MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Finance

 

Seventy-First Session

May 4, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 2:18 p.m., on Friday, May 4, 2001, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District

Senator Valerie Weiner, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3

Senator Mark A. James, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8

Senator Michael A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8

Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 1

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Debra Petrelli, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Michael E. Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

John Madole, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter Associated General Contractors

Don Enos, Private Citizen Representing Granite Construction Company

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA/AFSCME)

Troy Wade, Chairman, Nevada Test Site (NTS) Historical Foundation

Willie B. Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Human Resources

Kirby L. Burgess, President, Nevada Juvenile Justice Administrators; Director, Department of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), Clark County

Leonard J. Pugh, Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services

Elizabeth M. Pederson, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada

Vince Triggs, Executive Director, Nevada Association for the Handicapped

Scott Mullen, Private Citizen

Patricia Martinez, Private Citizen

Chuck Fulkerson, Executive Director, Nevada Office of Veterans’ Services

Jerry Hughes, Ed.D., Executive Director, Nevada Interscholastic Activity Association

Robert L. Crowell, Lobbyist; Private Citizen

Candace Wheeler, Inspector/Clerk, Comstock Historic District Commission, Department of Museums, Library and Arts

Gary Bowyer, Historic Archeologist, Carson City Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

Ronald M. James, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Museums, Library and Arts

Rex Williams, Private Citizen

Robert Hunter, Private Citizen

Bo Bernard, Private Citizen

Theresa Malone, Las Vegas, District 2-G, State Board of Education and State Board for Occupational Education, Department of Education

Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education

Phillip Weyrick, Administrative Services Officer, Health Division, Department of Human Resources

Scott M. Craigie, Lobbyist, Public Broadcasting/KLVX and Public Broadcasting/KNPB

Richard Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer, KNPB Channel 5, Reno

Tom Axtell, General Manager, KLVX Channel 10, Las Vegas, Clark County School District

Lamar Marchese, President and General Manager KNPR Radio, and Secretary, Nevada Broadcasting Association

Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Broadcasting Association

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA)

Mary Beth Scow, President, District A, Board of School Trustees, Clark County School District

Sheila Moulton, Vice President, District G, Board of School Trustees, Clark County School District

Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association

 

Senator Raggio opened the meeting and stated none of these bills are included in The Executive Budget, however, at the request of the sponsoring senators who requested these measures, the bills are being given a hearing. 

 

SENATE BILL (S.B.) 84:  Provides formula to calculate salaries of officers of Nevada highway patrol of department of motor vehicles and public safety. (BDR 23‑750)

 

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, stated, “As we convene the hearing on this bill, it is against a backdrop of personnel concerns in many areas of our public work force.”  He said this is a proposal to increase state employees’ salaries, grade steps, and signing bonuses for educators.  He noted this is also a proposal in the form of a traditional unclassified pay bill.  He explained the group of law enforcement professionals affected by this proposal are not centered in his district, but are located throughout the state with most of them located in the population centers.

 

Senator Amodei commented that these individuals’ duties are unique, and as a result thereof, so is the training required for them to perform those assigned duties.  He added the training has a cost factor.  He remarked that S.B. 84 has an objective, which is an average salary for Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) uniform personnel.  He said the average was calculated by comparing salaries of urban center police forces.  He pointed out that urban areas are where most NHP personnel are stationed.

 

Senator Amodei stated some people may see this as a nice thing to have, or some people may see it as special treatment for a small group of state personnel.  He pointed out that his support for this issue has nothing to do with either of those circumstances.  He said it has to do with personnel and financial realities. 

 

Senator Amodei remarked that after introducing this bill, he asked the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) to perform research for him for his presentation.  He said he asked for several things from the Research Division.  First, he commented, was whether this was a unique proposal in terms of the western United States, and what our surrounding states do.  He also asked whether this was something that Nevadans had thought would put them on the “cutting edge.”

 

Senator Amodei commented the states surveyed were Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.  He said no responses were received from Colorado, New Mexico, or Washington.  Of the responses received, he added, all of the other states mentioned have some sort of a special agreement for compensation, except Utah.  He stated that Utah salaries are set by their Legislature.  

 

Senator Amodei said the second question he asked of the Research Division was to provide information on how many troopers have left the NHP in the last few years and what comparative training costs were.  He testified the information returned to him indicated that in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, 37 trained troopers left NHP.  He added that the cost for training for those troopers was $2,000 short of $2 million dollars.  In FY 2000, he noted, 37 troopers left NHP, again.  He said it was the same cost for training, $1,900,098.

 

Senator Amodei stated, so far in FY 2001, 14 trained troopers have left the highway patrol.  The cost for training replacements totaled $756,000, he added.  He pointed out that the total cost for training over the last 2½ years was $4,752,000.  He said the current cost of implementing pay parity for the positions of trooper, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, deputy chief, and chief would be $2.8 million per year.

 

Senator Amodei said the following:

 

I would submit to you that with the erosion in personnel…that this is an issue we need to look at.  It’s not a special favor for the highway patrol; as a law enforcement agency they’re unique.  They are our law enforcement agency as a state entity.  I am aware that this has not been put in the budget.  I would submit to you that we need to give a good, honest consideration as to whether or not it was a mistake not to have made some provision to do this in this budget.

 

Senator Amodei commented, if we ignore this circumstance, it will invite further erosion in cost, personnel, experience, and service in the mission they perform.  He added he believes there have been significant amounts of reversion money from this budget in the past few years.  He said that fact is also worthy of consideration when passing on this measure.

 

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, commented that S.B. 84 is very simple.  Senator Raggio noted there is a Fiscal Note dated February 20, 2001, showing a potential cost of salary adjustment of $1,030,000 in the first year of the biennium, and $1,066,000 in the second year of the biennium.  He added that the average salary is based on jurisdictions with more than 50,000 inhabitants.

 

Mr. Wolff commented that S.B. 84 refers to the five law enforcement agencies of cities that have populations over 50,000.  He said it simply calculates all of the salaries in all of the ranks within those agencies, and is divided by five.  The highway patrol is paid, either up or down, 5 percent within that salary, he noted, to comply with any pay-parity issues.  He added that this is the method used in California and other states.  He pointed out that it rarely makes the highway patrol the highest paid agency, but it does prevent them from being the lowest paid.  He said it leaves them approximately in the middle of the formula.

 

Mr. Wolff said the Fiscal Note is correct.  He pointed out the current cost to train exceeds the cost to retain highway patrol troopers.  He commented that many of the current troopers are watching this legislative session, and are aware of the tight budget restraints.  He remarked these troopers are an essential necessity and are ambassadors of our state. 

 

Mr. Wolff emphasized that these highway patrol troopers belong to the citizens of Nevada.  He said they are relying on the Legislature to make things right. 

 

Mr. Wolff commented:

 

Right now they [salaries] are so far out of line, it’s almost embarrassing.  I just got a fax from Elko stating that the Chief of the Elko Police Department now makes about $6,000 a year more than our [NHP] chief makes.  A lieutenant in these other agencies, on Metro, [Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department] makes more than our [NHP] chief, who is responsible for over 615 personnel.

 

Mr. Wolff said the NHP is asking for help.  He added there is a serious crisis in Nevada, especially in the southern region.  He commented he was recently informed that Truckee, California is expanding their police department and setting its sites on “our people.”

 

Mr. Wolff concluded by saying the NHP pours its heart and soul out for this state.  He said troopers work alone and their jobs are very dangerous.  He remarked that currently a trooper in Las Vegas is holding on to life after trying to stop a fleeing felon who brutally ran over him.  Mr. Wolff stressed this is a dangerous job. Troopers like their jobs and most of the troopers say they do not want to leave, but economics are forcing them to leave, he added.

 

Senator Raggio commented there is no need to convince this committee or the members of this Legislature about the importance of the NHP.  He added it is an excellent organization and every member of the committee would like to support some method to increase pay and does not want to lose these people to other agencies.  He stated the committee is very concerned.  He said, as indicated in past legislative sessions, there have been special efforts made to try to compensate the NHP in a fairer fashion. 

 

Senator Rawson asked whether the NHP will receive the “4 and 4,” the raise that the Governor has requested for state employees.  Mr. Wolff replied he would assume they have not been left out.  Senator Rawson stated this is almost a reclassification because it brings up the base.  Mr. Wolff responded that is correct.  He added that the NHP was under the assumption the Governor was going to place the NHP in a “hard to fill” classification system, similar to the Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, and the Department of Prisons. 

 

Mr. Wolff added the following:

 

Director Kirkland of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety was asked the question at an IFC [Interim Finance Committee] meeting, and he indicated that NHP was in the budget.  Maybe it’s my downfall, but, since they do the budgets, I assumed it was in there. We checked the budget and discovered that it wasn’t.  So, NHP has been left out of the budget and we do not know what the status is on the “top out” bill at this time.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether troopers receive Peace Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.).  Mr. Wolff replied they receive more training than any other police officers in this state.  He said troopers training elevates to 6 months because troopers have to go through P.O.S.T., and then a specific NHP academy.  He added, on top of that, troopers go through 16 weeks of field training with a field‑training officer.  At that point they are cut loose, he said.

 

Mr. Wolff stated that an officer does not basically work alone for approximately one year.  He said from there they go to additional training, which includes accident reconstruction, commercial training, and motorcycle training.  He commented the reason for this much training is because these troopers are often placed alone in remote areas.  They do not have the luxury of a backup officer, he added. 

 

Mr. Wolff commented further, “Sometimes the difference of you laying [sic] upside down in a car and that officer is all you have.  Maybe he gets the assistance of a truck driver.  But that’s where it’s at.”  He said these troopers have to be extremely professional with a high degree of training.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether dollars would actually be saved in training if the attrition rate was cut in half.  For instance, if only 15 officers a year were needed, would there be any direct savings out of other training programs?  He added it appears transfers are costing the state $1 million a year more than the training.

 

Senator Amodei explained that this is one of the major premises of his support of S.B. 84.  He added:

 

When somebody looks at the bill initially, and says, ‘gee this would be a nice thing for the patrol.’  My response to that is, ‘after receiving the input from LCB is, it’s not a nice thing to have for the patrol, it makes money dollars and cents based upon what our experience has been.

 

Senator Amodei said one of the things he neglected to mention was a bill that went through government affairs that talked about charging back local government entities in this state when specialized training is provided to employees and those entities take an employee from the state workforce.  He added this is one of the situations in which the training these people receive makes them highly sought after and marketable in the law enforcement sense.

 

Senator Amodei testified this is something that will save money by putting these people in the “ballpark” with people who are competing for law enforcement personnel in the population centers of our state.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether there is an overall job satisfaction, except for the pay, and whether the NHP would still be used as a training ground and a way to get into other police departments.  He also inquired whether it would stop or slow the number of people that are leaving.  Mr. Wolff commented a trooper in Las Vegas recently stated that this was a job he hated to leave.  He added if you were to ask any trooper, the trooper would say he is very satisfied with his job.

 

Mr. Wolff commented he does not believe the issue is the working conditions; it is strictly money.  These troopers cannot afford not to take that “dangling carrot,” he said.  He added this is not just a loss of money, but when a 3-year to 7-year trooper leaves, the state is losing the “cream of the crop.”   He explained the state would be loosing all the experience that goes with that trooper.  He said it takes approximately 3 years for these people to reach a journey level.  So not only are we loosing the officers, we are loosing their talents, he added.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether NHP troopers spend more time away from their family than other police officers, and whether it is harder on their families in terms of the miles they must drive.  Mr. Wolff replied that troopers located in metropolitan areas most likely do not have it any tougher than a regular police officer.  He said the rural officers do face this issue as far as their family lives go because they are called out at all hours of the day and often travel extreme distances.

 

Senator Raggio inquired whether NHP troopers get the same benefits as other state employees, such as longevity pay and merit steps.  Mr. Wolff replied they do.

 

Michael E. Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated he represents all NHP troopers.  He said they are looking to him to be an advocate for them to state their cause and position.  He added there is no solution because, when money is involved, there are many other issues that come along with it. 

 

Mr. Hood said the NHP is back again to right the pay disparity.  He added that the NHP continues to lose their best-trained troopers to other agencies within the state.  He stated, as of today, the NHP is 42 positions down.  These positions cannot be filled, he noted.  He pointed out that their last recruitment effort produced 86 people in southern Nevada.  In comparison, he said, when he was accepted to the NHP 24 years ago, he competed with 1,200 people for 15 jobs.

 

Mr. Hood testified that recently 86 people were tested in southern Nevada for 42 positions and half of them failed the physical and/or the written part of the test, and the other half will fail the background check.  He said:

 

It’s not only, not being able to hire, but the people that we are hiring, and not to…I’ll probably make somebody angry out there, but the people that we are hiring have put in applications with every other police organization in this state, and some of them in the western United States, and these are the people that we are considering hiring for the highway patrol.  Everyday I’m inundated with my boss, and law suits and things…Well that is a training personnel hiring issue.  The only way to stop that is to be able to hire people, and the only way to hire people is to be competitive, and to be competitive we have to get close.

 

Mr. Hood reiterated that he would appreciate committee support for S.B. 84.    

 

Senator Raggio stated this is not a new concept and it has been proposed during many legislative sessions.  He asked whether this proposal has been presented to the Governor for inclusion in the budget, or was it presented to the previous Governor in the budget.  Mr. Hood said it has not been presented to Governor Guinn. 

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Hood whether this concept was presented to the person within his department who prepares the budget for his agency.  Mr. Hood said it was not.  Senator Raggio questioned whether it had ever been presented to his department head or the Budget Division for the Governor’s review.  Mr. Hood replied that it was not presented this time, but it was presented during the last legislative session but did not make the Governor’s recommended budget.

 

Senator Amodei pointed out that the reality of the budgeting process this time around was that the Governor had asked all agencies to remain at a “flat line” as far as what their budget requests were.  He added, to that extent, if agency chiefs wanted to change priorities within their departments, they were free to do so, but the overall amount they were directed to submit was a “flat line.”

 

Senator Neal asked whether the department is still 42 positions down.  Mr. Hood said yes, as of today they are.  Senator Neal inquired what the total number is of people presently working on the force.  Mr. Hood replied they have a total allotment from the state Legislature of 446 commissioned officers, give or take a few.  Senator Neal questioned how many of the 42 would be patrolmen or patrolwomen.  Mr. Hood responded all are patrolmen and patrolwomen.

 

Senator Neal asked whether, with that number of unfilled positions, would it have an affect upon response time to accidents on the roadways?  Mr. Hood responded most of these positions are in southern Nevada, and it does affect response time.  He explained it creates a bigger problem than that.  He said shifts in southern Nevada are running with four and five troopers.  He added that they are running late swing shifts and graveyard shifts with less than five troopers for the entire valley.  He commented this creates a safety issue and a workload issue, causing troopers to go from call to call.  He explained when troopers go from call to call, it creates a rippling effect where “on patrol” drops, enforcement drops, and accidents keep increasing. 

 

Senator Neal asked whether this has a great deal of effect on prevention.  Mr. Hood responded that it does.

 

Senator O’Donnell stated there are a limited amount of funds to work with in this legislative session.  He added the Economic Forum has placed a limit on the number of dollars that will be allocated in terms of expense for salaries.  He explained that salaries are a roll-up cost.  Senator Raggio remarked the highway patrol budget comes from Highway Fund dollars and is not controlled by the Economic Forum.  Senator O’Donnell agreed, and asked how much money an average trooper generates in terms of tickets and revenue for the state per year. 

 

Mr. Hood said he could estimate that amount, but he would rather have his staff work up the exact figures.  He stated that 4 or 5 years ago, in Southern Command (Las Vegas), NHP troopers wrote an average of 15,000 traffic citations per month.  He added that because of a variety of violations with different fine amounts, it would be hard to give an exact amount.  He pointed out last month the same command of patrol wrote 9,200 citations.  He added the trend is that when enforcement goes down, traffic accidents go up. 

 

Senator O’Donnell said that would mean the NHP is writing about half of the citations being written 4 years ago.  Mr. Hood said this is correct. 

 

Senator Rawson questioned where those funds go when a traffic citation is paid.  Mr. Hood replied that the funds go to the counties and school districts, and to courts towards administrative fees.  He added that the NHP receives no money from those citations.

 

Senator O’Donnell asked whether school districts or local governments suffer when the NHP does not do its job.  Mr. Hood responded that they both suffer.  He said:

 

I field calls.  I field two calls a week from different courts in different areas of this state asking me, ‘why our traffic count is down?  Aren’t your troopers out there working?  What’s the matter is everybody gone on vacation over there?’  I do field those calls every week.

 

John Madole, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter Associated General Contractors, stated his organization supports the pay parity in S.B. 84.  He said it is not just in their interest, because of having trucks and equipment on the road, but they would like to see qualified officers on the highway patrol that understand what enforcement needs to be done.  He offered a suggestion that $1 be added to each registration fee of motor vehicles in the state.  There are approximately 1 million registered vehicles in Nevada, he added.  He said whatever it takes to get NHP troopers pay parity should be added to registration fees.

 

Don Enos, Private Citizen, Representing Granite Construction Company, said the men and women of the NHP perform their duties in a very timely and professional manner and are a great asset to all citizens.  He commented that he would very much like to see S.B. 84 pass and feels these trooper deserve to be compensated the same as other personnel of like caliber in other agencies

 

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA/AFSCME), said he was opposed to S.B. 84.  He pointed out that the issues must be separated in this situation.  He said the issue of compensation for members of the highway patrol or any other group is one issue, but the real issue is not the compensation, but how salaries are set.

 

Mr. Gagnier stated this is a proposal to single out one group of employees, and have their salaries set in a manner totally separate from any other group of employees.  He remarked that it does not really matter how it is justified.  He added what is being said to all of the 1,100 other classifications in state government is that they do not deserve to have their salary special set, but this one group does.  He agreed that some very sobering statistics have been talked about. 

 

Mr. Gagnier commented public safety dispatchers should also be added to the bill.  He pointed out that public safety dispatchers, according to the salary survey conducted by the Department of Personnel last year, were 33 percent behind the average salary.  He added their turnover rate is 26 percent.  He noted that this is at least twice as high as the NHP.

 

Senator Raggio asked what the turnover rate is for the NHP.  Mr. Hood responded the current Fiscal Year average turnover rate is 12 percent.  He added it is actually 19 percent in southern Nevada and a little less in northern Nevada.  Senator Raggio asked whether he had the same information for previous years.  Mr. Hood replied he does not.

 

Mr. Gagnier said the avoidable turnover rate for a highway patrol trooper II in FY 1999 through FY 2000, was 7.85 percent.  Senator Raggio questioned what Mr. Gagnier means by “avoidable.”  Mr. Gagnier responded that avoidable means omitting retirements, promotions and deaths.  Senator Raggio commented this percentage then refers to people who left for voluntary reasons.  Mr. Gagnier replied that is correct.

 

Mr. Gagnier remarked, for the first 6 months of FY 2001, the turnover rate for a highway patrol trooper was 5.62 percent.  He pointed out that this compares with the state average of 12.5 percent.  Senator Raggio asked whether that comparison is “apples to apples,” meaning positions with the same avoidable turnover.

 

Mr. Gagnier indicated the turnover rate for registered nurses during the last complete Fiscal Year was 20 percent, and the salary survey shows they should get a 27 percent increase in salaries to bring them “up to par.”  He stated turnover rate for correctional officers is 21 percent.  He added, “We can’t hire correctional officers to work in Lovelock and Ely.”  Those salaries, he noted, were behind 51 percent.  He remarked that group supervisors who are the custody personnel at the boys and girls school have a turnover rate of 30 percent, and their salary survey reflects that their salaries are behind 30 percent.

 

Mr. Gagnier stated there is a serious problem everywhere.  He said if we need to address how the salaries are set, then we need to address it everywhere and not just for one group.  He added the NHP is not as bad off as many of the other groups.  He said, “From the standpoint of looking at this as a mechanism, we must be opposed to it to single out one group, and that’s why we oppose it.”

 

Mr. Wolff commented California, as well as other states, took this as a separate issue, and the reason is that when you remove one trooper from a shift it means that one beat does not get covered.  He pointed out that he does not disagree with Mr. Gagnier, but Mr. Gagnier must understand there are serious salary discrepancies throughout this state.  He said the main difference with the NHP is the enormous amount of training, and without troopers on the road, there is no first responder to an incident.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked how many NHP troopers are qualified in other professions such as emergency medical technicians (EMT), paramedics, or hazardous materials people.  Mr. Wolff responded he does not know the exact statistics, but all troopers have first responder medical training.  He said some are EMT’s, and almost all troopers have hazardous material training.  He added that it is not like other professions.   He pointed out if there is not a trooper in a rural area such as Tonopah, and there is an accident to which nobody responds, people are often delayed unnecessarily.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked whether the department has records that reflect response time for a call.  Mr. Wolff replied Mr. Hood could supply that information from the NHP to the committee.  He presented a salary survey (Exhibit C) to the committee.  Senator Raggio noted it would become part of the record.

 

SENATE BILL 178:  Makes appropriation to Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation. (BDR S-136)

 

Senator Neal said he had been assigned the duty of introducing S.B. 178.  He said the Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation, in concert with the State of Nevada and U.S. Department of Energy, is planning to build a new facility in Las Vegas that would be housed on a campus of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN).  He added it would include all of the U.S. Department of Energy’s records associated with atomic testing in this state. 

 

Troy Wade, Chairman, Nevada Test Site (NTS) Historical Foundation, stated he is a longtime resident of Nevada.  He said he started working at the NTS in April of 1958, and has been associated with this Nation’s nuclear programs since that time.  He pointed out that Nevada history has chronicled how we, as a state, dealt with everything from the Civil War to the allocation of Colorado River water.  He stated that S.B. 178 deals with another signature-piece of Nevada history, namely the operation of the NTS. 

 

Mr. Wade mentioned the NTS celebrated its 50-year anniversary on December 18, 2000.  He pointed out that for 50 years the NTS has been a major contributor to southern Nevada, the State of Nevada, and the Nation.  He said for 50 years NTS has been one of the major battlegrounds of the Cold War.  He added that for 50 years the NTS has provided a legacy to Nevada, sometimes popular, sometimes controversial, but in all cases, the NTS has been a major component in the history of this state.

 

Mr. Wade said that as Senator Neal pointed out, the Seventieth Session of the Legislature provided funds for a building on the Desert Research Institute (DRI) campus in Las Vegas.  He added that the building is jointly funded by the state of Nevada and the U.S. Department of Energy.  He said their cooperative effort has resulted in the design of a marvelous new facility that was dedicated December 15, 2000.  He pointed out that the new facility called the Nevada Atomic Testing History Institute, now under final design, will be a university building that provides space for artifacts and programs, a public reading room, a document collection with more than 350,000 documents, and a new museum of the NTS Historical Foundation.

 

Mr. Wade explained the museum portion will portray, in world-class fashion, the history of the Nevada Test Site, the pros and cons of the testing program, and also the economic and social effects those programs have had on Nevada.  He added that it will provide a new forum for education and public policy.  He remarked that the building is already funded, and major fundraising efforts are underway.  He indicated the appropriations requested in this bill will provide for the continued design and installation of artifacts in the new museum.

 

Mr. Wade said the proposed collection has so intrigued the Smithsonian Institution that the institute has already designated this effort as a recognized affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution.  He added this is a unique opportunity for this committee, for the Legislature, and for Nevada.  He pointed out that the funds requested will assist in providing for an exhibit design that will comply with Smithsonian Institution requirements and will ultimately provide the citizens of Nevada with a world-class museum.

 

Mr. Wade concluded that S.B. 178 is an opportunity to provide support to yet another piece of Nevada history that is clearly “stand-alone,” not only in Nevada history but in United States history.

 

Senator Raggio asked how funding is provided for the building.  Mr. Wade responded that funding is provided by two sources.  He said, one funding source is approximately $2.5 million, appropriated by the last legislative session, with the other $6.5 million being provided by the U.S.  Department of Energy through General Services Administration Guaranteed Revenue bonds.  He added that total funding for the building is in place and the building is currently under final design.

 

Senator Raggio questioned whether Mr. Wade has a prepared budget for operating expenses.  Mr. Wade replied he does.  He added there are three pieces to the operating expenses.  He said one-third of the building will be for DIR and will contain artifacts of the DIR collection, and the operation is funded by the UCCSN.  He added that another one-third of the new building will be for records collection, and it will be funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.  He concluded that the third portion is for the museum, for which he is responsible for the fund-raising.  He said the operational costs are expected to be approximately $700,000 per year, and major fund-raising efforts are underway to attain those funds.

 

Senator Raggio stated this bill is designated as the appropriation for expenses related to the operation of the foundation.  He said the committee would like to see a budget of the operating expenses for the foundation.  Mr. Wade responded that he has that budget prepared and will submit it to the committee.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked what public purpose this foundation serves.  Mr. Wade replied the NTS Historical Foundation is a non-profit organization that was set up specifically to attempt to get this museum built.  He added that the building itself is a university building that will meet several university needs, and provide a place to house the U.S. Department of Energy records.  He noted that the museum will contain a theatre, which will provide forums for public policy, forums for education, and a main theme to provide better access to the public about the past and continuing history of the NTS.

 

SENATE BILL 232:  Provides for collection of information on economic background of child referred to system of juvenile justice and requires division of child and family services of department of human resources to determine whether children of racial or ethnic minorities and children from economically disadvantaged homes are receiving disparate treatment in system of juvenile justice. (BDR 5-573)

 

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, referring to her written testimony (Exhibit D), commented she is appearing before the committee as the Chairperson of the Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 13 Study Committee on Juvenile Justice in Nevada.  She stated this is one of four bills that the interim study had requested.

  

Senator Wiener said that S.B. 232, as amended in the Senate Committee on Judiciary, expands the existing responsibility of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS).  Senator Raggio asked whether she was addressing the first reprint of S.B. 232.  Senator Wiener replied in the affirmative.

Senator Wiener explained that the bill would expand DCFS’s responsibility to collect information about youths in the juvenile justice system.  She added there is one expansion requested, which is seeking information about the economic background of the child.  She said the original bill was written differently under a different section of law and had a substantial Fiscal Note.  She added that throughout the hearing process, it was discovered that DCFS is already collecting information regarding the background of children.  She pointed out the bill was intended to determine whether or not there is disparity between racial and ethnic minorities, and economic backgrounds.  She said the concern is that a disproportionate representation of juveniles may be created in the system at different stages of their involvement in the juvenile system.

 

Senator Wiener stated, “With the amendment taking advantage of what is already required of DCFS to gathering this data, it should substantially reduce the fiscal impact of what the original bill imposed.”  Senator Raggio asked whether there is a current Fiscal Note.  Senator Wiener replied there is not. 

 

Senator Wiener said the committee would like to have local juvenile authorities work with DCFS as a team in a coordinated effort.  She explained this would allow the local jurisdictions to supply information as is currently required by DCFS.  She added it would also allow DCFS to work with local juvenile authorities to determine whether or not there are disparities between racial and ethnic minorities, and economic backgrounds of these population representations.  If there are disparities, this will allow DCSF to recommend changes to create more equity in the system.

 

Senator Wiener presented a letter dated May 4, 2001, from Kirby L. Burgess, Director, Department of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), Clark County (Exhibit E), in support of S.B. 232.  Senator Raggio commented that it would be made part of the record.

 

Senator Wiener said the hope would be to discern this information, and make some corrections in a system that may have disparities with regard to these populations.  She remarked that she urges the support of the first reprint of S.B. 232, which streamlines the process in utilizing systems that are already in place.

 

Leonard J. Pugh, Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services, stated that Willie B. Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Human Resources, is responsible for the Fiscal Note.  Mr. Pugh added that he is aware that money is tight, but he would like to offer a suggestion about how this proposal can work without adding additional costs to the project.  He said when Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 57 and part of ACR 13 were in place, juvenile justice administrators were given certain assignments but they were not given any funding.  He added they “grabbed the bull by the horns,” and they looked at existing resources and found a way to get those assignments done.  Mr. Pugh commented they developed the detention screening instrument, community placement instrument, correctional placement instrument, and matrixes by which to make decisions.  He said they did all of this within their own wherewithal and their own financial resources within the department.  He added:

 

I think that we can do a similar thing on this project.  We already collect the vast majority of it and submit it to the state already.  The only addition is the economic background.  Now I know that might have some additional costs to the state.  I don’t know what impact it will have on their data collection system.

Senator Raggio said the following:

 

This bill not only requires the collection of that additional information, but in subsections 7 and 8, it requires the division to work in conjunction with others to analyze the information to determine whether there is disparity in dealing with racial or ethnic minorities, or from social economically disadvantaged homes, and to develop appropriate recommendations and then prepare and submit an annual report.  That looks like it’s something new.  Is that new or not? 

 

Mr. Pugh responded there are already some reports generated as a result of the information the juvenile justice administrators supply to DCFS.  Senator Raggio stated it appears this is where the Fiscal Note comes in.  Mr. Pugh replied that is correct.  He added there was some consideration given to bringing in a consultant to help with the analysis. 

 

Mr. Pugh said in his department’s local jurisdiction, they determine a racial breakdown of all of their arrests.  He remarked that of those arrests, they determine how many were actually booked and detained, and how many were released.

 

Mr. Pugh explained that at the next stage, which is when a juvenile is committed to a youth institution, his department breaks that number down also.  He said they compare that number to the general population.  This allows his department to look at various stages to determine whether something is going on that requires further analysis. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the committee accepted the value of the program as proposed and the additional information.  He also asked who could speak for DCFS or any other agency that is fiscally impacted by this proposal.  Mr. Pugh responded that as far as the juvenile services department, they are willing to proceed, using existing resources. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the committee can assume, from his testimony, that this would be the position of all others who are in similar county situations, and whether this can be done within their existing resources.  Mr. Pugh replied that Kirby L. Burgess, President, Nevada Juvenile Justice Administrators, informed him that this is correct.  He added that he recently spoke with Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Douglas County, and he also agreed.  He pointed out that he has not had time to contact any others, but currently juvenile justice administrators do submit all information except the economic background.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether he is interpreting this correctly in that the actual obligation is on DCFS.  Mr. Pugh responded that is correct, the obligation is on the division; however, the division is supplied the information by juvenile justice administrators.  Senator Raggio asked who can speak for DCFS.

  

Willie B. Smith, Deputy Administrator, Youth Correctional Services, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Human Resources, stated the way the bill is currently written, a great deal of responsibility falls on DCFS.  She added that in their Fiscal Note, the division tried to take into consideration what the cost would be to them.  One of the issues the division has is that the data collection system they currently have in place is a “back-in” system, she noted.

 

Ms. Smith stated:

 

If we were trying to analyze the data that we want to collect through this bill, what would happen, for example…if a minority youth were committed, and a Caucasian youth was not committed, we would have no way of knowing how many different referrals for different types of information each of those youths had committed, so that we know if that was actually a misrepresentation relative to a minority youth.  So our system would have to be modified so that we could get the information so that we could tell you really if disparity exists there.  If you want a really good report out of this.  So we were looking at the cost to analyze that.

 

Ms. Smith said that Mr. Pugh has indicated the administrators are willing to do the analysis that needs to be done.  She said DCFS can collect the data; however, the analysis portion will be difficult if they are going to provide a professional report.  She commented that if the administrators are willing to form a committee for that purpose, and if this bill draft were amended to reflect that, then the division would only have the cost of modifying the system.  She added she does not believe this would come close to what the original Fiscal Note was.

 

Senator Raggio commented that as he understands Ms. Smith’s testimony, the requirement for the analysis would be quite costly for the division.  However, he added, if the county agencies themselves did this work, the division would not incur the costs of the analysis.  Ms. Smith replied they would still incur some costs because they would have their own data and this bill, as it is written, requires the division to analyze the data coming out of the institutions.  She added that they would have to make some adjustments in the current data collection system to make sure it could give back the data in a format the administrators could use.

 

Senator Raggio said the representatives of the counties could be asked whether they are willing to work together to do the analysis.  If they are willing to work together, he pointed out, then an updated Fiscal Note will be needed from the division for the cost required in General Fund support.  Ms. Smith agreed.  Senator Raggio asked whether the county representatives desire to make that commitment to work together to do the analysis. 

 

Mr. Burgess said he has had conversations with Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer in Douglas County, and Mr. Pugh.  He noted that they have not had sufficient time to query the remaining chief juvenile probation officers around the state.  He testified that he believes he can speak on behalf of the association in saying they are committed to this partnership.  He added that they have worked long and hard, along with Ms. Smith and Senator Weiner, on ACR 13 to bring about improvements in the juvenile justice system.  He said he sees this measure as a vital link in helping to determine why these youngsters are detained, and, more importantly, how to devise programs in better ways to serve these youngsters.

 

Mr. Burgess stated his suggestion and recommendation is that they partner with the state, particularly the State of Nevada Juvenile Justice Commission, if it is agreeable with Ms. Smith, and the state juvenile justice administrators.  He added that in partnering with the Department of Human Resources, and looking at this type of data, the juvenile justice administrators have the expertise and capability of absorbing the cost within their existing budgets.  He noted the juvenile justice administrators do not have any extra funding, however, they do have the staff and are willing to make that commitment.

Senator Raggio commented that no budgets heard today are funded in the proposed budget and the proposed budget is already going to be cut.  He said he suggests that a written amendment be prepared by Mr. Burgess or Ms. Smith to amend the bill to require the analysis to be provided by the appropriate entities in the counties.  He also suggested to Ms. Smith that she prepare, based on that assumption, an appropriate Fiscal Note to carry out the responsibilities that would remain with the DCFS.

 

Elizabeth M. Pederson, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada, referred the committee to her written statement (Exhibit F), and said the League supports S.B. 232.

 

SENATE BILL 276:  Increases amount of longevity payments to state employees. (BDR 23-1137)

 

Mr. Gagnier commented that this bill was introduced at SNEA’s request.  He said S.B. 276 would add $75 each six months to state employees’ longevity pay.  He pointed out that longevity pay would be $150 instead of $75 semi-annually.  He added that it is not compounded.  He said this is a very minimal amount, and it would apply to all classified and unclassified employees.  This bill was first passed in the mid-1970’s, he added, and the basic amount has never been increased. 

 

Mr. Gagnier stated a 10-year employee receiving average pay in Clark County, would get longevity pay of $1,859 per year.  He added if that same person worked for the Clark County Health District, he would get $450; a City of Las Vegas employee, $1,688; a North Las Vegas employee, $2,000; a Washoe County employee, $1,000 and a City of Sparks employee, $1,261, which averages out to $1,288 per year.  He pointed out that a state employee, for the same period of time, would receive $250.

 

Mr. Gagnier commented:

 

It’s no wonder that state salaries are as far behind and, according to the salary survey conducted by the Department of Personnel, in 1994, state employees were 13.5 percent behind the Nevada marketplace; in 1996, state employees were 16.6 percent behind; in 1998, state employees were 17.62 behind, and in the last survey state employees were 26.02 percent behind.  We are losing ground rapidly.

 

Senator Raggio asked to what this compares to.  Mr. Gagnier replied it is in comparison to the Nevada marketplace, including Nevada employers, both public and private.  Senator Raggio questioned how far behind state employees are.  Mr. Gagnier responded that the last figure was 26.02 percent behind.  He said that could not be addressed in this legislative session, but possible “in-roads” could be made if something as small as longevity pay could be addressed.  Longevity pay is not for new people, but rather for the employee that stays at least 8 years, he added.

 

Mr. Gagnier pointed out that longevity pay goes up each year and can increase to as much as $2,500.  He said that management employees, in some counties, get more than the amount in the statistics he presented.

 

Senator Raggio commented the Fiscal Note indicates that this would affect approximately 7,100 employees, and asked whether that was an accurate number.  Mr. Gagnier said he believes this is correct.  Senator Raggio said the Fiscal Note indicates the cost at $532,500 the first year, and $1,065,000 in the second year of the biennium.  Mr. Gagnier said he agrees with these numbers.  He added that there is an increase in the second year because in the first year there would only be one payment, due to the timing.  He said in the second year it would be for the full year, and would be paid in two payments.

 

Mr. Gagnier pointed out that a 30-year employee, under current law, would receive $625, twice a year, which is the current maximum amount.  Senator Raggio asked whether they would get $1,250 for the year.  Mr. Gagnier replied that is correct. 

 

Senator Neal asked whether the 7,100 employees included highway patrol personnel.  Mr. Gagnier responded it does.

 

Mr. Gagnier concluded that this is a modest amount, and the new bill would only raise the amount from $625 to $700.  He added the idea is to recognize an employee’s length of service.

 

Senator Mathews asked whether longevity pay goes in the base budget.  Mr. Gagnier replied it does not add to the base; it is a flat-dollar amount, not a percentage.  Senator Raggio commented when an employee reaches 8 years of service, this is an entitlement.  Mr. Gagnier agreed, but he added they must have standard or better performance; with below average performance, employees do not receive longevity pay.

 

SENATE BILL 325:  Makes appropriation to Nevada Association for the Handicapped for expansion of Developmental Child Care Program. (BDR S‑953)

 

Senator Weiner referring to her written testimony Exhibit G, said she is appearing as a proxy for the primary sponsor of S.B. 325.  She stated she is seeking support for S.B. 325, which makes a $200,000 appropriation to the Nevada Association for the Handicapped, for the expansion of its developmental child care program.  She commented that this program is worthy to stand against the demands being placed on the state’s budget for the upcoming biennium.

 

Senator Weiner pointed out that the Nevada Association for the Handicapped (NAH) Developmental Child Care Center is Nevada’s only licensed child care program for children with disabilities who are between the ages of 6 weeks and 18 years old.  She said the program currently serves 60 children and has a waiting list for nearly as many.  Senator Raggio asked where this program is located.  Senator Weiner replied it is located in Las Vegas. 

 

Senator Weiner commented the $200,000 appropriation in this legislation would allow NAH to increase the center’s facility space by about 2,000 square feet, a 25 percent increase.  She remarked the expansion would allow the center to accommodate an additional 25 children with special services that only this facility can provide.  She added that she stresses the words “only this facility,” because the children who currently attend, and those who will attend the NAH Child Care Center, have such severe disabilities that they cannot be served by any other traditional-type of child care program.  NAH needs Nevada’s financial assistance to have a place to go where they can receive this specialized treatment, she noted.

 

Vince Triggs, Executive Director, Nevada Association for the Handicapped, stated this program is the only licensed program of its kind in the state.  He said they are currently at capacity with 60 children, and there is a waiting list that is almost equal to the number of children currently being served.  He stressed that these children cannot be served in a typical child care setting.  He pointed out this is a special issue for families with children with disabilities.  He added NAH has a very high percentage of children from single-parent families. 

 

Mr. Triggs said the current facility is approximately 9,000 square feet, and this proposal will add approximately 2000 square feet to the center and reduce the waiting list for the program by approximately 50 percent.  He pointed out that the $200,000 will complete the facility.  He added NAH has complete plans for the program.

 

Senator Raggio asked how long the NAH Developmental Child Care Center Program has been in operation.  Mr. Triggs said it has been in operation since 1989. He added that the NAH has been in existence for 25 years and was founded specifically to create a community link from institutionalized services to community services.  He said the actual center has been in existence for 10 years.  He added that it was originally built with a private bequest.

 

Senator Raggio asked what sources of funding this program has.  Mr. Triggs replied it is funded through United Way and tuition from parents, which includes a sliding‑fee scale for those families not eligible for the Child Care Block Grant Program.  He added that the program also relies heavily on donations and fund raising efforts.  He commented that NAH is not asking for direct state support for the operations of the program, but is requesting, through this appropriation, the opportunity to expand the program and offer additional services to those families on the waiting list.

 

Senator Raggio questioned what the entire operation budget is annually.  Mr. Triggs responded that the total budget is approximately $4 million for the entire agency.  He added that the NAH Developmental Child Care Center Program is approximately 10 percent or $400,000.  Senator Raggio asked whether the $200,000 request is the total amount needed for the expansion.  Mr. Triggs replied $200,000 would be the total cost of construction, with all other costs committed through other sources.  He reiterated the $200,000 is for the actual construction of the facility.

 

Scott Mullen, Private Citizen, stated that his daughter has been diagnosed with an extremely rare genetic disorder and has been fortunate to be enrolled in the NAH daycare program for over a year.  He pointed out that during her year at NAH her overall social development has been remarkable.  He said that her development has not only been recognized by her immediate family, but also by medical and developmental professionals, including their geneticists and specialists at the National Institutes of Heath in Bethesda, Maryland.

    

Mr. Mullen commented the program services provided by NAH have been a valuable asset to his core family unit.  He said that with both he and his wife working, they needed the stability of a facility that would focus attention on their daughter and her specific needs.  He remarked other child care facilities within southern Nevada have claimed to offer services to special-needs children, but after meeting with the facilities and operators and observing these settings, he and his wife have found that to be only partially true.  He added that other facilities do accept children with special needs into their program, but most of the special-needs children would have been unable to participate in numerous activities and would have been “run over” by some of the other children in these facilities.

 

Mr. Mullen said the types of settings at these other facilities are not truly ones that would help improve the overall development of certain children with special needs.  He testified that at NAH his daughter is not only in a setting of her peers, but she is also in an environment where the care providers understand the nature of each individual’s special needs.  He mentioned that as a parent of a special-needs child, this is exactly what he is looking for.  He said his family is fortunate that they have his daughter enrolled in the day care programs at NAH, the thought of being on a waiting list, due to space constraints, is quite disheartening.  He added that the lives of those families who are touched by special-needs persons are extremely challenging.  He said not having proper care facilities certainly adds unnecessary challenges to already difficult lives. 

 

Mr. Mullen stated the possibility of expanding the NAH facility, even with a small expansion of 2000 square feet, to ease those space constraints and to help those families on the wait list, is quite exciting and long overdue.  He added that any funds appropriated for this expansion would be very well spent.  He noted that if there are any “ways and means” that he, his wife, or their family unit could help with in fund-raising activities, they would be more than happy to do so.

 

Patricia Martinez, Private Citizen, stated her support for S.B. 325.  She commented she is a single parent of a son who has Down’s syndrome and has been attending NAH since he was just a few months old.  She commented she really got the help she needed, when she needed it.  She said her son is doing well and her concerns are with the individuals who are on the waiting list.  She pointed out that she shares the concerns of those individuals.  NAH is a special place with special people working there.  She added that she knows her son is well taken care of at NAH.

 

Ms. Martinez stated that she and other families see themselves in a hard situation every year because of funding for this program.  She said those first few years are crucial in a child’s life, and it can be a very difficult time, especially if you are on a waiting list in anticipation of help with the care of your child.    

 

SENATE BILL 326:  Makes appropriation to State Public Works Board for construction of veterans’ home in northern Nevada. (BDR S-709)

 

Chuck Fulkerson, Executive Director, Nevada Office of Veterans’ Services, referring to his written testimony (Exhibit H), stated that a veterans’ home is a joint project which could be built with 65 percent federal funds and 35 percent state funds.  He pointed out that a recent demographic report shows there has been a 24 percent increase in veterans in Nevada.  He said the number of veterans in Nevada is approximately 230,000.  He added, that demographic report has previously been provided to the Legislature.  He said it shows veterans comprise 12.2 percent of the population within the state.

 

Mr. Fulkerson commented that the guidelines of the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs recommend one nursing-home bed for every 400 veterans residing in the state.  He said the 1999 veteran population was approximately 60,000 veterans in Nevada’s 13 northern counties.  He added the initial construction recommendation for this facility is to start with 120 beds and later construct an additional 60-bed wing, as needed.

 

Mr. Fulkerson said veterans’ nursing homes are a deserving benefit for men and women who have answered the call to serve in the Armed Forces.  He remarked that he strongly urges the committee’s support in the passage of this important measure.

 

Mr. Fulkerson referred the committee to a letter from Gary R. Whitfield, Director, Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Sierra Nevada Health Care System, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (Exhibit I).  He pointed out that Mr. Whitfield strongly endorses this project.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether there is anything in development on this project at the present time.  Obviously, he pointed out, there is not $11.5 million to appropriate.  He questioned whether there are any designs, plans, or federal funding that is available without state appropriation for any of these purposes.

 

Mr. Fulkerson responded there are not.  He said the window for developing a nursing home begins with a preliminary request from his office to Washington, D.C., in April of any given year.  He added that the preliminary request then goes through a “washout,” and is returned to his office.  At that time, corrections are made.  Then, it must be sent in to Washington, D.C., again, by the first of August.  He said that, in September or October of that year, the federal agency selects which nursing homes will be built and where they will be built.

 

Mr. Fulkerson explained the selection process is based on state-matching funds being available at that time.  He added he would like to start the process, so it can be in the “pipeline.”  This way, he noted, at some future time if the state does appropriate the funds, the project will be in place.  He stated there are many more projects being requested than there are federal funds; so it is a waiting game.  He pointed out that the last time his office pursued funding, it had a priority because there were no veterans’ homes in Nevada.  “Now that the state has one veterans’ nursing home, we need to get in line,” he added.

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Fulkerson what he is suggesting it would take to get started on this process.  Mr. Fulkerson replied that if $8 million for a 120-bed facility were appropriated, it would be enough to get started.  He added that the current request for $11 million is for a 180-bed facility.  Senator Raggio asked whether he would need an appropriation of at least $8 million to even start this process.  Mr. Fulkerson replied he is not saying that.

 

Mr. Fulkerson testified he could begin the paperwork process and be selected for consideration, but they would not be selected for building until the state has appropriated the necessary matching funds.  Senator Raggio asked whether there is a potential site for this veterans’ home.  Mr. Fulkerson replied that there is a 10‑acre site being considered in Douglas County.  Senator Raggio asked who owns the site.  Mr. Fulkerson replied Douglas County is the owner.  Senator Raggio asked whether that site might be donated by Douglas County.  Mr. Fulkerson remarked that it is being discussed with Douglas County.  He pointed out this is another part of the process; looking for a potential site. 

 

Senator Rawson asked whether there is a special veterans’ benefit payment that goes to veterans’ nursing homes, on behalf of veterans.  Mr. Fulkerson responded that, from the federal level, the Veterans Benefits Administration provides a per diem rate of approximately $51 per day. 

 

Senator Rawson said the Medicaid rate is approximately $90 per day.  He added that the home being developed in southern Nevada is talking about considerably more than that as a per diem cost for a veteran to be in a nursing home.  Mr. Fulkerson explained the cost estimate is approximately $150 per day per veteran. 

 

Senator Rawson asked how many beds will be in the facility that is currently underway.  Mr. Fulkerson replied that it is a 180-bed facility.  He said this seems to be an optimum size for one facility. 

 

Senator Rawson inquired whether any thought had been given to having a privatized veterans’ nursing home.  Mr. Fulkerson remarked the decision process had been accomplished before he arrived with the Nevada Office of Veterans’ Services.

 

Senator Rawson questioned why veterans press so hard to have their own nursing home when there are other nursing homes that may have a less expensive rate.  He also queried whether this is because veterans are trying to have a discrete atmosphere with only veterans.  Mr. Fulkerson replied veterans prefer the unique atmosphere of veterans being together.  He said there are three wings in the present home that will be open.  One wing, he pointed out, is for the U.S. Navy; one is for the U.S. Air Force, and one is for the U.S. Army.  He added this type of setup gives veterans a sense of camaraderie.     

 

Senator Rawson stated, “I was a strong supporter of the southern Nevada veterans’ nursing home, and it’s taken us a long time to get there, and there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction.”  Mr. Fulkerson commented that he talked to an employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs at a hospital in Las Vegas, who places veterans in nursing homes.  He said this employee informed him that of 117 veterans in nursing homes in Las Vegas, he will work at getting those veterans transferred to the veterans’ nursing home in southern Nevada.

 

SENATE BILL 331:  Makes appropriation to Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association for repromulgation of regulations governing disputes. (BDR S‑776)

 

Jerry Hughes, Ed.D, Executive Director, Nevada Interscholastic Activity Association, said the key issues that arise for the association is the handbook they use that has various rules and regulations.  He said they administer the high school athletics throughout the state.  He stated the handbook has been written for educators by educators, and it seems that more and more the association deals with attorneys and court cases.  For that reason, he pointed out, difficulties have arisen with the association’s regulations. 

 

Dr. Hughes said the association has considered rewriting these regulations so they can be clearer.  He commented the purpose of the bill is to obtain funds to accomplish this because, as a private, non-profit association, there are limited funds available.

 

Senator Amodei said:

 

The genesis of the request contained in S.B. 331 has been as a result of being involved in issues like this as a practitioner, primarily over the last 10 years.  The body of regulations that Dr. Hughes and the NIAA [Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association] operate under, are probably, in most cases over 20 years old.  The nature of interscholastic activities over the last 20 to 25 years has evolved.  The nature of the concerns and the disputes related to those have evolved. 

 

Senator Amodei stated that, a year or two ago, in Northern Nevada, the zone baseball championships were the subject of people going to court and getting restraining orders over eligibility questions.  He said he knows of disputes that have arisen in southern Nevada with interscholastic activities.  He commented his most recent involvement was during the interim. There was an issue that arose concerning eligibility that affected an individual in the Carson City School District.  He pointed out, during the course of that involvement, there was an opportunity to go back and forth with Dr. Hughes and his counsel, Attorney Paul Anderson. 

 

Senator Amodei added:

 

During those discussions, it came up, despite good intentions, the body of regulations that was being sighted as authority for actions that were being taken, did not exactly say that, and the dispute process was what we believe was antiquated.  As a result of those discussions, and in looking at…the provision in NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 386.420, the NIAA is a creature, initially, of statute in the state of Nevada.   That is why we are here.  It is part of our education body of law. 

 

Senator Amodei pointed out there is more authority for involvement of the NIAA in these issues in NRS 218.5354, which deals with the authority of the Legislative committee on education.  He said the NIAA has been a “player” in this area since its inception.  He submitted that it is necessary to continue to carry out the oversight role and support role in this context.

 

Senator Amodei stated that during the course of his involvement with this measure during the interim, he had asked the LCB to obtain budget data concerning the NIAA.  He said he wanted to see how much money the NIAA was bringing in and how they were spending it.  He pointed out that after reviewing the data, he is very comfortable with the fact when talking about doing a rewrite of dispute procedures and eligibility regulations of the NIAA, their budget is not large enough to have them repromulgated.

 

Senator Raggio asked what the total annual revenues of the NIAA are.  Dr. Hughes replied that the NIAA budget is approximately $500,000 per year.  He said last year the association operated in the “black.”  Senator Raggio asked whether revenues come from school dues, tournament revenues and sponsors.  Dr. Hughes replied they do. 

 

Senator Raggio asked, “With that kind of budget, why do you need $15,000 to rewrite regulations?”  Dr. Hughes responded that they try to operate off of a zero-based budget and any excess funds are put into “special funding,” which is used to do special things for schools and the students they serve.  He referred the committee to a flyer (Exhibit J) for a list of those activities.  He said the NIAA attempts to do positive things with any surplus and to eliminate the surplus would limit the ability of the NIAA to do special things for the students they serve.

 

Senator Amodei pointed out that in the current existing regulations of the NIAA, this is not the sort of project that involves something being “tuned up” and changing a few words.  He submitted that this project needs to start from the ground level with a new foundation and be built up based on the experiences that Dr. Hughes and his predecessor have had over the last 15 or 20 years.  Senator Amodei concluded this is not a “tune up,” but, in fact, it is a repromulgation in those areas that have been the most used.

 

Senator Raggio asked how the $15,000 is to be expended.  Senator Amodei responded it would go towards defraying the cost of counsel to exclusively dedicate the time to create a legitimate and modern administrative body of dispute and eligibility regulations.  He remarked that based on what school boards and school districts are paying by the hour, this is not an exorbitant amount.   He added that, per pupil, over the cost of all students in high school in this state, this is a fairly prudent investment that goes across the whole spectrum.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether the NIAA currently has a budget line in the state budget.  Dr. Hughes replied they do not.  Senator Rawson remarked the NIAA was set up by authority of the state Legislature and asked whether it has any reporting requirements.  Dr. Hughes responded in the negative.  Senator Rawson asked whether the NIAA is a “stand alone” agency and does not report to the state.  Dr. Hughes replied that is correct.

 

Senator Rawson questioned whether the NIAA works with the Department of Education.  Dr. Hughes indicated the offices were located in the Department of Education at one time, but no longer. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the NIAA is a non‑profit organization.  Dr. Hughes remarked that it is. 

 

Senator Rawson asked, if the Department of Education was mandated to staff or support the activities of this project, whether the NIAA could work with the department.  Dr. Hughes replied he was not sure of the question.  Senator Rawson reiterated that the NIAA will need secretaries, hearing rooms, and other aids necessary to develop regulations.  Dr. Hughes responded the NIAA plans to work directly with its attorney and complete the regulations internally with its own staff.

 

Senator Amodei added that the first statutory citation that was provided requires that the NIAA submit all regulations to the Legislative committee on education for review and approval, as do many agencies for their administrative regulations.  Senator Rawson asked whether it would be an appropriate role for the Legislative committee on education to staff and support the activities of this program.  He added, in other words, the Legislative committee on education could hire a consultant, or attorney, to work with them. 

 

Senator Amodei remarked,  “Anything that gets the job done, as long as it is in coordination with the counsel that is going to have to use and enforce those [regulations] for Dr. Hughes, is something that is a possibility.”  Senator Rawson questioned whether there is anything that could be “trimmed” from this request.  Senator Amodei said the request is already a modest estimate of what the actual effort will be.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether this could be an appropriate function of the LCB.  Senator Raggio replied that he would have some doubt about that and asked that staff check into this matter.  He commented he believes that the Legislative committee on education operates as a separate organization, even though there is reference in the statute that it might not be appropriate to ask the Department of Education to assume this responsibility on the behalf of the NIAA.         

 

Robert L. Crowell, Lobbyist, Private Citizen, indicated that he is appearing on behalf of himself as an individual, and as a parent.  Although he is a member of the Carson City School Board, he said he is not appearing as a member of the school board, but as an individual trustee.  He pointed out that he could not agree more that NIAA needs to adopt some rules.  He said NIAA has its genesis by virtue of a statute of Nevada.  He added that the NRS also requires that the organization promulgate rules just like any other agency under Chapter 233B of NRS. 

 

Mr. Crowell said the reason this is important is because if there is an issue with respect to high school sports, and according to the regulations of those sports and what regulations have been promulgated by the NIAA, you will not find any such regulations, because there are none.  He pointed out that there may be a handbook, but there are no NRS 233B regulations, or public process by which regulations can be adopted, or public hearings for parents to make their concerns known. 

 

Mr. Crowell added:

 

One of the big concerns I have, as a parent, is that these regulations, right now, purportedly say that athletics, in my view, athletics takes a primary function to education, because they provide that if you transfer between schools because of curricular or educational reasons, you will still be denied the ability to play sports.  There may be a legitimate reason for saying that, but all I’d like to have the ability to come in and argue to the NIAA, and to those who make those decisions, that education should be the primary focus and athletics should be the secondary focus, and that perhaps that rule should be changed.  There is no way, as a parent, that I can do that today.  If this grant of $15,000 will correct that problem and allow parents the ability to get in and actually have a shot at seeing what these rules and regulations are, fine.  I would also suggest, that if money is tight, that the way to solve this problem is to remove the enabling legislation and let this organization participate as a non-profit organization like any other one, and let it be a voluntary organization between schools.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether Mr. Crowell is saying there is some preclusion that the NIAA cannot go ahead and do this on their own.  Mr. Crowell replied that he does not know whether there is or not.  He added there are no regulations and he does not know why this organization has not adopted any regulations.  He reiterated, that as he understands it, this organization has its genesis through NRS 386.420. 

 

Senator Raggio commented that the NIAA was created as non-profit; however, it is not state-supported.  Mr. Crowell suggested that this gives an aura of state sanction or state endorsement for this organization, and that if they are not complying with the regulation or rulemaking process established by NRS 386.430, then perhaps the enabling legislation should be removed.  He added that would not do any injustice to this organization because it can continue as a non-profit organization.

 

Senator Rawson stated the following:

I do read into this what you are saying.  It [NRS 386.430] not only established it, but it requires that rules be set up and those rules have not been set up.  We have not met the intent of the enabling legislation.  There is obviously a problem.  The state needs to see that the rules are developed, or we need to remove the mandate to make rules.    

 

SENATE BILL 332:  Makes appropriations for historical facility in Virginia City and for preservation of cemeteries within Virginia City National Historic Landmark District. (BDR S-947)

 

Senator Amodei said S.B. 332 consists of two appropriations.  He stated that one is in the amount of $400,000 and is earmarked for the construction of a historical facility.   The other, he pointed out, is a $250,000 appropriation to begin the restoration and preservation process of the Silver Terrace Cemeteries in Virginia City and the Virginia City National Historic Landmark.  He said the reason he requested these bills be heard is two-fold.  He remarked that despite the fact there is a budget situation, which is a “lean” one, both of these appropriations offer the opportunity to access matching grant funds in an equal or greater amount from federal revenue sources.

 

Senator Amodei said the $400,000 appropriation is a direct match from funds outside of the state budget to construct a facility.  He added that the $250,000 portion is to provide a match for a potential $802,000 from federal government resources. 

 

Candace Wheeler, Inspector/Clerk, Comstock Historic District Commission, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, said she not only represents the governing board but also the advisory board and is president and chairperson of the Comstock Cemetery Foundation.  She pointed out that her handout (Exhibit K) includes a listing of board members and their functions. 

 

Ms. Wheeler commented that vandalism on the Comstock cemeteries results in approximately one object per day being stolen.  She said holes are dug at the base of tombstones in an effort to retrieve skulls and artifacts.  She remarked 70 percent of all people that contact the agency are unable to locate certain gravesites due to theft, erosion and vandalism.  She stated approximately 5,000 people are buried in the Comstock cemeteries; yet, today only 1,987 sites are recordable. 

 

Ms. Wheeler said one to two people, per year, fall in the cemetery and brake bones and are injured, because of erosion and poor pathways.  She commented there are no proper hydraulics, so in some areas of the cemetery, caskets are three inches below the surface.  In other areas, she added, artifacts are covered by one to two feet of soil.  She indicated that there are dead plant materials, planted by the historic residence of the Comstock, clogging the site.

 

Ms. Wheeler testified there is a lack of irrigation and no proper fencing.  She pointed out that overgrown plant material has created a major fire hazard.  She added these conditions are not unfamiliar news for Nevada.  These cemeteries have been decaying since the 1920s.  She commented that in 1962, the LCB put out Bulletin 51 “Restoration and Preservation of Nevada’s Historic Cemeteries.”

 

Ms. Wheeler said that during the 1961 session of the Legislature, the Assembly adopted ACR 16, which memorialized the LCB to study the feasibility of restoring, to some measure of proper condition, historic cemeteries.  She noted that the bottom line in the report was the recommendation to begin with the cemeteries on the Comstock, given their historic value.

 

Ms. Wheeler explained the agency is not sure what happened to the initiative, and maybe through the years people thought the state, community, or federal government should have taken the initiative.  She added the Comstock Cemetery Foundation was formed and incorporated October 2000, and is a non-profit agency.  She pointed out that the foundation is requesting $250,000 towards a $1.6 million restoration program.

 

Ms. Wheeler commented once these sites are gone, they cannot be reconstructed like a house.  She added they are gone for good.  She said what this resource clearly represents are the miners, the service providers, and the families from other countries that are memorials to the common men and women that made Nevada the “Silver State.”  She pointed out 100 people per day visit the cemetery because they want to learn about the state and the people.

 

Ms. Wheeler stated these sites are slowly being blown off the face of the mountain or being vandalized.  She remarked that $250,000 would allow the agency to do two major things.  She said the first is to immediately fence the site.  She indicated from information received from other historic cemeteries in the United States, putting up a fence will decrease vandalism by 80 percent.  She noted, secondly, it would allow the agency to develop a master restoration plan that can be used and executed in a professional manner in keeping with the historical nature of the site.

 

Ms. Wheeler commented that the agency, in trying to capitalize on the $250,000, went to the communities, other state agencies, and business owners and were able to raise a commitment for $560,000.  She said the agency also made application with its partner, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior, to the Save America’s Treasure Grant, asking them for matching funds of $800,000.  She pointed out that a brief overview of both of these items is included in Exhibit K.          

 

Ms. Wheeler said if the agency is unable to procure the $250,000, it will be unable to “play the game that could win $1.8 million.”  She added that if this happens “we all lose.”

 

Gary Bowyer, Historic Archeologist, City Field Officer, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior, said he primarily deals with historic resources.  He said he also serves on the technical advisory board for the Comstock Cemetery Foundation.  He pointed out that the Comstock Cemetery Preservation Project encompasses four phases including project management.  He said the project management is primarily conducted by the Comstock Cemetery Foundation.  He added the BLM, and the Comstock Historic District Commission will provide technical review.  He added, that specific portion of the project is 8.6 percent of the budget. 

 

Mr. Bowyer said another phase includes cultural resources activities, which consists of a pedestrian survey and individual burial plot recordation.  He pointed out that most of the individual plots are archeological sites.  Many are knocked down or have been destroyed, and the railings are on the ground, he added.  He said the foundation will also be conducting historic research and this phase represents 7.3 percent of the budget.

 

Mr. Bowyer commented phase two is the master plan.  He outlined the master plan will bring in a landscape/architect firm, which has completed a preservation plan for another cemetery and also a landmark.  He said some of the tasks the firm would be completing for that plan include erosion control, landscaping, irrigation, interpretation, and burial plot criteria. 

 

Mr. Bowyer said the BLM is working with the Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF), Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which will be conducting fuels treatment on outlying cemeteries.  He said the third phase is the actual implementation of the master plan.  He added this is the largest portion of the project and represents 64.3 percent of the budget. 

 

Mr. Bowyer stated phase four, public access, is one of the most critical phases.  He pointed out that these burial sites can be restored to good condition, but what could be presented to the public was questioned.  He explained that this phase will include interpretation of the individual burial plot restorations, as well as interpretation of all the cemeteries in the Comstock.

 

Mr. Bowyer said some of the cemeteries in the Comstock are very difficult to reach.  He remarked that a part of the proposal is to upgrade the roads leading to some of the cemeteries.

 

Mr. Bowyer outlined this proposal is a 2-year project.  He said the foundation hopes to begin this summer and complete the project in 2003.  He explained that although this is a 2-year project, it is just the beginning, and they are also pursuing other tasks that are associated with the cemetery.  He remarked that the BLM will be conducting fuels treatment this summer on those cemeteries that are managed exclusively by the BLM.  He said they will be having an individual burial plot dedication for one of the burial plots that was recently restored. 

 

Senator Raggio asked what would be accomplished in 2 years time with this funding and inquired for which cemeteries this funding would be used.  Ms. Wheeler replied there are two major cemeteries; however, this project will include the Heber Cemetery, the Old Catholic Cemetery, the Silver Terrace Cemetery, the Gold Hill Cemetery, the Chinese Cemetery, and the Pioneer Cemetery. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the first task would be to fence the cemeteries.  Ms. Wheeler replied that currently there is a great deal of theft and vandalism.  She said the major properties, which are the Silver Terrace Cemetery in Virginia City and the Gold Hill Cemetery, are getting “looted” the most, because most artifacts are found there.  She said even if the foundation is not granted the Save America’s Treasure Grant, but is given $250,000 by the Legislature, it knows the $250,000 will cover the costs of fencing and the development of a master plan. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the fencing would be a chain-link type fence.  Ms. Wheeler replied it would be a rod-iron fence, which has already been approved by the Comstock Historic Commission.  This would be in keeping with the historic nature of the cemetery.  She commented that this fencing system has pedestrian walkways and gates for safety vehicles.  Senator Raggio asked whether a rod-iron fence could keep vandals out.  Ms. Wheeler responded that it would be six-feet tall with a deterrent on the top.

 

Senator Raggio asked, besides the fence and the access roads, what would be accomplished in this 2-year period.  Ms. Wheeler referred the committee to page 4 of Exhibit K.  She pointed out that it contains a detail of all the tasks on all four phases of the project and, specifically, what those tasks are and what the funding is for those tasks.

Senator Raggio inquired whether any gravesites would actually be restored in that time.  Ms. Wheeler responded the restoration of the gravesites cannot begin until the property is stabilized.  Once they get to the gravesites, she added, there is another public process that must be followed relative to contacting family members.  She commented it is not a good use of funds to restore the individual plots without first handling the major erosion problems.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether it is feasible to contact family members on all of the thousands of plots in these cemeteries.  Ms. Wheeler replied they will not be able to do it for everyone, but she believes it is the foundation’s responsibility to try. 

 

Senator Raggio asked how some of the restoration is done.  Ms. Wheeler indicated a wood specialist is employed, who uses linseed oil, and, in some cases, letters will be repainted as originally on the tombstones.

 

Senator Rawson stated he has a profound sadness and anger that this has happened to these cemeteries.  He asked who owns the cemeteries.  Ms. Wheeler responded that ownership on the Comstock is “kind of an interesting topic.”  She said, generally, most of the cemeteries involved are on federal lands.  She added the ones not on federal lands are on mining patents, which are owned by Hugh Roy Marshall.  She commented that Mr. Marshall is on the Comstock Cemetery Foundation Advisory Board and is in the process of deeding those lands to the foundation.

 

Senator Rawson said, “You have as much tourism up there as in most of our better state parks, and its out of the question that this would become a state park.  The people associated with this don’t want the state to take it over.”  He asked who currently makes money from the tourism at the cemeteries within the Comstock.  Ms. Wheeler replied she does not know.  Senator Rawson asked whether most of the area is privately owned.  Ms. Wheeler indicated that it is.

 

Senator Rawson questioned whether a fee is expected to be charged to visit the cemetery.  Ms. Wheeler replied that currently there are fund-raisers.  One is the Reno Little Theatre, which has partnered with the Comstock Cemetery Foundation, she added, and the theatre will be doing a presentation in the cemetery.  She commented that the presentation will move from gravesite to gravesite and a historic character will “pop out” and speak in period-costume.  She noted the foundation is currently sponsoring daily tours.  She pointed out the foundation must be careful because of people getting hurt due to erosion and those types of problems.  Senator Rawson asked whether the foundation is charging a fee for the tours.  Ms. Wheeler replied, “Of course we’re going to charge for them.”

 

Senator Rawson asked whether the $560,000 is only “promised,” and whether it is actually available.  Ms. Wheeler responded that these funds are committed. 

 

Senator Amodei stated the reason he believes it was important that the committee hear this bill is because, at the current time, it represents a “window.”  This “window” can access a far greater amount of funds than are being requested, he added.  He pointed out that it represents an example of cooperation through governments at the local, state, and federal level.  He added, “Also, very importantly, it represents a significant private commitment to participate in this.” 

Senator Amodei concluded by saying:

 

For all of these reasons, I think this evolves out of a standard request where somebody comes in and says we’ve got a project and we would like you to fund the whole thing.  These folks have been working with the private sector, working with the federal government, [and] working with a variety of sources to accomplish something as far as cultural resources go.  I think that makes it distinctive in terms of the ‘run of the mill’ request for something like that.

 

Senator Raggio commented that for many years he tried to get prison crews to help cleanup in those cemeteries, but it never went very far.  He said he is concerned about the dedication of the effort.

 

Senator Jacobsen remarked that upon visiting these cemeteries he was advised by local people to stay out of those cemeteries and it was not his concern, but rather their concern.  Senator Raggio added that was the same message he received from the local people of those cemeteries. 

 

Senator Jacobsen commented the state has inmate crews capable of putting a perimeter fence around these cemeteries; however, they do not have the expertise for installing a rod-iron fence.  He added they could install a chain-link fence with no problem.  He pointed out that, in the past, inmate work crews have gone into Douglas County and straightened up gravestones, filled in gravesites, and have gotten into trouble doing so, because some people did not want the gravestones straightened up.  They said it took away the historic value, he added.

 

Ms. Wheeler testified there is a mix to be had in their grant.  She commented they will be utilizing inmate crews as part of their fuels treatment with the Nevada Division of Forestry.  She added there will be a point in time, with individual gravesite restoration, that volunteer help will be extremely important.  She pointed out that currently the site is extremely unstable and has deteriorated.

 

Ms. Wheeler said they need expertise and professionalism because, as pointed out, cemeteries are “touchy” issues.  She remarked that the Comstock Cemetery Foundation’s job is to be very attuned to the community that they are serving.

 

Senator Raggio added:

 

I don’t know if it is that ‘touchy.’  The Dayton Cemetery is a prime example of taking something in the same state of [dis]repair and through one lady, who went out and she ‘worked like the devil’ and she got everything done, and she got a lot of donations.  I don’t think they even asked for a dollar from anybody else, and today it is a very nicely kept, maintained cemetery with the proper respect for those who are buried there.  I can’t agree that it is that ‘touchy’ of a subject.  I think that if you hold a meeting and you let everybody pick and chose, you’ll never get it done.  I doubt that you’ll ever achieve what you hope to achieve, although your intentions may be well‑founded.  I would share Senator Jacobsen’s concern having been, in effect, rebuffed by anybody on the Comstock who apparently didn’t want anything done up there.  I have similar feelings about it.

 

Ms. Wheeler commented that “touchy” may have been an inappropriate word.  She added there must be a sense of public relations about how this is approached. 

Senator Raggio asked why anybody would object to having these cemeteries cleaned up with their current state of disrepair.  Ms. Wheeler responded that the foundation is trying to handle this situation.  She added the Dayton Cemetery is very well maintained; however, the foundation is considering about 60 acres of land with this project.

 

Senator Amodei stated:

 

The message is received as far as what the prevailing prior attitude might have been up there, but I would submit to you that the fact that I have been contacted by Ms. Wheeler, and what has been accomplished prior to even her request, for this is an indication of a changing attitude up there and a changing approach to that and I hope it has come forth a little bit in this presentation.  You have someone, that may be a similar lady for the Dayton lady, who is out trying to grab a ‘60-acre bull by the horns’ and get something done with it.  Obviously, if those entrees [entry or access] had have been made while this lady was involved, I suspect they would have been very welcome to have the folks out there as you can tell.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether any attempt had been made to contact the families to ask whether they would be willing to contribute to the effort.  Ms. Wheeler replied they are compiling a list and are advertising.  She said it will come into focus when they begin their individual plot restoration.

 

Ronald M. James, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Museums, Library, and Arts, stated he was present to discuss the concept of the facility.  He pointed out there is a need for a larger office for the Comstock Historic District Commission, as well as a facility that could augment the Comstock Archeology Center.  He added the Comstock Archeology Center has a growing body of artifacts, which currently need to be housed.  He said these artifacts are currently homeless and are shifted from one facility to the next.

 

Mr. James pointed out there was a commitment made by the state some years ago when Engine 27 was taken back to Carson City for rehabilitation.  He stated that should Engine 27, or some similar piece of V&T equipment be returned to Virginia City for exhibition, this facility would accommodate that goal as well.

 

Senator Raggio said, “I’ve been around here long enough to remember that controversy, and there is a difference of opinion as to who Engine 27 belongs to.  I remember there is still an argument on that subject.”  Mr. James remarked there is no question about that.  Senator Raggio asked who the current owner of that engine is.  Mr. James replied that many people think they own the engine, but he believes it is fair to say the state’s position has been that the state museum system is the custodian and the state owns it. 

 

Senator Raggio questioned what the $400,000 appropriation would do.  He also asked the cost of the facility and how far along is the planning.  He added, “Where is it going to be, and what all is involved?”  Mr. James responded that they had fairly well developed plans for a site on “E” street, and had a tentative land donation.  He added that they may be able to get some federal funding for rehabilitation of a historic structure.  He pointed out there is a fairly nice building, the old V&T freight barn, which is in deteriorating condition.  He said it would be possible to use these types of funds as a magnet for federal funds to purchase and rehabilitate that facility.  He said, “Add to it an addition that would be the exhibit facility for the V&T engine equipment, and then that could be used to house the artifacts and offices that are being discussed.”  He stated that it could also be the core of an effort to create a Storey County Library.  He noted Storey County is the only county in the state without a stand-alone library facility. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired what federal funds are available.  Mr. James responded that National Park Service Funds could be available for this to a certain extent.  He added there is a growing interest on the part of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to fund this sort of thing.  He said with this sort of “seed” money, he believes there is a very good shot at getting NEH funding.

 

Senator Raggio asked what the amount of the NEH funds would be.  Mr. James replied that funding for facilities similar to this usually run in the neighborhood of $300,000 to $400,000. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired what the total cost of the proposed facility is.  Mr. James answered that it would cost approximately $800,000.

 

SENATE BILL 335:  Enacts provisions pertaining to problem gambling. (BDR 41‑1105)

 

Senator Mark A. James, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8, said this is the first reprint of S.B. 335.  He said the chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary requested this bill in the interim to address “problem gambling” in Nevada.  He pointed out, to his knowledge, this is the first time ever that the Legislature has taken up a bill addressing this issue.  He commented that he believes it to be a quite remarkable situation that Nevada finds itself in, as the “gambling capital of the world,” but the Legislature has never officially addressed the issue of “problem gambling.”

 

Senator James addressed the issue of the prevalence study and why he has elected not to wait until there is a result from that study to propose that a modest approach be initiated to address “problem gambling.”  He said that worldwide, Nevada is recognized for the success of a well-regulated gaming industry, but there is a big hole in state regulations in not addressing the issue of “problem gambling.” 

 

Senator James commented a large number of other states, almost all of who have adopted gambling in some measure after Nevada, and who have come along with the spread of gambling throughout the country, have state-funded programs for “problem gambling.”  He pointed out that those states include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Main, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.   He said all of these states appropriate funds from their state budgets to address education, treatment, and rehabilitation of “problem gambling.”

 

Senator James mentioned that in 1997, Connecticut’s funding for “problem gambling” programs amounted to $835,000.  In Delaware, he added, the funding amounted to $150,000.  He remarked that Georgia funded $250,000; Iowa, $2.2 million; Louisiana, $600,000; Massachusetts, $500,000; Michigan, $1 million; and Minnesota appropriated $2.6 million over 2 years for “problem gambling” related programs. 

 

Senator James said Missouri appropriated $250,000 to mental health agencies for “problem gambling” related programs.  He remarked that Nebraska funded $200,000; New Jersey, $500,000, and New York funded, from 1984 to 1995, between $300,000 to $776,000 per year for “problem gambling.”  He added that in 1996, the funding level was raised to $1.5 million.  He remarked, at the end of that list, Nevada, the gambling capital of the world, has funded zero dollars to “problem gambling” programs.

 

Senator James stated that S.B. 335 does a number of things.  He said he is here to address the issue of money contained in this bill and the lack of money available in the state budget to fund programs outside what the Governor has proposed.  He explained that S.B. 335 would amend the constitution of the gaming policy committee to add one, non-voting member, who is a representative to the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling.  He pointed out that the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling has been active in addressing this problem within the state. 

 

Senator James commented he spoke with the Governor prior to when this bill was heard in the Senate Committee on Judiciary, where it received unanimous approval, and the Governor has indicated that he intends to revitalize the Gaming Policy Committee.  Senator James added he does not believe that committee has met, yet.  He said the Gaming Policy Committee is the review committee for appeals under the Neighborhood Casino Law passed in 1997 and amended during the last legislative session.

 

Senator James pointed out this would be an appropriate function for this Gaming Policy Committee; therefore, that member would be added.  He stated that Section 17 of NRS 463.021 would add “problem gambling” as a basis upon which courts could defer sentencing and order treatment of the defendant in a crime related to gambling addiction.  He added that the person would not only get a criminal sanction in punishment, but they would get treatment for the problem that is causing them to offend, which is the same as for alcohol and drug cases in Nevada.

 

Senator James stated this would add that the State Board of Education should add a course of study in the prevention of “problem gambling” to NRS 389. 

 

Senator James said that children in the state are exposed to gambling everywhere they turn.  He added that because we have not been successful, and it is regrettable, in preventing gambling from spreading into every other business as an ancillary activity, no matter where a child goes in this state, they see gambling.

 

Senator James commented Nevada promotes television commercials that show happy people involved in gaming.  He added it is appropriate to tell our children there is another side to this and they need to be careful and understand that a problem with gambling can be developed.  He noted that, certainly, gambling can be done responsibly, and we advocate that.

 

Senator James indicated that S.B. 335 would appropriate $250,000 into a fund to be administered by the director of the Department of Human Resources and to allow that department to obtain gifts, donations, or grants to fund the program.  He said the funds in this account would only be used to make grants to qualified organizations, including for profit and non-profit organizations, or persons who provide programs for the prevention and treatment of “problem gambling.”

 

Senator James stated he does not know whether there are many people who treat “problem gambling.”  He commented that the non-profit organization, The Problem Gambling Center has been very active in Las Vegas.  He read from his handout (Exhibit L), a letter of gratitude to The Problem Gambling Center, thanking them for help 5 years ago. 

 

Senator James next introduced a letter with an attachment from the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling (Exhibit M).  The letter outlined information and commentary in support of S.B. 335.

 

Senator James commented that he has received testimonial after testimonial.  He testified that in 1998, the IFC authorized funding through the Department of Human Resources for a study for the prevalence of “problem gambling.”  Gemini Research was hired to conduct the study, he added, however, those results will not be available until 1 ½ months after the end of this legislative session.  He pointed out, that study was commissioned almost 3 years ago. 

 

Senator James said that whether merely taking a simple normative approach, saying every other state cannot be wrong, we would understand that in a place like Nevada, where gambling is so available, there may be incidences of “problem gambling.”  He stated there are people out there with this problem and we should be participating in the solution.  He indicated that the gaming industry supports this legislation and the Nevada Resort Association testified in favor of this bill in the Senate Committee for Judiciary.

 

Senator James testified that Boyd Gaming also supports S.B. 335.  He commented that Station Casinos, IGT, Coast Casinos, Tropicana Hotel & Casino, Sante Fe Hotel & Casino, Alliance Gaming, Anchor Gaming, Eureka Casinos, Templeton Casinos, and Casa Blanca Casino have all given money in support to The Problem Gambling Center.  He added that private funding is necessary or there will not be treatment for “problem gambling” in Nevada.  He noted $250,000 will not be sufficient funding.

 

Senator James stated:

 

We all live in a gaming state, and we all benefit from the gaming industry because a substantial portion of our tax revenue comes from it.  Certainly, I think I have some credibility in saying that a portion of our budget could go to treat problem gambling, which is an unfortunate side effect of the prevalence of gambling in our state.  I believe this is a good reason why this could come from the General Fund.  It is a modest appropriation, certainly, given what other states have done.  If there isn’t enough money, I would tell you two things, first of all, there are a lot of other good things in the bill, and I wouldn’t want to see the bill die.  The rest of the bill needs to go forward and I would urge the committee to allow it to proceed.  But a better idea is if there isn’t money in the existing dollars, then we should get some more money and I would suggest that the second best place to get this money, if it’s not taxpayer dollars, shared, some of which comes from gaming, then lets get it from the gaming industry.  I haven’t consulted with anybody in the gaming industry, but I know…there are 2,700, approximately, gaming licenses in Nevada; restricted, non-restricted, and non-restricted slot route licenses.  

 

Senator James pointed out that if the “across the board” approach was taken, and a $100 surcharge was added to each of those licenses on an annual basis, $270,000 per year could be realized.  These funds could go toward “problem gambling” as a surcharge, he added.  He said if this committee would entertain a proposal similar to that, then he would urge them to do so.  If the committee wishes not to entertain this proposal, he noted, he will request that the Senate Committee on Judiciary support an amendment to the bill.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the $100 surcharge would be on each gaming license.  Senator James responded that the surcharge would be assessed on each license, both restricted and non-restricted.  Senator Raggio questioned whether this would present an inequity, for instance, on a business that only has three machines versus a non-restricted operator with 3,000 machines.  Senator James replied he anticipated that; however, he believes $100 per year to address problem gambling is reasonable, even if there is some disparity.  He pointed out, secondly, many people who suffer from problem gambling are not gambling only in resorts, but they also gamble in local supermarkets, bars, and restaurants near their home. 

 

Calling attention to Nevada Statistics on Gaming Fees and Proposed Funding (Exhibit N), Senator James said this proposal comes from Rex M. Williams, Private Citizen.  He pointed out that Exhibit N is very powerful testimony for the committee.  He added it is very well thought out.  He noted that the gaming industry should not find it offensive for the Legislature to ask for help for this program.   He said, if needed, he would work with the committee as an amendment sponsor.

 

Senator Rawson commented there was a bill this session, possibly indefinitely postponed, that appropriated funds to UCCSN to develop the curriculum for a counselor, essentially an abuse counselor, which would cover this problem as well as others.  He pointed out that it died because there was no funding for it, even though it is needed in the state. 

 

Senator Rawson asked whether, in looking at Exhibit N, there is a slot route operator tax or adjustment available to do this.  Senator James responded, if a tax packet could be fashioned that was fair to everybody, then the gaming industry should pay more tax to help fund the budget. 

 

Senator Rawson asked what the total appropriation is in this bill.  Senator James replied it is $250,000. 

 

Rex M. Williams, Private Citizen and son-in-law of the late Raymond I. Smith, the founder of the former Harold’s Club (Casino) in Reno, referred to his written testimony (Exhibit O) and said he supports S.B. 335.  He explained that his father was addicted to gambling and he suffered tremendous emotional and physical abuse.  He added that the anger, the demoralization, and the destruction of self‑worth is incredible.  He said he became the object of his father’s rage with himself.  He remarked he soon became a “problem gambler” and as hopeless as his father. 

 

Mr. Williams indicated that he has been an ordained minister, has served on the Washoe County Board of Adjustment, was a court-appointed special advocate in child abuse and neglect cases for Washoe County District Court Department 2, has served on the Washoe County Design and Review Committee, and has run for public office and justice of the peace.  He remarked that in 1992 he entered Gamblers Anonymous’ 12-step program for compulsive gamblers.  He noted he is currently a member in good standing.

 

Mr. Williams said there are from 10 to 20 million compulsive gamblers in the United States.  He pointed out that the suicide rate in this group is the highest of all addictions combined.  He added that 25 percent of compulsive gamblers will commit suicide.  He said this addiction destroys marriages, families, and friends.  He remarked that compulsive gamblers cannot keep food on the table, clothes on their back, or gas in their cars.  He commented that it is no wonder why the compulsive gambler has no money for treatment or therapy.  He said this is an insidious, progressive illness that leads to incomprehensible demoralization, insanity, prison, or death.  He added that nine out of ten cases of embezzlement are, in fact, attempted by compulsive gamblers.

 

Mr. Williams, referring to Exhibit N, said he suggests taking a miniscule amount of money from each operator in the gaming industry and increasing fees to allow for the funding of this bill.  He pointed out that if restricted gaming licenses were increased by $25 and a charge of $1 was placed on each slot machine, it would result in $69,764 annually.  He added this would be a one-time fee.  He said he also proposes to increase the annual fee for non-restricted gaming licenses by $50, $1 for all slot machines, and $5 per table game. 

 

Mr. Williams remarked his other proposal is an annual fee of $50 for slot route operators, who pay no other gaming revenue other than their licensing fees.  He added that he also proposes to increase manufacturing/distributors by a $100 annual fee, of which there are 187 in the state.  He said this would total $330,101 per year to help fund S.B. 335.

 

Mr. Williams commented that the bill, proposed at $250,000, is grossly inadequate and grossly under-funded.  He stated $2.5 million is actually needed.  He said if something can be put together, he believes the industry would support it.  He added, “We’re not asking you to increase the percentage that they have to pay in taxes, we’re only talking about the annual revenues from the licensing and what they have to pay for their slot machines.” 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether this information was presented when the bill was in the Senate Committee on Judiciary.  Mr. Williams replied, when it was before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, this information was not available.

 

Senator Neal commented that Mr. Williams has brought forth an issue and it must be dealt with it.  He said he hopes this message is understood by the committee.  He stated that he understands these particular issues and estimates that the cost of addiction in Nevada runs close to $1 billion in social costs.  He pointed out, nationwide, it runs approximately $29 billion.  He added this is a serious problem.

 

Robert Hunter, a concerned citizen who is a clinical psychologist, said this is a historic bill and he supports it.

 

Bo Bernhard, Private Citizen who is on the sociology faculty at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and is operations director for The Problem Gambling Center, said the center is literally the “hospital at the bottom of the hill.”  He added that The Problem Gambling Center is the only non-profit organization in the state that is involved in the treatment for “problem gambling.” 

 

Senator Raggio asked how many individuals are treated in The Problem Gambling Center per year.  Mr. Bernhard replied that this year they treated 140 individuals and the center could treat many more with more funding.  He added the center has a sizeable waiting list.  Senator Raggio asked how long the center has been in operation.  Dr. Hunter stated that he has been doing this work for approximately 16 years, but because these individuals are usually broke when they seek help, and most insurance companies do not cover this service, the center has always needed support.  He added that during most of the years he has done this work, support has been received from Charter Hospital.  He pointed out that Charter Hospital is currently out of business in Nevada.

 

Dr. Hunter pointed out that for the last two years the center has been reconfigured as a charity under its own direction.  He said they have been dependent on outside support, so services can be offered free to “problem gamblers.”  He added there is a small co-pay charged to these individuals.  Essentially, he noted, this is a group who cannot afford their own treatment and do not have insurance.

 

Senator Raggio inquired how long the treatment program is.  Dr. Hunter responded that it is currently configured as a 5-week intensive outpatient program, which meets several hours each evening.  That is followed by 12 weeks of less intensive, small group, outpatient therapy; this is followed by 1 year of after-care follow‑up, he added.

 

Senator Raggio asked what kind of results the treatment center has received from problem gamblers.  Dr. Hunter replied that currently their success rate is among the highest of any addiction clinic in the country.  He pointed out that in the 1 and 2 year follow-up studies that are done after they leave treatment, the majority of their patients abstain from gambling

 

Theresa Malone, Las Vegas, District 2-G, State Board of Education and State Board for Occupational Education, Department of Education, stated that she is completely in support of S.B. 335.  She said as a member of the State Board of Occupational Education, she would like the committee to know that the board will do everything possible to help children in Nevada gain knowledge of how to prevent “problem gambling.”  She drew attention to page 4, line 46 of S.B. 335, (the prevention of problem gambling) and said she would be more than happy to do whatever she can.

 

Ms. Malone stated, aside from her position as an elected member of the State Board for Occupational Education, she strongly urges the passage of S.B. 335.  She added that as Nevada has set the example for gaming for other states, including its benefits, she believes an example can be set for other states in trying to help people learn how to better control their gambling habits.

 

Senator O’Donnell stated the funding mechanism brought forth is a decision the committee will need to make, but it is appreciated that a bill seeking an appropriation has been presented with a possible funding mechanism.

 

Senator Coffin, appearing by videoconference at the Grant Sawyer Office Building in Las Vegas, announced his presence.

                

SENATE BILL 346:  Creates position of coordinator of requests for grants in department of education. (BDR 34-1218)

 

Senator James stated that S.B. 346 requests a budget for an individual that would fill the position of coordinator of requests for grants of money in the Department of Education.  He pointed out this position is offered as one that would more than pay for itself. 

 

Senator James commented he had heard discussion about eliminating music programs and sports programs because of inadequacy of the education budget in Clark County.  He added that having two children in public schools in Clark County, he experiences every day what is happening in the public school system.  He added he has watched the VH1 television program that advertises “Save the Music,” which is a nationwide effort to get legislatures to save music programs.

 

Senator James said he inquired into VH1 television to see what kind of legislative program they have.  He noted they do not have any legislative programs.  Senator James commented there are many grants available for education of which Nevada is unable to take advantage.  He said there are 150 U.S. Department of Education grants available to states.  He added that Nevada receives seven of those grants. 

 

Senator James pointed out that a full-time person as described in S.B. 346, answering requests for proposals (RFPs) and actively seeking these grants, could possibly secure enough grants to pay for the position.  He added that many programs could be saved.  He pointed out that these grants do not go to only certain states. They are available to all states, under certain circumstances, he added.  He remarked that there are also private grants available.

 

Senator James commented this is a very straightforward measure and sets out the creation of this position.  He pointed out that perhaps half of the funding for this position could be found in grants themselves.  He commented that if there is no money to fund this position, it could be put into place and that person could possibly fund his entire position through a grant.

 

Senator James repeated that if S.B. 346 cannot be funded, the position might be created allowing the funding to also be completely created by the grant-writer himself through grants.  He added this is a way to bring additional, available money to the state, which we do not have the time or tools to do without a person in this position. 

 

Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Service, Department of Education, stated the department supports S.B. 346.  He said it can pay for itself.  He added there are things that are currently not being done that school districts could be informed of.  He said he provided Assemblywomen Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Assembly District No. 5, and the LCB with the latest printout of grants available from the U.S. Department of Education. 

 

Mr. Rheault added that the printout consists of 25 pages, and he estimates Nevada would probably not qualify for 60 percent of those grants.  He said:

 

They are specific for native Hawaiians and things along that line.  There’s another 20 percent that are so specific and have so much red tape, you probably don’t want to mess with them.  But, there is still 20 percent [of the grants] in these 25 pages that we could go after.

 

Senator Raggio asked who is currently doing grant applications.  Mr. Rheault responded that the department is currently applying for grants as it always has.  He pointed out that there are two different kinds of grants.  He said there are discretionary grants and competitive grants.  He added that all department staff on the federal entitlement programs, including special education and Title 1, continually write those 5-year plans.  He said the grants to which this bill refers are for competitive, discretionary money through the U.S. Department of Education.

 

Mr. Rheault commented that this year they currently have three of these grants pending.  He said they include the Reading Excellence Act Grant, the Gear-up Grant, which is specifically targeted at middle-school, at-risk students, along with a third grant, which all together total $30 million.  He pointed out that the department was successful in getting two grants last year, the Advanced Placement Grant, which pays for the cost of advanced placement classes and tests for at-risk students, and the other grant was for teacher quality excellence.  These are small grants, he noted.

 

Mr. Rheault remarked the Advanced Placement Grant is an interesting grant.  He said the department does not have anybody on staff to work on it.  He added it has had requests from school districts asking why the department does not apply for the Advanced Placement Grant, because only a state entity can apply for it.  He noted that it was a grant for $100,000 per year.  He said the department offered to work together with a grant writer from Clark County or Washoe County to help write the grant.  He pointed out that only 15 of these grants were awarded nationwide, and Nevada received one for each of three years for a total of $300,000.  He indicated that the department tries to do “teamwork” wherever they can.

 

Mr. Rheault said the department currently has a team that reviews grants and makes a determination whether they fit into the state.  He commented the department also determines whether there is staff to oversee the grants, and whether the grants come with enough funding to make the effort worthwhile.  He added that one grant the department passed on was the bi‑lingual “Foreign Language Assistance Grant.”  He pointed out that it is only available to state education associations and is an average grant of $50,000.  There are only 15 of these grants nationwide.  He said the department had to determine whether it was worth 80 to 100 hours of staff time to write a $50,000 grant that has a one-in-five chance of being awarded.

 

Mr. Rheault said:

 

Other local education agencies could write this same grant.  There is a separate pot of money.  If this position were available, they [the department] could work with them to write it [the grant] on their own.  We don’t always have to do it through the state if there was someone, particularly in the rural areas, who didn’t have grant writers to work with them to apply for it.  So I do think it can pay for itself.  There are no guarantees for any grant, but chances are, with a good grant writer that knows how to write technical grants for federal review, you’re going to at least get a couple of them [grants] in a biennium.

 

Senator Raggio asked what this appropriation of $45,000 in one year and $57,000 in the next year of the biennium would cover.  Mr. Rheault responded that he did not work very closely with the bill writers, but he believes it would grant a position starting in October for this Fiscal Year and the entire year during the second year of the biennium.  He pointed out this is the reason for the difference in funding from the first year to the second year of the biennium.

 

Senator Raggio inquired about other costs that would be associated, because a position is not created without other costs.  Mr. Rheault agreed, and stated he does not have all the details on the position.  Senator Raggio asked what is anticipated as the likelihood of hiring someone with these qualifications for the stated appropriation amount, and what other Fiscal Note was needed.  Mr. Rheault responded that until he sees the details on the position, he would apply the standard package of necessities, including the cost of a computer and telephone costs.

 

Senator Raggio asked again what the likelihood is of hiring somebody with these types of qualifications for this salary.  Mr. Rheault responded that at this salary, they would definitely receive applications.  Senator Raggio requested that an appropriate Fiscal Note be prepared for any other costs that would be involved.

 

Senator James remarked that Assemblywoman Cegavske had told him that this appropriated funding was half of the funding necessary.  He repeated this appropriation was half of the amount necessary for the position.  He added that the other half would come from the amount of money this person would be able to bring in from grants.

 

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Rheault what the likelihood is of getting somebody on this basis.  Mr. Rheault replied that the likelihood of getting a half-time person would probably be good.  He added there are qualified individuals between Reno and Carson City that would take the position. 

 

Senator Raggio said, “I think the Senator is suggesting that we hire somebody at twice this salary and they would be paid this from the state, and they would earn the rest from grants.  Is that something you could do?”  Mr. Rheault pointed out that there is usually “no free lunch with federal money.”  Senator Raggio commented that is the point.  He asked whether federal grants allow for that cost to be used for administration.  Mr. Rheault responded that they allow for some administrative costs, but it is only for someone who oversees the grant and he does not see the grant writer doing that.

 

Senator Raggio asked that a Fiscal Note be submitted.  Senator James stated he would get that information to the committee.

 

Senator Rawson said the position could be funded and then charged back to grants as an administrative assessment.  He added this is the way UCCSN does it.  He pointed out that five or six successful grants might need to be completed in a year.  Mr. Rheault commented this could possibly be accomplished through indirect cost accounting, because through cost accounting 11.6 percent of any federal grant is allocated to administrative assessment. 

 

Senator Raggio pointed out that an explanation is needed on the Fiscal Note so that the committee can be fully aware.  Mr. Rheault suggested that possibly a half-time person could be hired until grants are brought in to demonstrate the value of the position.  Senator Raggio commented his understanding of a good grant writer requires an individual with very good qualifications, and asked whether they expect to be able to hire such a person with a half-time position.  Mr. Rheault responded that he believes they could find an individual, and realizes that the position most likely would require a person with a Masters Degree.

 

Senator James stated that the intended idea was that this position would be full time, not half time.  Senator Raggio requested the Fiscal Note reflect the full-time cost as well as whatever else is required to fund the position. 

 

Ms. Malone stated that the State Board of Education asked her to convey that David C. Sheffield, President, Elko, District 3-A, along with Dr. John Gwaltney, Sparks, District 1-A, State Board of Education and State Board for Occupational Education, recently were a part of the Reading Excellence Program.  She added the Governor was also in attendance.  She said the Governor made mention that he was surprised there was not a grant writer already on board with the Department of Education. 

 

Ms. Malone pointed out that the return on the investment in this grant-writer position will be unbelievable in the amount of money that can be provided for education to Nevada.  She added that currently some of the State Board of Education members believe, compared to grants we now have, there is over $50 million available in possible increases in grants.

 

Ms. Malone said she believes Nevada is currently “losing” in comparison to other states receiving grants.  She noted there are over 10,000 grants available nationwide for various types of subjects, including education.  With a grant writer to do the research, she added, as well as research of other foundations and corporations offering grants for education throughout the nation and the world, we have a potential to help solve many of our financial needs.  Ms. Malone asked if a full-time person cannot be considered at this time, that the committee consider employing a consultant.    

 

Senator Raggio asked for clarification regarding whether there is some type of grant-writer position within the Department of Education.  Mr. Rheault responded there is no one position in the Department of Education that has grant-writing as a full‑time duty. 

 

Mr. Rheault said the following:

 

What we normally will do, if they’re in special education and it’s related to special education grants, we have them take their time, if it is legitimate, and they’re getting paid from federal funds for special education to write it.  We have Title 1 people writing Title 1 grants, and, for example, the person that worked on the At-Risk AP Class Grant, were Title 1 people, because we could tie that back to the federal funds that pay their salaries saying it was for at-risk kids.  We probably have 40 consultants and about 35 of those get involved in some form of grant writing during the year at some time...

 

Senator Raggio asked whether it would replace all of that effort, if this position were approved.  Mr. Rheault replied there is no way one person could replace all previous efforts.  He said the person would have to work with a team to collect the data and the research information.  He added that a specialist who knows how to obtain the information and edit grants is what is needed, as well as keeping track of grants and notifying school districts of what is available.

 

 

 

 

 

SENATE BILL 371:  Creates state committee on pain management issues. (BDR 40‑1242)

 

Senator Michael A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8, stated this is the first reprint of S.B. 371.  He explained it includes a modest Fiscal Note of $5,000 to establish a Nevada commission to oversee research on pain management protocols and procedures.  He pointed out that he is one of many Nevadans who have had to watch a loved one suffer the unbearable pain of a terminal illness.

 

Senator Schneider commented that he first introduced S.B. 371 as legislation to expand the authority of positions to make decisions about what medicines to use for the control of pain and for the treatment of terminal illness.  He pointed out that because of the questions raised, and the controversy surrounding this far-reaching approach, he has amended the legislation to instead establish a commission to approve limited research projects into the efficiency of new approaches.

 

Senator Schneider said that as life is expanded with new medicines and medical procedures, serious and often agonizing decisions about the quality of life need to be faced. These are not easy issues, he added.

 

Senator Schneider pointed out there are thousands of terminally or chronically ill Nevadans whose families would like more than conventional medicine to address these ill individuals’ pain, and possibly prolong their lives.  He said, at the very least, we owe these individuals and families one small step towards these goals by encouraging research with the establishment of this commission.

 

Senator Schneider stated that S.B. 371 is actually a complementary bill to S.B. 545, which was sponsored by the Lieutenant Governor’s office to make Nevada a research state for medicine and drugs. 

 

SENATE BILL 545:  Creates state commission for approval of research programs for medical use of marijuana. (BDR 40-1248)

 

Senator Schneider said that Nevada could be on the cutting edge of getting into medical advancement.  He pointed out that Oscar Goodman, Mayor of Las Vegas, has proposed medical research clinics for the Las Vegas downtown area.  He added that S.B. 371 would fit in very well with some of the Mayor’s plans. 

 

Senator Schneider commented that there are many different medications that may work on some individuals and not on others.  He indicated that this proposal would also be applicable to “off-label” medications. 

 

Senator Raggio referring to a memorandum from the Health Division, Department of Human Resources (Exhibit P), asked what the current Fiscal Note requests. 

 

Phillip Weyrick, Administrative Services Officer, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, said that as S.B. 371 is currently drafted, it amends Title 40 of NRS, to create a state committee on pain management issues.  He explained that the committee would consist of seven members appointed by the Governor.  He added that the Health Division of the Department of Human Resources would be directed to provide administrative support to this committee.

 

Mr. Weyrick commented the administrative support would include such activities as defined in Sections 4 and 5 of S.B. 371.  He said support would include attending quarterly meetings, distributing minutes, preparing annual reports, establishing educational programs for health professionals, applying for federal grants, developing and carrying out incentive programs to encourage physicians and osteopathic physicians to locate in Nevada, reviewing applications for research programs, developing forms for use in approving the research programs, and distributing grant funds to successful applicants who are registered and approved to conduct the research programs.

 

Mr. Weyrick stated that S.B. 371 currently appropriates $5,000 for the biennium in support of these activities.  He added that, although a Fiscal Note was not formally requested, the Health Division believes the total cost associated with implementing this bill would be closer to $48,000 for the biennium, which is $26,192 for the first year, and $21,742 for the second year of the biennium.

 

Senator Raggio pointed out that Exhibit P indicates that $21,192 plus $5,000 would be for establishing new regulations in the first year of the biennium.  He asked whether that would mean the amount for the second year would be $21,742.  Mr. Weyrick replied that is correct.

 

SENATE BILL (S.B.) 379:  Provides for payment of retention bonuses to certain state employees. (BDR S-1166)

 

Bob Gagnier spoke in favor of S.B. 379.  He pointed out that for the last 10 years, SNEA has been told many times, at this stage of the Legislature, there is no money.  Thus, SNEA has been unable to secure the pay raises that are necessary, or called for, in salary surveys.  He added that state employees keep falling further and further behind.  He said the frustrating part to state employees is that while they are told there is not enough money for pay raises, at the very next legislative session, state employees see a substantial surplus.  He pointed out that state employees feel they have created that surplus, to a great extent, by not getting adequate pay.

 

Mr. Gagnier pointed out that this scenario has been particularly critical in the last 10 years.  He said that during the 10-year period that began in 1991 and ended in December 2000, state employees lost 8.5 percent to the cost-of-living.  He commented there were four of those years during which no pay raises were given.  He added that it is difficult to tell employees there is no money, and then for them to see a big surplus in the General Fund at the end of the Fiscal Year. 

 

Mr. Gagnier stated the purpose of S.B. 379 was to target the surplus, and to provide for those employees who have continued to provide their services to the state, with a portion of that surplus going toward rewards for their continuous service.  He commented that a formula of $20 for each full-calendar month during that 10-year period was derived.  He added the maximum that any employee would receive under this bill is $2,400 as a lump sum, and it would not apply to the base salary. 

 

Mr. Gagnier commented the cost of the bill, according to the Department of Personnel, is approximately $20 million.  He noted half of that is not General Fund. A good portion of it is Highway Funds.  He pointed out that he is aware the Economic Forum cut $34 million out of the anticipated surplus for this Fiscal Year.  He said, perhaps it is unrealistic to view passage of this bill, given that situation.

 

Mr. Gagnier suggested that SNEA looks forward to 1½ years from now to see whether the surplus is larger than what was predicted by the Economic Forum, with hope that state employees can partake of that surplus for retention bonuses.  He said, “If we are told there isn’t enough money for an adequate increase, and then is turns out there is; …by the time we get to it, it’s all spent.”  He pointed out this is the purpose of this bill.

 

Senator Rawson stated the problem with “triggers” is that often times that surplus is not ongoing money, but rather surplus or “one-shot” money.  He asked whether this is being proposed as a “one-shot.”  Mr. Gagnier responded that it is.  Senator Rawson commented there is a specific prohibition in law against “triggers,” so it is a change of policy to use that technique.  He added:

 

The reason we brought that to a stop is because we faced a session where after we, the Legislature, left Carson City, there was a 20 percent cut, or whatever that cut was, but it was devastating to a lot of the state agencies.  I’m interested in what the problems are of state employees, but I don’t want to create a budget problem for the state in trying to fix them.  I just have concern about using a ‘trigger.’  It does soothe it a little bit if it’s ‘one-shot,’ I think you meet that condition. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the Fiscal Note is appropriate in that it states $20,207,000, and whether this is a General Fund appropriation.  Mr. Gagnier replied that a good portion is from the Highway Fund.  He added that he has no reason to doubt the Fiscal Note; the statistics were done.  He conveyed that state employees feel great frustration when they are told there is no more money, only to find out at the end of the biennium that there is. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired whether a retention bonus has ever been paid to state employees.  Mr. Gagnier replied that in 1985 a substantial retention bonus was paid, following a biennium in which state employees received a 1.7 percent increase.  He added there was no salary increases in 1983, and in 1984 state employees received approximately 1.7 percent, which was a “trigger increase.” 

 

Mr. Gagnier pointed out the “trigger” in 1984 was different.  It was based on a percentage much like what the Governor is proposing for the education community, he added.        

 

SENATE BILL 388:  Requires establishment of program to distribute donated books to certain pupils enrolled in preschool programs and elementary schools. (BDR 34-1100)

 

Senator Jon C. Porter Sr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 1, stated that currently there are 235,394 illiterate adults in Clark County, which is close to 20 percent of its population.  He said, in the Clark County School District, close to 60 percent of fourth grade students are challenged readers at a first-grade level.  He added that 37 percent of kindergarten through fifth graders, who are in the hot‑lunch program, are considered “at-risk” in southern Nevada.

 

Senator Porter remarked that S.B. 388 is about a book program to help children who do not have the ability to purchase or even have a book of their own.  He pointed out that libraries are a critical part of education and a critical part of our community.  He said libraries are not enough to help our children.  He commented many of our children cannot get to public libraries and many cannot get to a school library.  He commented that demographics are changing in Nevada and specifically in southern Nevada. 

Senator Porter said the importance of owning a book is far more than just having a picture book sitting in a living room.  It is about the ability to read a book over and over again and be able to memorize, which has a major impact on reading and writing skills. 

 

Senator Porter explained southern Nevada has a program that has collected close to 17,000 books for young people since March of this year.  He said that in approximately 70 days 243 books per day have been collected.  Of that, 17,000 books, he added, 10,000 were new books that were donated by the business community in southern Nevada.

 

Senator Porter stated that approximately 7,000 of those books were collected from other children.  He said this program is called “Kids to Kids,” and it is a program where kids are also involved in distributing books to other kids.  He noted that it is not about creating a new bureaucracy, but it is about kids in southern Nevada who have come together.  He stated these kids are taking books they have at home, that may be slightly used, into their school librarian, who then distributes them throughout the Clark County School District to kids who are “at-risk pupils” or “qualified pupils,” which are defined as pupils that qualify for free or reduced price lunches pursuant to the National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1751 et seq.

 

Senator Porter pointed out that since March of this year, five books have been distributed to each of approximately 3,400 young people who are “at risk.”  He added the majority of these books have been donated.  He said the Clark County School District chose four different schools to participate.  The first school that was chosen, he noted, was Sunrise Acres Elementary School; the second, C.P. Squires Elementary School in North Las Vegas; the third school, Elaine Wynn Elementary School, and the fourth, Roy W. Martin Middle School.  He added that books were also distributed to CASA (a nationwide child advocacy program) for foster kids.

 

Senator Porter referred the committee to an Amendment to S.B. 388, (Exhibit Q).  He pointed out that initially S.B. 388 asked for funding.  He added the amendment proposes, in Section 2 of S.B. 388, that the appropriation be removed and instead a school district be allowed to accept gifts, grants, and donations to carry out the provisions of Section 1 of S.B. 388.

 

Senator Porter pointed out that Section 1 of S.B. 388 is basically what he has already expressed, and does not create a new bureaucracy.  He said the amendment takes advantage of the use of school libraries, school librarians, and the thousands and thousands of young people that are helping with the program by delivering books to their librarian.

 

Senator Porter commented this is a two-fold program.  He said first there is the business community donating books and young people donating their own books.  He said the grave concern is the need for assistance in the distribution of these books throughout the school district, which entails the second part of the program.     

 

Senator Raggio asked whether this amendment has been discussed with the Department of Education to see whether there are any problems with accepting donations.  Senator Porter responded that he has not discussed Section 2 of S.B. 388, with the department, but since there is no request for funding, he expects they will be receptive.  Senator Raggio added it still requires the Department of Education to establish the program, provide transportation of the donated books to public schools and charter schools for distribution to qualified pupils, and include a procedure for selection of the qualified pupils who will receive the books.  Senator Porter said he will discuss it with the Department of Education.

 

Senator Rawson stated S.B. 388 is being used as a “vehicle” for the request in Section 1, which refines the process “for finding errors in textbooks.”  He said he believes the Department of Education has already spent the money necessary to accommodate that section of the bill, so there should not be any additional cost.  He stated he will not pursue the request if it adds a Fiscal Note to the bill.  He added that he will obtain more information from the department for the committee.

 

SENATE BILL 407:  Makes appropriation to Interim Finance Committee for allocation to certain public television stations and public radio stations. (BDR S-1046)

 

Senator Porter stated that S.B. 407 is proposed to help Nevada’s public television stations convert from analog television to digital television.  He pointed out this is a federally mandated requirement.  He said the program has been very successful over the past 2 years.  He added that it has been helping Nevada’s two main public television stations make this conversion.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether funds were allotted from the tobacco settlement for this purpose.  Senator Porter replied they were.  He remarked that the goal is to make the option of tobacco settlement funds available before the decision is made regarding the funding of this program.  He pointed out he is an advocate of distance learning and of the programming of public television in Nevada. 

 

Senator Raggio commented he recollects funds were allocated from the tobacco settlement, with the requirement that public programming stations serve the purpose of educating the public on the dangers of tobacco use. 

 

Scott M. Craigie, Lobbyist, Public Broadcasting/KLVX and Public Broadcasting/KNPB, said those public service spots concerning the dangers of tobacco use began running once they drew down their first “match.”  He added he would like to keep this “vehicle” alive because there is the possibility of tobacco settlement funds and General Funds not always being available for these purposes.  

 

Richard Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer, KNPB, Reno, commented the public broadcasting stations of Nevada have talked about the coming world of digital television before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandates that all television stations change their entire system of broadcasting by 2003.  He added that this new system, of digital television, will not only provide high definition television (HDTV), but it will also provide enormous opportunities for education and information.

 

Mr. Schneider stated there are educational and information services that are made possible with multi-casting and data-casting (also referred to as enhanced content).  He noted this is a very exciting and challenging time for public television.  He pointed out that this transition will be costly for Channel 5 (KNPB).  This is approximately an $8 million project, he added. 

 

Mr. Schneider stated he has always advocated and taken the position that this capital requirement for public television should be a partnership between state, federal, and private funding.  He noted that is why the public broadcasting stations are here.  He said the funds appropriated in 1999 helped the stations raise matching private and federal funds.  He remarked, for public broadcasting stations in Reno, it has been very successful in helping them raise approximately $2.3 million in private funds. 

 

Mr. Schneider commented it is very powerful for him as a fund-raiser when he can go to a donor and say, “your gift will help match the state money that we got.”  On the federal level, he added, the public broadcasting stations apply for certain federal grant programs, which involve getting a commitment from the state. He pointed out this is a very competitive situation and “match money” helps a great deal in getting federal funding.

 

Mr. Schneider said that in many ways public television is an investment in the future, in our children, and in the residents of Nevada.  He added that in the digital world public television can help in education and many other ways.  He stated public television in the north, Channel 5, works with providing college tele-courses, ready-to-learn programs for day care and preschool children, and teacher training.  In the South, he added, KLVX Channel 10 also does a great deal of work in education.

 

Tom Axtell, General Manager, KLVX Channel 10, Las Vegas, Clark County School District, referring to his handout Exhibit R, said S.B. 270 of the Seventieth Session which passed, provided matching money.  He stated KLVX Channel 10 was granted $429,000, based on the urgency of meeting the state match.  He added that S.B. 270 of the Seventieth Session gave KLVX Channel 10 five extra points, in a 100-point judging system, which allowed them to get a significant amount of funding.   

 

SENATE BILL 270 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION:  Makes appropriation to Interim Finance Committee for allocation to certain public broadcasting system stations to convert to digital television as required by Federal Communications Commission. (BDR S-1529)

 

Mr. Axtell commented KLVX Channel 10 has applied for a second grant for $260,000, and believes the grant application will also be helped by the state-matching grant.  He indicated that S.B. 270 of the Seventieth Session allocated approximately 25 percent of their bandwidth on the new channels to provide educational services to the state.

 

Mr. Axtell testified that in the Clark County School District they have taken the most failed courses, put them on video, broadcast them on KLVX Channel 10, and repeated them on cable television.   You can see a 5-year history beginning with 345 students enrolled to 1,455 students enrolled this year, he added.  He pointed out that due to the rate of growth in Clark County, public television is optimistically hoping that in 4 or 5 years they may well be the largest “high school” in the state.  He added that education by distance learning along with the extra bandwidth that digital television and multi-casting provides, will allow the public broadcasting stations to accomplish this objective. 

 

Mr. Axtell drew attention to page 3 of Exhibit R, which outlines college credit video enrollment history.  He said this chart mostly reflects the Community College of Southern Nevada, but it also includes some courses from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV).  He pointed out the public broadcasting stations have had a similar, consistent increase in the number of people who are enrolled in courses that are broadcast over television.  He explained that the public broadcasting stations have a very limited number of hours allocated to this type of education.  However, he noted, when stations go to digital television and have multi-casting, the public broadcasting stations intend to increase college enrollments.

 

Mr. Axtell pointed out that KLVX Channel 10 has a program that assists Title 1 children to master basic reading skills called “Ready to Learn.”  He said they try to capitalize on the popularity of public television characters such as “Sesame Street” and “Barney,” and provide training for teachers, child care providers, and parents in how to use these programs to stimulate children’s interest in reading.

 

Mr. Axtell commented that they give out free books to deserving children in intercity neighborhoods who do not have books with these television characters.  He added that this program has “exploded” in the last few years.

 

Mr. Axtell maintained once they have the digital channels and multi-casting, they will have great opportunities.  He remarked that a full-time, standard definition channel dedicated to education could mean a great deal to the state.  He said there is a general equivalency diploma (GED) television program that is currently available in English and Spanish, and KLVX Channel 10 does not have enough hours to offer it on their channel.  He added that KLVX Channel 10 will have enough hours when they have a digital channel.

 

Mr. Axtell pointed out that he believes high school dropout prevention courses can be expanded.  He remarked there is another series called “Workplace Essential Skills,” which in many other states is used by workforce development staffers to help people migrate off of welfare benefits or into new jobs.  He said KLVX Channel 10 is very eager to work with UNLV to increase the number of teacher‑certification courses provided over these channels.  He noted in some states emergency medical technicians, corrections officers, and others receive training over state satellite networks.

 

Mr. Axtell commented if KLVX Channel 10 dedicates 16 hours a day of airtime to education, with an operating cost of approximately $260 per hour, it would total an annual value of over $1.5 million.  He said what Mr. Schneider and he are committing to is, if an investment is made into their capital plan, they will make an investment in their airtime for years to come, which has a very large value to the state.

 

Lamar Marchese, President and General Manager, KNPR Radio, and Secretary, Nevada Public Broadcasting Association, said he would like to discuss the radio side of this bill, which appropriates $500,000 to be divided among the public broadcasting radio stations in Nevada.  He pointed out that there are eight public broadcasting radio stations in Nevada.  He said these stations are in the North, South, urban, and rural areas of the state. 

 

Mr. Marchese stated these radio stations serve about 90 percent of the population of the state, and the listening audience is approaching 300,000 people per week.  He said that unlike public television, public radio does not have the mandate that public television has; however, public radio does have problems on the capital side.  He remarked, in surveying fellow station managers across the state, almost all of them have the same problem, which concerns the transmitter and antenna side of this business.

 

Mr. Marchese pointed out that many public radio stations have aging equipment, 15 years or older.  He said this equipment needs to be replaced in order to maintain the service that is currently being provided to the citizens of Nevada.

Mr. Marchese indicated, if this funding is provided, KNPR Radio is looking to expand their radio-reading service to the blind.  He pointed out that this service is currently only provided in southern Nevada.  He said that his station, KNPR Radio, has a plan that through a satellite transmission system, which extends that service to Reno, Tonopah, Elko, and Ely.  A vast amount of area in Nevada would be covered with a service provided specifically for people that are blind or reading impaired. 

 

Mr. Marchese said this service would take an investment in the capital plan to put together.  He remarked other stations in Nevada need equipment for new transmitters and new antennas in order to continue to provide broadcast services to Nevada citizens. 

 

Senator Neal asked whether the FCC is requiring the public television stations to go to digital television and for what reason.  Mr. Schneider replied that the FCC is requiring the entire television industry, not just public television stations, to make this conversion.  He added that it is a fundamental way in which television is broadcast.  All television stations are mandated to make this change from analog to digital, he noted.

 

Mr. Schneider pointed out that commercial stations are dealing with this issue in their corporate capital budgets.  He added that public television has to seek state, federal, and private funding sources. 

 

Senator Neal asked whether this is supposed to be an improvement over the current signals.  Mr. Schneider responded that, in many ways, it is actually an improvement and not just ascetically from high definition.  He added that for public broadcasting, the data-casting and multi-casting capabilities are an improvement, because digital broadcasting is the language of computers.  He said that the type of work done on a computer will be able to be done over the air.

 

Mr. Schneider explained the kind of things that are downloaded through a cable will be able to be broadcast over the air.  He said this creates all types of implications for interactivity for information sharing.  For example, in the “Capital Issues” program, which is a weekly legislative coverage program, there could be accompanying data, he added. 

 

Senator Neal asked whether this would also mean that the bandwidth this information would travel would be subject to sale.  Mr. Schneider responded, “Certainly there are spectrums of valuable commodity, and different stations will be selling it. In public broadcasting, we use it for public service purposes, but in the commercial world, there’s all kinds of business capabilities and potential with that spectrum.”

 

Mr. Schneider pointed out that the fundamental issue is the FCC has decided to convert from analog television to digital television.  He said public broadcasting believes there is a lot of public service potential in making this change.  He added that in the commercial world, media stations have a lot of commercial applications in mind.  He commented, “The use of spectrum in the commercial and public service potential of spectrum is naturally a big issue.”

 

Mr. Axtell stated today’s television was invented just before the depression.  He said the government has decided to use computer technology to create television sets that have computer chips instead of tubes or transistors.  He added that this will be a “quantum leap” in terms of the capability of the home receiving instrument.  He pointed out that it is the federal government’s intent to also manage the spectrum more efficiently.  Additionally, he added, by forcing all of the commercial and public broadcasters to make this change, the federal government will be able to auction off channels 54 through 69 for other wireless uses.  This gives the federal government a way to reclaim the spectrum.

 

Mr. Axtell commented that digital uses the spectrum more efficiently and with less interference.  He said with the digital spectrum, stations can be “packed” closer together and take all the existing television stations in the country can be “squeezed” into a smaller bandwidth.  This, he added, is the federal objective in making this transition.

 

Rose McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, stated that Mr. Axtell has set forth Clark County School District’s position on S.B. 407.  She said, given the federal mandate, it is something the Clark County School District feels very strongly about.  She indicated that she is a member of the Board of Directors of KNPR Radio in Las Vegas.

 

Mr. Craigie asserted the mechanics of the bill include a $2 million appropriation for public television, which requires a one-to-one match, and amounts to $1 million for each of the two stations.  He added there is a specific limitation that requires this funding only be used for the conversion to digital.  He pointed out that there is also a requirement that stations agree upon lines 15 through 17 of Section 2 of S.B. 407.  It reads, “agree to dedicate at least one of their multiple digital channels to educational purposes such as instructional television, telecourses, adult learning services and courses provided in conjunction. . .” he added.

 

Mr. Craigie stated this is not a matter of just wanting to upgrade the look.  This gives public broadcasting the opportunity to dedicate a full line to educational purposes 24 hours a day.

 

Mr. Craigie pointed out that there is a $500,000 appropriation included in this bill, as well, for the public radio stations for modernizing their network.  Again, he said, this appropriation is specifically limited to those stations devoted primarily to serving the educational, informational, and cultural needs of the state.  He commented this is overseen on a quarterly basis by the IFC, and reports are required regularly.  He indicated appropriations are only made at the time the match has been collected.

 

John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Broadcasting Association, said most of the points he wished to make have been covered by Mr. Marchese and Mr. Craigie.  He pointed out that the equipment they are referring to is 10 to 15 years old, and will soon be in need of replacement funding.

 

Mr. Schneider emphasized that public television, distance learning, and the issues presented are “cutting-edge” for the future of education across the state.

 

SENATE BILL 417:  Makes appropriation to state distributive school account to ensure that amount of money expended per pupil meets or exceeds national average. (BDR S-968)

 

Senator Schneider testified in favor of S.B. 417.  He stated he requested a hearing on S.B. 417 for the opportunity to have a full airing of the opinions on the needs of education and the potential sources of new or existing revenue that could be used to address those needs.

Senator Schneider pointed out that his goal is to afford to all those wishing to be heard on these critical issues the opportunity to testify.  He drew attention to two boxes of various communications from constituents addressed to members of the Legislature.  He said that the boxes are “just the tip of the iceberg,” of what has been received.  He stated that because of these correspondences he wanted the opportunity to have a meaningful hearing on S.B. 417.

 

Senator Raggio stated the bill provides an appropriation of approximately $600 million to bring the payment per pupil to the national average.  Senator Schneider commented that the Fiscal Note attached to this bill is not feasible, given no substantial new sources of revenue.  He explained that S.B. 417 deals with the fact that we fund the education of each Nevada school child at $900 under the national average.

 

Senator Schneider said constituents are conveying their many concerns to the Legislature.  He remarked that he has heard from a parent with concerns about her child receiving a good grasp of math because her child’s math teacher is a long‑term substitute.  He pointed out this parent is concerned because her child will be tested on math before her child can graduate.  He commented regarding a teacher who is struggling to teach reading in a class of more than 30 students.  Another letter, he added, is from a young woman who wants to spend more time learning about the Bill of Rights.  While another young woman, he noted, needs more time to memorize periodic tables for chemistry, but cannot because there is only one set of class textbooks, which she cannot take home.

 

Senator Schneider indicated another correspondence is from a teacher recruiter, who, in spite of employing her best efforts, cannot convince a graduating education major student to come to Nevada to teach.  He added, at this point, there is nobody that can give those parents, teachers, or students reassurance that things are going to be any better. 

 

Senator Schneider said there are needs out there to be articulated and we need to put a price tag on each of those needs.  He added that this raises the question, especially in light of the budget shortfall, of where the funding is going to come.  He stated that he does not have the answer, but there are proposals out there.  He pointed out there is an Assembly bill waiting in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means with a possible answer.  He said he has heard about reallocation proposals, and new sources of revenue, or combinations of both.  He noted that no one has brought together all of these ideas with the full discussion of how much money could be raised, what programs could and should be funded, who would be impacted, and how the immediate and long term health of Nevada’s economy would be affected.

 

Senator Schneider said that S.B. 417 as written, cannot be funded.  He pointed out the bill could possibly be amended to include a revenue plan and funding sources. 

 

Senator Raggio asked, as the sponsor of this bill, what Senator Schneider’s proposal is for raising this revenue.  Senator Schneider responded, “As you know, this is policy.  We’ve passed this out in your education committee; 6 to 1 vote that the policy should be, we should fund education at the national average.” 

 

Senator Raggio reiterated his question in regard to what Senator Schneider’s proposal is for raising the revenue that is required.  Senator Schneider responded, “If you decide to fund this proposal, there will be a hole in your budget.  You will have to ask the Senate Committee on Taxation to get you the revenue.”

Senator Raggio asserted, “You are the one who proposed the bill; you’re the one that is sitting here telling us that there are all kinds of substantial revenues.  What is your proposal for raising the revenue?  What taxes do you propose we raise for this purpose?”  Senator Schneider responded, “I said right here I did not bring a proposal to the table.” 

 

Senator Raggio emphasized that Senator Schneider brought this bill forward.  Senator Schneider replied, “I brought a bill to the table that says it is a policy statement.”  Senator Raggio elucidated that Senator Schneider does not have a proposal for funding the bill.  Senator Schneider stated he does not have a formulated proposal.

 

Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated NSEA did have a proposal, which was a teachers initiative for a business tax, to fund a bill similar to S.B. 417, that would have raised the per pupil expenditure.  Senator Raggio inquired how much that initiative would have raised.  Mr. Bellister responded that it would have been approximately $250 million per year. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether that is still NSEA’s proposal.  Mr. Bellister replied that it certainly is, or some variation on that theme.  He added, according to the National Education Association (NEA), Nevada’s expenditures were $5,406 per pupil in the 1999–2000 school year, which is the first year for which NEA has actual numbers.  He noted that the national average expenditure was $6,356 per pupil.

 

Senator Raggio said the current Fiscal Note indicates the data from the Department of Education contained statistics from the Digest of Education Statistics 1999, that said the average amount expended per pupil during the 1998 school year was $5,933 and the Nevada average expenditure per pupil was $5,090.  This indicates a differential of $843, he added. 

 

Senator Raggio pointed out that these statistics indicated in the Fiscal Note are somewhat different from those indicated by Mr. Bellister.  He asked whether the Fiscal Note has later numbers.  Mr. Bellister replied that he has not seen the Fiscal Note, and he is using the NEA statistics.  He said he is not sure why there is a difference.

 

Senator Raggio commented that the Fiscal Note is from the Department of Taxation.  Mr. Bellister said he does not know who the reporting agency was for those statistics.  He added that NSEA calculated Nevada expended $950 below the national average in the 1999–2000 school year.

 

Mr. Bellister explained that the state of New Jersey uses the “High Performing School Model” (a theory of high-performing schools) method to fund its schools. New Jersey schools are funded at $9,775 per pupil, he added.  He said in a “High Performing School Model,” smaller class size and ongoing professional development is funded.  He commented that New Jersey allocates $60,000 per year, per school, for on-site, ongoing professional development.  He explained teachers meet as a faculty for anywhere from 20 to 30 days per year for ongoing professional development.  He stated New Jersey has family outreach programs and on-site technology coordinators.  He added New Jersey spends $125,000 per school for technology.

 

Mr. Bellister said it is known that smaller class sizes have an effect on student achievement.  He commented that through studies, smaller schools also have a positive impact on student achievement.  We also know the condition of schools has a positive impact on student achievement.  He pointed out that Nevada has about $430 million in deferred school maintenance needs around the state, and $620 million in anticipated replacement costs and repairs over the next eight years.

 

Mr. Bellister commented:

 

We know through annual studies that the Department of Education conducts special education funding.  We know in 1988 that the state’s share of special education funding was about 56 percent of the cost of special education.  Today we know it’s only 29.4 percent.  The difference is coming out of local sources that could be allocated to other programs.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the plan in Nevada is a shared responsibility under the Nevada Plan.  He added it is not just the state, but it is also a local, shared responsibility.  That is why the bulk of all real property taxes, as well as most of the sales tax, are given to local governments, with the state as guarantor, he noted.  He reiterated this is a shared responsibility of both state and local governments under the Nevada Plan, which has been upheld as being a fair and equitable plan.   He also added, “I think you may be comparing ‘apples and oranges’ when you compare us to other states where they don’t have a shared responsibility.”  Mr. Bellister replied that he does not disagree that there is a shared responsibility of funding special education.  He said that at one point the state’s share was 56 percent and today the state’s share is less than 30 percent.

 

Senator Raggio stated that in Nevada, because all but 15 cents of ad valorem tax is dedicated to local governments, and under the Nevada plan, the K-12 (Kindergarten through grade 12) and the Distributive School Account (DSA) as a whole, are guaranteed up to 75 cents of the real property tax.  For that reason, he added, it was assumed by all school districts that the local governments would be responsible for building schools.  The state does not get into that area, he noted.  He pointed out this is one of the differences among states. 

 

Senator Raggio said the amount calculated for average support per pupil does not take into account any debt payments.  Mr. Bellister remarked this is correct.  NSEA does not include any debt service to its calculated amount of average support per pupil, he added.

 

Mr. Bellister stated that the recent LCB audit on textbook shortage is undisputed.  Most disconcerting about the textbook shortage, he added, is over the 5-year period sampled, school districts spent $6.2 million more than allocated through the DSA, and the shortages still exist.  He said that a greater effort to fund instructional supplies and materials is needed.  He added Nevada’s educational commission on technology proposed $108 million for technology needs this legislative session.  He pointed out that there is no ongoing funding proposal for this program. 

 

Mr. Bellister said NSEA feels very strongly that teachers’ salaries need to be increased.  He remarked we are having a difficult time attracting teachers to our state.  He said we have an ever-increasing teacher shortage statewide, and it is a tremendous problem in Clark County.  Mr. Bellister stated he has heard contract offers are being made to teachers in Clark County for the upcoming school year, and there have been approximately 500 rejections.  One reason, he pointed out, is because of teachers’ salaries.  He commented that teachers’ salaries begin at $26,875 per year, which is not competitive.

 

Mr. Bellister remarked there is also a problem retaining teachers in our state.  He said there is a high turnover for teachers in Nevada.  Teachers are leaving at a rate of about 8 percent per year, he added.  He said 28 percent of the teachers that were hired in Las Vegas in the 1997 –1998 school year have left.

 

Senator Raggio asked how that compares with other states, and added that the term “voluntary turnover” has been used in previous testimony before the committee.  He questioned whether there is a method to compare the cited 28 percent of Clark County teachers leaving their positions to other states’ experiences.  Mr. Bellister replied that the only source he knows that measures attrition rates is the National Center for Education Statistics.  He added that the center shows approximately 6 percent as the national rate of teacher turnover.  

   

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Bellister to provide the committee with this information.  Mr. Bellister agreed to do so.

 

Senator Raggio commented that Senator Titus, Senator Schneider, and others signed a letter saying they needed more time and asked that this meeting be continued.  Senator Raggio agreed to continue the meeting and take additional testimony.

 

Mr. Bellister concluded that it is NSEA’s opinion that lack of funding is one of the greatest obstacles to sustaining education reform in our state. 

 

Senator Raggio asked what other proposals he has, in addition to the business tax, for raising revenue for these purposes.  Mr. Bellister responded that the only specific proposal NSEA has put forward is the business tax, originally proposed at a rate of 4 percent on business profit.  He said this continues to be the position of the association because it believes Nevada needs a broader tax-base and NSEA thinks this is an appropriate proposal.  He pointed out that it was modeled after the PricewaterhouseCoopers proposal presented to this Legislature in 1989.  The proposal said if the state found itself with a need to raise more revenue, a broad‑based business tax would be an appropriate source of that revenue.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether Senator Schneider supports the proposal for a business tax.  Senator Schneider replied, “I’ll be back here a week from Monday with a proposal, from the people in Nevada, for you.”  Senator Raggio asked whether Senator Schneider is indicating that he does or does not support the proposal for a business tax.  Senator Schneider responded, “I’ll let you know a week from Monday.” 

 

Senator O’Donnell asked Mr. Bellister that if the business tax is not a viable option, does he have any other taxes or means in mind for supporting this proposal.  Mr. Bellister replied that he personally would like to offer some suggestions, which are not necessarily those of the NSEA. 

 

Mr. Bellister said:

 

Sales Tax; as you know the schools are supported, in part, by the 2.25 cents on the local school support tax, that’s the sales tax.  If you raise that a quarter cent, I think that raises approximately $70 million a year.  We have the ability.  Michigan, the state of Michigan, assesses a property tax rate that is earmarked for schools.  How we would operate the mechanics of that within our state would obviously have to deal with the $3.64 cap, but I think that is something we could look at because the property tax, as you all know, is a very stable tax.  We have other taxes in our state that are ripe for easy picking, obviously.  We have the car rental tax.  We have that interesting twist that two-thirds of it is rebated.  I think if you look at that tax and you ‘tweak’ that tax I think about $20 million can be raised if you eliminate the rebate.  You obviously have the slot route tax that can be adjusted and obviously the gaming percentage-fee tax could be adjusted…That raises significant dollars.

 

Mr. Bellister said he strongly urges the committee to consider some other revenue vehicle that broadens the base.  He pointed out that Nevada relies on two taxes, sales tax and gaming tax.  This same issue was confronted 10 years ago, he added.  He said he strongly suggests that a broader tax base be considered and that we not rely on the same “low hanging fruit.”

 

Senator O’Donnell asked Mr. Bellister whether he had added up all the taxes that he had mentioned, and whether he had aggregated the amount, and what that amount would total.  Mr. Bellister said he has not, but would supply that information to the committee.

 

Ms. McKinney-James drew attention to her handout from the Clark County School District entitled “Legislative Platform for 2001” (Exhibit S).  She pointed out that within this document is a notation regarding per pupil expenditures.  She said the source of this information is the National School Boards Association.  It takes into consideration expenditures as recently as the 1999–2000 school year, she added.  She indicated the Clark County School District has tried to draw attention to the importance of per pupil expenditures in its efforts.  She commented that as a subdivision of the state, the district is not in a position to determine its revenues, but must rely on the Legislature for that determination.

 

Ms. McKinney-James stated the district feels so strongly about its circumstances, and based on information it has received to date, it is faced with a fairly substantial budgetary constraint.  She indicated the district has engaged in discussions with a wide variety of individuals, who are knowledgeable about Nevada’s tax structure, to both become educated and identify potential money sources that might be beneficial.  She commented she does not want the committee to think the Clark County School District has no interest when it does have an interest.

 

Ms. McKinney-James remarked that the district has engaged in discussion with the Nevada Taxpayers Association.  She said she realizes the district must defer to the Legislature at this time.

 

Mary Beth Scow, President, District A, Board of School Trustees, Clark County School District, commented that education funding is, and has been, a critical issue in Nevada for many years.  She pointed out that Ms. McKinney-James’ handout on the legislative platform for 2001 (Exhibit S) includes many reasonable approaches to improving education in the district.  She said Nevada students achieve close to the national average in most areas of study. Unfortunately, she pointed out, the Clark County School District has been unable to implement many of its plans because of limited resources.  As a school board our goal is to improve student achievement, she added.

 

Ms. Scow mentioned that it is very frustrating, because of limited resources, when the school district cannot implement plans they know would increase student achievement.  She pointed out that the school district has been in the position of having to take cuts in the last 2 years.  She said the school district has cut $50 million from its budget.  She remarked that this deficit rolls into the district’s next budget.  She noted that it appears the school district is digging a deeper hole every time it looks at its budget.

­

Ms. Scow said the Clark County School District had to add extra children to class sizes and freeze positions in maintenance.  She added that it is difficult to freeze those positions when 15 schools a year are being built and they do not have enough people to maintain and keep the older schools.  She indicated that the school district is currently looking at $12 million in cuts this next year.  This is a very difficult position, she noted.

 

Ms. Scow commented the school district has tried to make cuts with as little impact on the children as possible.  The school district is now looking at programs that are directly affecting the children, she added.

 

Ms. Scow said the Clark County School District’s budget seems large when $1.1 billion is mentioned.  She added when this amount is broken down per child, per day, it is only $26.45.  Students’ instruction, transportation, ensured security, health needs, stocking of libraries and computer labs, provision of extra-curricular opportunities, psychological services, and a host of other benefits must be provided from this amount of money, she noted.  She said it is no longer possible to do this on less than $5 per hour, per child.

 

Ms. Scow remarked that 95 percent of the district’s budget is allocated for salaries.  She pointed out the business of the school district is being conducted on $2.65 per child per day.  She indicated that the Dallas School District operates on a $1.1 billion budget, but for less than 160,000 students.  She said that her constituents have voiced their concerns regarding education and education is very important to them.  She added the level of education for their children is critical to Nevadans.  She said constituents expect our schools to be well funded.

 

Ms. Scow, on behalf of her constituents, said they want students to achieve on a high level and want funding to be closer to the average funding amount of other states in the country.  She said Nevada is a state of great pride, with great resources and ingenuity, and we should not cut our future short by under funding education.

 

Sheila Moulton, Vice President, District G, Board of Trustees, Clark County School District, referred the committee to her written testimony (Exhibit T), and stated from an educational perspective, the per pupil dollars are a common measure across the country of how much of its resources a state is willing to commit to the education of its children.  She pointed out that Nevada falls almost $1,000 per pupil below the national average.  S.B. 417 would help to get Nevada up to the average of what other states are expending for their children in education, she added.

 

Ms. Moulton said the district appreciates the efforts being made to improve its ability to compete, competitively in recruitment and retaining staff.  At the same time it has the difficult task of opening 250 schools, 15 of them brand new, for over 245,000 students in Clark County, on August 30, 2001, she noted.

 

Ms. Moulton pointed out that the district has had to cut $63 million from its 2001‑2002 budget.  $50 million of those cuts, she said, have been started in this year’s budget.  She added the school district will have to cut another $13 million in next year’s budget.  She commented that these cuts, coupled with the funding level, are far below the national average of per-pupil-funding, and have made it very difficult for the district to offer students an adequate education.

 

Ms. Moulton said the school district does receive growth funds and appreciates the recognition of this need.  Those funds will continue to be spent very carefully.  However, she noted, those funds are inadequate for meeting the district’s needs.  She remarked that even if the Clark County School District had no enrollment growth, the funds it receives are insufficient for covering the costs associated with the natural progression of staff, together with the salary schedule for longevity and added degrees.

 

Ms. Moulton summarized that in order to compensate for the loss of funds, the school district cut $10.4 million by increasing class sizes in fourth grades and higher.  She said another $3.3 million was cut by reducing facility maintenance.  In other words, she noted, the school district added eight new schools this year but no new personnel were added.  She commented there was a $1.6 million freeze on hiring administrative personnel, and the district also withdrew $5 million from its reserve account.  She said $1.1 million was withdrawn from the English-Language Learner Programs, which has seen an increase of over 83 percent in the last 5 years.

 

Ms. Moulton stated that depending on what funding is ultimately received from the Legislature, the school district is looking at making some additional cuts.  She said the cuts include increasing the walking distance at the high school level to 3 miles, cutting transportation to highly successful secondary magnet programs, charging for sunset classes that offer “credit-reduced” children an opportunity to take more credits, reducing staff development by 25 percent, and reducing custodial maintenance down to 4 days per week from the current 5 days per week.

 

Ms. Moulton commented all good business managers recognize that when times are difficult cuts must be made.  She said the Clark County School District board realizes this, and it has made many cuts while trying to protect students’ academic experiences.  She indicated, however, that it is now becoming most difficult. 

 

Ms. Moulton pointed out that the Clark County School District is currently considered an urban school district.  She said 40 percent of the young people that the school district educates are students of color.  She added 35 percent, or more, of its students are eligible for free or reduced lunches.  She remarked that almost 30 percent are English-Language Learners.  She said the Clark County School District is joining the “challenging” districts such as Dallas, Detroit, Buffalo, Baltimore, Atlanta, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Memphis, Minneapolis, Oakland, Philadelphia, and many more that are focusing on what is known as “closing the gap.”  It is a gap that must be bridged, brick by brick, program by program, and programs cost dollars, she added.

 

Ms. Moulton concluded that she is not satisfied to say the Clark County School District is an average school district, and she does not want any Clark County schools to be labeled “in need for improvement.”  She insisted that she wants half of the Clark County schools, 125 schools, to be exemplary, high-achieving schools.  She pointed out that in August 245,600 children will walk through the Clark County School District’s doors and funding is needed for education that we can all call number one and exemplary.  She said we want to reap a harvest of young people who will give back to their community, in appreciation and work, for what we have given to them, which is an education that opens doors to the world for them.

 

Theresa Malone, Las Vegas, District 2-G, State Board of Education and State Board for Occupational Education, Department of Education, stated that before she was elected, the State Board of Education supported a bill draft request and turned it into the executive branch of government supporting a $220 per child increase in per-pupil-funding.  She pointed out that it would have totaled $220 million for the state.  She said that 15 days after it was submitted, it was denied and sent back to the State Board of Education. 

 

Ms. Malone indicated that, on behalf of all the current members of the State Board of Education, they are completely in support of S.B. 417.  She added that it is very important that we take care of our K-12 children.  These children are our future, she remarked.

 

Ms. Malone commented on a visit she made to a 15-year-old school in Las Vegas.  She said this school has a low annual budget for its library.  She added the library has books dating back to the late 1960s and the early 1970s.  Students of this school feel that other schools have it much better than they do, she noted.

 

Ms. Malone stated that constituents in Pahrump complain of the lack of services at their schools.  She added that all various segments of the 450,000 people she represents complain about these problems and they are pleading with the Legislature to make the decision to support the education in K-12 first, before any other kind of education.

          

Senator Raggio told Ms. Scow and Ms. Moulton that the state does not have anywhere near $600,000 million for this bill.  He asked whether their school board has taken a firm position on what revenues or taxes should be raised or passed to accomplish this.  Ms. Scow stated the district has not taken a position on that.  She said the board would like to see funding move closer, but feel that seeking revenues is out of the board’s realm of expertise. 

 

Senator Raggio replied that the board shares in the Legislature’s dilemma.  He added that this kind of funding is not available.  He said that a bill introduced for this purpose, without a means of funding, is meaningless.  He asked whether the Clark County School Board supported the business tax proposal that was in the teacher’s initiative.  Ms. Scow replied the school district did not take a position on that proposal.

 

Senator Raggio stated, “The facts of life are that we are closing budgets next week.  At the end of next week, we will be through the process of closing budgets; so, if someone plans to come in with a proposal for tax increases after that, it will not be much help.”

 

Senator Neal commented that over the years, the Legislature has been constitutionally mandated to find funds to support education.  He added that this mandate appears in Article 11, Subsection 6, of the U.S. Constitution.  He said he brings this up, because if the Legislature does not do anything, its going to find itself in federal court, and the court is going to mandate what taxes will be rendered in order to support the school system.  He added that we can let this issue pass us by, and not do our duties, and be faced with some type of court action.

 

Senator Raggio agreed that this is certainly true as far as the responsibility of the Legislature.  He said that both Senator Neal and he have a good understanding of how education is funded and what constitutes the Nevada Plan, and they both would like to bring in more money.  In this particular budget that was proposed by the Governor, he added, there was in excess of $400 million more proposed for the DSA in this budget than in the last biennium.  He pointed out this is an increase of 8.6 percent above the last biennium.

 

Senator Raggio commented enrollment is projected to grow by 4.5 or 4.6 percent.  He added that he does not believe in presenting this budget that the Governor, who is the former Superintendent of schools in Clark County, intended in any way to shortchange education.  He pointed out that it would be nice to give a cost-of-living increase for teachers, in light of the fact that the Governor has proposed a 5 percent bonus for teachers.

 

Senator Raggio said even though we have less money than we anticipated, the Governor has not recommended any meaningful cut in the DSA’s proposed budget for teachers.  In fact, he added, the Governor has proposed some additional funding to provide some incentives for new teachers.

 

Senator Raggio commented that even though we would like to do more, the proposed funding for K-12 education, with all the safeguards we are planning to build into it for increased utilities, will pass muster.  He added that K-12 and higher education is the major part of our budget, it is over 50 percent of General Fund appropriations.  He pointed out that funding added to education from federal sources is a very sizeable portion.              

 

Senator Raggio said we are not at a stage where the federal court is going to intervene and say we are not supporting education.

 

Ms. McKinney-James commented that the Clark County School District certainly wants to indicate its appreciation to the Governor for his willingness to identify education as a priority.  The school district is well aware of the efforts he has made, she added.

 

Ms. McKinney-James remarked it appears that Clark County School District’s “enrollment percentage” is currently about 6.3 percent.  She pointed out that “enrollment percentage” is increased by approximately 2.2 percent because of roll ups, which are longevity payments.  She commented they are looking at a little over 8 percent in growth.

 

Senator Raggio clarified that the Nevada Plan uses a specific date for determining the basis for per-pupil support.  He added he is sure this will be compensated for.  The state is still the guarantor, he noted.

 

Senator Neal commented, “The Governor is not mandated to find funds; we are as a Legislature, mandated to find funds.”

 

Senator Raggio stated that for all the years he has been in the Legislature, The Executive Budget has been accepted by the Legislature as proposals from the Governor.  He added that he does not believe this should change at this point in time.

Raymond Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association, stated that S.B. 417 is trying to bring Nevada up to the national average.  He pointed out there is no valid comparison with some things that take place in the eastern United States.  He recommended an alternative to this is to try to focus on bringing Nevada to the regional average, which is in the neighborhood of $120 to $130 per student, rather than $840 or $1,000 per student.

 

Senator Raggio asked what region that would include.  Mr. Bacon responded that would be the 11 western states of the United States.  He added that may be a difficult goal, but it may not be an unachievable goal.  He stated this is certainly our area of competition, as far as where we draw the vast majority of our teaching staff, cost-of-living, and general lifestyle issues.  He said this includes California, which has a substantial higher cost-of-living and a substantially higher cost‑per‑student.  He added that Washington and Oregon have also been traditionally high-funded states in education issues.  He pointed out that this means Nevada is looking at an increase in funding of approximately 16 percent to bring it up to the national average.  He stated, this may still be a substantial gap to close, but if we are not competitive we will face a different set of problems. 

 

Senator Raggio inquired whether he has any suggestions for sources of revenue. 

 

Mr. Bacon responded:

 

As you’re well aware, the business community has been having extensive discussions, and while we can’t find all that number, there is an expenditure of some $2 million, which would get us to electronic funds transfer in the Department of Taxation, which we believe there is like a $14 million return on that.  There’s the possibility of capping the collections allowed on sales and use-tax, and a possibility of changing the way we do rental equipment, as far as use-tax.  Those things affectively are not tax increases, but they still have a net revenue increase to the state.

 

Senator Raggio stated that the committee would be happy to look at them if there are some specifics outlined.  Mr. Bacon commented that Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, has those numbers ready anytime.

 

Senator Schneider said, “I think the purpose of this is, you hear all these things floating around out there, everybody has ideas, but nobody has brought them all together.  That’s the purpose of this; we need to bring things together.”

 

Senator Raggio responded, “I think, if someone is willing to come up and offer a bill like this, that person ought to be able to tell us where to get the money, specifically.”  Senator Schneider commented, “A week from Monday I will have a full proposal in front of you and if it’s too late, we’ll open the budgets back up.”

 

Senator Raggio suggested that if Senator Schneider knows the proposal now, to tell the committee what he is specifying.  He added, “A week from Monday will be too late.”

 

Senator Coffin inquired whether Mr. Bellister could come up with some figures based on variations of his business tax proposal.  He added that he could never support it at that low of a threshold and is curious whether numbers could be provided.

 

Senator Rawson said,  “I would just be curious what the figures are for the western region, as far as the cost, and just if they could be supplied to us”.

 

Senator Raggio stated the hearing on S.B. 417 will be continued at the end of the agenda on Monday, May 7, 2001.  He added there will be limited time for anyone that wants to add anything to this bill.

 

Senator Mathews commented:

 

I was just reading in the Denver Rocky Mountain News yesterday, and maybe we could all…since we are short of money in the state…and this is not meant to be flip or short.  Bill Gates and his wife donated like $8 million to a classroom in Denver, the biggest amount to any one classroom to make classrooms smaller.  So maybe we ought to contact the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

               

Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Debra Petrelli

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

 

 

DATE: