MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
January 27, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, January 27, 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 Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Ernie Adler
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Ricka Benum, Committee Secretary
Diana Gamble, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bradford Bodeau, Legislative Aide for Senator Glomb
Jerry Higgins, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Airport Authority of Washoe County
Betty Morris, Member of Board of Trustees, Airport Authority of Washoe County
John Pappageorge, Clark County
John Sande, Airport Authority of Washoe County
Tammy L. Tovey, Deputy Attorney General, Division of Child and Family Services
Robert White, Executive Director, Airport Authority of Washoe County
John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services
John Crosley, Director, Legislative Council Bureau
Chairman O'Connell called the meeting to order and asked the secretary to call the roll. She opened the meeting with testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 55.
SENATE BILL 55: Increases salary of members of board of trustees of Airport Authority of Washoe County. (BDR S-1364)
John Sande, representing the Airport Authority of Washoe County, spoke in favor of S.B. 55. Mr. Sande explained S.B. 55 would increase the fees paid to a member of the Board of Trustees of the airport authority from $60 to $80 per meeting. The bill would also increase the total cap of members fees which could be paid per month from $420 to $560. Mr. Sande told the committee the airport authority was created by a special act in 1977 and does not appear in the Nevada Revised Statutes. He said the legislature increased the fees to $80 for other state boards and commissions and county boards and commissions in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) in 1991. Mr. Sande said the Airport Authority of Washoe County was overlooked in 1991 and he requested board member fees making them comparable to other boards and commissions in the State of Nevada.
Mr. Sande introduced Jerry Higgins, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Airport Authority of Washoe County and Betty Morris, member of the Board of Trustees, Airport Authority of Washoe County and Bob White, Executive Director, Airport Authority of Washoe County for any questions from the committee.
Senator Nevin asked Mr. Sande where the money would come from for the increase of fees. Mr. Sande answered:
This comes out of their budget--they budget for it. All of their fees are generated either from the federal government or from landing fees. There are no state funds. This is a quasi-municipal organization and there are no state funds that go to it.
Senator Nevin asked Mr. Sande if the airport authority was going to increase the landing fees because of the increase. Mr. Sande said he did not anticipate an increase in the landing fees.
Mr. Jerry Higgins said he was expecting a reduction in the landing fees at the Washoe County airport because the revenues at the airport have increased considerably.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Sande how the duties of the Board of Trustees would increase with the increase of fees. Mr. Sande said the fee of $80 was equivalent to most other board and commissions in Nevada. Mr. Higgins stated the Board of Trustees would also be reducing the number of meetings held per year which would cut the cost and result in about 10 fewer meetings per year.
John Pappageorge, representing Clark County, expressed a concern about fees being paid to any airport member because it would encourage a similar action from Clark County airport authority board members.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Pappageorge:
Right now our airport authority isn't really under a board itself, it's just under the direction of Mr. Broadbent. Is that correct? So there's no additional money.
Mr. Pappageorge said she was correct in her statement.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Sande if there was any reason why the Airport Authority of Washoe County could not follow the example of Clark County. Mr. Sande stated the Washoe County airport authority was completely different than Clark County because the Clark County airport is operated by the county. Mr. Sande explained:
In 1977 and before, the airport was operated by the City of Reno and I know in reviewing the minutes back in 1977 that it was determined that the City of Reno was not doing an adequate job and it could be done better by a quasi-municipal organization and therefore that resulted in the act itself we see in front of us resulted from those discussions and deliberations. And, I think it has worked extremely well over the years and I think that the airport authority in Reno has been complimented by many people and we have a fine airport now. So we, obviously, I know that there's a few people that may have been back here in 1977 but we're very supportive of the way it works now.
Senator Nevin asked why the airport authority is always being questioned as to why it is not placed under the authority of the county. He asked why the airport authority should remain under the authority it now is under. Mr. Higgins stated the Reno airport is a regional airport located between Reno and Sparks and it was always intended to be a regional governmental authority rather than operated by the City of Reno. Mr. Higgins continued:
In those days we were having a tremendous amount of difficulty improving the airport as we recall around the olympic time in 1960, it was very difficult to get improvements done there and so at the end of the 1970s we finally generated enough support in the community to make it a regional airport and get it out from under the political control of one government entity. And, as a privatized quasi-government operation, it is operated very efficiently. Over this next couple of years, we're going to have the largest public works project in Northern Nevada. We're going to spend 80 million dollars on runways at the airport, most of it financed by federal funds. And, we're really proud of our airport and we're got a lot of work for this board to do over the next couple of years.
Senator Raggio disclosed to the committee he is partners in the same law firm as Mr. Sande and would not be voting on S.B. 55.
The Chairman asked for any opposition to S.B. 55. There being none, she closed the hearing on S.B. 55 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 90.
SENATE BILL 90: Establishes policy and procedure for naming state property. (BDR 27-127)
Senator Adler spoke in favor of S.B. 90 stating:
I was chairman of the subcommittee to study the establishment of a policy and procedure for the naming of state buildings. I'd like to say, parenthetically, this was the shortest interim study of last session and possibly is the shortest interim study of Nevada's history. We met for 2 - 1/2 hours and put together this report. We did do quite a bit of research on this topic. Contrary to what has been reported in the press, this study had nothing to do with Floyd Lamb and Floyd Lamb park. We never discussed it, that wasn't the impetuous for this study bill and there's absolutely no relationship. What we did, however, do is that after the naming of the Sedway Building--and this isn't to state whether it was a wise choice or an unwise choice--people realized that we did not have a system for naming state buildings within the State of Nevada and that we needed to have a more orderly system for naming buildings. Mr. Crosley, (Legislative Counsel Bureau LCB), through the LCB, did a considerable amount of research on this. When we had the committee hearings, we found that really no state had a very good system for naming state buildings. We thought that there might be a state or entity out there that had some logical system but we couldn't really find any. So, I'd like to go through what we found in our current statutory system and maybe explain to you how we got to where we got to. The following three statutes do exist in regards to naming states buildings. One is (Nevada Revised Statutes) NRS 338.220 which is a prohibition against naming public building or structure after a member of the governing body -- which states, 'no public building or other public structure other than a street or road may be named after a person who is at the time a member of the governing body which has jurisdiction or control over the building or structure or which is responsible for it.' And, we have another provision in NRS 327.110, 'Nevada State Board of Geographic Names Creation Purpose, And, this states, 'The Nevada State Board of Geographic Names is hereby created to coordinate and approve geographic names within the state for official recommendation to the United States Board of Geographic Names.' That's the other provision we have. And, the third statute is NRS 407.065 which states, 'The administrator of the Division of Parks, State Department of Conservation, Natural Resources, has the authority to name state parks, monuments and recreation areas of the state'. The executive branch of the government has a policy of naming state buildings built with general fund monies after former governors. Our committee, in studying this, found that generally they named them after former governors that no one has ever heard of. So, we had a problem with that as we went through those provisions. This policy however, has been followed consistently. The executive branch has not attempted to name a building provided for by non-general fund monies, i.e. The Employment Security building, the State Industrial Insurance building. The University of Nevada System has a procedure for naming buildings, dormitories and other properties belonging to the system. This isn't in the report, but we found that there was kind of a two part test on that which had to do with whether someone was a public figure and whether they'd contributed a lot of money to the University of Nevada System. So, they definitely had a procedure but it worked pretty well. Infrequently, the State Legislature has named a building an enactment of a concurrent resolution. Section 2, lines 8 through 10 exempts the UNS (University of Nevada System) systems, since it has a policy for naming buildings. That goes to the current bill.
Chairman O'Connell asked Senator Adler to address page 2, Section 5 of S.B. 90 why it was necessary to have an advisory committee to name buildings and where the funds would come from for such advisory committee's travel and per diem.
Senator Adler stated the idea was not to pay any money to the advisory committee.
Chairman O'Connell asked if it was possible to have an existing committee which was now appointed take the responsibilities for the proposed advisory committee in S.B. 90.
Senator Adler answered the interim committee looked at every possible existing committee such as the committee on geographic names and the legislative commission and could not find an appropriate committee for the naming of state buildings. Senator Adler added Senator Horn and Joan Lambert were on the interim committee. They had all decided it was necessary to have a representative from the legislative branch and the executive branch in order to make such an advisory committee fair. Senator Adler said a committee would be evaluating different persons contributions to state government. He added, if the legislative commission was appointed as the advisory board as suggested in S.B. 90, then most buildings would be named after legislators and he used the same example for the executive branch.
Senator Adler went on to explain S.B. 90:
What we're afraid of, yet I think the reason for this interim committee originally, was you have incidents where someone dies and everyone feels very emotional about it at the time. The first thing that happens is there is a tendency to want to name a building after them and Senator Horn was especially mindful of this because at that point he was extremely ill. And, he was the one that suggested that there be a 3-year cooling off period and there needed to be some sort objective criteria. I mean, this is still subjective, but it's much more objective than the way we're doing it now prior to naming a building after an official. And so that's how we got to where we did on this. The only dispute on the committee, and I lost this dispute, the governor under this bill can name a building. He does not have to refer it to the committee for an advisory opinion. The other two members of the committee supported that position. My position was that the governor would have to refer to the advisory committee for an opinion. That was really the only debate on the committee that I recall.
Senator Hickey remarked:
I want to go back--since you brought in the parks into this system--the proposal in our study also addresses a historical issue in the development of the parks systems. There's already in place a state advisory board in the park's system. Perhaps, as we go in here, and I would really like to look specifically when we're dealing about parks, how to manage that. I'm not so interested in the buildings but I am interested in how parks are named. And, there is some historical significance in some of our parks and their locations. The proposal, if it is approved by this legislature, is going to merge some of the people that look at the very historical monuments across this state. So, I'd like to work with Senator Adler on this and maybe we can merge some of our ideas.
Senator Adler stressed:
I think the intention was that a person would be named for something that they were associated with. If they were, say a great naturalist, a park would be named after them. If they were a state legislator, a legislative building, and so forth. Some of that is consistent with what state parks is doing now.
Senator Rhoads stated the advisory committee was a very good idea. He went on to say he wished the governor would have to use the advisory committee when naming a state park or building in order to take the politics out of the process.
Senator Raggio asked why the interim committee decided to limit the available names which could be utilized. Senator Raggio continued:
Let me give you some examples. This would limit state buildings, state parks, whatever -- if it were an individual name rather than a geographic name -- to a person who had made a significant contribution to the state while in the service of state government. Now, an obvious suggestion, why would you want to preclude naming a building, for example, after a United States senator or a congressman or a president or a person in the private sector. I'm not asking this in a way to sound like I'm critical. It just seems to me that the committee concept is good. Some criteria, and I want to commend you on this because I have never felt that you had to wait until somebody died to recognize them. Now, the three year period may or may not be the right period but I believe sometimes you should honor people while they're still alive. It means a lot more to them while they're living than after they're dead. Did the committee consider that at all.
Senator Adler replied:
I can recall the discussion on that fairly clearly. What their feeling was is that there's so many people in state government that are worthy of naming a building or doing something for that they wanted to kind of limit the universe of who they would name buildings after or parks and so forth. I would agree with you that probably is not necessary in that you probably could have other persons. But I think what they meant by making a significant contribution to the state, they meant private individuals as well.
Senator Raggio said the language in S.B. 90 did not accommodate anyone being honored except someone in the service of the state government.
John Crosley,Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the interim committee wanted buildings and parks to be named after people in state government rather than private individuals.
Senator Adler replied:
I think it was really an attempt to limit the number of names that could be considered. But, I don't personally think there's anything wrong with just deleting that section. It makes the decision making process more difficult for the committee is the only thing that it does because you have a bigger universe of names. But, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Senator Hickey asked:
How do you address, for instance, a park up in Caliente called Ryan -- Kenshaw or Ryan-- park, who, probably for that area is historically significant. And, you start saying well we can't... We can only name it after government officials or geographic areas when you're talking about probably a gun toter, maybe almost mystical in that area who helped establish Caliente. Not of his own making, but how do you address that if you start limiting, saying well, it's only going to be certain kinds. Then, I'm sure if we start looking across the State of Nevada, there'd be the other issues dealing with wildlife, with certain refuges, that kind of thing. Maybe out here in the 40 mile dessert, we might decide, we build a monument for the old pony express, that type of thing. There's some problems that I see in it.
Chairman O'Connell clarified with Senator Adler the language which limited the names which could be used for naming certain state cites could be deleted from the bill. Senator Adler answered:
I personally don't and I also don't have a problem with having it as a mandatory clause instead of having an advisory directing the governor to refer those names to the committee because that does remove it even farther away from any political consideration which I think is what we were trying to do with this. I might add, the state archives has excellent records on contributions that different people have made to different areas of the state so I believe if we set up this committee and really did the research, I think you would come up with some good names for a lot of these parks and so forth.
Chairman O'Connell asked for further testimony on S.B. 90, there being none, she closed the hearing on S.B. 90 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 81.
SENATE BILL 81: Provides for establishment of fees for child and family services. (BDR 18-408)
John Sarb, Administrator of the Division of Child and Family Services introduced Tammy L. Tovey, Deputy Attorney General assigned to the Division of Child and Family Services. They spoke in favor of S.B. 81. Mr. Sarb told the committee S.B. 81 was a result of an interim committee which had been overseeing the work of the Division of Child and Family Services during 1992. Mr. Sarb's continued his testimony by reading directly from EXHIBIT C.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Sarb if he had developed a proposed fee schedule if the bill were passed. Mr. Sarb stated he was using an existing fee schedule from the Welfare Division.
Mr. Sarb continued:
I don't really think at this point, I mean there's some guidelines here of course in the bill as to how the fees should look but I think that I don't anticipate a great many changes at this point from the existing fees. Perhaps to make some allowances for whole families or split families. We would simply revisit the existing mental health schedules and welfare schedules and see if they are appropriate. I anticipate the application of these fees to be mostly in the voluntary services where people seek us out for service or as a guideline to the courts when they order payment in certain custody cases.
Senator Lowden asked for a scenario of a person or person who would be charged for the services of the Division of Child and Family Services.
Mr. Sarb answered:
If a client were to self-refer or a family brings their child into Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services for counseling, then under the previous arrangement and as part of the mental health division, they are required by law to set and charge fees for their service and we've inherited that. We would be doing the same thing then. Setting and charging a fee based on a sliding fee scale.
Senator Lowden clarified if Mr. Sarb would be deciding who and who could not afford such services. He stated his department would be making those judgments. Mr. Sarb added the top end of the fee schedule would be cost-of-care and scaled down based on the client's ability to pay.
Senator Hickey asked what was the reason for S.B. 81 if there was no change in the fee schedule and not much of a change in the way the Division of Child and Family Services was doing business.
Mr. Sarb replied:
Again, I don't want to get into the business of speaking for an interim committee here, but as I understand it right now you've got the fees as developed and going forward or approved by the welfare board which we no longer relate to or by the Mental Health Commission which we no longer deal with. I think that we need some ability to set our own fees going forward and to make the changes. There is no provision right now for this division to set fees. Again, I don't know that I anticipate. I can't point to anything, Senator, that I would say, this is a poor fee arrangement right now and we want to change it. I can't point to one like that. But I think going forward, such a situation were to arise, then we have no ability to set a fee.
Senator Callister expressed a concern:
I guess I would want to reserve final judgement until I saw the full report from the interim study. But just preliminarily I'm troubled by the notion of wanting to assess a fee. I guess for fear, and this just may be fear of the unknown, that somebody would, a family in need or a child in need or single parent in need of services who couldn't afford to go to a private provider who wasn't taken care of under their existing insurance plan or had none would then turn, theoretically, to your division for some assistance and then discover that there's a fee involved, maybe perhaps then would say 'gosh, I can't afford that extra. Even it may seem innocuous to some of us, that extra small dollar amount may be just enough to swing the pendulum against the decision of using or accessing these services. I have a couple of questions, I guess, that arise out of that. Was there a dialogue in the study about, was there discussion about that possibility that somebody may not utilize the services because the fee was a possibility. You say you'd be remiss to use it except in circumstances where the court ordered it or they were coming to you for services. Was there any discussion of the person who may be coming to you voluntarily whether or not that individual may say no I can't afford to use the services, was that considered.
Mr. Sarb answered according to statutes, his division was required to charge the fee now and the purpose for S.B. 81 was to be able to set their own fee schedule. Mr. Sarb added the requested amendment found in EXHIBIT C would allow the Division of Child and Family Services to waive fees in cases where the fee would be a barrier.
Senator Callister asked why S.B. 81 does not ask for a fee to be assessed only when a client comes voluntarily or when the court mandates a client pay a fee.
Mr. Sarb answered:
I'm not sure that I can answer that. I think that it appears what's done here in the bill drafting attempts to give us that authority and then you see a long list of excepts to that which basically are exceptions where fee setting already exists in some fashion in the law. For example, adoptions...
Senator Callister asked, "based on your experience, what do most other states do. Do they charge a fee when people come to their child and family services equivalent divisions."
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 81 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 82.
SENATE BILL 82: Requires division of child and family services of department of human resources to adopt certain regulations in accordance with Nevada Administrative Procedure Act. (BDR 18-400)
John Sarb testified in favor of S.B. 82:
S.B. 82 is another bill coming out of the interim study committee. It would require the division to adopt certain regulations in adoptions consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. We have absolutely no problem with this bill. In fact, we'd like to point out that the division regards itself, I think appropriately, as an administrative procedures' act agency. Of course, the Welfare Division is an exception to that. So, we've already started the process of converting their policies to regulation. Have gotten it through in some cases and still have some work to do in others.
Senator Raggio asked if S.B. 82 was necessary because of the proposed reorganization from the governor's office. Mr. Sarb answered in the negative to Senator Raggio's question.
Senator O'Connell asked if the Division of Child and Family Services was included in the open meeting law in S.B. 82.
Mr. Sarb answered:
I think what's happened is that the Welfare Division is exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act. Their policies are simply approved by the welfare board. And, most of our child welfare services currently in this division were in the Welfare Division. Protective services, foster care adoptions. As they became part of this division, we regarded ourselves as an Administrative Procedures Act agency and so we have started to convert their policy documents into regulation. We have done it, for example, for the regulations concerning child placing agencies for foster care licensing. Protective services has been submitted to LCB. It's a fair amount of work because when they wrote up those policies, they tended to mix statute... what would be regulation and what would be agency operating policy, into the same document. So, kind of pulling those apart and examining them and getting them into the proper format is taking some time. We plan on doing that with all of those welfare board policies, adoptions included. I can only conclude that the committee felt that adoptions in particular we should proceed with. They wanted to emphasize, I guess, the importance of doing that with adoptions.
Senator Callister asked for a copy of the interim study which resulted in S.B. 82. The chairman said she would make a copy of the interim available to Senator Callister.
Senator Hickey asked Mr. Sarb if S.B. 82 would change the system as to how procedures were handled at the present time.
Mr. Sarb stated:
No, I think frankly Senator, the biggest benefit is that when policy or regulation is developed now, I believe that the Administrative Procedures Act requirements--notice of public hearing and so forth, make those changes more open and the public is more able to have input than was the current practice under the Welfare Division.
Senator Hickey asked if the changes in S.B. 82 were good for a child in the Child and Family Services charge. Using a test tube baby as an example, Senator Hickey asked if the procedures which would be used by Child and Family Services would benefit the child.
Mr. Sarb replied:
That circumstance would be unaffected by changes contemplated in this bill... For example, to the extent that client confidentially is a matter of law now, would be unchanged by this bill. So, we're not going to open up adoption records as a result of this bill or client confidentially is still a matter of law and still unchanged.
Senator Nevin asked if the Child and Family Services Department was exempt from the open meeting law. The senator went on to explain it was an oversight because of an oversight by the committee putting together the governor's reorganization plan. Senator Nevin stated there was a plan in the works which would put the Child and Family Services back into a position where it would have to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act.
Mr. Sarb added he did not want Senator Nevin to confuse the committee with the governor's reorganization plan. Mr. Sarb explained the committee which prepared S.B. 82 was not aware of any plans for the governor's reorganization.
Senator Nevin explained:
Absolutely, this is why I brought it up because this has occurred way before the reorganization plan that is coming about. There were some places where...like, if your division was changed to another section under the governor's office, then you wouldn't have to post meetings and have open meetings because you have that executive protection. This was an oversight I'm sure by the governor and I'm sure he would look at that and place it back into place.
Senator Raggio stated:
The thrust of this bill seems to be on page 2 and it indicates that if the duties of the Welfare Division with the relation to adoption or placement of children are assigned to your division by the director, then you have the authority. In fact, you have the duty, to adopt the regulations. Which regulations, I guess, are already in place in the Welfare Division, or not?
Mr. Sarb answered:
...the Welfare Division, of course, doesn't follow the Administrative Procedures Act. They are not required to and they don't. This bill would require us to follow the Administrative Procedures Act... I guess to answer your question, I'm not sure that there is a need because at least we have regarded ourselves as being required to follow the Administrative Procedures Act and have done so.
Chairman O'Connell asked if the Child and Family Services division was currently operating under the Administrative Procedures Act as mandated by statute.
Tammy Tovey, Deputy Attorney General, Division of Child and Family Services, State of Nevada replied to Senator O'Connell's question:
(NRS) 233.039 exempts the Welfare Division. When the director assigned certain areas from the Welfare Division to the Division of Child and Family Services, we proceeded under the Administrative Procedures Act. There are certain regulations pertaining to the adoptions currently that are contained in the policy manuals from the Welfare Division. What we're going through and doing is pulling out those that are policy and those that are regulation. And, those will be adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. They'll be noticed for meeting. There will be public hearings. And, that's how we've done it with certain areas that already operate under the division.
Chairman O'Connell asked Caren Jenkins to have the Legislative Counsel Bureau legal division examine S.B. 82 as to whether S.B. 82 was necessary to place the Division of Child and Family Services under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Senator Rhoads asked what the term "permanent free care" in S.B. 82 meant.
Tammy Tovey stated she was not certain but she guessed "permanent free care" meant when a child was placed under the custody of the Child and Family Care Division and the parental rights were terminated without an adoption.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Sarb to supply the committee with any amended language he proposed on S.B. 82 and closed the hearing on S.B. 82.
The chairman asked for a motion to introduce a bill draft request. She explained Bill Draft Request (BDR) 21-951 was an individual private-party request.
BDR 21-951:Authorizes annexation of portion of unincorporated town by city under certain circumstances if annexation is approved by governing body of unincorporated town.
SENATOR CALLISTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 21-951.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Diana Gamble,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
January 27, 1993
Page 1