MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
June 1, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 7:43 a.m. on Friday, June 1, 2001. 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
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. David Parks
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Richard D. Perkins (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Rick Combs, Program Analyst
Georgia Rohrs, Program Analyst
Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary
Connie Davis, Committee Secretary
The Chair opened the hearing on A.B. 287.
Assembly Bill 287: Makes appropriation to Washoe County School District for support of preschool program for non-English speaking children offered by The Children’s Cabinet at Incline Village, Inc. (BDR S-1183)
Greg Brower, Assemblyman, District 37, testified in favor of A.B. 287. Mr. Brower explained that the bill requested an appropriation for an educational program, affiliated with the Children’s Cabinet at Incline Village. The Children’s Cabinet was a children’s organization with two chapters, one in Reno and one in Incline Village, and was dedicated to improving the life of the children and families in the areas where the centers were located. Mr. Brower stated that programs administered by the Children’s Cabinet included a health clinic, mentoring and tutoring services, mental health services, and the Family-to-Family connection. The program that was being requested to be funded by A.B. 287 was known as the El Conte Program. It provided non-English speaking four and five year olds an opportunity to learn English before entering the public school system. There was a large number of non-English speaking or English as a second language families in the Lake Tahoe area, most of which were Latino. The primary goal of the El Conte Program was to prepare the children for success in school by teaching English and the skills children were expected to have once in kindergarten. The program had been able to survive through grant funding, fund-raising, and private donations. Mr. Brower noted that he had participated in fund-raising efforts, and although the fund-raising was successful it was not enough to keep the program running. The program had received donations from the United Way and other charitable efforts, and Mr. Brower reiterated that the monies received were not enough to keep the program running, and he was requesting the state’s help.
Mr. Brower introduced Sara Ohmann, former Executive Director, Children’s Cabinet at Incline Village. Ms. Ohmann stated that she had brought a poster painted by the children to support the request (Exhibit C). Ms. Ohmann provided a folder with brochures outlining the programs offered, a budget, a brief narrative, and a letter of recommendation from four kindergarten teachers at Incline Elementary School (Exhibit D). The El Conte Pre-school Program was initiated in 1995 in response to the growing Hispanic population within the community and the language barriers it presented. The Children’s Cabinet formed a strong foundation for the El Conte Pre-school Program and a partnership with the Incline Elementary School, encouraging parents to enroll their children. At most 28 children would enter the El Conte Pre-school Program with limited English speaking skills. Ms. Ohmann stated that by attending school three days a week, the goal was to have each student fluent in English and have learned appropriate classroom behavior upon graduation. The program also concentrated on family participation in and outside of the classroom. Parents were not charged tuition for the program, but were asked to donate time in class, assist in the maintenance of the building, and perform two fund-raisers each year. The parents raised nearly $5,000 for the school. Ms. Ohmann stated that there was a high transition rate from the El Conte Pre‑school Program to Incline Elementary School. She noted that the program helped to dissipate the division in the classroom of those students who could and who could not speak English. Ms. Ohmann explained that the program could be funded as a pilot program, and could be duplicated throughout the state.
Ms. Shelia Leslie asked Harry Haaser, Principal, Incline Elementary School, if any research had been done to determine the differences between Latino children who had been through the El Conte Program and those that had not. Mr. Haaser explained that the school had been attempting to follow the students that had participated in the program, and noted the Hispanic population in the kindergarten class was approaching 50 percent of the student population. Due to the program the teachers were focusing less on language and more on teaching children the curriculum. Mr. Haaser stated that there was no testing done statewide to validate the improvement as a result of the program, but the kindergarten teachers had seen tremendous growth in the children who had gone through the program as opposed to students who entered without English skills. Mr. Haaser stated that the other portion of the program that was important was the level of parent interaction that was encouraged. The parent interaction was easy to transfer to the elementary school.
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani asked what the age population was in the El Conte Program. Ms. Ohmann stated that the age population was four to five. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if any of the children were disabled in any way. Mr. Haaser explained that screening was completed and nothing had been able to be identified. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were transition services that the Washoe County School District provided to the Incline program. Mr. Haaser stated that there were no English as a Second Language (ESL) services provided to kindergarten, so school services were not provided for the kindergarten. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the services were now mandatory. Mr. Haaser explained that it was his understanding the ESL services were not provided for kindergarten students. Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated that it was mandatory to provide ESL services to kindergarten classes.
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske stated that the grant revenue was $6,814 and asked if the grants were local grants. Ms. Ohmann stated that the amount was a projection for the current fiscal year and the program was fortunate to have it funded through a private grant. The funding history of the program had been on a year-to-year basis. Mrs. Cegavske asked how many years the Children’s Cabinet had been in the elementary school. Ms. Ohmann stated the Children’s Cabinet was ten years old, and the El Conte Program opened in 1995. Mrs. Cegavske suggested that Ms. Ohmann talk to Assemblywoman Chowning.
Mr. Brower thanked the committee for hearing the testimony on the bill.
The Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 287 and opened the hearing on S.B. 432.
Senate Bill 432: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for purchase of computer software and equipment. (BDR S-1363)
Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs, stated that he had provided a handout concerning S.B. 432 (Exhibit E). The bill was a one-shot included in The Executive Budget. S.B. 432 included $137,518 for computer replacements and upgrades throughout the department. The original request was $153,309 and had been decreased by $15,791 to the amount previously mentioned. Within the handout was a list of the computers going to each agency within the department.
The Chair closed the hearing on S.B. 432 and opened the hearing on S.B. 457.
Senate Bill 457: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for conservation laboratory and extends reversion date for prior appropriation made to Department. (BDR S-1423)
Mr. Sisco stated that S.B. 457 included a $40,000 appropriation, found in The Executive Budget, to complete the conservation lab. The conservation lab had originally been built as part of the Nevada State Library and Archives Building in 1991 with an anticipated cost of $75,000 for furnishings and equipment. The department was able to receive grants in the amount of $35,000 and the $40,000 appropriation would finish the conservation lab. The previous handout listed the equipment for the laboratory, of which the first $40,000 was included in the bill. The conservation lab would provide the ability to take care of the items in the State Library and Archives, in particular, older documents in need of restoration found in the archives. In addition, the bill was amended in the Senate Committee on Finance. The department had been given an appropriation for the Boulder City Railroad Museum in the previous biennium, and the work to prepare the passenger facilities was not completed and would not be completed by the close of the fiscal year. The amended bill requested an extension on the reversion date for the funds to December 31.
The Chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 457 and opened the hearing on S.B. 437 and S.B. 438.
Senate Bill 437: Makes appropriation to National Judicial College to assist in securing public and private grants and other funding for support during 2001-2003 biennium. (BDR S-1371)
Senate Bill 438: Makes appropriation to Louis W. McHardy National College of Juvenile and Family Justice to assist in securing public and private grants and other funding for support during 2001-2003 biennium. (BDR S-1373)
Chairman Arberry recognized Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division. Mr. Hataway explained that S.B. 437 and S.B. 438 continued the financial support that the state had provided to the two institutions for the previous 12 years. In S.B. 437 the support had previously been in the form of endowments to the organization on which interest could be earned, or in direct appropriations. In 1999 the appropriation was for $600,000, which equated to the interest that the organization earned in the previous two years. The original bill in The Executive Budget was to continue the $600,000 funding level, but it had been amended to $450,000, which reflected the interest that would be earned on the same amount of money. The same concept was continued at the current interest cost. Mr. Hataway indicated that the same concept was found in S.B. 438.
The Chair closed the hearing on S.B. 437 and S.B. 438 and opened the hearing on S.B. 450.
Senate Bill 450: Makes appropriation to State Department of Agriculture for vehicles and new equipment. (BDR S-1399)
Ed Hoganson, Administrator, State Sealer of Weights and Measures, explained that the division was charged with determining fuel specifications for the state, and the testing of motor fuels for that use. The division was primarily charged with inspecting and testing all commercial use scales throughout the state. The request in the bill was for the petroleum testing section. There were several pieces of equipment that were 30 or 40 years old and did not meet the current standards for testing meters recognized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbooks. The division was concerned with the condition of the equipment, and with safety issues when handling volatile fuels. The division had two petroleum testing vehicles, one in Elko and one in Las Vegas, that needed to be replaced. Mr. Hoganson stated that with the growth of petroleum meters in Las Vegas, one additional unit needed to be added. In the areas of the larger meters, the division required a 100-gallon prover for handling fuel deliveries at airports and home deliveries. The larger petroleum prover was basically for use at airports and needed to be equipped with safety inner locks so that the dispensers at commercial airports could be tested. The final item in the request was a prover for testing liquid propane.
Chairman Arberry inquired about the time line for receiving the new equipment if the request was approved. Mr. Hoganson answered that from conversations with the suppliers, he believed a majority of the equipment would be in place within six months.
Mr. John Marvel asked how often the metering devices were found to be out of sync. Mr. Hoganson answered that the amount varied depending on the type of meter that was being discussed. The meters were mechanical and had electrical inner locks with displays, so some of the violations were minor. Most of the adjustments that were made were completed on-site by a registered service agent, and a representative of the dispensing organization. Mr. Hoganson opined that 10 to 20 percent of the meters needed to be corrected.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 450 and opened the hearing on S.B. 455.
Senate Bill 455: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment, and hardware and software at Lakes Crossing Center. (BDR S-1419)
Mike Torvinen, Administrative Services Officer, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, explained that S.B. 455 was included in The Executive Budget and was for new and replacement equipment, and hardware and software at the Lake’s Crossing Center in Sparks. A majority of the requested appropriation would be spent on security equipment, such as electronic doors, cameras and security glass. The appropriation included a request to establish a network at the facility.
The Chair closed the hearing on S.B. 455 and opened the hearing on S.B. 456.
Senate Bill 456: Makes appropriation to Division of Child and Family Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment at Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services Juvenile Treatment Facility. (BDR S-1420)
Bruce Alder, Deputy Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, explained that S.B. 456 was a one-shot appropriation for the Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services. The original request was for $178,458 and had been reduced to $148,150. The money would be used to purchase new and replacement furnishings and equipment for the on-campus treatment homes, Desert Willow Treatment Center, and other areas in early childhood services.
The Chair closed the hearing on S.B 456 and opened the hearing on S.B. 477.
Senate Bill 477: Makes appropriation to Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation for Independent Living State Client Services Program. (BDR S-1413)
Mr. Hataway stated that the $500,000 appropriation was included in The Executive Budget at $500,000 to provide assistance for assisted living devices to help disabled people to maintain an independent living environment. The amendment changed the appropriation from the Department of Human Resources to the Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation. Mr. Hataway explained that in the budget there had been a proposal to create an Office of Disability Services, within the Department of Human Resources, which had not been approved. The appropriation in S.B. 477 had been moved accordingly.
The Chair recognized Robert Desruisseaux, Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living, who spoke in favor of the bill. Mr. Desruisseaux noted that the program provided for home modifications and technology for people with disabilities that did not qualify for services through other programs. The program had a large waiting list and had not received an increase in funding over the previous two sessions. People on the waiting list had a year and a half to a two-year wait for services. The Independent Living program provided the tools that an individual needed to become independent, and gain a place in the community. Last year the home modification program had raised $50,000 and in the current year that had increased to $60,000. In the previous year through the home modification program 50 people were serviced. Mr. Desruisseaux presented the committee with stories of children who had utilized the services (Exhibit F), and a handout of letters from people on the waiting list (Exhibit G). Mr. Desruisseaux noted that the impact of the program on an individual and their family was immediate. He urged the committee’s support of the bill.
Jon Sasser, Lobbyist, Washoe Legal Services, testified in support of the bill.
The Chair closed the hearing on S.B. 477 and opened the hearing on S.B. 491.
Senate Bill 491: Makes appropriation to Opportunity Village Foundation for revitalization of thrift stores that are operated by Opportunity Village Foundation. (BDR S-1354)
Mr. Hataway explained that the $250,000 proposal in the bill was included in The Executive Budget. The amendment to the bill added a reporting requirement and clarified what the funds would be used for, the revitalization of thrift stores that were operated by Opportunity Village Foundation.
Ed Guthrie, Executive Director, Opportunity Village Foundation, explained that Opportunity Village had been established in 1954 as the Clark County Association for Retarded Children by a group of concerned parents and family members. Mr. Guthrie noted that the organization was the largest provider of vocational training and employment services for people with metal retardation and related disabilities in the state of Nevada. Over the past five years Opportunity Village had paid over $1 million per year in wages to people that others might consider unemployable because of serious disabilities. The organization also provided day habilitation services to people with some of the more serious disabilities. Mr. Guthrie thanked the committee for their consideration.
The money requested would be used to revitalize the thrift stores in order to continue to provide services and generate surpluses that would be used to subsidize other services. The Opportunity Village had been the thrift store for Las Vegas for the previous 40 years. Over two-thirds of the employees in the thrift stores and processing division were people with severe disabilities. Mr. Guthrie stated that in FY2002 fund-raising and contract income would generate over $9.5 million of an $11.5 million budget. Less than 20 percent of the money Opportunity Village used to provide services was provided by the state of Nevada. Mr. Guthrie noted that for years the thrift stores were able to generate $250,000 per year that went to subsidize the Community Training Center Program, but times had changed and the thrift stores were facing competition from national chains. Over the past decade market shares and sales had decreased to the point if there was not a change the stores would be closed. Opportunity Village would use the appropriation to open new stores, and to hire a management consultant firm to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation. Mr. Guthrie opined that hundred of thousands of dollars of surplus would be generated over the next decade, and the organization intended to invest the surplus in community services for people with severe disabilities. He promised that the one-time investment would contribute at least $2.5 million over the next decade toward services for people with severe disabilities. Mr. Guthrie urged the committee to support the bill.
Mrs. Cegavske thanked Mr. Guthrie for the services that were being provided.
Ms. Leslie stated that she was sure that the organization completed wonderful work, and noted that she had spent time with the sister agency in northern Nevada. Ms. Leslie asked what rationale Mr. Guthrie could provide for funding a nonprofit organization in southern Nevada without funding the similar organization in northern Nevada in a tight budget year. Mr. Guthrie indicated there were different conditions in northern Nevada than there were in southern Nevada. The Opportunity Village was feeling a major impact due to the national chains of thrift stores. The national chains had not been as much of a major influence in the Reno area as they had been in the Las Vegas area. The money requested would rebuild the competitive capability to survive in the market area. Ms. Leslie stated that there had been a large impact in the Reno area from the national chains, and the southern organizations had access to a larger number of resources than northern programs did. Ms. Leslie stated that she found the request slightly offensive.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Guthrie would not support splitting the appropriation in order to assist other areas that needed the support. Mr. Guthrie stated that he had not said he would not support other areas that were in need, but the Opportunity Village needed the assistance to work with the thrift stores. Ms. Giunchigliani explained that she understood that concept and appreciated the competition factor. She asked how the money would be used to make the organization competitive. Mr. Guthrie reiterated that the organization would be hiring a management-consulting firm that had a background in thrift stores, to improve operations. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what percentage of the appropriation would go toward the management-consulting firm, to which Mr. Guthrie answered approximately half. The other half of the appropriation would be used to open new stores for Opportunity Village. The organization was hoping to open three to four new stores within the next two years. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if that was the appropriate path to take if the organization was just beginning exploratory conversations with consultants. Mr. Guthrie explained that there had been preliminary conversations with the consultants, and a certain base was needed to improve the operation. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Opportunity Village had looked at moving in a different direction from thrift stores. Mr. Guthrie explained that the organization did complete items in other areas, and had just begun a $3.1 million food service contract with Nellis Air Force Base. The organization generated $1.5 million in fund-raising income. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that she did not mean this as a criticism, but she was fearful when an appropriation was given to one group, when there was a great need across the state, the disabled community would be split. Mr. Guthrie stated that he believed this was equated to funding a building at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, and not fund one at the University of Nevada at Reno in the current biennium. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that she was not on the subcommittee that considered those matters. Mr. Guthrie explained that he believed the legislature had a history of completing that type of funding in the education realm. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Guthrie could provide a budget or plan on how the expenditures would be completed.
The Chair closed the hearing on S.B. 491 and opened the hearing on S.B. 494.
Senate Bill 494: Creates Nevada protection account in state general fund. (BDR 31-1430)
Mr. Hataway explained that the request was included in The Executive Budget. The bill created the Nevada Protection Account in the state General Fund, gave authorization to receive gifts, donations, and other sources of money, allowed interest accrued to be given to the account, and the funds in the account would not revert to the General Fund at the end of the fiscal year. The second item in the bill was a $4 million appropriation to the newly created fund. The amended bill reduced the original recommendation from $5 million to $4 million in order to balance the current fiscal year budget. The state had a budget account for ongoing studies of reports issued by the federal government in regard to the potential placement of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The fund would provide the ability for the state to challenge a final decision of the federal government to place the repository, and to step into any venue where it was appropriate to complete that task, including the regulatory situation in Washington D.C., the judicial system to challenge the regulatory bodies decisions, and the advertising and political arena.
Mr. Joe Dini noted he had read in a newspaper that Yucca Mountain was “dead” and asked if that affected the appropriation. Mr. Hataway explained nothing had been said about instructing the agency to dispense with construction activities on the site, and a final decision had not been made. He opined that when the decision was made it would be to the detriment of the state and the funds were needed to take whatever actions were necessary.
Mr. Marvel asked how the money would be used. Mr. Hataway stated that the bill established the corpus to use and a plan could not be developed until the direction that needed to be taken was discovered. Mr. Marvel asked if there would be reporting to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). Mr. Hataway stated that that could be an element. Mr. Marvel stated that he would like to have that included as a Letter of Intent.
The Chair closed the hearing on S.B. 494.
Senate Bill 138: Exempts Colorado River commission from State Budget Act. (BDR 31-344)
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, explained that the bill would exempt the Colorado River Commission from the State Budget Act.
Ms. Giunchigliani explained that there needed to be further conversations with the Governor about this bill.
Chairman Arberry held the bill.
********
Senate Bill 143: Makes appropriations to certain judicial districts for continuation or establishment of programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or controlled substances. (BDR S-178)
Mr. Stevens stated that S.B. 143 would fund the drug courts in Clark and Washoe Counties.
Mr. Hataway explained that the bill was a continuation of the support that had been provided in the previous session. It replaced two of the Budget Division bills.
Chairman Arberry stated that it was nearing the end of session and action needed to be taken on some of the bills. He held S.B 143.
********
Senate Bill 277: Requires posting of sign in certain food establishments in which alcoholic beverages are sold that warns of dangers of drinking such beverages during pregnancy. (BDR 40-24)
Mr. Stevens commented that S.B. 277 required the posting of signs in food establishments in which alcoholic beverages were sold that warned about the dangers of drinking during pregnancy. There was an amendment to the bill that changed the size of the lettering on the sign, so the sign would be 8.5 inches by 11 inches.
Mr. Dini stated that the purpose of the bill was fine, but as a businessman it was unreasonable. If the sign was posted in the bathroom and ripped off the wall by a customer the owner would be fined. The responsibility in the bill was placed on a person who had no chance to win.
The bill was held.
********
Chairman Arberry recessed the meeting at 8:45 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 9:24 a.m. He opened the hearing on S.B. 421.
Senate Bill 421: Makes various changes to provisions governing common- interest communities. (BDR 10-446)
Renny Ashleman, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, commented that the Assembly Committee on Judiciary had agreed to a number of amendments for S.B. 421 that were primarily technical in nature. The amendments had been removed because the Legislative Counsel Bureau was unable to complete them in time to move the bill to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. The committees with jurisdiction over the bill were aware of the amendments that would be heard in the committee. What had been completed by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary was the deletion of Sections 36, 37, and 64 of the first reprint of S.B. 421, and the adoption of the amendments presented to the committee (Exhibit H, Exhibit I, Exhibit J). Mr. Ashleman asked the committee to duplicate the actions of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. The bill created a commission that cost approximately $400,000 per annum to run, and there was $800,000 in the reserve.
Chairman Arberry asked who had provided the amendments. Scott Craigie, Lobbyist, American Resort Development Association, explained that Exhibit H had come from the working group, and were amendments that dealt with conflicts with existing law. The amendments spelled out that the developers had the responsibility for paying common area expenses before the common areas were turned over to the homeowner association. The amendments described were to Section 39.
Mr. Ashleman stated that the bill created a commission with the purpose of dealing with conflicts between the people who were members of the homeowners’ association, and the managers and boards of the associations. It also had the purpose of gathering data for the purpose of refining and giving information for potential future legislation. The money for the commission was present in the reserves of the division and the income from the fees in effect for the support of similar actives were substantial and could cover the matter.
Joan Buchanan, Administrator, Real Estate Commission, Department of Business and Industry, stated that the session had begun with one fiscal note on the bill, and the division now felt that the third revision of the fiscal note that was before the committee would support the projects and assist the homeowners’ associations throughout the state. Ms. Buchanan explained the division had a hefty reserve, and it kept increasing. The reserve was averaging $50,000 per month. Ms. Buchanan noted there were people still missing, and once additional staff was employed there would be additional money. Currently there was more than adequate money in the reserve to complete the request. Ms. Buchanan noted that currently the division was spending $181,000 with four employees in the Ombudsman’s Office, and the bill provided for a new arm of investigations of Common Interest Community Managers, task forces, and reporting back to the legislature. Additionally there was a data position so that tracking could be updated and statistics could be improved. If the committee was interested in in-depth information on the data position Ms. Buchanan could provide that. The division was confident that the reserve money could carry the program forward, and was excited about continuing being part of the solution. Ms. Buchanan explained that an additional deputy administrator was being requested because the Real Estate Division had received a number of additional duties.
Mr. Dini asked if the bill would assist in solving the problems that were being experienced in Lovelock. Ms. Buchanan answered in the affirmative and explained that the legislation required that all managers be licensed. There were also regulatory enforcement powers so that the division could address concerns with the managers. Additionally, there was a provision of notices to boards, and there would be meetings with the Ombudsman mediating and working with the parties. If nothing was solved then the problem would go to the commission. Mr. Dini confirmed that the commission could enforce the laws.
Ms. Buchanan explained that the division believed the program would work.
Mrs. Vonne Chowning stated that all the help that could be given was needed. She asked if the legislation continued the exemption of small units. Ms. Buchanan explained that the very small units were exempted. Mr. Craigie informed the committee that in the previous session the small unit exemption had been removed, and was not being put back into place. Ms. Buchanan explained that the time-share industry was being removed from the bill by S.B. 261, which would make various changes to provisions governing time‑shares and common-interest communities.
Chairman Arberry asked for reiteration of the amendments. Mr. Craigie stated that three sections of the bill had been amended out, Sections 34, 36, and 64, and there was a list of technical amendments. The amendments were not transported to the committee as was previously mentioned, and a vote to amend the bill would be needed. The Assembly Committee on Judiciary had acted on the bill behind the Bar to remove the amendments so that it could be referred to the committee because of the legislation deadlines. Mr. Arberry confirmed that all the amendments had been provided to the committee.
Mr. Ashleman reiterated that the motion was needed to delete Sections 34, 36, and 64, and pass the three handouts of amendments that had been provided to the committee.
The Chair closed the hearing on S.B. 421.
Senate Bill 431: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for grants for library collections and equipment requirements. (BDR S-1362)
Mr. Stevens explained that S.B. 431 provided for grants to the Department of Museums, Library and Arts for library collections and equipment requirements.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 431.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Perkins was absent.)
********
The Chair recessed the meeting at 9:38 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:41 a.m.
Senate Bill 432: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for purchase of computer software and equipment. (BDR S-1363)
MR. DINI MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 432.
MS. LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Perkins was absent.)
********
The Chair indicated that the committee would make a motion on the following bills en masse: S.B. 435, S.B. 436, S.B. 437, S.B. 438, S.B. 439, S.B. 440, S.B. 441, S.B. 448, S.B. 450, S.B. 455, S.B. 456, S.B. 457, and S.B. 461.
Senate Bill 435: Makes appropriation to Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment, maintenance, and new and replacement computer hardware and software. (BDR S-1367)
Senate Bill 436: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment, operating expenses and new and replacement computer hardware and software for Rural Regional Center of Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services. (BDR S-1369)
Senate Bill 437: Makes appropriation to National Judicial College to assist in securing public and private grants and other funding for support during 2001-2003 biennium. (BDR S-1371)
Senate Bill 438: Makes appropriation to Louis W. McHardy National College of Juvenile and Family Justice to assist in securing public and private grants and other funding for support during 2001-2003 biennium. (BDR S-1373)
Senate Bill 439: Makes appropriation to Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment and computer hardware and software at Desert Regional Center. (BDR S-1374)
Senate Bill 440: Makes appropriation to Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment and computer hardware and software at Sierra Regional Center. (BDR S-1375)
Senate Bill 441: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment and computer hardware and software at Rural Clinics. (BDR S-1377)
Senate Bill 448: Makes appropriation to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for improvement projects at state parks and revises particular purposes and extends periods for expenditure of certain money previously appropriated for park improvement projects. (BDR S-1392)
Senate Bill 450: Makes appropriation to State Department of Agriculture for vehicles and new equipment. (BDR S-1399)
Senate Bill 455: Makes appropriation to Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment, and hardware and software at Lakes Crossing Center. (BDR S-1419)
Senate Bill 456: Makes appropriation to Division of Child and Family Services of Department of Human Resources for new and replacement equipment at Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services Juvenile Treatment Facility. (BDR S-1420)
Senate Bill 457: Makes appropriation to Department of Museums, Library and Arts for conservation laboratory and extends reversion date for prior appropriation made to Department. (BDR S-1423)
Senate Bill 461: Makes appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada for new and replacement equipment and associated software in computing center. (BDR S-1428)
MR. DINI MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 435, S.B. 436, S.B. 437, S.B. 438, S.B. 439, S.B. 440, S.B. 441, S.B. 448, S.B. 450, S.B. 455, S.B. 456, S.B. 457, AND S.B. 461.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Perkins was absent.)
********
Senate Bill 143: Makes appropriations to certain judicial districts for continuation or establishment of programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or controlled substances. (BDR S-178)
Mr. Stevens explained that S.B. 143 was for drug courts in Clark and Washoe Counties. There was approximately $10,000 more than what was built into The Executive Budget in the bill.
Mr. Dini explained that A.B. 73, which would make an appropriation to the Administrative Office of the Courts for establishment of programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or controlled substances in certain judicial districts, was for the rural drug courts and provided $150,000 each year and covered Carson, Churchill, Douglas, Lyon and Storey Counties. The judges had asked Mr. Dini to introduce the bill. There was controversy occurring in District 9 dealing with the Equal Protection Clause, because the drug court programs were currently only available in certain counties. Mr. Dini suggested to have A.B. 73 amended into S.B. 143.
MR. DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 143, INCLUDING A $300,000 APPROPRIATION TO THE RURAL AREA DRUG COURT PROGRAM.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Sandra Tiffany assumed that the motion was for the $300,000 in A.B. 73 to be included in the bill on top of the $1.1 million appropriation in S.B. 143. Ms. Tiffany asked if the $300,000 was on the priority list for spending because the funding was not in the budget. Chairman Arberry explained that there was no priority listing. Ms. Tiffany stated that she would like to see competitive requests for proposals (RFP) as well as a utilization review to ensure for accountability.
Ms. Leslie stated that a majority of the money involved in the bill was in the budget.
Mr. Hataway explained that S.B. 429, which would make an appropriation to the Administrator of the Courts of the Second Judicial District for continuation of its programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs, and S.B. 430, which would make an appropriation to the Administrator of the Courts of the Eighth Judicial District for continuation of its programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs, had been indefinitely postponed by the Senate in favor of S.B. 143.
Ms. Leslie noted that although A.B. 73 was not included in The Executive Budget, she did support the inclusion. Ms. Leslie explained that rather than amending the bill she had had conversations with the judges and she was willing to have a Letter of Intent included to indicate the need for competitive RFPs.
Ms. Tiffany explained that she did not believe there had been enough time spent on the bill. The rural courts were receiving a $300,000 appropriation and Washoe County would be receiving a $350,000 appropriation. Ms. Tiffany believed that there was not an appropriate balance in the funding in comparison to population of the area. She said that an exorbitant amount of money was being given to the rural areas in comparison to Clark and Washoe Counties.
Mr. Dini explained that there needed to be a comparison of judicial load. The Ninth Judicial District, which was Churchill and Lyon Counties, compared to the judicial load in Clark County. Mr. Dini emphasized that in the rural areas one judge had to oversee three judicial districts.
Ms. Tiffany explained that she had not heard testimony that justified what Mr. Dini had just said.
Gene Porter, Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District, testified that Mr. Dini was correct. The Ninth Judicial District was the second busiest district court in Nevada, approximately 200 cases less than the Eighth Judicial District. Ms. Tiffany asked if that was in reference to the drug court. Judge Porter explained that the drug court program was a wonderful program, and the other option was prison.
Mr. Bob Beers stated Clark County would receive 51 percent of the drug court money with 69 percent of the population in the proposed amended bill. If this problem could not be solved he would have to vote against the bill.
Mr. Dini said the judges had asked for the amounts that were being requested in the bill. The amounts were not random, and the judges must know how much was required to run the drug courts in a particular area.
Mrs. Chowning confirmed that the motion included $300,000 for the other counties, and asked if the RFP language was included. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that in discussions with the courts, the RFP would be workable, and it was up to the committee to decide how to include that language. Chairman Arberry indicated it would be included through a Letter of Intent.
Mrs. Cegavske disclosed that she was employed by West Care and would have to abstain from voting on the bill.
THE MOTION PASSED, INCLUDING THE LETTER OF INTENT. (Mr. Beers voted no. Mrs. Cegavske abstained from the vote. Mr. Perkins was absent.)
********
Assembly Bill 175: Requires department of transportation to establish along certain highways system of communication for members of general public to report emergencies and receive information concerning conditions for driving on those highways. (BDR 35-820)
MRS. CHOWNING MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 175 TO ESTABLISH APPROXIMATELY 40 COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS ON INTERSTATE 15 FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LINE TO LAKE MEAD DRIVE, WITH AN APPROPRIATION OF $500,000 FOR THE HIGHWAY FUND.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE BILL.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Beers and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 615: Requires submission to voters of proposal to issue general obligation bonds to protect, preserve and obtain benefits of property and natural resources of state. (BDR S-1463)
Mr. Stevens explained that A.B. 615 was a bond issue not to exceed $200 million. There were substantial amendments to the bill that had been proposed during the bill’s hearing. It would break the bond amounts into areas listed within the bill.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated this was a policy decision for the committee because it was outside of the cap. Her suggestion for the bill was to give the authority, and allow the neediest projects to move forward, and then allow for the issuance of grants with appearances before the IFC for authority. Ms. Giunchigliani said that she did not desire to have the IFC approve every grant, but with the suggestion there would be a phase-in over a six-year period. She noted it was a huge issue, but would have a long-term effect. The suggestion did not change the amendments that had been previously given to the committee. Ms. Giunchigliani asked to have the amendment looked at by the committee to ensure its acceptance.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 615.
MR. GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Lynn Hettrick was concerned that there were smaller counties that were at the cap, and even if they voted against the proposal the smaller counties would have to pay the additional tax requirement. He also noted that because the smaller counties were at the cap they would not be able to receive the match money, and would still have to pay the tax. He asked to have small counties not go over the cap and not receive the funds, or to allow the option into paying the tax and receiving the money.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that Mr. Hettrick’s points were valid. She stated that it appeared that if the smaller counties were allowed not to be a part of the agreement it would not stop the Department of Conservation and Wildlife from completing its tasks of the statewide issues. Ms. Giunchigliani said that her recommendation allowed for the larger projects to commence and then the other staggered areas could then begin.
Mr. John Marvel agreed with Mr. Hettrick and stated that if it was possible to stay within the 15 cents then all the counties could continue to meet the level, but if it was increased over 15 cents then there were areas that were currently at the $3.64 level.
Mr. David Goldwater explained that the proposal was over and above the $3.64 cap. The committee had considered the issue several times for a number of different causes. He believed that the rural counties needed to address the issue. The $3.64 cap was in response to Proposition 13 in California from the early 1980s. Mr. Goldwater said that when taxes were examined one area that would need to be looked at was what to do about the ad valorem tax in the rural counties or what revenues would be used to fund the rural counties. Mr. Goldwater said that this was the first time he had considered going outside the cap, because he believed that the tax structure of the state was going to be seriously looked at.
Mr. Marvel said that he believed that the $3.64 cap could not be overridden by going to a vote of the people.
Mr. Dini agreed with Mr. Goldwater’s comments about exceeding the cap. He stated that there was precedence for the idea. He said that if the committee looked at the A.B. 198 bond money that had been used for water systems, it could be noted that the bond was paid for by a statewide tax and a large percentage went to rural and small communities. Mr. Dini said that he believed the smaller communities would need to pay the tax in order to meet the constitutional requirements of the state. Mr. Dini commented that there was bond conveyance built into the bill, and if counties were exempted there might be a negative impact. He noted that Esmeralda County was a small county, but if it was a statewide project all people needed to be involved.
Mr. Marvel said that Elko County contained the city of Wells and the city of Carlin, both of which were currently at the $3.64 cap.
Ms. Giunchigliani said that when amendments were being worked out, the attempt was to stagger the projects for the purposes that had been previously mentioned, then in statewide issues there would be money to fund the projects. The division would also be allowed to appear before the IFC to request the next portion of issuance based on the other groups’ readiness.
Pamela Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, stated that Ms. Giunchigliani was correct, and noted that the IFC would have control over the bond process as the projects moved forward. The taxpayers would only have to pay back the bonds that were issued. Ms. Wilcox noted that a majority of the bonds were going to projects that had statewide significance. There had been a real effort in the writing of the bill, and even monies that were going to local governments were going for conservation purposes. She opined that people in rural counties and urban counties enjoyed the state parks. The bill was built to be a bill that would benefit the state of Nevada at the present time and in the future by protecting the resources.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the way the amendment provided for the staggering showed a need for further discussions. If the rural areas did not wish to participate in projects and did not desire the movement of the bonds, then the bonds would not be issued. Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated that her motion was to amend and do pass A.B. 615.
Mr. Hettrick asked what the required tax rate would be if all the bonds were issued. Ms. Wilcox stated that the tax would be approximately 2 cents above the $3.64 level.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Mrs. Cegavske voted no. Mr. Beers and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that she appreciated the hesitancy because this was an important matter. She suggested having the committee examine the bill to ensure a high comfort level once the amendments had been added.
**********
BUDGET CLOSINGS
Mr. Goldwater noted that the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance Joint Subcommittee on K-12/Human Resources had worked hard, along with the Senate and Assembly leadership, to close the Distributive School Account. He read from the Closing Report of June 1, 2001, as follows:
Local School District Salaries: The Subcommittee recommends a 2% COLA in FY 2003 for local school district employees, to be paid from Business Transaction Fees and Rental Car Fee Rebate Reversion.
School District Utility Costs: The Subcommittee recommends correcting the calculation of utility costs in The Executive Budget to include inflation adjustments for the increases in square footage, increasing the funding available for school districts by $2,123,049 over the 2001-03 biennium.
Per Pupil Guaranteed Support: Increases for COLA and utilities would be reflected in the guaranteed per pupil basic support, increasing it to $3,897 for FY 2002 and $3,991 for FY 2003, raising the per pupil support by $1 in FY 2002 and by $95 in FY 2003
Special Education: The Subcommittee recommends continuing funding of special education enrollment growth based on the same rate of growth as the general student population. Increases in federal special education funding will support increased enrollment and smaller caseloads and class sizes.
Class-Size Reduction: The Subcommittee recommends closing the Class-Size Reduction program at the level recommended by the Governor. The Subcommittee recommends adding language to the appropriations bill to continue the Elko Class-Size Reduction demonstration project for the next biennium.
Adult High School Diploma Program: The Subcommittee recommends adoption of the funding formula changes to the Adult High School Diploma Program, recommended by the Department of Education, to be effective FY 2003, with a sunset clause of June 30, 2003. The Subcommittee recommends issuing a Letter of Intent directing the Department of Education to maintain the current level of programs both in prison programming and in school district programming, and to provide a written report to the 2003 Legislature.
School Improvement Programs:
PROGRAM |
Reductions |
FY2002Recommended |
Reductions |
FY2003Recommended |
|
Remediation Grants |
($1,325,629) |
$6,750,000 |
($1,621,199) |
$6,750,000 |
|
Prof. Development Categorical Grants |
($521,725) |
$4,695,530 |
($611,197) |
$5,500,775 |
|
Nevada Early Literacy Intervention Program |
($500,000) |
$4,500,000 |
($500,000) |
$4,500,000 |
|
School-to-Careers |
($500,000) |
$500,000 |
0 |
0 |
|
Early Childhood Education Grants |
($1,000,000) |
$3,500,000 |
($1,000,000) |
$3,500,000 |
Funding Issues:
LSST: The Subcommittee approved offsetting the LSST revenue shortfall of $2,875,887 for FY 2001 with estate tax collections, as a one-time expense.
Interest Income: The Subcommittee recommends that the amount recommended for interest income from The Permanent School Fund be increased by $1.25 million per year to $4,994,428 per year.
Property Tax: The Subcommittee recommends reducing the 25˘ portion of the projected increase in assessed valuation from 7.3 percent to 6.44 percent to reflect the current projection by the Department of Taxation. The Subcommittee does not recommend reducing the 50˘ portion of the assessed valuation projected increase from 7.3 percent to 6.44 percent.
Estate Taxes: The Subcommittee recommends offsetting the FY 2001 $2,875,887 shortfall in sales tax collections with estate tax, as a one-time expense.
Business Transaction Fees, S.B. 577,are expected to generate $29.0 million in the next biennium. The Rental Car Fee Rebate Reversion, A.B. 460, is expected to generate $23.5 million in revenues.
In addition to COLA for school district employees and providing for increased utility costs, the Business Transaction Fees and the Rental Car Fee Rebate Reversion, along with $57.5 million in The Executive Budget and $10 million from A.B. 450 are expected to fund the following, not included in the DSA:
· A 3% Teacher Retention Bonus to be paid in FY 2001
· Teacher Recruitment Bonuses for FY 2001 and FY 2002
· An Energy Assistance Fund in the amount of $17 million for state agencies such as the University and Community College System and prisons, and $6.5 million for K-12
· Assistance with Health Insurance Premiums in the amount of $13 million
· $5 million for other Vital Education Programs Subsidy out of concern that school districts may be cutting essential or desirable programs
· Addition of one position to the Legislative Audit Division staff; an experienced auditor will conduct a preliminary survey of areas that might be appropriate for audit in the Clark and Washoe County School Districts.
Fund balances will be tested May 1, 2002 to determine if fund balances have exceeded projections by the Economic Forum sufficient to fund a 1% or 2% COLA for school district employees. If there are insufficient revenues to fund a 2% COLA in May, 2002, but it appears from revenue projections in October, 2002, that revenues will be sufficient to fund a 2% increase, a 2% COLA will be given to school district employees at that time.
Regardless of whether sufficient funding exists to fund a 2% COLA in May or October, 2002, the base for the FY 2004 budget will reflect a 4% increase over FY 2002 for school district salaries.
Mr. Goldwater said the statement that he had just read from was recommended by the subcommittee unanimously, and he thanked Georgia Rohrs, Program Analyst, for her work.
Ms. Giunchigliani disclosed that she was a public school teacher, but would be voting on the budget. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that although many teachers were appreciative, the job was not complete and over the interim funding still needed to be dealt with. She went on to say that she was under the impression that staff had found extra dollars that could have been used for special education, and asked why the committee had not acted on that.
Mr. Stevens explained that there was some discussion on increasing the special education unit value based on the 2 percent salary increase that was provided generally to K-12 employees. That had been discussed but was not acted on by the subcommittee. The cost was in the neighborhood of $1.5 million.
Mrs. Chowning asked for a reiteration of what was recommended concerning class-size reduction. Mr. Goldwater explained that the subcommittee had accepted the Governor’s recommended funding level and added language to allow Elko to continue the pilot program. Mrs. Chowning indicated that the recommendation did not include the addition of grade six to the class-size reduction program. Mr. Goldwater said that the Elko program would be adding grade six, but the other schools would not be. The Elko program had the flexibility to complete the class-size reduction program pending approval of legislation relating to that issue.
Mrs. Chowning stated that there was a presumed $29 million present in S.B. 577, whichwould limit common law and statutory liability of corporate stockholders, directors, and officers, and increased fees for filing certain documents with the Secretary of State, and asked how it would be spent. Mr. Goldwater explained that the numbers were tentative because they were not Economic Forum numbers. There was a reasonable expectation, and the subcommittee had used as fiscally conservative revenue projections as possible. Mr. Goldwater had encouraged discussion on different education funding plans, and as the different plans were examined the projection was viewed conservatively because the worst thing would be to have the actual not meet the projections.
Mrs. Chowning commented that the committee needed to be mindful that what was being proposed was contingent on additional legislation, S.B. 577 and A.B. 460, which dealt with car rental tax. Mrs. Chowning asked if A.B. 460 was going to be a $23.5 million “hit to that industry.” Mr. Goldwater explained that he believed there had been a compromise worked out allowing the industry to recover the registration fee. He noted that the budget was contingent on the legislation passing. Mrs. Chowning clarified that the recommendation was taking into consideration A.B. 460 as amended.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why if there was an additional $1.5 million for special education, the money was not being utilized. She noted that it was not anticipated, and she did not desire stopping the passage of the recommendation, but asked if the conversation could be continued. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that it was illogical to not place the found money into the budget when special education was already underfunded. She emphasized that she would continue to pursue the idea of the additional money for special education.
MR. DINI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
MS. LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Beers, Mr. Hettrick, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)
********
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
The Chair recognized Rick Combs, Program Analyst. Mr. Combs presented the recommendations of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance Joint Subcommittee on Higher Education/Capital Improvement Projects. The total program recommended by the subcommittee was $293,689,091. The funds that made up that total amount were:
· $14,000,472 in General Funds in comparison to the Governor’s original recommendation of $18 million and revised recommendation of $16 million,
· $196,490,014 in General Obligation Bonds in comparison to the Governor’s recommendation of $200,203,753,
· $2,202,333 in re-allocations from previous CIPs in comparison to $3,000,000 recommended by the Governor and approximately $2.3 million found by the Public Works Board,
· $1,598,090 in Highway Funds,
· $33,949,306 in university donations,
· $7,110,310 in federal funds,
· $4,000,000 in the Department of Employee Training and Rehabilitation funds,
· $29,338,566 in bonds not paid from ad valorem tax,
· and $5,000,000 from the Special Higher Education Capital Construction Fund.
Mr. Combs stated that he would present the main projects that had been adjusted from what was recommended by the Governor. Project number 01‑C3 was recommended by the Governor to purchase an EICON building in Carson City and an EICON building in Las Vegas. The Governor had later indicated that the Las Vegas building was not as desirable, and the subcommittee voted to approve the purchase and renovation of the EICON building in Carson City. This reduced the funding from the Governor’s recommendation of $16,240,000 to $5,542,245.
Project number 01-C4 was the State Motor Pool on the University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV) campus. The Motor Pool was in the process of being evicted by the Airport Authority from the current location and would need a new facility within the next three years. The project would fund the facility on the UNLV campus. There had been some discussion during the subcommittee about finding a better location for the Motor Pool. It had been proposed to be located in the southwest corner of the campus in the parking lot for the Thomas-Mack Center. The subcommittee voted to approve the funding for the project and asked to have a proposal submitted to the IFC if the site for the project changed, as well as have all other available sites considered.
Project 01-C13 included $500,000 recommended by the Governor to convert the Belrose warehouse into the Southern Nevada Records Center. Problems discussed during the subcommittee included that there were no furnishings or shelving included in the project cost estimate, and the department indicated that the facility would not meet the need for an extended period of time, and a record center would eventually need to be built in southern Nevada. The Public Works Board recommended reallocating advance planning funds that had been approved in the previous session to assist in paying for the project. The subcommittee voted to eliminate the project and allow the department to keep the advance planning funds for a future record center.
Project number 01-C21L as recommended by the Governor was to build a new Health Sciences/Biotech Building on the West Charleston Campus of Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN). It would have been funded through $20 million of state funds and $5 million of donations from the university. Through the process the community college indicated that their ability to raise funds was being reduced from $5 million to $1 million. Based on that and other considerations the subcommittee recommended, rather than approving the construction, to approve advance planning through the plan‑checking phase of the project. The amount funded was reduced from $25 million to $1,461,661.
In regard to project number 01-C25, Mr. Combs noted that there had been an error in information provided to the subcommittee dealing with the amount of state funding for the project. The president at the Nevada State College had indicated that due to the change in location for the facility the amount could be reduced by $2.6 million, and that amount was voted by the subcommittee to be removed from the General Obligation Bond funding for the project. The original $16 million less the $2.6 million was $13.4 million. The previous information provided to the subcommittee reflected an amount of $14.4 million.
Project number 01-C29L was added by the subcommittee. It was $19 million in state funds, and $1 million in other funds for a telecommunications building at the CCSN, Cheyenne Campus. The funding was made available due to the reduction of funds for the building on the West Charleston Campus.
Project number 01-C30L recommended a transitional bridge building at the UNLV. The funding was $5 million in state funds, and it would provide a connection between the current engineering building and White Hall. The bridge building would be used as transitional space while the science and engineering complex was being advanced planned, and would also be used as transitional space for the dental school.
Project O1-C31L, approved by the subcommittee, provided $1 million in state funds for the planning and site preparation of the Dental School.
Project 01-C32L provided funding in the amount of $1 million for the Medical School, Dental Residency Program, at the University of Nevada at Reno (UNR). That money would be used to expand some of the office and lab space.
Project number 01-M5 was improvements to the Clear Creek facility. Mr. Combs pointed out that there were some expenses that the board had recommended to include in the project. The subcommittee voted to approve the increase. The new total for the project was $1,629,447 and included paving and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements that were not included in the original project cost estimate.
Projects 01-M7 and 01-M8 were printing projects. There would be a provision included in the CIP bill that would require the Printing Division to pay back the bond interest and redemption fund for the projects. The same held true for projects 01-M25 through 01-M28 for the Department of Information Technology.
Project number 01-M43 was recommended by the Governor at $300,768 to repair gates at the Southern Desert Correctional Center. It was determined through the subcommittee’s review that the motors in the gates did not need to be replaced, and there was sufficient funding in a 1999 project to finish the project. The funds were not needed and had been eliminated.
Project 01-M46L had been requested by the Executive Branch at a previous subcommittee hearing to assist in mold remediation and prevention at the Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services campus. A majority of the buildings on the campus had mold detected and some of the buildings had to be evacuated. This had been mentioned at the last IFC meeting. To solve the problem an additional $1,590,446 was being requested, and the subcommittee voted to approve the amount recommended by staff and the Public Works Board. The funding would be from General Obligation Bond proceeds.
Project number 01-S8 was the energy retrofit projects. The projects would be paid for through the cost savings that agencies would receive on utility bills. The subcommittee did recommend increasing the current cap that was in the statute from $5 million to $15 million so that more of the energy retrofit projects could be performed.
Mr. Combs clarified terminology that would be included in the CIP bill. Project 01-E1, which was the project for the Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation, included bond funds that were not technically General Obligation Bonds but would be termed that in the bill. It was a five-year bond that could not be considered a revenue bond because a portion of the funding that was being used to repay the bond was rent savings that would not occur once the building was completed. The bond would be a General Obligation Bond and would go against the 2 percent debt limit for the five-year time line, but it would not go against the 15-cent ad valorem tax rate because there would be additional funds. Also in project 01-E1 there would be a section in the bill that would allow for $4 million in other funds from the Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation to fund the project. A majority of the additional funding was federal money, and there was some property the department was planning to sell and the proceeds would be used to pay for the project.
Project 01-C27 was a Division of Wildlife project to rehabilitate the state fish hatcheries. This would also be called a General Obligation Bond, but would be paid through revenues that were generated by the increase in the Trout Stamp that had been approved. That increase in the Trout Stamp from $5 to $10 would help to pay for the bond, but it would still be termed as a General Obligation Bond to allow for a better interest rate. The bond would not go against the 2 percent debt limit or the 15 percent ad valorem tax rate.
Mr. Combs stated that project 01-C24, UNR’s new library, would have $22 million in additional revenue bonds to assist in funding the project. The funds would be covered through an increase in student fees. The increase for the biennium was approved in the operating budget.
Other items approved by the subcommittee included an issue related to the Highway Patrol building for Las Vegas that had been approved during the previous session. In the CIP bill during the previous session, there was $2 million allotted for site acquisition, but that money could only be used for site acquisition. There had been a cost overrun on the project, and the Highway Patrol requested to use some of that funding for the cost overruns. Rather than actually provide the funding, the subcommittee, based on the limited notice, voted to amend the 1999 CIP bill to allow the Highway Patrol to appear before the IFC and request to use the funding in that manner. That provision would be included in the CIP bill.
MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
MR. DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Cegavske stated that she would be voting against the budget because of project 01-C25 and her concern about the usage of the estate tax in the University budgets. She noted that with the hole that was being created with the DSA she believed there were monies that should not have been allocated where they were, and the funding could have helped to offset needed items. The textbook bills had not been completed. Mrs. Cegavske reiterated that she would be voting against the budget.
Mrs. Chowning asked for clarification about project 01-C13, as well as clarification regarding the differences between the Governor’s recommendation for project 01-C7, Veteran’s Cemetery expansion, and the idea that there was additional funding needed that was not provided for in project 01-C8, Veteran’s Home finalization.
Mr. Combs explained that in project 01-C13, the 1999 legislature had approved funding to advance plan the design of a new records storage center in southern Nevada. The Governor’s recommendation was to remodel a warehouse and transfer the 1999 funding into the remodeling program. When the subcommittee heard that the $500,000 project would only suit the storage needs for a short period, the subcommittee elected to eliminate the $500,000 project, but allow the continuation of the use of the 1999 funding for the advance planning of a records storage center. Mrs. Chowning confirmed that the planning for the new records storage center would continue. Mr. Combs stated that no construction funds had been approved at the current time, but the planning would continue. Mrs. Chowning confirmed that the 1999 funding had not been spent, but would carry over and continue to be used for planning. Mr. Combs commented that the amount that would carry over was $201,874.
Mr. Combs explained that project 01-C7 was the Veteran’s Cemetery expansion. There had been $300,000 in state funding included in The Executive Budget. The subcommittee voted rather than to approve the $300,000 as General Obligation Bonds, to include a provision in the CIP bill that would allow the Veteran’s Affairs to obtain a loan from the General Fund for the $300,000. The $300,000 was “seed money” that would be repaid by the federal government once the design was completed. Rather than have the $300,000 in bond funding the subcommittee voted to allow a $300,000 loan from the General Fund that would be repaid when the funding from the federal government was made available.
Mr. Combs continued to say that project 01-C8 was a project that people were having a difficult time “getting their arms around,” because there was already an open project to construct the facility that had been approved by the 1997 legislature. The staff had not received a revised project cost estimate asking for additional funding for the project. The subcommittee had never received a list of furnishings and equipment that were being funding in the requested appropriation. Staff recommendation to the subcommittee was that although specifics had not been provided it was obvious that additional funding would be needed to complete the home in the manner in which the legislature had envisioned. Mrs. Chowning stated the $1 million in the budget versus the possible $3 million that had been suggested was sufficient. Mr. Combs said that he was unaware of a $3 million funding level, so he was unsure that the subcommittee had been presented with any information regarding additional needed funding.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Mrs. Cegavske voted no. Mr. Beers, Mr. Hettrick, and Mr. Perkins were absent for the vote.)
Ms. Giunchigliani noted that she had voted against the budget during the subcommittee hearing, but because she did not wish to stop the budget from progressing she had voted for the budget during this motion. This did not preclude her from voting against the budget on the Assembly floor.
********
Chairman Arberry recessed the meeting to the call of the Chair. The meeting reconvened on June 2 at 8:12 a.m. and adjourned at 8:12 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Andrea Carothers
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: