The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, in Room 2135 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 Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Michael Schneider

Senator Valerie Wiener

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning, Clark County Assembly District No. 28

Assemblywoman Kathy A. Von Tobel, Clark County Assembly District No. 20

Assemblywoman Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Assembly District No. 5

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst

Patricia Di Domenico, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ed Taylor, Concerned Citizen

Terry Taylor, Fire Captain, East Fork Fire District, Douglas County

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Marta Golding Brown, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, City of Henderson

Raymond C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada

Robert R. Barengo, Lobbyist, Red Rock Trading Company

Tim McKoy, Owner, Red Rock Trading Company

Vice Chairman Washington opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 160 and introduced Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning, Clark County Assembly District No. 28.

Assemblywoman Chowning testified that A.B. 160 would enact a state fireworks control law. She stated that Nevada is the only state without a fireworks control law and A.B. 160 would be a moderate approach to control fireworks. Assemblywoman Chowning said that fireworks impact on property owners and natural resources, and are also a safety hazard. She emphasized the detrimental effect fireworks have on the public by causing physical injury and property damage in the millions of dollars. Assemblywoman Chowning recalled that hazardous fireworks caused the Peavine Peak fire in Washoe County. She pointed out that there is an acute problem in Clark County because even though they have strict limits on the type of fireworks people can buy, the surrounding counties do not. Assemblywoman Chowning specified Nye and Esmeralda as counties that do not have limits on fireworks, which creates the problem. People buy highly hazardous fireworks in those counties or from regulation-exempt Indian (Native American) reservations and bring them into Clark County.

Assemblywoman Chowning noted that sections 2, 6, 7, and 8 of A.B. 160 allow local entities to have the authority to ban all fireworks. She pointed out that section 3 of the bill limits the manufacture, sale, use, storage or possession of fireworks that are visually entertaining but do not leave the ground nor explode, if a local entity wishes to allow fireworks. Assemblywoman Chowning stressed that A.B. 160 will not prohibit the sale of fireworks by nonprofit organizations. She explained that section 4 of A.B. 160 establishes the penalty of reimbursement for damages incurred. Summarizing, Assemblywoman Chowning stated that A.B. 160 will help in the battle against individuals that use poor judgement.

Assemblywoman Chowning referred to "News Inside Denver.Com" (Exhibit C), information retrieved from the Internet, which is an example of how easily material is accessible to make pipe bombs out of the powder found in fireworks. She provided a memo dated May 12, 1999 (Exhibit D), which contained a list of the consumer fireworks that is allowable according to the definition outlined in the American Pyrotechnics Association Inc, Standard 87-1. Assemblywoman Chowning provided a packet of additional information and letters of support for A.B. 160 "The Difference is Deadly". (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.)

Vice Chairman Washington inquired whether the regulations stipulated in section 3 of A.B. 160 are set in federal code. Assemblywoman Chowning answered in the affirmative and deferred further explanation to Fire Marshal Michael S. Cypher. Senator Wiener asked for clarity on the role of the fire marshal and the counties as relates to ordinances and regulations. In addition, Senator Wiener questioned whether Indian (Native American) reservations were excluded from the bill. Assemblywoman Chowning replied that the regulations would set a minimum standard so that local entities could be more restrictive if they choose. She noted that the state fire marshal would set in place regulations prohibiting or restricting the type of fireworks cited in the bill. Assemblywoman Chowning pointed out that Indian (Native American) reservations are sovereign nations and the State of Nevada has no control over their activities. She added that with a state law in place help from the federal government could be obtained to enforce the law. Assemblywoman Chowning said that members of the Indian (Native American) community have stated that if a state law was adopted they would use their influence and encourage their communities to consider other ways of raising funds.

Vice Chairman Washington asked how many counties have existing ordinances restricting the use of certain fireworks. Assemblywoman Chowning responded that the language in sections 6, 7,and 8 of A.B. 160 refers to all the entities, and allows the entities to adopt ordinances as long as the ordinances are as restrictive as the regulations adopted by the fire marshal.

Assemblywoman Kathy A. Von Tobel, Clark County Assembly District No. 20, stated she was representing the Mountain Springs area which is a mountainous residential area between Pahrump and Las Vegas. She said individuals purchase fireworks that leave the ground and light the fireworks returning to Las Vegas. Assemblywoman Von Tobel explained that in this area there is one tanker truck with a 4000-gallon water capacity and there are no fire hydrants. She added that there are times when the conditions are extremely dry and conducive to fire. Assemblywoman Von Tobel mentioned that the individuals purchasing the type of fireworks that leave the ground know the fireworks are illegal in Clark County so they ignite them in this area. She stressed the need for a state law to have a comprehensive understanding of fireworks. Vice Chairman Washington asked the reason the Clark County commissioners have not decided to prohibit the use and sale of fireworks in the county. Assemblywoman Van Tobel replied that there is an ordinance against fireworks that leave the ground, making them illegal. She elaborated on the "safe-and-sane" type of fireworks that are not dangerous. Assemblywoman Von Tobel submitted, for the record, a letter from the Mountain Springs Residents (Exhibit F) explaining the effect of fireworks on their community.

Assemblywoman Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Assembly District No. 5, testified A.B. 160 addresses an important safety issue for children and residents. She stressed the importance of the bill and urged the committee to vote in favor of A.B. 160.

Michael S. Cypers, Chairman, Southern Nevada Fire Prevention Association Fireworks Committee, stated that "safe-and-sane" are the only fireworks allowed in Clark County. He said that presently the association is accumulating data depicting the type of fireworks that are causing fires. Mr. Cypers noted that the data shows that it is the fireworks that fly through the air and explode that are causing the fires. Mr. Cypers voiced support of A.B. 160 on behalf of the Las Vegas Fire Department, Clark County Fire Department, Boulder City Fire Department, North Las Vegas Fire Department, Mesquite Fire Department, and the Henderson Fire Department. Answering a question posed by Vice Chairman Washington, Mr. Cypers said that the Administrative Pryrotechtics Association, in conjunction with the Consumer Products Safety Commission, sets the standards for consumer fireworks in the United States. He explained that "safe and sane" is a type of fireworks that have safety fuses that do not explode and do not fly through the air.

Vice Chairman Washington asked why Nye County and Clark County have not passed an ordinance prohibiting the sale and use of all fireworks. Mr. Cypers replied that Clark County has a 7-day sales period prior to the Fourth of July each year that generates hundreds of thousands of dollars for not-for-profit agencies; therefore, it would be not be a "politically" astute move. Responding to the question, Assemblywoman Von Tobel said that an owner of a store in Pahrump testified before the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs that "safe-and-sane" fireworks are sold in his store, and if a state law were adopted prohibiting other types of fireworks it would cause a problem. Senator Wiener inquired whether there were statistics on the tragedies caused by fireworks. Mr. Cypers apologized for not having that information available. He related an incident of a "safe-and-sane " fireworks that caused the destruction of a garage through the neglect of the resident and also recollected that there were a few injuries caused by illegal fireworks. Assemblywoman Chowning responded that the tracking statistics are not available but according to national statistics, 62 percent of the fires due to fireworks are caused by skyrockets. She added that a young man in Clark County was burned over 50 percent of his body by explosive-type fireworks.

Bryon Slobe, Assistant State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, testified that A.B. 160 sets a minimum standard. He stated that counties could elect to not sell fireworks, or if they choose to sell fireworks they must abide by the minimum standards. Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe pointed out that A.B. 160 would help control the use of dangerous fireworks. He voiced support of A.B. 160. Vice Chairman Washington noted lines 1 through 10, on page 3, of A.B. 160, and asked if the State Fire Marshal Division would set the standards by testing the "safe and sane" fireworks. Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe replied that they might test a new type of fireworks but would adhere to Clark County’s recommendations and also use California’s "safe-and-sane" fireworks as a guide if they are within the parameters of our minimum standards. Vice Chairman Washington questioned the absence of a fiscal note. Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe responded that a fiscal note was not necessary. Vice Chairman Washington asked if there was a current practice to assess costs against the perpetrator of a fire caused by fireworks. Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe replied that assessment of costs against a perpetrator of a fire is not generally practiced. He cited an instance when the Nevada Division of Forestry and the State Fire Marshal’s office worked in conjunction to obtain a conviction in the Peavine Peak fire, and the restitution rate was a penny on a dollar.

Ed Taylor, Concerned Citizen, voiced support for A.B. 160 and expressed his concern about protecting the equity and safety of his home and neighborhood, because it becomes a "war zone" every Fourth of July. He declared dismay over people spending thousands of dollars on illegal fireworks and placing their safety and the safety of others in jeopardy. Mr. Taylor said he was appalled that the penalty for destroying someone’s house by fireworks is just a misdemeanor. He stated that he has spent many Fourth of July evenings on the roof of his home with a garden hose as a precaution against fireworks. Mr. Taylor urged the committee to pass A.B. 160, before a tragedy occurs.

Terry Taylor, Fire Captain, East Fork Fire District, Douglas County, stated that confusion over law breeds contempt. He pointed out that A.B. 160 clearly defines safe fireworks in the Nevada. Fire Captain Taylor indicated that the bill would make it easier for fire officials to identify what are legal fireworks when in the field. He noted that the Washoe tribe officials stated that if the state changed the law it would eliminate the market for the dangerous fireworks. Fire Captain Taylor declared that currently "fireworks in Nevada are unsafe and insane."

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, applauded the work of Assemblywoman Chowning and voiced support of A.B. 160. Vice Chairman Washington asked the reason the Clark County commissioners have not taken action and ban all fireworks. Mr. Musgrave replied that he did not know the board’s position but fireworks are fund-raisers and can be controlled if they are of the "safe-and-sane" variety.

Marta Golding Brown, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas; Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, City of Henderson; and Raymond C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada; praised the work of Assemblywoman Chowning and supported A.B. 160.

Robert R. Barengo, Lobbyist, Red Rock Trading Company, testified that the Redrock Trading Company is the only entity in the state that would be affected by A.B. 160 and would literally be put out of business. He outlined two ways A.B. 160 would have an effect on the Redrock Trading Company. One, it would stop the company from importing and exporting fireworks as indicated by references to "storing, possessing, and using" throughout the bill. Two, it would prohibit the company from selling specified items that are presently legal, in certain counties. Mr. Barengo questioned the reasoning behind choosing certain devices as safe having fewer than 100 grams of pyrotechnic composition when aerial devices have only 20 grams. He said that A.B. 160 sets a higher-than-minimum standard. Mr. Barengo mentioned that the Peavine Peak fire was caused by the "safe and sane" variety of fireworks. He opined that there was no need for a state law because the counties have already taken action.

Tim McKoy, Owner, Red Rock Trading Company, testified to selling consumer fireworks to 11 states. He emphasized that A.B. 160 would prohibit his company from importing, wholesaling, distributing, storage, and retail sales. Mr. McKoy stressed that all consumer fireworks must follow federal guidelines. They must have coated fuses and have a 3- to-6-second fuse burn time. Mr. McKoy stated that national statistics show that all fireworks cause fires. He said the only solution would be to totally ban all fireworks, which would be impossible, because the Indian (Native American) reservations would still sell fireworks. Mr. McKoy noted that the Red Rock Trading Company follows not only the federal guidelines but the consumer product safety commission guidelines.

Vice Chairman Washington inquired whether the federal guidelines are stated on lines 38 through 40, on page 2 of A.B. 160. Mr. McKoy answered in the affirmative but with the exclusion of "… sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of Standard 87-1 …." Mr. McKoy pointed out that his company sells those to other states but would be prohibited from selling to other states, if A.B. 160 is passed. Vice Chairman Washington asked if that would include roman candles and like devices. Answering in the affirmative, Mr. McKoy stated that if the bottle rockets were the issue he would stop selling that item. He stated he is willing to work with officials but has not had any cooperation. Concluding his remarks, Mr. McKoy said there are over 5000 different types of consumer fireworks and he questioned the ability of officials to distinguish between them.

Vice Chairman Washington inquired whether the fire department inspects his company on a regular basis. Mr. McKoy replied that the local and state fire departments have inspected his facility, but not recently. Vice Chairman Washington inquired whether there are safety regulations. Mr. McKoy answered that there are procedures for storing, maintenance of fire extinguishers, keeping brush away from buildings, and general maintenance. Vice Chairman Washington asked if the Red Rock Trading Company was ever in violation of fire safety regulations. Mr. McKoy replied that a key lock needed to be replaced by a thumb-turn lock when the company was last inspected. Senator Mathews inquired whether Red Rock Trading Company manufactured fireworks. Mr. McKoy replied that his company did not manufacture fireworks. Senator Mathews questioned how A.B. 160 would cause his business to close if the company stored and supplied fireworks. Mr. Barengo replied that the bill specifies storage and sales of fireworks. Senator Mathews commented that the merchandise would be considered inventory, not storage. Mr. Barengo iterated that if A.B. 160 is adopted it would be illegal not comply with the minimum standards as set forth in section 3, on pages 3 and 4 of the bill. Senator Wiener asked what percent of Red Rock Trading Company’s business is in the State of Nevada. Mr. McKoy replied that 8 to 11 percent of the business is in the state. Senator Wiener queried what that meant equated into a dollar figure. Mr. McKoy replied that would be approximately $300,000 in business, which includes sales to counties within the state. He added that one Indian (Native American) reservation could do $1.5 million worth of retail sales a year.

Vice Chairman Washington asked whether the concerns of the Red Rock Trading Company were expressed in the Assembly and if attempts were made to amend Assembly Bill 160. Mr. Barengo responded that an amendment was proposed to the Assembly, but was rejected. Vice Chairman Washington commented that there must be substantial revenues from nonprofit organizations, otherwise the county commissioners would have placed an ordinance prohibiting the sale and use of dangerous fireworks. Mr. McKoy said that his business pays sales tax and licensing fees, but the Indian reservations do not.

Answering a question posed by Senator Mathews, Assistant Fire Marshal Slobe clarified that the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) adopts the uniform fire code and allows for the storage and possession of fireworks in that storage facility. Continuing, he explained that as long as the storage bunkers are up to code and the area surrounding is clear, A.B. 160 would not prohibit the storage or sale of fireworks outside the state. Assemblywoman Chowning emphasized that Assembly Bill 160 is an attempt to stop the use of dangerous fireworks in Nevada, but not other states. She noted that the amendment included the aerial and explosive items as well as added another provision that if someone had an illegal item they had 30 days to: return the item to the manufacturer; dispose of the item; or modify the item. Assistant Fire Marshal Slobe reiterated that the amendment proposed to the Assembly by the Red Rock Trading Company was not acceptable because it posed further safety hazards.

Vice Chairman Washington asked how the composition of the fireworks are determined. Assistant Fire Marshal Slobe responded that the composition of the material could be weighed during testing which determines the explosive material. Mr. Barengo called attention to lines 16, 19, 26, on page 3; and reiterated that if a business handles interstate commerce and is storing fireworks in this state, then the business would come under the jurisdiction of A.B. 160.

At the request of Dennis C. Revell, written testimony and pertinent information (Exhibit G) concerning his client, the American Promotional Events Inc., a wholesale distributor of "safe-and-sane" fireworks, was distributed to the committee and entered into the record.

Vice Chairman Washington closed the hearing on A.B. 160 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 483.

Ronald R. (Ron) Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, urged the committee’s support in the passage of A.B. 483. He stated that the purpose of the bill is to provide for and require human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B testing for persons who may have transferred blood or other bodily fluids to law enforcement officers, firefighters, correctional officers, or emergency healthcare providers while performing the official duties of their position. A.B. 483 provides a method for immediate testing of individuals who refuse to provide specimen samples for testing purposes and would allow the results to be released to the person or persons possibly infected. Mr. Dreher told the committee of the experience a Reno police officer, Chris Alexander, had when he was exposed to a hypodermic needle while searching a residence.

Mr. Dreher called attention to the "Nevada Occupational Health Centers" guidelines (Exhibit H. Original is on file in the Research Library.) which spells out preventative measures public safety personnel must endure if the postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is used prior to determining whether the tested person is infected. Mr. Dreher said that page 3 of Exhibit H describes when the PEP should be administered. He referred to page 6 of Exhibit H and read the paragraph following the question, "Should I receive postexposure HIV prophylaxis?" Mr. Dreher pointed out that page 7 of Exhibit H describes the treatment’s side effects and ways to protect others from exposure to HIV. He noted that the protocol for high-risk exposures of the City of Reno is on pages 20 through 24 of Exhibit H. Concluding his review of Exhibit H, Mr. Dreher noted that page 25 is a letter in response to a request to provide data about work-related claims concerning hepatitis, meningitis, tuberculosis (TB), HIV, and scabies. Mr. Dreher related two instances when an emergency medical condition existed. He urged the committee to support A.B. 483. Chairman Rawson asked whether the postexposure protocol was effective. Mr. Dreher replied that it is effective if given within 1 to 2 hours after exposure.

Raymond C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, responded to Chairman Rawson’s question and iterated that the postexposure protocol should be given within a 1- to 2-hour period, but must be given within 24 hours to be effective and has a 80 percent success rate. Chairman Rawson questioned the fiscal note. Mr. McAllister replied that the fiscal note has been amended so that the responsible party would be the entity for which the individual works, and the state is completely removed which eliminated the fiscal note. He explained that "Cost Factors for A.B. 483" (Exhibit I) gives examples of what are considered significant exposures. Mr. McAllister defined the protocol and said it eliminates needless court time and waste of money. Senator Mathews inquired whether it would be considered an industrial injury. Mr. McAllister replied in the affirmative and added the only cost factor would be to the person.

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 483.

*****

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 15.

Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that there were a series of amendments and referred to tab A of "Work Session" (Exhibit J). Mr. Sturm explained that the first amendment was proposed because certain judges in rural areas have refused to process truancy reports for pupils aged 17 and older. He said this would amend the bill to ensure this group of pupils would be subject to the law if they had not dropped out or otherwise withdrawn from school. Mr. Sturm said the second amendment would revise section 3 and other sections as needed, to incorporate the concepts: A habitual truant can go through the process as authorized in the current law, or they can be referred to the truancy councils if the parent or guardian signs a release allowing the truancy council to review the student’s record of attendance and other related factors. Chairman Rawson commented that this would clarify the intent in statute that the student’s information not be released unless permission is given. Mr. Sturm concurred. According to Mr. Sturm, the third amendment assures that a parent would be appointed as an alternate on the board. He pointed out that the fourth amendment was proposed in a letter by the Carson City Truancy Advisory Board recommending that the number of truancies in a school year should be three and not be extended to five.

Mr. Sturm noted that Kristine K. Jensen, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens proposed amendments 5 through 8. He said that the fifth amendment would require an appeals process to the school district board of trustees for parents who disagree with the written agreement. Mr. Sturm defined that the sixth amendment requires the establishment of guidelines for subcommittee operations that are appointed from the truancy councils. He read the proposed changes to lines 30 through 32 on page 8 of A.B. 15 which was the seventh amendment. Mr. Sturm explained that the eighth proposed amendment leaves existing law as it is but provides 8 to 16 hours of community service or the existing fine ($100). Chairman Rawson concurred but suggested the suspension of a driver’s license should also be added. Senator Wiener asked how amendment seven would impact the bill. Chairman Rawson replied that currently if a student misses a period or a day the student is considered truant and there may be legitimate reasons for the absence. Senator Wiener questioned who would determine if it was a truancy. Chairman Rawson opined it would be the principal’s decision. Further discussion ensued concerning absences and truancy.

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 37.

Mr. Sturm pointed out that A.B. 37 requires the state superintendent to disseminate pertinent information concerning bills relevant to the school districts, parents and educational personnel. He explained that the State Department of Education proposed adding the phrase "to the extent practicable" allowing flexibility for summarizing complex bills. Mr. Sturm noted the second amendment (Exhibit J) raises the number of meetings for which the board of trustees of a school district will be reimbursed. Chairman Rawson commented that the school board meets more that four times a month and it is a hardship. He suggested that by adopting the amendment it would give the authority to the school board to be reimbursed for the extra meetings.

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 47.

Chairman Rawson mentioned that there is another bill with a significant fiscal note that is similar to Assembly Bill 47. He suggested that the bill be referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 280.

Mr. Sturm stated that there was a multitude of proposed amendments to Assembly Bill 280. Chairman Rawson indicated that there has been agreement by the sponsor on some of the proposed amendments, but not all. He stated that a conference committee could reconcile any differences. Senator Washington noted that this was the first occasion to review the amendments. Chairman Rawson called upon Mr. Sturm to review the amendments to Assembly Bill 280.

Mr. Sturm referring to tab B of the work session document which outlined the first two proposed amendments of A.B. 280. He highlighted amendment 3 proposed by Charlotte Crawford and Brian Lahren, and said that it could replace the entire bill. Mr. Sturm noted that amendment 11 deletes requirements governing locked seclusion and the use of timeout, however, retain the prohibition on the use of locked seclusion in schools sections. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Sturm if the defined amendments would meet the concerns of the bill’s author. Mr. Sturm responded that not all concerns would be met. Chairman Rawson inquired whether the committee wanted to review the alternate amendments in tab B of the work session document. Senator Townsend suggested that adopting amendment 3 would enable a line of communication with the sponsors of the bill. Chairman Rawson suggested that amendments 1, 2, and 3 should be adopted and stated that he did not wish to influence the committee’s direction on the bill. Senator Washington concurred with the recommendations made to A.B. 280. Chairman Rawson asked if other committee members had opinions on the issue.

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 313.

Mr. Sturm referred to tab C of the work session document and indicated that the first amendment was a conflict notice and is handled automatically. He explained that the proposed changes are to make A.B. 313 consistent with Senate Bill 126 which has passed the Senate and has been approved by Assembly Committee on Education.

Mr. Sturm read and summarized amendments 3 through 6 of the work session document. Referring to amendment 6 of the work session document, Chairman Rawson speculated that if teachers were given 1 hour for prep time, which is a significant offer, then the bill would need to go to the Senate Committee on Finance. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Sturm if any of the amendments were conflicting. Mr. Sturm replied that there were none but the fourth amendment was optional. Referring to the fifth proposed amendment of A.B. 313, Senator Wiener recalled a dialog from a previous meeting where there was a proposal to use "counties with 100,000 population or less" in place of "at least 200 pupils enrolled in the school." Chairman Rawson responded that there has not been a change to the county designation in the amendments of the bill. Clarifying the issue, Chairman Rawson said it would be difficult for high schools with less than 200 students to institute a drivers’ education course; therefore, the insertion of "may" would make the language permissive.

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 332.

Mr. Sturm stated that the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) proposed the amendments in tab D. He outlined the various proposed changes to A.B. 332 . Mr. Sturm noted that the fourth amendment was not requested by NSEA. He explained that amendments 6 and 7 would change the date from February 15 to March 1, as the date probationary employees will be notified of their termination.

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 576.

Mr. Sturm stated the bill would allow a "chief executive officer type" of person to become superintendent of schools.

Chairman Rawson opened the work session on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 37.

Mr. Sturm stated that there were no proposed amendments to A.C.R. 37.

Chairman Rawson reminded the committee that May 14 was the deadline for committee passage of bills and then opened the work session on A.B. 429, explaining that there were two proposed changes.

Mr. Sturm stated A.B. 429 makes the Health Planning Bureau permanent. Referring to chapter 442 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (Exhibit K), he added that one proposed amendment would extend the sunset to June 30, 2001, and the second amendment would extend the date from October 1, 1999 to October 1, 2001, so that state Medicaid may enter into a contract with pharmaceutical services for managed care recipients. Chairman Rawson explained that the Health Planning Bureau is a relatively new agency and the amendments would induce the agency to keep moving in that proper direction or they would lose their authority.

Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Patricia Di Domenico,

by Cynthia Cook

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

DATE: