The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 7:40 a.m., on Wednesday, March 24, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Larry Spitler said he was present to represent Clark County School District. Also present were Dr. Maria Chairez and Dr. Mike Robison. A.B. 147 had been amended in the education committee, saving $510,000. A.B. 147 was divided into four sections. Mr. Spitler said Dr. Chairez would address sections one, two, and three and he would address section four.

Maria Chairez introduced herself as the Director of Secondary Success Programs for Clark County School District and said she worked to decrease drop-out rates and improve success in schools. Clark County School District highly supported A.B. 147. Extending instructional time would help students learn and ultimately increase student performance, eventually decreasing the drop-out rate. The ability to offer extended day programs was limited by fiscal resources and the bill would help increase instructional time. With current funding, the extended day programs had only been able to serve 3,300 students in the K-12 system. A.B. 147 would increase instructional time by 30 percent, which translated into better performances from students. The majority of the 200,000 students enrolled in the Clark County School District did not have extra help beyond the regular school day. By extending the day, learning time could be extended, teachers could help students work map manipulatives, students could work on mastering a rigorous core curriculum, and the curriculum could be tied to the districts’ rigorous standards. At the secondary level, students could make up classes they had not passed and teachers could remediate in areas of proficiency where students had not mastered basic skills. A key component of the experimental program was an external evaluator who looked at a student’s long-term performance so success could be documented. The program would replicate only successful programs. She concluded by saying the money was desperately needed and guaranteed the district would work its very best to evaluate the program's results.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if A.B. 147 was the district’s approach to dealing with the suspected remediation needs related to the legislation on eighth grade passed in the 1997 Legislative Session and the new standards, or was it an overall program that was just needed. Mr. Spitler said it was an overall program that was desperately needed and would dovetail with the remediation. Ms. Giunchigliani said she was not sure whether there was a bill on remediation to deal with standards or if that was dealt with in the
K-12 budget. Mr. Spitler said he believed there was a proposal in The Executive Budget to expend up to $8 million for remediation.

Mr. Spitler said he would address the portion of the bill relating to area service centers. He was pleased when the joint subcommittee was able to visit the area service center. Only Vice Chair Evans had been able to attend, but he thought she was impressed with the parents working at the center and the kinds of activities occurring there, even though it was a Saturday. Within the Clark County School District, some time ago it had been determined the administrative functions of the district needed to be moved from one location to various locations, which were spread out within the community. As a result, the largest area service center, the East Charleston branch, was opened. He said Exhibit C showed the various services performed at the branch. The East Charleston branch worked out of a storefront and was located conveniently in the neighborhood. People were able to stop in and access their children’s records, find out about transportation issues, utilize the center’s library, take parenting classes, and utilize parent and child tutoring classes. The center worked throughout the day, into the evenings. While it was not originally established for board members to be based there, the regional concept was very positive and the trustees were based in those locations. There were three trustees located in the East Charleston area service center. Another area service center was in the process of opening, and there were several planned to be built in the near future.

Mr. Spitler explained the second portion of the bill requested funding to assist in startup costs, not the ongoing maintenance, of two additional area service centers, which would allow all trustees to get out into the community. Any portion of the $500,000 not used in opening the two specific centers would be reverted back to the General Fund. Until a location was selected, the exact cost of the centers would not be known, but it had been found it cost $150,000 to $200,000 to "rehab" an existing structure. The program had been very successful in getting computers donated for the two area service centers and would be building lending libraries in them as well. He concluded by encouraging the committee to visit area service centers.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Educational Foundation had adopted area service centers as a project for which it would raise money. Mr. Spitler replied he did not know, but would find out.

Mrs. de Braga said she thought A.B. 147 was a great bill, but was concerned it related only to Clark County. She said the entire state needed extended hours for kindergarten, even though the idea had been resisted when supported by Ms. Giunchigliani. She asked why programs in A.B. 147 were worthier of funding than programs that covered the entire state. Mr. Spitler said Clark County had decided, with the bill draft requests from the 1997 Legislative Session, to address the problem in Clark County. On several BDR issues, it was decided the issue was not just a Clark County issue, it was a statewide issue. The county drafted, for example, the statewide dropout plan. He thought that particular grant was unique to Clark County School District and admitted he had not presented the grant to other school districts to offer participation. In highly populated areas, it was extremely important to have after-school programs and extending learning opportunities, but not at the expense of the rest of the state. He conceded Clark County should be working from a statewide perspective on the issue.

Mrs. de Braga agreed and said most counties with even a medium-sized school district were desperately trying to fund summer programs without cost to the participants. Mr. Spitler said Dr. Chairez had informed him 47 percent of violent juvenile crime occurred between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The more a learning environment was extended, the less time a child spent in a non-productive environment. Mrs. de Braga asked if a large part of the problem in Clark County was the split session, which put children out on the streets at early hours of the day. Mr. Spitler replied that was a result of bussing schedules in order to get all students to school on time, but Clark County was not currently on double sessions.

Mrs. Chowning said the principals with whom she visited during the interim said students badly needed more help and instruction after school, inter-session, and during the summer. Most schools in her district were year-round so the after school and inter-session programs were desperately needed because students were already there and wanted to have the remediation. She said she visited the East Charleston area service center and asked what hours the center operated. She wanted to know if the computers in the center were really being used, and if so, by whom and how often.

Mr. Spitler said the center had evening hours and was open for community meetings in the evenings. There were two computer labs at the East Charleston center, one with 33 computers that had been donated. That lab was used for children’s classes and for professional development for staff. The other lab, with 5 computers, was used by very young children to help with coordination and training, which was available in English and Spanish. In addition, computer time could be reserved for Saturdays. The East Charleston center was in a great location, where three trustees’ districts came together, so it literally served three trustees.

Ms. Giunchigliani disclosed she was a Clark County public school teacher, and said she noticed in the Assembly Education bill, summer school funding had been removed. She asked if that was because it was being considered in several other pieces of legislation. Mr. Spitler replied that was correct. All school districts met and had looked at various bills on inter-session and summer school. Realizing it would be a very lean funding year, it was decided to do one thing so everyone could apply for those grants. Smaller districts, which wouldn’t get very much money if funding was allocated by percentage, would receive a flat amount if the bills were passed.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she assumed the after school program would be for the contracted rate for after school duty hours and that amount would be reported back, as stated in section 2. Mr. Spitler said that was correct.

Vice Chair Evans said through the good work of Mr. Spitler, when the subcommittee went to Las Vegas two weeks prior, several people had the opportunity to visit the East Charleston area service center. It was very impressive and user-friendly for all constituencies. As communities continued to grow, that type of center would have grater significance. She encouraged anyone who had not visited an area service center to do so.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 147 closed.

Dale Erquiaga, Acting Director of the Department of Museums, Library, and Arts. Also present was Ron James, Administrator of the State Historic Preservation Office. Mr. Erquiaga said A.B. 374 had been heard in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and had been
re-referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means because it involved money. The Commission on Cultural Affairs awarded $2 million in grants each year using the state’s bonding capacity and A.B. 374 would allow the commission to use the interest that had accrued over the years.

Mr. James said funds from A.B. 374 had already been awarded, in theory, to various grant recipients throughout the state, pending passage of the bill. A.B. 374 did not request any new allocations of funds. The funds were "in the bank" on behalf of the commission for cultural affairs. There was a quirk in the existing legislation stating all interest generated from the bonds would be at the disposal of the Commission for Cultural Affairs. The commission could request bonding of $2 million per year, but could only spend $2 million per year, which meant it could not spend the interest available to it. As the commission had accumulated interest, there was a problem with arbitrage. The Federal Government assessed fines for bonding programs that were too successful and had generated too much interest without putting the interest back into the program for which it was originally intended. The state would begin paying larger and larger fines if the interest was not put back into public programs. The Commission for Cultural Affairs meeting in February 1999 designated its $2 million in regular bonded grants that it requested the state to sell bonds on the commission’s behalf. At the same time, the commission allocated grants totaling $500,000, pending the legislation for the distribution of interest.

Mr. Marvel said arbitrage really bothered him and noted the Commission for Cultural Affairs was originally his bill. He asked at what point the Federal Government would begin arbitrage collection from the commission. Mr. James replied the commission had already paid its first fine to the Federal Government. He had discussed the issue with Bob Seale in his final months as the Sate Treasurer and Mr. Seale said it was not a fine. The Federal Government allowed a certain amount of interest, but once that point was passed, a fee was assessed. The commission had already paid a $42,000 fee to the Federal Government.

Mr. Marvel asked what the commission had done with the interest money. Mr. James said the commission had received 31 grant applications totaling nearly $8 million, for the $2 million that was normally available. The commission distributed $2 million in bonds and an additional $500,000. Mr. Marvel asked how much money was in the interest account. Mr. James replied there was roughly $600,000 in the account. During the 1997 Legislative Session, some of that money was authorized to support the administration of the office, which drew about $40,000 per year. If the commission needed to generate additional money, A.B. 374 gave it the authority to spend an additional $23,000, if needed.

Mr. Marvel asked if the commission would allocate money to existing programs it had already funded or if it would create new programs. Mr. James said the Commission for Cultural Affairs arranged the $500,000 so that it went almost entirely to new programs. Mr. Marvel asked if new applications for funding would be required. Mr. James said the applications were submitted with all the rest of the applications, but the commission had selected the newer programs to receive the $500,000. Mr. Marvel asked if the programs that did not receive any funding were on a priority list for funds out of the interest fund. Mr. James said there were only a few programs that were not awarded grants in the current cycle and those programs had been encouraged to apply in the next cycle. The commission could award those programs additional funds, if available. Mr. Marvel asked if the commission would be penalized again. Mr. James said if A.B. 374 passed in the 1999 Legislative Session, he did not think the commission would be penalized again.

Michael Hillerby, the Arts and Culture Manager for the City of Reno, said he was present to support A.B. 374. The City of Reno was one of the grant recipients in the $500,000 category and was awaiting approval for the distribution of those monies. The McKinley Park School was a 90-year-old school on Riverside Drive that was being restored as the city’s Arts and Culture Community Center. The city originally put $1.5 million into the project and the previous day the city council approved another $350,000 for the project, which was 2 months ahead of the normal budget schedule, in anticipation of matching the roughly $136,000 the project had been awarded from the Commission on Cultural Affairs. That would allow for the completion of the building, which was anticipated to be in about 3 months, provided the money was authorized quickly.

Mr. Marvel said he agreed that the money should be appropriated or else the commission would be fined and the money would be lost to the Federal Government. He thought the sooner the money was used, the better off everyone would be. Mr. Hillerby agreed and said there were people waiting to use the money. There were ten projects statewide that received funding out of the $500,000 pool and the sooner projects were completed, the less money would be spent on construction costs.

Mr. Hillerby submitted information to the committee showing where the $500,000 would be spent (Exhibit D, "Commission for Cultural Affairs Grant Awards For 1999.")

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 347 closed.

Gerald Hardcastle introduced himself as a District Court Judge assigned to the Family Division in Clark County. He said he dreamed of many things that could be done for the children of Nevada, but unfortunately, as he was a judge, he was somewhat limited as to how far he could dream. Myrna Williams had been able to assemble people, such as himself, Thom Reilly, Director of Administrative Services for Clark County, Senator Jon Porter, Assemblywoman Buckley, Judge Nancy Siatta, and Annette Appell, Professor, University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Law, to try to remedy a problem in the judicial system. A plan was drafted requiring the coordination and effort of the judicial system, the state, and Clark County in order to provide effective representation for children in the court system. The ideas for the project were the ideas of Commissioner Williams.

Judge Hardcastle said the premise of American litigation was there were adults in the system, either parents or the court, who would protect the rights of children. However, that did not always happen. In domestic litigation and abuse and neglect litigation, that rarely happened. Judges were the decision makers, not advocates, and did not represent any of the interested parties or children. Most importantly, judges did not have the powers of independent investigation. Parents often had conflicting interests. Judges trusted and hoped parents in the system would protect their children, but in battles over children, that was not the case. It was especially not the case when a parent had a drug problem or abused or neglected their children. In those cases, the interests of parents were purely selfish and kept them from telling the court what it needed to know in order to make the best decision for their children.

Judge Hardcastle explained history had shown the most competent and most effective way to do what was best for children and obtain representation for children was to have a person in the system who represented just the children and had the power of independent investigation. Amazingly, there were currently no provisions in Nevada law for the appointment of attorneys for children. If he wanted to appoint an attorney for a child, there were no funds to pay the attorney.

Judge Hardcastle said Commissioner Williams wanted to accomplish two things. First, there was a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program, which acted in the interest of children. The advocates were laypeople who were not lawyers, but, through extensive training, represented children before the court. There were times when the advocates needed attorneys for complicated matters. The program would increase the CASA staff and enable more lay representation for children. Second, the plan would provide attorney representation for children and CASA whenever that level of representation was necessary for the child to be effectively represented.

Judge Hardcastle said a commitment had been made from the court improvement grant, which was a federal grant to provide ways to address the needs of abused and neglected children. He was pleased the court improvement grant had committed funding $50,000 for those purposes. In order to strengthen the CASA program, Clark County had been requested to provide $112,000. For the attorney representation component, the program sought $200,000 from the state.

Thom Reilly, Director of Administrative Services for Clark County, presented a letter (Exhibit E) drafted to Governor Guinn on behalf of Assemblywoman Buckley, Judge Hardcastle, Senator Porter, Judge Siatta, and Commissioner Williams. The letter pointed out the need for increased CASA and legal representation. In addition, Mr. Riley presented written testimony on behalf of Commissioner Williams (Exhibit F), which pledged Clark County financial support to increase the CASA program.

Currently federal and state law required, in every case of abuse or neglect resulting in a judicial proceeding, the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the child in such proceedings. Though Clark County was not meeting that requirement, it was a shared responsibility of the state. The majority of CASA appointments were appointed in foster care and adoption cases, which was the responsibility of the state. The unique feature of A.B. 430 was the participation of all segments of the community involved in abuse and neglect. The bill was a federal, state, and county initiative to address an issue required by federal and state law. There were not enough CASA representatives to appoint for every child, which made the county and state vulnerable to lawsuits. The intent of A.B. 430 was to contract out with attorneys in the community to help represent cases where the needs of children were not being addressed.

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8 in Clark County, said she was present in support of A.B. 430. She reiterated the county was out of compliance with state law and applauded the county for the pilot project. It was much better to design an effective, small pilot project before a consent decree was issued. The project made sense for the community and was a partnership, with Judge Hardcastle single-handedly obtaining the $50,000 Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) grant. The county had committed increasing funding for the CASA program and she wanted it to be a three-way partnership. She acknowledged the lack of available funds in the budget, but asked for consideration of the bill.

Assemblywoman Buckley said, as Mr. Riley indicated, the program would be started selectively, looking for cases where it made the most sense to provide an attorney for the child. In cases where everyone’s interest was represented but the child’s, or in cases where a child languished in foster care, an attorney was needed. The Clark County Legal Services Director had pledged support of the program in order to make the program more effective in terms of working with attorneys in the community, or devoting staff time if there were additional resources. The most important thing was to look after the best interest of the children and the county was not doing a very good job of that, but A.B. 430 would help it do better.

Mr. Marvel asked when the first class would graduate from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Law. Ms. Buckley said the first class would graduate in 2001. She said Professor Annette Appell joined the program and had administered a law school clinic at Northwestern University in Chicago, which represented abused and neglected children. The project planned the use of second- of third-year law students to augment the project’s services. Mr. Marvel thought the project would be a good way to utilize Nevada’s future attorneys. Ms. Buckley said that was an excellent idea and if there were enough resources to ensure attorney supervision, the project could maximize its dollars by involving law students.

Don Hataway, Deputy Director of the Budget Division, said the division did not have a position on A.B. 430. In order to minimize the impact on General Fund resources, the committee should be made aware that for the last several years the office of the Attorney General had received a federal grant in excess of $2.3 million for victims of domestic violence. He was not sure how broad the definition of the grant was, but 25 percent of the grant must be given to organizations dealing in the area, 25 percent must be given to law enforcement, 25 percent must be given to the court, and 25 percent were discretionary funds that went to all three areas. The project may be eligible to receive funding from the grant.

Mr. Marvel asked if any request had been made to the Attorney General for allocation of funds. Ms. Buckley replied no, not yet, because most of the grant was for domestic violence, not abuse and neglect of children. The project would certainly explore every grant source.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 430 closed.

Scott Scherer, General Counsel for the Governor’s Office, said A.J.R. 9 was not the Governor’s resolution, but the office certainly supported it. With a minor change, he thought it was an excellent resolution and submitted the bill with the change marked (Exhibit G).

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.J.R. 9 closed.

Bob Gagnier introduced himself as the Executive Director of the State of Nevada Employees Association and said A.B. 468 was not his bill. A.B. 468 would allow those people in state government who had not used any sick leave in the previous 6 months to be eligible to convert 1 day of sick leave to annual leave. Mr. Gagnier said it was not a new idea and he had negotiated, under collective bargaining, something quite similar in Washington state.

Mr. Gagnier said there were, however, two possible problems with A.B. 468, which if addressed, would improve the bill. First, there were approximately 300 administrators in state government who were not required to account for any leave used in less than full-day increments. Those employees could use sick leave in half-day, non-reportable increments and would still be eligible to convert unused sick leave to annual leave. The problem would be easy to address.

Mr. Gagnier’s second suggestion was, rather than apply the benefit to people who had not used any sick leave, perhaps apply the benefit to people who had used a minimal amount, less than 2 days for example, of sick leave. He said A.B. 468 would appear to discourage people from going to a doctor because if a person went to a one-hour appointment, he or she would be ineligible for the benefit. It was not good to discourage a person from going to a doctor because the condition could worsen. Mr. Gagnier said with those suggestions, he thought the bill was very good.

Chairman Arberry said the intent of the bill, as Mr. Gagnier presented it, was a series of bills he hoped to present to the committee that would add benefits to state employees to let them know the legislature cared about them. There was a morale problem among state employees who felt the legislature was not sensitive to their needs. When he asked the Fiscal Analysis Division staff to create those bills, the intent was to let state employees know the legislature appreciated and respected their work.

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Gagnier to provide his recommendations in writing to fiscal staff. Mr. Gagnier said he would do so. He said the Department of Personnel introduced A.B. 446, which amended the same section and had been heard in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and the committee voted to "do pass" the bill. He had testified in support of A.B.446 and suggested perhaps the combination of A.B. 446 and A.B.468 into one bill. He thought the committee could also remove the caps, which may be unrealistic, due to its cost of $4 million. Perhaps that also could be combined into one bill.

Mr. Parks said he had worked on labor negotiations in southern Nevada, negotiating employee contracts in the public sector. Most employee bargaining groups in Clark County had such a provision, referred to as bonus time or bonus days. The premise behind bonus time was that unscheduled leave could be quite disruptive to a business and could cause overtime costs. Bonus time sought to reward individuals who did not abuse the privilege of sick leave. He added he recently retired and had to give back more than 500 hours of sick leave he had never used.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 468 closed.

Chairman Arberry asked if there was currently a bill that would privatize the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Mrs. Chowning said A.B. 377 and A.B. 378 both stated the Director shall issue a contract or negotiate a contract so various areas of the DMV would be contracted out. She said the bills had been heard the previous day and no action had been taken on either. Mr. Gagnier said he testified against both bills, as did the DMV.

Chairman Arberry said the committee would next be closing budgets.

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, said there were not very many changes in the budgets to be closed. The Municipal Bond Bank Revenue and Municipal Bond Bank Debt Service were small accounts administered by the State Treasurer and staff had no suggestions for changing what was included in the Governor’s recommendation.

Mr. Stevens said the next group of budgets included major museum accounts. The first budget account was State Museum, Carson City, in which staff had no changes recommended. He noted there were a few positions recommended to be added, due to the renovation of the old First Interstate Building (FIB) building in the Plaza Center between the two buildings.

Mr. Stevens said staff had no changes recommended in the budget account for the Nevada Historical Society, and noted, in the past, the account received tourism funds, but none were recommended in the upcoming biennium.

Mr. Stevens said for the Nevada State Railroad Museum budget account, staff recommended additional funding from the General Fund. There had been an upgrade of a custodial worker to a garage service worker. He noted it was a small account and recommended making that change so there would not be additional salary savings required.

Mr. Stevens said staff had no recommendations in the budget account for the Museum and Historical Society in Las Vegas.

Mr. Stevens said staff had no recommendations for the Lost City Museum budget account. He noted there were plans to fix the adobe on the structure at the museum.

Mr. Stevens said the budget account for the Comstock Historic District was very small and staff recommended the committee take into account several things that had occurred since The Executive Budget was released. First, there had been an increase in water rates in Virginia City. Second, there were one-and-a-half positions in the account and the merit salary increase for the half-time position was frozen because it was within a classification that the Budget Division felt turned over frequently. That worked well in a budget with many positions, but for a small budget, such as the Comstock Historic District’s, staff felt it would not be appropriate. Staff recommended removing that from the budget, resulting in additional General Funds of $1,189 in FY 2000 and $1,755 in FY 2001.

Mr. Stevens said the only change staff recommended in the State Historic Preservation budget account was in the Historic Marker Program. The Executive Budget recommended the utilization of $10,000 in General Funds, along with highway funds. In the past, tourism commission funds and room tax revenues had been used for that purpose. The closing sheets reflected a reduction of the General Fund by $10,000 and the addition of room tax or tourism funds of $10,000, as had been done in the previous few bienniums.

Mr. Stevens said staff had no recommendations in the Rural Rehabilitation Trust budget account.

Explaining the Apiary Inspection budget account, Mr. Stevens said the Division of Agriculture would no longer receive the Africanized honey bee grant. The expenditures for administration of the grant had been removed from The Executive Budget, but the revenues from the grant had not been removed, and staff recommended making that change.

Mr. Hataway called attention to Amendment 96 to The Executive Budget, which pertained to Budget Account 4540, Plant Industry. There were two new positions in the account because the Division of Agriculture felt the Africanized bee issue was important enough to convert one position to a position that specialized in the Africanized bee. The amendment was to accelerate the hire date from the October to July 1, which would add $10,511 to that account.

Mr. Marvel said fire ants could be a serious problem in other states and asked if Nevada had a problem with them. Mr. Hataway said the Division of Agriculture had testified it had the fire ant situation under control with its existing staff. The division would continually monitor the situation, but Africanized bees were the division’s pressing concern.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she thought the Division of Agriculture had testified it was quite concerned about fire ants and had staff to monitor only licensed nurseries, not other stores that sold plants. If the division was making amendments to its budget, she wanted assurance the division would conduct additional inspections. The reduced-cost and discounted plant outlets would not be as closely inspected and had the tendency to carry fire ants, more so than in licensed, more regulated nurseries.

Mr. Hataway said he would get clarifications of the positions from the division. He thought the presence of a full-time position in one area would probably provide benefit to the other area as well. He believed the division testified it would be conducting the centric ring testing of various suspected areas to make sure the ants were not spreading.

Mrs. de Braga said she thought there had been an increase in the Division of Agriculture’s inspection portion of its budget and perhaps that area inspected fire ants.

Chairman Arberry said Budget Account 4548, Apiary Inspection, would be held.

Mr. Stevens said staff had no recommendations for the Minerals Bond Reclamation budget account.

Mr. Stevens said staff had no recommendations for the Junior Livestock Show Board budget account.

Mr. Stevens said staff had no recommendations for the Health Resources Cost Review budget account.

Mr. Stevens said staff had no recommendations for the Nevada Youth Training Center (NYTC) Chapter I and II Education Programs budget account.

Vice Chair Evans said the Human Resources, K-12 subcommittee had not reviewed the budget account, and asked if, with the addition of E-225 General Fund money and some things that had been transferred to the NYTC regular budget, the funding was "flat funding." The budget showed a decline due to the loss of federal funds. Mr. Stevens said some General Funds were utilized to replace the loss of federal funds, and his understanding was the budget was status quo.

Mrs. Cegavske asked why the federal money had been lost. Neither Mr. Stevens nor Vice Chair Evans knew why the federal funding ended.

Mr. Stevens said staff had no recommendations for the Farm Account, Youth Training Center budget account.

Mr. Stevens said staff had no recommendations for the Homeless Grants budget account.

For the Welfare Energy Assistance budget account, Mr. Stevens said based on the guidance provided by the committee on March 22, 1999 concerning hardware and software costs, staff adjusted the software costs by $209 in FY 2000, which reflected more recent pricing structures.

Mr. Marvel complimented the Fiscal Analysis Division staff for its expeditious action on budget accounts, which saved the committee a great deal of time.

Chairman Arberry agreed.

The committee briefly discussed travel plans to Las Vegas for the weekend.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Christina Alfonso,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: