The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Monday, March 22, 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

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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39

Assemblyman Bernard Anderson, Assembly District 31

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance

Mary C. Walker, representing Douglas County

James Spinello, representing Clark County, Nevada

Douglas Byington, Legislative Specialist,

Martin Bibb, Executive Director, Retired Public Employees of Nevada

Fred Galey, Secretary and Insurance Officer,

Rick C. Bennett, Director of Governmental Relations,

• BDR 21-479 – Authorizes cities to establish special districts to defray cost of providing certain services and improvements (A.B. 642).

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

• BDR 22-526 –Authorizes certain cities and counties to represent themselves and bring certain actions with respect to certain matters involving use of federal land (A.B. 641).

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

• BDR 21-549 – Revises provisions relating to annexation of land in certain cities (A.B. 640).

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

• BDR 27-591 – Revises provisions regarding advertisement of contracts and solicitation of bids for purchases by certain local governments (A.B. 639).

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

• BDR 31-661 – Makes changes concerning accounting of revenue receivable by state agency (A.B. 638).

ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 31-661.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.

Daniel C. Holler, County Manager, Douglas County, Nevada, testified. Mr. Holler informed the committee the purpose of A.B. 459, which was requested by Douglas County, was to amend a portion of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) which permitted a room tax of 1 percent to be levied in the Tahoe Basin for support of public transit systems. The bill would expand the definition of "public transit" to encompass off-street parking and overpass projects among those projects which could be performed to enhance transit in the Tahoe basin.

Mr. Holler stated Douglas County worked closely with casinos, Heavenly Ski Resort, the city of South Lake Tahoe, and El Dorado County to create a coordinated transit system throughout the Lake Tahoe area. One challenge encountered in attempts to establish a transit center was procurement of adequate parking for "park-and-ride," which necessitated having a parking structure and parking lot, and in some cases, a means to access a transit facility, such as sidewalks or crosswalks.

Mr. Holler pointed out one environmental goal at Lake Tahoe was to reduce the number of vehicle trips in the Tahoe Basin; A.B. 459 would help achieve that goal.

Mr. Holler explained current law allowed creation of a transit district in areas governed by a multi-state compact, as represented by Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). He said the amendment A.B. 459 would effect to current law would impact only the Tahoe basin. The bill was relatively limited in scope but would provide more flexibility in meeting transit needs in the Tahoe basin.

Bernie Curtis, Commissioner, Douglas County, Nevada, testified. He urged the committee to pass A.B. 459, which he said would provide flexibility in creating both transit and parking facilities at Lake Tahoe.

Kelly Kite, Commissioner, Douglas County, Nevada, testified. He indicated A.B. 459 would help Douglas County make better use of money the legislature allowed the county to collect. The bill would impose no new or additional tax but merely provide more flexibility in creating a transit system which would afford tourists better service and be environmentally better for the Lake Tahoe area than the current transit system.

Ms. Tiffany asked how much public input Douglas County received regarding the manner in which the county planned to spend money generated by the existing room tax. Mr. Holler replied Douglas County’s board of commissioners, which also sat as the Tahoe-Douglas Transportation District (TDTD), oversaw expenditures of revenue from the 1-percent room tax. Some of that revenue was used to fund the county’s budget, and public hearings were held in the course of the budget process. Public hearings were also held by both Douglas County Regional Transportation Commission and TDTD regarding a 5-year transportation plan; how the major portion of the revenue from the 1-percent room would be spent was determined through those hearings.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether both the Regional Transportation Commission’s and TDTD’s posted agendas reflected specific proposed expenditures in order to gain public input as to whether the public wanted room tax revenues spent for transportation purposes rather than for other purposes. Mr. Holler explained expenditure of money generated by the 1-percent room tax was restricted to public transit related facilities. In the past, some of that money was spent to purchase a rubber-tired trolley. Currently, approximately $236,000 per year was committed to operating a bus system. The money was also spent on road reconstruction in the Tahoe basin, and pursuant to the 5-year transportation plan, a substantial amount would be spent to reconstruct various roads and to provide ongoing support for the transit system.

Ms. Tiffany asked how much money, per year, was realized from the room tax. Mr. Holler replied approximately $620,000.

Ms. Tiffany asked, "Is this very unusual or deviate much from where you have been going or is this ratifying what you had in your plan all along?" Mr. Holler replied much of what A.B. 459 would allow Douglas County to accomplish had to do with parking. The county wanted to establish a transit facility on county property at Lake Tahoe and hoped to include a parking structure, which would be created through a joint project " . . . between Douglas County and a private development next to our property." The county anticipated using a portion of the room tax revenue to create that parking structure.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the county would charge people for parking in the proposed parking structure. Mr. Holler replied the county would not charge for parking. The structure would be used to provide both "park-and-ride" parking for people utilizing the transit system and parking for employees and people doing business with the county. It would also serve as an overflow parking facility for both Kahle Park and the private commercial development to which he previously referred.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether growth in the Tahoe basin imposed greater demands on the basin’s transportation system. Mr. Holler replied there was definitely a greater tourist demand imposed on the system. He contended it was very frustrating to drive at Lake Tahoe during the summer, especially on Highway 50. Douglas County hoped to coordinate a transit system which would alleviate some of that frustration. Hopefully, the system would provide better park-and-ride service for people employed in the casino core, and the transit station the county considered building would be located close to many homes and apartments which housed those people.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked how much the room tax currently was. Mr. Holler responded the total room tax at Lake Tahoe was 10 percent. A.B. 459 expanded how the taxes currently levied could be used.

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39, testified. He said he wanted to ensure everyone understood the tax being discussed was an existing tax. Essentially, the only thing A.B. 459 did was augment statutory definitions of transportation purposes to which revenues from that tax could be applied to cause those definitions to comport with what needed to be done to meet current needs in the Tahoe basin. If a good transit system could be put into operation, air quality would be enhanced, runoff would be reduced, and other issues vital to Lake Tahoe would be addressed.

Mr. Hettrick reiterated A.B. 459 would not create a new tax but merely change some of the purposes to which money generated by the existing room tax could be applied.

Ms. Tiffany pointed out historically, the legislature heard issues concerning Lake Tahoe which dealt with erosion and with the clarity and quality of the lake’s water. However, lately there seemed to be a big shift towards transportation issues. She asked whether Mr. Hettrick found there had been such a shift, and if so, what caused that shift.

Mr. Hettrick replied two issues played a part in transportation efforts at Lake Tahoe. One pertained to not only maintaining but increasing tourism. Transportation was becoming an increasingly greater issue in the summertime because it was becoming more and more difficult to deal with traffic during that time of year. Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) had three highway projects planned for summer 1999 which would seriously impact transportation needs at the lake.

Mr. Hettrick said the other issue pertained to limiting the number of vehicle miles traveled in the Tahoe basin because of the impact vehicular travel had on air quality and water. A.B. 459 might assist in limiting the number of vehicle miles traveled in the basin by helping provide people a reasonable alternative to traveling in their personal vehicles.

Mr. Hettrick confirmed transportation was an issue at Lake Tahoe and contended that issue would become one of even greater concern. No new highways would be built at the lake, and not many would be widened. Money NDOT spent at the lake would be spent for projects to control erosion and address similar problems. Therefore, there was a need to provide alternative methods of transportation and make transportation as easy as possible.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked who would lose the revenue from the 1-percent room tax used for transportation purposes. Mr. Hettrick reiterated A.B. 459 would merely expand the transportation purposes for which revenue from the 1-percent room tax, currently allocated for transportation purposes, could be used. The bill would not cause money to be taken from anyone.

Steve Teshara, Executive Director, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, testified. He said questions asked by committee members highlighted Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance’s concerns about A.B. 459. Although the alliance supported use of revenue from the 1-percent room tax to provide parking and related facilities for the transit system in the Tahoe basin, the question arose of how far $620,000 per year could be stretched.

Mr. Teshara asserted the portion of TDTD’s budget based on room tax funding was $2.75 million out of balance because there was insufficient money in that portion of the budget to accomplish certain major projects. One of those projects was reconstruction of the loop road which ran around the casino core. Douglas County wanted to work with Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance to reconstruct that road after final improvements to the stateline storm water project were completed. That project would make it possible to deal more effectively with water run-off, in the casino core, from both Highway 50 and the loop road. Now contemplation was being given to construction of parking facilities, and the first project proposed in Douglas County’s 5-year transportation plan was a parking facility estimated to cost $4 million. Mr. Teshara asked, rhetorically, from where the money for that facility was to come.

Mr. Teshara stated Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance would like to establish fuller cooperation with Douglas County by becoming a direct participant in TDTD’s board, which functioned as an advisory board for the county’s board of commissioners. The alliance would have to work carefully with Douglas County to determine how all programs necessary to fulfill the county’s transportation plan could be funded with an annual budget of $620,000, and the alliance believed it could work effectively with the county in that regard.

Harvey Whittemore of Lionel, Sawyer, and Collins, testified in his capacity as counsel for both Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance and Tahoe-Douglas Visitors Authority (TDVA). He asserted Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance and TDVA had established a good, cooperative relationship with Douglas County with respect to utilization of room tax revenues. He contended the resorts which funded "this program" should be reflected in the composition of TDTD’s board and their expertise utilized. The basic request of Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance and TDVA was that a representative of the resort industry be appointed to that board.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether a representative of the resort industry was currently a member of the board. Mr. Whittemore replied in the negative. He said the point Mr. Teshara attempted to make was the composition of TDTD’s board was identical to that of the Douglas County Board of Commissioners. Douglas County’s commissioners comprised TDTD’s board, which acted as an advisory board for the county commission. Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance and TDVA suggested at least one member of the board should be a representative of the industry which paid room taxes.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance and TDVA discussed their suggestion with Douglas County’s commission. Mr. Whittemore replied they did, but their suggestion met with resistance.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance and TDVA desired the legislature to create an additional seat on TDTD’s board for their representative to occupy. Mr. Whittemore replied that was not their desire. They sought an amendment to NRS to specify one of the existing seats on the board would be occupied by a member of TDVA.

Ms. Tiffany asked for confirmation Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance and TDVA were unable to acquire a seat on the board through normal channels and wanted the legislature to acquire a seat for them through legislation. Mr. Whittemore replied there were no "normal channels" through which to acquire a seat on the board. Statute required the members of TDTD’s board be the same individuals who comprised Douglas County’s county commission. Therefore, the only way to change the composition of the board was through legislation.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether statute identified the type of individual who was to sit as a member of the board. Mr. Whittemore replied affirmatively.

Ms. Tiffany asked what type of individual that was and of how many members the board was comprised. Mr. Whittemore replied the board was comprised solely of Douglas County’s commissioners. He pointed out with respect to a number of boards, the legislature saw fit merely to identify the qualifications members of those boards should have. With respect to TDTD’s board, to say only that it be comprised of Douglas County’s commissioners was insufficient, did not comport with the legislature’s policy, and unfairly limited participation by a group entitled to at least one seat on the board. That seat need not be occupied by someone from any particular business nor be filled through either an appointment or recommendation process.

Ms. Tiffany asked for confirmation that no representative either of industry or of the public held a seat on TDTD’s board. Mr. Whittemore confirmed none did.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether there were three seats on the board. Mr. Whittemore replied there were five seats on the board and reiterated the board acted only in an advisory capacity.

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked, "When we have other boards, such as RSCVA (Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority), that would have input, aren’t they normally the elected officials and private individuals so that you have people comprised of the board that are actually the ones that are responsible for collecting the tax?" Mr. Whittemore replied in his experience, all boards which utilized room tax revenue, other than TDTD’s board, were comprised as Ms. Gibbons described.

Ms. Gibbons said she believed TDTD’s board should be comprised of three representatives of the private sector and two elected officials. Mr. Whittemore responded his clients would yield to the legislature’s judgment regarding the board’s composition, with respect to the ratio of private sector representatives to elected officials to serve on the board. His clients asked only that one member of the board be appointed by TDVA.

Ms. Gibbons expressed confidence in Douglas County’s commissioners’ capability but said she strongly believed the entity which collected a tax and was responsible for it should determine how it was used.

Mr. Whittemore questioned the need for an advisory board to a decision-making body when both the advisory board and the decision-making body were comprised of precisely the same people. He suggested the public was not well served by such a situation.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether any of Douglas County’s commissioners resided at Lake Tahoe. Mr. Whittemore replied one commissioner served the Lake Tahoe area.

Ms. Segerblom asked for confirmation the room tax under discussion was collected from hotels and motels. Mr. Whittemore replied approximately 92 percent of room tax revenue was generated in the Tahoe basin.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Mr. Whittemore had a written proposed amendment to A.B. 459. Mr. Whittemore responded he and his clients did not assume the propriety of providing the committee with " . . . the delineation and division with respect to what we felt was appropriate." They merely wished to engage in discussion of A.B. 459 and, subsequently, either work with any subcommittee formed to consider the bill or submit a proposed amendment, as deemed appropriate by Chairman Bache.

Mr. Mortenson asked whether when Douglas County’s commissioners served in their capacity as members of the advisory board, they subsequently submitted a written report to themselves in their capacity as members of the county commission about the information they received as the advisory board. Mr. Whittemore indicated since the members of the advisory board were the same people who ultimately made the decisions and were aware of those decisions, they would not necessarily need to write a report.

Mr. Mortenson said it appeared to him an advisory board, such as TDTD’s board, should be comprised of citizens and business people rather than of county commissioners and contended it did not make much sense for TDTD’s board to be comprised of the Douglas County commissioners.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel suggested the committee might want to ascertain the composition of transportation boards other than TDTD’s board.

Mr. Teshara said the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs recently considered a bill which addressed expanding Carson City Regional Transportation Commission, and he believed the purpose of expanding that commission was to facilitate public input. He stated Douglas County Regional Transportation Commission, which had jurisdiction throughout the county, was comprised of two members of Douglas County’s board of commissioners and one member of the public, who was a resident of the county.

Mr. Teshara reiterated previous testimony regarding the composition of TDTD’s board and the request that both the public and the business community be allowed to participate on that board. He indicated there was statutory precedent for granting that request.

Mr. Whittemore emphasized Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance and TDVA were not asking for all seats on TDTD’s board, merely some degree of participation. He suggested it might be appropriate for one seat on the board to be held by a member of the public and another seat to be held by a member of that sector of the business community which paid room taxes.

Ms. Tiffany asked Mr. Whittemore how his clients wanted the seat on TDTD’s board they wished held by a representative of the business community to be designated. Mr. Whittemore said he believed the seat should be designated for a member of TDVA. TDVA was another public entity, other than TDTD, created to spend room tax revenues and could provide the board with marketing input on transportation issues.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether TDVA was comprised only of hotel owners. Mr. Whittemore replied, "There’s one member from the commission and others come from the industry."

Ms. Tiffany stated she knew of no transportation commission which had representatives of Nevada Resort Association as members. She expressed concern about the possibility of money intended to promote tourism being used for other purposes and suggested the legislature exercise caution in deciding whether or not a representative of Nevada Resort Association should sit as a member of TDTD’s board.

Mr. Whittemore said he wished to make it clear the issue under discussion was not Nevada Resort Association’s issue; it was TDVA’s issue.

Mr. Neighbors asked whether Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance and TDVA approached TDTD with their concerns and recommendations. Mr. Teshara replied affirmatively. He said the annual process of updating Douglas County’s 5-year plan was concluded the previous week. In the course of attending a series of public hearings and meetings with representatives of Douglas County during the preceding 3 to 4 months, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance and TDVA had opportunities to present their point of view. He reiterated previous testimony about the limited amount of room tax revenue relative to the many projects to be funded and about Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance’s and TDVA’s desire to be represented on TDTD’s board.

Mr. Neighbors asked whether, if a representative of TDVA was appointed to the board, that representative would have voting power. Mr. Teshara replied it was his understanding that representative would have voting power in his capacity as a member of TDTD’s board, which was an advisory board. However, that board could take no independent action. Ultimately, it was Douglas County’s commissioners who would take action.

Mary C. Walker, representing Douglas County, testified. She said, "This does deal with transit system, as Ms. Tiffany pointed out, it does not deal with the issue in regards to advertising for the gaming industry and tourism." She asserted Douglas County’s commissioners bore responsibility for the tax dollars which must provide transit for everyone in the Tahoe basin. She stated TDTD was similar to regional transportation commissions, which in both Washoe County and Douglas County were comprised solely of elected officials. In governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 100,000, regional transportation commissions were comprised of two elected officials and one member of the public.

Ms. Walker asserted because taxpayer dollars, intended to provide a transit system, were involved, there was " . . . tremendous liability in what you are providing." She said Douglas County’s board of commissioners had neither seen nor had an opportunity to discuss " . . . any amendments that have been discussed this morning." She asserted the board of commissioners had a great deal of responsibility for transit and for ensuring both environmental and tourism concerns were addressed. She requested an opportunity to confer with the board of commissioners.

Mr. Mortenson asked, rhetorically, whether it did not appear strange that the advisory board reported to the commissioners, who, themselves, were the advisory board. He suggested it would be better if the advisory board was comprised of citizens and business representatives, who would have a viewpoint different from that of the county commissioners.

Ms. Walker responded she agreed in part with Mr. Mortenson’s premise. However, she asserted, boards held open meetings and agendized those meetings to gain public input. She pointed out representatives of the gaming industry testified they had established a very good, cooperative effort with Douglas County. She maintained many boards and advisory boards, such as redevelopment authorities, were comprised of county commissioners, and several were comprised either entirely of elected officials or a majority of elected officials.

Mr. Mortenson reiterated it did not make sense to advise yourself on matters.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 459.

• BDR S-541 – Makes various changes to charter of city of Las Vegas (A.B. 637).

James Spinello, representing Clark County, Nevada, testified. He submitted a document headed "Nevada Public Purchasing Commission" (Exhibit C). He explained A.B. 445 would exempt computer hardware from the statutory bidding process for reasons similar to the reasons for which current law exempted computer software from that process. He explained if a local government had 500 employees who were trained to use the Word computer program, and that local government was able to purchase the Word Perfect computer program at a lower price than Word, purchasing the Word Perfect program would not necessarily effect savings. With respect to large organizations, slight compatibility differences among various pieces of personal computer (p.c.) system hardware could render a given machine less usable or usable only with a considerable expenditure of labor.

Mr. Spinello explained A.B. 445 would allow local governments to purchase and bid on computer hardware based on the total cost of ownership, which consisted not only of the initial purchase price of the hardware but also the cost of installing, servicing, maintaining, and operating it. He said Nevada Public Purchasing Commission supported A.B. 445. However, Senate Bill 341 contained, among other provisions, the same provision sought through A.B. 445. The Senate previously passed S.B. 341, and if the assembly also passed it, A.B. 445 would become unnecessary.

Daniel C. Holler, County Manager, Douglas County, Nevada, testified. He stated Douglas County supported A.B. 445. He indicated the time frame involved in the formal bidding process challenged attempts to keep up with changing technology. At the beginning of a fiscal year, Douglas County’s budget did not provide for many computers. However, if the county realized savings during the fiscal year, it would buy additional computers off an on throughout the year. Douglas County did not want to be charged with serial bidding or with circumventing the competitive bidding process and was faced with the challenge of complying with the law while lacking the financial resources "up front" to fully budget computer and computer hardware purchases for an entire year.

Mr. Holler said, "The other thing that it has done is it has tended to make us not deal with the purchase from local vendors, who generally don’t bid on a larger bid. We go out and we go up to the state bid or we go to open competitive bidding, but if we just need one machine during the year, it’s often cheaper to go locally and buy one from a local vendor. However, if we have a formal bid, then we need to follow the bid process and go through that."

Mr. Holler explained with respect to some of Douglas County’s larger computer systems, the county often had to utilize "the sole vendor processes" to make additions to an existing system. That process worked well but increased the time required for purchasing computer equipment. A.B. 445 would assist the county in terms of the timeframe involved in making such purchases.

Ms. Tiffany pointed out A.B. 445 would affect all 17 of Nevada’s counties, rather than only Clark County. She declared she was a firm believer in master plans for technology and asked whether A.B. 445 could be interpreted as allowing an individual county department to purchase computer equipment, which might result in the purchase of software or hardware which did not conform to the county’s master plan.

Mr. Holler responded whether an individual department could do that would depend on county purchasing policies. With respect to Douglas County, the answer was "no." Douglas County reviewed proposed purchases of unbudgeted items, and merely because one of its departments realized a budgetary savings did not mean that department could arbitrarily decide to spend those savings. Douglas County wanted to ensure consistency in its computer systems. Although individual departments of some counties might be able to do as Ms. Tiffany suggested, because of Douglas County’s internal controls, its departments could not do so.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether it would overstep any boundary to add to A.B. 445 the words "according to your purchasing agreements" or "according to your purchasing departments." Mr. Holler replied Douglas County would not object to the addition of such language, which would merely ensure a county had policies in place.

Ms. Tiffany asked Mr. Spinello whether S.B. 341 contained language which required counties to stay within the boundaries of guidelines for purchasing. Mr. Spinello indicated he did not know whether S.B. 341 contained such language. He stated Clark County addressed the purchase of personal computers when the county prepared its budget, and if an individual department wanted to purchase something during the course of the budgetary year, it would have to establish considerable justification for the purchase. He suggested computer purchases were even more significant to counties smaller than Clark County because their capital budgets were much smaller than Clark County’s capital budget.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether operating expenses were normally " . . . rolled in too, so that you’ve got the master maintenance agreements too in this." Mr. Holler replied affirmatively.

Ms. Tiffany said A.B. 445 appeared to allow purchase of maintenance contracts as well as computer hardware and software and other computer devices.

Mr. Holler responded with respect to Douglas County, the most significant example of purchasing maintenance contracts related to an IBM AS400 computer system, for which IBM was contracted to provide all maintenance.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether a maintenance contract was normally included in a purchasing agreement. It appeared to her computer hardware and computer operations would be dealt with separately. Mr. Holler explained often when a piece of computer hardware was purchased for a large computer system, as opposed to an individual personal computer, a portion of the purchase contract dealt with ongoing maintenance.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the language of A.B. 445 "hardware and associated peripheral equipment and devices" excluded contracts for ongoing maintenance. Mr. Holler replied he did not think it did. He asserted the cost of a maintenance agreement was often included in the cost of computer hardware.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 445.

Assemblyman Bernard Anderson, Assembly District 31, testified. He stated during the 1993 legislative session, provision was made for some governmental bodies, previously unable to participate in a group health insurance program, to participate in the State of Nevada’s (hereafter referred to as "the state") public employee group health insurance program. Those governmental bodies were set aside from others which participated in the program in order to allay the fear that employees of local government entities would have a different actuarial rate than that of state employees. That fear proved to be unfounded.

Mr. Anderson explained a disparity existed in the treatment of the two, separate groups of governmental entities. A.B. 164 attempted to eliminate that disparity by requiring insurance rates and coverage established for officers, employees, and retired employees of other public entities participating in the state’s group health insurance program must be the same as those established for state employees.

Mr. Anderson explained he sponsored A.B. 164 at the request of Nevada Association of School Administrators, predominantly at the request of its Clark County members. Circumstances had changed, and members of the association’s need for the bill might not be as great as it formerly was. However, the issue addressed by A.B. 164 remained a viable issue.

Douglas Byington, Legislative Specialist, Nevada Association of School Administrators, testified. He explained an open enrollment period was held to allow individuals to participate in the State of Nevada’s group health insurance plan. Because of concern some groups of individuals who joined the plan might have a very bad experience rate, which would increase rates for everyone in the plan, individuals covered by the plan were divided into two groups, one comprised of state employees and the other consisting of non-state employees. A rate was established for the group comprised of non-state employees different from that established for the group comprised of state employees. Several years later, it was determined there had been no increase in the experience rate, and some groups of non-state employees had a better experience rate than that of state employees. However, the rates were never changed to provide non-state employees the same rate as that of state employees, and A.B. 164 was an attempt to eliminate the rate disparity.

Mr. Byington contended the more people who participated in a group insurance plan, the better the rate was for that plan. Therefore, combining state and non-state employees in one employee pool should not adversely affect the group health insurance plan’s rate and might result in that rate being lowered. Mr. Byington referred to the language on page 2, lines 3 and 4, of A.B. 164 and asserted all that was requested, through the bill, was to establish rates must be the same for both state and non-state employees.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the instant discussion concerned the health care plan currently available to state employees and opening that plan to provide coverage for other individuals. Mr. Byington replied currently, Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada (PERS) was supposed to provide notice of the annual open enrollment period for the state’s group health insurance program, and an individual who had lost his health insurance could join the program during that period.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether A.B. 164 allowed "individuals" to join the state’s group health insurance program. Mr. Byington replied it did not. It allowed people who had lost their insurance to join the program.

Ms. Tiffany asked why someone who was initially a member of the program would lose his insurance. Mr. Byington cited Pershing County as an example and explained at one time, Pershing County paid the cost of health insurance coverage for its retired school administrators. However, the county subsequently dropped its retired school administrators from its health insurance plan, and those retired administrators then had no health insurance. Also, in 1993, Mineral County’s hospital employees had difficulty obtaining health insurance and were allowed to join the state’s health insurance program. Mr. Byington explained A.B. 164 did not expand the group of individuals who could be covered by the state’s health insurance plan, it merely established that everyone covered by the plan would be charged the same rate.

Ms. Tiffany contended A.B. 164 added people to the existing pool of those covered by the state’s health insurance plan. Mr. Byington conceded the bill might do that.

Ms. Tiffany expressed concern about adding people to the pool of people covered by the state’s health insurance program when the state currently had no committee on benefits and was $50 million dollars in debt. She contended A.B. 164 created a policy change in the state’s health care plan which, contrary to previous testimony, would change the plan’s actuarial rates. She asserted A.B. 164 was a bad bill for the legislature to consider in light of the state’s current situation.

Chairman Bache clarified A.B. 164 would not expand the pool of individuals covered by the state’s group health insurance plan. The bill pertained to individuals currently eligible to participate in the plan on the basis they were employees of local governments.

Ms. Tiffany said, "I appreciate that Mr. Chairman, but you’re adding new people that haven’t been there before because they’ve been dropped out for some other reason . . .." She contended the people added to the plan could be people who, among other possibilities, were retired or had chronic health problems, and their addition would change the actuarial outcome for the plan.

Mr. Byington said actuarial studies were conducted of non-state employees currently covered by the state’s group health insurance plan, and the experience rate of those employees was as good, if not better, than the experience rate of state employees. Therefore, non-state employees were entitled to pay the same rate for their insurance as that paid by state employees.

Ms. Tiffany asked, rhetorically, why a statutory change was sought to make insurance rates of non-state employees the same as that of state employees if the experience rate of non-state employees was so good. She stated, "I would say they’re going to be more if you’re asking for them to be equal, and I don’t think you can mandate an actuarial outcome that it’s equal."

Chairman Bache referred to Mr. Byington’s testimony that non-state employees’ experience rate was better than that of state employees and asked whether premium rates were established for non-state employees based on their better experience rate. Mr. Byington replied he understood they were not. He stated a premium rate was established for members of the administrator’s association in Clark County, and although the members of that association were studied for 2 years and found to have a better experience rate than anticipated, their rates were not lowered. The association subsequently withdrew from the state’s insurance program, secured another insurance program, and its members now had a lower premium rate than they had under the state’s program. However, not all groups which participated in the state’s insurance program were able effect such a change.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether the discussion of "rates" pertained to actuarial ratings rather than premiums. She expressed concern about retirees being targeted as a group whose rates were always higher because of the likelihood they had more surgeries performed and were hospitalized more frequently. She asked whether A.B. 164 would single out retirees. Mr. Byington replied he did not believe it would.

Mr. Byington explained the intent behind A.B. 164 was to provide fair and equal treatment. He asserted everyone in the pool of public employees covered by the state’s health insurance plan should pay the same insurance premium. The people being discussed were already in the program; however, a local government which did not currently participate in the program could opt to participate.

Ms. Von Tobel said during a previous time of crisis, higher premiums were established for retirees and dependents covered by the state-funded health insurance plan than those established for other people covered by the plan. She wished to ensure A.B. 164 would not result in any particular group being singled out to pay higher insurance premiums.

Martin Bibb, Executive Director, Retired Public Employees of Nevada (RPEN), testified. He said RPEN understood A.B. 164 merely to require the same rates be established for all individual groups with the state’s health insurance program. As he understood the bill, it changed nothing about the program’s enrollment periods, whether open or closed.

Mr. Bibb stated during both the 1993 and 1995 legislative sessions, retired public employees worked to have open enrollment periods established, during those sessions, for retirees, and more than 1,000 retirees joined the states’ group health insurance plan during those open enrollment periods. For many years, there had been a statutory open enrollment period; however, certain checks and balances were established regarding who could be admitted to the plan during that open enrollment period. He believed those checks and balances addressed Ms. Tiffany’s concerns.

Mr. Bibb explained A.B. 164 would make rate setting the same for both retirees and active employees covered under the state’s health insurance plan, and RPEN had no quarrel with that being done. However, RPEN did have one concern. For people covered by the state’s group health insurance plan who were active, working, and under 65 years of age, that plan was their primary insurance plan. However, once an individual became 65 years of age, it was required that Medicare become his primary health care plan, at which point the state’s health insurance plan became secondary to Medicare.

Mr. Bibb referred to the language on page 2, lines 3 and 4, of A.B. 164 and said RPEN believed the change that language would accomplish was, in general, fair. However, it was not appropriate to establish the same rate for an individual 65 years old as that established for an individual under 65. The state’s group health insurance plan recognized Medicare insurance as the primary insurance coverage for an individual 65 years old. Therefore, rates dropped significantly for retirees over 65 years of age. RPEN’s concern was if A.B. 164 required the same premium rate be established for everyone in the pool covered by the state’s plan, individuals over 65, whose rate should logically be reduced, would be required to pay the same premium as individuals under 65.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Mr. Bibb concurred with the intent of A.B. 164. Mr. Bibb reiterated RPEN had no quarrel with making insurance premiums equitable but believed recognition should be given to the fact there was a difference between individuals for whom Medicare provided their primary insurance coverage and individuals for whom the state health insurance plan provided their primary coverage.

Ms. Von Tobel declared there was an enormous difference between insurance premiums paid by individuals under the age of 65, which were probably between $160 to $250 per month, and premiums paid by Medicare recipients, for whom the state’s health insurance plan provided supplementary insurance. She suggested some members of the state’s health insurance program who were Medicare recipients might opt out of the state’s program to purchase less costly supplementary insurance.

Ms. Von Tobel reiterated her concern that dependents and retirees not be singled out to pay higher premiums.

Ms. Tiffany asserted Mr. Bibb was as aware as she that insurance rates were established actuarially and not mandated by statute. She suggested if people whose rates were very low were added to the state’s health insurance program, as a separate pool of participants, they should remain in that separate pool and retain their low rates rather than have their rates made equal to those of other participants. She contended if that pool of participants was blended with others, there would be no need to mandate equal rates for all participants. She questioned why such a mandate was sought if that pool enjoyed such low rates.

Mr. Bibb said he did not understand A.B. 164 to do as Ms. Tiffany suggested. He proposed if it was possible to incorporate people into the pool of participants in a health insurance plan and thereby " . . . affect the economy as a scale . . " because of the number of people in the pool, doing so might outweigh individually rating each separate group of participants in the pool. He said Ms. Tiffany raised a good point, which suggested experience rates of individual groups in the state’s health insurance pool should be actuarially examined.

Ms. Tiffany contended it was not a fair statement to say a large pool of participants would result in better rates than a smaller pool. She asserted an actuary placed more emphasis on the history of a pool of participants than on its size. Rates would be affected if a pool contained: many young women who might become pregnant; three or four individuals with a chronic history of hospitalizations at a cost $100,000 or $200,000 a year; or people over a certain age.

Ms. Tiffany stated mandating a similar rate for everyone in the pool of participants in the state’s health insurance plan constituted a policy change. She contended rates were established actuarially and not by statutory mandate. She believed it inappropriate, in light of the current condition of the state’s health insurance program, to " . . . change this kind of a policy statement." She declared she did not agree with the premise of A.B. 164 and did not believe the governor would agree with it either.

Mr. Bibb indicated there were many other bills before the legislature which dealt with health insurance and said he believed the insurance element addressed by A.B. 164 should be considered in terms of the overall work product of the current legislative session.

Mr. Bibb said in the past, one school of thought was no one other than state employees should be included in the state’s health insurance program; however, RPEN did not agree with that school of thought. He believed rate setting, management, reserves, and other issues would be considered when considering the state’s health insurance program, and RPEN believed the issue of joint rate setting should be considered in the process of strengthening that program.

Chairman Bache asked Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst, to obtain from Randy Waterman of the State of Nevada’s Department of Administration’s Risk Management Division information regarding rates assessed various groups covered by the state’s health insurance program and whether if one group’s actuarial experience was better than that of others, that group’s rates were adjusted accordingly.

Assemblywoman Parnell asked whether, based on the assumption a large pool of participants resulted in lower rates than a smaller pool, consideration was ever given to combining state employees and school district employees in one pool. She said Carson City’s school district’s health plan rates for the upcoming school year increased by 50 percent.

Chairman Bache responded every school district in Nevada currently had the ability to join the state’s health insurance program. He advised Clark County School District had its own health and welfare trust, and its health insurance plan was very sound fiscally. Therefore, he did not believe Clark County School District had any desire to join in the state’s health insurance program.

Mr. Byington gave further testimony. He pointed out insurance was a subject of employment negotiations. He stated Washoe County’s school district funded its own insurance program. That program was experiencing difficulty, and consideration was being given to raising the program’s rates. He suggested if Carson City’s school district chose to participate in the state’s health insurance program, a separate rate could be established for the school district’s employees until their actuarial experience was determined. However, it was possible their rate might not be subsequently adjusted to match the rate of everyone else in the pool.

Mr. Byington explained he was a Medicare recipient, and Washoe County School District’s health insurance plan provided his secondary coverage, which " . . . makes a change."

Mr. Neighbors stated on the few occasions he utilized his Medicare insurance, by the time he paid his deductibles, there was usually little cost to the provider of his secondary health insurance coverage. Therefore, he believed retired employees with secondary insurance coverage should, perhaps, be considered separately when establishing insurance rates. Although Medicare made the first payments on their health care costs, those retired employees paid the full premium for their secondary insurance. He asked whether he expressed the point Mr. Bibb attempted to make.

Mr. Bibb replied, "It’s just that it changes a great deal when you have Medicare as a primary insurance, and you have to pick up some additional, federal Medicare costs, the part B of the Medicare, as well as potentially any other supplementary insurance besides the state plan that you might wish."

Fred Galey, Secretary and Insurance Officer, Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro, Inc., and Executive Vice President, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs (NCOPS) testified. He said the organizations he represented were confused about how A.B. 164 would affect what they already had in place. NCOPS was looking into establishing a state insurance plan for police officers; however, establishing such a plan was dependent on passage of Senate Bill 316.

Mr. Galey said, "We don’t know whether this bill is going to mandate us to have the same rates or premiums and benefits that the state has for us." He contended it was probable the organizations he represented could provide their members with both better premium rates and better benefits than those members would have under the state’s health insurance program.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 164.

Chairman Bache appointed a subcommittee, comprised of Assemblywoman Berman, Assemblyman Mortenson, and Assemblywoman Segerblom, as chairwoman, to consider A.B. 369.

Chairman Bache appointed a subcommittee comprised of Assemblywoman Gibbons, Assemblyman Mortenson, and Assemblywoman Tiffany, as chairwoman, to consider A.B. 459.

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, Assembly District 16, presented a proposed amendment to A.B. 74 (Exhibit D) and pointed out the proposed amendment added a second section to the bill which caused the bill’s provisions to expire on July 1, 2001.

Chairman Bache clarified the proposed amendment (Exhibit D) amended A.B. 74 as a whole by deleting the bill in its entirety and replacing it with the provisions set forth on the proposed amendment. He observed if amended as proposed, the bill appeared to constitute session law as opposed to statutory law.

Mr. Thomas confirmed Chairman Bache’s observation was correct.

Ms. Tiffany posed a hypothetical situation in which Dr. Brian Cram, Superintendent of Clark County School District, retired with a retirement benefit of $120,000 per year and was hired by University of Nevada-Las Vegas’ (UNLV) College of Education at a salary of $100,000 per year. She asked whether she correctly understood under A.B. 74, Dr. Cram could collect both his entire retirement benefit and his salary.

Rick C. Bennett, Director of Governmental Relations, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, testified both orally and by providing written testimony (Exhibit E). In response to Ms. Tiffany’s question, Mr. Bennett said theoretically, Dr. Cram could retire from his present employment and apply for one of the positions discussed in A.B. 74. However, A.B. 74 did not change the qualifications required for those positions, referred to as clinical faculty positions, the salary for which was between $40,000 and $45,000 per year. He stated Ms. Tiffany was correct A.B. 74 would create an exception to current limitations imposed on the amount of income a retired public employee could earn from public employment.

Ms. Tiffany suggested if an employed individual wanted to take advantage of the program A.B. 74 created to effect a career change, he could buy out an early retirement, become re-employed in a clinical faculty position, and receive both his retirement benefit and the salary for his new position.

Mr. Bennett responded what Ms. Tiffany suggested was theoretically possible. However, UNLV’s clinical faculty positions were not tenured positions. They involved a 1-year contract, and there was no guarantee that contract would be renewed. Therefore, it might not be in someone’s best interest to do as Ms. Tiffany suggested he could do.

Ms. Tiffany stated she viewed A.B. 74 as a public policy bill, which raised the question of whether the legislature wanted to change the concept of what retirement was intended to be. She said, " If we vote on this bill today, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, for the record, that I will be voting against this bill, not because I do or I don’t like teachers. It’s the public policy portion, which is the changing of PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) and how we operate within PERS and that exemption. To me, this isn’t compelling enough, to add two or four or six positions, to change the whole public policy of PERS. I would just like to say that, for the record, Mr. Chairman."

Mr. Bennett said he appreciated Assemblywoman Tiffany’s position. However, in testimony before the subcommittee on A.B. 74, Dr. Teresa Jordan, acting dean of UNLV’s College of Education, indicated the College of Education currently had three unfilled clinical faculty positions. The primary reason those positions were unfilled was Dr. Jordan was unable to acquire an adequate applicant pool from which to fill them.

Mr. Bennett stated over the past 3 or 4 years, UNLV’s College of Education had doubled the number of its graduates. Although that would be a phenomenal achievement for most institutions, as it affected Clark County, it was almost like standing still, and the College of Education was being asked to again increase the number of its graduates by 100 percent. He was uncertain how the College of Education would be able to accomplish that if it could not fill its clinical faculty positions, which were absolutely necessary to provide supervision of the in-classroom experience of its education graduates.

Mr. Bennett contended the policy change A.B. 74 would effect was very limited. The proposed sunset clause would allow the legislature to review the situation, 2 years hence, to determine whether A.B. 74 enabled UNLV’s College of Education to accomplish its goal. If not, the legislature could allow the bill’s provisions to expire.

Ms. Tiffany declared she did not agree with the purpose of the positions UNLV’s College of Education was attempting to fill. She contended the purpose of those positions was not only to teach teachers in the classroom but, also, to teach teachers how to function as principals, which was a function of the college’s masters program.

Ms. Tiffany reiterated her concern about changing public policy regarding retirement and changing PERS for three employment positions.

Mr. Mortenson said he wished to mention something to Ms. Tiffany. He pointed out a retired Nevada public employee could go to work in private industry and " . . . make all that money that you seem to begrudge the person . . . " or work out-of-state and double his income. He asserted Ms. Tiffany believed freedom of choice to be very important and said it appeared to him PERS was limiting people’s freedom of choice by mandating they retire when they might be able to come out of retirement and again enjoy beneficial employment with the state.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether retired individuals employed in UNLV’s clinical faculty positions would be able to add to their retirement benefits. Mr. Bennett responded they would not because the university’s faculty did not participate in PERS but had their own retirement program.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether the individuals to whom she referred would participate in the university’s public retirement program. Mr. Bennett replied those individuals would be treated as full-time faculty members and could earn credits in the university’s retirement fund, to which a member contributed 10 percent of his gross income, and the university matched that sum.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether the university’s retirement fund consisted of public money. Mr. Bennett replied affirmatively.

Mr. Thomas contended A.B. 74 did not create a substantial policy issue. He stated, "As you (Chairman Bache) said, this is not going to be statutorily created." He declared A.B. 74 simply provided a way to empower teachers to teach better and was a pro-education bill. He believed a vote against A.B. 74 would not constitute a vote against poor policy but, rather, a vote against quality education.

Ms. Von Tobel said she would abstain from voting on A.B. 74 but would like to discuss the policy issue raised by the bill. She suggested if A.B. 74 pertained to mentors for teachers of children, the bill be amended to require a mentor be someone with classroom teaching experience within 5 years of his employment in that capacity. As a mentor, an individual with such experience would be preferable to an administrator, who might be so far removed from classroom experience he would not recall what it was like. She said she believed the instant discussion was about administrators mentoring teachers, and it would be better policy to have teachers provide such mentoring.

Discussions ensued between Ms. Von Tobel and Mr. Bennett regarding the total amount of money a retired public employee could receive if employed in one of UNLV’s clinical faculty positions.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether Mr. Bennett agreed with requiring a mentor be a teacher rather than an administrator.

Mr. Bennett reiterated A.B. 74 did not change the qualifications required for employment in one of UNLV’s clinical faculty positions. Although he did not know precisely what those qualifications were, he assumed both a degree in education, at the minimum a masters degree, and actual experience in supervising student teachers were required.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether it was Mr. Bennett’s position that he would not want A.B. 74 amended to require mentors be teachers. She pointed out there were teachers who had masters degrees and possibly doctorates in education. Mr. Bennett contended the issue was not whether mentors were teachers, principals, or administrators of a level higher than that of principal. Rather, it was whether they possessed the required educational background and work experience.

Mr. Humke said Mr. Bennett made the statement, in response to a question posed by Ms. Segerblom, that retired university faculty would not avail themselves of the provisions of A.B. 74 because they were members of a retirement system other than PERS. However, he believed there was a time when the university’s professional faculty had a choice between membership in PERS and membership in another retirement system. In fact, some professional faculty members were required to belong to PERS. Therefore, Mr. Bennett’s statement was incorrect. Some PERS members might be retired university faculty members who could avail themselves of A.B. 74’s provisions.

Mr. Bennett asked permission to clarify his response to Ms. Segerblom’s question. He said he assumed her question related to those retired public employees addressed by A.B. 74, which were retired school district employees. He did not understand her question to relate to retired university employees. He explained all newly hired professional staff of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) participated in UCCSN’s retirement system; they did not participate in PERS.

Mr. Humke said he understood the distinction drawn by Mr. Bennett. However, although some members of the Committee on Government Affairs believed legislative intent was expressed through testimony, though not explicitly stated in a bill, the actions of state agencies did not always comport with legislative intent.

Mr. Humke professed the need to counter Mr. Thomas’ statement that if A.B. 74 was passed by the legislature, it became session law and, therefore, the legislature was not truly passing a law. He contended nothing could be further from the truth and maintained session law, although short-lived, was statutory law.

Mr. Humke expressed his philosophy about sunset clauses. He said he believed sunset clauses imposed on a bill during one session of the legislature were commonly removed during the next session when there were new legislators who did not see the entire record concerning a bill. He suggested during the upcoming legislative session, a representative of UCCSN would inform the legislature the program created by A.B. 74 was working fantastically well and would recommend removal of the sunset clause, whereupon the legislature would remove it. He maintained the scenario he described was typical of how things happened in the legislature.

Ms. Tiffany commented she had seen the same thing occur with regard to sunset legislation as Mr. Humke described. She believed during her four terms, as a legislator she had seen only one sunset clause take effect.

Ms. Tiffany explained in grades K through 12 there were teachers who mentored other teachers. Therefore, once teachers graduated from college they received mentoring if they taught children in those grades. In addition, there was an appropriation bill currently before the legislature to appropriate millions of dollars to " . . . add more teachers for the teachers . . .;" therefore, the existing teacher mentoring program in school districts was being augmented. Ms. Tiffany contended if the legislature changed a PERS policy for the sake of three employment positions, its action would convey an inappropriate statement. Even though the provisions of A.B. 74 were supposed to sunset, they would still set a precedent. She asked, rhetorically, if the legislature changed PERS’ policy for the sake of teachers, for whom would they next be asked to change it.

Mr. Bennett conceded sunset clauses were often either continued to other dates or removed. However, he contended, they served a good purpose and allowed the legislature to review the effect of legislation to determine whether or not that legislation accomplished what it was meant to accomplish. As an example of a sunset law accomplishing what it was meant to accomplish, he cited a bill for hospital cost containment, with a 4-year sunset clause, which he believed was passed in 1991. The effect of that legislation was reviewed 4 years later, and the law was continued in effect for an additional 4 years. For a number of reasons, Governor Guinn now suggested the hospital cost containment law be repealed. Mr. Bennett said he believed the same thing would occur with respect to the sunset clause requested for A.B. 74.

In response to Ms. Tiffany’s remarks concerning mentors, Mr. Bennett explained the mentoring program to which A.B. 74 pertained related to the education provided to students at UNLV. Students who sought to become teachers, either through the traditional educational path or through alternative licensure, were required to have actual classroom teaching experience. During their classroom teaching experience, those students were supervised not only by a teacher but also by a full-time faculty member of UNLV, who supervised a number of students. Mr. Bennett asserted that situation would not change. Whether or not the legislature passed the appropriation bill to which Ms. Tiffany referred, UNLV would continue to have clinical faculty members supervise the field experience of students of the university’s College of Education.

Chairman Bache called for a motion on A.B. 74.

Chairman Bache clarified the amendments to be made to A.B. 74 were those proposed by Mr. Thomas (Exhibit D).

There being no further discussion, Chairman Bache called for a vote on the pending motion.

Chairman Bache reminded the committee of the purpose of A.B. 11.

Ms. Parnell asked why A.B. 11 was not restricted to have only a local effect. She said Clark County School District’s non-certified employees were included in the school district’s employee bargaining group and, therefore, were currently able to negotiate transfer policies. In Carson City, the school district’s non-certified employees had their own bargaining group. Ms. Parnell also asked what A.B. 11 would create which was different from that which currently existed.

Chairman Bache replied currently teachers were the only school district employees statutorily authorized to negotiate transfer policies. If a school district wanted to negotiate transfer policies with its administrators and classified personnel, it could; however, most often, school districts chose not to do so.

Ms. Tiffany asked Chairman Bache if he recalled what position Nevada’s school districts took on A.B. 11. It was her recollection they opposed the bill. Chairman Bache replied the school districts opposed A.B. 11, and the crux of their opposition related to involuntary transfers. Sometimes administrators and classified personnel were transferred from positions they did not choose to abdicate.

Ms. Tiffany indicated it was her recollection involuntary transfers of administrators and classified personnel were based on considerations such as school growth and staffing needs. Chairman Bache confirmed Ms. Tiffany’s recollection was correct.

There was no further discussion.

A brief discussion was held between Chairman Bache and Mr. Thomas regarding scheduling of a further hearing on A.B. 349.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:32 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sara J. Kaufman

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: