The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Thursday, March 25, 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.

Simultaneous videoconferencing of the meeting was provided to Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada.

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:

Vonne S. Chowning, Assembly District 28

Barbara K. Cegavske, Assembly District 5

Jerry D. Claborn, Assembly District 19

Tom Collins, Assembly District 1

Donald G. Gustavson, Assembly District 32

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Richard Riolo, Prevention Captain, Forestry Division,

Jim Reinhardt, Fire Chief, East Fork Fire and Paramedic Districts,

Aaron Clack, a private citizen

Jennifer Collier, a private citizen

Raymond McAllister, Southern District Vice President,

Gina Polovina, President, Clark County Safe Kids Coalition

Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities

Dennis C. Revell, President, Revell Communications, representing

Edward G. Taylor, a private citizen

Jeff Donahue, Acting Fire Marshal, Las Vegas Fire Department

Chuck Murphy, Las Vegas Fire Department

David Marsili, Las Vegas Fire Department

Frank McKoy, a private citizen

Francis Gillings, a private citizen

Tim McKoy, owner of Red Rock Trading Company

Robert R. Barengo, representing Red Rock Trading Company

Andy Anderson, President, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, and

President, Las Vegas Police Protective Association

Danny L. Thompson, Nevada State AFL-CIO, testified.

Nile D. Carson, Deputy Chief, Reno Police Department

Barbara McKenzie, representing city of Reno, Nevada

Ronald R. Dreher,

Randy L. Oaks, Captain, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department,

John Dean Harper, attorney at law, representing

Gary Wolff, representing Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Robert J. Gagnier, Executive Director,

Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning, Assembly District 28, testified, in part by reading from prepared text (Exhibit C). She submitted a packet of information contained in a red folder (Exhibit D) and a proposed amendment to A.B. 160 (Exhibit E).

Ms. Chowning stated Nevada was the only state which had no fireworks law, and citizens of Nevada were endangered by the proliferation of highly hazardous fireworks in Nevada. Although Clark County imposed strict limitations on the type fireworks which could be used in that county, other counties in Nevada did not do likewise. Highly hazardous fireworks, purchased either outside Clark County or on Indian reservations, were brought into the county and caused injuries and fires.

Ms. Chowning pointed out Washoe County also experienced devastating damage as the result of fireworks use, and federal lands in Nevada had been damaged.

Ms. Chowning explained what various sections of A.B. 160 accomplished.

• Sections 1 and 3 authorized the state fire marshal to regulate fireworks permitted for use in Nevada. In addition, section 3, in conjunction with the proposed amendment (Exhibit E), established only "safe and sane" fireworks could legally be sold, stored, or used in Nevada.

• Section 4 established procedures for reimbursing either state or local governmental authorities for damages caused by use of illegal fireworks.

• Section 5 clarified the state fire marshal’s enforcement duties regarding fireworks.

• Sections 6 and 7 allowed nonprofit organizations to continue to raise money through sale of "safe and sane" fireworks. However, if they chose to do so, city and county governments could impose more rigid restrictions than those set forth in sections 6 and 7.

Ms. Chowning asserted A.B. 160 constituted a stand against use of highly hazardous fireworks while allowing use of "safe and sane" fireworks, which neither left the ground nor exploded but provided visual entertainment. She urged the committee to support the bill.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked whether fireworks could be taken onto Lake Mead. Ms. Chowning replied if park rangers at Lake Mead permitted fireworks on the lake, then "safe and sane" fireworks, but no others, could be taken onto the lake.

Chairman Bache pointed out Lake Mead bordered Arizona and asked whether Ms. Chowning knew what Arizona’s fireworks laws were. Ms. Chowning referred to a map, contained in Exhibit C, which she said reflected which types of fireworks were or were not allowed throughout the United States. She contended Arizona was much more restrictive than Nevada about fireworks use.

Ms. Von Tobel said during one or two summers, she sold fireworks to raise money for her son’s band. People would tell her they wanted to purchase the smallest pack of fireworks for sale so they could use it to cover illegal fireworks they intended to purchase on an Indian reservation. Although that irritated and disgusted her, she had no choice but to sell them the fireworks they wanted.

Ms. Von Tobel pointed out it was illegal for people to remove fireworks purchased on an Indian reservation from that reservation. She asked whether Clark County had no laws through which to punish people for removing fireworks from Indian reservations or whether the county simply ignored that activity.

Ms. Chowning pointed out the Indian nation was a sovereign nation whose activities Nevada, currently, could do nothing to curtail. If Nevada enacted a state fireworks law, it would then be up to the state’s federal representatives to take further action. However, having a state law would provide Nevada more resources with which to combat use of illegal fireworks. Signs could be posted outside Indian reservations to advise citizens if they chose to purchase illegal fireworks on a reservation and subsequently removed those fireworks from the reservation, they would be breaking state law. Also, highway patrol officers could confiscate illegal fireworks.

Ms. Von Tobel said when she and other people sold fireworks, they knew that people who bought illegal fireworks from Indian reservations were doing something illegal in Clark County; however, she and the others could do nothing about it. She said she appreciated A.B. 160 and thanked Ms. Chowning for sponsoring the bill.

Mr. Humke asked what good it would do for Nevada to have a state fireworks law and for the state fire marshal to have fireworks regulations if Indian tribes continued to sell whatever type fireworks they chose to sell. Ms. Chowning replied both the legislative counsel and the Attorney General’s Office told her if Nevada enacted a state fireworks law, actions could then be taken to alter activities on Nevada’s Indian reservations; however, those actions could not be taken in the absence of a state fireworks law.

Ms. Chowning contended if a state law was in place, resources would be available for dealing with illegal fireworks. Such fireworks could be confiscated. Also, people who chose to use illegal fireworks and, thereby, caused a fire or an injury would have to pay monetary damages. Section 4 of A.B. 160 established a procedure for instituting legal proceedings in such situations.

Mr. Humke asked whether it was Ms. Chowning’s testimony pursuant to section 4 of A.B. 160, if a person bought fireworks legally sold by an Indian tribe but illegal under state law and subsequently caused damage through use of those fireworks, that person was responsible for the damage. Ms. Chowning answered if citizens of Nevada brought fireworks purchased on an Indian reservation located within the state’s borders off the reservation, those citizens would be breaking state law and would be responsible for any damage they caused.

Ms. Freeman asked what penalties would be imposed and what could be done to discourage young people from using fireworks. In response, Ms. Chowning pointed out section 4, lines 16 through 18, said the state fire marshal or any agency or local government of the state of Nevada could institute a legal proceeding to enforce the provisions of A.B. 160. She referred to fires on Peavine Mountain which occurred as a result of fireworks use and asserted had the law established by A.B. 160 been in place at the time, it would have been much easier to institute legal proceedings against the individuals who caused those fires. She pointed out lines 6 through 8 of section 4 required reimbursement of costs and contended if someone chose to use an item which caused either an injury or a fire, he should have to suffer the consequences by paying the resultant costs.

Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske, Assembly District 5, testified in support of A.B. 160. Ms. Cegavske informed the committee as the owner of a 7-11 store for 13 years, she was involved in muscular dystrophy fundraisers through selling "safe and sane" fireworks, the only type fireworks those involved in the fundraisers sold. Those involved in the fundraisers were aware of the injuries caused by illegal fireworks.

Ms. Cegavske contended illegal fireworks used to create fireworks displays at various hotels should be handled by professionals. She urged the committee to support A.B. 160.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether she was correct A.B. 160 would not prohibit Boulder City from putting on a fireworks display on the Fourth of July. Ms. Cegavske replied affirmatively.

Mr. Neighbors said he received a letter from Pahrump Valley Fire Department, and the fire department was very supportive of A.B. 160. However, Pahrump Valley Fire Department recommended the powers the bill established be extended to unincorporated towns.

In response to Mr. Neighbors’ comments, Ms. Chowning said it was intended A.B. 160 apply to unincorporated areas as well counties and cities. If it did not, because of a bill drafting error, she would happy to amend it to do so.

Chairman Bache said he had a question about the language on page 3 of A.B. 160, which was confusing with regard to what was and was not regulated. However, the state fire marshal might be better able than Ms. Chowning to address his question.

Bryon Slobe, Assistant State Fire Marshal, State of Nevada, testified. He first addressed Ms. Freeman’s question about penalties. He explained if a person was caught in possession of illegal fireworks but not actively using those fireworks, that person was guilty of a misdemeanor. However, if a person started a fire through use of illegal fireworks, that person had committed a third degree felony. He asserted people went, unknowingly, from committing a misdemeanor to committing a felony.

Assistant Fire Marshal Slobe indicated the language Chairman Bache found confusing had been rewritten, as set forth in the proposed amendment (Exhibit E), which would be discussed by Michael Cyphers of Clark County Fire Department.

Michael Cyphers, representing Clark County Fire Department and Southern Nevada Fire Prevention Association, testified. He explained he was a chemical engineer with Clark County Fire Department. He was also chairman of the fireworks committee of Southern Nevada Fire Prevention Association and, therefore, represented all five local fire departments in southern Nevada.

Mr. Cyphers said the entities he represented also believed the language of section 3 was confusing and had worked closely with Assemblywoman Chowning to develop a more concise definition, as set forth in the proposed amendment (Exhibit E).

Chairman Bache remarked page 3 was confusing in its entirety, and his concern was about the language of that entire page and not, specifically, about the proposed amendment (Exhibit E).

Mr. Cyphers discussed the proposed amendment (Exhibit E). He explained "safe and sane" was a moniker ascribed by certain testing agencies, and there was no such thing as "safe and sane" fireworks under the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, the proposed amendment to A.B. 160 (Exhibit E), referred to Title 49, Part 173.56, of the Code of Federal Regulations, which in turn referred to an American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) standard for construction and approval of fireworks and theatrical pyrotechnics.

Mr. Cyphers said the APA standard described what was considered a "consumer firework," the type firework most people knew as "safe and sane." The proposed amendment (Exhibit E) enabled A.B. 160 to first utilize APA’s standard and then establish two exceptions to that standard. One of those exceptions would prohibit sale of aerial devices, such as bottle rockets, roman candles, and other devices which flew through the air and were the cause of most brush fires and fires on the roofs of houses. The second exception prohibited sale of audible, ground devices, which were devices that exploded. The proposed amendment (Exhibit E) would allow Nevada to adopt a rule for use of "safe and sane" fireworks, which technically were consumer type fireworks which did not fly, shoot, or explode.

Mr. Lee referred to page 4, line 1, of A.B. 160 and asked "Does this change the height or the lateral travel based upon the aerial devices?" Mr. Cyphers replied the proposed amendment (Exhibit E) deleted from A.B. 160 language which restricted the height an aerial device could reach to a maximum of 15 feet and inserted language which referenced APA’s standard.

Mr. Cyphers explained some of the standards A.B. 160 established did not conform to federal regulations. Neither federal regulations nor APA’s standard established a height limit for fireworks. The lateral distance a firework was allowed to travel was 10 feet. He said, " . . . where the 15 foot limit there was for the height – like a ground bloom flower could bounce or fly through the air – it’s actually 1 meter in federal law, so 3 feet 3 inches. So, it’s actually quite a bit more restrictive than the original language."

Mr. Lee asked, "So, we’re actually going to supercede the 15 foot level because now we’ve taken the aerial devices classification, which has no height. Is that what you’re saying?" Mr. Cyphers replied affirmatively.

Mr. Lee asked whether use of wood core sparklers and metal core sparklers was addressed by A.B. 160. Mr. Cyphers answered the issue of their use was addressed by adopting APA’s standard, which specifically defined what did or did not constitute a sparkler. He explained a "number 10" sparkler was considered a novelty item, not a firework, and could be purchased in stores which sold party supplies. However, once a sparkler contained more than a certain amount of pyrotechnic material, it was considered a firework, whether it had a steel core or a wood core, and was regulated " . . . under the APA."

Mr. Lee asked for confirmation Mr. Cyphers was not concerned about whether a sparkler had a wood core or a metal core. Mr. Cyphers confirmed he was not.

Chairman Bache pointed out the proposed amendment (Exhibit E) made reference to section 4, commencing at line 14 of page 3. However, he assumed the proposed amendment was intended to reference subsection 4 (of section 3) because it deleted the language of that subsection, from line 13 on page 3 to the commencement of section 4, and replaced it with the language set forth in the proposed amendment. Mr. Cyphers confirmed Mr. Bache was correct.

Mr. Humke referred to those provisions of A.B. 160 which said the state fire marshal would establish regulations through which to carry out the intent of the bill. He asked whether those provisions should be interpreted to mean the state fire marshal had yet to develop such regulations. Assistant Fire Marshal Slobe responded the state fire marshal had regulations in place; however, they established a very minimum standard. Although the standards established by A.B. 160 were also minimal, the bill specified the fire marshal’s authority to address problems resulting from use of fireworks other than "safe and sane" fireworks.

Mr. Humke declared he did not like regulations and did not like agencies which promulgated regulations after the legislature passed a law. His concern was section 4 allowed the state fire marshal to pass any regulations he desired to pass in order to carry out the intent of A.B. 160. He asked Assistant Fire Marshal Slobe what kind of regulations the state fire marshal would pass. Assistant Fire Marshal Slobe responded the state fire marshal would establish minimum standards for "safe and sane" fireworks and would do nothing else. He pointed out any county, city, or other governmental entity in Nevada could pass laws imposing stricter standards than those established by the state fire marshal.

Mr. Humke asked whether the proposed amendment (Exhibit E), which he found confusing, established a standard for "safe and sane" fireworks at the state level of government, and local governments would then be required to establish standards at least as restrictive as the state government’s standard. Assistant Fire Marshal Slobe replied affirmatively.

Mr. Humke asked for confirmation local governments could establish standards more restrictive than those established at the state level of government. Assistant Fire Marshal Slobe confirmed they could.

Richard Riolo, Prevention Captain, Forestry Division, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State of Nevada, testified. He stated he was lead investigator of the Peavine Mountain fire, which consumed 2,350 acres. It cost more than $700,000 to suppress the fire and more than $100,000 to re-seed the area consumed by the fire, which because of its terrain, had to be re-seeded by helicopter.

Captain Riolo explained the firework which started the Peavine fire contained a 19-round projectile. When he investigated the fire, he determined the fire had 15 different starting points, whose distance from the projectile ranged from 20 to 75 yards. Fire spread in every direction, which made it difficult for firefighters to control the file and prevent it from burning back toward them. In addition, members of the public, such as hikers and campers, were in the Peavine Mountain area at the time of the fire, and firefighters had to delay fighting the fire to ensure members of the public were removed from the area.

Captain Riolo indicated the Forestry Division supported A.B. 160 in order to curb fires. The Peavine Mountain fire occurred primarily on public land, which meant the State of Nevada incurred most of the cost created by the fire, which was nearly $900,000.

Mr. Lee asked Assistant Fire Marshal Slobe to make written copies of APA’s standards for aerial devices and audible ground devices available to the committee.

Jim Reinhardt, Fire Chief, East Fork Fire and Paramedic Districts, Douglas County, Nevada, testified. He informed the committee he was incident commander of the interagency management team for the Peavine Mountain fire. He expressed support for A.B. 160, particularly section 6 of the bill, which allowed local governments discretion to be more restrictive than required by the bill and to ban fire works in their communities.

Chief Reinhardt pointed out Clark County did not experience as great a problem with cheat grass as that experienced in northern Nevada. He referred to a video he said showed "safe and sane" sparklers igniting a small grass fire at East Fork Fire and Paramedic Districts facility and explained depending on the type of fuel involved, "safe and sane" fireworks could ignite fires.

Assemblywoman Freeman said she missed some of the testimony and asked who determine what constituted "safe and sane" fireworks in Nevada. Chief Reinhardt deferred to Assistant State Fire Marshal Strobe to answer Ms. Freeman’s question. Assistant Chief Fire Marshal Strobe said the proposed amendment (Exhibit E) permitted use of "safe and sane" fireworks unless counties or cities wished to be more restrictive than required by A.B. 160.

Ms. Freeman said she believed state government had a responsibility to establish a statewide standard for fireworks.

Assistant Chief Fire Marshal Strobe said the standard established by A.B. 160 was a minimum statewide standard. Any of Nevada’s local governments desiring to do so could impose more restrictive standards.

Mr. Cyphers gave further testimony. He reiterated the term "safe and sane" was a moniker. The proposed amendment (Exhibit E) defined what constituted a consumer firework. Bottle rockets could bear a "safe and sane" label; however, the exceptions the amendment established with respect to aerial devices and audible ground devices would prohibit fireworks which flew through the air. He explained fireworks which met the state’s minimum standard would be those which constituted a consumer device which was neither a bottle rocket, an M80, a Roman candle, or a similar device.

Aaron Clack, a private citizen, testified. He described events resulting in his being injured by a firework. He explained he and some friends were walking to a bus stop when they found an M80. When one of his friends lit the M80, he noticed the device’s fuse was split. He snatched the M80 from his friend’s hand to throw it away; it blew up in his hand, and he had to be hospitalized.

Ms. Gibbons asked how old Mr. Clack was at the time he was injured. Mr. Clack replied he had just turned 14.

A brief discussion ensued between Ms. Gibbons and Mr. Clack.

Ms. Gibbons said, " . . . I don’t know if we could have prevented what happened to you if they bought it on a reservation and you picked it up."

Jennifer Collier, a private citizen, testified. Ms. Collier explained she was a legislative intern assigned to Assemblywoman Chowning and had done some research on A.B. 160. In the course of her research, she read statistics concerning children burnt or maimed by illegal fireworks. Mr. Clack, who was an acquaintance of her children, represented " . . . a real, live, flesh and blood statistic . . .," which made A.B. 160 much more relevant to her.

Ms. Collier asked the committee to do whatever was necessary to create a law which would protect Nevada’s children. She stated she was a both a parent and an educator-in-training and wished to ensure what happened to Mr. Clack would not happen again. She maintained although fireworks could be sold on Indian reservations, if Nevada had a state law governing fireworks " . . . we’re going to be able to tighten that up." She said she was present to support A.B. 160 not as a legislative intern but, rather, as a parent and an educator.

Raymond McAllister, Southern District Vice President, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, testified. He declared Professional Firefighters of Nevada fully supported A.B. 160. He stated he represented individuals who actually engaged in putting out fires and who had an opportunity to see the destruction and injuries they caused.

Mr. McAllister stated Professional Firefighters of Nevada believed A.B. 160 would help restrict use of illegal fireworks and, thereby, reduce the number of fires which occurred during the week preceding the Fourth of July holiday. During that week, each fire station received from 5 to 10 times as many fire related calls as it normally received. As firefighters, members of Professional Firefighters of Nevada believed any measures taken to reduce the number of fires would not only result in decreased loss of life and property but would also limit firefighters’ exposure to injury.

Mr. McAllister contended fighting fires in southern Nevada during the month of July, while carrying approximately 50 pounds of equipment in 100 degree temperatures, was not a pleasant experience, and firefighters should not be subjected to such conditions as a result of use of illegal fireworks. He declared Professional Firefighters of Nevada urged the committee to support A.B. 160.

Gina Polovina, President, Clark County Safe Kids Coalition, testified. She advised Clark County Safe Kids Coalition had an extensive membership roster. A vast majority of the major hospitals in Clark County, the county’s health district, and both city and county fire departments were among the coalition’s long-standing members. The coalition’s mission was to prevent unintentional injuries to children; such injuries were the leading cause of death among young people.

Ms. Polovina expressed support for A.B. 160, which she asserted would protect Nevada’s children from the debilitating injuries fireworks containing high levels of explosives could produce. By restricting retailers to the sale of approved "safe and sane" fireworks, A.B. 160 would reduce the incidence of children coming into contact with more potent firework devices, such as M180s and bottle rockets. More often than not, it was devices of that nature which caused the many serious injuries inflicted each year.

Ms. Polovina asserted the Fourth of July was a holiday filled with fun and celebration and need not be a holiday filled with unnecessary tragedy. She maintained passage of A.B. 160 would enable present and future generations to enjoy that holiday safely, and she urged the committee to support the bill.

Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe gave further testimony. He displayed a video which showed trained professionals in the act of disposing of class E fireworks when an explosion occurred. He suggested if what the video portrayed could happen to trained professionals, a catastrophe could result if children found a large box of fireworks and decided to ignite the entire box. He asserted fireworks could cause massive injuries, which might necessitate years of rehabilitation, could leave scars, or cause loss of eyesight.

Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, testified. He submitted a letter from the city of Sparks’ fire department (Exhibit F) and a letter from Pahrump Valley Fire Department (Exhibit G). He said Nevada League of Cities was pleased by sections 6 and 7 of A.B. 160 and supported use of "safe and sane" fireworks.

Mr. Mortenson posed a question to Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe. Referring to the video previously displayed, in which professional technicians dumped fireworks into a hole in the ground, he asked whether the fireworks ignited spontaneously when they were dumped into the hole or whether, instead, there was a fire at the bottom of the hole. Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe replied the video showed a man carrying a road flare, which was the man’s source of ignition. When the man knelt to ignite the first small pile of fireworks, that pile exploded.

Mr. Mortenson said Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe mentioned old fireworks should not be used. He asked whether old fireworks had some degree of instability. Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe replied wet fireworks were inherently unstable and capable of self-ignition.

Mr. Mortenson pointed out he did not inquire about wet fireworks, rather he inquired about old fireworks. He asked whether mere age would cause fireworks to destabilize or, instead, they must be both old and wet to destabilize. Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe replied he was uncertain what effect age had on fireworks. He explained if a firework became wet and powder leaked to the bottom of its packaging and, subsequently, dried out, the powder became unstable and either static electricity or movement could cause the firework to ignite.

Dennis C. Revell, President, Revell Communications, representing American Promotional Events, Inc., testified utilizing prepared text (Exhibit H). He explained he was appearing on behalf of American Promotional Events, Inc., a client of Revell Communications, which was a public relations/public affairs firm. American Promotional Events, Inc., was a wholesale distributor of such brand name fireworks as Red Devil, Freedom, Monster, and Patriot, which were state approved or "safe and sane" fireworks. The company was known not only as the nation’s largest wholesale distributor of "safe and sane" fireworks but also as a company committed to safety and education programs. The company distinguished itself, throughout the state, as a company committed to safety and service, and helped develop and implement statewide, as well as local, fireworks safety and education efforts and worked with the fire service to identify products which needed to be either improved or removed from the market. The company worked with California’s state fire marshal’s office to develop and secure passage of more stringent statewide regulations, designed to improve the quality and performance standards of fireworks sold in California, and to increase licensing fees paid by industry wholesalers and importers in order to fund fire departments’ and police departments’ crackdowns on dangerous, illegal fireworks.

Mr. Revell stated American Promotional Events, Inc., was a charter member of American Fireworks Safety Laboratory, a fireworks testing and safety laboratory similar to Underwriters Laboratory, which worked to maintain the quality and consistency of "safe and sane" fireworks products sold throughout the United States. The company serviced more than 150 local civic and nonprofit organizations which provided a broad scope of services within their communities. The company underwrote a safety and education program, sponsored by Southern Nevada Fire Prevention Council, and produced a 30-second public service announcement, shown on cable television, which encouraged safe and responsible use of "safe and sane" fireworks.

Mr. Revell expressed his clients support for A.B. 160.

Mr. Revell explained an M80 was federally banned, was not considered legal in any state, and was a highly dangerous item. He referred to a one-page document entitled "Types of State-Approved Fireworks," contained in Exhibit D. He said that document showed the types of fireworks permitted in California and displayed a broad cross-section of the types of fireworks available. California’s fireworks testing process was similar to the process utilized by Southern Nevada Fire Prevention Council, and California published a list of fireworks items permitted to be sold and used in that state. If a California fire official discovered a fireworks stand was selling an item not on that list or found such an item in someone’s possession, the item would be confiscated and the seller or possessor cited.

Mr. Revell pointed out Exhibit D contained a letter from United States Fireworks Safety Council, a nonprofit organization comprised of fireworks wholesalers throughout the United States. He stated American Promotional Events, Inc., was the largest single contributor to that organization, whose goal was to improve fireworks safety throughout the nation and restrict the sale of fireworks to items which were "safe and sane."

Mr. Revell referred to the availability of illegal fireworks on Indian reservations and asserted some things could be controlled and others could not. However, he maintained, to the degree the legislature could reduce the opportunity for young people to acquire illegal fireworks and injure themselves, the legislature would do both those young people and the state a service.

Mrs. Freeman asked whether fireworks were manufactured in a country other than the United States. Mr. Revell replied fireworks were manufactured primarily in Asia. Mexico was improving as a producer of fireworks but could not meet quality standards. American Fireworks Safety Laboratory established an office in Asia, and all fireworks products were submitted to random testing before being shipped to the United States. In addition, both federal and state authorities performed similar testing on fireworks products when those products arrived.

Mrs. Freeman asked why, if fireworks were safe, they were not produced in the United States. Mr. Revell responded fireworks were produced in the United States but over the years had been produced primarily in Asia.

Edward G. Taylor, a private citizen, testified. He stated he had lived in Las Vegas for 18 years. Each year, local television stations broadcast a warning a person was caught with illegal fireworks could be fined. He asserted the operative word in that warning was "can" and, instead, the operative word should be "will." If his house burned down as a result of use of illegal fireworks, such use was a misdemeanor offense. Use of illegal fireworks should be a felony, and the person or persons responsible for burning down his house should serve time in jail and also make restitution.

Mr. Taylor maintained although fire marshals with whom he worked were very cooperative, the size of Clark County’s population and the number of people who used illegal fireworks tied their hands. He stated, "I’ve been actually turned away by Metro police because they want me to personally identify the culprits in my neighborhood." He maintained identifying those culprits would make him a target for retribution and contended Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department should assist Las Vegas’ fire department, which was overwhelmed on the Fourth of July.

Mr. Taylor declared his strong support for A.B. 160.

Jeff Donahue, Acting Fire Marshal, Las Vegas Fire Department, testified. He expressed Las Vegas Fire Department’s support for A.B. 160, which the department believed would help resolve problems the department faced as a result of lack of a standard fireworks requirement throughout Nevada and the fact illegal fireworks were brought into Clark County from other counties.

Acting Fire Marshal Donahue explained over the past several years, Las Vegas Fire Department engaged in extensive enforcement and public education efforts. During the Fourth of July holiday, the department sent numerous teams of inspectors to confiscate illegal fireworks. Those inspectors informed "it’s basically a war zone out there." They were unable to respond appropriately because of the high incidence of illegal fireworks. In 1998, several major house fires occurred because of use of illegal fireworks, and only in approximately a dozen incidents were fire department officials able to confiscate illegal fireworks and issue citations. In many incidents in which fire department inspectors made contact with individuals in possession of illegal fireworks, alcohol was involved, and alcohol and illegal fireworks did not mix well. Several times inspectors were forced to request assistance from officers of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

Acting Fire Marshal Jeff Donahue reiterated Las Vegas Fire Department’s support for A.B. 160.

Chuck Murphy, Las Vegas Fire Department, testified. He said during his 30 years of fire fighting service, he served in both California and Nevada. He maintained failure to regulate use of illegal fireworks resulted in a waste of tax dollars and exposed citizens to property loss or damage and to personal injury. He asserted it was time to support a strong effort to ban illegal fireworks in Nevada.

David Marsili, Las Vegas Fire Department, testified. He declared A.B. 160 was badly needed as an enforcement tool.

Frank McKoy, a private citizen, testified. He informed the committee approximately 21 years previously, he opened a fireworks company in Nevada called Blackjack Fireworks. His son now owned that company.

Mr. McKoy stated M80s appeared to pose the greatest fireworks problem. He explained an M80 was a class B explosive not a firework, and he maintained no legitimate fireworks company sold M80s. He referred to the video displayed by Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe and said the explosion portrayed in that video was caused by class B explosives, not fireworks, either of the type sold in a fireworks stores or the type sold on Indian reservations.

Mr. McKoy said there appeared to be confusion about what constituted a class B explosive and what constituted a consumer firework. He contended use of M80s could not be prevented and maintained if firecrackers were eliminated, both children and adults could manufacture highly explosive devices from "safe and sane" fireworks products.

Mr. McKoy asserted A.B. 160 removed power from local governments and placed it in the hands of the state, and the bill precluded the existence of a fireworks importer, manufacturer, or packager in Nevada. He asserted A.B. 160 was directed at one company in Nevada. The bill would eliminate that company, which hired 12 people year-round and more than 50 to 60 people during the summertime, but would not change what occurred on Nevada’s Indian reservations.

Mr. McKoy said he heard testimony Red Devil fireworks company supported A.B. 160; however, Red Devil fireworks were sold on some Indian reservations. He contended that situation created an unlevel playing field. He declared A.B. 160 would put people who had paid taxes for 21 years out of business and give their business to Nevada’s Indian reservations, which sold more than 80 percent of fireworks sold in Nevada.

Mr. McKoy stated testimony was given about fires, but the testimony was those fires were started by "safe and sane" fireworks.

Mr. McKoy maintained pursuant to section 4 of A.B. 160, any agency could make an arrest or determine how to deal with illegal fireworks. He stated, "What they’re considering the illegal is actually illegal in the counties that don’t have the fireworks, and also the safe and sane is illegal in that county." He said Clark County adopted (standards for) certain types of fireworks which the county designated as "safe and sane" fireworks. However, there was no national standard designating a firework device as "safe and sane;" such devices were designated either as consumer fireworks or as class B explosives. He contended the more restrictions were placed on fireworks, the more frequently M80s would be used because people would manufacture their own fireworks.

Mr. McKoy explained old fireworks did not constitute a safety issue. Rather, it was fireworks which became wet and then dried out or which were damaged that constituted a safety issue, and such fireworks were not sold to consumers.

Mr. McKoy referred to section 4 of A.B. 160 and asked, rhetorically, "Does this mean a county official, or a state official, or somebody like a constable . . . could come along and make an arrest? How about the local dog catcher, can he come along and make an arrest?" He suggested A.B. 160 would allow any of the officials he enumerated to make an arrest.

Ms. Von Tobel said she believed it inappropriate for Mr. McKoy to suggest A.B. 160 would take away anyone’s right to engage in free enterprise. She referred to a document contained in the handout provided by Assemblywoman Chowning (Exhibit D) and pointed out that document provided information about the level of fireworks sales allowed in each state and contained the statement "Nevada has firework laws only at the county level." She suggested that statement must mean all other states had state fireworks laws and only Nevada did not.

Ms. Von Tobel declared Nevada had experienced devastating fires, and there was a need to address minimal fireworks standards at the state level, which was the purpose of A.B. 160. She asserted the bill would not deprive Mr. McKoy of his ability to do business in Nevada.

Mr. McKoy maintained A.B. 160 clearly stated class C fireworks, which were consumer-type fireworks, would be outlawed in Nevada. The bill outlawed not only the sale of such fireworks but also their storage, the business in which his son engaged, and their packaging.

Assistant State Fire Marshal Slobe called the committee’s attention to a fireworks display he prepared. He invited the committee to review the display when it had the opportunity and offered to answer any questions committee members might have.

Acting Fire Marshal Donahue gave further testimony. He said Mr. McKoy testified the majority of his sales occurred on Indian Reservations. He stated Las Vegas Fire Department had no jurisdiction over either the sale or use of fireworks on Indian reservations, and the department’s contention was " . . . let him sell them and let them use them at the Indian reservation." Las Vegas Fire Department’s problem was that fireworks products were purchased throughout the state, both on Indian reservations and in counties other than Clark County, and brought into the department’s jurisdiction even though Clark County’s fireworks laws were more stringent than those of other counties. Acting Fire Marshal Donahue said he did not believe A.B. 160 would impose any restrictions on Mr. McKoy’s business trade.

Francis Gillings, a private citizen, testified. He stated he supported A.B. 160 but would " . . . like to see it have a midnight law on it because the simple fact is we’re in the trouble we’re in because of our indoctrination system throughout this country."

Mr. Gillings contended the individuals who handled fireworks in the video displayed by Acting State Fire Marshal Slobe were not professionals. He maintained common sense would tell someone to light a pile of fireworks material from a distance, and A.B. 160 was needed because children did not use common sense.

Mr. McKoy gave further testimony. He said he was no longer in the fireworks business. His sons now owned his business and did not sell fireworks on Indian reservations. They sold fireworks in Nye County. He said Red Devil and other companies sold more than 80 percent of fireworks sold on Indian reservations, and he reiterated his previous testimony that A.B. 160 created an unlevel playing field.

Mr. Revell said he wished to clarify as it pertained to his client, Mr. McKoy’s statement was incorrect.

Tim McKoy, owner of Red Rock Trading Company, testified in opposition to A.B. 160. He submitted a document entitled "Why A.B. 160 is a Bad Bill" (Exhibit I). He suggested previous testimony generated confusion and said although there was discussion about dangerous fireworks which started fires, subsequent testimony disclosed the Peavine Mountain fire was caused by a "safe and sane" firework.

Mr. McKoy maintained Red Rock Trading Company was the only fireworks company affected by A.B. 160. The company had a small outlet in Nye County and engaged in retail sales, wholesale sales, importing, and selling fireworks to other fireworks companies in nine states other than Nevada. A.B. 160 would preclude Red Rock Trading Company from engaging in either retail or wholesale sales. The bill would not affect fireworks sales on Indian reservations but would put his company out of business.

Mr. McKoy contended Nevada’s counties had always had control over fireworks use and had good laws. Clark County imposed restrictions on fireworks use, and if someone violated those restrictions, that person could be charged with a misdemeanor and fined. Nye County allowed certain types of fireworks to be sold. Esmeralda County permitted fireworks; however, no one sold fireworks in that county. Therefore, he said, " . . . all we’re dealing with is one county that allows all consumer fireworks." He maintained all consumer fireworks underwent testing and were regulated by the Federal Government.

Mr. McKoy said his business was begun by his grandfather and was now owned by himself and his brothers. He and his brothers had engaged in that business all their lives, and if A.B. 160 was passed by the legislature, it would cause the business to shut down and would bring harm to both his family and his brothers’ families.

Robert R. Barengo, representing Red Rock Trading Company, testified. He indicated he had testified before the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs regarding the issue of fireworks on numerous occasions, and he questioned the standard imposed by A.B. 160. He pointed out the proposed amendment (Exhibit E) would change the standards set forth on page 3 of A.B. 160 and said for three consecutive legislative sessions, he asked on what basis various standards were selected.

Mr. Barengo said Red Rock Trading Company did not support the sale of truly, illegal fireworks, which were class B fireworks, illegal throughout the United States. The issue was what type of firework was illegal. Clark County had a definition of illegal fireworks, and an attempt was being made to make that definition a statewide definition. That definition might not be the one utilized by any other state, and Red Rock Trading Company opposed adoption of an arbitrary standard which might be detrimental to that company.

Mr. Barengo referred to a page in Exhibit D which bore the heading, on its lower portion, "There’s a reason common fireworks are called ‘safe and sane’." He pointed out one column below that heading discussed fireworks consumption and contained a statement injuries decreased between 1976 and 1985 due, in part, to the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s tough standards. He explained the standard established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission was a national standard, which all fireworks sold in the United States were required to meet. That standard was the standard for consumer fireworks and the standard Red Rock Trading Company asked the legislature to adopt. The company had no objection to Nevada establishing the minimum standard adopted by the Federal Government; its objection pertained to " . . . selective enforcement to benefit particular products . . .."

Mr. Barengo stated Red Rock Trading Company did not understand how adoption of a statewide fireworks standard would solve the problems discussed. While there was testimony about many problems, there was also testimony "safe and sane" fireworks were responsible for some of those problems. He contended A.B. 160 did not address the type of illegal firework which caused Mr. Clack’s injury nor did the "safe and sane" standard established by the bill address the fires experienced in Nevada.

Ms. Gibbons asked Mr. McKoy how far from his business Indian reservations where fireworks could be purchased were located. Mr. McKoy replied his business was located in Pahrump, and one reservation on which fireworks were sold was located in northern Nevada, one was located north of Las Vegas, one was in Laughlin, and one was in Moapa.

Ms. Gibbons observed if Red Rock Trading Company went out of business, people who wanted to buy products sold by that company would still be able to buy them. Mr. McKoy indicated Ms. Gibbons’ observation was correct; people would be able to purchase those products on Indian reservations. Mr. McKoy stated he did not sell fireworks on Indian reservations and was subject to county laws.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether Mr. McKoy sold fireworks which left the ground. Mr. McKoy replied affirmatively and said he sold all consumer fireworks regulated by the Federal Government.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether Mr. McKoy was aware Clark County residents probably went to Pahrump to purchase his fireworks and then shot them off in Clark County. Mr. McKoy replied he was. He maintained some Clark County residents purchased fireworks in Pahrump; however, most went to Moapa to purchase fireworks.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether Mr. McKoy was aware fireworks which left the ground were illegal in Clark County but sold such fireworks to Clark County residents. Mr. McKoy replied affirmatively. However, he said, his company attempted to educate people and inform them such fireworks were illegal. He stated Red Rock Trading Company had as large a selection of safe and sane items as did fireworks stands in Las Vegas if not a larger selection.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether Mr. McKoy told his customers they were purchasing something which was illegal if taken into Clark County. Mr. McKoy replied affirmatively and said it was pointed out to customers which items were legal in Clark County and which were illegal.

Ms. Von Tobel asked for confirmation Mr. McKoy’s store held an assortment of both fireworks legal in Clark County and fireworks illegal in Clark county. Mr. McKoy confirmed his store did. However, he said, some fireworks labeled "safe and sane" were not " . . . registered with Mike Cyphers’ testing program . . .."

Ms. Von Tobel pointed out Mr. McKoy testified A.B. 160 would put him out of business. However, since he sold "safe and sane" fireworks, he had merchandise A.B. 160 would allow sold; he merely needed to establish some new merchandizing techniques. She said she did not understand how A.B. 160 would put Mr. McKoy out of business and would like to hear specifics in that regard. Mr. McKoy responded no more than, approximately, 15 percent of his business consisted of retail sales. The majority of his business consisted of wholesale sales to other fireworks companies throughout the United States, and A.B. 160 would prevent him from possessing, storing, selling, or transporting any kind of consumer firework in Nevada.

Ms. Von Tobel asked Mr. McKoy what section of A.B. 160 would prevent him from doing the things he enumerated. Mr. Barengo interjected, citing the language of section 4, on page 4, line 6.

Ms. Von Tobel asked Chairman Bache whether the proposed amendment (Exhibit E) amended section 4. Chairman Bache replied it did not. He explained the proposed amendment amended section 3, subsection 4.

Mr. Barengo pointed out A.B. 160 required every county in Nevada to pass a law establishing the minimum fireworks standard set forth in the bill. Therefore, Red Rock Trading Company would be prohibited from possessing any fireworks which did not meet that standard even it the company was merely storing them pending transport.

Ms. Von Tobel asked in which states Mr. McKoy could currently sell fireworks but would be unable to sell fireworks under the provisions of A.B. 160. Mr. Barengo replied Mr. McKoy’s ability to sell fireworks in other states was not the issue. He explained Mr. McKoy contracted for the manufacture of fireworks, which he then brought into Nevada and stored in Nevada and subsequently distributed. A.B. 160 precluded storage of any fireworks in Nevada other than those which conformed to the minimum standard established by the bill; however, other states permitted other types of fireworks.

Ms. Von Tobel asked Mr. McKoy to clarify how A.B. 160 would affect his ability to do business as a distributor. Mr. McKoy referred to a map contained in Exhibit D and explained each state in which a dot appeared on the map permitted sale of all consumer fireworks. The state of Washington allowed the sale of most consumer fireworks, prohibiting only the sale of firecrackers and rockets. His business imported fireworks and distributed them to the states of Washington, South Dakota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas. He contended A.B. 160 would preclude that business activity.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether it was Mr. McKoy’s position he was not opposed to a state fireworks law but wanted to ensure any such law would allow him to do business as a fireworks distributor. Mr. Barengo interjected Red Rock Trading Company would like a uniform fireworks standard. The company would like that standard to be the one imposed by federal law with some exceptions thereto which would permit the company to import fireworks and sell them to those counties in which they were legal and to those states to which it presently sold them.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether Mr. Barengo had with him, in written form, appropriate language to accomplish what he expressed. Mr. Barengo replied he did not.

Chairman Bache asked whether Mr. McKoy was primarily concerned about the wholesale sales, storage, and distribution aspect of his business as opposed to its retail sales aspect. Mr. McKoy indicated he was concerned about his retail sales as well as the other aspects of his business. He declared A.B. 160 affected only one person, and he was that person. The bill did not affect Nevada’s Indian reservations; consequently, the legislature was, essentially, telling everyone to go to the Indian reservations to purchase fireworks.

Chairman Bache pointed out only the Federal Government could control the sale of fireworks on Indian reservations. He suggested if Nevada had a state fireworks law, the Federal Government might act with respect to fireworks in Nevada in a manner similar to the way it acted with respect to gaming in states which had gaming laws.

Mr. McKoy said fireworks were sold on Indian reservations in many states, and many state fire marshals had tried for years, with no success, to eliminate such sales.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Mr. McKoy was able to sell fireworks in California. Mr. McKoy replied certain items could be sold in California.

Mr. Barengo advised the committee he would prepare a proposed amendment to A.B. 160.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 160.

Chairman Bache announced due to lack of a quorum, the committee was now sitting as a subcommittee.

Assemblyman Jerry D. Claborn, Assembly District 19, testified. He explained A.B. 422 effected various statutory changes related to certain law enforcement agencies by: authorizing a sheriff to collect fees for providing law enforcement services to central cities; requiring a city council, under certain circumstances, to create a police department; and revising the duties of a sheriff or chief of police.

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Assembly District 1, testified. Mr. Collins informed the committee two cities in Nevada, Caliente and Ely, did not have police departments. He provided the committee with a copy of a letter from the city of Caliente explaining the city’s situation (Exhibit J). He stated he and Assemblyman Claborn sponsored A.B. 422 on behalf of Nevada’s sheriffs and said representatives of the sheriffs’ departments and police departments could best provide further testimony on the bill.

Chairman Bache announced the committee was again sitting as the Committee on Government Affairs rather than as a subcommittee.

Andy Anderson, President, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs (NCOPS), testified. He stated NCOPS currently represented peace officers of White Pine County and Lincoln County, the counties in which the two "affected cities" were located, and NCOPS perceived A.B. 422 would affect its members in those counties. He said Sheriff Bernie Romero and Ray Sawyer would provide details about the problems they were experiencing.

Bernie Romero, Sheriff, White Pine County, Nevada, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit K). He declared he supported A.B. 422 because of what occurred in White Pine County and the ripple effect that occurrence would have on every county in Nevada which contained unincorporated cities if the bill was not passed.

Sheriff Romero said in 1981, the city of Ely disbanded its police department and entered into an interlocal agreement with White Pine County and the county sheriff for law enforcement services. Each year, the city and county negotiated an amount the city would pay for those services. Until 1998, the average payment was approximately $350,000.

Sheriff Romero stated in 1998, the city of Ely entered into negotiations with the idea it did not have to pay the county for law enforcement services but, instead, could provide services to the county in trade for law enforcement services. White Pine County would not accept the city’s offer, and negotiations broke off.

Sheriff Romero explained the city of Ely relied on an attorney general’s opinion, issued in both 1995 and 1996, that the sheriff must provide protection for all residents of the county. White Pine County did not dispute that opinion but contended the city needed " . . . additional services because of a population density and the statutory requirement as an incorporated city under general law, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), Chapter 266."

Sheriff Romero contended because Ely refused to pay White Pine County for law enforcement services, the county had to establish its budget without benefit of the $350,000 it customarily received from the city. As a result, the county sheriff’s department’s budget was cut by $173,000, and he was given specific instructions the cut was to be made on extra services he provided Ely. He was forced to reduce his staff by five people but still had a statutory obligation to provide equal protection to all residents of White Pine County. He could limit the services he provided Ely to the same services he provided to other towns and to remote areas of White Pine County. However, he felt a moral obligation to concentrate his resources where they were most needed, and approximately 80 percent of the calls his office received were from residents of Ely. The county’s budget cuts jeopardized a $470,000 grant, and if that grant was not received, further cuts would have to be made.

Sheriff Romero said in 1998, a lawsuit was filed, seeking relief and seeking a judicial interpretation of the duties and responsibilities of cities incorporated under general law. That lawsuit was to be heard sometime in April 1999. White Pine County was informed if the court rendered a decision against Ely, the city would appeal the case to the Supreme Court, which would preclude relief for months, if not years.

Sheriff Romero urged the committee to support A.B. 422 and to consider what would happen if the bill was not passed. He explained the city of Caliente followed Ely’s example, and Lincoln County had to provide law enforcement services for Caliente. The economic future of other cities in Nevada was uncertain, and those cities might be tempted to follow suit. The resultant chain reaction could be devastating to both Nevada’s counties and the state itself.

Mr. Neighbors said he heard White Pine County initially charged $300,000 for its sheriff’s department to provide Ely with law enforcement services. By the eighth time the city and county met to negotiate for those services, the county was requesting $600,000, the asking price at the time negotiations ceased. He expressed concern about the legislature changing the law while a court case was pending.

Sheriff Romero responded no change in current law was sought. Current law mandated cities to provide law enforcement services and to appoint a chief of police. Because there was obviously a question about what cities’ obligations were, a clarification of current law was being sought.

Sheriff Romero said he believed in 1981, Ely paid White Pine County the sum of $350,000 plus one-half the cost of maintenance for both the public safety building and a portion of the jail. Since that time, negotiations were held each year, and the average sum the city paid was $350,000. Although $650,000 might have been a starting figure for negotiations, he had never known the ultimate fee to be that amount.

Ray Sawyer, President, White Pine County Sheriffs’ Employees Association, testified. He expressed support for A.B. 422, which he said he and Sheriff Romero initiated to clarify existing law. He and the sheriff believed the city of Ely had an obligation to provide law enforcement services within its incorporated boundaries while the city believed it did not have that obligation. Therefore, clarification was needed.

Mr. Sawyer said the fact the sheriff’s force was reduced by five people created an issue of officer safety, and because of White Pine County’s financial constraints, the sheriff’s officers did not have the best of equipment.

Mr. Sawyer said it was rumored White Pine County Sheriffs’ Employees Association initiated A.B. 422 for financial gain. However, it was the association’s position it might lose members if Ely decided to have its own police department. In essence, initiating A.B. 422 placed members’ jobs in jeopardy. However, the issue of whether or not Ely was obligated to provide law enforcement services for its citizens finally came to a head. It was the city’s position the city did not have to provide those services and the sheriff’s department’s position that the city did.

Chairman Bache summarized the situation. He stated it was the sheriff’s position the city of Ely must either provide law enforcement services for its citizens or enter into an interlocal agreement to pay, in cash, not in kind, for the cost of those services. It must do one or the other. Sheriff Romero responded Chairman Bache’s summarization was correct.

Assemblyman Lee said White Pine County probably contained many small towns and asked Sheriff Romero if there was a population figure which would trigger a city’s need for its own police department. Sheriff Romero replied there was not. As he interpreted the law, once a city became incorporated, it had an obligation to do several things, among them to appoint a chief of police and provide for public safety.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether, if A.B. 422 passed, law enforcement services for the cities of Ruth and McGill would continue to be provided by the county. Sheriff Romero responded affirmatively. He pointed out the cities of Ruth and McGill were not incorporated.

Chairman Bache said he assumed White Pine County’s tax rate was near the cap, and consequently the county commission could not assess an increase in the tax rate to fund the sheriff’s department’s operating expenses. Sheriff Romero stated Chairman Bache’s assumption was correct.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether she was correct Sheriff Romero, through A.B. 422, was raising his fees. Sheriff Romero replied the bill allowed a sheriff to charge for his law enforcement services if a city failed to meet its statutory obligation to provide its own law enforcement services.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether the fees discussed in A.B. 422 were the same in every county. Sheriff Romero replied affirmatively.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether A.B. 422 would raise sheriffs’ fees. Sheriff Romero indicated it would not.

Mr. Neighbors asked for confirmation White Pine County had negotiated and entered into contracts with Ely in the past. Sheriff Romero confirmed the county had done so.

Assemblyman Neighbors asked whether White Pine County’s negotiations with Ely broke down because the city believed the county was charging too much to provide law enforcement services. Sheriff Romero replied negotiations broke down because the city did not want to pay for law enforcement services. The city believed the attorney general’s opinion, issued in 1995 and again in 1996, stated a county’s sheriff was required to provide protection for all residents of that county.

Mr. Neighbors asked in what year the county and city last had a contract. Sheriff Romero responded they last had a contract in FY1997-98.

Mr. Sawyer read into the record a copy of a letter from White Pine County’s district attorney (Exhibit L) as follows:

Sue Fahami

District Attorney

Jacob Harp, Vice President, White Pine County Sheriff’s Employees Association, testified. He asserted if the legislature did not pass A.B. 422, a domino effect would be created throughout those of Nevada’s rural counties which contained incorporated cities. He asked, rhetorically, why a city would pay the county in which it was located to protect its citizens if that city discovered the city of Ely was neither paying for law enforcement services nor contributing in any manner to the provision of those services. He contended if A.B. 422 did not pass, any city in Nevada could turn its back on providing law enforcement protection for its citizens, in order to save money, and succeed in paying nothing for law enforcement.

Mr. Neighbors said, "I don’t know what their rate is but within that city rate is what we call the outside tax rate, which covers the schools, the operating of the county general fund, and I’m sure within that county general fund, there’s obviously a budget for the sheriff. So, when the city is not paying anything – the residents of the city would be paying part of that outside rate if you add your city – they add their city rate to. So, they are paying."

Mr. Sawyer interjected that portion of revenue from Ely’s city property tax which was attributable to law enforcement in FY1998-99 was $158,708.

Mr. Neighbors said the point he attempted to make was everyone in the city of Ely had to pay the outside county tax rate, from which the sheriff’s department’s budget was funded. Therefore Ely’s citizens were paying for the sheriff’s services.

Mr. Sawyer concurred with Mr. Neighbors’ comments.

Mr. Sawyer said the sheriff’s department experienced a tremendous employee turnover rate during the past 7 or 8 years. That turnover rate was due in part to job instability and the instability of negotiations between the city and the county. The sheriff’s department continually had young officers on the streets because of lack of job security.

Mr. Harp resumed his testimony. He said many people believed the city and county should be able to resolve their problem between themselves. However, the county had explored every avenue, and the situation was at a standstill.

Thomas Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, testified. He stated although A.B. 422 was aimed at White Pine County and the city of Ely, the bill could affect 17 counties and could also affect 17 of the 18 incorporated cities in Nevada. He said as Mr. Neighbors pointed out, all citizens of an incorporated city paid county taxes from which the county’s sheriff’s department was funded.

Mr. Grady stated Nevada League of Cities perceived the problem between Ely and White Pine County to be a local issue which must be resolved at the level of local government, not by the legislature. He reminded the committee the legislature previously mandated Clark County and the cities within Clark County to settle their own disputes. As a result of the legislature’s mandate, the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority was created, and some good, interlocal, working relationships were established. Nevada League of Cities requested the legislature demand that White Pine County and the city of Ely work together to resolve their problem and not seek a resolution from the legislature every time a problem arose in White Pine County.

Chairman Bache said, "I think you cited a bad example with the Southern Nevada (Strategic) Planning Authority because that was the request of those local governments, to be able to do it themselves. I preferred the option of A.B. 399 from last session of saying let’s do this regional plan – telling them that you were going to do it, and we had some other issues here before. So, I don’t know if that example parallels this situation exactly."

Mr. Grady asserted it would not be in the best interest of either White Pine County or the city of Ely to require the legislature to resolve their problem. He reiterated the decision of how to resolve that problem should be made at the local government level.

Chairman Bache said he supported consolidating police services. He would be happy to relieve Ely of the obligation to provide police services and allow the city to reduce its tax rate so White Pine County could establish the appropriate tax rate to allow it to provide services for the entire county.

Mr. Grady contended what Mr. Bache suggested would not reduce the tax rate, which was " . . . based on a certain budget with the sheriff’s department." He maintained Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department functioned much differently than it would function if it was located in a rural area. He said a number of cities had police departments which worked in conjunction with a sheriff’s department to supply law enforcement services; therefore, cities and counties were reaching agreements. Nevada League of Cities was concerned A.B. 422 would affect both cities and counties.

Mr. Grady declared Nevada League of Cities was very concerned about the provision of A.B. 422 which allowed a county sheriff to establish reasonable fees. He asked whether that meant a county commission would no longer to control its county’s sheriff’s budget and that the sheriff could establish such fees as he chose. He believed allowing that to occur would establish an extremely dangerous precedent.

Jack D. Smith, Mayor, city of Ely testified. He stated the committee had heard one side of the problem between White Pine County and the city of Ely, and the city would like to present the other side. He said David Olsen, Ely’s city attorney, would discuss the legal aspects of the problem, and Brent Hutchings, Ely’s city administrator, would discuss the problem’s financial aspects.

David R. Olsen, City Attorney, city of Ely, testified. He declared the problem between Ely and White Pine County was indeed a local issue and should be resolved, at the local government level, by the city, the county, and the sheriff.

Mr. Olsen said the city of Ely and White Pine County’s sheriff’s department had been involved in an arrangement for shared, consolidated law enforcement services for 17 years. He reiterated previous testimony about how the city and county came to enter into an agreement for provisions of law enforcement services in 1981. He asserted the description of the city’s position as being it was not obligated to provide law enforcement services for its citizens was a mischaracterization. From the time the city was incorporated, in 1907, until 1981, when the city, the county, and the sheriff agreed the city’s police department would be disbanded and absorbed by the sheriff’s department, the city provided law enforcement services for its citizens.

Mr. Olsen stated for 17 years, the city and county were able to successfully negotiate cooperative agreements. He participated in six or seven of those negotiations, and while both parties were very aggressive in representing their interests, they were always able to reach an agreement. The only reason the parties were now before the legislature was because once out of 17 times they were unable to reach an agreement. They now sought legislation which might affect not only Ely and White Pine County but every incorporated city in Nevada.

Mr. Olsen contended A.B. 422 would accomplish nothing not already being done, in terms of encouraging consolidation, except tend to coerce cities to participate in metropolitan police departments. In some areas, metropolitan police departments were not financially feasible. Through cooperative agreement, Ely and White Pine County had, in essence, a metropolitan police department.

Mr. Olsen reiterated his previous testimony regarding mischaracterization of the city’s position. He stated the city had an obligation to provide law enforcement services for its citizens. However, it was the city’s position the sheriff should not be the one to determine the level of law enforcement service which should be provided in Ely; that determination should be made by Ely’s city government and its taxpayers. If the legislature passed A.B. 422, in its current form, the bill would give sheriffs the right to dictate to cities both what level of law enforcement those cities would be provided and what a reasonable price was for providing that law enforcement. Giving sheriffs that right was not in the best interest of Nevada’s cities and provided sheriffs with too much discretionary authority over serious financial matters.

Mr. Olsen referred to language commencing at line 34 of page 3 of A.B. 422, which required the city council of a city which did not participate in a metropolitan police department to establish and maintain a police department absent an interlocal or cooperative agreement for the provision of law enforcement. He asserted what that language accomplished was already accomplished by NRS 266.350. Although the language of that chapter of NRS was not as broad as the language of A.B. 422, it did establish a city was obligated to appoint a chief of police. It was the city of Ely’s contention by appointing a chief of police, a city, in effect, established its own police department.

Mr. Olsen said Ely had a population of 5,000, the equivalent of a small to moderate-size neighborhood in many of Nevada’s larger cities. To require a city of that size to have a police department consisting of more than one or two men could create a financial burden which would bankrupt the city. Ely’s general fund consisted of $1.2 million, and the city could not justify paying between two-thirds and three-fourths of the money in its general fund solely to provide law enforcement when there were other essential services the city was called on to provide.

Mr. Olsen said Ely was concerned because if A.B. 422 passed, it would remove from a city’s city council and mayor the right to determine appropriate levels of law enforcement for that city and would give a sheriff the power to make that determination. Basically, the bill would place cities in the position of being unable to negotiate interlocal agreements. A sheriff would enter negotiations with the upper hand and, essentially, dictate to a city how much it must pay him for law enforcement services. The city of Ely believed such circumstances would create an oppressive environment for city governments and strongly encouraged the legislature not to pass A.B. 422.

Mr. Olsen pointed out Ely’s and White Pine County’s dispute was currently being litigated and contended it would be premature to pass legislation which might make the pending lawsuit moot. He suggested the litigants be given an opportunity to resolve their dispute through the court system.

Mr. Olsen stated the city of Ely had not refused to negotiate. The city currently provided in-kind services to White Pine County which the city felt had significant value. The city operated a fire department, and its residents paid $500,000 per year to keep that fire department operational. Approximately one-half of the fire department’s calls in White Pine County were made outside Ely’s city limits. The city also provided animal control services, in every area of White Pine County, at a cost to city taxpayers of approximately $150,000 per year. Approximately one-half of calls for animal control were made in the county, and the city was not compensated for those calls. In addition, the city provided a cemetery, available to all residents of White Pine County. It cost the city approximately $120,000 per year to operate the cemetery; however, the city did not ask residents of White Pine County to compensate the city for that cost.

Mr. Olsen stated the city of Ely believed in cooperation and believed the amount of money it should pay the sheriff’s department for the additional services he supplied to the city should be open to negotiation by the city, the sheriff, and White Pine County. The mere fact the city and county reached an impasse once in 17 years did not justify legislation giving a county sheriff power to dictate to an incorporated city how much money, over and above what its citizens paid as county taxpayers, that city must pay for his services.

Chairman Bache suggested rather than pass A.B. 422, perhaps the legislature should establish a method of dispute resolution. He pointed out NRS 288.215 established a method of dispute resolution utilized by police departments, and similar language might be utilized to require binding arbitration with respect to interlocal agreements. He asserted participation in binding arbitration would be less expensive than litigation.

Mr. Olsen responded it was Ely’s position the city and White Pine County should be able to resolve their dispute without recourse to the legislature. However, he agreed something along the lines Mr. Bache suggested would be better for all cities in Nevada than would A.B. 422, which placed Nevada’s cities at great financial risk.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Ely refused to pay its share of the cost for the sheriff to police the city. Mr. Olsen replied during the current year, the city was unable to reach a point in negotiations with the county where the city could determine what its share was. The city informed the county it did not have sufficient cash to pay its share of the cost and offered to pay with services. The county insisted it must have a certain amount of cash and refused to bargain further.

Ms. Segerblom observed it would cost the sheriff a considerable amount of money to police Ely.

Mr. Olsen indicated there was some interest in Ely becoming unincorporated. If the city became merely a township in White Pine County, the sheriff would benefit to some extent from increased county tax revenues. However, that benefit would not equal the cost of law enforcement services he provided to Ely. The sheriff would continue to provide approximately 80 percent of the law enforcement services he provided in White Pine County to the city of Ely because Ely was the county’s population center.

Mr. Humke asked whether he correctly understood Ely and White Pine County currently did not have an interlocal agreement. Mr. Olsen replied affirmatively.

Mr. Humke said he thought Chairman Bache was considering a method to resolve a dispute related to an existing contract. He asked whether the city had the freedom to contract. Mr. Olsen replied it did. However, passage of A.B. 422 would severely hamper the city’s ability to negotiate a contract.

Mr. Humke asked which party instituted the lawsuit previously mentioned. Mr. Olsen replied White Pine County’s sheriff instituted the lawsuit. The primary purpose of the lawsuit was to establish what duties the sheriff had and what duties the city had to provide law enforcement. A hearing was scheduled for sometime in April, 1999. Both the city and the county had filed motions for summary judgment, and Mr. Olsen thought the court would probably rule on those motions at the April hearing. He suspected the judge would also make a serious effort to settle the case at that time.

Mr. Humke indicated he would like to read the pleadings filed in the lawsuit. Mr. Olsen said he could provide the committee with a copy of the city’s motion for summary judgment.

Chairman Bache asked why, when the existing interlocal agreement expired, the city and county did not agree to extend that agreement until a new one could be negotiated. Mr. Olsen responded that agreement had been extended, mainly by default.

Mr. Olsen explained the city did not take the position it had no obligation to provide law enforcement for its citizens. Neither did it take the position it should not compensate the sheriff for additional services he provided the city which exceeded those it was his duty to provide for all residents of White Pine County. The city believed it had an obligation to pay for those extra services but did not believe it was obliged to pay half the cost of the sheriff’s budget each and every year.

Chairman Bache suggested disputes might arise between other local governments, as well as between Ely and White Pine County, and said he would like to have a method of dispute resolution available.

Mayor Smith interjected Brent Hutchings had figures to provide which would probably point out some of the reasons the last contract between the city and the county was not signed.

I. Brent Hutchings, City Administrator, city of Ely, Nevada, testified. He reiterated previous testimony that Ely believed its dispute with White Pine County was a local issue which should be resolved locally.

Mr. Hutchings said Ely formerly had a chief of police. Sheriff Romero was formerly the city’s chief of police, but he resigned, and as yet, no qualified replacement had been found.

Mr. Hutchings stated in FY1996-97, Ely paid $325,000 for law enforcement services. In fY1997-98, the city and White Pine County agreed to the sum of $602,036. The county was to contribute $137,111, approximately one-half of the city’s fire department’s budget, to the city for fire protection services. Ely’s fire department had the only certified HAZMAT (hazardous materials) team and the only HAZMAT trailer in the county. The county was also to contribute $51,889, approximately one-half of the city’s animal control budget, to the city for animal control services in the county. Of the $602,036 agreed upon, the city would be left with a balance owed to the county of $350,858. Because of the impact paying that sum would have on the city’s budget, the county agreed to pay 50 percent, in the form of in-kind services, to assist the city with things from which the city would have to divert money, such as its streets and alleys. However, a year had gone by, and " . . . that hasn’t been completed."

Mr. Hutchings said in 1999, the city’s tax rate was $4.308, which was considerably higher that its tax cap. The city was counseled by the State of Nevada’s Department of Taxation to consider negotiating an exchange of in-kind services with the county because neither the city nor the county had sufficient money to provide and duplicate all the services each of those entities required. The city subsequently went to the bargaining table with an offer of services.

Mr. Hutchings said in 1999, the city’s tax rate was 66.17 cents. Because of the innovative financing practices which seemed to have permeated White Pine County, the city, pursuant to counseling by the Department of Taxation, gave up 39.8 cents of its tax rate because other local entities in the county were unable to do so. That meant Ely gave up $163,803 of its ad valorem tax revenues and received $76,000 in such revenues. White Pine County received $688,762.27 as a result of the city relinquishing a portion of its tax rate. Therefore, it was unfair to say the city of Ely provided nothing to the county. The city attempted to help both White Pine County and White Pine County School District with their financial problems. In FY1996-97, the school district bought down some of the city’s tax rate in order to generate additional revenue to help the school district deal with its financial problems.

Mr. Hutchings contended the city tried to help the county, and the city and county encountered one impasse related to law enforcement services. He maintained the city and county had worked well together and said his office and the county clerk’s office shared most of the things they each had. He asked that the city and county be allowed to resolve their own problems.

Ms. Segerblom asked why none of White Pine County’s county commissioners appeared to testify. Mr. Hutchings replied the county commissioners did not initiate the lawsuit.

Mr. Olsen gave further testimony. He said he wished to address the issue of how A.B. 422 would affect those of Nevada’s cities which already had operational police departments. Those cities would be faced with financial decisions which would impact Nevada in two very important ways, having to do with public safety and police officer safety.

Mr. Olsen said from the standpoint of public safety, once the provisions of A.B. 422 went into affect, a sheriff would be able to inform any city in his county that he would charge that city for law enforcement services he provided to support the city’s police department. The city then either would have to tell the sheriff it could not afford to pay him, and therefore, he should not enforce the law within the city limits or would have to divert money it could otherwise spend on its police department to pay the sheriff. The result would be either a lower level of law enforcement’s presence in the city or a greater financial impact on the city to provide quality law enforcement for its citizens.

Mr. Olsen said in the 1970’s, he was a police officer in the city of Reno. On many occasions, when he made a traffic stop and radioed his location, he would find a Washoe County Sheriff’s deputy present to back him up when he exited his police car. Washoe County Sheriff’s deputies provided protection and cover for Reno police officers in the performance of their duties, and Reno police officers did likewise for sheriff’s deputies. A.B. 422 might create a situation in which cities would tell county sheriff’s those cities could not afford to have the sheriffs provide them with law enforcement services in which case, the level of officer safety he described would not exist.

Mr. Olsen indicated the issue of officer safety was even more critical in Nevada’s rural areas than in its cities. He asserted rural communities’ liability risk for officer safety was incredibly high. He would not want to be a county commissioner of a county where sheriff’s deputies stopped vehicles in the middle of nowhere with no other officer there to protect them or back them up. He described such situations as incredibly dangerous.

Mayor Smith gave further testimony. He indicated small cities and counties which experienced little growth in their incomes had to resort to innovations "like this" to keep from duplicating services. He said, "The thing we look at in this situation is that it circumvents the people’s responsibility of who has to do it. The county commissioners and the city council are the ones who are responsible for the budgets, and to turn this responsibility over to one of the recipients of this, only, is I think the wrong idea."

Mayor Smith said one-half of the population of White Pine County resided in the city of Ely. Through taxes collected by the county, the city’s residents paid the same amount for police protection as that paid by the remaining citizens of White Pine County, and the city was asked to pay additional money for that protection. The city believed " . . . it’s wrong to place that responsibility into the responsibility of one man who has charge of the spending only. We have the responsibility to provide all of the other services."

Mayor Smith said Ely believed it had reached a bargain with White Pine County’s county commissioners. Those commissioners never countered the city’s last offer and let the time for negotiations expire. Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed alleging the city did not wish to participate in negotiations. After the lawsuit was filed, Sheriff Romero resigned his position as Ely’s chief of police, and the city did not believe it prudent to appoint another chief of police while litigation was pending.

Mayor Smith stated White Pine County currently provided Ely with law enforcement services, and the city continued to provide the services it previously provided. The city had less money to work with than it previously had but could trade many services with the county if the county was willing to trade services.

Chairman Bache said the direction he wished to take with A.B. 422 was that of establishing a dispute resolution procedure for disputes pertaining to interlocal agreements similar to the procedure established for collective bargaining disputes. He suggested the potential existed for other interlocal agreement disputes to arise and asserted such disputes should be resolved before they reached the level of the legislature.

Chairman Bache commented it was a source of some irritation to him that although local governments told the legislature they did not want the state to intervene in their affairs, when they encountered a situation which required the legislature’s assistance, the legislature was the first place to which they ran. He found it aggravating that local governments wanted it both ways. They did not want the legislature to interfere in their business. Yet when the needed the legislature’s help, the legislature was always there to handle their problems.

Doug Bierman, Senior Research Associate, Intertech Services Corporation, testified. He informed the committee he was testifying on behalf of the citizens of the city of Caliente. He said previous testimony suggested the city of Caliente and Lincoln County fell in the same category as the city of Ely and White Pine County, and he feared the committee was left with the impression Caliente and Lincoln county faced the same problems Ely and White Pine County faced. He assured the committee Caliente and Lincoln County had a very workable relationship and said the citizens of Caliente feared in attempting to resolve a problem unique to Ely and White Pine County, the legislature might impose problems on other counties and cities which currently had workable relationships.

Mr. Bierman explained in Lincoln County, both residents of Caliente and residents of the county paid the same tax rate and enjoyed the same amount of protection by the sheriff. Caliente’s tax rate was currently at or near the tax cap of $3.64. Consequently, the city would be unable to afford to institute a police department if it was required to do so. In the eyes of the citizens of Caliente, a requirement that the city institute a police department would constitute an unfunded mandate.

Mr. Bierman stated citizens of Caliente were concerned about section 1, subsection 6, of A.B. 422, which allowed a sheriff to charge and collect a reasonable fee for providing law enforcement services to a city which did not participate in a metropolitan police department. They feared that provision gave sheriffs an unfair, financial advantage.

James Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, also representing Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, testified. He expressed Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association’s support for Sheriff Romero with regard to A.B. 422. He said although the issue addressed by A.B. 422 might appear to be a local issue, when that issue came to light, it raised significant red flags among sheriffs throughout Nevada. County sheriffs were concerned " . . . something like this . . . " might spread and have devastating impacts on their agencies.

Danny L. Thompson, Nevada State AFL-CIO, testified. He contended the situation addressed by A.B. 422 was not new to the committee, and the legislature was the final arbiter of the issues involved in such situations. He stated Nevada State AFL-CIO’s concerns were the same as those voiced by Mr. Nadeau.

Mr. Thompson pointed out White Pine County was comprised of 9,000 square miles, and only two or three sheriff’s deputies were on duty during each work shift. Since the dispute arose between Ely and White Pine County, the sheriff’s office had lost five employees whom it was unable to replace. He contended it was interesting the city of Ely was willing to pay half the cost of animal control services but was not willing to pay half the cost of law enforcement services.

Mr. Thompson said he appreciated Chairman Bache’s comments about establishing a method of dispute resolution because, in his experience, if a dispute such as that between Ely and White Pine County arose once, it would arise again between other entities. Nevada State AFL-CIO supported a resolution of that dispute, the effect of which was good for no one.

Mr. Humke asked whether the proposed contract between Ely and White Pine County, with the fee rate proposed by White Pine County, represented a requirement that Ely subsidize law enforcement for all of White Pine County. Mr. Thompson responded he did not know whether Ely would subsidize law enforcement for the entire county. He pointed out Ely was the county’s population base.

Chairman Bache suggested Mr. Humke might want to address his last question to either Sheriff Romero or Mayor Smith, outside the committee setting.

Mr. Humke proposed an alternative to establishing an arbitration method would be for the city of Ely to appoint a chief of police and establish its own law enforcement agency. Current law provided for that alternative.

Nile D. Carson, Deputy Chief, Police Department, city of Reno, testified. He declared he opposed A.B. 422 based on its wording. He maintained the bill eliminated the position of city manager in cities governed by a council/manager form of government. It removed any type of chief executive from the line of governmental authority and made a chief of police responsible to either a committee or a city council rather than to a chief executive officer. He objected to A.B. 422 as currently written.

Chairman Bache suggested Deputy Chief Carson had no cause for concern because the bill’s current language said "he shall," as opposed to "he must." Also, NRS 266 dealt with general law cities, whereas the issue Deputy Chief Carson raised was addressed in Reno’s city charter. He observed Barbara McKenzie was present in the audience and asked her to correct him if he was wrong.

Barbara McKenzie, representing the city of Reno, Nevada, testified, saying she believed Chairman Bache was correct.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 422.

Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning, Assembly District 28, testified. She said she agreed to sponsor A.B. 570 to accommodate police officers, and she agreed with the bill’s conceptual goal.

Ronald R. Dreher, President, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, and President, Reno Police Protective Association, testified. He informed the committee Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada represented 20 police organizations throughout the state. On their behalf, he requested the committee’s support of A.B. 570, which would accomplish two things. First, the bill would eliminate use of involuntary polygraph examinations. The second portion of the bill dealt with civil protections as they related to involuntary use of coerced statements made in the course of internal affairs investigations.

Mr. Dreher said he had been a police officer in the city of Reno for 26 years and for 10 of the past 11 years worked in homicide. He had used the tool of the polygraph examination and had a fair idea of the purposes for which that tool was used. As a representative of the Reno Police Protective Association, he represented several people who " . . . have gone through the hell of having to take a polygraph and having to have their integrity placed on the line improperly." It was the improper use of polygraph examinations to which the organizations he represented objected.

Mr. Dreher discussed a situation in which two Reno police officers, who were involved in stopping a citizen who violated a roadblock, were required to take polygraph examinations. The citizen, who was booked into Washoe County Jail and subsequently released, contended someone took some of the money he had when arrested, but he did not specifically allege the money was taken by a police officer. Although 5 or 10 officers were involved in stopping the citizen, and at least another 5 officers were subsequently involved with the citizen, only 2 of those officers were required to submit to polygraph examinations.

Mr. Dreher said the complainant was given a polygraph examination, and the polygrapher told internal affairs personnel it was impossible for him to obtain a valid result because the complainant had no idea what happened to his money. The complainant was unable to say which police officer took his money or whether, in fact, any police officer took his money. Subsequently, two police officers were ordered, pursuant to NRS 289.070, to submit to a polygraph examination, which humiliated and embarrassed both officers.

Mr. Dreher stated as those officers’ representative, he initially advised them not to take the polygraph examinations. However, on the advice of Reno Police Protective Association’s attorney, they took the examinations because they did not want to be charged with insubordination. Nor did they want to be subjected to the provisions of NRS 289.070, which currently said refusal to submit to a polygraph examination could be used against the individual who refused, and various other things could be done. He asserted police officers should not be victims, and it was not the intent behind NRS 289.070 to make them victims. The two officers passed their polygraph examinations but felt humiliated and embarrassed.

Mr. Dreher asserted the intent behind NRS 289.070 was that a polygraph examination would be used when an allegation was made against a specific law enforcement officer, and the person who made the allegation took and passed a polygraph examination which showed the alleged incident occurred. In the situation he previously cited, the polygrapher advised he was unable to obtain a valid result from the complainant’s polygraph examination but was told he must nonetheless administer polygraph examinations to the police officers.

Mr. Dreher asserted the organizations he represented supported elimination of the use of polygraph examinations because the situation he described was only one of many examples of their improper use. He contended it was time to stop improper use of polygraph examinations from preventing proper investigations from being conducted and having unskilled people determine when a polygraph examination must be administered to a police officer. He maintained there were internal affairs investigators, throughout Nevada, who were excellent investigators but had no understanding as to what constituted either proper or improper use of a polygraph examination. Polygraph examinations were a tool and should not be used improperly or used by people who did not understand their purpose.

Mr. Dreher referred to California’s police officers’ bill of rights and read aloud from a section of California law numbered 3307, a written copy of which he provided to the committee (Exhibit M). From conversations with the chief administrative officer of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, which represented 44,000 police officers, he understood that section of law was put into effect to protect the rights of police officers.

Mr. Dreher declared the integrity of "99.999 percent" of all law enforcement officers was above reproach, and law enforcement officers were subjected to extensive background checks. Although law enforcement officers were subjected to internal affairs investigations and should be subjected to such investigations, the people who conducted those investigations should do a proper and thorough job of investigating. Polygraph examinations should not be used to determine guilt or innocence or to label an officer. Pursuant to current law, if an officer refused to take a polygraph examination, that officer was automatically assumed to be guilty, which deprived him of his Fifth Amendment rights.

Mr. Dreher asked the committee to repeal the first section of NRS 289.070.

Mr. Dreher stated the second portion of A.B. 570 dealt with " . . . what we know as the United States Supreme Court and Garrity." He explained when an internal affairs investigation was conducted of an incident involving a law enforcement officer, such as an officer-involved shooting, a parallel investigation, such as a criminal investigation, was also conducted. The internal affairs investigation was conducted to determine whether or not the officer was involved in any wrongdoing, such as a violation of the code of conduct or inappropriate behavior.

Mr. Dreher explained pursuant to Garrity v. State of New Jersey, a warning was read to an officer subjected to an internal affairs investigation. That warning advised the officer he must provide a statement, and if he failed to do so, he would be found insubordinate; however, no coerced or involuntary statement he provided could be used against him in a court of criminal law. The protections sought through section 2 and subsequent sections of A.B. 570 would provide an officer with civil protections. Officers objected to involuntary statements they were ordered to make or be held insubordinate if they refused to make them being used against them in civil proceedings. Currently, there were no civil protections for law enforcement officers. A.B. 570 would provide such protections.

Mr. Dreher stated a year or two previously, an officer was killed in the line of duty. An individual who was an attorney for the media and attempted to obtain information from the fallen officer’s personnel file, advised when he subsequently ran for office, the best way to eliminate his right to obtain such information was to ask the legislature to establish protections for officers rights. The next step was to seek federal legislation establishing such protections.

Mr. Dreher beseeched the committee to support A.B. 570.

Chairman Bache having turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Lee, Vice Chairman Lee announced due to lack or a quorum, the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was now sitting as a subcommittee.

Randy L. Oaks, Captain, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Vice President, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, and Vice President, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Managers and Supervisors Association, testified. He explained section 1 of A.B. 570 dealt with NRS 280.050 and, with the deletion of language on line 2, would cause that section of NRS to read nearly identically to the section of California’s peace officers bill of rights contained in the handout provided by Mr. Dreher (Exhibit M). He said section 1 " . . . removes the permissible polygraph, which is also in section 5."

Captain Oaks stated section 2 of A.B. 570 dealt with interviews or interrogations of a police officer conducted pursuant to an internal affairs investigation. Subsection 4 contained new language, which clearly stated a statement made by an officer which was involuntary and which he was compelled to give could not be used against him in either a civil or a criminal action. That did not mean an officer could not be deposed in either a civil or criminal action; however there was a large difference between being deposed and being compelled to testify.

Captain Oaks explained section 3 of A.B. 570 applied to an officer’s right to have someone present with him when being interrogated, and it clarified any information thus acquired by that person was privileged and could not be used against the officer in either a civil or a criminal action.

Captain Oaks pointed out section 4 of A.B. 570 deleted a reference to NRS 289.070, repealed by section 5 of the bill.

Captain Oaks said within Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, internal affairs investigations of officers were typically handled by supervisors who were members of Las Vegas Police Protective Association. The typical scenario in which a polygraph examination was requested was one in which there was no corroborating evidence of a complaint against an officer. In the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing on an officer’s part, polygraph examinations would be conducted to determine who was telling the truth, and a polygraph examination did not provide a comfortable environment for either a complainant or an officer.

Captain Oaks suggested a citizen who, in good faith, made a complaint to a police department would perceive being told the police department wanted to subject him to a polygraph examination as a slap in the face and an indication the department believed he was lying. A police officer might question why his credibility was accepted when he testified in court in criminal proceedings if his own department could not accept his word in an internal affairs investigation.

Captain Oaks said he, personally, did not believe the science of polygraphy was a sound science. Although there was some sound basis for polygraphy, polygraph tests were very subjective and were offensive to those subjected to them.

Andy Anderson, President, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, and President, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, testified. He expressed support for A.B. 570 and contended the second portion of the bill was very important. Although law officers were admonished with " . . . the Garrity warning . . ., " they had no protection against their statements being used in subsequent civil proceedings, which could result in the loss of everything they owned.

Mr. Anderson stated during the previous legislative session, he proposed a bill to implement sanctions for violations of NRS 280; however, that bill lost in the senate. The request for sanctions was based on abuses which occurred during polygraph examinations and similar matters. Although opponents of A.B. 570 might provide testimony suggesting there be sanctions against people who abused the polygraph procedure, the previous bill for such sanctions did not pass.

Mr. Anderson cited as an example of misuse of the results of a polygraph examination a situation involving three police officers in which it was the word of one police officer against the word of two others, whom he represented. The first officer submitted to a polygraph, and Mr. Anderson was advised the officer passed, whereupon he told the other two officers they must submit to polygraph examinations. The results of one officer’s polygraph examination were inconclusive; the other officer failed his examination. Mr. Anderson said he subsequently discovered the first officer never passed her polygraph examination; instead, the results of her polygraph examination were inconclusive, showing a tendency towards truthfulness. Technically speaking, he was given false information, and on the basis of that information, he required two officers to submit to polygraph examinations.

Mr. Anderson stated although he objected to polygraph examinations, it was not the use of such examinations being addressed but rather their misuse. He contended misuse of polygraph examinations was not unique to any law enforcement department but was widespread throughout the state.

John Dean Harper, attorney at law, representing Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, and Las Vegas Police Protective Association, testified. Mr. Harper said Gary Wolff of the Nevada Highway Patrol Association asked him to inform the committee of Mr. Wolff’s support for A.B. 570.

Mr. Harper proposed section 2 of A.B. 570 be amended, on page 2, at both lines 28 and 29, by replacing the word "a" with the word "any" to " . . . ensure that it’s not a one-shot deal."

Mr. Harper said he wished to discuss the repeal of NRS 289.070. He maintained that code section was defective in 3 ways. The first had to do with polygraph examinations of complainants against police officers. He pointed out neither the police officer against whom a complaint was made nor his representative was permitted to review anything concerning the complainants polygraph examination.

Mr. Harper said in addition, he believed polygraph examinations to be inherently unreliable. He submitted a document concerning the ruling in a United States Supreme Court case (Exhibit N). The case involved a defendant in a court martial who wanted to use a polygraph examination to bolster his case. A military rule of evidence disallowed such use, and the Supreme Court believed the defendant was not unconstitutionally abridged of any rights of an accused by not being allowed to present results of a polygraph test which were favorable to him.

Mr. Harper said the final reason he believed NRS 289.070 was defective and should be repealed was the mere fact of its pragmatic, every-day use. He suggested Nevada’s police departments spent all their time trying to figure out how to use the language of that code section to their advantage, and because they did, there were quite a few abuses.

Mr. Harper discussed some instances of abuse. In one, an officer was accused of altering a witness’ statement. The complainant allegedly passed a polygraph examination, and when the officer was subsequently forced to take a polygraph examination, the investigators and polygraphers involved contrived to make the circumstances of the examination uncomfortable for the officer. The officer ultimately failed to pass the polygraph examination and was off work for approximately 18 months, with dire emotional, financial and family problems as a result. He subsequently regained his job through arbitration proceedings.

Mr. Harper said another situation involved two Spanish-speaking complainants. Their polygraph examinations were administered through use of an interpreter, which was unacceptable. Both complainants apparently passed, and the police officer involved was then forced to take a polygraph examination.

Mr. Harper explained yet a third situation involved an officer who was present in a retail establishment and three witnesses. One witness left town, one did not pass his polygraph examination, and one passed his polygraph examination, which was sufficient to cause the police officer to be forced to take an examination. Mr. Harper contended that situation allowed the picking and choosing of a complainant to trigger an officer being required to submit to a polygraph examination, which was unfair and possibly abusive.

Gary Wolff, representing Nevada Highway Patrol Association testified. He declared he had been a strong advocate of eliminating polygraph examinations for more than 20 years. He said his daughter took a polygraph examination when she went to work for the highway patrol and failed one question. When asked if her name was Angela Wolff, she answered affirmatively, and " . . . the bells and whistles went off . . . " because she thought of herself as "Angie."

Mr. Wolff asserted polygraph examinations were unreliable, and it was not a good idea to use them.

Robert J. Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified. He stated SNEA fully supported A.B. 570 and had opposed the use of polygraph examinations for many years. The largest number of SNEA’s peace officer members subjected to polygraph examinations were correctional officers who worked in prisons. Those correctional officers dealt with professional liars who had learned, over many years, how to pass polygraph tests.

Mr. Gagnier contended polygraph tests were sometimes used as a form of harassment. He urged the committee to repeal NRS 289.070 and said he echoed all comments of previous witnesses.

Michael Langton, attorney at law, representing Reno Police Protective Association, testified. He indicated most of his comments had already been made. He said Mr. Dreher referred to an incident which occurred the previous year, and Mr. Dreher said it was upon Mr. Langton’s advice that the police officers involved submitted to a polygraph examination. He gave that advice because the officers could have been fired for insubordination if they refused to obey an order to do so. He quoted an excerpt from an opinion of Reno Police Department’s legal advisor as saying, "Because the complainant made no specific allegation that the officers took the money, only that he had it and then he didn’t, the polygraph does not support a specific theft charge." He said the legal advisor proceeded to analyze NRS 289.070 and in conclusion said, "It is therefore my opinion that the officers who had contact with this complainant may be required under NRS 289 to submit to a polygraph examination. It is further my opinion that the failure to do so would leave a cloud of suspicion on these officers and the department, an outcome that is unacceptable."

Mr. Langton asserted Reno Police Department’s legal advisor formed her opinion the officers could be forced to take a polygraph examination in the absence of any specific accusation and in the absence of a polygraph examination regarding the purported activities having been passed by the complainant.

Mr. Langton said in another situation, a complainant took three polygraph examinations. The complainant failed one, another was inconclusive, and the complainant barely passed the third. The results of his client’s polygraph examination were inconclusive, and his client was fired.

Mr. Langton indicated he wished to briefly touch on the "Garrity" issue. He explained a trial lawyer was not denied an opportunity to depose a defendant who was a police officer. What was being discussed was the protection of confidential statements coerced from a police officer in an environment unlike a trial setting. In a trail setting, a defendant had the right to object to a question asked him during a deposition and, if there was a disagreement regarding that question, to have a judge intercede. An attorney could elicit information from any witness through the deposition process; however, the witness was entitled to legal representation. He said, "That’s what we are trying to accomplish when we say ‘Garrity’ in the criminal and also in the civil."

Colonel Michael E. Hood, Chief, Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, State of Nevada, testified in opposition to A.B. 570. He said he heard a lot of testimony, which was correct, that a polygraph examination was only as good as the polygrapher who conducted the examination, and if such an examination was misused, it was no good. The highway patrol had given only one polygraph test in more than 4 years. Polygraph examinations acted as a deterrent, and if officers knew they would be required to take polygraph tests, the Highway Patrol Division could usually obtain the facts of a situation "up front." Misuse of polygraph examinations could be detrimental, and it was the Highway Patrol Division’s position their use should be subject to internal controls.

Rick Cypher, Acting Chief, Investigations Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, State of Nevada, testified. He declared he wished to go on record as opposing A.B. 570. He asserted the Investigations Division did not treat the issue of police officers’ rights lightly. He had been with the division for more than 19 years and could not recall any instance in which an employee of the division was compelled to submit to a polygraph examination.

Acting Chief Cypher said he liked to think of a polygraph examination as being as much a preventative tool as an investigative tool. He suggested the knowledge he might be compelled to submit to a polygraph examination might help an officer make the right decision when it would be either more convenient or more gratifying to make the wrong one. Law enforcement officers were entrusted with tremendous power and authority. They had the power and authority to deprive someone of his freedom or even his life, and anyone with that kind of power and authority should be held accountable. The polygraph examination constituted a tool which helped prevent abuses of law enforcement officers’ power and authority and establish their accountability.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether the Highway Patrol Division belonged to the peace officers’ association. Mr. Langton responded, saying it did.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether the peace officers’ association voted in favor of A.B. 570. Mr. Langton indicated the association’s labor group members supported the bill. However, management opposed it for the reasons stated by Deputy Chief Cypher and himself.

Stan R. Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, also representing Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, testified. He declared Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association opposed the portion of A.B. 570 which dealt with elimination of polygraph examinations. He asserted polygraph examinations were a valuable tool in investigations involving police officer misconduct. A polygraph examination was never used alone but was merely one tool utilized in the investigative process. He confessed amazement at the fact some of the people who testified polygraph examinations were untrustworthy and undependable were the same people who utilized them in criminal investigations.

Nile Carson, Deputy Chief, Reno Police Department, testified. He said his position was very similar to that expressed by Lieutenant Olsen, and he adamantly opposed eliminating use of polygraph examinations. In instances in which a police officer’s integrity might be questioned, it was in the public’s interest to go as far as possible to ensure the officer’s integrity was maintained, even to the extent of using a polygraph examination as a last ditch effort to do so.

Deputy Chief Carson referred to the second portion of A.B. 570 and maintained it was, again, in the public’s interest for law enforcement agencies to be able to force officers to testify about activities in which they engaged while on the public payroll and acting in an official capacity. Courts held law enforcement agencies could ascertain what occurred and could take necessary disciplinary or administrative action but could not use information obtained from a police officer’s forced statement in a criminal proceeding against the officer. However, if a police officer openly and truthfully answered questions asked of him, he faced the possibility the information he was forced to provide could be used to take from him everything he possessed. If police officers were to be forced to provide information to their departments, they should be protected in both civil and criminal proceedings.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether results of a polygraph examination of a police officer, conducted during an internal affairs investigation, would be admitted as evidence in a court proceeding if someone sued the officer. Deputy Chief Carson replied it was possible statements made by an officer during such an examination could be used against that officer in a civil trial.

Ms. Segerblom asked for confirmation an officer’s statements could be used against him if those statements were made during a polygraph examination. Deputy Chief Carson pointed out the results of a polygraph examination reflected the opinion of the polygrapher who administered the test. However, any statements made or information gleaned during such a test could be used against the officer to whom the test was administered. In addition to the results of a polygraph examination, a statement an officer was forced to make during an internal affairs investigation could be used against him in a civil action although it could not be used against him in a criminal action.

Richard L. Putnam, a private citizen testified. He informed the committee until he retired, he was a sworn officer and full-time polygrapher of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. In addition, he was a past president of both Nevada Polygraph Association and California Association of Polygraph Examiners. He served for 5 years on the board of directors of American Polygraph Association and 2 years as that association’s vice president for law enforcement.

Mr. Putnam maintained law enforcement agencies could not function effectively without public support or with poor morale in their ranks. Internal affairs investigations and the manner in which they were conducted could have a serious impact on both public support and morale. Most opposition to use of polygraph examinations in internal affairs investigations arose not from the use of the examinations themselves but, rather, from the misuse of the work product which resulted from those examinations by a limited number of investigators and administrators.

Mr. Putnam contended use of polygraph examinations was and should continue to be a valuable tool in resolving complaints against law enforcement officers. A sworn law enforcement officer held a position of public trust, and because he accepted that position, must accept the fact that under certain conditions, his individual rights must take second place to his responsibilities to the public.

Mr. Putnam said it was interesting to note many major agencies in Nevada required applicants for employment to undergo polygraph testing regarding their suitability for employment. He suggested it was not too great a leap in reasoning to expect, once a law enforcement officer was hired, the same conditions imposed on his gaining employment would apply if a citizen questioned his suitability.

Mr. Putnam urged the committee not to repeal NRS 289.070 but, instead, to amend it to preclude misuse of the work product obtained from a polygraph examination. To that end, he asked the committee to consider establishing the following requirements:

• An allegation by a complainant must identify a specific act performed by a specific officer;

• A polygraph test must be limited to specific issues addressed through testing of the complainant; it should not be used as a fishing expedition;

• Information or admissions obtained from an officer during the course of a polygraph examination not directly related to specific issues addressed in the examination may not be considered or used to expand an investigation or serve as a basis for additional investigation;

• Examinations of both the complainant and the officer must be conducted by an individual licensed or qualified to be licensed as an examiner under the provisions of NRS 648;

• No device other than a polygraph instrument as defined in NRS 648 might be used in an effort to determine the veracity of a complainant or officer; and

• Examinations of both the complainant and the officer must be conducted in compliance with NRS 648.

Mr. Putnam also suggested before an officer was ordered to submit to a polygraph examination, based on the fact a complainant against him previously passed such an examination, the complainant’s examination be subjected to strenuous peer review to determine if the opinion which resulted from that examination was accurate.

Mr. Putnam said the contention polygraph examinations were inherently unreliable should be addressed. He asked, rhetorically, why, if such examinations were inherently unreliable: 1) the Nevada Supreme Court ruled stipulated examinations were admissible in criminal trials; 2) the federal response to allegations of espionage in national laboratories was to increase use of polygraph examinations; and 3) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which established a "per se" bar on admissibility of polygraph evidence in criminal trials in the absence of a stipulation to admit such evidence, reversed itself.

Mr. Putnam suggested the committee consider the provisions of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. Those provisions were included, almost verbatim, in Nevada’s labor code and said a private employer could, in effect, require an employee to submit to a polygraph examination and subject him to disciplinary action if he refused to do so.

Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing on A.B. 570 and turned the meeting over to Chairman Bache.

Assemblyman Donald G. Gustavson, Assembly District 32, testified. He explained A.B. 560 dealt with the possibility of gaming tokens being minted by the State of Nevada for use in Nevada’s casinos. The bill would benefit Nevada by generating non-tax revenue, possibly millions of dollars worth.

Mr. Gustavson explained section 2 of A.B. 560 established the administrator of the Museums and History Division of State of Nevada’s Department of Museums, Library and Arts would contract with someone to mint the tokens on the Carson City Mint’s original press. Each token would consist of 1 ounce of fine silver. The cost to mint a token would be approximately $10 and its monetary denomination would be $25. The state’s profit would be the difference between $25 and the costs of minting a token and the silver it contained.

Mr. Gustavson said the obverse side of the token would bear the great seal of Nevada and the opposite side would bear the phrase "state of Nevada gaming token," the token’s designated value, $25, and the Carson City Mint mark. A contest would be held to acquire a design for the token’s face, and the winner of the contest would receive the first token minted. The first 500 tokens minted would be numbered, which would increase their value to collectors. The tokens would also bear the year in which they were minted.

Mr. Gustavson explained proceeds from sales of the token would be deposited in an account in the state’s general fund and accounted for separately. Interest and income earned on the money in that account would be credited to the account. Money in the account at the end of a fiscal year, up to the sum of $300,000, would not revert to the general fund but would be used to pay the cost of making and selling additional tokens.

Mr. Gustavson referred to section 7 of A.B. 560 and pointed out the bill called for an appropriation of $70,000. He said the sale of tokens would more than compensate for the appropriation. If casinos were willing to use the tokens in slot machines, casinos would buy thousands of them. A.B. 560 was permissive with respect to use of the tokens in slot machines but required their use on gaming tables.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether casinos agreed to use the tokens. Mr. Gustavson replied he discussed the matter with representatives of the casino industry; however, they had not yet given him a definite answer.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Mr. Gustavson discussed the provisions of A.B. 560 with representatives of the Museums and History Division. Mr. Gustavson replied he did not.

Mr. Humke pointed out a two-thirds majority vote was required to pass section 3 of A.B. 560 and said he was not certain of the reason for that requirement. Mr. Gustavson replied as it was explained to him, that requirement was based on the fact the state was selling something.

Mr. Humke asked whether the face amount of a token, $25, was considered a fee. Mr. Gustavson replied he supposed it could be considered a fee based on the cost of minting and selling a token.

Mr. Humke suggested the requirement of a two-thirds majority vote was inappropriate. Mr. Gustavson said he, too, did not agree with that requirement.

Mr. Humke referred to section 3, subsection 6, of A.B. 560, and asked what would happen to the money of up to $300,000 which did not revert to the general fund. Mr. Gustavson replied that money would be placed in a separate fund to pay for the minting of additional tokens. Any money in excess of $300,000 would revert to the general fund.

David Horton, representing the Committee to Restore the Constitution, testified. He suggested A.B. 560 provided a fairly modest means of advertising Nevada and generating non-tax revenue for the state. The Committee to Restore the Constitution engaged in some opinion polling, and between 80 and 90 percent of voters polled favored a measure such as A.B. 560. Also, the second district of the American Legion resolved to support such a measure.

Ms. Von Tobel stated she supported A.B. 560. She suggested because their face value was $25, it was unlikely the tokens would be used in slot machines. She asked Mr. Gustavson whether the tokens were intended primarily for use on gaming tables. Mr. Gustavson replied affirmatively.

Ms. Von Tobel said she was certain members of the gaming industry did not pay face value for the tokens they currently utilized. The fact they would be required to pay the $25 face value for the tokens might stop them from using the tokens. Mr. Gustavson responded if one casino used the tokens, while others did not, people who wished to acquire the tokens would be encouraged to visit that casino.

Jeanine Hanson, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified. She passed some silver dollars among the committee members. She said they were examples of the new silver dollar being issued by the Federal Government and said she bought many of them for her children and stepchildren as Christmas presents. The silver dollars contained one troy ounce of silver and were similar to the token A.B. 560 would generate.

Ms. Hanson asserted it was appropriate for Nevada, as the Silver State, to have a silver token. She believed the tokens would be very popular and a great promotional tool for Nevada. Currently, Nevada competed with other areas throughout the nation for gaming revenues. The ability to acquire silver tokens would provide an additional incentive to people to come to Nevada.

Ms. Hanson encouraged the committee to pass A.B. 560. She said Ike Yochum was present earlier in the course of the committee meeting, on behalf of the Independent American Party, and that party supported the bill.

Mr. Gustavson gave further testimony. He pointed out A.B. 560 required the silver used to mint the tokens be mined in Nevada. He asserted some of the key cosponsors of the bill were among the assembly’s leadership.

Chairman Bache said he believed Couer-Rochester, which was located off Interstate 80, was the only active silver mine in the United States. Therefore, requiring the silver used in the tokens to be mined in Nevada would not present a problem.

Alfredo Alonso, representing Nevada Resort Association, testified. He said in the past, Nevada Resort Association was concerned about casinos being mandated to use a token. However, in deference to Mr. Gustavson, the subject would be raised during the association’s meeting the following week and an official response obtained.

Ms. Von Tobel said she wondered whether casinos would be willing to pay the $25 face value of the tokens generated by A.B. 560 since they did not pay face value for any other tokens. Mr. Alsonso responded the cost of the tokens was part of the problem with casinos using them. Using them would be a costly endeavor in many ways, which would be an issue for some of Nevada’s smaller casinos as well as its larger ones.

Mr. Humke said he believed A.B. 560 limited the number of tokens of any one design to 500 and asked whether a casino would put the tokens in circulation for use as tokens or would use them for other purposes, such as gifts for high rollers. Mr. Alonso replied during the 1997 legislative session, discussions were held about casinos merely selling such tokens. Each casino did different things in terms of marketing. He indicated he could probably obtain a more precise answer to Mr. Humke’s question when Nevada Resort Association representatives spoke with casino representatives the following week.

Mr. Humke said he thought the committee would appreciate it if Nevada Resort Association could suggest ways to make A.B. 560 more palatable and offer some amendments to the bill.

Chairman Bache asked whether Nevada Resort Association’s primary concern was the fact casinos would be mandated to accept the tokens rather than be allowed to decide, on an individual basis, whether or not to accept them. Mr. Alonso replied affirmatively.

Ms. Von Tobel asked how the tokens would be counted in a counting room. Mr. Alonso replied a new counting procedure would have to be established.

Lynn Chapman, a private citizen testified. She said the main reason she supported A.B. 560 was the fact although she could not afford gold, she could afford silver. Silver coins were beautiful and she collected different types of commemorative and silver coins. They were affordable and made nice gifts. She knew other people would buy the tokens generated by A.B. 560 because she would buy them.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 560.

Chairman Bache announced the hearing on A.B. 508 would be rescheduled.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 1:12 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sara Kaufman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: