MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities

 

Seventy-First Session

April 23, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:22 p.m., on Monday, April 23, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Michael Schneider

Senator Valerie Wiener

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Clark County Assembly District No. 6

Assemblywoman Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Assembly District No. 5

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst

Patricia Vardakis, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Robert Salley, Intern for the Speaker of the Assembly Richard (Rick) D. Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23

Joan G. Kerschner, Director, Henderson District Public Libraries

Robert L. Crowell, Lobbyist, Las Vegas-Clark County Library District

Scott M. Craigie, Lobbyist, Henderson Library District

Dotty L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District

Joy Erickson, Coordinator, Student Support Services, Washoe County School             District

Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

Gloria Dopf, Team Leader, Educational Equity, Department of Education

 

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing and invited testimony on            Assembly Bill (A.B.) 441.  

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 441:  Revises provisions relating to library districts.     (BDR 33-980)

 

Robert Salley, Intern for the Speaker of the Assembly Richard (Rick) D. Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23, read from prepared testimony      (Exhibit C).  He explained A.B. 441 would allow library districts of municipalities and counties to expand their boundaries to include newly annexed areas of the city.  Mr. Salley noted Anthem, the west area of Henderson, and the South Enterprise zone would then be included.

 

Joan G. Kerschner, Director, Henderson District Public Libraries, testified      A.B. 441 solves an on-going problem for the libraries in southern Nevada and the legislature.  She explained the district boundaries for libraries have always been an issue.  Ms. Kerschner said Henderson has annexed Anthem, which will now be more properly served.  She noted this was accomplished by an interlocal agreement between the libraries. 

 

Mr. Kerschner stated the solution to this problem is, when a library district wishes to change boundaries and take a part of the existing Las Vegas-Clark County district, it may do so by mutual agreement of both library boards.  She said if they do not agree, then a financial study would be conducted to determine whether the library district could administer the proper services.  And then, the county commission would resolve any further disagreement. 

 

Chairman Rawson postponed further testimony on A.B. 441 in order to hear testimony from Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Clark County Assembly District No. 6 on A.B. 293.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 293:  Authorizes board of county commissioners and governing body of city that initially formed consolidated library district to adopt resolutions which support or oppose in whole or in part proposal for issuance of bonds for consolidated library district. (BDR 33-1293)

 

Assemblyman Williams stated the genesis for A.B. 293 was, before a bond issue can be presented to the voters by a consolidated library district, it would need the approval of the local municipalities’ councils or commissions.  He stressed libraries are an important public entity, but in many cases the city councils or commissions may determine other issues are more urgent.  Assemblyman Williams pointed out all parties are in agreement, and there has been no opposition to A.B. 293.

 

Chairman Rawson asked whether A.B. 293 would form a consolidated district.  Assemblyman Williams reiterated existing consolidated library districts must go to the local municipalities’ councils and commissions before going to the voters for a bond issue. 

 

Chairman Rawson questioned whether coverage of more than one municipality would require consent of all parties, and he requested an example of a consolidated library district.  Assemblyman Williams replied, the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District is an example.  Continuing, Assemblyman Williams noted the procedure would be: the library board would go to the city council and the county commissioners to get approval before any consolidation efforts could be presented to the voters.  If the approval is denied, consolidation efforts still could move forward. 

 

Robert L. Crowell, Lobbyist, Las Vegas-Clark County Library District, testified A.B. 293 and A.B. 441 were important.  He said A.B. 293 has received the approval of the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District.  Mr. Crowell stated A.B. 293 authorizes better communication with the city and county, and would result in better proposals being submitted to the county debt-management commission when the consolidated library district seeks a bond issue.           Mr. Crowell voiced support of A.B. 293 as amended.

 

Chairman Rawson commented the bonding authority has been a function of the state.  He queried whether there would be one consolidated district covering the southern portion of the state.  Mr. Crowell surmised, in the future, one consolidated district is possible.  He said A.B. 293 and A.B. 441 would generate a level of cooperation indicating the district’s eagerness to discuss the future of libraries in Clark County, which could extend to one consolidated library district. 

 

Chairman Rawson asked about funding authority.  Answering the question, Mr. Crowell explained the authority to ask for a bond comes within the confines of the district, which petitions the debt-management commission; the commission has the authority to ask the voters for a general obligation bond, not to exceed          10 percent. 

 

Chairman Rawson asked whether there is a Henderson Library District, and would the district be able to seek bond funding.  Ms. Kerschner answered in the affirmative.  Chairman Rawson questioned how the Henderson Library District received such authority.  Ms. Kerschner explained Boulder City, Henderson, the Las Vegas-Clark County Library Districts and all the library districts in Nye County are special taxing districts, whose boards of trustees are governing bodies and are appointed by the county commissions. 

 

Chairman Rawson acknowledged setting up the taxing district for                 Las Vegas-Clark County, but not Henderson or Boulder City.  Ms. Kerschner pointed out Henderson and Boulder City Library Districts have been in effect since 1946, and were originally based on school district boundaries, but became grandfathered in 1953 as county library districts. 

 

Chairman Rawson opined Las Vegas and Clark County were too small during that time.  Ms. Kerschner noted there was a city library in Las Vegas, but in 1967 the remaining part of the county became the Clark County Library District, and subsequently merged with Las Vegas to form a consolidated district. 

 

Chairman Rawson remarked there are districts which do not have bond-funding authority within the state.  Ms. Kerschner agreed, and stated all the other districts, except Clark County and Nye County, were a function of county government.  Chairman Rawson suggested a more general approach to this issue might be considered in the future.  Ms. Kerschner said A.B. 293 is a step in that direction. 

 

Chairman Rawson asked if there was any disagreement on A.B. 293, or        A.B. 441.  Ms. Kerschner responded all were in agreement in Clark County. 

 

Scott M. Craigie, Lobbyist, Henderson Library District, testified all parties have agreed to A.B. 441.  He said the boundary issue is a “sticky” one.  Mr. Craigie commented in southern Nevada there are large areas of U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, which have not been developed.  He said Anthem was part of an annexation by the City of Henderson.  Mr. Craigie stated as the areas become annexed, a decision must be made concerning whether the library would be built by the same entity presently annexing and developing the land.  He pointed out A.B. 441 is more than a “fix-it”; it is a comprehensive plan which would set the ground rules for future annexations. 

 

Mr. Craigie called attention to line 5, on page 1 of A.B. 441, and told the committee it addresses the county library district and the consolidated library district, or any combination where there is a problem, overlap, or dispute.  It provides the mechanism for the other district to apply and request the ability to annex land or change borders.  He read lines 9 through 11, on page 1 of      A.B. 441, and said the joint study shall determine whether the entity making the application has the financial resources to provide services to the community.  Continuing, Mr. Craigie explained if the entity has the financial capability, the library district may alter the boundaries, but there is no requirement to do so. 

 

Mr. Craigie noted the process to dispute decisions is described on               lines 17 through 23 on page 1, and lines 1 through 13 on page 2, of A.B. 441.  He emphasized disputes in the past were arbitrated by the legislature. 

 

Chairman Rawson asked whether boundaries could cross.  Mr. Craigie replied it would not be possible at this point. 

 

Chairman Rawson questioned whether Nye and Clark counties could join together.  Ms. Kerschner replied there is another statute, which allows for regional services. 

 

Mr. Craigie called attention to line 9, on page 1 of A.B. 441 which states ”. . . the trustees of a library or library district . . . ,” and explained this language leaves it open to any category.  Mr. Craigie said lines 14 through 17, on page 2 of A.B. 441 addresses the issue concerning the continuation of revenue to pay off old bonds, for an area being annexed into a new library district.  He explained the language on lines 28 through 30, on page 2 of A.B. 441 would validate the interlocal agreement between the consolidated library district and the Henderson Library District, and allow Anthem to be annexed to the Henderson Library District.  Chairman Rawson queried whether the citizens of Anthem are now considered Henderson citizens.  Mr. Craigie answered in the affirmative. 

Mr. Crowell concurred with the testimony of Mr. Craigie and Ms. Kerschner.

 

Chairman Rawson questioned whether the state would be willing to relinquish authority to the counties to address these issues.  Ms. Kerschner reiterated there have been numerous occasions when legislative time has been taken up on these issues, and the districts have agreed the criteria to be considered are whether the district in question can provide and afford the services to the community.   

 

Chairman Rawson asked whether any of the entities have veto power.          Mr. Craigie responded, when there is a dispute, it would go to the Clark County commission.  He said A.B. 441 puts the burden on the parties to resolve issues, and provides a mechanism to work through the problem by negotiations, and not bring them to the legislature. 

 

Chairman Rawson acknowledged the legislature might not always understand the problem as well as the people at the local level. 

 

            SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 293 AND A.B. 441.

 

            SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Rawson asked whether the committee had a problem voting for both bills simultaneously.  Hearing none, Chairman Rawson called for a vote.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 1.

 

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 1:  Urges President and Congress of United             States to increase federal funding for special education to level authorized             by Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (BDR R-924)

 

Dotty L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, commended the committee for co-sponsoring A.J.R. 1.  She stressed the importance of the legislature supporting the federal government’s funding for a free and appropriate public education for all individuals with disabilities which has been promised since in 1975. 

 

Ms. Merrill stated, during the 1999-2000 school year, $15 million was moved from the General Fund to support the services required for students with disabilities, and $15.6 million will be required this school year.  She restated the Washoe County School District feels the Nevada Legislature is making a very important statement by supporting this funding through A.J.R. 1.

 

Chairman Rawson asked for the percentage of the federal funding at present.  

 

Assemblywoman Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Assembly District No. 5, responded federal funding would be increased to 16 percent.  Chairman Rawson questioned the current rate.  Assemblywoman Cegavske replied the current rate is 13 percent, which will be increased to 15 percent.  Chairman Rawson asked to have the percentage equated into budget dollars.  Assemblywoman Cegavske responded 40 percent would equate to $63 million. 

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske stated A.J.R. 1 passed the Assembly and education committee unanimously.  She remarked all 50 states are supporting this issue. 

 

Chairman Rawson asked if there was a serious proposal to increase the figure to 40 percent.  Assemblywoman Cegavske replied the goal is to increase the percentage each congressional session.  Chairman Rawson queried whether going to the full 40 percent would stop the extra appropriations to meet the budget.  Assemblywoman Cegavske responded, because of Nevada’s growth, the extra appropriations would still be needed. 

 

Joy Erickson, Coordinator, Student Support Services, Washoe County School District, voiced support of A.J.R. 1.  She mentioned the growth of students with disabilities in the Washoe County School District is approximately          6.7 percent, compared to the overall population, which is increasing at           2.7 percent.  Ms. Erickson said the district’s mission is to “provide appropriate educational programming in the least restrictive environment.”  She testified the Washoe County School District has a 20 percent turnover in special educators, and a higher rate of paraprofessionals.  Ms. Erickson explained the reason over        80 percent of the special education personnel leave for other jobs is because the Washoe County School District cannot provide benefits. 

 

Senator Mathews asked for a clarification about the benefit issue.  Ms. Erickson answered the funding is not available, and the school district hires two part-time aides instead of a full-time aide, therefore, benefits are not paid. 

 

Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, testified in support of A.J.R. 1.  She said Clark County School District serves 24,000 special education students.  Ms. Tittle emphasized there is a vast difference between the state fund, federal dollars, and the actual funds needed for special education students.

 

Gloria Dopf, Team Leader, Educational Equity, Department of Education, told the committee receiving 40 percent at once would help significantly.  She said there are presently a number of proposals before Congress all phasing in the           40 percent over a 7-year or 10-year period.  Ms. Dopf claimed there was an appropriation, which would give a substantial amount, but is one of eight proposals being considered by the Congress.  She said 40 percent is approximately $6 million, but last year, statewide expenditures for special education were $124 million. 

 

Senator Mathews questioned whether the appropriation had already been approved for 40 percent but had not been acted upon.  Ms. Dopf stated, in 1975 the target was 40 percent per pupil expenditure; however, the appropriations in the budgets were never made.  She explained Nevada sustained at 5 percent expenditure per pupil for a time, and then it was at 8 percent. 

 

Senator Rawson closed the hearing on A.J.R. 1 and asked for a motion.

 

            SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 1.

 

            SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

 

 

 

Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 3:13 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Patricia Vardakis,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

 

 

DATE: