The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Friday, March 12, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 3142 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Chairman

Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.

Mrs. Jan Evans

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. David Humke

Mr. David Parks

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on A.B. 292.

Nina Laxalt, representing the Nevada Propane Dealers Association, identified herself and introduced Mike Enksen to present an overview of the bill and the reasons for requesting it be submitted.

Mike Enksen, representing the Nevada Propane Dealers Association, thanked Speaker Dini for sponsorship and support of A.B. 292. He then provided a written statement (Exhibit C) detailing changes requested in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) by the proposed legislation. He said A.B. 292 was considered in the propane industry as the "propane consumers safety bill," because it would increase safety for propane consumers. He detailed the changes as follows:

• Section 1 of NRS 590.535: Concerned the owner of a propane tank being responsible for its continued use. A propane tank should only be used for propane. Once another substance was introduced into the tank the integrity of the tank was compromised for later use with propane and could result in serious consequences.

• Section 2: Amended the language to read: "the law will require anyone who may sell, install, manufacture or repair any propane system or propane appliance to apply for an receive a license from the Nevada State LP Gas Board."

• Section 3 asked for notification to the propane supplier any time any work or repairs, installation, or removal of gas appliances was done to a system.

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Enksen to provide a review of the NRS Chapter 590. Mr. Enksen stated the Nevada LP Gas Board had been created in the 1950's. It was comprised of two members representing the propane industry, two members from the private sector who represented the consumer interests, one paid member who was a professional fireman, and one volunteer fireman. The board hired the Nevada LP gas inspector who inspected all the propane facilities in the State of Nevada and handled any accident investigations. The LP Gas Board was the primary regulator for the propane industry. The propane industry operated under the jurisdiction of the National Fire Protection Code books, pamphlets 54 and 58.

Ms. Buckley asked about section 2 of the bill and whether anyone currently repaired propane systems who was not already licensed by the board, and who might that section of the bill adversely impact. Mr. Enksen answered there were people who did that. When the bill drafter drafted the bill the original sentence referred to any "corporation or company could make the installation, manufacturer, repair, or adjustments to the system." Then the bill drafter changed the wording to read "any person" so that any person who was not licensed could not make repairs.

Assemblywoman Berman asked about the meaning of page 2, lines 2 and 3, of the bill regarding the 5 day deadline. Mr. Enksen believed there simply had to be a deadline for notification.

Assemblyman Hettrick asked about limiting the liability in connection with refilling propane tanks. Mr. Enksen replied that liability would not be limited, it was the dealer's responsibility to check the date on the propane tank and if expired to have the tank recertified. Discussion ensued regarding liability limitation and Mr. Enksen said the dealer could not refill a tank if the 12 year period from date of manufacture had passed, without recertification. Mr. Hettrick still felt that viewed one way the dealer's liability was limited. Also, following up on Ms. Berman's question, he asked about a penalty for failure to notify, and who would enforce the notification provision. Mr. Enksen stated it would be a great vehicle that dealers could use to inform customers with mailers, notices in monthly statements, and so on. It was a way to communicate cautionary notice that if the customer had made any changes in their tank regulator, notify the dealer because it might save their life.

Mr. Hettrick understood the point of the provision but felt there was nothing to prevent dealer's from doing that same thing now. It would have the same force because there was nothing in the law that required the customer to do it and no penalty if the customer did not do it. Dealers could send out mailings now asking for the same notification. Mr. Enksen said dealers did do that now.

Assemblyman Beers said without the sentence "the owner of the container or receptacle is responsible" he would assume an owner who burned and repainted their container, or tampered with their container, assumed the responsibility in the case of an accident. A reseller who refilled the tank past expiration would assume the responsibility for the accident. The only change that sentence made was to shift responsibility of the reseller filling the expired tank back onto the owner, which would not appear appropriate. Mr. Beers felt the change from "no person, firm, or corporation" to "a person" was ambiguous. New legislation sought to be more exacting. Mr. Enksen felt that wording more closely identified who was able to do repairs. If one was licensed they could make repairs. Under current law, Mr. Enksen said his license allowed an apprentice who worked for him to go out and make repairs. The new law stated anyone who made repairs must be licensed. Mr. Beers still believed the language ambiguous. Mr. Enksen said the intent was that anyone who made repairs had to be personally licensed.

Regarding the filling of an expired tank, Mr. Beers was concerned state law would be in conflict with federal law. Mr. Enksen did not agree. He stated that the refiller of the tank had to check for appropriate certification, if it met the criteria then he could refill it. If, however, the owner had put something in the tank or altered the tank, the refiller would have no knowledge of that.

Chairman Buckley tried to clarify the matter. The purpose of the proposed legislation was to make the tank owner strictly liable for an accident which occurred as a result of the tank not being suitable for refilling.

Nina Laxalt stated the intent of the legislation was to make sure the owner did not refill a tank that was not in suitable condition. A dealer would not be responsible if the tank's owner had tampered with the tank prior to its being refilled.

Ms. Buckley said because some of the members had trouble with the concept she would hold the bill pending further clarification or amendment by the sponsors. Ms. Laxalt agreed and stated the bill language had been borrowed from another state and perhaps needed to be redrafted to make it more appropriate to the State of Nevada. Mr. Hettrick added he felt the language did not achieve the purpose sought and in fact might have shifted greater liability to the dealer than reduced it. He thought wording along the lines of the owner being responsible for what the dealer could not see or know upon inspection of the tank presented for refilling, would be closer to what they wanted.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 292 and opened the hearing on A.B. 215.

Pat Coward, representing the Nevada Association of Realtors, identified himself and introduced Patsy Redmond, executive vice president of the Nevada Association of Realtors, who would make the presentation.

Ms. Redmond identified herself and stated the Nevada Association of Realtors was a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit professional membership organization. It had about 7500 members of the licensees throughout the State of Nevada. She provided background on the proposed legislation, which began about 1 year ago when an association member from Elko told their legislative committee that people were being paid commissions who were not licensed in the State of Nevada. They were coming in and selling property in the State of Nevada and received commission at the close of escrow. The association investigated and learned what they had been told was true. They then discussed what they could do to protect their membership and the result was the proposed legislation. What it provided was that the holder of the escrow get a Nevada license number, and if there was no Nevada licensee involved that there be a broker's certificate. That was a cooperative certificate someone from out-of-state could work through to accomplish the sale of real estate in the State of Nevada. Ms. Redmond said the purpose was to put the individual on notice they must have either a Nevada license or the broker's certificate to receive commission. It was unlawful in the State of Nevada for someone to receive a commission if they were unlicensed, under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 645.

Ms. Redmond also stated that currently it was difficult to go after an unlicensed person from another state who received commission in Nevada because it was a civil rather than criminal offense.

Chairman Buckley stated she liked the bill. She asked about the situation where a title company was involved and someone came in to be paid and the person said they would provide the license number later. Ms. Redmond stated the bill would not necessarily help in that scenario. It was the position of the escrow people that they were not policemen, they took the orders of the seller and buyer and therefore did not want to change the way they did business. The association worked to make sure the bill did not include an enforcement provision on behalf of the escrow people. It should notify the sellers they were required to use a Nevada licensee.

Ms. Buckley wondered if it would be too much to ask them to alert the real estate division and if the division had the resources to investigate that was good, if they did not that would be alright too. Ms. Redmond said the association would be fine with that but did not know how the escrow people would feel. Pat Coward said one of the things they hoped to do with the legislation was to make it progressive. It started with not paying commission to anyone unless they had a license number, which would have caused confusion and problems. The situation involved primarily commercial transactions such as large properties in Elko, Las Vegas, and Lake Tahoe and there was really no way to weed out the commercial from the general closing across the board. The association was trying to move progressively toward seeing if the legislation would work and educating people to the fact that a Nevada real estate license was needed to open an escrow.

Ms. Buckley asked what should the holder of the escrow do if the person would not provide a license number. Ms. Redmond stated no provision addressed that. However, if someone gave a false license number then they were subject to being charged with fraud. Mr. Coward added that although receiving a commission without having a license, or presenting a false license, was against the law, it was not a very high priority, even in cases involving $1 million in commissions. So that legislation was an attempt to put it up a notch. Ms. Redmond said they were seeing that kind of money going out of state and it was the association's position that kind of money belonged in Nevada.

With no further testimony on the bill, Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 215 and opened the hearing on A.B. 116.

Jeanette Belz, director of government relations, Wadhams & Akridge, representing the Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design, identified herself and explained A.B. 116.

Ms. Belz referred to page 2, lines 4, 5, and 6, which contained the language the board requested as follows:

(d) Aid or abet any unauthorized person to practice:

(1) Architecture or residential design; or

(2) As a registered interior designer.

She said the board also had an amendment proposed by the Associated General Contractors to add on line 4 after the words "unauthorized person" the words "or non-exempt person."

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what the purpose of the language was. Ms. Belz said it related to commercial work where unregistered interior designers were doing work that was then installed by someone who was not a commercial contractor and did not accept liability. She cited the 1981 MGM Hotel fire as an example of the sitiuation.

John Breternitz, executive vice president, Q & D Construction, identified himself and stated he was also a licensed architect and immediate past chairman of the State Board of Architecture. He stated the bill had little to do with interior design. He explained currently they were able to discipline their registrants and licensees for aiding and abetting the practice of architecture, interior design, and residential design. However, they had no control over others who were not currently licensed under that statute. A drafting service with no experienced licensed employees might draw a set of plans and submit them under one of the exemptions of the statute, by an owner/builder for example. Under those circumstances that house could be sold and there might be defects. The intent was to have a certain baseline standard of qualifications that protected the public.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there had been a specific occurrence where that had occurred. Mr. Breternitz said, "Yes." An architect licensed in California had drawn plans for work in the State of Nevada at the direction of a real estate agent and after the board's investigators checked into the matter had no way to discipline that illegal practice or the aiding or abetting. A discussion ensued that the board only had the ability to discipline its registrants or licensees and wanted that authority expanded to deal with nonlicensed individuals either in Nevada or elsewhere who performed work in Nevada. Ms. Giunchigliani felt that might expand the authority beyond what the statute anticipated. Mr. Breternitz felt that was not the case rather, when someone performed illegal practice and was supported by another party, it was incumbent on the board to protect the health and welfare of the Nevada resident.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked who was considered to be an unauthorized or nonexempt person. Mr. Breternitz said it could be the real estate agent in the example given. Ms. Giunchigliani had concerns about expanding the board's jurisdiction.

Fred Hillerby, representing the American Institute of Architects in Nevada, stated he had come to support the board and understood the issues of unauthorized and unlicensed personnel performing work. Under the board's jurisdiction licensees could not aid or abet someone to perform work as a licensee.

Assemblywoman Berman asked if the bill precluded someone from hiring talent worldwide who might not be registered in Nevada. Also, would it preclude someone from creating a joint venture partnership with a professional not licensed in Nevada. Mr. Breternitz responded that architects by statute were allowed to joint venture with other practitioners if that practitioner was a consultant. Therefore, it would not preclude someone from consulting with the Nevada registrant if the Nevada registrant took the responsibility for the work.

In the case of a nationally recognized individual, that individual would either need to be licensed in the State of Nevada or join up with a licensed architect. Ms. Berman said she was not referring to an architect rather to an acclaimed person, specifically she referred to someone from Africa, who came here to work with an architect in Nevada. Mr. Breternitz said the current statute covered that and allowed for it, and the proposed legislation would not affect that.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked about a homeowner/builder not requiring certification. Mr. Breternitz said that was correct.

Chairman Buckley read into the record a letter (Exhibit D) from Paul Steelman, Ltd., Architectural Planning: "I have reviewed A.B. 116. The only question is that of my employees. Most are not accredited. In the past we have been very careful to categorize job titles and positions with the Nevada Statutes. Most of my senior people are titled as project designer, senior project designer, or senior designer. Many of my most important employees are not registered as an architect or interior designer. I hope the intention of this bill does not preclude myself from hiring talent worldwide who are not registered in Nevada. I also hope this does not preclude me from creating a joint venture partnership with a professional not licensed in Nevada."

Mr. Breternitz commented there was no attempt to preclude that activity and was included in present statute. The bill had no affect on that issue.

Speaker Dini remarked the discussion had been going on for several sessions. There were many small businesses in Carson City, people who did interior design for homes, and he believed the issue had been straightened out, but he now had the feeling the board was trying to squeeze those people out. If the board wanted those individuals out then the committee wanted to know why.

Speaker Dini spoke highly of the individuals in question stating they "did a good job at what they were doing, helping people design their homes, and did not do anything structurally." As he understood the bill it would even prevent them from having a licensed contractor come in and work with them on a project.

Mr. Breternitz said there had been no attempt to expand the control over those small business people. What the bill addressed was the illegal practice of architecture and interior registered design. As the statute currently existed there were certain groups who had been allowed those privileges and certain groups who were not. They were not attempting to do anything with either one of those groups. What they were attempting to do was to clarify the statute and apply it specifically the way it was written but apply it to the group of people who were aiding and abetting that practice. It would not apply to contractors, who were exempt. There was no attempt by the board to squeeze people out of business.

Ms. Buckley asked how many people had been engaged in aiding or abetting an unauthorized person to practice in the past year. Mr. Breternitz said they caught approximately 8 to 10 a year. Ms. Buckley asked for a typical example. Mr. Breternitz cited the situation where someone turned in plans in a way that implied they had done those plans in the case of an owner/builder. It did not necessarily apply to a contractor, because a contractor could get other people to perform those services. The board was talking about the people who drew plans illegally and were supported by someone else in that. Contractors might use plans drawn by someone else and that was provided for in statute. Architects had to be responsible for the drawing of those plans. Ms. Buckley asked was there no other authority in the statute chapter to discipline someone who was doing those things. Mr. Breternitz replied they did not have authority over anyone aiding and abetting. They were trying to get to people who supported the illegal practice of architecture. Ms. Buckley asked where in statutes was the penalty for nonregistrants and Mr. Breternitz said it was in Chapter 623.365.

Ms. Buckley tried to further refine the intent of the bill asking, if the board could already get to the licensee, they were trying to get at the person they felt was not registered or licensed under the chapter, such as an interior designer. Mr. Breternitz said they currently had specific provisions for disciplining non-registrants. However, the chapter did not provide specifically for disciplining for aiding and abetting.

Ms. Giunchigliani offered a scenario of an owner/builder. Mr. Breternitz confirmed that was exempt. There were often requirements they had to hold on to the home for a year before selling it, so they did not enter the practice of being a general contractor or residential designer. Local regulations applied to the individual using that owner/builder exemption.

Cheryl Blomstrom, representing the Associated General Contractors, stated they strongly supported the bill as proposed with the amendment.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what about not including the nonexempt person. Ms. Blomstrom felt they would still be covered but felt by adding the amendment clarified their position. There were five or six exemptions under the architecture licensing laws, NRS Chapter 623.330.

Chairman Buckley called on the opponents of A.B. 116.

Tricia Lincoln, owner of A Very Fine House, stated she was a self-employed, independent interior designer. She was opposed to A.B. 116 because she was often hired by the homeowner and worked in conjunction with a contractor who was building the home. Her concern was that a contractor who worked with her would be charged with aiding and abetting her work as a nonregistered interior designer. Although as she now understood the exemptions perhaps that would not be the case. However, the bill or one similar had been proposed in three sessions and she was still opposed to it because in the ensuing years she had heard different interpretations from the board about what she could or could not do. Specifically, Chapter 623.330, the exemption clause. Originally it allowed the decorative accessories such as wallpaper, etc. in projects. She had asked then about putting mini-blinds in a doctor's office, or cellular shades in a legislative building. She had been told by a board member that it was illegal for her to put a single mini-blind in a doctor's office, whether hired by the doctor or anyone else. But the doctor, or anyone else, could go to 3 Day Blinds and buy blinds to put in that office and they would not have the knowledge of what the fire code required as she had. There had been too many conflicting opinions from board members. Sometimes they had said if a building permit was not required, then she was legally able to do it. She did not like working in an environment of fear.

Next to speak was Doreen Mack, owner of Lofty Expressions. She reiterated much of what had been stated by Ms. Lincoln. The reason she was opposed was that the board kept coming back with more and more amendments. It needed to be clearly defined what interior designers could do. Any project she undertook for wall covering, carpeting, drapery treatments, accessories, and so on, had been within the fire code regulations for commercial design. Ms. Mack presented an array of sample books for flame retardant fabric and wallpapers which were specifically for commercial projects. When she got a commercial project she called the sales representative for the manufacturer who supplied all the commercial fabric, wallcovering, and carpeting to meet commercial specifications. Those representatives were not licensed interior designers, they were individuals like herself and Ms. Lincoln who had worked hard in the field and much could be said for their credibility and years of experience. They did not involved themselves in moving walls or drawing building plans. They took responsibility only as far as their work was concerned and were conscientious about public safety.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if those sale representatives could be considered aiding and abetting. Ms. Mack said they could be, and it was a concern for those people as well. The same representatives they dealt with also dealt with registered interior designers.

Speaker Dini said Ms. Lincoln lived in his district. He asked if Ms. Lincoln or Ms. Mack had language they would like to see in the bill to spell out the legislative intent, that would make the board leave them alone and allow them to conduct their businesses, and not bring such bills to the legislature in the future. Ms. Lincoln responded that in the 1997 session she had presented a draft with specific language that was removed. There was one line that if put back in the law would solve the problem. She provided a copy of the page (Exhibit E) with the proposed amendment to A.B. 258 which stated under NRS 623.330 section 13 (g) following number (7): "If the preparation or implementation of those drawings or the installation of those materials or furnishings is regulated by any building code or other law, ordinance, rule or regulation, the preparation or implementation must comply with such code,, law, ordinance, rule or regulation."

Chairman Buckley said that was the language the committee struggled with in the 1997 session. She felt it was clear from the hearing that the Committee on Commerce and Labor supported the practice of interior design and felt the board was too heavy handed last session. The committee thought it had been resolved and now felt it had not been and was an attempt to do further damage to interior designers. The choices for the committee were to kill the bill, second to amend it to clarify that category was nonexempt and further consider the amendment suggested.

Jim Wadhams representing the Nevada Board of Architects stated he had been involved with the area of legislation for a number of years. The fight had never been between the architects and the interior designers, it was between the registered interior designers and nonregistered interior designers. There had never been any action by the board against the interior designers who spoke before the committee. He had respect for the work they performed. He did not object to putting the suggested language in the bill, but it would not necessarily result in any action. Mr. Wadhams said there was no interest in diminishing the practice of interior designers, and if the committee wanted to draft language to express that they could do so. Although he could not speak for the board directly, in his experience in representing them he felt it would not be a problem. He warned the committee, however, "we can't deal with perceptions, we have to deal with realities. And the fact that somebody might make a comment, I'm not sure we can legislate comments, we've got to legislate the principles and the practice necessary for public safety."

Ms. Buckley asked if there was a specific comment on the suggested amendment. Mr. Wadhams asked if they could study the amendment and have until the next work session to respond. He reiterated the issue had nothing to do with diminishing the opportunity of those people to do business. It had to do with life safety issues. He cited the MGM Hotel fire that was precipitated and accelerated by coverings. It was important those life safety issues be addressed. He believed the amendment required more than a cursory glance.

In closing, Mr. Breternitz said if the desire was to further state the area of practice for nonregistered interior designers in keeping with what was already in statute, there was no problem with that. They had not brought the bill to diminish that area of practice, their intent was to clarify another issue related to aiding and abetting that had nothing to do with interior designers. If they would feel more comfortable with that language, the board would look at including it.

Chairman Buckley asked the committee's wishes on A.B. 116. Speaker Dini felt additional information was needed from both sides to see if it could be resolved once and for all. Taxpayer money was being wasted printing the same bill every session. There had been some misunderstandings between the parties. The practitioners in the small towns were providing an excellent service and it needed to be clarified on their behalf. Ms. Buckley said the bill would be held for work session and see if there was a way to settle it and accordingly closed the hearing on A.B. 116.

The Chair opened the hearing on A.B. 236.

Assemblyman Hettrick, representing Assembly District 39, provided an overview of A.B. 236. The bill had been requested by Douglas County and would allow for a governmental agency to enter into a contract with a nonprofit organization. It had been characterized as a privatization issue, and it was not. He had spoken with some of the people who had concerns about that and wanted to make it clear he would be happy to amend the bill in any fashion to satisfy any concern in that regard. He had also spoken with Al Bellister of the Nevada State Educational Association (NSEA) who had asked him to express to the committee the same assurances. It was not an attempt in any way to interfere with a union contract or labor agreement in any way.

In Mr. Hettrick's initial discussion about parts of the bill he had used the example: Douglas County had the desire at one point to contract with a soccer league or youth organizations in the county to help maintain one of the parks that could not be mowed as often as necessary. They wanted the ability to use the county's equipment to mow but could not do that because state law currently prohibited contracting between a nonprofit entity and a county entity in which they would have to use county equipment. The real issue for Douglas County was the situation that existed at Lake Tahoe. A consolidated transit system had been created that had to include parts of California, Washoe County, Douglas County, Carson County, the resort association at the lake, Tahoe Regional Planning Association (TRPA), and many others. They were trying to put together a transit system that would not only help with the pollution at the lake in terms of vehicle miles traveled but would also help promote tourism and business at Lake Tahoe. Current state law would not allow Douglas County or any other to enter into a contract with that transit system to try to promote business at Lake Tahoe. That was the thrust of the bill.

Recently it had come to Mr. Hettrick's attention that two other entities might have interest in basically the same thing for the same reasons. One was the Truckee Meadows Human Services Association, who currently worked with Washoe County and coordinated efforts to provide governmental or joint services. They may get an opinion that would not allow them to do that.

The YMCA from Reno called Mr. Hettrick to inform the passage of A.B. 236 would greatly help them. They had been leasing buses from Washoe County, hiring union drivers to bus kids to go to day programs. They had just received an opinion from Washoe County that they could not do that. The YMCA would now have to go out of state to contract with buses.

Far from privatizing, jobs were being taken away from union labor following the present course of action. The bill was an attempt to allow governmental agencies in a reasonable fashion to contract with a nonprofit organization in a public-private cooperative agreement that benefited everyone. It did not make sense not to be able to work together for the common good.

Dan Holler, county manager, Douglas County, said the basic issue was that under NRS 277.080 through .180, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, they entered into interlocal cooperative agreements between other governmental agencies, they had no authority to enter into a joint use agreement with a nonprofit or private entity. To do so might constitute a gross misdemeanor under NRS 197.110, where a public officer employee allowed the use of a government, person, money, or property to the benefit of another.

For the past 2 years Douglas County had been working closely with the city of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, the area transit people, TRPA, Lake Tahoe casinos and the Heavenly Ski Resort to create a transit system for South Lake Tahoe. An agreement was put together that would create a nonprofit organization to which each entity would donate money and equipment. The opinion from the district attorney's office was that under the Cooperative Agreement Act there was no authority to enter into that agreement. Therefore, for Douglas County to be able to participate required either an arm's length transaction of a straight donation, or the creation of some other separate agency with whom Douglas County would have an arm's length transaction, and they in turn would deal with the new coordinated transit system. Douglas County had done something to that effect utilizing TRPA because they had some different legislative authority within their compact.

Mr. Holler then provided background on prior efforts. Douglas County came to the legislature and succeeded in getting a special bill, A.B. 12, passed that allowed Douglas County, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), and various casino properties to join together in a cooperative agreement to address the storm water runoff at the casino core in Douglas County. The county had no authority to enter into that without the legislation. He added there were many opportunities for public-private cooperation where an agreement could be made to work with a nonprofit organization to use county facilities or county property and to have a better control over the operation, or to create something that would not otherwise be possible. The Interlocal Cooperation Act had to be changed to do that. If an amendment or clarification on the bill was needed he had no problem with that. The real challenge was how to meet those various needs. Specifically in the Lake Tahoe situation where the county had to meet environmental requirements which the legislature would be asked to support in an amount of $56 million in bonds to help fund environmental improvement projects over the next 10 years. One of the areas in which the county was not meeting threshold attainment was vehicle travel and the resultant pollution from that activity. That area had been examined and the question asked, how could it be addressed. One of the ways was transit. Douglas County had a system, the city had a system, each casino had a system, the ski resorts had a separate system; it was not integrated. To bring all that together would be a plus for the basin and a benefit to the residents of Douglas County.

Chairman Buckley asked if there was an opinion letter from the district attorney's office. Mr. Holler said there was and would provide it to the committee.

Dick Powers, executive director, South Shore Transportation Management Association (SSTMA), provided background on the organization and its efforts. The SSTMA had been appointed project managers for the coordinated transit system, or "CTS" as it was known. CTS involved a merger of the South Shore public and private transit resources of which a number of independent firms were currently operating. The goal was to operate the public and private resources in a fully integrated system using technology to achieve the result. Three technologies were utilized in the market currently, none of which had ever been integrated in the way CTS planned for its system:

• Automatic Vehicle Location. A transit designation for the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS). Using that strategy, the location of every vehicle could be tracked operating within the system.

• Advanced Traveler Information. The passenger interface with the system in the form of a kiosk, a dedicated telephone, or even a home telephone, where one could access the dispatch indicating a ride was requested from point A to point B. The dispatcher would ask a series of questions, assign a certain vehicle, and advise the pickup time, generally within a matter of minutes, not hours.

• Computer Aided Dispatching Capability. It took the GPS information, matched it with the ride request, and selected the best available vehicle based on who was on board, where they were traveling, and so on, then dispatches a vehicle to make the pickup.

It was a cutting edge project and had been in development since 1995 when SSTMA went back to Washington D.C. and was able to obtain $2.5 million in federal funding to assist with the implementation of the project. In addition SSTMA had $1.2 million raised locally through mitigation funds contributed by some of the projects at South Shore, particularly with respect to the redevelopment projects. A total of $3.7 million was currently available to assemble the project and was a considerable amount to be able to put the project together.

On the operational side, the three casinos that operated "park and roll" systems, the Heavenly Ski Resort, the city of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, and Douglas County, all had contributed and dedicated a total of 45 vehicles to the program. With the federal funding in place an additional 8 vehicles could be purchased, for a total to 53 vehicles operating within the system. Annual operating cost would total about $3.5 million and would be drawn from the monies that operated the rolling stock within the community. It would not represent new dollars to the program or new expectations of the different stakeholders. With the outlined resources, CTS expected to transport approximately 2 million passengers by the conclusion of the second year of operation; a 40 percent increase over the current rate with those systems operating independently. An organization was needed to make it all happen and plans called for the formation of the CTS Management Company, a Nevada nonprofit corporation. The company would be organized for the purpose of giving the stakeholders representation in the decision process in terms of how the system would be operated, how the individual vehicles would be operated, and how the different sectors of the community would be served.

Mr. Powers continued adding it was essential that Douglas County have a role in that process. The county had supported the program from the outset and it was important they be at the table with an equal vote to all the other stakeholders and be able to participate in the operation of this system. CTS was not only a cutting edge system in terms of technology, it was also on the cutting edge of a true public-private partnership. There were 10 stakeholders in addition to the 3 casinos. Horizon and Lakeside Inn had joined even though they did not presently operate a transit system, plus Heavenly Ski Resort, Douglas County, El Dorado County, and the city of South Lake Tahoe, all pulling together to create something that was better for the community in a great many respects.

Mr. Powers reiterated the need to have Douglas County in the project and urged support of A.B. 236.

Chairman Buckley remarked the project sounded very worthwhile and the parties had done a great deal of work already. The committee would hear additional testimony and then Assemblyman Hettrick would meet with people who had concerns. She commented as the bill was now written there was a concern it would allow privatization contracts with nonprofit organizations for everything. Also, Mr. Hettrick might want to explore some more specific legislation with regard to the regional transportation issue. There had been other legislation to facilitate goals when different entities were being formed and that might be one approach. It would be helpful to see the letter from the district attorney's office to better understand the issue. Counties entered into contracts with nonprofit groups all the time to give grant funds, to run community centers, and so on. Ms. Buckley would like to find out why the opinion was changing, why they were using a statute to prevent that, and if that also needed to be addressed without undertaking privatization of county government issues. Mr. Powers written testimony was provided (Exhibit F).

Danny Thompson, representing the Nevada State AFL-CIO, said he was formerly chairman of government affairs in TRPA and could recite many "horror" stories of problems in Lake Tahoe. Passage of the bill would allow all sorts of new problems. He, too, would like to see the opinion of the district attorney because in Clark County they had entered into hundreds of agreements with nonprofit charitable organizations. Although he sympathized with and applauded what the proponents of the bill were attempting, as the bill was now written it was much too broad and unspecific and for those reasons he could not support it.

Charlotte Brothwell, representing Nevada Classified School Employees, stated that if Chairman Buckley's hypothesis materialized there would be no problem with the bill. She said the scenario of the PTA president being forbidden to help clean up after an event was ridiculous.

Chairman Buckley entered into the record, letters of opposition from Nevada Service Employees Union, SEIU 1107, (Exhibit G), and from Trish Soracco, president, Nevada Classified School Employees Association, Storey County, Chapter 11 (Exhibit H). She reiterated she believed that the nature of the bill was for a specific purpose and not privatization. Further, in light of the direction of the testimony it would be best to allow the sponsor time to supply the district attorney's opinion and to see if the bill could be more narrowly defined to the specific transportation issues the county had addressed.

The final witness was Mary Walker, representing Carson City, Lyon County, and Douglas County, who stated she was in agreement with the bill if limited to the transportation issue. She appreciated Assemblyman Hettrick's introduction of A.B. 236 and his efforts on behalf of labor.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 236 and with no further business before the committee, adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Darlene Rubin,

Transcribing Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: