MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 4, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Friday, June 4, 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 Ernest E. Adler, Capital Senatorial District
Senator William R. O'Donnell, District 5
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Principal Research Analyst
Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
John Swenseid, Bonds Council, City of Las Vegas
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association
Don Hataway, Budget Division, State of Nevada
Barbara Bernabie, Concerned Citizen, Clark County
David Luke, Ph.D., Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation
Jack Middleton, Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation Brian Lahren, Executive Director, Washoe Association for Retarded Citizens
Robert Barengo, Lobbyist, The Michie Company
Cecilia Colling, Deputy Director, Commission on Economic Development
Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission (RTC)
Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 460.
SENATE BILL 460: Authorizes sale of call feature of municipal bonds.
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, testified on S.B. 460. He told the committee this bill is simple, but the subject is complex. He referred to a written example which is Exhibit C and he turned the meeting over to John Swenseid.
John Swenseid, Bonds Council, City of Las Vegas, called the committee's attention to Exhibit C and went through this with the committee.
Chairman O'Connell asked if what this bill refers to is like refinancing your house, but it would be refinancing the bonds.
Mr. Swendseid stated that is correct.
Chairman O'Connell stated when there is enough money to call the bond in does that mean the project is finished.
Mr. Leavitt stated normally the bonds council would, but they usually do not have enough money to call it in so they issue a new bond and those proceeds pay off the old bonds. He explained the new bonds would bear an interest rate which is lower than the interest rate on the existing bonds and it is a savings of the interest plus whatever costs it takes to issue the bonds.
Chairman O'Connell asked if they can only use the source of revenue from the bond or can they use the source of money from somewhere else when the bond is called.
Mr. Swendseid stated if there was enough money from some source other than doing a bond issue, they would probably do that because they would not pay any interest from then on.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 460 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 457.
SENATE BILL 457: Creates Nevada commission on long-term planning.
Senator Ernie E. Adler, Capitol Senatorial District, Carson City, Lyon and Storey Counties, testified on S.B. 457. He stated he asked for this bill to be drafted and it is modeled after Kentucky's long-term planning commission which came out of the Kentucky legislature. He explained the first part of the bill explains the purpose for this commission is to develop long-term goals and objectives for government which includes education, prisons, data processing and other areas. He stated section 3 explains the members of the planning commission and where the commission will originate. He told the committee section 8 explains the powers of the commission which are powers to conduct studies and examine existing studies. He stated they also have the ability to accept gifts and grants. He pointed out section 9 gives them the ability to form other advisory commissions or committees to study special areas. Senator Adler stated section 11 explains a director who, in conjunction with the commission, does biennial reports which are extremely important and they are periodically prepared. He explained they report the policy options of the future of the state for a 5 or 10 year period or a period deemed appropriate by the commission. He pointed out section 12 states each agency must submit to the department of administration a list of long-term issues for study and each agency must consider the trends in the state and the potential implications of the trends and submit a written response to the commission within 60 days after receiving the report. Senator Adler stated section 3 states the agencies must submit a statement regarding how its budget priorities address the trends and long-term implications of the trends set forth in the biennial report. He explained their budget has to fit in with long-term goals and planning as well. He stated each interim legislative committee also shall biennially submit a list of issues for study by the commission and suggest legislation which responds to the biennial report. He told the committee this bill requires the legislative and executive branches and local governments to work together and it requires them all to work together on certain common goals over a long-term basis. He stated he is not set on this exact draft of the bill and he is willing to listen to any suggested amendments. He told the committee in terms of implementation he recognizes this is a tight budgetary time and there is a confirmation process in the first portion of the bill in section 3 that states the five members appointed by the legislative commission must be confirmed by the assembly and the senate and the six members appointed by the Governor must be confirmed by the assembly and the senate. He stated he does not see a problem with starting this process in 1995 with the confirmation of those members by the 1995 legislature whereby not spending any money this session. Senator Adler stated he feels we should be working towards long-term goals and planning within the state government and start mapping out where we are going, what our objectives are and what we plan to do with all the areas within the government.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, spoke to the committee on S.B. 457. She stated since this bill was introduced they received a report from Florida, Texas and another report from Alabama. She told the committee Nevada has got to move into the 21st Century. She explained for the last three sessions they have discussed the fact that they need to move onto electronic funds transfer and paper less transfers. She told the committee this is the type of mechanism they need in place to take a look at the areas and budget out the money. She stated this state is growing rapidly and they have problems that need to be addressed. She told the committee she concurred with Senator Adler's suggestion of starting this mechanism in 1995. She urged the committee's support of this bill.
Senator Rhoads said he really likes this bill and what it could achieve, but he is reluctant because of the large fiscal note.
Senator Adler stated what Kentucky did was use a lot of their own legislative staff and they borrowed staff from the executive branch so it cut down on the fiscal impact.
Chairman O'Connell stated she applauds this bill. She explained she was very surprised when she first came to the legislature that the state did not have a long-term plan or goal.
Don Hataway, Budget Division, State of Nevada, testified on S.B. 457. He stated they are not opposed to this concept. He stated this process is in place within the state government already. He also stated when they talk about a 5 or 10 year plan with the federal mandates which are changing rapidly within gaming it can be difficult. He told the committee going beyond 2 years in planning ahead can be fraught with difficulties. He pointed out he prepared the fiscal note and would be happy to answer questions on this. He pointed out in section 3, subsection 3-a it states five members will be appointed and confirmed by the assembly and senate, however in section 5, page 2, it was his interpretation it said "a member who is appointed by the legislature, when the legislature is not in session, and whose appointment must be confirmed by the assembly and senate may serve on the commission until confirmation during the next legislative session." He explained there is no effective date, although under current process without an effective date, the effective date is October 1, 1993, which he feels will start the process this coming biennium and any appointments by the legislative commission would be confirmed by the legislature in 1995. He stated that seems like a backwards process in the fact that the hope is that the legislative appointees or confirmations would start out on the right foot. He stated it is an area of interpretation that they wanted to bring to the committee's attention so if they want to pursue all or part of this particular process, that needs to be clarified.
Senator Hickey suggested breaking the 21 members up into subcommittees which may work better, however, the change he suggested is broad and cumbersome. He explained with that large amount of people they would be able to develop expertise and depth through subcommittees.
Mr. Hataway stated the subcommittees in addition to the 21 are authorized by this bill so there could be multiple people involved beyond the basic 21 members. He stated he suggests a 21-member planning commission in relation to the normal size of commission seems to be very unyielding. He stated the ability to address the fiscal responsibilities in regard to what is identified here is a little disjointed in the sense that the reporting responsibilities of the director of this commission is December 31 on even numbered years. He explained in budget preparation and the ability to address the short-term issues if there are issues that are identified through this process, that really should be worked into the budget of the state. He explained the budget process starts in July and the ability of an agency to adequately address and propose for the Governor's consideration for inclusion into the executive budget is 6 months too late. He feels if they are going to have this they need the report to come out in July before the legislative session, or sooner if possible, because some of the major agencies actually begin their process well before. He stated the fiscal impact he prepared was based upon preliminary impact received from other states. He explained he has limited staff resources and there may be some abilities to borrow staff from other executive or legislative branch agencies or the university system. He stated in conclusion it is not that they are against long-term planning and development of critical issues and strategic planning and so forth they feel they have started that process and he suggested it may be something the legislators would consider building upon and not start out with a brand new entity which would have a potentially sizable fiscal impact.
Chairman O'Connell stated she feels this is a very worthwhile project and suggested Senator Adler meet with Ms. Vilardo and Mr. Hataway to make the necessary changes and come back to the committee next Monday.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 457 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 469.
SENATE BILL 469: Revises provisions restricting definition of "single-family residence" in local ordinance.
Barbara Bernabie, Concerned Citizen, Clark County, spoke on S.B. 469. She stated she perceives this bill as written, to state individuals with mental retardation would not be welcome in the community. She gave the committee copies of a petition she collected which is Exhibit D.
Chairman O'Connell stated for the record:
I don't need to defend Senator O'Donnell, but this bill came as a request from a constituent so this is not expressing his feelings necessarily about the issue. It is a request that a constituent made.
Mrs. Bernabie stated she has two children who are neurologically impaired and she is an educational surrogate parent for 15 children, appointed by the Clark County School District. She stated she has been an advocate for 20 years and had been involved in founding or sitting on quite a number of boards between education, mental health and others. She stated the opposition on the petition is against anything which would disrupt the individual rights for any reason whether it is government run, mentally retarded, color, race or any discrimination.
Senator Callister asked her if this bill would do that.
Mrs. Bernabie stated she absolutely believes that this bill would do that. She stated it states they cannot have group homes of six or more and it singles out people with mental retardation.
William R. O'Donnell, Senator, District 5, testified on S.B. 469. He stated he was given a call by a constituent who asked if he would introduce this bill. He explained he did not ask to be the introducer of this bill. He stated he introduced this measure because this constituent moved into this neighborhood and then there was a house bought two doors down from her and immediately eight people moved into that house and they were coming out and accosting this ladies' children in a manner that was not normal. He explained he questioned her on what she had done locally to prevent this from happening and she was told there is no law that says they have to go through a county commission to get a use permit for a mental health facility in a residential area. He stated he felt there should be a forum where the issue can be discussed prior to it affecting the neighborhood. He told the committee it does not preclude group homes, all it says is for the definition, if there is going to be a government entity a county ordinance will look at this in terms of zoning or a use permit and they will be able to go to that forum and get approval from the county commission to do that.
Senator Hickey asked if the bill is dealing with contractual homes where individuals who are mentally retarded are living together, but they are unrelated.
Mrs. Burnaby stated she interpreted this bill to refer to contractual homes to which Senator Hickey alluded.
Senator O'Donnell stated in 1987 the legislature had this particular measure and it was decided at that time they would allow these group homes and he told the committee he voted for the measure. He told the committee the contractual businesses did not have to get any county approval. He explained they could get a license and open up in a residential area without any kind of approval. He emphasized S.B. 469 puts the responsibility back onto the county.
Senator Hickey asked what the real purpose for these single family residences and why is there a need for them. He asked if it would be acceptable to have these decisions made by the county and city governments.
Senator O'Donnell stated that in fact is what S.B. 469 does is put the decision for licensing these homes back to the counties and cities.
Mrs. Burnaby told the committee when it was stated individuals with disabilities do break laws, it was a true comment. She explained research shows the same percentage of individuals with disabilities break the law as do people who are nondisabled. She suggested what would eliminate all of these types of problems would be if the individual who alleged their children were accosted would just call the police and file a complaint. She stated she feels these types of crimes should be reported just like any other crime and therefore let the system take its course instead of making a categorical determination that an entire population is at fault.
David Luke, Ph.D., Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation spoke in opposition to S.B. 469. He stated it has been a long-standing state and federal policy to provide greater opportunities, while eliminating discrimination, against persons with mental retardation. He stated they oppose this bill due to the fact it could provide discriminatory impact on more than 400 mentally retarded persons currently residing successfully in community settings in Nevada. He stated this bill permits discrimination against persons with mental retardation. He told the committee the community settings provide the highest quality of care by affording persons the opportunities to participate in all facets of community life. He stated numerous research studies have documented the improved quality of life and functional capability of persons living in the community. He explained lastly, this bill is most likely in violation of the federal law Fair Housing Amendment of 1988 and could jeopardize federal funding to municipalities or the state due to discrimination that might result. He stated he feels this bill would set back the care of persons with mental retardation possibly as much as 20 years. He gave the committee a copy of his testimony, Exhibit E.
Chairman O'Connell asked what precautions or the standards that a person must meet prior to being put into a regular living area or neighborhood in one of these group homes.
Dr. Luke stated each of the individuals his department serves has a disciplinary team and a plan and their individual needs would be recognized and if they have some type of safety or supervision needs, they would be accommodated in whatever living setting they are placed. He pointed out their primary mission is not dealing with law. He told the committee these are just people who just need the additional assistance to participate in community life. He explained in terms of screening them, more often than not they are screened and the agency is eager to provide the correct kinds of supervision so they can be functioning and it is rarely the case they cause problems, although there are some individuals who will commit certain types of crimes.
Senator O'Connell asked if sexual offenders would be placed in these types of group homes.
Dr. Luke stated those individuals usually would not be placed in those group home settings. He explained there are a couple of cases of individuals who have that type of history and they are actually not placed in community homes, but are in facilities or other types of settings.
Jack Middleton, Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation spoke on S.B. 469. He stated they started placing individuals with mental retardation in 1972 and now there are over 450 placed in the community today in a variety of settings.
Senator Hickey asked what value of homes are being purchased to provide a home for these individuals.
Mr. Middleton stated they need a four bedroom home which has bedrooms of at least 120 square feet and those are found in the more affluent neighborhoods. He stated they range in the area of $150,000 to $200,000 homes. He told the committee he has been sued by families who were opposed to this type of home in their neighborhood. He stated the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the lower court in 1988 that they could place these individuals in these home settings. He explained his agency has now put 182 handicapped individuals into apartments in this state and 140 of them have been placed since the last session of the legislature.
Senator Lowden asked if these homes are licensed or not and are the administrators of these homes required to have any special education and are they licensed as well.
Dr. Luke stated the current homes are certified through the Bureau of Licensing Certification and they do have a separate set of standards for these homes. He explained those standards include qualifications for staff and in addition the state provides case managers so there is a tracking process.
Senator Callister stated the most compelling argument on this bill is whether it is a violation of the Fair Housing Amendment of 1988.
Mr. Middleton stated he had called the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and they could not give him a definite answer as to whether S.B. 469 as it is written is in violation of Housing and Urban Development,(HUD), law. He explained, however, if condition covenants or zoning would then preclude the houses, then it would be in violation and have to go to the courts.
Senator O'Donnell stated to actually prohibit a home is against the statute, but this bill allows the county commission a forum and if they prohibit it in their actions then they would be in violation. He emphasized this bill does allow the forum to take place.
Brian Lahren, Executive Director, Washoe Association for Retarded Citizens, spoke on S.B. 469. He told the committee he felt Senator O'Donnell did the right thing by bringing this bill forward and he stated he admires his courage in taking responsibility for that. He stated, however, this bill would basically make it impossible to site more group homes in the community and it would be extremely detrimental to all of the interests as they try to deinstitutionalize, reduce costs and provide a more integrated life for the retarded people in the community.
Chairman O'Connell asked if there are any group homes presently anticipated to be opened.
Mr. Lahren stated there is growth money for additional homes in the residential placement fund budget for this coming year. He explained before the passage of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.021, they had a terrible time making these placements and every one of them ended up in a fight.
Chairman O'Connell stated the committee would check with their legal counsel as to whether this is constitutional or not and get back to the individuals who testified on this bill. She then closed the hearing on S.B. 469 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 324.
SENATE BILL 324: Requires performance of certain activities by private enterprise unless public performance is compelled.
Senator Rhoads introduced this bill to the committee. He stated he intended to limit this bill to state agencies and also because of the fiscal note he suggested when they go through the procedure the applicant would have to pay the processing fees as it goes through the procedure. He stated what this bill would do is if a private entity out there decided they could do a service cheaper than a state agency would do it, then they would fill out a petition and forward it on to the commission on economic development. He stated economic development would then sort out the ones they felt were valid and they would hold a hearing and the private industry would then have to come in and plead their case and they would have to pay for the processing charges. He told the committee he feels very strongly that there are a lot of functions the state government does that private industry could do a lot better and more efficiently to save taxpayers' money.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, spoke in support of S.B. 324. She stated she does not know the proper format or if the economic development commission is the proper forum for hearing this issue, but there is definitely a case for the bill and she stated she had been involved with some of the members on these issues. She feels this would enable private industry to perform a service for the state which would save the state money. She emphasized it would take the state out of business and take the state out of private business which would allow the state to manage its resources better than actually getting involved in doing some of these jobs. She stated her association supports this bill, but they suggest letting it work on a state level first to see how well it works. She stated if individuals are allowed to petition to have the hearings she suggested to the committee amend this bill to include a reasonable cost for the hearing.
Senator Hickey stated on page 5 of the bill it states, "any place the county could make money to help offset the cost would make it vulnerable to private sector charges of competition so we would be left with only to a basic nonentrepeneur function." He told Ms. Vilardo this happens in Clark County and he suggested they hold this bill until Clark County could respond to this section of the bill, since it has to do with them.
Ms. Vilardo stated she feels this section is viable for the local governments, but she thinks the overriding concern is to get the state doing more of this. She explained she knows Clark County has been using an internal bid procedure against their outside bids and has, in fact, been able to save considerable money because it has created competition. She told the committee if the local governments were included in this it should be made permissive and possibly they could be given a local forum rather than being forced into using the state agency. Ms. Vilardo suggested they take parts of this bill to create the bill they need, because she feels it is a viable concept.
Senator Rhoads stated they are going to narrow the bill down to state agencies, but they will find out if there are any fiscal problems.
Robert Barengo, Lobbyist, The Michie Company, who stated his company asks the legislature to expand the bill to also include the legislative government. He told the committee his company publishes the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) which is competitive with the Nevada Revised Statutes which are published by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. He emphasized The Michie Company feels they could save the legislature a considerable amount of money by publishing the NRS.
Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Barengo to provide the committee with written information which would show the savings the Michie Company could provide to the legislature on the NRS publishing. She also asked Mr. Barengo if there is a price difference.
Mr. Barengo told the committee he would provide them with the savings potential and also he added, there is a price difference which he will provide to the committee.
Cecilia Colling, Deputy Director, Commission on Economic Development, told the committee the commission has not had an opportunity to discuss this bill so they have no comments on the concept. She stated, however, informally several members have called and expressed concerns about what this would mean to the operations of the commission. She explained what it would do is change the role significantly of the commission, mostly from proactive business development and expand it onto more research oriented work, which would require a lot more attention by the commissioners themselves. Ms. Colling stated as she understands the bill they would be asked to investigate and analyze the activities of both the agency and the private enterprise and make a determination as to whether it would be more cost-effective to do the function in the private sector.
Senator Rhoads stated the Commission on Economic Development upon receiving the petition would do some investigating on that particular agency and private company, but he feels at that stage they would weed out the phoney companies. He explained the commission would let the evidence come out during the hearing where the agencies and private sector could argue both sides and let them do most of the investigating. He reiterated the applicant rather than the state agency would have the pay for the processing.
Ms. Colling stated she would pass that information onto the commission. She told the committee another problem the commission has is in the bill it states a 20-day turnaround time and presently the commission meets three to four times a year. She explained this would require them to meet much more frequently which would cost more for travel and expenses for the commission. She told the committee the commissioners themselves usually have other jobs and have taken the appointment as a commissioner as a very part-time responsibility and with this added responsibility they may not want to continue to serve on the commission. Ms. Colling stated they have looked at what they may need to add to their staff if this bill becomes law and they decided they may need some legal advice and probably three new staff persons including two investigators and one clerical support person for them, and attorney fees. She told the committee the commission feels it would cost them in the neighborhood of $185,000 the first year and about $170,000 the second year. She added one more issue raised was they do not see any accountability. She explained if the commission were to certify an individual for this and it went into the private sector and they were unable to perform the activity or prices increased significantly, they do not see an accountability factor there.
Senator Rhoads stated Ms. Colling had brought up some very important issues and he told the committee he would try to address them in the amendment to this bill.
Mr. Hataway stated he briefly had an opportunity to review the fiscal note from Clark County and he feels there are some definitions which need to be addressed. He discussed with the committee his definition concerns and they told him they would try to address those in the amended bill.
Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), told the committee they have a small concern with this legislation. She explained in the RTC there are two components that are the construction component, meaning roads and bridges and secondly the transportation component. She stated the construction component is done completely privately and RTC does not hire any road workers themselves, road work is sent to private bid. She explained it is the cheapest way for them to do this. She told the committee the transportation portion of RTC has two prime functions the first of which is city-lift. She explained this is a paratransit operation which is a totally private company with which the RTC has a turn key contract. Ms. Tyler stated the second component is city fare, which is the mass transportation component, which is done approximately 50-50 private and public. She explained the public portion has a management company which operates that for them, but there are still a good portion of services maintained by the public agency which has been the most cost-effective way for them to operate that service. She told the committee she wanted to remind who and what the RTC is and their concerns with losing flexibility of the fairly small component of the service they provide which is still public. She told the committee the RTC's concerns are addressed in the amendment proposed by Carole Vilardo.
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
June 4, 1993
Page 1