The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:10 p.m., on Monday, February 22, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Mark A. Manendo, Clark County Assembly District No. 18

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Angela Culbert, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Connell opened the meeting and asked for testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 183.

SENATE BILL 183: Provides that criminal investigators employed by secretary of state have powers of peace officer. (BDR 23-656)

Dean Heller, Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, provided committee members with a summary of criminal enforcement actions regarding the Office of the Secretary of State (Exhibit C) and a prepared statement (Exhibit D) explaining the purpose for the proposed legislation. He drew the committee’s attention to number 27 of Exhibit C, explaining this ongoing investigation has been featured twice on the television show America’s Most Wanted. He indicated upon his arrival to the Office of the Secretary of State, he was not inclined to believe in the necessity for investigators in his office to have peace officer status. He said his mind has changed upon finding the extreme criminal cases in which they have been involved. He requested the committee allow the Securities Division to give three individuals, two in Las Vegas and one in Reno, the opportunity to go through the Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Committee (P.O.S.T.) training to maintain peace officer status. He explained peace officer status is necessary in order to conduct criminal background research concerning suspects and to have access to payroll tax-withholding information from employment security in order to execute search warrants. He noted his office constantly receives referrals and requests for investigations in violation of state security laws from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Postal Service inspector’s office, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro), and Nevada Division of Investigation (NDI). He stated this has become a large task, noting in the past his office has used the attorney general’s office, Metro or any of these sources in order to have someone of peace officer status accompany them. He pointed out that on numerous occasions they have been turned down by these various entities because white-collar crime is not a priority. He stressed the importance of having a trained peace officer when issuing warrants and subpoenas, explaining this is becoming more difficult.

Senator Raggio clarified criminal investigators in the secretary of state’s office are being requested to be included in the list for the purpose of peace officer status. He emphasized everyone designated with peace officer authority does not qualify for the special retirement for peace officers. He questioned whether inclusion in the retirement would be requested as well. Mr. Heller indicated he was not requesting inclusion in the retirement program.

Senator Care questioned the authority which comes with Category II, peace officer status. Mr. Heller concurred the Category II peace officer status is being requested and indicated further testimony would answer the question specifically.

Chairman O’Connell clarified the investigators are currently employed by the Office of the Secretary of State. Mr. Heller said they would like to take three current investigators and put them through P.O.S.T. training.

Chairman O’Connell questioned how this proposal would be absorbed in terms of cost. Mr. Heller said P.O.S.T. was a 6- to 8-week program that would come out of the current training budget.

Mr. Heller told the committee of a proposed amendment which he would consider friendly.

Ed Flagg, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association (NCA), provided the committee with a comparison list regarding P.O.S.T. categories (Exhibit E). He indicated their membership was comprised solely of employees of the Nevada Department of Prisons who are professional sworn officers responsible for the care, custody, and control of the felony inmates within the prison system. He stated they are committed to raising the hiring and training standards for the profession, thereby increasing the safety for the members, the public and the inmates. He introduced Frank D Wilson Jr., Senior Correctional Officer, Nevada State Prison, Department of Prisons, explaining Mr. Wilson is a member of the P.O.S.T. Advisory Board, a P.O.S.T.-certified instructor, and a member of the NCA. He noted Mr. Wilson would testify to the NCA’s support of S.B. 183 and to the belief that peace officer status for the Nevada Department of Prisons (DOP) correctional officers should be upgraded to Category II officers.

Mr. Wilson provided the committee with prepared text (Exhibit F) which lists the reasons for upgrading the DOP’s correctional officers to Category II status. He cited sections of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) (Exhibit F) applicable to categories of training status and the defined duties performed in a correctional facility. He pointed out the discrepancies between the job duties and the training allowed in which to perform these duties for correctional officers. He cited the decision from the United States Supreme Court in the case of Graham v. Conner, noting the Department of Prisons has yet to conform to the standards set forth or to the provisions set forth in the NAC. Referring to Exhibit F, Mr. Wilson stressed the importance of extended training for NDOP officers in the interest of public safety.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the language for the amendment had been provided to the committee. Mr. Wilson indicated the language had not yet been drafted.

Chairman O’Connell clarified the request for Category III to be raised to Category II status. Mr. Wilson concurred, explaining there is a 20-hour difference in the training and he noted currently DOP basic curriculum provides 180 hours of training to its officers. He said the statutory requirement for Category II is 200 hours with the extra hours providing information in the laws of arrest, search, seizure, and disciplines necessary to adequately deal with people of the community as well as inmates. He pointed out it is necessary to deal with the community when transporting inmates though the training is not currently provided.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the time and space in training classes. Mr. Wilson explained the DOP operates its own training academies based on regions. All of the academies are P.O.S.T. certified and meet the criteria set forth in NAC.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether this has been included in the budget. Mr. Wilson indicated he did not know.

Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, indicated the upgrade to Category II status is not currently included in the DOP budget. He explained, after consultation with the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Fiscal Division, it was found there would be no impact on the budget or on the General Fund for any appropriation. He stated this would be achieved by staff currently on salary and would be phased into the current peace officer refresher (POR) training.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether this would allow officers complete retirement status as well. Mr. Barr indicated they were already under the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) requirements for police and fire, noting there would be no effect in this manner.

Senator Raggio pointed out the information provided by Mr. Flagg (Exhibit E) showed training time for Category III status to be 160 hours. Mr. Flagg stated currently standard training for Category III status is 160 hours, but the academy trains at 180 hours.

Senator Raggio questioned the number of correctional officers. Mr. Barr answered there are 1,298 correctional officers currently. Senator Raggio questioned whether the proposal would require all of the officers receive additional training. Mr. Barr concurred.

Senator Raggio questioned whether the proposal had been endorsed by the prison administration. Mr. Barr indicated the measure has met with some opposition from Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons, who is requesting the opportunity to choose the officers for each category in the form of S.B. 229.

Senator Raggio suggested if an amendment was going to be considered to S.B. 183, there would need to be a hearing on S.B. 229 first. Senator Raggio reconfirmed there would be no additional fiscal impact to the proposed amendment.

Mr. Wilson responded pursuant to NAC 481.063 peace officers with the Department of Prisons currently receive 24 hours of in-service training annually. The in-service training, he added, is repetitive training which meets the statutory requirement for in-service training. By adjusting the NAC training slightly, he said, the additional 20 hours necessary for Category II certification could be offered at the same time with no impact.

Senator Raggio indicated Exhibit E shows there are many requirements which must be met under Category II to complete the basic course. He questioned whether training capabilities were adequate to cover all other specialized areas included in the basic course for Category II police officers. Mr. Wilson confirmed that they were adequate.

Chairman O’Connell requested the language for the amendment be given to the committee as soon as possible.

Gary Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, stated a short while ago, "Nevada State Troopers" in conjunction with corrections officers had to transport numerous prisoners throughout the state. He said the troopers felt uneasy in this situation due to liabilities concerning the category of training for peace officer status. He testified in support of the bill due to liability reasons, pointing out the better the training the less liability to the state. He said P.O.S.T. requires 24 hours of training a year per police officer and indicated this could be easily worked into the current system.

With no further testimony on the bill, the chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 183 and opened the hearing on S.B. 182.

Marta Golding Brown, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit G) indicating the city’s charter allows for an additional charge of 25 cents to customers provided water by a utility to be used for any purpose relating to the city beautification efforts. She noted residents are currently charged a fee on a per water-meter basis, pointing out these funds are used primarily to eradicate graffiti and to construct and maintain entry monuments. She expressed concern on behalf of the city council the fee was the same to single family homes as to apartment complexes, explaining the change proposed in S.B. 182 would charge the fee on a "per unit basis" rather than on a "per water-meter basis." She stated, "The city views the requested charter change as a clarification of the original intent of the charter provision."

Ms. Brown pointed out inequities in the current method as exemplified in Exhibit G. She noted the additional funds would help with graffiti removal and other beautification efforts. She requested committee support of the proposal.

Senator Raggio questioned the amount of additional revenue the measure would bring to the city. Ms. Brown indicated it would bring approximately $14,000 annually.

Chairman O’Connell clarified S.B. 182 was requested by the city council. She questioned whether the City of North Las Vegas was falling short of beautification goals or whether the measure was primarily to even out current inequities.

Ms. Brown explained the proposal was a result of budget requests in the budget 2 years ago. The fire department, she noted, is in charge of graffiti removal and the painting equipment needs to be updated. She pointed out the current equipment will only cover graffiti by using a few selections of paint color rather than by accurate paint matching done by newer multi-color paint machines which read the color of paint on the wall. She explained this was a concern in current beautification efforts.

Senator Raggio questioned whether the proposed amendment to the charter had received a public hearing by the city council. Ms. Brown confirmed that it had.

Senator Care questioned the definition of housing unit as set forth in section 1, subsection 6, paragraph (a), subparagraph (5) of S.B. 182, asking for the specific structures covered under this language. Ms. Brown indicated this would include hotels and motels in the city.

Senator Care questioned the use of "transient public" in this provision. Ms. Brown indicated this refers to the transient occupants of hotels and motels.

Senator O’Donnell asked why hotels, motels and boarding houses are included in the measure, noting the money received would not be worth including hotels and motels. Ms. Brown indicated the request was made by the city and she could not speak to the intent of the inclusion of this language.

Senator O’Donnell pointed out the city already has a room tax, suggesting this would be another room tax upon an existing room tax. Ms. Brown stressed this was not viewed as a room tax as the charge would only by 25 cents per month and the room would be rented several times during the month.

Senator O’Donnell questioned whether the hotel and motel association was in support of the measure. Ms. Brown indicated she had not been approached by them on S.B. 182, noting the Nevada Taxpayers Association has a notification recommendation on the bill.

Chairman O’Connell stated it was her understanding the measure had been presented before the council and had a hearing. Ms. Brown indicated this was true.

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, explained the bill intends to correct what the city officials see as an inequity in single-family dwellings versus apartments and hotels having multiple units. Because this is changing the definition and the ordinance is already in place, she noted, the billing will be the first notification those affected will have. She requested there be prior notification given by July 1, though the charges will not be rendered until October 1, because the proposal will clarify the current ordinance which addresses each individual unit.

Chairman O’Connell stated when the question was asked previously regarding the public hearing on this issue an assumption was made that the people who would be taxed additionally would have been notified of that hearing. She questioned whether this was an incorrect assumption.

Ms. Brown indicated this to be an incorrect assumption, explaining the issue was before the city council at a city council meeting and it was a publicly discussed item. The notification of the additional 25 cents, she said, was withheld until it was approved by the Legislature.

Chairman O’Connell questioned when would be the soonest time this could be given a public hearing. Ms. Brown indicated it could be potentially at an upcoming meeting with the proper notification sequence.

Chairman O’Connell clarified if the Legislature were to act on the measure, it would be without the notification of the people who would be affected. Ms. Brown agreed this would potentially be the case.

Ms. Vilardo requested written notice be provided to anyone who would be impacted as they may not have notice of or be able to attend a public meeting.

With no further public comment on S.B. 182, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 99.

David Pennington, Attorney, Nevada National Guard, indicated the bill was a housekeeping measure designed to bring Nevada law consistent with federal law regarding the mandatory retirement age for commissioned officers of the national guard. He submitted a copy of the federal statute (Exhibit H) which establishes age 64 as the mandatory retirement age for certain senior officers of the National Guard. He explained Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 412.026 currently limits the senior leadership at age 62. He noted the bill will only change "62" to "64."

Chairman O’Connell clarified this bill would codify federal law.

Senator Raggio questioned the number of officers who would be affected by this measure. Mr. Pennington indicated only one officer would be affected in Nevada, noting this bill was designed for the senior leadership. He pointed out all enlisted members are currently allowed to retire at 64.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 99. While waiting for testimony to be given on the next measure, she requested information be provided by Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, concerning the work session measure, S.B. 14.

The chairman requested Mr. Leavitt discuss background information on southern California’s trouble with their securities and demonstrate the differences between S.B. 14 and what took place in southern California.

Mr. Leavitt stated:

Chairman O’Connell indicated the committee would be voting on S.B. 14 and she wanted to refresh the committee’s memories of the subject.

Mr. Leavitt noted:

Chairman O’ Connell thanked Mr. Leavitt for his clarification on the issue and requested testimony on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 5.

Mark A. Manendo, Clark County Assembly District No. 18, explained the proposal urges members of Congress to enact legislation that provides for the payment of lump sums to persons who become eligible for social security benefits after 1981 and before 1992, and who have been paid reduced benefits as a result of previous federal law. He noted this is also known as the "notch fairness act." The lump-sum payments totaling $5,000 over the next 4 years would affect roughly 90,000 Nevadans. He said this would be extremely beneficial to both the United States’ and Nevada’s economy, though, he suggested, it would be particularly beneficial to Nevada’s economy due to the influx of retirees moving to our state. He pointed out this legislation was brought forth on behalf of former Assemblyman Bill Petrak as this was an issue important to him. Mr. Manendo indicated this to be different from past proposals as A.J.R. 5 requests a lump-sum settlement to the Congressional Delegation. He explained during the 105^th Congress there was a House Resolution 3008 and a Senate Resolution 2003. He pointed out in the current Congress, a bill was introduced a week ago, Senate Bill 390 of the 106^th Congress, proposing the exact same language. He requested committee support on the measure.

Chairman O’Connell stated for the record that her husband is a "notch baby." Mr. Manendo said this would not affect she or her husband any differently than the 90,000 residents of Nevada, suggesting she would be able to vote on the issue.

Senator Raggio indicated he is a "notch baby" as well.

With no further testimony before the committee, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 5. She indicated there was a proposal for a committee bill draft before the committee.

Greg Ferraro, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, said he would like the committee to consider recommending a bill be drafted. He indicated there was an unusual situation with the gaming industry in northern Nevada in which there was much discussion of the expansion and improvements of their convention center as well as improvements in the downtown Reno gaming corridor. He said the gaming representatives were meeting to reach consensus position so the Legislature could be approached with a united front in this request to increase the room tax they are collecting on behalf of the state. He requested a reservation on a committee bill draft. He reiterated the circumstance was unusual, noting they were trying to meet the deadline for committee bill draft requests.

Senator Raggio stated under the new rules, the request would have to be more specific, and while no agreement has been reached at this point, the proposal is for an overall increase of 3 percent in Washoe County. Where the City of Reno has 1 percent, he continued, it would be increased an additional 2 percent for purposes of expanding the existing convention facility and downtown development in the future.

Mr. Ferraro concurred, stating two positions have been advanced and noted these were similar in many respects though differ in certain areas. Those remaining two areas are what the group is deliberating. He stated he had language which he would be able to submit to qualify, though it is not consensus language at this point.

Senator Raggio suggested the committee honor the bill draft request. Mr. Ferraro indicated they were working to have consensus by the deadline.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the committee was within the bounds in order to make a bill draft request. Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the bill draft request would need to be submitted to the Legal Division by 5 p.m. in sufficient detail to complete the request.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Neal questioned the reason for drafting the proposal, stating other measures regarding similar issues were in the Legislature, and asked for the reason the measure would be proposed to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs rather than to the Senate Committee on Taxation.

Senator Raggio indicated the bill would be presented to the committee on taxation. Chairman O’Connell clarified the taxation committee did not have a bill draft request left in their allotted amount.

Senator Neal asked whether the raising of the room tax was anticipated. Mr. Ferraro said the state allows for the collection of room tax to be dedicated to convention facilities and the marketing of the facilities. The discussion, he acknowledged, would increase the tax, through their own support, to make improvements on the convention facilities in northern Nevada. He indicated it has been understood by the gaming and tourism industry in northern Nevada that unless they were united on this issue they would have reduced chances at the legislative level. He pointed out the issue in northern Nevada is the possible loss of current conventions unless improvements or the commitment to improvements are made in order to maintain competitiveness. He stated the tax proposed by Senator Neal would be separate from the measure at hand.

*****

Chairman O’Connell requested the committee review the work session document (Exhibit I) and asked them to address S.B. 14. She noted a further explanation of the measure had been given previously in the meeting by Mr. Leavitt. She drew attention to a proposed amendment (Exhibit J). The committee had previously discussed deleting both the PERS board and the Board of Regents from the measure.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 14.

Senator Titus questioned the location of the language which narrowed the kinds of securities.

Senator Raggio asked his motion be rescinded due to a conflict, explaining it is his policy not to vote on matters in which his law partner appears. He withdrew his motion.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 14.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Guinasso pointed out the language mentioned by Senator Titus was in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (c), subparagraph (1) of the proposed amendment to S.B. 14 (Exhibit J). She indicated reference to NRS 355.170 limits local governments on the types of securities in which they may invest. She noted the language would most likely be rewritten for grammar changes.

Senator Titus asked for clarification on the securities in the referenced NRS. Ms. Guinasso indicated the statute related to federal bonds.

Senator Neal said the previous discussion regarding derivatives made him nervous as the derivatives have had negative historical associations in both this country and in countries around the world. He indicated he was skeptical regarding invested money, expressing NRS 355.170 would prevent any local government from engaging in risky securities as was done in the case of Orange County.

Chairman O’Connell stated Mr. Leavitt had previously discussed the situation in Orange County. Senator Neal emphasized the importance of this case, and noted he has agreed in the hearing on S.B. 14 with the comment that the Legislature should allow the investments to take place under the particular restrictions as set forth in the referenced statute.

Mr. Leavitt pointed out a provision in the proposed amendment (Exhibit J) which would restrict the length of time the investments purchased with money involving this transaction to a 3-month period. He said a problem in Orange County was with long-term investments. The proposed restriction, he noted, would guarantee there would be no long-term investments, explaining federal securities would be dealt with as local governments are not allowed to invest in anything other than those types of securities.

Senator Care requested testimony on the "worst-case scenario." He said federal securities would be lent for no longer than 90 days and would have pledged as collateral worth 102 percent of the value of the securities lent. He questioned what could happen in the 90 days which could make both the value of the securities lent and the collateral decline to such a degree that money has been lost.

Mr. Leavitt indicated:

The chairman referred the committee to proposed amendment (Exhibit K).

Senator Neal indicated he had a problem with the amendment as it refers to the Committee on Benefits. He noted the Committee on Benefits had recently been repealed in an emergency measure A.B. 176.

Senator Raggio said A.B. 176 indefinitely suspended the Committee on Benefits and transferred all of the authority to the Governor. He clarified the committee had not been dissolved. He pointed out the testimony on A.B. 176 indicated any law referring to the committee’s administration would follow to the authority of the Governor. Prompted by Senator Neal, Senator Raggio stated the operation of the committee had been suspended though the operation of the employees’ health plan had not been suspended. Legal counsel, Senator Raggio noted, would have to determine if S.B. 28, would mandate this coverage even though the Committee on Benefits is currently indefinitely suspended.

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said before the amendment was prepared for final approval, any conflicts would be resolved. She suspected the emergency measure did not eliminate reference to the Committee on Benefits in NRS, but that it would fall under the Governor’s authority, suggesting S.B. 28 would work in the same way.

Due to the confusion, Senator Titus requested S.B. 28 be held until there was a better sense of what was happening to the Committee on Benefits.

Chairman O’Connell agreed to hold S.B. 28 as requested. She asked the committee to review S.B. 139, drawing attention to Amendment No. 47 dealing with the donations of computers.

Senator Raggio stated he thought the committee had already acted to amend and do pass this measure and they were just to review the amendment.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Neal questioned whether the organizations described in the amendment were nonprofit organizations. Ms. Guinasso said the organizations were nonprofit, educational, or charitable organizations. Chairman O’Connell indicated it was the intent to expand the provision to include organizations from the community in the donation of computers. Senator Neal agreed and it was found this was included in the amendment.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

With no further business before the committee, Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Angela Culbert,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: