MINUTES OF THE

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 19, 1993

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:09 p.m., on Wednesday, May 19, 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

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Matthew Q. Callister

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst

Ricka Benum, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Kirby Burgess, Lobbyist, Clark County

John Sherman, Lobbyist, Management Analyst, Washoe County

Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Anita Laruy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas

Eric V. Dabney, Director of Library, Parks and

  Recreation

Glen Rock, Director, Department of Personnel

Ruth Jones, Department of Personnel

Robert Elliot, Management Analyst, Clark County Election

  Department

Carolyne Edwards, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

 

 

Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing to testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 416.

 

 

SENATE BILL 416:  Requires county to establish procedures for collecting accounts receivable owed to county and removing uncollectible accounts receivable from records of county.  (BDR 31-1956)

 

Kirby Burgess, Lobbyist, Clark County, testified S.B. 416 is the county's attempt to establish guidelines to remove uncollectible accounts.  Mr. Burgess stressed the need for uniform procedures for county staff to follow, so they may eventually refer the debt to the county commissioners and have it removed from the books.

 

Mr. Burgess indicated the majority of the accounts are small ones that simply add up, however he indicated the largest debt owed Clark County is a $1 million debt owed to the Public Works Department.

 

Chairman O'Connell asked what current practice is done to collect debts to the county.  Mr. Burgess implied each department sends out their own notices, commenting it turns out to be a catch by catch process that has typically not worked.

 

Senator Rhoads questioned whether this would apply for all the counties.  Mr. Burgess answered yes, and indicated the measure would put in place, a uniform procedure to collect money owed to counties. 

 

John Sherman, Lobbyist, Management Analyst, Washoe County, told the committee the amendment he is proposing offers two options to the counties (Exhibit C), using the collection procedure or utilizing the district attorney's office.  Mr. Sherman stated that Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 244 is enabling legislation that allows counties to establish central collection functions, his amendment would serve to add flexibility to the statute. 

 

Senator Raggio asked why it is important to write debts off when they involve the public sector.   He stated he had a problem with writing off debts simply because there was no response within 60 or 90 days.

 

Mr. Sherman answered governmental accounting is such that some funds record account receivables as assets.  Therefore, without the ability to write off unpaid debts, some functions or accounts are actually over stating their equity position and improperly accounting their financial position.  In Mr. Sherman's opinion the bill would serve as a housekeeping measure by addressing the record-keeping of local governments so that it requires them to maintain records of debt amounts and the name of debtor.

 

 

Senator Raggio clarified S.B. 416 would be applied only to proprietary functions, and not to mean for example, assessments or taxes that become liens.  Mr. Sherman indicated that was correct.

 

Senator Hickey requested the bill to be amended to contain more detail.  He suggested additions of proof of mailing invoices and documentation of non-payment to be included in the application to have debts cleared if submitted to the district attorney's office, and declaration that the debt is uncollectible.  Senator Hickey stated this is a fair amount of information to submit to the county commissioners when asking them to make a determination on quieting debts.

 

Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, listed examples of accounts that could be included as typically having to be written off.  These included damage to street lights, if someone hits a traffic control signal, juvenile offenses or accidents that occur while someone is driving under the influence.  Mr. Leavitt stated these type of debts are hard to collect and usually involve substantial costs.  Many times, he explained, these circumstances involve bankruptcies, indigent persons or prison inmates.  As a usual course, attempts to collect debts are substantiated by computer invoices or files.

 

Senator Rhoads requested time to discuss S.B. 416 with representatives of the rural counties.  He pointed out, some of the smaller counties may have a procedure in place to collect what is owed, and this could result in an unnecessary mandate.

 

The hearing was closed on S.B. 416 and Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 441.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 441:      Authorizes creation of municipal library districts in North Las Vegas. (BDR S-934)

 

Anita Laruy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, testified in favor of A.B. 441.  Ms. Laruy told the committee the bill would enable the city to utilize the funds currently used for the library, to provide other needed services.  She explained further, the measure would also allow the city to increase the property tax rate by 5.7 cents and allow for the operation of the library the same as other local governments. 

 

Eric V. Dabney, Director of Library, Parks and Recreation, informed the committee the facility was originally built in 1965, with an addition completed in 1986.  Mr. Dabney indicated the City of North Las Vegas is seeking a change in its municipal charter to allow for the creation of a North Las Vegas Library District.

 

 

Mr. Dabney testified the boundaries of the district would be the same as the city's corporate boundaries.  These properties would continue to be assessed by the Las Vegas/Clark County Library District for services and would not have to pay the North Las Vegas Library District.  Mr. Dabney's entire testimony is referenced as Exhibit D.

 

Senator Lowden questioned if Mr. Dabney had surveyed the residents in the proposed district as to whether or not they are willing to pay for the library.  She expressed difficulty in understanding why the people would be willing to pay for a library when the parks question was overwhelmingly defeated on the last ballot.  Senator Lowden commented the North Las Vegas residents may want the library services, but she was not convinced they are willing to pay for them.

 

Senator Lowden requested the committee be furnished information stating how many of the North Las Vegas' new schools contain their own libraries.

 

Senator Hickey stated the library located in North Las Vegas is one of the most used facilities in the area.  He said the library also doubled as a community center and commented the new residential areas are causing an increasing demand for library services.  Senator Hickey indicated the existing library in North Las Vegas is not large enough to accommodate the people in area at present and the population is constantly growing.

 

Ms. Laruy testified the Clark County/Las Vegas Library District projected the need for three additional libraries in the coming 5 year period to serve the population.  She indicated this was true, even if the library district took over the North Las Vegas library district.  Ms. Laruy stated they are not even asking for the libraries they truly need, they are only asking to fund the library they have.  She attributed the residents concern to be for the education of their students.

 

Senator Hickey stated the North Las Vegas Library has the finest collection of practical mechanical books, dealing with construction arts and tools of working people.  He said it is truly geared to the population of the area.

 

The hearing was closed on A.B. 441 by the chairman and the meeting was opened to testimony on A.B. 106.

 

Assembly Bill 106:      Allows high school pupils to act as trainees for position of election board officer. 

            (BDR 24-210)

 

 

Robert Elliot, Management Analyst, Clark County Election Department, a proponent of A.B. 106, explained passage of the measure will allow high school seniors to be poll worker trainees.  Basically, Mr. Elliot explained the trainees will be assigned the same functions as all other poll workers, the only restriction being that a trainee may not serve as chairman of an election board.  The students must perform at an acceptable academic level, be approved by the principal and have the approval of their parents. 

 

Mr. Elliot indicated student trainees will be paid at the same level as other poll workers.  He stated they are looking for young people who have a genuine interest in the democratic process.  According to Mr. Elliot, the first printing of A.B. 106 included a population of 400,000 or more, making it apply only to Clark County.  After several county registrars of voters expressed an interest in implementing the trainee program in the smaller counties, the population language was deleted from the bill.

 

Mr. Elliot stressed the importance of the election poll work done by senior citizens.   He stated about 8,000 volunteers are recruited and he pointed out, approximately one-third of the poll workers drop out at the last minute, so they typically over recruit.  For this reason, he explained, they began broadening the base of people from which to recruit election workers.  They aimed at enlisting the young people who would be, in the near future, voters themselves, and encourage them to participate in the voting process.

 

Senator Lowden expressed reservation with the reasoning of paying high school students instead of giving extra credits as a part of a government class.  Mr. Elliot explained the would put all poll workers on an even basis.

 

Senator Nevin agreed with the concept of paying the trainees for the poll work.  He said it had been his experience that a lot of students volunteer, but very few students finish a job once the credit is given.

 

Senator Hickey pointed out since the students are not registered voters, they would not have a party affiliation.  It was agreed this language was not necessary in A.B. 106.

 

Chairman O'Connell inquired how much training would be given to the workers.  In responding, Mr. Elliot said 3 hours are required for each election, and each poll worker has the same training.  He also indicated there is an early evening class the high school students could attend, and the poll workers are not paid for the 3 hour training class.  Mr. Elliot further reported there was no opposing testimony to A.B. 106 when it was heard in the assembly.

 

Chairman O'Connell inquired:

 

      ...there is no doubt in your mind that they would take this very seriously and they would be able to handle any questions that came up at the polls...any of the challenges that would be made...

 

Mr. Elliot stated:

 

      Challenges...are handled by the election department, solely through assistant coordinator of the [election] boards...so we have total control over the process, in dealing with a challenge voter...the bill specifically says that a student could not be a chairman, and the chairman controls the board, makes the decisions, they have the manuals to follow...and have the same training as other election board officers go through...the students would have the maturity and responsibility to deal with a situation, like any other board member, based on that training...

 

      The states that have initiated this program have reported excellent results, with students taking it very seriously.

 

Senator Lowden indicated she had a difficult time understanding the purpose for paying students to accentuate learning in a government class.

 

Carolyn Edwards, Clark County School District, offered full support of A.B. 106.  Ms. Edwards indicated recent phone calls were made to school districts participating in similar programs in Hawaii and Minnesota, enabling the proponents to give a positive account of trainee programs in progress.  She assured the committee members the school district would keep track of when students are not in class and working on these types of special projects. 

 

Mr. Elliot stated payroll records for poll workers are closely scrutinized and agreed with Ms. Edwards that students being unaccounted for is not issue.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 376:            Makes various changes to statutory provisions governing public employment of persons with disabilities and prohibits expressly discrimination against certain persons.  (BDR 23-687)

 

Glen Rock, Director, Department of Personnel, testified A.B. 376 is designed to change Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) to conform to the federal guidelines initiated by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1992.  Mr. Rock outlined each section of the bill and explained what purpose each amendment would serve.

 

Chairman O'Connell questioned the word "certified" on page 3, section 7, line 13 of A.B. 376.  She also asked if any portion of the bill exceeds the federal ADA mandates.

 

Mr. Rock explained the certification program is directed by the  Rehabilitation Division, Department of Human Resources.  He said persons are certified under the program making them eligible for employment lists with the Department of Personnel.  He pointed out the language addresses the special certification program and applies only to the Rehabilitation Division.  He stressed the importance of insuring the NRS language is consistent with the ADA.

 

In the brief discussion that followed pertaining to section 8, Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Rock to define what the federal language means by "reasonable accommodations."  He indicated this to mean flexible scheduling, time off for medical appointments, or possible reassignment of duties or even transfers to vacant positions.  However, he explained, the federal examples are not all encompassing, and are to be made on a case by case basis.

 

In response to Chairman O'Connell's question regarding the cost to comply with the ADA, Mr. Rock stated the State of Nevada, and not each individual agency, will be considered the employer.  Chairman O'Connell surmised this to mean that the state possibly may have to make physical adjustments to actual work stations.  Mr. Rock agreed and introduced his department's ADA specialist who assisted in developing the initial guidelines.

 

Ruth Jones, Department of Personnel, in response to the question asked by Chairman O'Connell, stated the only available statistics on costs of conforming to the act are sketchy.  She estimated roughly 70 percent of accommodations requested would be under $1,000 to complete. 

 

Chairman O'Connell questioned the cost of replacing the elevator at the motor vehicles building, mentioned by Mr. Rock.  A specific amount or the certainty that a new elevator is needed to comply with the disability act was not known.

 

Senator Hickey indicated many of the state office buildings are leased and not owned, which may have been to the state's benefit.

 

 

There being no further committee business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.

 

 

                        RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                      

                        Ricka Benum,

                        Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                 

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                           

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Government Affairs

May 19, 1993

Page 1