MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means

 

Seventy-First Session

March 14, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 7:35 a.m. on Wednesday, March 14, 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

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

Ms.                     Sandra Tiffany

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

           

            Mr. John Carpenter, Assembly District 33

Mr. John Lee, Clark County Assembly District 3

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Cindy Clampitt, Committee Secretary

 

Chairman Arberry called the meeting to order at 7:35 a.m. and opened the hearing on Budget Account 1011.

 

ELECTED OFFICIALS – WASHINGTON OFFICE (101-1011) BUDGET PAGE ELECTED-7

 

Mr. Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, introduced Michael Pieper, Director, Washington Office based in Washington D.C.  Mr. Hataway stated the budget account was very brief.  He noted there were three revenue line items with allocations approved by the 1999 legislature.

 

Mr. Hataway explained revenue was allocated from the Commissions on Tourism and Economic Development, and the Nevada Department of Transportation.

 

Mr. Hataway stated the contract for the Washington Office expired June 30, 2001, and it was the intent of the Governor and the contractor to extend the contract at the current rates and conditions.  He noted there were representatives from the three state agencies present to answer any detailed questions.

 

Michael Pieper, Director, Washington Office, stated it had been his honor to represent the state of Nevada in Washington, D.C. since July 1999.  He noted that he took the job of representing Nevada very seriously and looked forward to continuing the partnership.

 

Mr. Pieper stated Mr. Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT); Mr. Robert Shriver, Executive Director, Division of Economic Development; Ms. Nancy Dunn, Interim Executive Director and Business Manager, Division of Tourism; and Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, were all present to answer any questions about their involvement with the Washington Office that might be needed.

 

Mr. Pieper reminded committee members the Nevada Washington Office opened in February 1986.  The office is located in the Hall of States, along with offices of nearly 30 other state governments and dozens of state government organizations.  He stated the office was staffed with two full-time employees including a Legislative Assistant, Ashley Carrigan, and himself.  Mr. Pieper spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit C) and provided committee members with 1999-2001 goals and achievements for the office (Exhibit D).

 

Mr. Pieper noted the office had achieved many accomplishments over the past two years, adding that some achievements were not as tangible as others.  He explained much of the work of the office was that of liaison, facilitation of meetings, or information gathering.  He added Exhibit D noted the end results of those efforts.

 

Mr. Pieper stated the focus of the office had changed over the years to be more legislative in nature.  The focus was typical of most state offices and related directly to actions taken by the Congress.

 

Mr. Pieper stressed the greatest achievement over the past two years was that of securing $2.5 million for Nevada’s Nuclear Waste Oversight program.  He stated confidently that without his efforts, Nevada would not have received that level of funding.  He noted his office was continuing to work toward full restoration of the program for FY2002.

 

Mr. Pieper told the committee there was a dramatic upturn in the amount of earmarked funds available for highway projects in FY2001.  He noted that was a result of the Washington Office working closely with the NDOT, John Hassel, technical consultant in Washington, and the Congressional delegation.  He noted the office worked closely with the regional transportation commissions in Clark and Washoe Counties and Lake Tahoe, to ensure all parties were in agreement as to the state’s priorities. Mr. Pieper noted the office was already working on requests for FY2002 and hoped to do as well, or better, than in FY2001.

 

Mr. Pieper stated he expected to continue his work with the Lieutenant Governor and Mr. Shriver on the state Entrepreneurship Plan under the auspices of the National Governors’ Association (NGA) and the Kauffman Foundation for Entrepreneurship.  He noted the project fit into the work done by the Nevada Commission on Economic Development on the Battelle study.  He added a finished product was expected by early 2002.

 

Mr. Pieper stated he expected his tourism work to continue as well as monitoring of the Visa Waiver program, working for increased funding for the Department of Commerce, and assisting with gaming issues where appropriate.

 

Mr. Pieper stated the most significant federal programs affecting Nevada were Medicaid and the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).  Mr. Pieper stated his office would continue to monitor matters affecting those programs.  He had assigned Ms. Carrigan to monitor the programs and she was in constant communication with the Nevada Department of Human Resources.

 

Mr. Pieper stated education would be a major concern in the coming year, as Congress would be reviewing reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.  He noted it was possible the state would face considerable changes to the testing and accountability programs as a result of proposed legislation.

 

Mr. Pieper informed the committee that Congress had held several hearings regarding the California energy crisis and bills had been introduced to establish a national energy policy.  He noted it would be critical to monitor the bills closely for their effects on the Nevada energy supply and the probability that nuclear energy would be part of the debate.

 

Mr. Pieper stressed the office budget requests contained no increases.  The budget for the coming biennium was $259,300 each year.  He noted there were some minor adjustments, but the total would remain the same. Mr. Pieper stated, given the financial restraints within the state, holding the line on budget requests was the only responsible action.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked for confirmation that the contract for the office expired June 30, 2001.  Mr. Pieper responded the contract was renewed annually in July.   

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if any changes in the contract were anticipated.  Mr. Pieper replied it was his understanding the contract would be continued, however, the final decision belonged to the Governor and the legislature for approval of the funding.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani opined the Washington Office was sometimes used as a “meet, eat, and greet” program.  She noted her opinion was nothing personal.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how large an appropriation for transportation funding the office had assisted in securing.  Mr. Pieper replied the funds earmarked in the previous year had been approximately $50 million.  He stated he was not taking credit for the appropriation.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what other areas the Washington Office had been involved in.  Mr. Pieper replied the primary focus was transportation.  He noted the education issue dealt mostly with following the reauthorization process.  The majority of education funding was formula-based.  Mr. Pieper added it was very important for the office to be involved in formula discussions, explaining the discretionary portion of education funding was fairly small. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Washington Office was involved in the special education funding issue.  Mr. Pieper replied the office was tracking the issue and one good point was that Nevada was in the same position as every other state.  He added achieving full funding of the special education program was a top priority of the National Governors’ Association.  Ms. Giunchigliani            asked for an opinion of whether the allocation would be made.  Mr. Pieper replied he did not feel the funds would be appropriated, although he felt there would be an improvement because the President was sensitive to the issue.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the office worked with gaming individuals who were trying to tie the hands of the state.  Mr. Pieper stated he had been involved in the issue, primarily from trying to help the state’s efforts on Capitol Hill.  He explained the role of his office was not to lobby, but to provide “ammunition” to the lobbyists fighting the battle.

 

Assemblyman Marvel stated the Washington Office had been very helpful to members of the Public Lands Committee in providing information on what was happening with grazing and mining regulations.  Mr. Pieper stated the Public Lands Committee held a series of meetings each year with the administration and officials in Congress, and the Washington Office had facilitated those meetings for years.  He offered assistance to any other interim committees to do the same.

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on Budget Account 1011 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 29.

 

Assembly Bill 29:  Requires director of state department of conservation and             natural resources to conduct independent investigation before making             certain determinations concerning control of water pollution under certain             circumstances. (BDR 40-21)

 

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33, explained A.B. 29 would require that when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought an action that issued an order such as cease and desist, or commenced a civil action, they would first conduct an independent investigation using state EPA staff.

 

Mr. Carpenter stated the bill was prompted by the earlier incident in Jarbidge, Nevada.  The Nevada EPA issued a cease and desist order against Elko County because they had information that the county was working in the water without a permit.  Mr. Carpenter stated the person who reported the incident overstated what was happening, and if the state had gone to the site and investigated for itself, the incident would not have gotten out of hand.

 

Mr. Carpenter stated Mr. Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection (EPA), was present to state A.B. 29 did not have a fiscal note attached to it.  The bill had been amended from a similar bill proposed in 1999 to remove the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. 

 

Mr. Carpenter stated when a situation occurred that caused imminent danger to the public, the provisions of A.B. 29 would not be required.  He urged the committee to pass A.B. 29. 

 

Mr. Marvel stated if the bill did not have a fiscal impact, it should not be in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.  Mr. Carpenter replied earlier testimony by Mr. Biaggi in the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining, had indicated the efforts of the bill could be covered under the current budget.

 

Mr. Biaggi, Administrator, EPA, stated A.B. 29 did not have a fiscal note.  He opined the annotation of the fiscal note might be a holdover from the bill of the 1999 Legislative Session.  His office had worked with Assemblyman Carpenter to modify the language and eliminate the fiscal note. Assemblywoman de Braga concurred with the opinion that A.B. 29 should not have a fiscal note attached.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification that under certain public land circumstances, the Nevada EPA office would go to the site and conduct an investigation.  She asked what happened it the EPA office substantiated the complaint.  She asked whether the Attorney General’s office could proceed with any orders at that point.

 

Mr. Biaggi stated whenever possible his office investigated incidents for itself.  After an investigation, the Nevada EPA office determined whether to take administrative action or initiate a civil action through the Attorney General’s office.  A.B. 29 reaffirmed current practice and he encouraged his staff, whenever possible, to conduct independent investigations.

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 29 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 4061.

 

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY – GAMING (101-4061) BUDGET PAGE GAMING-1

 

Mr. Dennis Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board, introduced Donna Varin, Chief, Administration Division, and Chairman Brian Sandoval, Nevada Gaming Commission.

 

Mr. Neilander provided committee members with a binder titled “State of Nevada, Gaming Control Board, Legislative Budget Presentation” (Exhibit E).  He explained the binder had been provided in earlier testimony before the joint committees of Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means.  He added the original overview had been detailed and no additional changes had been proposed in the meantime.

 

Mr. Neilander referred to Exhibit E, tab 3, page 3-1, which provided detail of changes in Budget Account 4061.  He summarized the major change was in decision unit M-301 which included the Governor’s recommendations for classified employee cost-of-living increases. 

 

Decision unit M-305 reflected the same changes related to cost-of-living increases for unclassified employees.

 

Mr. Neilander referred to decision unit E-275 that reflected an appropriation of $16,320.  He explained the funding would provide additional office space in the Grant Sawyer Office Building in Las Vegas.  He added the Gaming Control Board currently occupied most of the second floor of the facility, however, there was a small corner occupied by the Secretary of State.  The budget proposal would obtain that space for the Gaming Control Board allowing the agency to provide more space for gaming control agents.  It would also provide a space for the hearings examiner to conduct work permit hearings without entry into secured workspaces.

 

Decision unit E-720 provided new computer-related network equipment with an appropriation of $29,000.   He explained Exhibit E contained a complete summary of computer equipment needs at the back. 

 

Decision unit E-806 provided an unclassified pay change at $2.122 million.  Those salary increases had been discussed in the full joint hearing.  License and other investigative fees had been increased to offset the appropriation.  Mr. Neilander testified the Gaming Control Board had gotten behind in compensation and noted unclassified employees were being paid 11 percent less than those in classified service.  He added the agency had experienced excessive turnover rates over the past two years.  He stated Exhibit E provided further detail concerning those requests.  He stressed those salary adjustments were critical.

 

Mr. Marvel asked what other state agencies recruited staff from the board.  Mr. Neilander replied the major state or local agencies were typically law enforcement or investigative in nature.  He added a number of auditor positions were lost to the Executive Branch Audit team, including half of the Reno office.  Other employees were lost to the Nevada Division of Investigation (NDI) and to the Secretary of State’s office. 

 

Mr. Marvel noted he had introduced a bill to require a payback from other agencies when they hired an employee within a specified period of time from the agency who had expended funds training an officer through the Peace Officer Standards and Training program.  Mr. Neilander acknowledged loss of such employees was a source of frustration.  He added the Gaming Control Board was unique in that it hired lawyers, certified public accountants, law enforcement officers, and other professional staff.  He noted it was very difficult to train new employees because of the unique nature of the gaming business.

 

Mr. Marvel asked if it was felt that better salary offers were the reason for the turnover.  Mr. Neilander concurred and noted it was frustrating to conduct an exit interview with a long-term employee who told him a $15,000 pay increase could not be ignored.  Mr. Marvel asked if the proposed budget increases would help to stem the flow and Mr. Neilander agreed.  He noted the salary increases would be beneficial in both recruitment and retention efforts.

 

Mr. Neilander referred to decision unit E-900, which was a simple transfer within budget accounts of funds requested for the Nevada Gaming Commission.  He explained the Nevada Gaming Control Board administered all of the personnel and other functions related to the Nevada Gaming Commission.  The commission needed staff to conduct policy analysis separate from the board.  The agency had created Budget Account 4067 from Budget Account 4061 addressing the need.  He explained a comprehensive evaluation of the Nevada Gaming Commission regulations and certain statutes were needed.  While it was believed Nevada was still the leader in gaming regulation, many changes were occurring.  Technology advancements continued to build and Nevada was somewhat “behind the curve” in that area.

 

Mr. Marvel asked what training for staff was done to be kept abreast of technological advancements.  Mr. Neilander replied most of the staff in the gaming laboratory were EPROM-base trained.  However, more devices were moving toward hard drive-based environments. The same was true in office computers.  Mr. Neilander explained the agency was in transition from an old alpha system written in Cobol language to newer technology.  Mr. Marvel asked if technology professionals were being lost due to salary considerations as well.  Mr. Neilander agreed, but noted the agency had a one-year cooling off period before a former employee could work directly for a licensee.  He commented the cooling off period hurt in recruitment efforts because people did not want to be subject to the provision, but it helped with retention efforts because employees could not directly go to work for a licensee.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked for a report on the current status of gaming revenues.  Mr. Neilander responded the “good news” was that three boxing events were scheduled in March, visitation in the Las Vegas area had remained very positive, airline travel rates were strong, and occupancy rates in hotels and motels were very strong even with the increase in the number of rooms available.  Room rates were above the previous year’s numbers and it was expected that convention pre-bookings would be very strong.  He added there was reason to be optimistic.  Mr. Neilander stated the “bad news” was that the economy was slowing on a national level, the California energy crisis was creating an impact, and the high cost of gasoline also had an impact.  He added mid- to high-level spending was down and credit collections were down.

 

Mr. Neilander noted revenues in the previous few months had come in below what was expected, however, on a year-to-date basis, gaming wins were up 3.7 percent.  Taxable percentage fee collections were down 2.3 percent.  He opined there were a couple of months with considerable credit play and those funds had not all been collected to date.  Ultimately, that situation should “true itself up,” but he did not know when that would happen.  He stated total marker issuances were up 8 percent.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what percentage of markers was never collected.  Mr. Neilander replied about 94 percent to 96 percent were collected, leaving 4 percent to 6 percent uncollected.

 

Chairman Arberry asked what possibility existed for total collection on markers.  Mr. Neilander responded, the agency hoped for a high probability, but there were no guarantees.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it was likely the number of collections would be up before the Economic Forum meeting on May 1, 2001.  Mr. Neilander replied gaming collections needed to average approximately 4 percent for the remainder of the year to maintain flat revenues.  If the agency collections remained flat, the Economic Forum projections for 2001 would be missed by approximately $33 million.  Mr. Neilander opined the 4 percent was achievable and the two months of negative collections was an anomaly, rather than the norm.

 

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on Budget Account 4061 and opened the hearing on Budget Account 4067.

 

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY – GAMING (101-4067) BUDGET PAGE

GAMING –7

 

Mr. Brian Sandoval, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Commission, stated Mr. Neilander had covered most of the issues in Budget Account 4067.  He noted the most important item was in enhancements adding two positions to the commission.

 

Mr. Sandoval stated, in his position he had found that technology issues touched all areas of the gaming industry.  He noted it was very important that Nevada stay in the lead of the national gaming industry.  A new era had arrived and the commission was not currently in a position as the body to set policy for the gaming industry, to tackle the newer issues.  The commission had hosted a workshop on Internet gaming in the previous year.  The workshop had been successful through the efforts of many people from around the world offering to present their issues in Nevada.

 

Mr. Sandoval stated the commission, as the policy-setting body, needed to be ahead of the curve with regard to Internet gaming and the effects of technology on all aspects of gaming.  Those included slot machines, credit machines, industry consolidations, and anti-trust concerns.  Several regulations were outdated.  Very in-depth financial issues were being brought forward.

 

Mr. Sandoval stated the commission had no staff and was dependent on the five commissioners to independently make their decisions.  The commission and the board had no independent function to study the issues.

 

Mr. Sandoval concluded a comprehensive study of gaming regulations was a must.  Concerns had been raised that several regulations were outdated and Nevada must remain in the forefront of the gaming industry.  He noted it was common for him to attend a conference and hear a comment such as, “We aren’t going to do anything on this issue.  We will wait to see what Nevada does.”

 

Mr. Sandoval stated the remaining items of Budget Account 4067 were standard requests.

 

Mr. Marvel asked if, as a commissioner, Mr. Sandoval experienced any out-of-pocket costs.  Mr. Sandoval replied affirmatively.  He noted it had been his choice to accept his current position, which he enjoyed, but there were definitely out-of-pocket expenses.  Mr. Marvel expressed his opinion those expenses were the responsibility of the state.  Mr. Sandoval stated his position was similar to that of a legislator without having the assistance of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Chairman Arberry asked why performance indicators had not been developed for Budget Account 4067.  Mr. Sandoval stated he did not understand the question.  Ms. Donna Varin, Chief, Administration Division, replied since Budget Account 4067 was new, performance measures had not yet been determined.  Performance indicators would be included in the next budget cycle.

 

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Sandoval to explain decision unit E-175 that requested a Senior Research Analyst.  Mr. Neilander replied the position would carry the brunt of the workload regarding review of regulations.  He added the ideal candidate would be a staff person with a background in gaming technology and having some research skills.  Module E-175 contained the salary and benefits funding for the position.

 

Chairman Arberry asked if the intent was to transfer an existing position into the E-175 position.  Mr. Neilander replied negatively, explaining the commission was the policy-setting body and the board was the regulatory body.  No position was available to transfer into the new budget account and the issue had been discussed with the Governor. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Neilander to explain the request for separate budget accounts with statutory authority.  Mr. Neilander explained the existing budget was transferred into a separate account.  He added the statutes required the board to administer the budget for the commission and the intent was to continue with that function.  He related the new account could be viewed as more of a sub account.  The board would continue their oversight and provide reports to the commission periodically.

 

Chairman Arberry closed Budget Account 4067 and opened Budget Account 4063.

 

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY – GAMING (244-4063) BUDGET PAGE GAMING-9

 

Mr. Neilander stated there were no changes in Budget Account 4063.  It was simply the account where fees were collected and deposited into the General Fund.

 

Mr. Marvel asked for confirmation that the investigative fees were being raised.  Mr. Neilander concurred.  He explained the fees were raised effective January 1, 2001, administratively.  He noted Nevada was still about third highest in cost of investigations. Mr. Marvel asked if there had been any resistance from the industry and Mr. Neilander replied there was always some type of resistance from the industry, however, it seemed the industry recognized the problem.  He added the problem affected the industry as well, because the quality of agency staff to respond to industry applications in a timely manner was affected.  He noted the Governor’s Office had discussions with members of the industry who, in fact, supported both the salary and fee increases.

 

Assemblywoman Cegavske asked if the board had considered charging a fee to those entities in the industry that charged rent for slot machines placed in stores.  She added the store got a percentage of the profit, yet they were not licensed with the board.  Mr. Neilander responded such entities were referred to as space leases.  Slot route operators were the licensed entity, not the store that placed the machines.  Those machines were subject to a device fee rather than a gross revenue tax.  The fee was charged both quarterly and annually based on the number of devices rented.  The ability to charge a gross revenue tax would require a change in statute.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the board was concerned that gaming revenues were being collected by an entity that had not been investigated nor licensed by the board.  Mr. Neilander replied, if the store was sharing in gaming revenue, they were required to be investigated and licensed.  However, if the store was simply paying a flat fee, they were investigated, but not licensed.  During the course of an investigation, the option was present to require the entity to be licensed.  A cursory investigation was done and if there were any issues of concern, the entity could be subject to the full licensing procedure.

 

Chairman Arberry recessed the committee at 8:26 a.m.  Vice Chair Giunchigliani reconvened the meeting at 8:52 a.m. and opened the hearing on A.B. 267.

 

Assembly Bill 267:  Provides for creation of statue of Sarah Winnemucca for placement in National Statuary Hall Collection in United States Capitol. (BDR S-695

 

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35, introduced Ms. Carol Clanton and Carrie Townley Porter, members of the Nevada Women’s History Project. 

 

Mrs. de Braga stated in 1864, Congress established the National Statuary Hall and authorized each state to contribute two statues of distinguished citizens.  She added at the present time Nevada was one of the few states with only one statue.  A statue of former Senator Patrick McCarran was already in place.

 

Mrs. de Braga stated A.B. 267 asked state approval to contribute a statue of Sarah Winnemucca as the second statue represented in the National Statuary Hall.  She explained the bill represented a plan of the Nevada Women’s History Project.  Ms. Winnemucca was selected because she was Nevada’s first public woman.  She added the accomplishments of Ms. Winnemucca were absolutely amazing for a woman, and especially a Native American of that era.  Ms. Winnemucca was born in 1844 and died in 1891.  During that time she accomplished many things.

 

Mrs. de Braga explained Ms. Winnemucca learned to read and write, and spoke five languages. She toured much of the United States giving more than 300 speeches about the plight of her people and even traveled to Washington, D.C. to plead for the release of her people from the Yakima Reservation following the Bannock War of 1878.  She was a passionately outspoken critic of the reservation system.  Her activities as an interpreter and messenger during the Bannock War were, at times, controversial.  Mrs. de Braga stated Ms. Winnemucca’s entire spirit and resolve was directed toward the betterment of the lives of Native Americans.

 

Mrs. de Braga stated the autobiography, “Life among the Paiute – Their Wrongs and Claims,” was the first book produced by a Native American woman.  Ms. Winnemucca founded and administered a non-government school for Paiute children whose education practices were far ahead of their time. 

 

The Women’s History Project wanted to honor Ms. Winnemucca, not only for her role as a Paiute leader devoted to understanding and protecting the best interests of her people, but also for her legendary accomplishments as a woman who worked tirelessly to remedy injustice and advocate peace.

 

Mrs. de Braga stated A.B. 267 also established a committee for the creation of the statue of Ms. Winnemucca.  The committee would be comprised of two members of the general public appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate, two members of the general public appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, and two members of the general public appointed by the Governor.  The committee would choose the artist, approve the design, and serve without compensation or per diem. 

 

Mrs. de Braga noted A.B. 267 also requested an allocation of $100,000 to the Department of Museums, Libraries, and Arts to contract with the chosen artist.  She noted the estimated cost of the statue was between $80,000 and $100,000.  She added other statues in the hall were either made of bronze or marble.  Mrs. de Braga noted if the funding requested by the bill was not available she requested the bill be passed without funding, allowing the Nevada Women’s History Project to raise the needed funding.  She expressed her hope the state would be able to help with the funding, but the overall goal was for the project to move forward.  She noted any unused balance would revert to the General Fund.

 

Mr. Marvel asked if the project had approached any private foundations that might be willing to commit funding to the project.  Mrs. de Braga deferred the question to Ms. Porter.

 

Ms. Carrie Townley Porter stated she held a master’s degree in history and archeology from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV).  She explained she had taught Nevada history in public schools and was currently the Coordinator for the Nevada Women’s History Project founded by Jean Ford in 1994.

 

Ms. Porter stated the Nevada Women’s History Project was very pleased with the drafting of A.B. 267, particularly the provision that any funds appropriated would have the oversight of the Department of Museums, Libraries and Arts.  She noted the project committee worked very closely with that agency and appreciated their expertise.

 

Ms. Porter stated the Nevada Women’s History Project had received numerous grants in the past to fund a variety of projects.  She added the organization was a non-profit organization with over 300 members statewide.  There were no paid employees.  She added funding had been received from the Library Services Technology Act to assist in publication of an annotated bibliography.  They had also received numerous Nevada Humanities grants, including one to assist in funding of a conference to be held on March 23, 2001.

 

Ms. Porter stated money was received annually from the Nevada Women’s Fund named the Jean Ford Research Grant.  A Schrab Grant was received for records organization.  She noted the Jean Ford Research Grant for the current year was earmarked for the Sarah Winnemucca project.  She stated the amount was $800 and would allow letter-writing efforts to begin.  She stated the needed funding could be raised through donations within five years if funding from the legislature was not available.

 

Ms. Porter stated the committee had reviewed other methods of funding including grants, foundations, private businesses, and service organizations.  She noted she and Ms. Clanton were scheduled to meet with the Soroptimist Regional Board in April 2001.  She added other sources of fund-raisers, and sources of funding outside the state were being explored. 

 

Ms. Porter concluded, even if funding could not be appropriated, it was hoped A.B. 267 could be passed allowing a statue of Sarah Winnemucca to be denoted as the second statue for Nevada in the National Hall of Statues.

 

Mr. Marvel asked if any of the Indian tribes had been approached for assistance with funding.  Ms. Porter replied that she did not know that answer. Vice Chair Giunchigliani suggested the committee might ask representatives of some of the tribes if they would be willing to assist. The Vice Chair asked if the bill needed an amendment to allow the project committee to seek grant funding.  Mrs. de Braga stated that authority was already contained in A.B. 267.  The bill needed to pass with or without funding to denote Ms. Winnemucca as the second Nevada national statue.

 

Mrs. de Braga showed the committee a book titled “Sarah Winnemucca” by Sally Zanjani, and suggested members wishing further detail should read the book.  She noted the accomplishments of Ms. Winnemucca were remarkable for her time.  She added the nomination of Ms. Winnemucca for the statue would not be entirely supported by the tribes because some of Ms. Winnemucca’s activities were controversial and some of the history had also been “rearranged.”  She noted the project committee was honoring her, not because of her Native American heritage, but because she was Nevada’s first public woman.

 

Ms. Carol Clanton listed her personal background as that of historical researcher, software designer, and former editor of the Lovelock Review-Miner newspaper.  She noted the Rural Nevada Historians also supported A.B. 267.  Grant writers from that group were willing to donate their time to the project.  It was hoped the statue could become an educational tool in Washington, D.C., and within Nevada, to help children build their self-esteem and to show young people there was hope for people of minority races.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 267 and opened the hearing on A.B. 2.     

 

 Assembly Bill 2:  Makes appropriation to Clark County for expenses related to             regional shooting range in Southern Nevada. (BDR S-645)

 

Assemblyman John Lee, Clark County Assembly District 3, stated the bill had been in development for a long period of time.  Mr. Lee provided an introduction to the bill.  He stated A.B. 2 clearly articulated the need for a firearms and shooting range in the Las Vegas area.  He highlighted recent incidents that made passage of the bill a pressing matter.  Safety was the greatest concern.  The communities of Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas continued to grow; new developments were moving into areas where sport shooters, hobbyists, and other firearms enthusiasts had previously been able to pursue their hobby without having to be concerned about nearby property owners.  Organized shooting clubs and police ranges were minimal and those appeared to cause a significant safety concern.

 

Mr. Lee noted approximately two years previous, a stray bullet killed a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer.  In November 1999, an errant round struck a vehicle at the Red Rock Canyon 13-mile campground, and in December 2000, a man was killed in an accidental shooting.  Residents in outlying developments were beginning to complain about nearby shooters and the dangers that they might pose to people and property.

 

Mr. Lee stated the development of a regional firearms and shooting range in Clark County would address the safety concerns and provide a convenient, well-equipped alternative to desert shooting. 

 

Mr. Lee testified he and Senator Reid held a small summit with shooting organizations, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other Nevada authorities in a wilderness study area.  The study area was an illegal shooting range filled with nothing but glass, litter, and makeshift targets.  He stated, it was his belief that was not the design of wilderness study areas.

 

Mr. Glenn Trowbridge, Director, Clark County Parks and Recreation Department, introduced Charles “Chuck” Musser, member, City of Las Vegas, Park and Leisure Services Advisory Committee, and Norm Lindley, competitive shooter and life-long resident of Nevada.

 

Mr. Trowbridge stated the shooting park project was considered a major regional park project.  Various environmental groups, because of their efforts to maintain pristine areas in the desert, supported A.B. 2.  The project would also assist in economic diversity in southern Nevada because of the significant size.  He noted A.B. 2 would allow Clark County to build, maintain, and operate a world-class firearms training center.  He stated the general public, competitive shooters, visitors, and law enforcement personnel would use the facility.

 

Mr. Trowbridge said state participation in the project was important because it would show support for what would be a $15 million project.  He added numerous groups and individuals supported the project including the local governments of:

 

·        The City of Las Vegas;

·        The City of North Las Vegas; and

·        The City of Henderson.

 

The various councils had adopted resolutions in support of the project.  Letters of support and other documentation was provided in Exhibit F.

 

Mr. Trowbridge noted letters from numerous sport shooting groups offered support and had committed to hosting competitive events at the facility that would result in 140,000 visitor days a year.  Several large regional and national competitive events were planned.  One event would draw over 600 competitors that would bring with it 125,000 visitors providing a large economic boon to nearby communities.  

 

Mr. Trowbridge stated the gaming industry had offered its support, although he was not attempting to speak on their behalf.  He anticipated further communications from the gaming and development community in southern Nevada.

 

Mr. Trowbridge noted developers were interested in a regional shooting sports park with an adequate buffer area surrounding it.  He added the existing shooting ranges in southern Nevada were being encroached on by housing tracts thereby creating unsafe situations.  He stated the range developer would provide space for training and recreational use by various participants in shooting events. 

 

Mr. Trowbridge noted there were more than 400,000 registered handguns in Clark County alone.  There were over 13,000 concealed weapon permits, and 3,000 law enforcement officers needed ongoing training opportunities. 

 

Mr. Trowbridge stated the facility would be operated as a public shooting range, owned and operated by Clark County.  The land was to be acquired from the Bureau of Land Management.  Senator Reid had agreed to introduce legislation at the national level to transfer 2,800 acres in the northwest portion of the Las Vegas Valley to Clark County for development of the facility. 

 

Mr. Trowbridge passed an enlarged map of the proposed site to committee members.  He explained the map was more detailed than the map in Appendix A of Exhibit F.  The site included a large wash that would never be developed and would serve as a buffer zone for the park.  The sides of the shooting range would have a one-mile buffer area and the buffer behind the range would extend a minimum of two miles.  He explained the back of the range was against the Sheep Mountains.  He added the wash ensured there would be no encroachment from the south.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani asked how close the proposed site was to the Indian Reservation.  Mr. Trowbridge stated the site was against the reservation on the northwest side.  A presentation had been made to the Indian Reservation Board of Directors and to the City of North Las Vegas, who were in support of the project.  The immediate neighbors were aware and supportive of the project.  The City of Las Vegas (to the south) had adopted an ordinance in support of the project.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani asked if the nearby local governments currently had any planned development in the site area.  Mr. Trowbridge replied negatively.  He added, with the wash and the buffer zones controlled by the project, supporters felt they were more than adequately covered from encroachment on the site.

 

The Vice Chair opined regional planners should adopt regulations specifying no development could encroach on the area.  The Vice Chair asked for a report on the status of Senator Reid’s bill.  Mr. Trowbridge responded the bill was scheduled to be heard before Congress in October 2001.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani asked if Senator Reid had established any timelines for his bill.  Mr. Trowbridge replied the Senator had requested identification of the site, which had been done.  He noted at one time, three sites were under consideration.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani asked if the requested appropriation of $1 million covered the project.  Mr. Trowbridge stated the $1 million in funding would only cover the initial work of the project.  The total cost of the project was $15 million.  He added no stone was being left unturned in attempts to identify revenue sources for the project.  He added some of the funding resources sought were:

 

·        Financial support from the Las Vegas Visitors’ and Convention Authority;

·        Grants and donations at the national level from various organizations;

·        The federal government – Senator Reid had agreed to sponsor legislation with the United States Department of Transportation to provide access roads to the facility; and

·        Pittman-Robertson funds collected from the sale of sporting equipment, ammunition and weapons. 

 

Mr. Trowbridge noted part of the acceptance of responsibility by Clark County included their commitment for ongoing operating and maintenance costs.  He added because of the expected financial success of the facility, within a one-year time frame from the opening, the facility would be self-supporting.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani asked how much the Clark County Parks and Recreation  was budgeted on an annual basis.  Mr. Trowbridge replied his operating budget was $21 million per year.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani asked if the Clark County Parks and Recreation Department also received impact fees.  Mr. Trowbridge replied affirmatively and noted those funds were dedicated for the development of neighborhood parks.  He added the shooting park would not qualify for that funding because it was a specialized facility. 

 

Assemblywoman Chowning noted the proposed site appeared to be just west of North Las Vegas and thus all future development of the City of North Las Vegas would approach the new facility.  She asked if the bill had the support of the City of North Las Vegas.  Mr. Trowbridge replied the City of North Las Vegas had adopted a resolution in support of the project at that location.

 

Assemblyman Parks stated it was his understanding the land in that area was mostly BLM land and was not expected to transfer to private ownership.  He asked if Mr. Trowbridge had a map that would show exactly the areas that were not scheduled for private development.  Mr. Trowbridge replied he did not have the map with him and explained the southern boundary of the wilderness was set at Moccasin Road and the recreation department had a letter from BLM indicating the intent had never been to include that area in a wildlife area.  He added the dedicated wildlife area was further north, which included the Sheep Mountains and an area between the eastern boundary of the proposed shooting park and the Air Force base and would never be released for development of any purpose.

 

Mr. Parks stated he was involved with the establishment of the shooting range for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department several years previous and testimony on that project supposed there would never be development around the area of the law enforcement shooting park either.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani expressed that caution was needed about a location for the shooting park.  Mr. Trowbridge replied that caution was well placed and concurred with Mr. Parks’ comments.  He explained his department was comfortable with the site selected because of the headwaters of the Las Vegas Wash. A retention basin was present that provided an additional buffer.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani stated the regional planning agencies were looking at areas of growth significance and they could make recommendations to ensure development did not encroach on the area.  Mr. Trowbridge replied the project would go through the entire public input process before the land could be acquired.

 

Mr. Renny Ashleman, representing Clark County, commented the county believed that between the natural features that could not be changed, and the sheer size of the project, it was large enough to be self-buffering.

 

Mr. Ashleman added the potential draw of visitors to the area far exceeded that of the National Finals Rodeo.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani stated A.B. 2 had merits, but legislators were still trying to find $1 million to assist with improvements at Nevada state parks.  Mr. Ashleman stressed the funding was important for planning purposes, but another very important need was for “buy-in” of the project by the state.

 

Mr. Charles Musser, Chairman, Las Vegas Parks and Leisure Recreation Board, stated he was a native Nevadan, graduate of the University of Nevada, and currently retired from the Clark County School District.  Mr. Musser explained he had originally introduced the proposal to the City of Las Vegas Recreation Board, asking for a study to be conducted.  He noted Dr. Barbara Jackson, City of Las Vegas Recreation Board, had conducted the study and approximately one year previous, a workshop had been held with 200 people in attendance.  Those present had represented city and county governments, and shooting organizations.  He stated the workshop had been very educational.

 

Mr. Musser noted his purpose in introducing the project was because, at one time, he had the windshield shot out of his truck.  He noted his primary concern was for safety.  Mr. Musser stated being a realtor, he knew how important the choice of location was.

 

Mr. Musser explained the area was well-buffered with a wilderness area behind it, and an Indian reservation two miles west.  The headwaters of the wash were south of the proposed site.  Mr. Musser stated in 1995, the area had been declared unsuitable for a wilderness area by the BLM.

 

Mr. Musser stated he currently had a proposal before the City of Las Vegas Park and Recreation Department to study the area, including the wash and retention basin areas, as part of a buffer area.  He proposed to use that portion of the park for non-motorized activities including equestrian and bicycle events and hiking.  That would work nicely with the North Las Vegas Model Airplane Park and the Floyd Lamb State Park.  He stressed the entire area needed to be viewed in total context, not just the area for creation of a shooting park.

 

Mr. Musser stated his interests were environmental and he did not belong to any shooting organizations other than the National Rifle Association.  He stated it bothered him a great deal to go into the desert and find an old refrigerator someone had hauled out to be used for target practice.  He added the proposed park would focus on an area set aside for shooting.

 

Mr. Musser stated there were four major hotels within five miles of the proposed facility including the Santa Fe, the Fiesta, the Texas, and a new Holiday Inn at Craig Road and Interstate 15.  He explained the facilitator of the workshop had noted at the Ben Avery Shooting Park in Phoenix, Arizona, the park was 30 miles away from supporting infrastructure and very inconvenient.  Mr. Musser stressed the proposed park would be within 15 minutes of anywhere in the Las Vegas valley.

 

Mr. Musser stated Clark County Sheriff, Jerry Keller, was in favor of the site chosen because his officers spent over two hours per day just getting to ranges where they could demonstrate their shooting qualifications.  Mr. Musser noted a portion of the proposed range would be dedicated to law enforcement activities only.

 

Mr. Musser concluded his remarks stating, a young lady marksman, shooting an air rifle, won the first gold medal in the 2000 Olympics.  He noted the Revolutionary War had at least 15 women soldiers who were granted military pensions for their services.  General Cornwallis had reported to King George, that defeating the Americans would be easy because they had women in their army.  He later wrote, “The women of America are killing us.”

 

Mr. Musser added the proposed park would bring a minimum of between 150,000 and 200,000 visitors to the Las Vegas area annually.  He noted the Ben Avery Range in Phoenix was self-supporting and in fact was making money.  He noted that park only charged four dollars a day to shoot for the whole day.

 

Mr. Norm Lindley, representing himself, stated he was a 64-year Nevada resident and small businessman.  Mr. Lindley stated he was a competitive shooter and belonged to several national organizations.  He had assisted Mr. Trowbridge over the past year in gathering letters of support for the project.

 

Mr. Lindley noted a letter was included in Exhibit F, from Mr. Bob Mitchell, who was the director of the Olympic shooting program for the United States.  Mr. Mitchell’s letter indicated the only range set up for collegiate teams for air gun and rimfire shooting was in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Olympic Training Center was in Colorado Springs, Colorado.  Mr. Lindley commented, “Everybody loves Las Vegas.” Mr. Lindley stated the proposed park would be cost-effective and asked what park could not only support itself, but eventually make money to be reinvested.

 

Mr. Lindley noted one group, the Single Action Shooting Society (SASS), was located in the Midwest, the South, in the East, and occasionally in the West.  They had regular television shows on the TNN channel and had so many viewers that in some areas it had actually surpassed golf viewing.  Mr. Lindley replied the SASS group held one large event outside Ontario, California, and was expecting to draw approximately 150,000 visitors, who were shoppers and spectators who came from as far away as Europe and all over the United States to buy goods from over 200 vendors, especially clothing.  That event was the largest shooting event in the world.  Mr. Lindley noted a group event he had attended in Phoenix, Arizona, had over 7,500 visitors to vendor tents, although the event had only 400 shooters.  He added, the national organization of the SASS group, also known as cowboy action shooters, had approximately 60,000 members.

 

Mr. Lindley noted shooting sports were family events with shooting members who took a famous name from the past and actually lived in character.  Such events had clothing fashion contests, children were involved, and the events included dances and costumes.

 

Mr. Lindley stated the organization had made a commitment to move one event to Las Vegas and the committee was working to convince the cowboy shooters to move their entire structural organization to Las Vegas.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani stated a case had been made that the park would be a tourism-based attraction.  Mr. Lindley noted Mr. Trowbridge would attend a large event in April 2001 and a member of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors’ Authority was going to accompany him.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani observed Mr. Lindley had provided a positive approach to the creation of a shooting park and she would rather see people using their firearms in one location rather than carrying them around the valley as concealed weapons.  Mr. Lindley stated the area was buffered and the site faced north.  He added along the south end currently, old targets and junk were set up along berms and were actually pointed toward houses that were located not that far away.  He noted the supporters of the shooting park would clean up the area, providing a positive environmental impact.

 

There being no further testimony, Vice Chair Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 2 and opened the hearing on A.B. 118.

 

 Assembly Bill 118:  Makes appropriation to University and Community College             System of Nevada to provide assistance to university students who are             single parents with low incomes. (BDR S-455)

 

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Assembly District 27, stated in 1997 a group of professors, students, and advocates formed the HEROES Working Group.  She explained HEROES stood for Higher Education with Resources, Opportunities, and Empowerment for Success.  She noted former Assemblywoman Jan Evans had been part of the group and assisted greatly in the development of the concept. Ms. Leslie stated she had “inherited” the group from Ms. Evans and felt privileged to have worked with them for over a year.

 

Ms. Leslie testified that A.B. 118 requested an appropriation of $600,000 to the University and Community College System to establish a reentry program for low-income single parents at the university level.  It was estimated that 600 to 750 students would be served through the funding.  She added, the funding must be used to provide qualified students with assistance in completing their higher education.  She noted the financial assistance might be used for child care, transportation, tuition, books, and other educational materials.  It might also be used to provide paid internships and participation in programs that combined paid work and study.

 

Ms. Leslie stated the funds would be allocated equally between the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.  Section 2 of the bill required a report on the use of the money to be submitted to the legislative money committees.  A study at the UNR found that the more education a person received, the lower the rate of unemployment occurred.  She added higher education was a path leading low-income parents out of poverty toward economic independence.  She noted many of the parents held part-time jobs while trying to complete a college degree and care for their children.  To succeed, students needed access to supportive services that addressed their specific needs, barriers, and challenges.

 

She noted the committee would hear from staff of current reentry services that ran the centers without many supportive services and students who would provide details of their situations and how supportive services would help them achieve their educational goals. 

 

Ms. Leslie noted Jim Richardson, representing Nevada Faculty Alliance, was unable to attend but he had indicated the faculty alliance was in full support of A.B. 118.  She also provided the committee with a support sheet from the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (Exhibit G).

 

Ms. Alicia Smalley, representing the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), stated she was on the faculty at the University of Nevada, Reno, and the NASW had been disturbed by welfare reform that did not allow low-income single parents, most of whom were women, the opportunity to obtain higher education.  Such education provided a benefit to the children of those parents as well, because they were more likely to continue their education and not become dependent on the welfare system.

 

Ms. Smalley provided the committee with copies of an article written by she and Lisa Appelrouth Guzman, of the Nevada Empowered Women’s Project (Exhibit H), that provided a background of welfare reform and its effects on higher education. 

 

Ms. Smalley referred to the University of Nevada’s land grant obligation.  She explained the university was formed as a land grant institution and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges charged their legislative committee with reviewing welfare reform legislation, based on the recognition that any legislation would directly affect children, youth, and families receiving public assistance.  It would also indirectly affect communities as a whole.  She noted the land grant institutions were established to provide a broader access to higher education, irrespective of wealth and social status.  They were to educate and train professional cadres of an industrial, increasingly urban society and to strengthen and defend American democracy by improving and ensuring the welfare and social status of the largest, most disadvantaged group of citizens.  She noted cooperative extension staff was located in Las Vegas and Reno.

 

Ms. Smalley concluded her testimony with a quote from a school of social work student, Denise Abbey, “I did not want a Band-Aid approach to my career.  I did not want anything temporary.  I wanted a substantial, solid, foundation.  The more education a person has, the more solid the foundation.  Pursuing an education and bettering myself helped me provide role-modeling behavior for my three children.  The reentry program at Truckee Meadows Community College helped me tremendously because of the financial assistance.  Help with tuition, books, child care, and one-on-one personal support through nurturing, mentoring, and academic and career counseling I received.”

 

Ms. Smalley explained community colleges had reentry centers that had been very supportive of students, and yet when students went to the university they were quite lost.  Because of that, the HEROES group met with university officials and acquired support for a reentry program, but without funding.  Funding was required to provide services needed by low-income, single parents.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated she had originally introduced a bill to allow welfare funding to account for the need and commended Ms. Leslie for bringing A.B. 118 forward.  She stressed it would be important to inquire from the Welfare Division how such funding was being leveraged.  Ms. Smalley noted many of the students, if they were accorded funding through a reentry program, would not need to be on welfare.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated the change in welfare regulations was a positive step, because a large group of people had previously been prohibited from certain assistance.

 

Mrs. Cegavske noted she had visited the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and observed their child care center and talked to the staff.  She asked if the center offered graduated rates for child care, dependent on income.  Ms. Smalley noted parents would not necessarily bring their children for child care on the campuses.  Mrs. Cegavske stated since the bill listed child care benefits, she had assumed parents would be encouraged to bring their children to campus child care.  Ms. Leslie stated the theory behind child care subsidies was one of parental choice. She noted it might be best to seek child care on campus, but because of work schedules, it sometimes made sense to seek child care elsewhere.  The choice was up to the parent.  She noted the University of Nevada, Reno, had one of the best child care development centers in the state, but it was hard to acquire an opening.  Ms. Leslie stressed the state had fairly clear guidelines because of federal child care block grant funding, which specified who qualified and how.

 

Mrs. Cegavske asked if the assistance would be available for a parent who chose to have a mother or grandmother care for a child.  Ms. Leslie replied, “That was a different story.”

 

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked, since community colleges had reentry programs, could the universities apply for the same funding grants for establishing a university reentry program.  She asked if the appropriation requested in the bill would be an ongoing request from the General Fund in the future.  Ms. Leslie stated some individuals from the community college system had been upset by the requests of A.B. 118, but it was her understanding that the university could not apply for some of the same grants.  Ms. Tiffany noted there must be some grant, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) grants available.  Ms. Leslie replied some efforts had been made, unsuccessfully, to obtain funding for needed services.  Ms. Tiffany noted the community colleges already had a program in place and did not request appropriations from the General Fund.  Ms. Leslie opined the committee would hear from some community college representatives that they also would like more funding because their grant funding was very tenuous.  She stressed her hope that the needs expressed in the bill did not become a struggle within the University and Community College System. 

 

Ms. Smalley addressed the issue of TANF grants.  She reminded committee members TANF grants had time limits for completion of studies that made it difficult to conduct any type of university work.  She added there were no federal TANF grants available for higher education.

 

Ms. Tiffany commented she and Ms. Leslie had reviewed TANF funding requirements and there seemed to be some pockets of funding that could be made available for services.  Ms. Leslie noted it might be necessary to sit down outside the hearing room for further discussion and research, and all campuses within the University and Community College System needed support.  Currently, universities had virtually no reentry services.

 

Ms. Jan Gilbert, representing the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, testified the community colleges, because of their vocational training programs, did apply for various funds.  Those funds were not available to universities.  Ms. Gilbert had suggested universities apply for Title XX funds and Welfare to Work funding.

 

Ms. Jill Derby, Chairwoman, University Board of Regents, testified she had served on the board for 12 years.  She had watched and noted the difference reentry centers at the community college level made in lives.  She commented that many low-income would simply not be attending college without the help of reentry programs.  She noted it was hard for some to realize there was an entire population who had not had exposure to colleges and universities, and felt totally intimidated by even approaching a campus, knowing where to go, and even envisioning themselves being successful in that environment.

 

Ms. Derby stated some of the low-income students had told her that part of their pride in their own accomplishments came from the fact their children had seen them as successful college students and they had provided a role model for their children to follow and break the cycle of low-income poverty.

 

Ms. Derby noted there was great satisfaction in watching the difference higher education made in lives.  She added some people, such as Millennium scholars, were on a trajectory of success, but when a student appeared who was not previously on that trajectory and their lives were changed, that was cause for rejoicing.  Reentry centers made that kind of difference, not only for the student, but for their children as well.

 

Ms. Tiffany noted the university already had a reentry office with one staff and asked what that office did if they were just now asking for funding.  Ms. Derby noted the current offices were so underfunded, they were not able to offer the kinds of services offered by community college reentry services. 

 

Ms. Tiffany rebutted Ms. Derby was a policymaker and asked if the program was so important, could it be funded from the university budget or could the board direct grant requests to fund the program.  Ms. Derby replied it was known that grant opportunities for universities were very limited.  She explained the HEROES group had formed two years previous in response to the needs brought about by the welfare reform.  She added the universities had so many compelling demands, the reentry center needs had not made it through the budget process.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked if a request for placement in the budget had been made, and Ms. Derby replied no request had been made.

 

Dr. Joseph Crowley, representing the University and Community College System of Nevada, expressed support from the Chancellor and the system for A.B. 118.

 

Dr. Crowley stated the bill grew out of the community college reentry centers.  He related, as President of UNR, he had asked the same questions being raised by Ms. Tiffany.  He stated the answers he had received were, that the university was not eligible for the same grants as the community colleges.  He added the Women’s Center had been a priority for the university and what funding was available had been funneled to that resource.  He noted the Women’s Center went beyond reentry programs and served its purpose well, but the state did not provide direct funding.  Funding was derived from whatever sources could be found.

 

Dr. Crowley stated the sponsors of the bill likely did not expect the bill to generate a conflict within the University and Community College System.  However, one had surfaced over the past few days.  He suggested the sponsors and opponents of the bill should be brought together to work out a compromise plan.  He assured the committee that university representatives had nothing but admiration for community college staff.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked if Dr. Crowley would object to an amendment to A.B. 118 that would include both the universities and the community colleges.  Dr. Crowley replied A.B. 118 was not the universities’ bill so Assemblywoman Leslie should respond to the question. 

 

Ms. Debbie Malone, student, stated when she was asked to speak at the hearing, she became very frustrated because she was at the point in the semester where she would run out of funding for her studies.  She stated she was scrambling to find resources, filling out scholarship forms every other week in hopes that the next semester would be different.

 

Ms. Malone stated, according to the financial aid office, her projected budget for the current semester was $9,400 and her total aid received, including work- study funds, was only $6,000.  She added the projection did not consider any emergency funds.

 

Ms. Malone explained her tuition was $1,600 (17 credits), books and supplies were $575, and monthly child care costs of $350.  She noted her monthly income was $550 and monthly expenses totaled $1,300 per month.  She testified she was a single parent with two children, a 16-year old and a 3-year old.  She stated she had found the need to request welfare assistance eight times in her adult life for periods of approximately six months. 

 

Ms. Malone stated after her mother had died the previous year, she made the decision to attend college.  She asked committee members to step into her shoes for a moment.

 

You have a long week ahead of you.  In one class you have a five-page essay due. In still another, you have a quiz that you have not had time to study for because you have eight chapters to read in another class, and you still have to meet with your advisor.

 

You look at your schedule and try to find time to do your homework.  You work 20 hours per week, but it is not enough to make it financially. But that is all the time you have available.  School is about 45 hours per week. 

 

Since you are a single parent, you run to the day-care, drop off your child, and pick them up in the evening.  Sometimes you take them to the evening babysitter so that you can make the evening classes.

 

But you’re not done yet.  You still have to do all the cleaning and the shopping and the laundry and find time for church.  You try to squeeze in quality time for your children, all the while trying to remain calm and loving and show the patience of Job.

 

Meanwhile your car is broken down and the repair costs $350 that you don’t have.  You don’t have an emergency fund.  You don’t know what the concept is.  Some nights you go over and over your budget and after you have rearranged it six times, you decide to go to sleep, not knowing how you are going to pay your car insurance.

 

You constantly remind yourself, when I get my college degree, all this struggling will be over.  However, what if you can’t make it four years, going through the daily juggling act with time and money, trying to see who will win.  Trying your best to be a good parent.  Sometimes, it is all you can do to finish your homework.  You wish you could just relax and meet your bills, so you can relax and concentrate on school. 

 

Ms. Malone stated that pattern reflected her daily life and she was still managing to carry a 3.7 grade point average.  She testified research had shown that single parents with the least amount of education were at the highest risk for poverty.  She stated higher education was a powerful tool for economic independence and a way out of poverty, and off welfare.

 

Ms. Malone asked if a single parent deserved to go to college, and opined, she thought so.  She stated the question was, how could that be done with limited resources.  She explained when she had applied for food stamps she was amazed to find she was living below the poverty line for a family of three.

 

Ms. Malone stated, upon the death of her mother she had realized if something was going to change, it was up to her to make it happen.  Her future was staring back at her as she saw her mother slipping away, and it shocked her into a life-changing decision.  She insisted A.B. 118 be passed to provide her with the tools she needed to survive and be successful. 

 

Ms. Malone concluded stating, more than anything she wanted to find “her corner of the sky” and she knew that achieving her degree would give her the ticket to fly.

 

Ms. Malone related a story:

 

There was a college professor who assigned his class the story of the Good Samaritan.  He said look it up, it’s in the Bible.  I want you to do a three-page essay on it and it is due in two days.

 

So the students diligently studied and prepared their papers.  On the day the papers were due, they all ran into class quickly so they would make it on time.

 

However, this day outside the building, was a homeless man who looked like he hadn’t bathed in days.  You could feel the pangs of hunger just by looking at his eyes.  Each student passed him by as they looked, pretending not to see.

 

Class began about five minutes late as the professor came in and asked the students for their papers.  They all seemed very proud of their work, and they laid them in a pile on his desk.

 

The professor slowly picked up the papers in his hand and slowly walked around the desk and sat down.  The silence made the students very uncomfortable.  Unbeknownst to the students, the stranger had slipped into the back of the room.

 

Seeing this, the professor looked at the students and asked them, “What did you learn from this assignment.  How can we help those in need.”  And the students answered all the questions appropriately.

 

Then the professor, looking to the back of the room, asked the stranger, “Joe, did any of these students help you,” and he looked at his colleague and said, “No, not one.”

 

There was a stirring and general confusion among the students.  The professor said, you will all be receiving Fs for this assignment.  I want you to remember it is not what you know that matters, it’s how you use what you know that will make a difference in the world.  If you don’t let your knowledge change you, you will never change the world around you.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani thanked Ms. Malone for her testimony and stated several members of the committee believed, whoever her professors were, they ought to accept her testimony as one of her assignments.  Ms. Malone replied she was a speech major and would be turning in her testimony to her professor. 

 

Ms. Toni Lewis, student, testified she was a 31-year old, majoring in elementary education, and was scheduled to receive her bachelor’s degree in spring 2002.  She explained she had determined to return to school to seek a career that was more meaningful to her existence.  She added, she had held jobs as an accounting assistant, a customer service representative, and various positions in the insurance field.  None were as rewarding as her volunteer service as a teacher in her church and tutor in her community.

 

Ms. Lewis stated it had been difficult starting out as a student because she had traveled frequently with her military husband.  She had married at 18 years old and solely relied on her husband’s career for future security.

 

Ms. Lewis stated, ironically, the marriage ended, and after her husband’s career began to take off, independent of the military, she was left standing alone.  She stated at that point she realized she had been to three different colleges, three different states, a different country, and it had always been promised she could pursue her career once her husband was settled in his and she had relied on that promise.

 

Ms. Lewis stated she searched for reasons to continue her education at that point because she was a complete wreck emotionally, struggling financially, but she had heard a woman in her situation could receive assistance, although she did not know where to start.

 

Ms. Lewis stated the UNLV Women’s Center was the beginning of the light at the end of the tunnel.  They had provided her with an enormous amount of information regarding scholarships, grants, and work-study programs.  Ms. Lewis had found, however, that she did not fit into many of those categories.

 

Ms. Lewis stated after ending a 16-year relationship, it took hard work, focus, and determination to reach goals in the face of adversity.  She noted for 8 months after the separation, she continued to work a 40-hour week and carry a 16-credit-hour load at the university and still maintained a 3.92 grade point average (GPA) at the School of Education and a 3.47 GPA overall.   She testified that was a very difficult time in her life.

 

Ms. Lewis explained she had been forced to leave her job in December 2000 to pursue the fast track she had chosen for her college education.  She stated although she was working in the casino industry, they did not assist her with tuition and reimbursement because her chosen field had nothing to do with gaming.  Because her career path did not include gaming, the casino was not willing to allow flexibility in her work schedule.

 

Ms. Lewis stated most of her education had been achieved after work at night, but to participate in her practicum, she needed to attend school during the day when elementary schools were open.  She reminded the committee all those decisions were necessary in the middle of a very ugly divorce.  She stated her ex-husband made her feel guilty for pursuing her education and attempted to take full custody of her daughter. 

 

Ms. Lewis stated she nearly quit her college pursuits at the time, but she reminded herself that her mother had been a single mother of four with a bachelor’s degree.  At the same time, her father-in-law passed away and he had been one of her biggest supporters, telling her she could do what she set out to do.

 

Ms. Lewis referred to earlier testimony, noting her former father-in-law had told her to beg, borrow, or steal to accomplish her goals.  She noted he did not literally mean “steal,” and assured the community college representatives, A.B. 118 was not trying to steal from them.  She stressed she had not wanted to stop her education at the community college level.  She had received a general education degree, even with her many relocations.  Her goal in achieving that degree had been to have her daughter see her mother succeed in the eye of adversity.

 

Ms. Lewis stated single parent needs were those basic needs of food, shelter, transportation, and child care.  She stated nothing could prepare a parent for the guilt of being an absent parent.  She added the student knew there would be an end to the struggle, but it seemed very far away.  Ms. Lewis stated she was currently meeting her living expenses with student loans and by the time of her graduation, she would owe approximately $35,000.  She commented her testimony was not to benefit herself, but to help the students coming after her.

 

Ms. Lewis stated she did not plan to stop her education at a bachelor’s degree.  Her goal was to receive a master’s degree in school counseling and ultimately a doctorate in marriage and family counseling.

 

Ms. Lewis concluded, “If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you’ve always gotten.”

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani stated Ms. Lewis would be a welcome addition to the education profession.  She commented Ms. Lewis’ testimony reflected what she had always felt, “That teachers were the cash cow for the university system, a number of classes were not accepted and they don’t deal with core classes at alternative times to accommodate schedules.”  She noted she had a bill that proposed a teacher loan forgiveness program.

 

Ms. Diana Thoreson, student, stated she was a full-time student majoring in special education and she maintained a 3.48 GPA.  She explained she was a single working parent with a 12-year old daughter.  She added she had returned to school in the fall of 1996 after applying for over 300 jobs. She noted the best offer she had received was at $4.50 per hour, working Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights and Sunday during the day.  She added what she would have made in those four days would have all gone to day-care.  She had a 25-year work history, prior to the job-hunting experience.  She stated her best friend, who was already enrolled, had tricked her into going to the college.  The friend had urged her to seek a college education for months and Ms. Thoreson had replied that she was not good enough; she did not have the money, and had asked what she would need to do with her daughter.

 

Ms. Thoreson stated her vehicle was 12 years old and held together with masking tape and wire and yet she had considered indulging in a college degree.  The friend had urged her to go to the Women’s Center while she was taking care of her business one day.  Ms. Thoreson testified the Women’s Center had answered all of her questions.  She had been referred to the reentry program at the community college.

 

Ms. Thoreson stated the reentry center had solved how books would be purchased, tuition, two classes would be paid for and in return they had required her to declare a two-year major.  She noted at that point she had “shut down.”  They had asked what kind of trade she was interested in.  She told them she had always wanted to be a teacher.  She had refused to declare a trade and the community college allowed her to take the two classes anyway and that was the beginning of an education that had led to her current studies at the UNLV.

 

Ms. Thoreson related that the first semester she attended the community college her electricity had been turned off for three days, she had to wait until November for Pell grants, she was in the process of losing her house, and her car blew up on her.  She had completed half a semester of studies, had several papers due, tests were looming, she needed transportation to and from school, and in retrospect she did not know how she had been able to continue.

 

Ms. Thoreson stated in December of that year she found it hard to believe she had completed her first semester of college.  She had taken her daughter to work with her because she could not afford to pay for day-care.  Her daughter was in the Safe Key Program at nine dollars per day and Ms. Thoreson had needed to beg them each week to let her carry the cost over into the next week.

 

Ms. Thoreson stated her goals were well under way, but she knew there were thousands of people who were just like her.  She commented such folks were working the $4.50 per hour jobs and just getting by. 

 

Ms. Thoreson stated for her to continue, she had to visualize herself each day as a special education teacher.  That was her sustenance.  Ms. Thoreson concluded by reading a note her daughter had slipped in her purse the evening before the hearing. “Mom, good luck, you’re too funny, you’re too cool, and you’re going to be a great teacher.”

 

Ms. Conee Spano, Director, Jean Nidetch Women’s Center, UNLV, testified some of the services provided by the center included assistance to adults returning to school after an absence, or for the very first time at a mature age.  She stated services included information about registration and the admission process, referral to campus apartments, support after enrollment, and occasionally, referrals to off-campus social service agencies.  A limited number of scholarships was available to assist with books, tuition, and child care.  She noted the state supported the salaries of a full-time director and one full-time classified person.  All funding of operations, programs, and student wages came from donations, fund-raising and grants.

 

Ms. Spano added student workers, intern students, and volunteers, staffed the center.  All wages were met through fund-raising.  She stated 517 individuals accessed reentry services of the center in year 2000.  She stated 91 percent of those clients were women and typically non-traditional students with very unique needs, and over the age of 25. 

 

Ms. Spano noted such students returned to school because of life transitions such as divorce, death of a spouse, loss of a job, or survivors of domestic violence circumstances.  She added more than 95 percent of clients requested financial assistance from the center to help pay tuition, books, child care, and transportation expenses.

 

Ms. Spano stated in year 2000, the center raised enough funds to provide 17 scholarships; 15 for $500, and 2 for $1,000.  She noted that number fell far short of the needs requested.

 

Ms. Spano stated the Millennium Scholarship Fund assisted traditional students with their college education, however, educational opportunities at the college level were out of reach for many interested adults.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani asked if any of the needy students could qualify for Millennium Scholarship funds.  Ms. Spano replied Millennium Scholarships were limited to high school students.  She added she was not aware of any available grant funding for non-traditional students. The Vice Chair noted it might be worthwhile to explore opening Millennium Scholarships to entering freshmen, especially if they were pursuing degrees in education or health care.

 

Ms. Rita Laden, University of Nevada, Reno, stated approximately two years previous the university had realized through the support of the HEROES group, more needed to be done for low-income adult reentry students.  Funding had been received from the university for a part-time reentry counselor, Theresa Williams.  The program had also gotten support for some student wages.  The responsibilities for the program were added to those of Ms. Kathy Carson.

 

Ms. Laden stated the program had been named OASIS (Office of Adult Student Information and Services).  The staff began offering workshops throughout Reno, Sparks, and Carson City to invite prospective adult students help overcome barriers they might have to college entry.  Thirteen workshops were held in year 2000 and as a result many participants had enrolled at the university.  The office had learned there were many barriers for adults returning to college, or for an adult beginning college.

 

Ms. Laden stated some prospective students were nervous about entering a classroom; others thought they needed to take remedial English and mathematics courses before entering college.  She stated the reentry center had been able to help students overcome those barriers by making referrals to other departments and providing encouragement.  Ms. Carson taught an academic skills class just for adult learners.  A variety of workshops such as stress management and time management were held.

 

Ms. Laden noted the program had found itself unable to meet the most important need of such students, that of financial assistance.  One of the most frequently asked workshop questions was how a student could be assisted with child care and textbooks.  The reentry center was young and they had begun a fund-raising campaign, although it was not yet fully underway.  One scholarship had been awarded.

 

Ms. Laden noted of the new admittances and transfers into the university, 12 percent were over the age of 25.  It was unknown how many of those were single parents, but it was likely many of them were.  The university requested demographic information and it was found that 12 percent of the students had a family income of $15,000 per year and below.  Another 17 percent had an annual income between $15,000 and $25,000. 

 

Ms. Laden testified a great deal of energy was spent in recruitment of the adult learner, yet the services to keep them involved were not provided.    The funding from A.B. 118 would be a tremendous help in meeting the need of that student population.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani stated Ms. Laden’s testimony had revealed what the current program was actually doing.  She noted it was shameful that the university, who had money in its budget, had not directed some funding to the reentry program.

 

The Vice Chair asked if any type of grants had been acquired for the program.  Ms. Laden replied they had not.  Ms. Carson concurred.  The Vice Chair noted in some areas that did receive grant funds, the university took a large portion off the top of the grant for administrative fees.

 

Ms. Laden noted UNR had provided salary for a director and reentry counselor, but there was no funding for scholarships, books, or child care.  Ms. Carson clarified she did not get grants for the reentry program, but she did receive grant funds for other programs she administered.  The Vice Chair asked how much the university took for administrative costs.  Ms. Carson replied the typical amount was 49 percent.  She added there were some grants which stipulated administrative costs could not be added onto the grant request.

 

Ms. Bobbie Gang testified representing the Nevada Women’s Lobby and the American Association of University Women – Nevada.  She noted both organizations believed that education was the key for women to move from poverty to self-sufficiency.

 

Ms. Gang stated when Congress and the Nevada Legislature passed TANF legislation, the two-year time frame and inability to count higher education as a work credit forced many low-income and single parent women to drop out of higher education programs.  She added several states had addressed the “hole” in the TANF system.  She noted Ms. Gilbert had mentioned the Maine Parents as Scholars Program, which was very successful. 

 

Ms. Gang stated some states had programs in place even before the TANF requirements went into effect.  She complimented the Nevada University System for what had been accomplished through the HEROES program.  She asked for consideration of the long-term benefits to society and the state of funding through A.B. 118.  It would improve the status of women and their families and enable more women to move into better paying jobs.  She read from the Nevada Women’s Agenda 2001. 

 

The current welfare reform movement requires recipients of welfare benefits under TANF to focus on work, not education.  Recipients are often forced to quit education programs because of time limitations, rather than focusing on earnings that would be generated by completion of their education programs.  A study of the effect of welfare reform on higher education showed that enrollment of low-income students declined and many, who were enrolled, dropped out.  Those who were required to drop out had lower earnings than those who had graduated supporting the relationship between higher self-sufficiency and further education. While this system may get people off welfare, it may not be getting them out of poverty.

 

Ms. Barbara Twitchell, Director, Re-entry Center, Truckee Meadows Community College, testified she did feel like a villain, and in fact she wanted to speak on behalf of A.B. 118.  She commented the low-income single parent population was very near and dear to her heart.  She had worked in the community college reentry center for seven years and she was passionate about the needs of the low-income student community.  She stressed she was highly supportive of any benefit to that group.

 

Ms. Twitchell stated one of her purposes for testifying before the committee was to dispel the myth that somehow the community colleges viewed A.B. 118 as cheating them or that there was a great deal of antagonism between the community colleges and the university.  She noted a misunderstanding existed because the bill was introduced without input from the community colleges because it was believed that funding for the community colleges was solid and secure.  Information had been provided to committee members that the funding pools and streams for the community colleges were dwindling and in some cases even dried up.

 

Ms. Twitchell referred to earlier testimony that indicated there were a number of situations where students had gone to community colleges and been told they had to go into a trade of some kind.  She affirmed all of the funding, funded vocational programs only, so if someone wanted to begin a four-year track, their educational program could not be funded. 

 

Ms. Twitchell stated traditional funding sources such as the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) had ceased to exist.  The Perkins’ grants had changed their focus and she explained when Perkins III had been revised at the federal level the set-aside for single parents and displaced homemakers had been removed.  She stated currently there was an option if the schools and programs wished to serve those populations, they were just one more population in a general pool of applicants.  As a result, funding at Truckee Meadows Community College had gone from $102,000 down to $60,000.  She noted the allotment in year 2000 had been $50,000.

 

Ms. Twitchell added Great Basin College had gone from $100,000 in Perkins III funding to $10,000.  She stated that college had served 200 students and were currently serving only 20 and really no longer had a reentry program. Ms. Twitchell stated the grant for Western Nevada Community College went from $111,000 to nothing.

 

Ms. Twitchell noted earlier testimony had referred to TANF and other funding programs and stated those programs funded short-term vocational training and typically did not fund even a complete two-year program.  She suggested perhaps the legislature needed to address methods to change TANF regulations so that women and men could be supported in their long-term goals.  She concluded the reentry center had less funding and served a broader range of populations.

 

Ms. Ruth McKnight, Counselor, Truckee Meadows Community College, commented that she, herself, was a successful reentry student.  She had been married and supported her husband through his years in college and expected that would be reciprocated, however, they had divorced before that could happen.  Thus, even though she had an associate’s degree in general education right out of high school, that degree was really nothing special. 

 

Ms. McKnight had found it difficult to get a job and support herself and if it had not been for a women’s reentry center in Los Angeles, California, she would not be a counselor at a reentry center to give back to programs such as those that had assisted her.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani urged the community colleges to work with the sponsor of A.B. 118.  Ms. Twitchell replied she wanted the record to reflect there were no hard feelings and it was not an adversarial relationship.

 

Assemblyman Goldwater noted one of his fears of the Millennium Scholarship Program was that it would blossom into a fruit tree of programs that put the state’s resources into a deep hole.  He added however, the infrastructure of that program and the reentry programs made sense.  He asked if it would be possible for the Board of Regents to go through the Millennium program and add the criteria outlined in A.B. 118 to make it a worthwhile program with additional resources from the state.  Dr. Crowley replied “additional resources from the state” would be important.  He added, he would be happy to take the message back to the system.  Mr. Goldwater stated the Millennium program had enough flexibility in outlining the parameters to make the plan feasible.  Dr. Crowley asked if Mr. Goldwater was suggesting changing the scholarship to a needs basis.  Mr. Goldwater replied his intent was to add additional criteria beyond the B grade average requirement using the criteria from the bill.

 

Dr. Crowley stated the question of utilizing a needs basis for the scholarship program did get a lot of discussion and debate during the 1999 Legislative Session.  He stated the Board of Regents had been the happy recipient of the Millennium Scholarship Program rather than the decision makers.  Mr. Goldwater recalled the legislature had directed the Board of Regents to develop needs-based criteria.  Dr. Crowley replied the board was directed to give attention to assuring that other scholarships the institutions made available would be directed in a greater percentage to needy students and that had been done.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani requested Dr. Crowley to work with the regents, and the legislature would review the statutes.  She reminded the committee it was estimated the Millennium Scholarship Program was predicted to run short of funding in 2008.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani welcomed visiting high school students from Yerington High School.  She closed the hearing on A.B. 118 and opened the hearing on A.B. 273.

 

 Assembly Bill 273:  Makes supplemental appropriation to State Department of             Agriculture for shortfalls in revolving account for agriculture working             capital and State Predatory Animal and Rodent Committee. (BDR S-1261)

 

Mr. Paul Iverson, Director, State Department of Agriculture, noted he was also a teacher and found the previous testimony very interesting. 

 

He explained the department was requesting funds to supplement the agriculture working capital fund.  He noted at the end of the FY2000 a purchase order problem had occurred.  Fingers could be pointed everywhere, but as director, the fingers all pointed back to him.

 

The purchase order was submitted to pre-audit prior to the closing date of August 16, 2000, but it had been returned for correction after that date.  In the meantime the data warehouse had been used to review and determine budget closings.  By that time the money had been spent in Budget Account 4550.  The funds had provided a way to pay bills owed for feeding and care of estray horses, and to purchase some additional panel vans.

 

Mr. Iverson stressed an account tracking system superior to the data warehouse was currently in place to help ensure a similar mistake would not be made in the future.  He added it was an operational procedure that had fallen through the cracks.  He noted the department had a $10,000 operating fund and the bill from the Washington State Laboratory had ultimately been paid from that fund.

 

The remaining portion of the bill dealt with the Predatory Animal Control and Rodent Committee.  An employee in Ely, Mel Anderson, was diagnosed with prostate cancer and rather than staying with the state as had been his original plan, Mr. Anderson had retired.  That had created an unanticipated expense to pay his sick and annual leave balances.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani noted more detail on the needs of A.B. 273 had been heard the previous day in the Joint Subcommittee on General Government hearing.

 

Mrs. Chowning stated overspending a budget was against the law and without consequences it could cause other agencies to think they could do the same thing.  She requested details of the new accounting system so that everyone could be assured that steps were being taken so such an oversight would not happen again.  She commented she appreciated the forthright testimony from the director.

 

Vice Chair Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 273 and returned the gavel to the Chair.

 

Chairman Arberry noted the committee had one Bill Draft Request (BDR) needing introduction.  The amount requested in the BDR was $400,000.

 

·        BDR S-1488Makes appropriation to Department of Administration for support of amateur athletics and recreational programs in City of Las Vegas. (A.B. 360)

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF A.B. 360.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Cindy Clampitt

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE: