The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:20 a.m., on Wednesday, April 28, 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

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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bill Harper, Past President, Sparks Police Protective Association

Ross Chichester, representing Douglas County Sheriff’s Office

Lesa Coder, Assistant Director and Zoning Administrator,

Tom Grady, representing Nevada League of Cities

Marvin Leavitt, representing city of Las Vegas, Nevada, testified. He explained S.B. 473 was generated by the Legislative Committee to Study the Distribution Among Local Governments of Revenue from State and Local Taxes, commonly referred to as the "253 Committee."

Mr. Leavitt said during the past several years, a number of local governments had placed themselves in financial difficulty. In some instances, their difficulties were self-inflicted, but in others, their difficulties were due to outside circumstances. In 1995, as a result of financial difficulties experienced by White Pine County School District, the legislature established a procedure which gave the state’s Department of Taxation considerable authority to manage the financial affairs of a local government which was experiencing financial difficulties and which met certain conditions.

Mr. Leavitt pointed out pursuant to S.B. 473, if the director of the Department of Taxation determined a local government was experiencing a severe financial emergency from which it would be unable to extricate itself within 3 years, he would prepare findings to that effect. He would then submit those findings to the Committee on Local Government Finance, which was comprised of 11 members. Of those 11 members, 3 represented cities, 3 represented counties, 3 represented schools, and 2 belonged to the private business sector’s accounting profession. The Committee on Local Government Finance would review the findings to determine whether it agreed with them and whether a proposal should be issued which would result in dissolution of the local government. Such a proposal could apply to any city or special district in Nevada but could not apply to a county. If the committee agreed with the findings, it would forward its recommendation to the Nevada Tax Commission. If the Nevada Tax Commission concurred with that recommendation, it would first conduct public hearings and then call an election to allow citizens of the local government to vote on the question of whether the local government should be dissolved.

Mr. Leavitt said if it was decided the local government should not be dissolved, several things would happen. First, the local government’s tax rate would be increased to its constitutional maximum, and the local government would agree to elimination of some controls on other taxes. However, if it was determined the local government should not continue in effect, S.B. 473 established procedures through which a local government created by another local government could be dissolved. If the local government in question was created through legislative action, the matter of its dissolution would be submitted to the legislature for determination.

Mr. Leavitt stated S.B. 473 essentially provided a mechanism through which to dissolve a local government experiencing a severe financial emergency from which it appeared it would be unable to extricate itself, in the near future, and would be unable to provide the services it was originally created to provide. Although the city of Gabbs had not yet reached that point, it was moving in that direction. The city’s population was declining, and the city had reached the point where its level of service was very low.

Mr. Leavitt pointed out the mere fact a city, community, or special district experienced a decline in population and a lack of revenue growth did not mean it was experiencing a severe financial emergency. He maintained local governments could reduce their expenditures to equal their revenues and " . . . live with what they have . . .." He asserted no local government in Nevada was being specifically targeted for application of the provisions of S.B. 473. The bill’s provisions would apply only when a local government found itself in a severe financial emergency from which it appeared it could not recover.

Assemblywoman Freeman asked whether the Committee on Local Government Finance was created by the legislature. Mr. Leavitt replied affirmatively.

Mrs. Freeman asked whether the committee’s members were appointed by the governor. Mr. Leavitt replied, "No. It’s coming, essentially, from the different groups representing the cities . . . Nevada League of Cities, Nevada Association of Counties, the public accounting profession."

Mrs. Freeman asked how often the Committee on Local Government Finance met. Mr. Leavitt replied the committee’s bylaws required it to meet quarterly; however, because of problems occurring throughout the state, the committee had been meeting much more frequently.

Mrs. Freeman asked whether the committee’s members consisted of financial officers of various local governments. Mr. Leavitt replied affirmatively. He indicated the committee’s members were technically competent and had the necessary expertise to assist local governments in the throes of financial difficulty. When White Pine County School District experienced its difficulties, the committee prepared the school district’s budget for the ensuing year.

Mrs. Freeman asked whether the Committee on Local Government Finance hired the "executive director," and how the executive director’s position was funded. Mr. Leavitt replied the "executive director" was the executive director of the Department of Taxation.

Assemblywoman Parnell asked whether she was correct if S.B. 473 was enacted into law, it would preclude the state having to "bail out" local governments as it had to do with respect to White Pine County School District. Mr. Leavitt replied he did not believe S.B. 473 would affect existing law. The Department of Taxation would continue to be involved, for a period of time, in the management of a local government experiencing severe financial difficulty. If it was determined the local government would be unable to extricate itself from its difficulty within 3 years, the provisions of S.B. 473 would become applicable. He briefly discussed what was done to provide a loan to White Pine County School District.

Ms. Parnell asked whether the money loaned to White Pine County School District was paid back to the state. Mr. Leavitt replied the state did not borrow the money.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked what Gabbs’ population was. Mr. Leavitt replied he believed Gabbs had a population of approximately 250.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Gabbs was an incorporated town. Mr. Leavitt responded Gabbs was an incorporated city.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Gabbs was the smallest incorporated city in Nevada. Mr. Leavitt replied he thought it was. He explained Gabbs’ citizens desired self-government. They believed they could not be appropriately represented because their community was so small and so far removed from Nye County’s other population centers. Therefore, they organized a city, and the city seemed to function well for many years. However, over recent years, mining in the area had been nearly eliminated, the population had decreased, and Gabbs now operated on a very marginal basis.

Assemblywoman Tiffany observed of late, Nevada frequently faced problems in its rural areas, particularly its smaller, rural cities. She asked whether there was a process through which to identify local governments on the verge of experiencing severe financial difficulty rather than identifying them after they got into trouble and had to be bailed out. Mr. Leavitt responded such a process had been developed. He explained legislation was passed during the 1995 legislative session which " . . . could teach the reporting requirements." It was discovered although local governments were required to report on a quarterly basis, those experiencing a severe financial emergency usually did not have adequate staff to properly prepare their quarterly reports. Therefore, they did not prepare those reports, and the Department of Taxation was unable to gain complete knowledge of what was happening with respect to those local governments. Now there were "teeth" in the law, and a local government which failed to prepare and submit quarterly reports might be denied its allocation of taxes.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the Department of Taxation reviewed local governments’ quarterly reports and whether only one person or more than one person reviewed them. Mr. Leavitt replied the Department of Taxation had a local government section, and the people employed in that section reviewed local governments’ budgets and quarterly reports.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether "they" had been fairly proactive. Mr. Leavitt replied affirmatively.

Mr. Leavitt said the Committee on Local Government Finance met the previous day and approved a new report form to attempt to identify conditions of financial emergency more quickly.

Ms. Tiffany asserted emphasis should be placed on prevention. She asked whether Mr. Leavitt believed current preventative measures were adequate. Mr. Leavitt responded although Nevada, as a whole, had been experiencing relatively good economic conditions, some of its local governments were having problems. Some very small local governments did not have sufficient money to hire people with adequate technical skills to perform work which needed to be done. For instance, a local government might prepare a budget showing certain revenues and expenditure, but because of some subsequent occurrence might not receive the revenues it anticipated. Because local governments had expenditure authority, they seemed to believe it was all right to proceed with their planned expenditures even though their anticipated revenues did not materialize. As a result, they got into trouble.

Mr. Leavitt said, "We’ve tried to have some seminars and classes and such for some of these, particularly some of these smaller local governments to hopefully get ourselves past that point, but it’s a very big difficulty when you’ve got a local government that maybe has . . . one or two employees."

Ms. Tiffany indicated she would prefer a preventative measure to a disastrous recovery measure. She asked whether anyone had discussed creating a centralized service in state government to rotate people " . . . out through some of these red-listed cities . . . " and assist local governments to make necessary adjustments and whether the legislature had authority to establish such a service. Mr. Leavitt replied current statute provided a fair amount of "reporting authority," and he believed through "the reports," it could be ascertained whether a local government was experiencing difficulty. However, he did not believe anyone in state government had gone to local governments, on a rotating basis, to examine their situations until their situations reached the point of severity.

Ms. Tiffany referred to cities in financial trouble and asked whether the expenditure problems they experienced when their revenues declined were the result of labor costs which could not be adjusted. She knew some cities’ labor costs, particularly those related to public safety, were based on union contracts, and those cities did not believe they could adjust those costs. Mr. Leavitt responded he did not believe labor costs were the cause of the trouble.

Mr. Leavitt pointed out in the case of White Pine County School District, its trouble arose from the fact it issued bonds to build a high school, and the superintendent of schools wanted to build a better high school than the school district could afford. The superintendent of schools dedicated all the school district’s operating money to building the high school. Obviously, the school district could not use the same money twice, the money was no longer available to meet operating expenses, and the school district could not meet its payroll.

Mr. Leavitt said Nye County Hospital’s difficulties originated with an administrative problem. The hospital was not billing for costs and deteriorated to the point where people quit using its facilities, which resulted in lack of revenue.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether local governments’ financial difficulties usually arose from problems related to specific projects rather than administrative problems. Mr. Leavitt indicated problems which gave rise to local governments’ financial difficulties were probably related to administration. He said local governments either were " . . . not aware or not carefully following it . . . " or were unwilling to cut expenditures when their revenues declined.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether local governments’ financial difficulties were brought on less by the cost of their overhead than by the fact they overextended themselves and did not know how to regain control. Mr. Leavitt replied he believed that was part of the problem.

Ms. Tiffany asked, "That’s probably more than it would be whether it’s labor or not labor?" Mr. Leavitt responded in some cases local governments were faced with a very difficult situation. For instance, a local government might be providing a minimal level of service and suddenly find itself with a reduction in revenues. It wished to continue providing its service and was reluctant to lay off its few employees. However, if it did not, its financial situation would deteriorate, and it would eventually find itself in great financial difficulty because it failed to take the action it should have taken.

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked Mr. Leavitt to explain the reference to Assembly Bill 275 on page 7, lines 37 and 38, and page 8, lines 3 and 4, of S.B. 473. Mr. Leavitt explained the purpose of that reference was to resolve a conflict between A.B. 275 and S.B. 473.

Assemblyman Neighbors asked what effect S.B. 473 would have on a city incorporated under general law as opposed to one incorporated by charter. Mr. Leavitt cited an example of a special district created by a county and explained the special district would be dissolved immediately after the election [in which its voters voted to dissolve it]. He pointed out S.B. 473 provided for repayment of any debts in existence at the time of the dissolution. He called attention to language on page 3 of the bill which said a local government created by a special or local act of the legislature could be disincorporated or dissolved only by the legislature. In the instance of such a local government, the executive director of the Department of Taxation was required to transmit to the executive director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau notification of any vote to approve the disincorporation or dissolution of such a local government. The legislature would then, at its earliest opportunity, consider whether or not to disincorporate or dissolve the local government.

Mr. Neighbors referred to Ms. Tiffany’s questions about the cause of local governments’ financial difficulties and indicated the problem was an insufficient tax base. He pointed out in Clark County, a 10 cent raise in the tax rate would generate approximately $26 million, whereas, in Lincoln County, a 10 cent raise in the tax rate would generate only $90,000. He concurred with Mr. Leavitt that, in many instances, when a local government’s budget was approved and it subsequently experienced a shortfall in revenues, it continued to spend. He said that situation was very similar to someone saying he could not be broke because he still had checks. He maintained even if two or three local governments voted to consolidate, they would not have a sufficient tax base to meet their expenditure needs.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked how long Gabbs had been incorporated. Mr. Leavitt replied it had been incorporated for a number of years.

Mr. Mortenson said his question was whether it was ever feasible to have an incorporated town as small as Gabbs, and he gathered the answer to his question was "yes."

Mr. Leavitt said Gabbs’ population had declined fairly rapidly during recent years. He suggested there should probably be a minimum population requirement for a community to become a city. He asserted a certain number of people were required for a community to become a full-service governmental entity. Normally, a city provided a full range of governmental services, which a very small entity would probably not be able to do.

Mr. Mortenson said perhaps there should be a population cap.

Chairman Bache suggested Mr. Neighbors, as representative of the assembly district in which Gabbs was located, might like to answer some of the questions committee members asked about Gabbs.

Mr. Neighbors stated Gabbs was incorporated in the early 1930’s, largely because of the local mine. Gabbs was located 130 miles from the county seat, and "mines" liked the idea of incorporation. He advised the number of people in Gabbs who worked was limited, and " . . . assessed valuation, because the mine is down, has certainly hurt."

Chairman Bache suggested perhaps there should be a statutory mechanism whereby a city would convert to an incorporated town if it encountered financial difficulties primarily because of a population decline.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Leavitt to address establishment of the 3-year period for prospective resolution of a local government’s financial difficulties.

Mr. Leavitt stated when S.B. 473 was originally drafted, it provided for a 5-year period. However, there was considerable discussion in the senate about what could occur over a period of several years when a deteriorating situation existed. He cited Nye County Hospital as an example and said, " . . . say, for instance, we looked into the future 3 years with that hospital. Creditors would get it in bankruptcy before we reached that point." Therefore, it appeared a 5-year period might be too long.

Mr. Leavitt said he believed if a 3-year projection was made of a local government’s ability to recover from a severe financial difficulty, and it appeared that difficulty would not be completely resolved within 3 years but would improve, the executive director of the Department of Taxation would not make the findings discussed in S.B. 473 nor would the Committee on Local Government Finance be likely to submit its recommendation to the Nevada Tax Commission.

Chairman Bache suggested perhaps a continuing negative cash flow should be established as one of the criteria to be utilized to determine a local government would not make a financial recovery within a 3-year period.

Mr. Leavitt indicated he did not think it would be appropriate to go through the process created by S.B. 473 if a local government’s financial condition was improving even if it was unlikely to extricate itself entirely from its financial difficulties within 3 years.

Carole Vilardo, representing Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified. She expressed support for S.B. 473 and explained the bill was part of an evolving package of legislation proposed in an effort to get a handle on the entire issue of property taxes, revenue structure, and such matters.

Ms. Vilardo referred to Chairman Bache’s and Ms. Tiffany’s remarks about establishing preventative measures to avoid dissolution of local governments and said she believed two factors, in addition to cash flow, were involved in local governments’ financial difficulties. She discussed the decline in population and assessed valuation Gabbs experienced as a result of the closure of the mine in that area. She suggested if S.B. 473 was to be amended to establish cash flow as a criterion for determining a local government’s likelihood to recover from a severe financial difficulty, the committee might wish to consider establishing criteria pertaining to declines in population and assessed valuation.

Ms. Vilardo pointed out there were two General Improvement Districts (GID) in Nevada which had larger populations than towns. One GID had a population of nearly 10,000; however, it had no commercial assessed valuation and could not support itself as a city. During the 2001 legislative session, the "253 committee" would be examining the possibility of creating an incorporated town form of government, ". . . something that would be larger and allow them to do more than the GID because they start providing services that literally are the level that a city might start providing but, again, not having the full funding capability because of no commercial assessed valuation . . . where we can make that transition up."

Ms. Vilardo declared S.B. 473 was needed as part of a continuing effort to assist local governments.

Chairman Bache said he was not seeking an amendment to address a local government’s cash flow. He believed it would be more appropriate if the Committee on Local Government Finance was to adopt criteria for " . . . the 3-year crisis situation."

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of
Counties (NAC0), testified. He declared Nevada Association of Counties’ support for S.B. 473 and said he wished to discuss some efforts being made which paralleled those of the "253 committee."

Mr. Hadfield said a substantial effort was being made, in the form a joint project of NACO and the public entities’ insurance pool, to strengthen fiscal management capabilities of local governments. The insurance pool had a vested interest in the management of local governments in Nevada’s rural counties because mismanagement or problems could result in potential litigation and insurance losses, and the pool had established a program of personnel services to assist local governments in collective bargaining and resource management.

Mr. Hadfield said parallel to the public entities’ insurance pool’s program, NACO established a financial planning mechanism and agreed to underwrite a financial plan for White Pine County, which was being prepared by Hobbs, Ong, and Associates. In addition, NACO conducted regional workshops and paid policymakers’ tuition to attend University of Nevada Reno’s (UNR) power program. NACO, Nevada League of Cities, and UNR developed a cooperative agreement to expand the number of courses available to public officials under the university’s program.

Mr. Hadfield reiterated NACO supported S.B. 473 and was working hard, together with the "253 committee" and Nevada’s local governments, to strengthen local governments’ capabilities and ensure they never found themselves in the situation addressed by S.B. 473.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the programs Mr. Hadfield discussed were offered to cities as well as counties. Mr. Hadfield replied the programs NACO presented in rural areas were open to participation by any government official.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether any Nevada city which was a county seat was teetering on the edge of solvency. Mr. Hadfield indicated he was not aware of any county seat whose financial situation was faltering.

Ms. Tiffany asked how much NACO became involved with school districts as opposed to county seats. Mr. Hadfield replied NACO was attempting to make county officials understand the people who typically knew most about a community’s growth were those employed by school districts because they had to plan for growth. One effort being made through UNR’s program was to make it clear to elected officials it was not sufficient to consider a county merely as a county. Cities, counties, and school districts must work together to achieve a better understanding of the dynamics which took place in a county and how those dynamics related to the problem of revenue competition. NACO was beginning to see the result of its effort in the fact counties had begun to meet with some of their school boards.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether NACO encouraged such meetings. Mr. Hadfield replied affirmatively.

Ms. Tiffany posed a hypothetical situation in which a county commissioner wished to build a jail in a particular place, and it made no sense to build that jail either in terms of revenue or location. She asked how local government officials could be taught to deal with " . . . politics versus policy." Mr. Hadfield responded UNR’s power program was specifically designed to help policymakers understand their roles, and NACO offered other programs, such as a management training program and supervisory training program, to help policymakers distinguish politics from policy. Helping governing bodies to understand their role and the need for long-term management of their resources would help them better understand and be better able to explain to their constituents why it might not be best to undertake a specific project at a particular time.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether, with respect to Nevada’s rural areas, the training programs Mr. Hadfield cited took into consideration the enormous geographic areas involved, " . . . and how those politics work, and deciding where those services reside or how they’re distributed." Mr. Hadfield replied affirmatively. He said NACO was beginning to encourage regionalization. He pointed out Pershing County and Humboldt County shared an area called Grass Valley, which posed a large problem for both counties. Pershing County and Humboldt County were currently trying to determine whether it made more sense for Humboldt County to maintain Pershing County’s roads in the valley rather than require people to come from Lovelock to maintain them.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether Humboldt County and Pershing County could arrange for road maintenance through interlocal agreement. Mr. Hadfield replied they could.

Ms. Segerblom asked what the current cap was on property taxes. Mr. Hadfield responded the statutory cap was $3.64.

Ms. Segerblom suggested if "they" raised the property tax to $5, they would still have insufficient funds. Mr. Hadfield replied if a community had no assessed valuation, its tax rate would generate no revenue.

Mrs. Freeman commented bills like S.B. 473 gave her hope something could be done about some of the things about which she had heard for 12 years. She expressed approbation of NACO’s activities.

Mr. Neighbors asserted everyone was aware 85 percent of Nevada’s land was currently under federal control. He contended freeing some of that land from federal control and placing it on Nevada’s tax roles would be a step forward and said Nevada’s congressional delegation was working to help accomplish that.

Mr. Neighbors pointed out when a county experienced a downward trend, it must still pay off any bonded indebtedness, which adversely impacted its general fund.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 473.

Chairman Bache announced one or two people were present who wished to testify on S.B. 215. He explained when S.B. 215 was previously heard, Spark’s city manager indicated the city’s various employee groups supported the bill, and he (Chairman Bache) stated he wished to hear from those employee groups.

Raymond C. McCallister, Southern District Vice President, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, testified. He introduced Randy McClain, past president of Local 1265 of the International Association of Firefighters (hereafter referred to as Local 1265), and Bill Harper, past president of Sparks Police Protective Association (hereafter referred to as the protective association). He explained Mr. Harper was Sparks Police Department’s representative during the period when the city of Sparks’ charter committee held meetings concerning proposed changes to the city’s charter. He submitted copies of the minutes of several of the charter committee’s meetings (Exhibit C), a letter from Local 1265’s attorney to Spark’s deputy city manager expressing Local 1265’s opposition to proposed changes related to probationary and suspension periods (Exhibit D), and a document headed "Article 8. PAY INCREASES" (Exhibit E).

Randy McClain, Past President, Local 1265 of the International Association of Firefighters, testified. He said from the outset, Local 1265 opposed the proposed changes to Spark’s city charter. After the letter from Local 1265’s attorney (Exhibit D) was written, discussions were held between Local 1265 and the city of Sparks. Local 1265 and the city were unable to reach total agreement regarding the charter changes proposed by the city; however, Local 1265 believed it would not be able to prevent the proposed changes being made.

Mr. McClain referred the proposed charter change to extend the probationary period beyond 1 year. He said Local 1265 believed the probationary period should be a subject of negotiation, pursuant to NRS 288.150. With respect to the proposed increase in the suspension period, the city manager originally requested the period be increased from 30 days to 90 days. Local 1265 was able to negotiate a reduction in the proposed time period to 45 days but was unable to convince the city to allow the suspension period to remain at 30 days. The charter committee’s minutes (Exhibit C) reflected Local 1265 opposed the increase to 45 days but did not attempt to prevent the charter committee from enacting that change. A change to the suspension period constituted a change in employee discipline, and Local 1265 believed employee discipline was a subject of mandatory bargaining.

Ms. Gibbons asked whether Local 1265’s concerns about S.B. 215 pertained to page 2, lines 11 through 13, of the bill. Mr. McClain replied affirmatively.

Ms. Gibbons asked Mr. McClain to state Local 1265’s position on section 3 of S.B. 215. Mr. McClain asked whether Ms. Gibbons was referring to the provision which provided for an applicant employed in a temporary capacity to be given additional points. Ms. Gibbons replied she was.

Mr. McClain stated Local 1265 opposed that provision; it believed employees should be hired based on fitness and competition. He asserted the fact someone was a temporary employee of the city would give that person an edge over someone who applied for a job who was not employed by the city. Therefore, temporary employees should be able to compete fairly with all other applicants. Local 1265’s wanted the person for a job to be the one hired.

Ms. Gibbons referred to section 6 of S.B. 215 and asked, " . . . is this where it would be preferable to cite NRS 288.150 concerning the grievances?" Mr. McClain asked whether Ms. Gibbons was referring to the provision which said an employee who elected to avail himself of a grievance procedure would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing before the Civil Service Commission. Ms. Gibbons replied she was.

Mr. McClain stated Local 1265 did not agree with that provision. However, it chose not to oppose it primarily because it believed the Civil Service Commission did not represent employees fairly and merely acted as a rubber stamp for the city. Local 1265 did not encourage employees to utilize the Civil Service Commission to resolve grievances. Instead, it encouraged them to use a procedure which employed a third party, pursuant to the collective bargaining laws established by NRS 288.150.

Ms. Gibbons asked whether Mr. McClain believed S.B. 215 constituted an attempt to break down the firefighters’ union. Mr. McClain replied he did not believe so; however, the bill definitely weakened the union.

Ms. Gibbons asked Mr. McClain to explain the difference in the two methods of dispute resolution to which he referred. Mr. McClain replied the Civil Service Commission’s purpose was to provide fair hiring, promotion, and disciplinary practices for city employees, and there was an appeal process through which a city employee who felt he was grieved could appeal to the Civil Service Commission. Another method of dispute resolution was available to city employees under their employment contract. That method utilized a third party to resolve disputes and was commonly referred to as "fact finding and arbitration."

Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked whether representatives of Local 1265 presented the concerns expressed by Mr. McClain to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. Mr. McClain replied they did not. They were very busy with other things and were not aware, at the time, that the bill was being considered by the senate committee.

Bill Harper, Past President, Sparks Police Protective Association, testified. He said he attended meetings of Spark’s charter committee. At the time those meetings were held, the protective association was concerned about the suspension period being extended to 90 days and the probationary period being extended to 18 months and had one or two other minor concerns.

Mr. Harper explained one basis for the protective association’s opposition to extending the probationary period to 18 months was the fact Spark’s police department already, arbitrarily, extended the probationary period. If the police department believed an employee failed to meet the department’s standards or requirements or was having some problem, that employee’s probationary period might be extended indefinitely. He asked the Civil Service Commission whether, if the protective association agreed to an 18-month probationary period, an employee would not be able to be again placed on probation once that 18-month period had expired. The Civil Service Commission maintained the police department could not arbitrarily extend an employee’s probationary period. He informed the commission the police department did that all the time.

Mr. Harper said because he was left with the impression the commission intended to investigate the allegation probationary periods were arbitrarily extended by the chief of police, he did not pursue the protective association’s objection to extending the probationary period to 18 months. He believed the commission would get back to the protective association advising it would not tolerate arbitrary extensions of the probationary period, and the protective association would readdress the issue of the 18-month probationary period at that time.

Mr. Harper said with respect to the proposal to extend the suspension period to 90 days, both he and representatives of Local 1265 argued an employee might as well be fired as placed on a 90-day suspension because 90 days represented a loss of 3 month’s pay. The protective association believed such a dramatic increase in the suspension period should be a subject of collective bargaining. However, the protective association was told the issue not subject to collective bargaining, and he was left with the impression the protective association had no choice in the matter. Representatives of the protective association and Local 1265 agreed to an extension of the suspension period to 45 days, believing the best thing they could do for their unions was prevent imposition of an even longer suspension period.

Mr. Harper pointed out a police officer attended the police academy for 4 months. The officer then participated in a field-training program for 4 months, during which he was evaluated each day. Once the officer was " . . . on his own . . .," he was evaluated, either weekly or monthly, for a period of 4 months. Therefore, an officer was evaluated for a total period of 12 months. Mr. Harper said his only concern about extending the probationary period to 18 months was whether the chief of police would then be able to further extend it.

Mr. McCallister gave further testimony. He informed the committee Ms. Bobi Leighton, a member of Operating Engineers Local 3, was unable to be present. Ms. Leighton was a voting member of Sparks’ charter committee and voted against the proposed extensions of the probationary and suspension periods and the proposal to give 12 additional points to job applicants who were temporary employees. Mr. McCallister said he spoke to Operating Engineers Local 3 the previous day and was told, essentially, he could use the fact Ms. Leighton voted against those proposed changes as her testimony on behalf of the operating engineers.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 215.

Pam Drum, Public Affairs Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), testified. She indicated Tahoe Regional Planning Agency held discussions with the sheriff’s departments of both Washoe County and Douglas County and also with Nevada Division of Wildlife, and all those entities agreed to the amended language of S.B. 510. She urged the committee to pass the bill.

Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, testified. He asserted much hard work had gone into developing the amended language of S.B. 510, and Washoe County’s board of commissioners supported the bill.

Ross Chichester, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, testified. He stated representatives of Douglas County Sheriff’s Office met with representatives of TRPA, Senator James, and senate staff members to develop the modifications made to S.B. 510, and the sheriff’s office was completely satisfied with those modifications.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 510.

Lesa Coder, Assistant Director and Zoning Administrator, Current Planning Division, Comprehensive Planning Department, Clark County, Nevada, testified. She stated S.B. 542 accomplished two things which would help streamline processing. First, it allowed Clark County to " . . . revert properties to acreage without the reversionary map process and . . . show amendments in the form of amended maps." Secondly, it permitted notification to be given through electronic means and allowed the county to deliver services and information more expediently.

Ms. Coder advised both Nevada Association of Land Surveyors and Southern Nevada Home Builders Association supported S.B. 542.

Ms. Gibbons asked what portion of S.B. 542 referred to notification. Ms. Coder replied the reference to notification was on page 3, line 26, of the bill. She explained Clark County would be allowed to provide notice by electronic means if receipt of notice given by that means could be verified.

Mrs. Freeman referred to page 2, line 13, of S.B. 542 and asked why "security" was needed. Ms. Coder explained the greater the number of lots created through the subdivision process, the more infrastructure offsite improvements had to be made. At times, Clark County secured those improvements through posting of a bond. Reducing the number of lots might mean those infrastructure improvements would no longer have to be made, and the provision to which Mrs. Freeman referred provided a mechanism through which to release bonds which were no longer needed.

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, Nevada, expressed her support for S.B. 542.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 542.

Chairman Bache announced he would accept a motion on S.B. 510.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED DO PASS S.B. 510.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Assemblyman Williams declared he was somewhat confused following a hearing on A.B. 569 held by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs the previous day. When the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was about to vote on the bill, the city of North Las Vegas’ representative testified the only problem North Las Vegas had with the bill pertained to " . . . a super majority." He deleted that from the bill prior to a vote being taken, and the bill was passed out of committee.

Mr. Williams explained the preceding day, the same lobbyist who testified on A.B. 569 on behalf of North Las Vegas before the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs testified in the senate and opposed every aspect of the bill. Mr. Williams asserted it was acceptable to oppose a bill and was also acceptable to refrain from testifying on a bill while the bill was in one house of the legislature and wait to testify until it was in the other house. However, to give committee members in the assembly the perception a bill was opposed for a single reason, and then oppose the bill in its entirety when it was heard before the senate created confusion. He had no problem with someone fighting to kill a bill, but he did have a problem with a witness testifying he opposed a bill on only one ground and then, when the bill was heard in the other house, opposing everything in the bill.

Mr. Williams announced his intention to obtain a transcript of Marta Golding Brown’s testimony on behalf of the city of North Las Vegas and present it to North Las Vegas’ city council so the council could be aware of how North Las Vegas was being represented in the legislature.

Tom Grady, representing Nevada League of Cities, testified. He stated he was at the meeting of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs held the previous day. He believed at the hearing held on April 1, 1999, seven people testified they had concerns about A.B. 569, and the bill was amended. He said, "There were some additional concerns, and in defense of our city people who testified last night, I think that was her testimony, that they did have concerns. She did mention, as Mr. Williams mentioned, that they did have the problem with the super majority against the majority. And in the reprint there was some additional concerns, and it bothers me that Mr. Williams feels this way about a lobbyist who is trying to do a very honest job . . . I don’t think she was, in all honesty, trying to deceive you or the senate committee."

Mr. Williams said representatives of Clark County approached him during the hearing before the senate with a proposed amendment to A.B. 569. He discussed the amendment with Clark County’s representatives, and although he and they did not agree about the amendment, the fact they approached him with a different approach to the bill than was presented on behalf of Clark County in the assembly showed the county was aboveboard. He contended that was not the case with Ms. Brown and North Las Vegas, and if North Las Vegas’ city council changed its mind about its position on A.B. 569, he should have been told before Ms. Brown testified in the senate.

Mrs. Freeman commented the Assembly Committee on Taxation received conflicting testimony on a bill heard the previous day. Further, some members of the Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services were complaining some lobbyists were lying to them.

Chairman Bache said he believed if the committee suspected behavior such as Mr. Williams described, it was the committee’s duty to turn the problem over to Lorne Malkiewich to investigate and handle as he saw fit.

Ms. Tiffany recounted an experience she had during her second term as a legislator and said she was not certain the legislature had any recourse with respect to lobbyists who would do or say anything to get their bills passed. She believed it was very serious problem.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sara Kaufman

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: