MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-second Session
May 28, 2003
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 9:29 a.m. on Wednesday, May 28, 2003, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Denise Davis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Virginia Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles
Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Emission Testers Council
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Russ Law, Chief Operations Analysis Engineer, Director’s Office, Nevada Department of Transportation
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards/Reno
Dr. James Hager, Superintendent, Washoe County School District
Keith L. Lee, Lobbyist, State Board of Medical Examiners
John R. Orr, Deputy Commissioner, Division of Insurance, Department of Business and Industry
Distributive School Account - Budget Page K12 ED-7 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2610
Senator Raggio:
The final budget we have been trying to reach an agreement on is the Distributive School Account (DSA). We have discussed it for 2 long nights; I am sorry to report that we have not yet reached full agreement. Our goal has been to fund education as fully as possible while being prudent. We recognize that teachers need to have adequate salaries, and we need to attract and retain good teachers. We have tried to develop a plan that we can justify during these difficult economic times. This committee began working 2 weeks before session started and has worked diligently; I commend the members for their efforts. Due to the short time left in the session, the committee needs to give direction to the people working to draft the last bills. We must also remember that whatever amount is decided upon by this committee, the tax committees will have to review our decision and develop a tax plan sufficient to fulfill funding requirements. It is possible to close the DSA on the Senate side in a way that accommodates the concerns expressed. In order to obtain a two‑thirds vote on a tax plan in both houses, we need to decide on an amount that people feel is reasonable, that the public feels is justified, and is prudent.
There are six differences with the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means in closing this budget. The “Distributive School Account, Senate Committee Closing Action, 2003-05 Biennium” handout (Exhibit C) explains the differences. On the issue of full-day kindergarten, which is in the Executive Budget, there is a savings of $24 million if it is eliminated. I recommend elimination.
On the issue of class-size reduction, we took some preliminary action that would have reduced the recommended funding by a total of $46 million so that mandatory pupil/teacher ratios of 22 to 1 in grades 1 through 5 could be implemented; flexibility would apply to grade 6 as appropriate. In response, the major school districts, particularly Clark and Washoe Counties, indicated to our satisfaction that those ratios would be unachievable; there were problems with facilities, and contracts for the next school year had already been let.
There has been tentative agreement that we will recommend funding the amount recommended by the Governor, the total amount for class‑size reduction. However, we will support the flexibility that the Governor indicated we should implement. All the school districts have indicated to the satisfaction of this committee that they support flexibility. In funding class‑size reduction, I recommend that we also allow flexibility in grades 1 through 5, as well as in grade 6, particularly in the rural counties; there will be a maximum pupil/teacher ratio of 25 to 1. This will allow the school districts full funding for class‑size reduction, in the most cost effective and efficient manner for their situations. I do not think we should “micro manage” the school districts on this issue.
In regard to stipends, we have heard a lot of discussion that it would be more meaningful if qualifying teachers receive an additional one-fifth retirement credit instead of stipends. Teachers qualify by teaching in “at risk” schools or in high‑impact areas, such as math, science, psychology, and English as a second language. A teacher must teach in the “at risk” school for at least 2 years; in the high impact areas, teachers must meet the criteria established in the Senate’s proposal. This will commence in the second year of the biennium.
In regard to the Governor’s proposal for an additional $50 per student for books, and the issue of books, instructional supplies, and instructional software, we should agree to approve these amounts, but these amounts should be “fenced off”; the money will be used for the purposes intended. Too many times, we Legislators go home and get criticized by parents, teachers, and others; they claim their children do not have books, or teachers have to buy instructional supplies. I can tell you that those complaints are not accurate. We provide money for these items, but it is sometimes lost in the bargaining process. The amount for textbooks, instructional supplies, and instructional software is over $64 million in fiscal year (FY) 2004 and $66.7 million in FY 2005. We should approve these amounts, but “fence” them off so that they are used only for the intended purposes, not for bargaining. This does not in any way take away the opportunity that the teachers always have to bargain for additional salary, other than what has been approved by the Legislature.
I would indicate that in a 10-year study, the Legislature has increased teachers’ salaries approximately 27 percent; through the bargaining process, it has resulted in an approximate 40 percent increase in teachers’ salaries. I do not think that we have to be concerned about the level of teachers’ salaries. We want to continue those increases. We are also one of the few states that funds retirement, which is an additional 9.5 percent that teachers do not have to pay income tax on. When everything is factored in, we are well over the $30,000 annual beginning salary it is believed we should have.
Did I misspeak in regard to “at risk” schools?
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The Governor recommends $2000 stipends for “at risk” schools. I believe the committee’s recommendation is the one-fifth retirement credit.
Senator Raggio:
That is correct; rather than the stipends, the retirement credits would be given to the teachers at the “at risk” schools.
There is a difference between the Senate and the Assembly concerning health insurance costs. The Governor recommends a 10 percent increase due to inflation in health insurance; the Assembly wants a 15 percent increase. The additional 5 percent amounts to about $15 million. We understand health care costs are increasing, and some increases cannot be anticipated. I support adding an additional 2 percent to the Governor’s recommendation, which is an additional $5.8 million, but putting the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) in control of the money. The districts will be allowed to come before the IFC to make their case. This proposal is similar to action taken during the 71st Session.
In regard to salary increases, we all recognize that, within the limits that we think we can obtain support for the necessary funding, we would like to support additional cost-of-living increases for teachers over and above the Governor’s recommendation. We recommend an additional 2 percent in the second year, for a total increase of 4 percent in the second year of the biennium. However, in my opinion, if we are going to do this for teachers, we should also do it for all state workers. It is not appropriate for us to recognize the dedication of teachers and not address similar concerns of state employees. State employees are already falling far behind their counterparts in local government.
I propose a 2 percent increase for all teachers and state workers, including university employees. A 1 percent increase costs $26.7 million; a 2 percent increase costs $53.4 million. If we approve this action, we will not be in agreement with the Assembly. I understand the other house wants more increases for teachers; while we would all like to do a lot more, I think we and the public feel this proposal is the prudent course to take. If we pass the proposal, we would also consider the new federal money that is coming into the State, which is in excess of $100 million. This committee has already discussed the amounts that are earmarked for Medicaid; the remaining amount, which is about $68 million, would be used for the first year of the increase as revenue (Exhibit D). This money is “one time money”; the retention in the second year would begin to replenish the rainy day fund. This plan would allow us to begin with at least $50 million, and be on track for restoring the rainy day fund to $150 million over a 4-year period. I think it is prudent that we do this.
If we do all these things in closing the DSA, it will require approximately $848,763,000 over the biennium; this will need to be funded by an appropriate revenue source. In common parlance, it will require a tax plan for about $850 million. Those are my thoughts on this subject.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-2610 AS DISCUSSED.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Rawson:
Is there any interest in resolving Senate Bill (S.B.) 235?
SENATE BILL 235 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing payment of hospitals for treating disproportionate share of Medicaid patients, indigent patients or other low-income patients. (BDR 38-746)
Senator Raggio:
I will recuse myself from discussion on this matter.
Senator Rawson:
We essentially have two bills; we heard one from the Assembly yesterday that allows no money to go to Sunrise Hospital, and it protects the State share in the same manner as the budget was closed. For S.B. 235, we proposed an amendment that will protect the State’s share as budgeted, and will put approximately $180,000 into Sunrise Hospital. To resolve this, I recommend we fund the disproportionate share account with an additional $700,000, and move to amend and do pass S.B. 235 with the $700,000 added. The rest of the amendment will be as it was presented. We can have the amendment come back so we can look at it before it goes to the floor.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 235.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
The committee needs to consider Bill Draft Request (BDR) S-1366.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1366: Extends reversion date of certain appropriations from previous sessions for park improvements. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 502.)
The committee requested this BDR; it extends the reversion date of the appropriations made in previous sessions for park improvements. I believe the committee agreed to extend the date to June 30, 2005.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-1366.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will consider S.B. 499, which we heard yesterday.
SENATE BILL 499: Makes appropriation to Interim Finance Committee for allocation to Department of Public Safety for radio system costs, infrastructure upgrades and user equipment. (BDR S-1364)
This bill funds the cost of the radio system from the State Highway Fund and the General Fund. We are considering Amendment No. 925.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The committee voted to amend this bill yesterday. The reference to the Department of Public Safety has been deleted, which will permit the utilization of the funds not only for Highway Fund agencies, but also agencies that are not funded from the Highway Fund for the General Fund portion of the project. The amendment is a little more cumbersome than what was represented to the committee because the bill drafters wanted to ensure that the Highway Fund dollars are utilized on Highway Fund projects. We want to make sure the committee is in agreement with this change.
Senator Raggio:
Unless there is objection from the committee, we will utilize Amendment No. 925 in reporting out S.B. 499. We will now consider S.B. 46.
SENATE BILL 46 (1st Reprint): Authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to carry out Environmental Improvement Program in Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR S-174)
The Assembly amended this bill with Amendment No. 851. We have some concerns about the additional language. I believe Senator Coffin’s question concerned the reason for adding “restoration of natural watercourses and control of erosion” and “and other projects.”
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The amendment is in agreement with the way the budgets were closed for the Division of State Parks and the Division of Forestry. There is concern that the language is “loose”; if there is a need to tighten it up, staff suggests you could restate the language to indicate “and other environmental improvement program projects to protect Lake Tahoe.”
Senator Raggio:
What action is suggested?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I would defer to the committee. The concern about the language came from the committee. If the committee wants to tighten the language, the suggestion is to use “and other environmental improvement program projects to protect Lake Tahoe.”
Senator Raggio:
I think we should not concur with the Assembly and go to conference; that specific language can be substituted in conference.
Senator Rawson:
We could speed the process if we passed the language for our conference committee to work on.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO NOT CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 851 TO S.B. 46, AND TO APPROVE THE LANGUAGE DISCUSSED FOR THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will now discuss S.B. 500.
SENATE BILL 500: Revises certain fees paid to Department of Motor Vehicles concerning control of emissions from motor vehicles. (BDR 40-1365)
Virginia Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles:
In closing the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control account, 101-4722, the committee recommends that there be an emission certificate increase of $1; the fee will be $6 instead of $5. The increase is necessary to fund the various state agencies that are subsidized through the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control account, as well as to maintain the reserve at the statutory level of $500,000.
Senator Raggio:
Are you raising the cost for the package of forms from $125 to $150?
Ms. Lewis:
Yes; that is the $1 increase per certificate.
Senator Raggio:
Does the station pay for those certificates, then pass the cost along to the customer?
Ms. Lewis:
That is correct.
Senator Raggio:
Has this been included in the budget?
Ms. Lewis:
Yes, it has been included.
Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Emission Testers Council:
There are about 500 station operators and owners who run smog stations on behalf of the State and its pollution program. The council is in support of the program. For the record, I have had detailed conversations with Ms. Lewis; the council has some concerns, and Ms. Lewis is willing to work with the membership during the interim to try to understand the problems. This is not a free market; prices are not set above the price of the certificate. The committee needs to understand that situations such as “drive offs” are a problem; a “drive off” occurs when a vehicle fails to pass the emissions test and the person leaves without paying for the test.
Senator Raggio:
Do people leave cars at the stations?
Mr. Krueger:
No, they do not. Concerns such as this are what Ms. Lewis and the membership will work on. With this fee increase, inventory costs increase exponentially because the certificates are prepurchased. Credit card fees are another issue; about 30 percent of transactions involve credit cards. This costs between $0.75 and $1.00 per transaction. The public today is paying less for a smog check than in 1992. If we cannot reach an agreement with Ms. Lewis, we will return during the next session and address these issues.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 500 and open the hearing on S.B. 501.
SENATE BILL 501: Requires Department of Motor Vehicles to charge and collect certain new fees relating to sale or lease of vehicle. (BDR 43-1360)
Ms. Lewis:
This is another critical bill to the Department of Motor Vehicles’ budgets. It is a necessary revenue source to keep the budgets under the 22 percent cap of the Highway Fund authorization. Fee increases include $8.25 for each dealer’s report of sale.
Senator Raggio:
I believe we have discussed those increases previously. Is that essentially what the bill does?
Ms. Lewis:
The bill has charges for dealer’s reports of sale, third-party vehicle sales between private parties, and the processing of long-term lessor reports of lease.
Senator Raggio:
What happens when someone sells his or her car?
Ms. Lewis:
The buyer pays $8.25 at the time of vehicle registration.
Senator Coffin:
I am going to support this measure, but I am a bigger supporter of raising fees by putting them on the newcomers to the state. I hope that Ms. Lewis and the Governor will work together to develop a proposal for the next session, since we will face the 22 percent cap again. After careful research and thought, please come forward with a plan that does not “stick” the current residents.
Ms. Lewis:
In the next budget, we will certainly look at all possible sources of revenue.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 501 and open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 548.
ASSEMBLY BILL 548: Abolishes Commission on Substance Abuse Education, Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment within Department of Public Safety. (BDR 40-1343)
I understand this bill came from the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
This position was eliminated by both the Senate and the Assembly committees when the budget was closed. This legislation is required to implement that action.
Senator Raggio:
Is this bill consistent with our action on the budget?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Yes, it is.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 548 and open the hearing on A.B. 549.
ASSEMBLY BILL 549: Revises provisions relating to uses of forfeited property or proceeds of forfeited property. (BDR 14-1354)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
This legislation is also required to implement the budget closings approved by the Senate and the Assembly committees. The committees reinstated the Narcotics Task Forces in the Narcotics Control account by adding Byrne grant funds and matching forfeiture funds each year. In FY 2005, it is anticipated that the Byrne grant funds will decrease, based on federal budget proposals requiring an increase in the use of forfeiture proceeds to fund task forces. The legal staff advises that the statute should be revised to remove the restrictions regarding the forfeiture funds for ordinary operating expenses, to allow for a greater portion of forfeiture funding.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
If possible, we would like to see this action limited to the state agencies. We see this as a concern to local entities; the forfeiture funds are such an unstable funding source that we are concerned that there may be an effort to supplant some of the budgetary aspects of law enforcement entities. As an example, Washoe County collected $28,000 in forfeiture funds last year; collections are a little higher this year. Collections vary. To have operating funds rely on forfeitures will impact law enforcement on the local level.
Senator Raggio:
The existing statute, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 179.1187, is not changed, except that it says the money must not be used for the ordinary operating expenses of the agency. Do you want to continue to use that at the local government level?
Mr. Nadeau:
At the present time, forfeiture money is used for extraordinary expenses and equipment replacement at the pleasure of the administrator of the agency. Eliminating “to pay the ordinary operating expenses of the agency” could put the money used for extraordinary expenses into the budget. Because the forfeiture collections are unstable and vary from year to year, we do not believe it is a good idea to rely on those collections as a budget source.
Senator Raggio:
Did you make this presentation to the Assembly?
Mr. Nadeau:
We were unaware of this bill until it passed out of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. We approached the chairman of the Assembly committee, but the bill had already passed out of the committee. The suggestion was made to approach the Senate committee.
Senator Raggio:
I do not know what the effect of this change will be; we will consider it.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
Some years ago, there was quite a public relations scandal when money from forfeitures was being used to fund the operating budgets of law enforcement agencies across the nation. As a result, this prohibition regarding forfeiture money was included in Nevada law. We have great concerns regarding the elimination of this language; it creates the potential for forfeiture funds to be used for the operating budgets of any law enforcement agency in the state. From staff discussions, I understand this is not the intention of this bill, but the potential unintended consequence of removing this language is of great concern to us. We ask that the language be written tightly, to handle only the issue of matching funds, rather than removing the prohibition on the use of forfeiture funds.
Senator Raggio:
As the bill is currently written, the money could be used for any lawful purpose that the chief deems appropriate, except that money derived from the forfeiture must be used to enforce the provisions of NRS chapter 453, and money derived must be used to enforce the provisions of NRS Title 45. That is pretty broad authority, even if we take out the language. What does it not accommodate? Are you saying you want the ordinary operating expenses prohibition retained?
Ms. Lusk:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Raggio:
Do you want the bill passed?
Ms. Lusk:
No, not in this form.
Senator Raggio:
What form do you want it in to be passed?
Ms. Lusk:
I would like it to address the issue of money use for matching funds only, not the use for regular, ongoing use.
Senator Raggio:
As I understand the situation, we closed the budget with the forfeiture money included.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
That is correct.
Senator Raggio:
The problem is, the budget has been closed. Are you saying this change only affects the State?
Mr. Nadeau:
I think there are a variety of ways to address our concern. First, enable the use of forfeiture funds for matching grants. You could also restrict it to state agencies, which would address our concerns. We think it is appropriate to make this policy decision for the state budget.
Senator Raggio:
To be consistent, if we are going to do this for the State, why are we not going to do it for local agencies?
Mr. Nadeau:
An appropriate limitation would be to use the money for matching grant funding or similar purposes.
Senator Raggio:
Do you understand Ms. Lusk’s concern?
Mr. Nadeau:
Yes; I think she shares my opinion.
Senator Raggio:
Could you quickly develop language to accommodate your concerns?
Mr. Nadeau:
We would be happy to do that.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 549 and open the hearing on A.B. 195.
ASSEMBLY BILL 195 (1st Reprint): Requires development of plan concerning joint enforcement of certain laws and regulations governing transportation and vehicles. (BDR S-83)
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1:
This bill is in regard to ports of entry. I have been supportive of these ports for several years, and especially in this year, when revenues and taxes are important issues. It is my belief that we are not collecting the revenue that we should on existing taxes. I started out with a bill for ports of entry; it has been narrowed down because there is a lack of support for building the ports. An amendment to the bill allows for the other agencies to get together.
I have distributed the benefit/cost study update (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.) for a port of entry at Jean. I am proposing an all‑encompassing port that collects taxes on building materials entering the state, such as water heaters, air conditioners, roofing, trusses, and drywall that come from out-of-state. I am proposing a safer Nevada; inspections will keep unsafe buses off our highways. Within 150 miles from here, noxious weeds and livestock diseases occur; there are no ports of entry to guard against these threats. There is also the potential for entry of nuclear waste and hazardous materials in the future.
In my opinion, a port of entry system in Nevada with complementary portable checkpoints would bring in a tremendous amount of new revenue that is currently being avoided and uncollected. For example, about 30,000 rental cars based in Nevada but registered out-of-state could be registered in-state and provide revenue to state and local governments.
Senator Raggio:
Is there a cost to develop the plan?
Russ Law, Chief Operations Analysis Engineer, Director’s Office, Nevada Department of Transportation:
The department supports A.B. 195; it gives us a good opportunity to develop a plan for interagency enforcement of issues mentioned by Assemblyman Collins. It also gives us an opportunity to save time and money for the state, as well as the motor carrier industry. The cost of the study will be borne by my division; it has been budgeted. We will do a value analysis study in which we will brainstorm opportunities for interagency enforcement and develop criteria for evaluating the ideas the interagency group generates. We will present the results to the Legislature and the Governor.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 195 and open the hearing on A.B. 266.
ASSEMBLY BILL 266 (1st Reprint): Requires Superintendent of Public Instruction to prepare compilation of certain information for inclusion in biennial budgetary request for State Distributive School Account. (BDR 34-903)
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards/Reno:
I have submitted my written testimony (Exhibit F). Your committee has completed work on S.B. 191, implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. This bill deals with the next step, leaving no child behind. These are two very different issues; we need to consider the task before us. As we start the 21st century, it is no longer true that a person can support a family with unskilled labor which does not require a high school diploma. Students preparing to enter the workforce need to plan on graduating from high school and pursuing some post high school education or training to obtain a job that will support themselves and their families. As Nevada struggles to diversify its economy, we must provide a skilled workforce to attract high-paying jobs to our state. Educating all of Nevada’s students to high standards is not just about meeting the requirements of a federal law; it is about giving Nevada and all its citizens a bright future. Never before have we ever tried or been required to do this; this is a huge challenge.
Adding to this challenge is the state’s changing population. Large numbers of K‑12 students arrive in our schools not speaking or understanding English; those numbers will continue to grow. While this was also true at the turn of the last century, the difference then was that a rudimentary knowledge of English and a willingness to work hard could provide enough money for a family to live. In addition to knowing how to speak, understand, read, and write English, a student today must also know and be able to use algebra, geometry, and science in order to obtain a good job.
During the 71st Session, you and Governor Guinn asked the state’s school boards and superintendents to propose a plan to educate Nevada’s children to the standards in the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997. Our proposal is the iNVest plan (Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.). We appreciate the efforts you are making to begin to implement iNVest. Assembly Bill 266 lays the foundation to provide you with sound information for each Legislative session.
Senator Raggio:
Is the main provision of the bill in section 1?
Ms. Loring:
That is correct; Dr. Hager will describe that.
Senator Raggio:
What is different in the bill that is not already being done?
Dr. James Hager, Superintendent, Washoe County School District; Chairman, Nevada Association of School Superintendents:
The difference is the focus. We believe this consolidates the information so we can show the long-term vision for schools. It allows us to get direction as we discuss the future and envision what good instruction and student learning should be.
Senator Raggio:
I am still not clear on the difference. In preparing the DSA, the Superintendent of Public Instruction will take into account projected enrollment and the “roll up” costs; there is also a cost of living adjustment recommended. Obviously, this also has to go to the Governor for inclusion in the Executive Budget. We have been dealing with the cost of supplies and services this morning, such as higher costs for utilities; there is also the cost of existing and proposed educational programs. Is the “proposed educational programs” the major difference? If the superintendents’ association develops or learns of new programs, does the Superintendent of Public Instruction have to include them?
Dr. Hager:
In response to the first question, inflation adjustments are included. In response to the second question, we are not mandating anything.
Senator Raggio:
It says, “the Superintendent shall take into account, without limitation” the cost of all these new, enhanced programs. Does that mean the superintendent has to include the total cost of all the new programs, such as iNVest, in the budget?
Dr. Hager:
That is not our intention.
Senator Raggio:
What is the use in passing this bill? Is this a “feel good” bill?
Dr. Hager:
This is more than a “feel good” bill. There are four basic tenets in iNVest that are also included in A.B. 266; we believe these tenets are consistent with the goals of each legislator for pursuing high quality education in Nevada. I have listed the four tenets in my written testimony (Exhibit H). We were not asked how much education should cost, which is what we are typically asked. We were asked what we thought it would take to have high quality instruction and high quality performance in kids. We gave four ideas. If you pass this bill, we believe we could collect the information in the new section, which would allow us to give you legislators sound ideas. We knew when we presented our budget for over $800 million that the timing could not be worse in terms of fiscal implications. When the superintendents and boards of trustees were asked and took the initiative, we came up with talking points. We think this is more than “feel good” legislation.
Senator Raggio:
With the language in the bill, the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall compile the budget and shall take into account, without limitation, all these items. Is the superintendent going to tell us this bill was passed and all these things have to be included in the budget? If a $100 million program for full‑day kindergarten is submitted, is the superintendent going to tell us there is no alternative but to include it in the budget?
Dr. Hager:
I think the request would come through that path. If we believe that full‑day kindergarten is an important thing, which I do, this process begins the negotiations. It is not hearsay; there will be facts.
Senator Raggio:
Does the superintendent have to include it in the budget?
Dr. Hager:
That is what the bill says, but I do not believe that is the intention. If that part needs to be modified, we can do that. We are not trying to obligate, but we are trying to say that we, the superintendents and boards of trustees, have important information to share with the State Department of Education and legislators regarding needs.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 266.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 500.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 501.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 548.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will hold A.B. 549 while the proposed amendment is being drafted. The next bill is A.B. 195; apparently, it can be accomplished by the department within its budget.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 195.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will hold A.B. 266 at this time.
Senator Mathews:
Would you be interested in discussing S.B. 184?
SENATE BILL 184 (1st Reprint): Revises certain provisions governing occupational diseases contracted by police officers. (BDR 53-851)
Senator Raggio:
We have a number of bills that we need to discuss; I am going to take a recess at this time to accommodate other things. Mr. Lee, have you and Senator Townsend agreed on an amendment to S.B. 250? If so, please show it to staff.
SENATE BILL 250 (1st Reprint): Revises various provisions relating to regulated businesses and professions. (BDR 57-835)
I need the committee members to identify essential bills which need to be considered today. The time is 10:34 a.m.; we are in recess until the call of the chair.
This meeting is called back to order at 4:48 p.m. I would like to indicate that the Assembly amended S.B. 34, and deleted all the provisions for early entry into kindergarten.
SENATE BILL 34 (2nd Reprint): Clarifies that pupil may be retained more than once in same grade under certain circumstances. (BDR 34-639)
The Assembly has refused to recede from its action; I am going to ask that Senators Cegavske, Rawson, and Mathews serve on the conference committee. I think those early entry provisions were an important part of the bill.
Senator Coffin:
The Assembly has agreed to recede from its “do not concur” position on A.B. 353.
ASSEMBLY BILL 353 (2nd Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing disclosure of personally identifiable information concerning students by University and Community College System of Nevada. (BDR 34-76)
Senator Raggio:
Let us look at S.B. 415.
SENATE BILL 415 (2nd Reprint): Removes certain restrictions on use of money in Estate Tax Account in Endowment Fund of University and Community College System of Nevada. (BDR 32-1264)
The Assembly amended this bill with Amendment No. 846; a new Section 2 was inserted. Is this the bill that was requested by the Department of Administration? What is the affect of the amendment?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The amendment is consistent with the closing of the University and Community College System budget. It provides for the transfer of funds on a per month basis to the General Fund. In FY 2004, the amount is $45.8 million; in FY 2005, the amount is $43.4 million. Instead of utilizing estate tax revenues in the university budget, the Senate and Assembly committees decided to utilize General Fund money; these funds will go into the General Fund. The amendment also includes language at the end regarding sufficient fund flows into the General Fund over the next 2 years.
Senator Raggio:
Is this where the State becomes the guarantor?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
That is correct.
Senator Raggio:
Is this consistent with the budget closing action?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Yes, it is.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 846 TO S.B. 415.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will now look at S.B. 33.
SENATE BILL 33 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing charter schools and distance education programs. (BDR 34-642)
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The Senate committee heard this bill on April 15, 2003; since that time, the components of this bill have been amended into S.B. 252.
SENATE BILL 252 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning charter schools and distance education programs. (BDR 34-140)
Senate Bill 252 has been approved by the Senate and passed to the Assembly.
Senator Raggio:
In view of our action on S.B. 252, we can indefinitely postpone S.B. 33.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 33.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will now look at S.B. 52.
SENATE BILL 52: Makes appropriation to Department of Education to provide grants to school districts to facilitate participation in supplemental science, mathematics and technology programs for certain pupils and teachers. (BDR S-852)
Was this the Jason Project presentation? We thought the presentation was very effective, but the problem is lack of funding. Could this be added to the list of remedial programs approved by the State?
Ms. Braun:
Yes, it could; the group has already submitted program information to the bureau so it can be added to the next list.
Senator Raggio:
I think the committee would give a strong recommendation for this program to be considered.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 52.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
Do we have an amendment for S.B. 132?
SENATE BILL 132 (1st Reprint): Requires licensure of persons engaged in certain activities relating to control of mold. (BDR 53-235)
I believe we looked at Amendment No. 908 yesterday. Have we received any information regarding the fiscal note?
Senator Coffin:
The committee has spent quite a bit of time on this issue. I have been trying to get a fiscal note from the State Contractors’ Board, but they have not provided one; their reasons for not providing one are vague. I think we need to move on this bill.
Senator Raggio:
The amendment removes the Division of Industrial Relations from the bill. Will this be funded by fees?
Senator Coffin:
In the future it will be, but it needs start up funds.
Senator Raggio:
I think we need to move the bill; meanwhile, would staff contact the State Contractors’ Board and ask for fiscal note information based on the amendment?
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 132 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 908.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will now look at S.B. 152.
SENATE BILL 152: Makes appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada for renovation of former Mesquite High School for use as part of Community College System. (BDR S-1063)
The committee heard this bill on March 5, 2003.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The bill includes an appropriation of $970,000 from the General Fund. When the capital improvement projects were approved for the next biennium, the subcommittee recommended that $750,000 be included in the capital improvement program for this project.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 152.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will now consider S.B. 154.
SENATE BILL 154: Makes appropriation to Great Basin College of University and Community College System of Nevada for establishment of oral health clinic in Elko. (BDR S-304)
I believe this was also covered in the capital improvement program.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 154.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will now look at S.B. 178.
SENATE BILL 178: Makes appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada to create embalming facilities and plasticization laboratory to ensure that medical and dental schools can use anatomical specimens more efficiently for educational purposes. (BDR S-1064)
This item was addressed in the capital improvement program.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 178.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will now consider S.B. 190.
SENATE BILL 190: Makes appropriation for creation of certificate program and provision of stipends to certain teachers. (BDR S-894)
Mr. Hanlon was involved with this bill; there is a significant appropriation in excess of $9.4 million for the certificate program and stipends.
Ms. Braun:
The bill makes an appropriation of $3.7 million in FY 2004 and $5.78 million in FY 2005 for the creation of a certificate program, and for stipends to math and science teachers through the regional professional development programs.
Senator Raggio:
Since we obviously do not have the funding for this, will the committee consider a Letter of Intent in support of this program? Staff has indicated there might be funds available to use for this purpose.
Ms. Braun:
Title II funds could be used for this purpose through the school districts.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 190, AND TO ISSUE A LETTER OF INTENT SUPPORTING THE PROGRAM AND ASKING SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO OBTAIN APPROPRIATE FUNDING.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
Could we look at S.B. 210?
SENATE BILL 210: Makes various changes governing education and makes related appropriations. (BDR 34-636)
The committee heard this bill on March 17, 2003; it is the certificate program for stipends. Is this for the high impact positions? In our action on the DSA, we intend to utilize the qualifying factors for the awarding of retirement credits. Can we use the same language here?
Ms. Braun:
Sections 1 and 2 could be removed, as well as other sections that are included in the DSA.
Senator Raggio:
I think the action of the committee in regard to the DSA would be to utilize the criteria set forth for that purpose. What other sections are necessary for the bill to be processed?
Ms. Braun:
The necessary sections are Sections 3 through 8, Section 17, and Section 19; these concern the regional professional development programs and the Nevada Early Literacy Intervention program. In the DSA, these were combined. This provides the backup for that combination.
Senator Cegavske:
Does this action eliminate the fiscal note?
Senator Raggio:
Yes, it does.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 210, RETAINING SECTIONS 3 THROUGH 8, SECTION 17, AND SECTION 19.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Tiffany:
I thought we included this in No Child Left Behind legislation.
Ms. Braun:
Section 14, which is $1.4 million each year for the test reporting brochures, was included in S.B. 191. The other appropriations in the bill have been taken care of in the DSA.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will now look at S.B. 340.
SENATE BILL 340: Provides in skeleton form for scholarships to pupils with disabilities who attend private schools. (BDR 34-45)
The committee heard this bill on April 10, 2003; it initially had an extremely large fiscal note. I received a letter from the Superintendent of Public Instruction reporting the fiscal note has been withdrawn. As I recall the testimony, this bill applies to only one existing school, the New Horizons Academy. Since there is no fiscal note, what is the committee’s pleasure?
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 340.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will now consider S.B. 250.
SENATE BILL 250 (1st Reprint): Revises various provisions relating to regulated businesses and professions. (BDR 57-835)
I believe Mr. Lee explained the amendment yesterday; we need confirmation that the sponsors of the bill have agreed to this amendment. We also need to know if the fiscal note has been removed.
Keith L. Lee, Lobbyist, State Board of Medical Examiners:
I have distributed a copy of the amendment (Exhibit I. Original is on file in the Research Library.). In speaking with Senator Townsend this afternoon, he confirmed this amendment reflects our agreement. I left a copy of the amendment with Senator O’Connell, but I have not been able to speak directly with her. Senator Townsend said he would speak to Senator O’Connell.
Senator Raggio:
Since this is a Senate bill, we will process it; if Senator O’Connell has any concerns, I am sure she will discuss them before the bill goes to the Senate floor.
Mr. Lee:
The changes are indicated on the first page of the amendment handout. The amendment to Section 41 deletes some language, and adds other language with respect to the audit.
Senator Raggio:
Does this now have the approval of Senator Townsend? Does anyone want to address the fiscal note?
John R. Orr, Deputy Commissioner, Division of Insurance, Department of Business and Industry:
I have one technical recommendation to make; if the committee intends to eliminate the critical medical specialties subsidy, the division recommends that Sections 166 through 175 be deleted instead of Sections 170 through 175.
Senator Raggio:
To clarify, you suggest deleting Sections 166 through 175.
Mr. Orr:
Sections 166 through 169 are preambles to the subsidy sections.
Senator Raggio:
We need assurance from Senators O’Connell and Townsend regarding that recommendation. We need a formal amendment.
Senator Rawson:
Is the subsidy removed?
Mr. Lee:
Yes, it is.
Senator Raggio:
We can take action on the bill, then have you bring the amendment back for us to look at; we can also check with the bill’s sponsors regarding any concerns they might have.
Mr. Lee:
Section 166 begins “for the purposes of Sections 166 to 175, inclusive”; I suspect the sections are tied together.
Senator Tiffany:
I was going to ask what the resolution was for the critical subspecialists; apparently, we did nothing.
Mr. Lee:
In this bill, we have given the Governor the authority to determine that there may be critically unmet needs in certain subspecialties in any geographic area of the state; if the Governor makes that declaration, then the Board of Medical Examiners may waive one of the licensing provisions. We have attempted to deal with that issue by allowing the Governor to make a declaration of an unmet critical subspecialty need, which triggers the ability of the board to waive one of the licensing requirements.
Senator Tiffany:
In other words, there is no subsidy.
Mr. Lee:
That is correct.
Senator Tiffany:
The subsidy is removed, no matter what. I believe there were two possible solutions; one solution was General Fund, which I did not think was appropriate. The other option was the excess from licensing fees. What happened concerning moving the office to Las Vegas by 2007?
Senator Raggio:
They explained all that yesterday while you were gone. They have committed to opening an office in Las Vegas.
Mr. Lee:
The office will be staffed appropriately; the board meets this Friday and will discuss the Las Vegas office and staffing issues.
Senator Tiffany:
What about teleconferencing?
Mr. Lee:
That item is still in the bill; Friday’s meeting will be teleconferenced between Reno and Las Vegas.
Senator Raggio:
Senator Townsend explained all the amendments yesterday.
Mr. Orr:
The fiscal note from the division contains three elements. The consensus amendment addresses two of the three elements.
Senator Raggio:
Is there a remaining fiscal note?
Mr. Orr:
Yes, there is. It addresses our concerns that the required additional hearings for the insurance reform elements will exceed our capacity to conduct hearings. In our initial fiscal note, before the various amendments, we identified that capacity issue and suggested we will need one additional insurance counsel and a legal secretary for support of that position, at a cost of $134,000 in the first year and $132,000 in the second year. We do not want to hold up a critical bill; we will be satisfied if the committee recognizes our concerns.
Senator Raggio:
In order to process this bill, staff suggests we amend the bill and pass it out of committee; we will issue a Letter of Intent for the Division of Insurance to come to the IFC for the additional authorization, if it is necessary.
Mr. Orr:
That would be our recommendation.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 250, WITH APPROVAL FROM SENATORS O’CONNELL AND TOWNSEND, AND TO ISSUE A LETTER OF INTENT TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT THE BILL.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will now look at S.B. 367.
SENATE BILL 367: Makes appropriation to University and Community College System of Nevada for design of electrical and industrial technology building on campus of Great Basin College. (BDR S-1142)
I believe this was included in the capital improvement program.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 367.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
I would like to consider S.B. 368.
SENATE BILL 368: Provides for reimbursement of Legislators for certain travel expenses incurred during legislative interim. (BDR 17-676)
The committee heard testimony regarding this bill on April 23, 2003. I believe there is a cap on the reimbursement amount.
Senator Rhoads:
According to the Research Division, 13 legislative districts in Nevada have land areas larger than 1000 square miles. Every legislator will be eligible for reimbursements, regardless of the size of the district.
Senator Raggio:
What are the qualifications to receive the allowance?
Senator Rhoads:
Travel reimbursement is limited to county commissioner meetings, city council meetings, hearings, and so forth. Reimbursement is not available for political rallies or campaigns for office. I believe it is up to the legislative commission to develop regulations.
Senator Rawson:
I perceive this bill as beneficial to our rural legislators, who have a significant disadvantage in representing their districts. I am supportive of this bill in that respect. I do not intend to use this reimbursement.
Senator Raggio:
Is this payable out of the Legislative budget?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
That is correct.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 368.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS CEGAVSKE AND TIFFANY VOTED NO.)
*****
Senator Coffin:
I will most likely not use the reimbursement, but the bill does not exclude any legislator from the reimbursement.
Senator Raggio:
We are processing the proposed constitutional amendment which will provide for reasonable expenses.
Senator Coffin:
The legislators in these large districts need to know what is happening in their local governments. I can drive about 1.5 miles to my city hall.
Senator Raggio:
When we closed the DSA this morning, one of our agreements was to fund an additional 2 percent over the Governor’s recommendation for health care benefits; the money for that action will be placed with the IFC. The State Board of Examiners will develop policy for any request for the money. Within the limits of the appropriation, the IFC will review and approve requests. I have distributed copies of the language that will be used (Exhibit J). Will this be included in the Appropriations Act?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
This is the same language utilized in S.B. No. 587 of the 71st Session; funding for a similar purpose was provided during the 71st Session.
Senator Raggio:
Do we need a “stand alone” bill?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I suggest amending A.B. 257.
ASSEMBLY BILL 257 (1st Reprint): Makes appropriations to restore balance in Contingency Fund. (BDR S-1235)
Senator Raggio:
I think this is consistent with the committee’s closing action.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 257 WITH THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN EXHIBIT J FOR HEALTH CARE BENEFITS.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
This meeting is adjourned at 5:29 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Denise Davis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: