The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 4:05 p.m., on Thursday, April 15, 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

Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Robert Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Marcia de Braga (Excused)

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr. (Excused)

Mr. Richard Perkins (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chairman Arberry announced the first item of business would be A.B. 26.

Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, stated the bill would revise the provisions governing distribution of revenue from the lease of federal lands. Federal law required that the Federal Government pay a percentage of the money it received for the development of minerals on federal lands to the state in which the lands were located. Mr. Neighbors advised that compensation included:

• Royalties on oil, gas, geothermal steam, sand and gravel, and geothermal hot water;
• Rents for lands with geothermal resources, oil, or gas; and,
• Bonuses for lands with geothermal resources, oil, or gas.

Currently, explained Mr. Neighbors, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 328.450 stipulated that the first $7 million received by the state be deposited in the state’s Distributive School Account (DSA). Amounts in excess of $7 million would be deposited in the account for revenue from the lease of federal lands. In addition, state law required the money from that account be distributed at 25 percent to the DSA, and 75 percent to the county of origin of the revenue from the lease of federal lands. Mr. Neighbors remarked NRS 328.460 stipulated that 25 percent of the county’s allotment must be distributed to the school district in that county. The county was required to use the remaining money for the construction and maintenance of roads and public facilities, public services, and planning. Mr. Neighbors pointed out that A.B. 26 did not involve revenue from gold or silver.

Mr. Neighbors related when he was a county manager in 1985, the director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) contacted him and advised federal law was shorting the counties in the distribution of revenue generated by the lease of federal lands. Mr. Neighbors then researched the issue and approached the legislature in 1985 on behalf of the rural counties. At that particular time, all revenue was disbursed to the then Distributive School Fund, which had since become an account within the General Fund. Mr. Neighbors stated in 1985, approximately $10 million a year was being collected from the revenues and, in order to "ease the pain," the counties proposed changing the threshold from $10 million to $5 million. The first $5 million would continue to be distributed to the state, with any balance distributed to the county.

Mr. Neighbors indicated the 1985 legislature stipulated if counties would agree to a $10 million threshold on the revenue, it would attempt to change the law. Because revenue was fluctuating between $10 to $12 million, and the price of oil was good, the counties decided to agree with the $10 million threshold in order to secure approval of proposed legislation. Until 1995, when additional legislation was passed, counties were locked into that threshold and, even though revenue reached $9.9 million one year, under the federal law, not once did the counties ever realize any revenue. For every dollar collected for leased federal land, the government distributed 50 cents, less administrative fees, back to the state.

According to Mr. Neighbors, he had been monitoring the revenues for the past approximately 17 years. He called the committee’s attention to page two of the handout entitled, "Assembly Bill 26" (Exhibit C), which explained A.B. 631 of the 1995 session. Mr. Neighbors explained during that session, he had requested an opinion from the Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), and when he received the opinion, it indicated the "spirit of the law" had not been followed. That opinion was given late in the 1995 session, and Mr. Neighbors approached the Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, which agreed to decrease the threshold from $10 million to $7 million, however, would take no further action because budgets were already closed.

At the 1997 session, Mr. Neighbors noted he sponsored A.B. 283, because even with a threshold of $7 million, revenue never exceeded that amount, and again the counties did not realize any revenue. There was no action taken on the bill during that session.

Next, Mr. Neighbors directed the committee’s attention to the page in Exhibit C which showed a comparison between current law (NRS 328.450-470) and the proposed change (A.B. 26). Under the current law, $7 million was disbursed to DSA, and any amount over that would be disbursed to the counties. Mr. Neighbors noted there had not been an excess over the $7 million threshold for several years, because the price of oil was at depression levels. However, he explained, if there

was an excess, 25 percent of that would also remain with DSA, and 75 percent would be disbursed to the counties. From that 75 percent assessment, 25 percent would go to the county school district fund, and the remainder to the county general fund, to be used for construction and maintenance of roads and other public facilities, public services, and planning.

Mr. Neighbors noted A.B. 26 would continue to disburse 25 percent of the total compensation to the DSA. He indicated that federal law did not mention schools as a recipient of funds from revenue collected from leased land. The remaining 75 percent would be disbursed to the county of origin, with 25 percent of the county share disbursed to its school general fund.

Mr. Neighbors advised the committee there was a proposed amendment to A.B. 26 (Exhibit D), which had his full support. The amendment would further define the use of the 25 percent disbursed to county school districts, and the balance would be used for construction, or in the capital project fund. The amendment had been drawn up in cooperation with county school districts.

Next, Mr. Neighbors addressed federal law as contained in Exhibit C, which read in part as follows:

Mr. Neighbors noted there was no mention of schools in the federal law. Also included in Exhibit C was the apportionment to each of the 17 school districts from the DSA account for FY 1992. He explained for that fiscal year, approximately $350 million was disbursed to the various schools, and pointed out that Clark County received $185 million, which was 53 percent of the total DSA disbursement, while generating only $159,000 or 2 percent of the mineral revenue. It was noteworthy, remarked Mr. Neighbors that 97 percent of the revenues collected were from the rural counties, with only 2 to 3 percent from the larger counties. On the other hand, Nye County received a disbursement of $11 million, or 3 percent of the total DSA, while generating $3.7 million, or 46 percent of the revenues.

According to Mr. Neighbors, the chart in Exhibit C entitled "Federal Mineral Revenue Distributed to State of Nevada," was rather interesting, as it depicted the revenue flow after the $10 million threshold and then the $7 million threshold was established. Of note was the fact that the revenue never exceeded the $10 million threshold, and after the $7 million threshold was established, the revenue never reached or exceeded that amount. Next, he addressed the exhibit page entitled "1995 Revenue Distribution by County," a pie chart that depicted the percentage of revenue generated from each county. Churchill County was the major contributor during that year, generating 52 percent of the total revenues distributed.

Mr. Neighbors remarked it might be stated that A.B. 26 would be a hard "hit" to the General Fund, but he felt it had been a hard "hit" to the general fund of the counties that did not receive any revenue during all those years. He reiterated that 96 to 97 percent of all revenue generated over the years had come from the rural counties.

Continuing, Mr. Neighbors reported A.B. 26 as written would remove up to $7 million from the fund, however, the actual amount could not be determined since the revenue from the lease of federal lands varied from year to year. The bill would not reduce the amount of revenue received by Nevada from the Federal Government, but instead would direct that revenue to the counties where it was generated, rather than the state’s General Fund. Congress and the court had recognized that the counties in which minerals were developed bore certain social and economic costs associated with that development. Returning the revenue to the county of origin would help offset those costs.

According to Mr. Neighbors, A.B. 26 would bring Nevada into compliance with federal law. He felt the most significant fiscal impact during past years had been on the rural counties; those counties did not want to depend on state subsidies to remain solvent in most cases. He advised rural counties were also faced with mounting problems such as hospitals, health care, school construction and maintenance, fire protection, road maintenance, landfill costs, police protection, and other unfunded mandates. For instance, Mr. Neighbors explained, one rural county had received an engineering report and feared it would have to close three of its schools, and it was a county which could have been eligible for approximately $500,000 in revenue from mineral leases.

Mr. Neighbors informed the committee that Exhibit C also contained information regarding oil productions from the various counties. Nye County was shown as the major contributor, with one well producing over 4,200 barrels a day. The exhibit also contained a Memorandum from the United States Department of the Interior, which stated, "The report is intended for internal Federal government use only." The memorandum indicated the amount paid to the state for the County of Nye was $4,005,391.02, however, the county realized no revenue.

Finally, reported Mr. Neighbors, Exhibit C also contained the opinion from Susan E. Gardner, Deputy Legislative Counsel, LCB, dated June 1, 1995, which reviewed all pertinent federal law, and stated in part:

Mr. Neighbors reported he continued to work with LCB, and reiterated that the rural counties did help the state in the area of revenue generated, noting just the net proceeds alone over the past 10 years was $300 million. There was a barrel tax levied by the state, a 50-mil tax per barrel, which had also generated over $1 million over the last year. The rural counties were paying their share in the operation of the state, emphasized Mr. Neighbors and, in fact, had generated approximately $1.2 billion over the past 10 years.

Mr. Marvel inquired if the leases in Nye County were mostly for oil. Mr. Neighbors replied in the affirmative, and reported oil production in some areas had been as high as 3 million barrels per year. Were the leases in Churchill County mostly geothermal, asked Mr. Marvel. According to Mr. Neighbors, Churchill County was mostly geothermal and did not produce much in other mineral areas. That county had realized 2 good years, and he would make current numbers available to committee members. Mr. Marvel then asked what the status was of the oil reserves in Churchill County. Mr. Neighbors replied there were two wells at the Grant Canyon Field, one of which was the biggest producer in the United States outside of Alaska, and the two together produced over 6,200 barrels. There were no pumps at that field because of the pressure, but periodically the two wells would hit water, and when that occurred, the wells had to be moved. Another canyon in Churchill County was also discovered to be a substantial oil field. Mr. Neighbors reported that nationwide, oil production was down. He also noted there was a potential for oil fields in both White Pine and Eureka Counties.

Mr. Marvel asked if the revenue was redirected, where would it be used by the counties, capital improvements, operating budgets, or other projects. Mr. Neighbors explained under A.B. 26, 25 percent of the revenue would continue to be disbursed to the DSA, and 75 percent would be disbursed to the county. The county then had to use the allocation for those purposes as outlined by federal law, construction and maintenance of roads and other public facilities, public services, and planning. Further, 25 percent of the county allotment would be disbursed to the county school district.

Quoting the proposed amendment to A.B. 26, Exhibit D, Mr. Neighbors stated section 2, number 3 read:

Indirectly, observed Mr. Neighbors, the DSA would still receive its 25 percent and at the county level, the school district would receive 25 percent of the county’s share of revenue. The counties, however, would be required to comply with the federal mandate regarding the use of the revenue. Mr. Marvel noted his only concern was the fact that such revenue fluctuated, depending on production and prices, and county operating budgets would then have no funding source. Mr. Neighbors advised that quite often, net proceeds were based on estimates, and if counties received revenue based on those estimates, and then the estimates were not met, the county would be forced to reimburse the revenue. However, the revenue from the lease of federal lands was received by the State Treasurer’s Office every month, and was not "operational" funding, but rather would be used as mandated by federal law.

Chairman Arberry thanked Mr. Neighbors for his testimony, and inquired if there were any other persons who wished to testify for or against A.B. 26.

Harry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), approached the committee in opposition to the bill. He stated the formula worked as far as school funding was concerned, and the state depended on the interest from the Permanent School Fund to pay a portion of its contribution to the DSA. If the revenue was lost, the interest on the Permanent School Fund would also be lost, and to keep everything "status quo," the state would be required to make up that loss from another source.

Mr. Etchemendy felt the state might advise it did not have the necessary funds and, therefore, it would reduce the amount allocated to the DSA. He advised that was the basic reason NASB would oppose the legislation, and while he could not speak to the legality or equity of the current system, he could speak against the concept included in A.B. 26. NASB felt the State Permanent School Fund should be kept whole and any monies that were statutorily allocated to that fund should be protected. Mr. Etchemendy urged the committee to review the legislation carefully, and if it did pass, he would ask that the level of state support be maintained for the DSA.

Mr. Marvel inquired if the allotment was placed in the Permanent School Fund or the General Fund for the DSA. Mr. Etchemendy stated his interpretation of the law indicated the revenue was placed in the State Permanent School Fund and the interest was used to help fund the DSA. To further clarify the allocation, Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, LCB, advised those funds were a direct offset to General Fund appropriations within the DSA, and were not placed in the State Permanent School Fund.

Al Bellister, representing the Nevada State Education Association, stated the association would oppose the bill for the same reasons as those stated by Mr. Etchemendy. Mr. Bellister advised the association was concerned about the loss of revenue the DSA, and did not feel it could absorb another loss of funding.

With no further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 26, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed. The next item for committee consideration was A.B. 385.

Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, introduced Kenneth Eason and Mimi Rodden to the committee, and indicated A.B. 385 would make appropriation to Nye County for improvements to the Tonopah Mining Park. He stated Mr. Easton, Ms. Rodden and Joni Eastley would present testimony in support of the bill. He noted the 1997 legislature had allocated the initial funding for the first phase of the Tonopah Historic Mining Park, and the Public Lands Committee had visited the site and were very pleased with the way the funds had been spent.

Ms. Rodden thanked the committee for its prior support of the project through state bond money and via a direct appropriation, approved during the 1997 session. She stated that while The Mining Park Board appreciated what the legislature had done for the park, it was also attempting to secure additional funding through other sources.

Ms. Rodden called the committee’s attention to Exhibit E, which consisted of a photo of the complex, and included information she felt would be of special interest to both the Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, because it spoke to the methods used for fundraising and also for the expenditure of funds. She stated she was pleased to report that to date, there had been approximately $700,000 raised in support of the park. Further, she explained, the park enjoyed a very strong private and public partnership in Tonopah via the Town Board, the County Commissioners, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which had interfaced with the park, as had the U.S. forest Service. The University of Nevada at Reno and Las Vegas were also involved, along with various department heads within the state system.

Continuing her representation, Ms. Rodden noted The Mining Park Board would ask for legislative support in the amount of $50,000, which would be used to stabilize the Mizpah Hoist Works. The hoist works was the emblem of mining in the State of Nevada, and was visible to persons driving by the park. The board would like to see that particular hoist stabilized for public access. The board’s goal would be to open the hoist to as many travelers, guests, foreign visitors and students as possible, in order to make use of the "living" museum.

The second phase of the park was well underway, and included the cluster of buildings surrounding the hoist works. Ms. Rodden reported the board was working with Cultural Affairs bond money on that phase, as well as funding garnered from other sources, such as grants. She advised the park enjoyed support from a wonderful, public-spirited foundation that she wanted to bring to the committee’s attention. The Public Resources Foundation in Nevada had obligated $30,000 per year for 3 years to hire a curator of the board’s choice to help marshal the development of new exhibits and plan for the taking of inventories.

Further, advised Ms. Rodden, the park was the recipient of two very large collections, which were of world note and consequence, and had been shared only with the Smithsonian Institute in the past. She emphasized it was a great task for a small community to manage a public resource such as the mining park. The board wanted the park to be privately controlled, and privately funded to the greatest extent possible, but at the same time, wanted it to be recognized as a potential, and very much needed, economic "shot in the arm" for central rural Nevada.

Ms. Rodden informed the committee that The Mining Park Board had handled the park’s brochures in a multi-lingual manner, and visitation had increased, even though the park only opened officially in mid-summer of 1998. The development of just over 100 acres, including 14 large structures, would make a tremendous difference to the economy of the central Nevada region. According to Ms. Rodden, the park was boosting the "other side" of Nevada, and she felt it had a very special "friend" in the legislative body.

The Mining Park Board had a timeline and a number of set goals, and the first was that a certain amount of work be done for the millennium and made available for the general public. Ms. Rodden noted the board was on schedule with that project. The second goal involved the tremendous influx of visitation the park would experience when the Olympics were held in Salt Lake City, Utah. Ms. Rodden indicated she felt persons would be flying into Los Angeles and Las Vegas and traveling across Nevada to reach Salt Lake City; she thought the park would be a very important feature to have accessible at that time.

Ms. Rodden noted the park had hosted the Public Lands Committee and several other mining and mineral related subcommittees, who wanted to view the project in person. Ms. Rodden invited the legislature’s participation, not only financially, but also by its presence.

Mr. Marvel inquired if the Cultural Resources Commission had allocated funding to the park and, if so, in what amount. Ms. Rodden advised the commission had allocated an initial $51,0000, with an additional allocation of $80,000, and she noted The Mining Park Board had already prepared an application for a future grant in the amount of $140,000, which would be used to begin Phase III of the project.

Ken Eason informed the committee that the mining park usually did not realize the full amount of the funding requested from grants, and typically received one-third to one-half of the request. So, even though it had received money from grants, the amounts were not sufficient to fund the projects the mining board wanted to complete. He explained the park did need additional funding to make up that difference.

In conclusion, Mr. Eason thanked the committee for its assistance during the 1997 session, and reported the allocation had been put to good use. The mining park now had a reception building with a small public theater that showed films about the mining of the area, and also contained a display on loan from the State Museum on U.S. Minerals. Mr. Eason explained it was a first class reception building, and the board hoped to expand that facility. Also, he informed the committee the board received many inquiries from tourists and it wanted to help the economy, as well as preserve the historical past of the central Nevada area.

Ms. Eastley stated she was the secretary to the Tonopah Historic Mining Park Advisory Board, and thanked the committee for the allocation from the 1997 session. She indicated it was a pleasure to serve on the board and see firsthand that the allocation had been put to good use. The board considered the park to be an important anchor for economic development and tourism in central Nevada, and would appreciate the continued support of the legislature.

Dan Gouker, Commissioner, Commission on Cultural Affairs, stated the legislature allocated $2 million annually for historic preservation in the state, and the commission had received requests in excess of $12 million, so it was extremely difficult to fund all requests. He voiced his support for the Tonopah Historic Mining Park, and felt Tonopah was a very historic area of the state.

There being no further testimony to come before the committee regarding A.B. 385, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed; the next order of business was A.B. 207.

Jerry Claborn, Assembly District 19, indicated A.B. 207 would propose to do exactly what was stated in the summary regarding exemption from taxes, and advised there would be other, more knowledgeable persons presenting testimony on the bill.

Jack Jeffrey, representing the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, noted that last session a bill was proposed that would exempt apprenticeship training trusts from real estate property taxes, and the bill ultimately passed both houses with broad support from labor and management. Mr. Jeffrey advised the committee he would present testimony on both bills, A.B. 207, and A.B. 211, because they were similar.

Chairman Arberry stated the committee would hear concurrent testimony regarding A.B. 207 and A.B. 211.

Continuing, Mr. Jeffrey explained there was a problem with the bill from the 1997 session, and that was because apprenticeship committees did not hold properties as did the trusts. In order to alleviate that problem, some of the apprenticeship trusts incorporated with private non-profit corporations to take advantage of that exemption, but others chose not to. He stated A.B. 211 would correct the wording problem and would accomplish the intent from the original bill of the 1997 session.

As far as A.B. 207, Mr. Jeffrey noted many of the organizations were already tax-exempt by the State Tax Commission for sales and property taxes. If the bills passed, they would not cause much of a change from what was currently taking place. There had been some technical problems, and the apprenticeship committees had approached the Tax Commission from time to time to alleviate those problems. According to Mr. Jeffrey, the council felt the bills addressed purposes that were worthwhile and should be placed into statute in order to clarify the matter. Mr. Jeffrey explained the policy consideration for both bills was taken care of by the Taxation Committee, and he would attempt to answer any committee questions.

Greg Smith disclosed he was the administrator of the apprenticeship program for the Operating Engineers of Northern Nevada, and wanted to express that organization’s support for both bills. He explained that funding was always a problem in educational programs, and his apprenticeship program was heavily dependent upon funds from within. Any financial support granted such programs would be critical to the smaller programs and essential to the larger ones. Mr. Smith felt it would be money well spent on the part of the legislature.

Mrs. Chowning mentioned both bills had been amended, and inquired if the fiscal notes had changed. Mr. Stevens stated he had not reviewed the first reprint of the bills in any detail and would be unable to answer that question.

Dini DiCianno, Deputy Director, Department of Taxation, stated with respect to Mrs. Chowning’s question, both bills had been amended from the Assembly Taxation Committee, with the fiscal impact of A.B. 207 being changed. Mr. DiCianno explained the original fiscal note for FY 2000 and FY 2001, was approximately $3,000. As Mr. Jeffrey had previously testified, the apprenticeship committees did not hold property, and with regard to the sales tax, also had limited sales, but the trusts did have significant sales. Mr. DiCianno stated he felt the fiscal note for FY 2000 and FY 2001 would be approximately $400,000. According to Mr. DiCianno, including the trust in A.B. 211 would not significantly change the fiscal note, due to the fact it would be difficult to determine which programs would qualify for that exemption at the current time.

Vice Chair Evans stated she thought other types of educational programs were currently tax-exempted, and inquired if that was correct. Mr. DiCianno replied A.B. 211, which came about as a result of A.B. 476 from the 1997 session, stated "committee," and committees did not own property as did the trusts; if the bill passed, it would make the trusts exempt from property taxes. A.B. 211 dealt with sales tax, and that issue was brought before the Nevada Tax Commission under appeal, and was denied. It was that denial which prompted creation of the bill.

Vice Chair Evans once again inquired if educational entities and institutions currently paid sales tax. Mr. DiCianno explained if an organization met the criteria established by statute for educational purposes, it would be exempt from sales tax. Vice Chair Evans then asked since the apprenticeship programs were education, how did that differ from those currently enjoying tax-exempt status. Mr. DiCianno reiterated that was the issue presented to the Nevada Tax Commission, and the commission determined the apprenticeship programs did not meet the established educational requirements, therefore, the exemption was denied. Vice Chair Evans indicated she wanted a better understanding of why those programs would not meet the criteria, as they were educational programs.

Mr. Gouker stated he felt he could address Vice Chair Evans’s question. He testified he was the Director of the Electrical Apprenticeship Program for southern Nevada. Further, he noted, there was only one apprenticeship program in question and denied tax-exempt status, and all other programs in southern Nevada currently enjoyed sales and use tax exemption. When the law was changed by the 1997 legislature, all tax-exempt programs were reviewed and again approved for the tax-exempt status, because they were, in fact, educational entities. The Electrical Apprenticeship Program conducted only educational activities such as journeyman upgrade training, and all apprenticeship and training programs.

Mr. Gouker advised in the State of Nevada there was in excess of 5,000 registered apprentices, both union and non-union, and the bill would deal with the capability to train apprentices for the construction industry. The apprenticeship programs were funded by contributions back into the fund at a per-hour rate, based on the number of man-hours worked in each jurisdiction. The electrical industry in southern Nevada paid 15 cents per hour and that was how the apprenticeship program was funded. Mr. Gouker advised approximately $35,000 was expended per student to complete training from first year new apprentice, to graduation, to journeyman after 5 years. He conveyed he would have over 450 apprentices, and at only 15 cents per hour, it was difficult to continue running the education programs. Exemption from sales and use tax was already a reality in his program, explained Mr. Gouker, with the Tax Commission putting the matter on hold rather than denying the tax-exempt status, because there was not a clear vote.

Further, advised Mr. Gouker, there was a program from southern Nevada under review, however, the tax-exempt issue had not been finalized as yet. The bill was intended to "clean up" the language that addressed whether or not apprenticeship programs were, in fact, educational entities. The Department of Education had submitted a letter to the Tax Commission from Mary L. Peterson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, which stated the apprenticeship programs were educational entities, and even though there were not accredited as colleges, universities, et cetera, the participants in the program were awarded college credits. Mr. Gouker stressed it was critical for the programs to have as much financial assistance as possible. Vice Chair Evans noted because of the need in Nevada for skilled tradesmen, it seemed the bill would be a "no-brainer."

Mr. Marvel asked Mr. DiCianno if taxes had been collected in the past from those apprenticeship programs. Mr. DiCianno replied he was unsure, and he would have to research that question. It was his understanding there were 73 apprenticeship programs known to the Department of Taxation which would be subject to sales and use tax. He reported he would verify that information for the committee.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Gouker out of the 450 apprentices, how many were women. Mr. Gouker stated he could not speak for all programs, but in the electrical industry at the present time, the national average for women in construction was somewhere between 5 and 6 percent. The journeyman wireman program was at almost 13 percent female participation and 47 percent minority. The sonic communications, which was the low voltage tele-data system, was at 18 percent female and approximately 38 percent minority.

Phillip Campbell advised the committee he was the Training Coordinator with the Plumbers and Pipefitters in southern Nevada, and also President of the Western Apprenticeship Coordinators Association Chapter of southern Nevada. Further, he stated the issue not only effected the building trade apprenticeship programs, but also the other approximately 900 apprentice trades in the State of Nevada, from bartenders to the newly created Childcare Apprenticeship Program. He noted apprenticeships were the most efficient way to train skilled workers, not just in the trade and craft areas, but other trade skill areas as well. Without the tax-exempt status, the programs would need to approach the state for funds. He stated he would appreciate the committee’s support.

Max Christiansen informed the committee he was the Director for the Sheet Metal Contractors Association, and had been involved in the association’s apprenticeship program for the past 30 years, as well as serving on the State Apprenticeship Council. He stated the association strongly endorsed the legislation, and felt the work performed by the coordinators throughout the state was phenomenal. The programs were the way of teaching and also the way of the future in Nevada. Mr. Christiansen urged the committee’s support for both bills.

Wayne Grimes, Coordinator, Operating Engineers of southern Nevada, told the committee he would concur with previous testimony, and would urge the committee’s support, as the legislation was greatly needed. Mr. Grimes explained that for many of the smaller apprenticeship programs throughout the state, the legislation would either "make or break them."

Mr. Price thanked those who had presented the excellent testimony on behalf of A.B. 207 and A.B. 211. Regarding Ms. Giunchigliani’s question about the number of women participating in apprenticeship programs, Mr. Price noted the Operating Engineers Program had benefited the most from women apprentices due to their ability to handle the various equipment in a careful manner.

There being no further testimony, the hearing on A.B. 207 and A.B. 211 was closed.

With no other business to come before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 5:05 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Carol Thomsen,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman

DATE: