The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, February 11, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 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:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Assembly District 38

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Richard Mirgon,

Director of Communications and Emergency Management,

Douglas County

Dan Shirey, Emergency Management Coordinator, Carson City

Peter D. Krueger,

Nevada Petroleum Marketers and

Convenience Store Association

Charles L. Horsey, III, Administrator, Housing Division,

Lon DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer, Housing Division,

Rick Bennett, Director of Governmental Relations,

Teresa S. Jordan, Ph.D., Interim Dean, College of Education,

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Karen Wright, Director of Teacher Training and Staff Development,

Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association

James Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance

Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Assembly District 38, testified. Mr. Dini explained individuals with no knowledge of either Nevada’s laws or how to operate a water company or a local or general improvement district (GID) were elected to water companies’ and improvement districts’ boards of directors. The purpose of A.B. 88 was to strengthen local and general improvement districts’ boards of directors by facilitating board members’ acquisition of relevant knowledge.

Assemblywoman Freeman asked who would pay for board members’ training. Mr. Dini replied he believed either the improvement district or the local government involved should pay for the training.

Charles Lawson, Vice President, Nevada Rural Water Association (NRWA), testified. He informed the committee the NRWA was founded in 1990. In 1990, it was comprised of five utilities and, currently, was comprised of 81 utilities. NRWA requested A.B. 88 to promote board members’ understanding of requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, to " . . . bring them up to speed . . . " on updating of systems, infrastructure, management, funding, reporting, capacity development, maintenance, training, and technical assistance, and to educate them in general.

Mr. Lawson suggested the legislature might be growing tired of improvement districts’ requests for funds. He maintained if board members were more conversant with their duties, they would probably have a system devised through which to finance most, if not all, of their improvement districts’ needs. NRWA’s role was to promote knowledge of the processes involved in operating a water system for everyone associated with that operation. The association provided training, technical assistance, and interaction with various agencies.

Mr. Lawson submitted a binder entitled "Nevada Rural Water Association Outline 1999" (Exhibit C) and provided a brief, oral review of its contents. In the course of his review, Mr. Lawson commented Stage Coach General Improvement District spent $9,000 of its $300,000 budget for training. He declared he thoroughly believed in training.

Mr. Lawson pointed out the third page of Exhibit C discussed the activities in which NRWA engaged, which included:

• Training and technical assistance programs;
• Circuit rider and wastewater technical assistance programs;
• Groundwater protection programs;
• Solid waste management programs;
• Asset management programs;
• Annual training conferences; and

• Provision of a state revolving fund circuit rider and operations specialist.

He explained all NRWA’s programs were federally funded. The association operated on a budget of$750,000 of which $30,000 was used for its activities as a state association and the balance was used to provide training and technical assistance.

Mr. Lawson pointed out there was statewide representation on NRWA’s board of directors.

Mr. Lawson called attention to a spiral-bound booklet which set forth the first module of board training, contained in Exhibit C, and recited the titles of its chapters.

Mr. Lawson cited a problem in his improvement district which resulted from a new board member taking action on his own, rather than utilizing board procedures. He said another problem experienced in his improvement district resulted from the fact board members attended board meetings without having read the meeting agenda. He contended board members argued more vigorously about a typewriter than about a $2 million contract.

Mr. Lawson advised the committee the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to lower the standard for the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of arsenic to .02 parts per million, an action which would affect two-thirds of Nevada. He contended many people would spend a great deal of money to comply with that requirement and said he doubted if any board member had an idea of " . . . what’s going on on that."

Mr. Lawson stated the situation occurring with respect to arsenic was also occurring with respect to radon. He explained EPA commissioned a study of radon. The study was conducted by EPA’s own scientists, who recommended a maximum contaminant level of radon of 4,000 picocuries (pCi) per liter, which was the same contaminant level currently in air. EPA decided to lower the radon maximum contaminant level in water to 100 pCi per liter. Mr. Lawson maintained if water districts’ board members lacked knowledge about "this," they would believe they had no choice but to comply with EPA’s requirements.

Mr. Lawson asserted water district managers had difficulty getting their districts’ board members to allow them to do things they wanted to do.

Assemblyman Humke asked whether A.B. 88 would affect all GIDs in Nevada. Mr. Lawson replied the bill was intended to apply solely to water districts; however, it would affect GIDs which dealt with other things, such as roads.

Mr. Humke asked whether a GID could perform several functions, such as deal with roads, water, and sewers. Mr. Lawson replied affirmatively.

Mr. Humke observed it was sometimes difficult to find people to run for positions on the boards of GIDs in Washoe County. He asked whether imposition of a statutory requirement for board members to undergo training would not worsen that problem. Mr. Law replied he did not believe it would. He maintained lack of understanding of the functions of a board was what made it difficult for board members to know how to address problems. He contended if board members understood what they were doing, they would be more involved. He reiterated his water district spent $9,000 of its $300,000 budget on training, and the district’s board members wished to remain on the board, attend board meetings, and participate. They believed their participation was based on knowledge.

Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Dini whether he believed consideration should be given to applying the provisions of A.B. 88 to all elected boards in Nevada’s rural areas. Mr. Dini replied A.B. 88 was specifically aimed at GIDs which dealt exclusively with water. He sponsored the bill because he believed water constituted a serious issue that involved things such as financing, knowledge of federal law, and knowledge of federal demands with respect to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Mr. Dini contended board members should have some technical knowledge about matters their staff discussed, and the small cost imposed by A.B. 88 was far outweighed by the benefits provided by helping board members do a better job. He cited Mr. Lawson as a good example of what training could do and how trained people could promote a small water company.

Mrs. Freeman declared she was very impressed with A.B. 88 and liked to think it could, in the future, be used as a model with respect to elected boards in Nevada’s outlying areas.

Mr. Dini asserted supplying water was a sophisticated business, particularly as it related to compliance with federal laws, water quality maintenance, and supply. He believed it good that Mr. Lawson and others had brought A.B. 88 forward to create the realization that serving on a water district’s board should not consist merely of voting on issues about which one had no knowledge. He believed it was well worth the minimum 6 hours training the bill would require to get board members started on the right foot and teach them about the processes, legalities, and problems involved in running a water company.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel said many areas of her assembly district would fall under the jurisdiction of A.B. 88. She queried how, logistically, board members in her district would receive the training described in the bill, whether the training would be at their expense, and whether the legislature would be imposing an unfunded mandate if it required that training. She also asked whether board members would be required to travel to receive their training. Mr. Lawson said the goal was to require no board member to travel more than 75 miles to receive training. If necessary, NRWA representatives would travel to communities to provide training, and board members who received that training would be required to pay for the materials and travel expenses involved. He asserted the cost involved was negligible when compared to the benefits to be derived.

Ms. Von Tobel said she did not know what kind of budget some water districts had and wanted some idea of what the training would cost. She did not want her constituents telling her they could not afford to do something mandated by the legislature, and she did not want water districts to lose board members because those board members could not afford to undergo training. Mr. Lawson responded the cost of training would be approximately $50 per board member.

Assemblywoman Parnell contended the issue with which A.B. 88 was concerned was accountability and said the bill was not the first dealing with boards or commissions to be presented to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. She believed Nevada would be better off if trained individuals served as either elected or appointed members of boards in the state.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked Mr. Lawson to clarify his testimony on EPA’s pCi standard for radon. Mr. Lawson replied EPA recommended 100 pCi of radon per liter. He reiterated the ambient radon in air was 4,000 pCi.

Mr. Mortenson asked for confirmation the radon standard of l00 pCi was per "liter". Mr. Lawson replied affirmatively.

Mr. Mortenson asked whether the radon standard of 4,000 pCi in air was per cubic meter. Mr. Lawson replied it was not; rather, the standard was per cubic liter.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked whether an individual must meet any qualifications to run for the position of board member of a water district. She also asked who elected board members. Mr. Lawson replied there were no qualifications to be met, and, generally, board members were elected by voters who resided within the boundaries of the water districts for which they served as board members.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 88.

Major General Tony Clark, Adjutant General, Office of the Military, State of Nevada, testified. He said he was appointed to serve as chairman of the Governor’s Commission on Workplace Safety and Community Protection (hereafter referred to as the Commission), and A.B. 98 resulted from the Commission’s recommendations.

Major General Clark explained one recommendation the Commission made was to clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of any agency or organization which had responsibility for emergency response or investigation or had jurisdiction at the site of an industrial accident, emergency, or explosion. The Emergency Management Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV & PS), State of Nevada, should work with state and local emergency response agencies to identify those roles and responsibilities.

Major General Clark said another recommendation was that local governments develop comprehensive emergency plans and conduct periodic exercises of those plans to ensure coordination between local government officials and local emergency response agencies. Local governments should acquire proper training for the tasks outlined in that recommendation.

Major General Clark advised the final recommendation was to develop levels of response to an industrial accident, emergency, explosion, or fire. The Emergency Management Division should work with state and local emergency response agencies to develop interlocal agreements defining levels of emergency response to industrial accidents, emergencies, explosions, or fires. The Commission’s concern was that there be a comprehensive, cooperative plan for all local emergency responders and those emergency responders engage in periodic practice to ensure the plan worked.

Major General Clark said the chief of the Emergency Management Division proposed an amendment to A.B. 98. The amendment did not alter the bill with respect to the thrust of the commission’s recommendations.

Frank Siracusa, Chief, Emergency Management Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, State of Nevada, testified. He proposed the language of section 1, subsection 4, of A.B. 98 be amended to say the chief or the Emergency Management Division "will assist in the development of comprehensive emergency plans," rather than "the chief shall develop" those plans. He asserted the Emergency Management Division already engaged in "these activities" and would continue to do so. However, he believed it would be more effective to require the Emergency Management Division to assist local governments in the development of their plans than to mandate the division to develop those plans. The remainder of A.B. 98 was perfectly acceptable. The Emergency Management Division currently tested emergency plans and would continue to do so.

Chairman Bache requested Mr. Siracusa submit his proposed amendment in writing.

Richard Mirgon, Director of Communications and Emergency Management, Douglas County, testified both orally and through written testimony (Exhibit D). He declared Douglas County opposed A.B. 98 as written because of its use of the word "shall," which Douglas County believed created an unfunded mandate. He maintained if the Emergency Management Division wrote plans for local governments, those plans might include elements with which some local governments were unable to comply, because the Emergency Management Division did not understand the structure of those local governments.

Mr. Mirgon asserted emergency plans were tailored to fit communities and governmental entities, based on their structures and " . . . the talents within that . . . ", and those plans changed periodically based on communities’ and local governments’ staff and management. He said Douglas County supported the amendment proposed by Major General Clark. The county believed the Emergency Management Division did an excellent job, but the county wanted to maintain its right as a local government to develop its own emergency response plans.

Chairman Bache asked whether the amendment Major General Clark proposed would eliminate Douglas County’s concern about A.B. 98. Mr. Mirgon replied affirmatively.

Mr. Siracusa gave further testimony. He said the Emergency Management Division prepared a fiscal note on A.B. 98, which outlined additional expenditures A.B. 98 would create if passed as written. However, the proposed amendment would eliminate that fiscal note.

Mr. Humke said he wanted the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s (LCB) Fiscal Division’s assurance there would be no fiscal note on A.B. 98 if the bill was amended as proposed.

Dan Shirey, Emergency Management Coordinator, Carson City, testified. He declared Carson City strongly supported Mr. Siracusa’s proposed amendment to A.B. 98 and concurred in the testimony given on behalf of Douglas County.

He stated each community’s emergency plan was tailored to that community. Carson City received excellent assistance from the Emergency Management Division in developing the city’s plan and would like to continue to develop its plan utilizing that assistance.

Peter D. Krueger, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association (NPM & CSA), testified. He said NPM & CSA had concerns about A.B. 98, one being whether the proposed amendment to the bill would impose a fiscal note. He stated upon review of DMV & PS’s budget, he found no imposition of additional costs on industry, which already paid various agencies for emergency services, and he wanted to verify there would be none.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 98.

Charles L. Horsey, III, Administrator, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, State of Nevada, testified. Mr. Horsey stated he knew of no one who opposed A.B. 100, which was a "feel good" bill.

Mr. Horsey described the Department of Business and Industry’s Housing Division as the state’s version of its own very large and healthy financial institution, absent savings accounts. The Housing Division’s source of proceeds for loans was the sale of millions of dollars worth of both tax exempt and taxable bonds. Proceeds from those sales were utilized to provide loans both to first-time home buyers in Nevada and for construction of apartment projects to house people of low or moderate incomes. In December 1996, with no taxpayer support, the Housing Division achieved the milestone of $1 billion in first-time homebuyer mortgages.

Mr. Horsey explained because of the significant demand for the Housing Division’s "products," the division had exceeded its debt capacity. The Housing Division asked the legislature to approve A.B. 100, which would increase the division’s debt capacity to $2 billion and enable it to remain in business.

Mr. Horsey submitted a 6-page handout (Exhibit E). He pointed out the handout showed when the Housing Division was created in 1975, its statutory debt limit was approximately $500 million. In 1985, the legislature increased the division's debt limit to $1.25 billion. The division now requested its debt limit be increased to $2 billion.

Mr. Horsey explained although the Housing Division was an official agency of the State of Nevada, the debt the division issued was an obligation of the projects it financed, not of the state. He pointed out the Housing Division’s bond ratings were triple A, as compared to the state’s double A bond rating. He maintained the division had an excellent working relationship with both the city of Las Vegas and Clark County, as well as with Nevada’s other local governments.

Assemblyman Thomas said, "You had mentioned both the family and single-family in your presentation." He asked, "What’s the percentage there?"

Lon DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, State of Nevada, testified. In response to Mr. Thomas’ question, Mr. DeWeese said currently, the percentage of single-family, mortgage revenue bonds compared to multi-family, apartment-type bonds was approximately 60 percent to 40 percent.

Mr. Horsey interjected the Housing Division had financed somewhat more than 16,000 homes in Nevada for first-time-home buyers as well as several thousand apartment-type units.

Mrs. Segerblom asked whether the Housing Division oversaw the part the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) played in Clark County. Mr. Horsey replied it did not. The Housing Division was entirely separate from HUD and was a financial institution as opposed to a regulatory agency.

Mrs. Segerblom asked what financial cutoff was established with respect to obtaining a loan from the Housing Division. Mr. Horsey replied in general, income limitations and purchase price limitations of the division’s program were established by the Federal Government and varied from county to county. Usually, the division’s loan to a first-time-home buyer with a family of three was approximately $110,000. Statistically, both parents in the family worked, and the combined income of all family members was approximately $42,000.

Assemblywoman Berman asked what percentage of the Housing Division’s loans went into default annually. She also asked whether the division made a profit on its loans. Mr. Horsey replied the Housing Division made a great deal of money from its loans. Not only did the division receive no financial support from taxpayers, every bond issue it marketed had a significant number of reserves. He explained the Housing Division tracked its foreclosures and delinquencies by bond issue, rather than by calendar year. Every loan the division made was either insured by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) or guaranteed by the Veterans Administration (VA). The rate of foreclosures and delinquencies on the division’s loans was approximately 2.5 percent.

Mr. Thomas asked what percentage of loans the Housing Division made was for purchase of affordable housing. Mr. Horsey replied all loans made by the division were for purchase of affordable housing.

Mr. Thomas asked whether the Housing Division provided any incentives for scattered-site development of affordable housing. Mr. Horsey replied the Housing Division generally responded to the market and attempted to make its funds available based on market demand. There were years in which the division had been forced to offer special incentives to motivate the lending community’s interest in some of Nevada’s rural areas, particularly in periods of high demand for housing. Otherwise, the division attempted to make its funds available to whoever needed them.

Chairman Bache asked if Mr. Horsey was acting director of the Department of Business and Industry. Mr. Horsey replied affirmatively.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 100.

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, Assembly District 16, testified. He said Nevada’s legislators, as public policy makers, were asked to increase the quality of the education Nevada’s children received by raising, rather than lowering, the standard of teaching. The legislature was asked to raise that standard for kindergarten through grade 16, rather than kindergarten through grade 12. He asked, rhetorically, how the standard of education could be raised for kindergarten through grade 12 if teachers were not taught how to raise that standard. He contended A.B. 74 would help empower teachers to teach.

Mr. Thomas pointed out A.B. 74 amended Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 286.520, which regulated distribution of retirement benefits to retired public employees, by providing all retired public employees could accept employment to teach within the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) without effect on their retirement benefits.

Mr. Thomas explained under existing law, a retired public employee who accepted employment with a public employer was disqualified from receiving any retirement benefit if rehired to fill a position eligible for participation in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). UCCSN professors were not affected by that provision of law because they did not contribute to PERS. He pointed out language commencing on page 1, line 14, of A.B. 74, said if a retired public employee accepted employment in a position not eligible to participate in PERS, such as a UCCSN professor, his retirement benefits terminated upon his having earned $16,000. The average salary referred to by the language in line 18, page 1, through line 2, page 2, of the bill was $16,000. Because a full-time, clinical professor employed by the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) earned approximately $40,000 to $45,000 per year, a retired public employee, rehired in that capacity, would be disqualified from receiving his retirement benefit.

Mr. Thomas posed the hypothetical example of a teacher who earned approximately $50,000 per year and retired after 30 years employment. He said if that teacher collected the maximum retirement benefit, 90 percent of his salary, he could retire with a benefit of $45,000. He asked, rhetorically, why that teacher would chose to return to full-time employment.

Chairman Bache expressed curiosity about the salary earned by the teacher in Mr. Thomas’ hypothetical example. Mr. Thomas responded that salary reflected the top of the salary scale. He questioned why a teacher whose salary was $40,000 per year, rather than $45,000, would return to full-time employment when he could collect $35,000 a year in retirement benefits without working.

Mr. Thomas said he found the next provision of the retirement law to be the most ironic. Under that provision, if a teacher accepted employment with an employer other than a public employer, he was entitled to retain his employment benefits. In other words, he explained, a retired teacher could apply his years of education and experience to teaching in a private institution and not lose his retirement benefit but could not do so in a public institution. He pointed out under section 1, subsection 6, of A.B. 74, a retired public employee who accepted employment with the legislature could continue to receive retirement benefits.

Mr. Thomas suggested the legislature should pass A.B. 74 on the basis of both the rationale stated in his testimony and the rationale set forth at the bottom of a one-page handout he provided (Exhibit F).

Ms. Von Tobel disclosed her husband received PERS benefits. However, she said, her husband would not benefit from A.B. 74.

Mr. Mortenson asked what rationale was used as a basis for the law which allowed a retired public employee to draw retirement benefits while working in the private business sector but not while working in the public business sector. Mr. Thomas replied working for the public business sector while drawing unemployment benefits was referred to as ""double-dipping"."

Mrs. Segerblom disclosed she was a member of PERS.

Chairman Bache disclosed he was vested in PERS, and it was possible A.B. 74 might affect him in the future. However, he did not believe he would return to work as a teacher once he retired.

Rick Bennett, Director of Governmental Relations, University of Nevada Las Vegas, testified. He said it was important to understand A.B. 74 was merely one part of a plan developed to address the demand for teachers in Nevada, specifically in Clark County. He deferred to Dean Jordan to provide further testimony on the bill.

Teresa S. Jordan, Ph.D., Interim Dean, College of Education, University of Nevada Las Vegas, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit G). She said A.B. 74 would enable UNLV to utilize the expertise of seasoned public school educators in its teacher preparation program. She reiterated Mr. Thomas’ testimony about the monetary constraints imposed on retired public employees who returned to work in the public business sector. As a result of current law, UNLV could not recruit employees for its teacher education program from an outstanding pool of potential faculty members.

Dean Jordan declared A.B. 74 was critical because it would enhance UNLV’s ability to meet the growing demand for public school teachers. Recruitment was particularly critical because of increased student enrollment in Clark County.

Dean Jordan referred to a handout entitled "Regents’ Initiative on Teachers for Clark County" (Exhibit H) and explained the initiative was developed as a program to address Nevada’s teacher shortage. According to a recent regents’ report, during the upcoming decade Nevada’s public schools would require approximately 27,000 new teachers, and Clark County, alone, would require approximately 800 new school administrators. Nevada’s historical strategy of recruiting teachers from other states was jeopardized by both the national teacher shortage and the recruitment incentives some states and school districts offered to retain their graduates. Those conditions required Nevada take a proactive approach to meet the demand for new teachers.

Dean Jordan contended the success of the proposed initiative (Exhibit H) depended upon staffing the program. Unfortunately, colleges and universities were also experiencing a shortage of qualified applicants for employment, and competition for qualified applicants was keen. She maintained A.B. 74 was important to ensure competent faculty was available to prepare qualified teachers for Nevada’s schools.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether Dean Jordan testified a recipient of PERS benefits could return to work for any state agency. It was her belief A.B. 74 related only to PERS recipients who gained employment with UCCSN, rather than with any state agency. Dean Jordan said it was her testimony Nevada’s school district employees were discriminated against in their own state but could work for a public institution in another state without affecting their retirement benefits.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether A.B. 74 pertained only to employment with UCCSN. Dean Jordan replied affirmatively.

Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District, introduced Karen Wright, Director of Teacher Training and Staff Development, Clark County School District, who then testified.

Ms. Wright explained she was responsible for placing UNLV pre-service students in schools in Clark County School District. Pre-service student placements included placements in elementary, middle school, and high school, in regular classrooms and classrooms where special education, art, music, and physical education classes were conducted. During spring semester 1998, she placed 241 student teachers and 379 practicum students in Clark County School District. During summer semester 1998, she placed 292 student teachers and 51 practicum students in Clark County School District’s year-round schools. In fall of 1998, she placed 133 student teachers, 406 practicum students, and 43 out-of-state students. For spring semester 1999, she placed 207 student teachers and 449 practicum students.

Ms. Wright stated UNLV had 39 supervisors of practicum students and 26 supervisors of student teachers to provide supervision for spring semester, 1999. Five of those 65 supervisors supervised both practicum students and student teachers. Each supervisor was required to make seven formal observations per semester of each student assigned to him. The ratio of students to supervisors ranged between 6 to 1 and 23 to 1. The higher ratio did not ensure the quality of teacher preparation expected by both UNLV and UCCSN.

Ms. Wright asserted A.B. 74 would allow Clark County School District in collaboration with UNLV to select qualified, retired teachers and administrators to serve as supervisors of pre-service students. Because UNLV’s regents promised to increase the number of students allowed to enroll in the university’s College of Education, the need for qualified supervisors of pre-service students would increase.

Ms. Wright said Clark County hired 1,744 new teachers during the 1997-98 school year and 2,040 new teachers during the 1998-99 school year. The projected number of new hires for the 1999-2000 school year was approximately 1,900. Although Clark County School District currently had a 1-year induction program in place for new teachers, the district would like to utilize retired teachers to assist in mentoring new teachers.

Ms. Wright pointed out retired administrators possessed a wealth of both knowledge and experience they could share with aspiring administrators. A.B. 74 would enable Clark County School District to benefit from retired administrators’ experience by utilizing them to assist in mentoring newly appointed administrators as part of an expanded UNLV and Clark County School District principal preparation program to ensure quality administrators for the district’s schools.

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked whether the mentoring Ms. Wright discussed pertained only to administrators and not to teachers. Ms. Wright responded it pertained to both administrators and teachers.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether A.B. 74 would allow retired teachers to return to classroom teaching. Ms. Wright replied Clark County School District would like to use both retired teachers and retired administrators to assist the district’s new teachers and new administrators. She did not believe it was intended retired teachers return to classroom teaching.

Chairman Bache asked whether, since A.B. 74 referred to "any public employee," it was intended retired firefighters and retired police officers could provide instruction. Ms. Wright replied Clark County School District’s efforts to utilize retired public employees were made in collaboration with UNLV.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked whether it was Ms. Wright’s testimony Clark County School District wanted to utilize retired administrators to mentor individuals newly promoted to the position of administrator. Ms. Wright replied Clark County School District believed such utilization might be an option.

Ms. Tiffany indicated she believed mentoring made a great deal of sense with respect to students who were to teach for the first time. However, she questioned the need to mentor someone who had been in the school system for a long time, as a teacher or principal, and was being promoted to administrator. She assumed Ms. Wright’s testimony pertained to mentoring individuals moving into administrative positions as well as those moving into positions as principals. Ms. Wright responded currently, in accordance with the collaborative effort of Clark County School District and UNLV, an effort was made to mentor teachers who aspired to be administrators. She pointed out there were differences between the two positions.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether a principal was considered an administrator. Ms. Wright responded affirmatively.

Ms. Tiffany again expressed approval of mentoring for new teachers but concern about mentoring for individuals promoted to positions as administrators.

Dean Jordan said the principal preparation program, about which Ms. Wright testified, was a pre-service program for school administrators and included intensive mentoring of UNLV’s students. It was that program being discussed with regard to utilizing clinical faculty.

Dean Jordan said all UNLV students working toward degrees for certification as administrators in Nevada had principals of Clark County School District as mentors. It was use of clinical faculty to help develop those students in the course of their graduate program being discussed.

Dean Jordan said according to national research, new administrators needed mentoring, development, and induction-year programs just as new teachers needed those things. She believed teachers would agree that principals who had been mentored and participated in " . . . a comprehensive program . . . " were better leaders.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether it was Dean Jordan’s testimony individuals mentored for positions as principals were those individuals who were either in the process of acquiring their masters degree or participating in a training program to become principals. Dean Jordan replied affirmatively and said the individuals discussed in A.B. 74 would be employed by UNLV to assist with that mentoring.

Ms. Tiffany asserted there was a big difference between mentoring someone taking university courses in order to be promoted to principal and mentoring someone who had accepted a promotion to that position.

Ms. Segerblom said it appeared to her if someone who taught school for 29 years became an administrator, that person should know what he was doing. She asked whether she was correct that Dean Jordan was not referring to individuals who held positions as high school administrators. Dean Jordan replied she was not.

Mr. Mortenson said he had given much thought to the issue of "double-dipping". He believed Nevada’s existing law was bad because of its potential to deprive the state of some very good teachers who might decide to teach out-of-state because of the law. He did not believe it was good law to penalize a teacher, by depriving him of his retirement benefits, because he returned to work in public service.

Mr. Humke said, as he understood A.B. 74, it provided a benefit to UCCSN by permitting individuals with the ability to serve as clinical professors to come out of retirement and serve in that capacity for UCCSN. He asked whether A.B. 74 could not also benefit institutions in Nevada which were not part of UCCSN. He pointed out Sierra Nevada College provided a course of study for teacher preparation and asked whether A.B. 74 could be expanded or amended to allow retired public employees to serve other institutions as well as UNLV. Mr. Bennett responded there was no prohibition against Sierra Nevada College, as a private institution, hiring retired public employees. He said, "It is only the limitation for a retired school administrator or teacher to be employed by a state agency, such as the University of Nevada."

Mr. Humke asked whether employment of retired school administrators and teachers by a state agency constituted the " . . . "double-dipping" aspect . . . " A.B. 74 would make permissible. Mr. Bennett responded some people suggested if a retired public employee who received retirement benefits was employed by UCCSN it would constitute "double-dipping".

Assemblyman Williams said there was discussion about current, ongoing training for individuals in the process of becoming public school administrators. He maintained such training was available only to certain individuals, and only certain individuals were notified of the availability of that training while others were not. He said that situation raised considerable concern if the training was to be expanded to the level of higher education but not made available to everyone.

Ms. Parnell said, as she understood A.B. 74, it pertained only to allowing retired public employees to work for UCCSN, while continuing to collect retirement benefits, and did not attempt to establish what should be the curriculum of either UNLV or Clark County School District. She asked whether her understanding was correct. Ms Tittle replied her understanding of A.B. 74 was the same as that expressed by Ms. Parnell.

Ms. Tittle said Clark County School District believed A.B. 74 provided UNLV an opportunity to hire employees from a rich pool of talented people retired from the teaching profession. Clark County School District asked the committee to consider amending the bill to allow school districts, as well as UCCSN, to hire retired educators, particularly to help in subject areas where there were teacher shortages, such as science, mathematics, and special education.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether she correctly understood the amendment Clark County School District proposed would allow retired teachers and administrators to work for the public school system. Ms. Tittle replied affirmatively.

Chairman Bache pointed out professors of UCCSN were not members of PERS. However, if a retired teacher was employed by UCCSN, it would impact PERS, could create financial problems, and would constitute blatant "double-dipping".

Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), testified. She stated A.B. 74 generated much interest among NSEA’s members, particularly as it related to enhancing the mentoring program for students engaged either in their practicum or in student teaching. She said approximately 35 percent of all teachers left the teaching profession sometime during their first 5 years of teaching. She believed poll information reflected 85 percent of those who left the profession said they left because of insufficient support at the beginning of their teaching careers. NSEA had proposed a bill to create a mentoring program for newly hired teachers and believed mentoring was as important for student teachers as for new teachers. NSEA believed A.B. 74 would enhance mentoring of student teachers and supported the bill.

Ms. Cahill referred to the issue of "double-dipping" and said retired teachers could come out of retirement, return to teaching, and continue to accrue service credit. She suggested accrual of additional service credit was not much incentive for retired teachers to resume teaching.

Ms. Cahill said the only reason she would concur with expanding A.B. 74 to allow retired teachers to resume teaching and continue to draw their retirement benefits was the teacher shortage Nevada faced, which would only worsen. That shortage created a strain on the educational system, and when sufficient teachers could not be obtained, attempts were begun to lower licensure standards and create provisional licenses. NSEA was concerned pressure to lower licensure standards would increase if no means were found to get teachers to return to the teaching profession.

Ms. Cahill said if NSEA proposed an amendment to A.B. 74, which it did not, the amendment would be to " . . . change section 7 to read ‘a person who is a retired employee and who accepts employment as a member of the professional staff of the University and Community College System of Nevada to teach a course of study or training or who accepts employment in a public school district in Nevada in a teacher shortage area identified by the district and verified by the department is exempt from the provisions’, etc." She contended such an amendment would create a true incentive for qualified people to return to teaching.

Ms. Cahill asserted there was a need to support professional development for teachers. There was also a need to get qualified teachers into classrooms, rather than lower licensure standards to meet the demand for teachers.

Ms. Gibbons asked which of Nevada’s counties would experience the greatest teacher shortage in the future. Ms. Cahill replied the problem of teacher shortage was not as bad in rural counties as it was in Washoe County and Clark County, and Clark County experienced the greatest problem.

Ms. Von Tobel said her husband worked for Clark County School District for 33 ½ years, and his retirement benefit was approximately 88 percent of his salary. She pointed out pursuant to the provisions of A.B. 74, her husband could return to work, receive a full salary, and retain his retirement benefit, and, because of his years of experience, his salary would be at the top of the scale. She contended that would truly be ""double-dipping"" and said she believed the committee needed to seriously examine the effect of A.B. 74, as a policy issue, and consider the effect it would have on PERS and whether PERS would ultimately be harmed if the legislature passed the bill.

Mr. Mortenson contended by not allowing retired public employees to retain their retirement benefits if they returned to public service, Nevada was deprived of a valuable resource. He pointed out if Ms. Von Tobel’s husband was not allowed to return to public employment and retain his retirement benefit because he would ""double-dipping"," the state would have to hire someone else, perhaps at a higher salary, which was bad for the state. He asserted the ""double-dipping"" argument did not make a lot of sense.

Mr. Humke suggested it might be good to either make A.B. 74 the subject of a work session or assign it to a subcommittee. He said, "I would like to see us build into this bill, if appropriate, some alternative means of coming into the teaching profession and coming into the administrator profession because there are shortages, and I think we need to think outside the box."

James Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA), testified. He stated it was true Nevada could not produce enough teachers to meet the need for them and could not compete with other states. He said UNLV’s president, Carol Harter, spoke eloquently about UNLV’s long-term plans to produce 1,200 teachers per year. However, given the university’s current problem in hiring faculty, that plan could not be accomplished. He said Dean Jordan told him she advertised to fill some of the university’s clinical professorships and was unable to obtain applicants for those positions, which offered neither tenure nor an attractive salary, because people would not give up tenured positions in other states to accept them. Therefore, Dean Jordan had vacant positions, which, if filled, could be used to train new teachers.

Mr. Richardson declaimed it was terrible to consider placing a teacher in a classroom without providing the kind of training and mentoring the teacher should receive. He contended placing teachers in classrooms without providing them training and mentoring drove them out of the teaching profession.

Mr. Richardson urged the committee to support A.B. 74. He also urged the committee to keep the bill’s focus narrow and deal with the problem brought forward by UCCSN. He stated a pool of people, whom the state and local school districts helped train, existed and was available to other institutions involved in teacher training but not to UCCSN, which raised a serious question of public policy. He asserted those people were some of the best and most intelligent in Nevada, yet UNLV was unable to hire them at a time when it was desperately trying to meet a need the state instructed it to meet.

Mr. Richardson said UNLV’s budget included a $3 million initiative, which it sought to have funded, to address the problem of producing more teachers through a cooperative effort by UCCSN, UNLV, and University of Nevada Reno (UNR). He again urged the committee to keep the focus of A.B. 74 narrow.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether there was a companion bill to A.B. 74 under consideration by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. She pointed out Mr. Richardson referred to an appropriation bill in his testimony. Mr. Richardson replied he meant to say UNLV had authorized positions for which it was unable to obtain applicants.

Rick Bennett, Director of Government Relations, University of Nevada Las Vegas, testified. He stated the budget request the regents submitted to the governor included a request for $3 million related specifically to the Regents’ Initiative on Teachers for Clark County (Exhibit H). The requested money was not appropriated in the governor’s budget, and representatives of UCCSN were working with the legislature’s money committees to attempt to reinstate the appropriation in UCCSN’s budget.

Mr. Richardson interjected the positions he discussed were included in the budget for the current biennium; however, Dean Jordan was unable to fill those positions. He said Dean Jordan was unsuccessful in obtaining out-of-state applicants and was precluded from hiring from within Nevada because of the limitation imposed by the retirement law.

Ms. Tiffany asked Mr. Bennett whether the bill UNLV wanted proposed pertained to employee positions. Mr. Bennett replied he believed Dean Jordan could respond more thoroughly to Ms. Tiffany’s question than he; however, the bill would include provision for additional faculty positions in UNLV’s College of Education.

Ms. Tiffany asked how many positions UNLV sought and what the duties of those positions would be. Mr. Richardson replied he understood UNLV was considering filling between 10 and 12 clinical faculty positions in its College of Education. While other people might believe that set a terrible precedent, he did not perceive it that way. He pointed out there was no discussion about hiring hundreds of people under the provisions of A.B. 74.

Dean Jordan gave further testimony. She said the Regents’ Initiative on Teachers for Clark County (Exhibit H) was a comprehensive package, which included positions and money to enable UNLV to meet its target of producing 1,200 teachers per year. Currently, the university produced approximately 600 teachers per year and provided less than 25 percent of Clark County’s teachers.

Dean Jordan explained previously, Clark County was able to recruit teachers from out-of-state but was unable to do so now because of the national teacher shortage. Other states were also experiencing teacher shortages and were offering strong incentives to retain their graduate teachers. The teacher shortage problem was becoming critical, and the regents’ initiative would make UCCSN proactive in increasing the percentage of teachers it provided to Nevada. Dean Jordan said, " . . . that initiative is for the funding to double our productivity."

Ms. Tiffany pointed out, although UNLV was unable to fill the employee positions it currently had, it was asking for more positions. She asked how many more positions UNLV sought to acquire. Dean Jordan responded A.B. 74 was not specifically tied to the teacher productivity initiative which would be presented to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. The bill addressed a specific category of positions utilized in the university’s teacher education program. Those positions were non-tenured, term contract, clinical positions. Dean Jordan said UNLV had requested tenured positions, which she could fill because candidates applied for those positions. However, UNLV currently had "clinical lines" for which there were no applicants. Dean Jordan said she could not get people to come to Nevada from out-of-state to accept a term, non-tenured contract.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether a bill currently existed which both identified and requested funding for specific employee positions of which one type would be utilized to provided assistance to undergraduate students and the other to provide assistance to administrators. Dean Jordan replied in the negative.

Mr. Richardson expressed regret for having raised the issue of the teacher initiative program, which was not before the committee. He mentioned the initiative to indicate UCCSN was making a sincere effort to deal with the teacher shortage in many different ways. He stated no separate bill existed which dealt with the teacher initiative program; the program was merely included in UCCSN’s budget request and was independent of the concern addressed by A.B. 74.

Chairman Bache said there was testimony UNLV was prohibited from hiring retired teachers, administrators, or other public employees. He clarified UNLV could, in fact, hire retired public employees; however, those employees would cease to receive retirement benefits and would be required to re-enroll in PERS.

Mr. Williams said A.B. 74’s summary appropriately placed the bill before the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. However, once discussions arose about the teacher shortage and initiatives to address that shortage, those discussions raised a policy more appropriately discussed before the Assembly Committee on Education. He contended A.B. 74 should have been, concurrently, referred to that committee.

Mr. Humke suggested at the appropriate time, a motion might be made to concurrently refer A.B. 74 to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. He said as Ms. Tiffany elicited from testimony, A.B. 74 was the bill which accompanied the budgetary initiative to restore the regents’ request for additional funding for UNLV.

Mr. Richardson gave further testimony. He declared A.B. 74 had no hidden agenda. He maintained if the teacher initiative was not included in the regents’ budget request, A.B. 74 would still be before the committee because of Dean Jordan’s inability to acquire applicants for some of UNLV’s clinical professor of education positions. She was unable to do so even though a pool of people existed, trained by the state and local governments at those governments’ expense, who might apply for those positions were it not for prohibitions established by law. He suggested Mr. Humke might be reading things into A.B. 74 its proponents did not intend. He declared A.B. 74 was needed, whether or not additional money was provided in UNLV’s budget for the teacher initiative.

Ms. Von Tobel maintained if A.B. 74 passed, highly-paid administrators currently employed by K through12 schools and eligible to retire with a benefit equal to 75 percent to 90 percent of their present income would be very anxious to apply to UNLV for employment because they could receive both their retirement benefits and a good paycheck.

George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit I). He informed the committee the retirement board’s staff would recommend the board oppose A.B. 74.

Mr. Pyne said more than 130 public employers participated in PERS. He explained because PERS was a unified system, employees could move freely among various public employers and receive the same benefits.

Mr. Pyne submitted a three-page handout (Exhibit J), the first page of which provided information about PERS enrollment guidelines. He said generally, employees of PERS’ participants employed half-time or more were enrolled in PERS. However, professional staff of UCCSN were not enrolled in PERS unless they were PERS members when hired.

Chairman Bache asked whether the professional staff of UCCSN were the only full-time public employees who were not eligible for membership in PERS. Mr. Pyne replied affirmatively.

Mr. Pyne referred to page 2 of Exhibit J, which discussed PERS’ reemployment provisions. He pointed out an earning limitation or forfeiture of benefits was imposed on retired employees who returned to public service, except for those who returned in elected position or through employment with the Legislative Counsel Bureau. He orally reviewed PERS’ reemployment rules.

Mr. Pyne discussed the mission of the Public Employees Retirement Act, which he described as very important as it related to the committee’s consideration of A.B. 74. As stated in NRS 286.015, PERS’ mission was to provide a reasonable base income to Nevada’s public employees who lost their earning capacity due to age or disability. It was also PERS’ mission to make government employment attractive in order to encourage government employees to remain in service for the benefit of both public employers and Nevada’s citizens.

Mr. Pyne contended it was important to remember PERS’ mission when considering the changes A.B. 74 would make to the Public Employees Retirement Act. PERS benefits were to be paid to individuals who retired from government service. By definition, retirement meant to cease working because of age or disability, and PERS benefits were not intended to provide supplemental income for people who first retired from government service and then returned to work as public employees. Mr. Pyne asserted to allow a government employee to retire from employment of one PERS participant and immediately go to work for another participant would strike at the heart of the unified retirement system which was so carefully designed.

Mr. Pyne said it was important to remember PERS benefits were funded by Nevada taxpayers. If a public employee first retired from and then returned to government service in order to receive both his PERS benefit and a full-time salary, taxpayers might perceive that employee as receiving a double benefit or "double dipping."

Mr. Pyne asserted PERS’ reemployment rules were designed to meet the stated purpose of the retirement act and address retirees’ financial needs, without either jeopardizing PERS’ fiscal integrity or interfering with promotional opportunities of career, plan participants who were not retired. He said the third page of Exhibit J illustrated the role PERS’ reemployment restrictions played in maintaining the system’s fiscal integrity. If not for those rules, PERS would probably provide a subsidy to many Nevada public employers in the form of retirement benefits paid to their employees.

Mr. Pyne orally reviewed examples, set forth on page 3 of Exhibit J, of subsidies which would be created if a public employer, in order to achieve savings in its payroll costs, encouraged one of its employees to retire and then return to work. He posed a hypothetical situation in which a public employee, with 20 years of service, made $4,000 per month prior to retirement and pointed out the payroll cost for that employee would be $4,000. He asserted if no earning restrictions were imposed for returning to public employment, that employee could retire with a benefit of $2,000 per month and be rehired by his former employer in a position comparable to the one he previously held for $3,000 per month. The result would be to provide the employer with a $1,000 per month savings and increase the employee’s income from $4,000 per month to $5,000 per month. Mr. Pyne contended it was not PERS’ stated purpose to provide public employers a subsidy in the form of retiree benefits.

Mr. Pyne declared A.B. 74 attempted to resolve what appeared to be a short-term employment shortage through use of a long-term exemption from PERS’ restrictions. He contended there must be a better, more direct way to deal with the problem. He pointed out A.B. 74 was designed for a specific group of retirees and, rhetorically, asked how if the bill became law, PERS’ board could oppose requests by other special interest groups for exemption from PERS’ reemployment rules. He said PERS urged the committee to oppose A.B. 74.

Mr. Mortenson said he believed it his duty, as a legislator, not to consider what result legislation would have on a given individual but, rather to consider what benefits it would bestow and costs it would impose on the state, as a whole, and on state or local government agencies.

Mr. Mortenson again cited Ms. Von Tobel’s husband as a hypothetical example. He said if Mr. Von Tobel decided to work out-of-state because he could both collect his full retirement and earn money, by doing the same job in another state as "we" would like him to do in Nevada, Nevada would lose a valuable resource. If Mr. Von Tobel went to work out of state, the state would continue to pay him retirement benefits. The state would also continue to pay him his retirement benefits if the law was changed as proposed by A.B. 74 and Mr. Von Tobel returned to public employment in Nevada. The state’s cost would be the same as if Mr. Von Tobel went to work out-of-state, and the state would have gained a resource. He contended to penalize the state because of a perception that someone would make too much money was inappropriate.

Mr. Pyne said cost was a difficult issue for PERS. He asked, rhetorically, why all public employees should not be allowed to retire and then return immediately to public service. He maintained allowing them to do so would be contrary to the purpose of the Public Employees Retirement Act, would be frowned on by taxpayers, and would eventually cost the retirement system a great deal of money. In its current, narrow, form, the cost A.B. 74 would impose on the retirement system might be relatively small; however, if the scope of the bill was expanded, it might impose a significant cost on the retirement system.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether retired public employees could work for UNLV in the positions being discussed and retain their retirement benefits if those positions were less than half-time positions. Mr. Pyne replied PERS did not take the position retired public employees could not work for UNLV. They could do so and earn up to $16,000 per year without losing their retirement benefits.

Ms. Parnell asked whether Mr. Pyne was aware of any proposed legislation to increase the $16,337 per year earnings cap. Mr. Pyne replied he was not. He explained the cap was equal to half the yearly earnings of the average member of PERS.

Ms. Parnell asked if the cap was increased periodically as the earnings of the average PERS member increased. Mr. Pyne replied the cap was increased once a year.

Mr. Thomas gave further testimony. He said the issue of ""double-dipping"" arose only if a retired public employee returned to employment in which he received a PERS benefit. He pointed out UCCSN professors did not receive a PERS benefit. He referred to Mr. Mortenson’s comments and contended legislative concern about additional monies retired public employee’s would receive as a result of A.B. 74 constituted government intrusion into citizen’s private lives.

Mr. Thomas pointed out UNLV students paid $63 per credit; therefore, UNLV’s salaried positions were not entirely, publicly funded. He reiterated points raised by previous witnesses and by committee members regarding ""double-dipping"" and how existing law penalized the state.

Mr. Thomas proposed A.B. 74 be amended to read "a person who is a retired school teacher," rather than "a person who is a retired employee." He said that amendment would resolve "the administration problems." He also proposed the bill be amended to include a 10-year sunset clause.

Chairman Bache said it was likely A.B. 74 would be referred to a subcommittee, and it would be appropriate for Mr. Thomas to submit any proposed amendments to that subcommittee.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 74.

Chairman Bache assigned certain bills to committee members for the purpose of making floor statements.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:40 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sara Kaufman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: