MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means

 

Seventy-First Session

May 9, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 7:45 a.m. on Wednesday, May 9, 2001.  Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms.                     Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman

Mr.                     Bob Beers

Mrs.                     Barbara Cegavske

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning

Mrs.                     Marcia de Braga

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr.                     David Goldwater

Mr.                     Lynn Hettrick

Ms.                     Sheila Leslie

Mr.                     John Marvel

Mr.                     David Parks

Ms.                     Sandra Tiffany

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins (Excused)

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst

Lila Clark, Committee Secretary

Kathryn Fosnaugh, Committee Secretary

 

Assembly Bill 340:  Requires allocation of money from account for low-income             housing for model demonstration project to provide assisted living center             for senior citizens in Clark County. (BDR S-1143)

 

Ms. Barbara Buckley, representing Assembly District 8, introduced herself.  She said she was the sponsor of A.B. 340 concerning the topic of assisted living for senior citizens.  Ms. Buckley distributed Exhibit C and explained that Las Vegas and Nevada had an exploding aging community.  Many seniors found it difficult to afford the cost of housing.  When those seniors’ health began to fail, it would become even more difficult to find affordable, assisted living.  When spouses needed different levels of care they were often separated causing great suffering for spouses who had been together for years.  The bill would provide funding for a demonstration project for senior citizen assisted living in affordable housing.  Ms. Buckley was concerned that the legislature had not done a lot in the area of assisted living for senior citizens.  Long-term care solutions, whether assisted living or nursing homes, were elusive.  Many states were grappling with the solutions and what they should be and the legislature had an interim committee looking at solutions such as long-term care insurance.  She believed the advisability of long-term care insurance was questionable as it was very expensive and the funds had not been available to even consider it.  Some communities who were struggling with the issues still wondered if it was truly affordable, whether the premiums and the risk made it a good way for states to go. 

 

Ms. Buckley believed that one of the solutions to the long-term care crisis was to consider nonprofit assisted living.  There had been an explosion of assisted living facilities throughout the state and especially in Las Vegas.  The prices of those facilities ranged anywhere from $3,000 to $4,000 per month.  If a senior citizen was on social security and had no other income, and social security was $500 to $1,000 per month, there would be no way the person could afford the facility. 

 

Ms. Buckley went on to say that the vision behind the assisted living proposal was to create a model nonprofit demonstration project.  Senator Harry Reid had agreed to partner on the project.  Recently, under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, affordable housing had been declared a public purpose in terms of getting Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land for free or below market value.  Senator Reid had agreed to attempt to secure a parcel of BLM land so the rents on the facility could be established at a lower rate by virtue of receiving free land, which would be factored into the pro forma financial statements.  The BLM held a public hearing on the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and the regulations regarding implementation.  Senator Reid’s representatives were at the hearing and were working to secure a parcel of land for the facility. 

 

Ms. Buckley said that Phase 1 of the project would consist of 100 senior citizen affordable housing assisted living apartments.  The facility would have a common area dining room and recreation center where physicians could visit and other activities could be held to meet the community’s needs.  The site would allow seniors to avoid costly nursing homes and be able to remain home with their belongings and their spouses.  Meals would be provided in the dining room.  Support services could also include flu shots and other services from existing community providers.  The care available would depend on the individual needs of the seniors. 

 

Phase 2 of the project would add 100 units of independent, affordable housing to the site.  That would allow spouses with different needs to reside in the same facility as well as friends and extended family.  For example, if a husband required assisted living but a wife did not, spouses could either remain in a two‑bedroom assisted living apartment or on the same campus in the different levels of housing that would be available. 

 

Ms. Buckley opined that one of the hallmarks of the demonstration project was that it would bring an opportunity to come up with a new solution for a crisis that she believed was confronting the state.  It also created the best of all worlds in her opinion.  It created an opportunity for a federal, state, and private/public partnership.  Since she and Senator Reid first talked about the possibility of the bill she said she had been amazed because she received so many letters and calls from people who wanted to become involved in the project.  She received information from an organization that provided grants to states on dealing with long-term care issues.  It was called the NCB Development Services Affordable Assisted Living.  That organization provided information on how Nevada might be eligible for some seed funding for the affordable housing project.  The organization was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  Another service of NCB Development Services was the provision of technical assistance and revolving loan funds to states willing to continue with assisted living projects.  She believed it was a great opportunity for Nevada to access technical assistance to expand opportunities in that area.  The most exciting offer she received after broaching the topic of the bill was from Ms. Julie Murray, who would testify next on the bill.

 

Ms. Julie Murray, Director of Community Relations for Harrah’s Entertainment, introduced herself.  She said she was home-based in Las Vegas and that when she first read about the project she was especially excited because Harrah’s area of focus was on senior citizens.  She said Harrah’s realized they could take their charitable dollars and spread them out over a number of nonprofit areas or they could focus their charitable dollars into one area that would allow them to make a financial donation as well as bring their volunteers in and combine volunteerism with financial support.  She said that Harrah’s believed the seniors’ complex was a fabulous idea because the senior population was booming.  They had been working with the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and the State Division on Aging to identify needs within the state. 

 

Ms. Murray said Harrah’s Entertainment would like to pay for the seniors’ recreation center.  Harrah’s would bring in volunteers to staff the center.  They could rotate the chefs on a weekly or monthly basis to educate seniors on nutritious cooking, or they could bring in technical people to show seniors how to work on computers.  They would use their volunteers, who would feel as if it was their project and take ownership in it.  Harrah’s Entertainment supported the program 100 percent and had been working with Ms. Buckley to ensure that she knew she had Harrah’s full support to pay for the recreation center.  Harrah’s Entertainment was proud to be part of the project and looked forward to making it happen for the seniors. 

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked what the income level was to live in the home and what the ongoing cost to the state would be. 

 

Ms. Buckley said there would be no ongoing financial support needed from the state.  The bill requested a one-time appropriation to fund the actual building of the center.  One of the major costs involved in passing on the charges to the individuals was the cost of the land and the building.  That would result in a number that would be unaffordable to most senior citizens in need of assisted living.  The second largest costs were for ongoing operations and the level of supportive services that would be offered.  In the first proposal, Ms. Buckley envisioned being able to offer the congregate meals and supportive services in the recreation center but not at the level you would find in a nursing home in terms of a ratio of nurses to patients, which escalates costs fourfold.  Ms. Buckley said she believed that with the ongoing grants that were available and with the funds the seniors would bring on a sliding fee scale that would be sufficient.  The more money that was received to build the facility and to operate it, the less that would need to be charged to the seniors.  Ms. Buckley envisioned that there would probably be three income categories.  There would be a very low category, which would be income from $500 to $900 per month and those folks would be charged one level of rent on a sliding fee scale.  There would be two higher levels of income.  The more funds that could be secured, the larger the pool would be to pay for more seniors in the lowest level of income.  Depending upon how much money was raised, the nonprofit corporation would have flexibility between income levels. 

 

In terms of the operator, Ms. Buckley had received several inquiries of interest from experienced assisted living providers as well as experienced, affordable housing providers.  Examples included Women’s Development Center, Nevada Hand, and other experienced nonprofits who were building affordable housing currently along with for-profit corporations who were interested in joint ventures to offer experience to those interested in providing the service. 

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if there was a maximum income level that would preclude a senior from living in the project.  She also asked what the number of assisted living facilities was in Nevada that were operated on a for-profit basis.  She wondered if there was a grading system for those facilities.

 

Ms. Buckley said it would be up to the nonprofit corporation that ran the facility to determine if there was a maximum income level for seniors living in the facility.  She indicated that she was not sure the entire $6 million under A.B. 340 would be available but proposed combining whatever level of funding she was able to achieve with the free land.  She said she would then go to the city or the county in an attempt to secure federal home funds to make the project possible.  The more grants that were received, the more the nonprofit corporation would be able to avoid focusing on the higher-end senior.  Ms. Buckley said she did not know the number of assisted living facilities in the state.  She thought there were one or two assisted living facilities for individuals with disabilities such as the Carol Haines Green Apartments.  There were currently no nonprofit assisted living facilities for seniors. 

 

Ms. Leslie indicated that she had served on the long-term care interim committee and was especially pleased to see the project come forth.  She thought the public/private partnership model was the best solution and she commended Harrah’s for its generous offer.  She asked for confirmation that Harrah’s was actually offering to build the recreation center and asked for an estimate of the value of that offer. 

 

Ms. Murray answered that the value of the offer to build the recreation center was between $750,000 and $900,000 and probably would fall in the $800,000 range. 

 

Ms. Leslie commented that in addition to the offer to build the recreation center, Harrah’s would also provide volunteer involvement in the facility.

 

Ms. Murray said that was what Harrah’s liked best about the proposal.  After the center was built, there would be a location for the volunteers to go to help seniors. 

 

Ms. Tiffany stated that she had talked to Charles Horsey, Administrator of the State Housing Division, about funds that were available in the Housing Division.  She had also met with the city, the county, and HUD.  From those meetings she had determined that there were grants available and she wondered if Ms. Buckley had applied for grants. 

 

Ms. Buckley said that she would be applying for grants in the future.  She did not want to contact the city and the county until she could show that as an Assemblywoman, she was able to convince the state to be a partner in the project.  Ms. Buckley said she hoped she would be successful in receiving a General Fund appropriation as well as looking at the Housing Division for funds.  She acknowledged the very generous commitment from Harrah’s and a commitment from the federal government.  Ms. Buckley said they would assess the shortfall and then ask the city or county to be a partner in the project.  She reported that Mayor Goodman of the City of Las Vegas had indicated to her a willingness to participate. 

 

Ms. Tiffany commented that she liked the project although she was unsure whether there would be any General Fund money available for the project.  She said that if Ms. Buckley put together a consortium to work on the project after the session she wanted to be a part of it.  She felt the project was long overdue and worthwhile.

 

Mrs. Chowning congratulated Ms. Buckley and Harrah’s for their partnership.  She reported that one of the first decisions she was able to make years ago as a Planning Commissioner with the city of North Las Vegas was to approve an apartment complex that was supposed to be entirely used by seniors.  Unfortunately, part of the complex had been changed to regular tenants because they were unsuccessful in being able to afford to continue renting to seniors only.  The part of the facility that included the central meeting area was still used for seniors.  Mrs. Chowning said that when she walked door-to-door campaigning, that complex was one of the first places she went because the seniors were wonderful to visit with.  Before the project was built, the neighbors were very concerned about the number of ambulances and constant traffic that would be present but that had not turned out to be the case.  Mrs. Chowning reiterated that it was difficult from a management standpoint to be able to afford to rent to low-income seniors only.  She believed that starting the project on the “upside monetarily” would help make the project a success. 

 

Mr. Parks commended Ms. Buckley for the effort.  One year ago, he moved his 93-year-old mother from her own apartment into an assisted living facility.  She moved into a private pay facility where she had her own apartment, a common area with televisions, and a kitchen.  She could prepare light meals in her apartment and her remaining meals were served in the dining room.  It worked very well and he thought that type of facility would allow people to maintain their dignity and have a better sense of personal well-being. 

 

Ms. Buckley added that since she introduced the project, she had received some suggestions from very experienced assisted living providers.  She introduced Mr. Phil Shapiro from Traditions Living Community, who operated assisted living facilities in Reno. 

 

Ms. Buckley offered Exhibit D for the committee’s consideration, which was an amendment to the bill.  She said she believed everyone would like to see more assisted living facilities built throughout the state.  She suggested allowing the State Housing Division to extend bond financing for senior assisted living projects that would have a minimum set-aside of units for affordable assisted living.  The Housing Division would be granted authority to waive its credit enhancement requirements to stimulate both private for-profit and nonprofit sponsorship of senior housing communities with affordable housing set-asides.  She believed it would be another tool that could be utilized if structured correctly to stimulate more assisted living throughout the state without any state appropriation.  Ms. Buckley said she had discussed the idea with Mr. Horsey of the State Housing Division who indicated he was supportive of the idea but had to discuss it with the Governor. 

 

Mr. Phil Shapiro, a member of a limited liability corporation called Traditions Living Communities, introduced himself.  He said he had been in the senior housing industry since 1986.  He was a former hospital administrator and gravitated toward senior housing because he came from southern Florida and it was obvious to him there was a great need for senior housing.  He moved to Nevada approximately six years ago.  He pointed out that Nevada surpassed Florida as having the highest per capita senior population in the United States.  There had been a great evolution of housing products for seniors in the last ten years.  Assisted living was one variation and one model that had taken precedence because one of the goals of that type of product was to keep seniors out of nursing homes.  He thought that the greatest opportunity on the horizon in Nevada today was the ability to develop communities that would be fostered by both not-for-profit and for-profit developers that would provide some form of set-aside of low to moderate housing blended with market rate housing.  He commended Ms. Buckley for the project and said it would be a catalyst for projects to come.  The need was incredible and one of the challenges initially was the capital cost of the communities.  When the capital cost was converted into the actual amortized debt payment, which was one portion of the cost of the project, that cost could exceed 30 to 35 percent of the total operating cost of a senior housing community.  By virtue of receiving a grant to build a community for free or close to free by combining a series of grants would take away the mortgage, which was a considerable advantage for anyone operating senior housing communities or any type of real estate venture.  Mr. Shapiro felt that the challenge was to find a broad range of supporters, endowers, and grantors to the project.  Mr. Shapiro confirmed that there was tremendous opportunity with regard to foundation grants, and HUD, which happened to be the largest financier of senior housing in the country.  There were numerous programs, including community reinvestment dollars, that would be available.  Mr. Shapiro applauded the proposal and believed Nevada could take a lead in the United States in developing unique arrangements that would foster senior housing communities.  He said that Nevada would see the 85 years old and older population in the country and in Nevada skyrocket over the next 40 to 50 years at an insurmountable rate so the project would be only the beginning. 

 

Ms. Carla Sloan introduced herself.  She represented the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), an organization with 247,000 members in Nevada and over 34 million members nationwide.  She testified from Las Vegas in support of A.B. 340. 

 

Ms. Sloan testified that Nevada had one of the fastest growing populations of persons 65 and older and the fastest growing population in Nevada were the elderly and disabled.  Seniors were living longer, but not necessarily better.  Consequently, the need for long-term care, including community intervention and assistance, was greater than ever. 

 

Ms. Sloan said that AARP attempted to ensure that all persons, especially the frail elderly, low-income families, persons with disabilities, and others of all ages requiring health or assistance with daily living on a continuing basis, had access to affordable, quality long-term care in the most appropriate and preferred setting.  Improved funding of the long-term care system was critically needed to address the crisis that threatened the quality and availability of care in long-term care settings.  Assisted living was an essential component of the long-term care continuum of services. 

 

Ms. Sloan reported that AARP saw the bill as critical to seniors living in Nevada.  A.B. 340, along with the continued study of long-term care in Nevada, the assurance of access to a well-trained, quality caregiver work force, strengthened respite care, and ongoing ombudsman oversight were important elements to provide positive solutions to the challenges facing the state. 

 

There being no further testimony on A.B. 340, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 340 and opened the hearing on A.B. 590. 

 

Assembly Bill 590:  Makes appropriation to Welfare Division of Department of             Human Resources for energy bill assistance for low-income Nevadans.             (BDR S-1414)

 

Mr. Michael Willden, Administrator of the Welfare Division, testified in support of A.B. 590.  He provided Exhibit E to the committee, which was a copy of his testimony and a spreadsheet showing demographic detail of low-income home energy assistance applicants and recipients. 

 

Mr. Willden supported the bill, which would provide a $5 million appropriation to the Welfare Division to assist low-income families with their energy bills.  Energy costs had increased significantly.  To assist low-income families with their high energy bills, several changes had been made.  The division had changed the benefit matrix in the low-income energy assistance program to increase the average payment going to low-income families for energy costs.  That had been done with federal dollars.  The division had received supplemental, emergency, contingency funds in the low-income energy block grant.  The division would have public hearings in June to change the program from an eight-month-a-year-program to a year-round program.  The division had hired additional contract staff to speed up the processing of the applications received and the processing time had been reduced from a high of 14 weeks to 3 to 4 weeks.  The division had also made policy changes to allow families to elect to have their energy credits paid on either their heating bill or their summer cooling bill.  Past program practices only allowed southern Nevada recipients to split their payments between heating and cooling.  Now all families could split their payments. 

 

Mr. Willden said the changes had been helpful and the low-income energy budget had been increased from approximately $2 million in FY2000 to approximately $3.1 in FY2001 and continuing into the next biennium.  Mr. Willden said the division was seeing an increased need and additional funds were needed and that was what prompted the bill.  He said that last year the division took applications from approximately 9,600 households and served 7,844 of those households.  This year the division had received and accepted over 11,000 applications and that had primarily been increasing since January and February 2001 when most people had seen the increases in their utility bills.  That was a 15 percent increase over the previous year. 

 

Mr. Willden reminded the committee that the last time the state had an energy crisis in 1990 and 1991, the program peaked at approximately 14,000 to 15,000 applications.  He believed that was an indicator of where the division would be again.  He said he had spoken with Southwest Gas and Nevada Power representatives who indicated that in comparing their February 2000 data to their February 2001 data, they had a 48 percent increase in delinquent accounts. 

 

Mr. Willden said his request was simple.  If the division was going to have the capability to assist low-income families with their energy bills, they would need additional funding and had requested the $5 million one-shot appropriation.  That would allow the division to serve about 16,000 families at the current average benefit of about $304 per family.  The Census Bureau estimated there were approximately 147,000 low-income families below the 150 percent poverty mark.  Serving 16,000 families was approximately 11 percent of the potentially eligible families.  Mr. Willden said that the Welfare Division urged the committee’s support of the bill. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked how the bill differed from Assemblywoman Parnell’s bill that also called for a $5 million appropriation. 

 

Mr. Willden said that A.B. 590 did not address the eligibility limit.  A.B. 209, that was sponsored by Ms. Parnell, also requested an appropriation but would raise the eligibility standard from 150 percent of poverty to 200 percent of poverty.  Mr. Willden said the division’s position was that it could serve many more families at below 150 percent of poverty. 

 

Ms. Leslie referred to the spreadsheet in Exhibit E and asked if all the recipients shown were within 150 percent of poverty level. 

 

Mr. Willden said that the spreadsheet showed the breakdown of families at various percentages of the poverty level. 

 

Ms. Jan Gilbert, representing the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, introduced herself.  She said she supported Ms. Parnell’s bill and also supported A.B. 590.  She felt it was an essential part of the assistance to low-income families and urged the committee to support the bill. 

 

Ms. Carla Sloan, representing AARP, appeared before the committee to support A.B. 590.  AARP also voiced support for A.B. 209, a bill previously heard by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.  Ms. Sloan strongly supported the establishment of a state universal service program that provided assistance with energy costs to low-income Nevadans.  She realized that such a program could not be developed and put in place before the need appeared.  The hot summer months were quickly approaching in southern Nevada and there would be an immediate need for assistance.  A.B. 590 offered a one-shot appropriation to fill the gap while the long-term remedies proposed in A.B. 349 were adopted.  Ms. Sloan said the Assembly supported A.B. 349 and it was currently under consideration in the Committee on Commerce and Labor.  For that reason, the AARP supported A.B. 590. 

 

There being no further testimony on A.B. 590, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 590 and opened the hearing on A.B. 70. 

 

Assembly Bill 70:  Makes various changes with respect to affordable housing.             (BDR 40-43)

 

Mr. Brian A. Sagert, representing the Housing Authority of the City of Las Vegas, introduced himself.  He said he supported A.B. 70, which made an appropriation of $2,950,000 to the Housing Authority for its senior construction projects and senior supportive services.  Mr. Sagert referred to Exhibit F that described three separate projects mentioned in the bill. 

 

The first project was the construction of the 11^th Street senior apartments.  He said the bill specified 150 units but that should be corrected to 100 units based upon the proposal that had been submitted to the state.  The 11^th Street senior apartments would be targeted at the income level of below 60 percent of area median income.  Sixty percent of those units would be restricted to incomes for seniors that were 45 percent and below area median income.  The total project cost was $7,564,390 and the financial package was currently being assembled.  Mr. Sagert said they had applied for tax credits in the current year to help support the project.  He said that approximately 25 percent of the Las Vegas population was seniors 55 years of age and older and approximately 28 percent of the population of Clark County was seniors 55 years of age and older with an average income of approximately $24,000.  Mr. Sagert felt that the project would add needed units at an affordable price in the Las Vegas community for seniors.  The rents were targeted to be affordable and the project would be located adjacent to a non-aided senior service building owned by the Housing Authority, the Howard Cannon Center, which provided senior services.  The facility would have a club room common area. 

 

Mr. Sagert described the second project itemized in the bill as the water connection cost for 58 new pads at Rulon Earl Mobile Home Park.  The appropriation of $450,000 needed for this project was included in the $2,950,000 total appropriation requested in A.B. 70.  The Housing Authority owned a non-aided parcel that provided rental pads for mobile homes for seniors.  The Housing Authority had obtained a parcel adjacent to the site that currently was used for senior housing.  The Housing Authority intended to develop the parcel as a continuation and extension of the project to provide mobile home pads for seniors.  He described it as a home ownership opportunity for seniors.  Seniors could bring their mobile homes and rent pads at affordable rates.  Mr. Sagert projected the rents to be between $295 to $315 per month in comparison to lot rents in the Las Vegas area of $365 to $484 per month.  The project would provide an alternative to seniors for affordable housing opportunities. 

 

Mr. Sagert said the Housing Authority had concern with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 461A.280, subsection 3, paragraph (b), because it stated that there must be individual water meters for each mobile home pad.  He said that if the statute could be changed to make an exception for governmental or quasi-governmental entities, that were going to develop affordable housing and retain ownership of that development, to utilize a master meter system would certainly relieve the economic burden of installing individual meters for that site.  The cost was estimated to be $374,000 for individual meters and it would probably be approximately $50,000 for a master meter. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Sagert to supply the committee with the language that should be changed in the statute to allow the master meter. 

 

Mr. Sagert answered by saying that the proposed language was included in Exhibit F.  He said the proposed wording was an extension to the wording in subsection 3 of the statute. 

 

Chairman Arberry informed Mr. Sagert of the history of the wording in the statute.  He said the mobile home owners requested the law be changed to provide for individual meters.  Chairman Arberry asked for a confirmation that the proposed change would only apply to quasi-governmental entities. 

 

Mr. Beers remarked that this was a policy issue.  He said that after the current law had been put into effect, no private sector individuals came forward to build any new parks so a shortage was created.  Now the public sector was attempting to come forward and build parks and they were unable to do it either.  He believed that although it was a well-intentioned piece of legislation when it was enacted years ago, it had served to reduce the number of affordable housing units that were available, particularly in Las Vegas.  Mr. Beers said that the committee might want to consider extending the exemption under an emergency bill and then submitting it to the appropriate policy committee for consideration.  Mr. Beers suggested making the exception available for all people, not just those in the public sector who were trying to develop affordable housing projects.  He said the fact was that no one had built a project for six years because of the statute requiring individual water meters. 

 

Mr. Sagert continued and said that the third allocation included in A.B. 70 was for supportive services for seniors.  The Housing Authority currently had one senior service coordinator and four resident assistants that serviced 950 seniors.  They provided services that included transportation, assistance with completing paperwork regarding medical, social security, food stamps, and a variety of applications.  They also coordinated housekeeping services, telephone assistance, meals to be delivered to homebound clients, assistance to the clients both on the telephone and during appointments with service agencies and a realm of different activities that were provided for the seniors at the sites.  The appropriation would allow the Housing Authority to hire additional coordinators to assist the seniors in the current developments and in the anticipated development of additional senior housing.  Mr. Sagert said there were 498 new senior units currently under development.  That would allow the Housing Authority to continue to provide the services to seniors.  Also included in the packet was information on some of the additional units being built demonstrating that the Housing Authority was maintaining its vision of trying to provide affordable, quality housing to individuals in the Las Vegas community. 

 

Mr. Hettrick complimented Mr. Sagert on Exhibit F.  It was well done and thoroughly explained the projects. 

 

There being no further testimony on A.B. 70, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 70 and opened the hearing on A.B. 592. 

 

Assembly Bill 592:  Makes appropriations from state general fund and state             highway fund to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for     

            various information technology upgrades. (BDR S-1417)

 

Mr. Alan Rogers, Public Safety Technology Division Chief, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety, introduced himself.  He said the appropriation contained in the bill would fund three major projects in the department. 

 

The first project was to fund a share of the National Crime Information Center‘s (NCIC) 2000 upgrade, which was required to be used to communicate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for continued service in the NCIC program.  The system had undergone a major upgrade over the past ten years and Nevada had a deadline of July 2002 to comply with the changes in the system that had been made. 

 

The second project was to fund an upgrade to the division’s Oracle software, which was the database used for the criminal justice system. 

 

The third project was to provide desktop services to the agencies within Public Safety and to upgrade from the current Corel software to Microsoft software.  They had determined that the division had multiple versions of Corel throughout the department and most agencies that they communicated with had changed to Microsoft software. 

 

Mr. Beers asked for a breakdown on the costs of each of the three major components of the appropriation. 

 

Mr. Rogers answered that the bill was divided by the funding sources.  Since the department utilized a zero-based budget, all the agencies were billed for the services they received.  The cost of the software would be distributed to the users of the software.  Therefore, the appropriation was divided between the Highway Fund and the General Fund. 

 

Ms. Tiffany asked why the division’s request for funding was not included in the budget. 

 

Mr. Rogers said it was not put in the budget because the agency was not allowed to present a budget exceeding the previous year’s budget.  The requests included in the bill were referred to as one-shot appropriations because once the equipment had been purchased there would be no ongoing cost for equipment. 

 

Ms. Tiffany asked if the requests had been submitted to the Budget Office or to the Governor. 

 

Mr. Rogers answered that the requests had been submitted and a decision was made to request an appropriation separate from the budget. 

 

Mr. Don Hataway, representing the Budget Division, explained that the appropriation requested in A.B. 592 was included in The Executive Budget, however, an amendment was submitted on March 9, 2001.  It originally requested Highway Funds and after the agency completed its cost allocation, it was identified that a certain amount of the appropriation should be from the General Fund.  The March 9 amendment recognized the $442,000 that was General Fund.  Normally, one-time appropriations for this type of activity from either the General Fund or the Highway Fund were recommended as one-shot appropriations. 

 

Ms. Tiffany asked for confirmation that the requests contained in A.B. 592 had been included in The Executive Budget. 

 

Mr. Hataway reiterated that the requests had been included in the budget.  He said the original bill in the list of one-shot appropriations was recognized as Highway Funds and with the cost allocation an amendment had been submitted to include some funding from the General Fund. 

 

There being no further testimony on A.B. 592, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 592 and opened the hearing on A.B. 564. 

 

Assembly Bill 564:  Makes various changes relating to public employees’             benefits program. (BDR 23-1346)

 

Mr. Dave Ziegler, Principal Research Analyst representing the Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Division, introduced himself.  He said Mr. Bache asked him to present the bill to the committee although he was not advocating for or against the measure.  He was there to provide information only and answer questions.  The bill originated because of a committee request from the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs.  The Chair gave the staff a conceptual outline to work with and between the Research staff and the Legal Division, it was worked into A.B. 564.  The origin of the bill was testimony that Assembly Government Affairs took on the Public Employees’ Benefits Program early in the session.  The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs voted as the deadline approached to amend the bill without recommendation and re-refer it to the Ways and Means Committee. 

 

Mr. Ziegler reported that testimony in the Assembly Government Affairs Committee indicated that for the current plan year, 2001, retirees were rated separately and received a larger rate increase than active state employees.  As a matter of policy, that contradicted the concept of pooled risk or shared risk and it was also contrary to the long-standing history of the program.  Testimony from the Public Employees’ Benefits Program indicated that the retiree increase would actually have been larger based on the actuarial data but that the program bought the rate down. 

 

Mr. Ziegler went on to explain that the other genesis of the bill was a matter that came up in calendar year 1999 known as the Medicare carve out.  The Medicare carve out was implemented only for one calendar year, 1999, by the Public Employees Benefits Program.  It was a reduced benefit for retirees on Medicare.  Prior to January 1, 1999, the program served as Medicare gap coverage.  Once a person received a Medicare benefit, after paying the applicable deductibles and co-pays, the state plan covered the remainder.  As of January 1, 1999, the carve out came into play and under that plan, if a person was entitled to a $5,000 benefit under the state plan and a $5,000 Medicare benefit, because of the carve out the person would receive no benefits from the state plan.  The Medicare carve out was a reduced benefit for retirees on Medicare and it was designed to save money for the plan.  The estimates as to how much it would have saved the plan were between $1.5 to $3 million per year.  The annual outlays from the fund that the Committee on Benefits used to pay benefits was approximately $100 million per year. 

 

Mr. Ziegler said the Medicare carve out was implemented during the period in which the program under the Committee on Benefits was having serious financial problems and according to information in Mr. Ziegler’s files, there was a $38 million swing in the balance in the fund during that biennium from a $12 million surplus to a $26 million deficit.  Of all the correspondence the Research Division handled on the program, he believed the carve out was one of the most frequent complaints, if not the most frequent complaint.  The testimony received in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was that the Medicare carve out was still a problem.  The terminology had changed but retirees were still faced with higher out-of-pocket expenses than they had prior to January 1, 1999. 

 

Mr. Ziegler continued his testimony with a description of the five things the bill would do.  The first was that it placed in statute the concept of one, large risk pool for state employees and retirees.  The idea was that it was a shared risk, the largest possible risk-sharing pool for state employees and retirees.  That was included in Section 6, page 4, line 2, of the bill.  The second thing the bill would accomplish was to do away with the Medicare carve out and other similar plan designs.  It returned the benefit for retirees on Medicare to what it was prior to January 1, 1999.  The reason for that was that the members who decided to participate in the program prior to January 1, 1999, thought they were getting the enhanced benefits and then the benefit was reduced and changed after they had elected to participate in the program.  Some people who were over age 65 and elected to participate in the program may not have the option of going to some other plan and getting some other coverage because they may have passed up open enrollment periods.  Because that was the benefit the retirees thought they were getting, the bill would restore the benefit.  That change was in Section 3, page 28, line 28 of the bill.  The third thing the bill would do was require an annual report.  During testimony and during the period when the staff was preparing the bill for introduction, it was difficult to obtain information from the Public Employees’ Benefits Program regarding exactly what the claims experience was and other information needed for an evaluation of the program.  Because of that, the bill would call for an annual disclosure from the program of claims experience for active members, retirees, and retirees on Medicare.  That was contained in Section 6, page 5, line 7, of the bill. 

 

Mr. Ziegler said there were two amendments added to the bill in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs.  The first amendment split the combined Legislative Retirement and Benefits Committee that was formed during the 1999 session.  In the 1999 Legislative Session, the Committee on Benefits was eliminated and the Public Employees’ Benefits Program was created.  In 1999 a combined Legislative Retirement and Benefits Committee was created and A.B. 564 would split the committees.  One committee would be formed for retirement and one committee formed for the Public Employees’ Benefits Program.  Mr. Ziegler said that would return the system to the way it was structured prior to 1999.  Mr. Zeigler added that Chairman Bache of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs indicated that the combined committee did not fulfill his expectations during the interim after the 1999 session.  Mr. Zeigler said that was scattered throughout the bill in Sections 1, 2, 5, and 7. 

 

According to Mr. Zeigler, the final amendment was added in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs to make an appropriation for reproductive health services for certain participants.  Testimony before the Government Affairs Committee indicated that in northern Nevada there was only one health maintenance organization (HMO) available.  Persons who selected that HMO had certain restrictions on reproductive health services both in the medical arena and the pharmacy arena.  Their only other option, since there was only one HMO in northern Nevada, was to join the self-funded program.  A person in northern Nevada was faced with either joining the HMO and taking those restrictions on reproductive health benefits or joining the self-funded plan.  The bill would make an appropriation to provide reproductive health benefits to those people who selected the HMO in northern Nevada.  The $100,000 appropriation was a “placeholder” that would suffice pending further analysis.  That was in Section 9, page 7, of the bill. 

 

Mr. Zeigler asked to make one clarification regarding the shared risk that he had mentioned earlier in his testimony.  That concept did not run to the non-state participants in the plan.  The majority of participants in the Public Employees’ Benefits Program were state active employees and retirees. However, there was also a group of non-state active employees and retirees in the program.  They were already required by statute to be rated separately.  When reference was made to the “one big pool,” that would not include non-state participants in the plan. 

 

Mr. Marty Bibb, representing the 7,700 members of the Retired Public Employees of Nevada  (RPEN), introduced himself.  He said he supported A.B. 564 and thought Mr. Zeigler had done a good job of walking the committee through the tenets of the bill.  Mr. Zeigler said there had been much discussion and debate on the issue in the Government Affairs Committees and also at the Interim Finance Committee as well as in the general government subcommittee.  He said he had appeared to testify on several bills related to the topic of group insurance and he believed that the passage of A.B. 564 would return the program to what the original intent of the program was as stated in Legislative Study 83-15 that was conducted in 1983.  It was established at a time when private insurance companies had provided health insurance for the state.  There was difficulty in getting companies to bid on the insurance for a variety of reasons.  The thought was that going to a self-funded program would allow the state to offer competitive prices and a competitive product.  The program had worked quite well over the years and there had been major challenges and changes in the last several years as discussed by Mr. Zeigler.  The biggest change was the Medicare carve out of 1999 that was so onerous.  He said Mr. Zeigler’s estimate of the impact of the Medicare carve out was approximately $1.5 million to $3 million depending upon whose number was used.  The net effect was that there was approximately $9.2 million of cuts to program benefits made in 1999 in response to the program crisis.  Of the $9.2 million, more than $3 million came from the Medicare carve out alone, which affected approximately 8 percent of the people in the plan.  In essence, you had 8 percent of the participants taking 35 percent of the “hit.”  Very clearly the RPEN and its members thought that was unfair. 

 

Mr. Bibb summarized how the Medicare carve out worked and why it was an important issue.  If a person had Medicare coverage, Parts A and B, Medicare at age 65 would become the primary payer and would typically pay 80 percent of allowable charges after the deductibles were met.  That would mean that the State’s liability, if the person was in the group insurance plan, would be limited to approximately 20 percent.  Mr. Bibb said that at that point that was why the plan could offer that type of coverage to people in the plan.  He said there were several other states who still coordinated benefits.  That meant Medicare would pay its 80 percent of the allowable charge and the Public Employees’ plan would pick up the remaining 20 percent after Medicare’s payments had been made.  That was changed when the plan went to the Medicare carve out and it went to something called “integration of benefits.”  The net effect was that retirees who were Medicare eligible could still face significant out-of-pocket costs.  Mr. Bibb said in 2001 the amount was $2,000, although it was $3,000 in 2000 under the integration of benefits.  It was $3,000 under the Medicare carve out.

 

Mr. Bibb said that the RPEN believed philosophically a return to what the intent of the program was would be appropriate.  They also believed that active state and retired state employees should be pooled together.  He believed that was also what was foreseen in the 1983 study that said state retirees should not be computed as a separate cost entity in the program from active employees.  Mr. Bibb said he recognized that funding was a major issue and that was why he had spoken on behalf of additional funding for the Public Employees’ Benefits Program.  For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001, there would be a reduction from approximately $209 per month subsidy for retirees to $202 per month.  There was a concurrent type of reduction for state actives in the plan.  Even in the Medicare carve out year when the out-of-pocket expense was significantly increased for Medicare retirees, at least the rate of increase that active state employees and retired state employees experienced was the same.  The actuary said for that year, the active state employees’ increase should be 16 percent; state retirees should have been 50 percent.  However, the Committee on Benefits blended those rates together evenly so both groups experienced a 23.7 percent rate increase.  That did not happen in 2001.  Active state employees’ rate increase was 4.3 percent and retired state employees’ rate increase was between 11 and 12 percent.  Mr. Bibb said he believed he was seeing a philosophical move away from that.  The plan had not gotten back to a coordination of benefits and those were the reasons why Mr. Bibb was representing the RPEN before the committee in support of A.B. 564. 

 

Mr. Bibb said he saw all kinds of problems with the plan.  Money was probably the biggest problem and that was why he had spoken up in support of additional funding for the program.  As Mr. Zeigler had indicated, numbers were also a problem.  Mr. Bibb said they were a problem because it had been a challenge in some instances getting the correct numbers as to the money in the program and the costs and subsidies, etc.  Mr. Bibb provided numbers that he believed were valid.  For fiscal year 2001, The Segal Company, the Public Employees’ Benefits Program’s consultant, did a survey that showed the retired state employees in the plan cost the plan 109 percent.  That meant that for every dollar of premium they brought in, they spent $1.09 in benefits.  Mr. Bibb said that he understood that was a relatively healthy retiree group.  Programs that spent up to $1.15 or $1.20 for every dollar of premium generated were “tilted out of shape.”  Mr. Bibb stated that some people thought the non-state participants, who were pooled separately in the program, were the cost driver.  Interestingly, the non-state retirees for the year 2001 actually cost the plan 93 cents for every dollar paid into the plan.  They used seven cents less in benefits per dollar than they generated in premiums so they actually saved the program money.  Those numbers came from an August 2000 Segal study that also recommended instead pooling of active state employees and retired state employees, it recommended the retired state employees and retired non-state employees be pooled together.  That would combine only the older people in the plan and then you would not have a true insurance pool because it would not include people of all ages.  Mr. Bibb read from the most recently released report from The Segal Company dated March 8, 2001, that “The calculated present value of the state retiree health care liability for the next 20 years based on our projection totaled $779 million and represents only the present value of unfunded projected costs over the next 20 years.”  At that same meeting, the same Segal consultant was asked by one of the members of the Public Employee Benefits Board how far in the future accurate numbers could be projected in a volatile health care climate such as existed today.  The same person who generated the report saying that the cost for retirees over the next 20 years would be $779 million, answered the question by indicating accurate costs could be projected about 18 months into the future.  Mr. Bibb said that if costs could be predicted accurately for only 18 months, he did not see the value of calculating a 20-year value unless it was intended as shock value.  Mr. Bibb said he would also be interested in why the study did not include a 20-year projection of costs for active employees.  That made it impossible to determine the benchmark and Mr. Bibb found it to be frustrating and perplexing. 

 

Mr. Bibb reiterated that the program problem was primarily money and additional money to support the program should be generated.  He recommended that the budgets for the active state employees and retired state employees should not be consolidated if the money issues were not clear.  He thought there were many questions relative to all the numbers available.  He did not think they were false numbers, but he was unsure whether they were relevant numbers and he wanted to know the perspective of those numbers to other issues and numbers in the program.  If people dropped out of the plan because they were rated separately, could not afford the premium, and potentially became indigent, that would not be a satisfactory solution.  Mr. Bibb said he knew that retirees were a cost to the plan and would never say they were not.  So too, were pharmaceuticals, doctors, hospitals, and many other things. 

 

Mr. Bibb said the real issue was that if you were a worker for the state of Nevada and had been employed for 30 years, starting in the health plan as a young person, perhaps you underused and overpaid your premiums for a few years and then as you aged, you probably overused and underpaid the premiums.  That was one of the basic tenets of a group insurance pool.  He believed that to now separate retirees because of alarming trends in terms of different rates of increase was not positive or encouraging. 

 

Mr. Bibb closed his presentation by saying that the legislature two years ago appropriated $25 million to bail out the self-funded program and he thought particular attention should be given now so that would not recur.  Because of that, the RPEN supported the tenet of reporting relevant numbers regarding the program to the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. 

 

Mr. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director of the State of Nevada Employees’ Association (SNEA), introduced himself.  He explained that he was neutral on A.B. 564 because he believed there were good parts of the bill and parts that he was not supportive of. 

 

Mr. Gagnier referred to the change contained in Section 7, page 5, of the bill.  SNEA supported the change that would create a new committee.  Mr. Gagnier said he strongly encouraged the committee to create an interim study of all aspects of the program. 

 

Mr. Gagnier reported that one of the early oppositions to a self-funded insurance plan was a budget director who insisted that if a self-funded plan was in place, then organizations such as the SNEA would come to the legislature seeking benefit enhancements or benefit changes and that would not be in the best interest of the plan.  He said that since the creation of the self-funded plan approximately 15 years ago, the SNEA had never approached the legislature to create a benefit in the health plan or change a benefit in the health plan and he did not think it should start now.  That would undermine the authority of the governing board for the program.  If the legislature were to determine the benefits, before long it would also be determining the co-pay on prescription drugs and other items.  Mr. Gagnier said A.B. 564 would set up a benefit structure in Section 3 and it prescribed what one group’s benefits would be.  That group was those people who were eligible for Medicare.  The SNEA believed that the benefits for retirees and active employees should be identical.  Neither one should have a better program than the other.  Section 3 would change that by making the program for Medicare eligible retirees better than for others.  Mr. Gagnier said the language in Section 3 of the bill could be read several different ways and with his interpretation there would be no co-pay for prescription drugs for people eligible for Medicare and there would be no co-pays for doctor visits either.  Mr. Gagnier said if that was not the intention of Section 3, it should be clarified. 

 

Mr. Gagnier then turned his attention to Section 9 of the bill.  He said Section 9 dealt with an appropriation from the General Fund to subsidize one group of employees.  He said the section was written so that the $100,000 appropriation was not limited to those members of the HMO that was referenced.  It simply said that the recipients would need to reside in northern Nevada and not be entitled to receive those services from the HMO offered by the program.  It did not say the recipient would need to be in the program.  Mr. Gagnier said the wording should be changed to make the section apply only to those people who were members of the HMO that did not provide the services.  Mr. Gagnier asked the committee to consider whether it was appropriate to have a General Fund appropriation provide a benefit as opposed from other funds.  Employees of the Nevada Department of Transportation, who did not generally receive any General Fund appropriation, would be receiving a portion of the benefits paid from the General Fund.  Mr. Gagnier felt that was a technicality that should be reviewed.

 

Mr. Jim Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance, introduced himself and said he supported the bill.  He said the bill did a number of things including providing reproductive benefits for women who were associated with the HMO in northern Nevada.  There were approximately 932 employees covered by that HMO.  They were required to pay $75 per month to participate in the HMO in northern Nevada.  Mr. Richardson said the issue of reproductive rights was a sensitive one that had been discussed before and adding that section to the bill was a way to bring the issue before the committee for further discussion.  He said the problem may require direction from the committee rather than an appropriation.  He reminded the committee that during the last session of the legislature, the Committee on Ways and Means sent a Letter of Intent to the new Committee on Benefits to resolve the Medicare carve out problem that had developed.  There had been progress on that issue but it had not been fully resolved.  He suggested that if the committee was concerned about the reproductive rights issue, one way to handle it without a General Fund appropriation would be a letter to the committee to resolve the issue one way or the other. 

 

Mr. Richardson said that another concern he had was that he did not understand the logic of setting up a separate board.  In the last session, it was thought that the same board that dealt with the Public Employees Retirement System could handle the benefits as well.  However, if two separate boards were established, he would have no objection to that. 

 

Mr. Richardson then discussed what he considered to be a very important policy matter.  That was, how state retirees were treated in the state health plan.  He commented about the legislature granting benefits to certain groups.  He said he believed it would be a rare occasion to do that but it was the legislature’s prerogative to do if it felt something had gone amiss and established that state policy was not being followed.  The committee could resolve the problem through legislation or by issuing a Letter of Intent.  Mr. Richardson said some private companies and public entities had not dealt fairly with their retirees in terms of health care and other retirement benefits and he hoped Nevada would not join that list.  Many people had long careers in the state of Nevada and longevity in state employment had been encouraged.  Those retirees expected to be treated fairly.  Mr. Richardson said it had always been the intent to blend the rates of retirees and actives and to attempt to make sure that when people retired from state service they had a good health care plan.  It should not be something they feared as they approached retirement but they should approach retirement thinking the state was going to take care of them in a reasonable manner. 

 

Mr. Richardson urged the committee to consider the policy matter of whether the committee should be able to rate separately retirees in such a way that their rates could potentially skyrocket over the next 10 or 15 years and they could not afford the health insurance.  Mr. Richardson asked the committee to pass legislation that would give direction to the new committee.  He said the new committee had done a good job considering what it inherited and the circumstances and he commended the new committee for the stability they had offered and the improvements they had made. 

 

Mr. James Jackson, attorney for UICI Administrators, introduced himself.  He said that UICI Administrators was the third party administrator for the State Employees’ Benefits Program and took no position regarding the bill.  He said that UICI did not set any policies or benefits or choose any providers.  It simply handled the claims that were submitted through the program.  Mr. Jackson informed the committee that pursuant to the contract that existed between the State of Nevada Benefits Program and UICI Administrators, any time there was a change in benefits or eligibility for benefits, it would require changes in the administration of the program and there would be a cost passed on to the state.  Based on UICI’s review of the changes called for in the bill and the resultant changes that would have to be made to the administration process, UICI estimated a minimum cost of $28,750 to the program that could go higher depending on how many Medicare eligible persons would have to be administered and how many claims would have to be addressed. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what it would take to privatize the employees’ benefits plan.

 

Mr. Jackson said there had been problems with eligibility determination through the use of the BISON system and there had been a decision made that the plan and the committee would get away from the BISON system because of its antiquated nature and the inability to upgrade it.  The committee issued a Request for Proposal and a number of companies submitted bids.  UICI successfully bid to provide the state with what was called the health access system, which would be the eligibility determination program.  UICI’s plan was that the state would take over use of the health access program and UICI was simply helping the state to coordinate the transition.  Mr. Jackson said it was just a question of time when UICI would return the health access system to the state. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said that in her opinion the plan would not be completely privatized since the state would be taking back some of the duties that had been done by an external group. 

 

Mr. Jackson said the intention was always that the state would take back the eligibility determination system once staffing was in place to administer the health access system. 

 

Mr. Goldwater asked if The Segal Company was both the actuary and the consultant. 

 

Mr. Jackson replied, “I believe they are.  They had a different company before.” 

 

Mr. Goldwater opined that it was a conflict of interest and he was unsure how The Segal Company was structured to avoid the conflict of interest.  He said he could not believe it was still that way. 

 

Mr. Jackson said that it was a contracted function that was not within the purview of UICI.  The service was provided by The Segal Company and UICI had no relationship with Segal other than being associated with the same plan. 

 

Ms. Alexis Miller, representing Planned Parenthood Mar Monte and Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, introduced herself.  She appeared before the committee primarily to strongly encourage the committee to pass the $100,000 appropriation in Section 9 of the bill for reproductive health care services.  Without the appropriation, women who lived in northern Nevada and were enrolled in St. Mary’s HMO were being discriminated against within the state system. 

 

Ms. Bobbie Gang, representing the Nevada Women’s Lobby, introduced herself.  She said her organization worked very diligently last session to pass contraceptive equity.  The bill that passed included a conscious clause exception for HMOs that were related to religious institutions that opposed contraception.  The Nevada Women’s Lobby knew at the time that it was an equity issue that would cause problems as it was discriminatory against women that were enrolled in those HMOs.  It was a problem because the employers, in this case the state, made the decision for their employees as to which HMO and what coverage would be covered.  She asked that the $100,000 be appropriated so that the women in northern Nevada could obtain equal services to what women obtained in other parts of the state.  Private enterprise, when faced with the situation, obtained a supplemental policy that would cover contraceptives and contraceptive services.  She questioned the $100,000 because it sounded high to her.  The cost of providing the services should be minimal since the women were permitted reproductive health care services in general and the cost of the contraceptives was very low.  She also questioned whether the cost of an unwanted pregnancy and delivery had been considered. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that another approach would be to require the plan to go back out to bid since the bid was not done correctly or ethically, in her opinion.  There was a question regarding the person who let the bid whose spouse worked for the marketing department of St. Mary’s and did not disclose that to the board until after the bid had been let. 

 

There being no further testimony on A.B. 564, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 564 and opened the hearing on A.B. 454.  Chairman Arberry asked Ms. Giunchigliani to Chair the meeting for the testimony on A.B. 454. 

 

Assembly Bill 454:  Requires Board of Regents of University of Nevada to             appoint committee to study organizational structure of certain community             colleges. (BDR S-69)

 

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., District 7, testified that A.B. 454 was created as a result of complaints from his constituency and others who were attending the Community College of Southern Nevada.  Mr. Arberry had reviewed the concerns and comments made about the Cheyenne Campus and became concerned.  Originally the president of the Community College System committed to retaining the administration office on the Cheyenne Campus.  However, the administration office had been moved to the Charleston Campus.  Students at the Cheyenne Campus felt that the college had been abandoned even though the president might have felt it was the best move for the community college.  Mr. Arberry said that the situation could be compared to high schools.  The principal of a high school should be located at the high school rather than at some alternative site with periodic visits.  He had received complaints that the Cheyenne Campus was being abandoned and the maintenance was poor.  Some students informed him that it seemed like all the attention was going to the Charleston Campus and the Cheyenne Campus was being neglected.  He said he could not speak for the Henderson Campus as he had not visited it recently. 

 

Mr. Arberry said the Cheyenne Campus had 20,000 to 21,000 students and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas had 19,000 to 20,000 students and a full-time president on site to address the concerns at the campus every day.  Mr. Arberry said the bill would ensure that the Cheyenne Campus did not become a “step-child.”  Mr. Arberry said there should be a leader on each campus so the campus would get attention when it came to budgeting and would not be shortchanged.  He wanted a president to be located on each campus so each campus would have representation. 

 

Ms. Tiffany said that there was a provost on each campus now and she wanted to know what would be different by adding a president to each campus.

 

Mr. Arberry said the president represented the college; the provost did not.  Any organization needed a head.  Mr. Arberry said the president had abandoned the Cheyenne Campus and moved to the Charleston Campus. 

 

Ms. Tiffany asked if Mr. Arberry’s intent in the bill was to make each campus autonomous with their own budget. 

 

Mr. Arberry said that was the intent of the bill.  Mr. Arberry said he was concerned that campuses that were not located in newly developed areas would be neglected. 

 

Ms. Tiffany agreed and said that the Henderson Campus had been a “poor stepchild” for a long time. 

 

Mr. Arberry said it was not intentional.  It was just that it was too large an organization with too many students.  He did not mean to take anything away from the provost position, but each campus needed a president.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked if each campus would be given the authority to keep some functions centralized. 

 

Mr. Arberry said that some functions could be kept centralized and that things could not be changed overnight.  He said he understood that the “acting president” had moved all administrative functions back to the Cheyenne Campus and he applauded him for that.  Mr. Arberry said each campus needed someone who cared and that person should be physically located at each campus.  The system was growing and needed attention. 

 

Ms. Tiffany asked if the bill provided for anything other than naming a president for each campus. 

 

Mr. Arberry said time was short and he believed the details could be worked out later either in the Committee on Ways and Means or by one of the policy committees. 

 

Ms. Tiffany said she liked the idea proposed in the bill. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Arberry if part of his concern was that the provost was an academic affairs person on the campus rather than the person in charge of the campus. 

 

Mr. Arberry agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani and said the energy of a president was needed to protect the campus and its students.  He said times were changing, the schools were growing, and it was time to make the change.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the intent was not to create another college or university; it was simply to find a person to head up each of the campus sites. 

 

Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor for the University and Community College System of Nevada, introduced herself.  She said she was appearing before the committee to testify against A.B. 454.  The primary change that A.B. 454 called for was the appointment of a president for each campus of each community college that had an enrollment of more than 20,000 students.  Dr. Nichols said the bill was obviously aimed at the Community College of Southern Nevada and would effectively separate the college into two, or perhaps three, institutions.  It would mandate that no college with multiple campuses could be larger than 20,000 students in any location.  The definition of 20,000 students was unclear, it could be head count or full-time equivalent (FTE) students.  If it was FTE, the Community College of Southern Nevada had only 14,300 FTE but it did have 45,000 head count.  It was conceivable that both Charleston and Cheyenne would then become separate institutions under the bill. 

 

Dr. Nichols said she believed the bill would mandate an action that rightfully fell to the Board of Regents and whose consequences were unknown.  She said she was more concerned about the impetus for the bill.  She was convinced that the bill reflected the concern that the Cheyenne Campus was not running well or, perhaps, had become a second-class citizen in relation to the other campuses.  Dr. Nichols said there were indications that attention needed to be paid to the Cheyenne Campus.  The Charleston Campus had seen more growth and new capital construction but the Cheyenne Campus was scheduled to add new buildings in the next budget cycle.  It also was the site of many new, exciting programs that were high-tech in nature.  The strength of a community college was in its ties with its surrounding community and she had serious concern that the community was raising the issues.  In an urban setting, the support the community allowed for each branch campus of a larger institution was to reflect both the special needs of the surrounding community and also the strength of the larger institution.  If the campuses were separated a strength of numbers, resources, and programs may be lost.  The Board of Regents, the Chancellor, the interim President, and the faculty at CCSN all recognized that there were organizational issues present at the CCSN.  As part of the planning process involved in the Rand Study currently underway, the CCSN was asking the question that was posed by the bill.  The question was, “At what point should the Board of Regents consider creating a new community college from what is now a branch campus and should this review be triggered by some enrollment number or by other factors such as program uniqueness or geographical isolation?  If it was enrollment, should the number be higher or lower depending on rural or urban campuses?” 

 

Dr. Nichols urged the committee to allow the Board of Regents to address the issues inherent in A.B. 454 through their own planning process allowing them to look at models across the country and weigh the pros and cons of each choice.  It may well be that the study would show that the strengths of the umbrella structure did surpass the unintended consequence of the bill, which would be to create small, autonomous institutions.  There were also logistical questions about the meaning within the bill.  She wondered if the intent was to create a new institution rather than just an administrative and budgeting structure.  She also wanted to know whether it meant 20,000 FTEs or head count and would students enrolled solely at that campus get counted twice if enrolled at more than one campus.  Dr. Nichols said the Cheyenne Campus was a site for distance education students and she inquired how they would be counted. 

 

Dr. Nichols said that A.B. 454 called for presidents to have a degree from a college or university recognized as equal in rank to those having membership in the Association of American Universities.  That would mandate a doctoral degree requirement for all community college presidents and that was the practice currently adhered to in Nevada with the recent exception of an interim position only.  It would preclude, by being in statute, ever naming a president that might be an exceptional educator who had only a master’s degree or had an alternate degree such as a law degree.  She described the Community College of Southern Nevada as a very fine institution with an excellent faculty who put students first.  That institution was the fastest growing institution in the state and it had opened up opportunities for college attendance in southern Nevada in new and exciting ways.  CCSN had been under siege in the past year; a chancellor’s review, an attorney general’s investigation, the loss of a president and then an interim president, and the recent death of its Vice President for Finance.  Dr. Nichols said the search for a new president was underway but currently the presidents and all vice presidents were interim only.  According to Dr. Nichols, it was a terrible time to be imposing on that institution the mandate that would potentially break it into two or three institutions. 

 

Dr. Nichols explained that the model under A.B. 454 would be cumbersome, intrusive, and questionable to put into legislation, a mandate not based on any background study.  She stated that she would like the opportunity to address the concerns that were reflected in the bill and to work with legislators and the public who had raised the issues contained therein.  If the issue was the Cheyenne Campus, which she believed it to be, she pledged full UCCSN support for the continued development, growth, and support of that campus to meet the needs of the community.  She pledged that it would not become second-class to any other campus.  The new president coming into CCSN would be charged to implement an organizational study to ensure that each branch campus was autonomous enough to meet the needs and yet equally sharing in new resources as needed.  The board would continue its planning to address the issue of, at what point branch campuses should become community colleges. 

 

Mr. John Cummings, a legislative advocate for CCSN and teacher at CCSN, introduced himself.  He said he taught at the Charleston Campus, the Cheyenne Campus, and the Summerlin Campus.  He stated that he had a unique opportunity in going back and forth between those campuses to have a good idea of how the students felt.  He was sure that had there been enough time and if the hearing had not been scheduled during finals week, the committee would have heard from many students.  They would have told the committee that CCSN was not a conglomeration of individual campuses, but to them it was their school.  If you took apart their school, then you took apart the identity of what it was they were trying to achieve.  They were trying to associate themselves not with an individual campus, but with a total school environment.  Mr. Cummings urged the committee to not support the bill although he was a big supporter of Mr. Arberry.  He said the bill should address the concerns and needs of students that it would affect and he believed the bill would be a grave injustice to them to tear the campuses apart. 

 

Mrs. Chowning shared that when she started with the University of Nevada System, it was when UNLV was not UNLV, but Nevada Southern University (NSU).  It was a very small campus but it did have its chief.  As a student there, she felt as though it was her school.  She ended up graduating from the University of Nevada.  Nevertheless, it was a very small campus in the southern part of the state.  Now UNLV was a very large campus.  Mrs. Chowning compared the current issue to the issue of districting.  When there were cities that had representatives voted in on an at-large basis the citizens felt as though they did not have their own representative.  She said she felt the same way about Community College of Southern Nevada at the Cheyenne Campus.  Those students needed to feel that it was their school and they had their own identity.  Whether the bill provided the solution or another solution was identified, there did need to be some “head of the ship” on campus so that the person in charge could handle the concerns of students.  Mrs. Chowning said that was true in academic matters, school spirit, athletic matters, and many other things.  Mrs. Chowning reiterated that the bill may not provide the solution but each school should feel that it had its own identity. 

 

Dr. Joe Crowley, the Chancellor’s assistant for legislative relations, introduced himself.  Dr. Crowley said he had visited all of the campuses of UCCSN prior to the legislative session.  He did not get to the Henderson Campus recently although he had been there previously.  He said his visit to the Cheyenne Campus had been a good experience for him in that he learned a lot about the campus that he did not know and he learned about its problems and needs.  It was clear to Dr. Crowley that, in part, those problems and needs were a reflection of a community college that had grown at an incredible rate.  Making resource decisions in an environment of that kind of growth was a terribly difficult thing to do.  Other institutions around the country had had somewhat similar problems but not as much growth. 

 

Dr. Crowley pointed out that the person who had recently been appointed by the board to replace him, came from a branch campus of Pennsylvania State University, which was a very large enterprise with 16 branch campuses.  He said that most people thought of Penn State as being in Happy Valley with Joe Paterno and a great football team and many students.  However, there were 16 regional campuses and all of them had a significant measure of autonomy.  The man who would replace Dr. Crowley was called a provost at Penn State and had substantial autonomy in terms of the affairs of that campus. 

 

Dr. Crowley said he understood and empathized with the intent of the bill and believed the board did as well.  He said that an organizational framework and a measure of autonomy needed to be developed for the several campuses of CCSN that would be suited to the circumstances to assure that each of those campuses could be adequately competitive in the struggle for resources and attention.  Dr. Crowley said he was unsure if that could be established by statute.  He said the board was committed to study the organizational framework of CCSN to identify ways to do the tasks that needed to be done better.  Dr. Crowley believed that the introduction of the bill would provide a further incentive for the organizational study to move on and he expressed gratitude to Mr. Arberry for calling attention to the need. 

 

Dr. Crowley said that he believed the system would be in shape to return to the next session of the legislature and report that serious attention had been given to the problems the bill identified and solutions developed that fit the circumstances after a substantial study that would be attentive to the needs of the students.  The complications of having CCSN students taking courses at several different campuses would be analyzed as well as other complexities that needed to be addressed in order to develop a good organization. 

 

Dr. Crowley said although he was there to testify against the bill he believed that he and Dr. Nichols were headed in the same direction as Mr. Arberry had been when he sponsored the bill.  Dr. Crowley requested that the system be given a chance to address the concerns, to develop a framework that would work for CCSN, and to allow them to return to the next session in two years and present the committee with the results of what had been accomplished. 

 

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she did not understand why universities were established and organized the way they were.  She thought the structure seemed cumbersome and the titles placed on individuals did not necessarily reflect their duties.  She said she did not have a good understanding of what a provost did as compared to a chancellor or some other position.  She believed that the titles reflected image and status rather than the functions performed. 

 

Dr. Nichols said that was exactly what needed to be reviewed.  The positions needed to be analyzed less by the title and more by the responsibility.  She said there should be someone on each campus with the power and authority to take care of the campus. 

 

Mr. Jim Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance, added that it was obvious that the problem needed to be studied.  The largest chapter of the Nevada Faculty Alliance was at CCSN and some of those faculty members traveled from one campus to the other.  Mr. Richardson pledged that the CCSN faculty wanted to be very involved in any study to be completed and asked to be notified of all meetings. 

 

There being no further testimony on A.B. 454, Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 454. 

 

Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on A.B. 319. 

 

Assembly Bill 319:  Makes various changes to provisions governing education.             (BDR 34-784)

 

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, representing Assembly District 9, distributed Exhibit G, which were suggested amendments to A.B. 319 for the committee to consider.  Ms. Giunchigliani said that there were six schools statewide that were deemed to be schools in need of improvement.  Schools were deemed in need of improvement mostly because of their test scores on the TerraNova tests.  That was really a reading test rather than a subject matter test.  She said that she wrote Section 1 of the bill to attempt to get the schools who received the improvement money to focus on whether or not the students on that campus needed some reading instruction.  She believed it was important to know the average grade level of the students on campus before the reading test was given.  Determining that would be one possible way to spend remediation dollars.  Ms. Giunchigliani said that in an effort not to legislate an unfunded mandate, she suggested amending Section 1, subsection 1, line 4, of the bill by deleting the word “shall” and inserting the words “is encouraged to.”  That would establish a procedure for using the money but the bill would no longer mandate that.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that her attempt was to remove any fiscal impact from the bill. 

 

Next, Ms. Giunchigliani referred the committee to page 4, dealing with weaponry and tracking of information and data.  She felt it was important for parents, as well as students, faculty, and support personnel, to know what types of problems were occurring on campus.  She did not believe it would have a fiscal impact although one district claimed they would have to change their reporting procedures.  She believed that could be handled easily and not affect the intent of the bill.  She noted that the wording on disciplinary action on line 29 was generic and would not violate the confidentiality of any individual pupil or employee. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said the meat of the bill was contained on page 5.  She said some parents wanted their children exempted from taking proficiency exams.  She said she believed there should be no proficiency exams any longer as she thought it had impacted negatively on education of the students.  The bill recommended that any child that took all of the credit work and met all requirements for graduation except for the proficiency exam should earn the standard diploma.  If the student took the proficiency exam, or the alternative that would be adopted in the next two years, the student would be allowed to earn a mastery diploma.  The adjusted diploma would be available for those children who just could not qualify for a mastery or standard diploma.  She said she was a special education teacher and she was aware there were some children who would not be able to meet all the criteria of the credit requirement and the proficiency exams.  She said her students in special education classes received a certificate of attendance even though they had completed everything other than pass the proficiency exam.  The bill would allow the students to earn a standard diploma. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani referred the committee to page 6 of the bill that followed up on incident reporting. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani explained that starting on page 7 the bill established how a pupil may receive a mastery diploma.  A pupil with a disability or a pupil whose primary language was not English who was exempt from the proficiency exam could take the alternative assessment that would be tied to the standards.  It would not be a lesser test, it would be a different formatting of the test.  That child would be allowed to earn a mastery diploma.  In addition to that, a pupil with a disability who did not satisfy the requirements for receipt of the mastery diploma or the standard diploma would move on to the adjusted diploma if they satisfied all the other current standards for accreditation that were required. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani explained that Section 7 of the bill provided that if a student had failed the high school proficiency examination and after the exam was administered to him the final time, the board of trustees would notify the parent and the parent would document that they understood that the child would then be allowed to qualify for the next level of diploma.  The child would not get the mastery diploma but they would get the standard diploma and they could not qualify for scholarships. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said that requiring the proficiency exams to be taken had put barriers to students’ success that were not intended. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that a task force had met in the interim to discuss parents’ concerns regarding testing and other issues.  Many people had been involved and Ms. Giunchigliani took recommendations from the task force and added them to A.B. 319.  The task force recognized that many special education students that were blind or visually impaired had difficulty with the exam because it could not be read to them.  That accommodation had been allowed throughout their school years and then was not allowed for the proficiency exam.  In addition, it would allow the test to be read to pupils who had a specific, documented learning disability in reading.  Those students might need to have the instructions and questions read to them.  Ms. Giunchigliani said there was some disagreement in the task force on allowing the exam to be read to students with a reading disability.  She strongly urged the committee to keep the language in the bill as it had been added by the Education Committee after testimony from parents.  She believed it was appropriate to have those types of modifications and accommodations in the bill. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said the other amendments she proposed deleted wording that dealt with funding.  She recommended deleting Sections 21, 22, and 23 from the bill. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani recommended adding language to allow the diploma to become effective in 2001.  If students were issued a certificate of attendance because they did not pass the proficiency exam they would be allowed to exchange that for a standard high school diploma. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani also suggested that language should be added to the bill so that “any student who received any type of diploma shall be permitted to participate in their graduation ceremonies.”  She had been made aware that some young men and women had been denied the opportunity to participate in graduation ceremonies. 

 

Mr. Roy Farrow, a member of the Board of Directors of Tech Alliance, introduced himself.  He said Tech Alliance was a private enterprise that had received federal grants to support the development of technology companies and technology bases in Nevada.  He was in the process of recruiting companies to the state and through various activities, supporting the fledging technology efforts in Nevada.  Mr. Farrow was also the parent of a learning disabled student.  In both capacities, he supported A.B. 319 with the proposed amendments.  From a Tech Alliance standpoint, he felt the bill was a “blunt instrument” that had not and would not be effective to achieve the goal of establishing a high-quality work force in the state that would help support the companies and recruit other companies.  He felt there were some systemic issues in the education provided in Nevada and he was happy to work with other groups concerned with education.  Currently, he was working with the Secretary of State’s office, the various economic development groups, and the university and community colleges to address those issues. 

 

Mr. Farrow said he would also like to talk about his daughter, Maria, who was a senior at Carson High School.  She had above a B average and had been “mainstreamed” during her high school career.  She spent a semester in Europe and maintained her B average there with no assistance.  She had passed all parts of the proficiency exam except the math test and he was certain she would not be able to pass the math portion of the exam.  Mr. Farrow said his daughter spoke three languages fluently with a working knowledge of several other languages.  He believed she would be a productive member of society.  He said his daughter worked three times as hard as his other two daughters to maintain her grade point average.  Mr. Farrow said he believed there was a large group of young people who felt the brunt of the community’s frustration with the educational system.  He reiterated that the problems were systemic and he did not believe the children should bear the burden of the failure of the system. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani returned to her explanation of A.B. 319.  She said that Section 14 established that a driver of a school bus may remove the privilege of a pupil to ride any school bus if the pupil was disruptive and threatened the safety of the driver or other pupils or seriously interfered with the ability of the driver to drive the school bus.  Section 16 of the bill would establish a committee on school bus transportation to review the removal of the privilege of a pupil to ride a school bus.  Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated that there was no longer any fiscal note associated with the bill. 

 

Ms. Belinda “Bus driver Bo” Yealy, testified from Las Vegas.  She supported A.B. 319 and provided the committee with Exhibit H.  She said the tools at her disposal to ensure her students’ safety and her own safety were limited and inadequate.  As a driver and protector of the children there was nothing to support her need to stop a situation when action was necessary.  Currently, she would radio into a dispatcher when a situation occurred that needed intervention or an answer.  The dispatcher would decide what to do and, in most cases, drivers were told to just take the students home the best way possible and the problem would be dealt with in the morning.  Bus drivers would then wait to see who might deal with the situation, what could happen, or when something would happen.  Ms. Yealy said she had personally experienced situations where the answer or remedy was just too late and her life or the lives of her innocent students were at risk.  Too many times there were new drivers who did not have enough backing and were fearful of writing too many citations because they were on probationary status.  That was seen by most administrators as a weak driver even though the regulations and laws were clear that required drivers to write-up student conduct violations or citations.  Also, standby drivers, such as Ms. Yealy, were often not taken seriously because they were not the regular route driver so unsafe or disciplinary problem students were not removed from the bus or dealt with in many cases.  The regular route driver often saw students who were denied transportation riding on another bus whose route was near the original route for the student.  That was seen by students, parents, and some administrators as a personality conflict excuse.  It covered for the undesirable behavior and allowed no protection for innocent students or employees.  Some cases had resulted in harm to students and employees.  According to Ms. Yealy, passage of the bill would provide a legal basis for bus drivers to issue citations and would say to students that they could truly depend on the hero in the driver’s seat to provide a safe environment on the way to and from school. 

 

Ms. Yealy went on to say that the appeal committee established in the bill would be of benefit as a check and balance.  It would also give the driver a way to handle the unsafe situations while they were occurring.  She appreciated the requirement that all parties would have to come together at the school for a conference so that all parties could get back to the important business of educating the student.  Most of the time, drivers were left out of the conference and should be heard.  Ms. Yealy said a conference could be the beginning of building the bridge of understanding between the driver and the student.  Many times the student did not understand the bus driver’s position and the bus driver did not understand the student’s position. 

 

Ms. Yealy said the bill would provide answers for parents who were at a loss on how to deal with assault, battery, or both, when the driver arrived at the bus stop and something had happened before the driver arrived.  Ms. Yealy said that as a parent, she knew that when there was no answer from the school it was a helpless feeling. 

 

Ms. Yealy said that the bottom line was that safety was her business and she would appreciate having better tools to promote safety for the students and for her fellow drivers.  She also thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify before the committee. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani thanked Ms. Yealy for her testimony.  She said that too often support personnel were not considered and Ms. Yealy spoke on behalf of many bus drivers who had seen children harmed or been harmed themselves.  The bill would provide an opportunity to bring parties together to work out problems.  Ms. Giunchigliani discussed that the request for funding had been removed from the bill but she believed the policy issue should move forward. 

 

Ms. Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association, introduced herself.  She thanked Ms. Giunchigliani for including sections in the bill that the association had specifically requested.  She said she mourned the loss of Section 23, which was a $10 million appropriation request to fund programs for alternative education for disruptive pupils.  She asked the committee to remember the request if there was any money available. 

 

Mr. Beers said he had visited a school that ran a pilot project for disruptive students.  Mr. Beers said “It was an incredible experience, it was a great program, and it was a sin that we are not continuing to fund it.” 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out that the principal of the school Mr. Beers referred to appeared before the Education Committee.  She thought the program was one of the best programs she had seen and it was unfortunate that something good would go away. 

 

Mrs. Cegavske reported that when she first started in the system there was a place for disruptive students.  A program for in-house suspension was in place in all schools but with budget cuts, that program was eliminated and not replaced.  She thanked Ms. Giunchigliani for sponsoring A.B. 319 and said she appreciated that parents and the community had been involved.  It made a difference to the parents to know that their voices were heard.  Mrs. Cegavske said she was very supportive of issuing different types of diplomas for children who had worked hard and done well in school. 

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if there were any tests available in Braille for the blind.  Ms. Giunchigliani answered that there were no tests available for the proficiency tests but there were Braille tests available for other purposes. 

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the school district police had any jurisdiction over the bussing issues.  Ms. Giunchigliani said they had jurisdiction and were called out to bus stops when there was a problem.  However, not every school district had school police and in other districts there were too few officers. 

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked how much money would be needed to continue to fund a program for disruptive students.  She said it was important to keep the students on the campus because students that were sent home due to poor behavior were rewarded.  She asked if any type of program could be worked out with the alternative education high school.  She wondered if they had any classroom space that could be used for disruptive students.  Mrs. Cegavske said she would prefer to have disruptive students kept on their home campus but she was searching for any ideas.  She also suggested looking into the possibility of receiving grant money. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said that she thought a minimum of $1 to $2 million would be necessary to keep even a skeleton program for disruptive students.  She said that currently there were too many different discipline programs and they should be consolidated.  She believed that the three or four most effective should be identified and funded.  That might mean that no additional revenue would be needed if some of the revenue could be redirected. 

 

Mr. Lonnie Shields, Advocate for the Washoe County Education Administrators Association, introduced himself.  He suggested that the bill be amended on page 16, lines 4 through 6 and page 17, lines 18 and 19.  His first concern was the waiting time of the special committee that was required in Section 16 as to the final decision on the removal of the student from the busses.  The committee would be composed of an administrator or a bus supervisor and two persons employed by the school district who drove a school bus.  For the committee to appear more balanced to the public and to the school personnel, he suggested the following amendment beginning with the word “except” in line 4, page 16, insert the language “except as otherwise provided in this subsection, such a committee must consist of one person employed by the school district who drives a school bus, one person employed by the school district as an administrator, and one person employed by the school district as a teacher.”  The rest of the language through line 11 would remain the same.  Mr. Shields believed the justification for the amendment was self-evident and the amendment would go far in making the decisions of the committee fair and accountable to the public.  In regard to page 17, lines 17 and 18, it had come to Mr. Shields’ attention that by including the board of trustees, they might bring the law into conflict with many of the negotiated contracts around the state as those contracts now called for disciplinary action to be taken by the direct supervisors of the employees, not the board of trustees.  Mr. Shields suggested that the word “supervisor” should be substituted for the words “board of trustees” in line 17.  He also suggested substituting the word “may” for “shall” in line 17 and amending out the words “as it considers necessary” in lines 18 and 19.  As that portion was now written, the word “shall” gave the board or supervisor no choice to proceed with an action pursuant to NRS 391.32.  While the words “as it considers necessary” seemed to imply that the decision not to pursue any action would also be acceptable, he felt that by replacing “shall” with “may” and deleting “as it considers necessary” simply would clean up the language. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that the amendments proposed by Mr. Shields were acceptable to her. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said she had also received proposed amendments from Dotty Merrill of the Washoe County School District and she supported the first change suggested but did not support the other amendments because they would defeat the purpose of the accommodations that the law would make.  Ms. Giunchigliani referred to Exhibit I that she had received from Ms. Merrill.

 

Dr. Craig Kadlub, legislative representative for the Clark County School District, introduced himself and distributed Exhibit J to the committee.  He thanked Ms. Giunchigliani for the amendments she had proposed because there had been some fiscal concerns for the district.  He said Section 8 of the bill had the potential to have a fiscal impact because it required staff to read examinations to visually impaired students and those with learning disabilities in reading.  His concern was that there were approximately 13,000 students with learning disabilities, the majority of whom had disabilities in reading.  Lacking a further definition of what exactly constituted a disability that would require staff time and personnel to read a test, he saw the requirement as potentially resulting in a significant unfunded cost for the district.  Also, in Section 11, for those school districts that did have police forces, he wanted to see police included in that part of the bill. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said that regarding Section 8, as a special education teacher, she currently read the directions she was allowed to read so there would be no additional cost in implementing the section. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said notification to school police was not included in Section 11 because they did not have authority to arrest disruptive students.  Part of the problem had been that parents did not get the results that they needed when they filed an assault and battery charge.  That is why she felt Metro or the city police were the most appropriate to be involved.  School police were not “full-fledged law enforcement officials.” 

 

Mrs. Cegavske stated that if there was not a Braille test in place for the proficiency exam, the only other option available was reading the test to the student.  She said having the test done in Braille would be much more expensive than having a teacher read the test so she thought the district would prefer to read the test than having it done in Braille. 

 

Mrs. Cegavske was concerned that Section 11 would preclude involving the school police who might be of benefit or would be able to help.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not believe the school police would be precluded from assisting and she had no problem with adding that they would be informed of an incident.  She said that if a complaint was filed it would not be dealt with by the school police, it would come under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police Force. 

 

Ms. Retta Dermody, the Information Training Coordinator for Nevada Parents Encouraging Parents, introduced herself.  She represented the parents of Washoe County and northern Nevada.  She said she was also a parent and grandparent of children with disabilities.  She supported A.B. 319.  She said she had a learning-disabled child that three years ago took the proficiency exams and had been allowed to use a calculator all through school.  As a matter of fact, it was required in her high school math class to have a calculator.  For the proficiency exams at that time, she could not use her calculator and failed the math portion of the exam.  Ms. Dermody said her daughter had received a softball scholarship but did not think she would be able to go to college because she failed the test.  Eventually, she barely passed the test and would graduate from college in May, 2001, because of the accommodations she was given in college.  Ms. Dermody said it was very important that learning-disabled children receive the accommodations needed so they could achieve their highest potential.  Ms. Dermody pointed out that many people in the room wore glasses.  She said she wore glasses and they were her support.  If she wore her glasses to work each day and then one day for her evaluation she had to remove the glasses to answer questions, she would be unable to answer the questions and would be very upset.  She said that was how the students felt when they went in to take their exams and they were not allowed to use the accommodations prescribed.  She urged the committee to take that into consideration. 

 

Ms. Karen Taycher, Executive Director of Nevada Parents Encouraging Parents, introduced herself.  She thanked Ms. Giunchigliani for sponsoring the bill and understanding the issue of students with disabilities.  She also thanked Ms. Giunchigliani for promoting the amendment that allowed students with disabilities, no matter what type of diploma they earned, to participate in their graduation ceremonies.  She asked for clarification on the proposed amendment by Washoe County so she could provide information and input on what the committee may be considering as recommended by Washoe County. 

 

Ms. Gillian Wells, the Transition Director for Nevada Parents Encouraging Parents (PEP), introduced herself.  She said PEP was a statewide parent training and information center working with families who had children with disabilities; she spoke with families and educators about the proficiency exam and heard stories about how frustrated they were with a “one size fits all” education.  She was left with unanswered questions such as whether or not students that passed the proficiency test were more successful in the adult world, attaining better jobs or better quality of life.  She said no one could answer that question.  She felt the bill provided a wonderful opportunity to hear the cries of the many and give hope to students who felt frustrated by the proficiency test.  Ms. Wells said she understood students’ frustrations because she had a learning disability.  Students spent their days in environments with teachers who showed them that there were many ways to accommodate for their disabilities, that despite the disabilities, they could and would be successful.  For many students with disabilities, the proficiency test became another barrier. 

 

Ms. Wells said she had participated in a legislative review committee that reviewed and commented on examining policies related to the matter of graduation for students with disabilities and the state testing process.  As the collective group, they came together as best they could representing the best interests of students.  They looked at accommodations, modifications, graduation options, and alternative assessments.  Some of the content of A.B. 319 came from the legislative review committee’s suggestions.  She asked the committee not to let the review committee’s hard work go to waste.  She said education was a process based on learning and should be constantly changing to meet the needs of the students so they may be productive members of society.  They felt the current system promoted dropping out, low self-esteem for many students with and without disabilities, and restricted teachers from what they did best, which was teach.  She said students needed reasons to stay in education, not reasons to leave.  She wondered how many leaders had been left behind because Nevada had labeled them as losers.  Ms. Wells thanked Ms. Giunchigliani on behalf of families, students, and educators for giving the concerns of many a voice and a forum to be heard.  She said it was now up to the Committee on Ways and Means to go into action to create equity for Nevada’s youth with disabilities. 

 

Ms. DeAnn Stout spoke from Las Vegas in support of A.B. 319 and advised the committee that the proficiency test was available in Braille. 

 

Ms. Rae McAnlis, a teacher from Las Vegas, strongly supported A.B. 319 as written. 

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 319 at 11:18 a.m. and recessed the meeting until May 10, 2001, after Assembly floor session. 

 

Chairman Arberry called the meeting back to order at 11:46 a.m. on Thursday, May 10, 2001.  The next order of business was budget closings. 

 

BUDGET CLOSINGS

 

HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE – BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-8

 

Mr. Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, said the account had been closed previously but staff needed clarification on one item.  On enhancement unit E-805, special projects, there was $150,000 in General Fund support designated for legal expenses which staff suggested be deleted.  Any legal services needed could come out of the $5 million one-shot appropriation that was recommended in The Executive Budget.  That action had been taken by the Senate Finance Committee.  Staff intended to recommend that to the committee but upon review, staff was unsure whether they had the authority from the committee to take that action. 

 

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH A LETTER OF INTENT.

 

MRS. DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  (Mrs. Chowning, Ms. Leslie, Mr. Marvel, Mr. Parks, and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.) 

 

BUDGET CLOSED.

 

*******

 

STATE TREASURER – BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-88

 

Mr. Stevens said there were a number of issues the committee needed to review on that budget.  Enhancement unit E-475 recommended $150,000 to initiate the Allodial Title Program.  It was funded last session, however, the program had not been started but the legal issues involved had been identified and resolved.  There were contracts out for the actuarial work needed on behalf of the Treasurer.  The appropriation would fund a management analyst position and $100,000 to $115,000 per year in operating expenses. 

 

Mr. Stevens said a new Assistant Treasurer position that was not originally recommended in The Executive Budget was now included in the Revised Governor’s Recommendation.  The cost would be $68,185 in FY2001-02 and $84,875 in FY2002-03.

 

Enhancement unit E-710 reduced the prices for computer equipment by $4,922 in each year. 

 

Enhancement unit E-720 recommended funding for a new server.  Most of the server prices had been cut to $7,500 but the Treasurer provided new specifications requesting $14,781 for the server and related software.  There had been a number of discussions on that particular item, including discussions with Mr. Beers and the State Treasurer’s staff and Mr. Beers indicated that a case could be made to approve the server or not approve the server and wait until next biennium to see if they should buy a new server or utilize the services of the Division of Information Technology. 

 

Mr. Stevens said that enhancement unit E-721 provided additional funding for their investment management system and staff recommended that it be approved. 

 

Mr. Beers reported that in his discussions with the State Treasurer, he said he believed the new Assistant Treasurer position was the most critical need requested in the budget.  Mr. Beers said the Treasurer said he would give up everything else to have the position approved. 

 

MR. DINI MOVED TO APPROVE DECISION UNIT E-475, APPROVE THE ASSISTANT TREASURER’S POSITION, APPROVE THE NEW SERVER AND APPROVE THE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. 

 

Mr. Beers said that one of the projects planned in decision unit E-720 was to add Sierra Nevada College students into the Millennium Scholarship college database.  That involved a tremendous expenditure for a very small return and a small number of people would benefit from that system.  Providing the capability for local governments to access the investment system on the Internet was essentially the same as approving decision unit E-721, which was included in the current motion.  Adding the college savings plan was pending passage of legislation and funding was provided for the Allodial Title Program in another part of the motion.  The new unclaimed property database presumed that the Unclaimed Property Division would move into the Treasurer’s office and they would bring with them a server that had an existing unclaimed property database that was searchable by citizens over the Web.  They were proposing to replace that with a higher end server.  Mr. Beers believed that was an area where some money could be saved. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Dini if he wanted to amend his motion to remove the approval of the new server. 

 

MR. DINI AMENDED HIS MOTION TO DELETE APPROVAL OF THE SERVER. 

 

MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

Mr. Stevens said there were some funds included in the second year of the biennium in decision unit E-720 and he was unsure if it was directly related to the server. 

 

Mr. Beers said if the college savings plan was instituted, the capability to access the database on-line would be beneficial and the Allodial Title Program was finally getting off the ground after its legality and constitutionality were established.  It may be that a standard server should be purchased in the second year of the biennium.  He said that at that point their existing server would be two years old and the price would probably go from $7,500 to $6,500 or $6,000.

 

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Beers about the need for the high-speed server for the unclaimed property. 

 

Mr. Beers said the specifications on the server were unknown at this point in time. 

 

Mr. Hettrick said that he thought the Treasurer’s office could make do with the server for the biennium.  The Assistant Treasurer’s position was being approved and that was the most important thing to the Treasurer. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  (Ms. Leslie and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.) 

 

BUDGET CLOSED. 

 

********

 

W.I.C.H.E. LOAN AND STIPEND – BUDGET PAGE WICHE-1

 

Ms. Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst with the Legislative Counsel Bureau, introduced herself.  She said that Budget Account 2681 was for the W.I.C.H.E. Loan and Stipend Fund.  She explained five recommended staff adjustments. 

 

The Executive Budget recommended five in-state dental slots in FY2002, however, the new University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) dental program would not start until 2003.  In order to maintain a total of ten new dental slots each year, the committee may wish to consider moving the five in-state slots to the four-year dental program in 2002 and then moving the slots back to the in‑state program in 2003.  That recommendation would cost an additional $11,500 in FY2002 and provide a reduction of $3,900 in FY2003. 

 

Ms. Braun said that during the committee hearing on February 19, 2001, a concern was raised regarding the continuing necessity of graduate library slots.  In discussing the issue with the Executive Director, it was determined that all new slots could be eliminated beginning in FY2002.  The cost savings would be $9,600 in FY2002 and $20,000 in FY2003. 

 

Ms. Braun explained that although The Executive Budget recommended continued funding for in-state physical therapy slots for the first and second years of the program the recommended budget did not provide funding for the slots for the third and final year of the program.  In FY2002 there would be five students who would be ready to enter the third year of the program at a total additional cost of $5,000 and in FY2003 there would be four students at a cost of $4,400. 

 

The Executive Budget recommended an additional physician’s assistant slot in each year of the biennium.  That was not recommended as a maintenance or enhancement unit.  In discussing the additional physician assistant slot with the Executive Director, it was determined that the additional slot was not needed during the biennium.  The cost savings would be $5,700 in FY2002 and $16,800 in FY2003. 

 

Ms. Braun said the fifth recommended technical adjustment was a recommendation for an additional community scholar slot in each year of the biennium.  Funding for those slots was community, state, and federal and the Executive Director had indicated that federal funding would be eliminated in the upcoming biennium but that they had enough remaining federal money to continue one slot in each year, but not two.  Reducing the slots would produce a cost savings of $5,000 in FY2002 and $10,000 in FY2003. 

 

Ms. Braun said that if the committee approved the five recommendations there would be a total savings to the state General Fund of $3,800 in FY2002 and $46,300 in FY2003. 

 

Ms. Braun said The Executive Budget reduced the reserve for the budget account to zero in FY2003.  According to the Budget Office, it was believed that with the passing of A.B. 587 of the Seventieth Session of the Legislature, which authorized W.I.C.H.E. to obtain a temporary advance from the General Fund to pay student loans, there was no longer a need for a reserve.  However, during the budget hearing on February 19, 2001, the Executive Director expressed concern over not having the reserve funding available and the committee asked that staff determine what was needed.  In reviewing the request, it was found that there was $333,623 not accounted for in The Executive Budget.  That was money remaining from unused slots and additional reserve funding.  Ms. Braun explained that the committee may wish to consider two options.  The first option would be to balance forward the entire amount and reduce the General Fund appropriation by $333,623 and, in addition, submit a Letter of Intent requiring W.I.C.H.E. to utilize all other funds first in paying for the student loans and stipends and utilize state General Fund only to make up the difference.  The remaining state General Fund would be reverted at the end of each fiscal year.  The Subcommittee on General Government chose a similar option in discussing a similar issue with the Department of Agriculture.  The second option would be to balance forward the entire amount in FY2002 but not reduce the General Fund appropriation.  The funds would be used to generate a reserve in FY2003.  A Letter of Intent would also be submitted requiring the reserve funding to be accessed only after Interim Finance Committee (IFC) approval. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Braun to explain why one new graduate library slot would be maintained if the graduate library professional slots were being eliminated. 

 

Ms. Braun said that The Executive Budget recommended funding for an additional graduate library slot but her recommendation, after speaking to the Executive Director, was that there be no graduate library slots approved. 

 

Mr. Stevens said no new slots were being recommended although the committee could change that if it wanted to.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said if funding was available for slots, she would prefer to do something for nursing or social work where the shortages existed. 

 

Ms. Braun said the agency was looking at five slots in teaching, mental health, and nursing in S.B. 391 at a cost of $75,000. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said that since the budget was before the committee, it should not wait on a bill that might or might not come.  She asked Mr. Stevens if the committee could change the budget.

 

Mr. Stevens said that the committee could add or deduct any slots that it determined were appropriate.  If the committee felt that there was a need for more slots in an area or less slots in an area, those could be added or deducted. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what a community scholar was.

 

Ms. Braun answered that it was a graduate student, mainly a nursing practitioner.  There would only be one slot continuing into the next biennium because of the reduction of federal funding. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was any place to go to make up the difference.

 

Ms. Braun said that if they were given a reserve in the second year of the biennium, W.I.C.H.E. wanted to go to the IFC if they could come up with a plan to get teaching, mental health, and nursing slots.  If they had the plan, they would ask the IFC to allow them to access the reserve funding to fund the slots. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what it would take for W.I.C.H.E. to make a plan.

 

Ms. Braun said she understood they would have to go out and find out who would be interested and at what cost could they get the students into a variety of programs.  They would have to work with the colleges and universities as well as ensuring that the funding was available.  The student would have to be willing to return to Nevada to teach.

 

Mr. Don Hataway, Deputy Director representing the Budget Division, Department of Administration, said the budget was an evolutionary document.  For example, in the past several law school slots were funded but when the law school was created those slots were dropped.  Traditionally, the philosophy had been that if the program was available in-state, out-of-state W.I.C.H.E. slots would not be funded.  If slots were funded in-state, the student would have to return to areas of need, either rural or underserved urban areas, to provide service.  He said he thought the agency was contemplating what the best mix would be and what could be provided. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that the new physical therapy slots be eliminated to make more nursing slots. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked how the dentistry program was working.

 

Mr. Hataway said that was an evolutionary process as well.  He said that when the dentistry school became fully operational, it would have to be decided whether to continue to fund out-of-state or if not, should in-state slots be funded with the requirement that the students return to underserved communities. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked when the funding should be started if the new slots were turned into nursing slots.

 

Ms. Braun said that W.I.C.H.E. submitted a plan to the Budget Division on nursing slots.  Their plan was not for actual nursing students; it was to bring nurses into the college system to teach nurses.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said that was a nice idea for the future but now students needed to graduate and become nurses. 

 

Ms. Braun suggested the committee do a Letter of Intent to ensure that its intent was followed. 

 

Mrs. Chowning agreed that nursing slots should be added to the W.I.C.H.E. program.  She asked if those nurses would need to return and serve in underserved areas of the state. 

 

Ms. Braun said that if nurses were trained under the Health Care Access Program (HCAP), they would have to serve in underserved communities. 

 

Mr. Hataway pointed out that there was a difference between understaffed and underserved. 

 

Ms. Elaine Fisher, Program Officer with W.I.C.H.E., said that if the committee decided to fund nursing slots, the slots would be put in the HCAP and they would be required to return to Nevada and work in an underserved population for 500 days (3 years). 

 

Mrs. Chowning asked if it mattered if the nurses served in rural or urban areas of the state. 

 

Ms. Fisher said it did not matter if the area was rural or urban as long as they worked in the underserved population. 

 

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND BALANCE FORWARD THE ENTIRE $558,284 IN FY2001-02 AND REDUCE THE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION BY $333,623.  THE NEW PHYSICAL THERAPY SLOTS WOULD BE EXCHANGED FOR NURSING SLOTS.  A LETTER OF INTENT TO BE ISSUED THAT THE SLOTS WERE TO BE USED FOR TRAINING NURSES RATHER THAN TRAINING TEACHERS OF NURSES. 

 

Mr. Dini asked why the physical therapy slots were being eliminated and Ms. Giunchigliani said there was now a school of physical therapy in Las Vegas and the slots would no longer be necessary. 

 

MRS. CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mrs. Chowning asked if the motion included the approval of all of the technical recommendations. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed the motion included all of the technical adjustments.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  (Ms. Leslie and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.)

 

BUDGET CLOSED. 

 

********

 

W.I.C.H.E. ADMINISTRATION – BUDGET PAGE WICHE-3

 

Ms. Braun said Budget Account 2995 provided for the costs of administering W.I.C.H.E. funds for stipend payments and loans.  There were three technical adjustments recommended for the account.  First, the Governor recommended $3,072 each year of the biennium for in-state travel.  That would be a 102 percent increase over the actual amount spent in FY2000.  The increase was due in part to requesting two staff instead of one.  After talking to the Executive Director, that amount could be reduced by $342 in FY2003 to represent one staff needing to attend meetings instead of two.  The second decision unit, E-710, was a reduction in the cost of two office chairs by $300 to reflect revised cost.  The third recommended technical change was in decision unit E-720 that provided $7,000 to purchase an LCD projector.  It was recommended that the amount be reduced by $1,205 in FY2002 for the revised price of the projector.  Ms. Braun said that if the recommendations were approved the savings would be $1,505 in FY2002 and $342 in FY2003. 

 

Ms. Braun went on to explain that there was one decision the committee needed to make.  During the budget hearing on February 19, 2001, the Executive Director expressed the need for additional in-state travel above the amount recommended by the Governor.  Ms. Braun said she was asked to work with the agency to determine what they would be requesting.  It would be $396 in each year of the biennium for the Las Vegas Commissioner to travel for the review of HCAP applications in Reno, $146 in each year of the biennium for the Executive Director to attend a nursing task force meeting and $570 in FY2002 for a southern Nevada trip to rural high schools.  The total additional cost would be $1,112 in FY2002 and $542 in FY2003. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked if the committee approved the budget would it mean that it was approving S.B. 55. 

 

Mr. Stevens said that S.B. 55 would provide for a fee that would generate funds to be deposited in the W.I.C.H.E. Loan and Stipend Fund.  The bill stood on its own and would have no impact on closing the budget.

 

Mr. Stevens reminded the committee that it needed to determine whether additional travel funds as explained by Ms. Braun should be added to the budget. 

 

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL TRAVEL FUNDS. 

 

MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  (Ms. Leslie and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.) 

 

BUDGET CLOSED. 

 

********

 

CULTURAL AFFAIRS – BUDGET PAGE CULTURAL-26

 

Mr. Stevens explained that the budget had been closed but was brought back to the committee for a clarification.  He said staff had identified some Dedicated Museum Funds within the account that would save some General Fund dollars. 

 

MR. GOLDWATER MOVED TO REOPEN THE BUDGET.

 

MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  (Ms. Leslie and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.) 

 

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF INCLUDING THE USE OF THE DEDICATED MUSEUM TRUST FUNDS AND SAVING THE GENERAL FUNDS. 

 

MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  (Ms. Leslie and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.) 

 

BUDGET CLOSED. 

 

********

 

GAMING COMMISSION – BUDGET ACCOUNT GAMING-7

 

Mr. Stevens said the budget provided for transferring funding that was currently in the Gaming Control Board’s budget to a new budget for the Nevada Gaming Commission.  It would authorize a new position that would provide staff support for the commission and provide for their travel and operating expenses. 

 

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. 

 

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  (Ms. Leslie and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.) 

 

BUDGET CLOSED. 

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 319:  Makes various changes to provisions governing education.             (BDR 34-784)

 

Mr. Hettrick said the amendment came from the Douglas County District Attorney and the Douglas County Sheriff.  Mr. Hettrick said:

 

In jurisdictions throughout the state, law enforcement agencies and school officials are faced with the problem of having to intervene into, investigate, and report students planning to commit acts of violence against fellow students.  An example occurred in the last week in Douglas County.  On March 21 the Sheriff’s Department received an anonymous tip that a middle school student prepared a hit list and was planning to come to school and murder other students and at least one faculty member.  The student, 14 years old, was distraught over being teased and ridiculed by classmates.  We investigated the plot.  It came to light during the investigation there is no existing law that provides law enforcement with the tool to take action against people that threatened to commit acts of violence in the school.  The existing statute deals with threats that are misdemeanor offenses that prevent an officer from making an arrest even with reasonable cause.  Furthermore, the statutes currently require the threat be communicated directly to the target.  Conspiracy laws are likewise ineffective because in most cases the person planning the assault rarely enters into any agreement to commit the act with others.  The solicitation to commit murder equally does not work because it is limited to an application in these situations, etc., etc., etc.  We need some language, and it turned out that Chris’ bill was in the correct section of law.  They want an amendment.  We would like to add an amendment and I have staff drafting it that will add the following elements:  Any person, a pupil attending public or private school or a school employee of a school district, would be a possible perpetrator.  The victims would be the same people.  Prescribed conduct would be the threat and the murder or assault of victims and the threat and assault must describe the act that comes within certain prohibitions.  The venue would be in the school and they want to be able to make it a gross misdemeanor which would allow them to arrest and then provide some treatment.  All I am asking for, Mr. Chairman, is the ability to draft that amendment and bring it to the bill. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Hettrick if the amendment would apply to students shooting teachers. 

 

Mr. Hettrick said the shooting was already against the law but the bill would make the threat to harm the teacher against the law.  It would apply when a student threatened a teacher indirectly by telling a third party.  Mr. Hettrick clarified that the perpetrator could be a pupil or a school employee and the victim could be a pupil or a school employee. 

 

Mrs. Chowning commented that there was a bill that would address the same issues that had been heard in a joint meeting held the night before of the Education Committee and the Judiciary Committee. 

 

Mr. Hettrick said he would like to amend the language of the bill regardless of what happened with any other bill.  If A.B. 319 passed and the other bills did not, there would at least be language in the law that there would be something law officials could do about threats of murder. 

 

 

There being no further business, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 12:25 p.m. 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Lila Clark

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE: