The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:20 a.m., on Wednesday, March 31, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Bache called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 538.

Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental protection, testified in favor of A.B. 538. He spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit C). His testimony was on behalf of General Drennan Clark who was the Chairman of the Commission on Workplace Safety and Community Protection, more commonly called the Clark Commission. The commission had been asked to analyze state laws and policies in light of the Sierra Chemical plant explosion in January 1998.

The Clark Commission made 29 recommendations regarding workplace safety, 14 of which required statutory changes for implementation and 9 of which were the subject of bills before the 1999 legislature. The commission recognized that local governments should be encouraged to consider the placement of explosives manufacturing and hazardous industries in relation to residential areas or other land uses which could be impacted by catastrophic events such as the Sierra Chemical plant explosion. A.B. 538 would ensure that local governments consider safety including appropriate setbacks for hazardous industries within their jurisdictional boundaries.

Assemblywoman Tiffany questioned the policy of the bill. She asked if the requirements and extra effort needed to implement the bill would be an unfunded mandate for cities and counties.

Because A.B. 538 imposed additional requirements on local governments with no provision for funding or resources, Mr. Biaggi replied, it could be considered an unfunded mandate, especially on the zoning process.

Ms. Tiffany wondered what other problems, especially in the rural areas, would be faced. She cited the example of open mining shafts in the backcountry that might have to be mapped. Mr. Biaggi reminded her it was important to recognize the legislation addressed explosives manufacturing plants and other large industrial type facilities. Local governments would be required to recognize the inherent hazards, and in the case of explosives manufacturers, apply the appropriate volume distances in siting those facilities. The Clark Commission did recognize one of the problems often encountered was they might initially be sited appropriately, well away from residential areas, but as time passed and the residential areas grew, the original volume distances were no longer valid. The bill encouraged local governments to properly zone around those facilities to ensure there was no encroachment.

Ms. Tiffany was still concerned about mines. She assumed some mines had explosives on their sites but probably already had a safety plan in place. She wondered who assumed the responsibility for that safety. Mr. Biaggi felt most of the mines were located in remote areas, well away from population centers, and relatively small amounts of explosives were kept there. However, he did say the burden of the zoning activities fell onto the local governments, not necessarily the mining companies per se.

Assemblywoman Freeman referred to an explosion in 1989 in southern Nevada, after which a bill was passed dealing with hazardous materials. She wondered if the chemicals involved in the Sierra Chemical explosion had been listed as hazardous materials in the 1989 legislation. Mr. Biaggi replied that explosives had not been included in the chemical accident prevention program in 1989, and it was hoped the situation would be rectified in the current legislation.

Explosives were not regulated at either the state or county level, Mrs. Freeman asked. Mr. Biaggi indicated there was some regulatory oversight at the local level, and also by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) of the federal Treasury Department. However, he was surprised at how little oversight the ATF conducted. There was no inspection or evaluation of facilities processes. The only control exercised by the ATF consisted of permit issuance and the recognition that type of manufacturing activity was occurring.

Chairman Bache asked for testimony opposing A.B. 538.

John Doughty, Planning and Economic Development Manager for Douglas County, found A.B. 538 difficult to oppose. As a planner, he was excited Chapter 278 of Nevada Revised Statutes was receiving so much attention, and that the master plan was seen as the panacea for "curing the ills of the world," but he was not convinced the plan could really answer what responsibilities rested with the manufacturer and the location of those facilities. He believed Chapter 278 adequately addressed the requirements of zoning districts and provisions. He felt the bill language forced every jurisdiction, even if they did not have the types of facilities addressed in the bill, to address and prepare a safety plan.

Mr. Doughty believed the conservation plan and subjects addressed the issue of natural hazards with regard to flooding, seismic, and similar issues. But what he hoped to see in the bill were issues regarding the manufacture, handling, and storage of hazardous waste and explosives. He would prefer to have those issues separated and identified as part of the conservation element for natural hazards.

Since Douglas County had no hazardous manufacturing facilities, Mr. Doughty felt the addressing of such facilities should be optional in the bill language. He believed other agencies should have the responsibility, and it should not be a burden or an unfunded mandate to Douglas County to prepare such a plan.

Assemblywoman Freeman had a problem with passing a state law that excluded counties like Douglas County. She asked about the impact of the proposed legislation on other smaller counties, especially those where there were problems with explosives.

Mr. Doughty was concerned since the master plan issue was already being addressed by NRS Chapter 278, the added requirements for a safety plan would put an unfair financial burden on the smaller counties. To prepare such a safety plan would probably cost between $30,000 and $40,000. "You’re talking about a fairly significant [financial] hit, particularly to some of the rural communities," he said. "No matter if you have the facilities or not, this law would mandate you do a safety plan . . . and if you wanted to play the issue you could say, ‘We don’t have any; therefore we have addressed it and here is our plan. It is a one-page document.’ That is not what is intended here. I think that would be an intellectually dishonest thing to do."

Mrs. Freeman felt the large counties probably needed a safety plan. Mr. Doughty agreed many areas of the state, especially those containing federal facilities, should be included. For instance, the state had no jurisdiction over or knowledge of the activities at the federal arsenal in Hawthorne.

Chairman Bache disagreed with Mr. Doughty’s comment it would be intellectually dishonest for Douglas County to prepare a statement there were no such facilities of the type described on page 5 [of the bill]. "You could make a statement that you have no intention of licensing any business that will have those kind of things," he said.

There were a number of changes to NRS 278, Mr. Doughty replied. But the language specifically stated "you shall prepare" that plan. His concern was someone in the community would challenge the master plan. He preferred the bill language to state, "If you have these facilities, you shall do this."

Chairman Bache commented no one else had signed the guest register (Exhibit B) as wishing to testify against the bill. "If this [bill] was so onerous, I know all the other local governments would be here discussing it," he said.

Mr. Doughty indicated Carson City was not in support of A.B. 538 but could not attend the hearing. Douglas County took the initiative in following the progress of the bill. Many smaller counties were not really aware of what was happening.

Assemblywoman Parnell did not see why Mr. Doughty objected to the word "plan," and what harm an in-place plan would do to Douglas County.

Mr. Doughty’s only concern was the mandate to do a specific thing to address a specific issue. He felt it would be wrong for any community not to have already addressed the issue within their existing land use plan and for the community not to have addressed issues of seismic safety and other natural hazards. Douglas County already did two master plan amendments yearly. "Don’t make us have to do a separate element when we should have already included these within the land use element," he begged.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked Mr. Doughty to suggest amendments that would mitigate Douglas County’s problems.

The easiest amendment would be one within the land use element itself, Mr. Doughty responded. Because virtually every community had already adopted a land use plan, a combination of seismic safety and conservation could be combined into a separate plan that dealt with natural hazards and disasters. He felt the additional language in A.B. 538 was " . . .overkill because it is already included."

Assemblyman Lee asked Mr. Doughty if the Douglas County master plan located the APZ (Accident Potential Zone) around the airport. Mr. Doughty responded affirmatively. Mr. Lee could not understand Mr. Doughty’s objections to the bill language. He did not see other counties fighting the bill. "I really don’t think you have a case here," he said.

"All our issue is that we don’t believe this is a bad thing, conceptually," Mr. Doughty said. "What we’re saying is putting this as part of the land use element is the safer way to go without having to identify and create a whole new element and plan within the document itself. We’d be happy to incorporate and include it in the land use plan which we already have and which most communities have. We think this is overkill having to have a separate document with separate subject matter."

Assemblywoman Freeman felt Mr. Doughty was assuming all communities and counties already had a land use plan and was not certain his assumption was true. Only communities over 25,000 were required to have master plans, Mr. Doughty replied. He felt a land use plan should be mandated for any entity doing a master plan, especially if the statutes were revised through A.B. 538.

It was a public safety issue, Mrs. Freeman insisted. She did not feel Mr. Doughty’s arguments were credible.

Assemblywoman Tiffany agreed with Mr. Doughty that the hazardous substance language belonged in the land use plan.

Assemblyman Mortenson felt a county could pass an ordinance saying, "We do not intend to have such facilities." The bill could be amended saying that any county having an ordinance against such facilities did not have to prepare such a plan. At any such time the county repealed that ordinance, a master plan would have to be created.

Chairman Bache, seeing no further testimony on A.B. 538, closed the hearing. He opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 594.

Marvin Carr, State Fire Marshal, spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit D). A.B. 594 related to recommendations from the Clark Commission regarding the ability of the fire marshal to investigate and inspect facilities. The authority was currently limited to counties with populations under 35,000. The bill would raise the cap to 100,000, thus ensuring state assistance for all counties lacking the resources to adequately monitor fire safety. Finally, if cities or counties wished to assume jurisdiction to oversee safety responsibilities, they could enter into an option to do so with the state, a provision already in the statutes.

Assemblyman Neighbors provided the committee with a statement from the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission (Exhibit E) and read the statement into the record.

Exhibit E for the record:

Mr. Neighbors reminded the committee the population of Pahrump was expected to shortly be over 30,000.

Continuing Exhibit E for the record:

Assemblyman Neighbors asked for a response to the statement from the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission.

Allen Biaggi indicated Mr. Carr would present an amendment to the bill which would reduce the population cap from 100,000 to 50,000. "That really doesn’t address the issue you’re referring to," he added.

Mr. Neighbors indicated part of his questions were answered, and inquired as to the increase of the population cap from 35,000 to 50,000.

Mr. Biaggi replied the intent was to bring additional communities under the legislation which did not have the ability to adequately inspect facilities with the resources then available. He said the Clark County Commission had recommended the number be increased from 35,000 to 50,000 in order to have the resources of the fire marshal available to them. The bill did not mandate a community use the services of the fire marshal. A memorandum of agreement to do their own oversight activities in lieu of the fire marshal could be negotiated.

In response to a question from Assemblyman Neighbors, Mr. Carr said the fire marshal recently opened an office in Pahrump that was open each day and staffed with a full-time person.

Chairman Bache wished to clarify the population clauses before continuing testimony on the bill. When population clauses were used, he said, the basis was the population as of the time of the last census. At the last census, in 1990, all counties except Washoe and Clark were under 50,000. After the 2000 census, the Legislative Counsel Bureau would automatically change all population clauses in the statutes, and the 2001 legislature would deal with a huge bill addressing population change clauses. He felt the information would help clarify the population language in the bill.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked if other counties supported A.B. 594.

Mr. Carr replied that Mary Walker, a lobbyist who represented some of the undecided counties, had indicated the counties had no problem with the 50,000 population figure.

Ms. Tiffany spent a lot of time in rural areas. "They don’t like you out there," she emphasized. "Anyone building out there, they particularly don’t like you. The comments I have heard are (1) the plans . . . and approvals take longer than it normally would, and these people are the ones that do not have zoning. (2) If they build a facility you act like it’s the MGM Grand as far as your requirements [are concerned]. (3) You are not even staffed with enough people to accommodate the rural areas in a timely fashion. You are overburdensome and your requirements make no sense to those people." She went on, "I have also heard what Assemblyman Neighbors said, that you people want the fees and the money but you do not exactly have the staff to cover your responsibilities." She did not feel it made sense to raise the population cap.

Mr. Carr agreed with Ms. Tiffany’s comments, and said the plan review time was cut down to within 20 to 25 days for large plans and within a week for smaller ones. He reiterated the relationship between the fire marshal’s office and the rural areas had improved.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel wondered if the bill would address the necessity for the fire marshal’s office to provide training for volunteer firefighters in the rural areas. She felt the loss of revenue by the fire marshal could be devastating to smaller counties if the training and services could not be provided.

The budget of the State Fire Marshal’s Office was based on incorporation of what was now in place, Mr. Carr replied. The original intent of the Clark Commission and the Board of Fire Services and Training, which served as advisory boards to the State Fire Marshal’s Office, was to ensure the status quo was maintained until the national census figures were available.

Mary Walker, representing Carson City, and Lyon and Douglas Counties, had met with Mr. Carr and representatives from different local governments several months previously. All the communities expressed concerns regarding the fire marshal’s office. However, they all agreed the State Fire Marshal’s Office was needed. The administrative code for the fire marshal’s office had not been amended in many years, Ms. Walker continued. They also agreed to the 50,000 population figure.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 594 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 588.

William Moell, Administrator of the State Purchasing Division, explained A.B. 588 would codify centralized procurement of services over $100,000, which was previously administered through appropriation and the State Administrative Manual (SAM) Chapter 1596. He read from prepared testimony (Exhibit F).

Central procurement of services resulted from a task force co-chaired by the attorney general and the Director of the Department of Administration to "Enhance State Contracting and Purchasing." The task force found lack of consistency with the solicitation, evaluation, and contract on most large service procurements. It was determined the state purchasing office should begin providing central procurement of services over $100,000 by a process consistent with sound public purchasing principles. The necessary staff was authorized, a Request for Proposal (RFP) manual was written, and procedures were established. Service was begun at the general discussion with the customer and continued through to the signing of the contract. A.B. 588 would simply implement statutory authorization of those procedures. Mr. Moell indicated Brett Kandt of the Attorney General’s Office would provide detail on the bill.

Brett Kandt, Deputy Attorney General, counsel to the State Purchasing Division, described the provisions of A.B. 588. NRS 284.173 authorized executive agencies to engage the services of independent contractors subject to the approval of the Board of Examiners and the attorney general. There were certain agencies and types of contracts that were exempt from those requirements that were outside the scope of NRS 284.173. A.B. 588 did not apply to those types of contracts. Nevada lacked a comprehensive statutory procedure governing the procurement of service contracts. The State Purchasing Act, Chapter 333 of NRS, was originally designed to govern the procurement of goods. The only sections of NRS that specifically addressed service procurements were NRS 333.165 and NRS 333.275.

NRS 333.165 provided the purchasing administrator, upon request from a using agency, could contract for services needed by that agency if it was determined beneficial to the public or caused other beneficial effect. NRS 333.275 required when the legislature directed the using agency to contract for services in excess of $100,000, the agency had to work with the Purchasing Division and the attorney general to prepare an RFP for the procurement. Procurement of services posed unique challenges. NRS 333.275 was designed to expedite the process by having the procuring agency utilize the expertise of the Purchasing Division.

At the present time, Mr. Kandt continued, agency-direct procurements not conducted through the Purchasing Division, were required to comply with NRS 284.173, the State Administrative Manual, and any regulations promulgated by the agency. In addition, the contracting agency was required to determine if that procurement must comply with applicable federal laws.

A.B. 588 would codify several important protocols for state contracting and remedy inconsistencies in the statutes.

Section 2 granted the Administrator of the Purchasing Division the authority to adopt regulations regarding the procurement of service contracts, require the proper notice be given to potential vendors throughout the procurement process, and require confidentiality in proposal evaluations and contract negotiation. The integrity of the procurement process was thus insured. In addition, the administrator was granted authority to permit the submission of revised proposals, or best and final offers after an initial evaluation and negotiation process.

Section 6 allowed agencies to benefit from the Purchasing Division’s expertise when contracting for service on contracts in excess of $100,000. When it was in the best interests of the state, Mr. Kandt added, agency-direct procurements on large dollar contracts were not precluded.

Section 7 amended the statutes with regard to proposal evaluation. If an evaluation committee was utilized to evaluate proposals, it was required it be comprised of only qualified individuals, primarily state officers or employees, and that no committee member have a financial interest in the outcome of the procurement. All proposals would be consistently evaluated and scored based on pre-established criteria. Contracts would be awarded based on the best interests of the state, not necessarily the lowest bidder. And proposals would remain confidential until award of the contract.

Sections 3, 4, 5, and 8 remedied several inconsistencies. Section 10 repealed NRS 333.275 since that statute would no longer be necessary.

Assemblyman Lee asked for an example of a service contract.

A perfect example, Mr. Moell replied, would be the medical services at the prison. Another service contract would be the public relations contract for the Commission on Tourism, or a person to write a state plan for an agency. Service contracts were solicited primarily through requests for proposals.

Assemblywoman Tiffany inquired about online and computerized purchasing services. Mr. Moell indicated internet purchasing services were being considered. That was an online service where purchasing could be conducted directly. Ms. Tiffany said, "We’ve got to do this," and asked if anything was currently in statute that allowed electronic purchasing in lieu of a hard copy request for proposal or a purchase order. "I’d like to make sure we get it in the statutes this year because I think in the next 2 years is where you are definitely going to want to be online," she emphasized.

Mr. Moell thanked Ms. Tiffany for her question. Electronic signatures were already accepted, as was electronic contracting.

Brett Kandt indicated the word "signature" was a misnomer. It was basically the execution of an electronic document with an electronic symbol. There was a bill pending before the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor which would allow both private parties and state agencies to enter into binding and forceful contracts electronically when they were properly executed with an electronic symbol approved by the Secretary of State.

Assemblywoman Parnell introduced a group of Carson High School 12^th graders who were visiting the legislature.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 588 and asked for a motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 588.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 591.

William Moell, Administrator, Division of Purchasing, testified from Exhibit G. A.B. 591 modified the method of generation of operating revenues from a transaction-based administrative charge to an across-the-board assessment. The bill clarified the cost of purchasing for those agencies not part of the assessment pool.

Mr. Moell anticipated A.B. 591 would be rereferred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, and requested an amendment to allow one calculation for both years of the biennium. The amendment was requested because the Purchasing Division budgeted on a biennial basis, thus eliminating the limitation on the number of years in the average. He was hoping to even out peaks and valleys on any kind of assessment so it worked better for customers and to make technical corrections for the way transactions flowed through the accounts.

Assemblywoman Berman, looking at page 1 of the suggested amendments (Exhibit H) asked Mr. Moell how the assessments were calculated.

Assessment for commodities was calculated based on the number of purchase requisitions processed by the Purchasing Division, Mr. Moell replied. They were classified as to budget account and dollar amount. For service procurements, which accounted for approximately one-quarter of the budget, assessment was done through a system known as Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position.

Ms. Berman asked for more succinct numbers. Administrative charges for service contracts were a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $4,000, Mr. Moell responded. The division kept track of time and effort spent on a contract, and the average of those hours over a 3-year to 5-year period would be used for future assessments.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel had a problem with the bill language on page 2, line 3, "If an agency is not a using agency . . . " It sounded to her as if the agency was to be charged a fee.

Mr. Moell explained the term "using agency" in that portion of the bill referred to state agencies within the executive budget subject to the assessment. The Purchasing Division did a great deal of procurement for cities, counties, school districts and other government entities outside the scope of what a possible assessment would be. In the bill, the using agency would be a member of the executive branch that was subject to the assessment. Those that were not considered user agencies were the other government entities.

Chairman Bache asked for a motion on A.B. 591.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED A.B. 591 AMEND, DO PASS AND REREFER TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

Chairman Bache asked for committee action on Assembly Bill 630, heard the day before.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 459.

Mr. Bache asked for a motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 459.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

The Chairman reopened the hearing on Assembly Bill 594, heard earlier that morning, and asked for a motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 594.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMEN PARNELL AND VON TOBEL VOTED NO.

Dean F. Molberg, Chief, Boulder City Fire Department, and President of the Southern Nevada Fire Chiefs Association, read a prepared statement (Exhibit I). He and his association requested consideration of A.B. 607.

The bill made certain changes to the duties and responsibilities of the State Fire Marshal regarding state owned and/or state occupied buildings, including schools, throughout the state. The changes were requested to address a potential problem as related to schools.

Problems with the State Fire Marshal’s Office precipitated the drafting of A.B. 607, Mr. Molberg continued. There were delays in completing plan reviews for school buildings and, in many cases, schools had opened without fire and life safety systems in place. Certifications of occupancy were issued without regard for those systems. Local fire departments had taken it upon themselves to conduct those plan reviews and perform on-site inspections. In many jurisdictions, especially Clark County, the State Fire Marshal’s Office did not perform those duties and consistently relied on local fire departments.

The bill would remove the burden and responsibility for those activities from the State Fire Marshal’s Office and give the authority to local fire departments, and would affect only those counties with a population of 35,000 or greater. The bill also provided local fire departments in counties lacking the resources to perform those duties, the ability to request the State Fire Marshal to continue to provide those services.

Mr. Molberg referred the committee to some requested changes in the bill language (Exhibit J).

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked Mr. Molberg to address concerns of the Carson City Fire Department regarding the effect of the bill on the fire marshal’s budget.

The intent of the bill was not designed to impact finances and funding sources of the State Fire Marshal’s Office, Mr. Molberg responded. The proposed amendments (Exhibit J) addressed those concerns. The fire chiefs simply wanted mandated authority to continue to perform inspections and certifications of buildings.

A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the responsibility for inspections of newly built schools, specifically in Henderson. Assemblywoman Tiffany asked why the State Fire Marshal’s Office was not assuming responsibility for inspections of those schools. Mr. Molberg felt the lack stemmed from a staffing problem within the State Fire Marshal’s Office.

Ms. Tiffany wondered if the local fire departments could be liable for inspections that were the initial responsibility of the fire marshal and which were not carried out in a timely manner. Mr. Molberg assured Ms. Tiffany that public safety was the primary reason for bringing forth the amendments to A.B. 607.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked about the fees that were paid to the State Fire Marshal’s Office for the inspections. Mr. Molberg explained the fee schedule had already been discussed with the fire marshal and that the fire departments did not want the fees. He indicated the fire marshal was unwilling to make an immediate commitment as to an agreement.

"I think they [the State Fire Marshal] need the money," Ms. Tiffany said. "I do not want to take money away from the State Fire Marshal. They pick up a lot of responsibilities such as training. That is critical."

Mr. Molberg reiterated the fire departments wanted the authority to do pre-occupancy inspections to insure the safety of schools and other public buildings.

Assemblyman Lee addressed the matter of the construction business itself. The fire departments were not seeing original plans in a timely manner to ensure safety in the public buildings under construction. Because the fire marshal lacked the time and personnel to adequately perform those inspections, Mr. Lee asked how many inspectors worked for fire departments in Clark County.

Fulton Cochran, Chairman of the Southern Nevada Fire Code Committee, and also Deputy Fire Marshal for the Henderson Fire Department, provided some statistical backup in answer to Mr. Lee’s question. Within Clark County itself, he said, 50 to 60 inspectors served the various fire departments in the county.

Mr. Lee felt having building inspections and plan checks done by local entities was important. "If there is a fire problem, [the local entity] can roll those fire trucks up and they know exactly where the fire meter boxes are, the exact locations, exactly where to park the fire trucks. But if they respond to a fire at a building they have never seen nor inspected, they can spend 20 to 30 minutes trying to figure out where the sprinkler systems are." Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Molberg’s testimony. He reiterated he was not trying to put the State Fire Marshal out of business. He simply wanted to see the local fire departments involved in building inspections to ensure the schools and public facilities were properly and safely constructed, and the response time was quick. He "wholeheartedly" supported the bill.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Cochran for further testimony.

Mr. Cochran said his original role was to handle the rebuttal, but agreed to clarify matters. The fire departments were occasionally called on to do inspections when the State Fire Marshal was unavailable. The fundamental problem was the fire marshal lacked the resources to perform those services. When a local fire department performed an inspection and noted violations, it did not have the mandated authority to follow up and ensure the violations were corrected.

The main concern was with the schools, Mr. Cochran continued in answer to a question from Assemblywoman Segerblom. The issue also extended to state-owned buildings as well.

Assemblyman Mortenson needed assurance if A.B. 607 passed, plans and calls would be directed to the local fire departments. Mr. Cochran replied affirmatively, indicating the submitted amendments (Exhibit J) addressed those questions.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked if all the schools in Henderson had been inspected by the fire department, or interspersed with inspections by the fire marshal. Mr. Cochran indicated there was no complete set of records showing that all required inspections had been done, specifically on the eight schools recently opened in Henderson. Ms. Tiffany asked about citations and followups on inspections. Mr. Cochran indicated the authority to enforce was valid only once the building was occupied.

Ms. Tiffany said, "So we have some schools in Henderson that may not have a thorough, consistent, complete fire plan, [starting] from planning out to where the fire department takes responsibility. Is that true?" Mr. Cochran replied affirmatively.

Dean Molberg responded. The funding was tied to the review of the plans, and so the fire marshal would retain the plan reviews. The money was generated from those plan reviews. A whole array of different inspections needed to be completed prior to a building being approved for occupancy, or "signed off." Once a building was signed off, it then became the responsibility of the local jurisdiction.

Local jurisdictions had no authority from the time plans were reviewed and during the construction phase, Mr. Molberg continued. Inspections were being performed by the fire departments after children were in the building, and which was difficult because inspectors had no idea what fire prevention systems were in place.

Ed Wood, Deputy Chief, Las Vegas Fire Department, and the Safety Committee chairman for the Southern Nevada Fire Chiefs indicated the committee was well informed on the issues. It bothered him that children were attending schools where pre-occupancy safety inspections of fire systems were not being done. He suggested some ways to have collaboration between the state fire marshal and local jurisdictions: (1) deputies within each jurisdiction could be identified by the fire marshal; and (2) the creation of inter-agency agreements identifying the work to be done. He had no doubt the State Fire Marshal’s Office was necessary, but he saw need for the implementation of statewide civic responsibility for counties with little or no funds to support their training and firefighting needs.

Terry Taylor, an inspector with the East Fork Fire Protection District in Douglas County, also favored A.B. 607. He understood the problems faced by the firefighters of southern Nevada and supported the wish of those agencies to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal. He asked there not be any reduction in funding of the State Fire Marshal’s Office, because the smaller rural areas depended on the fire marshal’s services.

Assemblywoman Tiffany’s understanding of the bill as amended would leave the funding intact for the State Fire Marshal’s Office, have the fire marshal use the money for rural areas, and give the larger areas the responsibility for the inspections and safety implementation.

Chairman Bache asked for testimony in opposition to A.B. 607.

Earl Raecke, Manager, State Public Works Board, said the bill impacted his department greatly. The State Fire Marshal was responsible for fire plans inspections and reviews, and inspected new buildings under a delegation from the State Public Works Board, Mr. Raecke continued. The authority was delegated approximately 9 or 10 years ago. When Mr. Raecke became manager of the Public Works Board, "the [fire marshal’s] act was very bad." He threatened to rescind the delegation if the State Fire Marshal’s Office "didn’t clean up their act." But if the responsibility of public buildings and public schools was removed from the fire marshal’s jurisdiction, the fire marshal would have no revenue base. Mr. Raecke reiterated a cooperative agreement needed to be made between the State Fire Marshal’s Office and the local jurisdictions.

Marvin Carr answered a question posed by Assemblyman Mortenson that the fire marshal did not have enough people statewide to do appropriate inspections. His concern with the bill was the need to maintain fire, life and safety inspections in the areas not served by local fire departments. Mr. Carr provided the committee with a chart depicting the impact of A.B. 607 on the State Fire Marshal’s Office (Exhibit K), and reiterated the bill, as written, would put his office out of business.

Mr. Carr was proud of the fact that in the last 10 months his office made considerable effort to do plan reviews in a timely manner. He was able to manage the office and make appropriate budget requests through the state system that made his office dependent upon fees. By taking the State Fire Marshal’s Office out of any general fund obligation, Mr. Carr continued, the status quo was maintained. Obviously his office had to continue with the fee structure. Losing the fees was his real concern.

Mr. Carr distributed "bullet points" on A.B. 607 (Exhibit L) and indicated he would go over them with the committee later on. In the last 8 months his office had made a concerted effort to ensure any local jurisdiction, whether urban or rural, reviewed plans. Inter-local agreements seemed to work well with the rural areas. But, as he saw it, the main problem lay with the funding provisions. Rural areas did not have the money to do inspections or review plans, thus putting the responsibility for those functions on the State Fire Marshal’s Office.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked Mr. Carr if he felt the proposed amendments would permit the fire marshal to keep the inspection fees.

Mr. Carr had not seen the proposed amendments to A.B. 607 until that morning (see Exhibit J). He felt state buildings should come under the authority of the State Public Works Board, and the Fire Marshal should be charged by statute to be responsible for fire, life, and safety in those buildings. The "bottom line", as he saw it, was to develop a uniform fire code for the entire state.

Assemblyman Lee appreciated the conversation. However, he had problems with Mr. Carr’s statement that the fire marshal could not insure the fire, life, and safety inspections that were completed prior to a school being occupied. "You mean you can’t tell us if the duct detectors work? You are not sure if the backflow preventers work? The smoke detectors?" Mr. Lee’s goal was to see that the inspections were done, and that Mr. Carr understood his authority stopped the moment a fire started.

Mr. Carr concurred there was a problem. He admitted he was unable to keep pace with inspection demands, especially in Clark County. He saw no problem with appointing deputies, who carried the authority of the State Fire Marshal’s Office, within the local jurisdictions.

Chairman Bache felt the issue focused down to a "Yes, you have a manpower problem, and they have indicated they do not want your money." He asked if it was possible for all parties to meet within the next few days and try to work out a compromise. He did not feel the two sides on the issue were very far apart.

Mr. Carr indicated his willingness and suggested the other entities involved, such as public works and the school districts, be included. He had no problem with appointing deputies from within the fire departments, so long as constraint was used because of the liability issue.

Mr. Bache suggested the two sides meet, come to an agreement, and report back to the committee.

Assemblywoman Segerblom felt it important for the State Fire Marshal’s Office to deputize inspectors, but did not think the matter could wait until the end of session. Mr. Carr was unwilling to give up his entire authority because presently it provided continuity in the state to the minimum fire codes. He was afraid to amend the bill. He needed to make certain the funding was still in place.

Ms. Segerblom said, "If you want us to do this bill, we will have to do it. I you cannot make an agreement right away, the bill is not going through."

Mr. Carr was still concerned with funding. However, he felt with or without the bill, the two sides could resolve their differences.

Assemblyman Mortenson emphasized Ms. Segerblom’s idea. An agreement had to be reached, or the bill would go through because schools needed to be protected.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel agreed it would be better to work out a compromise rather than amend the statutes. However, she was concerned a county could come forward and say it was happy to do the additional inspection work without getting paid. Then two or three sessions into the future, that county could conceivably say, "We’re required to do this work and yet the money is going to the state." She did not feel the revenue going into the State Fire Marshal’s Office could be cut.

Assemblyman Neighbors felt the fire marshal should be given until the next session to see if the existing problems could be resolved.

Assemblywoman Tiffany emphasized, "This is about policy. We’ve always had problems with the state fire marshal. . . . I’d like to see it happen today while everyone is here. I have to tell you, I was a little irritated when I heard money, budget, budget, budget over the safety of these kids. That does not send a good message. Do it now! Work out the details later. Then come back and tell us we don’t have to process this bill."

Assemblywoman Parnell agreed with Ms. Tiffany. She was distressed to hear the generation of revenue put on the same scale as safety in public schools. She found it offensive. She did not want to leave the meeting until she knew the number of inspectors needed to inspect the schools in Clark County.

Mr. Carr agreed to make himself available for discussions.

Fred Smith, Contracts and Construction Manager of the Clark County School District wished to clear up some misconceptions. Every school constructed under his jurisdiction, he said, was not issued a certificate of occupancy or a temporary certificate until all the fire, life, and safety systems were inspected and accepted, either by the local entity or by the State Fire Marshal’s office. Mr. Smith offered to make the records available for scrutiny.

From the school district’s perspective, Mr. Smith continued, its biggest concern was with the plans check. The district dealt with prototype school designs. The district utilized one elementary school design, one middle school design, and one high school design. His concern with A.B. 607 in its unamended form was that he would be forced to deal with 18 school designs rather than three. That would be caused by the six different fire departments, each with its own iteration of the same design. He wished to see some sort of standardization in place. But his paramount concern was the safety and security of the school children.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel appreciated Mr. Smith’s clarification of the certificate of occupancy issue.

Theresa Brushfield Owens, a representative of Residential Facilities for Groups, Adult Care Association of Nevada, told the committee when Marvin Carr assumed the position of State Fire Marshal, the Adult Care Association did not like him. She went on to say she realized Mr. Carr was simply trying to standardize fire safety regulations for residential care for groups, mostly senior citizen housing. She feared the resultant chaos if individual fire companies were allowed to make safety decisions. She described a series of convoluted events wherein licensing and safety issues were not standardized.

Robert Fash, Deputy Fire Marshal, City of Las Vegas Fire Department, addressed some of Ms. Brushfield’s concerns. He distributed a memorandum from Marvin Carr to all state fire marshals (Exhibit M), wherein policies and regulations for standardization of group homes, specifically for Altzheimer patients, were specified. However, he reiterated, there was a lack of standardization.

Fulton Cochran, Deputy Fire Marshal, Henderson, disagreed with Fred Smith. He wanted to see the documentation regarding the school inspections. He insisted his department employed certified inspectors, and that his department’s reputation was a good one.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 607 and adjourned the meeting at 11:03 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Charlotte Tucker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: