The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 1:10 p.m., on Friday, March 19, 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:

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel

Juliann Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst

Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County

Dean Heller, Secretary of State

Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association

Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons

Ed Flagg, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association

Robert E. Romer, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association

Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, City of Reno, and Nevada Association of Counties

Ralph Jaeck, Assistant City Manager, City of Reno

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Airtouch Communications

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Chairman O’Connell opened the meeting indicating there were 4 bills that required committee introduction by Monday, March 22, 1999. The Chairman explained that BDR 32-985 was enroute, but she would take a motion now on BDR 31-293, BDR 31-768, and BDR 30-878.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Senator O’Connell presented Senate Bill (S.B.) 366.

The Chairman requested all persons present to discuss S.B. 366 leave the hearing room to discuss the issues, come to a decision, and return to the hearing room so that the committee could hear their testimony.

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 367.

Chairman O’Connell explained for clarification that the committee had heard a similar bill for federal employees and that this bill inserted language that would bring local governments into compliance with federal law.

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, replied that was correct. This bill places the language in the correct section of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) chapter 287 and had already been approved by both bodies of the Legislature, for the state employees.

Chairman O’Connell inquired if there were questions regarding the bill. There were none. The Chairman requested a motion to have the bill put on the consent calendar.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 367 and opened the work session with discussion on Senate Bill (S.B.) 183.

Dean Heller, Secretary of State, remarked that he had previously testified on S.B. 183 and did not believe he had more to add. Mr. Heller pointed out that he had not seen the amendment and would defer to the chairman’s explanation.

Senator O’Connell briefly summarized stating that the secretary of state’s bill asked for 3 staff members to be viewed as peace officers and go through that training. There is no additional cost to the measure. Mr. Heller agreed with the chairman’s explanation, reiterating that there was no fiscal note attached.

Chairman O’Connell asked those wishing to give testimony regarding the amendment to come forward. Senator O’Connell drew the committee’s attention to the work session documents (Exhibit C) stating that the language dealt with peace officers and categories of peace officers.

Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, explained that this amendment would simply move the Department of Prisons’ correctional officers from Category III to Category II. He indicated this language would add a subparagraph (23) to section 3, subsection 7, paragraph (a) of the bill. The wording, set forth in Exhibit C, would be the same as exists currently under Category III; just moved up to Category II.

Senator O’Connell asked for clarification regarding Category II The Chairman further stated it was her understanding that this change would give the correctional officers the ability to carry a gun and have arrest powers, but with no additional benefits.

Mr. Barr replied that was not entirely correct. He explained that the only time correctional officers are authorized to carry a gun is when they are on duty, regardless of the category, and this was the current status. This bill asks for additional training in powers of arrest, search and seizure, and the items discussed during the hearing.

Senator Raggio questioned if the language of the proposed amendment had been approved by Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons. Mr. Barr replied that it had been discussed with Mr. Bayer, but that the director had a separate bill, S.B. 229, before the committee.

Senator Raggio noted that S.B. 183 would make all correctional officers Category II through this vehicle, and that this was an issue the committee had discussed in reference to S.B. 229. Senator Raggio directly asked Mr. Barr if Director Bayer was opposed to this amendment or in favor of the amendment. Mr. Barr replied that he did not know. Senator Raggio indicated that if there were no opposition from Mr. Bayer then the Senator would not be opposed to the amendment. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Bayer to come forward.

Robert Bayer, Director, Department of Prisons, replied that there had been discussion but he did have an overall problem with the proposed language; Category II would require additional training.

Senator Raggio asked if there would be a fiscal note attached to this. Mr. Bayer responded affirmatively; also stating he did not see a way around that as it would increase the training time for the correctional officers.

Senator Raggio inquired what kind of fiscal note they were discussing. Mr. Bayer responded that the minimal qualifications for Category II require 200 hours of training; the Department of Prisons requirement is currently 160 hours. Mr. Bayer explained that he had not expected to be called to give testimony on S.B. 183, and therefore was not prepared to testify on the fiscal impact. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Bayer when the committee could have the information on the fiscal impact. Senator Raggio noted he was trying to avoid sending the bill to the Senate Committee on Finance. The Senator asked Mr. Bayer to have the information ready on Monday. Director Bayer agreed to have the fiscal note ready on the following Monday.

Chairman O’Connell closed the work session on S.B. 183 and asked Director Bayer to remain so that discussion could begin on the two bills he had brought before the committee, as well. Chairman O’Connell began with S.B. 229. Senator O’Connell reminded the committee that Senator Raggio had requested that Mr. Bayer be present when the committee voted on this issue.

Senator Raggio recalled that the discussion involved whether all officers should be Category II. Mr. Bayer replied that was correct. Senator Raggio stated that it was the same issue and problem. Again Senator Raggio asked if it would be possible to obtain the pertinent information regarding the fiscal note and be able to discuss it on Monday or before.

Mr. Bayer indicated it was his opinion that S.B. 229 would not cause a significant fiscal note because the bill did not mandate that everyone be one category or the other. He said S.B. 229 would allow more flexibility, permitting the department to identify, for example, the investigative group which performs a different kind of job, as a separate category.

Senator Raggio said it was his understanding that the request was for the same amendment. In S.B. 229 the department wanted the same amendment with Category I deleted. Senator Raggio reiterated that the director had wanted Category I deleted, thereby designating everyone Category II. Senator Raggio cited the two bills before the committee, and emphasized that he still had the same question on the fiscal impact.

Ed Flagg, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, clarified the association’s approach to this bill. He explained that there was a training mechanism already in place in the state. Corrections officers received 180 hours of training, plus an additional 20 hours of training through the academy.

Senator Raggio queried if all designations were Category II, and was Mr. Flagg saying that there would be no cost in bringing everyone up to that level. The Senator asserted that was not what he understood the director to say.

Mr. Flagg elaborated, stating that peace officers undergo training on an annual basis. The proposed increased training could be incorporated into the existing training program, therefore, in his opinion, there would be no additional cost.

Senator Raggio questioned if additional time off with pay would be needed. He asked whether Mr. Flagg could commit to the statement that no additional costs would be incurred, even when taking into consideration extra pay, leave, and officer replacement. If this statement could be made, Senator Raggio observed there would be no problem with a fiscal note.

Mr. Flagg responded that this training was taking place now and there would be no new monies involved. Senator Raggio said that it would be the first time in his political career that additional training did not incur a cost.

Mr. Bayer interjected that he also did not understand how additional training would not add to the fiscal impact.

Senator Raggio declared that everyone would appear before the committee on Monday with a definitive answer on the fiscal impact of additional training.

Senator Titus pointed out that the Senate judiciary committee had heard testimony on another bill earlier in the day that included this language. The judiciary committee members deleted the provision. Senator Titus also noted that the Senate Committee on Judiciary had voted on another bill requesting additional training and had re-referred the bill to the Senate finance committee.

Senator Care explained to the committee the bill which Senator Titus had referred to was S.B. 321, and that it would require 280 hours of training, as opposed to the current 160 to 180 requisite hours.

Senator Care continued relating that the question had arisen whether that would include all the training necessary for Category II peace officers; the Senate judiciary committee determined it would not. Senator Care suggested that Director Bayer and Mr. Flagg should consider S.B. 321 in conjunction with the bills before this committee.

Mr. Flagg remarked that the additional 280 training hours were conducted in conjunction with the 180 training hours peace officers were presently receiving at the academy. He pointed out that this was on-the-job training, not academy time, but rather in-house training.

Senator Care responded to Mr. Flagg’s statement noting that this was a confusing issue. He reiterated that perhaps they could resolve this prior to appearing before the committee again.

Chairman O’Connell closed the work session on S.B. 229 and directed the committee’s attention to S.B. 230. Senator O’Connell recalled the committee discussion of S.B. 230 and requested that the committee members quickly review the synopsis of the testimony.

Chairman O’Connell commented that this was the bill that would allow the department to place an employee, arrested for a felony, on leave without pay status.

Senator Raggio expressed the committee concerns regarding this bill stemmed from the opposition; that this authority could be abused. He cited the testimony which indicated there were adequate disciplinary procedures in place. Senator Raggio asked for clarification on what this bill would specifically provide or add that would be necessary.

Mr. Bayer said that the information he had received from the attorney general’s office was that a change in statute was necessary in order to place an employee on leave without pay status.

Senator Raggio repeated Mr. Bayer’s statement regarding the authority to place someone on leave without pay status even if they committed a felony in your presence. Mr. Bayer replied that was correct, citing opinions from both the attorney general’s office and the past director of personnel. Mr. Bayer said that currently the individual is either placed on suspension with pay pending the outcome of an investigation, or if there is enough evidence, the department could move for a summary dismissal with due process within a 10-day period.

Senator Raggio said that was troublesome that someone could commit a felony in Mr. Bayer’s presence. He continued noting that the argument was that a person was innocent until proven guilty. Senator Raggio gave an extreme example of someone bringing a gun into the prison; a felony. He queried in that circumstance, if you would be unable to place the person on leave without pay status.

Mr. Bayer replied that Senator Raggio’s statement was correct. There are few instances of this nature, but Mr. Bayer said he would not like to terminate an employee if there was another choice.

Senator Titus referred to the scenario stating that if someone committed the felony in front of you why would you want to put them on leave without pay. You would want to fire them. She commented on Mr. Bayer’s previous statement regarding dismissal, and asked for clarification from Mr. Bayer.

Mr. Bayer replied yes, there was a choice. The person can be dismissed if there is enough information. Senator Titus interjected that if you saw that person bring a gun into the prison, committing a felony in front of you, as Senator Raggio gave as an example, that would be enough information for dismissal.

Mr. Bayer responded saying that Senator Raggio’s example highlighted the problem. It was his thought that the committee could look at S.B. 230 as one more tool. Mr. Bayer referred to an opinion put forth by the attorney general’s office regarding administrative leave without pay. The opinion put forth that the implementation of administrative leave without pay policy for peace officers in service of the State of Nevada, who are charged with a felony, would require a statutory change.

Senator Raggio mentioned that Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, had testified on this previously. Senator Raggio asked if it would not be advisable to have that option rather than just the option of termination.

Robert E. Romer, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, stated that Mr. Gagnier had presented a statement prepared by Norah Ann McCoy, State of Nevada Employees Association, Legal Counsel. It was Mr. Romer’s understanding that a copy of the statement had been given to each member of the committee. Mr. Romer continued saying he understood Director Bayer’s desire for an option in between. Senator Raggio commented if it would not be advantageous to the employee to have that option. Mr. Romer replied that he did not believe so. A prison investigation could take a long time and during that time the employee would be on suspension without pay. Great hardship can be caused to the family and perhaps 6 months later, the prison officials notify the employee that they have been found innocent. In the meantime that person may have lost their home, family, and everything else. Senator Raggio interjected what if the employee is terminated. Mr. Romer answered that with termination they could go to an appeal before the hearing officer. Senator Raggio asked whether the employee would have the same right of appeal in either case; termination or suspension without pay. Mr. Romer replied that if there were specificity of charges.

Senator Raggio commented that if the State of Nevada Employees Association was content with the options currently available then the Senator would not oppose them. But it did seem to him if there were an option not to be terminated that would be an advantage, not a problem. Mr. Romer stated that if the Department of Prisons had reasonable, probable charges to suspend a person and come forth with the charges. He continued that he would hate to think that someone was arrested for a felony, not charged or convicted, just arrested, and the pay would stop, and he or she would be off work for an undetermined period of time. Senator Raggio commented that was what he had been asking. Senator Raggio elaborated, saying that he just heard that if a person is arrested for a felony, as emphasized by Senator Titus, the person can be terminated. Senator Raggio thought that if ultimately the person is proved innocent he or she would have their job and pay reinstated. Senator Raggio explained that he was trying to avoid that. Mr. Romer replied that he understood what Senator Raggio was saying. Whether it was a summary dismissal or suspension without pay; either way the employee has no income. Mr. Romer qualified his statements, saying that he could only speak to what had been presented by their attorney.

Other than this provision, Senator Raggio asked Mr. Bayer if there was anything else in the bill. Mr. Bayer responded affirmatively, although there had been a question the committee had asked him to research. That was the question regarding insurance. He had looked into that issue, and noted that if an employee is terminated, then obviously the employee would not have any insurance. If the employee were placed on leave without pay status, the employee is covered by insurance for any month where the employee had 80 hours of work. After that the coverage would be provided under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1984 (COBRA). The employee would have to pay for the insurance, but at least they would be eligible for the insurance. There would probably be a 3 to 4 week grace period where the employee would be covered and then would have to pick up the costs if it went beyond that.

Senator Raggio asked if there were anyone representing the group of employees that would be covered under this bill and, having heard the testimony today, would want the bill processed for any reason.

Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, responded to Senator Raggio. He remarked that Senator Raggio had asked for an option other than suspension without pay for arrest of a felony. The other option is termination in the case when someone is caught red-handed in the commission of a crime. This bill would cover all those instances where the felony crime was not observed. Mr. Barr stated that there were already provisions in place for this.

Chairman O’Connell asked for a motion on S.B. 230.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 230.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 301.

Chairman O’Connell queried whether an amendment to S.B. 301 had been prepared.

Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors, replied affirmatively and that the amendment (Exhibit D) had been offered and discussed with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). She noted that NDOT was comfortable with the amendment. Therefore, they would ask the committee to amend and do pass S.B. 301.

Senator O’Connell requested a brief description of the amendment. Ms. Blomstrom stated that the amendment asks that the director of NDOT attempt to resolve the issue between the parties; however, if the director is unable to resolve the issue then the parties are left to a judicial remedy. The director is not a party to that remedy. They would not take the director into court.

The Chairman asked if NDOT had signed off on the amendment. Rod Johnson, Assistant Director, Operations, Nevada Department of Transportation, replied that yes, NDOT was in agreement with the amendment

Senator O’Connell questioned Ms. Blomstrom, asking if the amendment would address their problem. Ms. Blomstrom agreed that it would.

Senator Neal referred to previous testimony and noted that the 15-day requirement would conflict with the 28 days necessary for concrete to set. He questioned whether the conflict had been removed.

Mr. Johnson responded to Senator Neal’s question saying that indeed that was an issue brought up earlier, but it had been addressed by the contractors. It was Mr. Johnson’s understanding the contractors thought that by the time the process got into the pay cycle the 28 days would have passed. This would not impact the NDOT, but rather the subcontractors themselves.

Senator O’Connell clarified that section 11 would be deleted in its entirety and replaced with this new language in the amendment. Ms. Blomstrom replied that was correct.

The Chairman requested the committee’s action.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 301.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL VOTED NO.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell drew the committee’s attention to Senate Bill (S.B.) 366 and called the parties testifying on S.B. 366 forward.

Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, City of Reno, and Nevada Association of Counties, speaking for the three local governments for northern Nevada, indicated that the negotiations had gone well. She remarked that they had gone into the hallway to talk as the chairman had urged. The original bill, in effect, removes the "sunset" provision for E-911. She believed they had reached a compromise with the industry in terms of presenting a 2-year extension of the surcharge. Ms. Henderson stated she would like the assistant city manager of the City of Reno to explain to the committee as to what was agreed.

Ralph Jaeck, Assistant City Manager, City of Reno, related what he believed to be the recommended action. The 25 cent surcharge would continue for an additional 2 years. This would cover both land telephones and cellular. The three agencies were committed to having phase I of cellular in place in that time period. The agencies were also committed to dropping fees accordingly if the fund balance exceeded $500,000. The projected budget would become part of the record and that budget would be based on today’s costs. Mr. Jaeck explained that they would be back in 2 years to report to the committee on the success of phase I and phase II. At that point in time, discussion of fees and enhanced cellular 911 would occur; that will require a considerable amount of work between the local agencies and the industry.

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Airtouch Communications, commented that their point on the issue of continued funding was that 4 years ago when this was initially passed, it was going to "sunset." That was all the money that was needed, but circumstances have changed. He pointed out customers, to whom the tax has been passed, have received no benefit from the enhanced 911, although work has been done. So the agreement to continue the funding for 2 years was hinged on the items Mr. Jaeck just indicated to you.

Mr. Hillerby stated that since this language is in the transitory language, there is a need to have a commitment in the language that this is the budget and this is what it will cost to complete phase I. That means cellular customers would be able to be identified if they called in and that their phone number at least would be known. Either the funding would end in the 2 years it has been extended or when that budget was met and that is the agreement. He stated further that the county agencies were going to put together the numbers. Mr. Hillerby noted that a commitment had been made to work with the agencies to come up with appropriate funding measures for the ongoing costs as they may move into phase II; but to continue operation of this 911, particularly how it impacts the cellular customers that they represent.

Senator Porter questioned Mr. Hillerby on how this would impact rural Clark County, Sandy Valley, etc., if this would affect anything in Clark County.

Ms. Henderson responded to Senator Porter’s query. She explained that this was completely within the boundaries of Washoe County. The enhanced 911 in southern Nevada is funded through property tax.

Senator Neal asked whether this dealt with the hole there seems to be in the communications system whereby a point is reached and there is a hole. You cannot make a call from a cellular phone. He was asked if this was a part of the discussion.

Mr. Hillerby answered that yes, it was. He elaborated, saying that because part of being able to have enhanced 911 was the ability to recognize the number calling (Mr. Hillerby clarified that he was not a technician), but there was also relay equipment that needed to be installed. That is all part of the cost so that people get better coverage in the county and, when someone does dial 911, the agency will at least be able identify who they are with cellular service. With the land wire, the agency will also be able to identify where the person is, but that is phase II. Phase II will be in the future when the agency will have the ability to identify geographical location of the call.

Senator Neal then asked which counties and county customers would be paying this surcharge.

Mr. Hillerby replied that only Washoe County customers would be paying the surcharge. Senator Neal clarified that this would not include the small counties, only Washoe County. Mr. Hillerby replied that was correct.

Senator Neal then remarked on the problem in those other counties. Mr. Hillerby agreed that there are problems in those other counties. There is a regional system that serves Washoe County. As part of that system they hoped to do some things with Douglas County and Carson City that would enhance the service, the selective router. But, Mr. Hillerby explained, the fee that is being collected is for the centers in Washoe County.

Senator Neal explained that he was referring to those small counties. If someone need emergency 911 service, they are unable to reach anyone. Mr. Hillerby responded that it was a statewide problem and that phase II and phase III will deal with that. Senator Neal queried the start of those phases. Mr. Hillerby replied they needed another 2 years so that they could come back before the committee with a solution on Phase I; then he thought the industry could work on Phase II. He added that it will be very expensive; the cost could be $2 or $3 a month per subscriber.

Senator O’Donnell asked how much money was being collected. Mr. Hillerby replied that it generated in the magnitude of $700,000 annually, adding that it was 25-cents-per-month per-customer per line in Washoe County alone.

Chairman O’Connell declared S.B. 68 would be held because the Chairman understood that Senator Jacobsen, the sponsor of the bill, had great interest in this bill and would want to be at the hearing.

Senator O’Connell stated the committee would probably take up S.B. 366 on Tuesday or Wednesday; that would give the parties time to prepare the language.

Chairman O’Connell drew attention to Bill Draft Request (BDR) 32-985 which is in regard to the net proceeds of mines, and had been delivered during the hearing. The Chairman elaborated, noting that this bill came about through the work of the Legislative Committee To Study The Distribution Among Local Governments Of Revenue From State And Local Taxes (NRS 218.53881).

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 32-985.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Senator Raggio remarked that he would like to hear a brief explanation of the bill.

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, began the explanation, saying:

Chairman O’Connell stated that she would take a motion on BDR 32-985.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO INTRODUCE OF BDR 32-985.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 2:05 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Julie Burdette,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: