The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Monday, March 1, 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.

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

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chair (Excused)

Mr. John Marvel (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Dini called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. and stated he would be the acting chairman, as Chairman Arberry and Vice Chair Evans were not yet present.
Mr. Dini said the committee had several bill draft requests that needed introduction.

• BDR S-1438 – Makes supplemental appropriation to Division of Agriculture of Department of Business and Industry for Veterinary Medical Services for shortfall in revenue for personnel services (A.B. 344).

• BDR S-1442 – Makes supplemental appropriation to state distributive school account for additional anticipated expenses (A.B. 345).

• BDR S-1465 – Makes appropriation to Division of Parole and Probation of Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for completion of Agency Automation Project (A.B. 343).

• BDR S-1470 – Makes appropriation to Registration Division of Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for expenses related to production of license plates (A.B. 342).

• BDR S-1462 – Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety to purchase customer management systems for certain offices
  (A.B. 341).

Mr. Dini stated the Garlic and Onion Growers’ Advisory Board asked him to draft
A.B. 266, and most people did not realize Nevada was a major player in the garlic and onion business. He believed Farm Bureau magazine said Nevada had 2,300 acres of garlic and 2,100 acres of onions in the previous year. Both were upcoming products in Nevada’s agriculture industry. Mr. Dini said if white rot got into the ground, it was a real problem to remove it. He asked representatives from the Garlic and Onion Growers’ Advisory Board to describe the problems they had and what was planned with the research proposed in A.B. 266.

Paul Iverson, Administrator of the Division of Agriculture, indicated he would like to begin by presenting information on white rot, which was a problem dealt with every year. White rot was a big issue in Nevada and the board needed to continue working with growers to remedy the situation. The two growers present represented the board, and could speak more about white rot.

As shown in Exhibit C, "Nevada Onion and Garlic Quarantine," Mr. Iverson explained white rot had been quarantined in Nevada since 1983. The Garlic and Onion Growers’ Advisory Board was attempting to identify the contaminated fields in order to prevent any further spread of the fungus to other fields, especially the seed crop. The board did not want seed leaving the state or being produced with white rot. Every year the board inspected every garlic and onion field in the state. They hired seasonal help, which was provided in their budget, and walked every tenth row of the 5,000 acres of crops. As they walked the rows, they picked anything that looked like white rot, took it back to the lab, analyzed it, and determined whether it was white rot. The board provided detailed maps and worked with growers to solve the white rot problem.

Mr. Iverson explained in the 1995 Legislative Session, legislation was passed to create the Garlic and Onion Growers’ Advisory Board. At that time, a fund was established (Budget Account 4545) and the growers assessed themselves $10 for every acre. That money went into Budget Account 4544, and as the board came up with new research projects that would help the industry, they brought their recommendations to the State Board of Agriculture. The State Board of Agriculture reviewed those recommendations and recommended how those dollars should be spent.

Mr. Iverson explained the Garlic and Onion Growers’ Advisory Board was comprised of garlic and onion growers: David Peri, Bob Rice, Jerry Rosse, Jim Snyder, and Mike Stewart. There was currently $26,714 in Budget Account 4545, which was a matching request. The account would receive other money, and for every dollar spent from A.B. 266, the board would match with either donated or assessed funds. As Mr. Dini indicated, for 1999, approximately 2,400 acres of garlic and 2,200 acres of onions were expected. The value of those crops was nearly $20 million annually.

Mr. Iverson presented facts form Exhibit C, page 3, about garlic and onions. Gilroy, California, which was once the "Garlic Capital of the World," now grew less garlic than Washoe county, due to the spread of white rot in that area. Nearly
80 percent of California’s 30,000 acres of garlic was now produced in Fresno County, which was beginning to have problems with white rot infestations.

Mr. Iverson explained the Garlic and Onion Growers’ Advisory Board found white rot almost every year. The board had a good team of growers, who reacted very quickly, so the board had been able to keep the white rot problem to a minimum. Another interesting tidbit was that Peri and Sons Farm of Yerington was considered to be the largest producer of red onions in the country and the largest producer of white onions in the world, among family-owned farms.

Mr. Iverson referred to the map on page 4 of Exhibit C, which showed the fields where white rot had been found, and the different years in which the fields had been inspected. The map on page 5 of Exhibit C showed what happened when a field with white rot was found. Using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the board indicated exactly where the white rot was found and which areas needed treatment. The board provided that information to the grower and worked with them to control the problem. The board could often take complete areas out of production.

Ms. Giunchigliani said Exhibit C was very helpful. She questioned whether the bill should read "for research on white rot," because it seemed like the money would be used for treating and preventing white rot. From the testimony and program description, it sounded like the cause of white rot was already known, so the money would not be for research.

Mr. Iverson said the money would be used for research to try to prevent white rot. It was not known how white rot was transmitted or how it was prevented. There were many ways white rot was spread through the seed chain. The garlic growers were primarily producing garlic seed that was planted throughout the country. The board wanted to make sure the garlic and onions they produced were free of white rot. Therefore, the program was a research program, because once white rot was found, it was the growers’ responsibility to stop it. The board would, however, offer recommendations to the grower to get that area out of production.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked who would be conducting the actual research. Mr. Iverson replied the Garlic and Onion Growers’ Advisory Board was connected very closely with Nevada’s universities. All the money was contracted out and the research was not done in the board’s office. The board had one plant pathologist who spent almost all summer looking at garlic and onions, so all research would be contracted out to either a research lab or a university.

Jim Snyder introduced himself as a member of the Garlic and Onion Growers’ Advisory Board and said Mr. Iverson had told the committee almost everything they needed to know about white rot. He reiterated white rot was a devastating disease for garlic and onions, especially for the garlic seed industry, where it was of the utmost importance to maintain a disease-free seed line. Once white rot was in a field, the field could no longer be used for garlic or onions. In addition, the grower was required to fumigate an infected field, generally costing approximately $1,200 per acre, which was a large percentage of the value of the ground. Mr. Snyder concluded it was very important to learn control measures in order to keep the ground and seed as clean as possible.

Jerry Rosse introduced himself as a member of the Garlic and Onion Growers’ Advisory Board and said the board was currently working with California and Oregon. They had upcoming meetings to pool their resources in order to combat white rot. The board also had an upcoming meeting with Fred Crow for the development of a compound to be used to eliminate white rot.

Rex Hartwick introduced himself as an employee of Christopher Ranch, which was based in Gilroy, California. The ranch primarily grew garlic seed in Nevada and would like to continue to do so, because the climate was well suited for growing garlic. White rot was the largest problem the ranch had in the growing areas of Smith Valley and Yerington. There were areas of the valley in which they were unable to plant garlic because the areas were diseased. White rot was a large cost to the grower because once disease was found in their field, that garlic could no longer be used for seed, and was just processed. The farm had to continually look for disease-free ground and a way to prevent the spread of white rot.

Mr. Hartwick explained Christopher Ranch grew approximately 400 acres of garlic in Nevada, managing 250 acres themselves, and contracting out the other 150 acres. Garlic was the only crop the ranch grew in Nevada. All the garlic went to Gilroy where it was processed for seed and planted in California. He concluded any research would help the industry because white rot was an industry-wide problem.

Mr. Dini said the Snyder family was an old family in Mason Valley, Smith Valley, and Bridgeport. He had known the family for four generations, and they operated a great farm. In addition, he knew Mr. Rosse’s brother.

With no further questions or comments, Mr. Dini declared the hearing on A.B. 266 closed.

Perry Comeaux introduced himself as the Director of the Department of Administration. He explained A.B. 234 was a proposal to repeal NRS 362.173 and to direct the State Treasurer to transfer any balance in that fund to the state General Fund, on the effective date of the bill. The bill included the text of the section that the Department of Administration proposed repealing. The bill was designed to sweep the first 5 percent of the state’s share of the net proceeds of the mineral tax into the permanent net proceeds fund, which was set up as a trust fund.

Mr. Comeaux explained there was also a provision to take amounts in excess of
$55 million in collected taxes into the fund. That part of the provision had never kicked in. It was his understanding that the purpose of the trust fund, which he thought was created in 1993, was to set up similarly to a rainy day fund. That would take advantage of the net proceeds tax and build a balance in the fund that could be used for appropriations by the legislature. Since that provision was created, approximately $129 million had been deposited into the rainy day fund in order to stabilize the operation of state government. In the Department of Administration’s effort to balance the budget for FY 1999, it seemed the net proceeds fund was no longer necessary. The amount in the fund, which he thought was approximately $2.6 million, was reflected separately in the fund balance statement included in The Executive Budget.

Mr. Dini said he thought the original concept was to build up the fund so it would be stable. There were a lot of ups and downs in the mining industry, and the fund was intended to stabilize the mining revenue. Mr. Comeaux replied that was correct.

Ms. Giunchigliani said, as she understood, the funds would be collapsed into one fund, adding the revenue directly into the rainy day fund. Mr. Comeaux reiterated the amount in that fund would now go directly into the General Fund. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the amount of the fund was, and Mr. Comeaux replied he thought it was approximately $2.6 million, but he would have to check The Executive Budget to be exact.

With no further questions or comments, Mr. Dini declared the hearing of A.B. 234 closed.

Dave Pursell, Executive Director of the Department of Taxation explained A.B. 288 was a proposal to change the compensation paid to the State of Nevada for the cost of collecting taxes on behalf of the local governments. Senate Bill 245 of the 1997 Legislative Session changed the commission from 1 percent to 0.5 percent, effective July 1, 1999. A.B. 288 was a proposal to change that commission to 0.75 percent, effective July 1, 1999.

Mr. Pursell directed attention to a spreadsheet showing the information the department used in arriving at the use 0.75 percent (Exhibit D, "Department of Taxation – General Fund Commissions at Variable Rates vs. Local Government Costs"). He explained the proposed budget for the Department of Taxation for
FY 2000 was approximately $15.4 million. The cost of the Division of Assessment Standards (DOAS) was deducted. The department added 72 percent of the balance (the ratio of the amount of revenues distributed to local governments to the total) to the DOAS. The DOAS was added back at 100 percent because it was the division that was responsible for the local government budget act and assisting local governments with their budgets. The DOAS also conducted the ratio study that checked what county assessors did, in terms of valuing property to ensure they were within statutory parameters. In addition, the DOAS valued all mining property in the state and performed the centrally assessed property evaluations for the county, including airlines, railroads, and electric companies.

After the cost of the DOAS was added to the balance, the total cost to the department for collecting and distributing taxes was added, totaling approximately $11.6 million. Using the Economic Forum’s projections, the department used
FY 1998 collections to calculate the General Fund Commission at 1 percent
($12.6 million), 0.75 percent ($9.4 million), and 0.5 percent ($6.3 million), as shown in Exhibit D. The difference was shown between the projected General Fund Commissions and the Department of Taxation’s cost. If the commission remained at 1 percent for FY 2000, the department would collect approximately $2.6 million more than it cost them to collect and distribute taxes and provide technical support to local governments. If it was reduced to 0.75 percent, the department would collect approximately $915,000 less than the cost to collect. If the commission were changed to 0.5 percent the department would collect
$4.4 million less than the cost to collect.

Mr. Pursell explained the General Fund loss was shown at the bottom of Exhibit D, as a comparison of what the collection rate was at 1 percent. Over the biennium, the loss would be $7.3 million at 0.75 percent, and $14.6 million at 0.5 percent. Therefore, the department concluded a 0.75 percent commission would be sufficient to cover the cost of the department to collect and distribute taxes and the DOAS support.

Mr. Dini asked if The Executive Budget assumed A.B. 288 would pass. Mr. Pursell replied yes, that was correct. Mr. Dini said he was sure the committee would be hearing from local governments on the matter, and asked Mr. Pursell if he knew the impact A.B. 288 would have on local governments, though the largest impact would be in Clark County. Mr. Pursell replied the impact would be the difference between 0.5 and 0.75 percent. For FY 2000, at 0.5 percent, the department would collect $7.1 million, and at 0.75 percent, the department would collect $10.1 million.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she assumed local governments would testify on A.B. 288, and asked Mr. Pursell what position local governments took on the bill. Mr. Pursell replied he did not know what position local governments took. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if, in order to send over an alleged balanced budget, A.B. 288 had to be passed. Mr. Pursell said The Executive Budget was predicated on a 0.75 percent commission.

No one else wished to testify in favor of A.B. 288, and Mr. Dini asked for testimony in opposition to the bill.

Tom Grady introduced himself as the Executive Director of the Nevada League of Cities. He said the league was presently in opposition to A.B. 288 for two reasons. First, it had received the figures that morning and had not had an opportunity to review them. Second, in the 1995 Legislative Session, the collection fee was increased from 0.5 percent to 1 percent, strictly to balance the budget. Cities had been paying into the General Fund for the past 4 years at the full cost of operating the Department of Taxation. The agreement in the 1997 Legislative Session was to cut the commission to 0.5 percent, effective July 1, 1999. Local governments felt they should be paying their fair share, but not twice the fair share, as they had been paying for the past 4 years.

Mr. Grady said the Department of Taxation did a tremendous service for local governments and was heavily depended on by them. Local governments supported the department’s efforts and would pay their fair share. The Nevada League of Cities wanted an opportunity to analyze the figures with local governments before it took a full position in favor of or against A.B. 288.

Mr. Dini asked Mr. Grady to send a letter to Chairman Arberry stating the League of Cities’ final position on A.B. 288, and Mr. Grady said he would do so.

With no further questions or comments, Mr. Dini declared the hearing of A.B. 288 closed.

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors said he represented Assembly District 36. Paul Mouritsen, Principal Research Analyst for the Research Division, was also present. He read from a prepared statement:

Mr. Dini said in the campaign, and since then, there had been a lot of discussion on lowering fees. He asked if that subject came up in the commission’s study.
Mr. Neighbors replied it did not, but the reason for the study was to determine what actual costs to the department were.

Mr. Parks agreed that the costs needed to be determined before it could be decided whether or not to lower them.

Owen Ritchie introduced himself as the Assistant Chief of Registration for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. He said the fiscal note was submitted with A.B. 30 because the department did not have the staff to complete the study. He said Mr. Neighbors mentioned the new computer system paid for by Project Genesis, but he did not think the bill to reorganize the department had been introduced. If that bill was passed, the fiscal note attached to A.B. 30 would not be necessary, because the department would have personnel assigned to that study.

Mr. Dini asked Mr. Ritchie if he thought the study would be very complicated.
Mr. Ritchie replied no, the study would not be very complicated, but the department did not presently have staff to conduct the study.

With no further questions or comments, Mr. Dini declared the hearing on A.B. 30 closed.

Mary Peterson introduced herself as the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and explained the State Board of Education established professional development as the top priority. The budget forwarded to the Governor’s Office reflected that priority. A business plan was also developed to accompany the request, for the purpose of providing a statewide approach and plan to train educators for effective implementation of Nevada’s new academic content and performance standards. Those standards were mandated by the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997, and the state now had content and performance standards for English, language arts, math, and science.

Ms. Peterson explained all the training occurring as a result of A.B. 232 would be based on the adopted standards, and would include relevant research in student learning. The training would also be based on nationally accepted standards for professional development.

Ms. Peterson said teacher contracts in Nevada currently added 1 to 3 days to the 180 required days of instruction. Those extra days were used for classroom preparation, meetings at the beginning and end of the school year, and some districts added an inservice day during the year in which schools held subject area meetings or allowed teachers to attend other specially arranged programs. Some school districts also used a minimum school day in session to provide professional development opportunities for their teachers. Students were allowed to go home after lunch and the teachers used the remainder of the day for professional development.

Ms. Peterson explained the 2 extra days in A.B. 232 would be solely devoted to standards implementation. It would ensure districts protected those 2 days from routine tasks and ensure teachers received the training they needed to implement the new standards effectively in their classrooms. She recognized the budget constraints the state was facing, and if funds were not available to add 2 contract days to the teaching year, she might consider encouraging school districts to use the short school day in session. She noted that was not very popular with parents because they did not like their children released from school early, even if it was for professional development of teachers. She hoped the committee would support that alternative if funding was not available to provide 2 additional days for development.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she was a public schoolteacher in Clark County and would be affected by A.B. 232, but not any differently than other teachers. She asked upon how many teachers the $16 million fiscal note was based. Ms. Peterson replied it was based upon approximately 19,000 teachers, building administrators, and other key personnel. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was any way to reduce the fiscal note by segregating the personnel who did not have direct instructional duties. She noted she currently had legislation in the Assembly to lengthen the school year by 10 days for similar types of activities, which would be a huge fiscal impact as well. There had been criticisms that teachers should pay for the training themselves, but she was not aware of any private-sector company that did not provide training when something new was required of their employees. She did not think teachers should be treated any differently.

In response to Ms. Giunchigliani’s question, Ms. Peterson said, yes, the cost of having just classroom teachers work those 2 days could be segregated.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she knew everyone needed training, but it would be helpful if the personnel could be classified as either classroom or non-classroom.
Ms. Peterson said those figures would be submitted to the committee.

Mrs. de Braga said during the interim, in the Education Committee and the town hall meetings, more training was overwhelmingly the most important issue to teachers and parents. She hoped there would be some way the training would be provided. Ms. Peterson added extra days had been shown to be the most effective way to make sure teachers were properly trained.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if there was a plan for how training would be conducted. Ms. Peterson said a business plan had been developed that accompanied the bill, and she would provide that plan to the committee.

Nat Lommori introduced himself as the Superintendent of Lyon County School District, which agreed to co-sponsor A.B. 232, on behalf on the Nevada Association of School Boards. The bill was an effort to bring about the changes needed to enhance professional development. He admitted 1999 was not the best year to propose the 2 additional days, due to the bill’s financial impact. But, as the state continued to strive for higher standards and student achievement, teachers had requirements for professional development so they could understand how to implement the new curriculum and provide quality instruction to students.

Mr. Lommori explained the 2 additional days in each district’s contract year would allow each district to assess their particular needs and provide the inservice days to attack those areas of deficiency. Districts would be assured that all staff would receive the same training, thus teachers could be held more accountable for the implementation of the required changes in their instructional program. The result would be that students would have a greater opportunity to be successful.

Mr. Lommori said if the 2 additional days were not added to the contract, districts could offer classes, but would not be assured teachers would attend. Thus, the overall chance of improvement would be greatly reduced. The bill was also a local control issue because districts could assess their particular need, which was to improve instruction for Nevada’s students.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she was intrigued by Mr. Lommori’s statement that A.B. 232 was a local control issue. Too often legislators were criticized, but the reason they implemented standards was to insure uniformity. Without being too restrictive, she thought that was the purpose of the bill. After standards were adopted, local boards could create their own curriculum. She agreed at that point there should be local options and freedom, but the intent was to make sure each district started with the same standards.

Mr. Lommori said he agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani, and perhaps he was not understood. He said all districts were working for the same standards, but, for example, a district may decide it needed to focus more on reading, while another district might choose to focus more on math. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed that after the startup phase, each district, or even school, should be able to choose what subject the teachers used the 2 days to focus on. She said it would not be known which districts needed attention in which areas until after the standards had been implemented for 1 or 2 years.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if, based on a nine-month school year, the students received 180 days of instruction, given days and half-days off for teacher training. She knew students were not receiving 180 days of instruction in year-round schools. Ms. Peterson replied 180 days of instruction were required. A half-day (when students were released after lunch) counted as 1 day of instruction and was included as 1 of the 180 days of instruction. For year-round schools, there was a legal provision allowing the total number of days to be fewer than 180, if the total number of minutes during the year was equivalent to 180 days of instruction.

Henry Etchemendy introduced himself as the Executive Director of the Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB). He said, as Mr. Lommori indicated,
A.B. 232 was supported by the NASB, as well as the Lyon County School District and superintendents throughout the state. One of everyone’s priorities was teacher training, and there had to be a way of doing it consistently and better than was currently being done. There were currently several bills regarding teacher training and hopefully one or more of those bills would pass. He urged the committee to pass A.B. 232, because 2 additional days for training would help a great deal. As Ms. Peterson stated, there was a lot of concern about children being released from school early, because parents did not want their children out of school for teacher training. The NASB did not want children out of school for teacher training either, if it could be helped, and A.B. 232 would help prevent that from happening.

Al Bellister introduced himself as the Director of Research for the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA). Also present was Leslie Fritz, Learning and Public Policy Specialist for the NSEA, who could answer questions regarding public policy on professional development. Mr. Bellister said the NSEA supported A.B. 232 in concept, and believed the bill would be very beneficial in attracting and retaining teachers to the State of Nevada. In addition, it would ensure quality instruction in the classroom. Many teachers reported they had had few significant sustained professional development opportunities that focused on student learning and content and gave them an opportunity to work with their colleagues. A.B. 232 would be very beneficial in addressing that shortcoming.

Mr. Bellister said he attended a conference hosted by the National Conference of State Legislatures in Santa Fe the previous weekend. A track was offered on professional development and what states were doing about it. The National Commission on Teaching in America’s Future, for example, recommended states set aside 1 percent of their total education budget for professional development. That would be approximately $10 to $11 million for professional development in Nevada. Florida, for example, set aside $6 per pupil for professional development and sent the money directly to the school districts to develop their plans locally. Similarly, Kentucky set aside $24 per pupil. This indicated Nevada needed to consider a stable and increased support of funding for kindergarten through 12^th grade education.

However, Mr. Bellister continued, in light of the budget for the 1999-2001 biennium, it appeared to the NSEA that, given there were 3 to 5 days (and in some cases 8 days) bargained in the 180-day school year, perhaps teachers had the flexibility to address the issue now. NSEA had ways of training without the substantial budgetary impact. But, he would not want to see A.B. 232 passed at the expense of giving teachers and public school employees a reasonable cost of living increase over the biennium.

Mr. Dini asked Mr. Bellister to submit his ideas for training without spending a substantial amount of money, to the committee in writing. Mr. Bellister said he would do so.

Ms. Fritz said one of the issues that emerged concerning the professional development of teachers was the concern that training was done effectively. Unfortunately the days set aside for professional development often ended up being a "one-shot, one-size-fits-all approach." From personal experience, teachers, or even an entire district faculty, were sent to a professional development activity where they sat in one room and listened to a motivational speaker. She was not questioning the importance of an occasional, good motivational talk, but the subjects in seminars often had nothing to do with the subjects being taught to children in the classroom.

Ms. Fritz said what really needed to be focused on was how to provide professional development that would guarantee the new state standards, as well as the school’s technological investment, were implemented at the classroom level. The best use of the resources already in place needed to be made, especially given the state’s budget situation. When professional development activities were developed, the needs of the students, communities, and teachers at each school had to be considered. The professional development activities would vary from community to community.

Mr. Goldwater said he recently became aware of parental concerns in Assembly District 10 regarding double sessions and year-round schooling. He asked how the 2 additional days would affect nine-month and year-round schooling. Mr. Bellister said he did not believe year-round schooling would be affected, due to the way A.B. 232 was presented.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she thought Mr. Bellister was correct. Except for year-round teachers, teachers would have to go back an additional day, depending on how many tracks there were. She asked if there had been review as to what types of training had been provided. Unfortunately, the training teachers received at the beginning of the year was not very conducive to a veteran classroom teacher, and especially not to a brand new teacher. The concern was that more time was spent on things that did not relate to the classroom. She said some schools had been very good at identifying what their faculty and students needed and offered for-credit classes on campus. That had worked very well, and if a situation could be worked out with the state department where credits could be earned while teachers were receiving training, that might be an additional motivation for teachers. The credits could be applied toward recertification or the salary schedule.

Ms. Fritz said NSEA was reviewing that issue. Their concern was that as the investment in professional development was made, the state needed to find out what worked and what did not work, regarding professional development. Another concern was that schools often had a "train the trainer" situation, where one or two people would go to the training and then hoped they were able to share that information with the rest of the faculty. She was not blaming any one individual because the plan was well intentioned, but unfortunately the information did not get passed to the rest of the faculty. In addition, if professional development did not occur on an ongoing basis, there needed to be follow-up on each training session to find out how the teacher had utilized that training. There tended to be a lack of dialogue between teachers, administrators, and experts providing the training concerning whether of not the training had been useful.

Mrs. Cegavske asked how much money was currently spent on teacher training, and whether that money would be diverted to the A.B. 232 plan. She agreed that training needed to be ongoing. She requested the committee be provided with the requirements and costs of ongoing teacher education. Mr. Bellister replied, in addition to federal programs, there were funds specifically earmarked for training, such as the $8 million in the previous session that could have been used for technology training. He said he would provide the committee with a breakdown of how that money had been spent, but as he recalled, the majority went for things other than professional development. The department sent out a survey to the districts, which would show how much General Fund money was spent on professional development. He thought the committee would be surprised at how little was actually spent. The bottom line was that more money was needed for professional development because it was an expensive proposition.

Mr. Dini requested the Department of Education provide the committee with a report on how the $8 million had been spent.

Steve Williams of the Washoe County School District said he thought A.B. 232 was a good bill and appreciated the attention professional development received in the 1999 Legislative Session. He thought it was a very important component in increasing the overall educational quality in Nevada, as were academic standards and the assessment of schools. The Washoe County School District supported the other bills concerning education. He appreciated the comments from the NSEA, because it was obvious money needed to be spent wisely. Professional development money needed to be focused and targeted where it would be most beneficial. He was pleased to see Section 2 of A.B. 232 called for accountability, with a report provided to the state explaining exactly how the money was spent.

With no further questions or comments, Mr. Dini declared the hearing on A.B. 232 closed.

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr. said he represented Assembly District 7 and disclosed he was a public employee and would benefit from the passage of
A.B. 44, but not until he was eligible for retirement. He said he should have added A.B. 44 was by request and was not just his bill. Hopefully that would be corrected at a later date. He then read a prepared statement.

Ms Giunchigliani said she, too, was a public employee, but would not benefit any differently than any other employee. She said as she understood Chairman Arberry’s argument, a person’s age would be added to their years of service, thereby benefiting employers because they could hire a cheaper, less experienced employee at a lower wage, and therefore it was almost an incentive package. Chairman Arberry replied that was correct.

Danny Coyle introduced himself at the President of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Retiree Chapter 4041. He said he would like to see A.B. 44 passed for the reasons stated by Chairman Arberry. However, before he wholeheartedly supported the bill, he wanted to hear the fiscal impact from the manager of PERS, Mr. Pyne, who he thought was opposed to the bill. If A.B. 44 had an impact on the retirement fund, regarding the target dates for eliminating the funded liability of the system, or the ability of the investment portfolio to secure a positive effect on the fund, then he would probably oppose the bill. Chairman Arberry had a good point that the contribution rate of an entry-level employee was far less than that of a person who had 20 or 25 years of service. He wanted to ensure the cost of A.B. 44 would not be so prohibitive as to affect retirees currently receiving benefits.

George Pyne introduced himself as the Executive Officer of the Public Employees’ Retirement Board. He said the board opposed A.B. 44, which proposed to allow any vested regular member of the retirement system to retire with an unreduced benefit if the sum of his age and years of service was equal to or greater than 75 years. The board was opposed to the bill for two reasons.

First, the board questioned whether allowing individuals to retire at what would be an earlier age, with less service credit than is presently the case, would be good public policy. Certainly, the board did not feel the "rule of 75" was consistent with the stated purpose of the Public Employees Retirement Act. A.B. 44 would essentially allow public employees at the top of their career, in terms of performance and knowledge, to leave public service for retirement or a second career. As stated in NRS 286.015, the Public Employees Retirement Act was designed to retain career employees so both public employers and the people of the state could benefit by virtue of their training and experience. For example, under present statute, an individual who began public service at age 25, assuming full-time continuous service, could receive an unreduced benefit with 30 years of service at age 55. However, under A.B. 44, the same individual would receive a full benefit at age 50 because the combination of age and years of service would equal 75. The result was that the individual would be eligible to retire at what should be the height of his or her career, 5 years earlier than under present statute. In fact, if that same individual purchased 5 years of service, which was also allowable, he or she could retire at age 47½. In addition, benefits from the system to include all post-retirement increases that individual would receive, over the course of his or her retirement, would be payable 5 years sooner as well.

Mr. Pyne said the Public Employees’ Retirement Board’s second concern was that there was a significant cost associated with A.B. 44. The percentage of payroll cost (the percentage of payroll paid into the retirement system by public employers and employees to fund the benefits of the system) was estimated by the system’s actuary to be in the range of 2 to 3 percent of payroll. That translated to an estimated cost of $44 to $66 million in the first year of enactment, and that cost would be on an ongoing basis.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how much police and fire service employees were paying, in addition, for their earlier retirement. Mr. Pyne replied their total cost was 28.5 percent, and other members, under employer-paid retirement, paid 18.75 percent. Police and fire employees were allowed to retire at an earlier age and they also had a "spouse option" benefit, which also added to the cost of their retirement. Mr. Giunchigliani asked at what age police and fire employees were able to retire. Mr. Pyne replied they were eligible to retire at age 50, with 20 years of service.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if anyone had considered changing the current retirement eligibility age. Mr. Pyne replied the last eligibility change was made in 1985, which went to 5-year vesting at age 65. That applied to police, fire, and regular employees. Regular employees could retire with 10 or more years of service at age 60, or 30 years of service at any age. Police and fire employees could retire with 10 years of service at age 55; with 20 years of service at age 50; or with 30 years of service at any age. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Pyne for a projection of 25 years of service at age 55. Mr. Pyne said he would provide that to the committee.

Ms. Giunchigliani told Mr. Pyne the Public Employees’ Retirement Board needed to realize the legislature decided what was good public policy, so while A.B. 44 may cost money, it was still the legislature’s purview whether or not the bill was good public policy. Mr. Pyne said the board concurred, and apologized if he stated otherwise.

Mr. Parks said he was currently a member of PERS, but A.B. 44 would not affect him any differently than anyone else. He asked Mr. Pyne if it would be possible to perform a complete actuarial study of the issue. In reviewing the bill’s fiscal note, he found a 3 percent anticipated cost, but by his calculations, he thought it would be higher than that. Mr. Pyne explained when he originally testified on A.B. 44, he did not have the updated analysis, but he now had a letter from the system’s actuary, which reflected the cost—approximately 3 percent. He would provide that to the committee.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 44 closed.

Chairman Arberry updated the committee on its status, as of February 26, 1999. The committee had reviewed 455 of the 474 budgets, which constituted 96 percent of the review. They had closed 13 budgets, which was roughly 2.7 percent. There were 47 bills in the committee, and they had heard 6, passed 2, and had 4 with no committee action.

Chairman Arberry said the committee needed to vote on two bills and asked the committee to review those bills.

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, explained the committee had heard
A.B. 94 on February 23, 1999. The bill was brought into committee because it allowed monies to be balanced forward from one year to the next. That included on page 1, line 7, appropriations made by the legislature for veterans’ cemeteries. Typically, appropriated money was not allowed to be carried forward. The agency’s intent was to only allow the gifts or donations received for the veterans’ cemeteries to balance forward each year so they would not revert. Based on that testimony, staff recommended amending the bill to clarify that the appropriated money would not balance forward, but revert at the end of the year.

Mr. Stevens said A.B. 150 had also been heard on February 23, 1999. The testimony indicated section 2, which stated any monies left in the state highway payroll clearing account would be reverted to the General Fund, was not appropriate. There was no money to revert, as it was a zero-balance account. In any case the monies should not revert to the General Fund because they were highway fund dollars. The recommendation from the parties that testified, both from the Controller’s Office and the Department of Transportation, was to delete section 2 from the bill.

Chairman Arberry asked what the committee would prefer, regarding the occupational boards. In the previous session, for the benefit of the new members, all the occupational boards were not brought in to the hearing. Rather, if there was a concern with any board, it made its recommendations to the committee or staff. Once staff brought their recommendations to the committee, the committee decided whether they wanted to vote on the occupational boards as a package or whether some items needed to be voted on separately.

Mr. Goldwater asked if all the executive directors of each board and commission were in the unclassified bill, or were they each separate. Mr. Stevens replied the salaries of the directors of the occupational boards were not included in the unclassified paybill. Mr. Goldwater asked if one director’s salary wanted to be changed, would that board need to be voted on separately. Mr. Stevens explained the boards determined those salaries, to the best of his knowledge. If the salary needed to be changed, it could be done during the interim by that particular board.

Ms. Giunchigliani expressed concern that after a budget was closed, legislation could be passed that affected those budgets. She asked if, in that case, it would require two-thirds of the committee to reopen those budgets, or would it be upon request, due to the change. Mr. Stevens explained committee rules required a two-thirds vote to reconsider a budget once it has been closed, but in the closing recommendations, the committee could put any condition it pleased on closing those budgets.

Chairman Arberry added the committee could reopen any budget. He asked the committee members to think over how they would like to proceed with the occupational boards and decide by Wednesday, March 3, 1999. Mr. Stevens said staff sought the committee’s guidance on the matter because if any committee member wanted a hearing with a particular board, it would need to be scheduled.

Chairman Arberry said the committee had another bill to be introduced before the meeting was adjourned.

• BDR S-1456 – Makes appropriation to Motor Pool Division of Department of Administration for purchase of additional vehicles. (A.B. 346)

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Christina Alfonso,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: