The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 3:30 PM, on Friday, May 28, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

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:

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr. (Excused)

Mrs. Jan Evans, (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ross Chichester, Lieutenant for the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department, testified in support of S.B. 165. He related that many people within Douglas County had been working hard to create this bill and he felt they had been able to make some significant compromises to the legislation in order to win support.

He felt that the current version of the bill was acceptable and urged committee members to support it for several reasons.

For example, he felt that the bill was needed, as there was no formalized training program for police dispatchers. Additionally, there seemed to be a lack of qualified public safety dispatchers statewide and he felt that the bill would provide an educational path for people who chose dispatching as a career.

As no other testimony was presented before the committee concerning S.B. 165, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed.

Senator Mike McGinness, representing the central Nevada Senatorial District of Churchill, White Pine, Lincoln, Nye, Mineral, and Esmeralda Counties as well as parts of Lander and Eureka Counties, testified in support of S.B. 236.

He stated that the bill had originally intended to address technology issues, but during the session, it was discovered that several Lincoln County schools were deemed unsafe. Thus the bill altered its intent to serve as a vehicle for providing $1 million to the Lincoln County School District for the replacement of Pioche Elementary School. Those funds would be used to build seven classrooms, a library, and a multi-purpose room.

He indicated that the original proposal made by the county had requested $700,000 in order to purchase modular units. However after extensive review and planning, the county submitted a proposal for $1 million to build an actual building using honor camp crews and other county resources.

Senator McGinness stressed that the additional $300,000 expenditures would provide a permanent solution to the situation.

Next, Roy Neighbors, representing Assembly District 36, cited a Las Vegas Review Journal report made on May 16, 1999 entitled, "Rural Schools Falling through the Cracks: Decay and Dismay." He pointed out that Lincoln County schools were referred to in the article alongside pictures of cracks in the school buildings. The article also described how students were gathering in school hallways during recess as there was not a gymnasium or area provided for their recreation.

He emphasized that regardless of where a student population was located students had the right to receive a quality education in a safe facility.

Referring to the respective tax bases of Nevada’s various counties, he said that in the state’s largest county, there was $26 billion in assessed value. One cent of property tax in this county raised $2.6 million. Assemblyman Neighbors felt the fee would be justified, as the county’s need was significant. Thus, he urged committee members to support S.B. 236.

Mrs. de Braga inquired if Lincoln County had met its capped tax rate.

Randy Robison, representing the Lincoln County School District, responded affirmatively.

Senator McGinness added that like White Pine County, Lincoln County’s assessment value was declining rapidly. Therefore, he reiterated that even if the county wanted to raise the money that would not be able to do so.

Mr. Neighbors also replied that the extended tax rate for Lincoln County was $2.6380 whereas the city of Caliente had a tax rate of $3.64 percent. He noted that a one-cent tax in Lincoln County could only raise $8,000, so even on a major bond issue, the county would not be able to pay even the interest on the note.

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that as she had assisted in the creation of the bill, she appreciated the assistance which had been provided by the Governor and other individuals. She hoped that when A.B. 597 was due for a vote, those individuals understood that both bills went hand in hand.

Bob Bayer, Director of the Department of Prisons (DOP), testified in support of
A.B. 696. He then highlighted some of the more significant sections of the bill.

First, he pointed out that the entire bill was predicated upon the possible leasing of the Southern Nevada Correctional Center (SNCC) to an adult offender institution, precluding the possibility of leasing SNCC as a juvenile incarceration facility. Though it had not been discussed, he thought that SNCC could also be used to house juvenile offenders and it had the potential of generating revenue in excess of what might be received should SNCC be leased to an adult offender institution. Moreover, he felt that option might be safer for the state as the offenders would be juveniles.

Mr. Marvel asked if SNCC had once been a juvenile detention facility. Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, answered that SNCC had originally been intended to house youthful offenders or adult minimum-security offenders.

Mr. Bayer next addressed the manner in which the bill allowed for the execution of the leasing contract. He felt that when actual governmental agencies were dealt with, inter-local agreements were needed in place of contracts, as required by law. He noted that the bill should include language that would allow for the option of using an inter-local agreement where it applied.

Additionally, he cited page 3, lines 28-33, and Section 5 of the bill, which discussed the types of security force the lessee could use at SNCC to maintain internal perimeter security. He wondered if the bill granted the Director of DOP to allow the lessee to use force up to a certain level.

He also referred to the last page of the bill and suggested separating line 1, which read, "On the grounds of the Southern Nevada Correctional Center, under the supervision of the lessee." He advised that a new line be added to ensure that even if the lessee did not meet certain requirements stipulated by the bill, to ensure that the lessee would have the ability to restrain a prisoner.

Finally, he opined that due to the onerous restrictions required by the legislation, it would be difficult to find a lessee other than the federal government.

Next, John Slansky, Assistant Director of DOP, testified in agreement with Director Bayer. He felt that the conditions of the contract that were required by the bill eliminated all potential parties except for the Federal Government as a potential client or lessee.

Mr. Perkins then asked how the bill’s restrictions would keep other interested parties from engaging in a contractual agreement to lease SNCC.

Mr. Slansky stated that the bill required both a contract with the company leasing the prison as well as with the state whose inmates the facility housed. He read from the bill, "the contract or lease must be executed by the committing jurisdiction of each prisoner who is confined at the Southern Nevada Correctional Center." Thus, multiple contracts would have to be in place.

Mr. Perkins inquired if the bill called for a master contract with the vendor in addition to subcontracts with the committing jurisdiction. He felt that it was extremely important in terms of liability for the state to protect its interests by requiring such contracts to be in place. He did not think that the bill’s restrictions were so overly burdensome that they would deter potential private companies from leasing SNCC.

Mr. Price asked if the bill provided for the incarceration of prisoners from private prison facilities out-of-state.

Mr. Bayer replied that he was unsure if the bill made provisions for housing inmates from private facilities in other states. He thought that the bill intended to allow the department to enter into contract with a governmental agency or private contractor, who in turn had subcontracts with other state governments. If a private contractor was pursued, the bill required the state governments in agreement with the private contractor to also sign a separate agreement with the State of Nevada.

Mr. Price then wondered if bill intended to privatize the prison through the contract.

Mr. Bayer answered the bill allowed DOP to lease to either a private contractor or to a governmental agency, which subsequently was the department’s first choice as a prospective lessee. Thus, if an agreement with a governmental agency could not be reached, DOP could turn to a private contractor for a lease agreement.

Mr. Bayer then reiterated that the contract would only last through a 4-year period, as the department intended to re-open the prison as a state-run facility in 4 years time.

Mr. Price then referred to a news media program he had watched recently on the issue of privately operated prison institutions. He was concerned that a privately run prison would mix or combine prisoners of different classifications in the same facility. He felt that this could lead to serious problems including death, and desired to see language added to the bill preventing the mixing of prison populations. Until such measures were in place to prevent problems like that from occurring, he stated that he would be hesitant to agree to a contract with a private contractor.

Mr. Bayer responded that he was aware of this concern. For that reason, the bill stipulated that DOP had to approve and to classify each of the inmates coming to the state individually.

Ms. Giunchigliani commented that the bill had been crafted based upon subcommittee budget closings as well as upon some of the Governor’s recommendations made in his State of the State address. She did not understand what portions of the bill precluded DOP from leasing the facility without providing proper protection for the citizens of the state.

Mr. Bayer answered that he had not suggested that the committee fail to approve of the legislation. He reiterated that his testimony was given to provide information to committee members and to alert them of the potential difficulties the bill created in finding potential lessees. Because the bill had been difficult to craft, he stated that he had advised several one-word changes to the bill’s language in order to strengthen the effect of the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani then suggested that due to the tardy nature of Mr. Bayer’s proposed changes, the changes not be made as amendments. She felt that committee members could clarify the intent of the changes on the assembly floor without making amendments to the bill.

Mr. Marvel then commented that DOP would have to have the proposed contract approved by the Board of Examiners. Thus, if the contract was the governing feature, he suggested that Mr. Bayer add his changes to the contract in order to make those protections effective.

Mr. Bayer repeated that he had not intended to create a problem with the bill, but rather to inform committee members of possible difficulties the bill might create.

Chairman Arberry noted that DOP had been working with fiscal staff on amendments to the bill. He wondered if those amendments were still going to be proposed.

Mr. Bayer answered that he was unaware of any amendments being submitted by DOP.

Chairman Arberry said that should any proposed amendments exist, they needed to be completed by 5:00 p.m. that day.

Mr. Bayer replied that he would amend the bill only if the word changes he had suggested in his testimony were acceptable to the committee.

Chairman Arberry replied that Mr. Bayer needed to work with fiscal staff to make the necessary changes immediately.

As committee members had no other questions concerning the bill, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 696 closed.

Testifying in place of Senator William Raggio, Jeanne Botts, Program Analyst for the Fiscal Division, read FROM A PREPARED STATEMENT (Exhibit C)

1. The designation of "inadequate school" is changed to a school demonstrating "need for improvement."
2. A new category is created called "exemplar achievement" for school that tested at least 95 percent of those eligible for testing, had at least half of their students who were tested scoring in the top quarter, and had an average daily attendance of at least 93 percent.
3. The category "high achievement" is defined as schools that tested at least 93 percent of the pupils eligible for testing had at least 40 percent of their pupils who were tested scoring in the top quarter, and had an average daily attendance of at least 93 percent of enrollment.
4. Teacher’s attendance will be tracked but not used as one of the criteria for designating a school as inadequate. The inclusion of teacher attendance as one of the criteria considered in designating a school seemed to have the inadvertent effect of discouraging professional development. Furthermore, for the purposes of accountability reporting, teachers will not be considered "absent" if they are attending a professional development program or chaperoning pupils away from school on extra-curricular activities.
5. School accountability reports would include the percentage of classes taught by teachers who are teaching outside the field in which they are licensed only if they are teaching courses in the core curriculum areas (English, mathematics, science, and social studies). More detailed information on the teaching assignments of all teacher’s would still be reported by the districts and monitored by the Commission on Professional Standards. Schools would be required to report the amount and source of funds received for remedial education. The number of pupils graduating with a standard high school diploma versus an adjusted diploma or certificate of attendance is also required in each high school’s accountability report. The number of pupils who did not receive a high school diploma because they failed to pass the proficiency exam will also be reported.
6. Schools will be required to explain differences in the number of pupils tested and the number of pupils enrolled (rather than pupils in attendance). Schools with adequate achievement scores that fail to test at least 90 percent of pupils required to be tested would be required to submit a written explanation of the reason more pupils were not tested. Further, if the situation does not improve in subsequent years, the school may be designated a school "needing improvement" but it would not be allowed to share in funding available for remedial education.
7. The number of students who are habitual disciplinary problems must be included in school and district level accountability reports.
8. The requirement that the number of pupils retained each year be reported by grade and by school within the school accountability reports is restored.
9. Other recognized parent groups, along with the Nevada Parent Teacher Association are included among groups that may be consulted by the Superintendent of Public Instruction concerning the accountability program.
10. The timeline for the school accountability program is amended to allow schools demonstrating "need for improvement" an opportunity to develop plans prior to the start of the subsequent school year.
11. School district accountability reports must indicate actions taken and progress to date concerning recommendations from previous reports.
12. Schools demonstrating "need for improvement" must adopt an approved remedial program, and the school district must ensure that each child who fails to demonstrate at least adequate achievement on required, statewide, examinations shall receive appropriate remedial education. The amendment recognizes the need for effective remedial programs in low-achieving schools but also acknowledges the district’s responsibility for providing appropriate remediation for each individual child.

Ms. Giunchigliani first disclosed that she was a schoolteacher in Clark County. Next, she asked if the bill addressed the issue of transient students. She recalled that some schools, which had been deemed "in need of improvement," could have included transient student in their reporting to avoid that classification.

Ms. Botts replied that the bill did not specifically address the transient student population. She remarked that there was nothing preventing a district from reporting the scores of transient students differently. However, she noted that a change had been made, which related to students who had been rezoned because school-zoning changes were not considered transient.

Ms. Giunchigliani commented that school districts had encountered many problems due to children moving from school to school. She noted that those problems were not wholly attributed to zoning changes.

Ms. Botts said those issues had been discussed but not included in the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani then addressed the core subjects defined by the bill. She asked which section of the bill was related to the core subjects.

Ms. Botts answered that the definition of the core study concept was present in another bill. She pointed out that S.B. 70 contained a provision requiring the reporting of the percentage of the core subjects that were taught by individuals who were lacking an endorsement to teach those subjects.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the bill would track the exceptions granted to teachers working outside their area of licensure.

Ms. Botts replied that the bill required such tracking in the core subjects.

Ms. Giunchigliani then asked how the bill would affect special education. She taught a core subject course, but it happened to be a resource class as well. She wondered if the bill would track that course as well.

Ms. Botts was uncertain how the bill would track such cases, although she thought that such a situation would not be counted as an exception.

Regardless, Ms. Giunchigliani desired to know the number of improperly placed or unlicensed special education teachers there were teaching in core subject areas. She felt that teachers should be properly placed in an appropriate subject area related to their professional license.

Ms. Botts replied that she had not seen figures relating to Ms. Giunchigliani’s question. She added that the Legislative Committee on Education had heard a copious amount of testimony related to the middle school age group and the need for teachers trained in their subject matter. She noted that a bill had been drafted concerning the issue, but it had failed to pass.

Mrs. Chowning then inquired how the students and the schools with students who where not English proficient, were treated by the legislation. She wondered if remedial study programs were part of the bill’s reporting requirement or if there was a set-aside available to the proficiency exam to address the needs of those students.

Ms. Botts responded that S.B. 70 had included an appropriation for remediation, but that it had been deleted from the bill’s language and placed into the school funding bill. She explained that S.B. 70 dealt primarily with accountability reporting and the accountability program. Under the provisions of the bill, schools would be required to report the percentage of the student population that were not English proficient. However, in terms of access to monies for remediation, monies were only available to schools that were considered low performing. Thus, the entire school had to score low enough to be able to access remediation funds.

Ms. Botts reiterated that the committee had already passed appropriations for low performing schools in the Distributive School Account. She also mentioned that a $1 million appropriation request for remediation in before- and after-school had also been approved. Those monies were designated for pupils who needed assistance, not low-achieving schools. Thus, one piece of legislation targeted low performing schools while another specifically addressed pupils.

Next, Mary Peterson, Superintendent for Public Instruction, testified that the bill had been derived from the Legislative Committee on Education. However, as it was revised, the bill also included recommendations she had made in previous bill drafts. She believed that the bill would accomplish the clean-up of language which was needed in the accountability law. Furthermore, the bill contained language, which was consistent with the original recommendations. Therefore she urged support of the measure.

As no other testimony for or in opposition to S.B. 70 was presented to the committee, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed.

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, explained that A.B. 697 had been reconciled to include budget closings made by the committee. He noted that the committee had reviewed items on page 10 of the bill to page 19. He reiterated that the bill would provide the authority for General Fund appropriations for each of the budget accounts listed by the bill in addition to Highway Fund appropriations listed in Section 29.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked where the Distributive School Account (DSA) and Class size bill generated.

Mr. Stevens answered that the class size reduction bill would generate from the assembly whereas the DSA bill would generate from the senate.

Next, Chairman Arberry presented the closing report for the Subcommittee on Capital Improvements by highlighting the items, listed in the closing report. He stated that the Subcommittee on Capital Improvements had completed its review of the Governor’s recommended Capital Improvements Programs (CIP) for the 1999 to 2001 biennium.

The subcommittee recommended providing for the reallocation of
$4 million from previous CIP’s of the projects included in the 1999 to the 2001 biennium. The subcommittee recommendations included $20.3 million in federal funds and $28 million in donations and other funds for the recommended University and Community College system of Nevada projects.

The subcommittee recommendations also contained an appropriation for
$11.8 million in state Highway Fund monies for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS) projects. In addition the recommendations included an increase of $5 million from the special Higher Education Capital Construction fund to maintenance projects for the University System of Nevada.

He then highlighted the items listed by project number. First, Project 99-C1, was recommended to be funded in the amount of $45,696,000 to fund the construction of Phase II of the Cold Creek State Prison at Indian Springs.

Project 99-C11 was recommended for funding in the amount of $9,469,000 to fund furnishings and off-site parking improvements for the new Lied Library at the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) campus.

Next, Project 99-C13, was recommended for funding in the amount of $12,612,000 to fund the construction of the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Redfield Campus, Phase I.

In Project 99-C14, the subcommittee recommended funding in the amount of $27 million to support the construction of a new classroom and laboratory science center/ planetarium on the West Charleston Campus of the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN).

In Project 99-C16, the subcommittee recommended funding in the amount of $8 million for the construction of Phase I of the new Student Development Center at the Dandini Campus for the Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC).

Finally, in Project 99-C21, the subcommittee recommended funding in the amount of $10 million for the construction of the 60,000 square foot psychiatric hospital at the Nevada Mental Health Institute in Sparks.

Next, Chairman Arberry summarized the subcommittee’s recommendations for projects that were not included in the Governor’s proposal for the 1999-2001 CIP. Project 99-C23L was approved for funding in the amount of $600,000 to advance plan Phase I for the Wright Hall remodel project at UNLV.

The 99-C28L project was recommended for $5 million in state funds and $1 million in contributions and donations to construct a High-Tech center in Green Valley.

Project 99-C29L was recommended for funding in the amount of $4 million in state funds and $6 million in donations to fund a new 61,000 square foot Medical School learning resource center at UNR.

In Project 99-C39L, the subcommittee had approved funding in the amount of $407,000 to provide the Division of State Parks to complete Phase I (b) of the various general improvements at the Old Las Vegas Mormon Fort.

Also, the subcommittee had approved of funding from the state Highway Fund in the amount of $10 million to fund the construction of a 60,000 square foot Highway Patrol Headquarters building as requested by Project 99-H1. 40,000 square feet would be furnished with this funding and 20,000 square feet would be shelled and finished with funds in the future.

Chairman Arberry then addressed the recommended Maintenance Projects in the 1999-2001 CIP. The subcommittee recommended funding in the amount of
$9.3 million for the various statewide maintenance projects for existing state facilities.

Finally, he reported that the subcommittee had recommended a letter of intent, which determined that the State Public Works Board had approximately $700,000 in its Preventive Roof Maintenance Account. The account was used primarily to pay for roofing and HVAL maintenance to manufacturers who performed inspections while the roofing and HVAC agreements on state buildings were in effect. He explained that the subcommittee had recommended a letter of intent to the State Public Works Board to revert funds remaining in the account for expired maintenance agreements as soon as was practical and to provide a report to the IFC detailing how remaining funds would be used.

Mr. Stevens explained that the committee had taken action on this bill already and had requested that amendments to the bill be developed. He remarked that the stipulation on the committee’s previous votes was that the amendments came before the committee before being sent to the assembly floor.

Ms. Giunchigliani commented that based upon Mr. Hettrick’s previous concerns she had deleted certain language concerning a notice requirement for the postings of a county commission. Even though she had understood that extra-ordinary improvement, repair, and maintenance activities were precursors to the notice requirements, she had inserted language ensuring the performance of those activities.

Mrs. Cegavske then asked why the bill had increased the number of trustees in Section 23 to 10 members.

Ms. Giunchigliani responded that the position that had been added was associated with taxation, as the position would only be dealing with financial issues.

Mr. Marvel cited page 5 of the bill and read "trustee shall notify the Board of County Commissioners which shall enact an ordinance." He was concerned with the intent of that language.

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that Carole Vallardo had suggested the language because she felt the Commission should be the authority to post the ordinance once trustees made their decision. She felt that the language provided a safeguard because they were currently the individuals charged with the task.

Mr. Marvel stated that the language appeared to mandate the County Commissioners to enact the ordinance.

There being no other business before the committee, Chairman Arberry stood in recess at the call of the Chair.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Janine Marie Toth,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

DATE: