The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, April 16, 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

Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr. (Excused)

Mr. Robert Price (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Vice-Chair Evans called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 148.

Barbara Jackson, Deputy Director, Human Resources, City of Las Vegas explained that for 6 years she was the Deputy Director of Leisure Services, City of Las Vegas.

Ms. Jackson indicated her support of A.B. 148 and the necessary appropriation of $2.5 million for the after school programs. She emphasized five specific points.

Mr. Stephen Mead, Recreation Division Manager, City of Las Vegas, explained he also served in regional and national professional associations.

Mr. Mead stated the $2.5 million requested by A.B. 148 when appropriated to a specific city allowed provision of services right where they were needed. The City of Las Vegas already had the infrastructure, supervisors, program staff, and a variety of programs already in place.

Las Vegas had other programs in addition to "Safe Key" that included youth sports programs. The track-break program tried to bridge the gap for the 30,000 kids on the street every day because of the year-round schooling in Southern Nevada.

Vice-Chair Evans stated committee members were familiar with the Leisure Services program and understood it was a very good program. She explained the committee needed to know what the $2.5 million represented and what part of the total budget it comprised. Mr. Mead replied $2.5 million would allow participation of 2,500 young people for 1 year in an after school "Safe Key Program."

Mr. Mead stated the program was currently fee-based that amounted to a fee of approximately $1,000 per year per child. Leisure Services had scholarship programs where parents paid only a portion of the fee. The funds provided in A.B. 148 would go to the scholarship program. No administrative costs came from the funding.

Vice-Chair Evans confirmed the funding from A.B. 148 was a direct assistance to the program allowing Leisure Services to accommodate more youngsters. Mr. Mead replied the agency used all the common standards for scholarship awards such as low-income.

Vice-Chair Evans asked what the budget total for the "Safe Key" program was. Mr. Mead explained it was hard to quote an exact budget figure because only one full-time staff (FTE) was allocated to the program. Approximately $200,000 worth of city staff went directly to the program and everything else in that program was self-funded through fees. The funds from A.B. 148 would not supplement the city budget, only allow more students access to the program.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the appropriation in A.B. 148 would be placed into the operations budget of the program. Mr. Mead replied a portion of the city budget was designated for revenue-generation that was used to administer such a program. The funds would go into a separate fund for scholarships.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the funding was envisioned as an ongoing expense where the city would return each legislative session asking for additional funding. Mr. Mead replied in the sense that youth still needed the program it would be ongoing. Mr. Marvel commented it seemed that the youth needing the program would continue to increase. Mr. Mead replied the funds would not augment the budget, but would strictly make funds available to people who needed it for after school programs through scholarships.

Assemblywoman Chowning requested a report on:

• How many children were currently being served by the program;
• Whether the program would serve a combination of "Safe Key" plus Leisure Services for Elderly;
• Whether if served only children;
• The breakout of current numbers and projected numbers if funding was received; and
• Whether the $2.5 million was a 50/50 match with the city.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked if Leisure Services worked with the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) in the housing districts on Fifteenth and Twenty-eighth streets. Mr. Mead asked if she was referring to the Boy’s and Girl’s Club. Assemblywoman Chowning replied the Boy’s and Girl’s Club was on the corner but there was also a YMCA within the complex. Mr. Mead replied Leisure Services collaborated with all the other agencies throughout the city. However, the YMCA provided services on a different basis than Leisure Services.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if, because Leisure Services was multi-jurisdictional, many of the "Safe Key" programs were run out of schools and asked if any additional funding through interlocal agreements was provided from entities such as City of Henderson, City of North Las Vegas, Clark County or others. Mr. Mead replied the "Safe Key" was run by each of the other entities outside the city of Las Vegas. The City of Las Vegas worked 55 schools within the city limits and the county ran all the ones in the county, the City of Henderson ran the ones in their area, and so forth. There was no joint use of funds.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if it was true principals could still refuse to allow a "Safe Key" program on their campus. Mr. Mead replied that was no longer true.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked for a brief explanation of the scholarship program. She stated the question was not whether the program was worthwhile but whether the state should be responsible for funding. Mr. Mead explained the fee for the program was approximately $25 per week. A scholarship could be provided for a child whose parents could not afford $25 per week by applying to Leisure Services No one received a 100 percent scholarship. The fee paid by parents was typically at least $5 per week.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the scholarship program had always used a sliding scale so those who could pay were charged and those who could not were offered a scholarship. She asked how many youth were currently being served. Mr. Mead replied scholarships had been funded by money received through Community Development Block Grants, educational grants and others. Approximately 200 students were on scholarship programs.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the school participated in funding any part of the "Safe Key" program. Mr. Mead replied the school district did not supply any funding however, the educational foundation provided the facility.

Assemblywoman de Braga stated she favored the "Safe Key" program however, she would like to see it be a statewide program. If the state participated in the funding, a sufficient amount should be included for all school districts in the state that wanted to participate.

Vice-Chair Evans closed the hearing on A.B. 148 with no action and opened the hearing on A.B. 287.

Vice-Chair Evans noted A.B. 287 had been through the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Enough testimony would be needed regarding the substance of the bill for understanding; however, the primary function of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee was to focus on the fiscal impact of the legislation. She directed her comments to potential witnesses as well.

Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom, Assembly District 22 testified she had introduced A.B. 287 at the request of people who had property taken by eminent domain. The intent of the bill was to make the process of eminent domain fairer to citizens. Many provisions of the original bill had been removed in the Judiciary Committee because of objections from government representatives on the basis of cost. Assemblywoman Segerblom stated her belief the bill, as amended did not create an impact on the state budget.

Laura Fitzsimmons, representing herself, stated the bill as originally drafted did make substantial changes in the law of eminent domain. She explained eminent domain referred to the power of government to take private property from citizens. Ms. Fitzsimmons noted several government representatives who voiced opposition to A.B. 287 in the Judiciary Committee were present and emphasized her understanding that the purpose of the current hearing was to determine any fiscal impact and she believed there was none.

The bill, as amended, did only two things. Both provisions undid legislation contained in S.B. 68 of the 1991 Legislative Session. During that session the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) and many of the other government entities, without any opposition amended a long-standing Nevada law on eminent domain.

One provision of the bill affected the determination of when property value was set in a condemnation case. In condemnation cases an entity empowered to take property got their own property appraisal and then tried to negotiate with the landowner. If the landowner believed the appraisal price was not sufficient compensation for their property, the condemnation entity filed a lawsuit. At that time, the condemnation entity placed on deposit what it believed to be the fair market value for the property and received occupancy, not ownership, of the property. The landowner no longer paid property tax on the portion of property to be taken. If the case went to trial and the jury awarded, as they often did, more in compensation than the original appraisal by the condemnor, then the landowner was entitled to interest on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount deposited.

Before 1991, that interest received by landowners as a result of such a lawsuit, was exactly the same that any other party to a civil action in Nevada received. That rate was the prime interest rate plus 2 percent. In 1991 the law was amended to give landowners in eminent domain cases only, the much lower
T-bill rate.

Ms. Fitzsimmons stated her law firm obtained a lower court determination in a case that what happened in 1991 was still subject to judicial review which allowed them to have a client awarded the prime interest rate plus 2 percent. NDOT appealed that case to the Nevada Supreme Court who rendered a decision about 1.5 years ago that the statute as amended providing interest at the T-bill rate would simply be a floor. The Supreme Court in the NDOT versus Barsy Case approved prime plus 2 percent noting that in real estate transactions, people borrowed money for the rise in real estate value. The decision was to use the statute awarding the current T-Bill rate as a floor but if the landowner objected, there would be a hearing after the trial and the court could decide whatever interest rate it believed full, fair, and just compensation. In the past year there were four or five such hearings. In every single case the district court judges had found that prime interest rate plus 2 percent was fair.

Ms. Fitzsimmons provided committee members with written testimony containing some of the comments by district court judges (Exhibit C). She stated NDOT had submitted a fiscal note of $13 million based on the provisions of the bill that had been removed. A revised fiscal note had been submitted to staff (Exhibit D). She noted there existed no definable fiscal impact from
A.B. 287 as amended.

Regarding interest provisions, Ms. Fitzsimmons stated NDOT would have to assume what had been happening in the "real world" which was that judges were awarding interest at prime plus 2 percent. NDOT had not litigated such a case to-date. The cases Ms. Fitzsimmon’s law firm had litigated had been against Clark County. She added NDOT had very few cases pending in the courts. She emphasized there was no fiscal impact to the state because she was assuming since the Barsy case, and since judges subsequently were finding prime plus 2 percent, NDOT would be budgeting according to what they might expect to pay in such litigation.

The second change in statute concerned the "trial date of value."
Ms. Fitzsimmons testified that when a case was set out for trial in almost all instances and in all her discussions with people in the rural counties, all the condemnation cases were tried within 2 years. Thus the bill would not affect local governments.

In Clark County, because of court congestion, there had been instances where cases against the county went past the 2-year period where A.B. 287 would come into effect. Ms. Fitzsimmons stated her understanding that NDOT was the only entity that could claim an impact before the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. NDOT had by statute, the right to preferential trial settings so NDOT and the state funding would never be involved in condemnation cases tried after the 2-year time period. Clark County might have some concerns about the bill, but if a lawyer for a government agency that was exercising eminent domain wanted to get a case to trial within 2 years they could very easily do so. It should not be the landowner who was penalized for eminent domain.

A.B. 287 included a provision regarding the valuation of property when a case was reversed or a new trial was ordered. That provision reverted the law back prior to 1991. The provision was modeled directly from California statutes where a "trial date of value" was affected 1 year after case filings. The key provision of the phrase in the bill stated "if a new trial was ordered by the court, the date of valuation will be the date of new trial unless the court, in the interest of justice orders otherwise." What that phrase did was give the courts the ability to look at and balance the equities, and determine a reversal or new trial, and what the date of valuation should be.

Ms. Fitzsimmons stated it was important for committee members to recognize that when the Judiciary Committee amended the bill, they found that the "trial date of value," if the court-caused delay was more than 2 years, was consistent with the original intent of the legislature in the 1991 Legislative Session. In the 1991 session questions arose, an amendment was made, and at that time the legislature was told if there was court-caused delay the landowner would get the higher "trial date of value." The Supreme Court had interpreted that phrase differently stating in a case that "trial date of value" and the legislative intent were irrelevant and thus the amendment was needed to clarify the 1991 legislative intent.

In conclusion, Ms. Fitzsimmons stated she was not a professional lobbyist, but she represented individuals who had property taken through eminent domain. She noted there appeared to be considerable policy opposition present in the room, but in terms of a demonstrable fiscal impact to the state budget A.B. 287 should be deemed to not have a fiscal impact.

Assemblyman Marvel asked how many cases were in litigation versus those that had been settled in Clark County. Ms. Fitzsimmons stated she did not have the exact numbers however she did know that NDOT had less than 10 cases pending and all would be tried within 2 years. Clark County cases included those brought by Clark County, City of Las Vegas, Las Vegas Valley Water District, and the Las Vegas Convention and Visitor’s Authority. About
80 percent of landowners settled before a lawsuit was ever required. In perhaps 10 percent of cases the landowner would hire a lawyer at which time further negotiation occurred and in a smaller percentage, cases were filed. Most of the cases filed were then settled before trial. If a case was settled before trial neither provision of A.B. 287 was triggered. Interest was only applied between a judgement and a deposit and obviously the "trial date of value" only applied if there was a trial.

Assemblyman Marvel asked how many cases had to be reordered for a new trial and went beyond the 2-year limit. Ms. Fitzsimmons replied if a case went beyond 2 years and a "trial date of value" was invoked leading to a judgement, there was typically a new trial with the Supreme Court. There might be one to three cases per year in which a case was reversed. She added the court had the ability to decide what the "trial date of value" would be.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the Internal Revenue Service ever got involved. Ms. Fitzsimmons replied that happened very rarely.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked for clarification that in 1991 a piece of legislation regarding eminent domain was passed as amended. Ms. Fitzsimmons explained S.B. 68 of the 1991 Legislative Session was requested by NDOT. The "trial date of value" and interest were amended and those amendments had caused problems. A.B. 287 was directed to solving those problems.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what chapter of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) contained the eminent domain statutes. Ms. Fitzsimmons replied eminent domain was addressed in Chapter 37 of NRS and the bill would show the appropriate subsection.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if that was why the bill only affected corridor-type right of ways. Ms. Fitzsimmons replied it affected any taking but the state fiscal impact was only related to NDOT. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if testimony was that prime plus 2 percent was paid in all other instances. Ms. Fitzsimmons agreed.

Assemblyman Beers asked whom Ms. Fitzsimmons was representing and she replied she represented her clients who were involved in eminent domain cases.

Assemblyman Beers asked for an explanation of the intent of the bill in
15 words or less and whether the point of the bill was to speed up the process of eminent domain or to maximize the value of the land to the landowner. Ms. Fitzsimmons responded yes to both goals as stated by Assemblyman Beers.

Assemblyman Beers asked if, at the point of seizure of land, the state went to work on the project immediately. He asked if a project was held up because of a suit regarding valuation. Ms. Fitzsimmons replied in the negative because the condemnor was granted occupancy when a suit was filed. Assemblyman Beers confirmed the property owner stopped paying taxes on the land at that point and Ms. Fitzsimmons agreed.

Assemblyman Beers summarized: 1) The property owner stopped paying taxes, 2) The government project effectively carried on, 3) Title effectively passed at the time of filing of a lawsuit, 4) And all subsequent legal wrangling was over the value of compensation to the property owner. Ms. Fitzsimmons agreed and added the law required that compensation be paid at the time of taking so the only money at issue was the interest and difference in value. Assemblyman Beers commented further what was at issue was interest at prime plus
2 percent, and asked if the effective interest rate being assessed was to motivate government to value the land properly in the first place, or should there be an additional punitive damage representing the additional value of appreciation of the land over the course of time from the seizure to the trial resolution. Ms. Fitzsimmons responded the Nevada Supreme Court had determined the two were separate points and not double compensation. The reasoning was that when land was taken the landowner lost not only a potential for income generation but also the monetary value of the land.

Assemblyman Beers asked if the value of the land dropped in the course of the 2 years whether the government got money back from the property owner.
Ms. Fitzsimmons stated if there was a "trial date of value" going out past
2 years under the reading of the bill, the landowner would get the lower value. Mr. Beers asked if the government could sue the property owner.
Ms. Fitzsimmons responded the lower valuation would not result in a suit because the original deposit made at the higher point in value would motivate the landowner to settle or ultimately the landowner would have to pay back the difference with interest.

Assemblyman Beers asked if it was the government who had to initiate a suit over the value. Ms. Fitzsimmons replied the government would initiate the suit, ask for occupancy, and make a deposit.

Vice-Chair Evans noted the committee had taken 25 minutes for the proponents of A.B. 287 and would hear 25 minutes of testimony from those opposed to the bill.

Mr. Rennie Ashelman, representing Clark County testified the principle problem with the bill was that it changed the entire dynamics of negotiation. If a landowner could go through the court system, then appeal and go through another trial with absolutely no risk to the landowner they would never come out worse off. Meanwhile the landowner drew prime plus 2 percent interest. It was admittedly hard to turn that reasoning into a fiscal note but Mr. Ashelman pointed out condemnation cases were only about money. If there was no intent for a fiscal note on the state and the counties the bill would not have been brought.

Mr. Ashelman stated Clark County had no objection to the change in the interest rate. He suggested if the proponents were truly worried about "trial date of value" they would have accepted an offer from the opponents to simply give the rest of government agencies the same priority as NDOT received on the setting of a trial date. Then the proponents’ problem went away if the bill really addressed the need for speedier trial settings rather than one that changed the calculus of risk, reward, and return. Also, if there was a problem that the initial appraisals were too low, the supporters of the bill would have accepted the opponents offer to let the courts appoint the appraisers. It was obvious that what proponents wanted to do was change the dynamics of eminent domain and that would have a fiscal impact.

Mr. Mike Foley, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County testified he had been employed by Clark County for approximately 9 years and handled a number of different cases but recently about 50 percent of his cases involved eminent domain. In private practice he had also dealt with cases of eminent domain from the side of the private property owners.

Mr. Foley stated if the bill did not have a fiscal impact he misunderstood the bill. He understood the whole purpose of the bill was to get more money to property owners when a land taking occurred.

Mr. Foley referred to page 2, line 4 of the amended bill where a sentence was added that stated: "If a new trial is ordered by a court, the date of valuation is the date of actual commencement of the new trial unless the court, in the best interest of justice orders otherwise." That provision took away the right of the state or any of the condemning agencies to appeal. If a judgement went against a city, school district, county or state it was usually at least 1.5 years before the case went to trial. If an appeal was set, that took another 2 or
3 years before the case was decided by the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would remand the case and another 8 months to a year would pass before the case was heard, thus passage of time of 5 or 6 years occurred on an appealed case. That would automatically yield a "trial date of value" 5 or
6 years after the taking. That precedent really helped the big landowners and those with property along big projects.

Mr. Foley gave some examples:

• In the near future Clark County had to look at putting Harmon Avenue through to the Strip which would probably generate a $20 to $30 million case. If the appraiser for the other side came in at $50 million and the judge made an erroneous decision, the jury awarded $40 to $45 million, the county really couldn’t appeal because even if they won the case on appeal, by the time it went through the appellate process it was 5 or 6 years after the original taking date and over the course of 5 years at 10 or 12 percent escalation in prices, the county appraisal would then be somewhere in the $40 million range or as much as the original verdict.
• With the lack of opportunity to appeal a judgement, condemnors had to take what the property owner got at the jury trial and that would affect the rural counties.

On most of the construction projects money would be spent either way. When a school bond, jail bond, courthouse or library bond was voted in part of it went to acquisition of property and the remainder went to construction. The more funds paid for property acquisition, the fewer classrooms or jail cells could be built.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Foley’s testimony was that A.B. 287 restricted an appeal. Mr. Foley explained the bill did not literally state a restriction on appeals but it did so by effect.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the appearance was that cases dragged on because government was perceived as having deep pockets and therefore the court cases were not expeditiously handled. Thus the landowner lost out and maybe the bill was trying to force some sort of incentive to speed up the trial process to arrive at a resolution. Mr. Foley replied the image of "deep pockets" didn’t slow things down but perhaps court congestion did.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how long it had taken Clark County to get a case to trial in recent history. Mr. Foley replied Clark County was right on the edge of the 2-year limit. Mr. Foley explained the time from filing of a case to the court date was typically 18 to 20 months.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated testimony was that two amendments were offered to the proponents of the bill, which were rejected, and she assumed that amendments were provided to the Judiciary Committee as well. Since the bill appeared to have been amended considerably, it would seem the amendments offered by opponents were rejected by the Judiciary Committee as well.

Mr. Ashelman yielded the remainder of time to the representatives from NDOT.

Mr. Brian Hutchins of the Attorney General’s office and counsel to the Nevada Department of Transportation introduced Mr. Tom Stephens, Director, NDOT, and Ms. Heidi Mirales, Chief Right-of-Way Agent, NDOT.

Mr. Hutchins testified that A.B. 287 was not a simple bill on which to provide an exact fiscal impact. The legal affect and the potential situations caused by the bill were what created the fiscal impact. Therefore, it would depend on what happened in the litigation and trial settings that would cause a fiscal impact. That fiscal impact could be enormous.

Mr. Stephens stated he would not be present if he did not believe A.B. 287 created a fiscal impact to the state. To quantify the fiscal impact was very difficult. As Ms. Fitzsimmons had testified, the interest rate portion of the bill was already being used in the courts. Resetting the value was like "having your cake and eating it too." The bill would allow landowners to reset the property value 2 years later and they got to draw interest on the higher value as well.

NDOT had been very fortunate in the way their cases had progressed in the past. However, NDOT did not anticipate they would continue to get judgements within 2 years on all of their cases. NDOT was embarking on the Super Project, which was the largest program in Nevada’s history. A large amount of right-of-way was involved in that project alone.

Mr. Stephens stated he wanted to dispel any notion that the bill was a populous bill to protect residential homeowners. The people who would benefit the most from resetting the value would be people who owned large parcels of land that went up in value when it became known a freeway was to be built in the area.

Ms. Mirales stated NDOT had been fortunate under NRS 408 that gave the agency preference in trial settings. However, she was growing concerned because particularly in the Clark County area there were many local agency projects and many NDOT projects as well. One very large project in that area was the widening of U.S. Highway 95 that could impact over 200 landowners.

NDOT could fill the courts with their cases alone because of their preferential trial settings. That would freeze the local public agencies out of the courts in spite of everyone’s best efforts. NDOT and local agencies did work cooperatively in the Las Vegas area.

Two million dollars paid to a landowner was $2 million less of road that could be built. That created a fiscal note. NDOT had provided some hypothetical situations in their fiscal note (Exhibit D) to the best of their ability.

Mr. Hutchins stated the position paper (Exhibit E) represented the position of both the attorney general’s office and NDOT. The analysis section of the Right-of-Way Division provided the scenarios presented in Exhibit F. The scenarios showed potential impact of the delay value and the interest on top of that.

Mr. Hutchins provided his version of an answer to Assemblyman Beers’ question of what the effect of A.B. 287 was. The effect of the bill in the first section was to say that any delay caused by the courts would be attributed to the condemning agency. The current law as interpreted by the Supreme Court did not have the same affect.

The remainder of the bill, as earlier testimony indicated, effectively froze condemning agencies from desiring to appeal the large, high dollar cases. The first scenario in Exhibit F showed that if the condemning agency appealed and went to trial the condemnor would be hit with an even higher impact.

Mr. Hutchins stated the number of projects in the works drove the fiscal impact of the bill. The caseload was light at present but there were a number of large projects pending. Some of those projects were; the widening of U.S. Highway 95 in Southern Nevada, the Carson City Bypass, and the I-580 extension of the freeway from Reno to Carson City.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani restated the NDOT testimony was that they had preferential trial setting under NRS 408 and that had not changed. She asked what Mr. Hutchins last statement was concerning condemning agencies. Vice-Chair Evans clarified Mr. Hutchins had said any delay caused by the court was attributable to the condemnor.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked how much money the state had paid to landowners recently in condemnation cases. Mr. Hutchins replied that would vary from case to case. He stated the right-of-way costs for the Spring Mountain project was $32 million. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if those payments were made with state dollars or if funding came through the federal allocation. Mr. Stephens replied once the money came into the NDOT system, it lost its "color" of whether funding was state or federal. Federal money could be used to maintain a highway somewhere or it could be used to build a new project. Most of the federal money was used to build new projects rather than maintenance. Maintenance projects were smaller. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Stephens for his explanation but stated she did not agree that the two funding sources lost their "color" when the accounts were all segregated in The Executive Budget.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the original $13 million fiscal note was no longer valid based on the amendments done in the Judiciary Committee. The current information received on the fiscal impact simply contained scenarios rather than solid fiscal information. Mr. Hutchins stated the fiscal impact could be in the millions of dollars depending on a certain project or case. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she appreciated that but rarely did the committee base a budget on a could, should or might.

Assemblyman Marvel asked what it cost to build one mile of an expressway. Mr. Stephens replied it depended on where that mile was located. $10 million could easily be used to build one mile. In Las Vegas that cost could rise to
$20 to $30 million.

Assemblyman Marvel asked what portion of that cost was attributed to property acquisitions. Mr. Stephens stated it again depended on the location. In the case of the Spring Mountain Project, the acquisition portion was approximately 30 percent of the cost. In other places where Bureau of Land Management land could be accessed, the cost might be a lot less.

Mr. Hutchins pointed out that a lot of projects were done with cooperation of local entities and those local entities were paying a portion of project costs as well. Some projects were strictly state-funded. If NDOT had to start pushing to get cases through trial within the 2 years on all of the large upcoming projects, then attorneys would have to be added to staff and the fiscal impact of adding three attorneys and a secretary could be as much as $500,000 annually. The issue was case dependent.

Mr. Hutchins referred to A.B. 287, page 2, line 40 and to the top of the next page and noted the present provision stricken by the amendment. The existing law stated if a delay was caused by landowners, the landowner would not get the interest payment. The amendments encouraged landowners against a speedy trial process. He suggested the provision that landowners could not receive the interest payment if they caused the delay of trial should remain in law as well.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if NDOT had experienced a trial delay in the past couple of years. Mr. Hutchins stated there were about three or four such cases. He explained none of those cases resulted in a fiscal impact because of the delay. NDOT had stipulated with the landowners in those cases as to when the "trial date of value" would be. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the bill would prevent NDOT from doing that and Mr. Hutchins replied it would not.

Mr. Bob Crowell, on behalf of Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific Power Companies testified those companies shared the concerns of the government entities and wanted to ensure that a silence before the committee was not deemed to be acquiescence to the bill. He stated a recent case spoke to the dollar increase that would result from the bill. The case was the Buckwalter case judgement of April 1999. He read from the determination in the case:

That was the type of situation that could occur in such cases.

Mr. Zev Kaplan, General Counsel, Clark County Regional Transportation Commission echoed the comments of Mr. Hutchins from NDOT and Mr. Foley from Clark County. For the record, the legislation indicated no fiscal impact on local government, which was clearly in error. Any increases in the cost for the right-of-way taking did affect the cost of the project completion or other projects down the line.

Mr. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, stated the association fully supported the testimony given by Clark County and NDOT.

Mr. Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities, opposed the bill and stated a number of people had signed in to speak. He asked that their names be included in the record in the interest of time. Those on the guest list who did not have an opportunity to speak and who signed as opposed to A.B. 287 were:

Joe Vadala, Attorney General, NDOT

Barbara McKenzie, City of Reno

Maddy Shipman, Washoe County

Marta Golding Brown, City of North Las Vegas

Dave Hill, City of Sparks

Luke Pushay, Las Vegas Convention and Visitor’s Authority

John Yezek, Assistant Right-of-Way Agent, NDOT

Mary Walker, Carson City, Douglas, and Lyon Counties

Mary Henderson, Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission

Vice-Chair Evans stated committee members were more than happy to take written testimony on the bill, although time for verbal testimony was limited.

Vice-Chair Evans closed the hearing on A.B.287 with no action and opened the hearing on A.B. 395. She stated with the approach of important deadlines, many committee members were needed in other hearings. Due to lack of a quorum, the hearing continued as a subcommittee of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, Assembly District 16 presented the bill which proposed additional funding to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) for the establishment of the Nevada Center for Sustainable Living.

Assemblyman Thomas defined "Sustainable Development," then briefly described the center and finally provided examples of how the concept was being implemented on local, state and federal government levels as well as in private industry.

He said he hoped the committee would see why the request was not merely an appropriation, but was, in fact, an investment that would provide the communities and the state a strong economy, a high quality of life, and a healthy environment for current and future generations.

Sustainable Development meant meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It was a strategy by which communities sought economic development approaches that also benefited the local environment and the quality of life. It provided a framework under which, communities could use resources efficiently, create efficient infrastructures, protect and enhance quality of life and create new businesses to strengthen their economies. The plan worked by honoring commerce as the engine of change, respecting diversity, and recognizing that communities must design for stability.

The Nevada Center for Sustainable Living fit into and facilitated those goals through development and operation of a program for multi-disciplinary education and research, to provide assistance to consumers, businesses, governments, and elected officials.

The operation would begin with a small staff that would work in the existing facilities at UNLV. Staff would include a director, assistant director, a policy analyst, and an administrative assistant. The director and assistant director would primarily ensure that the operational procedures and facility were planned and carried out appropriately. The policy analyst would be charged with determining which state, local, and federal policies would best assist the communities in reaching sustainable goals. The facility would eventually become a single building located on the UNLV campus that would serve the needs of teaching, research, policy analysis, demonstration and an outreach center related to sustainable business practices, educational system soundness, advanced building technologies, sustainable city planning practices, and resource conservation and use. Portions of the structure would be outfitted with exhibits about building designs and construction techniques, energy conservation and conversion concepts, water-wise use and other important issues. The building would also serve as a location where information could be found on a variety of sustainable issues including renewable energy, modern building practices and water conservation. The building in fact would be a museum, a library, and a school.

Assemblyman Thomas provided committee members with an article (Exhibit H) that discussed an institute for sustainable design located in Charlottesville, Virginia at the Thomas Jefferson’s University of Virginia. The facility was established about 1 year previously and provided much the same services the proposed Nevada center would provide. The Virginia center’s relationship to federal programs, particularly the Fannie Mae Program, identified and provided new services and products to help promote sustainable communities. Assemblyman Thomas envisioned the Nevada center doing that and more.

In January 1999, the Clinton-Gore administration announced their livable communities’ agenda. That agenda combined with other incentives, would grant $9.5 billion in interest-free bonding authority over the coming 5 years, to state and local governments that codified legislation which honored sustainable development or smart growth practices. Assemblyman Thomas hoped through research and policy analysis the Nevada center would position itself at the forefront of other states in the nation to obtain the incentive funding.

Assemblyman Thomas provided committee members with the Fiscal Year 2000 Livability Agenda Funding packet (Exhibit I) to review when considering
A.B. 395. The funding enhanced urban and rural communities alike.

The private sector was involved in sustainable development through innovative approaches to sustainable products and services. Assemblyman Thomas provided committee members with an advertisement (Exhibit J) from the Ford Motor Company that realized there was a target market for sustainable practices. Ford used their responsible business practices to market their product.

A book titled Mid-Course Correction by Ray C. Anderson was about the billion dollar carpet company, Interface Incorporated that totally redesigned the way it did business to emulate the practice of sustainable product development and realized that pursuit would enhance their bottom-line.

Vice-Chair Evans asked Assemblyman Thomas, in the interest of time, to explain how the funding requested in A.B. 395 would be utilized. Assemblyman Thomas replied for FY 2000, the bill requested an appropriation of $255,000 that would provide salary for a director, assistant director, a policy analyst, and the administrative assistant.

Funding would be as follows:

Director $70,000

Assistant Director $40,000

Policy Analyst $40,000

Administrative Assistant $20,000

The director and assistant director would locate the site, draw plans, and implement the facility. Operation costs for those functions was $50,000. There were additional costs of $25,000 for such things as architectural services.

In the second year of the biennium the funding of the positions would be the same. An additional line item of $50,000 would provide further planning and development services for a total of $290,000.

Assemblyman Thomas concluded by stating the Nevada Center for Sustainable Living (NCSL) was a sound investment for the state, the community, the citizenry, the industries, and the ecology. He urged the committee support development of the center.

Mr. Larry Bennett, University of Nevada, Las Vegas testified in support of
A.B. 395. He stated it was unfortunate that time constraints at the hearing and throughout the remainder of the legislative session would not allow more in-depth discussion of the center. The project was ambitious but would certainly enhance study and research needed for the state and the region. It was in keeping with UNLV’s efforts to increase and improve the university’s capabilities for research and to increase funding for statewide programs.

Vice-Chair Evans stated it appeared from testimony such a center would have the opportunity to draw down other grants. The funding in A.B. 395 would provide the infrastructure. Mr. Bennett agreed. He provided a letter from Stephen Rice, Associate Provost for Research, UNLV in support of the bill (Exhibit K).

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if it was possible the university would use the bill as a catalyst to get the program up and running rather than dealing with a Capital Improvement Project of building the facility under the current budget constraints. Perhaps they could use the UNLV research staff to pull together community-wide individuals in support of that type of research. Mr. Bennett agreed that would be a possibility.

Bob Cooper, Board Member, Sunrise Sustainability Organization testified that organization was the Nevada chapter of the American Solar Energy Society. He addressed the question from Assemblywoman Giunchigliani regarding funding only the organizational and research portions of the bill. He stated the group was in place to begin looking at the issue and strongly supported the bill. There was a renewable energy open house held in the legislative building about
1 month prior that evidenced the numerous individuals and businesses that came together to form a public/private partnership in support of renewable energy in the state.

Mr. Cooper stated his group respected that commerce was the engine of change. As Assemblyman Thomas had noted, solar energy panels were made from silicon. The origin of Silicon Valley, California was not the silicon, but Stanford University acting as the catalyst of change. They likewise felt UNLV could be the catalyst of change for Southern Nevada.

Rose McKinney-James was Chief Executive Officer and President of Corporation for Solar Technology (C-STRR). It was a corporation for solar technology and renewable resources in Las Vegas. She expressed her support for A.B. 395.
C-STRR was a non-profit organization funded through the Department of Energy.

Ms. McKinney-James observed it was her privilege to represent Nevada as a member of the national coalition to advance sustainable technology. One colleague had shared some information she provided to the committee. Sustainable development needed to be a broad, national strategy that fostered environmental and economic vitality. It was a social and business imperative for change. It challenged industry to initiate environmental strategies, not simply to comply with mandates. Sustainable growth challenged industry to focus and commit to pollution prevention.

At the core of sustainable development was the search for a new regulatory system to rise above command and control policies. Instead the paths to concurrent economic and environmental progress were voluntary actions, market incentives, partnerships, and consensus building. Dave Basselli, President of Dow Chemical Company had said, "Decisions built on consensus were more effective than those fed by confrontation."

Over the past few years, industries that expressed an interest in moving to Nevada were looking for some type of resource through the university that would strengthen and support their research and development initiatives. The absence of that made it difficult for such industries to pursue their goals. More than that, Ms. McKinney-James supported the concept and encouraged the need for the activity. She recognized the competing priorities the Assembly Ways and Means Committee must face. She supported some opportunity to discuss the proposal in the interim and to take advantage of resources in the state to work with the university. C-STRR had a formal memo of understanding with the University System and had found their support invaluable for testing and evaluating the solar hot water heating systems that were being used with a national homebuilding company. That company would install a series of systems in two subdivisions in Nevada and one in Arizona.

Vice-Chair Evans stated it was easy to talk about "quality of life," a phrase that was used frequently, but it was infrequent that anything was done to ensure long-term planning of prospects for the future.

Mr. Fred Hillerby, representing the American Institute of Architects, complimented Assemblyman Thomas for his vision and urged the committee to share the vision.

Vice-Chair Evans closed the hearing on A.B. 395 with no action and opened the hearing on A.B. 654.

Elaine Wynn, Co-Chair of the Greater Las Vegas Inner-City Games testified the group did not take their opportunity to appear before the committee lightly. The good news was that regardless of the outcome of the hearing there was a message of great joy and hope. The group expected to provide the committee with a few moments of great encouragement. Ms. Wynn introduced Mr. John Pucci, Vice-Chair of the games and the Burger King franchisee in Las Vegas;
Mr. Mike Edwards, the former executive director and retired administrator from the Clark County School District who helped put the program together; Mr. Mike Mannion, the new executive director and an administrator with the Clark County School District.

Ms. Wynn provided the committee with a packet of information on the Inner-City Games (Exhibit L). The packet contained a fact sheet that summarized a lot of the key points of the group, information on the mission, history, organization, budget, purpose, demographics of the children served, and geographic areas served.

Ms. Wynn explained her personal motivation for the project. She had a long-time interest in education and children in general. She had a special place in her heart for what she termed "at hope" children which was her term for those others called "at risk children." Those were kids who needed to have their direction turned to positive and more meaningful goals.

Arnold Schwarzenegger visited Las Vegas many years ago and invited Las Vegas to join one of the 12 cities being included in an extension of the national Inner-City games concept. Ms. Wynn was not sure if it would be a meaningful approach because it was not the traditional educational approach. It was strictly a sports-type of program. After the program was established and in operation for 3 years she had come to agree with Mr. Schwarzenegger that there were many ways for children to change their lives.

Although many thought a more direct approach through educational programs was the best way, sometimes a more subtle, playful approach could turn a child’s attention in the right direction.

Although any child between the age of 7 and 17 was eligible to participate, the games tried to target a specific population. The games tried to reach the kids who would not be selected for the track and field teams or the basketball teams, those who might not be on the yearbook staff or did not make the cheerleading squad, who did not have the $2 to attend Boys and Girls clubs, whose parents could not drive them to a local park or buy Little League uniforms or tennis rackets.

Ms. Wynn stated participants in the games tried to complete the sentence "Just say no to drugs and violence" with "we have a way to offer something to turn to." It was not enough to just tell kids not to do something; they needed to be offered a positive alternative.

The Inner-City Games were not an Olympic style competition that lasted for only a few weeks. Beginning in April through the end of August, every Saturday, children in Las Vegas could get on a school district bus for free, ride to a school site within their geographic location, and participate in clinics, competitions and other activities with mentors and caring adults and coaches, have free refreshments, enjoy themselves, and get back on a safe bus to return home.

Children were told it was about the importance of making positive choices, not just not just staying home, getting into mischief or just hanging out. It provided children with the opportunity to do something they might have always wanted to do. The motto for the Inner-City Games was, "If you play, you win."

All children got medals for participation because the organization believed that one small success could lead to another small success and that when kids enjoyed a pattern of small successes they gained self-confidence. Character development was emphasized through each sport by having a value associated with it. They were taught kindness, courage, trust, responsibility and respect.

For the first time, the games were adding cultural pieces such as art, music, creative writing, chess and computer camps.

The Inner-City Games distributed a video through the school district that was followed with assemblies. The video was played for the committee.

Ms. Wynn said it was her pleasure to introduce two of the finest examples of the games. In addition to the sporting programs, there were many other opportunities, one of which were that of youth ambassadors. Those young people were selected because of their great leadership potential. It was the two young peoples’ first trip to Carson City, their first interaction with government, and they had been told it was o.k. to be nervous and apprehensive but they could not pass out.

Ms. Wynn introduced Ken LaPort, age 14, who was a student at Brinley Middle School and Sue Owens, age 16, and a student at Palo Verde.

Ken LaPort stated it was his first time before a legislative body and he was a little nervous. The Inner-City Games was good for the community. It brought kids off the streets instead of just going into gangs. It got pretty bad sometimes and the games gave kids somewhere to go and to look forward to, and everything was free.

Mr. LaPort stated the program made him feel good inside because he touched a kid from when he used to be a youth ambassador and helped coach. Mr. LaPort said "I touched this kid’s heart and it made him look forward to life. Because he was really down-sided and didn’t really think he could play." It didn’t matter because "if you play, you win." The mother called Mr. LaPort up and asked if he could go over and play with the youth. Mr. LaPort said he felt good because he changed the youth’s life and turned it in a new direction.

Ms. Sue Owens testified being a part of sports activities like tennis had been a lot of fun. Every day she would wake up thinking, "I have to do this or that." But then a kid could play any sport he wanted to. She taught others how to hit a forehand, backhand, or a serve; and it meant a lot because the youth could actually win and play anything he wanted to. By other youth having fun it made her feel real special inside because she had a big part in that and it made her happy.

Vice-Chair Evans stated the youth who testified should feel happy because what they were doing was a very special thing. The Vice-Chair asked if Ms. Owens’ favorite sport was tennis and if the Williams sisters knew about her. Ms. Owens replied tennis was her favorite sport and the Williams sisters did not know about her yet.

Ms. Wynn noted it had taken a great deal of courage for the youth to testify and courage was one of the values the program taught. Ms. Wynn introduced Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

Lt. Olsen, read a letter into the record from Sheriff Jerry Keller (Exhibit M).

Lt. Olsen testified that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, despite what was heard on the media and read in the newspapers, had always been deeply involved in the Inner-City Games and issues involving "at hope" children. The Inner-City Games was an organized effort that law enforcement supported 100 percent. He opined the games were one of the most important things in which law enforcement was involved.

Vice-Chair Evans noted the games were a way to keep youngsters interacting with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in a positive way instead of Metro going out and picking someone up.

Assemblywoman Cegavske stated she really appreciated the opportunity to gain an understanding of the Inner-City Games through the video and packet of information and the presentations. She commended Ms. Wynn for her efforts and what she was doing for the community.

Assemblywoman Cegavske stated she was going to share Ms. Wynn’s phrase, "at hope children" with Senator Mathews because they had been looking for a positive phrase instead of a negative as seen so frequently.

Assemblywoman Cegavske noted in the video she had previewed there was a baby someone held up and talked about the future. She recommended that be put back in the current video. She asked how many months a year the program ran and how many days a week activities were held. Ms. Wynn replied the current program ran from the beginning of April through the end of August and culminated in October with a closing ceremony. She added the game sponsors would love to extend the program and felt there was a demonstrated need to make the program year-round. The need was finally exceeding the resources.

In summary, Ms. Wynn stated in October staff was placed for the next cycle of games and an evaluation was done for the previous summer’s programs. They determined how to proceed in the coming year:

• What they wanted to build upon;
• What improvements to make;
• Put back into place all the clinics and clinicians;
• The logistics;
• The school sites;
• The calendar of events; and
• The fund-raising to support the program needs.

It would have been totally inappropriate for the games to seek any kind of institutional support at the beginning of the program but currently, 3 years into the program it truly had been a success story. It had been a success because the children continued to express their interest with their attendance.

The previous Saturday when the first tennis event of the new cycle was held there were nearly 200 kids at only one site. She asked the committee to imagine teaching tennis to 200 kids on 6 courts. The Inner-City Games were limited by their resources, their facilities, and their staff. The number and kinds of events continued to expand to satisfy that kind of interest.

In the previous cycle the Inner-City Games had 130 event sites and in the current cycle they would have 254 event sites. In a 5-month cycle what was being considered were not just a few little festivals, they were talking about major event sites where the kids had a repeated exposure. Ms. Wynn stressed the repeated exposure was the key to success.

The community-wide collaboration was stronger than ever. Very generous corporate support was in place with both cash and in-kind donations. The games partnered with the school district, the Boys and Girls Club, the county, and the city.

There had been expressions of interest from Mesquite and the games wanted to expand to Henderson and Boulder City but without some help they were hard-pressed to go much further than their current level.

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if the targeted group was elementary and middle schools. She stated the artwork on the buses for the program was very nice. Ms. Wynn referred to Exhibit L and stated it contained information on the demographics of the distribution of the students according to age group and geography. The fundamental focus was to elementary and middle schools kids because it was felt they could be reached at that point before things turned "funny." They tried to involve the high school kids because they could serve as good mentors and role models for the younger children. High School students tended to be more interested in soccer and basketball but were currently expressing a keen interest in chess and the new cultural activities. The main focus was to keep the Inner-City Games "cool" because if kids perceived the program as a "goody-2-shoes" program that would be the death of the program.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she had students who had participated in the games and in fact had gotten to wear one of the medals for a day before she had to give it back. She added her thanks to the sponsors who gave the committee members each a T-shirt and medal. Now she had a medal of her own. She stated another piece of legislation which the committee had reviewed had been on the "Safe Key" program and asked if the $250,000 would simply be disbursed rather than going for some type of scholarship program.
Ms. Wynn replied the Inner-City Games made all programs available at no charge. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the $250,000 could be interpreted as matching funds. Ms. Wynn stated the funding would allow the sponsors to expand the programming to other geographical areas of the community because they did pay stipends to their coaches and clinicians after the first year, even though they had almost 2,000 volunteers. The program reached nearly 10,000 children so in order to continue to expand the scope of the program; they had to be able to pay a small stipend to ensure quality control and to ensure someone would show up when the kids showed up.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if Ms. Wynn had to make a monetary guess, how much had been contributed by the private sector up to the hearing. Ms. Wynn replied the yearly budget was $1.2 million. Of that $400,000 was actual cash donations and another $400,000 was in-kind donations and there were many other "hidden" contributions from the private sector.

Assemblywoman Chowning thanked Ms. Wynn for all her work and noted
Ms. Wynn also served with her on the Academic Standards Council for the state. She asked with all the partners, how the program interfaced with the city and county recreation programs. She asked if the City of North Las Vegas was a partner as well. Ms. Wynn deferred to the executive director regarding North Las Vegas. She stated parks and recreation facilities turned out to be facility managers that hosted Little League and Pop Warner teams and the like. The programming was not quite as extensive as it should be. The Inner-City Games did use contributed county funds. The city contributed clinicians and people from their parks and recreation department to help conduct some of the clinics. Some of the permanent sites were in North Las Vegas including Rancho High School.

Mr. Mike Edwards commented he spent 31 years in the education field in the Clark County School District, over half of that time as a high school principal. He stated there truly had never been anything in his experience that addressed the needs of "at hope" children like the Inner-City Games did. In the first year of the program staff had attempted to affiliate with parks and recreation departments. But in fact the Inner-City Games outgrew that affiliation because of conflicts of their personnel so the games partnered with schools because those facilities were already present. They did have some parks and recreation personnel who assisted with the programs. Two of the sports coordinators were from the City of Las Vegas Parks and Recreation Department.

The Inner-City Games was currently so large that logistically, they had to operate within their own framework. Other entities were very supportive of the work of the games because the games did not conflict with those of the county and cities.

Vice Chair Evans closed the hearing on A.B. 654 with no action and opened the hearing on A.B. 655.

Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21 testified SMART stood for Statewide Management of Automated Records Transfer. SMART was started in 1995 when the state Department of Education came to the legislature with a glossy brochure and a $10 to $12 million appropriation request. The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means members had thought they were looking at "son of NOMADS II." The proposed programs were ill conceived, and imbedded with multiple problems that would automate 440 schools statewide.

In 1995 the legislature allowed higher education $5 million in the appropriation bill to fund distance learning and the state Department of Education was allocated about $2.5 million which funded a pilot project. The project was targeted for three urban counties including Clark and Douglas Counties, and three rural counties.

That allowed the group to look at what they wanted to do with software, how to integrate varieties of hardware, what had to be done for conversion, and whether staff have the technical expertise to support the project.

In the Assembly Ways and Means Committee in 1995 there was a heavy emphasis on education and Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction was getting pounded on. Information was needed constantly and Ms. Peterson had to accumulate all information on paper and then compile it because there was no automation.

The automation that began through the 1995 session allowed the Department of Education to more easily provide information about special education programs, truancy, or violence in schools, testing outcomes, and whether certain groups had school lunches or not. The advantage to the legislature was provided information from which to make planning decisions.

The schools had some really interesting stories about how the automated system helped them. One example was of a little boy named Tommy whose parents dumped him off at a grade school. In the principal’s office they tried to figure out who Tommy was. They figured he had to be about in the first or second grade. Staff got on the automated system and looked up all Tommys in whose grades and kept asking him if each of the last names was his until they finally found where he belonged and what classroom he belonged in.

Another example was where a child was accosted at a bus stop by another student. All the little girl knew was that the girl’s name was Molly and that she had seen her in Physical Education (P.E.) Class. They made the same type of successful search using a search for any Mollys in the girl’s P.E. class.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked how many committee members had children that as parents they did not know what time the child was in a certain period, or whether the student attended a certain period class. Prior to automation, because there was not tracking and a variety of teachers were involved there was no way to know. Currently parents could go to the schools and know period by period about their child’s attendance.

Vice-Chair Evans stated the chief concerns of the committee were the funding requests in A.B. 655 because of the tight budget cycle. She asked if there were any modifications or amendments to the bill.

Assemblywoman Tiffany testified section 1 of A.B. 655 simply re-instituted the Advisory Committee.

Section 2 requested an appropriation of $10,691,000. She requested an amendment to that section to reduce the appropriation to $4 million for the full implementation of Clark County, $600,000 to the state department for contract services, and $1,859,000 for other counties for ongoing maintenance and support. The $4 million and the $600,000 could be easily justified and fit requirements for one-shot appropriations very cleanly. The $1,859,000 was more difficult because a portion funded ongoing technical support for maintenance and repair. The other portion funded staffing and personnel.

The real policy issue was how to fund the $1.8 million. It had been placed in The Executive Budget and rolled into the Distributive School Account (DSA). As the committee was aware the Governor had changed almost every budget. Assemblywoman Tiffany suggested committee members think about beginning to roll long-term educational technological projects into the DSA. Did the committee want to break up the funding into one-shot items and staff costs. Or would the committee like to look at the funding as a grant. Then the
16 counties would apply for grant funding and that would allow the committee to distinguish what exactly was being funded.

Pam Hicks, Area Superintendent, Clark County School District, testified her role with the SMART project was that of the contact person. The request for
$4 million to complete the Clark County project would also provide funding of $2.5 million from the technology division of the district. That funding came from diverted technology plans and operations because the district was very committed to the project and what it was doing not only for the state and the legislature, but what it was doing for Clark County itself.

Bill McCloud, Elko County School District, testified that district was one of the original pilot schools. The Elko County School District was now fully automated. The district had started technology development a couple years before SMART. SMART was of great assistance in the 16 rural Nevada counties, which to date were fully automated with hardware, the infrastructure, local area networks, and wide area networks. The automated system allowed the counties to produce timely, electronic, credible, and up-to-date data. Some of the information that could be accessed included:

• Terra Nova test results;
• Accountability data;
• Drop-out statistics; and
• End-of-month attendance reports just to mention a few.

The technology was very complex at the management level and public education administrators were not computer programmers and technicians. A very good job of installation, implementation and operation had been done. But, some of the districts were finding it very difficult to obtain the kind of technical expertise to continue and manage the systems.

The school districts planned to continue operation of the systems and would do the best they could to sustain the systems. They did need help particularly in technical assistance. That was why the rural counties were not requesting more hardware and software, only concentrating on technical assistance.

Assemblywoman Chowning asked for a clarification and breakout of the funding requested in A.B. 655. Vice-Chair Evans noted Assemblywoman Tiffany had provided the information early in her testimony but the Vice-Chair requested the numbers to be provided to staff in writing and for the breakout figures to be repeated.

Assemblywoman Tiffany told members the breakout of funding was:

• $4 million for Clark County for the biennium;
• $600,000 to the state department for those technical contracts going out to the field; and
• $1.8 million represented the ongoing internal costs of the 16 rural districts and involved the policy question discussed earlier.

Dan Piel, Storey County School District, testified in favor of A.B. 655. Each school site had the hardware, the wiring, the software, and the networks. The technical support was lacking in the rural school districts and that support was imperative if the districts were going to maintain the SMART program.

Russ Braun, California School District Information Systems Administrator, testified he had worked on SMART and other similar programs. He stated California was very jealous of the stage of development Nevada had achieved. From a professional standpoint, he encouraged continued funding of the program. He emphasized Nevada was right on the verge of reaping a real harvest in terms of accountability of student information.

Two items he felt needed support were funding to make sense of the data being collected, and continued technical expertise in the rural areas where such support was so hard to come by.

Mr. Laurel Blake, Lincoln County School District stated he worked as Assistant Superintendent with responsibility for C. O. Bastian High School, a correctional institution. He echoed the testimony of Mr. Piel. Lincoln County was one of the original pilot districts and had worked diligently to keep the technology in place and provide the information needed and he urged passage of A.B. 655.

Vice-Chair Evans said the one remaining question went back to the
1997 Legislative Session where testimony was received that the Clark County School District needed about $3.9 million to complete SMART. She asked why the current request was for $4 million with another $4 million anticipated in the next legislative session. Ms. Hicks responded in 1995 the county received $250,000 to write the SMART technology plan. At that time the software had not been selected. After the plan was written and research was done to determine what software would provide proper service, it was found that very few software entities existed that could accommodate a district as large as Clark County or provide properly for anticipated growth. The software selected was for a distributed system, which incurred a tremendous increase in the needs for Clark County. Ms. Hicks role had always been to work with the schools and their needs.

Dr. Philip Brody, Chief Technology Officer, Clark County School District testified several years ago an estimate was needed of what cost would be incurred. Most student accounting systems were designed for rather small districts or even individual schools. Once Clark County researched the availability of software for a district their size, the cost grew dramatically. Many different components were needed and future growth needed to be considered.

Vice-Chair Evans stated she appreciated Dr. Brody’s explanation, and hearing Ms. Hicks’ comment about the early estimates in 1995, but the figure the committee was referring to was presented in 1997, only 2 years prior.
Dr. Brody replied his reference was to the 1997 estimates. The program had still not been selected and final costs determined in 1997. The Vice-Chair requested Clark County Schools to provide the committee members a detailed estimate of final costs for the system in writing. The Vice-Chair commented the committee understood the daunting task and costs for Clark County but they needed a detailed explanation so that more funding would not be continually requested. Dr. Brody replied his understanding that the committee wanted a detailed report of the estimates. Vice-Chair Evans stated it would be helpful to know what the early estimates were that indicated $3.9 million total and the current estimates were $4 million in the current budget cycle and another
$4 million probable in the next legislative session.

Vice-Chair Evans closed the hearing on A.B. 655 with no action and opened the hearing on A.B. 199.

Assemblyman Bob Beers, Assembly District 4 provided committee members with a colored packet (Exhibit N). He stated A.B. 199 was a bill that passed out of the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining unanimously. It was an attempt to improve the safety upon Nevada’s waters by requiring boaters to go to school.

Page 2 of Exhibit N provided an overview of policy issues in the bill. The program was patterned after the hunter’s safety program and Nevada would be about the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh state to implement a similar program.

The program was proposed as inexpensively as possible by allowing non-proctored exams. A course and exam would be available on the Internet for free and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) also had a mail-order course available. If the person learned better from personal teaching, on almost all bodies of water in the state there were very dedicated groups of boating volunteers that conducted safety classes certified by the National Association of Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA). Assemblyman Beers introduced Fred Messmann; Nevada’s Boating Law Administrator and the Chairman of the NASBLA Education Committee.

The Budget Account affected would be 101-4456, Wildlife Boating, which reflected a year-end reserve of $2.8 million in FY 2001. The Legislative Counsel Bureau had recommended some technical adjustments dropping that figure to $1.99 million at the FY 2001 year-end reserve. Page 4 of Exhibit N showed that the reserves were not only large, they were "relatively large." The reserve was nearly one-fourth of the annual operating budget for NDOW. Thus money was available to devote to boating safety. The sources of funds in the reserve were:

• Boat Fuel Tax;
• Federal Grants;
• Boat Registration Fees; and
• Interest Funds.

All of those funds were earmarked for expenditure on boating and boating safety. No General Fund monies were attributed to Budget Account 4456.

Some known requests for funding from Budget Account 4456 included E-376 in The Executive Budget which was a for a new Department of Conservation and Natural Resources office in Elko, a Capital Improvement Project of $200,000. That facility would include a boat registration counter.

The Interim Finance Committee had recently deferred action on a Public Works Board request of $31,000 for an Ely Wildlife Office. A.B. 199 was the third request for the funding from the reserve. A.B. 199 would have some very direct impacts on boating and boating safety.

The fiscal note had been recently revised and Assemblyman Beers noted there was a $61,000 request for equipment that Mr. Messmann would address.

Generally, funding in A.B. 199 would be spent on one new position for the Reno-Carson office to administer the program. The Executive Budget already appropriated one new position in Las Vegas for a warden devoted to boating and boating safety. Other costs would include travel, operations and publicity. NDOW would maintain a database of citizen’s educational accomplishments and be able to validate that from the water as well as validate it for a citizen who might lose their certificate. The database would be established in the first year of the biennium instead of the second year as indicated in Exhibit N.

Fred Messmann, Nevada Boating Law Administration thanked Assemblyman Beers wholeheartedly for introduction of A.B. 199. NDOW had some concerns at the onset of the legislation but it was a pleasure to report that boating constituents were a user-pay, user-benefit group as evidenced by the reserve account.

Mr. Messmann’s association with NASBLA had guaranteed significant federal funds allowing no General Fund dollars to be needed for the education program. There would also be no cost to the boaters.

The Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) had revised the fiscal note. The equipment would be moved to accommodate the position in the first year of the biennium. Equipment costs in FY 2000 should be $61,000 and there would be no equipment costs in FY 2001. Operating costs requested might be a little light according to LCB. The bottom line was that the total costs for FY 2000 would be $167,500 revised upward from $140,000, and $107,500 in FY 2001 with ongoing annual expenses of approximately $117,000. The reserve could well support the costs and the program had the support of the boating public. NDOW recommended support of A.B. 199.

One of the many volunteers that would be involved in implementing the program would be committee secretary, Cindy Clampitt who was the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary volunteer liaison and had been appointed by the Coast Guard to that function. The volunteers of such organizations were a valuable asset to the state.

Chairman Arberry asked how education would be tracked. The Chair gave an example of a boater who sold their boat that was grandfathered in and then waited a couple months before purchasing a new boat. He asked it that owner would be required to take a course. Mr. Messmann replied the certificate would be issued to the person. Tracking would not be done via the ownership of the boat. A database was already established for hunter education, which tracked many similar provisions of the boater education program. Included in the database would be:

• The person’s name;
• Date of Birth;
• Gender;
• Location and date of course taken; and
• Who taught the course.

If a person were taught a course, as Mr. Messmann had been 25 years ago by the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and presented a certificate, it would be entered into the database. Historical, old courses, as long as they had been approved by the NASBLA would be entered in the database. A card would be provided to the boater for use when out on the water. If the boater forgot their card, the dispatcher in Reno dispatched statewide and could provide information to NDOW staff at Wild Horse Reservoir, South Fork Reservoir by Elko, in Ely, or in Clark County. The warden could call dispatch and confirm whether or not the person had a certificate.

Assemblyman Beers noted A.B. 199 became effective January 1, 2001 and in the first year would impact people 20 years old and younger. Each year after that the program would pick up 1 year of the boating population so that by the year 2020 everyone under age 40 would be trained. The bill imposed the course requirement by requiring people born on or after January 1, 1981 to attend. Virtually, everyone on the water currently would be grandfathered in although they would have some civic encouragement to take a course.

Chairman Arberry asked what would happen if a person lost their certificate of course completion as he had. Mr. Messmann asked when and where the Chair had taken a boating course. The Chair replied he had taken a United States Coast Guard Auxiliary Course at Western High School in Las Vegas approximately 10 years ago.

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens mentioned a couple of issues amended into the bill that were raising concerns that had only partially existed in the bill in its original form. That issue was one of disparity of treatment regarding tourists. The bill required residents to comply with the safety requirements but tourists who were in the state for as long as 60 days were effectively exempted from any comparable safety requirements. The implication was that Nevadans were more dangerous or perhaps those tourists were safer and more responsible boat operators than people who lived in Nevada. Nevada Concerned Citizens disagreed with that. People who were on vacation, away from home and partying were more likely to be irresponsible than those who had taken their families out to the lake for a day.

The other issue of disparity was that a new owner of a boat had 60 days to operate without the safety certificate. It seemed disparate that a new boater could operate more safely a person who had operated a boat for a long period of time.

Assemblyman Beers addressed the concerns expressed. In the first point regarding tourists, the bill merely picked up an existing part of the Nevada Boat Law that gave 60 days reciprocity with other states. The reciprocity affected those who were in compliance with boat laws in another jurisdiction before coming to Nevada.

On the second point of new boat ownership, the boater education courses took some time to complete and it was felt reasonable to give boat owners 60 days to obtain and complete a course. More stringent and less reasonable would be to require new boat owners to have a course before they purchased a boat.

Seeing no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 199 with no action.

Seeing no further action before the committee, the hearing was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cindy Clampitt,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: