The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 7:30 a.m., on Wednesday, May 26, 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

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Ms. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Dean Rhoads explained several years ago, a few Elko residents revisited the California Trail and placed makers along the trail. The trail became quite popular and a trails association held a convention with 800 people there. Several people from Elko were flown by the association to the Oregon Interpretive Center, which recreated a western trail experience. The center, which was a joint venture between the City of Baker, the county, the state, and the Federal Government, had 300,000 visitors in the first year it was open. The center was owned and operated by the federal government, but the other entities contributed funding and in-kind help to the center.

Senator Rhoads said Elko County and the City of Elko had already contributed $3 million and United States Senator Harry Reid would likely get a bill for $12 million if the bill passed. S.B. 329 would provide $3 million to assist in the construction of the California Immigrant Trail Interpretive Center, contingent upon the $12 million from the Federal Government. The Bureau of Land Management would operate the center, so there would be no operating cost to the state. The $3 million from the state would not be available until the next biennium, July 1, 2001, because the federal bill could not be passed through the United States Congress before then.

Senator Rhoads stated the center would be located just west of the City of Elko along Interstate 80, and would be a tremendous tourist attraction. The center was expected to cost approximately $16 million.

Mrs. Chowning said the center sounded like a good educational tool for children and asked what local entities had committed to the project. She noted Elko County Commissioners had committed $1 million and the Board of Supervisors had committed $2 million and asked if those figures were accurate. Senator Rhoads replied the figures were accurate. He recalled when the Southfork Dam was built, much of Elko’s room tax revenue was dedicated to repay the bonds issued to build Southfork Dam, which would be paid off in 2 years. The room tax revenue would then be dedicated for the interpretive center. Not only would there be no state or local operating cost, but the center was expected to generate $10 million annually to the Elko County economy.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she thought the center was a worthwhile venture, but had been told the current legislature could not obligate funding into future legislative sessions. The state funding for the center would not become effective until July 1, 2001. She asked if the reason for that was because the federal government needed to be assured of the state match. Senator Rhoads replied that was correct.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how much the Elko County room tax currently generated. Senator Rhoads replied he would have to get that information. Ms. Giunchigliani said she was concerned about state funding because the state parks, which were in need of $30 million in maintenance, were not adequately funded by the state. She thought perhaps the $3 million for the center could be approved in the form of a loan or bond. She asked Senator Rhoads if he knew whether there were restrictions from the federal government on how the money was funded. Senator Rhoads understood, from his conversations with Senator Reid, if the state, county, and city put up a proportionate share (for which no guidelines were established), it would make it much easier for Senator Reid to secure funding for the center.

Assemblyman John Carpenter, District 33, said he supported the bill, which would provide for a California Trails Interpretive Center to be built near Elko. The center would be a partnership between the city, county, state and the federal government. The center would also work to preserve the history of Elko County, which had more trails than any other county in the United States.

Dale Porter, Elko resident, supported the bill. He said there was great historical significance in the trails, which were integral to settling the West. Historically, the experiences of those who traveled the trails were awe-inspiring. Mr. Porter referred to entries in pioneer diaries, and noted the Donner Party traveled many miles over Elko County in their tragic move to California. There were approximately 300,000 immigrants who traveled the trails to their new destinations prior to the completion of the transcontinental railroad. More people crossed the California Trail than the totals of all other western trails combined. There were many graves, markers, and miles of undisturbed trail for sightseers to enjoy.

Mr. Porter said rural Nevada was experiencing long-term economic problems, and Elko County was no exception. The reduction in growth and employment, as well as declining revenues posed serious economic problems. The answer was to diversify Elko’s economy. A stable economy required more than mining, and the most obvious step to diversification was to promote tourism. General business ventures were not wearing out the roads to get to rural Nevada, but tourism was something the state could successfully promote. The California Trail Interpretive Center could be an important part of that tourism. Elko could create a marketing package of Western Americana, utilizing the Western Folklife Center, the Northeastern Nevada Museum, the Elko Chamber of Commerce Sherman Station, self-guided auto tours of the trail, and the Interpretive Center. Such a marketing program could make Elko a destination site for trail enthusiasts, and would spread the benefit across Nevada as the public motored across the state to spend a few days in Elko.

Mr. Porter said there were other centers of that type on other trails in the country that were federally funded and operated, and the closest was in Eastern Oregon. A recent sales study, without benefit of an expanded marketing package, generated nearly $11 million per year in sales activity, and $10 million in tourism. In Nevada the proposed trail center would be created under a federal program. The County of Elko had committed to fund $1 million, and the City of Elko had committed to fund $2 million. That represented $60 per every man, woman, and child in Elko County. The estimated cost of the center would be $16 million. S.B. 329 proposed a one-time state cost of $3 million. That amounted to 3/16 of the project’s estimated cost. If approved by Congress, the center would be built by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under its interpretive center program. After construction, the BLM would maintain and operate the center. The federal government would also fund the balance of the construction and maintenance costs. The economic diversification benefits would remain in the state, and Mr. Porter urged the committee to pass the bill.

Mr. Carpenter asked that Mr. Marvel’s name be added as a sponsor since the bill was so important to him and his county. Mr. Marvel said Nevada was rich with history, and added there was hardly a school child in Nevada who had not heard stories of the Donner Party and Nevada’s trails. Mr. Beers asked how far off the highway the center would be. Mr. Carpenter said approximately 300 yards.

With no further business to come before the committee concerning S.B. 329, the hearing on the bill was closed.

John P. Comeaux, Director of the Department of Administration, stated S.B. 283 would provide a General Fund appropriation of $4,562,736 which would restore the balance in the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) contingency fund to approximately $8 million. He had been informed that some travel expenses had been paid from the contingency fund since December1998, so the amount indicated in S.B. 283 would not restore the fund to $8 million dollars, but would be within a few thousand dollars of that.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 283 closed.

Mr. Comeaux explained S.B. 305 did three things. First, Sections 1 and 2 provided for an extension of the reversion date for appropriations made by the 1997 legislature. Section 1 would cover the appropriation made to the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) for purposes of remedying the state’s Y2K problems. DoIT estimated that at the end of the current fiscal year, $420,000 would be remaining that DoIT wanted to have available over the next biennium to remedy any other Y2K problems that may arise. Section 2 would extend the reversion date of the Technology Improvement Program, which was approved by the 1997 legislature. There were several projects managed by DoIT that would have funding remaining, which was needed during the next biennium to complete the projects. DoIT estimated $1.2 million for the digital microwave upgrade would be available at the end of the current fiscal year and would be required to complete the project. Approximately $357,000 of the Capitol complex PBX appropriation would also be available, and necessary to complete the project at the end of the current fiscal year. Section 3 provided for supplemental appropriation for the Integrated Financial System (IFS) in the amount of $88,767 from the General Fund and $3,690,770 from the Highway Fund. The appropriation was for the completion of Phase III of the IFS in the current fiscal year. Section 4 provided for appropriations to complete the development of the IFS over the 2 years of the upcoming biennium, which was a General Fund appropriation of $10,550,242 and a Highway Fund appropriation of $5,619,795. Section 5 stated Section 4 would become effective on July 1, 1999 and Sections 1, 2, and 3 would become effective upon passage and approval.

To date, $22 million had been appropriated for the initial implementation of Phase III of the IFS, of which $14.7 million was from the General Fund and $5.6 million was from the Highway Fund, which was appropriated by the 1997 legislature. An additional $1.7 million had been appropriated by the IFC. The IFS had met its preliminary goals. The new statewide accounting system became operational on January 5, 1999 and was currently processing all state payment claims. The new NDOT accounting system also began processing NDOT business on January 5, 1999. The new payroll and personnel accounting system ran the first production pay cycle on March 27, 1999 and distributed the first central payroll checks on April 2, 1999. The first NDOT pay cycle was run on March 31, 1999, with checks distributed on April 7, 1999. The state was very pleased with the results of both runs. The data looked good, the reports were correct, and the interfaces produced the results the state had anticipated. To improve statewide management reporting, the IFS was bringing up the state financial reports on a web-based data warehouse. The data warehouse team released version 1.0 to general users on May 8, 1999 and planned to release version 1.1 on May 28, 1999. Installing the data warehouse simultaneously with the advantage software (the basic software purchased from the contractor) had proven extremely difficult. Before the data warehouse could be released to the user community, it must be absolutely accurate, which required extensive testing, which in turn, required source data from the advantage software to be available to confirm that sample reports return the correct values. Data problems with the advantage implementation, while normal and correctable, had lengthened the data warehouse testing period and delayed its availability. Resolving the issue would require additional work. The work accomplished to date resulted in additional costs above the original appropriation, primarily for NDOT. Section 3 of S.B. 305 requested a supplemental appropriation totaling $88,767 from the General Fund and $3,690,770 from the Highway Fund to complete the current biennium. The cost projection for the NDOT portion of the IFS project that was included in the original funding request was based on a funding request from NDOT that was denied by the IFC during FY 1997. That NDOT funding request envisioned implementing the advantage software with AMS (the contractor) staff for NDOT alone, without integration into the IFS. However, the actual requirements for implementing NDOT business functions had been more expensive than the original 1997 estimate.

In order to implement the IFS within a short timeframe and avoid Y2K problems, the system was installed "bare bones." There were several critical tasks left to complete the IFS. The first was implementation of additional business functions, including fixed assets control, inventory control, custom invoicing and accounts receivable control, grants management project and other cost accounting, travel accounting, and human resources management reporting. The second task was to complete implementation of on-line features at all state agencies. Currently, only the offices of the Treasurer and Controller and the Departments of Personnel, Administration, and Transportation were on-line. And finally, user-agency training had to be completed.

Section 4 of S.B. 305 requested a one-time appropriation of $10,550,242 from the General Fund and $5,619,795 from the Highway Fund to fund those tasks for the upcoming biennium. The request included approximately $767,000 for the project to acquire and distribute all equipment needed by state agencies to fully implement the IFS. Based on a detailed survey of all state business sites, the project will acquire and distribute 291 personal computers at a cost of $601,364; make 55 computer upgrades at a cost of $8,250; and purchase 168 laser printers at a cost of $157,584. Those costs, along with the General Fund portion of the project expended in FY 1998 and FY 1999 and projected costs for FY 2000 and FY 2001, would be allocated through the statewide cost allocation plan over the next 4 years. The estimated recovery, based on FY 1998 and FY 1999 expenditures was $3,467,000. In addition, IFS costs incurred in FY 200 and FY 2001 would be recovered in the succeeding biennium, estimated in the amount of $5,966,531.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the IFS project was over or under budget. Mr. Comeaux replied there was a supplemental request for approximately $88,000 from the General Fund and almost $3.7 million from the Highway Fund, so the project was just about on budget for the initial startup of the IFS. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were any other phases, after Phase III, of the project that would require funding. Mr. Comeaux replied Phase III would essentially complete the development of the IFS, but there would always be maintenance costs. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the IFS was Y2K-compliant and Mr. Comeaux replied it was.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 305 closed.

Family Court Judge Diane Steele, Eighth Judicial District, said S.B. 401 would approve three new judges for the Eighth Judicial District. A study committee had approved five more family court judges for the district the previous summer so the district would be in parity with Washoe County. However, there were facility restrictions and the district could only accommodate three new judges in the coming biennium.

Jim Spinello, representing Clark County, said Clark County had proposed an amendment to S.B. 401, but was now withdrawing it from the committee’s consideration. He stated the family court was a countywide service, affecting unincorporated areas, as well as urban areas. Clark County was currently at its maximum countywide rate. The ad valorem tax revenue provided Clark County with approximately 40 percent of the cost for facilities and operation of the court. Additional support from the state was not absolutely necessary in the current biennium, but would be in the coming biennium, as the three new judges would be hired near the end of the current biennium. In the next biennium, Clark County would prepare a bill draft requesting the funding be adjusted so the county could at least recover half of the cost for the facilities and operation of the court.

Chuck Short, Court Administrator for Clark County District Court, thanked the members of the committee who supported Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 32 of the 1997 Legislative Session. Mr. Short presented Exhibit C, statistics reflecting that the workload in Clark County was 2 to 1 to the family courts in Washoe County.

Chairman Arberry asked how much the bill funded for the new judges’ salaries. Mr. Stevens said the salary and benefit cost included in Section 3 was only for the last 6 months of FY 2000-2001, so twice that amount would be built into the base budget for the following biennium. The support cost of the new judges would be a county expense and therefore, not included in the state’s budget.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether Clark County would need the ad valorem tax increased in S.B. 401. Mr. Spinello replied "need" was not the right term, as the county could manage without the increase. The county supported the family court and the three new judges would cost between $7 million and $8 million per year, over what the ad valorem tax revenue funded. The county would have liked the increase because Clark County would need to remodel the current facility to accommodate the three new judges. The county’s long-term plan was to bring the judges into Phase II of the Regional Justice Center

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the tax increase would have been enabling legislation, rather than mandating legislation. Mr. Spinello said that was correct. Ms. Giunchigliani said she understood the ad valorem tax increase had not been added to the bill in the senate due to lack of time. Mr. Spinello said he had been told that, as well. He could not assure a Senate concurrence if the tax increase was added to the bill in the assembly.

Mr. Marvel asked how much expansion was planned for the new Regional Justice Center. Mr. Short said there was expansion capability for approximately 4 additional district court courtrooms in the facility, which was designed for civil and criminal proceedings. In terms of master planning, the county was considering building a second facility on the block to the south of the Regional Justice Center to house the district attorneys’ offices, as well as civil, and possibly, family law courtrooms in 2004 or 2005. It took approximately 5 to 6 years from planning to occupancy of a court facility of that size.

Maddy Shipman, representing Washoe County and the Second Judicial District Court, supported S.B. 401 and noted she had been on the technical committee of ACR 32 of the 1997 Legislative Session. She recalled the numbers had justified seven additional judges for Clark County, but the ultimate request from the committee was for five additional judges. S.B. 401 only requested three additional judges, so it was only the beginning.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 401 closed.

Mike Torvinen, Administrative Services Officer for the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, explained S.B. 469 added the definition of related conditions to Nevada’s controlling statutes. The bill allowed the division to comply with the federal court order to provide services to people with related conditions, such as autism, cerebral palsy, and seizure disorder. It would not extend the services the division provided and would not add money to the budget. The division’s budget had already been funded to provide services to people with related conditions in decision unit M-600. He believed the division’s budget had been closed preliminarily.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the division had been serving people with cerebral palsy or epilepsy. Mr. Torvinen replied the sole determiner of treatment had previously been whether the person had been diagnosed as mentally retarded. Since ICF-MR services were part of Medicaid, the division was now required to provide services to people with related conditions.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 469 closed.

Senator Jon Porter said he would review the genesis of S.B. 481. A family in Boulder City lost a son in an automobile accident. The son was in his 20s and had three children. He was hit by a driver under the influence of marijuana in the early morning as he was taking his children to school. Unfortunately, law enforcement officers had not been able to act upon the fact that the man had been under the influence of marijuana. The man was subsequently put on probation and had since been arrested for reckless driving.

Senator Porter said he had sought advice from the Legislative Counsel Bureau and from the District Attorney’s Association. S.B. 481 originally had a $2 million fiscal note, but the language had since been corrected and the fiscal note was now approximately $50,000.

Gemma Greene-Waldron stated the Nevada District Attorney’s Association supported S.B. 481, and even questioned the $50,000 fiscal note. It had been the association’s experience that people who were driving under the influence of any substance were probably driving under the influence of more than one substance. There would probably be very few cases where a driver would be under the influence of just a controlled substance, but S.B. 481 would cover those situations. The bill would tighten the language considerably and would define controlled substances. The bill would exclude persons on prescription medication from being classified as under the influence of a controlled substance. The bill defined what would be a detectable amount of a prohibited substance, under the direction of pharmaceutical industry, which had supplied national standards. The bill would facilitate prosecution when only a prohibited substance was in the person’s system and impaired the person’s ability to drive.

Chairman Arberry said a person’s blood alcohol level could be tested by a police officer and asked how a person would be tested for the presence of illegal drugs. Ms. Greene-Waldron said currently, if a person was in a felony situation, having caused substantial bodily harm or death to another person due to impaired driving, the person’s breath would automatically be tested. If an officer suspected the person was driving under the influence of a drug, rather than alcohol, the person would be given a blood test, if involved in a felony situation.

Chairman Arberry said there were apparent signs when a person was driving under the influence of alcohol, and a person could be stopped by an officer under that suspicion. He asked what would be done in circumstances where there was no accident. Ms. Greene-Waldron said she believed if an officer had probable cause to believe a person was under the influence, the person could be given a preliminary roadside breath test, followed by an evidentiary breath test at the police station. If the tests proved to be negative and the person was obviously under the influence of something, the person would be taken to a hospital where blood would be drawn and tested.

Mr. Perkins asked if the bill’s purpose was to define the threshold of "under the influence." Ms. Greene-Waldron replied that was correct, because the problem in prosecuting was the lack of set standards for the threshold for controlled substances, as there was with alcohol.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what standards the bill established for controlled substances. Ms. Greene-Waldron replied that appeared on pages 19 and 37 of the bill. Ms. Giunchigliani said she was concerned that "in physical control of a controlled substance" had not been statutorily defined. She asked what was stated in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 484.379. Ms. Greene-Waldron stated Section 23 (pages 18 and 19) of the bill amended NRS 484.379.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what had been amended to decrease the fiscal note from $2 million to $50,000. Ms. Greene-Waldron replied it was the classification of what defined a detectable amount. The Department of Prisons was concerned that since the bill had not defined what was a detectable amount, the prison system would be receiving people for crimes that were previously classified as misdemeanors. DOP totaled the annual number of DUIs in the state and thought all those people would end up in the prison system, at a cost of $2 million. When "detectable amount" was defined in the bill, the actual impact to the prisons would be negligible.

Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, representing the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, said the association had worked with the bill’s sponsor in establishing language in S.B. 481 and supported the bill. He explained if a person exhibited the signs and symptoms of intoxication when stopped by an officer, a field sobriety test was given, and the officer would either give an alcohol test or a drug test. Probable cause was required to make an arrest.

Chairman Arberry asked if the person had to consent to a blood test. Captain Nadeau replied yes, typically, unless there was an indication the person was under the influence of drugs.

Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, stated the department was also in support of S.B. 481.

Gary Wolff stated the Nevada Highway Patrol Association was in support of S.B. 481.

There being no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 481 closed.

Mr. Arberry said the bill needed to be amended. Mr. Hettrick said the bill needed to be amended to say the only money that could be accessed was that that had already been budgeted for the expenses of each legislator.

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 170.

MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

Gary Ghiggeri, Fiscal Analyst, said the bill would allow the Department of Prisons to pay the remote area differential to employees at Southern Nevada Correctional Center at Jean and to those who would be employed at the Cold Creek State Prison. Testimony was heard that requested the dollar amount be increased from to $6.00 to $7.50 per day.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 691.

MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Ghiggeri said if the bill was to pass, the committee would have to place an appropriation in the legislation to facilitate the increased payment. That would amount to approximately $156,000 for the Department of Prisons (DOP) in 2000, and $5,700 for the Division of Forestry (DOF) in 2000. In 2001 DOP would require an additional $224,000 and the DOF an additional $5,700.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

Mr. Stevens said the proposal was to eliminate all sections but section I.

MR. HETTRICK MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS.

MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

Mr. Stevens said there was a question as to what fashion the bill should go forward in. The suggestion was to provide language to allow the Court to go forward with negotiations with Clark County. When the lease would be finalized, the language would come back to the committee for final approval.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was a letter of intent. Mr. Stevens said the language would have to be amended in some way. Mr. Hettrick said the language could be changed to say "negotiate" a contract instead of "enter into" one. Nancy Becker, Nevada Supreme Court said that would not be possible and the contract would have to go back to the three-member panel. Clark County was going out to bid in July and could not to do that if the lease was not signed. She did not want to lose the opportunity for the county to bid for the project. Mrs. Cegavske asked if the 20-year lease would lock the state into occupying the building. Ms. Becker said there was not an opt out clause there. The building would be completed in approximately 15 years if everything went smoothly. Mr. Perkins said his concern was the obligation was a rather lengthy one.

MR. PERKINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 595.

MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

MRS. CEGAVSKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 80.

MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Parks said the fiscal note might be higher than need be due to the recyclability of some of the materials. Mrs. Chowning said the fiscal note was $150,000 but the note was amended to say zero dollars instead.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 283.

MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

Mr. Stevens said an amendment was requested for libraries, totaling $2.4 million, and another amendment existed concerning language addressing the Director position.

Mr. Stevens said there was an amended amount on the bill from $16,187 to $4,063.

MR. BEERS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 507.

MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

Ms. Giunchigliani said the bill was a good piece of legislation and it would help non-profit organizations.

Mr. Hettrick said marijuana was grown and not manufactured, so the language should be changed.

Chairman Arberry introduced BDR S-1768 which related to the Southern Nevada Correctional Center and a lease entered into by the center.

As no other business was presented before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cynthia Cendagorta,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

DATE: