The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Thursday, May 20, 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

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:

Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chair (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chairman Arberry announced the first order of business would be S.B. 546.

Don Hataway, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, stated with him at the hearing was Lee Ann Keever from the Ethics Commission. He advised the bill was drafted at the request of the Budget Division on behalf of the Ethics Commission and, as the committee would recall, it was the second time assistance was needed from the legislature to meet the commission’s financial obligations. Mr. Hataway stated in FY 1998, an Interim Finance Committee (IFC) allocation of approximately $17,000 was granted to the commission, primarily for the same issues as those contained in the bill. He reminded the committee that the Budget Division had taken the expenditures related to the IFC allocation and built them into the commission’s base budget for the next 2 years. Mr. Hataway stated the problem was taken care of for the next biennium.

According to Mr. Hataway, there was still a funding shortfall in FY 1999 that would require the assistance of the legislature. When the bill request was initiated, it was based upon the Statement of Operations through March 31, and the Budget Division was now in possession of the April 30 report. The Budget Division originally projected a shortfall of $15,600, and the current projected need was $13,586. He noted court reporting services were projected to be $15,500 over budget and operating costs were projected to be $3,800 over, however, there were sufficient savings in other categories, including travel and information services, to reduce the need down to the requested amount.

Because the commission had at least two more meetings scheduled between now and June 30, Mr. Hataway stated he was hesitant to drop much below the $15,600 level. He wanted to leave sufficient leeway to meet any unforeseen expenses that might come up toward the end of the year. In any event, $15,600 was the Budget Division’s best estimate, and Mr. Hataway advised that the division was still comfortable with that figure.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated part of the problem for the commission was the 17 cases regarding the "truth squad," which hopefully would be repealed during the current session.

Mr. Beers disclosed one of those 17 cases was his, and advised 2 of the 17 decisions of the commission were upheld, a "batting average" of approximately 12 percent. Ms. Keever stated that was correct, and also advised the commission had received three cases in 1999. Mr. Beers asked if those cases had been resolved; Ms. Keever stated two cases were received on May 19, and one would be resolved the week of May 24. Mr. Beers then asked if the commission had the ability to attribute a dollar figure to truth in campaign hearings. Ms. Keever stated she was unsure of the amount, and would provide that information to the committee. Mr. Beers stated he would like to see what percentage of the commission’s budget was related to truth in campaigning.

There being no further testimony forthcoming on S.B. 564, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed.

The next item for committee consideration was S.B. 547.

Myla Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, informed the committee that with her was Bob Anderson, Administrative Services Officer. She indicated S.B. 547 was the result of a lengthy fact finding mission by Governor Guinn with respect to the NOMADS program. Ms. Florence stated during the months of March and April, the Governor was in contact with staff from the Welfare Division, the Department of Information Technology (DoIT), district attorneys who had expressed concern with the system, along with the contractor and vendors. He also participated in meetings with federal representatives in San Francisco on April 11 and 12, as well as April 19 – 21, when federal representatives visited Nevada. The Governor was provided with, and reviewed, a great deal of documentation from all of those parties, and came to the following conclusions:

• The counties would not participate in the federal penalties that were before the state.

• The state must assume full control of the project and minimize its dependence on the contractor, which was strongly recommended by the federal partners involved in funding the NOMADS project.

• Investments were needed to preclude any further penalties in the year 2001 and beyond.

Ms. Florence advised the appropriation that was before the committee was intended to accomplish the following:

• The state was facing approximately $5.3 million in penalties through federal fiscal year 2001, however, should the state acquire certification by September 2000, the penalty would be reduced by approximately $3.2 million.

• The appropriation provided for some disallowances the Federal Government had already identified through FY 1998-99, however, the state was still in the process of negotiating with federal representatives, and the worst case scenario would be approximately $1.3 million in disallowances.

• The Governor had identified areas for investment in order to ensure NOMADS completion, and those were areas that were strongly recommended by the district attorneys, who were also involved in implementing the system.

Ms. Florence advised the first step was investing in training so that state resources might be available to provide on-site support following training of district attorney staff. The second step would be conversion to provide outside resources to assist in converting the 100,000 child support cases that needed to be entered into the system prior to September 2000. She noted funding would be used for an independent verification and validation study, which was required by the Federal Government. The purpose of that study was to monitor NOMADS through its completion and provide an independent report to the Federal Government, as well as the state. Ms. Florence stated funding was also necessary for quality assurance, again a process for ongoing monitoring of the program as opposed to the independent verification and validation, which was an intermittent review.

According to Ms. Florence, the issues identified by district attorneys dealt with making the system more user-friendly once it was implemented, improving navigation for the users, as well as putting in a windows-type application including icons to "move" through the system. The federal representatives indicated that during the first year of implementation, they would be willing to participate in keeping the Legacy System operational. Ms. Florence indicated that was common in initiating systems of that scope. The appropriation of $9,130,548 would provide for those issues.

Ms. Florence noted the Governor had been extensively involved in the project, and was very active on an ongoing basis, which Ms. Florence and her staff appreciated. Mr. Marvel asked how the division was progressing with the child support portion of the program. Ms. Florence remarked the Phase II code was in the process of being tested, which included child support and all welfare reform changes. Currently, there were approximately 3,000 cases that had been entered into the system. Insofar as the functionality, as it related to distribution, Ms. Florence indicated it seemed to be operating very well. That was one of the areas that states commonly had the most problems with.

Mr. Marvel then asked if the division was having success in locating "deadbeat" moms or dads. Ms. Florence stated the system would be very powerful, in that it had numerous automated interfaces where tracking such individuals would be accomplished much more easily.

Mrs. Chowning asked how Douglas County was fairing, because it had experienced so much trouble, and had indicated it could complete the work faster by hand than by using the system. She also inquired when the other counties would be mandated to use the system. Ms. Florence commented that many counties were already inputting cases into the system. The issue with Douglas County, as would probably be the issue in most rural counties, was that the office contained a small staff. According to Ms. Florence, NOMADS was best designed for functional areas, such as location, paternity establishment, enforcement, et cetera. She advised there would be a meeting with Douglas County in the near future to continue to pursue the idea of regionalization.

Ms. Florence stated the conversion funds that were incorporated in the appropriation would ease the difficulty that all counties would experience in terms of inputting the magnitude of cases that needed to be entered into the system over a short period of time, through September 2000. The division would work with the counties insofar as seeing if regionalization, which she felt had merit, could be accomplished without a revenue impact to the state. The division hoped to at least implement a pilot program during the biennium. Further, Ms. Florence stated, Clark County was inputting approximately 200 cases a day into the system. That county had a dedicated team putting cases into NOMADS and taking on the case management.

With no further testimony to come before the committee regarding S.B. 547, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed; the committee would consider S.B. 292 as the next order of business.

Colonel Dennis George, Chief of Staff, Nevada Army National Guard, advised he was present before the committee as the stand-in for the Adjutant General, General Clark, who was in Washington, D.C. General Clark was participating in recognition for one of the Air Guard non-commissioned officers, who had been selected as the non-commissioned officer of the year for the entire Air National Guard.

Colonel George stated he would speak on behalf of S.B. 292, introduced by Senator Rhoads. The bill would simply change the language in the current statute to allow no more than 100 percent, instead of 50 percent, reimbursement to the soldiers and airmen who took and successfully passed courses in the University of Nevada System. S.B. 292 would allow the guard to manage the money it received more effectively to achieve complete expenditure, and would allow the guard, in its promotional recruiting and retention activities, to offer the opportunity to receive up to 100 percent reimbursement.

Mr. Marvel asked how many active students were in the guard. Colonel George noted it changed from year to year, and currently there were approximately 210 combined Army and Air Guard members throughout the state participating in school. Mr. Marvel commented there was no fiscal impact on the state; Colonel George stated all the bill would do was allow the guard to reimburse students 100 percent. He explained that was a great recruiting tool, and when put together with all of the educational benefits, it made it possible for the soldiers and airmen to be students and receive what amounted to a "full ride."

Chairman Arberry inquired if there was any cost associated with the bill; Colonel George replied that there was no cost involved. Further, he explained the legislature provided an allocation for the guard to use in the program, and all S.B. 292 would do was allow the guard to use the funds more effectively.

Mr. Price disclosed that his wife, Nancy, was a member of the Air Guard, and former member of the Reno Air Guard, who had participated in an educational program.

With no further testimony on S.B. 292, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed.

*************

Chairman Arberry informed the committee it would be reviewing several bills for possible action, beginning with A.B. 685.

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), reminded committee members A.B. 685 was the bill it had received substantial testimony on regarding Nevada Blue Shield. Chairman Arberry commented he wanted feedback from members regarding how they felt about the bill, and would hold action until a later date.

*************

Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, LCB, indicated Bob Bayer, Director, Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP) could provide information regarding the bill. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Bayer if the fiscal note on the bill had been reduced. Mr. Bayer replied there was an amendment that was being considered which would effect good time credits. Right now, there was a fairly high fiscal note regarding the first section of the bill as amended, and if it was amended again, perhaps to allow the good time credits to be taken proactively from those inmates that were "gassing," it could be done with no fiscal impact. Mr. Bayer advised if the change in granting good time credits covered the entire system, there would be a significant fiscal impact. That was due to the fact there would be a manual accounting each month, with every institution reporting to administration, reporting what inmates had been placed in administrative segregation or disciplinary detention, and for how long.

Chairman Arberry instructed Mr. Bayer to work with Mr. Ghiggeri and report back to the committee as to the proper action to take on the bill. Action on the bill would be held pending receipt of the report.

*************

Mr. Stevens advised the bill would set up the Commissioner for Veterans’ Affairs as an independent entity. He reported he had provided a memo from the commissioner, along with information from Mr. Hataway on the bill. He was unsure what the pleasure of the committee would be, however, he would answer any questions.

Mr. Hettrick stated he recalled that there was no fiscal impact, and it would be a move from the Office of the Military to a "free standing" agency. Testimony indicated that the commissioner was already operating independently, and Mr. Hettrick did not remember any information regarding a fiscal impact.

Chairman Arberry stated it was his understanding that a letter had been received from the Governor’s Office, saying he did not support the bill, and another stating he might be supportive of it. Mr. Hataway stated basically, although the Governor had not been given any documentation to indicate the office would be able to perform better as an independent entity, there would be no problem with the office operating independently. With regard to the fiscal note, Mr. Hataway stated there was some question whether or not, as an independent agency, the Commissioner of Veterans’ Affairs could complete its mission in an effective manner with its allotted staff complement. However, Mr. Hataway indicated that issue could be revisited in budget preparations for the 2001-2003 biennium.

Chairman Arberry stated he wanted a simple answer, "yes" or "no," did the Governor’s Office support the move or not. Mr. Hataway replied the Governor’s Office was basically neutral in the sense that the Governor would have no problem if the bill came to him. However, he was not really convinced that the Commissioner of Veterans’ Affairs would operate more effectively if independent than it did under the umbrella of the Office of the Military.

Chairman Arberry stated the bill would be held until more information could be received from the Governor’s Office.

*************

Mr. Price inquired if the bill involved the elimination of one position; Ms. Giunchigliani advised the bill would fund the "one-shot" appropriation for the Ethics Commission because of the additional caseload.

Mr. Beers stated he did not believe he had a conflict of interest, because any action taken by the legislature would have no bearing on the disposition of his particular case.

*************

*************

Chairman Arberry stated A.B. 224 was the "holocaust" bill, and funding had been placed in the budget, however, there was no provision to finance public broadcasting activities. The committee wanted to eliminate the current language in A.B. 224, and amend the bill to provide $300,000 to be used for public broadcasting.

Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 269 clarified that not only District Judges, but also Supreme Court Justices did not have to contribute to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), if they were under that plan. There were two pension plans available to District Judges, PERS, or the Judicial Retirement System, which was funded by direct legislative appropriation. A District Judge would not contribute if included under PERS, as the state would pay the entire contribution. Mr. Stevens stated lines 15 and 16 of the bill would add a Justice of the Supreme Court to that list. There were Supreme Court Justices that had been District Court Judges, and had not paid into the PERS plan. The bill would clarify that Justices of the Supreme Court would not be required to pay into the plan either. Mr. Stevens noted the money was built into the court’s budget.

Mr. Beers asked if the funding was built into the Supreme Court budget, or would it be an additional appropriation to the court. Mr. Stevens reiterated it was built into the court’s budget.

Ms. Giunchigliani requested clarification; Mr. Stevens advised there were two different retirement systems, but if a District Court Judge or a Supreme Court Justice was a member of PERS, then the state would contribute 100 percent of the contribution and there would be no corresponding deduction in salary. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the committee had discussed that issue during session, and inquired if there was pending legislation that would equalize the situation. Mr. Stevens stated he was not aware of any current legislation, however, there had been talk of studying the retirement situation over the interim. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if a letter of intent could be issued for a review of the entire issue of retirement for justices. Chairman Arberry advised that would be part of the motion, because the legislature did need to review that issue. Mr. Marvel and Mr. Dini agreed with the amendment to include a letter of intent as part of the motion.

Mr. Parks disclosed he was a retiree of the system.

*************

Ms. Giunchigliani stated there had been amendments to the bill after talking with the Long Term Care Board, and persons working in referral agencies. It was requested that geriatric care managers be added to the list, and allow through regulation that public guardians be able to do referrals. On page 2, section 4, lines 26 and 27, the actual amendment requested by Health and Human Services had narrowed the definition to those that had been found guilty of, "***abuse, neglect, exploitation or isolation***". Ms. Giunchigliani stated the Health Division recommended an amendment to page 4, section 8, subsection 7, line 26, to delete, "***in consultation with the State Fire Marshall***" and add, "***shall review and if necessary***". Finally, based on the passage of S.B. 163, page 5, section 10, (3) (a) lines 37–39 would be deleted, which had referred to group registered homes that would be handled through the current fee structure, with no fee increase. Ms. Giunchigliani reported the revised fiscal note to the bill was $40,315 in the first year of the biennium and $58,959 in the second year.

Mr. Dini asked if the bill would impact the small residential facilities located throughout the state. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the bill would not effect the actual residential facilities. The reason the bill came forth from the Health Division, the Long Term Care Board, and the Aging Commission was because groups were advertising as licensed referral businesses, and there was no such thing in the state. The division felt it was time to set regulations and clarify that there needed to be a health background before referring persons from hospitals into nursing homes, or group home facilities. The deletion of the portion regarding the group homes was because a bill had already passed that effected group homes.

Mr. Parks stated he had recently received information that the action requested by the bill was already regulated under Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 449, and asked for clarification. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that was not accurate, and she worked with the Health Division who asked for the legislation. The portion of NAC that was alluded to was the fire safety issue, but with expanded group homes that included more persons who were ambulatory, the division wanted a procedure for safety.

Mr. Beers stated, presumably, the bill would stop persons who were making referrals from doing so, and indicated there must be a demand for such referrals, asking if the existing infrastructure was equipped to provide that service. Ms. Giunchigliani advised that testimony received by the Health and Human Services Committee from social service agencies in both parts of the state, as well as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, indicated support of the legislation because the infrastructure was in place. Ms. Giunchigliani stated what happened was that private sector individuals were acting as referral persons, and misplacing seniors who would normally require skilled nursing in home care. That was how the legislation came about, in order to look at narrowing that field and handling it through regulation, to ensure safety and care for referral patients.

Mr. Dini stated the amendment referred to page 2, section 3, line 2, and would add an additional sentence after licensed social worker that read, "professional geriatric care manager licensed as a nurse or social worker." He asked for clarification of that section of the amendment. Ms. Giunchigliani stated there were currently two referral agencies in northern Nevada that were run by geriatric care case managers, who were also social workers and/or nurses, and they had asked to have that language added so that their referral service would be properly included. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she had checked and there were geriatric case managers.

*************

Mr. Stevens stated the bill would provide language involving the cooperative extension service in the University of Nevada System, and also would provide a $125,000 appropriation to abate tall white top. Chairman Arberry indicated the agency had advised it could "live" with an appropriation of $75,000.

Mr. Dini stated last session there was discussion about the extension service and its goal, and the legislature appointed a committee to work over the interim and arrive at new language for the goals of the service. According to Mr. Dini, section 1 of the bill was the result of an agreement with the Farm Bureau, persons in urban areas, and all persons involved in the extension service. He noted it would really help the extension service to have its goals redefined. Mr. Dini informed the committee that tall white top was a serious weed infestation in the rivers around the state, and needed to be stopped.

Mr. Marvel stated as a former rancher, tall white top was one of the direst infestations that he had to contend with. Also, he had noticed white top in the Carson City area, and the weed would take over and choke out all the good grasses.

*************

Mr. Stevens stated the bill established or expanded programs for peer mediation and conflict resolution in schools, and there were a number of students who had presented testimony about the program. Chairman Arberry stated the committee considered amending the fiscal note to $25,000. He advised there had been another school shooting in Atlanta, Georgia, and he felt it was an important issue for Nevada.

Mr. Hettrick indicated if the committee gave the Department of Education the entire amount requested in the fiscal note without amendment, it would only be sufficient for 20 schools to establish such a program. If the committee amended the amount and cut the allocation in half, it would only be sufficient for 10 schools. He felt the state would just be "throwing money at the wall and hoping something stuck." Mr. Hettrick remarked he could not support the bill, and even though he understood the need for the program, A.B. 382 simply would not cover enough schools.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted and appreciated Mr. Hettrick’s concern, however, the key piece of the legislation was the Train the Trainer Program, which would help the program expand to other schools around the state. She felt that was the key component, plus testimony indicated that Clark County did have justice center training through social programs, and the bill was the way to get the program started in Washoe County. She explained the program in Clark County had spread throughout the school district, and the bill would allow northern schools access to the same expansion.

Mr. Beers advised he felt it was a worthy program, but agreed with Mr. Hettrick that the funding was insufficient. He felt the problem was the way the funds would be spent; the Department of Education would decide to give the allocation to Washoe County, who would then disburse the funds to the schools. Mr. Beers asked if there was a way the process could be simplified, by allocating a certain amount to Washoe County School District, and another allocation to the smaller school districts. Chairman Arberry remarked that some one or some agency had to be the "watch dog" for the funding. Mr. Beers stated there could not be an efficient "watch dog" when the allocation was split 16 or 17 ways.

Mr. Stevens stated the money would actually be allocated to the Department of Education in whatever amount the committee saw fit, and the department would then award grants to the schools; it was not restricted to any single school district. He reiterated that whatever the amount granted, it would be allocated based on criteria as developed by the Department of Education.

Mr. Beers indicated perhaps the allocation could be more effectively spent by instructing the Department of Education to put together and execute a Train the Trainer type of program, which could then travel to schools on a statewide basis and provide training.

Chairman Arberry suggested holding the bill until the committee could hear further testimony, which would lessen the confusion, and also decide whether or not the bill needed to be amended. Mr. Hettrick agreed with Chairman Arberry, and stated he would be in favor of the Train the Trainer Program, but section 2 of the bill stated "grant to a school," which he felt was the problem. If the legislation proposed to train a person to go to the schools and present a program that could be used by more schools, he would "buy" into the $25,000 allocation. However, just to grant an allocation of $25,000 to 400 schools statewide over 2 years, would simply be throwing money "up in the air."

Mr. Marvel stated he also like the Train the Trainer Program idea. He noted there had been an incident in Battle Mountain last summer, and he felt children really did not realize the seriousness and consequences of their actions.

Chairman Arberry once again announced that further action on A.B. 382 would be held.

*************

Mr. Stevens indicated the bill would provide a $15,000 appropriation to the Advisory Council for Organic Agricultural Products. Mr. Dini stated the council was formed last session and had not been able to secure enough members to become self-sufficient. The 1997 Legislature appropriated $15,000 for the council, and currently there were approximately 12 members. Mr. Dini indicated the council needed further assistance over the next 2 years.

*************

Mr. Stevens stated the committee reviewed the bill at its hearing on May 19, and it would extend the reversion date for the appropriation made last session, as was recommended in joint subcommittee closings.

*************

Mr. Stevens announced an amendment had been requested on the bill, and he would explain to the committee what the proposed amendment would do. Perry Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, and Pete Morros, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources had requested that the bill be amended. Mr. Stevens stated the amendment referred to "Question 5" bond funds, and basically the authorization for the original "Question 5" bonds had expired, and the entire allocation of bonds were not issued within the appropriate time frames. The recommendation from the Budget Division and from Mr. Morros was to approve reauthorization of the bond amount of approximately $1.5 million. Basically, explained Mr. Stevens, the approval would only be up to the amount that was authorized by "Question 5," and basically there was a timing problem and the bonds were not issued within the time constraints that were included in the constitutional amendment.

Mr. Dini advised he felt it was an important reauthorization, because the funding would be used to buy water rights for the Carson pasture area in Fallon, which was an area that would be turned over to the State of Nevada. The state was negotiating with the Federal Government to own that beautiful area for ducks and the propagation of other wildlife, and Mr. Dini indicated he felt that was the intent of "Question 5." Mrs. de Braga agreed, and stated under Public Law 101618, it was decided that the area would go to the Federal Government and the Federal Government now preferred that the State of Nevada take that land over. She stated the only hold up was determination of what water rights went with the land. Under state management, the land would continue to be used both for cattle grazing and as wetlands.

Ms. Giunchigliani clarified the only amendment needed would be an extension for the department’s bonding capacity in order to purchase water rights; Mr. Stevens indicated that was correct.

*************

Mr. Stevens stated the bill created a revolving account for land management. The committee heard testimony on the bill previously, and it was noted that if the bill was processed there was no effective date included, and he would recommend a July 1, 1999 effective date.

*************

Chairman Arberry indicated the committee was in receipt of a memorandum from Mr. Comeaux, which addressed additional funding proposed by the Governor that would cover the White Pine County debt payoff, the Lincoln County schools, and the Pahrump High Tech Center. Mr. Hataway explained Mr. Comeaux sent the memorandum to the chairmen of the money committees on behalf of Governor Guinn, to ensure that the source of funds was understood and also what the Governor was recommending for the use of those funds. He stated three basic revenue sources had changed, which generated $9.5 million of additional revenue to the General Fund. The first was the refinancing of $83 million in bonds that benefited the Bond Interest and Redemption Fund. The second was the Women’s Correctional Center transferring the payments for its debt to the Bond Interest and Redemption Fund. The final certification from the Department of Taxation on assessed valuation generated additional revenues that the Budget Division was able to take advantage of for that purpose, and consequently those two items generated a savings of approximately $4.5 million.

Continuing, Mr. Hataway advised that on certain bonds, the Treasurer had gone to a variable interest rate rather than a fixed rate, which generated an additional $5 million savings to the General Fund. Those three items generated an additional $9.5 million, and the Governor recommended amending the following bills:

• A.B. 380 would add an appropriation of $3.3 million to assist in the implementation of the Newlands Water Agreement;

• A.B. 480 would be totally changed and an appropriation added in the amount of $2 million to pay off the White Pine County School District debt;

• S.B. 236 would be changed from its original purpose and appropriate $700,000 to construct an elementary school in Pioche, in Lincoln County, because the existing facility had been condemned;

• A.B. 205 would be amended to reduce the appropriation to $3.5 million for the Pahrump High Tech Center, on the basis of local participation.

Mrs. de Braga asked if Mr. Hataway had run the figures on the $3.3 million for A.B. 380, and wondered how much of the principal could be used each year to arrive at the $4 million target. Mr. Hataway advised that Mr. Comeaux anticipated it would be over a 4-year period and, consequently, should be sufficient to cover those costs, however, the issue might have to be revisited. Mrs. de Braga stated the obligation was for $4 million and her question was could any of the principal be used to reach $4 million over the 4-year period. Mr. Hataway stated he had not seen the projections.

Mrs. de Braga then inquired if A.B. 480 would require a complete amendment, removing the funding, and just simply asking for a direct appropriation to the school district for the debt payoff; Mr. Hataway replied in the affirmative.

Ms. Giunchigliani indicated the additional funding proposal had been discussed with the Governor, and A.B. 597 was also part of the discussion. She stated the bill was also supposed to be part of the "mix" for school construction throughout the state, and discussion centered on making up to $16 million available during the upcoming biennium for school construction. Ms. Giunchigliani advised the $9.5 million additional funding would include the Pahrump High Tech Center, and asked if that would be included in A.B. 205. Mr. Hataway answered in the affirmative, indicating all four bills would be amended as previously explained. The only change required regarding the Pahrump High Tech Center was to amend the $5 million appropriation down to $3.5 million.

There being no further business to come before the committee, the hearing was recessed at 9:25 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Carol Thomsen,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: