MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means

 

Seventy-First Session

March 21, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 7:35 a.m. on Wednesday, March 21, 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

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

Ms.                     Sandra Tiffany

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary

 

 

Chairman Arberry informed the committee that the first order of business would be A.B. 73. 

 

Assembly Bill 73:  Makes appropriation to administrative office of the courts for             establishment of programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or controlled             substances in certain judicial districts. (BDR S-283)

 

Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Assemblyman, District 38, indicated there were three judges present on behalf of A.B. 73, which would create a drug court program for Carson City, and Churchill, Douglas, Lyon, and Storey Counties.  Mr. Dini introduced Archie E. Blake, District Judge, Third Judicial District Court, Churchill and Lyon Counties; Michael R. Griffin, District Judge, First Judicial District Court, Carson City and Storey County; and David Gamble, District Judge, Ninth Judicial District Court, Douglas County, who would present further testimony to the committee regarding the existing need for a drug court program encompassing the three judicial districts.

 

Judge Blake advised the committee that it was being offered the opportunity to participate in a unique concept, that of a regional drug court which would include Carson City, and the counties of Churchill, Douglas, Lyon, and Storey.  Judge Blake stated those were the same counties that participated in the establishment of the regional youth facility in Silver Springs, which had been extremely successful (Exhibit C).  Judge Blake pointed out that the drug courts in Reno and Las Vegas had been highly successful, and had received funding via the legislature for a number of years.  According to Judge Blake, out of the total number of drug cases being heard by the courts, there would be approximately 264 eligible participants within the 3 judicial districts.  It was anticipated that 125 defendants per year would be placed in the drug court program initially, which Judge Blake felt would be a manageable number.  The treatment costs alone for those 125 defendants would be approximately $270,000 per year, and Judge Blake also pointed out there would be additional start-up costs associated with the program.

 

Continuing, Judge Blake advised the committee that in the event those 125 defendants were placed on probation, the cost would remain in the neighborhood of $250,000.  The program would operate under the auspices of a ten-member drug team, assimilated from within the five counties, and composed of district judges, drug court coordinators, public defenders, assistant district attorneys, and a communications specialist, with the associated training funded via the federal government.  Judge Blake stated the team had already attended one training session in the state of Louisiana, would attend a training session in the state of Florida in April 2001, and would attend a session in Hayward, California, in August 2001.  According to Judge Blake, it was anticipated that the drug court program would actually begin accepting defendants in September 2001. 

 

Judge Blake noted that the problems experienced by the program in the past consisted of a lack of judicial assets.  There was now a third judge in the Third Judicial District Court, and approximately 20 to 25 percent of that judge’s time would be dedicated to the drug court program.  The Administrative Office of the Courts had sworn to aid the program with administrative and travel funds, and reimbursement for meals, et cetera.  Judge Blake explained that program staff and treatment facilities for defendants entering the program would be provided by each county.  According to Judge Blake, the judges had asked each county to implement Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 19.03125, which contained a $10 assessment on civil filings in the district courts.  A.B. 73 requested an allocation of $150,000 for each of the upcoming fiscal years, and Judge Blake stated it was anticipated that the remainder of the funding would be available from the aforementioned county assessments, and from the defendants themselves.  Judge Blake explained that the cost of incarceration for 125 defendants for a 1-year period would be in excess of $1.9 million.  There were also social costs involved that were difficult to ascertain, i.e., the defendant’s family, loss of job, taxes, et cetera.  Judge Blake reiterated that the drug court program was a viable alternative to either probation or incarceration. 

 

Mr. Marvel asked how many of the 125 defendants Judge Blake felt would be placed in the drug court program in lieu of incarceration.  Judge Blake stated that statistics from the drug court programs in Reno and Las Vegas for the last approximately eight years, indicated that over 80 percent of the defendants in those programs would have been incarcerated, were it not for the program.  The recidivism rate for participants in the drug court program was extremely low at less than 18 percent.  Judge Blake pointed out that the recidivism rate for the prison system for drug-related offenses was above 75 percent, which proved that the drug court program was successful. 

 

Mr. Marvel inquired whether participants in the program would be first-time offenders.  According to Judge Blake, that was not the criteria for the program, and the actual focus of the program was to treat those defendants who experienced legitimate and real problems with substance abuse.  The program would not look at the younger offenders who might have been arrested while in possession of a small amount of a controlled substance, but had no history of substance abuse whatsoever, because that offender might not necessarily need a drug court program.  Judge Blake pointed out that the program would not accept violent offenders or those who trafficked in drugs.  The program would include defendants sentenced for Class-E felonies or gross misdemeanor offenses, with a small number of defendants sentenced for possession to sell a controlled substance, or Class-D felonies. 

 

Mr. Marvel inquired whether the budget for the program had been solidified regarding the administration of the program.  Judge Blake stated the individual courts, the district attorneys, and the public defenders were attempting to absorb the costs related to personnel.  The hardware costs would be minimal at approximately $10,000 or less, and the treatment providers would be reimbursed from the $250,000 allocation requested in A.B. 73.

 

Judge Gamble stated that the time spent by judges, various clerks, district attorneys, and public defenders to facilitate the program, would balance out by the time saved on the court calendars.  Judge Gamble added the drug court project had been under consideration for several years, and was another example of the judiciary in the rural counties attempting to work together in order to establish a program, one that would be more affordable for the larger counties.  According to Judge Gamble, a few years ago, the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) had allocated $150,000 to the counties to initiate the drug court program, however, that effort had been unsuccessful, and the allocation was returned to the state. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked whether the program was for adult offenders only.  Judge Blake replied that the program was initially aimed at the adult offender, however, after the program had been operational for a period of time, a juvenile component was anticipated.  He reported that some counties had ancillary juvenile drug court programs in the infant stage.  Ms. Leslie noted that Washoe County had initiated a limited program for juvenile offenders.  Ms. Leslie then inquired whether the budget would include funding for urinalysis testing, which was a major component for drug court programs, and whether the program would use Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) certified providers in each of the five counties.  Judge Blake replied that the budget for each defendant, approximately $2,100, would include all testing and detoxification, all counseling, and any other aspect of treatment. 

 

Judge Gamble noted that the rural drug court program would use the same provider that was being used by the Washoe County program.  The provider would establish satellite facilities in each of the major population areas within the five counties, i.e., Silver Springs, Fallon, Carson City, Douglas County, along with the possibility of facilities in the Fernley and Yerington areas.   Ms. Leslie stated it would be her preference that the provider be chosen via a competitive process, rather than simply using the provider currently serving the Washoe County program.  Judge Gamble indicated that, after extensive research and consultation with the rural clinics located in the various counties, it was determined that the package offered by the Washoe County Drug Court Program provider was such that it would allow the rural program to be implemented immediately.  Judge Gamble felt that the rural program would have more ability to address the provider service on a competitive basis at some point in the future.  Ms. Leslie reiterated that she would prefer that the provider service be handled on a competitive basis initially, and pointed out that one of the best providers in Nevada was located in Churchill County. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated she had sponsored A.B. 453, which would reduce the charge for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana from a felony offense to a misdemeanor offense.  The bill stipulated that for a second offense, a defendant so convicted could be fined up to $1,000, and assigned to a program of treatment and rehabilitation.  Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that a portion of those fines for second-time offenders would be allocated to the drug courts, and inquired whether processing those monies would prove problematic for the rural courts.  Judge Gamble stated that receipt of fine monies would not present a problem for the rural drug court program, and also noted that such offenders would fall within the parameters established for treatment via the drug court program.  He also pointed out that defendants charged with misdemeanor offenses would be handled at the Justice Court level. 

 

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the drug court program would handle inmates released from the Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP) under the early release program.  Judge Blake explained the rural drug court program would not facilitate inmates, as was being done in the Las Vegas program, because the program was in the early stages of development.  Judge Blake was not sure whether the demand to include inmates would exist in the rural counties as it did in Las Vegas.  He emphasized that the program was open to initiation of such a component, should it prove feasible, providing the resources were available.  Judge Blake explained it would cost no more to include inmates released from NDOP in the program.  Ms. Tiffany inquired whether the issue had been discussed with Jackie Crawford, Director, NDOP.  Judge Blake explained that the drug courts in Reno and Las Vegas had been contacted regarding programs, however, no contact had been made with the NDOP. 

 

Speaking in opposition of A.B. 73 was Barry Lovgren, who commented that the current language of the bill did not require the program of treatment, which would be funded by the requested allocation, to comply with state standards for a treatment program, i.e., a program certified by the BADA.  Mr. Lovgren stated that created the possibility of the rural drug court program being similar to the programs in Washoe and Clark Counties, where the provider was not certified by the BADA to provide treatment.  The provider in those programs was certified by the BADA as a drug court service, and Mr. Lovgren called the committee’s attention to Exhibit D, the applicable BADA regulations.  Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 458.274 made a distinction between drug court services and treatment programs.  According to Mr. Lovgren, the provider for the Washoe Drug Court Program was not certified as a treatment program, however, noted that the provider could seek such certification, which Mr. Lovgren felt might have been the original intent.  The exhibit also included the listing of regulatory requirements that a drug court service was not mandated to meet, which would be required of a treatment program.  Mr. Lovgren stated that since the current language of the bill would not require that the program for treatment be certified by the BADA, he could not support the proposal.  He emphasized that defendants needed and deserved quality treatment from a provider that had been certified by the state.

 

With no further testimony forthcoming on A.B. 73, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed.  The next item for consideration was A.B. 39.

 

Assembly Bill 39:  Makes appropriation to State Public Works Board for             construction of Hi-Tech Learning Centers in Fernley and Yerington.             (BDR S-745)

 

Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Assemblyman, District 38, indicated that funding had been appropriated during the 1999 session to conduct a feasibility study regarding the possibility of constructing high tech centers in Fernley, Yerington, and Douglas County.  A.B. 39 represented the Lyon County portion of the study, and requested an appropriation to build two high tech centers in Lyon County at Fernley and Yerington.  Those centers would be smaller versions of the high tech center constructed at Carson City High School.  Mr. Dini informed the committee that the appropriation of $6 million requested in A.B. 39 was incorrect, and indicated the correct figure would be provided by the Public Works Board.  Mr. Dini introduced the individuals from Fernley and Yerington who would testify in support of the bill.  According to Mr. Dini, there were two distinct areas in Lyon County that were in need of the service, and pointed out that the Fernley area was “booming,” with a population of approximately 10,000.  Many industries had relocated to the Fernley area, i.e., Amazon.com, Quebecor World Nevada, Trex Manufacturing Company, et cetera, and there was a great demand from students for technical training.  Mr. Dini stated Yerington was a small agricultural area and the county seat for Lyon County.  There was some industry in the area, which could utilize the services of a high tech center, as well as the county courthouse, which required continuous and ongoing training for employees.  According to Mr. Dini, Yerington was somewhat isolated regarding higher education facilities, being 80 miles from Reno, 68 miles from Carson City, and approximately 60 miles from Fallon.  The construction of a high tech center in Yerington would allow students to receive training within their own community.

 

Mr. Dini commented that Fernley was a fast-growing community with many industries that needed to train employees.  The bill would facilitate two projects which would assist in the education of both students and adults who wanted to attend classes at the college level.  Mr. Dini explained the centers would be dual-purpose facilities, used during the day by the high schools, and utilized during the evening hours by the community college.  That would give the Western Nevada Community College (WNCC) a presence in both communities.  Mr. Dini reported that the project had enjoyed excellent cooperation from the Lyon County School District, which would furnish the land for facilities in both locations.  The centers would be located in close proximity to the high schools in Fernley and Yerington.  There was strong community commitment to the project in both communities, and both communities considered it a break‑through to be considered as sites for the high tech centers.  Mr. Dini felt the project would create many opportunities for many people, and he would urge the committee to financially reach out, if at all possible, and support the two high tech centers.     

 

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, thanked the committee for the decision it made in 1997 regarding construction of the first rural high tech center in northern Nevada.  That center, located in Carson City, was a joint effort between WNCC and the Carson City School District.  Senator Amodei felt the committee had made that decision based on the demographic dynamics of where it would be located.  Senator Amodei indicated the decision had been borne out as a very successful one, based on the operation and success of the high tech center over the past four years.  The center, located on the Carson High School campus, was wall-to-wall education, with the entire available space developed as classrooms, computer labs, et cetera, and the center also boasted an excellent record of cooperation between WNCC and the Carson City School District.  Senator Amodei stated many of those same facts would apply to the centers proposed in A.B. 39.  Senator Amodei felt the decision was sound in 1997, and the proposed centers would allow the committee to go down the same path in terms of realizing the maximum “bang for the rural investment, high tech center, buck.”  The proposal would promote an excellent partnership with the Lyon County School District, and Senator Amodei noted that the district ran a “tight ship” fiscally, and had demonstrated it would enjoy a high degree of success in carrying out the legislature’s mandates and trust, in allowing the district to operate the first rural high tech centers. 

 

Senator Amodei commented that, in terms of how the proposal would make sense in a tight budget situation, the proposal would provide a 3:1 “bang for the buck.”  That would include the dual roles the center would serve, both in terms of the Lyon County School District and WNCC, which needed assistance in cementing its influence in both the Fernley and Yerington areas.  Those communities were within the existing territory for WNCC, and Senator Amodei felt the high tech centers would be an excellent way to ensure WNCC was fully represented and aware of what was occurring in its district.  The presence of WNCC in a major capital investment would be a definite plus, and a “feather” in the county’s “cap.”  Secondly, Senator Amodei referenced the public-private partnership, and noted that one of WNCC’s strengths in terms of its curriculum was its outreach to the various industries located within its district.  Both Fernley and Yerington were very strong economic development candidates in terms of growth.  Senator Amodei pointed out that census information revealed Lyon County, percentage-wise, was the fastest growing county in Nevada, and the high tech centers would go hand-in-hand with that statistic.  According to Senator Amodei, from an economic development standpoint, Lyon County would be an appealing destination for companies to relocate with the dual capability of the high tech centers.  It would also add technology to WNCC’s mission to become attractive for local employers, and would provide educational assets that were sorely needed in the areas.

 

Senator Amodei referenced the economic development aspect of the high tech centers.  Obviously, as the committee considered the limited funding available, one of the considerations should be how the committee could realize the best “bang for the buck,” and accomplish two or three goals with limited spending.  Senator Amodei suggested the proposed high tech centers contained in A.B. 39 would represent an opportunity to do just that.  The proposed legislation contained the notation, “Effect on the State: Contains Appropriation not included in Executive Budget.”  Senator Amodei pointed out that in 1997, the decision by the legislature to locate the high tech center in Carson City was also an appropriation not contained in The Executive Budget.  Article IX of the Nevada Constitution provided that the legislature make the decisions regarding the appropriation of funds, and Senator Amodei pointed out that the bill addressed the area where the legislature could review items not included in The Executive Budget, and could include the appropriation for the high tech centers, as was done in 1997.  Senator Amodei urged the committee to continue its record of success and smart decisions, as had been done during the 1997 session, in the area of high tech centers for rural counties in the north, and to give A.B. 39 its utmost favorable consideration.       

 

Ms. Giunchigliani noted the Lyon County School District was providing the land for the high tech centers, and since the centers would be used for business training, asked whether the businesses would also provide some funding to offset the costs.  As was well known, there was a possibility that approximately $40 million would be cut from the one-shot requests, and Ms. Giunchigliani inquired what revenue streams would be available to support the program.  Mr. Dini noted there were persons present who would testify regarding contributions, and also pointed out that the fiscal note of $6 million was incorrect.  The Public Works Board estimated the high tech center in Fernley would cost $4,522,857, and the center in Yerington, $4,409,909.  Ms. Giunchigliani wondered whether the Public Works Board could provide the square footage of the high tech centers, as the proposal appeared to be downsized.

 

Senator Amodei stated that in an historical context, in order to make the proposal closer to a true one-shot scenario, information would be required regarding maintenance and operational costs, along with other ongoing costs.  In 1997, the Carson City School District played a major role in the success of the measure, by indicating it would assume the lion’s share of responsibility for the operational and maintenance costs of the center, and Senator Amodei felt that was a legitimate area of inquiry.  Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that the ongoing costs would be reviewed, and asked whether either location had passed a school bond, possibly for construction costs, et cetera, which might be utilized to assist with funding the high tech centers.  Mr. Dini reported that Lyon County had recently passed a new school bond issue, and would be constructing a new high school in Silver Springs, as well as expanding the school facilities throughout the district, because of the growth rate experienced by the district.  Mr. Dini stated the Lyon County School District was doing a tremendous job, and had passed three school bond issues in the past approximately 12 years, which he felt was outstanding.  The high tech centers were rated as a high priority project by the county, and Mr. Dini suggested that the committee hear from those present from the county in support of the bill. 

 

LeRoy Goodman, Lyon County Commissioner, referred to Exhibit E, which delineated important points regarding Lyon County and Fernley.  Mr. Goodman noted that Lyon County was the fastest growing county in Nevada, and the third fastest growing over the last decade, behind Clark and Nye Counties.  He further pointed out that Lyon County had the second lowest average wage scale for industry in the entire state.  According to Mr. Goodman, the county needed to upgrade the skill levels for its workforce, and the investment requested by A.B. 39 in Lyon County was crucial, not only to the county, but to the entire western region of Nevada in terms of growth and the upgrading of skills.  Mr. Goodman stated the commission was frequently advised that the workforce in the county was somewhat inadequate and did not possess the skills industry was seeking. 

 

David Fulstone, Lyon County Commissioner, pointed out that there were people present at the hearing from Mason Valley who were prepared to provide additional information to the committee, if so desired.  Mr. Fulstone stated the high tech centers would be a real boon to western Nevada, as well as Lyon County.  Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether Lyon County had implemented the impact fee for residential construction. 

 

Electing to respond was Mr. Goodman, who explained that the county had not implemented the fee to date.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted Exhibit E indicated between 300 and 500 houses were being constructed in the Fernley area, which could actually generate some potential revenue, should the impact fee be implemented.  Mr. Goodman stated the city of Fernley would review that possibility, as it was experiencing a significant amount of growth.  Since 1996, over 1,500 jobs had been created in Fernley through the assorted industries which had relocated to the area.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the average wage in Fernley, versus that in Yerington.  Mr. Goodman explained that Quebecor World Nevada was expanding its operation, and would hire 35 additional workers at an average wage of $16.94 per hour, plus benefits.  Those were primary jobs, which also brought money from outside the area into the county, because the products were distributed nationwide.  Mr. Goodman felt that Lyon County had been successful in the industrial area because it was located in the center of western Nevada.  Mr. Dini advised the committee that Mr. Goodman was the rural representative on the Commission on Economic Development, having been appointed to that position by then-Governor Bob Miller, and had done an outstanding job for rural Nevada. 

 

Mr. Goodman introduced David Stix, Jr., newly-elected mayor of Fernley, Nevada, which was the first city incorporated in western Nevada since 1952.    Mr. Goodman noted Fernley had been established approximately 35 years ago, and was a very “young” community, with a large population of young people looking for work and searching for the opportunity to expand their horizons via necessary training and technical knowledge.

 

Mr. Stix explained that he had grown up in Fernley and his graduating class in 1983 was one of the largest at Fernley High School with 105 students.  Less than five of those students remained in the Fernley area, which Mr. Stix felt was the effect of the lack of sufficient industry.  Mr. Stix stated he would echo previous testimony, and urged support of A.B. 39, in the hopes of keeping young people interested in the area. 

 

Nancy Hammers, Human Resources Supervisor, Quebecor World Nevada, stated she would act as the spokesperson for the company, and felt the best location for a high tech center would be in Fernley, because of the possibility for program participants to partnership with industry.  Students in programs of pre‑engineering, computer sciences, and business administration would have an opportunity to research information, conduct interviews, complete school projects, and secure internships and employment opportunities within the community.  Ms. Hammers remarked that Fernley could offer that partnership because it contained a cross-section of industry.  In order for the high tech center to work, however, Ms. Hammers felt that strong partnerships were needed with local employers.  Quebecor World Nevada was one of the world’s largest printers of commercial, retail, and specialized printed products.  Ms. Hammers remarked that the Fernley facility was already committed to forming partnerships with local schools, WNCC, and the high tech centers in northern Nevada. 

 

According to Ms. Hammers, Quebecor participated in Fernley High School’s work site visitation program each year, as well as offering “job shadows” when requested.  For example, Ms. Hammers explained that Quebecor had employed a high school senior with career goals in the engineering field to make architectural drawing updates on software for the company.  The project had been completed in three months, on a part-time basis, and made a great addition to the student’s college portfolio.  Ms. Hammers explained that was truly a win-win situation for the high school, the student, and Quebecor. 

 

Ms. Hammers noted that Quebecor worked with a Washoe County School District occupational center printing arts program, in an attempt to place students graduating from that program with an interest in the printing trade.  Quebecor was in partnership with WNCC in four apprenticeship programs, with planning underway for an additional five apprenticeship programs.  Per Ms. Hammers, the programs were recognized at the federal level by the Department of Labor, and at the state level by the Apprenticeship Council.  Journeyman-level wages in those areas approached $21 per hour.  Ms. Hammers commented that, via partnerships with local schools, including the proposed high tech center, Quebecor would make a difference and contribute to making education relevant for students in Nevada.  Ms. Hammers noted that Quebecor viewed the addition of the high tech center in Fernley as a great opportunity to partner with local schools, and to further enable individuals, and the community, to reach their full potential.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether Quebecor would provide any funding for the high tech center.  Ms. Hammers explained that, as a result of recent meetings with WNCC, Quebecor was researching training grants in the amount of approximately $45,000, which would require matching funds from the company.

 

Mike Hagen informed the committee he was a retired Yerington High School librarian, currently employed as a part-time instructor for WNCC in Yerington.  He introduced Robert J. Bassett, a recently retired senior manager with Sierra Pacific Power Company, and a registered professional engineer, currently in private practice.  Mr. Hagen pointed out that during the 1999 Legislative Session, $75,000 had been approved for a feasibility study on the establishment of high tech centers in three areas of western Nevada.  One of the recommendations of that study, completed by Robert Owens Associates, Education Facility Planners, and commonly referred to as the Owens Report, was the construction of a new, state-of-the-art high tech center in Yerington.  Mr. Hagen stated he would explain why he also felt that center was needed.

 

The city of Yerington was located in Mason Valley, an area of approximately 10,000 people in central Lyon County, and the WNCC center drew students not only from the city of Yerington and Mason Valley, but also from Smith Valley, Silver Springs, Schurz, and even Hawthorne in Mineral County.  Mr. Hagan stated WNCC had been offering classes in Yerington since the early 1970s, and there had been steady growth in the number of students taking classes at the Yerington center since that time.  Furthermore, over the past 5 years, student numbers had shown significant growth in the 18 and under, and the 45 and older, age groups.  Continuing, Mr. Hagan pointed out that during the 30 years WNCC had been located in Yerington, it had served a widely diverse population, offering over 450 different courses to thousands of students.

 

Mr. Hagan reported the WNCC Yerington center had enjoyed a three-decade-long history of outstanding cooperation with the local school district, and the entire community, but during that time had never found a permanent home.  Finding no available space in the Yerington High School main classroom building, the WNCC office was forced to move on an almost annual basis, explained Mr. Hagan, and he personally recalled the years that the WNCC coordinator shared office space with the athletic director of the high school.  Mr. Hagan reported that five years ago, with space in the high school no longer available due to growth, the center was forced to move and rented several rooms in another building.  The present facility consisted of a small, shared office, a small computer lab, and a combination classroom and interactive video room, which consisted of approximately 350 to 400 square feet. 

 

According to Mr. Hagan, the need for a high tech instructional center in Yerington, and the educational and training opportunities that went along with it, went well beyond the limitations of the current facility.  The community was a rural, agricultural area and in the last 20 years, the percentage of retirees and senior citizens within the population had grown.  Mr. Hagan noted that the percentage of high school graduates who entered college from the Yerington area was below the national average.  The so-called “digital divide” was clearly present in Yerington, with approximately one out of five high school students having access to a computer in the home, which Mr. Hagan pointed out was well below the national average.  The Owens Report cited the fact that, “YHS students were poorly served in terms of access to computers and information technology.”  To give the committee an idea of the socioeconomic status of the community, Mr. Hagan remarked that two-thirds of the students in the local elementary school qualified for free and reduced-price lunches.  Those young people who desired high tech training and education were forced to leave the area, and many of the students who graduated from high school and entered college often never returned to live, work, or support the community because there were no opportunities available upon graduation from college.

 

A.B. 39 contained a slightly scaled-down version of the high tech center proposed by the Owens Report, with a building of approximately 15,000 square feet, built on land that had been offered by the city of Yerington and the Lyon County School District at no cost to WNCC.  Mr. Hagan stated the building would house advanced technology, science and computer labs, classrooms, and an interactive video facility.  In short, it would be a modern learning center for a wide variety of educational activities, ranging from beginning Internet classes for senior citizens to advanced DNA research by biology students.  Mr. Hagan reported that WNCC would furnish the building with equipment and the Lyon County School District would provide utilities, maintenance and a portion of those equipment costs.  The Owens Report, published in October 2000, estimated the cost of a slightly larger facility encompassing 17,000 square feet that included a student lounge and library study area, at $2.9 million. 

 

Mr. Hagan stated that creation of a WNCC high tech center in Yerington would provide numerous benefits to high school students, senior citizens, business and industry groups, and public and government entities in the area.  High school graduates would be able to take a greater offering of classes toward A.A. degrees, without being forced to travel to Fallon, Reno, or Carson City to enroll in the necessary classes.  Continuing, Mr. Hagan stated graduates who were undecided about pursuing postsecondary education, would have the added incentive of classes and degrees offered in the area.  High school students would also have greater access to college-level classes while in high school, which would be a tremendous benefit to students and parents alike.  Mr. Hagan reported that his son took nine credits at WNCC, was able to save tuition money, and graduated from college earlier, while working full-time. 

 

An increase of high school student enrollment locally would definitely take a portion of the burden off freshman-level classes at the three, four-year public colleges in Nevada.  Mr. Hagan remarked that high school students would also benefit from access to new science and technology labs, improved student-to-computer ratios, as well as other needed classroom space during the day.  According to Mr. Hagan, at the present time Yerington High School did not have the space to install the facility, nor did the WNCC building.  A notable shortcoming was the lack of a physics lab, and the high tech center would provide the needed space for such a lab.  Mr. Hagan quoted the Owens Report, “The (Yerington) high tech center will provide a unique opportunity to ‘level the playing field,’ providing Yerington students with equal access to information technology education preparing them for the present and future workplace.”  Mr. Hagan also pointed out that the growing senior citizen population in the area would benefit from access to a wide variety of classes, including computer classes during both day and evening hours.

 

In conclusion, Mr. Hagan stated the community college system would benefit by the establishment of a permanent home, and by a visible, high-profile presence in the community, which would send the message that higher education was an important aspect in the life of all citizens.  Mr. Hagan opined that the community of Yerington, and other areas served, would benefit in many ways.  For example, Mr. Hagan explained that area hospitals were feeling the effects of a nationwide nursing shortage, and Mr. Hagan felt a high tech center could offer a full A.A. degree program for nurses.  The center could also expand its present training program for police officers, sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, and other public service employees.  Mr. Hagan felt the community would also have a facility where groups from local industry and government could attend training.  The high tech center would also offer an incentive to businesses or industries to move to the area because of the training opportunities.  Mr. Hagan stated that an established, state-of-the-art, postsecondary educational facility would greatly enhance the area in attracting desirable industry. 

 

Mr. Hagan noted that the Walker River Basin Community Foundation informed the mayor of Yerington that the organization would pledge $50,000 to the high tech center, in the event Yerington was chosen as one of the sites.  By funding the high tech center for WNCC in Yerington, Mr. Hagan felt the legislature would provide the means to improve the lives of all the people in the community, and surrounding areas, for generations to come. 

 

Mr. Bassett voiced local support for the high tech center, and reiterated that the aforementioned foundation had pledged $50,000 in funding toward that endeavor.  Mr. Bassett explained the city had not actively solicited donors at the current time, however, the city of Yerington, in its budgeting process, was considering an allocation of up to $10,000 for the center.  Mr. Bassett noted that discussions with the Marathon Equipment Corporation yielded a pledge of approximately $25,000 for the center.  It had been Mr. Bassett’s experience that any time there was a community project in Yerington, the community would lend its support, as depicted by the creation of a new Boys’ and Girls’ Club, which required a tremendous amount of money to establish and continue to fund.  There were many other projects in which the community had participated, and Mr. Bassett explained the community was always willing to participate for facilities that would help or enhance the lives of the citizens. 

 

Continuing, Mr. Bassett testified that one of the primary reasons a high tech center was needed in Yerington was the fact that two-thirds of the elementary students were eligible for free or reduced lunches, which made it very obvious that Yerington needed to “pull itself up by the boot straps,” and become a more economically viable community.  Mr. Bassett stated there were three additional primary reasons:  (1) student education and preparation for a life of work, and/or higher education goals; (2) preparation of the community for success through the acquisition of needed job skills; and, (3) the enrichment and personal growth in the lives of the citizens and neighbors of Yerington, through accessible, affordable education programs.

   

Dr. Carol Lucey, WNCC, referenced Exhibit F, which depicted programs Nevada high tech centers could support.  In collaboration with the Northern Nevada Development Authority, Lyon and Douglas Counties, and Carson City, the college had supported an economic development assessment.  Dr. Lucey reported that the strongest message from that assessment for all three high tech centers was the importance of creating an environment which would attract wealth-producing industries, such as manufacturing and research, et cetera.  Dr. Lucey suggested that Nevada had an education issue, in that it did not currently offer enough technical education at either the secondary or postsecondary level.  Those were the type of programs that could make Nevada attractive to wealth-producing businesses and industries.  Dr. Lucey indicated the high tech centers would offer a wonderful opportunity to support development of those types of programs, and could be done in one of two ways. 

 

According to Dr. Lucey, WNCC could continue to assist in training the work force, and she pointed out that the program referenced by Senator Amodei at the Carson High School high tech center was a training program in networking.  That type of information technology certification was becoming more and more important in the industry.  Dr. Lucey reported that WNCC was conversing with Sun Microsystems, in order to determine whether other information technology certifications could be added in that service area. 

 

That was but one way in which the high tech centers could assist Nevada in economic diversification.  In Dr. Lucey’s estimation, a more important way was by creating enthusiasm in secondary schools toward the importance of continuing education, specifically at the college level, along with the understanding that there were career opportunities above and beyond what was currently available in Nevada.  Dr. Lucey pointed out that there were many students going out of state to seek technical degrees.  There were also students who had particular talents, which were never developed, because the type of programming that would allow those students to pursue areas such as manufacturing technology, electromechanical technology, biotechnology, chemical technology, et cetera, were not offered in Nevada.  By the establishment of high tech centers at Nevada high schools, the state signaled that it was supportive of education and careers in the technology field.  Dr. Lucey encouraged the committee to support high technology in Nevada by supporting high tech centers. 

 

Bus Scharmann, Dean of Fallon Campus and Extended Programs, WNCC, stated he remembered when the Yerington office shared space with the nurse at the high school, and in Fernley, the office was run from a local motel room, which made it difficult to interview new faculty.  Dean Scharmann stated that WNCC was currently training 150 Lyon County employees in the use of Microsoft applications.  At WNCC’s lab in Yerington with 15 computers, and in Fernley with 10 computers, it would take 10 weeks just to conduct the training for the Microsoft/Word program.  Dean Scharmann noted that industry did not want to spend ten weeks in training, but that was the current time frame required because of the limited resources. 

 

Approximately seven months ago, Dean Scharmann reported, WNCC conducted computer training for Quebecor, and because of the limited resources, WNCC actually took Quebecor employees to its sister institution in north Truckee Meadows.  That allowed WNCC to use a computer lab at the Edison Campus in Reno, in order to complete the training within a two-week span.  It was thought that training in the Truckee Meadows area would be acceptable to Quebecor, because a number of its employees resided in the Reno/Sparks area.  However, stated Dean Scharmann, of the 40 employees in attendance at the training session, only 7 lived in the Reno/Sparks area.  Dean Scharmann stated the high tech centers would be an enormous help in WNCC’s work with local industries.  There were over 100 classes included on the Lyon County School District’s list as “dual credit,” where high school students could enroll in college courses and receive high school credit as well.  Dean Scharmann indicated WNCC was involved in some advantageous programs with the Lyon County School District, and wanted to continue its work with industry and expand its programs with the school district, along with satisfying the wants and needs of the local citizenry.  He explained that WNCC also wanted to:

 

• Provide an A.A. degree that would transfer to universities;

 

• Provide occupational degrees that would lead to better employment in a timely manner; and,

 

• Provide access to adequate science labs, computer labs, and classrooms. 

 

Dean Scharmann felt that both high tech centers proposed by A.B. 39 would be well worth the funding.

 

Mr. Hettrick stated he was supportive of high tech centers, and asked about the operational costs incurred by the Community College System for centers that were remote from college campuses, versus centers that were located on‑campus.  Dr. Lucey reported that WNCC struggled with the costs of all remote facilities, however, it had an 18,000 square mile service area, and felt an obligation to support every resident within that service area.  WNCC currently offered course work at 14 different locations in that service area, spanning the spectrum from prisons, to high schools, to store fronts, to campuses.  Dr. Lucey stated there was no question that WNCC’s operating costs would increase as each facility was added, which was a concern.  She indicated she had recently made a presentation regarding the general concerns within community colleges in tackling the operating costs associated with high tech centers, because she believed it was critical to keep those centers in the best technical, state-of-the-art condition.  Dr. Lucey reported that Senator Raggio had challenged her to help solve the problem, and WNCC had approached industries, such as the aforementioned Sun Microsystems, with the view to becoming an academic initiative partner.  There were other major software and hardware producers with similar academic initiatives, and WNCC would enter into negotiation with those various organizations in order to address the problem.  Dr. Lucey indicated A.B. 39 presented an opportunity to invest in a type of education that had a tremendous potential economic development impact for the state. 

 

Dean Scharmann noted that traditionally, WNCC’s operations in rural centers had been its most cost-effective operations, because, (1) the facilities were rented, and (2) rural centers were mainly based on part-time faculty.  The cost for operation of the high tech centers would drive up the operation costs for rural facilities somewhat, however, Dean Scharmann pointed out that it appeared to be time to balance the lack of adequate equipment, supplies, and facilities that WNCC had dealt with for many years in the rural areas with the cost to operate the centers.

 

Nat Lommori, Superintendent, Lyon County School District, stated he would speak in support of both high tech centers.  The school district’s board of trustees had determined that it would support those particular facilities on both campuses, and would provide the land on a space available basis.  Mr. Lommori remarked that in the initial feasibility study, there was much talk about maintenance, custodial and utility costs, et cetera.  He emphasized that the district was committed to working closely with WNCC in an effort to establish cooperating agreements.  Regarding the commitment for funding, Mr. Lommori explained the school district had been very successful in passing a $25 million bond issue, and funding was included in its budget for expansion on both Yerington High School and Fernley High School campuses.  Mr. Lommori stated he could not provide the exact dollar amounts at the current time, and pointed out that the Lyon County School District was the fastest growing district in the state, out of the four districts that had experienced growth.  Mr. Lommori reiterated the district had made a commitment to review the high tech centers, if funded, and ascertain how the district would incorporate its building needs into the project.  The board of trustees would review that issue carefully, and make the determination regarding how to shift the necessary bond dollars toward the project.

 

Mr. Lommori thanked the sponsors of the bill, and reiterated the school district’s outstanding working relationship with WNCC.  While Lyon County was considered somewhat of a “blue collar” community, and one which did not offer the higher paying jobs, Mr. Lommori felt the school district would provide its students with a unique opportunity by providing the additional technology so dearly needed in rural Nevada.  Mr. Lommori pointed out that when Lyon County prospered, the surrounding areas would also prosper.

 

Mr. Goodman thanked Lyon County for its tremendous support in the endeavor.  He mentioned the Reno/Tahoe Industrial Park in Storey County, which was located 15 miles west of Fernley and 12 miles north of Silver Springs, and would have a tremendous impact on northern Lyon County.  Prior legislation had encouraged the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to build a highway in that region, a cut-off that would open the entire central and southern Lyon County area for the workforce of the aforementioned industrial park.  Mr. Goodman remarked that was another aspect of the forward thinking by the county, in bringing the jobs closer to the workforce. 

 

Jim Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance, noted that the alliance had supported the high tech centers since the idea was first developed in Clark County, and felt they had been a real boon to the state.  The centers filled quite rapidly, and contributed to the development of a workforce that allowed Nevada to diversify its economy.  Mr. Richardson stated the alliance would like to go on record in support of A.B. 39, and urged the committee to fund the high tech centers.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the university had ever delineated performance indicators for the high tech centers.  The centers had caught on like wild fire, and exploded in various locations, and Ms. Tiffany inquired when the legislature would be made aware of whether it was getting the most “bang for the buck.”  Mr. Richardson was unsure whether performance indicators had been initiated.  Ms. Tiffany stated she was looking for some quantification.  Mr. Richardson stated, once again, that he was unaware of performance indicators, however, would research the issue.  The centers were quite popular, with classes immediately filled, and various industries were very supportive.  Mr. Richardson felt it would be prudent to develop more specific data regarding the impact high tech centers were having on the areas where they were located.

 

With no further testimony forthcoming on A.B. 39, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed.  The next order of business for the committee would be A.B. 146. 

 

Assembly Bill 146:  Makes appropriation to University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for             establishment and operation of center for analysis of crime statistics             within Department of Criminal Justice at University of Nevada, Las             Vegas. (BDR S-918)

 

 

John Wayne Oceguera, Assemblyman, District 16, explained that Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs) had been established in 49 states, with Nevada being the only exception.  The SACs performed two major roles, the first of which was to serve as a clearinghouse for crime and justice data, thus providing a comprehensive picture of crime and justice in the state.  Typically, explained Mr. Oceguera, that was done via publication of an annual report and special topic-wide papers.  The SACs also conducted rigorous research on a wide range of topics of concern to state and local policymakers, and criminal justice practitioners.  Mr. Oceguera stated the research was funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which was authorized by federal statute to provide assistance to existing SACs, created and funded via state legislation.  States without SACs were not eligible for those research dollars, and the proposed Nevada Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) would be located within the Department of Criminal Justice, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and would utilize the knowledge and skills of faculty from other academic disciplines within the university to carry out its objectives, as well as graduate students training for careers in administration and research.  

 

Mr. Oceguera indicated the development and operation of the Nevada SAC would be conducted in close relationship with the UNLV’s National Computing Center, and would provide policymakers and the general public with direct access to super-computing resources and application in the delivery of justice-related information.  Continuing, Mr. Oceguera explained the Nevada SAC would provide direct and immediate access to graphical charts and narrative summaries of key state and local criminal justice statistics via Web-based technologies.  The SAC would, using federal funds, also conduct program evaluations statewide, conduct surveys of victimizations, and survey attitudes toward proposed crime legislation. 

 

According to Mr. Oceguera, the legislation was important because, not only would the SAC allow legislators to evaluate the public policy it had implemented, but would also allow Nevada citizens unprecedented access to the criminal justice system.  Mr. Oceguera noted that, in his limited experience at the legislature, he had observed several examples of how the SAC technology could have been utilized, if Nevada had been on-line, and urged the committee to support the bill. 

 

Testifying next was Richard C. McCorkle, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Chairman, Department of Criminal Justice, UNLV, who stated he was also the director of the Las Vegas, Alcohol Drug-Abuse Mental Health Services (ADMS) program, a federally-sponsored program which monitored the extent and nature of drug abuse among arrestee populations in Clark County.  Dr. McCorkle indicated he would testify in support of A.B. 146, which would create a SAC in the state of Nevada, and presented a packet of information for the committee’s perusal, Exhibit G.

 

Per Dr. McCorkle, effective criminal justice policy required current and reliable information about the extent and nature of the crime problem, as well as the impact of crime control programs and strategies.  While there was a tremendous amount of information collected by state and local agencies, there was relatively little information shared among agencies and organizations in the criminal justice system.  Dr. McCorkle pointed out that consequently, policymakers, the public, and researchers were not often aware of the existence of such information, because it existed in pockets within particular agencies.  Moreover, Dr. McCorkle stated, simply accessing known information could be extremely difficult.  In an effort to better link crime information to public policy, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the research arm of the National Institute of Justice, provided financial assistance to states to operate justice information centers, known as SACs.  Such centers were now operational in 49 states, with Nevada being the only state that did not have a SAC. 

 

Dr. McCorkle reiterated that the mission of the SACs was to contribute to sound criminal justice policy through the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information.  More specifically, the SACs served as clearinghouses for crime and justice data, gathered data from across the criminal justice spectrum continuum, from law enforcement to corrections, and put all information into one center for ease of access.  In so doing, Dr. McCorkle noted that SACs were able to provide a very comprehensive picture of what was occurring within the state in terms of the problem of crime and drugs in criminal justice.  According to Dr. McCorkle, the SACs also conducted research on a wide range of topics of concern to policymakers, practitioners, and the general public.  The funding for the research came specifically from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and without creation of a SAC, the state could not gain access to those funds. 

 

Dr. McCorkle opined that there was a clear need for a SAC in Nevada.  While it was true that many state agencies maintained very sophisticated data management systems, that information was scattered across agencies and programs, was often fragmented, and was not easily accessible.  If Nevada had a central repository for crime data, it would address that type of informational deficit.  Dr. McCorkle explained that existing databases, either partial or in their entirety, would be collected and integrated into shared formats to permit greater accessibility.  The SAC would create a single database comprised of key information and indicators related to crime and justice in Nevada, and would facilitate access to, and dissemination of, that information via Web-based technologies.  Dr. McCorkle noted that would provide immediate access, and a “click of the mouse” on a computer would provide tables, graphs, and narrative summaries of a wide array of state, local, and federal statistics on crime and justice.  Graduate-level thesis and doctoral dissertations would also be placed on the Web on topics related to crime and justice in Nevada, which Dr. McCorkle felt would be invaluable to researchers, or those developing policy.

Continuing, Dr. McCorkle reported that the SAC would be housed in the Department of Criminal Justice at the UNLV, but would provide access to federal funds to conduct research to persons from a variety of disciplines, i.e., sociology, psychology, or public administration.  One of the most attractive aspects of the SAC proposal to Dr. McCorkle, both personally and professionally, was that it would allow a bridge to be built between the campus and the community.  Dr. McCorkle urged the committee to support A.B. 146. 

 

Ms. Leslie stated that she certainly supported the concept, and referenced Exhibit G, which contained the Program Application Guidelines for SACs.  The eligibility requirements contained therein stated, “The applicant SAC must be authorized by State legislation or executive order.”  Ms. Leslie inquired whether the Governor had been approached for an executive order to create a SAC in Nevada, and also asked why such a center had not already been created.  Dr. McCorkle remarked that the issue was entertained by the Governor’s Office, however, was not included in The Executive Budget.  Ms. Leslie stated it appeared from the guidelines that the UNLV could request an executive order to create the SAC, and asked whether there was a funding issue involved.  Dr. McCorkle replied that the UNLV had not formally requested an executive order. 

 

Ms. Tiffany noted that similar data analysis and collection had been funded in the past by the legislature, and asked why the UNLV should be the central focus for the SAC, and also inquired about the sensitivity of the information.  Dr. McCorkle replied that in some instances the information was sensitive, however, the SAC would not solicit that type of information.  SACs were not only clearinghouses, but were also research organizations, and Dr. McCorkle explained that unlike some existing data warehouses in Nevada, the SAC would include the personnel to conduct research with the data.  In addition to simply maintaining and disseminating the information, the SAC would use the data to conduct program evaluations, policy analysis, and conduct research in a manner unavailable to existing agencies.  Ms. Tiffany remarked that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) maintained statistical data, along with various other public safety agencies, and that information was available.  She inquired whether the SAC would be used as a research tool for students rather than a tool for public safety agencies.  Dr. McCorkle indicated the SAC would not be exclusively for use by the UNLV students, but would also be used by persons interested in ascertaining whether the treatment programs in the state of Nevada did, in fact, work.  Federal funds would be used to conduct that type of research. 

 

Ms Tiffany inquired whether Dr. McCorkle had attempted to include the SAC in the university budget and/or applied for grants.  Dr. McCorkle indicated that unless the SAC was created by an executive order, or by legislation, it would not be eligible for federal funding.  Ms. Tiffany commented that it appeared the state first had to create the SAC, and asked what would occur if the legislature simply created the SAC, but found it could not approve the requested allocation.  Dr. McCorkle stated that action could be taken, however, the state would create an inferior product.  Dr. McCorkle indicated he had talked extensively with persons within the federal government who dealt with SACs across the country, and it was the consensus of opinion that when SACs were created, there should also be a minimum operating budget provided, which placed the state in the position to take advantage of additional federal funds.  Dr. McCorkle pointed out that federal funds were not meant to be the primary source of funding for the SACs.  Ms. Tiffany asked whether the UNLV would approach the legislature each session to request operation funds for the SAC.  Ideally, stated Dr. McCorkle, the funding would be built into the university’s operating budget once the SAC had been created.  Ms. Tiffany asked whether the university would be willing to make that adjustment in the budget to fund the overhead for the SAC, should A.B. 146 be approved for the initial allocation.  Dr. McCorkle indicated the university would not fund the operating overhead, but could provide partial support.  There were tremendous demands on the university’s budget at the current time.  Ms. Tiffany inquired whether the funding would continue to be allocated from the General Fund.  Dr. McCorkle replied in the affirmative.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that since much of the information amassed would deal with criminal statistics, would the LVMPD assist with funding.  Dr. McCorkle explained that the LVMPD, along with many other agencies, compiled only uniform crime report statistics, which were placed on Web sites.  However, the Web site for the SAC, such as used by the state of Texas (Exhibit G), would contain comprehensive information regarding such areas as felony case processing, and it would also be possible to track cases that moved through the system, et cetera.  Dr. McCorkle noted that such comprehensive information was currently buried within agencies, and would be very useful to the public and policymakers for research.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated she agreed, however, was curious about other funding sources. 

 

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, informed the committee that legislation was submitted each legislative session which sought to amass information regarding criminal offenses and dispositions, along with issues such as domestic violence.  While that information might be available, it was often not stored in one location.  The SAC would allow the UNLV’s resources to contact various agencies and combine statistics; he indicated the association would lend its support to A.B. 146.  Mr. Graham stated that there was a price tag when local agencies were asked to amass statistics, and he felt the bill would combine the resources for easy access. 

 

Stan Olsen, representing the LVMPD and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, voiced support for the bill.  He noted there were grants available for criminal research, and also for specific data collection in areas such as domestic violence, the statistics of which would be valuable not only to law enforcement, but also to other organizations.  Mr. Olsen stated he was surprised to learn that Nevada was the only state that did not have a SAC. 

 

Kimberly Maxson Rushton, Chief Deputy Attorney General, advised the committee she would echo previous comments, and voiced support for passage of A.B. 146.  Ms. Rushton also encouraged the committee to pass the legislation based upon the valuable resource of the UNLV in a program such as the SAC, which could be utilized by both the law enforcement community and the state. 

 

Mr. Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance, indicated the alliance would certainly support the bill for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that it would add a very valuable service to the state of Nevada from the statewide offerings at the UNLV.  Mr. Richardson commented that he was associated with the Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and directed the Masters of Judicial Studies Program for trial judges, working with the National Judicial College and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.  Mr. Richardson stated the UNR would view the SAC as a very valuable tool, available to graduate students, Ph.D. students in social psychology and law, judges, undergraduate students, and other interested agencies throughout the state.  If the center were established, it would open the spigot on federal grant funds, allowing a number of grants to be submitted.  Mr. Richardson felt that once the SAC was funded and established, it could produce millions of dollars worth of grants over the next ten years.  According to Mr. Richardson, there were many reasons to support A.B. 146, and he would recommend establishment of the SAC.

 

With no further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 146, the hearing was closed.  The next order of business to come before the committee was A.B. 68.

 

Assembly Bill No. 68:  Makes appropriation to City of North Las Vegas for             development of El Camino Real Cultural Center. (BDR S-876)

 

Michele Richardson, Assistant City Manager, City of North Las Vegas, thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the bill.  Ms. Richardson voiced support for A.B. 68, and explained that the City of North Las Vegas was in the process of vigorously pursuing the revitalization of its downtown area through redevelopment efforts.  To that end, the city would lend its support to any proposed legislation that would assist in those efforts.  Ms. Richardson commented that the downtown area of North Las Vegas was a very significant and vital part of the city.  The appropriation requested in A.B. 68 would be essential in assisting the city in its efforts to further capitalize on the diversity of the downtown area. 

 

 

Per Ms. Richardson, culture was part of the foundation of any civilized society, and the development of the cultural arts center could be very significant to the citizens not only of the City of North Las Vegas, but to the region in general.  The City of North Las Vegas would ask, as the committee considered moving the legislation forward, that it also consider the operational issues related to the mechanics of appropriating the money to the City of North Las Vegas, to ensure that all issues were clarified.  Ms. Richardson indicated that would allow the city to administrate the appropriation in the most fiscally responsible manner. 

 

Mrs. Chowning asked where the center would be located, what type of building it would entail, what the project was envisioned to be, and what the total cost would be to the state.  Mrs. Chowning also inquired whether the City of North Las Vegas would contribute to the project. 

 

Ms. Richardson stated she had not been involved in all of the discussions regarding the project, however, her understanding of the concept of the cultural arts center would be a Latino-themed marketplace.  Chairman Arberry stated he had sponsored the bill on behalf of a developer who was developing a parcel of property in the North Las Vegas area, as a last minute thought regarding the possibility of state participation in a cultural arts center.  According to Chairman Arberry, the City of North Las Vegas was also included at the last moment, and was not aware of the entire scope of the project.  The proposal included a large retail and office space complex, which would be built in close proximity to the cultural center and, in fact, it was anticipated that the cultural arts center would become a part of the complex.  The developer had voiced a desire to contribute something to the community, and Chairman Arberry felt a representative should have been present to explain the project.  Chairman Arberry commended Ms. Richardson for her testimony before the committee in support of the project, and suggested that perhaps it would be best to have the developer present an explanation of the project to the committee, in order to ascertain the full scope of the undertaking.

 

Ms. Richardson reported that she had talked to the developer on March 20, 2001, and was in possession of a copy of the proposed concept, and would be happy to provide a copy of the report to each member at a later time (Exhibit J).  Chairman Arberry indicated that would be appreciated, and would allow the committee to visualize the overall project. 

 

With no further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 68, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing, and opened the hearing on A.B. 228.       

 

Assembly Bill 228:  Provides for annual adjustment of compensation for             legislators based on consumer price index. (BDR 17-907)

 

Vivian Freeman, Assemblywoman, District 24, stated A.B. 228 was an effort to provide appropriate compensation for state legislators.  Ms. Freeman explained the last legislative salary increase had been approved during the 1985 session, and there had been no further increases.  Ms. Freeman did not feel it was fair to ask a person to run for office, leave their family and job, and serve the public without sufficient compensation.   A.B. 228 was an effort to address what Ms. Freeman viewed as a real inequity.  When the bill was first contemplated, it was felt the best indicator to utilize for a legislative pay increase would be to base such a raise on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the United States Department of Labor.  According to Ms. Freeman, that would raise the salary level from the current $130 per day to approximately $196 per day. 

 

Ms. Freeman noted that she had requested a fiscal note on the bill, which depicted a cost of approximately $12,720 per year to provide for the raise for legislators, which she did not feel was a significant amount.  Ms. Freeman indicated she served as a legislator during the 1989 session, when A.B. 820 of the Sixty-Fifth Session, a portion of which provided for an increase in legislative pensions, was enacted and later repealed during a special session, and was still suffering the consequences of that legislation.  Ms. Freeman stated she was sensitive to what might be facing legislators when a salary increase was requested and, in fact, noted that some very good legislators had not been reelected because of A.B. 820 of the Sixth-Fifth Session.  Ms. Freeman viewed A.B. 228 as addressing a totally different issue and, therefore, had brought the bill forward. 

 

Prior to introduction of the bill, Ms. Freeman indicated she had visited Governor Guinn to inform him of her sponsorship of the legislation, and had expressed her willingness to amend the wording of the bill to align with the recommendations as delineated in the  “Governor’s Salary Compensation Task Force’s Report and Recommendations on Salary Compensation for Certain Elected Public Officers,” Exhibit H.  Ms. Freeman found it interesting that based upon salary ranges of the private sector, the legislative increase would actually be less than the figure computed via the CPI.  The exhibit pointed out that the decision was made not to use the CPI because of its volatility, and Ms. Freeman felt that was a legitimate concern, given the current status of the economy and the stock market. 

 

According to Ms. Freeman, she would proceed with the bill as drafted, however, indicated a willingness to discuss amendments with the Governor’s staff, and would abide with recommendations from the committee.  Ms. Freeman indicated the proposed amendment would basically change the language of the bill in Section 1, subsection 2, line 16, to indicate the percentage of the legislative increase would be determined based on the private sector “Wage and Salary Survey,” published by the Nevada Department of Employment Security for the prior calendar year, or the percentage of the increase in pay granted to classified state employees for the prior fiscal year, whichever was less.

 

Ms. Freeman asked for the committee’s support of the bill, and reiterated that she was not locked into utilization of the CPI to determine the percentage of the increase.  She did, however, feel that some action should be considered during the 2001 legislative session.  Ms. Freeman referenced the issue of compensation for legislators who lived more than 50 miles from the state capitol, enacted by A.B. 170 of the Seventieth Session, which provided for a supplemental allowance to legislators who maintained temporary quarters in Carson City during the legislative session.  According to Ms. Freeman, legislators who resided in Reno, but chose to maintain a residence in Carson City during legislative sessions for personal reasons, were not eligible for compensation.  Ms. Freeman felt that policy was unfair to many legislators, and she also felt that a strong message should be sent to persons who might consider running for the legislature, one which stipulated they would be fairly compensated.

 

Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, indicated she had testified in support of increased remuneration for legislators during past sessions.  Ms. Vilardo referenced Exhibit H, and explained the Governor’s Salary Compensation Task Force was appointed to review the salaries of all elected officials, i.e., judicial, legislative, and local county elected officials.  According to Ms. Vilardo, she had attended all but one meeting of the task force, and testified in support of legislative salary increases.  She explained that, as written, A.B 228 would not increase the legislator’s base salary, an action which she would also support, and hoped the committee would review that possibility. 

 

Ms. Vilardo stated testimony had proven that, while legislators were in need of a salary increase, such an increase should be defensible, and use of the CPI would not be a defensible increase.  As far as legislators’ constituents were concerned, the defensible increase would be one that contained the lesser of either the increase received by employees in the private sector, or the increase granted by the legislature to state employees.  Per Ms. Vilardo, it would not be deemed fair should there be an instance where state employees had not received an increase, and legislators did.  That was the substance of the proposed amendment, and Ms. Vilardo reiterated that the reference to “salary indexing,” was on page 8 of Exhibit H. 

 

Regarding an increase in a legislator’s base salary, Ms. Vilardo explained that via utilization of the private sector salary increase from 1996, which was the last time locally elected officials had been granted a pay increase, the increase in the base salary for legislators would have been 27 percent.  Assuming there would have been a 3 percent increase in private sector wages for the current fiscal year, the increase in base salary would have been 30 percent, or $175.  Ms. Vilardo urged the committee to consider an increase in the base salary, which she realized had been an extremely unpopular issue in the past, and at the very least, urged passage of A.B. 228.

 

According to Ms. Vilardo, legislative salaries should attempt to keep pace with the cost of serving as a legislator, which could include expenses such as double mortgage payments, and she noted the current remuneration was not sufficient to keep legislators “ahead of the game.”  There was a point where legislators would have to earn a sufficient amount in order to be able to take the time to serve.

 

Chairman Arberry asked Ms. Vilardo what she could say to the body that would provide a comfort zone regarding a vote to increase legislative salary, which might result in a loss of office at the next election.  The concern over such legislation was that an opponent would use such a vote as a negative issue during future election campaigns.

 

Ms. Vilardo replied that she did not know what to say that would enlighten legislators regarding that issue, no more than she could when the legislature voted for a tax increase.  It was a political reality that there were certain issues that were extremely unpopular to the constituency.  However, Ms. Vilardo felt that the issue would be totally defensible at the current time, because legislators would not be voting to increase the base salary, there had not been a raise since 1985, and A.B. 228 would attempt to keep compensation level with private sector counterparts, or state employees, whichever was less.  Ms. Vilardo emphasized that legislators did not even earn minimum wage, and the issue subject to review was the reality of the current legislative wage, which was only paid for a period of 60 days; legislators were not even compensated for the total number of days served during session. 

 

Per Ms. Vilardo, in addition to recommending an increase in base salary and indexing, which originally would have been based on the CPI, the Nevada Taxpayers Association also recommended that legislators receive a monthly stipend, to cover phone and postage bills, maintain Web sites, et cetera, over the interim.  The last recommendation for a salary increase for legislators was an increase to $200 per day.  Ms. Vilardo stated she did not know how to put forth the proposal that would be “bulletproof” for legislators, however, there were logical arguments that could be made, and she would urge the committee to take action, both for themselves and for those who would follow. 

 

Mr. Arberry thanked Ms. Vilardo and the Nevada Taxpayers Association for “stepping up to the plate” and suggesting an increase in legislative salary when, typically, the association was against any increase at all, be it taxes or other increases. 

 

Stephanie Tyler stated she was speaking as a citizen, and felt passionately about legislative wages.  She emphatically stated that the proposal was not a pay increase, and could not be construed as such.  It would merely be granting legislators the same opportunity to recoup costs due to an increase in the cost of living.  Ms. Tyler indicated that same benefit was afforded to those who collected Social Security, and the bill intended to permit legislative salaries to slightly reflect the increased cost of living each year.  The current minimum wage was $5.45 per hour, and Ms. Tyler pointed out that a legislator’s salary, as currently construed and based on the 120 days of session, would amount to $5.41 per hour.  Ms. Tyler commented that employees at fast-food restaurants earned more than legislators. 

 

Ms. Tyler emphasized that A.B. 228 was not a pay increase, but was merely a tracking mechanism attached to legislative salaries that would contemplate a cost-of-living increase.  The CPI had been adopted by many other states as a comparison for various salaries and benefits, and had become a very progressive, intelligent, thoughtful manner to track compensation without intervention on a day-to-day basis; it simply followed the economy. 

 

James Spinello indicated he would testify as a private citizen, and someone who had the privilege of being a former member of the Assembly, having lost a statewide election largely because of the aftermath of A.B. 820 of the         Sixty-Fifth Session.  Mr. Spinello stated the reality of public service, particularly for legislators who had to travel and maintain two households was, quite frankly, more difficult than most people realized.  Sitting as a legislator was “real” work that deserved “real” pay, as legislators were leaders of the state.  According to Mr. Spinello, while the current compensation system worked well in 1864 when the legislature was designed and a session could actually be conducted in 60 days, it was no longer applicable. 

 

To address Chairman Arberry’s question regarding how to make the issue “bulletproof,” Mr. Spinello remarked that, having learned from the past mistake in 1989, he felt legislators did not communicate enough with their constituents.  The most significant element of the 1989 pension debacle was the fact that it contained a retroactive provision, which enabled members who voted in favor of the legislation to realize an immediate windfall.  Mr. Spinello felt that if the pay increase was staged in increments, perhaps taking effect after the next election, and was more moderate in nature, that constituents would not oppose the measure.  According to Mr. Spinello, legislators should meet with editorial boards, news directors, and the Governor, in order to devise a plan agreeable to all, and one that went as far as making the issue off-limits in future campaigns.  Mr. Spinello stated with a little work, the public would recognize that being a legislator was a “real” job, and would be willing to support “real” pay for “real” work.  Mr. Spinello felt that those who were former legislators, and who had experienced the 1989 session, would be more than willing to support the incumbent legislators in discussing the reality of that level of public service.  

 

Ms. Tiffany felt the sensitivity element, because of the probable budget crisis, along with the reaction from the 1989 pension issue, were the reasons legislators were concerned about passing a salary increase.  She asked whether anyone had conducted a survey regarding placing the question of increased salary for legislators on the ballot, asking whether people would support their legislators during the 120-day session.  Ms. Tiffany felt that such a question would pass, and asked whether anyone had looked at that possibility. 

 

Mr. Spinello related that he had spent a great deal of time researching the issues of representative government when seeking his master’s degree.  One of the outgrowths of that research was the belief that a representative democracy required that representatives made the law.  According to Mr. Spinello, the truth was that the country was not a pure democracy, but rather was a republic, which was a representative system.  People elected those who represented their views, and as long as decisions were properly explained, people would generally support those decisions.  Mr. Spinello felt that some moderate action, which looked to the future, would be possible.

 

Mr. Hettrick appreciated the support expressed for a legislative pay increase, and indicated he had supported the issue each time it was brought forward.  According to Ms. Tyler’s testimony, legislators were earning $5.41 per hour, which he said was true when the daily wage of $130 was considered, based on the hours.  That would not be a true figure if the net pay received by legislators was considered, after payment of taxes and other deductions.  Mr. Hettrick noted his net pay would amount to $24.12 after expenses, and he felt that legislators should be compensated to a degree so that interested people would be willing to serve.  The legislature had approved increases for several other issues in state government, and the pay increase issue was the one thing that had not been considered. 

 

Mr. Hettrick emphasized that legislators had not received a pay increase since 1985, and he could think of no portion of state government that had not realized an increase since that time.  There were ups and downs due to budget constraints, however, somewhere along the way, persons serving in the legislature would have to step up and indicate that their service had value.  Mr. Hettrick said he could not imagine why legislators continued to demonstrate that their service did not have value, by not voting for a needed pay increase.  Mr. Hettrick noted that if legislators did not value their service, the public could not be convinced that it was of value.  Mr. Hettrick voiced his support of A.B. 228, however, noted that he would support the measure in a somewhat different format.  He suggested that rather than an increase in salary legislators could be provided reimbursement for the cost of actually serving constituents on a monthly basis, via a stipend as repayment of expenses.  He felt the proposed legislation could be changed to accommodate an increase in stipends.  Mr. Hettrick advised that he spent an average of three days per week working for constituents, and was not reimbursed for that time.  While he was proud and happy to work for his constituents, the fact was that qualified people often did not anticipate serving as a legislator, because they could not afford to do so.    

 

Mr. Dini stated he spoke to many service clubs and organizations, and found that most people thought that legislators received a high degree of compensation for their services, and were quite surprised to learn that legislators were only paid $7,800.  Nevada’s population was expanding, and newcomers to the state were unaware of the status of state legislators.  Mr. Dini felt the public needed to be educated regarding the legislature, and agreed that many qualified people could not afford to take on the job of a legislator, due to campaign costs and ongoing expenses over the interim.  Mr. Dini stated that the legislature had always voted against the idea of representation by a public relations person, and he felt that, possibly, that had been a major mistake.  Most constituents had no idea that legislators were on the job for such long hours during session, and Mr. Dini opined that educating the public would go a long way toward acceptance of a reasonable increase in base salary.  According to Mr. Dini, the raise approved in 1985 amounted to $10, and noted that the legislature had not kept up with current times, which made it difficult for persons who wanted to serve.  Mr. Dini indicated there should be some way to compensate legislators for their service.  Those in the twilight of their careers would not have much to lose either way, and Mr. Dini indicated when he left, he would like to leave the legislature in better shape than it was when he began, and also to ensure that those who followed would receive a decent salary. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the legislature had wrestled with the issue for years, and should legislation be passed, it would not take effect until legislators had stood for reelection.  She felt that legislators had to stop thinking that they could not act on a pay increase because it might result in not being reelected.  Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that legislators were elected to do the job during the current session.  She signed as a sponsor to A.B. 228, and felt it was the right thing to do, to ensure that those who wanted to seek public office would have an opportunity to do so.  Not everyone had that ability to serve because of the costs involved, and those who had to move their families suffered a huge fiscal impact, along with the emotional impact.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted that legislators who represented a rural area should be reimbursed via a stipend for the distances those legislators were required to travel.  She felt the legislature had an obligation to take action during the current session, even though there was a looming budget crisis.  Ms. Giunchigliani indicated there were several issues to deal with during the current session, i.e., legislative pay, state employee pay, public employee pay, senior citizen issues, along with other issues that would assist human resources, because that was the area which had been under-funded over the years. 

 

Cheryl Blomstrom, representing the Nevada Chapter, Associated General Contractors, stated she would testify in support of A.B. 228.  Ms. Blomstrom remarked that the citizens of Nevada were proud of its citizen legislature, and if the citizens did not assist the legislators in doing their jobs over the course of their terms, the state would be unable to maintain its citizen legislature.  Ms. Blomstrom voiced strong support for A.B. 228, either as written, or in whatever final form the legislature decided upon. 

 

Deborah Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), advised the committee that the NSEA wanted to go on record in support of not just A.B. 228, but also in support of an increase in base pay, as previously discussed.  Ms. Cahill felt the issue was about attracting and retaining qualified persons to fill the legislative seats, and also about the citizens of Nevada, who needed qualified legislators committed to doing the peoples’ work.      

 

Peter Krueger stated he would echo previous testimony, and noted that not many citizens in Nevada would remember the 1989 pension issue.  He felt that the legislature should forget about “the ghost of pension past,” and move on with the political courage that had been spoken to.  Mr. Krueger remarked that as businesses had to attract and retain qualified persons, so should the legislature, and he felt it was time for the legislature to “bite the bullet,” and step up with the political courage necessary to pass A.B. 228 in a format that would properly award legislators for service rendered.

 

James Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance, stated he had testified in favor of past bills that proposed legislative pay increases.  He felt that whatever bill was processed during the current session, it should include a provision to cover the health care costs of legislators.  That was an additional burden which grew in size for those who were required to pay their own health care premiums during session.  Mr. Richardson urged consideration to add that stipulation to proposed legislation as another way to assist legislators with the serious problem that basically “starved” people out of service as a legislator.  Mr. Richardson stated he also wanted to comment on the so-called 300 percent problem regarding the 1989 pension issue, and his disappointment in the news media.  The 300 percent actually represented a change from $25 per month for a retiree with a long service history, to $75 per month.  According to Mr. Richardson, regrettably, there was no “bulletproof” method to approach the issue, and he urged legislators to meet with the editorial boards in Nevada and negotiate a package, one that included proposed legislation which the media would not attack legislators for passing.  The outcome of the 1989 pension issue was unconscionable, and Mr. Richardson stated it should not have happened.  Had the actual dollar amounts been mentioned in the headlines, rather than the percentage, there would have been no problem.        

 

Mr. Hettrick commented that during the 1999 session, the Nevada Taxpayers Association proposed a bill that would have raised legislator’s pay by approximately 42 percent, or an increase to $174 per day.  After the testimony had been presented regarding the bill, Mr. Hettrick predicted a media headline that declared a legislative raise of 42 percent, rather than $44 per day for 60 days, and that headline had, indeed, occurred.  According to Mr. Hettrick, the media would continue to play the game, whether the legislature contacted the editorial boards or not, because it sold newspapers.  The newspapers would never agree not to put the percentages in the headlines, which was one of the reasons he felt the issue should be approached via a stipend for expenses, rather than a pay increase.  Mr. Hettrick stated if that action was taken, the newspapers could not play the game, because it would be similar to other expenses that were paid by state government.  He encouraged the committee to consider approaching the issue in the most “bulletproof” manner possible. 

 

Jack Jeffrey, representing the southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council and southern Nevada Central Labor Council, stated there were only two bodies that were unfortunate enough to have to raise their own salaries, the legislature and city councils.  He noted there had been several raises for the city councils in Clark County since the 300 percent pension issue in 1989, and in fact, the councils not only raised their salaries, but also included such things as car allowances and paid health insurance.  Mr. Jeffrey felt that legislators earned less than half as much as councilmen in Clark County, and for the amount of time given, the compensation received was ridiculously low.  One of the repercussions from the 300 percent pension increase was the fact that there had not been any increase in compensation since that time.  Mr. Jeffery commented that a favorable vote on a pay increase might be used against a legislator in his campaign, but he did not think it would make a difference.  He voiced support for whatever action the legislature deemed appropriate.

 

Rick Bennett indicated he was testifying as a citizen, and had supported A.B. 170 of the Seventieth Session regarding the housing allowance.  Mr. Bennett stated he also felt compelled to testify in support of A.B. 228.  Everyone who participated in the legislative process in any capacity would understand the commitment made by legislators and their families.  Mr. Bennett stated there was not much that could be done to compensate families for time lost because of legislative commitments.  However, Mr. Bennett felt it was possible to compensate for the loss of income when legislators were away from their employment.  Mr. Bennett indicated that in 1991, his freshman year as a legislator, he voted in favor of an estimated $300 million tax increase, and assumed that might be his last session because of that vote.  Mr. Bennett explained that since he was at the 1991 legislature to do the job, and based on the information presented, the vote in favor of additional taxes was the right decision.  He stated he believed a favorable vote on A.B. 228 would be the right decision during the current legislative session, for both incumbent and future legislators.

 

Elizabeth Pederson stated she would speak on behalf of the League of Women Voters in Nevada, and voiced support of the bill.  Ms. Peters stated the league would actually support measures that went beyond what the bill proposed.  The league believed that the legislative body performed a very valuable service to the citizens of Nevada.  Ms. Peters stated the league also believed increasing the financial feasibility of serving as a legislator would only promote the goal of representative democracy and increase citizen participation.

 

Alexis Miller, Nevada Women’s Lobby, indicated the lobby would also lend its support to A.B. 228, because it was well aware of how much work was completed by the legislators.

 

Danny Thompson indicated he would testify on behalf of the Nevada American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), and also from a personal standpoint.  On behalf of the 155,000 members of the AFL‑CIO, Mr. Thompson stated that if anyone deserved a pay raise, it would be the legislators, and both he and the AFL-CIO membership would support such legislation.

 

Michael Hillerby, Office of the Governor, informed the committee that the Governor was very supportive of a pay raise for legislators, and noted that Nevada had made public service collectively very unattractive to qualified employees, and also to elected and appointed officials.  As previous testimony pointed out, it would be impossible to keep democracy alive and thriving if the state could not attract qualified people.  Mr. Hillerby testified that the system was not working, and legislators did deserve a salary increase.  The study completed by the Governor’s Salary Compensation Task Force was extremely important, and Mr. Hillerby advised that some of the recommendations in the Task Force’s report of January 12, 2001, Exhibit H, clearly needed to be implemented at the present time, rather than later.  Mr. Hillerby reiterated that the Governor’s Office would lend its support to the effort.

 

Mrs. de Braga asked whether the Governor’s Office would favor use of the CPI, as stipulated in A.B. 228, and coverage for the days served during session.  Mr. Hillerby stated the Governor would be willing to leave the finer points of the finished piece of legislation to the deliberation of the legislature, and whatever the body felt would be the best course of action would be supported by the Governor.  Mr. Hillerby stated the Governor felt it was time to propose a pay increase, whether it would be based on an increase in stipends, as suggested by Mr. Hettrick, or indexing via the CPI, whatever mechanism the legislature felt would work best; it was time to think about the future, and those legislators who would be asked to serve.

 

Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was further testimony in favor of, or in opposition to A.B. 228, and hearing none, closed the hearing on that bill, and opened the hearing on A.B. 274. 

 

Assembly Bill 274:  Makes appropriation to account for local cultural activities.             (BDR S-1174)

 

Sam Folio, Vice President of the American Federation of Musicians, Local 368 in Reno, which was organized in 1907, stated he would speak in favor of A.B. 274.  He noted the allocation of $150,000 had been approved by the legislature at each session since 1985, to promote cultural events in the state via the State of Nevada Grant (SONG) program.  That program provided funds to send live music programs to organizations free of charge.  An increase had not been requested since 1985, and Mr. Folio voiced appreciation for past support and asked that the committee continue that support via passage of the bill.  The allocation was administered by the recording industry in both the United States and Canada, which had assumed the role of employer.  The SONG programs were seen in Nevada’s school systems, in parks, in senior centers, or at any free location.  The cultural events were presented by professionals, and Mr. Folio explained that the $150,000 allocation from the 1999 session had grown over the past two years to approximately $400,000.  According to Mr. Folio, that increase was because of matching money from the recording industry, as well as other entities throughout the state. 

 

Mr. Folio called the committee’s attention to Exhibit I, composed of several letters voicing support for the SONG program.  In addition, Mr. Folio explained that the original allocation from the 1999 legislature had been expended, and the recording industry had agreed to continue free programs for schools during March and April 2001.  Mr. Folio explained that professional musicians had been placed in middle school and high school bands in the jazz programs.  The recording industry was pleased with the program in Nevada, and had augmented the funding for its continuation.  Per Mr. Folio, in addition, scholarships had been made available through allocations from the recording industry to musicians who intended to continue the study of music at the college level.  There were currently six $500 scholarships available, and though that was not a large amount, receipt of a scholarship from the recording industry read well on a student’s resume.  The industry provided the funds for the scholarships because of the enthusiasm demonstrated by the legislature and the citizens of Nevada for the program. 

 

Mike Chamberlain, Chairman, Board of Directors, Lake Tahoe Shakespeare Festival, explained that a small portion of the funds appropriated by the legislature funded the free Green Show (Exhibit I), which was on stage prior to the Shakespeare Festival.  The Green Show had been performed in front of more than 54,000 people over the past two years at Sand Harbor State Park.  Mr. Chamberlain stated that with the help of the legislature, along with many others, a $2 million facility had been constructed at Sand Harbor.  Per Mr. Chamberlain, the project was an example of public/private partnership, with all but $57,000 being raised via private donations.  Mr. Chamberlain urged committee support of A.B. 274.

 

Danny Thompson, representing the Nevada State American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), informed the committee that the secretary/treasurer of the Las Vegas Musicians local union would be unable to testify at the hearing, however, wanted the committee to be aware of correspondence he had received from the Clark County Recreation Department attesting to the success of the SONG program.  According to Mr. Thompson, the letter referenced band performances over the past several months at the Cambridge Community Center, which brought much enjoyment to senior citizens, and also attested to the worthiness of the program, which had touched so many lives in Las Vegas. 

Mr. Thompson stated that the program was a good example of getting the best  “bang for the buck,” from the $150,000 allocation, which supported an extremely worthwhile program, not only for the state’s school children and senior citizens, but also the public in general.  Mr. Thompson indicated the AFL‑CIO would offer its support on behalf of A.B. 274. 

 

Mr. Marvel commented that the SONG program had endured for several years, and he felt it was one of the most worthwhile and colorful programs in the state.  As a representative of rural Nevada, Mr. Marvel stated he had heard many complimentary statements regarding the program.

 

Mrs. Chowning remarked that she had received several letters via e-mail regarding the SONG program, and it appeared that the money had been put to good use on a statewide basis.  Mrs. Chowning felt that children needed to be exposed to the arts, the survival of which could be in jeopardy without such exposure.

 

With no further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 274, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed, and announced the committee would review the following bills with a view toward action: (1) A.B. 29; (2) A.B. 267; (3) A.B. 266; (4) A.B. 138; and, (5) S.B. 199.

 

Assembly Bill 29:  Requires director of state department of conservation and             natural resources to conduct independent investigation before making             certain determinations concerning control of water pollution under certain             circumstances. (BDR 40-21)

 

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED DO PASS A.B. 29.

 

MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 267:  Provides for creation of statue of Sarah Winnemucca for             placement in National Statuary Hall Collection in United States Capitol.             (BDR S-695)

 

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), stated that Mrs. de Braga had sponsored the bill, which requested a $100,000 allocation which was not included in The Executive Budget.  The committee could consider either; (1) passage of the bill including the requested allocation of $100,000; or, (2) passage of the bill with an amendment to remove the $100,000 allocation.  Mr. Stevens noted that passage was Mrs. de Braga’s intent, with or without the allocation.  Mrs. de Braga concurred, and formally requested passage of the bill, with or without the allocation.  Chairman Arberry advised that the committee could not pass the bill with the allocation.

 

MRS. de BRAGA MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 267 TO REFLECT DELETION OF THE REQUESTED $100,000 ALLOCATION, AND DO PASS AS AMENDED.

 

MS. LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 266:  Makes various changes regarding notaries public.             (BDR 19‑648)

 

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED DO PASS A.B. 266.

 

MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 138:  Clarifies formula for determining amount payable by State of Nevada toward cost of insurance for certain retired employees.             (BDR 23-1065)

 

Mr. Stevens indicated there was a question whether the bill, as amended by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, created a property right for those individuals currently employed in state government, and who had prior local government experience.  The LCB Legal Division ruled that the bill would create a property right and, in its current form, would impact former employees no longer employed by the state.  Mr. Stevens stated the committee had the option of amending the bill to delete the property right, which would basically impact approximately 40 to 50 persons.  The benefit for those individuals would have to be recalculated and reduced, should the committee choose not to include the property right, and clarification would be required regarding legislative intent when the bill was originally passed.  Mr. Stevens noted that the only other option available to the committee would be to pass the bill with inclusion of a provision that would allow billing local governments for that portion of the cost where individuals had served. 

 

Mr. Goldwater indicated he had been contacted by employees who had worked for both state and local government entities, and who felt that passage of the bill would adversely affect their retirement.  Those were very compelling stories of the reduction in benefits from employees who were approaching retirement, and Mr. Goldwater stated he was not inclined to move the bill, unless it could be amended in a manner that would not affect current employees.     

 

Mr. Hettrick felt there should be further inquiry into the matter prior to making a decision regarding the bill.  There were concerns about the costs of employees who served outside state government, and the committee should at least take into account the future impact on budgets. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani concurred, and also felt more time should be devoted to the bill prior to taking action.  She inquired whether there had been a legal opinion issued regarding the property right issue, along with clarification of the original intent.  Mr. Stevens stated he had been in contact with the LCB Legal Division and inquired whether the bill, as currently written, created a property right for current employees, and had been verbally apprised that it would create such a right.  The Legal Division also advised the bill could be amended by the committee to ensure that it did not contain a property right.  According to Mr. Stevens, that would involve amending the bill to clarify the intent of the legislature when the original bill was passed.  Should the committee decide to take that action, the benefit received by some individuals would be recalculated and reduced. 

 

Mr. Dini felt the property right issue was extremely important and would have a drastic effect on some people.  He suggested the committee appoint a subcommittee to review the issue in depth, and hopefully arrive at a workable solution.  Mr. Dini noted that many people had transferred between state and local government in the course of their employment, and he did not feel they should be penalized. 

 

Chairman Arberry appointed Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. Dini, and Mr. Hettrick as the subcommittee to study A.B. 138, and with no further discussion forthcoming on the bill, closed the hearing.

 

********

 

Senate Bill 199:  Makes appropriations for purchase and light renovation by             Legislative Counsel Bureau of Capitol Apartments as described in land             description verified pursuant to NRS 218.255. (BDR S-733)

 

Mr. Stevens explained that S.B. 199 was the bill to fund purchase of the Capitol Apartment property adjacent to the LCB’s Sedway Office Building, as explained to the committee at a previous hearing by Lorne Malkiewich, Director, LCB.  Mr. Malkiewich would like the legislation to move relatively quickly, should the committee feel it had merit.  Mr. Goldwater inquired whether the property had been appraised.  Mr. Stevens replied in the affirmative, and the allocation had been reduced by approximately $150,000 to $200,000, which was reflective of the appraisal. 

 

MR. MARVEL MOVED DO PASS S.B. 199, SUBJECT TO THE APPRAISAL REMAINING WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE ALLOCATION.

 

MR. GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Hettrick stated he had served on the Committee to Consult with the Director (NRS 218.6828), which proposed the legislation, and he emphasized that purchase of the building was quite sensible, as the apartment complex would provide parking, was within reach of the fiber-optics, would provide additional office space, and was currently in bankruptcy.  If the legislature did not agree to purchase the property, it could be sold to another interested buyer.  Mr. Hettrick stated that LCB staff had committed to undertake the remodeling on an internal basis, which would create a substantial savings.  Mr. Hettrick informed the committee that he felt it was quite sensible to purchase the property. 

 

Mr. Goldwater indicated he was hesitant about the bankruptcy proceedings.  Mr. Parks questioned the proposed use of the facility once acquired, and whether there would be any additional cost or appropriation allocated for that purpose via other legislation or The Executive Budget.  Mr. Stevens pointed out that the first reprint of S.B. 199 indicated two sums would be appropriated, approximately $1 million for the purchase of the property, and approximately $500,000 for “light renovation.”  Mr. Stevens did not believe that a separate allocation had been proposed, however, the Senate Finance Committee had issued a Letter of Intent to Mr. Malkiewich, which stipulated that any further appropriations should be brought back before the legislature, or an interim committee, for approval prior to any work commencing on the property.  Mr. Stevens explained that such action would allow the legislature to be fully informed and retain final approval over any proposed renovation. 

 

Mr. Dini stated there had been many complaints from staff that utilized the Sedway Office Building parking lot, because of problems caused by residents of the apartment complex.  Mr. Dini agreed with Mr. Hettrick that the legislature would only be presented the opportunity to purchase the property once, and if the property was not purchased, it could be sold to another buyer.  The state and the legislature continued to grow, and Mr. Dini stated the building could be renovated and utilized by both the legislative and executive branches. 

 

Mr. Goldwater stated that, while he would not dispute the merits of the project, when the legislature appropriated money it should have all pertinent facts regarding the seller, and the bankruptcy proceedings; he indicated he would abstain from the final vote until further information was presented regarding the project. 

 

Mr. Dini noted that the Committee to Consult with the Director had handled the process as stipulated by the NRS for purchase of property and appraisal.  The information regarding creditors, et cetera, could be ascertained from Mr. Malkiewich.  Mr. Dini emphasized that the proper procedures were followed, as had been done with the prior purchase of the Sedway Building.  Mr. Stevens noted that the appropriation to purchase the property was included in The Executive Budget, and the cost of the property had been reduced by approximately $150,000 to $200,000.  

 

With no further comments from the committee, Chairman called for a vote.   

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. GOLDWATER ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE.

 

********

 

With no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 10:43 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Carol Thomsen

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE: