MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session February 27, 1995 The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 7:34 a.m., on Monday, February 27, 1995, Chairman John Marvel presiding in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman Mr. John W. Marvel, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mr. Jack D. Close Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. Lynn Hettrick Mr. Bob Price Mr. Larry L. Spitler COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Mr. Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst Mr. Brian Burke, Program Analyst Chairman Marvel called for a committee introduction of BDR S-746 which authorizes issuance of revenue bonds for improvement of student union building at the University of Nevada, Reno. ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY MOVED DO PASS ON BDR S-746. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Marvel informed committee members a document regarding frivolous lawsuits from the Attorney General's Office had been distributed. UNIFORM SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL RECORDS - PAGE 131 Donald J. Mello, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, testified the Uniform System of Judicial Records budget provides funds for automation in various courts in the state. Mr. Mello indicated a list of current and future projects would be provided to committee members. Chairman Marvel inquired whether $10,000 would be balanced forward each year of the biennium. Mr. Mello said except for the previous year when the surplus was larger, $10,000 would be balanced forward. Chairman Marvel noted the Executive Budget reveals a balance forward of administrative assessment revenue from FY 94 and FY 95 in the amount of $440,000. Mr. Mello confirmed this. Chairman Marvel inquired how these funds will be spent. Mr. Mello responded this information would be included in the project list to be provided to the committee. At the end of this year, approximately $44,000 will remain in the account. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether computer network hookups discussed in a prior hearing would be included in the project list. Mr. Mello answered that at this point, a base level of automation was being pursued to ensure that each court had a case management system and word processing for the judge, secretaries and law clerks. Connecting the various court computer systems would take place in the future; however, work is proceeding to provide a connection to the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) in order to automatically update the repository on a nightly basis; inform the repository of outstanding warrants; cancel warrants when necessary and provide the Department of Motor Vehicles with traffic information. The first goal is to automate the courts. Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed the information to be provided would include the status of automation and future enhancements. DISTRICT JUDGES' SALARY - PAGE 133 Mr. Mello explained this budget account pays the salaries of district court judges. Based on a survey conducted by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in September of 1994, seven additional judges were programmed into the budget; however, that will depend on whatever legislation is introduced this session. Chairman Marvel inquired where the new judges would be located. Mr. Mello responded the Judicial Assessment Commission has made recommendations for additional judges in Clark and Washoe Counties; however, the purpose of adding positions to the budget was to be ready if bills were introduced requesting new judges. If there are no bills requesting new judges, funding will not be necessary. Chairman Marvel asked what the impact on the counties would be if new judges are approved. Mr. Mello indicated the impact would vary by county, but noted in the past positions have been approved only if the counties were willing to fund the necessary expansion of facilities and staff. Ms. Tiffany inquired how the potential appellate court would impact district court judges. Chief Justice Steffen responded the impact would not be felt by district court judges who would continue to process their cases. However, many cases, especially those having little precedential value, would be handled by the intermediate appellate court and would insulate the Supreme Court from many of those cases with no precedential value. Ms. Tiffany asked whether the caseload problem could be handled at the district court level in a way other than adding seven judges. The Chief Justice responded there are several ways to cope with the increasing caseload, including adding two justices; adding an intermediate appellate court; and increasing the number of central legal staff members and staff in the clerk's office. All incoming appeals are initially processed by the clerk's office which now also handles many matters of a legal nature. The members of the Court are able to carefully review only a certain number of cases; as central staff is increased, the number of cases each justice is required to review increases. Chief Justice Steffen summarized that the effective solutions appeared to be increasing central legal staff, increasing staff in the clerk's office and the addition of an intermediate appellate court. Chairman Marvel inquired what impact seven new judges would have on the prison system. Chief Justice Steffen indicated he did not think increasing the capacity of the Supreme Court to handle the caseload would result in additional inmates because criminal defendants are tried and sentenced in the trial courts. The Supreme Court exists to determine whether there has been prejudicial error and is not involved in the commitment process. Mr. Spitler inquired how many criminal cases the seven additional district court judges might be able to handle and how would that impact Parole and Probation and the Prison System. He also inquired whether the Prison System had been involved in these discussions to be aware of the potential impact on bed demand. Judge Michael Fondi, District Judge for Carson City and Legislative Chairman for the Nevada District Judges Association, said that none of the seven district judge positions are criminal judges. All positions are for family court judges, six in Clark County and one in Washoe County, and would have no impact whatsoever on the criminal system. Judge Fondi added the caseload in Clark County is such that additional judges are required. The average in Clark County is over 2000 cases per judge. This exceeds national standards and recommendations for the number of cases a trial judge should handle. Washoe County averages 1200-1300 cases per judge. Mr. Spitler noted some criminal judges currently take some of the overload of family court cases; additional judges would free the criminal judges' calendars for more criminal cases. Judge Fondi explained the family court takes no criminal cases except in Washoe County where Judge McGee takes a very few criminal cases which date from the time before he became a family court judge. Mr. Spitler confirmed the additional seven district court judges would not impact the Prison System or Parole and Probation. Judge Fondi said in his opinion they would not. Mr. Close inquired whether all seven judges, if approved, would begin concurrently. Chief Justice Steffen responded this decision would be the Legislature's. He noted seven judges could be appointed and begin at the same time and the sooner they begin, the better. The Chief Justice added he had not been in favor of the family court system because of his concern for "burnout" among the family court judges who handle a stressful caseload dealing with very emotional family issues on a daily basis. Mrs. Brower inquired how the seven judges would be selected. Chief Justice Steffen answered rather than holding a special election, the seven judges would most likely be appointed. Mrs. Brower asked if the Governor would appoint the judges. The Chief Justice responded that a selection commission would consider all applications, screen them, interview the candidates and select three finalists for each position. The names of the final candidates would be submitted to the Governor who would make the final selections. Ms. Tiffany questioned whether the proportion of district court judges per population had ever been considered as opposed to the proportion of district court judges per caseload. Judge Fondi responded that in past sessions, judges per population had been considered. There are several ways to consider caseload. For example, a judge could sit on one case for several months, and that would be a significant caseload. In all counties except Clark and Washoe, caseload includes domestic, criminal, post conviction proceedings and appeals from the justice court. Ms. Tiffany observed performance indicators that reflected judges per caseload, judges per population and judges in Washoe and Clark counties would provide a better basis of consideration for the committee. Ms. Tiffany observed the family court system is new and facing a growth situation much like a start-up company. She questioned whether the infrastructure could handle seven new judges. Judge Fondi expressed his agreement with Chief Justice Steffen's concerns regarding the family court system and the potential for "burnout" among its judges. The family court system was created by constitutional amendment and approved by the general electorate. There are seven family court judges presently serving in that capacity, six in Clark County and one in Washoe County. Those judges were elected to the family court in 1992 and are serving their first terms. Ms. Tiffany requested that a family court judge attend a subcommittee hearing to discuss the infrastructure impact. Chief Justice Steffen agreed this would be a good idea. The Chief Justice added family court judges are tied to population because that system applies only to counties having in excess of 100,000 population. Mr. Price recalled several years ago when prisoners in Ely filed a large number of lawsuits and caused a backlog of civil cases. He inquired whether that was still a problem. Chief Justice Steffen indicated the problem is constant in both the state and federal court systems. Approximately 39 percent of cases processed in federal district court are inmate cases. The Chief Justice expressed his support of adopting a system of sanctions regarding inmates who make frivolous petitions. Judge Fondi noted the problem in Ely had eased, particularly in the post conviction area. The maximum security prison seemed to generate most of the post conviction writs. By constitutional amendment, the requirement that all writs of habeas corpus be heard in the place where the prisoner was confined was changed. Writs can now be heard wherever the confinement is attacked. Post conviction writs challenging sentences or convictions are being heard in the court of conviction; this means writs are being dispersed throughout the state to whoever sent the prisoner to a particular facility. This necessitates some transportation costs but has helped ease the caseload in Ely. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether after the merit selection a judge would be required to stand for election at a later date. Chief Justice Steffen said this would be so. Ms. Giunchigliani requested Mr. Mello provide a break-out of what portion of the budget is for the seven district court judges. She asked if the compensation increase provided by S.B. 16 is included in the budget. Mr. Mello responded affirmatively. He added module E801 accounts for salary increases for 39 district court judges. Mrs. Brower indicated it was surprising that additional criminal court judges are not required when seven new family court judges are needed. Mr. Mello said the additional family court judges will handle a backlog of cases in Washoe County and Clark County affecting the family courts. Chief Justice Steffen added that timing is critical in the family courts because many times cases are seen on appeal where at issue is the propriety of the decision changing custody. By the time the Supreme Court hears the case, the question of whether the child has bonded with his or her new family must be considered. Moving children back and forth is very difficult so these matters must be processed in a timely manner. The Court attempts to give these cases priority as the lives of children are at stake and attention must be paid to the needs of the overburdened family courts. Chairman Marvel asked Judge Fondi if he had further comments. Judge Fondi explained the budget for salaries of district court judges affects only those judges who are up for election in 1996. The family court judges are not up for election in 1996 and will not receive those salary increases. The 39 district judges noted by Mr. Mello excludes Judge McGee who serves as a family court judge. Judge Fondi said the salary bill, S.B. 16, was produced by the Salary Assessment Commission. He noted the recommendations of the Commission are soundly based and urged the committee's consideration of them. BOARD OF LAW LIBRARY TRUSTEES - PAGE 137 Mr. Mello stated this budget has traditionally been used to provide mid term salary increases for the district court judges, as contrasted with the Board of Pardons budget which provides mid term increases and salary equalization among the justices. Mr. Mello noted increases for all district court judges were programmed into this budget for the Legislature to determine whether the increases become effective. Chairman Marvel said an opinion by the Legislative Counsel Bureau held that legislation would be required. Mr. Mello concurred that the bill currently pending would require modification to make the program effective. Chairman Marvel inquired whether there was a BDR to cover these increases. Judge Fondi responded he was not aware of one. Mr. Mello also indicated that he knew of no BDR. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether a legislator would bring forth the necessary legislation. Mr. Mello said either a legislator or a family court judge could do this. Ms. Giunchigliani requested a break-out be provided for subcommittee. DISTRICT JUDGES' TRAVEL - PAGE 139 Mr. Mello indicated this budget account receives funding via a $200 peremptory challenge fee assessed at the district court level. Pursuant to the constitution and statute, district judges may be reassigned to different courts by the Supreme Court and this budget account provides reimbursement of associated travel expenses. Mr. Mello noted this account contains a rising surplus. Though it has not been discussed at length with all members of the court, it is proposed to use the surplus to pay for various court improvement projects around the state. Mr. Close asked whether the need for travel would be less if the requested increase for seven district court judges is granted. Mr. Mello said if family court judges are added, they would remain in their respective districts and most likely would not travel. DISTRICT JUDGES' AND WIDOWS' PENSION - PAGE 141 Mr. Mello testified this budget account provides for the pensions of district court judges, their widows and children. There are presently 18 recipients. The budget allows for 20 recipients in the next year and 19 thereafter. Presently nine judges, ten widows and one child receive benefits. The one child will be removed from the system in the second year of the biennium because of age. Mr. Arberry requested explanation of why a SIIS payment of $10,033 was included in the Personal Expense category of this account. Mr. Mello responded the budget system is structured to automatically calculate SIIS payments for any personnel expense. He indicated this dollar amount should be deleted because it will not be assessed. Chairman Marvel indicated staff would make the adjustment. Chief Justice Steffen pointed out an anomaly in the pension system. Retired judges are entitled to a cost of living adjustment after three years as are dependent children, but widows are not. The Chief Justice said it was difficult to understand why widows, whose needs can be greater than those of retired judges, are precluded from cost of living adjustments. Chairman Marvel inquired how long this has been in effect. The Chief Justice indicated he thought from the time an increase from $300 per month to $2,000 per month for widows was implemented. Chairman Marvel asked why this decision had been made. Mr. Mello responded he did not know. Chairman Marvel indicated Chief Justice Steffen made a good point regarding the lack of equity of the arrangement. Judge Fondi clarified the pension only applies to judges who are not members of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Two collateral retirement systems are in effect for judges: one is Judicial Retirement, the other is PERS. Under PERS, widows do receive cost of living increases. The $300 and $2,000 levels are set by the Legislature. District judges' pensions are based on the total number of years of service and salary level during the last year of office. Under PERS, retirement is based on the highest consecutive three years of salary and widows' benefits are paid on the same basis as other PERS members. JUDICIAL EDUCATION - PAGE 143 Mr. Mello indicated this budget account is funded by administrative assessments to provide education to new district judges, justices of the peace and municipal court judges pursuant to statutory requirements. The account also provides funding for judges' continuing legal education. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) holds two seminars per year for limited jurisdiction judges, one seminar per year for district court judges and one seminar per year for court clerks and administrators. Judges make application to AOC to attend other programs at the National Judicial College and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Mr. Mello noted the budget contains a substantial surplus that has been carried forward. An analysis is currently being prepared to determine the amount of surplus at the end of the current year should the committee choose to transfer that surplus elsewhere. Chairman Marvel asked whether the 12 percent nonclassified salary adjustment had been built into this budget. Mr. Mello said the 12 percent adjustment had been included for two positions. It is requested that one position, the Judicial Education Coordinator, be transferred from AOC to this budget account which will decrease the appropriation for AOC. Chairman Marvel asked whether this budget will need to be adjusted if the 12 percent salary adjustment is not approved. Mr. Mello concurred. Chairman Marvel inquired how much of the budget relates to travel. Mr. Mello answered out-of-state travel is minimal as most attendance at educational activities is at the National Judicial College and the Family Court College, both in Reno. Out- of-state travel has increased somewhat because the National Judicial College has increased the number of courses it holds out of state. Mr. Close expressed concern with measurement indicator No. 3, the number of judges trained by AOC funded courses, because the projection decreases in 1995 and personnel expenses increase from $16,629 to $86,377. Mr. Mello said this is the result of transferring of one existing position from another budget account into this one. Mr. Close asked why a position needed to be transferred when the number of training sessions will decrease. Mr. Mello noted the number of training sessions AOC conducts is fixed at five per year. The remainder of the courses attended are selected by individual judges. Mr. Mello added that a position is not being added to the system; there is already a person in AOC performing the work; the expense is being reclassified to avoid requesting a higher appropriation in the AOC budget. Mr. Close requested further detail regarding this transfer be provided to the committee. Mr. Mello agreed. Ms. Giunchigliani requested further detail be provided for subcommittee regarding the requirements for judicial education. Mr. Spitler requested the subcommittee be provided information regarding use of the National Judicial College and the number of courses now being held out of state because testimony of the National Judicial College before the Interim Finance Committee seemed to contradict this. Mr. Mello agreed to provide the information and indicated that probably the National Judicial College is seeing increasing enrollment and physical space limitations may necessitate holding courses out of state. Ms. Giunchigliani asked that the information Mr. Spitler requested also include whether the out-of-state courses are required or optional because there may be no obligation to pay for optional out-of-state courses. Mr. Mello agreed to include this information. COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - PAGE 149 Mr. Mello explained the purpose of this budget account is to respond to a grant being made available by the Department of Health and Human Resources regarding foster care and adoptions in state courts. He indicated the budget does not include explanation of the work program year information regarding the availability of $80,876 in federal funds that do not require matching funds. These funds would provide for an assessment of the state court system relative to foster care and adoptions. Future year funds are for development of a plan to address any problems identified. Mr. Mello remarked the Division of Welfare has also applied for its share of these grant funds. The state courts would work in cooperation with the Welfare Division, the Legislature and local officials to identify problems with the foster care and adoption programs in the state. Chairman Marvel inquired how long the federal funds would be available. Mr. Mello responded through FY 99 and no perpetuation of the program is anticipated. Chairman Marvel cautioned against becoming locked into a program when federal funds cease. Mr. Mello responded the program contains no requirement that any problems identified be resolved. Ms. Tiffany asked whether discussion at the federal level of building orphanages would impact funds related to foster care and adoption services. Mr. Mello responded he had not examined this possibility and noted the Welfare Division might be a more appropriate agency to answer this question. Ms. Tiffany said Myla Florence, Welfare Administrator, was currently in Washington, D.C. discussing these issues, and observed a program to study foster care and adoption might not be appropriate with potential changes regarding the institution of orphanages. Mr. Mello said the grant had not yet been applied for but the deadline was March 30. He said Ms. Tiffany's point was well taken and the issue would be examined before applying for the grant. Chief Justice Steffen observed discussion was conjectural at this point; however, Congress appears to be moving in a direction of being very selective regarding programs it will continue to fund. Mr. Close asked whether the federal government required a mission statement and objectives relating to the proposed grant. Mr. Mello responded affirmatively and noted this was the purpose of the first year's expenditure. The $80,876 that should be reflected in the work program would be for formulation of the mission statement. Mr. Close inquired when the mission statement would be done. Mr. Mello said the grant was due to the federal government by March 30 and then 12 months would be allowed for the assessment. Mr. Close confirmed the mission statement would not be available to the committee before the budget is closed. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the family courts handle foster care and adoption. Mr. Mello said the family courts in Washoe and Clark Counties do handle these matters. In other counties, the district courts have responsibility. Ms. Giunchigliani asked who would oversee the program. Mr. Mello indicated the Judicial Education Coordinator is currently working on the grant. It is planned to find an individual experienced in the area to serve as the executive director. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether coordination with the Department of Human Resources and Child and Family Services would take place to ensure duplication of effort did not occur. Mr. Mello responded this was a requirement of the grant. Ms. Giunchigliani noted the $80,876 assessment funds were "soft" and asked whether the $113,000 implementation funds were also "soft." Mr. Mello said no, the implementation funds must be matched by $37,000 per year, and that the possibility of matching with in-kind money was being explored. Ms. Giunchigliani asked when the assessment would be finished. Mr. Mello responded within one year. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the $113,000 implementation money was actually needed in FY 96. Mr. Mello said this would have to be researched. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated nothing should be implemented until all the requirements were ascertained. Mr. Mello agreed. Mr. Mello distributed a document entitled "Summary of State Court Improvement Program" (Exhibit C). Mr. Fettic noted item XVIII, number 6 of Exhibit C reflected that a statement needed to be provided indicating how the state court plans to continue to improve its systems after the conclusion of federal funding. He added item XIV indicated there was no obligation to carry forward any activities after completion of the implementation phase. He indicated these two items seemed contradictory. Mr. Mello said he would have staff research that inconsistency. JUDICIAL SELECTION - PAGE 151 Mr. Mello explained this budget account funds the Commission on Judicial Selection. The Commission is called into service whenever a midterm vacancy on the Supreme Court or District court occurs. An increase in funds is requested because it has become more costly for the Commission to conduct its business and there are a number of judges of retirement age. The estimated increase in funds would provide for two selections in each fiscal year. Mr. Hettrick asked why the measurement indicators project zero when there are potentially seven new judges. Mr. Mello responded the measurement indicators were incorrect. However, all the vacancies could be handled through two selection processes and funds in the budget should be sufficient. Chairman Marvel invited comment from Chief Justice Steffen. The Chief Justice indicated he wished to respond to Justice Rose's comments made during the hearing of February 23 regarding expanding the Supreme Court by two additional justices. The Chief Justice observed that talking with Judge Proctor Hug of the 9th Circuit led Justice Rose to believe that sitting in two panels would be an easy solution. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is an intermediate appellate court and it is very easy for intermediate appellate courts to sit in panels. If the Supreme Court were to be expanded by two justices and to sit in panels, the Court would in effect be made both an intermediate appellate court in effect and a Supreme Court. When conflicts occurred between the two panels, there would have to be an appeal to the full court. The Chief Justice stated every study with which he is familiar indicates this is not a workable solution. Chief Justice Steffen said Justice Rose also indicated that the Judicial Assessment Commission recommended the two additional justices. However, the report actually states that adding two justices would be a short term solution to a long term problem. The Chief Justice said in his opinion, adding two justices would not even be a short term solution. He noted the report did state an intermediate appellate court sitting in panels of three can more easily be changed in size and would have the flexibility to adjust to changing conditions. Chief Justice Steffen indicated he wished to make clear the report does not recommend expanding the Court by two justices. He added the Legislature has twice previously passed this proposal to the voters and that the Supreme Court is at fault for not educating the public. The public needs to be informed that the purpose is to dispense timely justice to the citizens of the state. Chairman Marvel requested an estimate of the backlog of civil cases. Chief Justice Steffen responded the total backlog is in excess of 1,300 cases and continues to grow. He noted the estimate of 1,248 on page 103 of the Executive Budget was short by nearly 100 cases. Actual case inventory at the end of calendar year 1994 was 1,334 cases, up from 860 in 1992. The Court has concluded it is nearly impossible to responsibly process more than 1,100 cases per year. Chairman Marvel called for public testimony regarding the budgets heard. With no public testimony, he closed the hearing on Supreme Court budgets. ASSEMBLY BILL 7 Transfers commission on postsecondary education from department of business and industry to department of education. Rose McKinney-James, Director of the Department of Business and Industry, spoke in support of A.B. 7. Ms. McKinney-James observed the Commission on Postsecondary Education had previously been in the Department of Education and fit very well with the structure of that department. Chairman Marvel inquired whether this transfer had been discussed last session. Ms. Giunchigliani noted the transfer had not been discussed but the question of whether the Commission needed to remain in existence had been raised. David Perlman, Administrator for the Commission on Postsecondary Education, explained the Commission consists of seven members appointed by the Governor. The Commission has four staff members. The schools regulated by the Commission number 104, teach 107 subjects and enroll approximately 15,000 new students each year. Mr. Perlman distributed a document entitled "Testimony on A.B. 7" (Exhibit D). Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education, testified the State Board of Education supports A.B. 7 and on June 24, 1994, the Board voted unanimously to accept the Commission within the Department of Education. Mr. Rheault submitted written testimony, attached as Exhibit E. Ms. Giunchigliani requested the names of the Commissioners be submitted to the committee. Mr. Perlman indicated the information would be forthcoming. Chairman Marvel inquired how the Commission and the State Board of Education would interact. Mr. Rheault indicated the Commission would continue to operate independently to oversee the private proprietary schools and would probably meet once a year with the State Board of Education. Mr. Perlman noted a requirement that one of the Commissioners be a member of the State Board of Education. Chairman Marvel called for public testimony on A.B. 7. There was no public testimony. ASSEMBLY BILL 73 Makes appropriation to Pershing County for expenses related to trial of Michael Sonner. Chairman Marvel indicated handouts had been provided in the form of a letter from James J. Jackson, Nevada State Public Defender (Exhibit F) and a listing of expenses to date relating to the trial of Michael Sonner from John Laca, Recorder and Auditor for Pershing County (Exhibit G). Belinda Quilici, District Attorney for Pershing County, reported she was in attendance to request financial assistance for Pershing County for the prosecution of Michael Sonner. The trial has been very expensive because it is a death penalty case. Ms. Quilici explained Pershing County has a population of less than 5,000 and has financial problems every year. Pershing County also contains a large portion of Interstate 80 which brings a significant amount of crime to the county. Chairman Marvel requested background explanation of the case. Ms. Quilici related November 30, 1993, near 8:30 p.m. Trooper Carlos Borland was patrolling in Churchill County on Interstate 80 when he received a radio message regarding a gas skip from Trinity, a gas station off Interstate 80 near the Fallon cut-off, approximately 25 miles west of Lovelock. The report received by Trooper Borland alerted him to look for a red Blazer which he caught up with one mile east of Lovelock where he pulled the vehicle over and ran the license plate per routine procedure. The license plate report matched the car and provided no warning the vehicle was stolen. The Tennessee license plates on the vehicle were also stolen but had not been reported stolen. Trooper Borland approached the driver's side of the vehicle and was shot immediately in the head. A trucker driver passing at the time Trooper Borland fell to the ground saw the Blazer pull away. The trucker pulled over, went to Trooper Borland's car and radioed for help. The Blazer was found the next morning in Dixie Valley in a remote area of Churchill County. At 10 p.m. that night, Mr. Sonner was located in a mountainous area near Dixie Valley following an extensive search by many law enforcement agencies. The resulting trial in Pershing County requested and received the death penalty. Ms. Quilici noted death penalty cases are very expensive and the financial impact on the Pershing County budget has been severe. The County requests assistance because Trooper Borland was a state officer. Mr. Arberry asked in the event of a similar occurrence in the future, whether the trial could be transferred to a larger county more financially able to absorb the costs. Ms. Quilici responded the county where a crime takes place is where the trial must be held. The only way a trial can be moved to another county is a change of venue because of publicity; however, the county where the crime took place would still be required to bear the trial costs. Mr. Arberry asked whether legislation was required to allow for the transfer of such cases to larger counties. Ms. Quilici indicated other counties would most likely not consider it fair to bear the cost of a trial for a crime that took place in another county. Mr. Dini noted there is precedence to provide financial assistance for the trial. He recalled a case in the 1970's when financial assistance for a murder trial was provided to Lyon County. Mr. Dini expressed the view that providing financial assistance helps the county administer justice; plea bargaining because there are insufficient funds is a poor alternative. Ms. Giunchigliani commended Ms. Quilici for her handling of the case and questioned whether any other counties had been reimbursed for trial costs. She inquired whether assistance was being requested because the victim was a State Trooper and if so, would this create a precedent. She remarked that perhaps a special fund within the Attorney General's Office should be created. Mr. Dini indicated the same issue had been raised twenty years ago. He stated the question was whether justice should be left subject to financial constraints or whether all crimes should be prosecuted equally. A "prosecution fund" could be created for situations of this type; however, these cases are rare and he questioned the necessity for creating a special fund. Mr. Price indicated he would favor the appropriation. He noted locations along major interstate highways have caused problems in many states. Mr. Price asked whether Mr. Sonner had been convicted and given a death sentence. Ms. Quilici responded affirmatively and noted the case was currently being appealed. Mr. Price asked whether Pershing County is responsible for the appeals. Ms. Quilici answered yes and noted if a post conviction appeal is filed after the first appeal, her office would also be responsible for that. Any further appeals would be handled by the Attorney General's Office. She indicated the Pershing County District Attorney's Office would probably be involved with the case for another two to three years; however, there would not be many additional costs associated with the appeal. Mr. Close expressed his agreement with Ms. Giunchigliani that consideration needed to be given regarding setting a precedent and how to deal with the process. Ms. Tiffany expressed her support for the bill and concurred with Ms. Giunchigliani's and Mr. Close's concerns. She observed perhaps the committee should consider a bill from the highway fund, gasoline tax or another way to set aside money for a contingency fund. Mr. Allard asked whether the expense sheet (Exhibit G) contained the exact amount of expenses incurred thus far. Ms. Quilici answered the current total is $119,671.81. Mr. Allard noted A.B. 73 requests $118,000. Ms. Quilici indicated A.B. 73 did not require amendment for the additional amount. Mr. Allard inquired whether the appropriation would have been requested if the victim had not been a State Trooper. Ms. Quilici responded it probably would not have been. Mr. Allard asked what the impact would be on Pershing County if the appropriation was not approved. Ms. Quilici responded County expenditures exceed revenues by $600,000. The County has very few reserves and the expenses would have to be taken from the building fund or another area. Mr. Allard expressed support for the appropriation but noted plans need to be made for any such future occurrences. Ms. Quilici observed it might be a good idea to set up a fund to help counties prosecute offenses against state law enforcement officers. Chairman Marvel observed he had requested the District Attorney keep meticulous records of the costs because the victim was a state highway patrolman and it was the responsibility of the state of Nevada to pay for the trial. Mr. Allard responded provisions may be required to cover expenses for all victims in such cases. Mr. Fettic expressed his support of setting up a special fund. Chairman Marvel called for public testimony. There was none. ASSEMBLY BILL 193 Makes appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada for Cheyenne and West Charleston campuses of Community College of Southern Nevada. Roger Grable, Deputy Manager for the State Public Works Board, spoke in support of A.B. 193 on behalf of the University and Community College System of Nevada and the Community College of Southern Nevada. Mr. Grable reported the State Public Works Board heard testimony from the University System which prioritized each project to be included in the Capital Improvement Program. This $6 million appropriation was the number one priority on that list and is designed to provide certain furnishings and computers for two buildings under construction in Southern Nevada at community college campuses. The State Public Works Board approved this request as the number one priority and it was submitted as part of the Capital Improvement Project. Mr. Grable testified that in the interest of starting the project on time and providing service to students, it was determined these items should be purchased ahead of time and not made a part of the Capital Improvement Program. Chairman Marvel inquired when the building was anticipated to open. Mr. Grable explained two buildings are involved. The Phase V building on the Cheyenne campus is scheduled to open in August of 1995, but may be delayed until the fall. The Phase III building on the Charleston Campus is scheduled to open in January of 1996. Both buildings are computer based training facilities and total 172,000 square feet. Orlando Sandoval, Community College of Southern Nevada, explained present construction schedules reflect Phase V on the Cheyenne Campus being completed June 18 to allow time to prepare for fall classes. Phase III on the Charleston Campus is actually three separate structures. The first structure to be completed is a primary care clinic and expanded dental hygiene program clinic, scheduled for completion in June of 1995. Mr. Sandoval indicated ordering the volume of equipment required involves a great deal of time; however, specifications for the equipment have been developed as many items go through a bid process taking four to six weeks in State Purchasing and a period of months until the product is received. Chairman Marvel asked whether Prison Industries could provide some of the furniture. Mr. Sandoval indicated meetings with Prison Industries were under way to discuss specifications. Mr. Arberry requested a more detailed report of how many computers would be used. Mr. Sandoval agreed to provide the information. Mr. Allard asked whether Prison Industries was competitive. Mr. Sandoval responded they were at times. Mr. Allard then inquired whether Prison Industries would negotiate. Mr. Sandoval responded negatively and noted that Prison Industries could be a very good program but probably needed further development. Mr. Allard confirmed the $6 million request is not in addition to the budget but is to accelerate the process. Ms. Tiffany requested additional information regarding the computer purchases be provided in the form of scope of works and implementation plan. Mr. Sandoval indicated the information would be forthcoming. Mr. Price questioned lines 10 and 11 in the bill which state: "This act becomes effective upon passage and approval or on June 30, 1995, whichever occurs earlier." Chairman Marvel responded this appropriation needs to be made during the current fiscal year. Mr. Stevens indicated in prior sessions, one-time appropriations which were to be effective on passage and approval have been passed after July 1, causing funds to be taken from the first year of the biennium. Normally those bills made effective on passage and approval come from surplus funds and are appropriated from the current fiscal year. If the Legislature meets beyond July 1, the language in A.B. 193 will ensure funds are taken from the current fiscal year, as intended. Mr. Price expressed concern that the language did not allow for a bill to be killed. Mr. Dini remarked language of this type was required to make sure funds were taken from the current fiscal year's surplus. Mr. Allard said the language appeared to state the bill would be become effective even if it was not approved. If the bill were approved after June 30, the language would be incorrect and would need amendment. Mr. Close asked whether the University System would amend the next biennial budget to reflect a reduction if A.B. 193 passes. Mr. Stevens said this appropriation would not be included in the University and Community College System of Nevada's operating budget. The expenditure under consideration is a one-time equipment cost and would not continue into the next biennium. Mr. Spitler questioned whether the funds would be removed from the capital improvement budget next time. Mr. Stevens answered the $6 million has been extracted from the Capital Improvement Project to expedite the equipment purchase so fall classes can be scheduled in those buildings. Mr. Spitler concurred with Mr. Price regarding the bill language and noted the words "if approved" should be included. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed language specifying "if approved" needs to be included. Mr. Dini asked that Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, be called to the hearing to provide explanation regarding the new bill language. Mr. Price reiterated his concern regarding the language "This act becomes effective upon passage and approval or on June 30, 1995, whichever occurs earlier." Ms. Erdoes assured Mr. Price that the bill would not take effect without the Legislature taking action. In order for a bill to become effective, the Constitution of the State of Nevada requires that the Legislature take action and that the Governor sign the bill. Any provision regarding an effective date cannot overrule those two requirements. Ms. Erdoes remarked the language is new but a bill cannot become effective unless the Legislature enacts the bill and the Governor signs it. Mr. Price questioned how the language would work if the Governor did not sign the bill until after July 1. Ms. Erdoes indicated the effect would be retroactive so funds would come from the current fiscal year. Mr. Stevens said in the state's accounting records, funds would be transferred as of June 30 and the money would come from surplus funds rather than ongoing revenues. Mr. Price expressed concern regarding confusion from a future historical research perspective. Ms. Giunchigliani requested Ms. Erdoes research whether a qualifier needed to be added to the bill language such as "or if approved" because this may clarify that a vote must take place for the bill to become effective. Mr. Allard observed that the language seemed to assume the bill would be voted on before June 30. Ms. Erdoes said a large number of bills contained this language and she knew the language would have the desired effect. Mr. Allard reiterated the situation would be confusing because the language says June 30 and if the bill is not voted on until July 1 or later, it appears the bill becomes effective before a vote. Ms. Erdoes responded that any action taken needs to be attributed back to June 30 in order to meet the requirements for the current fiscal year surplus to be used. The Legislature had the ability to make a bill retroactive. She added that the language has already been proved effective. Mr. Stevens said language used previously stated the act became effective on passage and approval. When sessions extended past June 30, the money committees had to amend a large number of bills to the language used in A.B. 193. This took a great deal of time at the end of the session in order to ensure the dollars came out of surplus funds rather than the first year of the biennium. The language has been used in the past; it was amended into the bills once it was determined the session would go beyond July 1. The Legislative Counsel has put the language into the one-shot bills to eliminate the possibility of the money committees having to amend a large number of one-shot bills at the end of the session. Mr. Hettrick commented the act specified an effective date; it did not state the bill became law. He wondered whether the words "effective on passage and approval and to come out of X fiscal year" would be more clear. Ms. Erdoes indicated this would be possible; however, the language in the bills is guaranteed to work. Mr. Price remarked if the language pertained to a bill dealing with criminal law, enforcement would be very difficult. He observed making the historical record correct is very important because it is the history of what happens in Nevada. Mr. Stevens responded the only bills this language applies to are one-shot appropriations and supplemental appropriations. Ms. Erdoes observed the language would not be used in a criminal statute. The language has been used in other statutes and has been upheld. She emphasized whatever language the Legislature desired would be used; however, this language has been used before and construed correctly. Ms. Giunchigliani remarked if there is concern about the historical record, legislative intent could be included in the record. A significant cost would be involved in staff time to amend the language in every bill and it would be just as effective to note legislative intent for the record during the floor statement. Mr. Dini emphasized that Ms. Erdoes is Legislative Counsel and her job is to make certain that laws passed by the Legislature comply with the Constitution and legislative intent. Her statement to this committee or a legal opinion for the journal should be sufficient guarantee of the effectiveness of the bill language. Chairman Marvel indicated he was satisfied with Ms. Erdoes' opinion. ASSEMBLY BILL 126 Makes supplemental appropriation to division of forestry of state department of conservation and natural resources for certain expenses relating to helicopters for use during fire season. Peter Morros, Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, introduced Roy Trenowith, State Forester, and Pat Ross, Chief Pilot for the Division of Forestry. Mr. Morros spoke in support of A.B. 126 which provides a supplemental appropriation for air operations. He distributed a document entitled "AB 126, Nevada Division of Forestry Air Operations Supplemental Appropriation Detail" (Exhibit H). Mr. Trenowith testified this supplemental appropriation would allow both helicopters to be made operational prior to the upcoming fire season. He distributed a memo from the Boise Interagency Fire Center (Exhibit I) stating that agencies must be self-sufficient. This appropriation would also allow a second pilot to become proficient and become licensed in the helicopter program. Ms. Tiffany remarked a summer employee of the Division of Forestry informed her volunteer firefighters were not properly trained in helicopter boarding safety procedures and that helicopters sat idle because of a lack of site coordination among different agencies. Mr. Ross responded the Division operates under the Interagency Helicopter Operations Guide. Prior to any passengers being boarded they are briefed on helicopter operation and safety procedures and are assisted in boarding and with off loading. Normally during water dropping operations only the pilot is on board to reduce the load in the helicopter and to enhance safety. Mr. Ross added last year and this year, more training in helicopter operations has been scheduled for volunteers. Mr. Close questioned whether any additional repairs beyond those listed in Exhibit H were anticipated. Mr. Ross responded the helicopter maintenance schedule is well established and components are changed at timed intervals. A large number of parts are acquired from federal excess property at no cost to the state other than shipping. Basic maintenance costs are included in the budget. A.B. 126 provides for a cost that will not recur for approximately two legislative sessions. The conversion for the second helicopter is a fixed cost that will never recur. Mr. Hettrick referred to Exhibit I and asked whether the 168 canceled requests for 1994 included private suppliers. Mr. Ross said this figure included all suppliers, both public and private. Mr. Hettrick said the federal government distributed a bulletin on January 24, 1995, indicating rules public aircraft must follow if other agencies are billed. These rules must be considered before more money is spent on helicopters. Mr. Hettrick asked whether the state would own helicopter N545DF. Mr. Ross responded affirmatively. Mr. Hettrick added that N205DF, obtained through the Federal Excess Property Program, is on loan and can be returned to the federal government if it becomes cost prohibitive. Mr. Hettrick referred to Interim Finance Committee hearings when Mr. Turner indicated that NDF "was not now nor would it be back during this biennium asking for an increase in operating because all of the funding necessary to continue this program was contained in NDF's base level budgets for `94 and `95." In answer to a question about retrofitting and operation, "Mr. Turner apprised the committee NDF has existing maintenance money to continue the helicopter program since the NDF will merely be exchanging one helicopter for the other existing ones. Mr. Turner contended the costs of insurance, fuel, operating and routine maintenance were already in the budget." Mr. Hettrick added that now a routinely scheduled "hot section" which must be done every 600 hours is included in the one-shot appropriations and the budget is being augmented by $13,785 to pay for that. Also, Mr. Turner testified before the Interim Finance Committee that NDF anticipated flying the helicopter 150 hours annually and the remaining time before the engine required an overhaul was 1455 hours, or more than nine years of flight time. Mr. Hettrick stated these items were both clearly scheduled routine maintenance, yet Mr. Turner had testified no more operating money would be required. Mr. Hettrick pointed out $13,685 was requested to replace a landing gear skid and cross tubes for N205DF, but no funds were requested to add the same equipment to N545DF. He asked whether additional funds would be required to replace the skids on N545DF. Mr. Ross responded NDF would not be back to request funds for skids on N545DF. Mr. Hettrick asked why the skids need to be replaced on N205DF. Mr. Ross explained the skids become dented and damaged with use. N545DF is a 1970 model and has good remaining life while N205DF is a 1964 model. Mr. Hettrick said the same promises had been made about N205DF. Mr. Ross said the supplemental appropriation contained items normally contained in category 30, budget 4195. That budget category has been eliminated and in light of last year's early fire season, NDF wants to be prepared. Chairman Marvel asked whether the category 30 money reverted. Mr. Ross responded affirmatively. Mr. Trenowith explained category 30 money was used for maintenance of planes and helicopters; items normally paid from category 30 are in this bill or the one-shot appropriation. He added the one-shot appropriation was in currently in BDR form. Mr. Morros said some representations had been made to Mr. Hettrick. The thrust of A.B. 126 is to do the maintenance now so the helicopters will be ready when fire season starts. The requested appropriations would have been in the NDF budget for the next biennium; however, it is necessary to get the maintenance done so a helicopter is not out of commission during fire season. Mr. Hettrick observed the funding should be in the form of a one-shot appropriation. He expressed his concern that the expense will become ongoing and if so, the committee should be given that information. Mr. Hettrick stated it would be better to know now than to later request supplementals and one-shots and increase the expense of the program. Mr. Morros indicated his understanding. Mr. Allard asked how much the helicopters save. Mr. Ross said based on the number of flight hours on wild land fire suppression, the hourly rate worked out to $450 per hour; however, that rate will be raised somewhat. A commercial civilian rate is approximately $1,000 to $1,400 per hour with a minimum four hour a day guarantee. Mr. Allard asked what would happen if the state did not have the helicopters. Mr. Ross said it would take longer to bring fires under control. Mr. Allard confirmed NDF indicated additional funds would not be requested for two legislative sessions. Mr. Morros said that statement was in reference to the "hot sections" which are a matter of routine maintenance and have to be done every 600 hours. Based on experience from last fire season, one helicopter accumulated just under 150 hours during the fire season. If the level of use remains the same, the engines would require hot sections every four years. Mr. Morros added if this year's fire season is more active than last year's, the maintenance schedule may change as the helicopters are used for more hours. He indicated the schedule of a hot section every four years could change if the helicopters receive more use. Mr. Morros emphasized that safety is the priority and if a hot section is required three years from now, NDF will request additional funding. Ms. Tiffany asked how helicopter service has been handled over the last twenty years. Mr. Trenowith explained prior to obtaining the two current helicopters, two Bell helicopters were brought into service in the late 1970's. Ms. Tiffany observed there appeared to be significant cross services because county, other state and federal assistance was used. Mr. Morros said the helicopters were acquired because they are a very effective and efficient addition to fire suppression. In at least one instance, the helicopter, water bucket and an available source of water resulted in a fire being extinguished in Washoe Valley and limited to less than twenty acres when it had a much greater potential. Ms. Tiffany observed that if the state needs to be in the helicopter business for fire suppression, it should be supported and should be cost effective and efficient. Mr. Morros explained owning helicopters gave NDF a great deal of flexibility in effective fire suppression. The helicopters are flown for fires, to keep pilots proficient and for training. Utilizing commercial vendors requires substantial expenditures of money for stand-by time. Mr. Dini noted safety is the important factor and the helicopters must be maintained. The helicopters saved the homes of approximately 5,000 people during the fire near Topaz Ranch Estates last year. Mr. Dini complimented NDF and noted expenses associated with the helicopters is minimal compared to the potential fire loss. Until the cost becomes prohibitive, NDF should be funded for the helicopter maintenance. Mr. Hettrick also complimented NDF for their work at the Topaz Ranch Estates fire. He pointed out that stand-by contract helicopters are usually paid by government agencies that already have the helicopter on stand-by for their use so if the state uses the helicopter, it pays only the hourly rate. Mr. Hettrick emphasized the federal bulletin indicates the potential of the state not being allowed to bill $45,000 in operating costs to the federal government. The exact effect of the bulletin needs to be determined because it also seems to state that the helicopters cannot be flown for any civil use. Chairman Marvel requested Mr. Trenowith provide a written response addressing the issues raised in the federal bulletin. Mr. Trenowith agreed to do this. Chairman Marvel called for any further testimony. With no response, he closed the hearing on A.B. 126. ASSEMBLY BILL 129 Makes supplemental appropriation to division of forestry of state department of conservation and natural resources for additional staff and equipment for state administrative office. Peter Morros, Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, spoke in support of A.B. 129 which is a supplemental appropriation for an additional three positions and equipment to bolster the fiscal and budget management staff in the Division of Forestry. Mr. Morros explained budget management problems in the Division of Forestry required additional fiscal and budgetary support. The budget management deficiencies have arisen over the past two years, partially associated with the loss of personnel since 1992 and the reassignment of budget and fiscal responsibilities to fire suppression and conservation camp personnel who lacked the necessary training and skills. Internal control and monitoring has been insufficient. Mr. Morros said the Chief of Administrative Services and an additional accountant from the director's office have been diverted to the issues that have arisen within the Division of Forestry over the last six months. This has resulted in other Divisions in the department not receiving appropriate oversight. Nearly 700 hours of overtime have been accumulated by the two staff in the director's office. Chairman Marvel said he understood the three positions would be within the director's office. Mr. Morros said the Management Analyst III and the Accountant Specialist would be under the direct supervision of the Chief of Administrative Services in the director's office. The Management Assistant I would be in the Division of Forestry. Chairman Marvel called for public testimony. There being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 129. ASSEMBLY BILL 127 Makes supplemental appropriation to division of agriculture of department of business and industry for additional veterinary medical services. Jack N. Armstrong, D.V.M., Acting Administrator, Division of Agriculture, Department of Business and Industry, presented for consideration a supplemental appropriation to compensate for Division of Agriculture overspending in the veterinary medical services budget in the amount of $2,197.62. Dr. Armstrong distributed three documents. One was a list of vendors the Division was unable to compensate in FY 94 (Exhibit J). Dr. Armstrong indicated there were no funds to revert from that budget. The over expenditure caused the Division accounting office to fall several months behind in processing expenditures and revenue and a shortfall occurred in anticipated revenue. Dr. Armstrong called attention to a document entitled "Department of Business and Industry, Agriculture Division Audit Report" (Exhibit K) which identifies the Internal Audit Division's findings with regard to fiscal overspending. Dr. Armstrong then referred to a document entitled "Animal Industry, Statement of Operations as of February 10, 1995" (Exhibit L) which refers to the accounting system developed within the Bureau to prevent fiscal overspending in the future. Chairman Marvel inquired whether internal controls had been established. Dr. Armstrong responded the Bureau had done so and establishment of internal controls was being actively pursued in the Division. Chairman Marvel called for public testimony. There was none. Chairman Marvel expressed his intent to take action on A.B. 73. ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 73. ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the policy issue would be discussed at some point. Chairman Marvel indicated this would be done. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Marvel called for a motion on A.B. 193. ASSEMBLYMAN CHOWNING MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 193. ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Giunchigliani requested fiscal staff provide an analysis regarding all bills dealing with computer funding for the University and Community College System of Nevada. Mr. Stevens said A.B. 193 provides computer equipment for two buildings nearing completion on the Community College of Southern Nevada campuses. The $20 million one-shot appropriation is not related to A.B. 193. He indicated an analysis of all computer equipment requested by UCCSN would be provided. Chairman Marvel said he would introduce A.B. 73 during Assembly Floor Session and requested Mr. Arberry introduce A.B. 193. Mr. Arberry reminded committee members to check their bill assignments. Mr. Stevens indicated staff would indicate bill assignments on the bill write-ups. With no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Marvel adjourned the hearing at 10:28 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _______________________________________ Deborah Salaber, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means February 27, 1995 Page