The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:14 p.m., on Monday, March 15, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Angela Culbert, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Connell opened the meeting by asking for testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 311.

Lisa A. Gianoli, Lobbyist, Washoe County, testified S.B. 311 would clarify language to allow the county to redistrict based upon a 5-percent population change at any time. She explained Washoe County received five different legal opinions as to whether the language currently in statute would allow changing boundaries of election districts. She pointed out Washoe, Clark, and Nye counties would fall under the authority of the proposal. Ms. Gianoli referenced a letter from Nye County (Exhibit C) which indicated they would not like to be affected by the bill, but instead would deal with this issue in years to come.

Bob Webb, AICP, Community Coordinator, Department of Community Development, Washoe County, said Washoe County produces a consensus forecast each year, explaining a population-based model is used to estimate population. He stated Washoe County is currently working with a consultant to verify the population-estimation model and to refine it with plans to use the decennial census as a starting point once the information becomes official. He pointed out this information will be used at distinct geographic levels, census tracks, and block groups, to find the number of people within an area. Mr. Webb recognized population methodology will track new businesses and new construction allowing a determination on yearly population growth to form the basis for future population estimates. He said this information can be used for many other aspects in which population estimates are needed, stressing the importance of having reliable population numbers for census and consensus forecasting. He drew the committee’s attention to a handout explaining redistricting in more detail (Exhibit D).

Senator Neal said Clark County has had considerable debate regarding whether or not a county can reapportion itself without having census information. He questioned whether Washoe County was attempting to redistrict outside of the 10-year framework in which the census is taken.

Ms. Gianoli concurred explaining S.B. 311 would allow the county to use year 2000 census numbers to adjust boundaries based on a 5-percent change in population. Every odd year from that point forward, the county would be able redistrict based upon a 5-percent change.

Senator Neal indicated there was a constitutional bar against redistricting unless data as reliable as the census is used. He suggested without this data, the Nevada Constitution prohibits a county from reapportioning. He said the same rule does not apply to a city as it is not a constitutional body. He reiterated Clark County attempted reapportioning districts, but legal research indicated this could not be done.

Mr. Webb stated the legality and the equitability of any population estimation is of concern. He said Washoe County was working with an experienced consulting firm to provide a legally defensible methodology. He expressed awareness of legal ramifications and parameters, which need to be associated with population numbers. He stressed any estimation methodology adopted by Washoe County will be put to the test using the year 2000 census to verify the model and to come up with legally defensible numbers.

Ms. Gianoli reiterated there had been varying legal opinions on this subject. She said the Office of the Attorney General came up with the final opinion that Washoe County was able to redistrict.

Senator Neal stated all of the opinions he has seen on this subject indicated numbers must be just as reliable as the census. He agreed a county could redistrict, but the information upon which redistricting is based must be as reliable as the census, or "a head count."

Ms. Gianoli agreed, explaining the database being developed would meet the reliability criteria.

Prompted by Senator Neal, Mr. Webb explained the database is called a geographic information system (GIS), and through a methodology to track new construction and new businesses by parcel, the foundation for the database will be formed. He gave an example in which approved subdivisions are issued permits that can be tagged to a parcel number. Using the census number, he explained, occupied housing units of all types can be transferred into a population number based by parcel. He said this allows them to look at a specific geographic area and find out how many people are in this area. He noted S.B. 311 would allow the boundaries of this area to be changed if needed based on comparisons with other districts. He stressed the only difference between the proposed process and the census is the individual forms sent out. He said this methodology can actually track physical construction and new business occupation and apply the same parameters the census bureau will use to find population numbers.

Senator Neal clarified a head count is not taken in verifying numbers. Mr. Webb indicated they do not anticipate conducting a head count.

Senator Neal pointed out the methodology would just be an estimate. Mr. Webb concurred. Senator Neal suggested the methodology would not be as reliable as the census, stating this issue is currently being debated in the United States Congress and is against Nevada law as well.

Mr. Webb stated according to the information he had received, a population estimate is adequate as long as a methodology can be provided and demonstrate reliability within the context of the year 2000 census. He indicated this would form the basis for a reliable population estimate plus or minus 2 percent in accordance with the variance.

Senator Neal said the estimate is not as reliable as the census because the census is a head count. Mr. Webb referred to charts dealing with population estimates and growth (Exhibit E) showing the importance of redistricting in the interim years regardless of the time frame. He drew attention to the 1997 population (Exhibit E) in comparison with the 1990 population. He said upon review of this information there was a difference of 7 percent between commissioners’ districts that caused concern regarding equal representation. He stressed the need for a methodology to allow county commissioners to adjust district boundaries for equalization in between the census years.

Senator Neal reiterated redistricting can only be done based on numbers found by a head count, pointing out the numbers cannot be estimated.

Ms. Gianoli said their legal counsel was unavailable to attend the meeting and offered to provide the favorable opinion to the senator. She said the latest opinions indicated if a reliable database can be defined, it could be used by a county in redistricting rather than relying on the census data.

Senator Neal indicated the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) offered the opinion that redistricting of county commission seats could be done, but the population count must be just as reliable as the census.

Ms. Gianoli said S.B. 311 had been presented to the committee because of conflicting opinions. She indicated the Washoe County District Attorney, the Clark County District Attorney, and the attorney general’s office provided opinions that would allow this redistricting.

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, testified the opinion from the LCB indicated the methodology had to be at least as reliable as the census. However, she noted, a head count was not necessarily required. A court, she noted, would have to define what is "as reliable as the census data."

Senator Neal pointed out a court has not defined reliable methodologies yet. Ms. Guinasso said there is not a specific definition as to what constitutes data "as reliable as the census." She reiterated it was the opinion of the LCB that on a case-by-case analysis, the methodology has to be "as reliable as the census."

Ms. Gianoli said Washoe County is attempting to prove a reliable database by the method described by Mr. Webb. In the time frame between now and the year 2000 census, Washoe County will be building this database and there will be information to be presented for consideration of reliability.

Senator Neal clarified if the Legislature passes the bill and the census is taken, Washoe County would reapportion accordingly. He said the county would attempt to reapportion every year after the census using a database that is not yet developed.

Mr. Webb clarified a database currently exists, noting a population estimation model methodology can be applied to the database. He stated Washoe County currently tracks housing and businesses. He explained the intent is to ensure the population-estimation model used is reliable based upon the starting point of the year 2000 census. He said the bill would allow the county to present the numbers to the commissioners every other year, and based on the reliability of the population estimate, they could make a decision regarding redistricting.

Senator Neal suggested this legislation could be presented in the year 2001 with the population estimation information for review by the Legislature.

Senator O’Donnell pointed out in a growth economy; an accurate head count could change on a yearly basis throwing a district off by several percentage points. He suggested estimation would be better than a physical count that can vary yearly.

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, testified Clark County does not want to be a part of S.B. 311. He instead expressed support for Assembly Bill (A.B.) 465.

He indicated A.B. 465 would allow for redistricting in between the census years at the 5-year mark, expressing the Clark County commission’s support for this alternative legislation. He said issues as to how the count is conducted are not fully reconciled yet.

With no further questions before the committee, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 311 and opened the hearing on S.B. 341.

James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Public Purchasing Study Commission, testified the commission is a legislative advisory group regarding public purchasing. He explained S.B. 341 reflects administrative changes to chapter 332 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He noted the intent was to save administrative time and money and to modernize purchasing functions currently in statute. He provided the committee an executive summary, information on the commission, and various correspondence in support of the legislation (Exhibit F). He said each change was described in the executive summary (Exhibit F).

Chairman O’Connell requested Mr. Keenan to explain the purpose of the commission, noting they have never been utilized as a legislative advisory board. She requested information be provided on the way in which the bill would assist the commission in being productive for the Legislature.

Mr. Keenan explained the commission is chartered by NRS 332.215 and is designated the Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission. He said the two mandatory members of the commission are the purchasing managers of Clark and Washoe counties. He stated the public purchasing managers of all other municipalities are encouraged to be members and participate in the commission. He indicated the purpose of the commission is to continually study public purchasing throughout the state. He pointed out the commission meets monthly via teleconference, and has sub-groups in the north and the south. He said they discuss purchasing situations and pending contracts; share information; and recommend changes, suggestions, and improvements.

Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Keenan to explain the current cumbersome system and the way in which both the counties and the state can save money.

Mr. Keenan stated the individual changes proposed are obsolete statutory requirements that are difficult to implement and do not reflect current purchasing procedures in either the public or the private sector. By making these changes, he noted, the public purchasing process will be streamlined saving administrative time and money.

Ted J. Olivas, Purchasing and Contracts Manager, General Services, Clark County, and Member, Public Purchasing Commission, stated S.B. 341 is a cooperative effort from all of the entities statewide and all of the purchasing managers. He explained the intent is to clean up chapter 332 of NRS to allow consistent interpretation, to expedite the process, and to be more efficient for the business community and for internal customers. By making these changes, he pointed out, an entity would be allowed to delegate the authority for various purchasing duties to either the county manager or to the "authorized representative" identified in the bill.

Chairman O’Connell asked for information on the oath taken by commission members which governs jobs and duties.

Mr. Keenan explained they are all members of the National Association of Purchasing Management (NAPM) and are bound by a 12-point code of ethics (Exhibit G) whether in the public or private sector. He said they consider these ethic points as part of the job description in addition to their duties as public employees and public purchasing managers.

Senator Neal asked for explanation of section 9, subsection 2 of S.B. 341 and questioned the difference between this and the previous subsection 1 of the bill.

Mr. Keenan explained this to be a correction of semantics, as the section could be interpreted so local governments can join onto the state’s contracts but the state could not join onto those of the local governments. Since this is not the intent of the law, he said, the proposal would clarify the wording to allow an interchange of joining onto contracts by both state and local governments.

Kathryn Greene, Member, Nevada Public Purchasing Commission, Director of Purchasing, Washoe County School District, expressed her support for the previous testimony.

John Iratcabal, Director, Purchasing, Carson City, testified in support for the testimony offered by Mr. Keenan and Mr. Olivas.

Mary Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas County, Lyon County, expressed support for the measure.

Senator Neal questioned the way in which the measure would enhance purchasing operations.

Ms. Greene explained the law currently mandates maintaining purchasing records permanently. She said this is unreasonable as it puts a strain on storage facilities. She stated she could not recall a single instance in which she has had to refer to a 7-year-old bid.

Mr. Iratcabal concurred with Ms. Greene’s statement, explaining it was unnecessary to maintain permanent records as no one cares now what something cost 23 years ago. Maintaining this kind of record, he said, is extremely costly.

Ms. Walker agreed with this testimony, stating maintaining records is cumbersome pointing out payroll records are being stored along with purchasing records. She testified storage is a problem and is very expensive.

Ms. Greene pointed out the change to NRS 332.055 provides each entity with the flexibility to allow authorized representatives to declare emergencies. She stressed the importance of this change in case extra equipment is needed to clear streets during a heavy snowstorm without a purchase order being available. She told the committee of the need for immediate action in emergency situations.

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, noted in past sessions, they did not support bills presented by the purchasing committee. He said the groups have worked closely together this session and expressed support for S.B. 341.

Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, expressed support for S.B. 341.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing S.B. 341 and opened the hearing on S.B. 316.

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, indicated he was representing a coalition, made up of several labor organizations in the state, attempting to fix the state insurance plan. He explained S.B. 316 would provide a mechanism to allow the Committee on Benefits to permit groups of 300 or more officers, employees, or retired employees who participate in the state’s insurance program to leave the state insurance program. He said the bill outlines the procedures that must be followed. He stated S.B. 316 outlines the safeguard provisions which have to be brought before the committee, noting, "The committee on benefits shall approve an employee benefit plan unless the committee finds that the plan is not operated pursuant to such sound accounting and financial management practices as to ensure that the group will continue to receive adequate benefits." He suggested the provision will avoid reoccurrence of past problems. He noted the proposal was attempted several years ago, and he stressed the bill promotes good business within the state while allowing the private sector to get involved in competing for business with state employees in the insurance program. Without S.B. 316, he claimed, the Committee on Benefits will go right back to former operating procedures. He noted the measure allows rather than mandates the committee to let groups leave the insurance program.

Chairman O’Connell questioned if the bill was processed, would Mr. Wolff agree to change the effective date to comply with other measures soon to be presented by the Governor. She suggested July 1, 1999, would be too soon for enactment. Mr. Wolff indicated changing the date would be acceptable, and he reiterated support for the measure.

Mr. Wolff said the change was made to include a large employees’ group being represented by a private labor organization in the measure.

Joe Lawrence, Lobbyist, Managed Care Consultants, agreed the reference was included for protection in case such an employee benefit plan would apply. Mr. Wolff indicated the language needed to be added to include federally regulated employee groups.

James Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance, testified he was "in the middle" on this issue, noting over the years there has been interest expressed in the university system about withdrawing from the state health plan. He indicated he did not oppose the bill, but was concerned regarding the timing due to the current difficulties of the state health plan. He suggested it would not be wise to allow people to bail out of a program that they are attempting to fix. He said, as former chairman of the Committee on Benefits, he was always trying to increase the size of the population covered by the plan. The larger the group of people covered the lower the costs. He pointed out he had argued for non-state public employees to be included in the plan so as to have a bigger group to serve, noting advantages to the economy of size. He stressed it would be premature to encourage people to leaving the state health plan as the intent is to reorganize and save the plan. He reiterated his reservations regarding the timelines of the proposal.

Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, testified in support of S.B. 316. He explained married officers with families starting careers already qualify for public assistance before they pay for insurance under the state system. Having no choice in the amount of insurance they are going to buy, he noted, makes a big difference in the way they live.

Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employee Association/AFSCME, indicated the issue addressed by S.B. 316 is a subject for collective bargaining; though, he noted, collective bargaining does not exist for negotiation for benefits by bargaining units. He expressed opposition to the bill because of the probability of impacting the people who stay in the state plan. He stressed S.B. 316 is not a permissive bill as had previously been indicated. He pointed out section 1, subsection 2 of the bill reads, "The committee on benefits shall approve the contract unless the departure of the group from the state’s program would cause an increase of more than 10 percent ..." He explained if the program only impacted everybody else 10 percent, the Committee on Benefits would have to approve the contract. He mentioned a process of negative selection could impact the plan.

Mr. Gagnier stressed it would not be a good time for people to leave the system due to current circumstances as those remaining in the plan would pick up the cost for past mistakes. He reiterated the poor timing of the measure even if collective bargaining is approved. Bargaining, he said, should not be allowed on the plan until after the debt is paid. He indicated the measure should be studied in detail so as not to have adverse selection in state government.

Mr. Gagnier stressed the importance of ensuring groups leaving the insurance plan take their retirees with them. He said one of the problems with the state health plan is the number of retirees regardless of membership by active employees. He pointed out the issue of bringing costs and benefits of retirees more in line and more subsidized by active employees.

Martin Bibb, Lobbyist, Retired Public Employees of Nevada (RPEN), explained in 1993 and 1995, RPEN supported measures to expand the group insurance program to include retirees of other local governments who paid their own way and who are not subsidized in any fashion with General Fund money. In this period of time, he explained, more than 1,000 retired public employees came into the group insurance program over the opposition of some who believed retirees would negatively affect the rates paid by active employees. He said the non-state retirees who joined the group insurance program had a better loss ratio than some of the existing state retirees in the program. He stressed the more people in the plan, the better the rate. He stated the opportunities for health insurance are extremely critical to retirees.

Chairman O’Connell said for the record:

With no further testimony before the committee, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 316. The chairman commented the committee has been inundated with bill assignments and will have a heavy workload with major issues still to be heard. She questioned whether the committee would prefer working weekends or evenings. The committee agreed they would prefer to work evenings.

Chairman O’Connell drew the committee’s attention to Bill Draft Request (BDR) S-616.

Marta Golding Brown, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, indicated the city council requests a change in the charter to have the city attorney appointed at the discretion of the city council as opposed to working under the city manager as an appointed employee. She pointed out the city attorneys of the City of Las Vegas, the City of Henderson and Boulder City, are appointed by the city council rather than the city manager.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the city had any other charter changes to be presented during the session. Ms. Brown indicated this to be their last proposal before the committee for the session.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-616.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

The chairman asked the committee review BDR 44-1616, noting this was Senator O’Donnell’s request.

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, indicated he was representing David S. Gibson, Lobbyist, Clark County Public Defender, and said the proposal would bring the public defenders on an even par with the district attorney’s office in Clark County with regards to the merit system for setting up a hiring system and a disciplinary system.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-1615.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

The chairman drew the committee’s attention to BDR 22-540.

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, explained the bill regards impact fees including fire suppression and parks in existing legislation.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 22-540.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell requested the committee review BDR C-1008.

Chairman O’Connell proposed the instant runoff voting idea based on a newspaper article (Exhibit H) regarding ways to avoid recounts and to ensure majority rule elections. She explained voters would rank all three candidates and the person receiving the most votes would win. She stressed the winner would receive a clear majority.

Senator Porter questioned whether a "none of the above" option would be added on the ballot. Chairman O’Connell indicated this point would be up for debate.

Senator Titus indicated this would take a constitutional amendment. Chairman O’Connell agreed.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 22-540.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Senator Neal requested follow-up testimony be provided by the City of Las Vegas regarding the status of S.B. 274.

Senator Neal indicated an arrangement had previously been made and discussed on March 8, 1999, in which the city council agreed to vote the creation of wards as a "mandatory" question on the ballot rather than an "advisory" vote.

Mr. Musgrove indicated he would like to bring this issue before the committee on March 17, 1999, with an attorney present. He explained to make the measure "mandatory" on the ballot it would have to have been generated from a petition drive from the voters with the requisite number of signatures at least 100 days prior to the actual ballot date, June 3, 1999. He pointed out this deadline has been missed and the proposal is not a petition drive. He said during the council meeting on Monday, March 22, 1999, an ordinance will be voted on by the council to require them to extend the council to six seats based on the people’s recommendation. He noted the issue would stay on the ballot as an "advisory" question, though the council will be mandated by a positive vote to increase the wards by two. He said it would follow the S.B. 274 proposals in terms of nominating the individuals to fill the seats by the year 2000 based on the census. He reiterated there is a binding ordinance on the city council agenda for March 22, 1999.

Senator Porter clarified the ballot question could not be changed because of the timing, but an ordinance will go into effect immediately upon approval of the advisory question. Mr. Musgrove concurred.

Senator Neal indicated he would like to hear testimony by the attorney for the record. Mr. Musgrove concurred.

With no further testimony before the committee, Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Angela Culbert,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: