The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:50 a.m., on Saturday, May 29, 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

Ms. Sheila Leslie

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 A.B. 698.

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), noted the bill had been requested by the committee to establish an interim legislative study committee to review judicial retirement issues.

With no further testimony forthcoming, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 698 closed, and opened the hearing on S.B. 432.

Senator Jon Porter stated S.B. 432 was one of the studies requested by the Senate. He called the committee’s attention to the handout entitled, "Preliminary Listing of Statutory and Interim Studies/1999 Session," (Exhibit C), which depicted pending interim studies. Senator Porter stated the bill was selected by the senate, and its genesis was through the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority. After 18 months of review and collaborative efforts, the local governments, and the business community in southern Nevada felt air quality should continue to be a priority issue for not only the local government, but also the legislature. Senator Porter noted the legislature had shown a great deal of foresight a decade ago when it decided to address the area of air quality, both in Washoe and Clark Counties, also establishing a funding source. The goal was to use the funds that had been collected from each driver in southern Nevada to re-evaluate the progress made to date, and what needed to be accomplished over the next decade.

According to Senator Porter, in the history of Nevada there had never been an air quality study completed, and he felt it was a monumental issue. S.B. 432 would establish an interim committee that would comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of the current regulatory structures in Clark County, the existing air quality programs, future programs necessary to address pollutant problems such as carbon monoxide particulates and the ozone, and the funding of existing programs. Senator Porter remarked the study would be funded from the Air Pollution Control Budget Account, which he felt was an appropriate source of funding for the proposed study.

Continuing, Senator Porter stated in recent years Clark County had been in non-attainment in a few pollutant areas, including particulates in carbon monoxide. The state stood a chance of receiving federal sanctions if improvements were not made in the air quality in southern Nevada. He emphasized those air quality problems were not new, however, as new standards were set, the state needed to strive for headway in that area. Senator Porter commented that the legislation was important for the community’s future, and the health of the population, particularly seniors and children, as well as the economy, which might be adversely impacted by federal sanctions.

Senator Porter disclosed that the study would establish a way for the regulated industries and those setting the regulations to work together to gather the data necessary to make informed decisions about the most effective air quality programs.

Elizabeth "Betsy" Fretwell, representing the City of Henderson, advised the committee the bill did not originate in its current format. The Planning Authority asked for legislation that would add additional local control with regard to air quality in southern Nevada. Ms. Fretwell stated such legislation would have initiated a new regulatory program, however, through a series of compromises with the industries impacted by those regulations, it was felt the interim study committee would be a better solution. One of the interesting things about S.B. 432, explained Ms. Fretwell, was that it would appropriate $100,000 to the Department of Motor Vehicles/Public Safety (DMV/PS) to initiate the diesel on-road checks in southern Nevada. Until recently, those checks were not being done in Clark County and, being in non-attainment, it was felt that was an important part of the legislation along with the interim study. Ms. Fretwell indicated if the committee passed the measure, there would be an immediate impact and implementation, as well as the 2-year study.

Mr. Parks stated page 3 of the bill, line 17 indicated "***Nevada Contractors’ Association***", and asked if that was a specific organization. Ms. Fretwell replied it was a specific association, and advised there would be three contractor organizations represented on the Technical Advisory Committee. The Nevada Contractors’ Association represented a large portion of the major contractors in southern Nevada.

Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturer’s Association, related that the association had been involved in the discussion of the legislation, and supported the measure.

Gary Milliken representing the Associate General Contractors, indicated that organization had also worked with the group in preparing the legislation, and would stand in favor of the bill.

Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association, relayed the association’s support for the bill, and stated it was important to note that Nevada was one of only a few states that had already adopted standards with respect to on-road emission testing for diesels. He noted, however, there had not been a strong effort to carry through on the implementation and enforcement of that standard. He felt part of that was due to equipment problems, which he understood had been resolved. The $100,000 appropriation contained in the bill for DMV/PS would be used for the purchase and use of diesel testing equipment to further the baseline available to the Technical Advisory Committee and the interim committee, in order to develop standards and solutions that could be addressed next session.

Senator Porter commented that Senator Dina Titus, Minority Floor Leader, also made a request for an interim study, S.C.R. 22, and he would voice her support and collaborative efforts on the interim study, as it was also a priority for her.

Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, indicated that organization preferred the original version of the bill, however, recognized it was very important that all stakeholders become involved in the process. The legislation would do that through the interim study, and would support measures to improve the quality of air in the Las Vegas area. Mr. Johnson stated the Sierra Club also felt it was important that the funding be included, both for the equipment and the study. The technical study that the appropriation would enable was necessary and, in discussion with the Clark County Comprehensive Planning Agency, Mr. Johnson was assured that the study would not be duplicative of past efforts, would be independent, and would provide reasonable confidence that the data was unbiased. The Sierra Club supported the measure, and would like to see a speedy implementation. The process of direct appropriation would also allow the study to begin immediately. Mr. Johnson noted there was a process within the Air Quality Fund that offered grants on an annual cycle, which closed on April 1.

With no further testimony to come before the committee regarding S.B. 432, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed.

Chairman Arberry then requested committee introduction of the following Bill Draft Request (BDR):

• BDR S-1779 – Authorizes and provides funding for certain projects of capital improvements.

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

The committee then considered the following bills:

Mr. Stevens remarked that A.B. 205 would authorize the construction of a Hi-Tech Learning Center in Pahrump. The bill included a $5 million appropriation based on the recommendation of the Governor, however, due to the bond refinancing package and the funding available, the appropriation included in the bill needed to be reduced to $3.5 million. If the bill was approved by the committee, Mr. Stevens would recommend that it include a July 1, 1999 effective date.

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

Mr. Stevens informed the committee the bill would provide a $3 million appropriation to assist in the construction of a juvenile detention facility and juvenile addiction center in Washoe County. During the last legislative session, there were a number of appropriations made to assist local governments in construction of detention centers and/or juvenile facilities in Silver Springs, Winnemucca, Spring Mountain, and Elko. Mr. Stevens indicated Washoe County was not prepared at that time to come forward, but was now prepared, and the bill would provide $3 million to assist in that effort. A.B. 330 would appropriate the money to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC), and funding would be released based on conditions as listed in the bill. Mr. Stevens advised if the committee approved the bill, he would recommend an effective date of July 1, 2000, and extension of the reversion date to June 30, 2004.

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

Chairman Arberry announced the committee would hear testimony on S.B. 466.

Senator William Raggio, Washoe District 3, advised he would testify on the bill as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Education. He explained that S.B. 466 had changed dramatically from its original version. The original bill was the result of what had transpired in the Legislative Committee on Education, and it contained some measures already considered in other bills. It also had provisions that were not recommended by the legislative committee, but rather were items of discussion. Senator Raggio stated the more controversial portions of the bill were eliminated in the version currently before the Ways and Means Committee. The bill would require that the course of study prescribed and enforced by the State Board of Education complied with the content and performance standards that were established by the Council to Establish Academic Standards. It would also provide that the state board could not add a textbook to the list of state-approved textbooks, unless the book adequately supported the academic standards.

Continuing, Senator Raggio stated the bill would require local school boards to align curriculum with the standards, and implementation of that requirement would alleviate some of the criticism, which he felt was unfounded. Senator Raggio testified that the state board would be required to consult with local school boards when reviewing teacher-training programs offered by institutions of higher education, and could not approve such programs unless they offered training in the new standards. He noted that was consistent with the legislative committee’s efforts, and one of the higher priorities was to ensure that teachers were given the appropriate training to teach to the level of the new standards. The original bill included a provision that would have changed the method of appointment for the Superintendent of Public Instruction. However, Senator Raggio stated, the method had not changed in the current bill, and that position would still be appointed by the State Board of Education for a 3-year term, but the bill would provide that the superintendent might be removed for cause. Further, the superintendent would be required to prepare a biennial report to present to the legislature on the condition of education in the state. Senator Raggio noted that was consistent with the role of the legislature, as provided in the constitution, as having the primary responsibility for education in the State of Nevada.

According to Senator Raggio, the bill would make the Council to Establish Academic Standards permanent and would charge it with developing grade-by-grade standards for kindergarten through eighth grade in English and math. The composition of the council would not change, but its duties would include a periodic review and, if necessary, revision of the standards. Senator Raggio stated the council would also be directed to assign priorities to the standards and designate the degree of emphasis and importance that should be placed on certain standards over other standards. Senator Raggio remarked that he was enthusiastic about the dedication put forth by council members, who came from different areas and different walks of life, and brought with them a great deal of expertise.

The bill stipulated that in consultation with the council, the state board would prescribe the examinations required in selected grades to measure pupils proficiency in those standards, and would review the pupils performance on those criterion-referenced tests to evaluate areas of the standards that might need revision. Senator Raggio indicated the exams would be given in grades 3 and 5 in English and math, commencing in the spring of 2001. The bill would also extend to January 15, 2000, the date by which the council was required to adopt the second phase of standards, which Senator Raggio noted was essentially social studies. The bill would spell out the schedule for phasing in the new higher academic standards into the high school proficiency exam. That stipulation would respond to some of the continuing concern that had been expressed regarding the standards.

Senator Raggio stated the bill proposed that pupils who entered ninth grade in the next school year, (1999-2000), would be expected to pass a test aligned with the new standards in October of their junior year (2001-2002). They would be required to pass the examination in order to receive a standard high school diploma in school year 2003. That time span should put to rest any concerns that students had not been taught the standards.

Senator Raggio informed the committee that he was completely astonished that the present math test given to students was not in line with the new higher standards, but rather used the math standard that was put in place in 1994. Some relief would be provided in the bill, and it was the vehicle used to address those who still had not passed the old math standard in the test currently being administered. The bill would provide some relief for those students who had been unable to pass the new, more challenging high school proficiency exam. The stipulation was that if students enrolled in intensive, remedial education or tutoring programs during the summer, they could retake the test at one or both of the special administrations of the exam in July and August 1999. Senator Raggio noted the bill would also allow students who had met all requirements for a standard diploma, except for passing the high school proficiency exam, to participate in graduation ceremonies, and be awarded a certificate of attendance. Those students would receive a standard diploma if they then expended the additional effort to pass the exam.

Further, stated Senator Raggio, a 10-person task force, including two legislators, would be convened to compare the contents of the various forms of the high school proficiency exam with the course of study adopted by the state board, and the curriculum offered in public schools. The task force would also review the method by which the results of the exam were reported to schools and parents, to determine whether another method of reporting might be more helpful. Senator Raggio explained the legislative committee wanted to ensure that wherever the information should be distributed, either to parents or other persons, that the best method would be used. The task force would be helpful in identifying, as a result of the reporting, any areas of deficiency so that wherever a student was, remedial help might be focused on specific schools. He further advised the task force would be required to report back to the State Board of Education and the Legislative Committee on Education on or before December 1, 1999.

The bill contained an appropriation of $48,000 for two additional test administrators, including travel and operating expenses. Senator Raggio indicated there was also an appropriation of $300,000 to provide matching funds to school districts for remedial programs designed to help pupils who had failed the high school proficiency exam in math. The legislation went further than ever before to help students who had yet to pass the math exam, and would provide the funding for intensive remedial help. According to Senator Raggio, for those parents who were complaining, S.B. 466 would give students another chance to take the math portion of the exam. He stated there was an opportunity for those who were still lamenting the fact that they had not passed the exam to do so, and they would then receive a standard diploma.

Senator Raggio indicated the bill also contained a $300,000 appropriation to IFC to purchase a financial analysis model program that was demonstrated to the legislative committee. He felt it was a wonderful opportunity to receive the type of information necessary to track expenditures throughout the entire school system.

According to Senator Raggio, the math exam was not extremely difficult, and various newspapers had taken people at random to participate in the test. The test would not require knowledge of algebra or geometry to pass the exam. Some students used that as an excuse, but the exam could be passed simply on computation skills.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if charter school test scores were not appropriate, would they be deemed a school in need of supervision. Senator Raggio indicated he could not provide the answer to that question. Ms. Giunchigliani stated NRS 389.015 referenced charter schools, indicating they must provide the same examination as public schools. She stated she was simply curious about charter schools being deemed inadequate or in need of supervision. Senator Raggio advised there was a structured bill regarding charter schools, and they were required to meet the same standards.

Jeanne Botts, Sr. Program Analyst, LCB, advised she would have to look specifically at the charter school amendments to see if that issue was addressed. The schools were required to participate in the exams, and would receive a designation if they were large enough. She advised Ms. Giunchigliani she would provide further information regarding charter schools. Ms. Botts indicated the most telling part would be the appropriation for remediation, and if the bill stipulated "public schools," they would generally be covered.

During the hearings, asked Ms. Giunchigliani, was there discussion regarding the exemptions that occurred for special education students, and was that changed, Ms. Botts replied it was not. The only change in the existing law was regarding the requirement that the average scores of students who took the exam under accommodations or modifications not approved by the test publisher, would not be averaged into the overall school score. Ms. Giunchigliani stated if students were allowed an accommodation, but the testing division would not count or consider that score, then that pupil would not be counted in the average, so the school would be affected differently on its scoring. Ms. Botts replied in the affirmative.

Mr. Price stated it was his understanding from Senator Raggio’s testimony that if a child did not pass the test the first time, he would have another opportunity in July or August to try again. Senator Raggio indicated the committee should remember those students had already been given seven opportunities to pass the math exam. Under the bill, $300,000 in matching funds would be allocated to provide programs, and if those pupils wanted to participate and work at it, they would be afforded two more opportunities in July and August to retake the exam. If students had otherwise passed in other courses, they could receive a standard diploma if the exam was passed. It would not lower test grades or anything along those lines, but would simply give students two additional opportunities to pass the math portion of the exam.

Mr. Beers stated he was curious about the modeling software, and asked what it would do. Ms. Botts stated she had an example, and would provide that to members of the committee at a later date. She went on to explain there was a software package entitled "Insight" that was designed several years ago, and had been implemented in several districts and states. The package provided financial information at the school level for specific functions, for example, what was termed face-to-face teaching. It would break the expenditures down finely, by school, by district, state, and even state department. Ms. Botts advised the committee had been given a demonstration of the software package, and the level of detail and information was really quite interesting. Mr. Beers asked if the goal was to correlate spending patterns with achievement. Ms. Botts stated that had not been discussed yet, and the program would simply provide additional information regarding how the money was spent at the school and district levels. Mr. Beers asked if the State Department of Education would do the input on the software. Ms. Botts indicated input would be done at the district level.

Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturer’s Association, informed the committee that the association had been involved in the Academic Standards Council, and felt the bill was a major step in the right direction to continue the process. Mr. Bacon stated there was one feature he would like to bring to the committee’s attention, and that was the grade-by-grade standards issue. That was an issue addressed by the council, and because of time constraints, it was decided not to commence with grade-by-grade standards. Since that time, the council had second thoughts that perhaps that standard should be implemented, if time permitted. Interestingly, stated Mr. bacon, Tennessee had implemented the grade-by-grade standards approximately 10 years ago, and the one thing that came from that effort was "real" feedback to teachers in specific areas where they might be weak, so for the first time, teachers had "real" feedback on their weaknesses. More importantly, it looked at incremental learning year by year, so problems could be identified and corrected.

There being no further testimony forthcoming on S.B. 466, the hearing was declared closed, and Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on S.B. 550.

Don Hataway, Deputy Budget Administrator, Budget Division, explained S.B. 550 would create a Division of Internal Audit within the Department of Administration, and an Executive Branch Audit Committee. Mr. Hataway reported the Governor felt strongly about the need for an "arm" that he could operate and direct to audit perceived or needed issues within the Executive Branch of the state.

Reviewing the bill, Mr. Hataway explained sections 1 through 7 contained organizational issues, placing the division within the Department of Administration, placing the chief of the division within the unclassified pay scale, and defining "chief" and "division." Section 10 outlined the qualifications that would be required of the chief. Section 11 created an Executive Branch Audit Committee, with the Governor acting as Chairman. In addition to the constitutional officers who would be members of the committee, there would be one member from the general public, who would serve at the pleasure of the Governor. Mr. Hataway stated the remaining sections outlined the process that the chief and the director of the department would follow, in terms of establishing annual work program criteria.

Two points Mr. Hataway stated he wanted to emphasize, as contained in section 19, were:

• One responsibility would be to consult with the Legislative Auditor regarding the annual work program, and coordinate his activities with the Executive Branch auditor activities, thereby eliminating duplication of effort.

• The bill contained a reporting responsibility for the division to the Legislative Auditor regarding the approved annual work plan, and the annual report.

Mr. Hataway noted there was an appropriation in the first year of the biennium of $751,000 and in the second year $1,168,000. Most of that cost was related to personnel, and he explained there would be a new 14-person staff, consisting of a Chief of the Office of Internal Audits, and a Program Assistant with an effective start date of July 1, 1999. There would also be two 4-person audit teams with an effective start date of October 1, 1999, and one additional 4-person audit team to start effective July 1 of the second year of the biennium. Organizationally, as structured in the bill, the Office of Financial Management, Training and Controls would be eliminated, and that 4-person staff would be merged into the new division positions. The Budget Account for the Office of Financial Management, Training and Controls would be used for the new division, and the current Chief of Financial Management would become, in essence, the deputy of the new division and carry the title of Manager of Internal Controls.

Mr. Marvel asked if the salary schedule would be parallel; Mr. Hataway replied that the salary schedule was patterned after the salaries of the Legislative Audit Division. Mr. Price indicated he was somewhat concerned because it seemed if outside auditors performed an audit on an agency such as the Executive Branch, there would be a tendency to conduct the audit more thoroughly. On the other hand, it would be more difficult for an internal auditor appointed by the Governor or an agency head, to tell his boss what was being done incorrectly. Mr. Price felt it made more sense to have an outside auditor, rather than an auditor who could be reprimanded for making a critical evaluation of his boss or department. Mr. Hataway commented, from a professional point of view, an auditor would not allow any influence of that nature to occur. Secondly, if the Governor contacted a department head and advised he was sending in an audit team, and requested the department’s cooperation, as was required by law, he would expect the department to fully implement the findings of that audit. Most department heads served at the pleasure of the Governor, and Mr. Hataway felt there would be full cooperation.

Chairman Arberry asked if an executive audit team made a finding which differed from the legislative audit team’s finding, would a department be required to comply with both audit recommendations. Mr. Hataway stated, as outlined by the bill, there would be coordination between the two audit offices to ensure there were no duplicative efforts. One of the first things done by an audit team was to review the most recent previous audit to ascertain what the recommendations were at that time, and what the status of the implementation of those recommendations were, and build from that point. If a new audit team went into an agency that had been audited by Legislative Auditors in the recent past, it would start from that base. Mr. Hataway noted that over time, different audit teams would arrive at independent findings and evaluations, and agencies would be expected to implement those recommendations, barring conflicts.

Mrs. de Braga asked what was wrong with the current method of auditing, and what problem would the legislation "fix." Mr. Hataway stated the Governor felt he did not have an independent "arm" to assist his office in addressing issues he felt were important and needed evaluation. From the Legislative Auditor’s point of view, Mr. Hataway stated, currently the Governor could request an audit of a particular department, however, he did not have control over the decision-making process. The Governor felt it was a government accounting office-type structure, similar to the one used by the Federal Government and several other states for many years.

Mr. Beers stated he would add that there probably was not a single business organization one-tenth the size of the state, or larger, which did not have an internal audit "arm" directed by the chief executive. Mr. Beers indicated he was very impressed with the audits performed by the Legislative Audit Division, however, was frequently very unimpressed with the way the audited agencies implemented the recommended changes. He felt the Governor wanted to fix that situation, and S.B. 550 would provide the tool needed to accomplish that fix.

Mr. Hataway pointed out that it was the intention, after the division was created, to transfer the audit response responsibilities to the new division. He felt that would eventually benefit the implementation of the audit recommendations.

Mr. Goldwater stated he understood Mr. Hataway was concerned that a second audit office would result in too much time being taken away from Executive Branch staff, agency staff, and division staff, and asked if having two sets of auditors would disrupt the management of the agencies. Mr. Hataway replied if there was coordination between the two offices to eliminate duplication, he did not feel there would be a problem.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated 6 years ago the legislature created an internal audit unit within the Executive Branch, and it turned in to a "witch hunt" type of situation. Consequently, Democrats and Republicans got together and changed it into the Office of Financial Management, Training and Controls. She then asked what assurances the committee had that the same problem would not occur again. Mr. Hataway indicated he thought there were technical issues that caused complications with the initial attempt, however, at the current stage, only by relying on the direction of the Governor and the professionalism of the persons appointed, could that situation be minimized. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if there would be a willingness to "sunset" the division to ensure that the same type of problem was not experienced again. Mr. Hataway advised he had always felt that any new program should be subject to a "sunset," but it should be done on a uniform basis. Ms. Giunchigliani commented that she remembered what had happened, and the concern about the potential for abuse. The state needed audits and training for new managers, and that was why the Office of Financial Management, Training and Controls was created.

Mr. Marvel stated he did not understand what the difference would be between the new audit division and the Legislative Audit Division, and asked if it would be internal versus external. Mr. Hataway explained it would be internal to the organizations that the Governor was responsible for.

With no further information forthcoming, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 550 closed. The next item to come before the committee was A.B. 696.

Bob Bayer, Director, Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP), indicated he had reviewed amendment number 1207 to A.B. 696, (Exhibit D). He felt Scott Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, and the staff of LCB Legal Division had done an exceptional job of addressing the concerns dealing with the accommodation of the new section to allow juvenile residents, should that be deemed as the best interim use of the facility. The amendment also resolved the issue of supervising offenders in all other areas, rather than just the transportation area, but also residents of the institution who might be hospitalized or at court hearings. Mr. Bayer advised it was a good amendment to the bill and resolved the issues in question.

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

Chairman Arberry advised the committee it needed to discuss the issue of S.B. 259 and S.B. 537 in order to resolve a conflict.

Mr. Stevens reminded the committee it did pass out S.B. 259 on May 28, and the bill had a substantive conflict with S.B. 537, which was passed by the Taxation Committee. Legal staff had discussed the issue with Mr. Goldwater, who would present the details to the committee.

Mr. Goldwater remarked that S.B. 537 was enrolled, and had been requested by the Nevada Taxpayer’s Authority, with favorable action take by the Taxation Committee. One purpose of the bill was to provide uniformity among the statutes dealing with tax abatements, tax rebates, and tax incentives offered to different business enterprises as an incentive to relocate to Nevada. S.B. 259, which was not enrolled and was pending, went in exactly the opposite direction. It went in the direction the legislature had gone for so many years, and that was to take a particular situation and offer an abatement only for that particular situation. The sponsor of the bill, the LCB Legal Division, and Mr. Goldwater felt that the uniformity contained in S.B. 537 accomplished much of what S.B. 259 attempted to do, however, there were some issues in that bill which needed to be addressed, such as issues regarding the motion picture industry.

Mr. Goldwater advised if sections 1 and 4 of S.B. 259 were simply deleted, the conflict would be resolved. The sponsor of the bill agreed with that action and Mr. Goldwater stated, once again, that was the way to resolve the conflict.

Mr. Stevens asked if the committee voted in that fashion, to delete sections 1 and 4 of S.B. 259, would it remove the conflict; Mr. Goldwater indicated that was correct.

Mr. Marvel noted the two bills were now parallel, and the action of the committee would resolve the conflict. Mr. Goldwater explained that with the passage of the enrolled bill (S.B .537), the abatements would be uniform. S.B. 259 would offer some of the abatements to rural portions of Clark County.

Chairman Arberry informed the committee it first needed to rescind its previous action on S.B. 259 prior to taking additional action, and the motion to amend and do pass was withdrawn.

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

Chairman Arberry advised he would now accept a motion to amend and do pass S.B. 259.

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

With no further business to come before the committee, the hearing was recessed at 9:50 a.m. at the call of the chair.

Chairman Arberry called the meeting back to order at 1:10 p.m., and informed the committee it needed to consider a letter of intent, (Exhibit E), on S.B. 504.

Chairman Arberry invited Renny Ashleman, representing Erickson Private Radio Systems, to come forward and explain the letter of intent to the committee.

Mr. Ashleman advised that three departments, the Department of Information Technology (DoIT), NDOT, and DMV/PS, had agreed it would be an excellent idea if the legislature issued a letter of intent to encourage the departments to work together on the two radio systems. He stated that would alleviate duplication of sites, equipment, and encourage cooperation regarding the use of facilities. The thought was that a savings could be realized if the project was approached in that manner, and it might also be useful to have a letter of intent issued, so that in the event of personnel changes, persons would be reminded of how to proceed with the project.

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

Chairman Arberry announced the committee would review the following bills for possible action:

Mr. Stevens reminded the committee it heard testimony on S.B. 432 at its earlier meeting, and the bill involved an interim study concerning air quality control programs.

Mr. Stevens indicated the committee heard testimony on S.B. 165 at its meeting on May 28, and the bill created a committee for public safety telecommunications operators within DMV/PS.

Mr. Stevens stated S.B. 70 was heard by the committee on May 28, and it concerned school accountability.

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

With no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Arberry recessed the hearing at 1:20 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Carol Thomsen,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: