MINUTES OF THE
SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
April 26, 1993
The Senate Sub-Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, April 26, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman (Excused)
Senator William Raggio (Excused)
Senator Dean Rhoads (Excused)
Senator Thomas J. Hickey (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, District 29
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Principal Research Analyst
Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mary Sanada, Accounting Manager, State of Nevada, Controller's Office
John Adkins, Deputy Treasurer of Operations, Nevada State Treasurer's Office
Jack Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council
Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors
Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Department of Transportation
Fred Smith, Director, Construction Management for Clark County School District
Barbara Campbell, Lobbyist, Helms Construction
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Gaylyn Spriggs, Lobbyist, Rayrock Mining Inc.
Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturer's Association
Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Home Builder's Association
Michelle Bero, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Richard Reavis, Deputy Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection
Myla Florence, Administrator, Nevada State Welfare Division
Donald Klasic, General Council, University of Nevada
Jim Eardley, Vice Chairman, University of Nevada
Mike Turnipseed, Engineer, State of Nevada
Dave Nicholas, Lobbyist, Nevada Health Care Association
Scott Young, State Industrial Insurance System
David Howard, Lobbyist, Reno Sparks Chamber of Commerce
Ned Eyre, Concerned Citizen
Chairman Ann O'Connell announced the meeting would convene as a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, due to the lack of a quorum.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
Chairman O'Connell opened the sub-committee hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 351.
SENATE BILL 351: Consolidates or eliminates various funds.
Mary Sanada, Accounting Manager, State of Nevada, Controller's Office, spoke to the committee on S.B. 351. She told the committee this bill was her department's annual housekeeping bill to eliminate unnecessary funds which have been set up. She explained this bill asks for the consolidation to eliminate nine funds and these will go into the general fund, but still kept separate. She pointed out there is more paperwork and time involved in keeping these small accounts. She told the committee the fund for financing water projects would become part of the municipal fund and the fund for physical fitness and sports, low income housing fund and management of storage tank units would become part of the General Fund.
Senator Callister asked if once these cease to be funds and become an account within the General Fund will it facilitate the ease with which the budget division could transfer funds around?
Ms. Sanada stated that would have no impact, because these funds would stay unique within the General Fund, because the law states if fees are collected for a certain purpose it must remain with that account. She explained all funds requiring an ending balance sheet, but an account does not require a balance sheet only receipt and dispersement record with beginning and ending balance. She further explained there is the destitute prisoner's fund which is very small and will become an account in the Prisoner's Personal Property Fund which is a separate trust fund and the Highway Safety Administrative Fund which will go into the Highway Fund so there are no extra steps. She also stated the Claimant Employment Fund which handles programs to encourage employment among unemployment recipients and it will become an account in the regular Employment Security Administrative Fund.
Senator Callister stated he has concern with the changes in definition and structures in regard to how the state keeps track of its money.
Senator Callister asked Ms. Sanada to provide the committee with a determination of how much interest is generated from accounts or funds now located within the General Fund. Ms. Sanada agreed to this, but told the committee there are some special revenue funds and trust funds which do not receive any interest.
Chairman O'Connell asked Ms. Sanada to give her a written list of their proposed amendments and amendment language along with the interest information Senator Callister requested.
John Adkins, Deputy Treasurer of Operations, Nevada State Treasurer's Office, spoke on S.B. 351. He told the committee with regard to the interest allocations they asked about, it is about $7.6 million a year in interest on these funds. He stated the General Fund got $1.4 million last quarter and there are no budgets, funds or accounts which receive interest separately that are included in this total.
Chairman O'Connell stated the committee is concerned because some of the funds are short and the reason these are coming up short may be that the accounts are not receiving the interest due them.
Senator Nevin stated he would rather pay out the money from the interest than raise the fees.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 351 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 349.
SENATE BILL 349: Restricts preference given to certain contractors on public works.
John Jeffrey, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, spoke on S.B. 349. He stated:
What we found in the case of the 5 percent bid preference is there have been cases when a general contractor will be the successful bidder on a public works project using the 5 percent bid preference and the bid preference does not extend to the subcontractors. There have been cases where a substantial amount of the job will go to subcontractors that are out of state that don't meet the qualifications set out in the statute for the 5 percent bid preference over local contractors that do. There have been less than 5 percent difference. Building trades asked me to have this bill drafted and we did. What I told the bill drafter was we simply wanted to extend the 5 percent bid preference to subcontractors. There has been quite a bit of confusion over this, but that is what we are after. If a general contractor uses a 5 percent bid preference in order to successfully gain a project then that same preference should extend to the subcontractors he does business with.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Jeffrey if he would be willing to consolidate this bill with Senate Bill (S.B.) 376.
SENATE BILL 376: Restricts preference given to certain contractors on public works.
Mr. Jeffrey stated it would probably be best if these bills were put in subcommittee to consolidate them and deal with any problems they encounter.
Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, spoke in opposition to S.B. 349. She stated this issue has been talked about, but they are having problems coming to a conclusion which would help the general and subcontractors. She explained they are opposed to the language in this bill because they do not feel this helps the local subcontractors. She stated she would be happy to work with the subcommittee on the language of this bill, but currently she stated the Associated General Contractors feel this bill is a very poor piece of legislation for the subcontractors in Nevada.
Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Department of Transportation, stated he was concerned with this bill and voiced the same concerns he had with S.B. 376.
Fred Smith, Director, Construction Management for Clark County School District, spoke on S.B. 349. He told the committee it is his job to advertise, bid, award and administer contracts for the construction of new schools in Clark County. He pointed out he awarded 55 contracts in the past 6 years worth about $550 million. He explained they have no objection of the bill with regard to the joint venture wording, but he stated he shares the concerns with the other opponents of the bill with regard to the current wording in regard to subcontractors. He explained it would be difficult to determine if a contractor would qualify for the 5 percent bidder preference if they had to verify all the subcontractors first. He further explained it would be difficult due to delaying contract awards while sorting out the subcontractors eligibility. He pointed out this would increase the cost in public works contracts and a tremendous potential for increased number of claims by successful bidders. He stated he would like to help work on this bill in subcommittee.
Barbara Campbell, Lobbyist, Helms Construction, told the committee she agreed with the other testimony and feels this bill should go into subcommittee and she would be willing to help as well.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 349 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 370 and Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 23.
SENATE BILL 370: Makes various changes relating to Administrative Procedure Act.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 23: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to authorize specifically legislative review of administrative regulations.
Chairman O'Connell stated both these bills are focused at the same result which is to try and get a better handle on the regulation process. She explained her biggest disappointment with government is they give agencies the ability to promulgate regulations and they exceed the intent of the original legislation or the agencies are not necessarily sensitive to the impact of how that regulation will affect those who will be governed by them. She stated under the current law when the legislators write permissive laws the taxpayers of the state have very little ability to directly change that regulation which becomes an extension of the law and for the most part most agency heads are well protected from any kind of a constituency which makes the issue very important to the taxpayers.
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, spoke to the committee on these bills. She stated Chairman O'Connell was correct when she expressed her concerns about agencies not overstepping their jurisdictions when adopting regulations or are not sensitive enough to the issue. She explained in looking at S.B. 370 her office supports revising how regulations are adopted and they support how the Nevada Administrative Code should be maintained and they also support shortening the review time from 6 to 3 years. She stated if they pass this bill they will achieve a more meaningful review, they will have accountability and they will also have regulatory reform. She pointed out in section 8 it states the secretary of state will provide forms and examples to all agencies for their records which are clear to them and it is the job of the secretary of state's office and to ensure that there is no fiscal impact within their office. She urges the adoption of S.B. 370.
Joan Lambert, Assemblyman, District 29, spoke to the committee on these bills. She pointed out section 8 on S.B. 370, lines 27 through 43. She explained that is an informational statement and right now when an agency has gone through the entire process of adopting regulations then the adoptive regulations are sent to the Legislative Counsel Bureau along with the required informational statement and those are filed with the secretary of state's office. She proposed they move that informational statement into the notice requirement.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke to the committee and presented them with written information, Exhibit C. She stated:
This issue, (Exhibit C), after the last session particularly and the amount of bills that were passed in the [19] 91 session that allowed regulatory authority came to such a head that we actually published one newsletter on it which I have given you a sample called, 'And the Lawmaking Continues." We probably had more phone calls in a 3-month period at the end of that session from members and nonmembers alike questioning how certain things had happened when that was not what they had read had happened in the newspapers. Excerpting from the first page on that were an overextension of laws which regulations and rules are the way most of our bills are written. These are two of the most extreme examples at that time that were involved in this extension of lawmaking by authority. The Department of Industrial Relations [DIR] to pardon the requirement of S.B. 7 [of the Sixty-sixth Session], one of the regulations they were suppose to adopt concerned employer-employee safety committees. As the regulation was written...and by the way I do have a copy of it and did not copy it because of the number of pages, but as this regulation was written, it was not only difficult to understand, it would have been close to impossible to comply with. It had a prohibitive cost, but probably the most interesting provision within this regulation that had been held out for hearing was the fact that it contained an entire section that had been amended out of S.B. 7 [of the Sixty-sixth Session] and was not at all in the final bill on S.B. 7 [of the Sixty-sixth Session. The second case that we called an over-extension of authority involved the Environmental Commission. There was a bill Assembly Bill 271 (A.B.) 271 [of the Sixty-sixth Session] that was passed into law effective on July 1 [1991] and it established the fees to be collected at the Beatty Dump sit for the State. The Environmental Commission heard the regulations to establish fees for that site on November 16 [1991] and they approved a regulation which totally ignored the fees established in that bill and instead adopted a regulation that provided for a two-tiered fee system which was never addressed in the bill and when they were challenged on the actual adoption of this, the majority of testimony was opposed because of the bill that had been passed and the specific authority that had been granted in that bill. The commission said they had statutory authority granted in 1981 for higher fees and could in effect override the current legislative intent. Now, as I said, those were two extreme examples for a business trying to keep up and comply with regulations. I just marked off one section on the second page [Exhibit C] and that dealt with hazards because there were a number of those. If you would look at the number of agencies that were involved and still are involved in regulating hazardous materials. All of these agencies promulgate regulations. That is 11 agencies that can put forth regulations and fees and it does not count what is done at a local level. What we asked at that point...and I asked it of this committee, 'can we find a way to coordinate the regulators and enforcers out there and can we find a way that these funding levels which support the functions dealing with the management of this particular case of hazardous materials, can be done without substitute cost increases to either the businesses or consumer?' One of the things that I found when trying to check a regulation for one of my members and now I will cite a local instance, not a state, but it is applicable, was that in calling the local agency which was promulgating a regulation by ordinance that it had been posted and questioning some provisions because they were extremely onerous. When I got the person who was in charge of doing this and had signed the agenda item report and spoke to them and said have you considered XXX and XXX and they turned around and said 'no we have no idea what these businesses are' and I said 'have you ever been to this type of an operation' and they said 'no, could they come to one.' I don't think it is a conscious attempt in most cases to overstep the bounds of authority that are given. I think what happens is there is a lack of understanding about, from our perspective, the businesses to be regulation and I think sometimes for your understanding, because I have had calls from legislators too asking me about bills on committees they did not serve on that they knew I would be covering to see if I had any additional background as to how a regulation came down since that was not what was in the bill. Some of the highlights of S.B. 370 as it is presented before you is; 1. The fact that there will be a consistent form for identifying how input is taken. I have attended two regulatory hearings in particular where there was almost all...in fact one was total opposition to two provisions in the regulation. Another one was majority of opposition to the way the regulation had been written with additional requests for modifications of these regulations. In both of those instances those regulations were passed by the body concerned without so much as a period being changed. In going back to challenge on one and requesting how could they do something like this, it was a temporary regulation which had been passed from a workshop, in fact it was two. The regulations which were developed from the workshop were passed as permanent regulations because the law says. If you adopt a temporary regulation and there are no substantive changes, it can be adopted as a permanent regulation. I went to the secretary of state's office to find out how anybody was notified or what response was solicited. This is what the secretary of state's office had and I did not provide it, or did I...yes it is the second attachment you have. On this regulation there were two notices published, one in the Review Journal and one in the Reno Gazette Journal. They were legal notices that were published three times. I doubt that anybody who was impacted by these regulations being adopted as permanent ever saw those legal notices. The agency then goes on to say there was no public comment written or oral received prior to the hearing. I would submit to you it is almost impossible so we think the idea on a temporary regulation, absolutely noticing and calling for a second hearing is imperative. The idea that we put a definition of emergency into the statute because none exists and that if an emergency regulation is to be promulgated it would be because of an emergency we think is critical. Statute currently speaks to whether or not an agency must identify if there is an economic impact on the agency. It does not talk about the economic impact to a business and that is becoming critical. If we look to California, not only have they had wholesale move-outs of their businesses and individuals, but two of the key elements resulting or causing the wholesale move-outs has been because of the tax environment and the regulatory environment. We've got a state economic goal of trying to attract business. One of the things we need to be able to tell businesses who are now ranking regulatory environment of state very, very high and their consideration of moving to a state is that we do have a regulatory environment which exists, but is conducive to business knowing what will happen to them before the fact. I think that every section that has been added to the bill has been done to address the very specific problem which has been identified and raised which Senator O'Connell outlined when she was going through the bill. The emergency in part...and I think one of the worst abuses of that occurred with the employment security reduction of rate in the last legislative session. That reduction of rate which was done to help small business offset the impact of any business tax resulted 1-year later in a shortfall of $63 million.
Chairman O'Connell asked what the emergency rate reduction regulation would do to business.
Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau, told the committee the situation deals with unemployment insurance compensation fund and the fund balance has dramatically been reduced over the last couple of years. He explained it had gone down about $100 million and it is projected to decrease another $29 million in 1993. Mr. Crews stated the impact is the FUTA tax as paid by private employers within the state is in jeopardy of being increased perhaps 2 to 3 times its current rate. He added this is probably unlikely there is the possibility this could occur if the trust fund became insolvent. He explained the federal government has imposed increases in Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) taxes in 18 other states since 1985 and if that same rate were applied to Nevada businesses, it would be an approximately $70 million increase in FUTA taxes to Nevada businesses alone. He stated:
What we have here is a little bit different situation and it may or may not be totally related to the regulations, but maybe even more so to the absence of legislation requiring a solvency balance in the fund. For example, your association of Unemployment Security Offices across the states suggest 1-1/2 times your annual payouts to be set up as reserve. Currently we are at approximately 1/2 of that and so if we fall to a situation where we are insolvent and have to borrow from the federal government, we would perhaps be hit by the feds at 2 to 3 times our current rate.
Ms. Vilardo stated:
To hit the high points and the reasons for...notice of reasonable regulations, same thing for emergency, there are no definitions as to what that should be and I think it is important that we have that. Particularly important is agendas coming out to business telling us we are going to have a fee increase or regulatory increase identifying that that is what is going to happen. In the attachment I gave you after the first page, if you'll look at about the third or fourth page you'll see a whole series of fees. That agenda never noticed those fees. Those were very, very substantive fee increases that were imposed. We are not saying that regulation should not be promulgated, we are not saying that they should not be adopted, we are not saying there should not be fees, but there has to be a point at which they match to as much as possible the legislative intent, that they not be stricter than what the legislature or federal law requires, that business have the opportunity to comment and know what is coming down and that business have the opportunity to be informed, particularly where there will be fees. That there be an acknowledgement that many times these have a fiscal impact, an economic impact to the business, it is not just the agency. And we think that needs to be taken into consideration. A number of other points I could make I anticipate some other people testifying after me will. I would urge you strongly to adopt this bill.
Senator Nevin stated:
Your comment on legislative intent was interesting because I find most regulations passed after the session adjourns is a regulation on something they couldn't get passed during the session. So they use regulations as a back door issue because they couldn't get legislation passed in the interim so they say, no problem we'll let it go and make a regulation when they go home. So maybe that is another good reason for...I don't want everybody to cringe...for annual sessions.
Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association stated:
Back in 1989, Senator O'Connell and I worked on another bill that brought portions of the Administrative Procedures Act under Nevada's open meeting law and those certainly went a long way towards solving the complaints we were getting from the public as to lack of access to not only the information before the meeting, but lack of access to the information following the meeting. People couldn't get minutes, people could not more or less find out anything that had happened at a meeting and a lot of that has been taken care of. And Senator O'Connell in bringing this bill has resolved a number of other concerns that we have heard about from the public and that I have also had from my membership over the last couple of years. Particularly in light of the proposed reorganization plan which we are watching very carefully...and we have had meetings with the Governor. But, the reorganization plan will limit some public access to the executive branch that the public presently enjoys. So we see these enhancements to the Administrative Procedure Act as something that provides a check and balance to some of the reorganization things that will be going on. I have one suggestion for an amendment, that's the top of page 4, line 3 where it discusses the regulation be mailed to all persons who have requested in writing that they be placed upon a mailing list which must be kept by the agency for such purpose. We would like to see that enlarged to include electronic transmission or request by phone. I think for some agencies it is cheaper to fax a regulation than it is to perhaps go through the problems of putting it in the envelope and putting postage on it and mailing it and that would certainly provide for more timeliness as far as receiving the application. Carole (Vilardo) used some of my examples of abuse by agencies and over reaching their bounds with the regulations so I won't repeat any of hers. I will tell you the press itself has had problems with regulations that were...actually this is the way it usually works. What we see happen is we see a new interpretation of a state law and then we hear about a regulation that is going to be put forth that will make legal the new interpretation of the state law. Generally they are already doing it before they even put forth the regulation. We have a couple of things in subcommittee and commerce committee as a result of new interpretations of state law both by the Employment Security Department. We are looking and you may be familiar with the new interpretation of law by the Department of Taxation during the last interim having to do with artists, etc. and what they should pay tax on and after applying that law they put forth a new regulation. There is another hearing on the 30th of April, I understand, on that regulation which because of a court case, they took it to court and won...an artist or a photography firm did, that there was not adequate due process given on the new interpretation of the law and the Department of Taxation is holding another hearing on that regulation on April 30th.
Gaylyn Spriggs, Lobbyist, Rayrock Mining Inc., spoke in favor of S.B. 370. She told the committee she was on the Legislative Commission the year prior and as a member of that committee she was asked to approve a lot of regulations which were temporary but were made permanent and she feels these bills will stop temporary regulation from being made permanent without hearings and public comment. She stated she really supports these bills.
Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, spoke in favor of these bills. She stated she feels these are very important pieces of legislation and urged the committee members to pass them out of the committee.
Mary Santini, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada, stated she supported S.B. 370. She explained there are many times legislative intent is circumvented although they have had some good experiences working with Consumer Affairs and Truth and Advertising Rags. She stated she attended workshops they held and the noticing was excellent. She told the committee the noticing is very difficult and she finds it more difficult to work the regulatory environment than it is the legislative environment. She stated they also support S.J.R. 24 also.
Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturer's Association, spoke in favor of S.B. 370 and S.J.R. 24. He stated they are strongly in support of these bills.
Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Home Builder's Association, stated she is in favor of S.B. 370 and S.J.R. 24. She stated her due to the local, state and federal fees, this association has to hire people just to keep track of the fees involved in their business and what regulations have to be complied with. Ms. Porter stated the greatest hidden tax in the world is in housing so she stated they deal with finance, environment and all the rest. She stated the association strongly supports S.B. 370, particularly the statements about fees, increases in fees and what the impacts will be on the business or the state as a result of this regulation.
Denny Weddle, Board Chairman, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and Lobbyist, Nevada Restaurant Association, are in support of S.B. 370 and S.J.R. 24. He stated Mary Santini (she had to leave to go to another meeting) asked him to draw their attention to page 3 the term "reasonable regulations" and she asked Mr. Weddle to express her concern to the committee.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, stated she was speaking on behalf of many citizens who are strongly supportive of S.B. 370 and its attempt to develop more notice and openness for the citizens in the regulatory process, particularly with regard to the top of page 3 dealing with the reasonable regulations you were just discussing. She explained they would like to see efforts like contained in this bill which would stop legislation by regulation and the erosion of the division of powers. She stated she would like to see some method of letting the public know of those who appeared to testify, how many were representing the public sector and how many represented the private sector.
Michelle Bero, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, is here to support the clarifications of adopting the regulations as proposed in S.B. 370. She stated the inclusion of the Welfare Division into these procedures prompted their interest in this bill. She explained when the Welfare Division adopts regulations they find many times the regulations have impacts to county government.
Chairman O'Connell asked Ms. Bero to get a copy of the amendment provided by the Welfare Division, review it and get back to the committee on how she felt. Ms. Bero agreed to do this.
Richard Reavis, Deputy Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection spoke in favor of S.B. 370 which he states strengthens the concept that a state agency gains a statutory authority from the legislature. He pointed out section 4 which is a concern in regard to "shall not be more stringent than federal regulations unless authorized by the legislature." He said there is a general perception that federal regulations are so stringent that no one would want to do anything stronger than that and certainly the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act and the regulations that the Federal EPA is promulgating gives credence to that perception very, very onerous regulations that no prudent person would say lets be more stringent than that. There are federal regulations that are less stringent than the state regulations and have some fairly serious impacts on what we do.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Reavis to work out some suggested language which would address his concerns and then submit this back to the committee.
Myla Florence, Administrator, Nevada State Welfare Division, supplied written testimony including amendments to S.B. 370, (Exhibit D).
Senator Nevin asked on page 2, section 3 of Exhibit D it states "reasonable" and he asked why she did not state "all interested persons must be afforded an opportunity to submit data" rather than "reasonable opportunity." Ms. Florence stated this language was lifted from the Administrative Procedure Act and she told him if he wanted to remove "reasonable" she stated that would be fine.
Donald Klasic, General Council, University of Nevada, spoke in opposition of S.B. 370. He stated they are not opposed to the entire bill. He explained they are opposed to section 1, line 6 which would delete the University of Nevada system from the exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act and he stated they oppose the provisions of section 13 which would include the University of Nevada system among certain things that have to be done to keep their regulations current. He stated their opposition to this bill which would, in essence, provide the University of Nevada system be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act would be two fold. He stated the first is the practical problem and secondly the legal problem. In conclusion, he stated, if it is not broken, do not fix it.
Jim Eardley, Vice Chairman, University of Nevada, Board of Regents, stated he was in opposition S.B. 370 due to the same problems as Mr. Klasic pointed out.
Mike Turnipseed, Engineer, State of Nevada told the committee his only objection to S.B. 370 is the same as the gentlemen from the University of Nevada.
Chairman O'Connell told Mr. Turnipseed one of the committee's major concerns in including his office in this bill is because they consider water one of the major issues facing the state now and in the future. She explained the public is going to be very interested in any action that his agency will be undertaking in the near future which is one of the main reasons his agency was included in this bill.
Mr. Turnipseed agreed water would be a major issue, but he pointed out his office has been in existence since 1905 and they have had many, many lawsuits from which they have case laws which dictate some of the procedures which vary from the Administrative Procedures Act.
Dave Nicholas, Lobbyist, Nevada Health Care Association, spoke to the committee on S.B. 370. He stated he is working on a bill in the assembly which deals with much the same context as this bill. He stated he thought S.B. 370 was an excellent bill. He told the committee the other bill deals essentially only with the Welfare Division and the amendment they requested for S.B. 370 is essentially the same amendment they requested for the assembly bill which would take the financial aspect out of the picture. He explained they were going to have a meeting the next day and he thought in all probability Nevada Health Care Association and the Welfare Division are both in favor of the amendment, if the bill passes through the assembly it should come over to this committee and they could deal with this bill in the same way. He stated he welcomed any advice relative to this situation.
Scott Young, State Industrial Insurance System, told the committee he does not have any true opposition to the bill, but they wanted to offer some suggestions on one specific provision. He stated they had some thoughts one of which was an assembly bill which dealt with the ability of the agencies to adopt regulations and how far those should go and whether there should be a moratorium. He explained part of the concern was that sometimes on the agency side they can be confused to exactly what it is the legislature wishes us to do and wishes us not to do in regard to adopting regulations. He stated that authority is delegated from the legislature and it has become the hallmark of administrative agencies. He stated a lot of the commentators on administrative law note that agencies virtually cannot function without the ability to adopt regulations and the reason for that is because so many laws have become so complex that the legislators do not always have the time to flush out every particular provision so it is delegated to the agencies to do that. He also stated there is the concept of expertise and theoretically, the agencies because of their daily contact with the subject matter develop expertise beyond what a legislator can achieve in the time they deal with the subjects. Again, the theory is the agency is in a unique position to flush out these details.
Chairman O'Connell stated in attending the hearings she discovered in many cases they have situations where the agency will promulgate a regulation that is going to expedite their consideration of the issue as opposed to again, being sensitive to the public having to deal with that issue and this is a major concern.
Mr. Young stated he agreed and he added if you work on one side of an issue you can get tunnel-vision and you need to have that input from the people who are going to have to live with whatever rules are promulgated. He stated his observation, which he admits is a narrow one because he only deal with one segment of the law, but he stated he knows with the recent rehabilitation regulations that the DIR went to hearing on, SIIS called a number of people, associations and individuals to let them know that those regulations were being heard as he felt they were very important to the scheme of worker's compensation. He stated it was very disappointing to see less than 15 people in the Carson City hearing. He pointed out they notify people and yet nobody shows up, but after the regulation is adopted they will hear how unhappy people are.
Chairman O'Connell stated she would welcome any change in language which Mr. Young would submit.
David Howard, Lobbyist, Reno Sparks Chamber of Commerce, told the committee they would endorse S.B. 370 in its concept and he stated they will leave the details to the committee. He stated from a private basis he would like to know why the university does not have to be accountable like the other agencies and when they cut the budget pie they are not anonymous.
Ned Eyre, Concerned Citizen, spoke on S.B. 370. He stated he has been concerned with matters of water in this state for 25 or 30 years. He told the committee this state is going to have to be dependent upon ground water which makes for difficult decisions, not the least of which is looking toward the welfare of this state and the mining of water. He stated in that light he strongly supports S.B. 370 and wants the inclusion not the deletion of line 14 which has the state engineer under this.
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
SENATE BILL 7 FROM THE SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION: Makes various changes relating to industrial insurance and other rights of employees.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Sub-Committee on Government Affairs
April 26, 1993
Page 1