MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 8, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:07 a.m. Tuesday, June 8, 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
Mr. Pete Ernaut
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:
None.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bob Seale, Nevada State Treasurer; Mr. Ken West, Chief Deputy Controller; Mr. Paul Lipparelli, Deputy District Attorney for Carson City; Ms. Gale Thompson, former member of Charter Review Commission; Mr. Basil Moreto, Jr., Purchasing Agent for Carson City; Mr. Jim Reinhardt, Fire Management Officer, Nevada Division of Forestry, Western Region; Mr. John Pappageorge, Clark County; Mr. Doug Dickerson, City of Las Vegas; Mr. Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson; Ms. Barbara Errecart, current chair of Nevada Rural Housing Authority Board; Mr. Bob Sullivan, Director of Housing Authority; Mr. Tom Grady, Executive Director of Nevada League of Cities; Mr. Ron Sparks, State Budget Office; Mr. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director of State of Nevada Employees Association; Ms. Antoinette Jacobs, employee of Rural Housing Authority; Ms. Mary Dalton Viviano, employee of Rural Housing Authority; Mr. Dave Nicholas, Nevada Health Care Association.
SENATE BILL 351 - Consolidates or eliminates various funds.
Mr. Bob Seale, Nevada State Treasurer, introduced Mr. Ken West, indicating Mr. West would address most of the technical aspects of the bill.
Mr. Ken West, Chief Deputy Controller, testifying as a proponent of SB 351, indicated the bill was the continuing effort to remove excess funds in the state's accounting systems. He explained agencies administered monies through budget accounts and not fund statements. Mr. West said there had been contact with the agencies which were changing from a fund status to a budget account status in the general fund where cash was consolidated into the general fund. He indicated this would make it easier for agencies to administer funds because they would not have to reconcile to a fund statement.
Chairman Garner queried if there had been testimony in opposition to SB 351 on the Senate Side.
Mr. West replied there had been a problem with a couple of funds from Commerce on the Senate side, and the bill had been amended to eliminate those funds and the concerns had been addressed.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner entertained a motion to do pass S.B. 351.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 351.
ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblymen Kenny, de Braga and Williams were not present.
ASSEMBLY BILL 652 - Makes various changes relating to Carson City.
Mr. Paul Lipparelli, Deputy District Attorney for Carson City, testified in favor of AB 652. He introduced from the audience Supervisor Kay Bennett, a member of the General Obligation Bond Committee in Carson City; Butch Moreto, Carson City Purchasing Agent, whose functions would be changed slightly by the proposed amendments; and Gail Thompson, member of the 1992 Charter Review Committee from Carson City.
Mr. Lipparelli briefly introduced the changes being requested to the Carson City charter and the changes to the duties of the treasurer (Exhibit C).
Mrs. Augustine noted there were new sections in 6, 7 and 8 and questioned if the effective date in Section 6 was still effective July 1 or would it move to October 1.
Mr. Lipparelli replied it could be either, he was not aware of the difference in the date but did not think it was significant.
Mr. Ernaut asked how much public input had been heard on changing the qualifications of running for office from six months to one year.
Mr. Lipparelli answered he was present at the hearing when that item was heard and there had been testimony in opposition to it as it was not felt qualifications of running for office should be made more onerous. He said the majority of the committee felt the changes were appropriate and they had made the recommendation based on their opinion of public testimony received.
Further discussion ensued between Mr. Ernaut and Mr. Lipparelli.
Ms. Gale Thompson, former member of Charter Review Commission, testified one reason for the requested change to one year residency from six months was it was felt people should really get to know the Carson City community before running for office.
Mr. Ernaut pointed out it should be up to the voters of the community to vote people out if they felt there was a "carpetbagging" issue. He said he had a problem with making running for office exclusive to those who had lived in the community for over a year.
Ms. Thompson commented another area of concern was in the area of gender "neutrification." She said the entire charter was in the masculine and felt it should be changed to neuter gender and she had reviewed the charter, changing the language, and asked it be considered for a proposed amendment. Ms. Thompson indicated the Legislative Counsel Bureau had decided, "To eliminate the exclusive use of male pronouns was not made because of NRS 0.030 provides that the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter genders."
Further discussion ensued.
Mr. Basil Moreto, Jr., Purchasing Agent for Carson City, testified in favor of AB 652.
Chairman Garner requested verification that all the proposed amendments were actually what was desired by the requesting parties.
Mr. Lipparelli indicated the amendments provided to the committee were based on his discussions with the legislative counsel, and he had in writing the other amendments he was proposing. He stated the changes Ms. Thompson recommended were not part of his amendment.
Chairman Garner pointed out there might be a distinct problem with the neutral language as far as the billdrafters were concerned. He stated there was a significant amount of work yet to be done on the bill with the proposed amendments.
After further discussion between Chairman Garner and Mr. Lipparelli, Chairman Garner asked Mr. Lipparelli to work with Mr. Ernaut to prepare the amendments in a proper manner to present to the committee.
There being no further testimony or discussion Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 652.
ASSEMBLY BILL 668 - Provides for coordination of services for protection from fire in large counties.
Assemblyman Jim McGaughey, Assembly District 13, Clark County, testified as a proponent of AB 668. He said AB 668 was created out of many conversations over the past years about consolidating services in government to provide a more efficient and economical delivery system for taxpayers. Mr. McGaughey reviewed the bill section by section. He indicated the bill would allow for interlocal agreements for 911 phone service, compatible equipment, centralized training and fire response from the nearest fire station.
Mrs. Augustine and Mr. McGaughey discussed merging of employees and the effect of AB 668 on volunteer fire departments.
Chairman Garner remarked some of the concerns Mr. McGaughey was attempting to address with this legislation had been dealt with in some form with the passage of AB 641 which would allow local governments to enter into interlocal agreements.
Mr. Jim Reinhardt, Fire Management Officer, Nevada Division of Forestry, Western Region, testified in opposition to AB 668 because of what it would do to Fire District 473. He indicated if the district was forced into consolidation with the metropolitan department, it would essentially eliminate its volunteer system in the district and would also eliminate 22 firefighter positions in Washoe County. Mr. Reinhardt stated the district ran a combination department which utilized local volunteers and a small staff which was on duty 24 hours a day. He felt in fairness to the public the most cost effective and efficient system of delivering fire protection in the rural areas was a combination department utilizing volunteers.
Mr. Reinhardt also pointed out the way AB 668 was written would not only affect Washoe County but could affect Carson and Douglas counties in the consolidation, and he was unsure how that would take place.
Mr. McGaughey thought the section Mr. Reinhardt was referencing only dealt with interlocal agreements on 911, using centralized training and that sort of thing. He stated it would not relate to any county under 100,000 so Washoe would be the only county impacted. Mr. McGaughey said it was not mandated that the district would become part of a large department, it was only the possible combination of services.
Mr. Reinhardt replied there was evidently misunderstanding on his part on interpretation. He also mentioned all the departments in Nevada followed the NFPA standards for training and equipment.
Mr. John Pappageorge, Clark County, testified consolidation of fire departments was not necessarily a bad nor a good idea as he felt it depended upon what the people would want. He presented to the committee the technicalities and abilities Clark County had. Mr. Pappageorge stated all the fire departments in Clark County, North Las Vegas and the city of Las Vegas had a consolidated dispatch center. Henderson fire department occasionally trained with Clark County Fire Department. He gave further examples of consolidated training, firefighting and mutual aid agreements by different areas.
Mr. Doug Dickerson, City of Las Vegas, testified the city was opposed to this particular bill but not to consolidation. He was supportive of AB 641 and would like to work on consolidation from the bottom up instead of from the top down. Mr. Dickerson indicated some concerns regarding the benefit in AB 668 and felt it could be more expensive. Mr. Dickerson outlined several other concerns regarding the bill.
Mr. Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson, testified in opposition to AB 668 in its entirety. He said whereas Las Vegas felt Section 38(e) could in the long run reduce costs to them, the benefit package would cost much more to the city of Henderson. Mr. Fritsch indicated the city was not planning on consolidating at this time, and referencing Sections 4 and 5 he felt it would basically have the same effect as consolidation as it required everything except the merger of management employees. He pointed out the city already had mutual aid agreements with various other entities. Mr. Fritsch further detailed the working system the city currently had.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 668.
Chairman Garner indicated a short recess would be held at 9:00 a.m. to await the arrival of Assemblyman Marvel. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 a.m.
ASSEMBLY BILL 670 - Reorganizes Nevada rural housing authority.
Assemblyman John Marvel, District 34, testified as prime sponsor of AB 670. Mr. Marvel felt this bill would put the Rural Housing Authority where it really belonged, in the hands of the local governments, and take it out of state control. He referenced handouts (Exhibit D) as reasons why he was backing the bill and felt there had been many grants missed out on because of current control.
Ms. Barbara Errecart, current chair of Nevada Rural Housing Authority Board, testified this and three previous boards were unanimously in favor of the restructuring of the Authority as outlined in AB 670. She said the feeling was the boards were unable to do what was necessary because of the structuring under state authority. The board was supposed to be a full control board, but while they were liable and had the responsibility for doing it, they did not have the ability to accomplish what they were designed for. She emphasized the Authority utilized no state funds and in the past years the board had close to a $6 million budget. Ms. Errecart indicated the board was eligible for and could have been awarded nearly that much in grants had it had sufficient and properly qualified personnel to handle the money.
Ms. Errecart referenced a letter received from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) favoring the restructuring as proposed by the bill.
Mr. Bob Sullivan, Director of Housing Authority, testified in favor of AB 670. He referenced Exhibit D indicating diffused accountability was a problem. Exhibit D included a provision summary of the bill, a background of the housing authority, and itemized each section of AB 670 with explanations.
Mr. Tom Grady, Executive Director of Nevada League of Cities (NLC), testifying in favor of AB 670, briefly reiterated Mr. Sullivan's testimony as it related to himself and reviewed various aspects of the bill as it affected NLC and Nevada Association of Counties (NACO).
Chairman Garner stressed he wanted to make it clear that through the reorganization of the Nevada Rural Housing Authority there would be greater access to revenue or monies and asked how that would occur.
Mr. Grady indicated what NLC had seen was loss of grants because of the Authority not being able to staff the positions necessary to administer the grants.
Chairman Garner asked if the response and likelihood of getting more monies would mean the staff had to be expanded, and what did it have to do with reorganization.
Mr. Sullivan replied that was the heart of the issue, to have appropriately trained individuals was what was necessary.
Extensive discussion ensued regarding properly trained staff and funding.
Chairman Garner asked for something in writing which would tell him the reasons additional revenues had not been received.
Mr. Ron Sparks, State Budget Office, testified in definite opposition to the movement of the Rural Housing Authority out of the state system. He indicated currently there were other agencies: Health Division, Fire Marshal, and other groups working directly with the rural counties, and they were doing well within the system. He stated the problems occurring with the Rural Housing Authority were probably not a result of moving them in or out of the state system. He also noted the personnel currently in the system would like to remain within the system.
Mr. Neighbors asked if Mr. Sparks' concern was mainly with the employees. Mr. Sparks replied that was true.
Mr. Neighbors then questioned what was the main concern of the Budget office. Mr. Sparks answered currently the way the system was running so far as dealing with rural communities was a good system.
Further discussion ensued. Mr. Neighbors disagreed with testimony given by Mr. Sparks.
Mr. McGaughey queried why the proper personnel was not supplied to the Housing Authority.
Mr. Sparks stated there was a personnel system set up and the methods of classifying positions would have to be testified to by the personnel system.
Further discussion ensued.
Mr. Robert Gagnier, Executive Director of State of Nevada Employees Association, testifying very vehemently against AB 670, indicated he felt there was only one purpose to the bill and that was to remove the Rural Housing Authority from the State Personnel Act.
Ms. Antoinette Jacobs, employee of Rural Housing Authority, testified in opposition to AB 670. She stated she wished to clarify SNEAs involvement with employees of the agency. She said eight of the eleven employees went to SNEA with their concerns as anything the employees said or did against the bill was usually told to SNEA after the fact. Therefore, SNEA was not organizing or controlling the employees. She gave further testimony relating to the employees' viewpoint of the bill.
Ms. Mary Dalton Viviano, employee of Rural Housing Authority, testified in opposition to AB 670.
Discussion ensued between Mrs. Augustine and Ms. Viviano.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 670.
ASSEMBLY BILL 39 - Exempts certain employees from merit personnel system for county employees.
Chairman Garner indicated he had a couple of different groups approach him and ask to be allowed to amend AB 39 and return with provisions to address the sick leave issue which would allow people in local government to take advantage of accumulated sick leave and transfer it to someone else who was in need. He felt it was cost neutral for the most part and wanted the committee to be aware this would be forthcoming.
ASSEMBLY BILL 247 - Requires welfare division of department of human resources to comply with Nevada Administrative Procedure Act.
Chairman Garner indicated AB 247 was the bill Mr. Porter had asked to be drafted and after testimony Mr. Porter had said he had no real investment in the bill, and it could be handled however Chairman Garner wished.
Mr. Ernaut handed out a proposed amendment (Exhibit E) and stated it would basically delete the bill and bring the Welfare Division under the Administrative Procedures Act. Mr. Ernaut said the intent of the bill was to address problems the Welfare Division had communicating with some of the counties and other entities.
Mr. Dave Nicholas, Nevada Health Care Association, testified AB 247 represented a compromise between all the contestants on the bill, and all had agreed to the amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 247.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblyman Freeman was absent for the vote.
Chairman Garner requested Mr. Ernaut handle the bill on the floor.
ASSEMBLY BILL 415 - Raises threshold for requiring advertisement of competitive bids for purchases by local government.
Chairman Garner said AB 415 had come before committee several times but there had not been enough support for the bill. He asked Mr. Bennett to speak to the bill.
Mr. Bennett mentioned he had spoken with Mr. Bob Broadbent and Clark County representatives and they indicated they would be willing to have the references to price indexing deleted from the bill if it would solve the problems. He pointed out there had also been an amendment proposed to delete the word "aggregate" from subsection a, b and c.
Discussion among committee members ensued regarding the amendments.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 415.
ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblymen Lambert and Ernaut opposed the motion. Assemblyman Freeman was absent for the vote.
ASSEMBLY BILL 644 - Expands authority of counties to establish parking facilities and spaces.
Mr. Bennett stated the RTC testified they would like to have an amendment which would have the same wording in their chapter as was in this one, and it was his understanding the other entities involved had no problem with that.
Discussion among committee members ensued.
ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 644.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblyman Freeman was absent for the vote.
Chairman Garner requested Mrs. Segerblom handle the bill on the floor.
ASSEMBLY BILL 461 - Provides for protection of domestic wells from impairment.
Mrs. Lambert indicated proposed amendments had been distributed previously and she had just received changed amendments. She said she would get copies to everyone as soon as possible.
Chairman Garner asked if the amendments had been approved by the people concerned. Mrs. Lambert stated the current amendment had not as she had just received it.
Mr. McGaughey indicated he would like to read the amendment before voting.
Chairman Garner said the bill would be brought up in a future meeting.
Chairman Garner indicated he would like committee introduction of the following bill draft request:
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 1-2131 - Provides for additional fee to be paid to court reporters under certain circumstances.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 1-2131.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
LINDA FEATHERINGILL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
June 8, 1993
Page: 1