The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:07 a.m., on Monday, March 22, 1999, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Jean Laird, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons

Mary Lynne Evans, Administrator, Office of Criminal Justice Assistance

Robert E. Rose, Chief Justice, Supreme Court

Brent T. Adams, District Court Justice, Department 6, Second Judicial District

Percy R. Luney, Jr., President, National Judicial College

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, testified she is seeking the committee’s support for Senate Bill (S.B.) 57.

Senator Wiener said she introduced this bill to improve upon legislation she had introduced at the last legislative session to establish therapeutic communities in Nevada’s prisons. She explained that now that the bill has had time to work, she has learned about what needs to be changed within the law.

Senator Wiener testified the three recommendations she had offered the Senate Committee on Judiciary more closely mirror federal requirements. She explained the three recommendations.

Senator Wiener said the first recommendation was to expand the pool of participants by lifting the restriction she had imposed last session requiring inmates to volunteer for the program. While attending a substance abuse conference sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice last October, she learned that volunteerism has no effect on how well the inmate progresses in the program. In fact, she said, across the country in many prison systems, even the most resistant inmates succeed in therapeutic communities.

Senator Wiener said she also asked the Senate Committee on Judiciary to delete the requirement that the inmate be a first-time offender. She reiterated that after spending time with the experts at the 1998 substance abuse conference, she understood this also has no impact on the inmate’s level of success in the program. In this regard, she said, the law should still exclude those who are sentenced to life without the possibility of parole and those who are serving a death sentence. She noted others could be excluded at the discretion of the director of the Department of Prisons and other prison officials.

Senator Wiener said her third change in the current legislation related to when the inmate can participate in the therapeutic community. She noted current law requires the inmate be within 1 year of release. She added this is difficult to determine because the decision is often left to the parole board. Senator Wiener stated that to help prison administrators in appropriately placing inmates in the program, she requested the committee add language after the 1-year requirement to reflect the "reasonable expectation" for that release as determined by the director.

Senator Wiener testified this program is working. She said that just prior to the 1999 Legislative Session, she visited the therapeutic community at Warm Springs and spent the morning at the facility to learn how well it was working. Currently, she said, 85 inmates are participating in the 6-month program, which involves an intensive daily regimen.

Continuing, Senator Wiener said participants typically start with the program at 8 or 8:30 a.m. and do not finish until after 9 p.m. She indicated inmates work constantly with substance abuse professionals who are helping them make permanent changes in their lives that affect their attitude and behavior within the unit, which is segregated from the rest of the facility. She noted this change in their lives is expected to carry over upon parole or discharge. She explained that is when the "aftercare" component of the law kicks in.

Senator Wiener gave one example of success. She said that at the hearing before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Warden Robin Bates testified officials have run more than 300 drug screenings with the therapeutic community inmates. She pointed out that these drug screenings have produced zero "positive" results.

Senator Wiener said the therapeutic community program in the prison system is young. In fact, she noted, the first class will be graduating in less than a month. She said what she has seen so far is impressive. She indicated it is her hope this community and future therapeutic communities in prisons will be even more impressive as the Legislature continues to support this program with funding.

Senator Wiener reminded the committee the 1997 Legislature budgeted $500,000 for the biennium. She explained that because of the restrictions she described earlier, this therapeutic community program was unable to spend a substantial portion of what was budgeted. She said if the law had been written then, as the judiciary committee recently approved it, many more inmates would already be converting their substance-abusing behaviors to productive lifestyles.

Senator Wiener said she learned about access to matching funds for this program prior to the hearing before the judiciary committee. She indicated that as the federal commitment to substance abuse programs in prisons has grown, so has the financial support. She said Mary Lynne Evans, Administrator, Office of Criminal Justice Assistance, will explain to the committee the opportunity to access substantial matching funds for this program. Senator Wiener stated it is her belief the Legislature can enhance this program to create positive and permanent changes in the lives of substance-abusing inmates who one day, sooner or later, will return to Nevada communities.

Senator Wiener asserted Nevada cannot continue to "default our dollars" to prisons, without making a commitment to creating permanent, positive changes for inmates who will be leaving prison facilities. She said with the changes approved by the Senate Committee on Judiciary on February 12, 1999, and with financial support for this program, Nevada can look to the future with confidence. She concluded her remarks by stating, "We can know that one day soon we will be able to feel safe and secure that the inmates who went to prison because of drug-related or drug-prompted crimes are no longer a threat to our communities. It is for these reasons that I urge your support of Senate Bill 57."

Senator Raggio asked whether Senator Wiener was proposing amendments to S.B. 57. She responded she was not. Senator Raggio indicated there is a fiscal note on this bill and said there appear to be several changes proposed by this bill. He asked Senator Wiener to comment on the changes proposed in section 1.

Senator Wiener explained section 1 removes the requirement that an inmate must volunteer for the program and allows the director or his designee to assign an inmate to the program.

Senator Wiener explained current law requires the offender be assigned to participate within 1 year of release. Section 1 changes that to be within the year immediately preceding the date on which the inmate is reasonably expected to be released, as determined by the director. She said this change recognizes the release date is difficult to determine because the decision is often left to the parole board.

Continuing, Senator Wiener said the change in section 2 is that the inmate would no longer have to be a first-time offender.

Senator Raggio asked for explanation of the change on page 2, lines 13 through 16, which strikes the phrase that states the inmate must sign an authorization form. Senator Wiener explained that is part of the volunteerism, which does not effect success.

Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons, testified the first class began September 1998. He said the first group will graduate April 14, 1999. Mr. Bayer said he supports S.B. 57 and assured the committee there will be no fiscal impact to the Department of Prisons as the bill is currently written.

Senator Raggio asked how the federal funds would be obtained. Mr. Bayer responded there is presently over $1 million in available federal funds earmarked for Nevada if Nevada has the matching funds. He said the wording in S.B. 57 would allow the funds in The Executive Budget to be considered as the match. Senator Raggio indicated the budget still needs a lot of review, particularly if some of the Governor’s proposals are not put in place for the Department of Prison budgets. Mr. Bayer said there would be no effect, because there is money in the base budget. Senator Raggio asked how much that is. Mr. Bayer said he believed it to be approximately $165,000. He said if the full amount is used as match, three times that amount will be available from federal funding. Senator Wiener said if there were additional General Fund money available, that would also be matched 3 to 1 by federal funding.

Senator Raggio asked whether there has been any money committed from outside private sources for this program. Mr. Bayer responded there was none that he was aware of. He said money used so far has been from the Inmate Welfare Fund and from General Fund appropriations. Senator Raggio indicated it was his understanding there was some private interest in this kind of program and funds might be available. He said he would discuss it at another time with Mr. Bayer.

Senator Rawson noted the 3-to-1 funding formula is better than most federal funding and that should be a factor in the decision-making process. Senator Raggio added the short-term results have been impressive and noted the committee endorses the concepts of this program.

Mary Lynne Evans, Administrator, Office of Criminal Justice Assistance, indicated she would provide clarification regarding the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners (RSAT) funding, if desired.

Senator Neal asked for explanation of the reference in the bill to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 209.425. Mr. Bayer said that is the reference to the DUI (Driving under the Influence) program, sometimes referred to as the "305 program." He explained the reference is there to be sure that the two programs do not conflict and that inmates do not try to avoid participating in the DUI program by taking this program.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 57.

Robert E. Rose, Chief Justice, Nevada Supreme Court, testified in support of S.B. 249.

Chief Justice Rose testified the Death Penalty Resource Center has been extremely helpful. He said he was one of the judges who took the capital punishment class in December 1998 and noted it was an excellent and thorough class with very competent instruction. He indicated he would like to see it continue for the purpose of training prosecutors, public defenders, and judges. He pointed out that one mistake in a death penalty case could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if it has to be reversed. He said it makes a lot of sense to train prosecutors, public defenders, and judges. Preventative instruction and measures pay off in many positive ways, he added.

Senator Raggio asked whether anyone would be addressing the level of participation and results of the program. Brent T. Adams, District Court Justice, Department 6, Second Judicial District, said that 2 years ago the Senate Committee on Finance funded this program. He explained the program enabled the National Judicial College to create four classes, each of which had 16 prosecutors, 16 defense lawyers, and 8 judges participating.

Justice Adams stated the program also funded the college’s website for death penalty resource materials. He indicated that has been a terrific success and reviews from judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers have been very favorable.

Justice Adams explained the reason for requesting funding again this session is that amendments to Nevada Supreme Court Rule 250 require all lawyers in Nevada who wish to become qualified to try death penalty cases at the appointment of the court to obtain education of this nature every 18 months. He pointed out there really is no alternative for quality education on these important subjects. He said he met with a group from the State Bar of Nevada to encourage the association to consider creating a new program funded through the fees. He said given the limited number of lawyers in this field, the overhead for that kind of program, and what would have to be charged on a fee basis, the only feasible alternative is to fund this program again.

Senator Raggio asked for the number of people who participated. Justice Adams responded there were 40 in each of 4 seminars. Senator Raggio asked whether that was statewide. Justice Adams responded that was statewide and indicated each included 8 judges, 16 prosecutors, and 16 defense lawyers.

Percy R. Luney, Jr., President, National Judicial College, indicated this program was funded before he arrived at the National Judicial College. He said the college had agreed to maintain the website after the state-funded period and the college had planned to do that. He said that before passage of Nevada Supreme Court Rule 250 by the Nevada Supreme Court, the college was also planning to offer another course every year. He said it is very difficult for the college to do this for free and it would need to charge the attorneys, judges, and prosecutors. He explained the issue is whether those entities would have enough funding in their normal budgets to send the necessary number of judges, prosecutors, and public defenders to such a program for this continued training as required by Nevada Supreme Court Rule 250.

Senator Raggio asked what the $120,000 is proposed to be used for and in what manner. Mr. Luney said it would be used to pay for the cost of the courses. Senator Raggio asked whether that would include the faculty cost. Mr. Luney said it would include bringing in the faculty. He noted if the college were to do the course on a normal basis, it would charge a tuition fee to cover the cost of bringing in the faculty. Senator Raggio indicated maybe there should be a tuition fee. Mr. Luney said the college could do that. Senator Raggio said out-of-state participants, particularly, should pay a tuition fee. Mr. Luney responded there would be no out-of-state participants.

Justice Adams testified this program is a very specialized program and the two trainers were from out of state. He said one is a retired Supreme Court justice and the other is a law school professor. He pointed out that is the primary faculty expense.

Senator Raggio asked whether Nevada Supreme Court Rule 250 requires re-certification every 18 months. Justice Adams said that is correct and added the Nevada Supreme Court has now established a higher level of continuing education requirements for death-penalty-qualified lawyers. Senator Raggio asked whether that includes prosecutors and defense lawyers. Justice Adams responded it includes both. He said there is a relatively small community of private practitioners who take these cases. He warned it would not be good for that community to dwindle, because it is the court’s obligation to appoint the attorneys in these cases and, as Chief Justice Rose pointed out, to avoid error and the enormous expense of retrial.

Senator Raggio noted it was his impression from testimony that this program provides some assurance of removing the likelihood of appeals, which are based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He asked whether that is the purpose of the program. Justice Adams said that is correct. He added the chief justice has written into the amended Nevada Supreme Court Rule 250 a requirement that the trial judge will extensively canvass qualifications of counsel well in advance of the trial. He said this is to remove subsequent challenges to effective assistance.

Senator Rawson commented that every time the National Judicial College comes up, the committee receives a packet of information from June Wisniewski, a local writer/research analyst. He asked whether that situation is ongoing or whether there is any resolution in sight. Mr. Luney said the college was in litigation with Ms. Wisniewski on his arrival at the National Judicial College. He said that case is still ongoing. Senator Raggio pointed out the committee has been provided a packet from Ms. Wisniewski. (Exhibit C. Original is on file at the Research Library.) Senator Rawson said he has difficulty sorting through whether this person has been mistreated or is disgruntled and is just trying to hurt the college, or whether there is some reason the Legislature should not fund these programs.

Senator Rawson noted that having the National Judicial College in Nevada brings a reasonable return to the state. He said having the college seems to benefit the state’s entire judiciary system and he wanted that to be focused on, if necessary.

Senator Raggio pointed out the committee received letters in support of S.B. 249 from Richard A. Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney (Exhibit D); Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General (Exhibit E); and Maizie Whalen Pusich, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender (Exhibit F). Senator Raggio noted the letter from the Washoe County Public Defender had additional letters attached to it in support of S.B. 249. Those attached letters were from Judge Archie E. Blake, Third Judicial District Court; Judge Joseph T. Bonaventure, Eighth Judicial District Court; Beavers and Young, Attorneys at Law (in Minden), William G. Rogers, Attorney at Law (in Carson City); and Judge Michael L. Douglas, Eighth Judicial District Court.

Senator Neal asked for explanation of the public benefit of this request. Justice Adams replied that under the new Nevada Supreme Court Rule 250 there are exacting continuing training requirements for lawyers in death penalty cases, particularly defense lawyers. He explained lawyers receive training through the college and are certified on Nevada Supreme Court Rule 250 in a hearing by the court before the trial. When the lawyers are certified, the number of successful posttrial challenges, brought on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, will be reduced. Justice Adams remarked that if a death penalty case challenge results in a new trial, which frequently happens, huge expenses are incurred. He said the avoidance of this is the direct public financial benefit.

Continuing, Justice Adams pointed out the policy benefit is to have the highest level of training for lawyers on both sides and for judges. He said this not only avoids legal error, but also gives the administration of justice the benefit of having qualified personnel on the bench and in the courtroom trying the most important cases in criminal law.

Senator Neal indicated the testimony provided today implies judges or lawyers are not allowed to participate in a death penalty trial unless they have had this course and he asked whether that is true. Justice Adams replied that is not entirely true, but it is close. He said the new Nevada Supreme Court Rule 250 requires that the judge find the lawyers have had this training or comparable training. For comparable training, an evidentiary hearing is held and the judge finds the lawyer has substitute education which qualifies that lawyer. He said an example involved Jerome M. Polaha, a leading defense lawyer in Reno, who was recently appointed in a death penalty case. He said an evidentiary hearing had to be conducted concerning his qualifications because his schedule had not allowed him to attend this course. He reiterated there is an alternative requirement if someone does not have this specific education.

Richard Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney, testified he also attended the first course. Although under Nevada Supreme Court Rule 250 prosecutors are not required to attend this type of training in order to sit on a case, his office has an internal rule that district attorney staff will attend this course because the program is so good. He explained that, although out-of-state instructors came in, those instructors spent a vast amount of time researching Nevada law and comparing it to federal and other jurisdictional laws. He said that was presented at the class so participants could see not only what Nevada law requires in this area, but what other jurisdictions have. He indicated it is a very good course, one of the best he has seen in his 26 years in law enforcement. He said it is the first time he has seen a course where judges, public and private defense attorneys, and prosecutors are in the same room throughout the same course. He said during the course there were breakout sessions for judges, for prosecutors, and for defense attorneys to work on their side of particular issues. He added that all in all it went very well.

Gemma Greene, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney, said she also represents the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association. She testified her association stands in support of this bill. She said she is on the advisory council for the Death Penalty Resource Center and she helped get the curriculum together at a meeting about a year ago. She pointed out that everyone who provided a letter attached to the letter from the Washoe County District Attorney (Exhibit D) has gone through the course. She noted they all say it was a very good course and they found it worthwhile.

David F. Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Office of the Attorney General, testified he has been a member of the adjunct faculty for the first two iterations of this course. He said the last two will be conducted in June 1999. He noted there was great benefit in having all the players in the same room going through the same material. He said although it is too early to see the actual result, in less than a month he will be trying a case against two separate sets of lawyers who went through the same class. Mr. Sarnowski noted that, with only one exception, all criminal trial judges from the Eighth Judicial District have been through the course. He said virtually all the lawyers from the Clark County Special Public Defender Office, which handles overflow homicide cases, have been through the course. A fair number of the Clark County Public Defender staff have been through the course. He said almost everyone from his office has been through it and those who have not already taken the course will do so before the end of the year. In the long term, he added, it will provide the policy and fiscal benefit that Justice Adams addressed.

Ms. Wisniewski testified she is not specifically opposed to this course but is opposed to giving the National Judicial College funding when the budget crunch is taken into consideration. She recalled there was a recent testimony that $15 from each speeding ticket is dedicated to covering costs of courses specifically for Nevada judges. She said there are at least four conferences a year for judges. She pointed out there are other sources of funding available for this course.

Ms. Wisniewski referenced her handout (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.) and indicated it shows the types of things that are coming out of the National Judicial College. It includes a report titled "Right Wing Extremist Challenges to the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Court." She said this subject was mentioned in the last legislative session and Senator Raggio was invited to attend a course on the subject. She said there was also supposed to be a course called "Judicial Response to the Constitutional Court Movement." She referenced what she described as an extract from an audiotape recording, which is included in her handout.

Ms. Wisniewski testified she is concerned about the quality of education that is coming out of the college. She called attention to a report in her handout written by the woman who teaches judicial writing and has a Ph.D. from Yale University that has over 25 typing mistakes in it. She reiterated her concern about the quality of courses at the National Judicial College.

Ms. Wisniewski said if members of the public want to see information about a course that is offered or materials being presented, they do not have access to this information.

Senator Raggio asked Ms. Wisniewski the nature of her ongoing litigation with the college. Ms. Wisniewski responded the case has been dismissed, but the college has given her new cause for action. She said "they threw me out" of the library twice and once from a conference she had paid for in October 1997. She said the college does not want outsiders in the building or in the library.

Ms. Wisniewski stated she was reviewing the Fleischmann papers, but noted those papers were not in her handout because she was still going through them. She said there was a grant proposal made when the college was the National College of the State Judiciary for the period 1976 to 1980. The proposal states that although it is clearly demonstrated that national judicial training and education of the state judiciary is an absolute necessity, it is further acknowledged that it will never be self-sustaining or profit-making and will require some basic funding. She said she has documents that show the program will always need money and "giving them money is like giving them a Band-Aid."

Senator Raggio questioned the relevance of Ms. Wisniewsky’s testimony. He said he did not want to cut her off because he tries to allow everybody the opportunity to make a point, but this bill under discussion proposes an appropriation for a special course. He said Ms. Wisniewski’s objection apparently has been a continuing one against any state funding of any kind for the National Judicial College. He asked whether that was the point Ms. Wisniewski was making. She replied that it was. Senator Raggio pointed out the state gives money to many nonprofit corporations and there is nothing illegal about that. He added Ms. Wisniewski certainly can make her point as to whether she thinks that is appropriate. He said there is a long list of nonprofit entities to which the state, counties, and cities give money. He reiterated his concern whether Ms. Wisniewski’s testimony is relevant to these bills, but assured her all the information in her handout will be included in the minutes and become part of the record.

Ms. Wisniewski asked where she could get a list of nonprofit organizations that have received public money. Senator Raggio indicated he could name several off the top of his head, such as Help Them Walk Again Foundation and Lifeline and some state agencies also contract with a number of nonprofit entities for services. He assured Ms. Wisniewski the committee will note her point and will consider the information she provided.

Senator Rawson referred to Ms. Wisniewski’s testimony that her case had been dismissed and asked whether she is now allowed privileges in the library. Ms. Wisniewski responded that she received a strange letter stating she is allowed in, but she is not allowed to use the restroom and she is not allowed to go into the Death Penalty Case Resource Center. She said it is very restrictive. Senator Rawson asked her whether the college had ever accused her of taking materials from the library. Ms. Wisniewski responded they had not. Senator Rawson asked whether it seems she interfered with the college’s normal processes. Ms. Wisniewski responded as follows:

Senator Rawson requested the committee be provided the National Judicial College policy and rules regarding public access to and use of the library. He indicated it is expected that everyone who desires to use the library would be treated the same way. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Luney to provide the information requested by Senator Rawson plus a breakdown of the proposed expenditures of the $120,000 appropriation requested in S.B. 249. He also suggested, in view of the budget limitations, Mr. Luney review the request to see whether it can be reduced.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 249.

Senator Raggio informed the committee there were bill draft requests (BDRs) to be considered. He noted some bill drafts will require testimony prior to bill introduction. He stated a bill draft is general information provided by the bill drafter. He explained that because of the number of bills, not every bill will receive hearings. Senator Raggio remarked that in this committee, where there are major appropriations which probably have little chance of being included within the final budget, committee introduction will have to be justified.

Senator Raggio pointed out this bill draft was requested by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). He said IFC heard testimony about the procedures used in Utah and the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) also assisted in the bill draft.

*****

Senator Raggio noted this bill draft contains an appropriation not included in The Executive Budget of $8 million a year or $16 million total.

Larry L. Spitler, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, testified this bill draft was requested by Clark County School District (CCSD). He said CCSD took a statewide approach rather than looking just at Clark County School District. He stated this was done in the instance of BDR 34-697 from an occupational education perspective. He said a committee was created to draft this proposal, the goal of which was to blend the business community with occupational education.

Mr. Spitler testified a budget would be presented detailing the appropriation request. He acknowledged that money is extremely limited and said he would work with the committee on behalf of the school district to pare back the request. He explained that from a statewide perspective there are some critical elements in this bill and said he would work with the committee in an expeditious manner, should the committee choose to introduce this proposal as a bill.

Senator Raggio emphasized the Legislature would have to operate within the limitations imposed as a result of the Economic Forum projections. He noted this bill draft has serious fiscal impact. Mr. Spitler acknowledged that it does.

Senator Raggio noted this bill draft was requested by Clark County School District and it requests an appropriation of $1.6 million for each year.

Mr. Spitler testified this bill is unique to Clark County School District. He explained it replaces the federal funds for a 2-year program to enhance the magnet schools. He said the $1.6 million is simply to expand programs and includes no staff. He said in the elementary grades the appropriation would be for magnet schools specializing in global studies, for expanding the use of communications in creative arts, for a foreign language immersion school, and for a math/science magnet school. He said in the middle school grades the appropriation would be for international learning, for a foreign language immersion school, and for a math/science magnet school. He said in high school the appropriation would be for allied health, teacher preparation, business, and aerospace.

Mr. Spitler explained this bill would assist the school district in continuing the expansion of those programs to prepare young people for specific careers. He noted that in the magnet school arena children perform at a very high level and usually exceed expectations. He reiterated these are high-performing schools.

Senator Raggio asked whether there are any other potential sources of funding. Mr. Spitler responded:

Senator Neal asked whether there will be a hearing on these bills. Senator Raggio indicated he was not able to guarantee there will be a hearing on any bills. He said he would hope so, but the fact is there are so many bills that no one in either house can guarantee there will be a hearing on all bills. Senator Neal commented he has questions he would like to ask if there is a hearing on this bill.

Senator Raggio indicated the remaining bill drafts were requested by the Budget Division. He indicated appropriations are included in The Executive Budget unless indicated otherwise by the Budget Division in testimony.

Senator Raggio noted this bill has no fiscal impact and may be referred to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. He asked John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, whether he was requesting introduction of this bill by the Senate Committee on Finance. Mr. Comeaux replied that he is.

Senator Raggio indicated the requested appropriation is $17,687. He reminded the committee there had been earlier testimony on the need for this supplemental appropriation.

Senator Raggio indicated this bill draft has a fiscal note. Mr. Comeaux testified that the original budget requested by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) included law enforcement personnel and related costs to enforce TRPA regulations at Lake Tahoe. This bill draft is submitted as an alternative to specifically authorize existing local law enforcement authorities to enforce the regulations. Senator Raggio informed him this bill would be referred to another committee.

Senator Raggio noted this bill draft includes an appropriation of $316,231. Mr. Comeaux indicated this appropriation is included in The Executive Budget on page INTRO-35. He noted this request is for additional expenses anticipated for the Registration Division of the Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety (DMV&PS). He said it would be a supplemental appropriation from the Highway Fund. Senator Raggio noted the draft would need to be changed before introduction to show the appropriation is included in The Executive Budget.

Senator Raggio noted this bill draft requests an appropriation in the amount of $10,000. Mr. Comeaux indicated he reviewed this request with the Governor’s Office and noted it is a necessary proposal. He confirmed the appropriation is included in The Executive Budget.

Senator Raggio noted this bill draft requests appropriations included in The Executive Budget.

*****

Senator Raggio noted the Senate Committee on Human Resources requested this bill. He said the appropriation requested is $125,000 and is for continuation of programs dedicated to promoting citizen volunteerism.

Senator Raggio pointed out that S.B. 190 was heard in this committee on March 1, 1999. He said that, among other things, it renames the Vocational Rehabilitation revolving account as the Rehabilitation Division revolving account. It eliminates the Services to the Blind revolving account and provides for transfer of money in the Services to the Blind revolving account to the new revolving account. He said it also increases the maximum permissible amount in that account. He added it makes an appropriation.

Senator Raggio indicated there is a requested amendment to S.B. 190, Amendment No. 145. Dan Miles, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained the bill combines the two revolving funds the agency now has into one for better cash flow and this amendment eliminates the appropriation in section 2 because it was not needed. Section 4 requires the chief of the Bureau of Services to the Blind to transfer the assets of that revolving account into the surviving revolving account, rather than requiring the State Controller to transfer the assets, because this bank account is outside the jurisdiction of the State Controller.

Senator Raggio noted there was no opposition to the bill or to the proposed amendment at the hearing.

Senator Raggio opened the hearing on S.B. 4.

Senator Raggio indicated there is a fiscal note on this measure prepared by the Department of Human Resources which indicates a cost in the first year of $355,409 and in the second year, $324,272.

Elena Lopez-Bowlan, Nurse Practitioner and Member, Northern Nevada Minority Health Coalition, testified she supports this measure. She called attention to the outline of demographics in Nevada, which she provided for the committee. (Exhibit G.) Proposed Division of Minority Health, Outline of Comments by Elena Lopez-Bowlan, MSN, FNP.)

Ms. Lopez-Bowlan informed the committee the concept of minority health is not new. She said that with the changing demographics in Nevada it is important Nevada start addressing some of these issues. She explained Nevada’s growth rate among Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American minority groups is higher than the national average.

Ms. Lopez-Bowman stated teen pregnancy is an important issue in Nevada. She pointed out it was known in 1990 that teen pregnancy was disproportionately high in minority communities in Nevada. In 1996, $500,000 was designated to create community action teams. However, she said, no money was specifically allocated to minority communities. In 1998, after Hispanic representatives voiced concerns, only 1 percent was designated to the Hispanic community, which has the highest teen pregnancy rate per thousand. She indicated the rate is 121 per thousand for Hispanics and 37 per thousand for Caucasians.

Continuing, Ms. Lopez-Bowlan explained that funding for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) programs has decreased tremendously. She noted she previously managed the Latino AIDS programs at Nevada Hispanic Services. She said that 3 years ago Nevada Hispanic Services received $100,000 in AIDS funding. Currently the funding is $18,000, although Hispanic populations have the second-highest occurrence of AIDS in the state. She emphasized it is important to address this issue and said it will be cost-effective to start addressing it now.

Ms. Lopez-Bowlan informed the committee that 34 states have offices of minority health and several federal entities have created offices of minority health within their organizations. She named the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Health Resources Service Administration as examples. She explained these offices have also adopted the philosophy of empowering minority communities by building and strengthening partnerships across public and private sectors.

Ms. Lopez-Bowlan pointed out that in an ideal world, minority representatives would be asking for a minority representation unit in every division in the state. She said the coalition recognizes this would not be cost-effective but truly believes S.B. 4 creates access to resources and helps eliminate the existing gap.

Ms. Lopez-Bowlan called attention to letters of support she had provided to the committee (Exhibit H) from the Nevada Nurses Association, the Nevada Hispanic Services, Inc., the College of Human and Community Sciences, the Orvis School of Nursing, University of Nevada, and the Community Services Agency. She noted she had also provided a copy of the latest report of the 34 offices of minority health entitled "The Office of Minority Health’s National Minority Health Network" (Exhibit I. Original is on file in the Research Library.) She explained the report includes funding amounts from the first year to the most current year available. She pointed out that none of the states equivalent to Nevada has a fiscal note of $350,000. She said most were started with a director and an assistant and the average cost ranged from $65,000 to $100,000.

Jacqueline Webb, member, Northern Nevada Minority Health Coalition, testified S.B. 4 allows for the establishment of a division of minority health within the Department of Human Resources, whose mission would be to respond to minority health issues. She said the escalating health care costs and inadequate and diminishing financial resources available to Nevada make this a crucial time to adopt creative and responsive solutions. She pointed out S.B. 4 does that.

Ms. Webb said the Health Division has a minority liaison position, but it does not meet the official criterion of "a division of minority health." She explained that is why Nevada has not been eligible for funding through the Office of Minority Health, Office of Public Health and Science, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She pointed out that in 1998 the Office of Minority Health funded approximately $800,000 to 25 state minority health entities to address minority health concerns. An additional $30,000 was available for program development only to Region IX states, of which Nevada is a part. She said that during Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 the Office of Minority Health anticipates having similar funding available.

Ms. Webb opined that to some of the committee members S.B. 4 sounds like an intelligent decision whose time has come. However, she acknowledged the bottom line is the cost. She said she had contacted the director of the Office of Minority Health in Region IX, who provided cost information for states with comparable populations. The starting cost for Arizona was $65,000, with a present annual budget of $65,000. The starting cost for Nebraska was $66,000, with a present annual budget of $92,000. The starting cost for Oregon was $130,000, with a present annual budget of $180,000. The starting cost for Utah was $175,000, with a present annual budget of $154,000. She pointed out that Massachusetts, which has a much larger minority population than Nevada, has a current operating budget of $237,000.

Ms. Webb said it would be fiscally irresponsible to present a budget larger than $150,000 at this time. She opined that a budget greater than that amount will kill this bill. She said the coalition will work with the Senate Committee on Finance to find comparable solutions that are fiscally responsible. She said the fiscal note on S.B. 4 reflects the hiring of a full-time director and a full-time assistant plus operating costs.

Senator Raggio asked whether Ms. Webb had an alternative proposed detail budget. She responded she did not yet have one prepared. Senator Raggio asked Ms. Webb what organization she represented. She replied she represented the Northern Nevada Minority Health Coalition. She said it is a group of professionals who represent various minority populations in Nevada. She noted there is a southern coalition and a northern coalition and they have come together in support of this bill.

Ms. Webb said the coalitions propose the new division be within the Department of Human Resources because that would allow for shared cost of operations and staff. She said Arizona has a $65,000 operational cost because Arizona’s Division of Minority Health is within the state’s health department and uses the resources available there. Oregon’s minority health office is also within the state’s health division and it also shares costs of operations and staff within that division. She recalled that under the present state leadership, established programs are being reviewed. Ms. Webb applauded this type of program analysis, which reviews program effectiveness. She pointed out a division of minority health in Nevada would provide an additional system of checks and balances. She said Nevada must truly look at programs to determine whether they are effective and close the gap on health disparity among all its citizens. She added S.B. 4 is the right thing to do for Nevada at this time.

Senator Raggio asked for clarification regarding the testimony that Nevada is not presently eligible for funding from the Office of Minority Health. He also asked for the minimum requirement for funding and how much would be available if those requirements were met.

Ms. Webb responded that either an executive order or a law that specifically creates a division of minority health with specific targeted programs is required. John Yacenda, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Department of Human Resources, added that there are three methods of meeting requirements for funding. One is to establish an office or entity legislatively; a second is to establish an office or entity administratively; the third is to establish an office or entity by executive order. He said any of these three would qualify for the federal government’s definition of eligible entities of minority health.

Senator Raggio asked whether there are particular requirements for dedicated funding. Ms. Webb responded that an office which specifically attends to minority issues is required. She said S.B. 4 proposes an office to respond to minority health issues, not just to provide education or research on disparity. She said the office must also respond with policy and administrative consultation and must have the ability to provide information to the Governor and the Legislature. Senator Raggio asked why an existing position in the Department of Human Resources could not be designated for this purpose with those concepts. Ms. Webb said that is a good question. Senator Raggio said he would ask the question of the Department of Human Resources. He indicated support for the concept and noted understanding that there must be a designated office for this purpose with established goals. Ms. Webb said that is correct.

Senator Mathews asked what the advocate in the Health Division currently does. Dr. Yacenda replied there is a minority liaison in the primary care development center in the Health Division. He said this person acts as a clearinghouse for information gathered from the federal government and other states. Senator Mathews asked where that information goes. Dr. Yacenda said the intention is that the position would be an interface with minority communities.

Senator Mathews asked whether designating that office would be an option. In amplification of Senator Mathews’ question, Senator Raggio referred to the written testimony provided by Dr. Yacenda (Exhibit J). He said the fiscal note indicates 4 persons would be needed to staff a division of minority health with the mission and goals detailed in S.B. 4. He noted those 4 positions are an Administrator, a Management Analyst, a Grants and Project Analyst, and a Management Assistant. Senator Raggio said that with all the other requests before this committee, the ability to fund an office at this cost is unlikely, if not impractical. He asked what Dr. Yacenda would suggest that would assist in the establishment of the necessary office for the stated purposes.

Senator Mathews interjected that her question was not intended to imply this is not a necessary request. She reiterated her question whether the committee could enhance the existing staff in some way that would meet the requirements and fill the need, considering the fiscal restraints.

Dr. Yacenda pointed out the fiscal note was written in response to what appeared to be the tasks and the challenges of the proposed division according to S.B. 4. He said the Governor does, in fact, want administrators to conduct a fundamental review of programs and activities. Part of what will be looked at is whether programs are doing what they are intended to do. That review will provide insight to whether an entity can be created that will address the issues in this bill. Dr. Yacenda said that would not be done in the immediate future but on conclusion of the fundamental review. Senator Raggio asked Dr. Yacenda when he expected the review to be completed. Dr. Yacenda responded it is on a fast track and hopes the initial review will be completed before the end of the year.

Ms. Lopez-Bowlan testified a letter had been received from the Office of Minority Health at Region IX (San Francisco) that said the liaison position is not recognized as a division of minority health. She said the thrust is to assure states establish a unit and the liaison position is not recognized as a unit. In addition, she noted, the incumbent does not interact with the minority communities and has said she does not have the time because she has other responsibilities.

Ms. Lopez-Bowlan pointed out that Texas, which has a higher minority population, is staffed by a director and an administrative assistant and the unit shares support staff with other units. She said their budget for 1996 was $231,000, but in Nevada there is a much smaller population. She suggested a director and a shared secretary would be adequate staffing. She said the important thing is to have the authority behind the word "division" and not just an existing position with these added duties. She added that just has not worked.

Senator O'Donnell indicated his understanding of the need for authority to establish this entity and said it is an important issue. He noted section 14 addresses the authority of the new division to give away grant money. He asked whether the Legislature could establish this organization and allow the coalition to get grant money to facilitate this office. He noted there are other offices created by the Legislature but funded by private donations. He pointed out the bill does not provide for the acceptance of private donations, but it could be amended.

Ms. Lopez-Bowlan said that is very important and was the coalition’s intent. For example, the Regional Office of Minority Health gave states with minority health divisions, which included Arizona, California, and Hawaii, $30,000 last year. Nevada would have gotten that money for capacity building and it would have helped with development within the division. She added it was the intent to allow solicitation of funds from other organizations. She said there was also $150,000 available for minority AIDS programs for which Nevada could have qualified this year if this division had been in place. She reiterated Nevada has lost potential grant money for minority programs.

Rena M. Noramd, M.D., President, Philippine Medical Association of Nevada, said she is a practicing board-certified psychiatrist and active community leader, especially with Asian/Pacific Islander organizations. She expressed strong support for S.B. 4 for the establishment of the division of minority health under the Department of Human Resources. She said that 10 years ago she interfaced with the Division of Minority Health in New Jersey and there are many clinical and administrative reasons there should be such a division.

Ms. Noramd said Nevada is one of the top states with a significant and diverse minority population. She commented there is a great need for accurate demographic data and research on health status, health prevention, and health promotion among minorities. She said there is a need for focus studies on behaviors, beliefs, and patterns of utilization of medical, mental, and psychosocial services. She pointed out that knowledge obtained from the focus studies could serve as a basis for program planning and implementation of preventive, diagnostic, treatment, and rehabilitation services. She said prevention is the most cost-effective.

Ms. Noramd testified a division of minority health could assure appropriate and necessary representation of minority groups in various agencies that make decisions impacting personal and professional lives. She added a division of minority health would facilitate and oversee grants, research projects, and approaches to public education regarding commonly encountered medical disorders, such as hypertension, diabetes, hepatitis, addictions, and mental health problems. She said the health care services for minorities must take into consideration access, availability, acceptability, appropriateness, and accountability. She noted the recognition of factors such as cultural diversity, language-specific skills, geographic groupings, and uniqueness of health needs should be highlighted. A division of minority health would have a more focused view and sensitivity to the cultural and socioeconomic aspects of health related to minorities. Ms. Noramd said it would assure linkage and networking with minority groups.

Carla Freeman, representing the Southern Nevada Minority Health Steering Committee, said it would be helpful to put faces to those statistics regarding people being treated every day because of the diseases described earlier. She stated minorities present themselves to doctors with their illnesses in much worse stages of a disease. She noted this costs the state money across the board and that cost far exceeds the amount being discussed today to begin to address the issues and look at prevention.

Ms. Freeman said statistics are repeated over and over, until they become passé, but these numbers are true. She pointed out minority populations in Nevada are approaching 30 percent. She said that because Clark County is nearly 70 percent of Nevada’s population, it is experiencing the brunt of these expenses. She urged the committee to consider the current cost of health care treatment when considering the cost of this new division.

Ms. Freeman said the purpose and structure of the division as defined in S.B. 4 were modeled after the Commission for Minority Health in Ohio. She noted that is the only minority health office that actually is a division and it has shown the most significant gains in terms of helping minority populations actually become healthier. Ms. Freeman said that after looking at all the states, the coalition determined the Ohio program would be the best model, but pointed out Ohio’s budget is over $1.4 million. She added that some offices in other states are one- or two-person offices buried within a bureau that has other purposes. She stated the minority health coalitions hope to impact the statistics on minority health as was done in Ohio.

Ms. Freeman concluded by stating that as this population continues to grow, Nevada must address the health issues somehow and "if we don’t address it now, we’re going to pay now or we’re going to pay later" in health care costs.

Beleh Gabato, Founding President, Philippine Nurses Organization of Nevada, testified she had spoken to many Asian/Pacific Islander organizations and they are in support of S.B. 4 but were unable to attend this hearing today. She echoed the comments by Ms. Freeman and the northern Nevada counterparts. She added that the Asian/Pacific Islander community is ready and willing to help develop and implement programs and to bridge the cultural divide between the general population and their community.

Jeanne Palmer, Clark County Health District, said she was speaking on behalf of Donald Kwalick, M.D., Chief Health Officer, Clark County Health District. She said public health agencies are aware of the need to address the significant health disparities in minority populations. She said "Healthy People 2000" and "The Developing Healthy People 2010" national health objectives emphasize reducing health disparities as a major goal. She testified the Clark County Health District supports the creation of an agency that specifically focuses on the minority health issues in Clark County and in Nevada.

Senator Raggio notified Mr. Comeaux and Dr. Yacenda that the committee will not be able to process this bill until the Department of Human Resources provides firm information as to the revised fiscal impact of what is necessary to process the bill.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 4 and opened the hearing on S.B. 304.

Senator Raggio noted the committee is aware of the purpose of this bill since there have been previous discussions. He said S.B. 304 "takes back" the $5 million that heretofore had been set up as an endowment fund. He said the endowment fund was established with the provision that when the state has fiscal problems it will recall this funding. He noted that recall has occurred once before. However, Senator Raggio pointed out, this bill would appropriate $600,000 over the biennium to replace the income the fund would otherwise have realized as investment returns. In essence, he said, the Governor is trying to balance the budget and at the same time preserve the integrity of this funding to the same level that would have been realized if the endowment had remained in place. The intent is that when the fiscal status in this state improves, the endowment money would again be appropriated.

Senator Neal asked how the state is able to take back the endowment fund without a bill to do so. Senator Raggio responded the provision is already in the law and this bill specifies the fund transfer. Senator Raggio explained that when the endowment was established, the language provided the authority to recall the money.

Percy R. Luney, Jr., President, National Judicial College, acknowledged the state’s need to take back the $5 million in the endowment fund and said the $600,000 appropriation is appreciated. He said that while the college hopes the endowment will be reinstated, he understands the reason for the Governor’s request for this measure. He said it would be very difficult to continue operations with the sudden shock of losing the endowment, without the $600,000 appropriation.

Senator Raggio said that on the previous occasion that the state recalled the endowment money, it was not able to provide this substitute revenue. He said the Governor should be commended for recognizing the importance of the program and the necessity to at least keep stable the funding for the college for the biennium.

Brent T. Adams, District Court Justice, Department 6, Second Judicial District, asked whether this provision is still in The Executive Budget. Senator Raggio responded the appropriation is included in The Executive Budget.

Justice Adams testified that virtually every judge in Nevada is trained at the National Judicial College and assured the committee this is the finest judicial education program in the world. He said the program trains judges to competently do their jobs. He cited the example that there are over 300 drug courts in the United States and most of the judges in those courts have been trained at the National Judicial College. He said the program trains judges in settlement techniques that reduce the time and cost of litigation. He said it is a great institution.

Jim Williams, Controller, National Judicial College, echoed the words of President Luney and testified he appreciated the committee’s efforts and hoped some day the state can restore the trust account. He pointed out the trust account identifies Nevada as a leader and helps in dealing with other states to encourage them to establish endowments for their judges to participate in the program. He said the fact that Nevada takes such a leadership role was also helpful in dealing with private funders and the many constituents.

Senator Neal said the reason this endowment fund was created was that the National Judicial College was one of the bright spots in this state. He said Harvard University was interested in the college at the time the Legislature created the fund and was willing to move it back east. The Legislature felt it was necessary to keep this school here because of what it did in terms of training judges. It created an "atmosphere" for the state other than gaming. He said he hoped the Governor realized this is one of the bright spots and "maybe he would come across and support my gaming tax increase and so we can put this money back into this endowment fund."

Juanita Clark, representing Charleston Neighborhood Preservation, said she was speaking against this "bright spot." She said she hesitated to question Senator Neal’s judgement, but questioned the need to train a judge. Also, she said, when there is a national organization, "the slant on things" will be national, rather than addressing what individual states’ needs may be. She pointed out it makes a "cookie-cutter" administration of judicial thinking as well as judicial determinations. She said she does not feel a state fund should be used to support a national group.

James Richardson, Ph.D., indicated he was not representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance in this testimony. He said he chose to testify because he directs the Masters Judicial Studies Program, which is offered in conjunction with the college and the national council. He also chose to testify because he was acting director of the Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies when some of the activities occurred which were alluded to in earlier testimony. He said he agrees with Senator Neal’s assessment. He said when he travels around the world he encounters many people involved in the legal arena and many ask about the college. It truly is a "bright spot" for Nevada.

Dr. Richardson indicated some of the negative testimony at this hearing regarding the college has been heard and answered before at a number of forums and he said that testimony is offered with the full knowledge it is untrue. He said the reason there were some difficulties with one particular publication by professor Elizabeth Frances, who is a very fine professor, was a simple clerical error that has been explained several times to the person offering that testimony. He said the college has since reissued that publication with the corrections taken care of. Dr. Richardson explained an inexperienced person using a scanner at a time when Dr. Richardson was out of town caused the errors.

Dr. Richardson expressed that the Masters Judicial Studies Program is fully accredited and there is absolutely no problem with that degree program. It is a "bright spot" in the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) offerings and the university is proud to be offering that degree in conjunction with the college and the National Judicial Council. He said there are nearly 100 judges enrolled in that program at any one time and there are over 70 graduates. He noted two-thirds of those graduates have published their theses, which he said is a very high percentage and certainly an indication of the quality of the program. He emphasized his personal resentment of the comments made about the program in this and other forums and reiterated the University of Nevada is proud to offer the program with the National Judicial College and the National Council.

June Wisniewski, Writer/Research Analyst, said she had been researching National Judicial College issues for several years. She said she had copies of a confidential report prepared for the "Commission on Colleges." She noted the report states the Masters Judicial Studies Program, which is in the division of continuing education, failed to cooperate by not providing requested studies.

Ms. Wisniewski said the Masters Judicial Studies Program requires 12 credits and a thesis. She pointed out none of the credits from the National Judicial College are graded and are all "pass/fail." According to the rules of the graduate program only 3 credits can be "pass/fail." She stated the Masters Judicial Studies Program does not meet the requirements of the graduate school at the University of Nevada.

Ms. Wisniewski remarked the National Judicial College should maintain the buildings it occupies. She said the National Judicial College received the building from the Fleischmann Foundation and gave it to the University of Nevada and now the university is obligated to maintain it. She noted the university did the same thing for the College Inn and the Reynolds Foundation Building. According to Ms. Wisniewski, the university is paying for electricity, water, sewage, heat, building repair and maintenance, and janitorial service. She pointed out the National Judicial College is getting free rent and free services and added the only thing the college pays for is programs. She claimed to have letters stating the Fleischmann Foundation was concerned as long ago as 1973 that the National Judicial College was not receiving grants and is not self-supporting.

Ms. Wisniewski pointed out the state is giving the college between $200,000 and $400,000 for maintenance. She said the state is also financing the Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies and the Master of Judicial Studies Program. She said the National Judicial College is actually requesting over $1 million in funding, not just $600,000 and not just $120,000. She stated there are many hidden requests for money.

Senator Raggio pointed out that the National Judicial College is not funded entirely by the State of Nevada and that it receives other revenues.

Ms. Wisniewski referenced her handout. (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.) She stated page 9 shows the University of Nevada is obligated to maintain the building. She said somewhere there is a grant agreement between the Reynolds Foundation and the National Judicial College, which probably stipulates the National Judicial College gets the building and gives it to the university with the stipulation that the university pays all the maintenance.

Senator Raggio inquired whether Ms. Wisniewski’s point is that she objects to any state funding being used for any purpose for the National Judicial College, since it is a nonprofit organization. Ms. Wisniewski responded:

Senator Raggio remarked that Ms. Wisniewski is welcome to submit the report she is currently preparing when it is completed. Ms. Wisniewski asked when the decision on the funding will be made. Senator Raggio responded this bill will probably be processed in a short time and, if the Senate passes it, it will go to the Assembly. He noted Ms. Wisniewski will also be able to state her case before the Assembly.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 304 and opened the hearing on S.B. 33.

Ed Gobel, President, Council of Nevada Veterans’ Organizations, stated he was testifying on behalf of the Council of Nevada Veterans’ Organizations by resolution. He indicated the State Commander of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) was also in the audience in support of S.B. 33. Mr. Gobel said this bill increases the veterans’ property tax exemption for the first time since 1953. He noted that in 1953 the Legislature established the first veterans’ property tax exemption as a tangible way to honor wartime veterans. He said the exemption has not been increased since then.

Mr. Gobel pointed out that veterans and seniors are inextricably linked and said if the Legislature wanted to do something to help seniors and establish priority for benefits to those who have earned them, S.B. 33 is one way to do that. He explained this bill was established to honor those who served in time of war and sacrifice. He noted a similar bill was introduced by Senator O'Donnell 4 years ago and pointed out that veterans have certainly waited their turn. Mr. Gobel added Nevada is blessed with a high concentration of people of all races and ages who have served and sacrificed for their country.

Mr. Gobel referred to his handout, "Council of Nevada, Veterans Organization, SB 33, Nevada’s Attempt to Honor Its Promise Made to Veterans in 1953" (Exhibit K). He called attention to the chart that compares prices of various items in 1953 to prices of those same items in 1999. He pointed out the smallest increase of those items listed was for hamburger meat, which increased about 645 percent.

Mr. Gobel explained the council had negotiated S.B. 33 with all the counties over the last 18 months. He said this bill has minimal effect on the state budget, but it does affect counties. He indicated the council had most recently met with Lander, Nye, and White Pine Counties, which are considered most at risk. He testified all three counties said that yes, they were "tight" on the property tax cap and so forth, but it is about time the veterans finally were considered, "when everybody has their hand out and those who have actually earned something get something in return and follows through on the promise."

Mr. Gobel said it is appropriate for America to consider its veterans, since military services now have to recruit high school dropouts because people think the country does not honor its promises to veterans. He noted this bill helps address that need and has the support of all veterans groups and most of the citizens of Nevada. He mentioned that 19 percent of Nevada’s population are veterans and 70.7 percent of the voting population are veterans or immediate family members of veterans. He added this is a way to help all of them.

Arvid Schnackenberg, Past President, Air Force Sergeants’ Association, Chapter 1252, testified he supports S.B. 33. He said he felt the changes requested by the bill are in line with the changing economics of today and are a number of years overdue.

Ray Kelsay, representing Air Force Sergeants’ Association, testified his association is one of the largest veterans chapters in Nevada and it supports this bill.

Alpha Ailer, representing American Legion Post 149, testified in support of this bill. He said Post 149 is the newest American Legion post in Clark County, having been in existence about 5 years. He said his organization had contacted many of the newer veterans arriving in Clark County. He explained those contacts indicate a lot of veterans are unaware of the tax exemptions and said the proposed increase in the exemption will definitely help the newer veterans moving to Nevada.

Robert D. Yates, representing Branch 90, Fleet Reserve Association, testified his organization is in favor of this bill. He said it is time for this exemption increase to occur.

David Mofchum, Director, Records and Politics, and State Officer in the Military Order of the Purple Heart, said this bill as proposed by Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2, has been well-researched. He pointed out it is designed to impose the minimum impact on Nevada’s smaller counties. He added that, as well as being a veteran and a retiree, he is a taxpayer and is interested in that aspect as well.

Juanita Clark, representing Veterans in Politics, testified in favor of S.B. 33. She reiterated there has been no increase in the tax exemption for veterans since 1953. She noted this provides for minimal property taxes for veterans. She said it is important Nevada be known for consistently honoring its veterans, which was the intent of the original bill in 1953.

Daryl Mobley, State Commander, Veterans of Foreign Wars, said veterans need the support of the Legislature. He complimented the committee on the bills already passed on behalf of veterans and testified the Veterans of Foreign Wars are 100 percent behind S.B. 33.

Pete English, Chief, Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated the department takes no position on S.B. 33. He informed the committee the department’s analysis indicates this bill would reduce revenue to the Registration Division. He said the revenue reduction relates to the 6 percent commission, which the division receives in accordance with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 482.180 for the collection of the motor vehicle privilege tax. For each dollar exempted from the privilege tax, the division forgoes 6 percent. With the amendments to NRS Chapter 371 proposed in this bill, it is estimated revenue will be reduced by approximately $166,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 and $172,000 in FY 2001.

Senator Raggio pointed out to the committee those amounts are only the loss of revenue related to the 6 percent commission. He noted the Department of Taxation has prepared a fiscal note estimating the loss of property tax revenue to state and local governments would be $728,465 in the first year of the biennium and $757,883 in the second year.

Dan Miles, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained the fiscal note from the Department of Taxation, which relates to the property tax exemptions, includes both the state and the local government impact. He said the backup material indicates the Department of Taxation used the current statewide tax rate of $2.97 per $100 of assessed valuation. Within that $2.97 tax rate would be the $.75 school tax rate plus the school debt rate, the other local government rates, and $.15 that currently goes to the state for bond redemption. He said there is apparently a shared impact among local governments, school districts, and the state.

Senator Raggio inquired whether the local governments have taken a position on this bill. Terry Lamuraglia, Lobbyist, Legislative Affairs, Clark County, indicated Clark County supports S.B. 33.

Mr. Miles indicated the other part of the fiscal note, which Mr. English just spoke to, relates to the motor vehicle privilege tax exemptions. He pointed out that Mr. English spoke to the 6 percent administration revenue his agency would lose if the bill passes but did not address the impact to local governments of the loss of motor vehicle privilege tax revenue. Mr. Miles noted page 6 of the fiscal note indicates the statewide impact would be about $2.6 million in the current fiscal year.

Mr. Gobel said this fiscal note is based on assumptions that all counties are the same as Clark County. He pointed out the value of homes and the number of veterans are lower in rural counties. He stated that when this bill was heard in the Senate Committee on Taxation, the estimate discussed there was approximately $700,000.

Senator Raggio requested legislative staff survey local governments to ascertain whether there is opposition to this bill and to determine the fiscal impact.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 33 and opened the hearing on Senate Joing Resolution (S.J.R.) 12.

Robert E. Shriver, Executive Director, Division of Economic Development, Commission on Economic Development, explained S.J.R. 12 was a committee bill last session. He said it would exempt portions of the "antidonation" clause in Section 9, Article 8, of the Nevada Constitution. The exemptions would allow the state to invest in companies and venture capital in a needed area in Nevada. Mr. Shriver said the voters of the state have twice previously voted on this measure. He added it is incumbent on the voters to once again consider this as Nevada competes to develop technology-based companies and high-wage jobs.

Mr. Shriver stated one of the overriding criticisms of this measure has been whether risk capital is available to allow the formations of these companies. This resolution allows for the discretion of the Legislature because it says "may" invest with a two-thirds vote and investment decisions would be on a case-by-case basis. He stated his opinion that, through a concerted private campaign, the likelihood of passage is much better now. He explained there is now a great deal of understanding statewide about the necessity to diversify Nevada’s economy.

Senator Neal indicated concern regarding how this would relate to the constitutional prohibition on banking and if this is passed whether it would create a conflict within the constitution, which does not allow the state to "have a bank." He said that if this resolution is passed the state could invest in any institution, including a bank.

Mr. Shriver indicated that was an excellent question but said he is not the person to address it from a constitutionality perspective. He said this is the third attempt at this measure, which has exempted portions of the "antidonation" clause. He said he is not clear whether that is "tight enough" to exclude a state bank. He pointed out line 12, section 9, page 2 of the resolution addresses how the Legislature may implement the legislation with two-thirds of the members of each house approving the investment in any company, association, or corporation. He indicated Senator Neal’s concerns could be addressed in the charter of the institution or company to be invested in.

Brian Leipper, Executive Director, Nevada Technology Council (NTC), referenced the "NTC Bulletin, a Case for SJR 12 – Business Capital in Nevada" (Exhibit L). He pointed out the bulletin is an educational effort and provides public awareness of some of the issues involved in terms of business and economic development in this state. He said this type of publication educates the community regarding important issues and helps to diversify Nevada’s economy. He added that this is an opportunity.

Senator Raggio called attention to two articles provided to the committee (Exhibit M). One is an editorial from the Reno Gazette-Journal dated May 6, 1997, indicating support for this measure. The other is a commentary dated June 23, 1997, written by Larry Struve, the former director of the Department of Business and Industry.

Senator Raggio indicated several members of the Senate Committee on Finance also serve on the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, where S.B. 309 has already been heard. He said that committee had discussion regarding whether S.B. 309 can be processed because the Legal Division has indicated it cannot ensure it is not violative of the provision in the Nevada Constitution which S.J.R. 12 addresses. He added if the Legislature desires to authorize the state investment of venture capital, this is probably the measure that will be needed.

Senator Coffin pointed out the voters may be frustrated with repeated attempts to get them to pass this and asked what the percentage of "yes/no" votes was on this measure.

Mr. Shriver responded the margin is narrowing. He added a lot of it has to do with the lack of a directive campaign to the voters. He said it is a somewhat complicated issue and his intuition tells him most voters, when in doubt on an issue, will vote "no" rather than pursue it much further. He explained that efforts by NTC and the Division of Economic Development, with major corporate and private donations, focus a long-term campaign on public understanding that the "antidonation" clause is not eliminated but is exempted for this purpose only. In the past, he said, understanding of the issue has been complicated with the concept that gaming and mining industries would benefit most. Through Senator Rawson’s efforts this resolution has been narrowed to exempt only this specific purpose from the "anti-donation" clause and to require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature for each investment. He said he agrees that sometimes voters get frustrated and the best way to approach this is to say, "We understand the frustrations and perhaps the fault lies in not mounting a campaign to educate the voters as to the benefits."

Senator Coffin pointed out that voters understand the concept of assuming risk and maybe that is why they do not approve this measure. He again asked what the voting margin was. Mr. Leipper responded there was about 20 percent approval the first time and 40 percent the second time.

Senator Rawson commented this is a very important measure because Nevada is even more dependent on gaming today than it was 10 years ago when the Legislature considered this issue. He said if Nevada is going to have serious "high-tech" development, it must develop some venture capital. He explained it seems to be fundamentally important to the state right now and this is a very critical measure.

*****

Mr. Miles explained that the budgets to be considered at this meeting are on the "consent list," which are budgets which have not been heard by a joint subcommittee. He pointed out there are a number of considerations to keep in mind that have not yet been determined and that could affect one or more of these budgets. He recommended the committee close these budgets and if something occurs in another area that requires adjustment to one or more of these budgets, those adjustments could be made as technical adjustments by staff. As examples of the considerations not yet determined that could affect these budgets, he listed the statewide cost allocation, the attorney general’s cost allocation, the purchasing assessment, the personnel assessment, and the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) cost allocation.

Senator Raggio agreed and noted that once those issued have been decided by the Legislature, the adjustments would be made according to those policy decisions "across the board."

STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Improving America’s Schools – Titles VI & II – Budget Page K12 ED-26 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-2713

Jeanne L. Botts, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained this budget contains two federal programs. She said Title VI, which was formerly called Chapter II, is for innovative programs and school reform efforts. She said Title II, which was formerly called "The Eisenhower Program," provides funds to train teachers to improve their skill in core subjects, especially math and science.

Ms. Botts recommended small adjustments in this decision unit to bring the budget into alignment with federal grant authority.

Ms. Botts informed the committee the State Department of Education reported an error in this decision unit whereby expenditures for each of the two programs in this account had been mistakenly charged to the other program. She recommended changes to correct that error.

Ms. Botts pointed out The Executive Budget reserves $88,447 Title I money in the first year of the biennium and $176,746 in the second year of the biennium. She recommended most of this excess money be passed through to local school districts rather than being held in reserve by the department. She recommended increasing aid to schools by just over $78,000 the first year and $88,000 in the second year. She said this would leave a reserve of $10,000 to cover unforeseen circumstances.

Senator Raggio asked for further explanation of Title VI funds. He said he realized most of the money goes to the local school districts in both programs but did not recall that Title VI money was to improve "higher-order thinking" skills of disadvantaged pupils. He asked what "higher-order thinking" is and what kind of programs this funding addresses in general. Ms. Botts explained that improving "higher-order thinking" skills is encouraging children to use more complicated thinking, such as synthesis and analysis, rather than just reciting facts. She said that basically the Title VI money can be used for a wide variety of purposes.

Senator Raggio asked whether this funding is available for remediation programs. Ms. Botts responded it is. Senator Raggio noted he frequently hears there is no money for that purpose and asked what the total anticipated resources are. Ms. Botts responded that about $2 million a year in Title VI funding is anticipated and about $1.4 million in Title II funding is anticipated. Senator Raggio asked whether this money could be considered when the Legislature marshals all the money available for remediation, assessments, teacher improvement, and so forth. Ms. Botts responded it could be considered in many instances. She said that in the past the state used Chapter II money for the state assessment program, but there had been changes in rules and the state could not do that anymore. She noted that, as with all federal money, it can be used to supplement nonfederal funding but not supplant it. She added it could be used to fund new programs or expand programs but could not replace other money.

Senator Raggio asked whether the Title II money emphasizes math and science programs. Ms. Botts responded it does, but it can be used in other areas and it has been used before on social studies standards.

Nutrition Education Programs – Budget Page K12 ED-42 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-2691

Ms. Botts explained this budget account provides federal funding for programs for school breakfast and lunch, extra milk, food service at child and adult day-care centers, summer food service, the purchase of food preparation equipment, and nutrition education and training. She said the state is required to maintain a funding percentage match. She pointed out that in FY 1991 the state funding for the program was reduced from $324,000 to about $190,000. She indicated that since FY 1991 the state’s contribution has gradually grown, largely due to the state match required for salaries. She said about $253,000 in this budget is state General Fund match. She explained the remainder of the required match is met by local school districts by their contributions to breakfast and lunch programs.

Ms. Botts recommended adjustments to pass unused federal authority through to local school districts. She recommended that approximately 10 percent of the payroll cost be held in reserve and any other unused federal allowance for administrative costs be passed through to school districts, rather than being reserved in the department’s budget.

Ms. Botts said this decision unit reflects the latest information on the expected revenues for this program and pointed out that generally this program is augmented several times throughout each biennium, mainly because of growth in the number of children and the number of meals served. She recommended an increase in the amounts in this decision unit due to unrecognized funds held in reserve in the department and due to expected additional revenue. Senator Raggio asked whether the increase is primarily due to "breakfast revenue." Ms. Botts replied that it is because that revenue has increased significantly.

*****

School Health Education – AIDS – Budget Page K12 ED-52 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-2611

Ms. Botts explained the Comprehensive School Health Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/Human Immunodeficiency Virus (AIDS/HIV) program is funded through a cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and it provides money to develop comprehensive health programs to prevent the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. She said it provides teacher training, and up-to-date curriculum materials and information.

Ms. Botts stated that also included in this budget is the expense for the collection of data for the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which is conducted every 2 years. She noted the next survey will be conducted in January 2000.

Ms. Botts pointed out the State Department of Education has requested adjustments because program funding is expected to increase $8,672 in the first year of the biennium and $2,928 in the second year. She said the department also requested an adjustment of an additional $2,987 for contract services in the first year and for instructional supplies and indirect costs.

Ms. Botts explained that in 1997 the Legislature set aside $6,071 in reserve and issued a letter of intent indicating the money was to cover travel and operating costs of the steering committee so it could develop a statewide plan for implementing comprehensive school health programs. The agency responded to that letter of intent that there was no federal money available to support the planning effort and that $6,071 is currently held in reserve. She pointed out that at the close of this fiscal year any unused authority remaining in that category should lapse and not be carried forward into the coming biennium.

Senator Coffin asked whether the letter of intent indicated the money would only be available as a match or, instead, the department was supposed to spend the money. Ms. Botts said the department had requested General Fund at the 1997 Legislative Session to allow the steering committee to travel and instead the Legislature gave the department authority should federal money become available. The letter of intent stated that if the money were forthcoming the department could use it for the travel and the letter of intent required the department submit reports. Ms. Botts pointed out the steering committee had been in operation for several years and had not reported on its activities. She said her concern is that this authority should not be carried forward to the next biennium and be used for something else. Senator Coffin asked whether there was a maintenance-of-effort requirement that Nevada have an advisory committee. Ms. Botts replied there was not.

Improving America’s Schools – Title I – Budget Page K12 ED-63 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-2712

Ms. Botts said the Title I program is the large federal program that provides funding for disadvantaged pupils. It was formerly known as Chapter I. She indicated this money flows through to schools with high concentrations of low-income families. She noted there are approximately 96 schools in Nevada that receive this funding. Senator Raggio asked whether all the funding for this budget is federal. Ms. Botts responded it is.

Ms. Botts said the Even Start Program is also included in this budget with funding of just over $500,000 a year. She said it includes programs for young children and parents and the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Project. Those funds are to implement schoolwide reform models that are based on reliable research and effective practices.

Ms. Botts said this budget includes the addition of a half-time consultant to assist with programs for children of migrant workers and early childhood education programs. There is also a 5 percent salary increment proposed for one of the consultants who will supervise other consultants in the Title I program.

Ms. Botts reminded the committee the State Department of Education had been reorganized in 1996, during which time six teams were formed. She noted that over the years, salary increments have been added to create assistant team leader positions.

Ms. Botts pointed out that when expenditures were aligned with appropriate grant revenues, several discrepancies were noted. She recommended adjustments be made accordingly to the base budget.

Ms. Botts recommended adding a new decision unit M-200, which would contain anticipated increases in federal funds and increases in the grant expenditure categories. She said this decision unit would be based on a memo the department provided on March 12, 1999, identifying expected revenues for a number of federal programs.

Ms. Botts said unused federal authority has been identified and she recommended it be passed through to local school districts. However, she recommended approximately 10 percent of the budget’s payroll costs, or $40,000 in this case, be set aside in reserve for unforeseen circumstances.

Senator Raggio asked whether this is another budget in which there is money available for remedial programs in the schools, particularly those with high concentrations of children of low-income families. Ms. Botts replied that it is and that there are approximately $22 million in federal funds which flow through to schools with high populations of low-income children.

Senator Raggio asked whether there is any way to know how the department is using these funds and emphasized this is a substantial amount of money. Ms. Botts agreed and noted there are $22 million in Title I funds and $500,000 in Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Project funds available. She explained the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Project requires schools adopt an approved program for schoolwide improvement. She said there have been several studies at a national level to determine whether Title I projects meet the federal mandate to eliminate the gap in academic achievement between children who are poor and those who are not. She reported the national studies have found Title I projects have not been very effective. Where they have been effective, elements of successful programs have been isolated. Those effective elements are:

• Clear goals for academic achievement.
• Methods and materials that are linked to the goals.
• Ongoing assessment of student progress.
• Added time for instruction before or after school or in the summer.

• Intensive high-quality professional development.

In response to Senator Raggio’s concerns, Ms. Botts suggested a letter of intent to the State Department of Education requiring the department to report to the Legislative Committee on Education and, at the next session of the Legislature, on the use of federal funding and other resources for remedial education. Senator Raggio indicated the committee might actually direct the department to use Title I funds, within its permissive limitations, to more clearly address the remedial education purposes. He noted difficulty in authorizing $23 million a year in federal funding while hearing the program has not been found effective. He emphasized if this money is available for remedial programs or school improvement programs, the Legislature should insist it be put to more effective use. He said he is not willing to finish the session with that amount of federal funding not being used in an effective manner, particularly when Nevada has critical goals in the education reform process. He added that the Legislature needs better information.

Ms. Botts informed the committee the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means included several additional elements in the letter of intent. She said one addition was for reports on the academic achievement made by students in these programs. She noted federal regulations require the department to track that information, but the Legislature has never seen it. The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means also asked for that information to be disaggregated by ethnic group. For Title I schools, she said, the committee further asked that the transiency rates and the professional development which teachers have received be noted in the department’s report.

Senator Raggio indicated he is more interested in directing more effective use of this money than in just requesting reports over the biennium.

NDE Continuing Education – Budget Page K12 ED-72 (Volume 1)

Budget Account 101-2680

Ms. Botts explained this budget contains state and federal funds and provides classes for adults to improve basic skills in reading, writing, speaking English, and other subjects. She said the largest funding resource is the Adult Basic Education Program, which has about $1.7 million in federal funds, and the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program, which provides about $320,000 annually. She noted there is also the state-funded adult literacy program, which is continued at the base year level of $402,167 a year.

Ms. Botts pointed out The Executive Budget recommended federal adult basic education funds be held in reserve. She recommended those funds be balanced forward to increase aid for adult education programs. This would increase grant funding by $99,000 the first year of the biennium and $44,000 the second year. Ms. Botts recommended adjustments to Out-of-State Travel for registration expenses. She also recommended adjustments to Indirect Costs to balance the state and federal shares of the Adult Basic Education Program because the required pass-through to the school districts did not meet the required 95 percent level.

Ms. Botts explained this is another budget with federal grants for which there is a required state match. Part of the match for this program is met by the state allocation through the Distributive School Account (DSA) to the Adult High School Diploma Program. She noted the Governor has recommended that program be consolidated within the aid payments of the DSA.

Ms. Botts recommended a letter of intent for this budget dealing with performance indicators. She informed the committee a study was conducted by Melinda Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau. Ms. Botts informed the committee Ms. Braun had found the federally required indicators had not been updated since 1995 and suggested a number of indicators to provide better measures of performance. Ms. Botts pointed out the completion rates for participants of this program are rather low. She said the performance report for the Adult Basic Education Program in FY 1998 shows that, of 5,656 students, only 20 percent completed one or more levels and only 5 percent obtained a General Educational Development (GED) high school equivalency diploma. She said 23 percent dropped out and 57 percent remained in the program but did not complete a "level."

Ms. Botts noted that in the Adult High School Diploma Program, which is funded from an allocation of the DSA, there was a higher rate of success. She indicated 14,134 students participated and 18 percent obtained a GED. Senator Raggio pointed out those are also fairly low percentages and asked whether the percentages were for both incarcerated and nonincarcerated persons. Ms. Botts replied the percentages are for both. Senator Raggio said those statistics raise questions regarding the worth of the program.

Individuals with Disabilities (IDEA) – Budget Page K12 ED-58

Budget Account 101-2715

Ms. Botts said this budget account provides funding to help cover the supplemental costs of educating children with disabilities who are ages 3 through 21. She said the program is entirely federally funded and the funding formula is driven by the count of pupils receiving special education services multiplied by a per-pupil amount which is determined by the federal government. In FY 1998 the grant was $15.7 million based upon nearly 30,000 pupils who were being served as of December 1, 1996, and the per-pupil amount of $520.30.

Ms. Botts pointed out federal law requires that at least 75 percent of these funds be granted to school districts based upon counts of disabled pupils. She said 5 percent is available for administrative costs and the remaining funds, which are called discretionary funds, may be used to provide direct services. However, she said, the discretionary funds must be matched if used in that manner. She said Nevada began using discretionary funds in 1991 to help cover the state’s cost in the NRS Chapter 395 program, which is the program that places out-of-district students who are unable to receive an appropriate special education program in their home school districts. She stated that since 1991 approximately $5 million of the federal special education funds have been used to offset General Fund costs by paying for half the cost of the out-of-state or out-of-district placement.

Ms. Botts recommended adjustments in this budget to reflect new revenue estimates based on new enrollment projections and identifying "unbooked" federal expenditure authority. She recommended most of the "unbooked" federal expenditure authority be passed through to school districts, rather than reserved for administrative uses. She pointed out, however, reserves are recommended. In budget account 101-2670, Education of Handicapped Persons – NRS 395, which is for out-of-district placements, there is a recommended reserve of $250,000. Ms. Botts explained this reserve is recommended in case it is needed for increases in caseload or increases in costs. Senator Raggio asked whether that is the budget account in which the second-year funds are frequently used to pay for costs in the first year. Ms. Botts said it is and NRS provides for that exception.

Senator Raggio said The Executive Budget for IDEA recommends authority for about $18 million, all of which is federal. He asked whether the changes recommended by staff are for an additional $6.2 million in the first year and $7.1 million in the second year from the IDEA grant funding. Ms. Botts replied those are additional amounts, based on the most current estimates from the State Department of Education.

Senator Rawson asked whether this grant money could be included in the special education unit funding. Ms. Botts responded 75 percent or more of this money flows through to local school districts for special education costs. She pointed out this federal money cannot supplant special education unit funding. For example, she explained, Nevada could not decrease the state allocation by $6 million because Nevada expects to receive more from the federal government, because this money must supplement state funding, not supplant it. Senator Rawson said Nevada has difficulty every year in meeting special education spending requirements and he would like to see maximum credit towards special education funding because it decreases the amount that Nevada ultimately has to make up. He said this additional funding is "new money" that is going into special education. He said it will be used for this population, so it ought to be recognized as such.

Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jean Laird,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: