The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Vice Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 8:35 a.m., on Tuesday, May 25, 1999, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Senator

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Senator

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Johnnie L. Willis, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Rawson indicated that Senator Raggio would arrive shortly. He opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 548.

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, mentioned that last session an interim committee was created to study the possibility of the Rocky Mountain states creating a presidential primary election. He said the committee met in Las Vegas with Utah Governor Leavitt to discuss the merits of the study, and representatives from all the Rocky Mountain states met again later in Salt Lake City, Utah. Senator Rhoads advised that the delegation decided to hold a primary election right after the California primary, in early March, and just before "Super Tuesday" in the South. He remarked the purpose of moving up the primary election was to attract the major presidential candidates to discuss issues relevant to the western states before the presidential primary. Senator Rhoads indicated three or four states have joined and he urged the committee to pass S.B. 548 to enable Nevada to have a more significant role in the election decision.

Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39, stated eight states agreed to participate in forming the "western states primary." He learned from the Western States Primary Committee that the West, with 30 percent of the nation’s population, attracted visits from presidential candidates 25 times in 1996 compared to 128 visits to New Hampshire and Iowa. Mr. Hettrick claimed the western states have too few delegates in each of the smaller states, and their primaries are held too late. Therefore, the smaller western states have no impact whatsoever on presidential primary choices. Additionally, he stated, issues such as water, mining, public lands, nuclear waste storage and transportation, haze, tourism, and gaming are not even addressed in 99 percent of the debates held by the presidential candidates when they do not come to the West. Mr. Hettrick remarked there was a political strategist who testified at the meeting in Utah and told the attendees that in the year 2000 election, 63 percent of the delegates for the national convention will be chosen by March 14, Super Tuesday.

Mr. Hettrick indicated the western states have chosen March 10, falling between California’s primary on March 7 and Super Tuesday on March 14, which will make the western states the linchpin of what will happen in the election. Mr. Hettrick said if Nevada joins, it will join Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. He remarked Arizona is still deliberating as to whether to join. Mr. Hettrick advised there is a group in the Midwest also proposing to move its primary to the front. He explained that ultimately the states are hoping to force the federal government into holding a rotating regional primary, which would make sense in terms of bringing regional issues to the forefront. Mr. Hettrick urged the committee to pass this bill and enable Nevada to participate in presidential races sooner and have a stronger impact on the outcome.

Senator Rawson inquired whether the appropriation would be the same as in the bill. Mr. Hettrick answered yes; the appropriation of $1.4 million could go into the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) contingency account. He also explained there is nothing in the bill requiring an election, it could be done by caucus.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether there were any statistics indicating how much money is spent on other candidates by states not having their own candidate. Mr. Hettrick deferred to Victoria Soberinsky, Deputy Chief of Staff, Governor’s Office, to address that question.

Senator Neal inquired what the advantage would be to holding the primary between California’s primary and Super Tuesday. Mr. Hettrick answered it was decided in Utah that if the western states’ primary were held simultaneously with California, the western states would be "overwhelmed by the 800-pound gorilla," and the candidates would only visit California. He said Super Tuesday is basically in the South and candidates would be traveling to the South. Therefore, he indicated the feeling was that the western states should "stand alone" and "go in between the two." The consensus of the attendees of the meeting in Utah was that somebody who was doing well in the polls in California, but not doing well in the South, might come to the western states and vice versa. The western states could perhaps be the tie to help a candidate improve or retain his or her position going into the second primary. Additionally, he pointed out, the western states could get their own, stand-alone publicity in addressing issues of the western states. Another advantage of the March 10 date mentioned by Mr. Hettrick is that it would not violate the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules in terms of sending out ballots, voting and so forth.

Senator Neal stated that in his opinion the western states primary would not necessarily enhance the election of a person from the West. Mr. Hettrick agreed it may not enhance a western candidate’s chance of winning but remarked the idea is to get the issues of the West addressed by all candidates. He maintained that candidates who are not from the West have no idea what issues are important to the western states.

Senator Coffin queried whether the Western States’ Primary Committee had explored the normal presidential selection possibilities "out of the caucus process." He maintained that in the southern part of the state a lot of candidates are likely to hear about Nevada’s issues for both the northern and southern parts of the state. Mr. Hettrick replied the general impression at the Western States Primary Committee’s meetings was that candidates stop in Las Vegas, collect the check, and then fly off. He claimed they do not address Nevada’s issues in terms of public lands, mining, grazing, and gaming. He pointed out the current gaming study being conducted in the U.S. Congress was not "positive to Nevada" in any aspect he has seen. Mr. Hettrick noted there are other intermountain states involved, such as Colorado, which is concerned about some of the same issues as Nevada. Mr. Hettrick maintained the candidates do not address the issue of water, a huge issue that needs to be solved for southern Nevada.

Senator Coffin recalled this issue being raised in legislation 4 years ago that passed, but not unanimously. He remembers that it ended up costing local governments more than anticipated and the turnout was "underwhelming." Mr. Hettrick explained the reason the costs exceeded expectations 4 years ago was that the ballots were mailed and the organizers forgot to account for the fact that return postage had to be paid for anyone who was not at the address indicated. He said the voter records were not accurate and the primary organizers were hit with a huge return postage bill. Mr. Hettrick asserted nothing in S.B. 548 demands that there be an election; the candidates would still be chosen by the two parties. He stated if the Democratic Party chooses to caucus, they can caucus, and if the Republican Party chooses to have an election, they can have an election. Mr. Hettrick explained if the bill passes, there would not have to be an election. The DNC would not allow ballots to be mailed earlier, and if ballots are mailed out earlier, the DNC would discount the Democratic delegates to the national convention by 25 percent.

Senator Neal asked what Mr. Hettrick’s response would be to the argument that creation of four or five regional primaries would keep the smaller states from having disproportionate clout in presidential elections. Mr. Hettrick replied the smaller states currently have zero clout. He remarked there will always be some big states combined with little states, but at least each region could address its issues. Mr. Hettrick reiterated the national candidates ignore the intermountain states. Senator Neal inquired whether Mr. Hettrick knew the reason Arizona is reluctant to join the western states primary. Mr. Hettrick answered Arizona decided to move up its primary for the same reasons Nevada wants to move up its primary. He said the Republican Party in Arizona decided 4 years ago to move its primary into February because there is no discount in the Republican rules for holding an early primary. Mr. Hettrick explained the governor of Arizona is now urging the parties to work together with other western states, which they may still do.

Victoria Soberinsky, Deputy Chief of Staff, Governor’s Office, distributed her written testimony (Exhibit C), which she read to the committee. Her testimony was in support of S.B. 548 and covered such issues as the increasing number of states moving up their primary election or caucus dates in order to have a greater influence on the election process; the lack of western influence; voter, economic, and candidate benefits of a western primary; and the status of the western primary. Ms. Soberinsky also mentioned the creation of a Western President Primary Task Force to consider the creation of a regional presidential primary. The eight states participating in that task force are Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Ms. Soberinsky said members of the task force agreed to recommend to their legislatures that each state move its presidential primary or caucus to March 10, 2000. She urged the committee to approve S.B. 548.

Senator Coffin inquired whether there was anything in Nevada law that prohibits a party from holding its own presidential primary and financing its own mechanism.

Pamela Crowell, Deputy Secretary of State, Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of State, addressed Senator Coffin’s question by saying there is no direct prohibition. Senator Raggio asked, "How do you hold an election statewide without any authorization?" Ms. Crowell answered, "Exactly." She stated she did not know whether an election of this type could be held statewide, using the election process, without some authorization. She also said she is not aware of another state that permits that. Senator Coffin remarked he was trying to be helpful in finding a mechanism because he doubted the appropriation would pass, and he asserted there is no reason the Republicans could not have a popular vote. He suggested putting a statutory change into this bill if one is necessary. On the other hand, Senator Coffin stated, if there is no prohibition, perhaps the bill is unnecessary. Ms. Crowell offered to check into whether there was a state that permits a party to hold its own presidential primary and, if so, what the state’s mechanism is.

There being no further testimony, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 548. He then opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 323.

Senator Raggio remarked this bill is for an appropriation that is not included in The Executive Budget.

Paul J. Iverson, Administrator, Division of Agriculture, Department of Business and Industry, advised this bill is a onetime request for $15,000 to provide per diem and travel expenses for the Advisory Council for Organic Agricultural Products. He mentioned an important addition that was not part of the bill last session includes program support, promotion, and public outreach. Mr. Iverson stated that for the last year, the council has been working hard to get new regulations on the books to start the process of encouraging organic growers to participate. He distributed a map titled "Nevada Organic Certification" (Exhibit D), which illustrates where the organic growers are currently certified. Mr. Iverson remarked this is a "niche type" of agriculture. He said the certification fee is $135 and it is his opinion the program will become self-supporting.

Larry Hendrickson, Advisory Council for Organic Agricultural Products, mentioned a recent article in one of the grower magazines regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) which reported that a sample of the produce in the United States revealed that 70 percent of the fresh produce being sold contains a detectable amount of pesticide. He remarked, "The USDA that decided that because of modern technology these are low percentages and the produce is safe." Mr. Hendrickson said he agrees with that, but many people want pesticide-free produce. He noted the organic produce industry is growing at a rate of 15 to 20 percent per year. Mr. Hendrickson concluded by stating the organic advisory council benefits consumers by ensuring that when a sign says "organic," the product truly is organic.

Mary F. Lau, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada, mentioned she was also a member of the Advisory Council for Organic Agricultural Products. She remarked the general merchandise retailers do not have anything to do with organic foods, but they do represent all the major grocery chains within the State of Nevada, some of which carry organic products. Ms. Lau informed the committee the $10,000 allocated to the council last session did not allow for program support, promotion, and public outreach. She also indicated, as did Mr. Iverson, the council intends for the program to become self-supporting and does not intend to come back before the committee if the $15,000 is allocated by passage of A.B. 323.

Assemblyman Joseph (Joe) E. Dini, Jr., Assembly District No. 38, testified he was at the hearing to lend his support to the bill. He remarked he has been following it for the last 2 years and knows small farmers who grow delicious organic melons in Silver Springs. Senator Jacobsen inquired what percentage of the organic products represents edible products as opposed to forage and nursery stock. Mr. Dini replied edible products represent the largest percentage of organic products grown.

There being no further testimony, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 323. He then opened the hearing on A.B. 686.

Mr. Dini mentioned that just last week four middle school students were arrested for planning a massacre at their school in Michigan. He noted they had already placed a bomb in the school, had begun amassing guns, and had laid out a planned entry and plan of escape. Mr. Dini remarked that sadly, the Michigan incident was only the latest example of "madness" in one of America’s public schools. He indicated that in Clark County last year officials confiscated 67 guns and 178 knives from students, both figures being significantly higher than the year before. Mr. Dini stated that in the last few months Nevada has had to contend with some "scary" moments. There was the threat of a pipe bomb the previous week at Carson High School, which forced an evacuation. Additionally, Mr. Dini told of two teenagers arrested at Mojave High School in Las Vegas for driving a stolen car and wielding loaded handguns. He said three schools in northern Nevada received bomb threats, resulting in evacuation of the schools. Mr. Dini mentioned several other threats by Nevada school students.

Mr. Dini remarked A.B. 686 establishes a commission on school violence. He explained the commission has two main responsibilities. It is first charged with creating and adopting a state emergency response plan for any potential incidents of school violence. Mr. Dini noted the plan would outline actions to be taken in response to a tragic event, mechanisms for improving emergency funds, a strategy to coordinate services at all levels of government, and definitions of the type and duration of law enforcement support. He commented once the plan is adopted, A.B. 686 would require each school district to create, adopt, and maintain a local emergency response plan that complements the state plan. Second, the commission would be charged with studying and recommending ways to prevent and reduce incidents of violence on school campuses and in the community. Mr. Dini asserted that without safety in the schools, students cannot learn or lead productive lives. He urged the committee to pass A.B. 686.

Senator Raggio inquired who would provide technical assistance to the commission in developing the state emergency response plan. Mr. Dini pointed out that section 1, subsection 9, states "the Legislative Counsel Bureau shall provide administrative support to the commission." He said that is administrative assistance, and section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (b) says the commission will develop and adopt a statewide plan of emergency response. Mr. Dini advised the concept is for Nevada to "get ahead of the game" before there is trouble. Senator Raggio remarked he assumed any responsible school district in the state would already have an emergency response plan in place.

Nat Lommori, Superintendent, Lyon County School District, testified he is of the opinion every school district has a plan in place, but the proposed commission would help ease the fears of parents and students by letting them know there is a state plan in effect. Senator Raggio asked whether the school districts in the state have had any occasion to confer together on the issue of school violence. Mr. Lommori replied Nevada’s school superintendents meet monthly and school violence is a topic of discussion. However, it was his opinion that A.B. 686 would formalize state policy and provide an opportunity to formulate a state plan.

Senator Jacobsen inquired whether Mr. Lommori allows law enforcement to review student records. Mr. Lommori answered it depends on the circumstances. For example, regarding the incident in Yerington High School in December 1998, before acting on the incident the school administrators involved the district attorney, the sheriff’s department, and the local police department. He stated that when the suspects had been identified, school officials allowed law enforcement to review the suspects’ school records. Senator Jacobsen said the reason he asked was that he had received a call from a South Lake Tahoe sheriff after an incident at George Whittell High School in which the sheriff told him law enforcement personnel were restricted from going onto the campus without a search warrant. Mr. Lommori replied that is not the case in Lyon County; the high school works closely and cooperatively with law enforcement when there has been an incident. Senator Jacobsen concurred with Senator Raggio’s comments that the superintendents need to confer to ensure uniformity throughout the state.

Anne B. Cathcart, Special Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, stated the attorney general’s office had previously testified in favor of this bill, but the attorney general requested that Ms. Cathcart make additional brief remarks regarding A.B. 686. She said her office has worked with Mary Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, over the past couple of years in preparing brochures, one of which addresses school safety in general, and another of which is a guide to search and seizure issues in the public school setting. Ms. Cathcart mentioned the attorney general’s office has had a juvenile justice initiative ongoing since 1997 and is committed to working with the schools and law enforcement. She further testified the attorney general’s office is of the opinion A.B. 686 is a good step, particularly the recommendations in section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (d). Ms. Cathcart advised it is not enough to have an emergency response plan; the attorney general wants to prevent a school violence tragedy from occurring in Nevada. She remarked her office would do whatever it could to provide the commission any required technical assistance.

Assemblyman Richard D. Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23, testified in support of A.B. 686. He pointed out there have been many meetings this session regarding education, but when he first heard the account of what happened at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, his first thought was whether his children were safe. Mr. Perkins stated that as much as he wants his children to obtain the highest possible achievement while getting their education, the first thing he wants is for them to come home safe. He asserted Nevada’s main goal is that of prevention, and the ideal would be to bring people together to work on ways to prevent the type of tragedy that has occurred in other cities in the country before a tragedy happens in Nevada.

Senator Neal inquired what the proposed commission would be able to do that the superintendents, the school board of trustees, and the State Board of Education have been unable to do thus far. Mr. Perkins replied there are a number of components that are not optimally active in that role. He stated law enforcement and parents need to participate and Nevada needs to broaden the spectrum of individuals studying school violence in order to receive the best input possible. In Mr. Perkins’ opinion, the commission would bring the components together. Senator Neal asked what the police could do if a couple of students got together in secrecy and decided to plant bombs or commit other acts of violence. He pointed out nobody could do anything but react to that type of situation. Mr. Perkins agreed that was true in the scenario mentioned by Senator Neal. However, he maintained, there are educators and law enforcement officials in the schools who could be better trained to identify those students, find out what their difficulties are, and build a rapport with them. Mr. Perkins suggested perhaps the students would then not be sworn to secrecy and would hopefully talk to somebody before the situation escalated to one of tragedy.

Senator Neal asked whether the commission would deal with "machismo" as it is demonstrated on television. Mr. Perkins replied no; that would be outside the purview of the commission. He indicated such things need to be studied when investigating ways to prevent violence, but there is no way to eliminate what is shown on television, for example, without interfering with First Amendment rights.

James Parry, Superintendent, Carson City School District, indicated "the man in the padded suit" x-rayed a pipe at Carson City High School the preceding Friday and finally did show it was hollow. He said it was sobering to see the man in the padded bomb suit walk through his school and x-ray a piece of pipe to make sure that it was, in fact, not dangerous. Mr. Parry noted it is the schools’ problem and the superintendents need to share information to keep each other informed and to be a part of the solution.

Senator Jacobsen pointed out the students also need to be involved. He mentioned the success of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program. Mr. Parry stated the superintendents are trying to be proactive and involve the students in the planning of programs to make schools safer and more humane. Senator Neal inquired whether Mr. Parry’s school gives awards for civility. Mr. Parry answered that his school does give awards for civility and leadership in performing acts of kindness. He said the awards are called "Leadership and Unsung Hero" awards.

There being no further testimony, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 686 and opened the hearing on A.B. 342.

Pete English, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated this was a request for an appropriation from the Highway Fund to enable the department to manufacture special plates and to redesign plates. He advised the bill specifically addresses the remanufacture of the blue plates, the manufacture of a redesigned plate (which will begin issue in January 2001), and the manufacture of special license plates. Senator Raggio asked why the bill was necessary. Mr. English answered the appropriation for the blue plates is necessary with passage of S.B. 267.

Senator Raggio expressed concern about the $3.6 million cost for existing standard license plate redesign. He again asked why it was necessary. Mr. English replied it was necessary to address legislation that was passed last session requiring the department to redesign a standard issue license plate and begin issue in January 2001. Senator Raggio remarked he understood that but inquired why the department could not keep the same plates and put decals on them rather than redesign the plates for 2001. Mr. English explained part of the purpose in redesigning a license plate has to do with ensuring members of the public continue to maintain current registration on their vehicles. He remarked another issue has to do with reflectivity of the license plate itself. Mr. English said there had been complaints from law enforcement that the current license plates are beginning to lose reflectivity, making them difficult to see at night. Senator Raggio asked whether it would be much of a problem to wait another 4 to 6 years.

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, 3M Corporation, testified the 3M Corporation manufactures the reflective material used on license plates. He recalled testimony presented 2 years ago on this issue that the new plates would generate additional revenue of approximately $4 million above the cost by illuminating the fact that approximately 6 percent of Nevada vehicles were out of registration. Senator Raggio noted that drivers must renew their registration to obtain a current sticker. Mr. Ostrovsky indicated some people use crayons to change the color of the sticker or steal them from one plate for another. He remarked the history in other states which reissue plates is that it forces everyone back into compliance for approximately 2 years. Mr. Ostrovsky maintained the income would "come back" as plates are sold, but this is an advance appropriation because the plates must be manufactured in advance of being distributed.

Senator Coffin mentioned the reflectivity of the current "goat" plates is "pretty good"; however, the design is not noticeable once the numbers and letters are stamped into the plates. He asked whether, in the event of a redesign, there was a way to enhance the design so that it would show up better. Mr. Ostrovsky stated there is a design committee that has met as recently as a week ago. He advised that 3M Corporation had created five designs which would be available for viewing at the Legislature later in the week.

There being no further testimony, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 342 and opened the hearing on A.B. 684.

Freeman K. Johnson, Assistant Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, introduced Catherine Barcomb, Administrator, Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses. Mr. Johnson testified that in the Wild Horse Management Plan recently presented to the Legislature under S.B. 211 of the Sixty-ninth Session, the wild horse commission recommended the establishment of a private foundation to assist marketing wild horses and burros through the public adoption program currently being run by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Mr. Johnson remarked the commission would use its remaining funds and funding from the BLM to contract for a feasibility study on the establishment of the foundation and the scope of work that could be accomplished to enhance the adoption program. He distributed a description of the feasibility study (Exhibit E). Mr. Johnson noted there is a "clog" in the adoption program, and members of the wild horse commission, as well as he, are not "adoption specialists of the world." He advised they would like to spend some of the unspent appropriation from a previous session for the study. Senator Raggio asked how many wild horses are being adopted out.

Catherine Barcomb, Administrator, Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses, answered the average since 1992 has been between 8,000 and 9,000 horses annually, nationwide. She advised that in Nevada during the last fiscal year, just under 500 horses were adopted. Senator Raggio inquired how the horses are rounded up for this purpose. Ms. Barcomb replied the BLM conducts annual utilization studies of the habitat since the capacity determines how many horses, wildlife, and livestock can be accommodated. The BLM determines the number of excess wild horses, which are rounded up by helicopter and taken to the Palomino corrals where they receive inoculations and needed medical care. She said the horses are then put into the "adoption pipeline." Senator Raggio asked how the BLM determines how many to round up. Ms. Barcomb answered it is determined through the allotment evaluation process.

Mr. Johnson testified the intent of this study is to analyze the feasibility and the scope of program options in the development of a private foundations. The intent is the private foundation will provide professional expertise in the adoption process. He noted the benefits of such could be that as the pipeline becomes "unclogged," the number of wild horses would be reduced. Mr. Johnson mentioned that would be appealing to ranchers and farmers in the area as well as to the wild horse advocates and the adopting public.

Senator Raggio queried about the ratio of success in placement of the wild horses once they are rounded up. Ms. Barcomb replied she did not believe there had been a study of the ratio of success. However, she indicated, the last study performed was in FY 1997. Ms. Barcomb explained that in response to allegations made in the media that 90 percent of the wild horses were going to slaughter, a team was formed with the federal government that visited all the slaughter yards in the United States. The results of that study, according to Ms. Barcomb, were that of 200,000 horses put to death in the slaughter yards that year, less than one-quarter of 1 percent were wild horses, indicating a high success rate.

Senator Jacobsen inquired whether Ms. Barcomb could give the committee an idea of how many wild horses there were on public lands 20 years ago and how many there are today, so the committee can determine the percentage of growth and the rate of adoption each year. Ms. Barcomb replied the number of horses averaged 20,000 in Nevada in 1971; currently there are 23,000. She offered to supply the numbers for each year to the committee.

Peter G. Morros, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, stated he was at the hearing to represent the wild burros in Nevada. He mentioned that the money being requested would otherwise be reverted from a prior-year appropriation for the purposes of development of a statewide management plan. Mr. Morros reiterated the department has a "pretty firm" commitment of receiving matching funds from the BLM.

There being no further testimony on the bill, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 684. He then opened the hearing on A.B. 285.

Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, remarked there is an Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) containing hundreds of projects all over the Tahoe Basin. Senator Raggio inquired where the commitment is specified for the money that is to be coming from all of the various sectors. Ms. Wilcox answered the handout she distributed at the last hearing included a table developed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) showing cost estimates of all the projects in the Environmental Improvement Program and estimated the total to be approximately $908 million. She said those funds were allocated among the parties the TRPA felt would be responsible for implementing those programs. Senator Raggio asked where the commitment was expressed for the state of California. Ms. Wilcox replied the state of California signed the agreement, a copy of which she had given to Senator Raggio.

Senator Raggio asserted there is nothing in the agreement that sets forth a dollar amount of contribution from the federal government or from the state of California. He said the Memorandum of Agreement is "a nice statement of principles," but there is nothing in it that sets a firm commitment. Senator Raggio stated that for the committee to process the bill, there would have to be some legislative oversight and authority in which, before the bonds are issued, approval is given by the IFC. Ms. Wilcox advised that for the coming biennium, she had provided Senator Raggio a specific list of projects which will cost $3.2 million. She pointed out the division needs authority to proceed and to sell the bonds in July 1999. Senator Raggio expressed concern about the division’s selling bonds without a commitment from the federal government or the state of California. Ms. Wilcox said she shared the senator’s concern and suggested that for the coming biennium the committee approve the $3.2 million based on the specific list of projects for Nevada’s state parks. She further suggested that if the division wishes to change any of the projects covered by the $3.2 million, the committee require the division to obtain IFC approval for proposed modifications. Senator Raggio remarked the committee would require legislative approval or IFC approval for future projects. Ms. Wilcox said she would provide the committee a follow-up table with a cumulative total of project funds.

Senator Raggio suggested the committee amend A.B. 285 to authorize $3.2 million in bonds as the first part of the commitment, to require the list of projects be referenced, and to require IFC approval if there is any departure from the listed projects. Further, additional issuance of bonds would be contingent upon authorization and approval by either the Legislature in session or by the IFC during an interim period.

*****

Senator Raggio opened the hearing on A.B. 380 and stated the committee had previously discussed the settlement of adjudication of the water rights issue and had requested an amendment.

Senator Raggio remarked the amendment eliminates the need for sections 4 and 5 of the bill. He said the original concept was that the bonds would be authorized to increase the amount of the appropriation, but that was found to be unworkable so sections 4 and 5 were removed. Senator Raggio explained that a new section 4 would appropriate the sum of $3.3 million. The interest on that would be utilized and the interest earned over the 5-year period will be used to accumulate the additional funding needed. He indicated:

Senator Raggio stated that assures the money is appropriated to the subconservancy district but may not be expended until those commitments are obtained.

Peter G. Morros, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, remarked that having just read the amendment his initial reaction was there may be a problem with section 4, paragraph (b). He said this program is designed to buy out inactive water rights within the project over a 5-year period. Senator Raggio noted the amendment does not deal with that but says "the district has obtained written commitment from the City of Fallon, Churchill County, and Pyramid Lake Tribe," not individuals, "to withdraw their administrative protests that are pending on the effective date." Senator Raggio remarked the committee ascertained that from the language contained in the joint testimony. Mr. Morros indicated the problem is that there may be individuals who are unwilling to sell their water rights. Senator Raggio pointed out the amendment does not mention obtaining commitments from individuals. Mr. Morros asserted he understood that, but assumed the protests, particularly on the part of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, were due to the potential loss of their water rights.

Senator Raggio reiterated this is what the joint testimony represented, and this is what the committee expects to happen before the subconservancy district utilizes the money. He emphasized the committee has no agreement or anything other than the joint testimony signed by a group of people. Mr. Morros stated he understood and needs some time to study the amendment and to determine the impact.

Senator Coffin inquired how the second reprint, which contained no appropriation, became a $3.3 million General Fund appropriation. Senator Raggio replied the second reprint anticipated raising the bonding authority under sections 4 and 5, but those sections were removed because that would not work. Senator Coffin asked whether this would hasten the ability of Washoe County to grow. Mr. Morros answered it would hopefully remove the protests. He said this battle has been going on for many years, and it was hoped this was a solution in dealing with a major portion of the pending litigation, particularly with the Newlands Project.

Mr. Morros requested clarification that the $3.3 million is intended to generate $4 million over a 5-year period. Senator Raggio replied that is what was presented; the $3.3 million will be utilized and the interest on that will generate sufficient dollars to satisfy the annual amounts which have to be paid. He indicated all parties, including the Governor, have signed off on this. Additionally, Senator Raggio noted, this money was available as the result of being able to refund bonds that the state had, which produced additional revenue, and this was one of the projects recommended by the Governor as a result of the newly found revenue. Mr. Morros promised to get back to the committee before the end of the day after he has had a chance to review the amendment to A.B. 380 more thoroughly.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 380 and opened the hearing on S.B. 236.

Senator Raggio requested program analyst Jeanne Botts outline the information the committee had requested regarding the Lincoln County School District (LCSD).

Jeanne L. Botts, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, distributed a packet of information attached to her memorandum dated May 24, 1999, to John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration (Exhibit F). She mentioned the second page of Exhibit F, which was a memorandum from Martin & Peltyn, Inc., a structural engineering company, describing distress at the gymnasium and auditorium of the Lincoln County High School and the gymnasium of the Pioche Elementary School. Ms. Botts explained the problem is the buildings were constructed of unreinforced masonry, and the engineer concluded there is substantial probability of structural failure in the event of an earthquake. She referred to the second page of the next memorandum in the packet from the same firm and pointed out the firm believes the structures at Pioche Elementary School pose a potential life safety hazard to the occupants. Ms. Botts remarked the firm suggests the school district proceed with a comprehensive investigation of the existing structures to find out what is necessary to fix the problem. However, she noted, the firm cautioned the repair and retrofit could easily exceed the cost of a replacement facility.

Ms. Botts next referred to an agenda and minutes from a Lincoln County Board of School Trustees meeting held April 14, 1999 (Exhibit F) in which the board members discussed the structural problems. She mentioned that in page 2 of the minutes, Phillip Dunleavy, District Attorney, Lincoln County, stated the notification from the engineer had put the board on notice that there was a problem and that something must be done because the board was now aware of the dangers. Ms. Botts commented the board discussed the lack of steel reinforcement in the concrete footing in the remaining buildings and referred to an electrical problem that would cost nearly $800,000 to correct. She noted the last page of the minutes refers to the motion to close the auditorium immediately following a drama club presentation the following week and to allow students to attend school at Pioche Elementary until the end of this school year.

Continuing, Ms. Botts told of a letter from Mr. Dunleavy in the next section of Exhibit F in which he says that in speaking with Steve Shiller, the engineer who actually made the inspection, he learned the LCSD buildings would not withstand an earthquake of 3 on the Richter scale. Therefore, Mr. Dunleavy concluded the structures pose an immediate life safety hazard to the occupants, who are the children of the community. Ms. Botts remarked the next section of the exhibit is a memorandum from Orlando Sandoval, Associate Vice President Planning and Campus Sites at the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN), in which he estimates that a metal structure or a tilt-up construction model might be a less expensive alternative. Senator Raggio asked the committee to focus on Mr. Sandoval’s memorandum. He noted the first suggestion was that for $700,000 the school could acquire modular units. However, Mr. Sandoval suggested a metal structure should be built rather than the modular structures, which resulted in his report (included in Exhibit F). Senator Raggio mentioned Vaughn Higbee, Superintendent, Lincoln County School District, had visited Pioche Elementary and recommended a new elementary school be constructed rather than a temporary or modular facility. Mr. Higbee had said the facility could be constructed if the district could obtain $1 million. It was Senator Raggio’s understanding LCSD was still trying to decide which course to take.

Ms. Botts advised that in her most recent conversations with Superintendent Higbee and Lobbyist Randy Robison, representing LCSD, they said the school district would prefer to construct a permanent block structure. She stated the school district has sufficient expertise and staff to build such a structure and would utilize labor from the correctional facilities. Ms. Botts also noted that in his report, Mr. Sandoval indicated the school district has shown it is creative, resourceful, and fully qualified to build facilities, and he would recommend the district act as contractor.

Senator Raggio referred to Amendment No. 1140 to S.B. 236 (Exhibit G) and stated it would authorize the amount of $1 million for the construction of an elementary school and would require that a determination be made by the State Board of Examiners that:

Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Lincoln County School District, reiterated Ms. Botts’ comments that the LCSD would prefer a permanent block facility be constructed rather than a temporary structure. Responding to a question from Senator Raggio, Mr. Robison replied that once the new structure was constructed at the same site, the existing facility would be removed.

Senator Coffin inquired the maximum allowable tax rate. Ms. Botts answered it is $3.64 per $100 of assessed value. Senator Coffin also asked whether A.B. 597 was the bill that actually defines what is actually needed for emergency school construction so that S.B. 236 would not be a one-shot bill.

ASSEMBLY BILL 597: Revises provisions regarding school facilities. (BDR 34-1574)

Ms. Botts answered S.B. 236 would be a one-shot bill, but A.B. 597 is being amended to set up a fund for construction and to set criteria in "these types of cases." She said it also would broaden the definition of who might be eligible, but this project would definitely be covered under A.B. 597 because structural defects are one of the areas that would be covered under that bill. Senator Coffin told of a constituent who is willing to pay higher property taxes to help local schools. In the senator’s opinion, property taxes should be raised to the maximum of $4.50 per $100 of assessed value and the excess allocated to the school fund before appropriating the $1 million. Senator Raggio asked why anybody in any one county should be required to pay a tax rate of $4.50 on his or her property when no one else in any other county is required to do that. Senator Coffin stated he was trying to figure out a way of uniformly assessing a higher property tax rate on all the counties to cover the repair and replacement of defective school buildings. Senator Raggio inquired whether Senator Coffin wished to authorize a tax increase for everyone in the state. Senator Coffin replied he would if that was the way people would prefer to maintain school services.

Senator Raggio asked whether anyone wished to make a motion to amend S.B. 236. He pointed out the understanding would be that the committee would like to see some options explored on how the construction would be performed. The senator requested a report of how the money would be used before the committee makes its decision.

Senator Jacobsen inquired whether the new public safety building was ever utilized in Pioche. Mr. Robison answered it has been utilized, but not to the extent to which it was originally anticipated.

Senator Neal offered to make the motion to amend the bill with the understanding that representatives from Lincoln County do not "push the tax exemptions for the wealthy while they are taking money from the school kids."

*****

Senator Raggio mentioned he had a request from the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means to concur or not concur with S.B. 282.

Ms. Botts explained that S.B. 282 amends the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997 to move money between line item appropriations based upon changed conditions. She said the original bill moved money from the appropriation for remediation into the department for payment of compensation, per diem allowances, and travel expenses for the members of the Council to Establish Academic Standards for the Public Schools. Ms. Botts stated Amendment No. 1031 would move additional money from the unused remediation appropriation into the Grade 10 testing program.

Senator Neal asked why this reallocation was being placed into the Nevada Revised Statutes. Ms. Botts answered these are appropriations that are not being made permanent. She further explained the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997 contained many appropriations in transitory language, and the department is asking that those appropriations be shifted to provide more money in some and less in others for the current fiscal year. Senator Raggio added that transferring this money back and forth would avoid a supplemental appropriation.

*****

Senator Raggio indicated the committee had been advised when it met with the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means that there was a minor difference in the Office of the Attorney General’s budget regarding a half-time position in the Reno attorney general’s office. He reported the attorney general indicated this is an essential position and requested a motion to concur with the Assembly action in the closing of that budget.

*****

The committee took action on the bills heard earlier in the meeting.

*****

*****

*****

*****

Senator Raggio mentioned Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 23 is the administrative leave measure for the employees of the Legislature.

*****

Senator Raggio recessed the meeting at 11:10 a.m. until the call of the Chair.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jo Greenslate,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: