The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:20 a.m., on Wednesday, May 26, 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS:

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District No. 35

Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Patricia Hampton, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Nancy A. Becker, Associate Justice, Supreme Court, testified the bill was submitted in order to make the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) comply with the funding allocation. She explained that when the two additional justices were funded, in the funding allocation there was money for Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) contributions. It was not until November of 1998 that it was realized the statute for funding PERS contributions for judges did not include the supreme court judges.

Justice Becker said the bill was requested because the money was available to pay the contribution but the statute did not allow for the supreme court judges to be "employer paid" rather than "employee paid." She pointed out this occurred because in 1983 PERS was changed to provide for PERS contributions to be paid on behalf of local government entities and officials. She said that in 1985 the district judges’ association submitted the bill to include district judges in that area of the statute. She stated that because at the time none of the supreme court justices were in PERS, they were in the Judicial Pension Plan, no one thought about supreme court judges.

Justice Becker said as pay raises were reviewed in 1989 and pay raises for the judiciary in 1995, one of the factors in setting the base salary was a recognition that the PERS contributions were paid for judges. That was factored into the calculations when the base salary was set.

Justice Becker stated the request now is that supreme justices be added because when salaries were set the PERS contribution was taken into consideration and district court judges have their contributions paid. If the statute is not changed to conform with the funding mechanism, there would be the odd situation where a district court judge would make more money than a supreme court justice.

Senator Raggio pointed out this bill would "place the supreme court justices on a similar status" regarding PERS contributions. He said there is a small fiscal note on the bill. Justice Becker said the fiscal note is the amount of contribution to be paid to PERS. She reiterated the contribution is already in the budget.

Senator Raggio stated there have been a number of hearings on bills dealing with the charter school issue. He said proponents of the measure were asked to come back with a proposed amendment to A.B. 348 that incorporates all of the issues.

H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, reviewed the proposed amendments (Exhibit C). He pointed out that some of the amendments were partially reviewed at the last hearing. He called attention to a number of changes incorporating some of the requests of the Andre Agassi Foundation and the concepts Senator Washington had in S.B. 258, and the provisions requested by Senator Porter.

Mr. Sturm pointed out the major changes remove the specific provision in law to service at-risk pupils and shifts much of that language to the legislative declaration seen on page 1 of Exhibit C. He pointed out the section that was of concern to a number of individuals was retained and is now a part of the legislative declaration of the bill.

Mr. Sturm said the requirements regarding courses of study are retained and made consistent with S.B. 445.

Senator Raggio asked whether one of the reasons for this change is in reference to students in a charter school transferring to public schools. Mr. Sturm answered yes. He said the third major change substitutes a subcommittee from the existing State Board of Education for the proposed charter school commission. He pointed out those recommendations are shown in numbers 5 and 6 shown in Exhibit C.

Mr. Sturm explained that the proposed amendments would also establish an application process and specify the composition of the governing body consistent with the Senate version of S.B. 220 of the Sixty-ninth Session. He pointed out this would be restorations contained in Senator Washington’s bill, S.B. 258. He said those recommendations are found in numbers 6, 7, 10, and 12 shown in Exhibit C.

Mr. Sturm explained that the proposed amendments would also specify conditions under which a sponsor may revoke or refuse to renew a charter using the language from S.B. 220 of the Sixty-ninth Session. He said that is in recommendation number 14 in Exhibit C.

Mr. Sturm stated the proposed amendments also address a number of liability issues raised by the Clark County School District, as well as other individuals, and can be found in recommendations 8, 14, 17, and 34 in Exhibit C.

Mr. Sturm called attention to another change discussed at the last hearing on S.B. 258 which allows private schools and certain public schools, specifically vocational/technical high schools, to convert into charter schools. That recommendation is found in number 10 shown in Exhibit C.

Senator Raggio read from the proposed amendments " [to] provide for conversion of existing public schools upon a vote or petition of a majority of teachers in evidence of support by parents" and "only a public high school which is a vocational/technical or trade high school may be converted into a charter school."

Mr. Sturm pointed out that a number of accountability provisions that were in S.B. 220 of the Sixty-ninth Session are restored in A.B. 348 and are found in recommendations 13, 16, and 23 shown in Exhibit C. Additionally, the concern of performing an intensive review is restored. Senator Raggio asked whether that is for the renewal of a charter school. Mr. Sturm responded yes. Senator Raggio inquired whether that review has to be in accordance with regulations of the State Department of Education. Mr. Sturm answered yes.

Mr. Sturm pointed out that the provisions of S.B. 213 are also incorporated in the proposed amendments.

Mr. Sturm stated this would allow private, charter and home schooled students to attend public schools "if the class is not available" and space in the school is available. He said this recommendation is shown under number 19 of Exhibit C. He noted that there is also a provision for the school districts to be reimbursed for related costs.

Senator Raggio stated that as he understands the proposal, the charter school student, as well as home school and private school students, would be allowed to attend classes or extracurricular activities on a space available situation. Mr. Sturm affirmed that is correct. Senator Raggio asked whether it would be limited to those courses that are not available otherwise in the private or charter school. Mr. Sturm answered yes.

Mr. Sturm noted the proposed amendments also retain current statutes regarding collective bargaining, with some exceptions, and said he will cover those exceptions later. He said provisions of S.B. 258 indicating that 50 percent, not 75 percent, of a charter school’s teachers be licensed are also retained. Senator Raggio said this has been a point of contention. He asked what the rationale is for this amendment.

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2, testified that in S.B. 220 of the Sixty-ninth Session it was negotiated with the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) and the sponsors of the bill to permit 50 percent of the staffing of charter schools to be licensed teachers. Upon passage from the Senate to the Assembly, it was increased to 75 percent. Senator Washington explained that the reason for requesting the increase to 50 percent is that some of the charter school applicants have pointed out it is difficult to achieve the staffing ratio of 75:25.

Senator Washington noted there have been negotiations to try to find a compromise that the Senate and the Assembly could approve. He said there has been a willingness to increase the minimum percentage of licensed teachers to 60 percent, to give the charter schools the opportunity to find and hire those teachers who are certified. He pointed out the bill also provides for the years of teaching experience to be decreased from 5 years to 2 years with certification in the teacher’s field of instruction. Senator Washington noted that is contained in recommendation 21 in Exhibit C.

Senator Washington stated the rationale is to accommodate the charter school applicants in helping them obtain teachers. He pointed out there have been some professors who have retired from the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) who have indicated they would like the opportunity to teach at least part-time in the charter schools.

Mr. Sturm stated that the next major provision of the amendment allows for advanced payment of quarterly distribution during the first year of operation under certain circumstances, shown in number 24 of Exhibit C. Senator Raggio stated that was also in S.B. 258. Mr. Sturm said the provisions of the amendment would also eliminate the cap on the number of charter schools as indicated in recommendation 30 in Exhibit C.

Mr. Sturm stated that the proposed amendment clarifies the independent study requirements. Should a charter school wish to incorporate independent study into their system, this provision would require a written description of the plan and how the charter school will comply with applicable provisions, and also applies the current independent study rules and regulations to charter schools. Mr. Sturm believed the State Department of Education proposed the language.

Mr. Sturm testified that another portion of the proposed amendment would clarify that the State Department of Education would conduct preauthorization review of the application to assure its completeness. He said this is shown in number 37 of Exhibit C. He added that the local school district would review the application for compliance issues. Senator Raggio stated these are the provisions that were suggested in Senator Porter’s bill, S.B. 431.

SENATE BILL 431: Revises provisions governing charter schools. (BDR 34-1098)

Mr. Sturm testified that another major portion of the amendment would be the flexibility provided in the length of the school year, shown in number 38 of Exhibit C. He said schools that wish to adjust the 180-day school year may apply to the Superintendent of Public Instruction for a waiver for extenuating circumstances. Senator Raggio asked whether as many hours or minutes of instruction would have to be provided. Mr. Sturm replied yes.

Mr. Sturm explained that number 39 of Exhibit C would add teacher preparation periods to the list of collective bargaining exemptions. He said A.B. 348 already exempts hours, days of the week and certain other things. He stated this would add some flexibility and was a request from the Andre Agassi Foundation.

Senator Raggio asked whether teachers in the charter schools would have the same amount of preparation time as those in public schools. Jeanne L. Botts, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, answered her understanding is teachers might not have a set preparation period every day, but would be given the equivalent amount of time over the week.

Ms. Botts reviewed the two appropriations proposed in A.B. 348. She said the one discussed at the last hearing $57,845 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 and $59,155 in FY 2001 for the State Department of Education, shown in number 31 of Exhibit C. She stated she developed the budget after talking with the department about its needs. She explained that the new appropriations support travel and operating expenses of the three members of the State Board of Education who would be appointed to the Subcommittee on Charter Schools. Also provided for is a half-time education consultant to specialize in charter schools and a quarter-time Management Assistant I to assist the consultant and the subcommittee with work relating to charter schools. She said there are also small amounts of operating costs for the new employees and indirect cost, which have to be charged against all of the department budgets.

Ms. Botts said S.B. 258 had funding for the commission and for a commission secretary, so overall, the suggested amendments of approximately $58,000 a year total $117,000 over the biennium, which is approximately $22,000 higher than what was in the original charter school bill.

Ms. Botts pointed out that the second suggested appropriation is shown in number 41 of Exhibit C. Senator Raggio pointed out he had directed the request from the Andre Agassi Foundation of $700,000 be reduced to $500,000 for the expansion of the Andre Agassi Boys and Girls Club Education Center in southern Nevada.

Senator Coffin said he did not realize this bill would be discussed today. He asked whether action would be taken today. Senator Raggio replied yes, and said the bill needs to go to the Assembly. He explained there have been negotiations on the bill following the directive to develop an amendment that would address all of the issues. He pointed out that there have been hearings on the bill and invited comments.

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, commented on recommendation 10 of Exhibit C, where the ability to convert private schools to charter schools is provided. He stated the association strongly objects to the recommendation. He said that if a private school with 100 students converts to a public charter school, they would receive the appropriation that is allocated to 100 students in a public school. He pointed out that appropriation has not been funded by the Legislature and would amount to $400,000 if there was a "$400 per student hit." Mr. Etchemendy pointed out if the private school became a charter school, the students should be counted; but if the conversion occurred after "count day" then the money would not be available and the school district would have to fund the money.

Ms. Botts stated it is her understanding the school has to submit an estimate of enrollment before it opens and those students would be counted and covered under the guarantee. Senator Raggio remarked that if the students are counted this is not an issue. Ms. Botts said if a student goes to a charter school after "count day" the student is not counted. She believed the charter schools have the same "count day" as the school districts. Senator Raggio pointed out the same thing happens in a public school if a student arrives after "count day."

Mr. Etchemendy said his point is that there would be larger numbers of students and he believed it would be a serious problem. He called attention to number 30 on page 6 of Exhibit C. He said there are limits on the number of charter schools that can currently be formed and there has not been a demand that would require, at this time, the "wholesale" lifting of the limitation. Senator Raggio asked "If the demand has not been that great, why would it matter if the cap were lifted?" Mr. Etchemendy said that if the cap were lifted it would encourage more people to apply who may not be as qualified as those currently making applications for a charter school. He thought it hasty to lift the limitation entirely after only two years of experience with the charter school bill.

Senator Washington said the current cap is arbitrary. He explained the cap is set based upon the population in each county and there are an unlimited number of schools that can apply if the schools are deemed at-risk. He said the definition for "at risk" can be anyone on the school lunch program. He stated that the thought was, If the applicant was worthy of being sponsored, why not remove the cap? He noted that currently there are three or four applications and those have been accepted by Clark and Washoe Counties.

Senator Raggio asked, "What is the present cap?" Senator Washington answered the present cap is one charter school for Clark County, one for Washoe County, and one for the rural counties and there is no limit for at-risk schools.

Senator Raggio remarked, "That places too much of a limitation." Mr. Etchemendy recalled that the current cap is one charter school for each 75,000 students of enrollment in a larger county. Senator Raggio asked "If the applicants qualify, why should there be a cap." Mr. Etchemendy said the cap has a purpose and only the most reliable applicants would be applying if there is a cap.

Senator Rawson remarked that it might not be a bad idea to change the cap rather than eliminate it, and place a "sunset" on it. Senator Raggio stated that when the bill goes to the Assembly a number of suggestions would be made. He said time is limited and the bill needs to move forward.

Senator Washington said there was discussion of placing a "sunset" on the cap, leaving the current provisions in the statute alone, and having a review in the next legislative session.

Senator Raggio commented that one issue seems to be the cap on charter schools. Senator Washington pointed out the current cap is what was stated by Mr. Etchemendy. He said Washoe County would be limited to one charter school, most rural counties would be limited to one, and perhaps Clark County would be allowed two or three schools. He said his recommendation was to remove the cap and allow the sponsors to deem whether an applicant is worthy to be sponsored.

Senator Washington the suggestion is to remove the "at-risk" status, leaving the cap as it is to sunset after 2 years. Senator Raggio pointed out that would leave Washoe County with only one existing charter school and no one else could apply. Senator Washington noted that if a student was on a school lunch program the school could be deemed at-risk and would not be "under the cap." He explained that the at-risk provisions are broad, and if any entitlement money is being received the school is classified as at-risk.

Senator Coffin asked whether there would be an objection to directing this bill primarily to Washoe County so Senator Washington could have direct oversight of the schools. Senator Washington responded he would object to that and noted there are a number of counties that have applied for charters and have requested the cap be removed, including Clark County. He pointed out the bill provides the necessary flexibility and ability to be innovative and gives an opportunity for applicants to apply to the sponsor.

Senator Coffin stated he has not received any correspondence indicating a demand from anyone in Clark County. He said perhaps it should be focused in Washoe County and areas where Senator Washington could see that the process is working correctly. Senator Washington objected to that suggestion. He stated it is incumbent upon the Legislature to consider the entire state when making decisions regarding education. He said it is important to not separate one county from another but to look at the entire state and provide the opportunities that are best for the students. He pointed out that not every student will apply to attend a charter school or a private school, and perhaps not every student "fits well" in a public school, but at least those students will have been given an opportunity to achieve the best education possible. He maintained the bill must be applied across the board to the entire state.

Senator Coffin said he would like to hear testimony from the Clark County School District. Senator Raggio commented there was testimony on this entire issue earlier in the legislative session.

Senator Rawson said a possible solution would be to "change the cap [language] to read that for every 20,000 "or whatever number," students there could be a charter school and [to] provide a "sunset" so that at the end of 2 years the issue would have to be revisited. if it were not revisited, the cap would expire. Senator Washington stated he would have no objection to that recommendation.

Ms. Botts explained that NRS 386.501 sets the limitation on the number of charter schools. The statute provides that in a county with a population of 400,000 or more, two charter schools may be formed per every 75,000 pupils. Ms. Botts stated that would allow six charter schools in Clark County. In a county whose population is more than 100,000, but less than 400,000, two charter schools may be formed and in a county whose population is less than 100,000, one charter school may be formed. Ms. Botts said the limitations set forth in the subsection do not apply to charter schools that are dedicated to providing educational programs and opportunities for pupils who are at-risk.

Senator Rawson suggested leaving the cap alone and having the cap "sunset" in 2 years.

Senator Raggio said there has been discussion on A.B. 366. He noted this was the mentor program presented to the Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources/K-12.

Senator Raggio asked Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), to comment on how this program would fit in with the teacher training programs and resource centers that have already been authorized.

Ms. Cahill, provided testimony on the reasons for requesting this bill (Exhibit D). She said new teachers need help, guidance and support from others in their field who are master teachers and can spend appropriate amounts of time with teachers in their classrooms to provide nonthreatening, meaningful help and support.

Ms. Cahill stated the bill would set some standards statewide for mentor programs while giving school districts and employee associations the opportunity to tailor their mentor programs to suit their local needs.

Ms. Cahill reviewed subsections 1-9 of section 2 of the bill shown on pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit D. She said section 2, subsection 1 provides for teacher input into the selection of mentors in a district and will strengthen mentor programs and prevent mentors from being seen as "quasi-administrators." She said this section also sets a standard of 5 years of successful teaching experience before someone can become a mentor, and prevents teachers from being assigned as mentors if they do not agree to perform this duty.

Ms. Cahill further noted subsection 2 of section 2 clarifies that probationary teachers from out of state would not have to be assigned a mentor if they had achieved postprobationary status prior to coming to the district.

Ms. Cahill said subsection 3 of section 2 would allow for a probationary teacher to discontinue the assignment of his or her mentor or be assigned to another mentor if his or her administrator agrees, and subsection 4 itemizes the duties of a mentor.

Ms. Cahill pointed out subsection 5 of section 2 details what a mentor should not be expected to do and subsection 6 permits districts to compensate and provide release time for mentors. Subsection 7 provides for confidentiality of written communications between the probationary teacher and the mentor. Ms. Cahill stated it must be clear that the work of the mentor in providing support to a new teacher must be nonthreatening in order to be successful.

Ms. Cahill stressed that mentor teachers are not administrators and should be provided with some statutory protection and clarification of their status in interacting with probationary teachers, and that is why subsection 8 provides protection from liability for mentors.

Ms. Cahill explained that subsection 9 of section 2 allows for agreement to be reached in contract to evaluate or modify mentor programs as long as the agreement reached does not conflict with this section.

Ms. Cahill said mentor programs under this bill would help address the professional development needs of probationary teachers, but programs of professional development that address the needs of all teachers require involvement and input of teachers. Section 3 of the bill would create professional development committees in each district whose members are appointed with the consultation of the association. The committees would have a teacher majority, and would design, develop and coordinate professional development programs.

Ms. Cahill said the relationship between the mentor and the principal is clarified in section 5, subsection 4 of the bill. She said the administrator would consult with a mentor if he or she has identified deficiencies or areas of weakness, but the administrator still has the responsibility to provide assistance and complete the official observations and evaluation of the probationary teacher.

Senator Raggio commented that section 3 seems to override the other proposals recommended by the Legislative Committee on Education, for which funding has been agreed upon. He said that with the training centers for teachers, section 3 would not be necessary. Ms. Cahill said there would be other professional development opportunities a district may offer that are not specifically related to the educational standards, such as training for mentor teachers. She stated section 3 is not an attempt to conflict with the professional development that will come through the regional centers.

Senator Raggio asked, "What if the committee, which would be comprised of a majority of teachers, decides they want to do something different than what is being done in the professional development programs that the Legislature has authorized?" Ms. Cahill stated there was no intent to set up something that would countermand the availability of the kind of professional development provided through the centers.

Senator Raggio asked why there cannot be mentor programs now. He asked whether there are currently mentor programs that are voluntary. Ms. Cahill answered that some school districts do have mentor programs. She noted testimony would be forthcoming about a mentor program in one of the districts and said it would be important to ask the person representing the school district these questions: (1) If the district has mentors who have less than 5 years of experience, do all new teachers have a mentor working with them? (2) Do the mentors have the ability to be in the classroom with the teacher to observe and comment on their teaching skills on a consistent basis? She maintained such is not the case.

Ms. Cahill pointed out that one of the standards in the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future used to judge a state’s commitment to teaching quality is whether or not there is a state-level program. She said the commission also recommends the program be funded by the state because there are expenses that go along with operating a mentor program.

Senator Raggio asked whether the mentor continues to teach. Ms. Cahill answered yes. Senator Raggio said subsection 5 says "a teacher who is assigned as a mentor may be released from other duties as necessary." Ms. Cahill explained that in some cases the release time is for the purposes of training and "it is a difficult question when talking about mentor teachers." She said the hope is that mentor teachers have a certain level of skill. She stated the intent is not to diminish contact time with their students, but at the same time, these are the teachers who can help the younger, inexperienced teachers who need to be mentored.

Senator Raggio queried whether the mentor and teacher would work together in whatever time was found to be suitable. Ms. Cahill responded that under the bill the districts could tailor their mentor program however they wanted to. Senator Raggio said the program would be subject to consultation with the bargaining unit. Ms. Cahill stated there would be the opportunity to review the district-level program, although not as a subject of bargaining. She said that NSEA does want to be partners in the process and actively participate in helping the younger teachers who might need help.

Senator Mathews asked whether the fiscal note of $1.8 million a year is still viable. Ms. Cahill said the original version of the bill had a requirement that mentors would be paid and or "bought out." She said the bill was amended in the Assembly to make that section permissive. She stated some districts use mentors who volunteer and are not compensated and other districts do offer a stipend to compensate the mentor for the extra time, but the money is currently funded through a federal grant.

Senator Raggio pointed out that there is no fiscal note in the first reprint of the bill.

George Ann Rice, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District, testified in opposition to A.B. 366. She said she understands the committee is hearing the bill for its financial impact. Senator Raggio clarified that committee members are also interested in the substance of the bill as well.

Dr. Rice stated that for the 1998-99 school year, the Clark County School District hired 2,040 licensed personnel who are new to Clark County and the state of Nevada. She said approximately 75 percent of these people received their preparation as teachers outside the state of Nevada and 40 percent of the new classroom teachers had no previous teaching experience and would be mandated under this bill to have a mentor.

Dr. Rice stressed it is important for the committee to know that Clark County School District acknowledges the importance of mentoring, but that is not the issue. She explained the district already has a complete mentoring program in place that has been recognized nationally. She stated the bill, if passed, would undermine all that the school district has done and would require the district to work with probationary teachers "the same way as Storey County, which has hired five teachers in a year, is forced to work."

Senator Raggio asked how the Clark County School District mentor program works that is different from what is proposed in the bill. Dr. Rice replied the program does not have teachers assuming administrative roles. Teachers do not leave their own students to watch other teachers and have a substitute go into the mentor’s classroom. Dr. Rice explained that the mentor is one who is a coach, who is there for the new teacher. She said that from the time an individual is offered a contract the person is put in touch with teachers in the district who can talk to them about coming to Clark County. As soon as the contract is accepted, the teacher is given a web-site address for the curriculum and there is digitized staff development on how to set up their room and get through the first 2 weeks of school.

Dr. Rice said that as soon as the teacher arrives in the county there is a welcome center where there are master teachers on the job, to meet with them and answer any questions. She stated that this year the district has experimented with having one mentor/facilitator in each of the elementary schools who is trained in coaching and mentoring. This person helps the new teachers come together with another teachers at their grade level, whom they feel comfortable working with. Dr. Rice said the district has ongoing, in-service classes every month and if there are problems with subject matter, there are teachers on special assignment from academic services who can be sent out to meet with the teacher and the principal.

Dr. Rice pointed out there are individuals who are specialists in teaching methodology and strategies that are available to the teachers. She reiterated there is a complete program in place in the Clark County School District and noted is being recognized in a new book on teacher induction that is being published by an organization called Recruiting New Teachers.

Dr. Rice testified the monetary costs of the proposal in the bill are substantial. Senator Raggio asked how the program in Clark County is funded. Dr. Rice answered there is a great deal of cost. She explained that when the new teachers are brought in for direct training, a substitute is paid to work with the new teacher’s students. She said when facilitators are brought in, it is after school and there is extra pay for the training. Senator Raggio asked whether this program is well-received by the teachers who are assigned for this purpose. Dr. Rice replied teachers are not assigned, they agree to participate and it is well-received. She commented the program would be expanded into the secondary schools with a mentor/facilitator in the fall of 1999.

Dr. Rice said that the nonmonetary cost of this proposal to children’s time to learn is significant and also, the nonmonetary cost to the district’s efforts to meet the state academic standards is great. She pointed out that section 2.2 and 2.3 provide that every probationary teacher with no previous experience shall have a mentor. She said this would mean that this year, 790 teachers out of the 2,040 hired would have a mentor.

Dr. Rice stated section 2.4 (a) provides that the mentor must regularly consult with, observe, and otherwise assist the probationary teacher. She asked rhetorically what "regularly" means and answered, "for the sake of argument, assume it means ‘observe twice a month and meet with the teacher twice a month’." She noted the average cost of a teacher’s time is $26 a hour. She pointed out the bill requires the mentor to have 5 years of experience, which she said would make the cost greater than $26 an hour. Dr. Rice stated that if the new teacher had to meet four times a month with his or her mentor teacher, 36 times a school year, and the assumption is that each meeting would last for 1 hour, at $26 an hour the minimum cost would be $739,440. This is assuming that the new teacher shortage does not become any more of a problem and the number of new teachers can be held down.

Dr. Rice said section 2.4 says the mentors are assigned and the assignment of a duty means that a mentor, under Clark County’s contract, must be compensated. She stated the negotiated agreement with the Clark County School District provides "no waiver of contractual terms may be even requested which deal with any employee compensation, benefits or welfare." She reiterated and emphasized that the minimal cost to the Clark County School District would be $739,430 annually.

Dr. Rice stated that section 2.6 (b) provides "that the mentor must be released from other duties to be a mentor." She said that in the previous testimony she has assumed all of the mentoring would take place during the mentor teacher’s preparation time and all that would have to be done is to pay the mentor. This section provides that the mentor would be released from assignments, meaning the teaching of students, to be with the new teachers. Dr. Rice pointed out that another teacher would have to be paid to sit with the mentor’s students while the mentor was with the new teacher during that individual’s preparation period, thus denying the students the right to work with their own teachers.

Senator Raggio asked whether this testimony was presented to the Assembly. Dr. Rice responded it was, and also before the Senate Committee on Human Resources /K-12.

Dr. Rice asked "Who will be accountable for the progress that these children will not make because their own teacher is doing an administrator’s job of observing and meeting with the new teacher?’ She said the additional cost to the children’s education is that as provided in section 2.7 "everything that takes place between the mentor and the new teacher is confidential and cannot be released to the administrator without the new teacher’s written consent." However, section 5.4 provides that "the administrator must identify all deficiencies or areas of weaknesses to the mentor." Dr. Rice stressed it should be very clear that these provisions are an attempt to eliminate any chance of termination of the incompetent teacher. She pointed out the administrator has training to do this work, training required through the Commission on Professional Standards, a majority of whose members are teachers.

Dr. Rice testified sections 3.1 and 3.2 provide that "the school board will set up a committee in each district for the professional development of teachers." She pointed out that the majority of individuals on the committee would be teachers chosen by the bargaining unit. Senator Raggio commented he does not believe this section will be included regardless of what happens with the bill. He said the action the Legislature has taken on teacher improvement programs would preclude the section being considered.

Senator Neal said he understands there is some type of program for new teachers and asked what the difference is between the current program and the one that would be required by the bill. Dr. Rice answered the difference is very great. She said the bill has the mentor taking over the responsibility of the administrator. She pointed out the teacher could conceivably be getting conflicting instructions and the principal would never know. She stressed that the administrator is charged by law to evaluate the teacher and determine whether the teacher continues as a teacher.

Senator Neal said the program takes into account the need for new teachers to be assimilated into the school district. Dr. Rice agreed and said that is why the district works so hard on mentoring and pointed out that districts from Boston, Massachusetts Omaha, Nebraska, and Louisville, Kentucky, have visited the schools in Clark County to observe what is being done in their program. Senator Neal asked whether eliminating the language on the front page of the bill beginning at line 13, would solve the problem. Dr. Rice answered that Clark County School District is only asking that what the district has been doing not be destroyed and that it not be forced to do what is being done by other districts. She said that it appears Senator Neal’s suggestion would work but she that hesitates to endorse it.

Senator Neal pointed out each of the districts has a superintendent and each district would be able to set its mentoring program. Dr. Rice reiterated that is what Clark County has done and the bill is not necessary.

Senator Rawson assumed chairing the meeting.

Mary Pierczynski, Ph.D., Associate Superintendent, Carson City School District, said the district is concerned with the fiscal impact of the bill. She agreed that substitutes would be required and that would be very expensive. She further agreed it would also be an educational cost to the students in the mentor’s classroom. She stated that Carson City School District has the same concerns as those outlined by Dr. Rice.

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, said that when this bill appeared in both the Assembly and the Senate Committee on Human Resources/K-12, there were other administrators from the school districts who testified in opposition to the bill for the reasons stated previously. He said all of the districts believe in mentoring and each has programs that its particular needs. He stated that just changing a word from "shall" to "may" does not take out fiscal impact. He urged the committee not to pass the bill.

Dr. Rice noted that Washoe County School District gave testimony previously in opposition to the bill and the district is still opposed. She said there were also representatives from the Nevada Rural School District Alliance who spoke against the bill

Senator Jacobsen said that from testimony given it appears there is no documentation when an evaluation is performed. Dr. Rice disagreed. She said the administrators are charged with evaluating teachers and creating the documentation. Mentors are not intended to be administrators, they are meant to be support for the probationary teacher. Dr. Rice pointed out that is how all successful mentoring and induction programs in the nation are set up and that is what national research indicates should be done.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether the mentor is required to have qualifications. Dr. Rice explained that the mentors in Clark County must have the support of their administrator indicating that they are good teachers. They also must have teaching experience.

Senator Raggio resumed chairing the meeting.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said "the concern has been somewhat expressed" regarding having many of the best teachers out of the classroom. She pointed out it is very difficult for a substitute to pick up from where the regular teacher left off for short times. Responding to Senator Neal’s question whether ending on line 13 would solve the problem, she called attention to line 6 on page 1 where it is stated "shall select a teacher" and on line 7, "a mentor must." She stated, if in fact, all of the other language was eliminated, "you would still have a bill that was mandatory and would be internally in conflict."

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 366 and opened the hearing on S.B. 165.

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, testified S.B. 165 was requested by Judy Fischer, who is the personnel director for Carson City. He said the bill "is the result in the evolution of what was at one time called ‘dispatchers.’" He said the bill has been before the Senate Committee on Transportation and the current bill is the first reprint, which he said is a result of coordination with members of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro), the Washoe County Sheriff’s Department, and the fire-fighters statewide.

Senator Amodei explained that the bill seeks to recognize the fact that standardization is needed in regard to how public safety telecommunications are handled in Nevada. He said the members of the proposed committee would represent most of the major players, "as far as telecommunications in a public safety sense is involved." He stated, "The days are gone where you have a dispatcher who sends out whatever assets are available in response to a citizen’s call." He pointed out the agencies are dealing with "people having various emotional issues and assets involving air, land, and in some jurisdictions, sea."

Senator Amodei stated the bill recognizes the fact that the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) would be an appropriate agency to participate in the standardization of the training for the responders. He pointed out that the community colleges have already developed courses in this area. He said the applicability date has been moved to June 2000 to provide lead time. He stated the fiscal note indicates there is a fairly modest budget because the anticipation is that the meetings will be teleconferenced, eliminating most of the need for travel.

Senator Jacobsen said his concern goes to the volunteers. He noted that in Douglas County there are 14 fire departments and the first volunteer to arrive at the firehouse becomes the dispatcher, "so each time there is a need, the dispatcher can be different." He said, "It is hard enough to train the volunteers to fight fires, much less communications." He stated it is always a diverse opinion as to who is dispatching correctly. He asked how the volunteer firefighters would be trained in telecommunications.

Senator Amodei recalled that the testimony before the Senate Committee on Transportation was that the DMV&PS had indicated there could be a section pertaining to the volunteers when the regulations are drawn up. He said that testimony from Chief Rienhardt was that dispatch operations were coordinated through the professionally paid individuals so that as far as issues for the rural counties are concerned, the counties had all evolved to the point that they had full-time dispatchers to whom this bill would apply. He stated there would be exceptions within the regulations that recognizes the value and operational intricacies of coordinating the volunteers with the paid personnel.

Senator Jacobsen inquired whether there is anything in place statewide that uses "the number system." He said when he has heard a dispatcher use a number the person on the receiving end responds, "Tell me what you want."

Senator Amodei said that is a fair question and the reason for the bill is that there is not a statewide system.

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 165 and opened the hearing on A.B 380.

Senator Raggio indicated there was a discussion the previous day with representatives of the entities having a concern with the bill. He stated there is a draft of an amendment to the bill.

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District No. 35, pointed out there was a representative of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians at the meeting, but not someone who could speak for the tribe. She commented that all representatives have seen the amendment.

Mrs. de Braga said the only remaining concern is that it had been hoped the total commitment of the state would be $4 million. She stated that with the $3.3 million, if it was not used at all for at least a year and there was a good interest rate, the funds could be drawn down at a rate of $800,000 a year "and still reach the $4 million commitment." She said the problem "still existing for the plan for water rights acquisition to continue" is that there needs to be "up-front" money. She pointed out that if the plan is delayed for a year or more, momentum is lost. She noted the goal is to purchase the water rights and keep them in the Truckee River.

Senator Raggio asked why there would not be up-front money from other sources. Mrs. de Braga answered there could be, but there is the possibility of delay because Congress has to approve the federal government’s commitment. She said it is hoped the commitment will be a total of $7.3 million a year.. She said it could be a year or more before the money is received. She pointed out that Sierra Pacific Power Company’s commitment is contingent upon approval by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN).

Senator Raggio said the $3.3 million was the result of efforts by both the Governor’s Office and the Legislature to meet an ultimate commitment of $4 million that was referenced in the joint testimony and that apparently is what was agreed to. He explained that the $3.3 million was computed, since it is payable over a 5-year period, as a fund for that commitment. He said that obviously this amendment is drafted so that the state has some assurance the state is not the only one bound to this agreement, which is an important agreement.

Senator Raggio said the payment of "front money" should not come solely from this source, and should be only a proportionate part . He stated it would seem all parties understand that is the case. He declared that state money cannot be provided without a formal agreement. He said the committee has been told that the tribe does not want to sign anything but he stated that in using state money "the Legislature cannot go on blind faith." He maintained the amendment should accommodate the concerns.

Mrs. de Braga said she does not disagree with what the senator said. She stated the tribe would probably say that it signed an agreement. Senator Raggio asked what agreement was signed. Mrs. de Braga answered the tribe signed the joint testimony which has now been included in the amendment. At that time the agreement was that the state would increase the conservation bonding to $12 million, which would allow $4 million in bonds to be sold as the state’s commitment. Mrs. de Braga pointed out this has changed. Senator Raggio stated it was found not feasible to do that. Mrs. de Braga stated that now the tribe is saying the state has "changed the deal."

Senator Raggio asked whether the tribe was contacted after yesterday’s meeting. Mrs. de Braga replied yes.

Robert Pelsinger, Attorney, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians, said he has been involved in previous proceedings. He stated this entire issue is very sensitive and difficult. He said an agreement was reached. Senator Raggio interjected there is not an agreement. There is a signed copy of joint testimony that was presented, which is being referred to in this meeting as a point of reference.

Mr. Pelsinger stated there is an agreement in principle among the parties. He clarified it is not true that the tribe did not want to sign an agreement. Senator Raggio said his statement was that there is not a signed agreement. He said he was told the day before that the tribe was not willing to sign any commitment on the basis of "some protests they have" and were going to withdraw as the water rights are acquired.

Mr. Pelsinger responded that the tribe signed the joint testimony, which was the only document it was presented with. Senator Raggio said he was not finding fault and pointed out that usually when an appropriation is made there is a formal document.

Mr. Pelsinger stated the tribe has protested hundreds of water-right applications that were filed by water-right owners within the Newlands Project. He said those water-right owners did not participate in the negotiations. He stated that ordinarily if there is to be a settlement agreement involving litigation, the agreement is between the parties to the litigation. Mr. Pelsinger explained that in regard to the water-right owners within the Newlands Project, although there were representatives of their interests in the negotiations, they themselves were not parties; therefore, it was never contemplated that there would be an agreement between the litigants in the nature of a settlement agreement. He said it was felt by all parties at the time that the best way to "incorporate" their agreement in principle was through the joint testimony, and that was what was done. He stated that seemed to meet with the approval of the natural resources committees in both the Assembly and the Senate.

Mr. Pelsinger emphasized that the important point he wished to make was that the tribe feels there is an agreement and is prepared "to stick to it.". He pointed out the agreement was predicated on the bill as it was reported out of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. He said Senator McGinness introduced an amendment at that time which provided for the bonding authority. Senator Raggio reiterated it has since been learned that is not feasible. Mr. Pelsinger said the understanding when the negotiations occurred and the joint testimony was prepared, was that the state money was going to be provided up front and that it was particularly important because it was going to be the first money that would be available and it would launch the program.

Senator Raggio asked who made that representation. Mr. Pelsinger replied he did not remember specifically who made it but said he did write a letter to Mrs. de Braga indicating the 4 million from the state was particularly important because it was going to be provided up front and the tribe knew that other money, especially the federal money, would be a long time in coming. He said it was important if the litigation was to be settled.

Senator Raggio asked, "which litigation?" Mr. Pelsinger answered it is the one involving the tribe challenging the water rights on the Newlands Project, because that litigation has been going on for some time. He pointed out the tribe thought it was very important to demonstrate good faith to the water-right owners on the Newlands Project by having a considerable sum of money available up front and assuring there would not be a long wait for the money to become available. He stated that was what was necessary to settle the litigation. He said that was the tribe’s expectation and the basis upon which the joint testimony was signed. Mr. Pelsinger said that as far as the tribe is concerned, "that is the deal that was made and the deal that the tribe is sticking to." Senator Raggio asked how that differs from what is in the amendment. He also asked what the concern is as to how the state "puts up its $4 million," which he noted is payable under the agreement both written and presented otherwise, that the state will contribute the $4 million over a period of 5 years.

Senator Raggio stated that if this is going to work, "everyone had better come together and make it work." He said that if, as a tribal representation, it is being said that not one dot will be changed, then it may not work. Mr. Pelsinger stated he was here to try to make the agreement work.

Senator Raggio said the $3.3 million is intended, "with investment," to be appropriated to the fund; it will bear interest until it is needed and can be drawn down, and if the money is not sufficient, the issue can be revisited in the next legislative session. He pointed out there is a commitment in the referenced testimony for the state to provide $4 million. He said how the money is provided should be the concern of the state.

Senator Raggio said the Legislature should be concerned "that state money is not made available and someone else does not come forward with their commitment." He maintained that the desire is to have the plan as fully workable and assured as possible.

Mr. Pelsinger replied that he was handicapped in responding because 6 members of the 10-member tribal council who approved the arrangement were traveling on the East Coast and he had not been able to reach them. Senator Raggio stated that adjournment of the Legislature was very near and there would not be a special session called. He said the amendment could be explained very easily because it did not change the tribe’s portion of the agreement.

Senator Raggio declared the money would not be appropriated unless there was a firm commitment on the part of everyone to do what they were supposed to do. All that the state was asking for was some assurance, he declared. Mr. Pelsinger said he could not make the decision. He said he would try to contact the council members. Senator Raggio stressed that "this is not the time to find impediments but to find reasons that make this work."

Senator Coffin said:

Senator Raggio stated:

Mr. Pelsinger pointed out he was not present at the previous day’s meeting. He said the agreement that was reached was based to a considerable degree on mutual trust. He noted there were two other principal parties who had made commitments, to the extent they could, of money. Those were the Sierra Pacific Power Company and the federal government, through U.S. Senator Reid. He said there was no way at all to get the United States government to commit to the $7 million. However, "all the parties felt comfortable." Mr. Pelsinger further commented that on the basis of having dealt with Senator Reid on water issues over a long period of time and because of the senator’s position in the Senate minority leadership and as the ranking member of the appropriation’s subcommittee that would approve the money, if Senator Reid said he would come up with $7 million over the next 5 years there was a willingness to accept that as an assurance. He emphasized that Senator Reid specifically made such a commitment.

Senator Raggio said there is an understanding of how the money will come from Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC). Mr. Pelsinger stated the President of the United States could not, today, sign a commitment that would assure the money from the federal government would be there. Senator Raggio pointed out the amendment has been changed to say, "the money will be paid to the Carson Water Sub-Conservancy District. That it will not commit for expenditure until certain things happen." He said "one of the things" is that there will continue to be substantial compliance with the joint testimony and that the City of Fallon and Churchill County will withdraw their administrative protests and dismiss their legal actions. He said the counties indicated the previous day that dismissing the legal action would not be a problem. He noted other language in the amendment states that "the district will not commit for expenditure an amount greater than 30 percent."

Mr. Pelsinger noted he did not have a copy of the amendment on hand. He explained that all of the parties involved, not all of whom have a history of working together and trusting one another, felt comfortable with the commitment of the $7 million that was made from the federal government through Senator Reid. The additional commitment was $2.5 million from SPPC and it was understood by everyone that the company would have to go through a proceeding before the PUCN to obtain approval.

Mr. Pelsinger stated that to give an indication of the level of trust that was present, the Churchill County representatives and the City of Fallon representatives did commit to withdrawing their protests against the Truckee Meadows which they had challenged but which were not challenged by the tribe. He said these entities could have easily been said they would not withdraw the protests until a certain amount of money "shows up," but they did not say that. He stated they said they would withdraw the protests when the Legislature enacts this bill. He maintained the parties involved "had ample opportunity to receive additional assurances" but were satisfied with what they received from Senator Reid and SPPC. He stated the central concern from the tribe’s standpoint, and one of the important factors as to the agreement entered into, was that the state money would be provided up front. He stressed no one said that the state money would be $4 million over 5 years.

Senator Raggio stated that neither the Governor nor this legislative committee was ever told that $4 million had to be provided "up front." He asserted it has always been the understanding that the state would make a $4 million commitment over a 5-year period. He asked Mr. Pelsinger to read the draft of the amendment. He reiterated this amendment provides that $3.3 million will be appropriated into a fund and any interest derived from the $3.3 million can be utilized to make the necessary payments. He said the only question raised was whether that would be substantial enough to make $800,000 a year over a 5-year period. He further said this is conditioned on very simple language in the amendment, which states, "there will continue to be substantial compliance with the joint testimony." Senator Raggio maintained that is a fair statement. Further stated is that "the City of Fallon and Churchill County withdraw all administrative protests and have sought to dismiss all actions initiated by the city and county respectively relating to applications for changes and point of diversion" and so forth, as required by the joint testimony.

Senator Raggio said he has been assured that is not a problem. Mr. Pelsinger stated that is not a problem from the tribe’s standpoint, it has nothing to do with the tribe. Senator Raggio continued to read from the amendment that "they will not commit for expenditure from the appropriation at any time an amount greater than 30 percent of the total amount of contributions of money." He stated this seems to be a workable amendment.

Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District, stated there has been a tremendous amount of faith in A.B. 380 and the joint testimony. He explained that the understanding was the state money would be up-front money to get the program going so people could see that there was some action being taken. He said he understands the concern of the committee. He asked whether an accommodation could be reached to let the state money come into the program for 2 years and have the 2001 Legislature make an evaluation. He said it has been indicated the state would put in $800,000, "if you figured it out over 5 years and if the state could commit to that amount and have a review of the other funds that are supposed to come in by the Senate Committee on Finance in 2001."

Senator Raggio asked whether the suggestion is to specifically authorize the outlay of $800,000 a year, to be reviewed at the next legislative session, to determine whether there has been substantial compliance. Senator McGinness answered yes. Senator Raggio stated that could most likely be done.

Mr. Pelsinger agreed that would be an improvement. He pointed out he was acting in a representational capacity and his clients were away so he could not make a commitment, but he said he would try to contact the tribal council members.

Senator Raggio stated the amendment could be changed in subsection 3 to allow for the expenditure of not more than $800,000 a year. Mrs. de Braga interjected could the $1.6 million be placed in the fund "up front." Senator Raggio pointed out that the $3.3 million could be placed into the fund with that not more than $1.6 million could be spent over the biennium. Mrs. de Braga said that would work if the money can be spent as seen fit and it would satisfy everyone’s concerns. Senator Raggio stated the money has to be spent for the purposes set forth.

Mrs. de Braga responded that one thing that has not been brought up is that there will be some administrative costs. She said the Carson Sub-Conservancy might make a donation to be used for this purpose, but that cannot be guaranteed. She stated it is included in A.B. 380 that reasonable administrative costs are allowed. She asked whether the amendment could read that $3.3 million be placed in the fund with no more than $1.6 million of that amount to be spent over the next biennium, and that the Legislature revisit the issue in 2001 to determine whether all parties have substantially complied with the agreement before the remaining funds are released. Senator Raggio said this seems reasonable.

Senator McGinness stated that would seem to be a workable compromise. Mr. Pelsinger said he will share this information with his clients and tell them that given the circumstances, it is apparently the best that can be expected and it will be up to them to determine whether they will approve the amendment.

Senator Rawson indicated this body is a representative body also and when the Chairman of the finance committee speaks, he is speaking for a number of different constituencies. He said he has built his legislative record on his integrity and his word, but he thinks his constituency would be very upset if he did something like this on a handshake. They expect that it be drawn up properly and that there be binding agreements. Senator Rawson said this seems to be a good solution, but he pointed out that everyone in the state does not see this as a problem on which to spend their money. He said that has to be part of what Mr. Pelsinger shares with his clients. He stated that he would like to see this worked out but that he is not sure how much more he is willing to put into the effort.

Senator Mathews pointed out that if the tribe’s attorney is not willing to recommend what has been said, then he must have a problem with the amendment. Mr. Pelsinger stated that everyone is relying on the joint testimony that was submitted to the Assembly and Senate money committees. It was his understanding that when the tribal council approved that, their understanding was that the $4 million in state money would be provided "up front." Senator Mathews said she has heard that but she is trying to determine what the problem is with the amendment. Mr. Pelsinger said it is not his problem, it is a question of whether the tribal council will agree. Senator Mathews said she is not asking whether the council will accept the recommendation, she is asking whether Mr. Pelsinger will recommend that the amendment be accepted. Mr. Pelsinger stated he would say that with the amendment, this arrangement still makes sense from the tribe’s standpoint.

Mr. Pelsinger stressed that the tribal council would want him to say that from the council’s standpoint they made a deal and they are sticking to that deal. He pointed out that it is not the tribe or the tribal council that is trying to change the terms of any agreement that has been reached.

Senator Raggio stated the problem is that the Legislature is going to do what is thought to be necessary to comply with the state’s commitment. He asked whether the committee wished to adopt this amendment with the amendment to subsection 3.

Senator Coffin said he would like to hear more testimony. Senator McGinness said that Mr. Depaoli, representing SPPC, it should be ensured that if additional money comes in from the federal government or the power company, it can be expended. He said he wants to make sure the motion will not preclude that. Senator Raggio replied, "As long as there is compliance." He stressed, "What is not wanted is that the state be the only one to put up some money and then the whole agreement fall through."

Scott Scherer, General Counsel, Governor’s Office, stated the Governor supports the proposed amendment with the additional amendment to section 3. He said the Governor has committed to $4 million and if for some reason the $3.43 fails to generate that amount, he is committed to trying to put the additional money into the budget during the next legislative session to make sure the state contributes $4 million.

Gordon Depaoli, Attorney, representing Sierra Pacific Power Company, stated he is in support of anything that will get A.B. 380 passed because of its importance to the Truckee Meadows, Carson City, Carson Valley and all of western Nevada. He said he does not have a problem with the amendment. He pointed out that what he had suggested to Senator McGinness was that in subsection 3 it be made to read "the greater of $1.6 [million] or 30 percent of the funds received from all sources" so that if the funds arrive the program might be authorized to proceed at a more rapid pace. Senator Raggio interjected he thinks the amendment needs to be left as has been suggested.

Susan Miller, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company, testified in support of the bill and the amendment.

David L. Howard, Lobbyist, Greater Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, stated that in speaking to a group of business people in Reno today, he told them this is the single most important bill for the business community that the Legislature is considering. He said he has not read the amendment but wanted to go on record as supporting the bill.

Senator Coffin said he would vote for the bill based on the advice of the chairman that this amendment "will not upset the delicate balance of things." Senator Raggio stated he could only tell the Senator what has been heard today. He stressed that "when the bill came to the committee there was nothing in it that guaranteed any success, so at this point it is pretty well tied down."

Senator Mathews offered to accompany Mr. Pelsinger when he presents the amendment to the tribal council.

Senator Raggio pointed out S.B. 370 has been recommended for amend and do pass.

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Scherer whether he had seen the proposed amendment to S.B. 370, Amendment No. 1101. Mr. Scherer replied yes. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Scherer to review the amendment to make sure this is what was agreed to by the committee.

Mr. Scherer said the first change proposed in Amendment No. 1101 would assure that individuals who purchase a long-term insurance policy do not have to spend-down their assets in order to be eligible for Medicaid. He said this part of the plan would ensure that these individuals would have to receive benefits under the insurance policy, not just have an insurance policy, and it would raise the cap for eligibility from $100,000 to $200,000.

Mr. Scherer explained that the second proposed change would reduce the age of eligibility for this program from 59 years to 55. The reason for the change is that it is easier to buy long-term care insurance at 55 years of age.

Mr. Scherer testified the next amendment would change "state health officer" to "the administrator of the Health Division." This change is needed because in the past the state health officer ran the Health Division, but that is no longer the case and the wrong language was used in the original bill.

Mr. Scherer said the next change amends section 9, on page 4, line 35. It specifies that only the rural counties would have representation on the advisory board, so there would be 15 counties rather than 17 counties represented on the board.

Continuing, Mr. Scherer said the next change is in section 9, page 5, lines 5 and 6, would add "the consultation of the critical access planning group of the University of Nevada School of Medicine as well as the Health Division." He explained there is already a group established through the medical school that is working with the federal government on the critical access hospital planning program. He stated:

Mr. Scherer explained that since there is already a group working with the federal government, that group should be consulted with on what needs to be done to make sure the matching funds that might be available are maximized.

Senator Raggio noted the amendment references "sufficient critical access hospital planning group of the University of Nevada School of Medicine and Health Division." Mr. Scherer pointed out that is the official name of the group.

Mr. Scherer said that amending section 10, page 5, would change the terms of the advisory board for the tobacco program from 2 years to 4 years and amending section 11, page 5, change "state health officer" to "administrator."

Senator Raggio noted lines 1- 3 in subsection 4 on page 6 are changed and the language "proposed strategies for the coordination of proposed programs established by the administrator" is substituted. He noted this is consistent with other changes throughout the amendment.

Mr. Scherer pointed out that the next change in section 11, page 6, between lines 9 and 10. Senator Raggio noted that immediately before section 12, subsection 2 has been inserted. Mr. Scherer stated there is also a subsection 3, and it is probably the most important part of the amendment. He explained it would allow the advisory board for the tobacco control program to, within the limits of the money appropriated, contract for an independent evaluation of the programs and perform a baseline study. He said the thought is that as the Tobacco Control and Cessation Program is begun, a study should initially be performed. The program should then be periodically reviewed to determine what progress has been made and what programs are working. A report can then be made to the Legislature on what is being accomplished through this program.

Senator Coffin asked whether there is currently a baseline study. Mr. Scherer answered there are certain studies that are performed through the State Department of Education, but this would be a comprehensive baseline study. Senator Coffin asked whether there are local health studies indicating the percentage of those smoking and at what age they are smoking. Mr. Scherer replied there are two different studies that are performed every other year. He explained that the problem is there are differences between the two studies, they are not identical. The thought was to take the best from both of the studies and combine them into one baseline study.

Senator Coffin said his concern is that no money would be put into the tobacco cessation activities for some time and the money used for the program would be predicated on the study. Mr. Scherer stated that perhaps too much is being read into this. He said the idea was simply to get the study done "up front" as soon as the money is available. He pointed out it will take time to put the prevention and cessation programs into action and the study could be performed while planning takes place. Mr. Scherer said there is an appropriation in the bill of $2 million for the initial start-up phase and "in discussions with the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, and others, it will not be possible to instantly have the programs up and running."

Senator Coffin asked whether there is another section dealing with the amount of money dedicated to smoking cessation. Mr. Scherer answered that in the bill there is $16 million a year committed to two other programs, the long-term care insurance and the pharmaceutical subsidy. He said the remainder of the money goes to the Tobacco Control and Cessation Program. The amount will be between $5.5 million and $9.5 million, depending on the particular year. Mr. Scherer pointed out the amendment would delete section 12 and the amendment to section 18 would change the age from 65 to 62 in line with the senior citizen property tax rebate language. He said section 19, line 16, on page 7 would add the words "is not eligible for Medicaid." He pointed out a minor change in the schedule of income, which he said is basically already in the bill, for the long-term insurance of the subsidization of the purchase of that policy. He said that based on income, the state will subsidize up to 90 percent if an individual has an income of less than $12,700 a year; as income increases, the state will subsidize less and less of the cost of the insurance policy.

Senator Coffin called attention to the means testing for the insurance. He said he is uncomfortable with the state paying money to insurance companies no matter what someone’s income is. He pointed out that health insurance policies carry a variety of costs. He asked whether there was an investigation to determine whether the state itself could provide the long-term care coverage. He pointed out there are times when private industry does not always do things cheaper. He asked whether there is a way to help the consumer decide which insurance company has the best policy, the lowest overhead, and the most return and highest loss ratios.

Mr. Scherer pointed out that in the bill the Aging Services Division is required to prepare a request for proposal (RFP) for, in effect, a group plan for all of the seniors participating in this program to provide the benefits of pooling into one group all of the seniors that qualify. He said the thought is that by using the combined purchasing power a very good price can be obtained on both the pharmaceutical plan and the long-term care insurance.

Senator Coffin asked whether the RFP includes the ability for a citizen to select a doctor or whether instead that would be up to the company providing the policy and the company’s panel of physicians and hospitals. Mr. Scherer responded he does not believe that is specifically addressed in the bill, it is up to the administrator of the Aging Services Division to put together the RFP and include what is needed to provide the coverage. He pointed out price would not be the only factor considered. He said if there is to be a subsidized policy, the way the bill is written it would be through that policy that Aging Services contracts. He said the other policies for the "nest egg" protection could theoretically be a different policy but would have to meet the minimum standards established by the Aging Services Division.

Senator Raggio asked whether there is any objection from the committee in utilizing Amendment No. 1101 to S.B. 370. There being none, the senator said the amendment would be submitted with the bill.

Senator Coffin asked what the vote was on the motion to amend and do pass the bill. Senator Raggio answered that Senators Neal and Coffin voted no on S.B. 370.

Senator Raggio called attention to an amendment to S.B. 70.

Senator Raggio recalled the committee voted to amend and do pass the bill. He pointed out there was a conflict with S.B. 21.

Senator Raggio asked program analyst Jeanne Botts to review the substantive changes the amendment would make in the bill.

Ms. Botts explained that the amendment makes a number of changes to the Education Reform Act of the 1997 Legislative Session and addresses some of the problems, noted over the biennium, with the original act.

Ms. Botts pointed out there is an amendment to build into "programs for improvement" a way for the schools in Schurz, Nevada to plan to ensure that all eligible pupils who are in attendance on the day of the administration of the exams are given an opportunity to take the exams. She said the amendment provides that a school that is designated as "adequate" on the basis of its test scores but that did not test a significant number of pupils could fall into the category of needing improvement.

Ms. Botts stated there is a provision that for students who are transferred to a different school attendance zone as a result of a change in zone, "their zone of attendance will not be considered ‘transient students’." She said there is a requirement that "the amount and sources of money received for remedial education for each school in the district, and the district as a whole, be reported." Senator Raggio asked whether that would go into the accountability report. Ms. Botts answered yes.

Ms. Botts stated that a listing of the number and percentage of pupils who graduate with a standard high school diploma and an adjusted diploma, or a certificate of attendance, would go into the school-by-school accountability report. Senator Raggio asked what an adjusted diploma is. Ms. Botts explained those are the diplomas for special education students. Senator Raggio asked whether students receiving an adjusted diploma still have to meet their individual educational plan (IEP). Ms. Botts replied yes.

She said the report would also include the number and percentage of pupils who failed to graduate because of failing the high school proficiency exam. She pointed out there is currently a requirement to keep records of attendance on teachers’ attendance and this would be changed to exempt teachers from being counted as absent if they are participating in professional development activities or performing duties of a cocurricular, or extracurricular activity connected with pupils.

Ms. Botts explained that there would be recognition in each school’s plan for improvement, which the schools must prepare as part of the accountability process, that the school could review and analyze any data that is more recent than what the report was based upon. She pointed out the reports come out approximately 1 year after the information is submitted.

Ms. Botts said the State Department of Education had adopted regulations exempting certain schools from a designation of "adequate" or "inadequate." Those were schools having too few pupils enrolled in a grade level, schools serving only pupils with disabilities, alternative schools, or juvenile detention facilities. The amendment gives the department the authority in statute to adopt the regulations it already has.

Ms. Botts pointed out that the composition of the panel to review a school which is under academic probation has been changed from two representatives from the private sector to one representative of the private sector. She said there are still two parents on the panel and one person who is a local school board member. She noted this change was based on testimony from the Nevada Association of School Boards. Additionally, there are three persons who are licensed educational personnel and one, rather than two, of those must be a licensed teacher who provides instruction in a school that is not located within the same school district as the school being evaluated. Ms. Botts said one person appointed must be an administrator of a school not located within the same district.

Ms. Botts noted some date changes. She said there is currently a requirement that schools make quarterly reports. She remarked she does not know of any reports having been received, but there is a reduction in the required number of reports to two reports a year, one at the end of each semester, which will place less of a burden on the schools.

Ms. Botts said that amendment 12 on page 8 would clear up a long-standing problem. It states:

Ms. Botts noted a new section has been added. She noted that there were provisions in the bill that notification as to whether a student has passed must go to the parents within 15 days as opposed to 10, which is what the current law states. She pointed out there is an exception saying that the school shall notify the pupil and parents as soon as practical, but not later than 15 days, if the test in question is the high school proficiency exam.

Ms. Botts said the amendment changes what is contained in S.B. 21 and makes it clearer. She pointed out that special education students would not be counted in the average scores, although there is opportunity for the students having disabilities to take the tests under special conditions.

Mr. Botts stated there is also a provision that during the high school proficiency examination a pupil with a disability may be given additional time to complete the examination if that is specified in the pupil’s IEP. She explained that this possibility may be extended to other examinations.

Ms. Botts said the amendment deals with the test scores of those whose scores would not be included in the average, such as students in schools serving disabled pupils and in alternative education schools.

Ms. Botts said there is also a requirement that the State Department of Education transmit a copy of the results of the exams to the Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation as long as it does not violate the confidentiality of any individual pupil.

Ms. Botts pointed out that another long-standing problem is the language in the bill from the 1997 Legislative Session which basically stipulated that a student who was functioning below grade-level in English could be exempted. She stated this amendment corrects that and specifies that it is the student whose primary language is not English and who has been judged not proficient in English on the basis of a test chosen by the State Board of Education.

Ms. Botts said the amendment also clarifies who may view the test. She pointed out there is a change in language to "state officers, a member of the Executive or Legislative Branch, to the extent that it is necessary for the performance of his duties," rather than "related to his duties."

Senator Raggio noted this is the section dealing with the security of the test and pointed out those were the individuals who it seemed were the logical persons to have copies of the test.

Senator Raggio called attention to a proposed amendment to S.B. 47, Assembly Amendment No. 1030.

Senator Raggio asked what action the Assembly took on this measure. Ms. Botts explained the Legislative Committee on Education recommended two bills dealing with certification of teachers by the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. She said S.B. 47 appropriates $20,000 to reimburse teachers for the cost of obtaining the certification, which is approximately $2,000.

Ms. Botts stated that the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was concerned that a teacher might obtain the certification and be reimbursed by the state of Nevada and then leave the state. The Assembly added a requirement that if the teacher does not remain in Nevada and teach for at least 2 years after the date of reimbursement, the teacher will be required to repay the reimbursement to the State Department of Education.

Ms. Botts pointed out that the department may grant a waiver if the teacher suffers from a hardship.

Senator Neal asked whether there had been a legal case with a finding that a person could not be required to pay for training. He recalled that the Legislature tried to require that for doctors in state employment. Senator Raggio stated he does not recall anything of that nature. Ms. Botts stated that other states are reimbursing teachers for their costs of obtaining the national certification. She pointed out there may be federal money to help with the reimbursement.

Senator Raggio explained this is the Governor’s request.

Senator Raggio provided Amendment No. 1159 to the committee. He said the amendment addresses the expressed concerns on the bonding program to meet what is called the partnership agreement emerging out of the Presidential Forum. He said this would authorize that the money to carry out the program not exceed $3.2 million during the upcoming biennium. He noted the proceeds are provided for use on the projects that are set forth in the amendment, and if the amounts are insufficient to allow a completion then the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) may increase the amount for the project and offset the increase by reducing other projects.

Senator Raggio said the amendment also allows that the money be used for a project other than what is on the list if the IFC approves the project. He said if the $3.2 million is authorized, then the remaining amount is amended to $53,200,000 and the date is changed from 1999 to the year 2001.

Senator Coffin asked whether the projects named match the testimony that was given. Senator Raggio answered yes.

Senator Raggio stated that amendment No. 1159 to A.B. 285 would be submitted.

Senator Raggio said there is an amendment to S.B. 491, a large portion of which resolves conflicts.

Senator O’Donnell explained that Amendment No. 1134 reduces the number of members of the Taxicab Authority (TA) in southern Nevada from 5 members to 3 members and eliminates the member of the public. He said the amendment provides for the members of the TA of northern Nevada to serve for a term of 4 years and deletes the diversion provision in section 15.5 because of a similar provision. He stated it reduces the annual fee paid on the limousines operating in the rural counties, which did not choose to be regulated by the TA, from $500 to $250 and reduces the maximum trip charge from 20 cents to 15 cents. He said the reason that was done was that both TAs felt as though they could operate within those budget constraints.

Senator O’Donnell pointed out the amendment retains the statutory prohibition on the leasing in Clark County rather than leaving it to the discretion of the TA. In other words, the option to allow Clark County to lease cabs was taken out. Senator O’Donnell said the amendment also allows the TA itself to perform many functions that are now delegated by the administrator. Also, the allocations of the limousines will be based on the number in service as of October 1, 1999, rather than on an average number over the past 5 years.

Senator O’Donnell pointed out that the amendment corrects a number of technical corrections and resolves conflicts with several other legislative measures that have already been enacted.

Senator Raggio asked whether the amendment is in accord with the closing actions of other committees. Senator O’Donnell said it is.

Senator Mathews stated she feels it is not good public policy for a public member to be deleted from a position on one of the state boards. She recommended that not be done in this case.

Senator O’Donnell pointed out the board was to have 5 members when it was passed out of the Senate Committee on Transportation and they were going to be full-time members of the Taxicab Services Authority (TSA ) in Clark County. He stated that the number of members was reduced because of the need to lower the cost. He said it was felt more important to have people on the commission who knew the industry, the accounting and the process by which taxicabs are operated in Clark County.

Senator Raggio pointed out that staff has indicated this is a full-time board. He stated a public member would not be appointed to a full-time board.

Senator Raggio stated if the committee is in agreement, Amendment No. 1134 will be submitted to S.B. 491.

Sam Folio, President, American Federation of Musicians Local 368, testified on behalf of A.B. 320. He said information has been provided to the committee regarding performances under the "Song" appropriation during the past biennium (Exhibit E).

Mr. Folio stated that this bill was passed in the Assembly. He said this program has won the USA Today Initiatives in Education award. He pointed out that musical entertainment was provided preceding the Shakespeare Festival in 1999 and the festival has been recognized as one of the top 100 festivals in North America. He said this program has been recognized by the recording industry and placed on the web page of the Music Performance Trust Fund (MPTF) as one of the special programs, along with the Broadway programs in the parks.

Senator Raggio asked whether the chairman of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means has been approached on the bill. Mr. Folio answered he has not been. Senator Raggio pointed out that needs to be done and explained that in the final closings, Assembly bills which are not in the budget that have special appropriations will have to be approved by the house of origin. He stated that while the Senate might endorse it, the Assembly will have the final say on whether the appropriation is made.

Senator Neal asked whether insurance for the musicians’ should be included in the bill. Mr. Folio responded it is important for the committee to note that the liability rests with the recording industry.

Senator Raggio asked whether there is a desire on the part of the committee to take action on S.B. 165.

Senator Raggio pointed out that S.B. 444 would be heard the next day. He said this is the bill dealing with the short-term automobile lessors and "there are some proposals if that rate is returned to the state in some form."

Senator Neal wondered whether there is a plan to have a hearing on S.B. 91 that allows voter information on statewide candidates to go out to the people.

Senator Raggio noted this was referred from the Senate Committee on Government Affairs because of the fiscal note. He said staff has provided information showing a cost of $223,000. He stated the bill would be heard the next day.

Senator Rawson called attention to the need to prepare an amendment for S.B. 193.

Senator Rawson explained that this was established in previous sessions and the bill would "fine-tune" how counties apply.

Senator Raggio noted that Senator Coffin had previously raised a question on S.B. 548.

Senator Raggio called attention to a letter from the Office of the Secretary of State, Exhibit F. He said the question was whether there had to be anything in law for a political party to hold an election. He pointed out that in the opinion of the secretary of state no political party could hold an election for any statewide office unless there is a specific provision in the election law.

Ms. Botts called attention to amendments to S.B. 193 shown in Exhibit G. She noted that the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) was established in the 1997 Legislative Session in the wake of the New Year’s Day floods. She said that as the Fiscal Analysis Division and the IFC went forth administering the fund, a number of problems were noted. She reviewed the proposed amendments shown in Exhibit G.

Ms. Botts stated the amendments would request that all payments from the fund be on a reimbursement basis and is consistent with the policy that the IFC adopted, but the amendment would clarify that in statute. However, if the local government was unable to respond to the emergency without an advance, the advance could be limited to no more than 25 percent of the anticipated total cost of the project.

Ms. Botts noted there would be deadlines for applying for the funds and there would be a requirement to apply, or file notice of interest in applying, within 60 days of the disaster. She pointed out the disaster survey reports must be completed and approved within 6 months of the end of the disaster and request for reimbursement must be made within 6 months of the IFC approval of the allocation for the DRF for emergency response and debris-removal projects, and within 1 year for all other projects. Ms. Botts said that any extension of the timelines would have to be approved by the State Board of Examiners and the IFC.

Ms. Botts stated that the statute would make clear that the DRF could only be used for public property. She said the amendment would allow access to the DRF without a state disaster declaration; however, a local disaster declaration would be needed and some level must be established to determine whether the disaster was significant enough to qualify for DRF support.

Ms. Botts explained that the local government or state agency must request the Division of Emergency Management send a preliminary damage assessment team to review the damage and develop reports.

Ms. Botts pointed out there was a problem in Gabbs, Nevada, where there was a concern that significant pressure was being placed on the Governor to declare a disaster to open up access to the DRF even if the disaster did not warrant that status.

Ms. Botts noted there is an additional appropriation of $30,000 for contract computer programming assistance on software relating to emergency management, which needs to be effective on passage and approval of the bill.

Ms. Botts indicated a new section needs to be added as shown in numbers 1 and 2 on page 2 of Exhibit G.

Senator Rawson stated it has been helpful to have the DRF. He said the proposed amendments would refine the statutes relating to the DRF.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Patricia Hampton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: