The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 9:25 a.m., on Monday, May 31, 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, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Bernice Mathews

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Bob Coffin

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Patricia Hampton, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Raggio called attention to the second reprint of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 597. He recalled that an amendment was ordered on the bill. Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, said there was an error that needs to be corrected.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained the bill is concerned with the issue of school construction, maintenance and repair. She said a study committee was ordered within A.B. 353 of the Sixty-ninth Session.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the committee met over the 2-year period and a contract was entered into for a facilities-needs study and the company did the best job they could within the fiscal constraints imposed. She pointed out that A.B. 597 is the result of trying to bring the state into some sort of partnership to assist school districts with severe needs in school repair.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the bill is crafted to deal with emergency-type situations and not every school district will be able to apply. The bill was changed to incorporate the Governor’s thoughts on this issue, which makes for a speedier process. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out that an application would go to the Department of Taxation and the State Public Works Board at the same time and there would be a review to verify that there is a valuation problem, that the ad valorem tax will not generate the needed revenue, and that there are structural defect problems. She stated that upon agreement that the school has a need, the application would be forwarded to the State Board of Examiners.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted there is $16 million in general obligation (GO) bonds to start the fund and section 16 of the bill indicates the unused money from the bonds would be paid back. She stated this would make a start on the problem and would not obligate state General Fund money.

Senator Raggio asked whether passage of this bill also included the necessity to meet the criteria established with reference to the $16 million fund. John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, indicated yes.

Mark Shellinger, Superintendent, White Pine County School District, pointed out that White Pine County is at "tax capacity" and is experiencing declining valuation. There are students that are unhoused and in buildings that do not meet the legal requirement of being safe. The county could apply for funds if the bill were passed. Senator Raggio asked whether the county has qualified on the imposition of the tax, as indicated in section 6. Mr. Shellinger answered the county commission has been asked to apply the tax, but upon application, if the commission has not acted, 1/8 of 1 percent will be imposed by the Department of Taxation. He stated there is the expectation that the county commission will apply the tax.

Senator Raggio asked whether the process is that if a school district qualifies otherwise and the district submits an application, and if the county has not imposed the 1/8 of a percent tax, the mechanism in the bill imposes the tax automatically. Mr. Shellinger answered yes. He stated the intent was to make sure the tax was applied so that the local effort which was necessary would be shown.

Senator Raggio asked whether the Board of County Commissioners could impose the tax at any time. Mr. Shellinger answered yes. He pointed out that in Lincoln County the commission has already applied the tax. He said the tax in White Pine County was requested at the beginning of the legislative session and the request is scheduled on the June meeting agenda of the commission. He stated the county commission has indicated it will support the tax.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether this bill would apply to schools on Indian reservations. Ms. Giunchigliani answered yes. She explained that initially it was envisioned the trustees would issue the 1/8 percent tax because the commissions in the rural counties were not necessarily approving the tax. She explained the committee did not want to get into any arguments and wanted the districts to make the required maintenance of effort. She said the bill was amended because people were uncomfortable with the bill the way it was initially written.

Senator Raggio maintained it would not be a good precedent to authorize officials other than the county commission or the Legislature to impose the tax.

Senator Jacobsen asked about the Caliente Youth Center, where all of the girls go to the public school. He asked whether the bill would have any application on those schools. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she believed it could if Lincoln County made the request and met the requirements.

Senator Raggio inquired whether there are any other counties that would qualify under this bill. Mr. Shellinger answered that only White and Lincoln Counties currently qualify.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 597 and opened the hearing on A.B. 598.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained the bill is the result of an additional recommendation from the study committee. She stated that through public testimony it has been found that many public and private buildings in the state are not in compliance with the American Disabilities Act Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAGBF). She pointed out the bill has a narrow application. She said what will occur is that the Legislature will adopt, in statute, the Code of Federal Regulations and when local building officials are reviewing and approving plans for disabled access of "owned facilities by the public," they will refer to the document.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that in 2 years the Universal Building Code (UBC) will no longer be used and the international code will contain the requirements, so the state will be in line with the new standards that will be coming. She noted that in the meantime, the U.S. Department of Justice is giving seminars through universities and community colleges across the United States for local building officials.

Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out the second reprint language for the bill was basically written by Clark and Washoe Counties. She said the first writing of the bill would have required a cumbersome training program. She explained the state and local governments would have been required to have an individual who was certified and had to attend school, and the current language provides for a much simpler process.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the point of this legislation is to stop facilities from having to be redone because of lack of proper design and also to reduce litigation. She noted there were three meetings that included more than 25 individuals from local governments who worked on the legislation.

Senator O’Donnell asked whether buildings would have to be retrofitted because of this legislation. Ms. Giunchigliani answered no and said this legislation applies to buildings constructed from this time forward. She noted there was testimony that there would be no fiscal impact.

Senator Raggio asked what the differences are in the varying requirements. Ms. Giunchigliani explained there is the ADA (American with Disabilities Act) and the guidelines that are adopted which "make the picture complete on how the disabled design should be for facilities." Senator Raggio asked whether these are the accessibility guidelines. Ms. Giunchigliani replied yes. Senator Raggio noted that minimum guidelines for requirements for "accessible design and the Fair Housing Act" are referenced.

Senator Raggio asked what is meant by the language in the requirements in paragraph (a) "are not satisfied if the plans and specifications comply solely with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards." Ms. Giunchigliani responded her understanding is that it refers to the uniform code that has been adopted by all states, "but that is not compliant with ADA actual accessibility, it only contains portions." She explained that when individuals drafting the bill talked with the U.S. Department of Justice, the department suggested the language used in the bill, so that Nevada’s code would be properly referenced. She said part of the discussion with the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau was that as changes come in, the state would be in compliance with the new changes.

Senator Raggio asked why if these are all federal requirements, this provision has to be placed in statute. Ms. Giunchigliani answered that what most states have done is to either write their own state code for disabled access or adopt the federal requirement. She pointed out Nevada has done neither, and as a result buildings are being designed that are necessitating a great many change orders and litigation that comes about because the plans were not properly reviewed for disabled accessibility.

Senator Raggio asked what is meant by the language on page 2, section 4 of the amendment which says "the state public works board shall verify that all public buildings and facilities owned by the state of Nevada conform with the requirements of this section." Ms. Giunchigliani said it is her understanding the plans will be reviewed, which is what is supposed to be being done currently.

Senator Raggio stated that where it says "all plans and specifications and facilities owned by the state of Nevada" the "owned" has been added. He did not know whether that was significant. Continuing, he read ". . . . or by a political subdivision must provide after that date facilities and features for the physically handicapped . . ." and so forth. He further read that in addition "all plans and specifications for construction or alteration of public buildings and facilities owned by the state or political subdivision must comply with applicable requirements." He stressed his desire to assure that the committee knows what is being done through the bill.

Senator Raggio asked what is meant by "with respect to existing buildings." Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out the word "owned" was added because it would narrow the focus of the bill. Paul Gallings, ADA Coordinator, said his understanding is that the state is required to bring the buildings up to the code and there are ongoing retrofit requirements until a building is fitted. He explained that the bill was intended to eliminate some of the retrofits to buildings, which were not currently inspected or watched closely in the building process. He stated that buildings are continuing to be built which do not adhere to the guidelines and have to be retrofitted, and this bill would catch the lack of code adherence at the beginning of the process. He said his understanding is the bill would not change any of the current requirements to retrofit buildings that do not meet the code. He pointed out that under current state law there is no thing which would require the retrofit and the bill would be a preventative measure.

Senator Raggio noted the state has been budgeting each legislative session for the retrofit of buildings. Mr. Gallings stated it is not the intent of the legislation to impact retrofit.

Senator Raggio asked whether the State Public Works Board has approved the bill. Mr. Comeaux answered it has.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether all schools still have mandatory fire drills and disaster removal. Ms. Giunchigliani replied they do. She said there are shelter in-place drills. She explained that periodically the fire department comes to a school and selects a classroom whose students are then required to model behavior for a particular type of disaster. She added that fire drills occur once a month.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 598 and opened the hearing on A.B. 564.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained that based on testimony this bill brings public buildings into the issue of recycling and will cause local governments to establish recycling procedures. She said it is referenced on page 7, section 9, that the Board of Trustees will have to establish the procedures. The bill allows that if the Board of Trustees makes the determination that the cost would have a negative impact, the recycling could be set aside and not have to be implemented. She noted that decision would have to be made at a board meeting.

Senator Raggio asked whether most schools currently recycle. Ms. Giunchigliani replied, "Unfortunately, no." She said it is sporadic and sometimes there is a school club or a science class that will take on recycling as a project. Senator Raggio asked why an exemption is only provided to school districts. Ms. Giunchigliani answered it is because most of the other public bodies have a program in place and this bill only codifies what is being done but because the school districts did not do so the exemption was provided.

Senator Raggio asked whether some would say this is a mandate that the state is imposing on local government. Ms. Giunchigliani responded she did not recall there being any opposition once it was agreed to have an amendment to allow flexibility for the school districts, because the testimony was that the local governments are recycling.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 564 and opened the hearing on A.B. 698. He said this bill provides for an interim study regarding pension plans for justices.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained that this study tries to anticipate the issue of pension plans for justices and judges. She recalled that every legislative session there seem to be numerous bills dealing with the pensions. She said the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means felt it was time to put together a study to look at a long-term approach for the impact on the state and the needs for the judges and what would occur. She noted "the committee is small" but said it was felt it was time to study this issue and come up with some future planning.

Senator Raggio called attention to A.B. 701, which relates to an announcement that was made the previous day by the joint leadership in the Legislature and by the Governor on increasing the salaries of classified employees by 2 percent beginning in FY 2001.

Senator Raggio said there is an amendment to A.B. 597. Jeanne Botts, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said this amendment incorporated the changes discussed by Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association. She explained that on page 5 of the bill, line 20 is amended to say "the board of county commissioners of the county has not imposed the maximum rate of tax that it is authorized to impose pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes [NRS] 377B.100." She stated the statutory cite was correct in the bill, but this language specifies "where the board has not imposed the maximum rate, which is 1/4 of 1 percent." She stated line 19 says "has not imposed a tax of more than 1/8," which is different from the maximum of 1/4.

Senator Neal asked for an explanation of the difference between the 1/4 and the 1/8 of 1 percent. Ms. Botts stated the maximum tax that can be imposed is 1/4 of 1 percent and the bill says that "if a board has not imposed 1/8," but the amendment adds that even if 1/8 or 3/16 has been imposed, the school districts could levy the additional amount to bring the tax to the 1/4 maximum. She explained it is the difference between 1/4 and what may have already been imposed but must not exceed 1/4.

Senator Neal asked who is being included. Ms. Botts answered any school district with a population under 100,000.

Ms. Botts said that the last change is on line 34. She said it says in the current bill "the tax must be collected and distributed as set forth in chapter 374 of the NRS and it was suggested that "administered" be added because there are other provisions of chapter 374 which are applicable, such as exemptions. She said the amendment primarily makes technical changes.

Senator Neal asked whether the tax must be "collected and administered." Ms. Botts clarified it must be "collected, administered and distributed." Senator Neal said he does not understand what the last amendment would do by adding the word "administered." Ms. Botts said it was felt there were other provisions in Chapter 374 of the NRS besides collecting and distributing the tax, namely, how the tax is administered. It was felt it would be safer to say "administered."

Senator Raggio inquired about A.B. 348, which deals with charter schools.

Steven Horsford, Lobbyist, Andre Agassi Foundation, said it was his understanding that Senator Washington and Assemblyman Williams had signed off on the last draft of the amendments.

Senator Raggio commented that in discussions with the Assembly a bill draft request (BDR) was agreed upon and BDR 33-1791, which was requested by the Governor, would revise the qualifications for the position of director of the Department of Museums, Libraries and Arts.

Senator Raggio said he would like to be prepared to act on the BDR during the Senate Floor Meeting. He pointed out the Governor wanted to change the requirements to fit the individual who has been appointed to fill the position. He said the position would only require a degree from an accredited 4-year college or university.

Senator Raggio said he has discussed the issue of the highway to Needles, California with Senator Porter and the possibility of recouping some fees from the automobile rental agencies. He stated that in discussions with the Assembly it was determined it would be advisable instead to conduct a feasibility study in which an appropriation of $250,000 from the General Fund, to be matched by $250,000 from Clark County or other sources, would be required. He said the study is termed "improving roads and highways in adjoining states that provide access." He noted this study would cover more than the Needles highway situation.

Senator Neal said it is his understanding an engineering study has already been performed on the Needles highway, and when legislation was passed dealing with Proposition 10 in Clark County there was discussion about allowing roads to be built across jurisdictional lines. He asked why Clark County could not use that money for the purpose of the study. Senator Raggio said the reason General Fund money is being used is that NDOT indicated Highway Fund money could not be used. The Legislature is trying to accommodate the concern expressed without the necessity of taking back any fees, and this seemed to be the most appropriate way to get the feasibility study in progress. Senator Raggio noted there was also discussion about those having the gaming properties in the area contributing to the study. He said this would accommodate some contribution from the county and other sources. He stated this was a solution and a compromise to this issue.

Senator Raggio called attention to BDR S-1788. He stated that some technical amendments need to be made to the bill. He explained this is the bill "with all of the projects outlined that have been heard."

Senator Raggio said he would accept the motion on the basis that staff will determine whether there are any technical changes, not substantive changes, needing to be made in the measure.

The meeting was recessed until the call of the Chair.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Patricia Hampton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: