000 appropriation for trial expenses. Mr. Stevens indicated partial funding for the following bills would also be recommended for inclusion in the BDR.

• Assembly Bill 191: Makes appropriation to Boulder City for Boulder City Museum. (BDR S-85)

• Assembly Bill 290: Makes appropriation to Nevada Supreme Court for operational costs of Commission on Racial and Economic Bias within the Judicial System. (BDR S-1381)

• Assembly Bill 266: Makes appropriation to Garlic and Onion Growers’ Advisory Board for research on White Rot. (BDR S-220)

• Assembly Bill 291: Makes appropriation to Division of Agriculture of Department of Business and Industry for development of statewide data base and economic analysis of grazing trends on public lands. (BDR S-1490)

• Assembly Bill 302: Makes various changes regarding services and facilities for care of children. (BDR 38-1358)

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if A.B. 302 had been the result of combining three bills. She also wondered how much the committee had suggested to be appropriated in the bill.

Chairman Arberry explained that since certain language in the bill was related to policy, the bill was amended to exclude policy-related provisions.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what portions of the bill were deleted from the bill.

Chairman Arberry was uncertain as to the specific language, but he recalled that Assemblywoman Leslie and Assemblywoman Freeman had sponsored the deleted language.

Mr. Stevens stated that the portion of A.B. 302 being taken for consideration was located in Sections 15 and 16 of the bill.

Ms. Leslie added that the language that had been deleted from the bill contained a provision to appropriate $50,000 for the child care quality fund. In addition, language, which did not have a fiscal note attached, had also been taken out of the bill. The language pertained to the development of an answer hotline.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the $50,000 appropriation was left in A.B. 302.

Chairman Arberry replied negatively. He explained that appropriation was tied specifically to policy and had to be removed from the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani did not understand why the provision for the child care fund was considered policy related.

Chairman Arberry stated that the provision made certain amendments to current statutes. Furthermore, the items under consideration were one-shot appropriations, whereas the request for the $50,000 appropriation would be built into the base budget.

Mr. Stevens then continued with his summary of bills to be contained in the BDR. They included:

• Assembly Bill 316: Makes appropriation to Lyon County for expansion of Lyon County Museum and restoration of Thompson School House. (BDR S-948)

• Assembly Bill 352: Makes an appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada for Southern Nevada Writing Project and Northern Nevada Writing Project.

• Assembly Bill 362: Makes appropriation to State Arts Council of Department of Museums, Library and Arts for support of certain arts programs. (BDR S-1511)

• Assembly Bill 382: Makes appropriation to Department of Education for award of grants to schools for establishment and expansion of programs for peer mediation and conflict resolution. (BDR S-1173)

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that she had offered several amendments to the bill and wondered if Mr. Stevens had received the proposed changes.

Mr. Stevens replied that he had.

• Assembly Bill 401: Makes appropriation to Nevada Partners for support of programs that prepare certain persons to enter workforce. (BDR S-1020)

• Assembly Bill 692: Makes appropriation to Clark County for support of Enterprise Community Federal Credit Union.

• Assembly Bill 312: Makes appropriation to legislative fund for expenditure by Closeup Foundation.

• Assembly Bill 89: Makes appropriation to juvenile detention center for Sixth Judicial District for alternative education, counseling rooms, family resource center and certain improvements.

Mr. Stevens then cited several other projects, which needed to be added to the BDR. They included:

• $300,000 appropriation to Opportunity Village.
• $50,000 appropriation to the Lied Discovery and Natural History Museum.
• $200,000 appropriation to Shade Tree in Las Vegas.
• $50,000 appropriation to the Compact Disc project at the Department of Museums, Libraries, and Arts.
• $100,000 appropriation to the Las Vegas Arts Center.
• $100,000 appropriation to the Logandale School.
• $25,000 appropriation to the Las Vegas Art Museum.
• $10,000 appropriation to the Charleston Heights Arts Center.
• $10,000 appropriation to the Fernley Train Depot Restoration Project.
• $10,000 appropriation to the Mason Valley Boy’s and Girl’s Club
• $10,000 appropriation to the Children’s Museum in Carson City.

Chairman Arberry offered to accept a motion for a BDR including the aforementioned projects and bills.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

Chairman Arberry indicated that the committee would stand in recess until the call of the chair.

* * * * *

Reconvening the meeting at 4:00 p.m., Chairman Arberry requested the committee’s attention to hear remaining legislation.

Mr. Stevens explained that the bill provided for the maximum salaries of unclassified positions in state government for the upcoming biennium. He indicated that adjustments had been made to the bill where increases were provided to unclassified state employees within the bill.

Referring to Section 3, of the bill, Ms. Giunchigliani asked if managers would be given a 2 percent pay increase.

Mr. Stevens replied that the pay increase would be provided in the second year of the biennium. He added that all but approximately 20 people would receive the same salary that they currently made until the second year of the biennium. Thus, if the bill passed, unclassified state workers in addition to classified employees would receive a 2 percent pay increase effective July 2000.

Speaker Dini added that the legislation intended to bring certain position’s salaries on line with respect to increases in the duties those positions performed.

Mr. Stevens commented that there were 15 to 20 positions that received an increase in salary out of the total number of non-classified state employees.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the bill had been based upon the recommendations of the subcommittees.

Chairman Arberry replied affirmatively.

Ms. Giunchigliani then requested a percentage of the range of salary increases.

Mr. Stevens answered that the largest increase in salary was for the Director of the Athletic Commission, who received a 16 percent salary increase.

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that in the past the unclassified pay bill had failed to pay state unclassified employees appropriately. She felt that the indiscriminate approach to the pay increase needed to be closely watched to prevent future abuses from occurring. She then wondered if the bill had used an average figure to calculate the pay increases.

Mr. Stevens replied that the average increase was zero as most of the non-classified employees did not receive a pay increase. Only 15 to 20 people were granted a pay increase in the bill. He added that the average salary increase for those people was from 10 to 15 percent.

Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that staff begin to track those who were granted a salary increase from one biennium to the next in order to prevent the committee from continually increasing the salaries of the same positions from year to year.

Mr. Stevens explained that S.B. 555 provided funding for K-12 education in the upcoming biennium. He noted that a number of appropriations related to education were included in the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani disclosed that she was a public schoolteacher. Next, she wondered if an explanation had ever been given for why Clark County had come up short in the amount of $8 per pupil.

Mr. Stevens answered that there was a slight decrease in the legislatively approved General Fund appropriation as compared with the Governor’s recommended appropriation. However, there was an additional $16 million in non-General Fund dollars that were projected to come in over and above the Governor’s recommendation. Of that amount, he stated $14 million was added back into the account through increases in basic support or education related appropriations.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Clark County was still short of funds per pupil.

Mr. Stevens could not answer specifically. Nevertheless he emphasized that there was $14 million in additional local resources built into the calculation. He felt this should make up for any shortfall caused by the decrease in General Fund appropriation as compared to the Governor’s recommendation. Funds were available outside of the DSA.

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that despite the additional $14 million, each district would not be treated equally.

Mr. Stevens responded that it depended upon how much assessed valuation was increasing in particular counties. He stated that each district’s portion of the DSA was related to the local funding sources outside of the DSA.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there would be a recommendation for salary increases for teachers as had been made for state employees in the second year of the biennium.

Mr. Stevens stated that there was not a provision in the current bill or in the DSA, which would provide directly for a cost of living raise for public schoolteachers.

Ms. Giunchigliani next requested a status report on Eureka County.

Mr. Stevens replied that Eureka County’s net proceeds were still down, however the bill had adjusted the DSA so that the county was able to collect a greater amount than it had in past. Eureka County’s basic support per pupil totaled$1,956.

Finally Ms. Giunchigliani inquired how the bill treated growth in student enrollment.

Mr. Stevens could not recall exactly, however he thought that growth in student enrollment had been projected in the 5 percent range in each year of the biennium.

Mr. Hettrick remarked that he appreciated the intent of the bill, however after contacting his constituents, he was apprised of the fact that the bill would impact the smaller counties adversely.

Mr. Goldwater added that the fiscal impact of the bill varied from county to county. He related that Carson County was concerned, whereas Clark County was not as troubled.

As no motion concerning the bill was made, the Chair moved to the following bill.

Mr. Beers asked if the bill had a fiscal impact.

Chairman Arberry replied that the fiscal note had been taken out of the bill.

Mr. Beers then commented that in Las Vegas the refuse company had scaled back its commercial building recycling program as it was not economically efficient.

Mr. Marvel then remarked that he had been concerned that the bill’s fiscal impact seemed like an unfunded mandate. For that reason, he was reluctant to offer support.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if schools would be exempted from the bill should the Board of Trustees determine that such a recycling program would be too expensive to operate.

Mr. Stevens replied affirmatively.

Mr. Beers stated that if the program would take funds away from curriculum and teachers, he would not support the bill. He asked if the bill mandated schools to implement a recycling plan.

Ms. Giunchigliani referred to page 7, Section 9, where the bill stated that schools "shall" establish a recycling program. Then she read from Section 2, where the bill indicated that if the Board of Trustees determined the program to be too expensive, the school would be exempt.

Mr. Stevens explained that A.B. 701 provided for a 2 percent cost of living increase to state classified and unclassified employees, including university classified employees, effective July 01, 2000. He stated that the bill also allowed for monies to be transferred to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to provide a 2 percent salary increase for their employees. He said if the amount transferred was matched by the state of California on a 2:1 ratio for that to be included in TRPA employee’s base salary. On the other hand, if California did not match the amounts provided to TRPA, TRPA would have to use the transferred funds as a one-time bonus.

Mr. Stevens added that Section 6 provided that positions in the unclassified service would also have their salaries increased by 2 percent on July 01, 2000.

Section 7 allowed for all of the monies not used by June 30, 2001 to be reverted.

Ms. Giunchigliani referred to Section 3 and asked if the bill provided a standard increase for university employees.

Mr. Stevens replied that there were two groups of employees in the university System. There were professional employees under contract and state classified positions.

Ms. Giunchigliani argued that she was pleased to see something being done for public employees. She said that the Legislature and the Governor had stated that should additional revenue be found, it should be directed towards public employees as a top priority. Unfortunately, she felt that had not occurred. Because pay increases would not be received until the second year of the biennium, she thought that the bill treated public employees disparately.

Furthermore, she added that the fact that teachers had the right of collective bargaining did not provide much benefit because the amount of money they were able to bargain for was limited.

Chairman Arberry disagreed with Ms. Giunchigliani’s statements. He thought that the legislature had to ensure that certain items were provided to Nevada’s school children first, thereby limiting the amount of money schoolteacher’s would be able to bargain for. He did not think this treated public schoolteachers unfairly.

Ms. Giunchigliani then clarified her previous comments to indicate that she had referred to the treatment of public employees in general over the last several years, not during the current session. She felt that with the lack of recommended funds, public employees were forced to accept the absence of a salary increase or to go into program areas to find funds.

As no other business came before the committee, Chairman Arberry declared the meeting was in recess subject to the call of the chair.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Janine Marie Toth,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

DATE: