MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session June 17, 1995 The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 10:41 a.m., on Saturday, June 17, 1995, Chairman 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Larry L. Peri, Program Analyst Gary L. Ghiggeri, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst * * * * * SENATE BILL 416 - Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. Chairman Marvel recalled the committee heard extensive testimony on S.B. 416 previously. ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY MOVED DO PASS S.B. 416. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 364 - Authorizes administrative assessment for misdemeanors to cover costs of providing court facilities. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, introduced himself and Doug Dickerson, from the City of Las Vegas, City Manager's Office, both supporting A.B. 364. Mr. Graham stated A.B. 364 was not a mandatory measure, nor will it entirely address the needs of the Criminal Justice Center contemplated in Clark County. However, A.B. 364 does apply only to Clark County and it is anticipated the bill will be a revenue source to supplement the building of a Criminal Justice Center which will combine the municipal and justice courts within Clark County. Chairman Marvel requested confirmation the fees set forth in A.B. 364 would be in addition to the present administrative fee. Mr. Graham stated that was correct. However, the concept of the Criminal Justice Center was optional based on the city and county agreeing on how the space in the new center will be shared between them. Mr. Graham clarified there is a 25-year cap on administrative fees so if there is a bonding issue before the public, that period of time would be covered. Further, the space will not be utilized to furnish judges' chambers. Doug Dickerson, City of Las Vegas, concurred the city and county have been working on the concept of a justice center for approximately one year and are very supportive of the concept. Mr. Dickerson informed many justices are operating court out of portable buildings and a new facility is necessary. Further, the persons breaking the law should pay for the constructIon of new court facilities through assessment fees rather than requiring law-abiding citizens to pay for such facilities. Mrs. Chowning asked if the center would apply to any city within the county, including Henderson, North Las Vegas, etc. Also, she inquired as to the administration of the expenditures noting the track record in the area of collecting fine monies has not been very good in the past. Mr. Graham acknowledged Mrs. Chowning's concerns. Mr. Graham indicated an inter-governmental agreement between the city and the county would be necessary. Therefore, the bonding mechanism and collection standards would be overseen by the governing body of those two units rather than the courts. Mr. Spitler asked how these type of buildings are funded currently. Mr. Dickerson answered they are built by funding from bond issues from all taxpayers. Mr. Spitler asked if the bill provides for an additional assessment for additional bonds. Mr. Dickerson responded the fee would go into a special fund and the special fund would then be used to pay off the bonds for the building. Chairman Marvel asked if it would be a revenue bond and Mr. Dickerson stated yes. Mr. Spitler asked if the fees would pay off a new bond or an existing revenue bond. Mr. Dickerson answered it would be a new bond. Mr. Spitler asked how large the bond would be. Mr. Graham interjected it would likely be a $25 million to $30 million bond issue yet it would depend on the terms of the inter-governmental agreement. Mr. Graham emphasized it was not anticipated the fees collected would fully pay the payment on the revenue bond but rather would be a supplemental payment. On a side note, Mr. Graham stated citizens are oftentimes lost because they show up at the wrong courthouse and then warrants are issued based on non-appearance. He sees A.B. 364 as very helpful in assisting the courts and the citizens of Nevada. Mr. Spitler asked what types of funds would be included to pay off the bond. Mr. Graham replied the funds would come either from the general fund or a property tax levy. Mr. Spitler clarified the bill would only apply if the inter-local agreement is reached regarding the building. Mr. Graham agreed and it would only come into effect if all factors are in place. Ms. Giunchigliani stated in reading the bill it appears the funds can be used for more than just the construction of the facility, reading from the bill, ". . . a) acquire land, construct, . . . renovate or remodel and acquire furniture . . . put in advanced technology." Continuing, Ms. Giunchigliani suggested if the funds are to be used for just construction of the facility the language should be more clear or is the intent to do these other items as well? Mr. Graham replied the goal is for the construction of the the justice center. However, the possibility of renovation of existing facilities in smaller courts could be present. The goal is to have an inter- governmental agreement for Clark County and Las Vegas. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed but pointed out the bill did not read that way and more specificity may be required for clarification purposes. Ms. Giunchigliani informed there was a bill in the Senate regarding uniform assessment collections and apparently there is dissension among the judges who would like to use that money for something other than court assessments. She asked Mr. Graham if he had an interaction with that Senate bill. Mr. Graham declared the Senate bill so referred and A.B. 364 are entirely separate and apart and contained different concepts. Ms. Giunchigliani expressed her concern that amendments may be brought forth to the Senate bill which would allow the judges to use the assessed fees for renovations to their offices. Chairman Marvel announced the committee would have to watch for that in order to maintain uniformity throughout the state of Nevada on the collection and disposition of fees. Further, he announced an amendment would be necessary to A.B. 364 and asked Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, to discuss the same. Mr. Stevens pointed out the amendment would be required at page two, line 15, as the statute citation should be NRS 176.059, not NRS 179.059. Mr. Price noted a couple areas which remained unclear. For example, the bill discusses municipal courts and justice courts throughout Clark County whereby an inter-governmental agreement would involve the city agreeing with the state, or the county agreeing with the state. He asked if the mechanics of an inter- governmental agreement had been completely thought out. Mr. Price reminded a disagreement exists currently wherein the City of North Las Vegas, Judge Garrett, has refused to send money to the Supreme Court on fees because of a jurisdictional issue. In conclusion, Mr. Price indicated he could see some problems in this area and inquired as to how the justice center would aid people living in Laughlin, or Mesquite since they would then be required to drive to Las Vegas to attend court. Mr. Graham replied there was no agreement between the county or city to do anything at this point. However, if an agreement was reached between the city and county, the ability of the justice courts to sit in Jean, Laughlin, Boulder City, or Searchlight to hear and determine cases would not be affected. Also, Henderson just completed a huge complex which combines the city and county functions. Mr. Graham commented the issue of distribution and collection of fees is contained in another bill before this Legislature so A.B. 364 is not the bill to address that issue. Ms. Tiffany asked when A.B. 364 was conceived. Mr. Dickerson responded A.B. 364 was conceived by the City of Las Vegas last session but it was late in the session and they were unable to get it introduced. During the interim, the city and county developed the concept of a justice center. Ms. Tiffany asked if an advisory committee had been comprised to study the issue. Ms. Tiffany remarked the bill has definite conflicts, especially subsections 6 and 7 and inquired if the discussion of an inter-local agreement with enabling legislation could commence. Mr. Dickerson, responding to Ms. Tiffany, stated a group was formed comprised of city and municipal court and justice court individuals who worked on this issue for nine months. Ms. Tiffany asked why that groups' data and study were not provided to the committee and why was a person from that committee not present to testify. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, interjected that testimony was presented before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on those issues. Further, the bill was heard early in the session and although the bill did not have any problems, other problems delayed the movement of the bill to the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. Tiffany reiterated her comments about enabling legislation. Mr. Graham expressed disagreement thereto. Mr. Fettic pointed out the bill should not be in the Ways and Means Committee as no fiscal impact was present. Aside from that, however, he wondered with regard to Section 1, lines 5-6, the language implicates the bond can be imposed for not more than 25 years; yet, going to page three of the bill, line 23, it talks about any money left after five years can be used for continued maintenance. Mr. Graham asserted Marvin Leavitt indicated it would take a period of time to get the bond issue activated so the 25 year period is necessary for this purpose. Mrs. Evans stated the 25-year time frame was puzzling and asked what calculations have been done by the two courts in terms of workloads, fines and assessments, etc., that is realized each year for each court. In other words, how much in fines would the municipal court and the justice court, each generate per year? Mr. Graham responded the presentation prepared by the judges in the Assembly Judiciary Committee indicated the total between the two courts would be approximately $1.5 million. He suspects this would break down to $800,000 from the county and $600,000 from the city. Mrs. Evans noted over a period of time those figures would likely increase which results in a large sum of money being raised. Mr. Graham reminded the Ways and Means Committee just passed a $220 million building plan for the state for one fiscal year. Mrs. Evans countered that appropriation included many of the buildings. Mr. Graham drew attention to the cost of the Grant Sawyer Building, without mentioning any exact figure. Mrs. Evans acknowledged there was no impact to the state yet she had concerns of giving license to the local areas. Mr. Allard asked if the exemptions in NRS 244 and NRS 268 as reflected in the bill at subsection 3(b) referred to moving violations. Mr. Graham stated he would have to look at the statutes to respond. Mr. Allard expressed his concern with the way the bill was written in this regard, " . . . the county may, by ordinance, authorize the justices to impose this assessment . . ." Mr. Allard noted his district contained many small townships. Mr. Graham interrupted the bill would not apply to Moapa or any other township unless those areas became part of the inter-governmental agreement. Further, authorization to the townships within Las Vegas and the municipality of Las Vegas are the only localities anticipated under A.B. 364. Mr. Allard stated he did not see that in the bill, referencing language contained in Sections 1(1)and 1(2) and asked exactly where the inter-governmental agreement applied. Mr. Graham replied the bill requires compliance with ordinances within the City of Las Vegas and Las Vegas township. Mr. Allard envisioned problems if the bill does not specifically state "inter-governmental agreement." Mr. Graham called attention to subsection 8 on page three, line 30, where it states "participating cities." Mr. Allard commented he did not believe that language addressed his concerns. Mr. Dickerson pointed out on line 33 thereto, it states "by inter-local agreement" so unless the other entity agreed to do what the county commissioners authorized, they could not be forced to comply. Mr. Allard asked if the smaller townships would be required to participate in the inter-local agreement. Mr. Graham acknowledged Mr. Allard's concerns and stated he would provide him with a response by Monday. Ms. Tiffany asked if the reason for the court assessment was that a potential bond issue would appear to be revenue neutral. Mr. Graham answered no. Ms. Tiffany stated there would likely be a fiscal note on the vote and Mr. Graham concurred. Mr. Spitler commented when someone is fined by the court and ordered to pay an assessment the assessment is paid through a hierarchy whereby the assessment is paid before the fine. Mr. Spitler expressed concern since the fine monies, not the assessments, are what fund the permanent school account. Therefore, if more items are built between the hierarchy of the assessment process, the fines may go unpaid because many times individuals do not pay. The permanent school account will be shortchanged since this account is the last to receive funds. Mr. Spitler asked what percentage of fines are paid; or, what percent gets taken away from the school fund. Mr. Graham acknowledged Mr. Spitler's concern and reiterated the issue of collection of fine money is an issue covered in the forthcoming Senate bill. Chairman Marvel closed the hearing on A.B. 364. Mr. Graham stated he would return to the committee with answers to the concerns brought forth today. ASSEMBLY BILL 699 - Makes supplemental appropriation to division of child and family services of department of human resources for costs of placing certain children in intermediate care facilities for mentally retarded in Utah. John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), stated A.B. 699 requests a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $171,072 to cover costs for this fiscal year. The costs involve payments made to the Alpine County School District in Utah for ten mentally retarded children placed in intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded in that state. Mr. Sarb continued it was not anticipated the state would have the children in their custody so they were unaware they would be billed additionally for their school costs. Chairman Marvel asked if the kids were placed there, why was the cost of their schooling not anticipated. Mr. Sarb replied DCFS did not anticipate the children would be placed in Utah since normally the DCFS is not responsible for mentally retarded children as that responsibility is appointed to the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Division (MH/MR). However, MH/MR has the ability to reject children because their facilities are full. When this occurs, the childrens' custody reverts to the DCFS because the parents cannot handle them or because the child commits a minor delinquent offense and the court orders the children be placed in the custody of DCFS. Mr. Sarb continued, at that point, DCFS does not have the ability to say no and since the MH/MR resources have been tried and denied, they have no choice but to send the children out of state. Chairman Marvel asked how long the kids have been in the state of Utah. Mr. Sarb replied there have been a total of 26 mentally retarded children placed out of state during FY94-95. In FY94 DCFS was able to absorb the cost. However, the cost cannot be absorbed for FY95. Mrs. Evans called the committees' attention to a packet of information provided and asked Larry L. Peri, Program Analyst, to comment. The handout is a memorandum from the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) dated June 17, 1995 attached hereto as (Exhibit C). Mr. Peri stressed the reasons children are placed out of state as pointed out by Mr. Sarb is not the question before the committee; rather, the question involves the source of funding. Mr. Peri, turning to page 7 of (Exhibit C), a supplemental memorandum thereto indicates several other issues setting forth an apparent disagreement between the Child and Family Services Division and the Department of Education regarding which agency is responsible for these costs. Mr. Peri explained the bills from Alpine School District in Utah have been paid so it is not a matter of outstanding bills. The problem is as a result of revenue shortfalls in other areas of the budget. He continued there are a number of revenue sources available and one source that could have been utilized is shown at page nine of (Exhibit C) in an item entitled "county participation." Mr. Peri explained these are monies whereby the state has entered into inter-local agreements with Clark and Washoe counties for Family Preservation services provided on behalf of kids who are the counties' responsibilities. Calling attention to page 11 of the handout, Mr. Peri noted a correction to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) meeting date. Also, the handout indicates DCFS believed they could realize approximately $1 million in this fiscal year and if any portion of that had been realized, perhaps this supplemental request would not have been necessary. Mark Stevens, fiscal analyst, asserted the major point the committee is dealing with involves a revenue problem not an expenditure problem. The expenditures have been paid and now it is a matter of revenue collection from within the budget account. Janet Johnson, Deputy Budget Director concurred with Mr. Peri's comments in that the Budget Division discussed the situation with the DCFS and perceive the issue as a revenue shortfall as well. Chairman Marvel asked if there were any accounts receivable that could be collected. Ms. Johnson stated her understanding was the DCFS could not collect the money because it was retroactive and the counties were not participating. Ms. Johnson disclosed she was somewhat confused about that. Mr. Stevens, fiscal analyst, clarified there are two aspects to the county revenue. One, money transferred from this budget to the counties that is matched with federal dollars and then transferred to the counties. Two, the $1 million included in the budget of DCFS is for services provided by the state on behalf of the county that would then be reimbursed to the state. This is the sum which has not been collected. He added the Interim Finance Committee was told by DCFS that $1 million was anticipated from the counties in the current fiscal year. Mr. Spitler asked what the reserve was for and if it could be used against the debt. Mr. Peri noted the amount Mr. Spitler was referring to was $27,485 . . . Annette Swainston, Administrative Services Officer, DCFS, interrupted and remarked the funds so referred are pre and post adoption earned fees which have been set aside strictly for this activity and could not be used. Chairman Marvel asked why the Division has not collected these monies at the county level. Mr. Sarb recalled for the Chairman the Title IV-E program with the counties was in two parts. One part had both the state and the county earning money while another part of the agreement requires the state and county, at a future date, to negotiate or amend inter-local agreements for the pay-back of services rendered to county clients. However, his understanding is the second part of that arrangement has been less effective than the first part of the agreement. Mr. Sarb added it has only been since March, 1995, that the county commissions approved those contracts wherein rates have been negotiated and as early as two days ago DCFS believe they are now in a position to bill for those monies. Chairman Marvel asked how much they will bill for. Mr. Sarb stated it would not be anywhere near $1 million and he hesitated to make a guess at this time. In addition, Mr. Sarb mentioned during this fiscal year DCFS will bring in some $3 million more in revenue then legislatively approved. So in some areas the DCFS is falling short of the revenue targets, yet they are still $3 million ahead of what the Legislature approved or they projected would be brought in. Chairman Marvel asked if the $3 million mentioned would revert to general fund or be carried forward. Mr. Sarb stated it would not revert to the general fund and mentioned what occurred this fiscal year was $2.5 million of unbudgeted expenses coming out of that category. Chairman Marvel asked how this happens. Mr. Sarb reiterated the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) does not have the luxury of saying no to a court order. Therefore, there is $171,000 in education costs and over $700,000 in expenses for the mentally retarded children who were never anticipated in the budget. In addition, Mr. Sarb informed another area never considered was the adolescent sex offenders which were not separately budgeted for the biennium--resulting in a cost of $1.7 million in FY94. Mrs. Evans pointed out the committee should not be diverted from what was set forth at the outset of this discussion in that this is a revenue question not an expenditure question. Mrs. Evans, reading from the minutes of November, 1994 IFC, quoted Ms. Swainston: "DCFS advised the committee they assumed the two counties will be contributing to the program in accordance with the provisions of the inter-local agreement." Going on, Mrs. Evans indicated there was a quote from Mr. Reilly indicating they hoped to realize at least $1 million. So, if DCFS had collected 20% of that, the amount asked for would have been covered. Mrs. Evans asked Mr. Sarb, again, why these monies have not been collected asserting his answer was not adequate. Mrs. Evans stressed the Division of Child and Family Services heard about the shortfall in November and questioned why no collection attempts were underway. Mr. Sarb replied the DCFS relied on the good offices of the counties. Mrs. Evans retorted, generally when monies are being collected, the persons doing the collecting need to be extremely assertive and aggressive in their pursuits. Mr. Sarb suggested he would like to return to the committee by Tuesday of next week with a full accounting of the Title IV-E program. Recalling the program began in late FY94, Mr. Sarb acknowledged portions of the program have not gone as projected. This is not simply due to not pursuing payment of bills. He went on to explain an inter-local agreement was required and Clark and Washoe counties were not anxious to enter into such an agreement. So, without that agreement, the bills could not be sent. Mr. Sarb clarified the $1 million paid for certain services and DCFS found a way to bill separately for the Family Preservation of the Title IV-E services. Therefore, a portion of the $1 million that was supposed to come from county pay-back was actually realized from another source. Once the DCFS recognized the counties were not forthcoming with the inter-local agreement, they found a way to recover some portion of these funds. Mr. Sarb concluded he was not prepared for this type of discussion today and asked the committee allow him to provide them with a full accounting no later than Tuesday. Mrs. Evans stated along with the accounting, she would like a figure on how much he anticipates collecting in this fiscal year. Chairman Marvel asked what would happen if the committee did not authorize the funding. Mr. Sarb stated the budge account 101-3229 category 11 would be overspent. Chairman Marvel stated the hearing on A.B. 699 would be at recess until Mr. Sarb could provide the requested material. ASSEMBLY BILL 711 - Makes appropriation to department of human resources for augmentation of federal funding of nonstate agencies. A.B. 711 was not heard. * * * * * SENATE BILL 223 - Creates account for channel clearance, surveying and monumenting program. Michael Turnipseed, Nevada State Engineer, stated S.B. 223 was brought forth as a result of reimbursement of a channel clearance fund set forth in NRS Chapter 532.220. He added the channel clearance fund was created in 1973 and has been utilized very little. Draws were made from the fund in 1975, 1983, and 1994. Mr. Turnipseed pointed out S.B. 223 would allow the channel clearance fund to be reimbursed out of the contingency fund. Mr. Turnipseed provided handout material setting forth proposed amendments to the bill and literature pertaining to the South Fork Dam. Said handouts are attached hereto as (Exhibit D). Mr. Dini asked if the bill expands the work that can be done by the fund to remedial repairs to dams. Mr. Turnipseed stated that was incorrect and clarified the channel clearance fund is an on-going fund that would be reimbursed out of an appropriation from the money committees during session or by the IFC during the interim period between sessions. Mr. Turnipseed indicated that some damages have resulted to the gauges and upstream channel of the South Fork Dam and this bill could be used as a vehicle to provide funds to make the necessary repairs. Chairman Marvel, commenting on pictures contained in the green folder (Exhibit D), stated the committee has been aware of the damage to the South Fork Dam for the last ten days caused by heavy run-off and asked if the damage was below the South Fork primarily. Mr. Turnipseed emphasized there is no damage to the structural portion of the dam itself; the majority of the damage is within the park and the up-stream gauge. Turning to tab one in the green folder, Mr. Turnipseed pointed out two photographs which indicated erosion. He stated until the flow subsides his staff are unable to determine the entire damage in the gabion baskets underneath the outlet channel. He declared the repair money will extend the concrete apron so the energy is dissipated onto concrete rather than onto the gabions. Mr. Turnipseed continued to point out various photographs contained in the handout material and explained the repairs necessary to the indicated areas. Mr. Turnipseed asserted the dam was nearly full and the Legislature funded the dam in the 1985 session with a pre-construction conference in 1986. The dam was completed late in 1987 at a cost of approximately $30 million, including the land acquisition. Chairman Marvel noted Elko county participated in funding of the dam also. Mr. Turnipseed concurred adding the split of funds was approximately 83% to 17%. At any rate, the up-stream gauge is needed in order to measure the amount of water coming into the reservoir. Mr. Turnipseed concluded the state has not experienced anything like this since the dam was constructed. Mr. Close asked with regard to the gauge, if that was something that once it was built is subject to break down again if the same outflow occurs in the future. Mr. Turnipseed replied the State Engineering Department hoped to participate with the United States Geological Survey in designing a gauge best suited to withhold a large overflow and not be destroyed in a flood. Mrs. Evans noted, in respect for the deceased Marvin Sedway's comments in the past pertaining to the South Fork Dam, she would be voting no. Mr. Arberry recalled Mr. Turnipseed's testimony indicated the gauge was needed to measure the amount of water going up the river. Mr. Turnipseed agreed adding the gauge would measure the water coming into the reservoir and it would also gauge the water in the canyon below the dam to measure the amount of water being released from the reservoir. He explained the reading on both those gauges is necessary to determine the difference in the readings and the amount of water allowed to remain. Chairman Marvel noted the emergency of the situation. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED AMEND & DO PASS S.B. 223. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * SENATE BILL 226 - Creates trust fund for education technology. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education, stated the department supports S.B. 226. Mr. Rheault commented the need to access the latest in technology is required by all students and S.B. 226 provides such access. Mr. Rheault stated The Advanced Training Academy in Las Vegas is one school that currently has such advanced technology in that every student has a computer and the teacher has a computer hooked up to two 26" television screens. In a geometry class at the Academy, the students were able to complete the assigned geometry book approximately one and one-half months before other students. As a result, these students were able to work on special projects and advanced learning. The advanced technology allowed the students to use computers in geometry problem solving rather than hand drawing everything. Mr. Rheault asserted middle schools through high schools could all benefit from advanced technology. S.B. 226 would provide the mechanism to accept gifts and grants from a variety of sources to put towards reducing the current inequity in technology within the schools. He continued the Department of Education was working with groups to locate sources of funding to be placed in a trust fund if the bill passes. Vice-Chair Tiffany asked if there were any questions of the primary sponsor of the bill. Seeing none, Vice-Chair Tiffany commended Mr. Rheault for the concept of the bill and asked if it would augment or supplement the general fund. She added when it comes to enhancement modules in the budget, the need for computer systems, up-grades and growth should not be overlooked. Mr. Rheault stated it would be separate and outside the general fund and clarified the primary sponsor of S.B. 226 was Senator Adler. Vice-Chair Tiffany asked if S.B. 226 was necessary for vendors to be able to provide gifts to schools. Mr. Rheault indicated that was correct adding gifts received are required to be placed in the Department of Education then allocated and distributed from there. Vice-Chair Tiffany asked if most of the gifts they receive are specifically earmarked. Mr. Rheault stated although the department does not receive many gifts, the contributions are most often earmarked for a specific purpose. Mrs. Evans commented the committee approved an earlier request for a grant person to research grants for the various agencies and if so, Mr. Rheault should get his division first in line to get this assistance. Chairman Marvel announced Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, and Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, have reviewed S.B. 226 and he would entertain a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 226. ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMEN GIUNCHIGLIANI, EVANS, AND CHOWNING WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * SENATE BILL 333 - Authorizes reimbursement of peace officer employed by state for required clothing and accessories damaged in performance duties. David Wyble, President, State of Nevada Peace Officers Association, introduced Wally Tarantino and stated they were before the committee to ask for support of S.B. 333. Mr. Wyble stated presently there are no provisions within the Nevada Revised Statutes that permit state employee peace officers to be reimbursed for uniforms, other clothing, accessories, or safety equipment damaged in the performance of assigned duties. S.B. 333 would permit state agencies to reimburse peace officers pursuant to NRS 281.0311 to NRS 281.0353, inclusive, for repair or replacement of uniforms, etc. Chairman Marvel declared no fiscal note was shown and inquired if there was a fiscal note. Mr. Tarantino interjected he did not believe there was a fiscal note since the cost of uniform or accessory replacement would come out of the operating budgets of the respective state agencies. Further, the genesis, he explained came about when a uniformed motorcycle trooper in Reno was involved in an accident when a deer ran in front of his path. Luckily, the officer did not sustain any major injuries to himself but did sustain approximately $600 in damages to his uniform, leathers, and other safety equipment. The Highway Patrol Division determined the officer should be reimbursed and the DMV agreed. The Board of Examiners voted on the issue twice, once initially and once on reconsideration. The decision was returned from the Board of Examiners that the officer should be reimbursed. The Attorney General's (AG) office also agreed. However, since no mechanism was in place to reimburse the officer the AG determined a conflict was present with NRS 281 which provides for replacement based on ordinary wear and tear. Thereafter, the Personnel Commission was approached and this entity concurred with the AG that a conflict existed and a statutory change was required. Chairman Marvel asked who makes the final determination. Mr. Tarantino stated the bill was met with resistance in the Senate Finance Committee because the initial provision set forth that the officer, upon demand, would obtain reimbursement. However, that provision was amended by the Senate Finance Committee making it discretionary and now the language is "may be reimbursed" with the intent that oversight and reimbursement be provided by the department head of the authorizing agency involved. Major Dan Hammack, Nevada Highway Patrol, concurred with Mr. Tarantino adding the original language of the bill did have a fiscal note which has not been re- computed since the word "shall" was removed from the bill. Presently, the authority to reimburse is a discretionary item whereby the agency, if funding is available within the operating category, "may" reimburse during catastrophic type events like a motor vehicle accident or a shooting which is beyond normal wear and tear. Chairman Marvel asked if the language should be tightened up to specify the person or entity authorized to make a final determination and suggested that entity be the Department of Administration. Major Hammack concurred. David Wyble concluded the majority of persons in the Peace Officers Association are not provided a clothing allowance so S.B. 333 would provide them with the vehicle, if they damage their clothing, to seek reimbursement. Upon Chairman Marvel's inquiry, Mr. Wyble concurred they would have no problem utilizing the Department of Administration to make the determination in these matters. Mr. Price favored the legislation before the committee and clarified the definition of "peace officer" by reading from the pertinent statute, "Fire Marshall, his employees, foresters, fire warden, and arson investigators, rangers, employees of the Division of State Parks. . ." Mr. Price asked if this language appeared too broad in that the intent may be construed to mean a secretary in the office. Mr. Tarantino clarified the intent of the bill was the employee would have to be classified as a peace officer by statute, not working for an agency that had both peace officers and non-peace officers in their employ. Mr. Price continued reading from the statute, "DMV peace officers, highway patrol, game wardens, field agents for the Department of Agriculture, sheep commissioners, and officers appointed by junior livestock, the UNR police officers . . ." Mr. Tarantino stated the definitions so referenced would only apply to the bill if the individuals were sworn peace officers. * * * * * SENATE BILL 135 - Makes appropriation to legislative fund for additional equipment and software for information systems for legislative counsel bureau. SENATE BILL 136 - Makes appropriation to legislative fund for computer equipment and software to allow interaction with legislature through INTERNET. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, State of Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, (LCB), asked if S.B. 135 and S.B. 136 could be heard at the same time and introduced Fred Dugger, Manager of Information Systems, Legislative Counsel Bureau, and Steve Watson, Chief Deputy Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Administrative Division. Mr. Malkiewich provided handouts to the committee pertaining to the bills and identified as (Exhibit E) hereto, Senate Bill 135 and (Exhibit F) hereto, Senate Bill 136. Informal discussion was held while the handouts were passed out regarding an editorial in the paper pertaining to the potential expansion of the Legislature Building. Mr. Malkiewich indicated during the interim period there is a subcommittee on computer applications of the legislative process. The subcommittee reviews various proposals for one-shot appropriations. However, these proposals are not often included in the budget of the LCB because of the variance from biennium to biennium and therefore the budget would fluctuate. The proposals are taken from the subcommittee and then a Bill Draft Request (BDR) is approved. With regard to S.B. 135 and S.B. 136, Mr. Malkiewich continued the interim subcommittee decided to split S.B. 135 and S.B. 136 into two separate bills because the members anticipated controversy may surface regarding the INTERNET issue. However, both bills were developed by the interim subcommittee. Mr. Malkiewich declared when the bills were heard by the Senate Finance Committee, an amendment was made. In addition, before the bills went to the Senate, LCB proposed to have an RFP to replace the entire computer operating system. The RFP would have been processed during the interim period and reported back to the 1997 session with a recommendation to replace the current mainframe system with a client-server type system. LCB would then look for funds in the 1997 session to place the system in effect between the 1997 and 1999 sessions. Mr. Malkiewich indicated one issue that developed during the subcommittee on computer applications deliberations was a presentation by the Ethernet Corporation on wireless computers. LCB asked the corporation for a free demonstration and they agreed to do so. This demonstration was held a few months ago. Mr. Malkiewich informed the Senate Finance Committee amended S.B. 135 by adding additional funds. The RFP to re-do the data processing system would also be changed and two tiered. First, LCB would ask for an immediate proposal for providing wireless computers for all the legislators for use during the 1997 session and propose to replace the base operating system at the conclusion of the 1997 session. Mr. Malkiewich stressed this procedure would provide the wireless network to be in place at the commencement of the 1997 legislative session which is the reason for the reprint of the bill. Mr. Malkiewich stated although he is responsible as the head of the administrative division for the computer components of the Legislature, he confessed to having little knowledge in this area. However, he indicated Mr. Dugger was present for testimony and the handouts provided to the committee reflect detailed explanations of the components making up S.B. 135 and also contain information on the INTERNET which is contained in S.B. 136. Ms. Tiffany stated she supports S.B. 135 with certain amendments. Ms. Tiffany added she wished to make clear for the record that she was on the interim committee for computer applications for the Legislature. Ms. Tiffany stressed the interim committee did not vote on S.B. 135. In fact, S.B. 135 was not as a result of an outcome of agreement from the interim committee. Also, one member from the interim committee has chosen to be the sponsor of S.B. 135. Ms. Tiffany reported the interim committee had the opportunity to review some of the components of the bill but those issues were not entirely agreed upon by the interim committee. Ms. Tiffany stated the committee could listen to Mr. Dugger's testimony or she could address the details of S.B. 135 as outlined in the handout (Exhibit E). Chairman Marvel asked Ms. Tiffany to proceed and then allow Mr. Dugger to respond to her comments. Ms. Tiffany stated she would proceed with the list on S.B. 135 (Exhibit E) and explain what the interim committee discussed, what was agreed upon, and where she would like to propose amendments. Ms. Tiffany began with number one on the list which would require either one or two RFPs. She stated she and Mr. Dugger discussed this matter and were both in agreement, particularly pertaining to the NELIS system which both agree needs up-grading into a client-server environment. In addition, this up-grading may require running two parallel systems for awhile. Continuing to number two on the list which deals with the wireless computer network, Ms. Tiffany stated this concept was brought forth by the Senate. However, she would like to delete the wireless computer portion from the bill entirely. Ms. Tiffany informed the interim committee for computer applications was introduced to the wireless system and thereafter the system was provided during this legislative session with laptops being provided to some legislators. A report received from approximately 10-14 legislators indicated a desire to have the system implemented. Ms. Tiffany stressed, in her opinion, it is too soon to implement wireless computer technology. She stated wireless computer technology is sometimes referred to as "leading edge technology" because it requires "line of sight" for the cells to be provided and that is why modems are necessary. Secondly, there are only two wireless installations in the United States. Ms. Tiffany asserted there would not be a cross section of vendors to choose from if that RFP were implemented. Also, the vendors are very young and new in this type of technology--a type of technology that is not even proven as yet. Lastly, Ms. Tiffany declared the implementation of wireless technology would require the committee to make a policy decision. "Since when do we decide to buy ourselves laptops and what would the policy be . . . do the laptops belong to the Legislature or the legislators . . . can the legislators use them during the interim. . . can they take them home . . . can a legislator put his own software on the laptop." Also, Ms. Tiffany inquired into the training aspect, wondering how 63 individuals from various backgrounds would be trained on this technology. Most importantly, Ms. Tiffany concluded, the bill does not address any cost involved in logging onto the system and therefore she believes wireless technology is too young and inappropriate at this time. Lorne Malkiewich, LCB, replied obviously the decision of implementing wireless technology or just reviewing the possibility of this technology is the decision of the committee. However, the intent of the Senate, he believes, was in the past LCB has sought to provide staff with better computer systems yet nothing has been done to provide automation for the legislators. S.B. 135 would provide the opportunity of alleviating the bulky bill books from the legislators' desks by replacing them with something portable that could be used anywhere in the building. He remarked the modem would allow for remote location hook-ups such as a legislators' office, the committee rooms, the Assembly or Senate Floor, etc. Mr. Malkiewich stated when S.B. 135 was placed as an RFP, LCB anticipated a few companies would bid on the system and hoped there would be more than just one company placing bids. Mr. Malkiewich assured the committee if the LCB was uncomfortable with the product provided, they would not proceed. Mr. Malkiewich indicated the ease of use has been one item the vendor has been concerned with. In fact, in establishing a similar system in the state of Indiana, ease of use was a major concern since there were legislators who had never used a computer in their life. Mr. Malkiewich informed the response from Indiana's use of laptops at the Legislature has been good. However, he acknowledged there would be legislators who would not be receptive to using a laptop computer and in that regard, the committee may want to consider waiting on implementing this technology. Mr. Malkiewich stated although no thought was placed on the ownership of the laptops, he envisioned they would be the property of the state for use by the current legislators. Mr. Malkiewich concluded a policy would have to be established regarding the use of the laptops and applications thereto. Fred Dugger, Manager of Information Systems, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) indicated he appreciated Ms. Tiffany's comments. Mr. Dugger acknowledged the concept of wireless computers was emerging technology. However, the vendors he has spoken with about the wireless computer systems have assured him the systems are working well. Mr. Dugger clarified the demonstration of the system at the Legislature a few months ago did not require "line of sight" because they were able to get a receptor for an antenna in the first aid booth on the second floor which was assessible from the computer room on the other side of the building through all the walls. Mr. Dugger declared the technology, he believes is mature for implementation. Discussing the training issue, Mr. Dugger stated the funds anticipated and provided for in the contracts with the vendor would require the vendor to provide training and such training was built into the estimates by Ethernet corporation. Although the Ethernet corporation were the vendors presenting the system for demonstration, they are not the only vendors LCB has reviewed. However, Mr. Dugger surmised, the Ethernet corporation spent a great deal of time this session demonstrating how simple the system is to use especially utilizing touch screens. Ms. Tiffany returned to her issue of developing policies on the use of laptops indicating the Legislature would not be paperless. She stated it would be a long transition of moving from bill books to a wireless computer system. Further she did not foresee that bill books or the bill room would be eliminated by the implementation of wireless computer systems. Her recommendation would be to remove the wireless technology section from S.B. 135. Ms. Tiffany moved to Item Nos. 4-5 on the handout (Exhibit E) stating the Hardware Servers and Network were a part of the NELIS up-grade and office automation up-grade as was Item Nos. 6-7. She stated these up-grades would simply provide current technology to staff. Ms. Tiffany continued to Item No. 9 of (Exhibit E) stating she would like to delete this item because she did not see the need for a facsimile board on every desktop. Moving to Item No. 10, Ms. Tiffany questioned why all PC stations would need to have voice and video installed for staff and hence would like to delete Item No. 10 as well. Ms. Tiffany explained, with regard to Item No. 11, a vendor demonstrated the KIOSK system to the interim committee. KIOSK would be placed in the front of the building which would allow citizens access to an automated information board. This too, she indicated is not necessary. Further, the bill would provide the KIOSK system in the new Grant Sawyer Building in Clark County, yet there have been no indications as to how much the building will even be utilized. Turning to S.B. 136 dealing with the INTERNET, Ms. Tiffany commented INTERNET is currently used in Universities which allows those systems to "surf" the network. Applying INTERNET would require the application of a minimum of $60,000 per year for legislators and staff to log onto the University System network to access the INTERNET. Ms. Tiffany indicated the interim committee did not show a proven application or need for this system. Ms. Tiffany concluded the LCB does not belong in the University network system and should not be provided the ability to "surf" the network. She would not recommend the appropriation for the INTERNET application. Mr. Malkiewich, responding to Ms. Tiffany's comments, testified LCB already accesses the INTERNET in a small way. For example, the research librarian, through the University System can obtain information from the INTERNET and did so earlier this session when LCB wanted a copy of the Contract with America. Mr. Malkiewich stated he wanted to make clear the reason LCB was looking into INTERNET was because Nevada is the only state within this region that does not have legislative information available on the INTERNET. In other words, through INTERNET you can access information regarding California, Oregon, and Washington legislation. So, legislative information from Nevada could be provided to subscribers of the INTERNET system. For example, if an individual wanted a copy of NRS Chapter 616, they could just download it off the INTERNET. Mr. Malkiewich indicated INTERNET would also assist LCB with difficult public issue questions. Mr. Malkiewich addressed the legislative use of INTERNET. He indicated the issue was discussed at length during the interim subcommittee especially the possible problem of employees who may abuse the system by "surfing" the network. However, he assured strict guidelines and restrictions would be implemented. In fact, Mr. Malkiewich insisted access to INTERNET would not need to be expanded from what is currently in place--the legislative librarian. Mr. Malkiewich stated Mr. Dugger would address Item No. 9 dealing with the facsimile board. Regarding Item No. 10, Mr. Malkiewich informed the committee in order to keep the total cost down when Senate Bill 175 was amended by the Senate Finance Committee, the multi-media portion was deleted. Mr. Dugger concurred with Ms. Tiffany regarding a facsimile board on every desktop. He clarified LCB wishes to avoid having a facsimile line to every computer so they have provided for network facsimile capability instead. Item No. 9 would allow anyone who is connected to the network to have a single point of access for both receiving and sending facsimiles. Ultimately, LCB believes this would save money in the long-run by accessing the network itself. Mr. Dugger went on to discuss the KIOSK system. The KIOSK system was placed in the bill because there was much legislative interest in the system. He clarified LCB has been reviewing demonstrations of this system for the past two years and the thought behind the KIOSK application was that not only would it provide information during the session but KIOSK would also be available to provide information about the Legislature and state government and other agencies wishing to cooperate to provide information to the public year-round in Las Vegas, Carson City, and perhaps in Reno. He concluded KIOSK would be an extension of the abilities LCB currently has and KIOSK has been extremely popular in other states. Ms. Tiffany asked who would program the KIOSK information system. Mr. Dugger answered there is $10,000 allocated beyond the KIOSK system itself in order to contract with an individual or firm to set up the system the first time along with LCB Information Systems staff so LCB could maintain the system on an on-going basis. Ms. Tiffany asked why directories and bulletin boards would not be sufficient for the purpose of providing this information to the public. Mr. Dugger stated the value of KIOSK would depend on how it was put together and what information was placed thereon. Further, Mr. Dugger indicated it would be a personal opinion to decide whether the system is a valuable addition or not. Mr. Malkiewich commented determining whether or not to implement the KIOSK system is a public policy question. LCB has noted the Employment Security Division's job-finder KIOSK located in the lobby this legislative session has gained much attention. Also, LCB has been contacted by other local governments in an attempt to find out what agencies are participating in a network of KIOSK that could provide local government information. For example, Mr. Malkiewich asserted the Grant Sawyer office building in Las Vegas could have a KIOSK containing the Clark County Commission and City Council agendas posted as well as legislation. Mr. Malkiewich concluded the ultimate decision as to whether KIOSK is necessary and good policy is up to the committee. LCB has noted KIOSK systems are "glitzy" and people like to "play" with them since the systems are user-friendly. However, he noted the KIOSK systems are not an integral part of the plan of the legislative data processing up-grade in the future. With or without KIOSK, Mr. Malkiewich informed, LCB will be moving from a mainframe based, 10-year old technology to off-the-shelf software, client-server environment. Mrs. Evans stated she was a big fan of E-mail and has found it to be very useful. She asked what was contained in this legislation that would allow legislators, from their homes or offices, to connect and leave E-mail for LCB staff. Mr. Dugger stated the subject of E-mail has not been brought forth yet in discussing the INTERNET. He explained the easiest method would be to use the INTERNET for E- mail which would provide for Messaging both ways. In the INTERNET package, Mr. Dugger continued, is a "server" or "firewall" computer which is located outside the main computer networks which assures no unauthorized public access is made. Mr. Dugger explained in further detail how E-mail could be performed through INTERNET between a legislator outside the building and the LCB staff. Ms. Tiffany interjected it was not necessary to have INTERNET to perform E-mail functions. Ms. Tiffany, addressing Mrs. Evans' question, agreed E-mail was necessary and was provided for in the client-server and software environment which has nothing to do with INTERNET. Mrs. Evans requested further clarification as she was not interested in INTERNET but rather wanted to know what in the bill would allow her to access E-mail. Mr. Dugger replied if INTERNET is not available then some kind of "dial-up" capability would be required through a modem bank; however, he confirmed that was not in the proposal before the committee today. The proposal for S.B. 135 applies E-mail through the use of the INTERNET through the "firewall" to insure no unauthorized access is obtained. Mrs. Evans thanked Mr. Dugger for providing the handout material (Exhibit F) hereto containing the names of various data banks and data systems that LCB can tap into nationally and internationally. Mrs. Evans acknowledged these types of systems would greatly benefit the legal and research division of LCB considering the questions they are constantly asked. Mrs. Evans asked if the INTERNET was seen as an important tool by the research division of LCB. Mr. Dugger confessed he initially was uninformed with regard to INTERNET until recently. In that regard, initially, he found INTERNET to be quite difficult because it appeared to be designed for more technical individuals in the University System. However, if you hook up to the "worldwide browser" in INTERNET then access is very simple. Mr. Dugger stated if LCB is going to provide people in other states information about Nevada's statutes, bill status, etc., INTERNET would be the way to go. Mr. Dugger went on to state the handout (Exhibit F) contained an example from the state of Florida using the INTERNET system. He concluded INTERNET would be a very good service to the public. Ms. Tiffany declared she was not opposed to INTERNET. In fact, she has access to INTERNET at home and uses it for interest, browsing, curiosity, and seeing what is available. Ms. Tiffany announced not one person in the interim committee including researchers and librarians, indicated the need for INTERNET to accomplish their job duties. Rather, discussions during the interim committee surrounded the issues of "browsing" and "surfing" through INTERNET, the newness of the INTERNET concept, and the cost of implementation and maintaining the system. The interim committee determined there was not a proven need for the application of INTERNET. Ms. Tiffany reiterated her earlier arguments against INTERNET. She recommended office automation and up-grading NELIS which results in $1.2 million rather than the minimum of an additional $60,000 per year for INTERNET. Ms. Tiffany pointed out the INTERNET system is a separate bill because LCB did not want the entire concept of office automation to falter because of INTERNET alone. Mr. Malkiewich reminded the committee of the other aspect to INTERNET which included both accessing information and providing information to the public in that logging onto the system would not be just for private use but would also allow the public to obtain information on Nevada. Mr. Malkiewich also reminded the committee one year ago he required the games of solitaire and minesweeper to be removed from all PC systems because even if staff were utilizing these games on their lunch hour, the last thing the public needs to think is state employees spend their time playing computer games. Similarly, LCB would not want the reputation to surface that staff is "surfing" the network all day long. Mr. Malkiewich assured the committee if S.B. 136 is approved, LCB will establish strict controls as to who can use INTERNET and for what purposes. Mr. Hettrick, returning to the subject of E-mail, noted within the wireless computer network, the capability for E-mail exists. He asked if this would be accessed via modem or INTERNET. Mr. Dugger replied Mr. Hettrick's observation involved the internal local area network. Meaning, while you are in the building you would have the regular E-mail availability within approximately a 4-mile radius. Otherwise, you would have to have a modem and could dial into the system. In that regard, once a dialing capability was established, you could access electronic mail (E-mail) in that fashion. Mr. Hettrick expressed he liked the wireless computer network and it makes sense to move forward in that fashion. He added he would trust the RFP to make sure the vendors were prepared to provide equipment that was capable of performing as programed to do and if the equipment did not perform correctly, the RFP should be written to indicate the equipment could be returned for nonperformance. Mr. Hettrick stressed wireless technology is not immature technology in any sense but the question is should the Legislature automate to some degree for those who wish to participate thereby not forcing someone unwilling to use it. Mr. Hettrick mentioned an article he read regarding the Legislature in California wherein most of the legislators found wireless computer systems largely beneficial. Mr. Hettrick opposed Ms. Tiffany's suggestion to delete the wireless computer system aspect from the bill. Mr. Close commented he participated with Ethernet corporation in their study this session. Mr. Close announced he is somewhat of a "computer nut" and enjoys utilizing computers. Although he appreciates Ms. Tiffany's concerns about the wireless computer system, he concurs with Mr. Hettrick's comments that a RFP could be drafted to address the concerns of the committee. Mr. Close expressed his amazement on the lack of funds the Legislature has allocated on computer systems since 1986. He added anything that could be done to facilitate more public access to what the Legislature does will increase the confidence of the public in what is being done in their state. He concluded he would like to keep the wireless computer system in the bill. However, he had some ambivalence regarding items numbers 9, 10, and 11. Mr. Price disclosed he was not computer literate but intends to become knowledgeable in this area. He noted Nevada should continue to be a Legislature in the front edge of developing technology. He supports the idea of user-friendly technology, specifically the KIOSK system which is accessed by touch screens. Mr. Price commented he sees KIOSK systems all over in airports, shopping malls, etc., and if LCB could obtain one it would greatly benefit public relations and provide a personal touch with the Legislature in a process most people do not understand. Mr. Price concluded he supports S.B. 135 and S.B. 136, entirely. Ms. Tiffany submitted Mr. Hettrick and Mr. Close were about two out of the 12 to 14 legislators who responded positively to the concept of this legislation; however, there are 63 legislators total. Ms. Tiffany announced she believes in technology and in fact her previous job experience has been in selling and implementing high technology. She cautioned the committee if there are not many states where this technology is installed and there are not many vendors to choose from to implement the systems correctly, then it would not be the time to implement. Ms. Tiffany concluded the maturity for the implementation of the systems discussed in S.B. 135 and S.B. 136 is not present in the marketplace. Mr. Malkiewich agreed with Ms. Tiffany's comments in regards to priority in that there is a core of appropriation that is absolutely necessary. Then there are some other items which the committee needs to make policy decisions as to whether these systems should be accessed now or later. He sees the debate in what areas should move forward now, what areas should be approved, and what areas should be withheld. Mr. Malkiewich stated the issues discussed in the hearing today are less critical to the operation but the benefits have been made clear. Chairman Marvel stated the committee would not take action on the bills today and he would like the committee to give serious thought to this legislation over the weekend with an anticipated vote on Monday. Chairman Marvel asked Mr. Dugger to make final comments. Mr. Dugger pointed out LCB sent out a questionnaire to all members of the Legislature subsequent to the demonstration of the wireless technology and 14 responses were received. All 14 responses were highly enthusiastic and suggested proceeding with the technology before the 1997 Legislature. The meeting adjourned at 12:48 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means June 17, 1995 Page