MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Finance

 

Seventy-First Session

June 2, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 8:08 a.m., on Saturday, June 2, 2001, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT

 

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District Number 9

Assemblywoman Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Assembly District Number 5

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Bob Williston, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Scott M. Craigie, Lobbyist, American Resort Development Association

Sherry Blackwell, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration

Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA)

Sarabeth Brown, an individual

Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District

Terry L. Hickman, Counselor, Centennial High School, Las Vegas, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA)

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Dotty L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District

Bill M. Welch, Lobbyist, Nevada Hospital Association

Janice C. Pine, Lobbyist, Saint Mary’s Health Network

Jack Kim, Lobbyist, Health Plan of Nevada

Joe Crowley, Lobbyist, University and Community College System of Nevada

Dorothy E. Riley, Ph.D., RN, Past President, Nevada Nurses Association

Hugh Ricci, P.E., State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Martin Bibb, Lobbyist, Retired Public Employees of Nevada

Ruth H. Hart, an individual

David Smith, Acting Chairman, Public Employees’ Retirement Board, Public Employees’ Retirement System

James T. Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance

Danny N. Coyle, Lobbyist, SNEA/AFSCME Retiree Chapter 4041

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, Teamsters Local 14

Clay Thomas, Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

 

SENATE BILL 500:  Revises various provisions of University Securities Law.             (BDR 34-915)

 

Senator Raggio pointed out that Senate Bill (S.B.) 500 deals with the university securities law. He stated the committee had voted to amend and do pass the measure.  He explained the Assembly added an amendment deleting Sections 7 and 8, and adding a new Section 7.  He asked whether Mr. Ghiggeri had reviewed the Assembly amendment to the bill.

 

Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated the amendment does not provide for any change to the legislation as approved by the Senate.  He explained it clarifies the effective date.

 

Senator Raggio reiterated that Assembly Amendment Number 976 would change the effective date on S.B. 500.

 

            SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE ACTION OF THE             ASSEMBLY ON S.B. 500.

 

            SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

* * * * *

 

SENATE BILL 261:  Makes various changes to provisions governing time shares             and common-interest communities. (BDR 10-819)

 

Scott M. Craigie, Lobbyist, American Resort Development Association, stated S.B. 261 is a timeshare bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning.  He said Assembly Amendment Number 1063 is totally unrelated to the bill itself.   He said the amendment requires disclosure to buyers prior to the time of purchase of residential properties of any interest that any homeowner associations might have against the property being sold, such as liens, specific complaints, or various requirements.

 

Mr. Craigie pointed out the issues with the bill had been worked out with the Assembly.  He stated there would be a Letter of Intent issued by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary to the Department of Business and Industry’s Real Estate Division.  He said the Real Estate Division would add the disclosure to an already existing state disclosure form.  He added terms of the disclosure have been agreed to by homeowner associations and real estate agents, both of whom were opposed to components of the bill.

 

Mr. Craigie stated that Mrs. Chowning and the Assembly Committee on Judiciary are willing to withdraw their support for the amendment to S.B. 261.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the amendment would change S.B. 261 in any other way.  Mr. Craigie replied it would not change the bill on any level. He explained that without the amendment, the bill would remain exactly as this committee approved it.

 

Senator Raggio recommended that the committee not concur with Assembly Amendment Number (No.) 1063 to S.B. 261.

 

            SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO NOT CONCUR WITH ASSEMBLY             AMENDMENT No. 1063 TO S.B. 261.

 

            SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

* * * * *

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 521:  Makes appropriation to Governor for support of Nevada Commission for National and Community Service. (BDR S-1350)

 

Senator Raggio indicated the bill would provide an appropriation to the Governor to support the Nevada Commission for National and Community Service.

 

Sherry Blackwell, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration, stated the recommendation in the Governor’s budget is continued from the 1999 legislative session.

 

Ms. Blackwell explained the bill grants money to the commission to promote volunteerism and to use to obtain matching federal grants.  She added it makes the appropriation subject to legislative audit, and said it would require a report to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) on the use of the money.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether funding was previously appropriated for this purpose. Ms. Blackwell responded that it was.  Senator Raggio asked how much that appropriation was for.   Ms. Blackwell said she did not remember the amount.

 

Senator Raggio noted the bill is in its first reprint. He asked what the original amount in the bill was.  Mr. Ghiggeri explained accountability language had been added, and the amount had not been reduced.

 

Senator Raggio asked for clarification whether the bill is to provide matching money to enable the commission to obtain additional funding.  Ms. Blackwell replied that is correct.

 

Senator Raggio asked who headed the commission.  Ms. Blackwell admitted she did not know. Senator Raggio expressed interest in knowing who that is.

 

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

 

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District Number 9, stated A.B. 319 is legislation based on a task force report that had been organized last session. She stated parents expressed concern regarding the proficiency exam and how special education students and any other students might be impacted.

Ms. Giunchigliani indicated other matters have been included in the bill.  She presented a list of suggested amendments for A.B. 319 (Exhibit C), and a list of revised amendments for A.B. 319 (Exhibit D). She also presented a copy of an opinion article she wrote to the Reno Gazette-Journal entitled Tiered Diplomas Best for Students (Exhibit E). She stated that language regarding threats of violence and disruptive behavior of students has been included at the request of Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the first section of the bill deals with reporting requirements to ensure accountability of the school district and individual schools to the residents of the district and to the State Board of Education for the quality of the schools and the educational achievement of the pupils in the district, including pupils enrolled in charter schools.  She said it was modeled after similar reporting requirements at many universities, but some school districts remain concerned regarding the language.  She said one of her suggestions is to delete that language. She said the concern was that the school districts did not know how to compile the required report, and she does not want to approve an unfunded mandate.  She said she still feels the reports are important, but she suggested the matter of reports could be revisited during the next session.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said the main component of the bill is Section 6. She pointed out there is already a tiered system for school diplomas. She said there currently are certificates of attendance, standard diplomas, advanced diplomas, and adjusted diplomas, which are available only to special education students in certain circumstances.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated a new type of diploma, called a mastery diploma, would be added. She said the intent is to recognize that, without reducing standards, not all students could pass one single high-stakes exam. She stated that burdens have been put on students for the purposes of graduation, which put the students at risk forever when qualifying for a diploma, even though they have mastered all the work contained in the test.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said the bill anticipates keeping the certificate of attendance for a student who has not secured the credits and passed the course work that is currently required of them. She said if by age 17 students do not have their credits, they may receive certificates of attendance. She pointed out these are students who have not bothered to do the work required of them.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said a new diploma would be provided for the purposes of any child, such as English Language Learners (ELL), regular education, or special education, who passes every criteria that the local school board has set up, but cannot pass the proficiency exam.  She stated the Assembly strongly believes, that for those children, the 4 years should not be wasted, since they have put forth some effort.  She stated those students should be entitled to a diploma that recognizes their efforts.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that concern for a standard was considered. She said one proposed amendment would change the bill to allow a diploma to be issued according to a lower standard. She asserted the adjusted diploma would be proper.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the standard diploma would stay in place. She said the adjusted diploma would only be available to ELL and special education students who pass an alternative proficiency examination, which the bill would create.  She stated the alternative exam does not exist at this time, and explained that a phase‑in period has been provided in part of the bill. She stated Title I programs require a phase-in period for ELL students, and $250,000 was recommended for it in The Executive Budget.  She noted, the funding was removed from the budget. She stated federal regulations also require that testing modifications be made for special education students, and she said the bill would comply with that requirement by allowing the school districts to develop an alternative examination that still measures content standards, but in a different format. She stated if students pass that kind of examination they would be issued standard diplomas.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said the new diploma recommended is the mastery diploma. She said it would be available to all students in all general education classes, who pass all their examinations, take all their credits, pass all the courses required, and pass the required proficiency examination. She said it would recognize a higher level of skills.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani explained the final diploma would be an advanced diploma. She said it would be for individuals who take advanced course work, such as the International Baccalaureate (IB).

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the bill recognizes that not all students are good “test‑takers,” and it would not “water down” the standards. She opined students should not be punished for doing everything required of them except pass a high‑stakes examination.  She said:

 

In fact, in the Commission of the States [Education Commission of the States], they are recommending that all students can have, adjusted for ELL and students with disabilities, that they should be allowed to have a variety of different accommodation strategies from the allotment of extra time, which is also contained in this bill for modifications, and that they be able to have separate, special accommodations, including alternative assessments for the proficiency modeling.  I think the Commission of the States has recognized you can’t paint everybody with a broad brush, that you have to look at specialties and recognize this is not a ‘dumbing down’ of the test, this is just a way to recognize it.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani recalled that, in her letter to the editor of the Reno Gazette-Journal (Exhibit E), and in a recent speech on the Assembly floor, she stated very clearly that, “we want to give a diploma to those kids that have jumped through every hoop we’ve put before them except the high-stakes exam.”

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that a certificate of attendance, given to any student, implies the student has been sitting for 4 years and has not done the work. She said that is the reason for the certificate of attendance.  However, she said, such diplomas are now given to students who have made every grade, every credit, and every test in their classrooms. She expressed concern that situation is a “slap in the face” for such students.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out students take the proficiency test during high school, and can take the test as many times as they need in order to pass it by the time they finish the 12^th grade. She said that, for students who arrive at the 12^th grade and still have not passed the test, proper notice will be given to the parents that the child will not qualify for the mastery diploma. She said parents would then notify the school district that they understand the requirements and what kind of diploma the child qualifies for. She stated proper communications would be necessary so that no one would be “blindsided” on graduation day.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani noted no designation is made by the business community; it is customary to ask only whether the student has a high school diploma. She said it would be far more important to parents to be able to say their child has an adjusted diploma rather than a certificate of attendance.

 

Senator Raggio asked what would occur if the parent does not submit a written statement to the school district.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said that had not been discussed. She stated the child would still be issued the adjusted diploma. She added the lack of acknowledgement of notification would neither prevent nor stop the diploma from being issued.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether that section would apply to pupils with disabilities or ELL students.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani replied it would apply to any child who had taken the proficiency examination and still not passed. She said that, unless the student’s individualized educational program (IEP) requires otherwise, it would apply to students with disabilities and ELL students. She stated an IEP serves as a notice, because an IEP has to be reviewed every year, and the type of diploma the student is working toward must be identified.

 

Senator Raggio noted the idea had been to give parents written notice so they would accept responsibility. Ms. Giunchigliani said that is correct.

 

Senator Raggio asked what would occur if the parents do not accept responsibility to respond to a letter of notification. Ms. Giunchigliani said that would not prevent the school district from giving the appropriate diploma.  She pointed out the parents would still have received notice from the school district.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the idea is original, and whether other states offer these kinds of diplomas.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated some states are working toward a similar setup.  She said many have a tiered diploma, and many are now going from having the proficiency examination to allowing the classroom exit exams to be the test. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether other states give diplomas on similar bases such as special education and ELL as is proposed in A.B. 319.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said all she could gather from her review is that there is an assessment in secondary education by states requiring competency tests for graduation.  She pointed out there are 18 states that require some kind of exit examination.  She offered to find more information on specific diploma information in other states for the committee.

 

Senator Raggio said the committee is not aware of any states that offer diplomas specific to different programs, and he would appreciate if Ms. Giunchigliani could provide the information to the committee.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said Section 8 is a recommendation from the report.  She pointed out it was not the majority opinion in the Assembly, but it was the opinion of the majority of parents.  She stated some school district administrators who had served on the task force did not agree with Section 8.  She remarked that compelling testimony had been given by parents who came from both northern and southern Nevada and the rural counties in support of language in the section.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said Section 8 would allow children that are blind or have severe learning disabilities in reading to have the test be read aloud for them as a form of accommodation.  She stated if a student has a disability in reading or is blind, it is obvious the student could not read.  She said in that case the reading would not be the part being measured, but the content would be.

 

Senator Raggio asked what the present situation is for visually impaired students.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated it is “at whim” as far as she can determine.  She said that was the reason the recommendation in Section 8 was made.  She commented that occasionally a student will use Braille.  She added the language in A.B. 319 was considered more acceptable by parents.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked whether one and the same test determines what status a student would fall into, or whether each group would take a different kind of test.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani replied that each group may take a different test.  She said a special education student may take a test in math, science, English, and reading. She added that the intent is, if a student has a severe reading disability, it should still be determined whether the student knows the math and science and the content of those courses.  She said such a student could have the examination read to him.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked whether the teacher would segregate such a student. Ms. Giunchigliani replied that a variety of methods are used. She said in her classroom students are divided up among the faculty so students with similar needs may be tested together.  She pointed out that a group of students identified as exempt from a test may be put together for regular class work while the others undergo testing.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated she presently is only allowed to read directions to the students, even though she knows the students are going to have difficulty because of a reading disability.  She stated some school districts feel that segregating students for this procedure would be costly, but she expressed her own disagreement with that opinion.  She pointed out that such procedure is already being used, and teachers are creative enough to figure out how to accommodate the various types of needs.

 

Senator Neal stated he has been in the Legislature for many years and seen many such bills aimed at creating somewhat of a meritocracy within the educational system.  He asked whether it would be better if the Legislature made a finding and allowed time for corrective action to be taken by the school system itself, rather than put certain rules and regulations into statute that the system must be governed by.  He said one of the things he learned at a school presentation was how much time it takes a teacher to complete all the required reports.  He noted that because of the time required for reporting, about all of the class time was erased in terms of training and teaching students.

 

Senator Neal stated he understands what the objective of A.B. 319 is, but because it is not working, it adds an extra step to something else the Legislature created in the past.  He explained it would create another level to straighten out a previous error.  He said, “Wouldn’t it be better if we just backed out of this thing altogether and just said, okay, here’s a time period for corrective action, let’s see what you can do in 5 or 10 years, school system, and make a judgment after that.” 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that is a very valid question.  She pointed out the paperwork Senator Neal was speaking of would tie in with current law, which she is not proposing to change.  She said it has to do with how such things are tracked and accounted for in the school system.  She added that is what some consider unduly burdensome.  She argued that, as a classroom teacher, this bill would have no impact, and pointed out there is already a tiered diploma system.  She said the only paperwork being added by A.B. 319 is the school district’s notification to the parents, and the parents’ notification to the school district.  She noted she does not believe there is anything wrong with communication, but acknowledged there have been problems with communications.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated A.B. 319 would accommodate, with corrective action, the situation in which the Legislature decided that Nevada would be one of 18 states requiring an examination for graduation.  She said corrective action would be needed because the state discriminates against some students, and it is assumed that all students are alike.  She declared all students are not alike.  She added that if the state chose to do away with the proficiency examination, it would be fine with her.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the bill recognizes that the proficiency examination is the standard at this time as a result of policy the Legislature set.  She acknowledged this committee has been very supportive of education, regardless of whether all the members agreed on how it should be accomplished.  She pointed out that sometimes, with the best of intentions, things are done that affect students in a negative way.  She reiterated that A.B. 319 attempts to remedy that.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated it is true that some teachers have a lot of paperwork.  She suggested that most of it comes from local school districts, rather than from the Legislature.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani referred to Section 8, subsection 6 of A.B. 319, and said the section refers to pupils who fail to pass the regular high school proficiency examination or the alternative high school proficiency examination.  She pointed out the subsection declares that a student would receives an adjusted diploma regardless of whether the parent returned the notification.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether students would get a “sheepskin” that says “adjusted high school diploma.”  Ms. Giunchigliani replied that is correct.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated A.B. 319 also authorizes additional days for some students who could not handle the long time period of testing, and it also allows students to use calculators during the math section, if the IEP calls for it.  She added it allows for the examination to be administered in separate settings.  She explained it is uncomfortable for some students, even in a general education class that has been mainstreamed for purposes of testing, and it may be more appropriate to take those students back into a resource room or a more comfortable setting.  She pointed out those were recommendations of the parents on the task force established by the 1999 session of the Legislature to study diploma requirements.

 

Senator Raggio asked what is meant by “individualized testing environment.”  Ms. Giunchigliani responded it would be in another classroom where students would have a quieter area to work in.  She said they could be taken to a resource room, a facilitator’s office, or any of a variety of places where they would be in a more comfortable setting.

 

Senator Raggio questioned what “playing appropriate music” meant.  Ms. Giunchigliani replied that “soothing” music, which is classically based, is often played, and was recommended by a parent.  She added that currently such accommodations are written in many IEPs.  She said she believes parents wanted it to be very clear that those accommodations should be allowed.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani, referring to Section 11, said there have been arguments that many parents were unaware that they could file charges if a child committed assault or battery.  She added that her amendment proposes deleting the last sentence on lines 38 through 40.  Senator Raggio commented that if a pupil committed an assault, the principal notifies the parents of the victim and gives them the phone number of the police department.  Ms. Giunchigliani answered that is correct.  Senator Raggio asked why that would need to be in the law.  Ms. Giunchigliani answered, because it is currently not happening and parents requested it.

 

Senator Raggio noted it also said, “The principal shall request that they file a criminal complaint.”  He asked whether the principal could file a criminal complaint.  Ms. Giunchigliani responded she does not know.  She suggested that the last line be stricken, because principals were concerned that they would have to make a judgment call.  She said that is a valid argument, because it was not the intent that principals would have to decide when a criminal complaint should be filed.  She explained the intent was, “Your child has been beat up, you already require a conference anyway.  When that parent comes down… this could be an assault or battery, here’s a phone number.”

 

Senator Raggio asked what the effect would be if that is put in the law, and the principal does not abide by it.  He added it should not be necessary to enact a law directing the principal to tell the parents what to do.  Ms. Giunchigliani replied parents of these victims felt principals were not doing that.  Senator Raggio queried whether those parents do not know enough to call the police without being told.  Ms. Giunchigliani replied that not all parents know that.  She pointed out it is totally a different world in the “world of education.”  She said parents are sometimes intimidated and do not always know what their rights are.  She added that in Clark County, if a child has been badly beaten, that child automatically gets suspended along with the child who was the assailant.  She explained that this causes the parents of the victim to become upset, and often when the parents are informed of their options it helps the situation.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani, referring to Section 11.3 of A.B. 319, said a law was passed under A.B. 521 of the Seventieth Session that required alternative placement for any pupil who had to be removed from the classroom.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 521 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION:  Makes various changes relating to discipline of pupils. (BDR 34-1328)

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said she, Assemblywoman Barbara K. Cegavske, and members of the committee did not want to lose that component.  She suggested it would be proper to at least put some language still in A.B. 319 to continue analysis of models for alternative discipline programs.  She clarified she did not believe every other discipline plan out there would have to be studied, only those that would be appropriate when a child had to be removed from the classroom.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that would help focus more energy and funding on 5 or 10 good programs, instead of having 100 programs across the state that would require 100 different funding alternatives.  Senator Raggio asked whether those programs would be model alternative discipline programs sponsored by the school districts.  Ms. Giunchigliani responded they would be.

 

Senator Raggio asked for an example of one of those programs. 

 

In reply, Ms. Giunchigliani said the principal of the C.P. Squires Elementary School brought the matter before the education committee.  The committee gave the principal permission to select one teacher who would be willing to handle difficult children.  The teacher created something akin to an in-house program by setting up a counseling program.  When a child became confrontational, Ms. Giunchigliani said, the program provided training to the parents, teaching them how to intervene with the child.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asserted the program worked very well, with a low recidivism rate.  She explained the children were given prevention training before they went so far as to beat up somebody, or swear at a teacher, or throw furniture.  She reiterated the program was a wonderful model, and the education committee was very pleased with the results.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out the original bill request was for approximately $10 million in funding, which was deleted.  However, the committee did not want to lose the policy portion of the measure, so a request was made to the State Board of Education to continue to identify model programs that districts could use for alternative placement programs for unruly children.  She concluded, “There is no sense in reinventing the wheel.”

 

Senator Raggio asked whether Section 11.3 of A.B. 319 would incur an additional cost to school districts.  Ms. Giunchigliani replied it would only if the school districts were required to adopt alternative discipline programs.  She suggested that “shall” be changed to “may” in Section 11.3 and therefore there would be no mandate.  She stated that would allow school districts to move forward, and if they identified model programs, those programs could be brought before the next legislative session.

 

Senator Raggio pointed out that Section 11.3 says, “The department shall in consultation with the school district trustee, prepare and publish this list.”  Ms. Giunchigliani remarked this is correct.  She added that A.B. 521 of the Seventieth Session is already in place, and the Department of Education could ascertain whether districts have done anything else that had not been reported and add that information to the documentation.

 

Senator Raggio commented that Section 11 of A.B. 319 also says, “Each district shall adopt as many model alternative programs as approved.” He asked whether there is an amendment to that wording.  Ms. Giunchigliani replied that “shall” would be changed to “may.”  She added that way it would keep the policy.  She said the districts are coming together and coming up with better ideas in reporting.

 

Senator Raggio stated Section 11.7 looked vaguely familiar to S.B. 148.  Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that the language in that section came from Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick.  She said she agreed with the amended wording.

 

SENATE BILL 148:  Makes various changes regarding education and educational personnel. (BDR 34-219)

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said Section 14 of A.B. 319 was requested by school bus drivers and is modeled after what was done for schoolteachers in A.B. 521 of the Seventieth Session.  It would allow a bus driver the right to request that a child be removed from the bus if that child created a conspicuously bad situation and jeopardized the safety of the driver and the other children on the bus, she added.  She noted the bus driver must deliver the child to his or her bus stop, but the bus driver must document the incident and a parent conference would be required.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether a bus driver would be required to allow a child back on his bus the next day if that student had threatened the bus driver the day before.  Ms. Giunchigliani responded the bus driver would not be required to let that student back on the bus.  Senator Raggio commented that the section states, “Before he removes the privilege of a pupil to ride the bus, the bus driver shall provide to the pupil an explanation.”  He opined that section might lead to ridiculous circumstances.  He added that he would accommodate a language change even though he questioned why all those steps would be necessary.

 

Senator Raggio asked why such procedures would need to be followed if a student had done something as severe as to threaten to kill someone.  Ms. Giunchigliani replied that is what bus drivers have requested.  In such situations, she said, bus drivers currently have a citation sheet that must be given to the student, and this new language basically would comply with what they already do.  She added that without the bill, a bus driver would not have the authority to deny a ride on the bus to that child.  She stressed the bill anticipates that kind of circumstance, because the child will have been notified with a citation, the principal will have been notified, and the principal would have contacted the parent. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether all of this due process is necessary in a death-threat type situation, and whether it is legally necessary.  Ms. Giunchigliani responded she is unsure.  However, she added, “This is the day and age of lawsuits.”

 

Senator Neal asked whether, when a bus driver forbids a student to get on the bus, it would set up a confrontation between the bus driver and the student.  Ms. Giunchigliani replied that currently happens, and often the bus driver will allow that child on the bus.  Senator Neal questioned how the bus driver could prevent that student from just getting on the bus.  Ms. Giunchigliani answered that without some form of law similar to this, that bus driver would have to transport that child.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that she hopes the committee will keep an open mind when considering the diploma standard, since there is already a tiered structure.  She added A.B. 319 anticipates and recognizes that most children are good and most of them do a good job. 

 

Senator Raggio pointed out that many of the sections in A.B. 319 have already been covered in S.B. 148, which accommodates delaying the requirement to pass the science portion of the exam.  He said Section 19.3, which would delete “threaten or” from the provision, is also in S.B. 148.  Ms. Giunchigliani replied she would have Mr. Hettrick review those sections.  Senator Raggio commented that S.B. 148 also parallels Section 19.7 of A.B. 319.

 

Senator Rawson reiterated there would be five levels of diploma:  a certificate diploma, an adjusted diploma, a standard diploma, a mastery diploma, and an advanced diploma.  Ms. Giunchigliani replied this is correct.  She added that currently there are four levels of diplomas.

 

Senator Jacobsen asked where the term “sheepskin” for a diploma came from.  Ms. Giunchigliani responded that the old parchments that were written on were made of sheepskin.  Senator Coffin indicated that in the old days, the intestine and “gut” of a sheep were found to be not only very permanent, but also very attractive for writing on, a practice that goes back to medieval times. 

 

Assemblywoman Barbara K. Cegavske, Clark County Assembly District Number 5, voiced her support for A.B. 319.  She pointed out that many parents worked very hard on the bill during the interim.  She said she believes many voices have been echoed in the bill, and many individuals worked very hard and are very supportive.  She commented that parents of children with disabilities have not always had the say that they need.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out the bill passed with 38 votes for it and 4 votes against it in the Assembly.

 

Senator Jacobsen commented that in many social circles there are many comments about the “three R’s.”  He said, “It seems we have lost that concept.”  He asked whether it appears the school system is getting back to that philosophy, or whether it is getting more technical. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said:

 

I believe the pendulum has swung back, properly, more into your basic skills.  I would call it ‘four R’s,’ though.  That’s reading, writing, arithmetic, and responsibility.  I think that is part of what has to be a core in a curriculum, so that the youth knows that they are responsible for their learning just as much as I am as their teacher.” 

 

Senator Jacobsen stated that as a parent, he realizes that parents have not been educated.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani commented:

 

I have a social theory… I think in the last 20 years, parents, in my opinion, not all, but many, have confused the roll of parenting and they have chosen to be their child’s friend rather than their child’s parent.  I think that has caused a great deal of problem regarding discipline and respect for each other.  My students do not… I have a great deal of respect for them, and they do for me, because they know I set the boundaries and I expect them to stick to it.  They know I care more when I put up a structure rather that not.  I think some parents are just fearful of that these days, or didn’t learn it themselves, because many were babies that have babies, unfortunately.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the $500,000 in the education budget closings had been intended for this bill, and she still is requesting that amount, even though the budgets are closed.  She added that the funding would be for the alternative exams to be created by the State Board of Education over the next 2 years.

 

Senator Raggio commented that one thing he agrees with, which he called the largest single problem in America today, is lack of parenting, and it cuts across everything.  He said too many alibis are made, and excuses for lack of parenting, and “we try to accommodate it instead of trying to urge parenting.”  He added that unless everyone gets on the same path to solve the problem, and quits making excuses or alternatives for lack of parenting, “we will never succeed.”

 

Senator Neal asked whether Ms. Giunchigliani, because she informed the committee that the bill passed with a 38 to 4 vote, is suggesting to the committee that the wisdom of the legislation could be determined by the number of people who support it.

 

Mr. Giunchigliani responded:

 

I would never suggest so, but you know as well as I do that people always ask what was the vote, and I wanted to show that is was overwhelming and bipartisanly supported. That’s still this body’s choice.  But you know that as well as I do.  If it had passed by a narrow margin it would have been a different story.  But I wanted to show that it had been embraced by many different individuals.  

 

Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated NSEA supports A.B. 319.  She added that of particular interest were the portions of the bill dealing in discipline for disruptive individuals, and the suggestion that school districts should work to find a way to install alternative programs for disruptive pupils, which would go a long way in helping to fully implement A.B. 521 of the Seventieth Session.  She added there are still schools that do not have those alternative programs, and teachers are reluctant to refer pupils out on an “A.B. 521 referral.”  She said she believes there is still work to do in that area.

 

Sarabeth Brown, an individual, said she is a parent of a child who has been in Nevada schools since 1986.  She stated that a certificate of attendance “adds insult to injury” to children with disabilities.  She added she has a child who this year was certified for special education after mainstreaming in general education for 13 years because he could not get help on the proficiency exam.  She said he did not pass the exam because there was no implementation of the section concerning having the exam read to a child with a disability.  She explained he will graduate with an adjusted diploma, but it has been quite trying having a child with visual problems who should have had the exam read to him.  Even with extra time, a calculator, and a variety of other things, she added, he was unable to pass the examination.

 

Ms. Brown said:

 

I just want to say that the tiered diploma situation, all it does is say that we’re not going to slap you in the face, and we’re not going to give you a certificate of attendance for somebody who has struggled for 13 years, who wasn’t in special education until this year.  We had to get him certified.  He was qualified.  So, for a parent who has kept a child mainstreamed for 13 years, I think that adding a tier that creates a diploma that acknowledges that a child has stayed in school, and on a non-emotional basis.  I’m here because there is a lot of kids who don’t have parents like my husband and I, who in their junior years talked to my son’s counselor.  In their junior years they are dropping out because, why would you stick around for a certificate of attendance, and if they don’t have parents who think education is important, my belief is from looking at the statistics and my son’s school, which happens to be Wooster High School, in Reno, that kids, who, in their junior years do not pass, look at getting a certificate of attendance, and frankly there is no reason for them to stay for their last year.  I really believe statistically what we are doing is creating a group of dropouts that might not drop out if they knew they could get that magic word, diploma, even if it’s an adjusted diploma, even if it’s a tiered diploma.  I think the fact that, and really the reason that I’m here, my son, he will be successful at some point because he has parents who will push him to be successful and will help him.  But I am here really for those kids who I say who were friends of his, who left school because they were not going to stay around for a senior year to get that certificate of attendance.  So what I am talking about is the very verbiage that we use.  I think it is insulting to someone who has done more than just show up for 12 years.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether there is an adjusted diploma already available for special education students.  Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, stated this is correct.  She said under the Washoe County School individual education plan whatever accommodations are needed or provisions for getting a diploma without passing a proficiency exam can be arranged.  

 

Ms. Loring indicated the bill has a large number of issues within it.  She said the Washoe County School District has concerns about two portions, particularly the provision for an alternative assessment of the high school proficiency exam beyond what is already available for special education students.  The other concern is about the provision of a diploma for students who do not pass the high school proficiency exam, she added.

 

Ms. Loring suggested that because these two issues are major and philosophical issues, they should be thoroughly discussed during the interim by the Legislative Committee on Education.  Senator Raggio commented her statement was in reference to Section 8, and asked whether any other sections should be discussed.  Ms. Loring remarked two other areas that should be discussed are in Section 6, regarding the provision on diplomas without passing the proficiency exam, and the section on alternative assessment beyond what is available for special education.

 

Terry Hickman, Counselor, Centennial High School, Las Vegas, commented he strongly supports the tiered diploma, because it is already being provided for special education students.  He said the adjusted diploma would give access to students for federal and state assistance to attend college.  He explained if students do not receive a diploma from a high school in Nevada, they will be denied access to federal and state assistance to go on to college.

 

Mr. Hickman declared a certificate of attendance, in essence, denies the ability to move on with assistance to go to college.  As a counselor, he added, he would never say that a student who did not pass the proficiency test would be bound to be a failure his entire life.  He remarked that he believes students should not be labeled that they would never be successful.

Senator Raggio questioned what the percentage would be of students passing the high school proficiency exam, in all areas, in Centennial High School.  Mr. Hickman replied that Centennial High School is only 2 years old and it has a small senior class of approximately 400 students.  He pointed out that at the last proficiency exam, which was just given, there were approximately 25 seniors that passed only one or two sections, or possibly three.  He said the majority of those students were special education students, and they will be receiving an adjusted diploma.  He added they will have access to the funding for college that he was talking about.

 

Senator Raggio said, other than the special education students, the numbers he has seen have been quite high, at 97 percent and 98 percent, passing the high school proficiency exam, which is not exactly a high level test.  He added that the test is based on the old standards.  He asked whether the percentage of students passing is in the high 90th percentile.  He noted that no students in White Pine County have ever failed that exam.

 

Mr. Hickman stated that at Centennial High School, approximately 96 to 97 percent of the regular students will pass.  He remarked that 720 days of education versus 5 hours, seems to be wide discrepancy in terms of what is really valued.  If a student receives their 22.5 credits from Centennial High School, but is a basic student, he could fall through the cracks because he would receive a certificate of attendance, he added.

 

Senator Raggio pointed out that students are currently being given a number of chances to take and pass the high school proficiency exam, maybe as many as six or seven times.  He said when a student receives a diploma there is an obligation not only to that student, but also to the public.  The public is what supports education in this state, he added.

 

Senator Raggio said:

 

We’re saying to them, this student is proficient, and able.  You can hire this student, you can place this student, you can take this student into college.  What are we going to tell people?  Are we going to give them a diploma for whatever reason because they’re not proficient?  This is where we have a problem.  I know there are compelling cases, but what are we telling the public?  Apparently other states have resisted this attempt as well.  A diploma means you have obtained some proficiency that’s required, and that means that you’re capable of going out and competing, and people can rely on that.  What are we going to tell people if we have five levels of diplomas?

 

Mr. Hickman said he believes access to financial assistance in college is something that should be considered.  He stated that tying financial assistance to a test, is a pretty big step and he would like for everyone to consider the fact that federal and state monies are contingent on the student fulfilling the terms of a diploma.  If the student fulfills 22.5 credits and does not pass the proficiency exam student will receive a certificate of attendance, but would be denied financial assistance, he added.  He said those students who do pass the proficiency exam, have access to financial assistance.

 

Senator Raggio asked how a student could get to twelfth grade without being proficient and be able to pass a proficiency exam.  He questioned whether Mr. Hickman is suggesting that they were given a social promotion to reach twelfth grade.  Mr. Hickman responded that he is not suggesting that.  He said the students have to fulfill the requirements of each of their classes.  He stated that being in a class for 180 days is far different from sitting in a class and taking a test for two hours, knowing the impact that it will have on your life.

 

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated A.B. 319 contains a number of significant issues, each of which deserves full consideration because of the impact it will have.  She said:

 

I would like to bring up a few issues that have not yet been discussed.  First, though, I’m looking at the amendment offered by Ms. Giunchigliani and attempting to track it, and the lines and such that are mentioned on it don’t correctly track what she intended.  The first amendment says page 2, lines 25 through 39.  As I understand it, from discussing it and what she said here, it’s actually page 3, lines 20 through 37, on that third reprint.

 

Ms. Lusk said the second amendment is clear.  She stated the third amendment relating to Section 11.3, says it would delete “shall” and insert “may.”  She pointed out that in Section 11.3, “shall” appears two times, which would need to be changed to “may,” in order to make that a genuine option.  She commented that she is making the assumption that the committee will probably accommodate Ms. Giunchigliani’s request for amendment, and will therefore not address the issues that would otherwise be addressed in those amendments.

 

Ms. Lusk said she would like to bring attention to a few elements of the language of the bill that she is uncertain of its intended meaning.  She pointed out that the required plan for progressive discipline makes the principal subject to a mandatory reprimand or admonition if he does not file the plan with the Board of Trustees each year, on time, regardless of the reason.  Senator Raggio asked what section she was referring to.  Ms. Lusk responded it is on pages 16 and 17, Section 18, and it occurs on page 17, lines 6 through 8, and reads, “Within the 30‑day period allowed by his immediate supervisor, the supervisor shall ensure that a letter of reprimand or letter of admonition is included within the personnel file of the principal.” 

 

Ms. Lusk said she would like to discuss, somewhat, the proficiency exams and the tiered diplomas.  She pointed out that under A.B. 319, many students could be exempted from proficiency exams and from the accountability reporting associated with those exams.  She stated that the entire new set of high school diplomas has a tremendous impact and needs a full and thorough discussion.  She raised the question as to whether the proficiency exam is really an advanced exam or an exam that all students need to know in order to graduate from high school. 

 

Ms. Lusk questioned whether there is an implication that the exam is something more than required for a standard diploma if a mastery diploma is given by passing the proficiency exam.  If so, she added, the exams themselves need to be examined to determine whether they are at the right level.  She said perhaps it is true that a minimum proficiency exam needs to be given for a standard diploma and an advanced exam would result in a mastery diploma.  She asserted that it does not make sense to say the minimum proficiency exam results in a mastery diploma or an advanced diploma.

 

Ms. Lusk indicated that these are some of the issues that need extensive consideration, and perhaps the Legislative Committee on Education would be the proper forum.  She pointed out that, with regard to the bus driver committee, she understood from earlier discussion, and agrees, that bus drivers should absolutely have the right to remove someone who is dangerous or exceptionally disruptive from a school bus.  She said the way it is being set up in A. B. 319, school bus drivers are given significantly increased authority to deny long-term bus riding privileges, even when the principal feels the decision was an arbitrary one or is not a wise one for that student.

 

Ms. Lusk pointed out the bill provides that each school district will have only one review committee, and when large school districts are considered, that seems completely unworkable.   

 

Ms. Lusk stated there is a great deal of procedural detail found in the bill.  She suggested that because the bill goes into such detail, some of it may belong in district regulations or procedures and should be worked out at the local levels.  She asserted that would allow parents and communities to be part of developing details of how things related to discipline and bus privileges would work with their children.

 

Ms. Lusk commented that in some cases the Legislature should place in state law overarching legal requirements for the districts to meet.  She added that school boards should then enact policies that follow the requirements.  She said procedures and details should be developed within the community.

 

Dotty L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, stated she is attending first as a Nevada school district test director representing other school test directors and a number of school district’s special education directors.  She said she would like to specifically discuss the third reprint of A.B. 319, on page 7, Section 8, referring to the examination measuring reading.  She said she previously provided the information to Ms. Giunchigliani and would like to share the same information with the committee.

 

Ms. Merrill stated she was one of the two members of the ACR 16 Task Force.  She said test directors strongly support the accommodation of reading tests aloud for students who are blind or have visual impairment.  However, she added, along with a number of special education directors, the district has opposed reading aloud the reading test for students who have learning disabilities in reading.

 

Ms. Merrill drew attention to a ruling from the Office of Civil Rights made in 1994 concerning the Birmingham Board of Education, and stated the case has not been overturned.  In that case, she said, the Office of Civil Rights and its hearing officer affirmed the rights of a student with a learning disability to have a test read aloud, but not when the test was intended to test reading.  She remarked that is because the reading test is intended to be a test of reading.

 

Ms. Merrill commented that as a representative of the Washoe County School District, she would like to thank Ms. Giunchigliani for working with the districts requests concerning sections that involve transportation.  She added that the district’s transportation director said he could live with the situation at present or move forward with the new sections if they are enacted.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 378:  Makes appropriation to support certain loan program for nursing students and requires development of plan to increase capacity of programs of nursing within the University and Community College System of Nevada. (BDR S-852)

 

Bill M. Welch, Lobbyist, Nevada Hospital Association, commented that A.B. 378 would do two things at this point.  He said the original bill had four components which, through the process, have been narrowed down to two components.  He pointed out that Section 1 provides for establishing a loan scholarship program for individuals pursuing nursing through the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN).  The funding would come from the public health trust fund, established in the last legislative session with tobacco settlement funds, he added.

 

Mr. Welch said the amount of money would be 25 percent of the interest income available, or $250,000, whichever would be less.  He commented that at the end of the biennium, the monies that had not been used would revert back to the trust fund for the control of the authority of that trust fund, and as they are repaid, the monies from loans would be paid back to the trust fund.  He indicated this is a one‑time funding mechanism for this biennium.

 

Mr. Welch explained the second component of the legislation would require the University Board of Regents to develop a plan by August 15, 2002, that would double the nursing programs within its system, along with a budget that would be identified separately from its biennium budget for the 2003 legislative session to consider.  He remarked that would allow the Legislature in the 2003 session to see what it would take to effectively double the nursing program, which the Nevada Hospital Association believes is necessary to even come close to meeting demands.

 

Senator Raggio said, with respect to funding, Section 1 indicates an appropriation of either $250,000 or 25 percent of the available interest income earned from the tobacco settlement money, whichever is less.  He asked about the current status of the funding, and whether it would require an appropriation.  Mr. Welch replied that he is unaware of the current status.  He noted he has been working with staff on the Assembly side, and they indicated this was the best “vehicle” to use to go forward.  He said he spoke with the proper representatives of the trust fund, and this is what would be available.

 

Senator Raggio stated the provisions of A.B. 378 were not included in The Executive Budget.  Therefore, he said, up until this point bills from the Assembly have not been dealt with that are not included in The Executive Budget.  He asked whether there is interest income available for this purpose, or whether it would require an appropriation.

 

Senator Rawson commented that a certain part of the trust fund was established for nursing scholarships.  Senator Raggio remarked that is why he was curious whether there should be an alternative appropriation included that is not in the budget.  Senator Rawson responded that use of the language “whichever is less” seems to him unequivocally that it does not need an appropriation.  He said the nursing program could function off the interest, whatever the interest is, up to $250,000.

 

Senator Raggio questioned why the language is included for an appropriation.  Mr. Ghiggeri said it appears the intention was to make an appropriation from the trust fund and bypass the normal procedure in granting funds from that account. 

 

Senator Rawson indicated he would tend to give the Board of Regents permission to approach the task force for funding, rather than just taking it out of the task force.  He said he believes the board would be looked at favorably.  That entire trust fund could be depleted rapidly if appropriations are just taken from it, he added. 

Senator Raggio pointed out A.B. 378 says the nursing program is entitled to an amount equal to 25 percent of available interest income from the trust fund, or the sum of $250,000, whichever is less.  He said he believes this is not intended as a General Fund appropriation, but rather as an appropriation not to exceed $250,000 from the trust fund.  He asked whether that is the anticipated use of those funds.

 

Mr. Welch responded that as he understands it, and from his work with staff on the revision to the bill, 25 percent or $250,000 would come only from the available interest income, that was not already committed.  He added if there were commitments funds, and there was only $100,000 of interest income, then the maximum available amount would be $25,000.  He pointed out that the Nevada Hospital Association is not trying to supercede the authority over the trust fund.  He noted it just wants assurances that there would be funds for this biennium to help promote the nursing initiatives.

 

Senator Rawson suggested the status of the trust fund be reported, and said the Office of the Treasurer could supply that information.

 

Janice C. Pine, Lobbyist, Saint Mary’s Health Network, stated St. Mary’s supports S.B. 378.  She said she does not believe there is a hospital in the state that is fully staffed, as far as nurses are concerned.  They are all searching for additional nurses and additional ways to train them in Nevada, she added.

 

Jack Kim, Lobbyist, Health Plan of Nevada, offered his support for A.B. 378.  He said with the current nursing shortage, and in the next few years when the “baby boomers” start retiring from nursing professions, the situation will only get worse.  He remarked that anything that can be done to increase the number of qualified nurses would benefit Nevada.

 

Joe Crowley, Lobbyist, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), commented he supports A.B. 378.  He said UCCSN did a study of health professions in the recent past and determined, as a result of that study, there is a severe shortage of nurses in Nevada.  He added UCCSN would be pleased to undertake the planning that is alluded to in Section 2.

 

Dorothy E. Riley, Ph.D., RN, Past President, Nevada Nurses Association, referred the committee to an information packet (Exhibit F), and said the association supports A.B. 378.  She commented Nevada needs nurses now, and aggressive action is needed to correct the situation or there will be serious problems in the future due to the lack of nurses.  She explained the shortage could include denial of access to hospitals and delays in receiving care.  She added that would be a major public health crisis. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 508:  Makes appropriations to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for new and replacement equipment for Division of Water Resources and to account for the channel clearance, maintenance, restoration, surveying and monumenting program. (BDR S-1394)

 

Hugh Ricci, P.E., State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, referred the committee to the first reprint of A.B. 508, and said Section 1 is an appropriation for $169,411 for new and replacement equipment for the Division of Water Resources.  He pointed out the amount was based on new figures provided by the Department of Information Technology (DoIT).  He added that the Division agrees with the numbers. 

 

Senator Raggio commented that staff had reviewed the list of equipment.

 

Sherry Blackwell, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration, said, with regard to Senator Raggio’s question earlier of who heads the commission outlined in A.B. 521, the members include Robyn Clayton, who is the Chairperson, Janice Ayres, and Shawn Lecker.  She commented that she has a detailed budget and report, which will be provided to staff.

 

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

 

Senator Raggio referred the committee to the second reprint of A.B. 564.

 

Martin Bibb, Lobbyist, Retired Public Employees of Nevada (RPEN), said A.B. 564 was sought through the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs early in the session relative to the needs regarding the Public Employees Benefits Program.  He pointed out it was amended several times, which has caused the delay in the bill coming before the Senate. 

 

Mr. Bibb commented A.B. 564 would do three things.  First, he pointed out, it requires that additional information be reported to the Legislature, over and above the requirements of A.B. 123, which requires information reporting to the Commissioner of Insurance. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 123:  Revises provisions relating to health insurance provided by public employees’ benefits program. (BDR 57-603)

 

Mr. Bibb said he believes A.B. 123 would be helpful because the Public Employees’ Benefits Program has been in need of clarification for the past few years.

 

Secondly, Mr. Bibb said, A.B. 564 would require a commingling of claims experience for active and retired state employees for the purpose of establishing actuarial data to determine rates.  He added he does not believe it would require an exact and identical rate setting for active and retired state employees, but rather it underscores the practice in recent years of separating active employee rates from retired employee rates.  He indicated the same rate of increase has historically been used when rates have been adjusted.

 

Mr. Bibb remarked analysis by the Segal Company, the consultant to the plan, found no cost effect of this commingling provision.  He said there was some cost impact on an earlier edition of Section 1, calling for a return to coordination of benefits, which was a key issue relative to this program during the year of the Medicare “carve-out.”  He indicated the analysis of that would have been fairly expensive and has been dropped from this bill.

 

Mr. Bibb pointed out the third thing this bill would do is provide that the board, in regard to the Public Employees’ Benefits Program, shall not enter into a contract unless provision is made by the board to offer all the services specified in the requests for proposals (RFP’s), either by a health maintenance organization or through separate action of the board.  He said that provision addresses the issue that sometimes services may not be provided by an HMO that were included in the RFPs.

 

Mr. Bibb said those are the three major areas of contact in A.B. 564.  He added a Letter of Intent was attached to it by the Assembly when it passed.  He explained it would simply go back to indicating that, for the coordination of benefits as was done in 1999, the Legislature might submit another Letter of Intent, because there has been some small adjustment to that Medicare “carve‑out.”  He said a letter was sent by Senator Raggio and Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., last session defining the goal and the intent of the Legislature to try to return to a coordination of benefits.  He acknowledged there would be a significant cost impact to coordinate benefits.  He added that RPEN supports A.B. 564. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether Mr. Bibb supports the second reprint of the bill, which was referenced, without additional change and with the inclusion of the Letter of Intent.  Mr. Bibb responded that he is.

 

Ruth H. Hart, an individual, expressed belief no state retirees would endorse the passage of A.B. 564.  She said she is aware of the problem with money and that retirees are a drain on the plan.  She surmised retirees receive less state support than active members.  She requested commingling of the state retirees with the state active employees.  She pointed out that state retirees do not come with empty hands, because they are Medicare recipients, which pays 80 percent, they bring just 20 percent of their claim to the plan. 

 

Ms. Hart acknowledged the plan would only pay 80 percent of the remaining 20 percent balance.  She said she believes this is a great benefit.  

 

David Smith, Acting Chairman, Public Employees’ Retirement Board, Public Employees’ Retirement System, commented on a conversation he had with the committee as to the selection of an Executive Officer by the board.  He stated the latest candidate declined the offer for the position.  He indicated the board will be meeting again to chose another candidate for the position.

 

In reference to the integration method the board uses for Medicare retirees, Mr. Smith clarified that the coverage provided by the Public Employees’ Benefits Program for retirees is greater than that provided by Medicare.  He said although there is a substantial benefit to the plan because Medicare covers 80 percent of the medical costs, there are other costs provided by the Public Employees’ Benefits Program that are not covered by Medicare.  He added the benefit program does not provide an 80 percent benefit, but overall, based on what it does provide, it covers roughly 50 to 65 percent.  He added this depends on utilization.

 

Mr. Smith said that after speaking with the board’s consultant, The Segal Company Benefits Consultant, the board is concerned that only the self-funded plan will be required to commingle the claims experience to determine what the rates will be for retired and active members.  He pointed out that in prior to drafting A.B. 123 there was a lot of discussion on providing choice.  He remarked that unless the contracted insurers with whom they do business, provide the same type of commingling to determine rates, it will put the self-funded plan at a significant disadvantage when it comes to competing in order to retain members.

 

Mr. Smith said:

 

Although initially this would not create an impact on the plan, over time, as with the difference in the rates that competitors would be able to provide, we would see quite possibly the lower risk, and when I say lower risk I mean participants that don’t utilize the services as much, leaving because they can get a better price because that competitor did not commingle the rates, and they are still charging a higher rate for the retirees.  So unless a provision is made to address that, there is a concern that this will have an impact in the future on the Public Employees’ Benefits Program.

 

Senator Neal pointed out that Mr. Smith had indicated this would have an effect on the program in the future, and asked why it would not have a current effect. 

 

Mr. Smith responded that it would take at least a year’s worth of claims’ experience to determine what the effect would be.  He suggested it would be easier to determine the effect once claims are commingled and the rates are determined over the course of that year.  With open enrollment, he said, competitors will be able to draw people into their plans.  He pointed out competitors may retain persons with higher utilization and commensurate costs, and once the claims are commingled the rates can be determined based upon a yearly average.  He acknowledged when averages go up each year, those who could get a better rate by going to a competitor would leave, resulting in an increase in rates for the self-funded plan.

 

Senator Neal asked whether that is just a presumption on Mr. Smith’s part.  Mr. Smith replied that it is, and also by the consultant.  He added the bottom line is that it would be a requirement only against the self-funded plan, not against all the choices that would be provided by competitors.  He said the point is that by mandating that the self-funded plan would be the only portion of the health plan that is required to establish rates in this fashion, it could put them at a competitive disadvantage. 

 

Mr. Smith said:

 

That’s why I was saying that the provision should be made that if this is going to happen in this manner, that all of our competitors that they do business with, competing for the health insurance that they would provide for the same method, to establish rates.

 

Senator Neal asked whether commingling rates meant there would be a less expensive premium for the individual.  Mr. Smith responded that currently, based on utilization, retirees in the self-funded plan use services and prescriptions that cost more than costs for active members in the self-funded plan.  He explained that the basis for rates comes from using portions of the funding provided for active state employees to reduce the cost of insurance for retirees. 

 

Mr. Smith said:

 

What would happen is, by commingling the experiences, if the retirees cost this much and the state active members cost this much, when we commingle it to determine a rate, the active comes up and the retiree comes down.  If you have a competitor who’s still charging a high rate for retirees and a low rate for actives, when they start drawing the lower rate people out, because they are more competitive and leaving the retirees, which cost more because they are too expensive, every year this creeps up.

 

Senator Rawson said he has come to the conclusion that the only way the state can protect or afford the benefits for retirees is to commingle.  He pointed out that there needs to be a “community rating” that is averaged out, or get into a category where all of an individual’s benefit would go for health insurance.  He added that he believes this is a crucial philosophical point, and it needs to be decided.

 

Senator Raggio said,  “It’s well and good, but if the competitors aren’t required to do that, then what?”

 

Senator Coffin sympathized with Senator Rawson and indicated there may be a way the problem could be modified.  He added:

 

If what Mr. Smith says is right, in the sense that this gambling of which plan to go with goes on all the time with the regular employees, because each year, because many of them, probably most, are duly employed and so they’ve got choices of which one.  “Well dear, are you going to be the dependant this year, or are you going to be the employee covered?”  So they can bounce back and forth and play that game.  So if the self-funded plan begins to lose because it’s price has become non-competitive on one side or the other, then that concern of his has to be taken into consideration.  I see that happening all the time in the world that I live in, selling this product.  On the other hand, you’ve got a lot of young people that build up some huge medical bills.  They aren’t the only drain on the plan.  I mean, imperfect births can yield to millions of dollars in bills.  On the other hand, retirees spend the vast majority of their medical benefits in the last year of their lives, so one has to consider that and that’s why I think Senator Rawson is on the right track, and the bill may be on the right track, with some changes.

 

James T. Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA), said there is serious consideration being given to doing interim studies in this area.  He asserted Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 36 is an essential bill and it will make the “short list” on the Assembly side.  He added that Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 50, is being considered by the Senate.

 

ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 36:  Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of Public Employees’ Benefits Program. (BDR R-1555)

   

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 50:  Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of certain systems that offer health benefits provided by various governmental employers. (BDR R-1549)

 

Mr. Richardson commented that both bills deal, in large part, with the problem of what to do about public employee retirees in this state.  He indicated he would like to pose a question about the analysis offered by The Segal Company Benefits Consultant.  He pointed out that maybe it may be a point of interpretation whether the language in A.C.R. 36, Section 1, subsection 2(a), limits itself to just the self-funded plan.  He added that was not how he read it.  He said he thought it would be a broad requirement, not only with the self-funded plan, but also that it would affect the HMO’s.

 

Mr. Smith responded that the provision in A.C.R. 36, as written, does not specify the self-funded plan.  He added:

 

However, when we contract for services, they establish the rates that they are going to charge for the participation from our group that may go into their plan.  So, it does leaves some ambiguity as to whether they would even be willing to provide a single rate based on whether they’re retired or active, and some of the HMO’s are here, I don’t know if they would be even willing to entertain providing those rates to the state in that manner.  But, without ensuring that we have a level playing field, it does create a problem.  I don’t think the way this is written it provides that, and all services that are provided, that it does ensure that those competitors are on an equal footing with the self-funded plan.

 

Mr. Richardson commented that one problem, particularly in the north, is that HMO’s cannot be forced to participate, resulting in difficulties.  He added that comments from HMO’s might be useful. 

 

Mr. Richardson stated that one way to handle that particular section, if it was the sentiment of the committee, would be to consider adding a line to the Letter of Intent from the Assembly that the language is intended to be broader in its coverage than with just the self-funded plan.

 

Mr. Richardson commented that the reporting provision on pages 2 and 3 of A.C.R. 36 is a more specific requirement because it requires that a report should be given to the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB).  He added it goes beyond what was covered in the Letter of Intent.  He said at the time the bill was written, the faculty alliance could not get information or did not have good information on how the plan was operating.  He explained it was felt in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs that this would be a good measure.  He remarked there is an interim committee of legislators who oversee the retirement program and the benefits program.  He added that committee of legislators could be more vigorous and demand more reports on its own without statutory authority.

 

Mr. Richardson pointed out that if A.C.R. 36 is passed, there would be an onus placed on the board and the program to furnish some valuable information to the LCB, and the key staff personnel who handle it.  He agreed the reporting provision would be of benefit.

 

Mr. Richardson drew attention to page 3, lines 37 through 40, and said it is an effort to make sure that all of the services offered by the plan listed in the RFP would be available.  He added there are reasons that have been approved legislatively for not offering certain services at certain times.  He opined, if the board is forced lack of competition to accept a bid from an HMO that does not offer all services, it should be responsible for making sure all those services are available one way or the other. 

 

Mr. Richardson indicated the NFA believes that language takes care of the problem and basically puts the onus, not on the given HMO, but on the board to make sure the services are furnished.  He encouraged the committee to support that language.

 

Mr. Richardson pointed out the bill was given impetus by the fact that rates for active employees were increased approximately 4 percent last legislative session, but for retirees rates were increased 10 or 12 percent.  He suggested that may have been the first time that such a dramatic difference occurred.  He remarked the NFA became aware of the shift, and believes if that started a trend, there would be serious trouble. He said the rate structure then might result in retirees being dumped. 

 

Danny N. Coyle, Lobbyist, SNEA/AFSCME Retiree Chapter 4041, offered his support for A.B. 564 not withstanding the reservations of the acting chairman of the Public Employees’ Benefits Board.  He added his concurrence with the Letter of Intent attached to the bill.  He indicated that currently state retirees are faced with huge medical costs and if Mr. Smith’s fears were to come to pass, it would be another issue.  However, he noted, he does not see any other competing health organizations “beating down the door” to offer services. 

 

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, Teamsters Local 14, said he supports A.B. 564.

 

Ms. Hart suggested it is “pitiful” that Nevada’s self-funded plan cannot compete with some of the other plans by saying, “We can do better, leave them and come with us, and there goes all your premium to other companies.”  She asserted the state should offer only a self-funded plan.  She added:

 

But, also you should know, that state retirees that should be commingled with the active state employees.  Other retirees within the state are allowed to come into the self-funded plan, are ranked on their own experience, like the Happy Valley Retirement Community.  They’re ranked separately and pay a different premium than the state employees.  So keep that in mind.  We’re asking that the state employee retirees be commingled with the active state retirees.

 

Senator Mathews commented she would have to abstain from action on A.B. 564 because she is an active member of the state retirees.  Senator Raggio remarked this measure would not affect her any differently than anyone else on the committee.  Senator Mathews stated she believes she could benefit from it, if it were passed. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 596:  Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for computer upgrades at Division of Parole and Probation. (BDR S-1381)

 

Clay Thomas, Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, said A.B. 596 would afford the Division of Parole and Probation the ability to upgrade existing hardware that would allow older computers to efficiently interface with the current automated system.

 

Mr. Thomas stated the division currently has a large number of personal computers that were purchased in Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 that do not have the level of memory required to run the new automated system efficiently and effectively.  He added they frequently go down with application errors while staff is working within the system.  He said the division is requesting the necessary funding.

 

Senator Raggio referred the committee to the first reprint of A.B. 596, in which the requested amount is $13,380.  Mr. Thomas stated the division is requesting $13,380.

 

Senator Raggio inquired whether staff had verified that amount, to which staff indicated they had.  

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 508:  Makes appropriations to State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for new and replacement equipment for Division of Water Resources and to account for the channel clearance, maintenance, restoration, surveying and monumenting program. (BDR S-1394)

 

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 508.

 

SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 521:  Makes appropriation to Governor for support of Nevada Commission for National and Community Service. (BDR S-1350)

 

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 521.

 

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 596:  Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for computer upgrades at Division of Parole and Probation. (BDR S-1381)

 

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 596.

 

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 448:  Provides for licensing and operation of railroad gaming. (BDR 41-1066)

 

Senator Raggio drew attention to the second reprint of A.B. 448, and said the appropriation has been removed.  He said the bill was heard by the committee on May 28, 2001.

 

Senator Coffin commented he did not have a copy of the second reprint.  Senator Raggio said A.B. 448 would be held until all committee members had reviewed the bill.

 

Senator Raggio recessed the meeting at 10:00 a.m. until the call of the chair.

 

Senator Raggio reconvened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 597:  Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for purchase of computers for and ongoing telecommunication costs of Division of Parole and Probation. (BDR S-1382)

 

Clay Thomas, Deputy Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, said A.B. 597 would provide funding for an additional 954 computers, 21 printers, and associated software and hardware.  He commented the request is for hubs and routers for networking.  He indicated that would allow the division a one to one computer ratio within the division, which would enhance the operation and allow the division to operate in  “real time”.  He added the cost of this project would be $431,046. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether $124,000 would be an ongoing cost and whether it is the reason for the language in the first reprint.  Mr. Thomas replied that is correct.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 28-1576: Authorizes and provides funding for certain projects of capital improvement. (Later introduced as S.B. 584)

 

Senator Raggio drew attention to the capital improvement projects (CIP) bill draft request (BDR).  He said the committee reviewed this bill previously.  The only change made was on the motor pool proposal, he added. 

 

Senator Raggio asked whether there is a summary of the bill.  Rick Combs, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, responded that a copy is being sent over.

 

Senator Raggio stated the only change made was on the project involving the motor pool, and the committee asked that it come to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to approve a site before any bond money or authorization was utilized.  Senator Raggio asked whether there are any other changes in the BDR.  Mr. Combs replied there are no other changes. 

 

Mr. Combs referred the committee to a summary of the 2001 CIP bill (Exhibit G), and commented that Section 6 of the bill would have a provision indicating that the Board of Finance could issue the bonds as necessary, based on the construction schedule for the projects.  He added that request came from the State Treasurer and the Governor’s office.  He explained the bill would basically not require the treasurer to issue bonds until the money is needed.  He pointed out that most of the costs would be in the construction phase of the project rather than in the design phase.  That way the bonds will not just sit in a bank account, he added.

 

Mr. Combs stated Sections 7, 8, and 9 include provisions that require paybacks to the Bond Interest and Redemption account for maintenance projects for the Department of Information Technology (DoIT), State Printing Division, and the State Motor Pool Division.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether the projects are identified in the bill.  Mr. Combs replied that they are.  He remarked that Section 11 is the section previously discussed concerning the motor pool and the request requiring the board to obtain an IFC approval for the site before any of the funds for the project could be expended.

 

Senator Raggio pointed out that Section 11 was the area Senator Coffin was concerned with.  Senator Coffin commented that the wording on the explanation is probably more narrowly defined than the bill would reflect, because it says “on the campus,” when it is unknown whether it will be on the campus.  Senator Raggio agreed, noting the bill stated “any site.”

 

Mr. Combs remarked that is correct, adding the bill stated “before they pick the site and the location.”  Senator Raggio asked whether the site had to be on the campus.  Mr. Combs replied the bill language would not require that.

 

Mr. Combs commented Section 15 authorizes expenditure of $4 million from Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) accounts. 

 

Senator Raggio declared the BDR in Section 11 says, “The State Public Works Board shall obtain approval for the sighting and location of CIP 01‑C4, new state motor pool building on UNLV [University of Nevada, Las Vegas] campus.”  He asserted that language should not be in the bill.  Mr. Combs remarked that is the title that was given to the project from its inception, rather than a requirement, and only a title that came from the Governor’s recommendation.  Senator Raggio suggested striking out “on UNLV campus.”

 

Mr. Combs said Section 16 would authorize the issuance of $4.2 million in general obligation bonds for CIP 01-E1.  He added those are the bonds would be repaid through funding from the Federal Government, and will amount to some savings in rental payments.

 

Mr. Combs pointed out that Section 17 provides the authorization to issue up to $3.5 million in general obligation bonds for projects related to the state’s fish hatcheries.  He commented the project would cost $3,960,131, and the subcommittee was asked to provide authority for an additional amount up to the $3.5 million level for the Division of Wildlife to fund projects on fish hatcheries.  He added the bill language would require the Division of Wildlife to come to the IFC to obtain approval for that difference in authority.

 

Mr. Combs stated Sections 18, 19, and 20 would authorize the board to transfer funds from previous CIP programs into the 2001 CIP program, and they reflect those reallocations.  He said Section 21 would authorize the use of those funds in the program.

 

Mr. Combs remarked that Section 23 would authorize the expenditure of federal funding and funds raised through donations for the UCCSN projects.  He said Section 24 prohibits the board from executing a construction contract for those UCCSN projects for which donations must be received until the donated funds are provided to the board.

 

Mr. Combs pointed out that Section 25 would authorize a $300,000 advance from the General Fund for a project to add on to the Southern Nevada Veterans’ Cemetery.

 

Mr. Combs outlined the remaining sections in the bill, which he indicated are typical of past CIP legislation.

 

Senator Raggio asked whether Section 36 would authorize the additional revenue bonding.  Mr. Combs responded that is correct, and the Assembly Committee on Ways on Means amended S.B. 496 to remove it from that bill.

 

SENATE BILL 496:  Authorizes issuance of revenue bonds to finance certain buildings at Great Basin College. (BDR S-1226)

 

Mr. Combs commented those were the main differences between this and any other CIP legislation the committee has seen. 

Senator Neal asked where the Henderson Community College is referenced.  Senator Raggio replied it was identified by project number.  Mr. Combs added that a portion of that funding was located in Section 4, which would be the general obligation bond amount of $13.4 million, and Section 23 for $10 million, which authorizes donations for that college.

 

Mr. Combs commented the Public Works Board asked for some authority on CIP project 99-H1, which is the highway patrol project approved last legislative session.  He said they had asked for the authority to spend $2 million for cost overruns on that project that was set aside for site acquisition.  He pointed out that because it was a last minute request, the CIP joint subcommittee voted to amend the bill to allow them to use that $2 million for other purposes upon the approval of the IFC.  He explained it was also necessary, in Section 45 of the bill, to remove the reversion language, or that funding would have reverted to the Highway Fund at the end of this Fiscal Year.

 

Senator Raggio said CIP project number 01-C25 for the academic and student services building at the Nevada State College would be for $13.4 million.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 28-1576: Authorizes and provides funding for certain projects of capital improvement.  (Later introduced as Senate Bill 584.)

 

SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 28-1576 AS A COMMITTEE BILL, WITH THE DELETION OF THE WORDING IN SECTION 11 “ON THE UNLV CAMPUS.”

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR NEAL VOTED NO, OBJECTING TO INCLUSION OF THE NEVADA STATE COLLEGE, AND SAID IT SHOULD BE A SEPARATE MEASURE.)

 

*****

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 597:  Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for purchase of computers for and ongoing telecommunication costs of Division of Parole and Probation. (BDR S-1382)

 

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 597.

 

SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Senator Neal, referring to the summary of 2001 CIP bill, Exhibit G, asked whether the sections in the bill comport with the summary sections.  Senator Raggio replied that, to his understanding, they were the same.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 448:  Provides for licensing and operation of railroad gaming. (BDR 41-1066)

 

Senator Raggio drew attention to the second reprint of A.B. 448, and said the appropriation had been removed.

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 448.

 

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

SENATE BILL 458:  Makes appropriation to Department of Education for cost‑of‑living bonus for all public employees in local school districts. (BDR S‑1424)

 

Senator Raggio commented the committee heard S.B. 458 on April 16, 2001.  He said the measure would have appropriated $57.5 million for a 5 percent bonus for public employees and local school districts. 

 

Senator Raggio, referring the committee to Amendment Number 1204, said it was in line with the agreement of understanding that was reached, and the action that was taken, in connection with the Distributive School Account (DSA).  He stated it would appropriate $34 million, and provide a 3 percent cost-of-living bonus for all public employees in local school districts.

 

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 458 WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 1204 AND DO PASS AS AMENDED.

 

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

SENATE BILL 465:  Makes various changes concerning adjudication emergency account. (BDR 48-530)

 

Senator Raggio said the committee heard S.B. 465 on April 13, 2001.  He pointed out it would authorize the Board of Examiners to establish an adjudication emergency account.  He added it includes a $10,000 appropriation to restore the balance in the account. 

 

Mr. Ghiggeri indicated the current balance in the account is $414.  He stated the adjudication account was established by the Legislature in 1925 with a $6,000 appropriation, and the appropriation has now worked its way down to $414.

 

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 465.

 

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

 

 

 

 

SENATE BILL 518:  Revises provisions relating to state financial administration. (BDR 23-1514)

 

Senator Raggio said the committee heard S.B. 518 on April 13, 2001.  He referred the committee to Amendment Number 1207, and explained it was a follow up to the overall agreement and accommodation that was entered into for education and state agencies.  Mr. Ghiggeri explained the amendment would increase the appropriation amount to $6.5 million for a potential allocation to various school districts throughout the state, and it would add another $17 million for energy needs for state agencies in the UCCSN system.

 

Additionally, Mr. Ghiggeri pointed out, the amount in the bill currently reflects $9 million, which will be increased to $11 million and is not reflected in the amendment.

 

Senator Raggio stated the amendment creates a fund for unforeseen utility costs over and above existing amounts that are in the budgets.  He said Section 2 of the amendment would cover both the UCCSN system and other state agencies, which would include the prison system where a significant amount may be required. 

 

Senator Raggio added S.B. 518 includes a requirement that the state agency make a request, which must be approved by the Board of Examiner’s report, that would be submitted to the IFC.  He said documentation and reporting will also be required showing that all other funds that have been provided for energy needs have been exhausted before agencies could utilize this procedure. 

 

Senator Raggio pointed out there is a similar procedure in Section 3 for a one‑time energy pool of $6.5 million available to school districts.  He noted it also indicates that the State Board of Examiners must establish the policies and procedures for reviewing requests.  He said if a school district finds that its energy costs are greater than the amount budgeted, it may submit a similar request.

 

Senator Raggio commented there would be an additional amendment to S.B. 518.

 

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 518, WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 1207.

 

SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Senator Rawson commented that A.B. 615, the environmental initiative, had passed the Assembly and was headed for the Senate.  He requested it be heard as soon as possible.  Senator Raggio remarked that it could be noticed for hearing at the next committee meeting.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 615:  Requires submission to voters of proposal to issue general obligation bonds to protect, preserve and obtain benefits of property and natural resources of state. (BDR S-1463)

 

 

 

 

Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m.

 

 

                                                                                        RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Debra Petrelli

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

 

DATE: