ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means

Seventy-First Session

June 2, 2001

The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:12 a.m. on Saturday, June 2, 2001. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard D. Perkins

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Connie Davis, Recording Secretary

Carol Thomsen, Transcribing Secretary

Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing of June 1, 2001, and convened the hearing of June 2, 2001. The first order of business for committee consideration was S.B. 464.

Senate Bill 464: Makes appropriation to Office of Secretary of State for various enabling technology projects, for promotional materials for Commercial Recordings Division, and for new and replacement equipment. (BDR S‑1433)

Renee Lacey, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, explained that S.B. 464 requested an appropriation of $467,617, of which $367,617 represented new and replacement equipment as follows:

Secretarial chairs;

Replacement of one-third of the computers, per the Department of Information Technology (DoIT); and,

Upgrades in software and fax machines.

Ms. Lacey explained that the remaining $100,000 would be allocated at $50,000 each year of the biennium for promotional materials for commercial recordings.

According to Ms. Lacey, the original request had been for $1.4 million, however, because of the state of the budget, reductions had been made. It had been determined that, in addition to the replacement equipment, one of the most important items was promotional material for commercial recordings. Per Ms. Lacey, the Secretary of State’s Commercial Recording Division competed with 49 other states for business, and she pointed out that S.B. 577 would address an increase in the fees for that promotional service. Ms. Lacey explained that agents from the division had done a tremendous job promoting Nevada, however, it was felt that additional resources were needed.

Information from the International Association of Corporate Administrators indicated that every 1 percent gain in market share that Nevada attained would add approximately $3.5 million to the General Fund. Ms. Lacey stated that at the current time, a budget did not exist for promotional activities, and the Secretary of State maintained a single page on its Web site entitled, “Why Incorporate in Nevada.” In contrast, the state of Delaware produced a brochure that was sent to companies requesting information on incorporating in that state. Ms. Lacey noted that the Secretary of State’s Office had received an estimate from the State Printing Division, and in order to produce a comparable type of brochure or pamphlet, the cost would be approximately $7 to $10 per pamphlet. There would also be an additional cost of approximately $1 each to mail those pamphlets to the approximately 10,000 to 15,000 inquiries each year for information on incorporating in Nevada.

According to Ms. Lacey, it was believed that the potential increase in fees as requested in S.B. 577, would assist with the need to promote commercial recordings and engage in additional promotional marketing, in order to gain that extra 1 percent market share and increase the state’s General Fund.

Chairman Arberry asked how long it would take for the program to be up and running, and able to provide the services requested by the various businesses. Ms. Lacey stated that the Secretary of State’s Office had set a meeting with the Department of Taxation at the end of session, because that department wanted to include information in the promotional material regarding tax abatements, and business taxes. The material would be available as soon as possible and the Secretary of State’s Office would immediately embark upon completion of the brochure or pamphlet.

With no further testimony forthcoming, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 464 closed, and opened the hearing on A.B. 188.

Assembly Bill 188: Makes appropriations to Clark County School District for expansion of distance education. (BDR S-349)

Rose McKinney-James, representing the Clark County School District, introduced Tom Axtell, General Manager, Channel 10, KLVX. Ms. McKinney‑James explained that A.B. 188 was of significant importance to the school district because it represented two ancillary activities that provided very critical services. Ms. McKinney-James reported that Channel 10 had been quite active in public interest matters, including those related to the legislature, and the district would request support for the Distance Education Program. Ms. McKinney-James stated the program was an example of the district’s ability to take advantage of innovative technology to reach a variety of students that might not otherwise be able to access educational opportunities. The district felt very strongly about the program, which was a priority issue for its trustees. Ms. McKinney-James stated that the district was well aware of the difficulties facing the legislature regarding budget constraints, and referenced Exhibit C, a document entitled, “Nevada Distance Learning Satellite Service,” and charts depicting enrollment history, which demonstrated the merits of the program and would be further addressed by Mr. Axtell.

Mr. Axtell advised the committee that the KLVX Communications Group operated partly as: (1) the audio-visual component of the Clark County School District; (2) a public television station; (3) an educational cable channel for the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) and the school districts; and, (4) a satellite company.  Mr. Axtell stated that KLVX was a diversified media company with discrete revenue streams that flowed to each particular activity.  One of the activities that Channel 10 recently invested in was distance education.  Mr. Axtell reported that the legislature had actually “kick-started” that activity by passage of S.B. 204 of the Sixty-Eighth Session, which made an appropriation to the Department of Education for development of a statewide system of reports and analyses of information concerning pupils.  That was followed by passage of A.B. 606 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, which made appropriations to the UCCSN for improvement of education through interactive computer programs.  As a result of that legislation, both the UCCSN and the school districts had initiated distance education activities.

Mr. Axtell referenced the chart in Exhibit C entitled, “Clark County School District Distance Learning Enrollment History,” which displayed a somewhat typical “take-off” pattern for distance education, i.e., from 345 students in the first year to 1,455 students enrolled in the high school program for school year 2000-01.  KLVX met with the Clark County School District to determine which courses most students failed, and the ones where students most often found a barrier to their ability to graduate from high school.  Mr. Axtell reported that Channel 10 had created a World History course, a U.S. History course, a second semester Algebra course, and English courses.  Those courses could be accessed by working students, by pregnant students, or by students with medical disabilities, et cetera.  Mr. Axtell stated the courses had been extremely well received, and enrollment growth was expected to continue.  One of the key barriers to the achievement of distance education at the high school level was the lack of confidence displayed by counselors regarding whether such courses would merit the enrollment of their students.

According to Mr. Axtell, Channel 10 had participated in the establishment of a program that required high school students to enroll in a driver’s education course prior to securing a driver’s license at age 16.  The cost to the Clark County School District to teach 16,000 sophomore students driver’s education would have been in the vicinity of $2.4 million.  The district felt that not offering the course would create problems for students, and Channel 10 worked with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), and various legislators to create a program that would meet the need.  Per Mr. Axtell, approximately 300 students were enrolled in the program for the current school year, and it was anticipated that the enrollment would grow to at least 1,000 students over the next two years, which would save the school district millions of dollars.

Referencing the chart contained in Exhibit C entitled, “College Credit Video Enrollment History,” Mr. Axtell explained that Channel 10 worked with the UCCSN to create college credit courses that were available for high school students who desired advanced placement, but were also available for general college enrollment students.  A similar “take-off” had been enjoyed with the college program, beginning with 273 students, and growing to 1,416 in school year 2000-01.  A small number of high school students had enrolled in those classes to secure advanced placement courses in their college enrollment.  Mr. Axtell informed the committee that for the first time, Channel 10 had reached an agreement with the libraries in Clark County to provide availability of its offered courses.  Students who could not access the courses at home would now be able to access them via the public libraries, which further assisted in the reduction of barriers for many students.

The chart contained in Exhibit C entitled, “2000-2001 School Year – Enrollment Statistics,” depicted the ethnic and geographic breakdown, along with a breakdown by school, and indicated how widely shared and utilized the programs were. Mr. Axtell pointed out that the Clark County School District had used distance education very effectively to allow credit-deficient students and advanced-placement students to access opportunities that would not have otherwise been available. Mr. Axtell explained that Washoe County School District had entered into extensive discussion with Channel 10, and it was anticipated that the district would utilize the driver’s education course during the next school year. Channel 10 also felt that other courses it produced could be utilized on a statewide basis.

Referencing digital television, Mr. Axtell explained that in 1939, the federal government created the original type of television and in 1979, it was decided that a transition would be made away from that 50-year-old technology. According to Mr. Axtell, in the year 2003, Channel 10 would be required to construct an additional “Channel 11,” which would include an entirely new transmission system, and would require new home receivers. The cost of that system, including studio cameras and origination equipment, would be approximately $8 million, and Mr. Axtell noted it was a classic unfunded federal mandate. As a part of Channel 10’s commitment to education, it would provide 25 percent of its bandwidth to the state to use for educational purposes. Mr. Axtell noted that would include courses broadcast, and data transmitted, to schools or public entities. Because of the new format, it would no longer be just “television,” but rather would be an electronic wireless computer, which sent computer-like data to home receivers. The channel had raised approximately $2 million at the local level of the required $8 million, and Mr. Axtell explained that ground had to be broken and activities had to be underway for the new system by 2002, in order to meet the 2003 federal deadline. Channel 10 realized that the legislature was facing extremely severe budget challenges; however, Mr. Axtell stated that as it considered distance education and digital television, a potential long-term “marriage” could be recognized, and Channel 10 could provide significant distance education opportunities.

Mr. Axtell referenced A.B. 188, which stipulated that within the distance education appropriation of $500,000 per fiscal year, in addition to providing high school and college courses, the funds could be utilized for training state employees. Governor Guinn had added that stipulation to the bill because of his frustration regarding the inability of the state to provide adequate training for its workers. Mr. Axtell noted that public television stations in over 30 states around the country were providing training for state employees in several fields. It was an extremely common form of service, often funded by the state, and offered via public television stations. According to Mr. Axtell, it was felt that if the state could identify one or two training priorities, Channel 10 felt it could deliver terrific service, thereby saving the state money and increasing the training for its workers.

Ms. Tiffany asked what the difference was between the contents of S. B. 427 and A.B. 188. Ms. McKinney-James explained that the $400,000 appropriation contained in S.B. 427 was for satellite downlinks. Mr. Axtell stated that Channel 10 had three main objectives before the legislature:

A bill that sought to provide operating funds for public television in the amount of $300,000, of which Channel 10 would receive approximately $40,000 per year. That bill would provide support for public television and public radio stations statewide.
A.B. 76 and S.B. 407 were parallel bills which consisted of a collaborative effort between public television and public radio stations within the state, to provide funding for digital transition for both the Reno and Las Vegas public television stations, and for certain equipment upgrades at public radio stations, particularly upgrades that would allow those stations to increase their service and provide a “radio reading service” for the blind; the amount of that appropriation was $2.5 million, which was not included in The Executive Budget.
The third bill was introduced by the Clark County School District, and provided for distance education. The School Board in Clark County did not feel it could utilize its bill draft authority to request money for the Reno public television stations.

Mr. Axtell stated that six years ago, the state began working on the concept of creating satellite downlinks for the approximately 250 rural schools throughout the state. It was decided to build those downlinks based on the model in Clark County, and Mr. Axtell indicated that Channel 10 felt it had installed satellite dishes at all schools that had requested such service. He called the committee’s attention to Exhibit C, which included a list of the downlinks that had been installed. Should the committee choose to reduce the funds requested for downlinks, Mr. Axtell did not feel there would be opposition from the rural school districts.

Mrs. Chowning noted that there were two $1 million allocations in A.B. 188,with the first allocation to the Clark County School District for training, and for students at high risk of dropping out. Mrs. Chowning asked whether any of that funding would be channeled through the school district to Channel 10, i.e., would Channel 10 realize the full $2 million allocation, in partnership with the school district. Mr. Axtell replied in the affirmative.

With no further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 188, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing, and opened the hearing on S.B. 137.

Senate Bill 137: Increases number of district judges in second and eighth judicial districts. (BDR 1-521)

Gregory T. Ireland, Assistant Court Administrator, Second Judicial District Court, stated S.B. 137 proposed an additional judge for Washoe County. Mr. Ireland referenced Exhibit D entitled, “Selected Statistics – Second Judicial District Court,” which demonstrated the need for that additional judge. The exhibit indicated that for the year 2000, there were 4,201 cases filed for the three judges which, on a day-to-day basis, amounted to five new cases each day. Mr. Ireland explained that the additional judge would reduce that to four new cases each day per judge, which was still a considerable workload.

Mr. Ireland noted that there were other necessities that caused the drafting of the bill, one of which was the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which greatly truncated the amount of time available to the court for expanded hearings. Those consisted of permanent placement hearings involving children, and the timetable had been shortened considerably.

Continuing, Mr. Ireland noted that another aspect which affected the family court was the emergence of pro se litigants, who represented themselves during court proceedings. Ten years ago, there were very few litigants appearing in the family courts without representation of counsel to assist the case through the court system. Pro se litigants, while encouraged in the family court setting, quite often attempted to perform difficult case maneuvers for the first time in a very difficult-to-negotiate system. Mr. Ireland felt that the public was “shouting” for shorter timetables, as was evidenced by national and local surveys which favored a shorter time frame in the resolution of cases. An additional judge would give the family court more capability to meet the shorter time frame.

Mr. Ireland pointed out that S.B. 137 was passed unanimously by the Senate, and also passed unanimously by the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The legislation had been discussed on two occasions by the Washoe County Commission, and the fiscal impact would be approximately $1 million for the remodel of the facility, along with the necessary staff for the proposed judge. Mr. Ireland stated that, nonetheless, the commission had endorsed the legislation on two public occasions.

Ronald Longtin, Jr., Court Administrator, Second Judicial District Court, advised the committee that within the Second Judicial District, the general jurisdiction judges, of which there were eight, were sharing in the family court workload. Based on the heavy workload that the family court was receiving, the judges of the general jurisdiction agreed to handle family divorce cases that did not involve children. According to Mr. Longtin, that equated to approximately 200 additional cases for each judge, in addition to the civil and regular criminal cases. Mr. Longtin pointed out that would tax the general jurisdiction in maintaining its routine caseload, however, it was a cooperative venture.

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Civil Division, stated she represented the Washoe County Commissioners, and informed the committee that the additional judge for the family court was a prime example of an unfunded mandate, which the commission had agreed to undertake on two separate occasions. The $1 million expenditure would be a one-time cost and the continuing expense to the county would amount to approximately $2 to $3 for every $1 spent by the state for the judge.

With no further testimony forthcoming, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 137, and opened the hearing on S.B. 184.

Senate Bill 184: Adjusts prospective salary of supreme court justices and district court judges. (BDR 1-517)

Dan Polsenberg advised the committee he was the president of the State Bar of Nevada, and introduced Bruce Beesly, a member of the Board of Governors, a former Washoe County Bar president, and current Chairman of the Washoe County Law Library Board of Directors. Mr. Polsenberg stated S.B. 184 addressed two very important needs in the state of Nevada: (1) the inequity in judicial salaries; and, (2) the plight of unrepresented litigants. The way the staggered system of judgeships worked, when a pay increase was passed every six years, that pay increase went into effect for almost all judges in the state, with the exception of a few. Mr. Polsenberg explained that for a period of two years, or for five of the Supreme Court justices, for a period of four years, judges received a lower salary, which was not an equitable situation. That situation had been addressed in the past, and the proposed legislation would create commissions on which justices and judges could serve, and receive additional pay for the additional work. Mr. Polsenberg felt that would be an appropriate way to equalize pay. The Nevada Supreme Court had twice determined that the legislature could take such action, and that it would be constitutional. In 1897 and 1910, the California Supreme Court found such action to be constitutional, as well. Mr. Polsenberg reiterated that such action was appropriate, was legal, was constitutional, and was simply the right thing to do.

According to Mr. Polsenberg, the proposed commissions would address the various serious needs of people attempting to represent themselves within the court system. The American Judicature Society published its report on pro se litigation, which determined that unrepresented litigants were the major issue addressing the country’s courts. Mr. Polsenberg indicated that pro se litigation created a real impact in the courts, and also created an impact on the citizens who were attempting to achieve access to justice without the knowledge of how that could be accomplished. The proposed commissions would address that difficult problem and propose solutions, and Mr. Polsenberg noted the commissions would also: (1) develop ways for law libraries to provide advice; (2) determine how much advice should be provided; (3) provide the necessary forms; (4) address the need for additional pro bono or free legal services to those in need; and, (5) coordinate the efforts to fight the unauthorized practice of law. According to Mr. Polsenberg, quite often people who represented themselves were afraid to approach an attorney and, therefore, sought assistance from persons who were not qualified to give advice, and often charged a higher fee while providing incorrect advice. Mr. Polsenberg indicated that the commissions would, undoubtedly, take on major assignments, as there was a great deal of additional work to be done. The judges who performed that additional work would be paid, which would equalize the salaries across the state among judges.

Mr. Beesly stated he felt there was considerable need for assistance to pro se litigants, and in excess of 60 percent of the people served by the Washoe County Law Library were pro se litigants. In counties other than Washoe and Clark, Mr. Beesly noted the problem was more pronounced, and he urged the committee to support S.B. 184.

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 184, as there was no further testimony. The next bill for committee consideration was S.B. 193.

Senate Bill 193: Makes various changes concerning department of prisons. (BDR 16-311)

Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification and Planning, Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP), explained that S.B. 193 contained four major components:

1. Changed the name from the Department of Prisons to the Department of Corrections, which would more appropriately identify the NDOP’s mission within state government.

2. Created a Division of Offender Management in order to coordinate and deliver programs to inmates within the NDOP.

3. Created a system of structured living throughout the entire NDOP, the model for which had been implemented at three institutions and was currently under development at four additional institutions.

4. Required facility orientation for all staff hired to work at the institutions.

According to Mr. Whorton, there was a fiscal impact included in S.B. 193, in that it would reduce the obligation to the state by approximately $11,000 over the biennium.

Mr. Marvel asked how the bill would reduce the obligation to the state. Mr. Whorton explained that the NDOP would reclassify the Assistant Director of Offenders, along with a Management Analyst II position by converting the Mental Health Coordinator, or Psychiatrist, position. Given the extremely high salary for the Psychiatrist position, the NDOP could fund the two proposed positions, along with creating a savings to the state. Mr. Whorton assured the committee that the NDOP would still continue to deliver mental health services with the 9 board-certified Psychiatrist positions, 30 Psychologist positions, and 49 Psychiatric Social Worker and Forensic positions. Mr. Marvel then inquired about the cost for reprinting signs, stationery, et cetera, created by the name change. Mr. Whorton indicated there would be a $2,100 cost for the changing of signage and stationery, et cetera, however, that cost was included in the salary savings as well, which resulted in a net overall savings to the state of $11,000.

Mr. Arberry noted that the Mental Health Director position would be eliminated in order to create an Assistant Director of Offenders, and it was his understanding that the Mental Health Director position had been created as a result of a consent decree issued in the Taylor v. Wolff case. Mr. Whorton concurred that the position had been created as a result of that consent decree; however, the NDOP had contacted the Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office and requested review of the proposal. The AG’s Office had advised that the conversion would not be problematic, and had submitted that approval in writing (Exhibit E).

Ms. Tiffany stated that replacement of the Mental Health Director position would lead her to believe that the issue would then be directed toward programs for the mentally ill. Mr. Whorton stated that was correct, and explained the vacant position had primarily been utilized in an administrative role, and the NDOP would convert that position to an Assistant Director for Programs, who would continue to coordinate mental health programs, rather than provide treatment, as well as extending the mandate to cover educational literacy programs, self-help programs, and substance abuse programs. Mr. Whorton noted that pre-release preparation programs would also fall under the jurisdiction of the proposed position. Mr. Whorton stated S.B. 193 was sponsored by Senator Mark James, after he had observed how Jackie Crawford, Director of the NDOP, intended to direct the management of the institutions in order to become less draconian, promote less warehousing of inmates, and become more program-oriented. Ms. Tiffany inquired whether the NDOP had developed additional performance indicators to address the proposed position. Mr. Whorton advised that the creation of performance indicators would be part of the rationale for the position, i.e., planning and development of programs, coordination of service delivery, undertaking analysis which would include performance indicators, and documentation of the delivery of services for the legislature, the Parole Board, the NDOP, and the inmate.

Ed Flagg, President, Nevada Corrections Association, advised the committee that he was available to answer questions regarding the training aspect of the bill, if necessary, and also voiced support for S.B. 193.

The hearing on S.B. 193 was closed, as no further testimony was forthcoming, and Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on S.B. 428.

Senate Bill 428: Makes appropriation to Department of Cultural Affairs for expenses relating to continued operation of Southern Nevada office of Nevada Humanities Committee. (BDR S-1351)

Judith Winzeler, Executive Director, Nevada Humanities Committee, introduced C. Joseph Guild, III, lobbyist for the Nevada Humanities Committee, and Ruth Hanusa and Rose McKinney-James, board members of the Nevada Humanities Committee. Ms. Winzeler explained that the Nevada Humanities Committee was a statewide, nonprofit organization, which received an annual grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Ms. Winzeler noted that the committee was very grateful for the support it had received from the state of Nevada over the past four years. During the prior two sessions of the legislature, Senator Dina Titus had introduced appropriation bills for the Nevada Humanities Committee, and those state funds had allowed the committee to open and staff an office in Las Vegas.

Ms. Winzeler indicated that the Humanities Committee had, at the request of Governor Guinn, prepared a case statement for continued state support that documented the “value-added” benefit to the citizens of Nevada from the expenditure of public funds. The report indicated that the “value-added” benefit was approximately 3:1, and on that basis, Governor Guinn recommended that the Humanities Committee continue to receive state support for the upcoming biennium. Ms. Winzeler provided the following exhibits for the committee’s perusal:

Exhibit F: report prepared for Governor Guinn;
Exhibit G: Nevada Humanities Committee’s most recent audit report;
Exhibit H: financial summary of the committee for the past four years;
Exhibit I: self-assessment report prepared for the five-year review by the National Endowment for the Humanities;
Exhibit J: Nevada Humanities Committee’s newsletter, “Touchstone,” dated January 2001;
Exhibit K: Nevada Humanities Committee’s newsletter, “Touchstone,” dated May-July 2001;
Exhibit L: Nevada Humanities Committee’s “On the Road” catalogue; and,
Exhibit M: book published by the Nevada Humanities Committee entitled, Into Their Own - Nevada Women Emerging Into Public Life, published in part to commemorate the work of Jean Ford.

Ms. Winzeler commented that the funds from the state had helped the committee grow and provided quality humanities programs for all Nevadans, and she urged committee support of S.B. 428.

Ms. Hanusa stated she was a member of the Nevada Humanities Committee, and relayed a story regarding a gentleman she had once taught when he was incarcerated in the NDOP, and later met at the Great Basin Chautauqua Program. According to Ms. Hanusa, she had relayed that story because since the Humanities Committee dealt with scholarship, history, philosophy, and English, some persons thought it was only for university professors and their offspring, however, it held broad appeal. The committee offered programs in a wide variety of venues and demonstrated excellent public relations skills. Ms. Hanusa noted that since the state was experiencing a “tight” budget for the upcoming biennium, the legislature should ensure that the available funding reached as many Nevadans as possible, and she urged the committee’s support of S.B. 428.

Ms. McKinney-James indicated she was a member of the Nevada Humanities Committee, and stated that over the years, the committee had been able to provide outstanding services, which had principally been appreciated in northern Nevada. The opportunity to staff and expand programs in southern Nevada was critical, and Ms. McKinney-James noted that the committee was very grateful to the Governor for including the appropriation in The Executive Budget.

C. Joseph Guild, III, representing the Nevada Humanities Committee, urged the committee’s support for S.B. 428.

With no further testimony forthcoming, the hearing on S.B. 428 was closed, and Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on S.B. 444.

Senate Bill 444: Makes appropriation to Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for security upgrades and operating expenses at various offices of Division of Parole and Probation. (BDR S-1380)

Mike Ebright, District Administrator, Division of Parole and Probation, DMV&PS, explained that the division currently had 15 offices throughout the state located in either state-owned buildings or leased office space. Most of those offices had alarms and secured lobby areas, because of the clientele the division dealt with. Mr. Ebright stated S.B. 444 would provide funding for construction costs to four of the division’s rural offices, and the division’s largest office in Las Vegas. The bill also proposed funding for alarm systems to be installed, in order to secure the buildings when staff was not present. Mr. Ebright explained that the division had experienced a theft of computers in its central office several years ago, and S.B. 444 represented a continuing effort to secure the buildings. The bill also proposed continued maintenance of the security systems in future years. Mr. Ebright advised the committee that the bulk of the requested allocation would be one-shot monies for construction and implementation of alarm systems.

With no further testimony forthcoming regarding S.B. 444, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed, and opened the hearing on S.B. 451.

Senate Bill 451: Makes appropriation to Lifeline Family Education Center for continuation of its nonprofit pregnancy assistance, educational and vocational training programs. (BDR S-1401)

Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, explained that S.B. 451 was an appropriation included in The Executive Budget for continuation of the funding allocated by the 1999 legislature to the Lifeline Family Education Center. The only change in the amended version of the bill was that reporting and auditing requirements had been added.

Ms. Leslie asked for an explanation of why funding would be directed to the Lifeline Family Education Center. There had been much discussion during past committee hearings regarding the inequity in funding throughout the state, and it was her understanding that the program only served the Clark County area. Mr. Hataway stated that the Lifeline Family Education Center apparently did a superior job, and the Governor felt the center deserved continued support. Ms. Leslie commented that she had a problem with such funding, and explained she did support nonprofit groups, but she felt there was inequity in funding.

Mrs. Chowning also voiced her concern regarding funding the Lifeline Family Education Center, and she wondered how an allocation for that particular nonprofit group became part of The Executive Budget. Mrs. Chowning recalled that the original funding had been on a one-shot basis, which was not unusual for nonprofit organizations. However, she did not feel the legislature had received adequate reporting regarding use of the prior funding granted to the center. According to Mrs. Chowning, little was known about the programs offered by the Lifeline Family Education Center which, in itself, caused her concern.

Mr. Hataway stated that the appropriation request was a one-shot allocation, and was not included within a specific agency’s budget, but rather would be an appropriation directly to the organization. The Governor had reviewed all one‑shot allocations approved during the 1999 session and determined those that would receive further funding for the upcoming biennium because they were performing on a high priority basis. Mr. Hataway informed the committee that he would provide additional information regarding the program. Mrs. Chowning stated that brought up an additional question, because there had been several one-shot allocations approved during the 1999 session, and she wondered how the recipients were selected for continued funding over the upcoming biennium.

Jan Gilbert, representing the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, stated she had spoken to the Senate Finance Committee regarding S.B. 451 because of the one-shot funding that had been allocated to the Lifeline Family Education Center over the past several years. Ms. Gilbert felt a nonprofit group that received a large allocation of money from the state should be required to establish performance indicators, similar to those established by state agencies. Unfortunately, that stipulation was not included in the amended version of the bill. Ms. Gilbert stated there were many bills that allocated funds to nonprofit organizations; however, she chose to testify regarding the Lifeline Family Education Center because that organization received funding session after session. Due to her work with the Block Grant Commission of the Department of Human Resources (DHR), Ms. Gilbert advised that she was aware of many agencies that applied for funding, and noted that the needs in Nevada were enormous. According to Ms. Gilbert, it was alarming that the Lifeline Family Education Center continued to receive funding, whereas other nonprofit organizations were not afforded the same opportunity.

Ms. Gilbert presented the committee with an article from Vol. 1, Issue 41, of the “Business In Las Vegas” publication of March 23, 2001, (Exhibit N), which reviewed nonprofit organizations via the most recently filed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) information. Ms. Gilbert stated she was particularly alarmed by the profit and fund balance items, and noted that when the state gave nonprofit organizations funding, it should also ascertain what had been done with those funds. She noted that most grants awarded by the Block Grant Commission from Title XX funds were in the range of $30,000 to $40,000. Ms. Gilbert reiterated that she felt there should be some accountability on the part of the organization. She urged the committee to amend S.B. 451 to include performance indicators to ensure that the Lifeline Family Education Center indicated how the funds were utilized. Ms. Gilbert pointed out that another area of concern for organizations that received such major governmental support, was that federal and state dollars were diminishing, and when an organization was totally reliant on government dollars the programs could suffer greatly when those dollars diminished.

Mr. Hataway attested to the fact that the state was not always aware of what was being done in terms of utilization of funding, as was pointed out by The Governor’s Steering Committee to Conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government. According to Mr. Hataway, all state agencies had been asked to track their contracts, agreements, and grants, et cetera, with local government entities and nonprofit agencies. Unfortunately, the proposed Grants Management Unit, which had been cut from the DHR’s budget, would have played a key role in that process. Mr. Hataway stated the Budget Division would analyze that information in an attempt to secure a better way of allocating dollars. He stated there was no apparent reason why one entity was awarded continued and ongoing funding while another was not. Mr. Hataway indicated he had presented an example to The Governor’s Steering Committee to Conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government of an organization during the 1999 session which had a specific amount of funding built into the budget, had received a specific one-shot appropriation, along with a grant, and had entered into a contract with another agency. None of the funding for that organization had been developed in a centralized, comprehensive approach, and Mr. Hataway hoped that issue would be addressed over the next biennium.

Ms. Leslie stated that nonprofit organizations were often forced to secure several funding sources for different services, and elimination of the proposed Grants Management Unit did not mean that the DHR could not better coordinate its efforts. Ms. Leslie pointed out that the DHR had been instructed to return to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) and request a position to coordinate that effort.

Senator Joseph M. Neal advised the committee that a representative from the Lifeline Family Education Center was advised to be present at the hearing to address the measure. Senator Neal noted that he had sponsored the legislation for the past three or four sessions, and explained that the center did an exceptional job in meeting the needs of the growing community in southern Nevada. The center served many clients and the allocation requested in S.B. 451 represented only a portion of the organization’s budget and, in fact, probably represented no more than one-quarter of the center’s actual budget. Senator Neal explained that the center operated across two major religious communities in serving the population in southern Nevada. Both Catholic and Mormon religious groups were active in the operation of the center, and secured funding from casinos and other available sources.

According to Senator Neal, over the years the organization had garnered support from Senator Harry Reid, former Governor Mike O’Callaghan, and he, himself, had raised funds for the organization because it fulfilled a need which was not otherwise being addressed in southern Nevada. Senator Neal stated he had visited the facility, and had encouraged fellow legislators to do likewise. The operating budget for the center was well over $1 million in terms of services rendered to the community. The facility included a walk-in teen center for teens that lived on the streets, offered counseling and assistance, and a program for first-time fathers, along with a program for pregnant women. Senator Neal emphasized that the Lifeline Family Education Center offered many programs that were not offered by other agencies, and fulfilled a particular need in the community; he reiterated that he felt it was a necessity that the state continued its financial support of the center

Senator Neal did not feel the center would find it problematic to report back to the legislature and, in fact, noted that the Senate Finance Committee had received such a report, along with a budget presentation from the center when it reviewed S.B 451. Senator Neal stated that the organization was advised to appear before the committee because of possible opposition from persons who had not visited the facility, and who would attempt to make a determination from review of the paperwork. Per Senator Neal, in order to understand the program, a person should go beyond the paperwork, and actually visit the facility.

Mrs. Chowning stated that there was demanding financial accountability regarding taxpayers’ dollars, and the committee had not one, single sheet of paper that would attest to the success of the programs offered by the Lifeline Family Education Center. More importantly, the committee had no idea regarding how the $200,000 allocation would be used. The bill specified that there would be vocational training programs, however, it was not known what type of program that entailed.

Senator Neal stated he appeared before the committee to testify about the history of the program, and noted it was not the first time the program had received funding from the state, as he had sponsored the majority of the bills over the years. The Governor had included $150,000 of the appropriation for the center in The Executive Budget, and the bill was drafted to add $50,000.

Mrs. Chowning stated the committee had difficulty with any request that came before it with absolutely no backup material. Senator Neal reiterated that he did not know why a representative from the Lifeline Family Education Center was not present, as requested. Chairman Arberry suggested that a representative from the center contact the members of the committee who expressed concerns to provide the requested information.

With no further testimony forthcoming regarding S.B. 451, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed, and opened the hearing on S.B. 452.

Senate Bill 452: Makes appropriation to Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Nevada for expenses relating to training of volunteers, coordination of "Family to Family" program and evaluation of its success, and operation of toll-free telephone number for persons to call who need help caring for family member with serious brain disorder. (BDR S-1402)

Mr. Hataway explained that the $75,000 appropriation proposed in S.B. 452 was included in The Executive Budget and was a continuation of funding that had commenced in 1999. The only change in the amended version of the bill was addition of the reporting and auditing requirements.

Ms. Gilbert voiced concern regarding the coordination of the Family to Family program. Section 1 of the bill stated, “. . .the coordination of the ‘Family to Family’ program and the evaluation of its success. . . ,” which was already being done by state agencies.

Ms. Leslie pointed out that the Family to Family program referenced in S.B. 452, was not connected to the state’s Family to Family and Community Connections programs, but rather was the consumer group that trained parents of mentally ill persons. Ms. Leslie indicated it was a good program that operated in both northern and southern Nevada, however, she would once again voice concern regarding one-shot funding that had apparently become ongoing with no oversight, which she felt was an inappropriate method of funding nonprofit organizations.

Bobbi Gang, representing the Nevada Women’s Lobby, voiced support for the bill with the understanding that the Family to Family program referenced in S.B. 452 was specific to the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI). Ms. Gang pointed out that the NAMI used the funding to train persons in Family to Family programs that taught family members of mentally ill persons to become resources rather than part of the problem. It was an excellent program that, in the long run, saved the state money by decreasing hospitalization and emergency services. Ms. Gang noted that it was difficult to document the savings but, nonetheless, those savings did exist. She urged committee support of S.B. 452.

Larry Struve, representing the Religious Alliance in Nevada, stated that in light of the clarification regarding the program included in the bill, the alliance would request an amendment to Section 1 of the bill, to add the language, “of the Alliance,” as follows: “. . .’Family to Family’ program of the Alliance. . . .” Mr. Struve indicated his concern was that within The Executive Budget, “Family to Family” referred solely to the state program, which was strongly supported by the Religious Alliance, and the amendment would avoid confusion for those not familiar with the NAMI. Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Struve to provide that amendment in writing to Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff.

With no further testimony forthcoming, the hearing on S.B. 452 was closed, and Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on S.B. 462.

Senate Bill 462: Makes appropriation to Nevada Silver Haired Legislative Forum of Aging Services Division of Department of Human Resources. (BDR S‑1431)

Mary Liveratti, Administrator, Aging Services Division, DHR, explained that S.B. 462 would provide an appropriation of $5,000 for the Silver Haired Legislative Forum, which was established by the 1997 legislature. Ms. Liveratti explained that the Governor appointed 21 senior citizens to represent the state senatorial districts on a non-partisan basis to serve on the forum. Currently, the forum operated without any state funding, and the proposed appropriation would support its activities and enable the members to be reimbursed for travel expenses.

Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 462 closed, and opened the hearing on S.B. 573.

Senate Bill 573: Transfers office for hospital patients from department of business and industry to office of governor. (BDR 18-1545)

Mr. Hataway testified that during the 1999 session, the legislature passed S.B. 37 of the Seventieth Session, which primarily privatized the state industrial insurance system. In the process of negotiating that action, there was a section added which created the Office of Consumer Health Assistance for the state of Nevada. Mr. Hataway explained the duties of that office included responding to problems related to consumers and injured employees covered under industrial insurance concerning problems with health, health billing, and health care.

According to Mr. Hataway, the Budget Division became involved in the process when it was asked to create a budget for the new entity prior to the end of the 1999 session, which would include an allocation of approximately $300,000 per year. The allocation included the transfer of employees from the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS), the Division of Health Care, Financing & Policy (HCF&P), and the Health Division, in the creation of a consolidated program for consumers regarding health issues. Mr. Hataway indicated at that time, the question arose concerning the Office for Hospital Patients. The Budget Division was advised that the program had been finalized and there was not sufficient time remaining in the session to make amendments. The Governor’s Steering Committee to Conduct a Fundamental Review of State Government studied the issue, and it was felt that one common office, one telephone number, and one 800-telephone line was needed to field issues and problems experienced by consumers regarding industrial insurance issues. Per Mr. Hataway, the Budget Division was prepared to protect the incumbents currently staffing positions within the Office for Hospital Patients, and was working to either absorb them into the consolidated office, or within the Department of Business and Industry.

Chairman Arberry asked where the office was currently located. Mr. Hataway stated the Office of Consumer Protection was located in both northern and southern Nevada, however, the Office for Hospital Patients was located in Las Vegas. Chairman Arberry then inquired where the office would be located after the proposed transfer. Mr. Hataway reported there would be offices in both Las Vegas and Carson City. The office in Las Vegas would remain in operation, because it covered a vital service area. Chairman Arberry asked whether the staff level would be reduced. Mr. Hataway indicated The Executive Budget proposed the elimination of one position, and the Budget Division felt that with the combined entity, the remaining staff could adequately serve the state.

Mary Lushina, Acting Director, Governor’s Office for Consumer Health Assistance, concurred with the testimony offered by Mr. Hataway, and explained that the Governor’s Office was working with existing staff within the Office for Hospital Patients regarding the potential transfer. Ms. Lushina added that by combining the offices, consumers would not only be assisted with hospital billing issues, but also with other issues involving quality of care claims, billing, and benefit issues. Consumers often contacted the Office for Consumer Health Assistance regarding numerous health care issues, concerns, and questions. Ms. Lushina pointed out that the office had become a focal point for consumers regarding health care issues.

Chairman Arberry stated he was concerned with the number of positions that would remain in the Las Vegas office. Ms. Lushina indicated there was one position in the budget that would transfer with the Office for Hospital Patients from the current Las Vegas office. Chairman Arberry noted that the southern Nevada area was growing rapidly, and he felt that additional staff would be needed in that area. Ms. Lushina explained that two staff would remain in the Las Vegas Office of Consumer Health Assistance. The current administrative position in the Las Vegas Office for Hospital Patients was budgeted to transfer into an ombudsman position, and would remain in Las Vegas with the Office of Consumer Health Assistance.

Mrs. Chowning stated she had concerns regarding the transfer relative to the excellent work that had been accomplished for citizens of Las Vegas by the two staff persons in the Office for Hospital Patients, which primarily assisted senior citizens in dealing with hospital bills. The legislature had been advised that the transfer would not interrupt that effort or diminish that service in any way. According to Mrs. Chowning, the persons currently staffing the Las Vegas Office for Hospital Patients were bilingual. She also pointed out that Nevada had the fastest growing senior citizen population in the country, and the committee was now informed that the staff would be reduced to one, which was not known at the time budgets were closed to accommodate the transfer.

Mr. Hataway clarified that two positions would remain in Las Vegas, and explained that the staff of both entities were small. The 1999 session authorized three positions for the Office for Hospital Patients, and the available staff would be used to create a presence for consumer health protection in Las Vegas with two staff members. The remaining five staff members would be located in northern Nevada, however, there was an 800 hot line number located in the northern office that received complaints from all areas of the state.

Ms. Lushina stated there was also a bilingual representative on staff with the Office of Consumer Health Assistance. Chairman Arberry advised that the committee’s concern was that services would be removed from the Las Vegas area, and because of the rapid growth, did not feel that would be appropriate.

Sydney Wickliffe, C.P.A., Director, Department of Business and Industry, stated that the Office for Hospital Patients existed within the department at the present time, and as previously explained, it was a two-person agency, administrated by Milly Gonzalez-Johnson, who was bilingual, as was her assistant. Ms. Wickliffe reported that the assistant position would be relinquished in the transfer, and the department was attempting to locate a slot for that person, either within the department or elsewhere in state government. Ms. Wickliffe informed the committee that Ms. Gonzalez-Johnson was committed to the program, was an excellent asset, and would be transferred into the new program. She was, as well, committed to the strength of the program and continuing service for consumers.

Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on S.B. 573, as no further testimony was presented. The next order of business for the committee was review of S.B. 578.

Senate Bill 578: Revises provisions governing certain fees charged by department of motor vehicles and public safety and transfers of money to state highway fund. (BDR 43-1561)

Tom Tatro, Fiscal Manager, Management Services and Programs Division, DMV&PS, testified that S.B. 578 would allow the budgets, as passed by both the Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Committees, to be implemented. The bill included the following recommendations from the joint subcommittee:

Reduction of the amounts balanced-forward in the Verification of Insurance budget from $1 million to $500,000.
Authorization for the DMV&PS to establish, by regulation, fees for driver’s licenses to cover contract costs.

With no further testimony forthcoming regarding S.B. 578, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed, and indicated the committee would review the following bills with a view toward possible action.

Assembly Bill 606: Makes various changes regarding compensation of certain public officers. (BDR 1-1435)

Ms. Giunchigliani explained that A.B. 606 was one of the suggested vehicles for salary compensation, and she would submit the following amendments:

Include constitutional officers, who had not been awarded an increase in four years;
Fund legislator’s salaries, as recommended by the interim Task Force, to increase from $130 to $175 per day, with no indexing for the legislator’s pay.
Adopt the language and salary schedule that was recommended in A.B. 256 of the Seventieth Session, which was not acted on during the 1999 session.
Increase the salary for Supreme Court Justices to $150,000; district court judges to $130,000.
The salary schedule adopted from A.B. 256 of the Seventieth Session would include sheriffs, district attorneys, et cetera, as recommended by the Task Force. The salary increases would be 27 percent plus indexing. The index would begin July 2002 and the salary would not go into effect until January 1, 2003, so all parties involved had to have been reelected or sought reelection in order to qualify;
Include language regarding the law library for assistance to the Supreme Court that had been included in A.B. 256 of the Seventieth Session.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 606.

MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. GOLDWATER AND MS. TIFFANY VOTING NO. (Mr. Beers, Ms. Leslie, and Mrs. Cegavske were not present for the vote).

********

Assembly Bill 669: Revises provisions governing liquor. (BDR 32-1550)

MR. MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 669.

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Beers, Mrs. Cegavske, and Ms. Leslie were not present for the vote.)

********

Senate Bill 137: Increases number of district judges in second and eighth judicial districts. (BDR 1-521)

Chairman Arberry explained that he would like the committee to consider amending S.B. 137 to include the language contained in A.B. 109, which would limit the number of new judges to three for Clark County, rather than the five judges requested in S.B. 137. Ms. Giunchigliani stated it was her understanding that the three judges would include one family court judge and two district court judges. Chairman Arberry concurred.

MR. PERKINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 137.

MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Beers, Mrs. Cegavske, and Ms. Leslie were not present for the vote.)

********

Senate Bill 277: Requires posting of sign in certain food establishments in which alcoholic beverages are sold that warns of dangers of drinking such beverages during pregnancy. (BDR 40-24)

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, LCB, explained that the committee had previously heard testimony and discussed the bill, and it would require signage in food establishments that warned of the dangers of drinking alcohol during pregnancy. Mr. Dini indicated he would propose an amendment that the signs not be posted in restrooms, but rather elsewhere in the establishment where it would be visible to the public, and removal of the penalty.

MR. DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 277.

MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. HETTRICK, MR. MARVEL, AND

MS. TIFFANY VOTING NO. (Mr. Beers, Mrs. Cegavske, and Ms. Leslie were not present for the vote.)

********

Senate Bill 306: Makes various changes relating to emergency management. (BDR 18-1231)

According to Mr. Stevens, S.B. 306 would transfer the Division of Emergency Management from the DMV&PS to the Governor’s Office. Ms. Giunchigliani proposed an amendment to the bill that would change the language in Section 1, subsection 1(b) from “non classified” to “unclassified.”

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 306.

MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Beers, Mrs. Cegavske, and Ms. Leslie were not present for the vote.)

********

Assembly Bill 300: Creates revolving fund for construction and repair of school buildings and facilities and makes related appropriations. (BDR 34-1003)

Ms. Giunchigliani explained A.B. 300 would create a revolving loan and grant fund for all counties, however, would commence with rural counties only for the first five years. The funding would not be from reversion, and the original request was for $5 million, however, that would be amended to $500,000, which would qualify the state for receipt of a $5.8 million federal grant for school construction and repair.

Chairman Arberry announced that the committee would postpone action on A.B. 300 pending further review.

********

Senate Bill 367: Provides for administration of certain activities to prevent or delay early sexual activity and reduce rate of pregnancies among unmarried teenage girls in Nevada. (BDR S-26)

Mr. Stevens explained that the bill contained Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funding, and budgets had been closed with TANF funding available to support S.B. 367, if passed. Ms. Giunchigliani voiced concern regarding the pregnancy and teen issue, and the joint subcommittee had closed the TANF budget contingent on the Welfare Division using the Request for Proposal (RFP) process to solicit services. Ms. Giunchigliani would move to pass the bill with inclusion of a Letter of Intent regarding the Request for Proposal (RFP).

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 367, INCLUDING A LETTER OF INTENT REGARDING THE RFP.

MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Beers, Mrs. Cegavske, and Ms. Leslie were not present for the vote.)

********

Senate Bill 421: Makes various changes to provisions governing common- interest communities. (BDR 10-446)

Mr. Stevens stated the committee had heard testimony on the bill at its hearing on June 1, 2001, at which time voluminous amendments were proposed.

MR. DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 421.

MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. GOLDWATER ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. (Mr. Beers, Mrs. Cegavske and Ms. Leslie were not present for the vote.)

********

Senate Bill 427: Makes appropriations for educational technology, textbooks and signing bonuses for teachers. (BDR S-1349)

Mr. Stevens stated that S.B. 427 would provide a $10 million appropriation for new teacher recruitment bonuses, and $10 million in technology funding to be distributed by the Education Technology Commission. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the following amendments:

Section 1, subsection 2(e), strike the word “Satellite.”
Add the word “public” before “library” in Section 1, subsection 2(f).
Allow the commission to complete the technology, but allocate the additional money for technology to textbooks.

Mr. Perkins questioned the amendment regarding the word “public” in Section 1, subsection 2(f). Mr. Hataway explained it would be both public and school libraries. Ms. Tiffany asked whether there would be approximately $9 million reserved for textbooks. Ms. Giunchigliani replied in the affirmative. Ms. Tiffany asked whether Ms. Giunchigliani would accept an additional amendment, to utilize the textbook funding to eliminate textbooks “sets” as well as place textbooks in the hands of students. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that stipulation be addressed via a Letter of Intent. Mr. Hataway stated the Budget Division would oppose the amendment regarding allocation of technology funds for textbooks, as education technology was the purpose of S.B. 427. Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the amendment would not eliminate the commission’s responsibility, but it was the belief of the committee that textbooks were more important at the current time. Ms. Giunchigliani also suggested that an amendment be considered regarding qualifications for the teacher bonus, to include a stipulation that those teachers remained on staff for a period of at least two years.

Ms. Giunchigliani restated the motion as follows:

MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 427, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:

§ SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 2(E), STRIKE THE WORD “SATELLITE.”

§ ADD THE WORD “PUBLIC” BEFORE “LIBRARY” IN SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 2(F).

§ ADD LANGUAGE TO ADDRESS THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE SIGNING BONUS IN SECTION 4, STIPULATING THAT A TEACHER RECEIVING THE BONUS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REMAIN UNDER CONTRACT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS.

§ ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO COMPLETE THE TECHNOLOGY, BUT ALLOCATE THE ADDITIONAL MONEY ($9 MILLION) DESIGNATED FOR TECHNOLOGY TO TEXTBOOKS.

Because of the numerous proposed amendments to S.B. 427, Chairman Arberry announced that the committee would hold action until it had sufficient time to review and clarify those amendments.

********

Senate Bill 428: Makes appropriation to Department of Cultural Affairs for expenses relating to continued operation of Southern Nevada office of Nevada Humanities Committee. (BDR S-1351)

Mr. Stevens noted the committee had reviewed the bill earlier in the hearing, and it contained a $200,000 one-shot appropriation for the Nevada Humanities Committee.

MRS. CHOWNING MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 428.

MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.