The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:16 p.m., on Monday, March 22, 1999, in Room 2149 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 Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator William R. O’Donnell

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Angela Culbert, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Connell opened the meeting by asking for the introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 22-268.

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, indicated the proposal would provide an alternative procedure for making reversionary maps and would allow the permissive use of electronic notification on the terms it is requested by the receiver and is verifiable. He said the bill draft was developed in association with the American Planning Association, noting home builder groups were supportive of the proposal during its development.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 22-268.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

The chairman requested the committee address BDR 24-327.

Prompted by Senator Porter, Chairman O’Connell indicated the measure would direct the ethics commission to prepare a pamphlet on ethics laws and charge an appropriate fee. She stressed the importance of every candidate knowing his or her rights concerning the ethics laws.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 24-327.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O’DONNELL, NEAL, AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell drew the committee’s attention to BDR 23-641.

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 23-641: Makes various changes regarding commission on ethics. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 540.)

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 23-641.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O’DONNELL, NEAL, AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 7, noting the measure had been introduced in the United States Congress.

Chairman O’Connell pointed out the $1 bill is currently being redesigned, and she introduced a group of students with suggestions to make on the new design. The chairman drew attention to a presentation packet (Exhibit C) provided by the students.

Marjorie Gavarra, Concerned Citizen, testified representing the Advance Technologies Academy. She said S.J.R. 7 was being presented in connection with the Liberty Dollar Bill Act pending in the United States Congress. She pointed out the National Constitution Center released figures indicating 94 percent of adults cannot name the four rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, one-third of Americans can name the three branches of government, and 1 out of 5 Americans know there are 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. She stressed most people take for granted the benefits of the U.S. Constitution, noting S.J.R. 7 would recommend a portion of the constitution appear on the back of the $1 bill.

Ms. Gavarra explained this idea was first proposed by an eighth grade class from Virginia. Referring to the presentation packet (Exhibit C), she indicated the U.S. Constitution should be included on currency as it would teach the framework of the American Government, be a reminder of guaranteed freedoms, and deepen the understanding of the U.S. Constitution. She cited other reasons for the importance of the proposal (Exhibit C), stressing the U.S. Constitution reflects America’s evolution.

Sergio Garcia, Concerned Citizen, testified representing the Advance Technologies Academy. He indicated the had reviewed the legislation proposed to the United States Congress, which, he noted, had the proper intent, but was too cluttered with the amendments thereby making the design unappealing to the eye. He stated the design of the $1 bill proposed by S.J.R. 7 is simple, can be understood by everyone, and is easy to read.

Aimee Brown, Concerned Citizen, testified representing the Advance Technologies Academy. Reading from the presentation packet (Exhibit C), she explained the proposed design would have a new amendment for every series. She suggested each of the first ten amendments should be well represented and the design should not be too "busy." She pointed out the phrase "United We Stand Divided We Fall" is at the top of the proposed currency and a scroll with "We the People" would be on the left-hand side of the bill. She explained the origin and meaning of this language. She indicated the middle symbol would be the Liberty Bell with the year 1789 written below. She explained the meanings attached with these symbols. "In God We Trust, " she noted, appears below the scroll, and she cited the historical significance of this language.

Ms. Gavarra testified that for the proposal to work, the measure would need both sponsors and public support. She indicated their goal was to reach the largest amount of people as possible through the advertising techniques set forth in the presentation packet (Exhibit C).

LaTasha Stoudamire, Concerned Citizen, testified representing the Advance Technologies Academy. She presented the $1 bill design to the committee (Exhibit C) and drew attention to the aforementioned elements of the design proposal. She indicated further information about the proposal could be found on the school web site; the address is set forth in Exhibit C.

With no further questions from the committee, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.J.R. 7 and opened the hearing on S.B. 342.

Steven D. Hill, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern Nevada, read from prepared text (Exhibit D) in support of S.B. 342. He expressed the importance of the proposed legislation, noting in 1994 an executive order was issued requiring state agencies consider project labor agreements (PLAs) for public works projects. He said the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) has adopted a PLA with requirements unfair to current Nevada employees and contractors. He explained the intent of S.B. 342 is to ensure these inequities are not allowed in future PLAs.

Continuing his testimony (Exhibit D), Mr. Hill indicated S.B. 342 would not require nonunion contractors to displace currently employed workers. He explained contractors can use their employees on an alternating basis up to a total of 14 workers of which 7 are their own and 7 are from the union’s hiring hall. After the 14 employees are hired, he stated, all other employees must come from the union hiring hall. He stressed Nevada employees should not lose their jobs because of PLAs. He restated the bill would not require current employees to be displaced under PLAs, but would allow additional workers to be hired from union hiring halls.

Mr. Hill indicated the water authority’s PLA requires contractors to pay into union trust funds regardless of current employee benefit payments thereby putting the contractors at a competitive disadvantage. He relayed problems regarding the difficulties of PLAs and employee benefits as set forth in Exhibit D. He stressed Nevada employees should not lose their benefits as a result of PLAs.

Mr. Hill stated the bill would require PLAs conform to standard Davis-Bacon Act requirements which would allow benefits to be provided to employees by contractors with the difference in cost between the benefits received and those in the prevailing wage package be paid directly to the employee. He reiterated that changes made by S.B. 342 would ensure employees keep both their jobs and their benefits.

Reading from his prepared testimony (Exhibit D), Mr. Hill noted employees belonging to unions are not necessarily more skilled than those not belonging. He pointed out the bill would not preclude PLAs for future projects. He restated current PLAs allow employees to be displaced and force employers to choose between continuing to provide benefits for employees or discontinue benefits to remain competitive.

Senator Neal questioned the meaning of section 1, subsection 2 of the bill. Mr. Hill explained if the prevailing wage package calls for $5 an hour to be spent for health insurance coverage, and if the health insurance coverage the employee is receiving costs $3 an hour, the additional $2 an hour will be paid directly to the employee. Prompted by Senator Neal, Mr. Hill noted if the employee was not receiving benefits, the entire $5 would be paid directly to the employee. He clarified S.B. 342 would require PLAs revert back to prevailing-wage legislation. Mr. Hill reiterated the difference between the prevailing-wage package and the amount currently being spent on the employees benefits would have to be paid directly to the employee.

Senator Neal suggested prevailing wage is based upon the cost of living. Mr. Hill indicated prevailing wage is based upon wages reported to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Senator Neal questioned the reason behind the legislation. Mr. Hill said the current situation requires that whether or not an employer is spending money to provide benefits for employees, the employer is required to pay the entire amount of the benefit package into union trust funds. The employer must double pay for employee benefits or discontinue the benefits he currently provides to the employee. He indicated the intent of the legislation would be to eliminate duplicate payments.

Prompted by Senator Neal, Mr. Hill stated he was attempting to ensure a contractor would not be put in a situation that to maintain level competitiveness, benefits would have to be taken away from the contractors employees.

Senator Neal questioned the reason a public body should give contractors an advantage over everyone else. Mr. Hill stressed the bill does not provide an advantage for the contractor. He pointed out an employee from a union hiring hall has benefits paid into the union trust fund. He noted nonunion employees receive benefits from a different source, indicating the employer would have to eliminate established benefits or continue to pay for those benefits and pay into the union trust fund, as well.

Senator Neal questioned if the prevailing wage is included when a contract is negotiated with a public body. Mr. Hill said prevailing wage is a set standard and is not negotiated.

Senator Titus questioned whether the aforementioned problems exist in all PLAs or just in the SNWA’s agreement. Mr. Hill indicated PLA rules do not currently exist, thereby leaving all points open for negotiation. He noted S.B. 342 would limit areas open for negotiation.

Prompted by Senator Neal, Mr. Hill stated a PLA is a negotiated process. He noted the agreement is negotiated between the public entity and the union organizations, pointing out the contractors have not been involved in the process. He said contractors either accept the situation as part of the specifications of the contract or they do not bid the project. Mr. Hill indicated contractors often do not bid so as not to disenfranchise their employees or as a result of bidding have their employees lose benefits while working the PLA.

Senator Neal said if a public entity negotiates a PLA and contractors disagree with the contract, they are not required to bid on the project. Mr. Hill concurred; although, he pointed out, as taxpayers, the contractors have a right to equal access to public funds and public jobs.

Chairman O’Connell drew attention to two executive orders, one from the state and one from the city of Las Vegas, regarding PLAs.

Jim Manning, Concerned Citizen, testified in support of S.B. 342.

Senator Care indicated his law firm represents Associated Building Contractors (ABC) in ongoing litigation stemming from the Southern Nevada Water Authority PLA. He indicated he had been advised to abstain from voting or participating in the discussion.

John E. Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Building Trades Council, presented information regarding PLAs (Exhibit E) for the committee’s review. He indicated they had negotiated with the contractors responsible for the job rather than directly with the Southern Nevada Water Authority. He said the agreement was challenged in district court where the finding was in favor of the PLA. He noted lawsuits had been filed against PLAs all across the country which have not been successful. He indicated court rule laws stemming from a California case on PLAs are important to unions and to multi-employer trust fringe benefit programs. The proposed legislation, he noted, would go against the ERISA (Employment Retirement Income Security Act) laws.

Mr. Jeffery stressed the duty of fair representation, noting during negotiation the trades council represents union and nonunion workers on the job. He noted they do not discriminate either in the hiring or in the representation of the workers on the job. He expressed concern for a "mix-and-match" benefits program in which the members of the union are treated differently than those who are not members.

Mr. Jeffery said:

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether Mr. Jeffery could provide the committee with numbers to back up his testimony in which someone on the job ends up at the hospital because the contractor did not pay benefits.

Mr. Jeffery indicated these were not numbers he had access to because their members are covered by benefits. He noted benefit plans vary from union to union, noting there is approximately a 90-day period in which the employee is not covered when they first go to work. From that time on, he stressed, they are covered. Many of the nonunion contractors, he noted, do not cover employees.

Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO, supported the testimony provided by Mr. Jeffery. He added PLAs have been around for a long time in the private sector. The SNWA project, he noted, requires specialized skills such as certified pipe welders, pointing out there are organizations devoted solely to specialized areas of work. He said due to the accessibility of qualified and certified people through the union, it made sense for the SNWA to enter into this agreement.

Mr. Jeffery said local unions that provide apprenticeship training do so on a cents-per-hour contribution out of every workers check. He said they have had over $27 million worth of training facilities and spend over $5 million per year on training. He stressed they have the best trained work force in the construction industry, noting interest is expressed in PLAs because of the access to union hiring halls which ensure the supplying of skilled labor. He pointed out PLAs have been favored in Clark County because they offer the closest option to guaranteeing a local work force. Mr. Jeffery said a lot of contractors who bid on the SNWA project were from out of state, but he noted the majority of the workers are from Clark County. It is not unusual, he pointed out, for a nonunion contractor to come from out of state bringing their work force along. He said these contractors will hire people where they can find them, regardless of skill.

Senator Neal questioned whether PLAs came about because the union halls provided the skilled workforce necessary to carry out these particular projects. Mr. Jeffery said this was true, and pointed out other reasons included guarantee of labor peace and no "walk-offs" on the job for any reason whatsoever. In fact, he stated, a clause exists in the contract providing if there is any kind of a work stoppage, employees must stay on the job in that project with a $10,000 per shift penalty if they do not. He stressed there has not been a day lost on the SNWA’s PLA in 2 years. He restated the two main issues in the adoption of the agreement were the access to skilled labor and the local work force.

Berlyn D. Miller, Lobbyist, Nevada Contractors Association 125 (NCA), testified their members are supportive of PLAs. He expressed concern about placing restrictions on any agency as to what can be included in a PLA. Although a PLA is not the answer to every job situation, he noted, in certain circumstances it is the best option. He stated NCA members work under PLAs across the United States, noting each PLA contains different language. One of the SNWA’s reasons for adopting the PLA, he explained, was to provide jobs to local workers. Mr. Miller stressed PLAs are not just union agreements, and he indicated most of the major hotels on the Las Vegas Strip have been built under PLAs. He stated specific types of projects benefit greatly from PLAs.

Senator Raggio pointed out the difference between private projects and public works projects. In the case of public works projects, he said, proponents indicate there would not be "a level playing field" without the changes proposed by S.B. 342. He stated in a public works project any contractor, union or nonunion, should have an equal opportunity to bid on the project.

Mr. Miller expressed agreement.

Senator Raggio pointed out taxpayers pay for public works projects, stating therefore there is a public interest that the project be completed in the most cost-effective manner. The senator indicated concern had been expressed that if a nonunion contractor was already paying benefits and he bid on a project, he would also have to comply with benefits mandated by unions as a requirement under the PLA. In order to equalize the payment of benefits, nonunion contractors would have to drop any benefits currently being paid.

Senator Raggio acknowledged the request by nonunion contractors to utilize existing employees. He questioned the reason a nonunion contractor would not be allowed to use his own employees to the extent that they are available. The bill would allow that if the nonunion contractor did not have enough available employees then they would hire through the union hall. Senator Raggio indicated there had been discussion regarding this issue in the 1997 Legislative Session, noting testimony indicated that sending current employees through the hiring hall for work on a PLA was an "illusory practice." He confirmed the committee’s disbelief in the previous session that the unions would put employees on the job whether or not they were union workers. The senator pointed out S.B. 342 is different than the legislation requested in 1997 attempting to abolish PLAs. He restated everyone should have a fair opportunity to bid on a public works project and suggested it was appropriate that a PLA be required to allow a nonunion employer to utilize his existing employees to the fullest extent.

Mr. Miller indicated he agreed with the point of allowing any contractor to bid on a project. He stated during the discussion in the formulation of the PLA with the Southern Nevada Water Authority, one of the concerns was the size of the project because mostly out-of-state contractors would bid. Prompted by Senator Raggio, Mr. Miller pointed out the SNWA project allowed seven nonunion workers per trade. He reiterated his concern regarding setting restrictions on what could be included in a PLA. He pointed out the opportunities available through hiring hall procedures for nonunion workers to gain skills and to become members of the union. He suggested if ABC was concerned with the specifics in the SNWA’s PLA, they should attempt to make modifications to that project agreement.

Senator Raggio reiterated his concern that an employer bidding on a project is prohibited from utilizing his own employees to the extent that they are available.

Senator Porter questioned who determines the quantity of employees on a job, asking if each PLA was different in this aspect. Mr. Miller concurred that each PLA had different requirements concerning work conditions. He stressed there are no standard rules and regulations for PLAs, noting they are negotiated by any owner or agency deciding to implement this type of agreement.

Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of S.B. 342, stating the bill is fair and balanced. He indicated it addresses their concerns regarding preference.

Richard D. Houts Jr., Lobbyist, Building and Construction Trades Council of Northern Nevada, stated project agreements are negotiated on an individual basis according to the needs and the desires of the owner. He gave an example in which an owner’s concerns regarding apprentices and minority hiring were addressed through modifications made to the specific PLA. He expressed opposition to S.B. 342.

Richard C. Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America, 169, pointed out the right-to-work law does not require membership in a labor organization. He testified there are only two criteria a workman has to meet in order to be cleared through the hiring hall; a level of skill which would accredit the worker as a journeyman and whether or not the person has worked a period of time in the locality. Both of these criteria, he noted, are granted to labor organizations under the National Labor Relations Act. He explained even if the person is past their ratio, they can be cleared through the hiring hall if they meet those criteria, and without preference, they would be placed on the out-of-work list. He stressed there is not a 7-man restriction, recognizing that the displacement of workers is a misnomer in Nevada.

Senator Raggio reiterated his question regarding equal bidding rights of a nonunion contractor on a public works project. Mr. Daly stated everyone has the equal right to bid, pointing out this issue has been upheld in several court cases. He explained PLAs were found to be legal as long as every contractor that bids on a contract, does so under the same terms and conditions. He stressed everyone is offered the same position to bid on the contracts for purposes of legality.

Senator Raggio remarked anyone who bids on a PLA would be mandated to all employees covered under the same contract or same benefits as the union employees. Mr. Daly maintained this would be negotiated between the labor organization and the public body.

Senator Raggio rephrased his question regarding a nonunion contractor with employees who bids on project labor agreements. He asked the reason this contractor should not currently be able to use his own employees without hiring from the union hiring hall. He stated the intent of S.B. 342 is to equalize practices so the contractor can use his own employees on a job. Mr. Daly stated the contractor can go to the hiring hall and have his people cleared through the hiring hall.

Senator Raggio questioned the likelihood of a contractor clearing his people through the hiring hall. Mr. Daly stressed every union in Nevada follows the state laws governing hiring practices as well as those set forth by the National Labor Relations Act. He stated the likelihood of a contractor clearing his own employees through the hiring hall is very good.

Senator Raggio pointed out testimony given in the last legislative session indicated this does not happen as a practical matter for those attempting to go through the hiring hall without being union members. Mr. Daly suggested in those instances, the law needs to be enforced.

Mr. Daly continued, pointing out when a person is covered under a union and has worked under a PLA long enough, he will be covered by insurance and pension benefits. He suggested if there was not such a level of resistance to having project labor agreements, there would be more PLAs and more employees would have their benefits paid. He reiterated if a person works long enough, they will be covered by benefits. Mr. Daly told the committee the unions have an "hour bank" and if a person works more hours than it takes to pay the premium, those hours go into a reserve and even after the employment is terminated, he would be covered under the insurance until the hours have run out. He noted the positive social impact of this process.

Mr. Daly suggested the decision is best left with the public body and those negotiating the project. He stated S.B. 342 takes flexibility away from public bodies.

Senator Raggio pointed out in Nevada, it is not left to the public body to decide because the Governor issued an executive order mandating PLAs. Mr. Daly stated he believed it was a recommendation to consider, noting each public body has the discretion. Senator Raggio agreed the public bodies do not currently have the discretion because of the executive order.

Senator Titus questioned PLAs currently in existence. She pointed out each PLA is different because it reflects the needs and the nature of the particular project. She said testimony indicated limitations put on employees for the SNWA project was a reflection of the needs of that project and noted the fear that most of the contractors who were going to bid on the SNWA project were going to be out of state due to the skills required. The hiring provision was put in the SNWA agreement as a way to protect jobs for Nevada workers. Senator Titus stressed this issue would not necessarily be the problem on other PLAs that it has been on the SNWA’s PLA.

Douglas A. Selby, Director of Engineering, Southern Nevada Water Authority, indicated one of the concerns in establishing the PLA was trying to maintain a local workforce due to the subsequent benefits to southern Nevada. He stated there were other considerations weighed by the board prior to adopting the agreement.

Chairman O’Connell indicated upon asking the question of the SNWA regarding the PLA, she was told the main concern was for timing to ensure there would be no strikes on the project. Mr. Selby stated this was not misinformation as it was one of the 17 discrete goals the SNWA wanted to achieve by adoption of the PLA, noting another goal was to maintain a local work force

Bradford W. Coupe, Attorney, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, testifying as the main negotiator for the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s PLA, stressed no element of PLAs displaces workers. He stated if a contractor receives a bid on a project, he does not need to displace his workers if they are sent to the union hiring hall. He pointed out a union contractor working on a public works project under a PLA is bound by the same rules as the nonunion subcontractor to that contract. He said the focus of S.B. 342 is on a "narrow piece" of public contracting.

Senator Raggio asked for verification that a nonunion contractor would only need to send his employees to the hiring hall to avoid displacement. He questioned if the contractor is assured all of his workers, regardless of the amount, would be referred to the project and approved for the project without a chance of displacement.

Mr. Coupe stated there have been a number of nonunion contractors that have bid on the SNWA project, received the bid, and performed under the contracts, both as prime contractors and subcontractors to bidders. He suggested Mr. Selby has statistics to provide on this issue. He indicated that to his knowledge no contractor has been precluded from having every one of his employees on the job.

Senator Raggio questioned the effect of adding a provision whereas employees would not be displaced if they went through the hiring hall procedure and this hiring procedure would not cost the employer more for benefits. Mr. Coupe indicated such a provision would allow the risk that the contractor’s group of employees are from out of the state. He pointed out there would be no way to require in-state employees be entitled to the benefits of the PLA as well as out-of-state employees.

Senator Raggio questioned the disqualification of out-of-state employees. Mr. Coupe stated he did not suggest out-of-state workers should not be employed.

Senator Raggio recognized it is a worthy goal to utilize local employees. He noted testimony indicated workers were not displaced even if they were employed by nonunion companies, provided they followed hiring hall procedures. He pointed out this testimony was different than what was presented to the committee 2 years ago. He said stories were told in the previous session indicating it was very unlikely that a nonunion employee would be sent out on the job from the hiring hall.

Mr. Coupe stated with two more years of experience on the SNWA project, it has shown that employees of a nonunion contractor will be placed on the job, if it is the employer’s desire. He explained the "one-for-one, seven" ratio provision referenced earlier in the meeting as a point of concern was established in effort to grant a preference to the nonunion contractors that other contractors would not have by the ability to hire former employees. He stressed this a preferential benefit rather than a limitation, noting the intent of the provision has been "turned on its head." Mr. Coupe explained the hiring hall procedures have operated to employ the remainder of the nonunion contractor’s work force, as well.

Chairman O’Connell questioned Mr. Coupe’s testimony which indicated more than 7 people can be hired from a nonunion contractor’s employee bank. Mr. Coupe verified this to be true. Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the hiring of employees was limited by trade. Mr. Coupe concurred the hiring procedures were in regards to any one specific trade.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether PLAs required hiring procedures for nonunion contractors in which the first person hired must belong to a union, the next must be a nonunion employee and so forth until the first 14 workers are hired. Thereafter, she questioned, all the employees hired belong to a union. Mr. Coupe stressed the label "union" is not permissible as a basis for referral at all in any hiring hall. He maintained all referrals must be on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to membership or lack of membership in the union, noting this is specifically stated in the SNWA agreement. Mr. Coupe declared taking the "one-for-one, seven" language out of the PLA would leave an agreement that says, "referrals from the hiring hall will be on a nondiscriminatory basis and they shall not, in any way, be based upon union membership, aspects of union constitution bylaws or the lack thereof." He stressed all employees are entitled to equal access to the hiring hall procedures, noting federal labor law prohibits an agreement that makes the hiring procedure exclusive to the union under a collective agreement, if it is discriminatory.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the reason the nonunion members must be hired through the union hall. Mr. Coupe replied the PLA states the referral will be through the union hall. Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the union dues must be paid as well. Mr. Coupe declared the workers do not have to pay anything into union dues. The PLA, he pointed out, specifically bans the payment of any union dues, explaining Nevada’s right-to-work law bans the requirement for workers to join the union once they are referred to a job. He explained the right-to-work law does not mandate hiring procedures, but allows that once a worker is employed, the union cannot thereafter compel the worker to become a union member. He stressed no one can be required to pay anything as a condition of employment.

Chairman O’Connell asked whether the contractor is required to pay union benefits. Mr. Coupe pointed out benefits are not a question of dues or membership, but a question of paying for the coverage of an employee. He concurred the contractor would have to pay for union benefits for his employee.

Chairman O’Connell clarified anyone can be hired as long as they go through the union hall, as long as the contractor is paying the benefits of that worker into the union. Mr. Coupe said as a condition of the PLA, the employer must make the contributions to the fringe-benefit programs, noting these are not payments to a union, but to the Taft/Hartley Act which specifically authorizes joint trustee funds governed by and having all of the same fiduciary protections and benefit protections as ERISA. He said the funds are union trusts, but are also employer trusts, pointing out they are not funds to which the unions have access.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether this was Mr. Hill’s understanding of proper procedures. Mr. Hill stated it was not his understanding. He commented if there were no incentives, PLAs would not be signed. He stressed people have been displaced.

Senator Porter questioned previous references to the number 7 and asked whether this amount was negotiated on the SNWA project. Mr. Coupe responded this was provisioned under the project labor agreement for the Southern Nevada Water Authority. He pointed out it was also used in the Colorado River Commission PLA. Prompted by Senator Porter, Mr. Coupe confirmed this was negotiated on specific projects and did not pertain to all PLAs.

Mr. Hill expressed agreement with Senator Raggio, noting his support for providing language to prohibit the displacement of employees.

Senator Neal questioned whether Mr. Hill would agree to paying the fee to the benefit fund if the guarantee prohibiting the displacement of employees was added. Mr. Hill stated his support was solely for the prohibition of displaced employees and did not pertain to the aforementioned fee.

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, expressed support for S.B. 342. She commented maintaining preference of local workers has been done through current bid-preference agreements. She said the SNWA’s PLA references, "You will go outside the area for the skilled help if it is not within the area."

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing, asking that in the interest of time, those wishing to provide testimony to the committee do so in writing. Brandon F. Breach, Controller, United Construction Company, submitted a prepared testimony for the record, supporting S.B. 342 with an amendment to remove all reference to using a union hall for hiring practices (Exhibit F).

Senator Alice Constandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, explained S.B. 371 would allow the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) to issue revenue bonds to build a facility on the Desert Research Institute (DRI) campus in Las Vegas. She explained the UCCSN would enter into a 20-year lease partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to house a Nevada Test Site Research Center.

Senator Titus provided background information, noting the issue of radioactive fallout from the Nevada Test Site moved to the forefront of the national political agenda in 1982. She remarked on Nevada Congressional concerns regarding this agenda at that point in history because of the support for the country’s cold-war defense policy, the test site’s fiscal contributions to Nevada, and the creation of an environment of hysteria and fear which might have kept tourists away from southern Nevada. Senator Titus indicated through her research on the Nevada Test Site she became fascinated by the history and the impact it had on both Nevada and the nation. She pointed out the changes since 1982, including the end of the cold war, the nonexistence of the Soviet Union, the voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, and DOE’s more cooperative policy. She stressed the need for information, research, and knowledge regarding the impact of history. She maintained a place is needed where test site records can be stored, categorized, and accessed.

Senator Titus explained S.B. 371 would allow bonds to be sold to build a research center at DRI, in Las Vegas. The proposed facility, she noted, would be shared by DRI and DOE, pointing out 38,000 square feet would be leased by DOE for 20 years, under contract with the possibility of renewal. She pointed out the facility would house test-site artifacts, atomic-age exhibits, storage and retrieval services for over 300,000 atomic documents and records. She said there would be public reading and research space and a conference area.

Senator Titus maintained the rarity of this opportunity, noting there is a chance to save these records, keep them in Nevada, and get the federal government to pay for it. She stated the test site was Nevada’s contribution to the free world, explaining this is a place where Nevadans have worked, protested, and met with harm. She said things exist in its history to make us proud and ashamed, but, she stressed, this does not diminish its significance. She maintained the only way to understand the legacy of the test site is to ensure that its records are accessible.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether this was added in the capital improvement budget. Senator Titus indicated there were two parts to the proposal and noted DRI has put in a budget request of $2.5 million to fund their part of the building. She expressed support for this proposal, but stressed the importance of not allowing the budget request to affect support for S.B. 371. She pointed out S.B. 371 could go forward with the bond to proceed without the funding of DRI’s budget request this session.

Steve Wells, President, Desert Research Institute, presented the committee with a packet of information regarding the proposed project (Exhibit G). He read from prepared testimony (Exhibit H) in support of S.B. 371, noting the bill would allow UCCSN to sell a 20-year revenue bond for the construction of a 38,000 square foot building. He pointed out the bond will be guaranteed by the federal government and all costs, including debt service, will be paid from federal sources. He noted the purpose of the facility is compatible with the research interests of DRI, explaining they have components involving cold-war archeology, historic preservation, and cultural resources. Mr. Wells pointed out DRI can make these documents available for scholarly studies within the state, nationally, and internationally. He added exhibits will be available for educational purposes, and he stated this will help economic diversification through tourism.

Mr. Wells explained the bond-approval process as set forth in (Exhibit H). He said DRI submitted a bond revenue proposal to UCCSN who approved it based on the understanding the bond and its debt services would be paid from federal government sources. He pointed out the mechanism for the bond payment is a 20-year lease agreement with DOE. He stressed the revenue bond does not count against the state’s bonding capacity.

Troy E. Wade, Chairman, Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business, expressed support for S.B. 371. He noted the Nevada Test Site will celebrate its 50^th anniversary in 2001. He said the test site has been a major contributor to national defense and to the economy of southern Nevada. This institute, he stated, will provide a new venue for the information collection of DOE including agency policy and mandates from two congressional hearings in the 1970s. He noted it will house artifacts and information gathered by DRI along with those describing the 50 years of the test site history and its impact on the region in southern Nevada. He said positive discussions have been had with the Smithsonian Institute regarding this collection, noting the objective is to gain eventual affiliation with the Smithsonian Institute for this collection of data. Mr. Wade expressed pride in the partnerships involved in this project.

Senator Raggio stated for the record:

Mr. Wells answered, "Yes, Senator Raggio. The part that is before you can be."

Senator Raggio questioned, "Is this a turnkey building when it is completed?" Mr. Wells replied, "The Desert Research Institute has, as Senator Titus mentioned, another component for an additional 10,000 square feet."

Senator Raggio said, "But this is operational, as I understood it when I was asked to sponsor this, if for some reason the additional square footage is not built. Is that true?" Mr. Wells clarified, "That this would be turnkey at this amount? Yes, as I understand it."

Senator Raggio continued, "So it is not dependent upon the additional square footage that we’ve [we have] been referring." Mr. Wells concurred, "That is correct."

Senator Raggio said:

Mr. Wells answered, "Yes."

Senator Titus emphasized the 50^th anniversary of the test site is the first of the year 2001. She stated the timing of the legislation would be great as there will be a lot of national attention.

Jennifer Stern, Swendseid & Stern, testifying as bond counsel to UCCSN, presented a memorandum to the committee (Exhibit I) which outlines the bill. She explained section 1 through 14 provides the definitions necessary for the bill to be operative, noting the difference is in the definition of the "project" which is, in this case, the DRI facility and in the definition of the "pledged revenue" which are the revenues of the facility including federal money. She pointed out the lease revenues from the leasing of the DRI facility to be constructed with the proceeds of the bonds will be used for the repayment of the bonds. She continued explaining section 15 provides authorization that the Board of Regents issue revenue bonds in the principle amount not to exceed $8.6 million and are to be issued pursuant to the university securities law. Section 16 of S.B. 371, she noted, authorizes the Board of Regents to request the State Public Works Board to delegate authority to it with respect to construction of the project. She explained section 17, 18, and 19 of the bill provide a construction clause and how it is to be construed. She noted these sections also provide the act is supplemental to other acts which include the university securities law act and provide a severability clause since it is a special act. Section 20, she concluded, provides the bill is effective upon passage and approval.

Chairman O’Connell clarified the state has absolutely no responsibility for backing the bonds.

Ms. Stern replied:

Chairman O’Connell questioned who would have the ultimate responsibility should there be any default.

Ms. Stern answered:

Chairman O’Connell clarified $8.6 million is the scheduled amount for the building. Ms. Stern indicated this was the maximum principal amount that they could issue bonds. If there were other revenues available, she noted, then the actual construction of contract could exceed this amount.

Chairman O’Connell queried as to the cost of the building. Mr. Wells indicated the total cost of the 38,000 square feet is the referenced $8.6 million. He said it was their aspiration to approach the Legislature for an additional 10,000 square feet and for an additional $2 million.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the building site was on property currently owned by DRI. Mr. Wells verified this to be true.

Senator Porter questioned the cost of the facility per foot. Mr. Wells indicated it was about $150 per square foot, noting the cost is typical for furnished laboratory space.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the maintenance of the building would be a part of DRI’s budget. Mr. Wells indicated the maintenance of the 38,000 square feet would be paid for by DOE.

Eric Raecke, Manager, State Public Works Board, Department of Administration, indicated the previous testimony had mentioned an "automatic delegation" of the State Public Works Board authority to build projects on state land. He indicated he would like a codicil that this would be a "negotiated interlocal" with reference to the delegation. He said the reason for this would be to ensure a good project is built in the best interest of the state. He indicated the public works board should be able to review the plans and interact with the people throughout the process. He expressed concern for a blanket delegation without "interlocal" being discussed.

Senator Raggio indicated section 16 of S.B. 371 is permissive language. He pointed out the Board of Regents may request the public works board to delegate.

Mr. Raecke said if the interpretation indicated this proposal was permissive, then he would be amenable. He noted he had not yet seen the document.

Senator Raggio clarified his support of the measure was dependant upon the understanding the project will be a decision the State Public Works Board may make, but is not required to make.

Ms. Stern indicated the senator’s interpretation is correct. She pointed out the university system would use this authority to request the State Public Works Board to delegate. She noted no other document exists currently.

Senator Raggio stated, "I think there is enough comment here at this meeting that would indicate that if the proposed document comes in form that that permissive language is obviated, that they should be aware of that."

With no further discussion on S.B. 371, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing and asked for testimony on S.B. 413.

Mr. Raecke explained S.B. 413 proposes to add in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 341.100 a duty of the building official to the duties of the State Public Works Board manager ex officio. He said this something the State Public Works Board manager has always done, but S.B. 413 would make it official. He indicated in NRS 341.145 the measure would clarify the authority of the State Public Works Board over projects funded by the Legislature or built on state lands. He continued explaining in NRS 341.161 the proposal removes the requirement to appear before the Interim Finance Committee or the Legislature for hiring a contractor to assist the architect engineers in the design of a project.

Senator Raggio questioned the reason for the removal of the requirement to present in front of the Legislature. Mr. Raecke said NRS 341.161 has always existed in the State Public Works Board statute. He stated there has always been the requirement to go before the legislative committees, noting the vast majority of all projects in the future would be design-bid award. The proposal, he explained, would allow one more avenue to bid projects, stressing it is good to get a contractor established into the actual design of the project and to use him as construction manager afterwards. He noted the measure would allow the hiring of a contractor based on qualifications without taking one by the lowest bid. He suggested this would assist in eliminating change orders because the architect would be working with the contractor during the design.

Mr. Raecke continued explaining the bill, noting a change in NRS 477.030 would clarify the State Public Works Board has plan-review authority over projects that come under NRS 341.145. He indicated in the past the State Fire Marshal Division has reviewed plans and specifications for fire safety under a delegation from the State Public Works Board. He stated S.B. 413 would clarify this authority which has always been assumed. He said there would be no change as the board would still delegate the authority for fire, life, and safety plan review to the fire marshal.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the language in section 3, subsection 5, paragraph (a) of the bill referring to NRS 341.141 regarding the charging of a "reasonable fee." Mr. Raecke explained the fee provision is the reason the measure requires a 2/3 majority vote. He said the statute allows the State Public Works Board to charge a management inspection fee for all projects funded through Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs). The fee, he noted, is 3 percent of the total cost of the project and has been charged for the last 15 years. He remarked he did not expect the fee to change.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the fee was charged when schools are inspected. Mr. Raecke replied NRS 393.110 gives the public works board the authority or responsibility to assure plans for schools have been inspected for life and structural safety. He explained a minimal fee is charged in these cases, noting the fire, life safety portion of the inspection is delegated to the state fire marshal who also charges a fee.

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District, stressed the importance of the coordination of activities between the State Public Works Board manager and the state fire marshal. He remarked on the specific needs rural areas have for the state fire marshal’s office, noting funding sources should not be taken away due to the responsibilities involved in this office. He again stressed the importance of having coordinated efforts.

Marvin Carr, State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, provided the committee with a suggested amendment and related information (Exhibit J). He expressed concern regarding the language in section 6, subsection 9, paragraph (a) of S.B. 413, "…except for plans and specifications for the construction of a building for which the state public works board has final authority for approval." He suggested the wording be changed to assure the state fire marshal’s office will generate the revenue from the fire, life safety plans review. He stressed the importance of being included in the construction process to review plans because the state fire marshal’s office is mandated by statute to inspect the buildings. This inclusion would be necessary, he noted, to inspect the buildings properly. He indicated there would be no reason he and Mr. Raecke could not come to a compromise to assure the fire marshal the funding which, he stressed, is vital for the operation of the office. He referred to the revenue as set forth in previous years (Exhibit J).

Mr. Carr stated it would not be necessary to amend the bill if there was some assurance from the public works board that the fire marshal’s office would continue to receive the revenue. He noted the average revenue per year is approximately $160,000 and is vital for the operations of the office. Prompted by Senator Raggio, Mr. Carr indicated this money came from state and local public works projects statewide.

Senator Raggio stated the language indicates the state fire marshal is not required to "assist in checking plans and specifications" if they are works in which the State Public Works Board has the final authority.

Mr. Raecke suggested the language in section 6, subsection 9, paragraph (a) of S.B. 413 should read, "The state fire marshal shall assist in checking plans and specifications for construction of projects for which the state public works board has final authority for approval pursuant to NRS 341.145 through an interlocal agreement." He indicated this would force the public works board and the fire marshal to come up with an interlocal agreement.

Senator Raggio indicated an interlocal agreement would be more appropriate language.

Mr. Raecke pointed out S.B. 474 has duplicate language.

Mr. Raecke said the duplication is language which would take away the Interim Finance Committee’s approval. He drew attention to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 605 which references language for the State Public Works Board manager to be the ex officio state building officer. He noted A.B. 605 has the language opposed by the fire marshal.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the reason for the language in section 7 of the bill which references effective dates.

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained the referenced "section 1" and "section 2" were parallel sections, noting the effective dates were set forth in a previous session and did not reflect changes by S.B. 413.

Chairman O’Connell confirmed agreement between the two parties regarding amendment language mandating an interlocal agreement in section 6, subsection 9, paragraph (a) of the bill.

Mr. Carr indicated this would alleviate his concerns if his proposed amendment (Exhibit J) could be merged with the amendment proposed by Mr. Raecke.

Mr. Raecke indicated he would work out an agreeable amendment to be submitted to the committee.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 413 and opened the hearing on S.B. 414.

Senator Jacobsen explained, in presenting S.B. 414, he was attempting to anticipate salary raises for county employees and acknowledged the lack of money in the General Fund.

Barbara Reed, Clerk/Treasurer, Douglas County, indicated she was the immediate past president of the County Fiscal Officers Association, the association from which the bill originated. She indicated the measure would include annual pay increases, and she drew attention to an amendment (Exhibit K) which would provide for 2-percent pay increases for officers in all of the counties and not just in Douglas County as proposed by the bill in its current form.

Alan Glover, Lobbyist, County Fiscal Officers Association, stated at the most recent annual conference, salaries were discussed with the consensus being the Legislature did not like constant requests for pay increases. He noted the issue had a history of being contentious, and explained the attempt in drafting the legislation was to establish a mechanism in which the counties did not have to continually address the Legislature for pay increases for county officers. Mr. Glover stated county elected officials’ salaries are substantially below their city counterparts. He pointed out S.B. 414 provides the mechanism by which this problem could be alleviated so county officers do not have to come before the Legislature every 2 years. He requested committee consideration of the measure, pointing out the necessity of salary increases to retain quality people in county offices.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell regarding total budgets, Mr. Glover indicated in the Carson City budget, the board of supervisors is offering a 2-percent pay raise to the other employees. He said department heads and the city manager may get more than the 2 percent, noting Carson City has been able to afford 2.5 to 3 percent a year pay increases. He restated S.B. 414 would remove the necessity of presenting pay raise requests for county officers before the Legislature each session.

Senator Neal questioned who would be conducting the job performance reviews on the county officers receiving the pay increase. Mr. Glover suggested the voters would review the performances of the officers every 4 years. Senator Neal pointed out the pay would be increased every year. Mr. Glover commented the suggested salaries are substantially below their counterparts.

Senator Porter questioned whether this has been handled through the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO). Chairman O’Connell told the senator that NACO did not want to testify on the issue. She pointed out there are 6 counties in Nevada which have poor financial situations, noting NACO did review the issue and decided not the take part in legislation requesting salary increases.

Senator Porter recalled in the last legislative session, the counties interested in an increase had been requested to present a resolution at a public meeting requesting the increase. He questioned whether there had been follow up on this issue at public meetings. Mr. Glover indicated the Carson City Board of Supervisors had not discussed this issue, pointing out the bill was being presented by the County Fiscal Officers Association. He maintained he felt confident this issue would have support of the board in Carson City. However, he pointed out, there are a number of counties that are having financial problems. Mr. Glover expressed concern that because certain small counties have financial problems, they may affect salary increases for all other counties in the state. He explained the bill is an attempt to find another mechanism by which petitions to the legislative body can be avoided. He stressed there needs to be a way to solve the problem which would be fair and equitable to everyone involved.

Senator Porter stated he did not think it would be fair to give any pay raises in view of the state’s financial position. He said if there is extra money around, they should attempt to raise the salaries of state employees.

Mr. Glover pointed out state and county money is separate, noting most of the counties will be offering pay raises to their employees and to their department heads. Senator Porter questioned whether this was being done by those counties having revenue problems. Mr. Glover indicated he did not know the circumstances of each county. He pointed out they had discussed mechanisms in which the Legislature authorizes the county commissioners pay raises equal to what was given to department heads. This would be a mechanism, he acknowledged, that would take care of counties without money, suggesting the Legislature would set the base and wealthier counties could give the county officers pay raises equal to those given to the department heads. This approach, he noted, has never been developed as it is difficult to get consensus on various approaches.

Senator Titus noted counties which are not in such financial hardship are requesting a raise in taxes as well. She cited examples of tax increases in the larger counties. She expressed concern that counties desiring tax increases are proposing a 2 percent guaranteed raise to their elected officials every year.

Mr. Glover responded other county employees are receiving salary increases and he pointed out there are only 6 to 8 officers per county. He stated the salaries of county officers are a minor part of the total county budget whereas county employees affect the budgets to a greater extent.

Senator Titus pointed out the elected officials make the decisions and suggested employees may not be given raises so as to subsidize other issues addressed by tax increases. She maintained salary increases are a priority decision on the part of the elected officials. Mr. Glover mentioned the Legislature, not the board of commissioners, has the authority under the law to offer county officers a pay increase.

Senator Neal questioned the type of pay raises the individuals working under the county officers receive. Mr. Glover explained these employees receive cost-of-living increases and move up in steps any where from 2.5 to 5 percent a year. He stated most of his employees will receive approximately a 7 percent raise increase, issued by contract. Senator Neal questioned whether these employees would receive longevity pay. Mr. Glover said Carson City does not have longevity pay for regular employees. He noted a few of his employees have "topped out" in terms of salary raises, explaining the city has offered these individuals $200 to $400 bonuses if performance was found to be above standard. He said it was the officer’s job to ensure the performance ratings are reflecting the quality of work.

Senator Neal stated the lowest salary listed in the bill is $12,000 for Esmeralda County Commissioner. He said a 2 percent increase to this would be $240 a year. The highest, he noted, would be the Clark County District Attorney salary which is currently $108,000 with an increase of $2,016 a year.

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, stated at the 2 percent proposed increase, it would take 15 years for the Clark County District Attorney to equal the current salary of the public defender.

Prompted by Senator Neal, Mr. Graham stated the public defender currently receives $137,000, not including longevity pay.

Mr. Graham requested the committee pass the bill out in skeletal form for review of possible available money at the end of the session.

With no further testimony on S.B. 414, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing. She called a recess at 4:35 p.m. for purposes of attending the Senate Floor Session.

Chairman O’Connell reconvened the meeting at 5:40 p.m. She asked the committee to review the Work Session Document (Exhibit L) and to consider S.B. 183 and S.B. 229.

SENATE BILL 183: Provides that criminal investigators employed by secretary of state have powers of peace officer. (BDR 23-656)

Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association (NCA), said there had been a meeting with the director of the Department of Prisons (NDOP), and as a result a consensus had been reached. He indicated the director agreed to the formation of a training advisory committee, to revise and improve the NDOP Category III training, and to allow NDOP officers to utilize allowable portion of peace officer refresher training and annual time to complete P.O.S.T.(Peace Officers’ Standards and Training) category upgrades. Upon completion of the training, Mr. Barr noted, the director has agreed to designate the officers according to their category upgrade. For any staff with current category certification other than Category III, the director will designate them by their training certificate level. He stated the NCA has agreed to support S.B. 229 based on the aforementioned provisions and to withdraw the proposed amendments to S.B. 183. Mr. Barr thanked the secretary of state for allowing the original amendment to his proposed legislation.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the NCA was in support of S.B. 229. Mr. Barr stated they would support the bill based on the provisions previously listed. The chairman clarified the amendment would be withdrawn on S.B. 183. Mr. Barr concurred and after questioning from the chairman, he indicated the director of the Department of Prisons was in attendance earlier to confirm this testimony. When asked by Chairman O’Connell if the director planned to provide confirmation in writing, Mr. Barr stated it had not been indicated that this was the director’s plan.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the director had agreed to provide Category II training to correctional officers. Mr. Barr explained officers wishing to pursuing Category II level would be allowed to do so utilizing the existing peace officer refresher provided by P.O.S.T. in addition to any annual time the officer wished to use for that purpose. Chairman O’Connell questioned whether this could be accomplished without going through NRS. Mr. Barr concurred.

Senator Care indicated he spoke with Mr. Barr regarding a bill appearing before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, related to training, and noted it was not found to be relevant to either S.B. 183 or S.B. 229. Mr. Barr stated the judiciary bill deals with in-house training and has no relationship to P.O.S.T. training.

Chairman O’Connell suggested the committee withdraw the amendment from S.B. 183. Waiting for committee members to gather for a vote, the chairman mentioned Senator Neal’s request to hold Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 16 until the following meeting.

Senator Neal indicated he was waiting for further research material.

Chairman O’Connell suggested the committee take action on S.B. 371 heard earlier in the meeting.

Chairman O’Connell suggested the committee vote on S.B. 183, noting the secretary of state requests three of his investigators be designated as peace officers.

Next, the committee addressed S.J.R. 7 which was heard earlier in the meeting regarding the liberty dollar bill.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 7.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Finally, the committee reviewed S.B. 229.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 229.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

The committee discussed management-of-time techniques in view of the pending deadlines. Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 6:01 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Angela Culbert,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: