MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 2, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:05 a.m., Tuesday, February 2, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman
Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Erin Kenny
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Ray Shaffer, Clark County District 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Dana Bennett, Research Analyst
Mr. Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
OTHERS PRESENT:
Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance; Curtis Patrick, Tahoe Douglas Community Planning Team; Dave Ziegler, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Marjorie Sill, Sierra Club; Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association; Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby; Sherry Schroeder, American Association of University Women; Mike Johaneson, Service Employees International Union; Dennis Healy, Collective Bargaining Coalition; John Sherman, Management Analyst, Washoe County; John Swendseid, Attorney at Law, Swendseid & Stern; G.P. Etcheverry, Nevada League of Cities; and Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 5 -Urges Congress to expedite ratification of amendments to Tahoe Regional Planning Compact made by State of California and adopted by Nevada Legislature.
Senator Ray Shaffer, Clark County District 2, presented A.J.R. 5 as shown in Exhibit C. The final report referenced in Exhibit C, Bulletin No. 93-11, can be found on file in the Research Library, Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Senator Shaffer asked Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director to further explain the purpose of the joint resolution. Mr. Welden did so utilizing excerpts from Bulletin No. 93-11, which can be found on file in the Research Library, Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the reason there were so many players was because the compact was extremely complicated. Mr. Welden replied there were many players, many interested people, and the compact declared the Tahoe Basin a nationally significant resource. Thus, the environmental community, the economic community, and the people who lived in the community, were very interested in what might happen in the basin. Additionally, the court cases had been very complex.
Mrs. Freeman queried why the Secretary of State was originally on the board and why the position was being eliminated. Mr. Welden said he had staffed the group which had worked on the amendments in 1980, therefore, if he recalled correctly, it was to balance local government and state influence, and to bring to the board people without preconceived ideas for or against development. He closed by saying there was not a lot of theoretical logic to it. The effort to remove the Secretary of State, now, was to provide input from the legislature.
Mrs. Segerblom pointed out A.J.R. 5 also removed the head of Conservation and Natural Resources. Mr. Welden said it removed the specific person but allowed the Governor to appoint 2 people, giving him more flexibility in the two people he appointed to the positions.
Mrs. Segerblom asked Mr. Welden to identify the 3 government agencies. Mr. Welden said Douglas County, Carson City, and Washoe County each had one member on the board.
Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, strongly supported A.J.R. 5, mentioning the Nevada and California Legislature had, twice, acted on the resolution, but each time it had been bogged down in the Congress of the United States. He stressed the Gaming Alliance's ability to work in Washington with the congressional delegations and pledged his organization's support when dealing with Congress.
Mrs. Augustine wanted to know,with the size of the California delegation, why had this resolution been so bogged down. Mr. Teshara explained it was his understanding it was a process problem. Typically, bi-state compacts like this one go into committees which deal with bi-state compact issues. It had never been pushed strongly enough to get through the process and reach the top of the heap. Also, the League to Save Lake Tahoe, once worked against passage of the resolution. The League no longer had the same concerns. Additionally, although California had a large congressional delegation, they did not have many of the key committee assignments.
Curtis Patrick, former Media Past Chairman, Tahoe Douglas Community Planning Team, Douglas County, speaking for the team spoke wholeheartedly in favor of A.J.R. 5. He supported Mr. Teshara's testimony. Additionally, he said adding a U.S. Forest service member to the agency posed no problem for them and could possibly be the nudge to push the resolution through Congress.
Mrs. Segerblom asked if the resolution had been heard in Congress and in which committee. Mr. Patrick answered he believed it was tied up in the Committee on Judiciary but he was not sure if it had actually been heard or just presented.
Mrs. Segerblom wanted to know if Congress saw the legislation as a lessening of controls. Mr. Patrick said he did not know.
David Ziegler, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, presented supportive testimony for A.J.R. 5 as shown in Exhibit D.
Mrs. Freeman said she was confused concerning the membership of the U.S. Forest Service person. She wanted to know if it was someone who had, in the past, been a member of the board, and who requested it.
Mr. Ziegler replied in 1980, California and Nevada agreed on a 14 member board, 7 from each state. When the compact went to Washington, D.C., for ratification, the U.S. Congress added a provision for a fifteenth, non voting, member who would be appointed by the President. The regional forester was favored, but the President had the authority to appoint anyone he pleased to the position.
Mrs. Freeman then wanted to know if it was an advantage to have the fifteenth person on the board. Mr. Ziegler responded the reason for favoring a Forest Service representative was it could give sub cabinet level, if not cabinet level, entree into the administration in Washington.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 2 -Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to carry out its current plans.
Mr. Garner asked Fred Welden to explain A.J.R. 2. Again Mr. Welden complied.
Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, indicated his organization was in strong support of A.J.R. 2.
Curtis Patrick, former Media Past Chairman, Tahoe Douglas Community Planning Team, Douglas County, strongly endorsed A.J.R. 2.
David Ziegler, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, presented supportive testimony, with qualifications, for A.J.R. 2 as shown in Exhibit D.
Mrs. Freeman wanted to know how the agency could be asked to "not" change its regulations, saying changes took place all the time within all agencies. She also wanted to know for what period of time it would be implemented and if it would be a real problem to implement a 5 year plan.
Mr. Ziegler explained A.J.R. 2 provided the sense of the Legislature and would express the opinion of the Legislature that over regulation, or constantly changing regulations, would not be in the best interest of the State of Nevada, or the Tahoe region.
Mrs. Freeman then asked if the resolution would hamstring efforts to do what was mandated. Mr. Ziegler said no.
Mr. Hettrick clarified A.J.R. 2 did not prohibit adding regulation but asked existing regulation be used to the maximum to implement plans already in place. Mr. Ziegler agreed.
Mr. Hettrick said he did not feel the resolution would hamstring the agency, adding, "There are many regulations in place which, if they were implemented, would be beneficial in general." Again, Mr. Ziegler agreed.
Mr. Hettrick then told the committee he had received a call from Lou Bergevin, who strongly urged the committee's support for A.J.R. 5 and A.J.R. 2.
Marjorie Sill, Sierra Club, expressed concern over environmental issues, particularly water and air quality. Therefore, she said the Sierra Club opposed the first statement in A.J.R. 2, maintaining it might not be possible to protect the environment due to a lack of regulations to cover the type of degradation in environmental quality supported by data in the monitoring process. She spoke to A.J.R. 3, which the committee would hear on February 3, 1993, and concluded by saying, "I feel that A.J.R. 2, though many of the points are very well taken, has this defect, and, therefore, the Sierra Club feels that either it should be rejected or amended to take care of this particular defect."
Mr. Garner referenced previous testimony denoting flexibility in A.J.R. 2 to address issues of water and air quality. Mrs. Sill replied she did not believe so, admitting though, it was possible other testifiers did.
ASSEMBLYMAN McGAUGHEY MOVED DO PASS ON A.J.R. 2.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
In further discussion of the motion, Mrs. Freeman stated she was not aware of asking any agency to comply to the terms of A.J.R. 2, therefore, she found it unnecessary. She said she did not understand why it was being done and intended to vote against it.
Mr. McGaughey explained what A.J.R. 2 was attempting to accomplish, which was to ask the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to implement all existing regulations before it moves to new regulations.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN AND ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM VOTED NO)
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS ON A.J.R. 5.
ASSEMBLYMAN McGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM VOTED NO)
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 8 - Requires, upon request, granting of leave of absence without pay for state employees to care for newborn or newly adopted children.
Mrs. Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24, explained A.B. 8 was a bill which had been introduced by Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association, and passed, unanimously, out of the Assembly during the Sixty sixth legislative session. After several conference committees the issue regarding length of time had not been resolved. Mrs. Freeman pointed out the current language in the bill was the Senate's version of the bill specifying the time factor as 6 weeks, but an amendment to restore the original language time factor to 6 months was in the process.
Mr. Garner, for clarification, asked if an amendment was being drafted. Mrs. Freeman replied yes. Mr. Garner suggested the amendment be prepared and brought back to the committee before it acted on A.B. 8, but he did agree to continue hearing testimony.
Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association explained the purpose of the bill for the benefit of the new legislators. In addition, he explained the only change the amendment would make was to Page 2, line 4, changing "weeks" to read "months." In his concluding comments, Mr. Gagnier pointed out the first page of the bill indicated a fiscal note. He said he had checked the book as late as when the hearing started and he did not know why it was there as the bill called for unpaid leave. He also said the bill applied equally to both parents, but added he did not believe any one would use it for the full 6 months as most people could not afford to take so much time off without pay.
Mrs. Lambert said she supported the bill but wanted Page 2, Line 8 and 9 clarified. Mr. Gagnier replied the language was intended not to conflict with a person's right to keep their annual and sick leave, but rather, during the course of their time off they would not accumulate additional time off. Additionally, Mr. Gagnier said his organization wanted to ensure there was no requirement a person would have to use their annual or sick leave before taking the leave without pay.
Mrs. Lambert questioned why a person would do that if they could get paid to stay home. Mr. Gagnier stated there was no such thing as maternity leave in Nevada. Therefore, when a doctor decreed a woman no longer able to work, she was authorized to go on sick leave. Sick leave would remain in effect until all sick leave, as much as would be on the books, would be used. If the doctor then said the woman was physically able to return to work, sick leave would stop even if she had more on the books. Then the woman must either return to work, go on annual leave, or use leave without pay.
Mrs. Augustine also favored A.B. 8, adding the fiscal note might be to cover the cost of temporary help which would probably be at a lesser rate of pay, or she asked would the work be absorbed by others in the department. Mr. Gagnier agreed to the first statement and said to the latter, the employee would, probably, not be replaced. He then cited examples of employees who might have to be replaced, but said it would not incur additional costs unless the work required training. Normally, though, office workers were not replaced, but rather, the work was parcelled out.
Mrs. Augustine then mentioned normal maternity leave was 6 weeks in the private sector which could be why the Senate changed the time frame. She thought by changing the time to 6 months the committee would be taking a chance the bill would not pass, and asked if there was anything in between. Mr. Gagnier reminded the committee the bill passed the Assembly the last legislative session with 6 months specified. A compromise of 3 months occurred in the conference committee and was, therefore, a real possibility. He then pointed out federal legislation was 3 months.
Mrs. Kenny too favored A.B. 8, mentioning she was quite disturbed with 6 weeks as she did not feel it was adequate. She also expressed concern with the language in line 5 regarding 3 months notice. She cited a premature baby as the reason for her concern. She wanted to know if there was room for an emergency. Mr. Gagnier said his organization would not object to changing the notice time of 3 months to a lesser amount, adding the language had been put in at the request of management because they wanted advance notice. Again, Mr. Gagnier described how unpaid leave might follow paid sick leave under various circumstances.
Mrs. Kenny queried if the bill had anything to do with illnesses in the family. Mr. Gagnier replied no. Mrs. Kenny, again, gave her reasons for supporting 6 months as a good place to start, but agreed she, too, thought it would meet with fierce opposition. Mr. Gagnier concurred, saying 6 weeks was not satisfactory. He then, briefly, explained how catastrophic leave could, but not necessarily would, take care of a premature baby. He said the bill would be heard in Las Vegas next week.
Mrs. Kenny then asked how would a caesarean section birth be considered. Would it be considered as a well baby birth? She said 6 weeks was barely recuperative time for the mother. Mr. Gagnier said under the current definition of catastrophic leave it would not qualify unless it was life threatening.
Mr. Neighbors questioned if a person had annual and sick leave on the books, could he use what was on the books and then use leave without pay. Mr. Gagnier replied no. One could not use sick leave unless one was sick or the baby was sick. Sick leave could not be used for well baby care.
Mr. Neighbors pointed out one could use annual leave. The advantage would be the state would continue to pay health and accident insurance, whereas, one would have to pay their own health and accident insurance if they were on leave of absence without pay. Mr. Gagnier agreed.
Mr. Hettrick cited Section 1, Number 1. He said he supported the bill but had trouble with the 6 months. He reasoned it was permissive now and thought, if there was a problem, a supervisor would be as understanding as possible. Additionally, he found line 13 to be a problem. He wanted to know what benefits could be earned and asked if this could be the fiscal impact. Mr. Gagnier replied Section 1, subsection 2, pertained to those employees who took leave to work for the legislature, or those who worked in classified positions and then accepted unclassified positions, it did not apply to subsection 5.
Mr. Hettrick was not clear on classified and unclassified employees, therefore, Mr. Gagnier explained the 2 types of classifications.
Mrs. Augustine asked if both parents were employed by the state, would both be entitled to simultaneous leave. Mr. Gagnier replied yes, consecutively.
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby, supported passage of A.B. 8 as contained in her testimony in Exhibit E.
Sherry Schroeder, American Association of University Women, testified in favor of the bill as shown in Exhibit F.
Mike Johaneson, Service Employees International Union, seconded the comments made by Mr. Gagnier and added the language was common in the contracts his organization had. He believed most public employees in the state of Nevada had the right to unpaid leave to care for a child after childbirth or upon adoption. He urged the committee to extend the opportunity to state employees.
Mr. Hettrick wanted to know the term of leave in the contracts. Mr. Johaneson said it differed in each but none had less than 6 weeks. He pointed to a supreme court decision, eight years ago, which caused changes to the time frame, saying 6 weeks was a minimum but, typically, it was up to 6 months. Out of 138 contracts, each having different time frames, a couple of the Clark County contracts were up to 6 months and a couple 3 months. Per Mrs. Freeman's request Mr. Johaneson provided the committee with statistics to support his comments. (Exhibit G).
Dennis Healy, Collective Bargaining Coalition, commended all involved in developing what he called "progressive legislation." He said A.B. 8 supported the national agenda and asked the committee to consider passage of the bill.
Mrs. Freeman asked Dana Bennett to get a copy of the federal legislation to see if any conflict existed.
Mr. Garner asked Mrs. Freeman to bring back a bill which, in all likelihood, the committee would be able to get through to the Governor.
The hearing on A.B. 34 was closed with no action taken.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 32 - Allows counties to issue general obligation bonds for sewerage projects.
John Sherman, Management Analyst, Washoe County, said A.B. 32 was straightforward, and he proceeded to give his testimony as prepared in Exhibit H urging approval.
John Swendseid, Attorney at Law, Swendseid & Stern, said he would answer questions regarding A.B. 32.
Mrs. de Braga questioned the language on Page 1, line 16 and 17, the last sentence, and asked if it included the normal part of a sewage project. She also pointed to line 26 and asked if it made the same provision.
Mr. Sherman replied, "If you are doing a sanitary sewer project, that's the sewer like the toilet flushes; while you are putting in those lines you put in the storm drain lines which are lines for flood waters. You would not have to treat it as a totally separate project. If you had a vote on it you would not have to have a separate vote, you could combine it and put all the sewer lines, storm sewer and sanitary sewer at once." For clarification purposes Mr. Sherman added the language had been lifted, in whole, from city authority laws.
Mr. Garner asked if the legislation was required because additional responsibilities for sewage disposal was now needed in Washoe County. Mr. Sherman agreed adding, "The cities of Reno, Sparks and Washoe County have agreed amongst themselves Washoe County will be the regional purveyor of waste water treatment facilities. This is language which is needed to raise revenue in the future to build those plants within incorporated cities' boundaries if needed."
Mr. Garner clarified without this legislation it could not be done. Mr. Sherman said yes.
Mr. McGaughey wanted to know if the opportunity would be provided to all counties in the state. Mr. Swendseid answered yes.
Mr. McGaughey pointed out in Clark County there were separate districts for flood control and separate funding. He asked if that should be taken into account. Mr. Swendseid replied Clark County did occasionally issue flood control bonds as it was authorized to do so under existing law, A.B 32 would not change it. Sewage bonds were occasionally done by the county, as in the case of the AWT plant pursuant to a special act of the legislature. He said if A.B. 32 was adopted, a special act to revitalize the plant would not be needed.
Mr. McGaughey said he was specifically addressing parallel piping in the same trench. He wanted to know if flood control items would be financed through a separate system from the way it was being done now. Mr. Swendseid said the occasions when the last sentence referenced in earlier testimony would be used would be very rare; only if piping for one system happened to be put in and piping for the other could also be put in. Major flood control projects would be a separate project, not part of a sanitary sewer project.
G.P. Etcheverry, Nevada League of Cities, and Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, supported A.B. 32, saying the earlier testimony of Mr. Sherman and Mr. Swendseid was true and fact. He pointed out general law cities under Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 266 and charter cities under NRS 268 already had this type of legislation in place and could bond for it. He said the newest bond for sewage treatment facilities was in Yerington.
Mr. McGaughey said he supported the legislation.
ASSEMBLYMAN McGAUGHEY MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 32.
ASSEMBLYMAN DeBRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Garner explained the confusion which had occurred on the floor regarding A.B. 29. He had, in error, confused it with A.B. 26 and had re-referred the bill back to the committee when it had already passed out of the committee with a do pass recommendation. Therefore, he said, A.B. 29 would be back on the board in the next day or two.
Chairman Garner then asked Mr. Hettrick to present the amendment to A.B. 26 (Exhibit I).
Mr. Hettrick explained he had met with the Secretary of State and Larry Wissbeck. The Secretary of State indicated the fees had been originally raised in A.B. 26 to reflect reasonable rates in today's marketplace. The amendment modified the rates, lowering them from the original fees specified in A.B. 26. In addition, he said line 16 had been removed regarding "each page." He concluded by saying the committee had been asked to reconsider and proceed with passing A.B. 26.
Mrs. Lambert thought the fees were still too high, suggesting fees she thought would be acceptable. She said she could not support the legislation as it now was.
Mr. Garner said the Secretary of State felt the fees were reasonable and he did not think she would be interested in processing the bill unless there was a significant change. He said to lower the fees as suggested would not be significant, and he did not find the amended fees unreasonable. He reasoned to go back and ask for an additional reduction would be futile.
Mr. Hettrick commented he agreed with Mr. Garner. He said, "I don't believe a change from $1 to $3 is going to stop anybody from doing anything." He believed most organizations would continue to give the service away to their clientele. He then urged the committee to support passage of the bill as amended.
Mr. Neighbors agreed with Mrs. Lambert. He said, "I think we are giving away a freebie, people will start charging for it."
He too was opposed.
Mr. McGaughey said, "If you raise the fees large enough, then those who are giving it away now as a service will say, 'Gee, we can make money on it', and it is going to be something everybody then will be charged for." He named all the companies which would begin to charge if the revenue looked worthwhile. He, too, agreed to the fees Mrs. Lambert suggested, but said he would not support the amendment.
Mr. Bache concurred with those opposed to the amendment, saying he too agreed with the fees Mrs. Lambert proposed.
Mrs. Augustine agreed with Mr. Hettrick saying nobody was going to make a profit on the suggested fees.
Mrs. Freeman supported Mrs. Lambert's suggestion.
Mr. Garner closed the hearing on A.B 26 with no action taken.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:06 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BETTY WILLS
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
February 2, 1993
Page: 1