MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
July 1, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 10:00 a.m., on Thursday, July 1, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A 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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Principal Research Analyst
Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno
Ralph Jack, Assistant City Manager, City of Reno
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, State of Nevada
Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities
Robert Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Lindsey Jydstrup, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Doug Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators
Al Edmundson, Lobbyist, Retired Public Employees of Nevada
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Kirby Burgess, Lobbyist, Clark County
Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands
Michelle Buro, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO)
Howard Barrett, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association
Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 557.
SENATE BILL 557: Requires certain political subdivisions to develop debt management policies.
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated the amendment for S.B. 557 does a number of things, but in section 1 is a provision that brings the emergency provisions into the bill.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, explained the emergency that may exist is because the bill created a future plan by each of the entities, but the way the original bill was worded, if a project was not on the futures list then the it could not be considered. She stated this provision is an escape valve for the local government if some emergency comes up for which they would need approval for a project that was not on the futures plan. She pointed out this also sets up the guidelines for the emergency projects.
Mr. Leavitt stated the local government would submit a 3-year plan and amend the plan every year to bring it up-to-date, but within that year if the project is not on the plan it would have to be approved as an emergency provision.
Ms. Vilardo stated this definition is the same as what was approved by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs and has gone through the whole cycle for the Administrative Procedures Act bill.
Mr. Leavitt stated on page 3 it refers to a range of tax rates when bonds are issued. He explained when bonds are issued it is very rare they will have exact equal payments every year and assessed valuation is going up all the time. He told the committee when the bonds are issued the voters are provided with a range of tax rates due to the fluctuation of the interest rates. He pointed out on page 4 there is a provision whereby the operating and maintenance rate has to be separately stated from the debt rate. He stated in section 8 there is a provision which states, "other than the limitations set forth in NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 361.453." He explained that NRS is where the $3.64 is found. He stated this is clarification that the $3.64 applies regardless of what is the levy. Mr. Leavitt stated at the bottom of page 5 there are conflicts.
Chairman O'Connell asked if the conflicts include the language for bills that have already been signed in this measure.
Mr. Leavitt stated that is correct and he added they are amending those measures. He explained one of the main things seen in the conflict is the provision which relates to the hospital levies and that provision is being repealed. All of the bills which contain that provision will have those provisions amended out of them.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT NO. 1324 AND DO PASS S.B. 557.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 557 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 573.
SENATE BILL 573: Requires state land registrar to release revisionary right in State of Nevada upon use of certain real property to City of Reno.
Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno, spoke on S.B. 573. She stated on behalf of Project Restart in the City of Reno, Sparks and Washoe County, they requested this bill to help facilitate the construction of a resource facility in conjunction with solving some of the homeless problems in the community.
Ralph Jack, Assistant City Manager, City of Reno, spoke on S.B. 573.
He explained this bill is proposing the City of Reno be able to use a portion of the corporation yard for the siting of a day center and a drop-in center as part of solving the homeless problem in the Truckee Meadows. He told the committee the second project would be a shelter for women and children with the Salvation Army. He stated the project has been coming together in the last month with the city council, City of Reno, Washoe County and the City of Sparks who have jointly come up with approximately $2.5 million to do two facilities. He explained the first is the one at the corporation yard for single males, predominantly and then the women and children's facility with the Salvation Army on Second Street. He told the committee the problem before them this morning is that negotiations on this is very delicate, particularly in terms of the coalitions and the compromises that some of the community groups are willing to take to join into a community partnership. He stated in order to move St. Vincents and other community properties from downtown to do the drop-in center at the corporation yard, St. Vincents wants clear title to the land.
Senator Raggio stated he is on the advisory board of the Salvation Army and he is aware of their program, but he asked how this proposal would conflict with their program.
Mr. Jack stated there is no conflict. He explained he sat down with the group from the Salvation Army and they came to an agreement that they would proceed in two ways with the community projects. He told the committee one would be to support the establishment on the Second Street site of a shelter and resource center for women and families which would be a new, to be constructed site and funds from this community effort would go into that. He stated in addition to that they would proceed with moving several of the community groups from the downtown area in Reno out to the corporation site and that would be primarily a 24-hour drop-in center focusing primarily on males. He stated both projects would be proceeding jointly.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Jack if his program is compatible with the program the Salvation Army has in place.
Mr. Jack stated that is correct. He told the committee the reason for the urgency is on Tuesday, the Reno City Council will be asked to proceed with this project and these community services will be going forward with a joint recommendation from Project Restart, the Salvation Army and Catholic Social Services, along with other groups.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS ON S.B. 573.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, told the committee the corporate yard project is a small portion of a large parcel that was acquired in the 1800s for the mental health complex which was the mental hospital at that time. She explained different pieces of this land have been disposed of over the years for different purposes and many have been sold on the open market and so forth. She told the committee this piece of land was transferred to the city in 1973 at no cost for park and recreation purposes which was part of the Truckee River network of parks. She stated the problem with this land is it is a state asset which was originally bought by the people of the State of Nevada for state purposes and it was transferred to the City of Reno at no charge for a public purpose, for parks and recreation purposes. She pointed out the state is still holding a reversionary value on that property which has some value and therefore she cautioned the committee to think carefully before releasing a reversionary interest that has value to the state when the state is getting nothing in return. She told the committee it is part of the city's plan if they go forward with this project to determine which properties have value, since this property is to be exchanged with property owned by St. Vincents in downtown Reno. She stated it is her duty as state land registrar to tell the committee if they are going to exchange these properties and the downtown property has value, the value rightfully belongs to the state which originally donated this parcel to the city.
Senator Raggio told Ms. Wilcox he understood what she was saying, but he asked her if she thought dealing with the homeless problem in Reno is something of value to the state as a whole and that this particular case is warranted.
Ms. Wilcox stated it is the committee's decision and not hers, but according to all rules that bind her she must tell them that land is an asset of the state which has value. She told the committee her organization has tried very hard to help the city in providing land for the homeless shelter, but not to the point of giving it away for free.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 573 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 250.
SENATE BILL 250: Makes various changes to provisions governing elections.
Senator Lowden stated she chaired the subcommittee on this bill and she had asked the secretary of state to give the committee some assurances from the counties that this mandate for Washoe County is something with which the counties could live. She turned the meeting over to the secretary of state.
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, State of Nevada, spoke on S.B. 250. She told the committee their concerns were very well taken the day before on section 67 of S.B. 250 which is the publication of the registered voters list. She explained she spoke to the county manager of Clark County and Washoe County. She told the committee they are not excited about the publication costs, however, they do accept them and they told her to deliver that message to the committee. She explained the reason they accept this is, because there are other parts of S.B. 250 which are important to them and the cost of publication will help defray the costs of some of the other provisions in this bill. She told the committee if there is a concurrence with S.B. 250 she vowed she will work with the papers to reduce the costs for this publication.
Senator Hickey asked about the timeliness of the names. He stated the lists should be current and timely and not 1 or 2 months old. He requested the lists not be more than 1 month old.
Secretary Lau stated he could have that stipulation.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO CONCUR ON ASSEMBLY AMENDMENTS ON S.B. 250.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 250 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 552 and Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 6.
ASSEMBLY BILL 552: Makes various changes relating to recall of public officers.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 6: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require that petition for recall of public officer contain signatures of certain number of registered voters.
Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, spoke on A.B. 552 and A.J.R. 6. She stated they are two companion bills dealing with recall of public officials.
Michelle Buro, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), told the committee A.B. 552 was brought about when the counties, cities and secretary of state decided they needed to look at the recall/election procedure and help clarify it. She stated there has been a lot of confusion as to what exactly needs to take place. She told the committee they originally started A.B. 552 with taking out some of the provisions about having a petition, which does not have a valid number of signatures, having to go to district court. She explained when NACO began that process the secretary of state got some good input from the citizens of the State of Nevada as to how they felt the recall procedure could be streamlined. She pointed out in section 3 and 4 of the bill a section was added which states, "the secretary of state shall prepare an informational pamphlet describing the requirements of the recall procedure." She stated this will help assist individuals on what the rules and regulations are when they go to initiate a recall. She explained by setting up that provision the rest of the recall procedure was looked at and currently every recall petition has to be heard in district court which is a very time-consuming and very costly procedure. Ms. Buro stated the individuals
initiating a recall automatically become defendants and have to defend their recall petition in court. She told the committee there is a provision in the law that allows for contested petitions to be taken to court.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 552.
Senator Rhoads asked where it states, in the bill, how many signatures are required.
Ms. Buro stated that is contained in the constitution and it is repeated in A.J.R. 6 which Ms. Howard will explain to the committee.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Ms. Howard stated A.J.R. 6 currently requires 25 percent of the registered voters who voted in the last election to recall a public official. She explained this bill is proposing to amend the constitution to require 25 percent of the voters who actually voted in the election in which the public officer was elected in. She told the committee it would not change the percentage, but it would change the election in which they voted.
Chairman O'Connell asked if the language is narrowed down to just recalls or does it pertain to any petition.
Ms. Howard stated it was only for recall petitions. She told the committee the other thing this resolution changes is the time period in which a special election can be held for the recall. She explained the change is from 20 to 30 days which can be found on line 18 of the bill.
Ms. Buro stated the 20-day time period is not sufficient to get the ballots printed and to get everything mailed out.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 6.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 6 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 442.
ASSEMBLY BILL 442: Requires counties hiring permanent residents of United States to obtain certain documentation and makes various changes to provisions relating to employment of deputies of certain county officers.
Chairman O'Connell stated Clark County came to the committee with a problem. She explained the county had hired a gentleman from Nebraska who had not been a resident of the state for 30 days, although he is a United States citizen. She reminded the committee this gentleman was going to sue the county and therefore, the county asked for this bill in order to correct that law and do away with the prohibition which states an individual must be a resident of the county for 30 days. She pointed out Senator Raggio raised the question if this is a federal law, why does the state need a law as well. She explained the state law must conform to the federal law which is the need for the bill.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 442.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio stated he is making the motion because Clark County feeels it is needed and necessary and consistent with their action on the City of Henderson and he feels they should support this bill.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 442 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 90.
ASSEMBLY BILL 90:Restricts employment of certain former public officers and employees of executive branch of government.
Senator Raggio stated he now has the amendment and he stated it now meets the concerns of the commissioner of insurance. He explained there was some concern the language was too broad and the language now exempts any clerical employee.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT NO. 1341 AND DO PASS A.B. 90.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio feels the judicial review is more important rather than no appeal, because this involves a person's right to seek a livelihood and he feels there should be some avenue for that individual to pursue.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 90 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 592.
ASSEMBLY BILL 592: Adjusts fee charged by local governments for certain services.
Robert Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, spoke on A.B. 592. He told the committee the proposed amendment to this bill is the language all interested parties had agreed to when all interested parties went to the bill drafter. He explained this takes care of the problems and the concerns regarding confidential items before a public service commission and other personnel matters.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT NO. 1332 AND DO PASS A.B. 592.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR LOWDEN VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 592 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 758.
ASSEMBLY BILL 758: Authorizes issuance of state securities for savings or college savings investment.
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated A.B. 758 is another one of the bills that provide for sales of state securities for a particular purpose to accumulate. He explained it is not unlike what is done with the housing and some other areas.
Chairman O'Connell asked if it was a revenue bond.
Mr. Leavitt stated it is. He stated he is not speaking as an advocate for this bill as he has some concerns with adding layers of debt, whether it counts against the state limit or not.
Chairman O'Connell stated for the record:
We have tried to be very even handed about this. We did bring the bill up last night and we brought the bill up again this morning and it has been discussed by the committee.
Senator Raggio stated he is not clear on the use of the bonds.
Mr. Leavitt stated it is so individuals may borrow against this for college funding. He explained there is no state guarantee on these bonds.
Senator Raggio asked why they are called state securities if the state does not guarantee them.
Mr. Leavitt explained the state is used as a vehicle to issue the bonds.
Senator Raggio asked how the bonds are repaid.
Mr. Leavitt stated they are repaid through a contract of repayment.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED DO PASS A.B. 758.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Nevin stated the only problem he has is the bonds are using the state's name to generate bond money when the state is not involved.
Senator Hickey stated the overall good is worth using the name of the state. He explained he feels overall it has value.
Senator Raggio stated he does not have a problem with this as long as there is a disclaimer that the state does not guarantee the price and the state does not guarantee the bond.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 758 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 723.
ASSEMBLY BILL 723: Revises provisions regarding group insurance for public employees.
Lindsey Jydstrup, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, spoke on A.B. 723. She stated this bill has been amended because of the large fiscal note the original bill had on it. She explained this bill does one thing which is to require a 1-year tracking of non-state employees to see how their claim history compares with that of state employees. She stated if the claim history of the non-state employee is within 5 percent of the claim history of the state employee then there will be a single pooling. She explained if the non-state employee claim history is more than a 5 percent difference, the status quo of separate pools will remain.
Doug Byington, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators, told the committee his organization is strongly behind this bill. He explained nearly 600 Clark County administrators are presently members of the state insurance program which caused a substantial increase in their rates over the last 2 years, because of this change that allowed separate pooling. He stated if everything goes right there will be just one pool again.
Senator Nevin asked what the fiscal note is on this bill now.
Ms. Jydstrup stated there is no fiscal note to her understanding.
Mr. Byington stated Clark County currently pays all of its own insurance premium with nothing coming from the state and he added there is no intent on the parties involved here to draw anything from state payment.
Al Edmundson, Lobbyist, Retired Public Employees of Nevada, spoke in support of A.B. 723. He stated his organization will not figure into this particular bill, but he stated his organization feels the increase in the size of the insurance pool will strengthen that insurance pool.
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), spoke against A.B. 723. He told the committee this program did start as a state employee program with legislative concurrence a number of years ago. He explained it was decided the state could take in some of the very small entities in the state who could not get insurance anywhere else. He pointed out over the years it has lost that significance and they have gotten larger groups. He told the committee prior to the last session it became obvious to the committee on benefits that the local government employees were coming into the state insurance plan because they could not get insurance anywhere else due to their high risk and big claims experience. He explained those high risk groups were impacting the plan so the committee on benefits proposed to the last legislature and they did adopt a provision which would allow the committee on benefits to separately rate these entities. He told the committee that group has already cost the State of Nevada and the state employees through their dependent premiums over $2 million and therefore these local government groups have already been subsidized to the tune of $2 million that came out of the reserves of the fund and are part of the reason NSEA got hit so hard last January with premium increases and benefit cuts. He stated he does not know why the local government is a higher risk group, but they are.
Howard Barrett, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke on A.B. 723. He told the committee to be sure of their decision before they make it. He explained the small groups of nonstate employees who were having trouble getting insurance were given the option of joining the system and they are still in the state system causing problems.
Senator Raggio stated this is troublesome, because a policy was established earlier in this session with retired employees of local governments also being added to the state pool. He pointed out state employees could cause a much bigger impact on this in years to come and that, he feels is what insurance is all about. He stated he does not have a great deal of concern about that point.
Senator Hickey stated someone in his 60s is a bigger risk in using the insurance resources than an individual in his 30s or 40s and so he considers that extremely important to the pool, no matter what size it is. He suggests the seniors in the pool put forth a larger amount of expenditures, so he questions the effectiveness of pools.
Senator Nevin stated his concern is the point that after a year these groups are locked in with the pool and the rate is locked in. He explained every insurance company rates by their experience and if the experience rate does not go up then the rates do not go up, but if the experience rate goes up then the rates go up, which is the price everybody pays because of the rate. He stated the larger the group the more possibility the experience rate is going to go up, which bothers him and he is not sure they should lock this in.
Ms. Jydstrup told the committee she is not experienced when it comes to insurance, but the basic question here is does the state want to move toward expanding to a larger pool. She stated the larger the pool, the better off is the insurance. She explained the goal here is not to cause any kind of drain on the system, but to give the individuals who are currently paying more an opportunity to be rated in a larger pool. She pointed out this could be reviewed by the next session of the legislature as well and if the committee has an appetite to expand the 1-year to a longer period so it could be reviewed closer, that would be acceptable to her.
Senator Hickey asked if the reason for the expansion of the insurance pool is to decrease costs due to a larger pool.
Ms. Jydstrup stated that is correct.
Senator Hickey stated there may be individuals in these smaller groups who will drive up the cost of the insurance premiums for the rest of the group.
Mr. Byington stated when older individuals get to a certain age and qualify for Medicare, the state becomes a secondary insurance. He told the committee in Clark County, due to some bad actuarial studies, the present rate in the Clark County School District is better than the state rate.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED DO PASS A.B. 723.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Kirby Burgess, Lobbyist, Clark County, told the committee he had an amendment to this bill which is Exhibit B. He stated he would like this added to A.B. 723 if it is the wish of the committee. He explained it is a pre-tax exemption program whereby employees are allowed to have health care and child care benefits for dependents. He stated there is no fiscal impact and it is consistent with what the state and some other city entities are doing.
Senator Raggio asked if there is any objection to the substance of the amendment which would allow the political subdivisions to enter into agreements in conformity with the federal provision.
Mr. Burgess stated he is not aware of any objection.
Senator Raggio rescinded his motion and Senator Rhoads rescinded his second to do pass A.B. 723.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 723, BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE AS A MECHANICAL MATTER AND IF NOT THE MOTION WOULD BE TO DO PASS THE BILL WITHOUT THE AMENDMENT.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Lowden told the committee she would be abstaining from the vote. She explained this is a large policy question on this insurance and she stated she is not ready to make a decision. She stated if this bill does pass out of committee and she is satisfied with some of the other questions and research she will do, she will vote for it on the floor.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATOR HICKEY, SENATOR NEVIN AND SENATOR O'CONNELL VOTED NO. SENATOR LOWDEN ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell told the committee this would be the last time they meet as a committee and there were a number of bills left in the committee. She asked the members what they would like to do with these bills.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE ALL OTHER BILLS IN THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the hearing at 11:30 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
July 1, 1993
Page 1