MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
May 12, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 3:51 p.m., on Monday, May 12, 2003. Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
Mr. William Horne, Vice Chairman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Garn Mabey
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. Bob McCleary
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Terry Care, Senatorial District 7
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education
Mark Fiorentino, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN)
Colonel Cindy Kirkland, Chief of Staff, Nevada Air Guard
Ron Sparks II, Executive Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)
Andrew Allen List, Policy and Research Coordinator, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO)
Madam Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll was called.] Please mark members present as they arrive. We have three bills on the agenda today. We’ll try to get through these as fast as we can. The first bill on the agenda is S.B. 68. Ms. Stonefield?
Senate Bill 68: Revises provisions governing terms of members of Commission on Educational Technology and Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools. (BDR 34-638)
Carol Stonefield, LCB Research Division, Committee Policy Analyst:
[Introduced herself.] I was one of the policy analysts with the Legislative Committee on Education, who requested the BDR for Senate Bill 68. I should add that, as a policy analyst and an employee of the Legislature, I will neither advocate for nor oppose any provision but will simply report to you, as best I can, the provisions of it.
This measure makes the following changes:
This bill was introduced at the request of the Legislative Committee on Education, based on requests from the Council to Establish Academic Standards and the Commission on Educational Technology. The change in the appointment process is intended to allow the Council and the Commission to continue to meet and conduct business while awaiting new appointments, which are sometimes made months later.
[Carol Stonefield continued] The change from calendar year to fiscal year enables the Educational Technology Commissioners to represent the Commission during a legislative session and to advocate for educational technology initiatives, and then to remain on the Commission to implement successful legislation.
The staggered terms will provide continuity for the Commission, since not all members would be up for reappointment at the same time. Most state commissions have such staggered terms. For those members of the Committee on Education who have not previously served on this Committee, both the Council and the Commission were created in 1997 and were part of the Nevada Education Reform Act (NERA). That concludes my testimony.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions from the Committee? Are we adding two members? These members would be nonvoting members, as well as changing the appointment process?
Carol Stonefield:
Yes, line 3, page 1, clarifies that those are ex-officio members. If you read down further, on lines 5 and 6, it explains that the Director of the Department of Information and the Superintendent of Public Instruction are already mentioned as ex-officio, so that’s not a change.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions? Dr. Rheault, welcome.
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education:
[Introduced himself.] We’re here in support of the bill. The Department of Education staffs both the Technology Commission and the Academics Standards Council. As mentioned, it did create some problems, and these are just technical changes. I think after the 2001 Legislative Session, the Governor had to determine several hundred appointees and deal with all the bills that were passed. The Academic Standards Council’s members, the ones I serve as staff member to, didn’t get all of their appointments made until September. The appointments sat from July 1 to the middle of September before the Council members could take any action or assume any other responsibilities as outlined in the statute. I think the bill would be a good one if passed. Chairman Debbie Smith, who is the Chairperson of the Academic Standards Council, couldn’t be here today, but the Council fully supports this bill and requested it through the Legislative Committee.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions for Dr. Rheault? Thank you, sir. Dr. Rheault is the only person who signed in to speak on this bill. Is there anyone else present who would like to testify in support of, or in opposition to, Senate Bill 68? With that, we’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 68, and open the hearing on S.B. 306. Senator Care?
Senate Bill 306 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing educational benefits provided to members of Nevada National Guard. (BDR 36-991)
Senator Terry Care, Senatorial District No. 7:
Senate Bill 306 comes from a conversation I had with a member of the Nevada Guard, who I ran into about 1½ years ago. He moved out here from New York and went to work in Nevada. When he lived in New York, he was a member of the Guard. It came up in the conversation that I was a member of the Nevada Legislature, and he asked why Nevada didn’t have a program similar to New York’s, which provided tuition waivers for members of the Guard who wished to start or continue their college education. I told him I would look into it, and the result is Senate Bill 306.
You’ll notice that this is the first reprint. I sent in the bill draft request in late October, and I didn’t get the bill back until the day the bill introductions were due. What we ended up introducing was not nearly what I wanted. This first reprint is what I had intended all along. Currently, there is a program that allows a member of the National Guard to attend the University and Community College System of Nevada with the permission of the Adjutant General’s Office. There are funds put aside that permit the Guard to make some of the tuition payments for members of the Guard. This bill repeals that program and allows for tuition waivers. It also does something new that we don’t have in place at this time. It allows a recruit to commence his or her college education, although you have to do it within 12 months of obtaining Guard membership.
This bill also does something that the current program does not. It requires a member of the Guard to maintain a 2.0 minimum grade point average [GPA] at a post high school institution. We had some discussion in the Senate that the average ought to be a little higher such as it is for the Millennium Scholars. We’re not talking about scholars here; we’re talking about an incentive to get people to join the National Guard. Also, I think it’s a reward for those people who are willing to put their lives on the line. We’ve seen recently, with the war in Iraq, that several hundred members of the National Guard of Nevada have been deployed. Many of them, in fact, did make it to the theater over there.
[Senator Care continued.] That, in essence, is the bill, Mr. Chairman. We’re having a work session in Government Affairs. I’d like to get back to that, but I do have Colonel Kirkland from the National Guard here to testify on the bill. Also present is Mark Fiorentino, who will be representing the Regents regarding the bill. That will complete my testimony, Mr. Chairman.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I’m a little fuzzy on the recruit, and why you would apply this to a recruit. Is that someone who has signed on the dotted line, who will sign up in a couple of years, and who will definitely be there, or how does that work?
Senator Care:
It is, Mr. Geddes. Again, this statute is modeled after what currently happens in New York. It’s used as a recruiting vehicle. Let’s say the high school senior is not sure what it is he wants to do, hang around town, or whatever. He makes the commitment to join the National Guard. As I recall, he has to join the Guard or go through active duty basic training within 12 months, or he is no longer eligible for the program. That’s what it is intended to do.
Mark Fiorentino, University and Community College System of Nevada:
[Introduced himself.] I just wanted to reiterate our support for S.B. 306. We appreciate Senator Care for working with us to get the language where it needed to be so that we were comfortable with it. We do support the bill, and, frankly, I hope you don’t have any questions of me that are more detailed than that.
Assemblyman Geddes:
My question, looking at the bill, is about the laboratory fees. I realize it’s a smaller portion of the fees, but in the waiver of tuition and registration fees, I can see where that makes sense. The laboratory fees are actual expenses for consumables that are used to pay for the cost of the computer or the chemicals in a chemistry class. If we waive those fees, we actually have to appropriate that money from somewhere else to cover it. It is not currently in the “waiving” provisions that are in the Regents’ system. I’m wondering how we would fund the laboratory fees, since that is not included in what we normally waive.
Mark Fiorentino:
That is an accurate assessment of the bill. We would have to waive the laboratory fees, which is not what the current law says. We borrowed this language from another bill, that is pending, that would extend certain benefits to prison inmates. We copied the language from that bill to this bill, which is where we came up with the lab fees. You are accurate; it doesn’t matter whether we’re waiving laboratory fees, tuition, or registration fees. Ultimately, it’s the state’s money that we’re spending. If we don’t take it in from the person who is the student, then it comes from the General Fund for the education system.
Assemblyman Geddes:
We heard the other bill in the Judiciary Committee, and it didn’t include laboratory fees. The tuition can be waived if students are out-of-state or not out-of-state, and there are those provisions. That money is allocated to a certain point. There’s a certain amount built into the budget for the waiving of registration fees that I’m assuming would have to be built in or increased to cover the anticipated amount here. Laboratory fees, generally, aren’t built in. Book fees aren’t put in, either, unless you’re on scholarship. It’s built into the budget to waive tuition and registration, but the laboratory fees aren’t part of the budget nor are they waived. There would have to be either an adjustment to the whole budget, or an appropriation coming out to cover those things.
Mark Fiorentino:
That would be true, but not for this biennium.
Assemblywoman Angle:
My question has to do with a C average, the 2.0 GPA [Grade Point Average], that’s required to be maintained. This is a scholarship situation, since we’re waiving tuition and things like that. As you said, the state will be picking up those costs. I know that we were considering a minimum standard for the Millennium Scholarship, and I’m wondering if we should be consistent with that. How do you feel about that 2.0 GPA, and do we require an ACT or SAT test score from these students as well? How are we going to know that these students are going to perform well and stay in college, if we give them this great opportunity?
Mark Fiorentino:
That one I can answer by repeating the Chancellor’s testimony when this came up in the Senate. The University and Community College System of Nevada [UCCSN] has no position on what grade point average the recruit needs to maintain to keep the scholarship. That’s a policy decision that is up to you, the Legislature. It did come up in the Senate, as Senator Care testified, and they debated in the Senate Committee about whether it should mirror the Millennium Scholarship, or whether it should have a different number. Ultimately, they decided to leave it at 2.0 GPA. As far as UCCSN is concerned, that GPA is your number to plug in, whatever you think is appropriate.
Assemblywoman Angle:
And the ACT or SAT requirement?
Mark Fiorentino:
This bill does not require any separate or additional requirements beyond those required for any other person who would apply to a college. They would be required to have whatever SAT score is required across the board.
Assemblyman Mabey:
How many students are we talking about, in your estimation?
Mark Fiorentino:
It would not be for me to estimate. Is the Colonel still here?
Colonel Cindy Kirkland, Chief of Staff, Nevada Air Guard:
[Introduced herself.] Right now, we have approximately 150 students per semester who utilize the benefits. That is impacted, in any given semester, by how many folks we have who are mobilized, deployed, or performing other duties that interfere with their ability to attend that session. If I could, I would like to speak on the grade point average (GPA) issue that Assemblywoman Angle brought up.
We want to make sure it’s understood that this really isn’t a scholarship program. This is an incentive program to encourage the youth of this state, the young men and woman getting out of high school. They may not otherwise be able to pursue a college education by means of scholarships and such, because their grades aren’t quite up to that par. However, a C is an average grade, and we’re recruiting those young men and women who are looking for that extra incentive to join the National Guard of this state, and they can provide the resources we look for in the National Guard. It’s not really a scholarship; it’s meant as an incentive program.
Assemblywoman Angle:
My son-in-law was a Marine; he has the GI Bill and can go to school on that. How does that dovetail with the National Guard? Do you get any federal funding for those who serve in the National Guard on that GI Bill situation?
Colonel Kirkland:
Yes, there is a GI Bill for the National Guard and Reserve forces. It’s approximately half of what the normal GI Bill would provide, and the eligibility criteria is similar to the regular GI Bill. I don’t have that information available to me right now, but they would qualify, potentially, for the GI Bill as another benefit.
Assemblywoman Angle:
In a way, we would be supplementing with this? Would the state be able to get the money from the GI Bill and augment the other half? Is that something we would be looking at, or would the state be carrying the whole tuition load as far as the cost?
Colonel Kirkland:
We’d have to get that information from the Veterans’ Administration that is responsible for implementing the GI Bill benefits. Basically, those benefits are just a flat rate of reimbursement following a successful completion of a semester. It’s a flat fee that students would get, depending on the credit hour load that they had carried. What would happen, if the tuition and fees are waived, is that the individual would then be able to use that stipend to offset things such as books, supplies, and whatever other college expenses they may incur.
Assemblywoman Angle:
Whatever they got as a stipend would then go to the student, rather than going to the school to offset some of the costs that the school had. It would go to the student to offset his costs, is that what you’re saying?
Colonel Kirkland:
That’s correct. I don’t believe there’s any provision for the federal benefit to be paid to the state or to anybody else. It would be paid to the individual to help offset those additional expenses.
Assemblywoman Angle:
At present, you say, you have about 150 enrolled. How are they paying for their tuition now? How are they getting their expenses paid? Is the National Guard supplementing that, or are the students picking that up out of their salaries? How does that work?
Colonel Kirkland:
I don’t know how an individual actually pays all those extra expenses, but right now the National Guard, with the State Tuition Assistance Program, is able to reimburse them. Last semester, we were able to reimburse at the highest level yet, and that was 48 or 49 percent of the cost, for the last fall term. The individual would then apply for other federal assistance, either the GI Bill or other grants and loans programs, to help offset their additional expenses. In many cases, they get another job, or they use their salary earned from their National Guard duty to offset those expenses. There is no other set benefit program that helps them pay for anything above and beyond what is currently being reimbursed.
Assemblywoman Angle:
That 48 percent that you now reimburse would go to the University, or would that also go to the student? Would that not be a part of the plan at all?
Mark Fiorentino:
I can attempt to answer that better, because this came up in the Senate. The way it currently works is, in this particular biennium, there is money set aside in the budget for the National Guard to use for this purpose. If I’m a National Guardsman, I take the classes, and I incur the expenses. I would then go to the Adjutant General and say, “Here’s my paperwork. Please reimburse me with the money that came from the state budget for the National Guard.”
If you adopt this bill, those provisions will be repealed, so they will no longer get that money. Instead, we will be waiving the tuitions up front. I think they would have funded 100 percent if funds had been available for the recruits in the program. Because they had more recruits than they had funding, they tried to distribute it equally and evenly amongst the recruits.
Assemblywoman Angle:
The money they would have gotten for this would no longer be going to the National Guard. Would it be coming to the University System?
Mark Fiorentino:
There is no direct link. It would just be removed from future budgets. You would indirectly see it in the University’s budget, when that comes before you, because, to the extent that we have fewer paying students, and we have to provide the same services, we may need more money from the General Fund.
Assemblyman Andonov:
Colonel, I wanted to ask you a question about the residency requirement. To be in the Nevada National Guard, do you have to be a resident of Nevada?
Colonel Kirkland:
That is not correct.
Assemblyman Andonov:
Do you have a lot of members of the Guard who are not residents?
Colonel Kirkland:
We probably have 6 to 8 percent of our personnel assigned here who don’t actually reside in Nevada.
Assemblyman Andonov:
What was the intention of having that residency requirement? The folks who are not residents are still serving the state. It would still be functioning as a recruiting tool and incentive. Section 1, subsection 2(a) contains the residency requirement.
Colonel Kirkland:
We did not notice that provision, and that would be an issue. We have a lot of young members whom we recruit out of some of the counties in California bordering our state. We have quite a few whom we recruit from those areas. That provision would definitely have an impact on our ability to recruit.
Assemblyman Andonov:
My perspective is they are serving the state of Nevada. I have friends who are actually in other states’ National Guard, and I’m trying to convince them to join the Nevada Guard, instead of Idaho, Montana, or wherever they’re serving.
Assemblyman Horne:
Colonel, regarding Mr. Andonov’s line of questioning, I see where he’s going, and I agree with him. I think we would probably, at least fiscally, have to categorize them as in-state students to avoid the higher costs. It would just be words, I guess, but, if they are residents of California, and they are attempting to go to school here, their tuition would be higher. In turn, the University System could come to us and complain that they had a number of students who were waived because they served in the Guard that were from out-of-state, who would have paid the higher amount but no longer do. I don’t want to hold it up, because we’re talking about small numbers of students.
Mark Fiorentino:
I wasn’t kidding when I said this wasn’t our bill, but I’m not sure where the residency requirement came from. I don’t think the University System is in it to play games with the money. There would be no reason for us to report them as out-of-state students for tuition purposes, when all we’re trying to do is get reimbursed for the actual costs of providing the education. Whatever fix is necessary is fine.
Assemblyman Horne:
I only said that because, earlier, you said we would see it indirectly when the University came back to ask for more money as a result of fewer students paying tuition.
Mark Fiorentino:
Let me say it more directly. I don’t think we thought of that issue when we put it in our budget. We didn’t consider what we would do with the waivers for students who would be out-of-state. If you change it to say you do not have to be a Nevada state resident to receive a waiver, that would be okay. We would support whatever fix is necessary to make sure that this gets done right.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
I know some states allow in-state tuition; it’s a reciprocal kind of thing for students from bordering counties of neighboring states. If somebody from the University could verify whether or not we do that, it might give some of the Committee members a little more comfort.
Mark Fiorentino:
Let me make sure I don’t leave here with any misunderstanding. If the request is that we remove the requirement that they be residents of the state of Nevada, but ensure, somehow, that the budget isn’t inflated because we’re not charging out-of-state fees, I will get the authority to make sure that we do not object to that. I do not believe that we object.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any other questions? So, we need additional information?
Mark Fiorentino:
I’ll get it.
Chairman Williams:
Could you get it by Wednesday, May 14?
Mark Fiorentino:
I’ll get it by tomorrow.
Chairman Williams:
Okay. Does anybody have any questions for these two witnesses? Thank you both for being here. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill, either in opposition or support? We will now close the hearing on Senate Bill 306. We’ll open the hearing on Senate Bill 159.
Senate Bill 159: Deletes authority of Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education to adopt certain regulations. (BDR 34-924)
Ron Sparks II, Executive Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education:
[Introduced himself.] First of all, the summary statement, “Deletes authority of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) to adopt certain regulations,” really doesn’t pertain to what this bill is about. The bill is about making a change in our statute that will delineate between the regional WICHE office, when we’re talking about the collection process, or Nevada WICHE. It replaces certain wording; it’s a housekeeping bill. It makes sure it’s clarified, in statute, that this is the Nevada WICHE authority and not a regional WICHE authority. That’s really all it is.
In the bill, there is also a request to repeal a regulation regarding conditions of placement of a student in educational programs for Physician Assistant. Basically, that’s a section we no longer need. It was put in there as a result of the pilot project for the health care access program. If I have to go into detail on that I will, but, basically, we now have the authority for the whole, full HCAP [Health Care Access Program]. The Physician Assistant is included, so the regulation is no longer needed.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions? Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill, either in support or in opposition? We will now close the hearing on S.B. 159. That completes our agenda. We will go through a few bills in the work session document. Let’s go to Senate Bill 34, Tab A, of the work session document (Exhibit C). Ms. Stonefield?
Senate Bill 34 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing pupils in public schools. (BDR 34-639)
Carol Stonefield:
Senate Bill 34 was proposed by the Legislative Committee on Education. It has two provisions that relate to a child’s progress in school. One is early admittance to kindergarten; the other is retention of a pupil in the eighth grade. The first provision relates to the deadline that a child must be five years of age by September 30 in order to start kindergarten. This provision would allow parents or guardians to request that a child who is not yet five be assessed. If it is determined that the child is gifted, the child could start kindergarten. It also allows for the school district to determine if it’s going to admit such children or not. Parents or guardians would pay any costs associated with determining if the child is gifted.
[Carol Stonefield continued] Section 2 relates to the retention of a pupil in the eighth grade. The Legislature has been advised by the Attorney General, in an opinion from 1999, that there is an apparent conflict in two provisions of the NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes]. One provides that no pupil may be retained more than one time in the same grade. The other prohibits a board from promoting a pupil to high school if the pupil has not completed the credits required for promotion. There was no testimony given, in favor of or in opposition to, this section of the bill.
Proponents of allowing early entrance into kindergarten testified that changes authorizing the district discretion, with regard to enrolling gifted children in kindergarten, would improve the bill over the version introduced. Opponents felt this was an equity issue, because children from upper income families would have access to the assessment for readiness, and the parents could afford to pay for the assessment.
The two largest school districts testified that they found it useful to have a definite cutoff date. The screening provision would create a demand, and if the district chose not to meet it, there would be some difficulties. Also, both Clark County School District and Carson City School District testified that they do not have gifted programs for children in first and second grades. With the elimination of the requirement that these children be enrolled, there is presumably no fiscal note, and there are no proposed amendments.
Chairman Williams:
It’s permissive. My concern is the districts not having things in place to do it. Is there any discussion? Mr. Horne?
Assemblyman Horne:
You would test the kindergarten students to see if they were gifted in order to admit them early. Yet, we don’t provide the test; we don’t have the test for that. It sets up this barrier that they don’t allow all citizens to achieve. That was a problem for me. The test, I understand, is paid for by for the parents. On the cutoff date, I know we need one somewhere to draw the line. We looked at other states; that cutoff date was all over the place. I didn’t hear any testimony on the rationale for why we chose September 30. When you have a kid who’s a couple of weeks outside that date, why would they even have to take this test to see if they’re gifted or not?
Chairman Williams:
Do you have a motion, Mr. Horne? Ms. Stonefield did mention a conflict that’s present with this bill. Maybe we should wait until at least Wednesday to consider it.
Carol Stonefield:
I was referring to Section 2, where the Attorney General had advised the Legislature that there is an apparent conflict in two provisions of NRS that the Committee might consider resolving.
Chairman Williams:
With that, I guess we should wait to get more information. Does anyone else have any discussion on this?
Assemblywoman Angle:
When my children entered kindergarten, they took a readiness test. I believe that’s administered to all children to see if they’re ready to go to kindergarten. The children get another test to see if they’re ready to go on to first grade. Those tests are already in place. I find it difficult to understand how this test would cost more, if we were giving them a readiness test for kindergarten already. If a child is four years old and can pass the readiness test, why can’t he go into kindergarten, along with the other kids who don’t have that age barrier? He’s ready when the rest of them are ready. Since we don’t make kindergarten mandatory, it’s optional for parents anyway. It would seem to me that, if a child is ready and can pass the readiness test, he should be allowed to go to kindergarten. As you said, this is permissive. If he’s ready, let him go.
Chairman William:
We’ll get the additional information to deal with this on Wednesday. We’ll close the hearing on S.B. 34. Let’s try Senate Bill 150, which is Tab B of the work session document (Exhibit D). Ms. Stonefield?
Senate Bill 150: Authorizes school district to sell or lease certain real property for less than appraised value under certain circumstances. (BDR 34-323)
Carol Stonefield:
This bill would allow a school district to accept a bid on property that is less than the appraised value, if the board has solicited bids at three consecutive open meetings. Current law requires that all sealed bids must be rejected if none are at or above the appraised value. The proponents cited a specific situation in White Pine County. The opponents suggested that historic buildings should not be destroyed, and, if they are, they should be destroyed with state financial assistance. There is apparently no fiscal impact, and there have been no proposed amendments.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I’m very supportive of this bill, and I think we need to move it forward. Although I truly appreciate the historic significance of some buildings, if there is no money to restore them or to do anything else with them, they just sit there. Nothing ever happens with them. If we can move this along and help clear out some of those buildings that have been completely abandoned, are eyesores, and create health hazards, I think we should do so. I would be happy to put forth a motion, if you would entertain it.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 150.
ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion?
Assemblyman Horne:
I have concerns about setting up a standard where it’s public knowledge that we’re going to accept bids below the appraised value. Why would anyone come up with a higher bid if they know we’ll accept a bid that is less? I asked someone from White Pine County, and Mr. List is here, and we talked about language that I thought they were going to propose.
Chairman Williams:
Mr. List, could you come up? It was my understanding that the district could accept the bids lower than the appraised value or not, as they chose.
Andrew Allen List, Policy & Research Coordinator, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO):
You are correct. The district could accept lower bids, but they don’t have to. If the bid were too low, or absolutely ridiculously low, they could reject that bid. In addition, there were concerns that the buyer was only there to get the land, and not to do something with the building, and that’s what the school districts are concerned about. It’s the condition of the building, and the safety hazard it presents. It they don’t believe the buyer will demolish the building or renovate it and put it to good use for an office building, or something like that, then they don’t have to sell the building. S.B. 150 only allows them to sell the building at a lower cost; it does not mandate that they accept the lower bid.
Assemblyman Horne:
What I asked in Committee was why it couldn’t be a system such as an auction, however it’s done. Let’s say the highest bid comes in below the appraised value. At that time, you present that bid to the county commission, and the county commission could then say, “Yes, we’ll accept it,” or, “No, we’re not going to accept it, and we’ll put it up for another bid.” It seems that would place some type of oversight on this property.
Andrew List:
I’m not sure I understand the question. What we’re dealing with here is the school district, rather than the county commission. We do have two different entities. Right now, the county commission does use an auction process. They can auction property for less than market value. The school district, when they came to us with this bill, traditionally used the bidding process. They wanted to stay with the bidding process they currently use and be allowed to sell the property at below market value, if they chose to do so.
Assemblyman Horne:
I misspoke regarding the school district. You are saying that the school district is just fine giving away property for below market value.
Andrew List:
Where there’s a benefit for doing so, yes. In White Pine County, there would be a benefit to selling the property at below market value, simply because they could get rid of it and put it back on the tax rolls. Right now, they couldn’t afford to demolish the building because of asbestos abatement costs. They could sell it to somebody who would then demolish the building. There would be a fiscal benefit to actually selling the building at below the appraised value.
Assemblywoman Angle:
I’d be remiss if I didn’t make a statement as to former Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom’s interest in this building. I have a sentimental interest, too, in White Pine County High School. She was mentioning that, perhaps, there was money available in the historic building fund. I was wondering if you had checked into that.
Andrew List:
This is not a historic building we’re talking about. I think Ms. Segerblom was assuming that this was a building with historical significance, and it’s my understanding, in speaking with White Pine County, that this is not the same building she was speaking of.
Assemblywoman Angle:
This isn’t the building on Main Street that’s been used as the high school?
Andrew List:
It’s my understanding that it is not. Certainly White Pine County has an interest in its history. As you know, the county is trying to renovate its railroad and get some funds for that. It has renovated other historic downtown buildings. Believe me, if the county could renovate a historic building and make use of a historic structure, I’m sure that it would. In this instance, it can’t afford to rehabilitate the building or demolish it, and it can’t sell that building. The county is really stuck because of the way the law is written.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any additional questions? Is there any other discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Opposed?
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Chowning was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Williams:
Next, we’ll go on to Senate Bill 253. Ms. Stonefield?
Senate Bill 253 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing school attendance required to obtain credit or to be promoted to next higher grade. (BDR 34-788)
Carol Stonefield:
Senate Bill 253, Tab D of the work session document (Exhibit E), provides that the days on which a pupil is absent from school, with the approval of the teacher or principal, must be credited toward the required days of attendance, if the pupil completes the course work requirements. A pupil can have up to 10 such absences in one school year. If a pupil is denied credit or promotion because of excessive absences, the pupil and a parent or guardian may request a review. The principal shall review the reasons for each absence, based upon that review. The principal shall credit toward the required days of attendance each absence that can be justified, because the pupil was physically or mentally unable to attend, if the pupil has made up the course work. The pupil and parent may appeal the principal’s decision to the board of trustees.
The proponents argued that under NERA, the Nevada Education Reform Act, a school is responsible for an average daily attendance at 90 percent of enrollment in order to be considered as demonstrating adequate achievement. Pursuant to NRS 392.122, a student can be absent for an unlimited number of times if it is due to physical or mental inability to attend. The school district cannot limit the number of absences. There were no opponents. There appears to be no fiscal impact.
The sponsor offered the attached amendment that is provided in the work session document. It addresses a concern that was raised by members of the Committee that a pupil might, as the language appeared to allow, be at the point of being denied credit or promotion in order for the school to notify the parent or guardian. This language is believed to address that concern.
Chairman Williams:
Does any member have a motion?
ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 253.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor please signify by saying, “Aye.” Opposed?
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Chowning was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Williams:
Let’s take a look at Senate Bill 68, the bill we heard today.
Senate Bill 68: Revises provisions governing terms of members of Commission on Educational Technology and Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools. (BDR 34-638)
Chairman Williams:
Is there a motion?
ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 68.
ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please signify by saying, “Aye.” Opposed?
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Chowning was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Williams:
Let’s go to Senate Bill 159, the other bill we heard today. Is there a motion?
Senate Bill 159: Deletes authority of Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education to adopt certain regulations. (BDR 34-924)
ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 159.
ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Williams:
Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please signify by saying, “Aye.” Opposed?
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Chowning was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Williams:
We’ll get information tomorrow in reference to Senate Bill 306, and we’ll move it to the next work session on the agenda. Is there any other business to come before the Committee today? The meeting is adjourned [at 4:40 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: