MINUTES OF THE

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 9, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner, at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, June 9, 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

      Ms. Marcia de Braga

      Mr. Pete Ernaut

      Ms. Vivian L. Freeman

      Mr. Lynn Hettrick

      Ms. Erin Kenny

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

      Mr. Roy Neighbors

      Ms. Gene W. Segerblom

      Mr. Wendell P. Williams

 

 

      COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman John Marvel, District 34

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mrs. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      David Sarnowski, Chief/Criminal Justice Division/Office of AG

      Tom Tatro, Acting Administrator/Purchasing

      April Townley, Deputy Administrator/Nevada Medicaid

      Bob Gagnier/SNEA

      Mike Johaneson/Service Employee International Union

      Charlie Joerg/Eureka County

      Ron Carrion/Economic Development Committee/Eureka

      Mary Ellen Anderson, Exec. Dir. Regional Development/Lincoln         County

      Bill Schaeffer, District Attorney/Eureka

      Cecilia Colling, Deputy Director/Commission on Economic              Development

      Jeanne Douglas, Grants Administrator/Commission on Economic          Development

      Kirby Burgess/Clark County

      Ben Graham/Clark County

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 683: Repeals requirement of notice to customer of                       financial institution concerning subpena of                        financial records.

 

David Sarnowski, Chief/Criminal Justice Division/Office of AG, indicated AB 683 had its genesis in the Insurance Commissioner's office. Since Commissioner Rankin had a scheduling problem and was unable to testify, Mr. Sarnowski asked for time to further confer with her before presenting the bill.

 

There being no further testimony, Mr. Garner closed the hearing on AB 683.

      ********

 

 

SENATE BILL 167:   Requires chief of purchasing division of                           department of general services to establish                        certain standards to be used by state agencies                     when purchasing new equipment.

 

Tom Tatro, Acting Administrator of Purchasing Division, specified SB 167 and SB 169 were both products of the SCR 2 Privatization subcommittee. He noted the Purchasing Division was charged with drafting regulations in response to both bills and the requirement would be accommodated without an attached fiscal note.

 

      MR. HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS SB 167.

 

      MR. ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN FREEMAN, AUGUSTINE, WILLIAMS       AND KENNY ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.

 

Mr. Garner appointed Mr. Hettrick to handle the bill on the floor.

 

      ********

 

SENATE BILL 169:  Requires chief of purchasing division of                           department of general services to establish                        criteria for state agency to use in determining                    whether to contract with private contractor to                     provide services furnished by agency.

 

Mr. Tatro stated testimony given for SB 167 applied as well to SB 169.

 

Responding to a request from Mr. Garner for an interpretation of Section 1, line 8 (b), Mr. Tatro referred the committee to the Colorado Workbook included in the report Bulletin No. 9318 by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The Privatization Subcommittee made the determination the Colorado model be the core of the regulations to be adopted.

 

Referencing Section l, line 8 (b), Mr. Ernaut speculated it was a diplomatic way of saying, "We don't want to privatize unions jobs from the state."

 

April Townley, Deputy Administrator/Welfare Division for the Medicaid Program, requested an amendment to SB 169 which would exclude Medicaid contracts with medical providers. Her prepared testimony is submitted as Exhibit C.  The desired amendment, she added, was in Section 2 which would state, "The provisions of Subsections 1-3 of Section 1 do not apply to medical providers of care for the Medicaid program administered by the State Welfare Division" (Exhibit D).

 

Speaking in opposition to SB 169, Bob Gagnier/SNEA, targeted the bill as the cornerstone of the interim study on the privatization of state government. He noted from 180 to 200 personal service contracts were approved monthly by the State Board of Examiners averaging $20 million per month, representing quite a large number of state government being contracted out. He expressed concern out-of-state entrepreneurs would be coming in, paying substandard wages and, just as important, not providing health insurance.  Mr. Gagnier's proposed amendment is submitted as Exhibit E.

 

Speaking to Mr. Gagnier's amendment, Mr. Ernaut voiced concern it would water down the theory of privatization and would hamstring the ability of anyone to privatize. He contended the amendment gutted the integrity of the bill.

 

Mike Johaneson/Service Employee International Union, labeled SB 169 a "promotion of privatization", suggesting it was a simplified version of the Colorado Plan. Stating he had spent 15 years in Colorado, he added, "It did not work in Colorado  and will not work here." He strongly supported Mr. Gagnier's amendment saying it was a fair proposal and would not be difficult to implement. He strongly urged the committee not to support SB 169 as it represented a major change in direction.

 

There being no further testimony, Mr. Garner closed the hearing on SB 169.

      ********

 

SENATE BILL 309:   Allows less populous counties to include                           community development and development of                           nongaming recreation and tourism industry in                       economic development efforts.

 

Assemblyman John Marvel, District 34, declared SB 309 sought to come up with some kind of blend of being able to use tourism  money with economic development. He noted some of the small rural towns did not have the capability to attract large industry so tourism would be the most logical means of achieving economic development. He clarified the bill contained a population limit so as to mitigate any abuses.

 

Charlie Joerg, representing Eureka County, called forth the following people to explain the need for SB 309: Bill Schaeffer, District Attorney/Eureka, Mary Ellen Anderson from Pioche, and Ron Carrion/Economic Development Committee/Eureka.

 

Ron Carrion stated currently, under NRS 231, they did not have the ability to spend any money on a tourism-related informational gathering system....economic development only. He urged the committee to pass the amendment in order to provide that opportunity.

 

Ms. de Braga noted a provision existed in the tourism grant application allowing for waiving the requirement for matching funds. She asked if the bill would be an assist in that regard and also, would more flexibility result in local advertising. Mr. Carrion answered in the affirmative in both cases.

 

Mary Ellen Anderson, Executive Director of Regional Development/Lincoln County, declared tourism at this point was the hope for economic development within Lincoln County. The money was necessary in order to develop the game plan to do the things within the county that would make it a "destination" in lieu of a "drive-through."

 

Bill Schaeffer, District Attorney/Eureka County, reiterated previous testimony of tourism being an integral part of their region. He also levied criticism at time needed to maintain two separate funds, tourism and economic development.

 

Speaking in opposition to SB 309 was Cecilia Colling, Deputy Director/Commission on Economic Development. After giving an explanation of how tourism versus economic development funds were used, she stated the Commission was still very critically interested in client services and did not want activities to be overshadowed by tourism. At the request of the Commission,  Ms. Colling read a letter (Exhibit F) from  Lt. Governor Sue Wagner, Chairman of the Commission, claiming SB 309 would limit ability to provide efficient business attraction services at the local level.

 

Mr. Ernaut commented, "Chances of building major industry in small rural counties are very slight, and so their economic development is tourism."  Using Eureka and the towns along Highway 50 as an example, he  stated the reason they were developing economically was because of tourism, and emphasized SB 309 addressed reality in what was happening in the real rural counties, not the ones adjacent to metropolitan areas. He affirmed they needed the latitude to build community development.

 

Ms. Augustine and Mr. Neighbors both concurred with Mr. Ernaut's sentiments and indicated support for the bill.

 

Jeanne Douglas, Grants Administrator/Commission on Economic Development, stated  she was primarily responsible for language shown in the amendment. She noted there was only so much in grants monies and added, "Will it be used for economic development or for tourism. That is a question the committee needs to answer."

 

Mrs. Segerblom echoed prior colleague opinions, stating economic development in areas such as Pioche, Gabbs, etc. was tourism. She further noted they were losing population from economic growth and needed help in the area of tourism.

 

Mr. Hettrick also indicated his support for SB 309.

 

Mr. Joerg expressed his agreement with Ms. Colling that the bill, as presently written, did not permit commingling of funds.

 

Mr. Garner declared there was a definite appetite for passage of the bill on the part of the committee, but out of courtesy to two members, he delayed the vote one day.

 

      ********

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 39:  Exempts certain employees from merit personnel                     system for county employees.

 

Mr. Kirby Burgess and Mr. Ben Graham, representing Clark County, distributed and described their proposed amendment (Exhibit G).

 

      MR. MCGAUGHEY MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS AB 39 BY                     DELETING THE ENTIRE BILL AND INSERTING THE NEW LANGUAGE            PRESENTED BY BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S           OFFICE.

 

      MS. AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN WILLIAMS AND KENNY ABSENT AT       THE TIME OF THE VOTE.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      CHRISTINE SHAW

      Committee Secretary

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

June 9, 1993

Page 1