The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:25 a.m., on Saturday, May 29, 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:

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9

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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Millard Clark, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Nancy A. Becker, Associate Justice, Supreme Court, Judicial Branch, said the charts she will be discussing are in the back of the packet that was passed out (Exhibit C), a 14-page handout titled "Nevada Supreme Court, Regional Justice Center Lease Proposal, Planning for a New Millennium," dated March 1999. She explained the Supreme Court would like to lease space from Clark County in its Regional Justice Center. She said the Supreme Court is considering leasing one floor (20,000 square feet) of the Regional Justice Center (RJC) in Las Vegas from Clark County for a 20-year period. She explained that if at any time in that 20-year period the Supreme Court found it necessary to leave this space, the state would have the ability to sublease the space. She commented the Supreme Court felt this lease was the best way to accommodate growth for the court system.

Justice Becker explained that if the Supreme Court were to acquire this space in increments of three 5-year leases rather than leasing the entire 20,000 square feet of space at one time, the cost would be substantially more. She pointed out the court would have to pay three sets of moving costs and three sets of tenant improvements. Also, she noted, current lease rates for commercial downtown property in Las Vegas are substantially more than the $1.86 per square foot base rate that would be paid in the Regional Justice Center.

Justice Becker identified that the charts in Exhibit C include in the cost of the commercial lease space the cost for parking, for operating and maintenance (O&M), and for the common area maintenance (CAM). She said all the commercial lease space costs were totaled and compared with the similar costs in the Regional Justice Center. She pointed out that the charts in Exhibit C illustrate the state would save millions of dollars over the 20-year period by leasing the 20,000 square feet of the Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas from Clark County.

Justice Becker noted that during the first 5 years there is a big difference in cost between the commercial lease and the RJC lease because during that time the court would be renting 10,000 square feet of commercial space and 20,000 square feet of space from the RJC. She commented Clark County is currently charging 1 percent for O&M for the first 5 years, 2 percent the second 10 years, and 3 percent the last 5 years.

Justice Becker noted the cost to construct the necessary tenant renovations when the court moves is more than the difference in cost between the 10,000 square feet of commercial space and the 20,000 square feet of RJC space. She pointed out that even during the first 5 years, it is cheaper to lease the Regional Justice Center and stay there over time than it is to continue to lease commercial space at a much higher lease rate and have to install security and make tenant improvements at least twice and probably three times during the 20-year period. She stated the court wanted to take this opportunity to lease the space from the RJC because the savings over time to the taxpayers are significant.

Justice Becker commented that leasing the space from the RJC is a good example of long-term planning in how to best use available resources. She stated that leasing the RJC space would also allow the court to colocate with the two major urban courts (the Las Vegas Justice Court and the Las Vegas Municipal Court) and the Eighth Judicial District Court, which is where the majority of the Supreme Court caseload comes from. She said leasing space from the RJC makes it more convenient to continue to develop a more unified or statewide judicial policy over the next decade. She stated this is something that both the Supreme Court and the Legislature would like the court system to do and that would assist the court in dealing in a more efficient fashion with issues of accountability. The chart on page 10 of Exhibit C illustrates the increasing costs of a commercial lease rate compared to the RJC lease. Justice Becker stated, "As you can see it just continues to escalate whereas the RJC is just a flat rate."

Justice Becker said the Assembly had wanted to see a final version of the lease before approving it and requested the court system present the final version of the lease to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) for their approval. She said the court system did not object to that as long as the IFC meets before the end of June 1999.

Senator Raggio asked when the final version of the lease would be prepared. Justice Becker replied it would be ready by the next week. She said the lease is almost completed now.

Senator Raggio asked whether the language in this bill complies with the constitutional limitation the state has when dealing with long-term debt. Justice Becker replied it is her understanding that it does and noted the bill was drafted by the Legislative Counsel to comply with the constitutional limitation.

Senator Raggio asked whether Justice Becker had a reasonable certainty that if the matter comes before the Supreme Court it would not be found lacking. Justice Becker replied, "I do think that there is some reasonable certainty there. But of course nothing is certain amongst elected officials at any time, I suppose." Senator Raggio said the state had an old case law that seemed to say that any long-term lease was considered long-term debt and therefore came within the limitations of the constitution. Justice Becker said this bill was written in the manner the bill drafters felt would make it valid under the constitution.

Senator Neal asked whether the Justice Center has been built. Justice Becker replied, "No, construction will start on the Justice Center this fall and it will be completed in 2001." She said the current lease does not end until 2002. She explained the reason the court is asking for approval of the lease now is that Clark County does not have the ability to build a floor and leave it vacant for the Supreme Court for 2 years. She commented the lease payments would not start until 2002, but for Clark County to meet its bonding requirements to bond the additional construction money needed to construct the floor the court would lease, Clark County needs to have a lease signed this year to ensure a revenue stream in the year 2002. Senator Neal asked where the building will be located. Justice Becker replied, "It’s located downtown where the old Rainbow Motel was. It’s between Clark and Lewis Streets, and Third and Casino Center."

Senator Raggio commented that the Supreme Court came before the Legislature during the last legislative session with a proposal that Clark County was building the Justice Center and was willing to design a floor for the Supreme Court if the state would contribute additional design money for the floor to be used by the Supreme Court. He said the state did provide the design and that contribution was made without commitment "on our part." He said the state is now at the point to either commit to the lease or not and that is the reason the court is here today.

Senator Neal commented the Supreme Court had spent a great deal of time campaigning for this lease. Justice Becker stated this has been a wonderful project. She commented:

Senator Raggio remarked that Justice Becker has also made a firm commitment that she has no intention of abandoning the Supreme Court building here in Carson City. Justice Becker replied, "Absolutely not. We are not doing that."

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 595.

Brian Doran, Deputy Court Administrator and Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Judicial Branch, said the Supreme Court and District Judges fully support A.B. 622. Mr. Doran said this bill would provide the surviving spouses of justices and district judges with an increased minimum retirement benefit. He commented that presently the minimum benefit for surviving spouses is $2,000, and the proposed amendment would raise the minimum to $2,500 each month.

Senator Raggio asked when this minimum amount was last raised. Mr. Doran replied, "July 1, 1991." Senator Raggio asked how many surviving spouses would be affected by this requested increase. Mr. Doran replied, "Twelve, both justices and district judges’ surviving spouses."

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 622.

Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said this bill has two parts, one concerning State Parks and the other the Division of Wildlife. Mr. Perock said this proposal does not involve new General Fund dollars. However, he said, it will allow the division to complete several capital improvement projects (CIPs) and to recover up to $1,444,041 in federal matching dollars for various projects over the next 2 years by carrying over previously appropriated funds into the next biennium. He noted there are no new CIPs for FY 1999. He called attention to the list of park improvement projects proposed for the 1999-2001 biennium, a four-page handout titled "Position Statement A.B. 683" (Exhibit D). He noted construction of the projects was dependent on carryover funds.

Senator Raggio commented money is being transferred from a number of projects to the Valley of Fire State Park and other parks. He inquired whether the projects the money is being transferred from have been completed. Mr. Perock replied that some of the projects have been completed and some have not been. He noted some of the projects have been identified as having some savings that will be carried over.

Senator Raggio asked about the Washoe Lake State Park project. Mr. Perock replied, "We are completed there. There were some savings in this project that will be transferred to some of the other projects." Senator Raggio asked the status of the Spring Valley State Park. Mr. Perock replied that park is under construction and the division is working on water systems and campground renovations. He added that some money from other projects will carry over into this park. Senator Raggio asked whether any of the authorized projects will be either deleted or diminished. Mr. Perock replied no. Senator Raggio asked whether the Valley of Fire State Park was requiring more money than was anticipated. Mr. Perock replied, "Not really; What we are trying to do there is use some federal highway money to help with some of the parking problems at the visitors center in this park."

Terry R. Crawforth, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said he was asking that the state reauthorize the remaining bonds from the 1989 Park and Recreation Bond Question No. 5. Mr. Crawforth said there was $13 million in that bond which was used to acquire water for Lahontan Valley Wetlands and other properties around the state. He noted some improvements to other existing properties have been completed. Senator Raggio asked whether he was discussing section 8 of A.B. 683. Mr. Crawford replied, yes. He said the Division of Wildlife had been to the IFC to request specific project approval to be paid for with the bonds identified in section 8 of A.B. 683. He said the division has not requested the sale of bonds until the projects were "on line" to expend the money. Mr. Crawforth said he found while preparing for the final expenditures for the bond program that the sale of the bonds had exceeded the 6-year limit.

Senator Raggio asked how the additional authority being requested would be used. Mr. Crawforth said the majority of it, about $1 million, would be used to acquire the remainder of the $5 million in water rights for Lahontan Valley Wetlands. He said that project is very close to completion. Senator Raggio asked whether the Lahontan Valley Wetlands project was associated with A.B. 380.

Mr. Crawforth replied, "No, it is related through some of the federal laws but not by A.B. 380."

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 683.

Larry L. Spitler, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, said this bill has been changed considerably. Mr. Spitler noted the audit of the university system has been deleted from the bill. He said this bill is now unique to school construction. He commented Clark County School District feels very positive about the audit required on page 2, section 2 of this bill. He commented that as the school district launches into larger construction programs it is important for the public to have a high degree of confidence in terms of how the construction projects are being managed.

Senator Raggio noted there was already an annual audit requirement and asked what section 1 of this bill accomplishes. Mr. Spitler replied that complete audits are now performed annually at all levels within the school district. He said this bill makes it clear there will be an audit report specifically for construction that will include the elements identified in this bill. He commented some people believed the current audits did not specifically identify as clearly as they wanted the amount of money designated to design, construct, or purchase new buildings and facilities or enlarge, remodel or renovate an existing building or facility. He commented this bill also requires the audit to identify the costs to acquire sites for building schools, related facilities, or other real property for purposes related to schools.

Mr. Spitler said he believes the audits required by this bill are more specific than the audits currently being prepared.

Mr. Spitler said section 2 of this bill requires school districts with 150,000 pupils or more enrolled to develop a policy concerning the renovation or reconstruction of older school buildings or related facilities. He stated Clark County has been working to develop these policies for some time and now the need to replace the aging school buildings throughout Nevada has been identified statewide. He commented that in the urban areas it is sometimes not realized the school buildings are aging considerably. He commented that even though the state is building at a fast rate to keep up with the growth, it is still important to pay attention to the existing buildings. He said there does come a time when an existing building needs to be either demolished or more extensively renovated than had been planned. He stated it is important to not let existing buildings fall into a state of disrepair that ultimately contributes to unsafe conditions or creates a situation in which learning conditions are not equitable in relation to other schools.

Mr. Spitler said Clark County has been working on the renovation or reconstruction policy for some time and it will be presented to the board this summer for the board’s review and ratification.

Mr. Spitler commented section 3 of A.B. 368 is a declaration of "how the community should look at the deterioration of school facilities." He noted section 3 "makes a couple of proclamations": (1) It discusses the deterioration of school facilities, and (2) it points out that local governments in various portions of the state are faced with unique financial problems resulting from a variety of situations because in some local governments the population is rapidly increasing, whereas in others the population is generally declining. He pointed out this bill identifies that some local governments are still attempting to rehabilitate schools which were built around the turn of the last century and others cannot build new schools quickly enough to meet the needs of the children in the district.

Senator Raggio asked which schools the bill intended to help with the requirement to reconstruct one existing elementary school designated by the board of trustees from among the three schools analyzed in 1998 in the study entitled "Rehab. vs. Replacement Study/Phase Analysis." Mr. Spitler replied Clark County had begun examining this problem about a year ago. He said the board approved "looking at" three elementary schools in Clark County and an engineering study was performed about 6 months ago to evaluate the condition of the walls, plumbing, and all aspects of the buildings. He said this reconstruction project would be for one of the three schools evaluated.

Senator O'Donnell commented he had been involved in discussions about the educational ramifications of the "huge" schools in Nevada. He recalled that when he was in school the schools were much smaller and the teachers recognized each student by name. He commented Nevada has moved from the small-school environment to very large schools in some areas. He asked whether it could be determined that the size of the large schools could be doing a disservice to the education of the students. He acknowledged there was an economy of scale with large schools but questioned their effectiveness in teaching the students.

Senator Raggio asked whether section 3 of A.B. 368 in any way violates the purposes for which the bond issue was placed before the voters and the purposes of the bond. He noted bond proceeds were being "directed" in this section and asked whether it was consistent with the purposes for which the bond money was authorized.

Joyce Haldeman, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, replied reconstruction was not included in the materials when the bond campaign was presented to the general public. Ms. Haldeman said acquiring lands, remodeling existing schools, and constructing new schools was discussed. She said this bill was prepared to approve the reconstruction of existing schools. Senator Raggio said that was his point. He stated, "When you issue bonds the Legislature cannot change the purposes for which the bonds were issued." He asked whether the bond counsel has agreed this is permissible.

Mr. Spitler said the bond counsel has reviewed this bill. Mr. Spitler said reconstruction as an independent element was not in the material presented with the bond; however, tearing down the building if unsafe conditions were found could be considered renovation. Senator Raggio said he just wanted to alert the school districts that a bond question may need to be researched and the bond counsel should be consulted to ensure this bill is an appropriate use of bond money. He said he does not believe the Legislature can change the intent of the bonds. Mr. Spitler reiterated bond counsel has reviewed this bill.

Ms. Haldeman said Clark County agrees smaller school campuses would contribute greatly to the academic progress of students. She said Clark County has in the past considered building schools on a smaller scale, but the cost of construction prohibits building the smaller schools "because of the economies of scale that would be lost. She noted that in 1996 when a bond question was being presented to the public one of the trustees wanted to include a part B question that would increase the amount of bonds to construct smaller schools. She commented that the smaller campuses seen in the rural areas seem to have the camaraderie and student involvement in school activities that make a difference in the school experience. She stated the difficulty with including smaller school campuses in this bill is that the projected surplus currently identified is badly needed to keep up with growth "using large-school campuses." She said this is a difficult thing because "we know that smaller schools will contribute greatly to the educational experience, but because of the cost and great demand for schools as a result of the rapidly increasing population, small school campuses are not possible."

Senator O'Donnell was curious whether the school districts had data identifying the advantages of small school campuses and whether or not the school districts were entertaining any possibility of downsizing the school campuses. He said this should be studied to identify the cost benefit. He added he would like to know what size school campus is the most advantageous considering the cost and educational benefit to the students.

Senator Rawson noted the policy would not be changed until a discussion occurs. He said he would like to see this discussed at the local level to identify what the interest is.

Mr. Spitler said the Clark County School District has requested the completion date of July 1, 2001, not be included in this bill (page 4, line 28) because it is not possible to complete a school construction project by that date. He asked whether it is possible to end the sentence on line page 4, line 28 after "designated school," deleting the words "with a planned completion date of July 1, 2001." He stressed Clark County cannot meet that date. He stated the language on page 4, lines 38 and 39 of this bill is the language that should be used. He asked the committee the best way to proceed.

Senator Rawson said he is advising everyone that if they can live with the language in the bill to refrain from amending it at this late date. He offered to provide a strong declaration of legislative intent to clarify it is not possible to meet the July 1, 2001, date and the language on page 4, lines 38 and 39 is acceptable. Mr. Spitler said he would appreciate that statement.

Senator Jacobsen said he has concerns regarding the "unique" variety of school buildings throughout the state, "some old, some new, good and bad." He said he does not understand how this assessment of school buildings program can be completed at the local level because of the cost. He said it may be better to have one independent statewide group evaluate all the school buildings using the same evaluators, rather than having a variety of groups study the buildings and perhaps arrive at different or inconsistent opinions. He said using different groups could prohibit the uniformity needed.

Mr. Spitler replied, "That is a very good point." He said this bill does address the problem in Clark County to enable repair of the buildings before they begin to crumble. He said Clark County has been building schools so fast that it has been difficult to pay attention to the older schools to make sure they do not slip into "deplorable" condition. He said this is the good part of the bill. It would require not only building schools but also evaluating the condition of the aging older schools. He pointed out the evaluation would identify whether the older schools need only cosmetic changes or whether structural changes are required.

Mr. Spitler said that when the older schools are worked on, when viewed from the outside it sometimes appears that not much work was accomplished, even though the entire inside of the building has been gutted to accommodate the new technology requirements. He commented that in the past classrooms were built to include only one electrical plug. He said today’s classrooms need computer cables and electrical outlets at every desk.

Senator O'Donnell commented the school districts should try to meet the July 1, 2001, date shown on page 4, line 28 of this bill. He noted the date was beyond the next legislative session. He said if the construction could not be accomplished by the July 1, 2001, date in the bill, the next session of the Legislature would address the problem. He said it would be important for the school district to let the next legislative session know during that session if there are problems meeting the date required.

Senator Neal said he felt the required date of July 1, 2001, should be achievable because only one school would be involved in the construction.

Ms. Haldeman said the Clark County School District was concerned because the normal construction time for an elementary school is 30 months. She said a 30-month date would be January 1, 2002, and that date could be met easily. She said there could be many things unique to the school that would likely be selected that could cause delays. It is possible the entire site could be sold and the school constructed at a different location. She commented that because of the unknowns, it is possible additional time would be required.

Senator Neal said the bill does not require that all work stop if the date cannot be met. Ms. Haldeman replied, "We know now that the date of July 1, 2001, is 6 months too short, but the January 1, 2002, date is obtainable." She said it is the school district’s intent to begin the project quickly and to be well into the project by the time the next legislative session begins.

Senator Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 368.

John Drew, Acting Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, said A.B. 679 reorganizes the motor vehicles branch of the department. He said the reorganization creates four new divisions from the existing Drivers License and Registration Divisions. He noted the four new divisions are compliance enforcement, field services, central services and records, and management services and programs. He stated the functions of the four new divisions match the new technology currently being written. He said this technology will replace the old computer hardware and software the department has been utilizing for the past years.

Senator Rawson asked whether this bill was consistent with the way the budgets have been closed. Mr. Drew replied that it is. Senator Rawson asked whether there was any need for changes or modifications to the bill. Mr. Drew replied, "No. As the bill is currently written it meets the divisions needs quite well." He noted the bill was amended by the Assembly to allow for any additional reorganization to be accomplished by submitting the plan to the IFC for its approval by December 1999.

Senator Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 679.

John P. (Perry) Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, said A.B. 691 adds the new Men’s Prison No. 7 in the Department of Prisons to the list of institutions whose employees are entitled to a travel allowance if they live more than 25 miles from the respective facility. Mr. Comeaux noted the bill also increases the maximum amount of the allowance from $6 a day to $7.50 a day. He noted the bill indicates its fiscal impact would be $156,354 for FY 2000 and $224,718 for FY 2001.

Mr. Comeaux noted a distribution of the additional costs for the Department of Prisons created by the bill is included on page 2 of the bill. He pointed out section 3 of the bill provides an appropriation to the Division of Forestry of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for the crew supervisors at the conservation camps.

Senator Rawson asked whether the budgets that were closed included this additional expense. Mr. Comeaux replied these additional appropriations are included in the bill.

Senator Neal asked whether the funding is needed now or could be requested by the department from the IFC when it is needed. Mr. Comeaux replied the bill is effective July 1, 1999, and noted that the new prison No. 7 would not be "on line" at that time. He pointed out the additional daily rate would need to be available immediately on July 1, 1999, for the existing institutions.

Senator Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 691.

Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, said the appropriation in A.B. 224 was originally intended for Holocaust education. Ms. Giunchigliani commented that in the joint budget closings the education committees in both houses agreed to include the Holocaust education expense as a line item in the budget. She noted that traditionally the Legislature has used the Holocaust education bill to appropriate the $300,000 for the nonprofit public broadcasting stations in Nevada whose programs are devoted primarily to serving the educational, informational, and cultural needs of the communities in Nevada.

Senator Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 224.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, said this bill was in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means for quite a long time after receiving a do pass recommendation from the Assembly Committee on Education. She commented that of the three bills the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) brought to the Legislature, this bill is of most importance to the NSEA members.

Ms. Cahill said a survey was performed of the NSEA membership in February 1999 to assess the members’ attitude about education reform. She commented the members’ responses were varied and the only issue for which NSEA saw a strong response was whether the members should have the ability to remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom. She stated that 70 percent of the NSEA members responded this ability was absolutely critical and this bill was drafted accordingly. She commented that originally NSEA would like to have seen the policy applied statewide, but because the funding is limited the bill was changed "to a pilot program." She said the various school districts would be able to designate the schools where the pilot program would take place and the provisions of the bill would be enacted at that level.

Ms. Cahill commented one of the things that came out in testimony during Assembly hearings was that it appeared NSEA wanted teachers to be able to just "snap their fingers and remove students from the classroom." She stated this was never the NSEA’s intent. Working with some of the people who had problems with the original language, NSEA inserted the revised language of section 6.5, line 13 on page 2 into the bill. She pointed out section 6.5 requires that every school will establish a plan to provide for progressive discipline of pupils and for on-site review of disciplinary decisions. She commented this would ensure parental involvement at all points in the discipline process. She said teachers are expected to follow the progressive disciplinary plan before they would be able to have a pupil removed from the classroom. She stated the progressive discipline plan makes this a better bill.

Ms. Cahill noted section 9 of this bill gives the teacher the authority to remove a pupil from the classroom if that pupil engages in behavior which seriously interferes with the ability of the teacher to teach the other pupils in the classroom and the ability of the other pupils to learn. She said NSEA realizes this is an important judgment call but believes it is a critical element for teachers. She commented that teachers want to implement the new standards and they want their students to be successful. She noted one of the things not yet addressed is the ability to ensure the classroom atmosphere enhances the students’ ability to learn. She commented if a teacher makes the decision to remove a pupil it sets into action a chain of events identified in section 10 on page 3 of this bill.

Ms. Cahill said once the teacher makes the decision that the student needs help and the teacher cannot deal with the pupil anymore, the teacher notifies the principal. The principal must immediately notify the parents and convene a conference with the parents. She explained the conference would include the parents, the pupil, the teacher, and the principal of the school. The conference must be held within 3 days of the removal of the pupil form the classroom.

Ms. Cahill said NSEA believes about 95 percent of the problems will be addressed at the conference level. She noted when the parents are face to face with the teacher and the principal a lot of the problems will be solved and the pupil will go back to the classroom. The bill identifies that if at the end of the conference the teacher is still concerned the student will not be able to perform in the classroom and will continue to be a disruption, the teacher can appeal to a committee the decision to put the pupil back into the classroom. She pointed out that section 11 on page 4 of this bill identifies the composition of the committee.

Senator Raggio asked about section 10 of the bill, which describes the conference that must be held. He noted the parent has the right to request the conference be postponed, and the principal can approve that request. He asked what action will be taken if the parent does not attend the conference, remarking that "some parents just do not care" and will not attend the conference.

Ms. Cahill noted section 10 of this bill specifies that if the parent refuses to attend, the principal shall send written notice to the parent confirming the parent waived the right to the conference by his or her refusal to attend. Senator Raggio said it seems a lot of notices are required to be sent. He asked what the pupil would be doing "while the time passes to meet the requirements for the notices." Ms. Cahill replied the pupil has been in an alternative placement classroom and the conference must take place within 3 days. She said the first notification to the parent is that the pupil has been removed from the classroom. Senator Raggio asked how the notice would be delivered to the parent. Ms. Cahill said she did not believe the delivery of the notice to the parent would be a problem.

Senator Raggio asked, "When the parent responds at the end of the 3 days, does the period extend another period of time?" Ms. Cahill said it is desired that the parent have the opportunity to be present. She said if the parent simply cannot meet during the 3 days, there would be an additional extension so he or she can attend the conference.

Ms. Cahill said the decision about what to do with the pupil must be made during the conference. She noted section 11 of A.B. 521 describes the appeal process provided for the teacher. She stated if the teacher is still not satisfied as a result of the conference that the student will be able to go back into the classroom and not be a disruption, the teacher can appeal that decision to a committee.

Senator Raggio read from section 11, paragraph 2 of the bill:

Ms. Cahill noted the alternative education program does not currently exist in all schools. She said that is why this bill is constructed to implement pilot programs.

Ms. Cahill said it is important to remove a pupil from the classroom when the pupil is "causing a disruption for the rest of the students" but to keep the student engaged in the education process. She said, "We do not want to put them out on the street and we do not want to send them home." She pointed out this bill applies to all levels of students. She said dealing with behavior problems in grades K-5 (kindergarten through grade 5), would allow behavior problems to be caught and dealt with before the students are in middle school and high school and alternative education high schools become necessary.

Senator Raggio asked what is available in Washoe County. Elaine Lancaster, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, said Washoe High School is an alternative placement high school for "behavior students" and for students who just do not fit into the regular high school. Ms. Lancaster said her main focus is the K-5 students. And indicated her primary focus is also on getting the attention of students in her first-grade classroom. She commented that many times the current system does not get the attention of the students.

Senator Raggio asked whether it would involve setting up a program for these students that does not now exist. Ms. Lancaster replied, "Exactly. That is what the pilot program would do." She stated the pilot program would be established in an elementary school setting with a licensed teacher who knows the program of that particular school. She said when the first-grader "bundles up his stuff and does some time out" in the alternative placement program, he or she continues with the curriculum the school uses and with which the teacher is familiar.

Senator Raggio asked whether section 12 of this bill requires the board of trustees of each school district to operate a pilot alternative program. Ms. Cahill replied, "Yes. This is the language that enables the school districts to utilize the funding included in this bill." She commented the original version of this bill provided for an alternative program, but it was realized that it was necessary to make this a pilot program because the funding requested would not fund implementation of a full program in every school district. She stated the idea is that the funding will be distributed to the school districts and they will designate the sites at which the pilot program will be conducted.

Ms. Cahill noted subsection 2 of section 12 also provides that the smaller counties may operate an alternative program with one or more school districts which adjoin the school district. She said this allows the smaller counties to pool resources from this bill to operate an alternative site.

Ms. Cahill pointed out the Assembly added subsection 6 of section 12 on page 7 of this bill. She said this subsection requires the State Department of Education to conduct an evaluation of alternative programs (the pilot programs) established pursuant to this section and submit a report concerning the evaluation to the director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) for distribution to the Legislature. She said it will be critical to assess what has happened with the pilot programs because if there is success it is hoped the Legislature would consider additional funding to help address some of the discipline problems schools are experiencing.

Senator Raggio asked about section 14 of this bill. Ms. Cahill replied this is current language enacted during the last legislative session which enables school districts to identify students who are "habitual discipline problems." She commented that in earlier testimony, the question raised was, whether this is something that is overlapping what is now being done, given that students can, at present, be labeled habitual disciplinary problems. However, she commented, this bill is intended to help prevent students getting to the point they are labeled disruptive. She noted when a student has been removed from the classroom at least four times the student would be labeled disruptive.

Ms. Cahill noted section 15 is the appropriation of funding for this bill. She further noted the appropriation is $500,000 for each year of the biennium to be distributed to the school districts based on the number of pupils in the districts. She commented this funding is to enact the pilot programs described in sections 2-12 of this bill.

Senator Raggio asked whether this money can be used for the hiring of teachers and the preparation of sites necessary to set up the alternative programs. Ms. Cahill replied that how the money is to be spent was not specifically addressed. She said it is possible to hire personnel to supervise these students in the alternative program classrooms.

Senator Raggio noted section 16 of A.B. 521 states that a pupil shall not be deemed a habitual disciplinary problem pursuant to the amendatory provisions of section 14 of this act for any acts committed by the pupil before July 1, 1999.

Senator Raggio said he agrees it is frustrating for teachers to deal with students who are consistently disruptive and teachers should not have to tolerate such situations. He commented this bill is an effort deal with the disruptive student.

Senator Jacobsen asked whether teachers are trained in how to deal with disruptive students. Ms. Lancaster replied, "Yes, classroom management is part of the course requirement to complete the required degree." However, she commented, there are occasionally students who, "just don’t get it." She commented these are the students who disrupt the classroom and make it impossible for the other students to learn.

Senator Coffin asked whether Ms. Lancaster has noticed a change in behavior of students during the past 5 or 6 years. Ms. Lancaster replied, "With more students in the classroom in the 4^th through 6^th grades there is an attitudinal change that is very difficult to describe, but there is a change." She commented many teachers tell her the most disruptive aspect of the classroom is the disruptive student. Senator Coffin commented that corporal punishment in the schools was repealed 6 years ago. He commented that he voted against prohibiting corporal punishment in the schools 6 years ago and is still inclined to believe corporal punishment is necessary. He asked what Ms. Lancaster thought about the use of corporal punishment in school.

Ms. Lancaster replied she is not a proponent of corporal punishment. She commented, "A swat on the rear end is sometimes the easy way out." She said there are more effective ways of dealing with a disruptive student. She commented she would have been thrilled if her parents had given her a swat and not taken away her telephone or her car keys, or kept her from attending a dance or some other function. She said that in her classroom she used behavior modification, a lot of "time-outs," and "a lot of other kinds of things," but not corporal punishment.

Ms. Cahill said it might be proper for parents to use corporal punishment, but the schools should not use it. She commented that if corporal punishment were used in the school, it would be necessary to remove the parents’ ability to sue teachers and school district officials. Without that, she explained, there would be too many teachers who would be reluctant to administer corporal punishment. Senator Coffin asked whether Ms. Cahill was familiar with the term "acting in stead of the parent." Ms. Cahill replied she is aware of the term and knows the schools are required to act "in stead of the parent."

Senator Coffin wondered how the school is administering corporal punishment instead of the parent would be a problem. Ms. Cahill replied that as long as parents can hire lawyers there will be teachers who do not want to take the responsibility of administering corporal punishment. Senator Coffin said the principal should administer corporal punishment under strict protocol. He commented he thought corporal punishment was missing from this bill and should be included.

Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, said the Clark County School District has worked closely with other school districts and with NSEA on this bill. Ms. Tittle stated the Clark County School District supports the concept of having a process for dealing with disruptive students in the classroom that prevents the teacher from teaching and the other students from learning. She said the Clark County School District initially had significant concerns about the bill because of the fiscal impact. She commented the resources of the Clark County School District are limited because of the growth in Clark County and implementing the bill would necessitate additional space and staff resources. She noted there were concerns raised about due process issues that may come up as a result of removing a student from a classroom.

Ms. Tittle stated the school district has attempted to address those concerns by including in this bill the requirement for pilot projects to conserve resources need to evaluate whether the new procedures are effective. She commented that conducting an evaluation over the interim period would determine whether the procedures made an impact on teaching and learning in the classroom. She said this evaluation would allow the school district to examine the types of behaviors students are exhibiting that cause them to be removed from the classroom. She commented the evaluative components should be a qualitative evaluation, not just a statistical evaluation in terms of numbers. She said it is hoped that if an effective program is established it will be expanded should additional resources become available in the future.

Senator Raggio questioned whether Ms. Tittle supports the bill. Ms. Tittle replied "Yes."

Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 521.

Senator Raggio commented A.B. 697 is the appropriation bill discussed in detail during a pervious hearing. He noted sections 30 through the end of the bill had been previously approved. He asked whether LCB staff had reviewed this bill to ensure the appropriations set forth in sections 1 through 29 of this bill are consistent with previous committee actions.

Dan Miles, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, replied the bill is consistent with previous committee actions. Mr. Miles noted the numbers in the bill are reflective of the committee actions and have been verified and reconciled.

Senator Raggio said he would hold A.B. 224 until it is fully known what the Assembly will include in its appropriations bill.

Senator Raggio said A.B. 521 will be held.

Rick Combs, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, said he would briefly review a 12-page worksheet titled "Schedule of Capital Improvements Projects" (Exhibit E) which had been distributed to the committee. Mr. Combs pointed out the total recommended amount is about $231 million. He noted the various sources of funding are identified on page 9 of Exhibit E. He commented the total General Obligation Bond amount is about $158 million and $4 million has been reallocated from previous capital improvements programs. He explained the capital improvement projects (CIPs) included about $20.3 million of federal funds and about $28 million in donations and other contributions. Mr. Combs noted the CIPs also included about $11.8 million in state highway funds and the subcommittee added $5 million in Special Higher Education Capital Construction (SHECC) funding.

Mr. Combs said one of the major construction projects included in the CIPs is project 99-C1, which the construction of phase II of Cold Creek State Prison. The total amount for this project is $45,695,851. He commented the Governor had recommended $50,711,900 for this project. He said the subcommittee voted to authorize the State Public Works Board to negotiate the construction contract for phase II with the contractor who was awarded the contract on phase I. He explained this was done to save costs as well as time and is reflected in the reduction of the costs for this project.

Mr. Combs noted project 99-C11 in the amount of about $9.4 million would fund the furnishings and off-site parking improvements for the new Lied Library at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). He commented the library construction was funded by the 1997 Legislature.

Mr. Combs noted project 99-C12 is funding about $16 million to convert the Dickenson Library at UNLV into the William S. Boyd Law School.

Mr. Combs noted project 99-C13 is about $12 million to fund the construction of phase I of the UNR Redfield campus. He said this will be the first building on the campus.

Mr. Combs explained project 99-C14 is about $27 million. He noted $17 million of this amount is from general obligation bonds and $10 million is from donations. He said the funding is for the design and construction of a new classroom and a laboratory science center as well as a planetarium on the West Charleston campus of the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN). He commented the donated funds for this project will be used for the planetarium and the state funds will be used for the classroom and laboratory space.

Mr. Combs said project 99-C16 contains about $8 million for the new student development center at Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC). He commented TMCC had indicated to the subcommittee that the college might be able to find some other donated funds to construct this project. He noted the state funding for this project is about $5 million. He said that based on the information from TMCC, the subcommittee recommends giving the university system the authority to transfer the $5 million of state funds to other capital improvement projects not included in the Governor’s recommendation. He commented that the three unfunded projects include an addition to the student services center at UNLV, a Hi-tech Center for Pahrump, and advance planning money for the Getchell Library addition at UNR. He said whatever funds are available will be allocated proportionally to the three new projects, with 80 percent going to the student services center at UNLV, 10 percent to the Pahrump Hi-tech Center, and 10 percent to the Getchell Library at UNR.

Senator Raggio said it would be known in July 1999 how much funding for these projects are available.

Mr. Combs pointed out project 99-C21 includes about $10 million for the construction of a hospital at the Nevada Mental Health Institute in Sparks. He said this project was approved as part of the 1997 capital improvement program but was postponed due to the budgetary shortfall in FY 1999. He said the project was funded through general funds during the last legislative session and the funds were used to help mitigate the shortfall.

Mr. Combs said that in addition to the Governor’s recommendations the subcommittee also voted to approve the following construction projects:

• Project 99-C23L, which is funded at $600,000 for the advance planning of phase I of the Wright Hall remodeling project at UNLV.
• Project 99-C28L, which is the construction of a Hi-tech Center in Green Valley.
• Project 99-C29L, which is budgeted at about $4 million in state funds and $6 million from donations to construct the Medical School Learning Resource Center at UNR.
• Project 99-C37L, which provides about $5 million to construct a Hi-tech Center for use by the Washoe County School District and the TMCC.
• Project 99-C38L, which is budgeted at $1.5 million in state funds and $1 million in federal funds for the Southern Nevada Science Center for the Desert Research Institute in Las Vegas.
• Project 99-C39L, which is budgeted at $407,649 for the Division of State Parks to complete phase I-B of general improvements at the Old Mormon Fort in Las Vegas.

Mr. Combs noted project 99-H1 includes about $11 million to construct a new Nevada Highway Patrol office building in Las Vegas. He commented the approved project will provide for construction of a 60,000 square-foot building containing 40,000 square feet of completed office space and a 20,000-square-foot shell.

Mr. Combs noted the maintenance projects totaled about $9.3 million. He commented minor adjustments were made to the Governor’s recommendations based on the readjustment of prices by the public works board. Additionally, he said, there were two projects added, project 99-M33L to repair the floor and walls in the culinary area at the Lovelock Correctional Center and project 99-M34L to replace a control panel in the Unit 7 prison at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center. He noted the funding for repair of the floors and walls at Lovelock will be transferred from the 95-C1 project, the construction of phase II of the Lovelock Correctional Center, so no additional bonds will be needed to support this project. He commented the control panel will be funded through general obligation bonds.

Senator Coffin referred to project 99-M21 on page 6 of Exhibit E, the demolition of the bowling alley building at the site of the former children’s home in Carson City, and asked how old the building is. Mr. Combs replied he was not sure what the age of the building is. Senator Coffin asked whether there was any historical significance to the building. Mr. Combs said no one has indicated there is any historical significance to the building. Senator Coffin commented some buildings have been demolished without knowing their historical significance. Mr. Combs replied, "This building is considered to be a hazard. It is very near the Boys and Girls Club of Nevada and sometimes children play in the building." He commented that because of its condition the building could collapse while people are inside.

Mr. Combs said the funding for the statewide projects, shown on page 8 of Exhibit E, is about $9.1 million.

Mr. Combs said the State Public Works Board has indicated it has about $700,000 in its preventive maintenance account. He commented the preventive maintenance account is used by the board to purchase maintenance agreements for heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems as well as roofing systems. He said the public works board has indicated about $2 million of the funds currently in the preventive maintenance account could be reverted because the authorization to spend the funds has expired. Mr. Combs commented that based on the status of the maintenance account the subcommittee has directed a Letter of Intent be prepared directing the public works board to revert funds remaining in the preventive maintenance account for the expired maintenance agreements and to report to the IFC regarding its plans for the use of funds in this account for the future. Additionally, he said, the Letter of Intent should include direction that the public works board is not to spend any money for project 99-C20 until the agreement has been put in writing and approved by the IFC.

Senator Raggio said there was a recent meeting with LCB staff to discuss unclassified positions and indicated there was very little change identified in the unclassified positions report. He commented this would be consistent with the fact that classified employees are not, in general, receiving any increases. He noted a limited number of changes were agreed upon because of "some apparent inequity" called to the Legislature’s attention by the agency head or some other authority. Senator Raggio noted an 11-page spreadsheet titled "Unclassified Positions – 1999-2001 Biennium" (Exhibit F) had been distributed to the committee earlier.

Mr. Miles stated the unclassified positions report includes all unclassified positions. He pointed out the column on the right side of the schedule labeled "Current Salary" shows the existing maximum salary for each position, followed by a column titled "Proposed Salary" and a column titled "Percent Change." He noted the last column on the spreadsheet is titled "General Fund" and includes the dollar amount of the change.

Mr. Miles directed attention to each position for which a change is proposed and every position that included an amount in the "General Fund" column of Exhibit F.

Senator Neal asked whether there is "a general theme" that allows for the increase of the unclassified positions. He asked whether the positions increased were increased to maintain equity with other positions. Senator Raggio replied "Yes." He said that in past legislative sessions increases were given to everybody on the unclassified position list. He commented that because no salary increases are being provided to classified employees, the effort this session was very limited. He noted that only areas where salaries were not equitable and needed to be adjusted were changed. Senator Raggio said the changes were given to align salaries to be consistent with related positions, to make an adjustment overlooked at previous legislative sessions, or to solve what was termed a compaction situation. Compaction situations occur when an agency head’s salary is lower than a subordinate’s.

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Comeaux whether there are any obvious inequities that are being overlooked. Mr. Comeaux replied, "There are not."

Senator Raggio said the committee has received Bill Draft Request (BDR) S-1784 dealing with the unclassified positions. He said there is a lot of language in the BDR the committee needs to review.

Mr. Miles said the first 21 pages of BDR S-1784 list the same positions included in Exhibit F. He said the salaries shown are the maximum salary levels. He noted that in some agencies the employee is receiving a lower salary than shown in BDR S-1784. Mr. Miles pointed out section 2 on page 22 of this BDR is as follows:

Mr. Miles noted subsection 2 of section 2 indicates the IFC may establish the "title and salary for any positions affected by reorganization pursuant to legislation enacted by the 70^th session of the Nevada Legislature." He noted this clause has been in the unclassified bill for the past several sessions.

Mr. Miles noted section 3 of this BDR includes a small appropriation for some of the adjustments included in this BDR. He commented some of the adjustments, particularly those in small agencies, were not included in the budget and they were to be included in the unclassified pay bill. He pointed out there is a need to have a small appropriation of $78,979 in each year of the biennium. He said this appropriation would go to the State Board of Examiners to be allocated to those agencies needing the additional funds.

Mr. Miles noted section 4 of this BDR is the "Certified Gaming Control Bonus Plan" that has been in the law for 4 years. He commented the bonus is up to $5,000 for employees that are certified public accountants, licensed to practice law, have an engineering degree, or have a computer sciences degree. He commented the one change from the previous legislation is that the computer science graduate is added. He said, "These are the types of people that are being employed in the computer laboratory." He noted there is an appropriation of $177,500 for each year of the biennium to pay these bonuses.

Mr. Miles noted section 5 of this BDR allows the funds appropriated to be transferred between the fiscal years of the biennium. He commented section 6 of this BDR is new. He further commented there is no legislation for general salary increases this session and there is a need to set maximum salaries for medical positions within state government. He noted the salaries shown were the maximum salaries.

Mr. Miles noted section 7 identifies the effective date of this act to be July 1, 1999.

Scott M. Craigie, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Broadcasting, said there has been an appropriation to support public television and public radio since 1989. He commented the appropriations are made to the State Department of Education and the money is used for educational purposes. He noted that previously some of the money was used for low-power rural stations to reach out to rural communities with children’s programs. He commented there was a "minority and urban emphasis" radio station in southern Nevada that received some support from previous appropriations.

Mr. Craigie noted the appropriation would provide financial support for seven radio stations and two public television stations. He commented the support provided to the public television station was used for a distance learning program in coordination with high schools and the community college system. He said these programs teach thousands of people through the public television programs. He noted the appropriation did not cover the entire cost of the programs but it helped establish the programs and expand the reach of the stations.

Mr. Craigie commented some of the appropriation is used for "ready to learn" programs and "early childhood" programs at Channel 5 in northern Nevada.

Senator Raggio said the bill is being held pending receipt of additional information from the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

Senator Raggio commented there were a few bills outside the realm of consideration that could be dealt with now.

The committee took action on a number of bills.

Senator Raggio noted this bill would cost $2.6 million.

Senator Raggio said this bill was incorporated into the Distributive School Account.

Senator Raggio commented this bill would cost $6 million.

*****

*****

Senator Rawson commented S.B. 109 was a program that would cost at least $100,000.

*****

Senator Raggio said he thought this bill was withdrawn but would accept a motion to indefinitely postpone it just in case it was not withdrawn. He commented it would cost about $34.5 million.

*****

Senator Raggio commented this bill was heard March 10, 1999. Senator Rawson noted the bill contained an appropriation of about $12 million.

*****

Senator Raggio said this was incorporated into the Distributive School Account.

*****

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Comeaux to research S.B. 206 and report back to this committee.

Senator Raggio said this bill was addressed to some extent in the Distributive School Account.

*****

Senator Raggio noted this bill would cost $15 million.

*****

Senator Raggio noted this bill would cost about $56 million.

*****

Senator Raggio recessed the meeting at 10:57 a.m. until the call of the Chair.

Senator Raggio reconvened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.

Senator Raggio indicated S.B. 555 was introduced on the floor of the Senate on this date. He encouraged further discussion and entertained a motion to do pass S.B. 555.

Senator Raggio pointed out A.B. 348 was the bill used to create the amendments regarding charter schools. He said interested parties met consistently on this proposal and reached an accord.

Jeanne L. Botts, Senior Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), indicated the amendment to A.B. 348 incorporates a number of things that had been discussed earlier. She expressed the intent to point out items that changed or were still somewhat unresolved.

Ms. Botts stated the subcommittee on charter schools is a three-member subcommittee of the State Board of Education. She explained the appeal procedure addressed in the amendment:

Continuing, Ms. Botts stated there is a provision for a conditional charter if the applicant has not yet obtained a building, equipment, or personnel. She said the conditional charters are good for one year and are nonrenewable.

Senator Raggio clarified the conditional charter school is not eligible to receive state money. Ms. Botts said, "That is correct."

Ms. Botts indicated conversion of a private nonsectarian school to a charter school is allowed. This would also apply to public vocational technical high schools. She said these schools must follow the procedures required by all committees forming charter schools and must "go through" the complete application process. She noted the teacher evaluation procedures must be described in detail in the application process. Ms. Botts pointed out the requirement that charter schools follow generally accepted standards of accounting and fiscal management.

Senator Raggio called attention to section 13, subsection 5 (b) (II) in which it is stated that should there be a proposal to convert an existing public school, evidence of support from the full-time teachers must be demonstrated by a petition signed by more than 50 percent of the teachers.

Ms. Botts commented section 13 also addresses the process for converting an existing public vocational/technical school to a charter school.

Senator Coffin asked whether people proposing to convert a public school to a charter school must live in the service area of the school being converted. Ms. Botts explained applications are submitted to the local school board, which would ascertain whether the evidence of support was insufficient or did not match the area to be served.

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2, pointed out the parents of students attending the school would be considered the "interested parties." Senator Raggio pointed out Senator Coffin’s reference was to the language: " . . . evidence of support from parents and the community in which the proposed charter school will be located . . . ." Senator Washington indicated he understood the reference but stated the intent of the amendment reflects that "interested parties" are the parents of children attending the school. Senator Coffin said that may be the intent but the meaning is not clear and "a method could be created which would manipulate the issue."

Senator Coffin pointed out the issue could be a "two way sword" whereby an organization of individuals who do not have children in the public school could form to object to a charter school in a designated zone. Senator Washington indicated Senator Coffin’s point was well-taken and declared further drafting of the amendment needs to be accomplished.

Further, Ms. Botts said section 13 outlines the items to be included in the detailed application for the charter school. Referring to section 13, subsection 6, she indicated the State Department of Education would review the application to ascertain whether it is complete. Thereafter the local school board would review the application to ascertain compliance with the law; however, "the Department of Education shall assist the local school board with the review." Ms. Botts noted section 14 addresses the appeal process.

Ms. Botts called attention to section 17, subsection 6(b) wherein it is stated the governing body of a charter school may submit a written request to the superintendent for a waiver from providing the 180 days of instruction "as long as the number of hours and minutes are equated."

Ms. Botts said section 17, subsection 10 reflects a call for refraining from using public money to purchase real property or buildings without the approval of the sponsor. She quoted section 17, subsection 11 which states:

Ms. Botts noted it is stated at the end of section 17, subsection 13 that the governing board is required to adopt a final budget in accordance with regulations adopted by the State Department of Education. She said the charter school is not required to adopt a final budget pursuant to NRS 354.598 or to otherwise comply with the provisions of Chapter 354 of the NRS. She explained the charter school must adopt a budget and the State Department of Education has already adopted regulations pertaining to the accounting, budgeting, and auditing of charter schools. However, she noted, there was a dispute emanating from the 1997 Legislative Session that because charter schools are public schools they should comply with all aspects of Chapter 354 of NRS as a local government. Ms. Botts indicated there was a Letter of Intent from the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities that "was not the intent of the 1997 law, and it is clearly stated in this amendment that it was not the intent."

Further, Ms. Botts said section 18, subsection 4 states:

Ms. Botts explained that upon the request of a parent or legal guardian of a pupil who is enrolled in a charter school, the board of trustees of the district in which the charter school is located shall authorize the pupil to participate in sports at the public school that he would otherwise be required to attend. The board of trustees can also authorize the pupil to participate in sports at any public school within the school district if space is available for the pupil to participate.

Ms. Botts said students have the ability to participate in courses and other activities that the student wishes to participate in provided they meet the qualifications and there is space available. She noted that in regards to the issue of sports, students would be confined to participating in the school they would normally be zoned to attend.

Ms. Botts said the board of trustees of a school district may revoke its approval for a pupil to participate in a class, extracurricular activity, or sports if the pupil fails to comply with applicable rules and regulations.

Ms. Botts pointed out section 20, subsection 3 states that a charter school may request apportionments from the Distributive School Account (DSA) in the first year of operation be paid to the charter school 30 days before the apportionments are otherwise required to be made. She noted that if the charter school uses the money received from the state to purchase real property, buildings, equipment, or facilities, the governing body of the charter school shall assign a security interest in the property, buildings, equipment, and facilities to the State of Nevada.

Ms. Botts commented that if a charter school files a voluntary petition of bankruptcy or is declared bankrupt during a school year, neither the State of Nevada nor the sponsor of the charter school may be held liable for any claims resulting from the bankruptcy.

Ms. Botts noted that at least 70 percent of the teachers who provide instruction at a charter school must be licensed teachers. If a charter school is a vocational school, at least 50 percent of the teachers who provide instruction at the charter school must be licensed teachers. Senator Raggio noted this is a change from the existing 75 percent. Ms. Botts replied "Yes." She said a teacher who is not licensed must have 2 years of experience in the field. Previously, 5 years of experience was required.

Ms. Botts noted section 24 is the original language from the Assembly regarding flexibility in the teacher’s workday and work hours. She noted teachers are required to be paid for additional hours worked.

Ms. Botts pointed out section 24, subsection 12 states that if a local school district manages a plan of group insurance for its employees, the governing body of the charter school may negotiate with the board of trustees to participate in the same group insurance plan.

Ms. Botts commented pupils from private schools or charter schools, or home school pupils taking courses in the public school, may be counted for apportionment purposes as a portion of a student. If a school has a 6-period day and a student from a private school is taking one class out of 6 periods, that student would be counted as 1/6^th of a student for apportionment purposes. She noted the student must complete at least 1 semester. She commented the count of pupils enrolled in classes for at least 1 semester, expressed as a percentage of the total time services are provided to those pupils per school day in proportion to the total time services are provided during a school day, is the basis "for how they are counted for apportionment purposes."

Ms. Botts pointed out section 35 of this amendment identifies the core academic subjects that must be taught, "as applicable for grade levels," in all public schools, the Caliente Youth Center, and the Nevada Youth Training Center: English, including reading, composition and writing; mathematics; science; and social studies, which includes only the subjects of history, geography, economics, and government. She commented that in addition to the core academic subjects, the following subjects must be taught, "as applicable for grade levels" and to the extent practicable in all public schools, the Caliente Youth Center and the Nevada Youth Training Center: the arts; computer education and technology; health; and physical education. She said if the State Board of Education requires in this second subsection the completion of coursework in a subject area for graduation from high school or promotion to the next grade, a public school shall offer the required coursework. Unless a subject is required for graduation from high school or promotion to the next grade, a charter school is not required to comply with this subsection but it does have to teach the core academic subjects.

Senator Washington noted the existing law for special education and charter schools does not require that charter schools provide services for special education students and can request the student be returned to the public school. He noted that if a student has special needs such as handrails, special restroom facilities, or special education teachers, the charter school can request the student stay in the public schools.

Ms. Botts noted that section 52 allows a school district to donate surplus personal property of the school district to a charter school that is located within the school district and may also sell property when it is determined the school district no longer needs the property.

Senator Coffin asked, "If the charter school was previously a public school that received its land under the Nevada provisions for school lands, could it sell its land to anyone or must it revert the land?" Ms. Botts said school lands cannot be sold without reimbursing the Distributive School Account. Senator Raggio commented that the sale of school land is required to go to bid.

Ms. Botts explained that section 56 of this amendment contains the appropriation of $600,000 to the Andre Agassi Foundation for the expansion of the Andre Agassi Boys and Girls Club Education Center in Southern Nevada. She noted the superintendent of public instruction shall disburse the appropriation only if the superintendent and the director of the State Budget Division determine the Andre Agassi Foundation has received money from the federal government in an amount sufficient to assist the foundation in the expansion of the Andre Agassi Boys and Girls Club Education Center in Southern Nevada. She noted that any remaining balance of the appropriation must not be committed for expenditure after June 30, 2001, and reverts to the state General Fund as soon as all payments of money committed have been made.

Ms. Botts pointed out section 57 of this amendment contains appropriations of about $58,000 for each year of the biennium for the State Department of Education to pay for travel and operating expenses of the three members of the State Board of Education who are appointed to the subcommittee on charter schools, for a half-time education consultant, and for a quarter-time Management Assistant I to assist the consultant and the subcommittee with work relating to charter schools.

Ms. Botts noted section 58 of this amendment requires that subjects taught in public schools must be in accordance with the standards of content and performance established for grade levels by the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools.

Senator Neal asked about the appropriation for the Andre Agassi Boys and Girls Club Education Center in Southern Nevada. He asked, "What would happen if the superintendent of public instruction and the chief of the Budget Division do not agree? Does the foundation not get the money?" Ms. Botts replied the money would be disbursed only if both agree.

Steven Horsford, Lobbyist, Andre Agassi Foundation, said the foundation is seeking housing and urban development funding. He noted the site is on public housing property.

Senator Neal questioned whether the charter school must accept the handicapped students if it does not have the means to accommodate them. Senator Washington replied, "That is correct. If the charter schools do not have the means or the facilities to accept a disabled student, it can request that the student [remain] in the public school." Senator Neal asked whether the charter school is exempt from the public law discussing handicapped students. Ms. Botts said the charter schools are not exempt from the law. She commented the same condition currently exists for public schools: they cannot handle every child with a disability that comes to the school and there is a provision in the state law which provides funding to transport the student to a facility that can accommodate them.

Senator Neal said this is a different situation; this involves a student from the public school wishing to attend a charter school. He pointed out the student has already been accommodated by the public school system and now wants to attend the charter school. He asked whether he heard correctly that if the charter school does not have the necessary facilities, the student cannot attend the charter school.

Senator Washington replied the charter school can request that the handicapped student stay in the public school because it does not have the necessary facilities to accommodate the handicapped student’s special needs. Senator Neal questioned whether the state is allowing the charter schools to operate with fewer requirements than the public school. Senator Washington replied that in some cases the charter schools may be operating under fewer standards based on the facilities the charter school is able to obtain. He said if the charter school is renting or leasing a building it may not have all the retrofits required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to accommodate the students. He commented that in some cases the charter schools might be operating under fewer standards than the public schools.

Senator Neal asked whether the law should be changed to require the charter schools to meet the same standards as the public schools. Ms. Botts replied charter schools are really no different than public schools. She commented that some of the smaller public schools cannot accommodate handicapped students and many of the charter schools are smaller than the public schools. She noted there is provision in state law for dealing with these situations.

Senator Neal asked how the public schools that cannot accommodate handicapped students are meeting the federal requirements. Ms. Botts replied that if the schools cannot provide services to the handicapped student the student is moved to another school in the community or to a different district. This is allowed under existing state law. She noted there are provisions made for handicapped students but they may not be in the home school district, Senator Neal asked whether the charter schools are exempt from class-size reduction efforts. Ms. Botts replied, "Yes, and that was the case last year also." Senator Neal asked why this would be permitted in the charter schools but not in the public schools.

Senator Washington replied most charter schools will likely have reduced class sizes because of their enrollment, staffing, and facilities. Senator Neal commented there is no restriction on what students the charter school can accept or reject. He noted that if the charter school had a facility that would accommodate 100 students, they could accept 150 students. Senator Washington replied, "Most charter schools usually have reduced class sizes and they accommodate the number of students that their facilities will hold, so the exemption makes sense."

Senator Coffin asked how many charter schools will be allowed and whether there is any limit. Ms. Botts replied the current limit is 2 for every 75,000 students in the largest school district, Clark County School District. She noted that 2 charter schools are allowed in Washoe County and 1 charter school in all other counties. She commented this amendment allows 4 for every 75,000 students in Clark County, which would currently total 12 charter schools. Senator Coffin asked whether, if an existing public school has been emphasizing bilingual education, there would be any change if the public school becomes a charter school. He also asked how disputes about charter schools would be resolved. Ms. Botts said if there is a change in the philosophy of the school "it would be under the direction of the governing body of the charter school." She said if the parents thought the direction the school was moving in was not what they wanted they could go to the governing body and request a change. She noted there is currently a lot of variety among the public schools now.

Senator Washington commented public schools converting to charter schools will be very limited because public schools cannot convert to a trade school. He commented that if a charter school is formed the governance of the school would determine the philosophy and instructional setting for the students in the charter school.

Senator Jacobsen asked about transportation for charter schools. Senator Raggio replied there is no requirement to provide transportation for students. Ms. Botts commented the application for a charter school requires that transportation must be discussed. She said there is no existing requirement under state law for transportation to be provided. She commented the provision of transportation by public school districts is permissive. Senator Jacobsen asked whether a charter school could be formed for Indian reservations. Ms. Botts replied "Yes."

Senator Neal asked whether this bill would provide the ability to review the charter schools. Senator Washington replied, "Yes, there is a provision to review the charter schools." He noted one reason the sunset clause was kept in the current revision was to ensure charter schools would be reviewed. He added that charter schools would be reviewed every legislative session to identify how they are doing.

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Horsford "whether this amendment includes the same understanding as the Assembly." Mr. Horsford replied the provisions initially addressed in negotiations appear to be in this amendment.

Mr. Comeaux said the Governor is requesting a bill draft to establish a taskforce on Nevada’s policy on public health access. Mr. Comeaux said the taskforce’s efforts would focus on major issues. He explained the taskforce would establish a minimum level of public health service that would be made available to all Nevadans, define what constitutes a basic plan to cover illness and injury, and establish a program to integrate private health insurance benefits with public health services. He commented the taskforce would not conduct an additional study and would not develop a universal insurance plan. He said the purpose of the taskforce would be to develop policies and recommendations needed to integrate Nevada’s public health services continuum with individual and group health insurance programs offered to the private sector. He commented that a defined basic plan could be supplemented by any desired additions to coverage over the years but would clarify what "basic coverage" is for everyone.

Mr. Comeaux said the Governor suggests a 14-member taskforce consisting of 6 legislators (3 senators appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and 3 Assemblymen appointed by the Assembly Speaker) and 8 appointments by the Governor (1 representative of the State of Nevada who is experienced in the health field, 1 representative of the Nevada State Medical Association, 1 representative of the Culinary Workers Union, 1 representative of Nevada’s insurance industry, 1 representative of the Nevadans for Affordable Healthcare, 1 member of the public, 1 representative of the Nevada Public Health Forum, and 1 representative of the Nevada Women’s Lobby).

Mr. Comeaux said the taskforce would also form a technical advisory subcommittee consisting of persons experienced in public health issues including representatives appointed by the Board of Regents. He said the Governor has suggested the taskforce meet as often as needed but no fewer than 8 times during the legislative interim period. He commented the taskforce would submit written recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on the structure, content, and services that would define a basic insurance plan for illness and injury before December 1, 2000. Mr. Comeaux said the report would also include recommendations on the establishment of minimum public health services that will be provided to all residents of the state, regardless of ability to pay, and an estimate of the cost and benefits of coordinating private sector insurance coverage with public health access initiatives pursuant to the proposal. He said the taskforce would be required to sponsor a series of forums for public engagement throughout Nevada. Mr. Comeaux noted the taskforce would be jointly staffed by the Department of Human Resources and the Division of Insurance. He commented the Governor would recommend an appropriation of $50,000 to fund the taskforce.

Senator Neal said he felt this proposal was leading towards some type of "Oregon Plan" that sets out limits in which a person would have access to certain services and if that person were not in a certain category, he or she would not be treated. He said this is the wrong direction to go. He said it is his understanding the Governor might be attempting "to cut off the number of requests coming before the Legislature to include certain things and to help insurance plans." He stated he felt every citizen has the right to make those requests. Senator Neal said he does not want health plans to be able to exclude certain people only because it is not financially beneficial.

Mr. Comeaux said, "What the Governor has in mind is to establish minimum coverages that will be provided rather than maximum coverages." He said the Governor wants to put this taskforce together to recommend the basic coverage that should be provided to every citizen of Nevada. He commented this would not preclude adding "other things" later but the purpose of the taskforce would be to identify the minimum, not maximum, coverage.

Senator Coffin said an enormous amount of work has already been done which should be included by the taskforce.

Senator Raggio recessed the meeting at 7 p.m. until the call of the Chair.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Millard Clark

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: