MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      March 3, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:33 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, 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:

 

      Assemblyman John Carpenter, District 33

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Dana Bennett, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Will Keating, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada; Minard Maus, Retired Public Employees of Nevada; Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association; Frank Page, Retired Public Employees of Nevada; Jim Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance; Jerry Allen, Department of Human Resources; Jim Polkinghorne, Mayor, City of Elko; Robert Allgeier, County Commissioner, Douglas County; Bill Driscoll, Fire Chief, East Fork Fire Protection District; John W. Gay, Deputy Chief Fire Marshall, East Fork Fire & Paramedic District; Paul DeLorey, Fire Chief, Tahoe Douglas Fire District; Dennis Petersen, Building Official, City of Elko; Roy Slate, Assistant Fire Chief & Fire Marshal, City of Elko; Don Hellwinkel, Businessman, C.O.D. Garage Co.; Tom Grady, Associate Director, Nevada League of Cities; Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties; Ray Blehm, State Fire Marshal; Gene Williams, Assistant State Fire Marshal.

 

 

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 12 -      Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to prohibit money for industrial accidents and occupational diseases or from public employees' retirement system from being loaned to state.

 

Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, District 35, introduced AJR 12 to the committee using Exhibit C as her presentation.  The presentation referenced AJR 19, a bill which Mr. Heller had requested, and she recommended the committee consider both bills together.

 

Will Keating, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada, said the board had considered AJR 12 and voted to support the legislation.  He then added the board also supported AJR 19, referenced earlier in Mrs. de Braga's testimony.  He too felt both bills should be considered together.

 

Minard Maus, Retired Public Employees of Nevada, said his organization supported AJR 12 and AJR 19 and hoped they would both be considered together.

 

The hearing on AJR 12 was closed with no action taken.

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 19 -  Makes various changes regarding public employees.

 

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, stated AB 19 referenced 2 things: 1) licenses for employees, and 2) the amount paid by the state toward state retirees' health insurance.  In order to answer questions which were raised at the first hearing of AB 19 in Las Vegas, Mr. Gagnier presented the committee with Exhibit D, the cost of licenses, and Exhibit E, a response to the fiscal note prepared by the Department of Administration.  He stated Exhibit E was not an estimation, but actual figures amounting to 38 percent more than what the state was currently paying.

 

Mr. Hettrick wanted to know what was in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 286.  He questioned Page 2, line 3, which referenced NRS 286 and said, at 5 percent a year, a 100 percent premium would be reached at 20 years, but if a person served 25 or 30 years a cap was not referenced in the legislation to prevent that person from receiving 150 percent.  Mr. Gagnier replied the person would receive only 100 percent, but if there was a question in anyone's mind a cap could be added.  He then explained NRS 286 was the retirement law.  In conclusion, Mr. Hettrick suggested amending AB 19 to cap the premium, which was agreeable to Mr. Gagnier.

 

Frank Page, Retired Public Employees of Nevada, agreed with the principle of the benefit based on the number of years of service, but wanted to see the bill expanded to include those who retired prior to July 1, 1993.  In addition, he supported capping the premium.

 

Mr. Garner asked for figures which would indicate what the impact would be.  Mr. Page did not have those figures.

 

Jim Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance, suggested the idea in Section 3, subsection 2, was worthy of the committee's consideration.  He was not willing to specifically support a given percentage but asked Chairman Garner to establish a subcommittee to review the legislation.  He said the concept to reward loyalty by long-term employees was popular throughout the country, therefore, research to find out how other states were handling the concept should be considered.

 

Mrs. Segerblom asked if university staff and teachers were included in the plan.  Mr. Richardson replied yes to the former, and to the latter he said some teachers were included.  He then suggested unifying all retired public employees into the legislation.

 

Mr. Garner invited Mr. Gagnier back to give the committee the rationale for omitting those who retired prior to July 1, 1993.  Mr. Gagnier replied the simplest answer was cost.  He then gave the reasons why it was not feasible to make the legislation retroactive or revenue neutral.  A discussion followed between Mr. Gagnier and Mrs. Augustine regarding employee contributions into the retirement system.

 

Mr. Hettrick asked how many retirees were in the system.  Mr. Gagnier did not know, therefore, Mr. Keating replied there were 13,500 benefit recipients, of which 13,100 were retirees.

 

Mr. Neighbors questioned which insurance was primary at age 65.  Mr. Gagnier replied Medicare.  Further discussion followed regarding the reduction of premiums at age 65 and the effects upon retirees and the plan.  In conclusion, Mr. Gagnier stated another factor to consider was whether the state plan was going to be an insurance benefit provided to long-term state employees or a social program.  He then gave an example to support his statement.

 

Will Keating, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada, testified the board had not had an opportunity to take a position on AB 19, but he thought the board would favor trying to do something positive because health care was one of the most serious problems facing future retirees.

 

Jerry Allen, Department of Human Resources, testified his department was maintaining a neutral position regarding AB 19, but he wanted to make the committee aware there would be a fiscal impact on the Department of Human Resources regarding licenses if the legislation passed.  Exhibit F contains the complete testimony as presented by Mr. Allen. 

 

Chairman Garner stated the suggestion to establish a subcommittee was a good one.  He invited Mr. Gagnier, Mr. Richardson, and others who were interested to participate when the committee was established, which would be in a day or two.

In further discussion, Mr. Ernaut suggested Section 1, the license fees, be totally amended out of the bill.

 

The hearing on AB 19 was closed with no action taken.

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 194 -Reduces population threshold of counties in which state fire marshal has primary jurisdiction.

 

Assemblyman John Carpenter, District 33, explained AB 194 was an attempt to return local jurisdiction to local entities.  He defined the problem the City of Elko was now facing regarding timely approval of building plans and inspections, and stated the problem might also be occurring in other counties.  He implied Elko now had the population, activity, and resources to perform the said tasks at the local level, allowing for more efficiency.  In addition, he pointed out population might not be the best way to acquire local jurisdiction, but recommended it might be by meeting criteria set forth by the state fire marshal.

 

Mrs. Segerblom questioned if the change in population would affect other counties.  Mr. Carpenter replied only Elko and Douglas County.

 

Jim Polkinghorne, Mayor, City of Elko, testified the City was now over 35,000 in population but could not be reconsidered until the next census in the year 2000.  He then stated the legislation was an opportunity to increase efficiency in government, as time to process building plans and the inability to quickly resolve discrepancies in those plans with the developer, building official, and acting fire marshal presented a problem.

 

Mr. McGaughey understood the bill to be a "must" and "shall," not a "may," therefore, he did not believe Douglas County had the wherewithal to perform the same duties.

 

Mr. Carpenter replied if the language was not in the bill and Douglas County was not prepared to perform the duties at this time, the county should be able to contract with the state fire marshal until such time it acquired the expertise.  A discussion then ensued regarding making the language permissive, and what the main purpose of the bill was, reviewing plans.

 

Mr. Polkinghorne concluded his testimony by stating it was important to have a prompt permitting process within the community or entity, Elko was fully committed to AB 194 and would budget accordingly if the bill was approved, and lastly, training would begin immediately thereafter.

 

Robert Allgeier, County Commissioner, Douglas County, supported AB 194 for the same reasons presented by Mayor Polkinghorne.  He testified the East Fork Fire District had been formed 12 years ago and employed professional staff, Warren Gay, qualified and certified to act as a fire marshal.  He stated Douglas County currently reviewed all building construction plans, subdivision permitting, and provided a full professional staff to review all submittals, even those going to the state fire marshal.  In conclusion, he quoted the population statistics and projections for the county, and asked the population threshold be reduced to allow Douglas County to charge fees for services currently performed to mitigate and reduce the direct costs to the citizens of Douglas County.

 

Chairman Garner then clarified the primary reason for Douglas County's support was for the ability to perform all aspects of the legislation rather than merely plan review.  Mr. Allgeier asserted Douglas County was already providing full compliance and enforcement with state and local codes.  When asked if they also performed arson investigations, Mr. Allgeier replied yes. 

Mr. McGaughey asked Mr. Allgeier to elaborate on the fees.  Mr. Allgeier in turn asked Bill Driscoll, Fire Chief, East Fork Fire Protection District, to reply to the question.  He told the committee the fire district did not currently charge fees for plan checks or field inspections, but an increase in work load might require an implementation of a fee schedule.  To date a fee schedule had not been presented to the commission for approval.  Mr. McGaughey questioned if it was because AB 194 precluded fees from being charged.  Mr. Driscoll replied no, a fee schedule could be established now if Douglas County so desired.  When asked if there was a plan to do so, Mr. Driscoll answered only if the work load increased.

 

In continuing testimony, Mr. Driscoll told the committee the fire districts within Douglas County had evolved and grown to the point where they now had the expertise, the qualified, certified people to conduct tabletop plan checks, field checks, and fire investigations.  Speaking for the people in his fire district, Mr. Driscoll said they supported AB 194 in order to keep the process within the community, to have local control, to serve the taxpayer better, and to remove a duplication of services.

 

John W. Gay, Deputy Chief Fire Marshal, East Fork Fire & Paramedic District, presented written testimony (Exhibit G) in support of AB 194.

 

Mr. McGaughey referenced the figure $23,572 and asked if the amount was what was paid to the state fire marshal for services provided to Douglas County.  Mr. Gay replied yes, for plan check fees.  Mr. McGaughey then stated if the bill passed, the state fire marshal would not receive that money any more.  Mr. Gay agreed.  A brief discussion then followed regarding the state fire marshal's budget and other modes of compensation.

 

Paul DeLorey, Fire Chief, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District, supported the previous testimony.  He added he recognized the financial impact upon the fire marshal's budget but felt it was time to address the issue, as the State of Nevada was in the habit of passing unfunded mandates upon the fire marshal's office.

 

Mr. Bache was curious to know if there existed any problem with the TRPA regarding removal from the state fire marshal's office.  Mr. DeLorey said no, it would be a matter of working with TRPA with the direct process currently being used.

 

Dennis Petersen, Building Official, City of Elko, said,  "The city of Elko, by resolution, adopts a building code each third year.  With the adoption of the building code, it prescribes plans must be submitted to the building department in sufficient clarity to get a representation of what is going to be constructed."  He said the code also stated there would be a charge for a plan review, a 65 percent plan review fee.  He continued, "The city of Elko, presently by adoption of the building code, is required by law to provide the applicant with plan review for the proposed project and assess the fees prescribed under the code.  The City of Elko is a progressive community and strives to provide the citizens with the best possible service.  I feel since we are charged with the enforcement of the uniform building code, and since we are dedicated to public service, we can provide the citizens of our community with the service if this bill is approved."

 

Mr. Hettrick questioned if the service would be provided to the county as well.  Mr. Petersen replied the bill would apply to both the city and the county departments.

 

Roy Slate, Assistant Fire Chief and Fire Marshal, City of Elko, spoke in support of AB 194.  He concurred with Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Polkinghorne in suggesting plan review could be handled better at the local level, and he supported the change in criteria suggested by Mr. Carpenter. 

 

Don Hellwinkle, Businessman, C.O.D. Garage Company, spoke in favor of AB 194 and the Douglas County fire marshal.  He presented his own experience to the committee and stated the current process was "quite a process to go through before getting anywhere."  Mr. Hellwinkle said it was costly and untimely, considering Douglas County had the expertise to perform the same process in a timely manner at the local level.

 

Chairman Garner questioned if there was any indication by Douglas County there would be a reduction in fees if the process was performed at the local level as opposed to the state fire marshal.  Mr. Hellwinkle replied at present there was no fee.  When Mr. Garner clarified Douglas County would charge a fee if the work load indicated the need, Mr. Hellwinkle said he would fight that too.

 

Tom Grady, Associate Director, Nevada League of Cities, supported AB 194 and the City of Elko.  Additionally, he pointed out Page 2, line 37, did not completely take out the state fire marshal's office.

 

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), spoke in 4 capacities: 1) historically, 2) as an elected representative of Minden, 3) as a Douglas County resident, and 4) as the representative of NACO, in support of AB 194.  In concluding testimony, Mr. Hadfield stated the 35,000 population did not make sense anymore.  Elko and Douglas Counties simply wanted to join other counties as having the ability to provide the services in AB 194 at the local level, and NACO supported, whenever possible, local entities in accepting responsibility for those types of services.

 

Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Hadfield how he felt about making the legislation entirely enabling.  He pointed out other issues had been raised and, therefore, needed to be addressed.  He was not sure if other counties had the capability to perform the same tasks without the state fire marshal's office, but it was clear there would always be entities which would need the fire marshal's assistance.

 

Chairman Garner referenced Mr. Grady's testimony which said the state fire marshal's office would continue to be involved and questioned if the legislation would expedite matters at all.  Further discussion took place regarding the state fire marshal's involvement, when it would occur, and which entity would assess a fee.

 

Mr. Driscoll asked if he could speak in behalf of Rudy McTee, Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce, who had to leave earlier.  He said the Chamber of Commerce had performed two recent studies, one on county government and the other on the fire district.  The results of both studies and the Chamber recommended supporting AB 194.

 

Ray Blehm, State Fire Marshal, said he signed in as an opponent to the bill, but was not sure how he should react to the proceedings.  He said he was opposed to the approach the legislation had taken because line 21 stated the regulations of the fire marshal applied throughout the state.  He said the statement did not exempt the counties spoken about, but created a floor of safety for construction, building safety and other things which the regulations related to.  He described what the fire marshal's office did regarding plan review and said the type of plan review done by local entities was not the kind of plan review done by the state fire marshal which, he indicated, was a more thorough, complete review.  Whether or not there was a duplicity of effort was debatable.  He then pointed out an entity within a county might have the expertise to handle plan review but said other entities within the county might not have the same capability and would need to depend upon the services of the state fire marshal.  Mr. Blehm agreed with Mr. Carpenter's suggestion to have a process which communities could go through to meet minimum performance, and to assume the duties spoken of in AB 194 rather than use the measure of population.  He closed by saying he did not mind taking a look at the legislation but he disagreed with the "magical figure."

 

Mrs. Augustine asked if the primary concern was the work would not be done as thoroughly as the office of the state fire marshal.  Mr. Blehm replied yes.  He said it would make good sense to have the education and development programs to help bring the local programs up to the standard which would be set. 

Mr. McGaughey said most building departments subscribed to the UBC and adopted it as a part of the process as the revisions were made.  Further discussion followed regarding Elko's use of the UBC standard, how it was utilized by the local authorities or the state fire marshal's office, and how other entities within a county would handle plan reviews if the state fire marshal's office was taken out of the loop.

 

Mrs. Lambert said she had received a letter from Northwest Builders Supply, and there was a letter to the editor in the Reno Gazette Journal this week from Commercial Hardware regarding the same issue.  After reading a portion of the letter, Mrs. Lambert asked what legislative authority did the state fire marshal's office have to license retail sales of fire extinguishers.  Mr. Blehm replied NRS 477.033, license requirements, and 477.031, fees for services.  Further discussion followed regarding the fire marshal's reply to the editor, fees, and unauthorized sale of fire extinguishers, retail and wholesale.

 

Mr. McGaughey referenced the time factor and asked Mr. Blehm to improve the time cycle.  Mr. Blehm explained the time cycle had been steadily decreasing over the last 3 years and new ways to expedite time was constantly being looked at.  He stated the time factor in most months was 32 business days.

 

Gene Williams, Assistant State Fire Marshal, agreed with Mr. Carpenter a planned entry into quality plan review was necessary, and although some counties were ready to handle the function, others were not.  He discussed the various standards used by the state fire marshal's office, in addition to the uniform building code, and said the office was probably ready to prepare a preliminary standard which could be used by local entities.  He too agreed population was not a good threshold, giving an example why, and reiterated a change in population would not be effective until the next census.

 

Mr. Hettrick wanted clarification on Mr. Williams example saying the way he understood the legislation, help from the fire marshal's office was allowed if requested by a local entity in any other county.  In addition, he asked if contracting with other entities was permissible.  The answer was no to the former and yes to the latter, with explanation for both answers.

 

Mr. Hettrick then pointed out if nothing was done with AB 194, in the year 2000, both counties would be covered by the existing statute, whether personnel had been trained or not.  Therefore, he questioned why changing the threshold was being viewed as a major concern.  His next question was what portion of the state fire marshal's yearly budget was $23,000.  The answer was, "A pretty small percentage," as the budget for this fiscal year was $822,773.  Mr. Hettrick concluded by saying $23,000, although minor to the state fire marshal's office, would be a significant improvement to the funds available to Douglas County for the job they were doing, voluntarily, now.

 

Mrs. Augustine asked if the state fire marshal would provide specialized training to the local fire departments.  Mr. Blehm replied testimony had been submitted stating there were many unfunded mandates to the fire marshal and they included statutory provisions.

 

The hearing on AB 194 was closed with no action taken.

 

Vice Chairman Bennett requested committee introduction of Bill Draft Request 23-569.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 23-569 -   Provides that all judges and justices are entitled to retirement benefits calculated in same manner.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 23-569.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN KENNY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

 

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      BETTY WILLS

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

March 3, 1993

Page: 1