The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:25 a.m., on Wednesday, April 14, 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

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mr. Roy Neighbors

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bill Isaeff, deputy city manager, city of Sparks testified he would briefly explain the process the city went through in arriving at the issues covered in S.B. 215. In the existing city charter, there was a provision for the charter committee to meet between sessions of the Nevada Legislature to review provisions of the charter and recommend changes the committee believed would enhance city governance. During the 1997 session the charter committee indicated they wanted a thorough review of article 9 of the city charter dealing with civil service. Meetings originally began in October of 1996 and discussions continued with city employee organizations that would be affected by any changes. Those organizations included representatives of the police and firefighters unions, and Operating Engineers #3, who represented the non-uniformed employees of the city. Serving on the charter committee itself were a firefighter and a member of the Operating Engineers. Both the firefighters and the police union participated in crafting the language in the S.B. 215 as well as the civil service commission.

He stated he would briefly explain the proposed changes. Section 1 proposed a technical amendment correcting misspelling where "counsel" denoting an attorney was used, rather than "council." Section 2 of the bill allowed the Civil Service Commission to adopt regulations extending the probationary time for sworn fire suppression and sworn police department employees to 18 months from the current 12 months. That change allowed adequate time to evaluate job performance of fire and police safety employees who spent most of their first year training at either the fire or the police academies. The fire chief, police chief, and the city manager felt the current 12 month probationary period did not allow sufficient time after graduating from the various academies to review those employees adequately. He added the Civil Service Commission would still review the provisions so there would still be an opportunity for input from all the affected parties.

Section 3 of the bill added a new subsection 5, granting additional points to persons who were employed in a temporary capacity in a position for which an examination was being given and would be established by regulations adopted by the Sparks Civil Service Commission. A lot of time and money was expended in training and employing employees in a temporary capacity and many times those employees could make an easy transition into full-time positions. It would also allow the Civil Service Commission to grant additional points to an employee occupying a temporary position to move into that position on a permanent basis.

Section 4 of the bill amended subsections 3, 4, and 5 of existing law clarifying regulations and any restrictions relating to examinations for promotions or filling vacancies within a department or a division of a department. In some larger departments within the city of Sparks, such as public works, there were 11 different divisions. The change was requested because under the current city charter provision, when there was a promotional examination it had to be opened department wide. There were employees in many divisions who were simply not qualified in one way or another to seek a particular job even though they wanted to take the examination for that position. It cost the city considerable time and money in both human resources and other expenses to test employees who the city knew from the beginning were not qualified to be promoted into a different division within the department. Because of existing restrictions, recruitment had to be departmental and with the new language the Civil Service Commission would be allowed to adopt regulations limiting promotional examination to the particular division in which the vacancy occurred.

Mr. Isaeff said section 5 would amend the Sparks City Charter, increasing the time limit for suspension of an employee from 30 days to 45 days. That change gave greater flexibility to the city manager in making a chosen discipline procedure better fit a particular offense. Under the current city charter the city manager only had the authority to either terminate or suspend an employee up to 30 days. The city believed there could be situations where a 30-day suspension might not be adequate punishment for a particular offense and yet full termination was too harsh, so they were requesting additional authority to expand from a 30 day suspension to 45 days. He added the provision did cause some contention between the city and employee unions. Originally the city wanted more than 45 days so it became a compromise between the two entities.

Mr. Isaeff stated section 6 amended section 9.105 of the city charter, clarifying language where an employee was deemed to have waived the right to a hearing before the commission. If the employee chose to pursue an available grievance procedure through contract rather than an appeal to the Civil Service Commission, which was his right under the city charter, the commission appeal would be considered waived. The change was intended to preclude an employee from pursuing both processes at the same time resulting in possible inconsistent determinations. Section 7 was just a technical amendment and section 8 the effective date.

Ms. Gibbons questioned the difference regarding the two remedies discussed in section 6. She also wondered if the unions agreed to the language in that section. Mr. Isaeff replied the unions had agreed. The difference was a formal grievance procedure set forth in the contracts the city had with various employee organizations, allowing grievances to go through the chain of command and eventually ending up in the city manager’s office for a final decision. Also in the city charter was a procedure that could be brought before the Civil Service Commission for appeal of a dismissal, demotion, or suspension. If the employee followed both procedures simultaneously it would obviously be very costly so the provision merely required selection of one of those remedies.

Mr. Humke asked if the bonus point provision was designed to give an extra bonus to people serving in a reserve capacity. Mr. Isaeff responded the intent was directed at employees who were actually employed by the city in a temporary position, such as a reserve police officer.

Mr. Humke wondered if those were police officers actually employed with the police department or some other part of city government. Mr. Isaeff remarked it would be someone who was employed in a temporary position and an examination was given for a full-time job in that particular position. He stressed the position would already be filled by the employee on a temporary basis.

Mr. Humke indicated he was inquiring because several years ago close to 1,000 people applied to fire agencies in Sparks and Reno. He thought the bonus plan might be a way of giving someone from the Washoe County area a little leverage, because of those 1,000 applications hundreds came from California. Mr. Isaeff remarked it was not intended to be on a geographic basis. It was designed to recognize the benefits the city had already achieved with its investment in a person who was a temporary employee by placing him in a permanent position.

Mr. Humke questioned if the city created temporary positions because of the lengthy process of recruitment and examinations. Mr. Isaeff said it was his understanding they were created for a variety of reasons including the situation of funding availability.

Chairman Bache asked if the unions agreed to all the language in the bill. Mr. Isaeff responded they were involved in every step of the procedure. The city took great care to ensure they were given notice of all the proposed changes. Representatives attended several meetings and they actively debated some compromises made in the end, but it was his understanding they supported the changes.

Chairman Bache stated under those circumstances, he would have to question the competency of the union leadership in the matter. He could not understand why any union would agree increasing a 12 month probationary period to 18 months, as few groups had probationary periods over one year. Most suspensions started with a 2-day suspension then going to 5, 10, 15, 20, but never over 30 days. He could not understand people even considering giving up their employee rights. Mr. Isaeff remarked he thought the procedural process had been chosen assuring everyone involved had an opportunity to participate, and he felt the city of Sparks had reasonably good management/employee relations.

Chairman Bache asked if any union representatives were in the audience. Mr. Isaeff indicated they were not at the Senate hearing, nor did he recognize any of the representatives from any of the unions in the audience. He stressed it was his understanding they were in support of the bill.

Chairman Bache stated he wanted to hear testimony from the unions themselves for the record. He added as there was no further testimony on the bill he would close the hearing on S.B. 215.

Bruce Sillitoe, Clark County Parks and Recreation Department, presented testimony in support of the bill (Exhibit C). The bill allowed boards of county commissioners to establish the use and operation of wetlands mitigation banks. The legislation would enable boards of county commissioners, if they so chose, to establish by ordinance, a wetland mitigation banking program.

It was important to note the bill, if passed, would provide local options in meeting an existing federal mandate. The bill did not impose any restrictions, but rather provided a tool that was completely voluntary for both the public and private sector in meeting an existing mandate.

The mandate was the requirement that wetlands be replaced if they were destroyed as the result of development. Wetlands meant those areas falling under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Many times swamps, marshes, or bogs came to mind when considering wetlands, but it could also include permanently diverted storm drains that grew cattails. Throughout the State of Nevada there were few options for local agencies or a developer to comply with the federal wetlands mitigation mandate. Even when building the Clark County wetland park, mitigation requirements existed that a bank would have helped solve. The fact that few options existed at the local level was one of the reasons why the Las Vegas Valley Water Quality Management Plan (208) recommended the creation of a wetland mitigation bank. The other reason was that mitigation banking provided opportunities that were environmentally beneficial to traditional approaches of mitigation. The 208 plan was endorsed by the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority and appeared to be a promising approach.

A mitigation bank was a way of receiving credit from the Federal Regulatory Agencies for creating and enhancing wetland areas in advance of development actions. As previously discussed, existing regulations required wetlands to be replaced if they were destroyed as a result of development. By planning ahead and creating and enhancing wetlands in advance of development, the Federal Regulatory Agencies credited a county with created and enhanced wetlands and would also reduce costs and maximize benefits. When the time came to impact a wetland as a result of a development action, whether it was a public or private sector development, federal mandates could be met by deducting credits from the county’s reserve or bank of mitigation credits.

In conclusion, S.B. 217 would provide badly needed services to the local communities in the form of a market-based alternative to an existing federal mandate. Complying with the federal mandate to mitigate wetlands impacts would become easier and carried out in an environmentally preferred manner.

Mrs. Freeman stated she had a problem with one of the sentences in (Exhibit C). "The mandate that I speak of is a requirement that wetlands be replaced if they are destroyed as a result of development." It implied development was allowed in wetland areas and she wondered if that had always been allowed. Mr. Sillitoe responded mitigation for wetlands was required at the federal level and involved agencies trying to avoid any wetland impacts. If it appeared an impact would occur it was then determined how that impact could be minimized. He added the bill had nothing to do with the Federal Clean Water Act, but it simply provided an alternative if the agencies required mitigation.

Mrs. Freeman stated she understood that, but "…if they are destroyed" meant to her that planners in Clark County allowed wetlands to be impacted in the past.

Renny Ashleman, representing Clark County Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, pointed out it had nothing to do with the Clark County planners. It was a federal program and occasionally federal programmers allowed wetlands to be destroyed and/or altered. Sometimes they were very small and sometimes they were essentially artificial wetlands created by other construction activity and had relatively little environmental value. Several years ago the city of Mesquite had to spend a great deal of money because wetlands had been created as a result of their efforts to mitigate other environmental problems and there was no mitigation bank. Clark County was concerned that as wetlands were converted into a park, those wetland sections would need mitigation. In the western part of the valley, developers had encountered situations where they diverted runoffs to cure flood problems creating wetlands where they had not existed for thousands of years.

Chairman Bache indicated the Las Vegas wash would fall under the term wetland because there was water and vegetation there. Much of it had stagnated and as part of the flood control project huge concrete blocks were constructed to facilitate water flow. It eliminated health problems because stagnate water no longer existed, but he felt although they might be considered wetlands that was not altogether true as it was part of the flood control project.

Mrs. Freeman questioned what areas were identified as wetlands. Chairman Bache replied he was not sure. He knew the Southern Nevada Water Authority had been looking at creating a park and wetland sections from the entire Las Vegas wash area in order to relieve health and flood control problems.

Ms. Segerblom asked about the wetlands in Henderson where development had been allowed. Mr. Sillitoe stated the development in Henderson resulted from construction of a storm drain. The storm drain ran through property where there was a patch of tamarisk trees people wanted preserved; however, a court determined it was not an appropriate action. It was then determined it would be best to mitigate that area and for every acre of mitigation the court-required two acres be mitigated, so it established a net increase in wetlands elsewhere.

Mr. Mortenson inquired how problems of health were mitigated when wetlands could have mosquitoes breeding in stagnant water. Mr. Sillitoe remarked if the bill passed creating wetlands in advance, an environmental biologist would be employed to select areas that were appropriate and allowed water to pass through the area completely. There were also control methods such as mosquito fish that were heavily used in Clark County.

Mr. Mortenson questioned if he was saying that unhealthful conditions rarely existed where the water was flowing freely. Mr. Sillitoe stated all situations could be greatly minimized if an area was properly planned and developed.

Mr. Ashleman interjected he thought the bill was a useful tool for local developers in handling their mitigation problems. The quality of the wetlands being built would be better than those little isolated patches that were being removed.

Bill Isaeff, deputy city manager, city of Sparks, voiced his support for the bill since it was only authorization and the county could undertake a program at its discretion. In his opinion, it provided authority to each county that might choose to engage in that type of activity. Local governments engaged in projects that sometimes had an impact on wetland areas, and if a wetland mitigation bank were in place, it would ease the impact to the wetland.

Ms. Gibbons asked if the bill would allow the airport in Las Vegas contribute to the bank when they developed their areas. Mr. Sillitoe related when the Las Vegas airport developed areas that impacted wetlands they would be able to mitigate the impacts in a mitigation bank if the agencies allowed it. If the county commissioners opted to adopt it by ordinance, they could move forward and create a mitigation bank.

Ms. Gibbons wondered if the Reno airport would be able to use the procedure because they were not under the jurisdiction of the county commission. Mr. Sillitoe indicated when dealing with Clean Water Act in mitigating wetlands, the agencies did not care if it was a city mitigating under a county bank or another county mitigating under a mitigation bank. What they did care about was to mitigate environmentally in a particular area.

Mr. Mortenson asked if there was anything in the bill mitigating the ability for wetlands to be removed. And if the same rules applied to the wetland at Desert Inn and Spring Mountain if someone wanted to fill it in. Mr. Sillitoe pointed out the bill had nothing to do with existing federal mandates and passage of the bill would only make the mitigation environmentally preferable and more cost effective for those participating.

Richard Wilke, Southern Nevada Water Authority, stated for the record his group was in support of S.B. 217.

Mr. Lee questioned the price per foot a contractor had to pay to the wetland mitigation bank in removing an area and taking the credit. Mr. Wilke replied he would defer to the county, as they were the authors of this bill.

Chairman Bache asked about the responses compiled from the questionnaires received about the program initiated by the Las Vegas Valley Water District prior to the beginning of session, dealing with the Las Vegas wash and mitigation. Mr. Wilke said the authority was working with the county and approximately 12 agencies in cleaning up the Las Vegas wash.

Mrs. Freeman wondered about the mosquito problem Mr. Mortensen had questioned. Mr. Sillitoe related the county had a department that actually dealt with the mosquito issue. They transplanted mosquito fish from other areas into areas with highly concentrated mosquito populations.

Chairman Bache remarked Mr. Lee’s question of the cost per foot and not been answered. Mr. Sillitoe pondered if the question related to the cost of mitigating a particular wetland.

Mr. Lee interjected if there was a piece of property with a small little marsh on it what would the price be per foot be to the bank if it was covered up. Mr. Sillitoe responded when dealing in credits it was usually done in acres, so he thought it would be a fraction of an acre. Each county did it differently, in Clark County it was a nonprofit type of a bank where in developing the wetlands the design and construction would determine the costs, and the costs would be passed on to the individuals who needed mitigation. As the work had not actually been done yet in Las Vegas he was not able to give specifics.

Mr. Lee noted A.B. 291 of the 69^th Session dealt with a one-quarter cent sales tax and recalled it was used as a credit from the water district.

Chris Weiss, Southern Nevada Water Authority, clarified in the definition of waste water facilities there was a provision for wetlands allowing some of the funding from the one quarter cent sales tax to be used as part of a waste water treatment. He added it would probably qualify the Las Vegas wash area as a wetlands for that kind of funding source. He did not think there was any fixed amount, and it depended on how the overall capital improvement was structured as to how wetlands fit into that picture.

As there was no further discussion, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 217.

David Gibson, Clark County Public Defender’s Office, presented testimony in support of S.B. 456. In the past 5 years, the Clark County Public Defender’s Office had increased in size to 70 deputy attorneys. Because of the growth the office increased the frequency with which it conducted hiring interviews. It brought to their attention the difference in the application process between the public defender and the district attorney’s office. While the processes were similar, the county personnel office was concerned about having two systems in place for essentially the same position classifications. If the bill passed it would bring uniformity to the hiring process. The change would only affect counties with populations of 400,000 or more and mirrored the existing language in NRS 252.070. There would be no fiscal impact because the provisions of the merit system of the county were already followed.

Mr. Lee asked about the provision in the bill stating private law practices could be pursued in smaller counties. Ben Graham, representing the Clark County District Attorney, explained over the years the number of areas where people could engage in private practices had greatly diminished. Presently there were only two counties where private practice was allowed, Goldfield in Esmeralda County, and Virginia City in Storey County. He felt it was an archaic provision because District Attorneys practiced everything from criminal to civil law and were too busy to maintain a private practice.

Ms. Parnell wanted a quick definition of a merit personnel system. Mr. Graham replied in Clark County there was a long existing merit system for the road department and social service employees, and as of 1995 the district attorney’s office. If the bill passed it would add the public defender’s office and there were basic standards and qualifications that must be met. For instance, in an attorney position in the county certain grievance procedures were followed, where a union personnel representative negotiated pay raises, vacation, and all personnel matters. It would establish procedures statutorily and eliminate the ability to fire or hire at will. The merit pay structure would be negotiated by the negotiated contract with the personnel representatives.

As there was no further business, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 456.

The meeting adjourned at 9:15 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Virginia Letts,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: