The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 5:20 p.m., on Tuesday, March 23, 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 Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Amelie Welden, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Marta Golding Brown, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, offered support for S.B. 454, which would place the city attorney under the city council rather than under the city manager. She explained the bill would require the city attorney to report directly to the council, and the council would in turn be responsible for "hiring and firing" the city attorney.

Ms. Brown asserted the city council believes the city attorney should report directly to council members so that if the council requests the attorney to investigate an issue, the city manager cannot alter or stop that request. Ms. Brown maintained there have been no related problems in the past, but the city council is concerned that a problem could occur. She concluded S.B. 454 would also make North Las Vegas’ procedures consistent with those in other southern Nevada cities.

Senator Neal noted North Las Vegas has "a city-manager form of government." He asked about the necessity for a "hybrid" form of government in which the city manager would not appoint all city officers.

Ms. Brown responded the city manager and the city council agree that if a council member raises an issue, and if the city attorney does not report directly to the council, the city manager could "step in" and stop the city attorney from representing the council. Ms. Brown asserted this situation is especially pertinent to ethics issues.

Senator Neal pointed out the city manager can be fired by the city council. He stated that arrangement should take care of the problem.

Ms. Brown emphasized only the city manager can "hire and fire" the city attorney in North Las Vegas at present. She reiterated the city council would like to change that situation, and she noted the city manager also supports
S.B. 454.

Senator Neal asked if the legislation was requested due to a lack of trust between the current city council and city manager in North Las Vegas. Ms. Brown replied she does not believe that was the case.

In response to a question from Senator Neal, Ms. Brown clarified the City of Henderson and the City of Las Vegas both have systems like that proposed in S.B. 454.

Senator Care asked if Richard C. Maurer is the city attorney in North Las Vegas, and Ms. Brown responded affirmatively. Senator Care asked about Mr. Maurer’s position on S.B. 454. Ms. Brown indicated Mr. Maurer has no problem with the bill, and she added he wrote the bill for the city council’s approval. Ms. Brown commented Mr. Maurer previously served as city attorney for the City of Las Vegas, which has a system like the one proposed in S.B. 454.

Senator Porter noted Boulder City also has a system in which the city council hires both the city manager and the city attorney. He stated that system was set forth in the city’s charter, which was created in 1959 or 1960. He maintained a separation-of-powers argument supports this arrangement and contended it "work[s] very well" in Boulder City.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 454 and opened the hearing on S.B. 455.

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified a correction had been made to the originally-printed bill, and she would be speaking with regard to the newest printing. She offered her support for
S.B. 455.

Ms. Vilardo stated:

Senator Neal asked if S.B. 455 would solve the problem. Ms. Vilardo answered she believes the bill would solve "most of the problem." However, she requested time to review changes to the originally-printed bill with Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau. Ms. Vilardo offered to submit a letter to the committee members regarding this issue.

Senator Neal noted changes had been made after the bill was printed, and he suggested this process violated rules which state such changes must be made through an amendment. Ms. Guinasso responded the change to the bill was not substantive and simply corrected an error made by the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Guinasso to clarify changes made to S.B. 455. Ms. Guinasso stated:

Senator Neal asked, "In looking at this particular section of the law, NRS 354.5989, it says a limitation on fees for business license in the exception. Why just business licenses?"

Ms. Vilardo answered:

Senator Neal asked, "So anytime the local government finds that that fee is substantially below other local governments in the state, they can raise it?"

Ms. Vilardo responded:

Senator Neal asked:

Ms. Vilardo replied:

Senator Neal asked:

Ms. Vilardo answered:

Senator Neal stated:

Chairman O’Connell commented, "They’re [they are] going to come to [the] Interim Finance [Committee]."

Ms. Vilardo added:

Senator Neal noted:

Chairman O’Connell stated:

Chairman O’Connell invited further testimony on S.B. 455.

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, testified:

In response to a question from Senator Neal, Mr. Spinello clarified, "These comments are filtered through all of the staff, and the county manager is in support of these comments, as well."

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, stated he has no objections to S.B. 455.

Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, testified:

Chairman O’Connell asked, "Marvin [Mr. Leavitt], would you think that the language that you are working on with S.B. 194 would take care of the concern that Senator Neal has?"

Mr. Leavitt responded, "Yes. In fact, that’s [that is] addressed, that type of an issue."

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 455 and opened the hearing on S.B. 456.

David S. Gibson, Lobbyist, Clark County Public Defender, testified the number of deputy attorneys in the Clark County public defender’s office has grown substantially in the past few years. He continued this growth has increased the frequency with which the office conducts interview and hiring processes.

Mr. Gibson stated the Clark County Department of Human Resources has identified differences between the application processes used by the public defender’s office and the district attorney’s office. Mr. Gibson noted the processes are similar, but county personnel is concerned about having two systems in place for essentially the same job classifications. Thus, he indicated county personnel has asked that the public defender’s statute be changed to bring conformity to the processes.

Mr. Gibson explained the requested language included in S.B. 456 mirrors the language in NRS 252.070, the district attorney’s statute. He asserted S.B. 456 affects deputy public defenders, not the public defender or the assistant public defender.

In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Gibson elaborated S.B. 456 would impact only the process by which the Clark County public defender’s office gives notice for job openings. He commented the hiring process requires certain advertising for openings, and positions must be open for a certain length of time. He continued applicants must be interviewed in an open interview before a decision is made. Mr. Gibson stated S.B. 456 would not affect employee compensation or vacation time because those provisions already follow the personnel merit system.

Senator Care asked how many attorneys work for the Clark County Public Defender’s Office. He also asked if the office’s procedures had previously been in accordance with S.B. 456.

Mr. Gibson answered no to the latter question and stated the Clark County Public Defender’s Office currently employs 70 deputy attorneys.

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, stated he was speaking on behalf of "Clark County and the legal profession within that county." He indicated the issue addressed by S.B. 456 was previously addressed in 1995 on behalf of the deputy district attorneys. He noted supporters for that previous legislation also support S.B. 456. Mr. Graham emphasized the bill would bring deputy public defenders into parity with the deputy district attorneys.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 456 and opened the hearing on S.B. 457.

Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated S.B. 457 would add fire-suppression and park projects to the list of projects already authorized for impact fees. He mentioned the bill’s definitions of fire-suppression and park projects are currently "too broad."

Mr. Leavitt suggested people in southern Nevada are becoming more reluctant to pay for new development through levies on their existing property taxes. He noted such levies provide "the other source of money to pay for these kinds of improvements if we go to bond issues." He asserted southern Nevadans, in general, seem to believe development should incur a larger portion of the costs associated with such improvements.

Mr. Leavitt indicated the City of Las Vegas currently does not impose any impact fees. He commented S.B. 457 does not guarantee the city will impose such fees, but is simply "enabling legislation."

Mr. Leavitt explained fire-suppression and park projects were chosen for the bill because they are directly related to growth. He elaborated:

Mr. Leavitt pointed out Las Vegas currently imposes a residential-park-construction tax, which should be an offset against any park-related impact fee imposed pursuant to S.B. 457. He suggested perhaps these funding sources should not exist at the same time since they both address the same issue. He added:

Senator Porter asked about the history of bond issues for parks. Mr. Leavitt replied one bond issue failed, and another was considered, but not put forth. He explained the residential-park-construction tax "takes care of neighborhood-type parks" and noted that tax has been successful. He continued, usually bond issues would only apply to "regional-type" parks.

Senator Porter asked when the last bond issue failed. Mr. Leavitt answered 4 years ago. Mr. Leavitt mentioned he does not know of any bond issue regarding fire stations that has failed.

Senator Porter commented regional parks should be paid for through a more regional funding source. Mr. Leavitt responded impact fees would require the definition of districts, the sizes of which would address that issue. He suggested districts would probably be larger for impact fees than they are for the residential-construction tax.

Senator Porter asked why the aforementioned bond issue regarding parks failed. Mr. Leavitt answered he does not know, noting he was not in Las Vegas when that issue was discussed. However, he stated he "got the impression" that the bond issue was "hastily-conceived" and "not clearly defined." Mr. Leavitt added he does not believe the failure reflects a general opposition to parks.

Senator Porter commented other communities have more parks per acreage than Las Vegas does. He asked if the full city council had acted upon the request to authorize new impact fees and if the council had held a public hearing on the matter. Mr. Leavitt responded affirmatively and clarified the proposal went through the normal hearing process.

In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Leavitt indicated the definitions for fire-suppression and parks projects in S.B. 457 need to be narrowed. He offered to prepare an amendment to that effect. He noted he intended parks projects to include only "more traditional parks," not zoos, golf courses, or some of the other projects set forth in S.B. 457. Mr. Leavitt further pointed out the bill’s current definition of fire-suppression projects includes many "supply-type" items which were not intended to be applicable to an impact fee. He elaborated the impact fee should only be used for capital items.

Regarding Senator Porter’s previous question about the failed bond issue, Senator Titus suggested perhaps people did not support it because they suspected their tax dollars would be spent in the newer parts of Las Vegas since there is no space to build parks in the older parts of the city. Mr. Leavitt agreed. He said he believes if a proposal were now submitted to voters asking if they would prefer that additional facilities be paid for by property taxes or by development, he "ha[s] an idea how that would result." Senator Titus agreed.

Senator Titus commented she, Mr. Leavitt, and the president of the Nevada Home Builders Association served on an interim committee which provided input on impact fees. She maintained home builders are not opposed to impact fees because they seem to be a "more stable, predictable, less capricious" expense. Mr. Leavitt agreed. He elaborated he thinks people generally believe that impact fees, as opposed to the exaction process or the residential-park-construction tax, are based on a "long-term, logical plan."

Senator Titus offered her support for S.B. 457, stating impact fees effectively provide for "growth paying for growth."

Senator Neal asked why S.B. 457 would not amend NRS 278B.160, which "governs the list of impacts that a developer can be charged with." He pointed out that in 1996, Douglas County brought a lawsuit arguing that school districts are excluded from that list. Senator Neal stated the courts ruled the list is exclusive, not inclusive. He asserted "recreation" could be added to the list to cover many items.

Mr. Leavitt explained NRS 278B.160 sets forth "the type of things that can be charged," including "the estimated cost of actual construction, estimated fees for professional services, the estimated cost to acquire the land, and the costs associated with the preparation of a capital plan." Mr. Leavitt indicated these items are "inclusive enough" that NRS 278B.160 does not need to be amended. He pointed out S.B. 457 would amend 278B.020, where "capital improvement" is defined.

Senator Neal asserted if "recreation" and "public safety" were added to the definition of "capital improvement," parks and fire suppression would be covered.

Chris Knight, Manager, Comprehensive Planning, Planning and Development Department, Development Services Center, City of Las Vegas, stated the city will eventually provide services for a 56-square-mile area that exists in northwest Las Vegas. He explained those services will include sewer, parks, open space, roads, fire protection and so forth. He noted Las Vegas is one of the fastest-growing cities in the United States, and having the authorization to impose impact fees would help develop an "equitable distribution" of the impacts of that growth.

Mr. Leavitt agreed to prepare an amendment for S.B. 457.

Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, stated the association is opposed to part of S.B. 457, but would support portions of the bill if amended. She pointed out the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association worked with an interim committee in 1987 to have the original impact-fee law adopted during the following legislative session. She asserted the association has a "long history" of supporting impact fees as fair and equitable. However, she mentioned the association has sometimes opposed specific impact fees because it believes certain projects should be paid for by the entire community rather than only the new segment of the community.

Ms. Porter indicated the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association supports adding parks projects to the list of impact-fee items. She proposed the removal of certain language in section 3 of S.B. 457, including "greenhouses, bandstand and orchestra facilities, auditoriums, arenas, zoo facilities, golf course facilities, boating facilities, and other recreational facilities." Ms. Porter further suggested that section be changed to encompass more than "neighborhood parks" so it would apply to "more community-wide" projects. She mentioned perhaps language like that in the existing residential-park-construction-tax law could be used. She asserted items such as parking, lighting, and off-sites should be included as a part of an impact fee. Ms. Porter stated she would like to work with the committee and with the City of Las Vegas to rewrite the definition for "parks projects" in S.B. 457.

Ms. Porter suggested an amendment to S.B. 457 clarifying its relationship to the existing residential-park-construction-tax law. She maintained impact fees and residential-park-construction taxes should not be used at the same time. She explained, "There are enough crediting provisions that have to be done with impact fees alone without having to then get into the paying and the crediting of the park tax in addition thereto." Ms. Porter contended the city would probably achieve more funds from impact fees than from the residential-park-construction tax. She stated under impact-fee law, proportionate fees are paid by not only residential development, but also commercial development, industrial development, and any other land use in the service area.

Ms. Porter indicated, according to two supreme court cases and several attorney general opinions, the issues of exactions and land dedications "literally go away" when impact fees are implemented. She explained a property owner cannot be forced to both pay an impact fee and dedicate land. She continued if a property owner is required to do that, the land dedication must be credited against any impact fee which is due. Ms. Porter contended impact fees help "level out the playing field" and noted the residential industry has been the most subject to an "extreme exaction process."

Ms. Porter stated an independent study has recently been completed regarding the current types of fees, taxes, and exactions which are being charged on homes. She expressed about $9200 in taxes and fees are imposed on an average single-family home. Adding in exactions, she indicated the amount rises to more than $20,000 per house.

In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Porter clarified the independent study determined the size of an average single-family home in each local government of southern Nevada. She explained fees and taxes were then calculated for homes in each of those local governments. She stated Hobbes, Ong & Associates is performing the independent study, and the firm has completed analysis of three local governments, so far. Ms. Porter offered to make a presentation to the committee regarding this study.

Ms. Porter asserted nobody in southern Nevada has taken advantage of the impact-fee law because more money can be collected through the exaction process. She continued if impact fees are implemented, bond issues are still a possibility. She explained, "An impact fee can only pay per service unit what is directly, the rational-nexus test, what is being built." Ms. Porter said if a service area is only "half-built," impact fees must be paid by both those who have already built in the area and those who have not yet built there. She indicated the local government may have to come up with money to pay the impact fees for existing development. Ms. Porter suggested the local government may have to issue bonds for this purpose. She stated property taxes would also be involved so that existing residents in the service area would pay their "fair share" of the bond issue. She emphasized, "Impact fees only pay a portion and are only for the new area. It’s [it is] a direct proportionality, and that’s [that is] the United States Supreme Court decisions on that issue." Ms. Porter concluded impact fees are "fair" because they require everyone living in a service area to pay a portion of a project’s cost.

Ms. Porter stated fire stations have historically been paid for through bond issues because they service a "wider" area. She elaborated fire trucks from several stations may respond to large fires, and interlocal agreements allow fire trucks to cross city and county boundaries. She noted fire stations also have "very heavy equipment intensity," and equipment is not usually paid for out of impact fees. Ms. Porter commented impact fees generally apply to the land itself and to building construction. She maintained the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association believes fire stations should be paid for through bond issues, and she proposed the deletion of fire-suppression projects from
S.B. 457.

Senator Neal recalled the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association brought a lawsuit against the City of North Las Vegas for medical services in 1996. Ms. Porter clarified the association sued the city because it had imposed an impact fee and a special tax that were not authorized by the Legislature. She indicated the case was heard in district court and in the state supreme court. She emphasized the City of North Las Vegas imposed "an illegal fire-impact and medical-services fee," and both courts ruled the city had acted illegally. Ms. Porter noted the courts called the impact fee a "tax."

Senator Neal pointed out cities could impose impact fees if the Legislature authorizes them. Ms. Porter replied local governments could implement such fees if they are under state statute and if the local governments follow the provisions of NRS chapter 278B.

Senator Porter recalled when he was involved in city government, the challenge was to find funds for maintenance and staffing of new parks and fire-station projects, not to find funds for building them. He asked Mr. Leavitt if that is still the case. Mr. Leavitt answered funding problems exist with both building and maintaining such projects. He commented bond issues can now contain a question relating to maintenance.

Senator Porter requested information regarding how existing residential-construction taxes have been expended. Mr. Leavitt agreed to supply such information to the committee. In response to a question from Senator Neal, Senator Porter clarified he wants to see if the city has been using "what tools [it] currently [has]," or up to $1000 per house as provided under existing statutes.

Lisa A. Gianoli, Lobbyist, Washoe County, stated Washoe County has not taken an official position on S.B. 457. However, she noted the county has supported "the broader spectrum of using impact fees for different facilities" in the past.

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, suggested deleting section 2 of S.B. 457. She argued fire equipment is moveable and stated:

Ms. Vilardo continued the Nevada Taxpayers Association would not oppose impact fees for parks.

Senator Neal asked if a person living in an older neighborhood would help pay for fire services which could be used by new development that would not pay for those services. Ms. Vilardo answered:

Senator Neal noted the impact could affect the entire city or county. Ms. Vilardo agreed and emphasized impact fees can only be used in the area in which they have been collected.

Senator Titus stated fire trucks could leave the "immediate neighborhood," but she noted rules exist regarding the service area and response time for fire stations. She asked, "Wouldn’t that [would that not] define the nexus so you don’t [do not] really have to worry about the truck going beyond that area that it serves?"

Ms. Vilardo responded she was speaking according to documentation she has received regarding pertinent court cases. She mentioned a book published by the federal General Accounting Office addresses each state’s provisions and restrictions on the issue.

Mr. Leavitt reiterated he proposes to eliminate items which are "more in the nature of supplies" from the definition of fire-suppression projects in S.B. 457. However, he stated he does not wish to eliminate fire trucks from that definition, and he noted fire trucks are often more expensive than the stations which house them. He pointed out if impact fees were used to pay for a fire truck, it would remain in the appropriate station. Mr. Leavitt clarified he intended impact fees to be authorized for fire stations and for "the pumper[s] or truck[s]" which go inside those stations. He explained equipment such as hoses and buckets would be eliminated from the bill.

Jim Reinhardt, District Chief, East Fork Fire and Paramedic District, testified he and Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District, had supported a similar bill during the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session. Mr. Reinhardt noted that bill was "much more restrictive" than S.B. 457 because it addressed only facilities and capital purchases such as engines, trucks, water tenders, and ambulances. He commented the national standard for response times in urban areas is 3 minutes. He explained fire stations attempt to position their apparatus so they can respond to a 9-1-1 call within that time period. He noted response times in rural areas are longer due to travel times and volunteer systems.

Mr. Reinhardt stated he would support S.B. 457 if "everything below the motor vehicles" were eliminated. He explained operation costs are paid for by taxes.

Senator Porter clarified his request for information from the City of Las Vegas. He said constituents often ask where the city is using the residential-construction tax.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 457 and opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 19.

Andrea L. Reitan, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, offered support for S.J.R. 19.

Ms. Reitan introduced Thomas G. Tait, Executive Director, Commission on Tourism. Ms. Reitan stated Mr. Tait also served as cochairman of a Travel Industry Association of America subcommittee which sought to mitigate the issues of section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Mr. Tait explained S.J.R. 19 attempts to indefinitely delay the implementation of section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. He mentioned that upon passage of the act, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) reported to Congress regarding how the act would affect the United States.

Mr. Tait stated he performed research regarding the probable effects of the act on tourism, trade, and commerce. He asserted section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was anonymously submitted in a conference committee days before the conclusion of the 105^th Congress. Mr. Tait continued members of Congress were led to believe that section 110 would deal only with air passengers, though the conference committee later reported all aliens departing the United States would be subject to an entry-and-exit process.

Mr. Tait pointed out section 110 only provides a record-keeping process for the INS to collect data on the number of people who enter and leave the United States. He explained by comparing that data, the service can calculate a quotient indicating how many people overstay their allotted time in the United States. Mr. Tait emphasized section 110 does not curtail terrorism, stop drug-trafficking, or provide for law enforcement.

Mr. Tait indicated the Commission on Tourism enlisted the support of ex-Governor Bob Miller, who in turn called upon the National Governors Association (NGA). Mr. Tait noted the NGA passed a resolution in February 1998 asking for a permanent or indefinite delay of the implementation of section 110 until such time as the INS could document to the administration and to Congress that section 110 would not cause delays or disruptions of commerce, trade, or tourism. Mr. Tait added the Commission on Tourism then passed its own resolution asking other organizations to participate in opposing implementation of section 110. He asserted the Legislature could begin enlisting other legislators’ support for this effort across the United States.

Mr. Tait distributed a packet of information on section 110, including the Nevada Commission on Tourism’s position on the issue, a policy statement from the NGA, a report delivered to Congress by the INS, various newspaper and journal articles, and a Nevada Commission on Tourism resolution (Exhibit C). Mr. Tait noted section 110 could cost billions of dollars.

Mr. Tait indicated the Commission on Tourism has enlisted the support of various organizations, including the Nevada Resort Association, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors’ Authority, the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors’ Authority, the Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in northern and southern Nevada, and "virtually every other organization within the State of Nevada." Mr. Tait stated support has also been offered by Americans for Better Borders, which consists of United States "corporate giants" that believe section 110 will substantially disrupt trade.

In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Reitan indicated S.J.R. 19 was drafted at the request of the Lieutenant Governor for the Commission on Tourism. Ms. Reitan noted advice was solicited from United States Senator Richard Bryan and United States Representative Jim Gibbons. She stated they advised caution because section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 supposedly addresses people who overstay the terms of their visas. Ms. Reitan concluded Senator Bryan and Representative Gibbons support S.J.R. 19.

Mr. Tait added Congress has passed legislation to delay implementation of the act until March 2001. However, he asserted Congressman Spencer Abraham, who serves as chairman of the immigration subcommittee, had "great reservation" regarding such a delay. Mr. Tait maintained the United States Senate is "virtually unanimous" in its support for the provisions outlined in S.J.R. 19. He stated "the great majority" of the members of Congress are also supportive. He explained, "Unfortunately, the chairman of the House of Representatives select subcommittee on immigration is the primary catalyst for moving this forward and seeing it enacted."

Mr. Tait commented section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 would not only affect aliens who travel across United States borders, but would also require that all United States citizens be stopped for identification verification. He mentioned section 110 would require a departure screening process for the first time in the history of the United States. He contended many people may find such a process "philosophically difficult to swallow."

Chairman O’Connell asked if advertising had been conducted to inform United States citizens about this issue. Mr. Tait answered many newspapers have printed editorials calling for termination or permanent delay of the implementation of section 110. He noted the Reno Gazette-Journal printed an editorial on the issue (Exhibit C), but he did not know of any such editorials printed in Las Vegas newspapers. However, he mentioned Las Vegas newspapers covered a related presentation made at the last Governor’s Conference on Travel and Tourism.

In response to a question from Senator Neal, Mr. Tait summarized section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. He stated section 110 directs the United States Attorney General to develop an entry- and exit-control system to provide a database resource and a statistical report to Congress. Mr. Tait said the system would record the departure of every alien and match it with a record of arrival. Further, he noted the system would use on-line search procedures to identify nonimmigrants who remain in the United States beyond the period of authorized stay. Mr. Tait elaborated:

Mr. Tait continued the database resource would contain integrated information on overstays and would be available to the INS and to consular offices. He asserted according to the INS, this database would not assist in the apprehension, identification, or processing of overstaying aliens, but would only provide the number of such persons.

Senator Neal asked why Mr. Tait objected to this system. Mr. Tait reiterated the program would have a high cost and emphasized it would cause "gridlock" at all United States borders. He indicated the Canadian government estimates up to 17-hour delays for travelers between Detroit and Windsor. He further noted no infrastructure exists to process these travelers. Mr. Tait added the Canadian government projects a cost of $2 billion for the creation of an INS entry-exit control station at the Niagara Falls border. He pointed out 45 more border-control stations exist on the United States-Canada border, and approximately 100 exist on the United States-Mexico border. He contended implementation of the entire system would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Senator Neal asked if Mr. Tait was suggesting the United States should have "open borders." Mr. Tait answered the system would not control entry into the nation, but would "be like putting a metal detector at the exit."

Senator Neal asked how the system proposed by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 relates to other countries. Mr. Tait responded most countries in the European Union are currently "lowering their borders," as are many South American nations. He commented throughout Europe, most visa and immigration programs are being eliminated. He mentioned he had been optimistic of a similar result in the United States due to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). However, Mr. Tait contended the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 "needs to be curtailed." He noted the act is being promoted by "virtually one individual in Congress."

In response to a question from Senator Neal, Mr. Tait stated he believes the principle supporter of the act is Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas, who is the chairman of the immigration subcommittee in the House of Representatives.

Senator Neal asked if Mr. Tait was suggesting Congressman Smith supported the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 because of the location of Texas on the Mexico border. Mr. Tait replied he believes Congressman Smith is frustrated by the lack of accurate information provided by the INS and is seeking to create a system to provide more and better information.

Senator Neal asked if the information collected under section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 would have any other uses than those previously identified. Mr. Tait responded he does not think so.

Terry A. Simmons, President, Nevada World Trade Council, stated from his personal experience and his study of border behavior, he is well-acquainted with border travel and trade between the United States and Canada. First, he addressed "overstayers," who come into the United States with a tourist visa but then "disappear into the woodwork," often by assuming the identities of United States citizens. Mr. Simmons indicated some "overstayers" live in the United States for many years, and he has dealt with such persons in his capacity as an attorney in Reno. He asserted section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 would do nothing to address such individuals, even if it allowed for their precise identification.

Mr. Simmons went on to address trade. He stated, "Section 110 is a real problem precisely because we have a lot of trade." He contended because large numbers of people cross the United States-Canada border each day, allocating time for someone to check, fill out, and record documents at the border would cause "gridlock," even if it only took 30 seconds or 1 minute to perform those tasks. Mr. Simmons asserted people involved with trade and tourism oppose section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 because it would cause "chaos," "frustration," and "congestion."

Mr. Simmons continued section 110 would not only increase the amount of time necessary to cross the border, but also increase uncertainty about that time frame. He emphasized section 110 would discourage and decrease trans-border traffic in both directions and maintained Nevada depends on such traffic, even though the state does not lie on the border. He pointed out trans-border traffic is partly local, partly regional, and partly continental.

Mr. Simmons emphasized the United States and Canada have the largest trading relationship in the world, at $1 billion per day. He further noted the trade between Canada and individual states in the United States is substantial, and Canada is the largest trading partner for 37 states. Mr. Simmons indicated Nevada would be among those states if not for some anomalies associated with the mining industry. He stated more trade occurs on a daily basis between the cities of Detroit and Windsor than between the United States and Japan.

Mr. Simmons expressed the border crossing in Blaine, Washington, is especially important to Nevada because many people traveling to Nevada from British Columbia use that route. He indicated it currently takes 1 or 2 hours to cross the border in Blaine, but if section 110 were implemented, that time would increase to 4 to 7 hours.

Senator Neal asked when section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 goes into effect. Mr. Tait answered it was originally scheduled to take effect on September 30, 1998, but is currently scheduled to go into effect in March 2001.

Senator Neal commented, in his understanding, section 110 would affect the "free flow" of trade that presently exists between Canada and the United States and between Mexico and the United States. He referred to the handout distributed by Mr. Simmons, which provides information regarding the trade relationships between the United States and Canada, and between the State of Nevada and Canada (Exhibit D). Senator Neal pointed out Nevada exports metals and alloys to Canada.

Mr. Simmons mentioned his handout (Exhibit D) was prepared by the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C.

Luis G. Navarro, Executive Director, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Northern Nevada, stated that organization promotes Latino-owned businesses in Nevada. He asserted the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Northern Nevada "remain[s] vigilant whenever rules, regulations, and economic changes negatively impact our business community." Mr. Navarro maintained section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 would do just that.

Mr. Navarro continued the Board of Directors of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Northern Nevada supports the Nevada Commission on Tourism’s efforts to oppose section 110. He expressed the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Northern Nevada has begun connecting with its colleagues in southern Nevada and across the nation to develop a grassroots organization to further such efforts. Mr. Navarro emphasized he has heard no opposition to the Nevada Commission on Tourism’s efforts.

Mr. Navarro concluded on behalf of the more than 100,000 visitors from Mexico, he encourages the committee to support S.J.R. 19. He suggested business owners in Mexico may currently travel to the United States a few times each month to buy supplies. If section 110 were implemented, Mr. Navarro explained such business owners would have to wait for substantial amounts of time just to cross the border back into Mexico. He contended the business owners would likely decrease the frequency of their visits to the United States as a result, and this situation would be economically undesirable for the United States.

Senator Neal asked if the problem with section 110 would involve entry into or exit from the United States. Mr. Navarro answered the problem would occur with exit. He noted infrastructure which already exists for entry purposes would have to be duplicated for exit purposes. He further commented delays with exiting the country would add another "hassle" and another cost for international businesspersons.

Mr. Tait elaborated the INS currently attempts to ensure people entering the United States are lawful visitors, but section 110 would require the INS to also keep records of the length of time visitors stay in the United States. He contended only a small percentage of visitors to the United States overstay their visas.

Senator Neal asked what happens to visitors who overstay their visas. Mr. Tait responded if they are caught, they are not allowed to come back to the United States for about 5 years. Mr. Navarro indicated some of these visitors may not be caught.

Mr. Navarro expressed entering the United States from another country is "a burden" because of INS procedures. However, he pointed out the United States has "a history of free exit." He asserted requiring immigration procedures upon exit from the country would make "no business sense."

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.J.R. 19 and opened a work session on S.B. 68.

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District, testified, "I would indicate to you that I serve as one of the cochairmen on finance and ways and means with Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, … and we’ve [we have] kind of been through this whole road." Senator Jacobsen stated the Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Committee (P.O.S.T.) Academy is vital to Nevada, especially in the rural counties that have no means of training. He suggested the regimentation of the P.O.S.T. Academy is beneficial and offers trainees a unique experience during which they do everything together. He noted the academy is housed at Stewart, as is the Highway Patrol Academy. Senator Jacobsen asserted Stewart has ample training facilities.

Senator Jacobsen commented trainees could receive training at a community college for $2500, while training at Stewart costs about $7000. He maintained the Stewart facility trains men and women of all ethnicities, with no discrimination. He explained counties can send anyone in law enforcement to the P.O.S.T. Academy for training.

Chairman O’Connell recalled the committee had been waiting for an amendment to S.B. 68.

Senator Jacobsen agreed and noted the bill would make P.O.S.T. a stand-alone agency with a seven-member commission responsible to the Governor. Senator Jacobsen asserted the P.O.S.T. staff has the expertise to warrant such an arrangement. He pointed out the staff can also call on the expertise of other states to train officers. He suggested the P.O.S.T. Academy may be able to broaden its training in future years.

Senator Jacobsen emphasized police chiefs and sheriffs throughout Nevada support S.B. 68. He contended P.O.S.T. training is important in rural counties because they often must call upon neighboring counties for help in law enforcement. He elaborated it is thus beneficial for all county law-enforcement officers to receive the same training. Senator Jacobsen offered the example of a fire in Carson City. He stated seven fire departments responded to the fire, but none of them could work together because they had not received uniform training.

Richard Clark, Division Chief, Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Committee, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, presented the proposed amendment for S.B. 68. He expressed subsection 3 of section 8 of the bill would be changed to read "…and employee organizations consisting exclusively of Nevada P.O.S.T.-certified peace officers" instead of "… category II peace officers and category III peace officers."

Mr. Clark continued the proposed amendment would delete paragraph (b) of subsection 8 of section 21 of S.B. 68. He explained the bill would revert to the original language in statute. He elaborated:

Mr. Clark further stated the proposed amendment would change subsection 2 of section 28 of S.B. 68 to read:

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Association, testified that association helped work on the proposed amendment and supports S.B. 68 with the proposed changes. Captain Nadeau also relayed the support of Richard Kirkland, Sheriff, Washoe County.

Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Association, also conveyed support for S.B. 68 with the proposed amendment.

Senator Neal asked if the proposed amendment would change the fiscal note associated with S.B. 68. Mr. Clark answered no.

In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Senator Jacobsen stated he believes S.B. 68 may need to be re-referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.

Senator Neal commented, "The net impact on this is zero."

Senator Jacobsen indicated Senator Raggio should be consulted to make sure the bill does not need to be re-referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. He stated, "Our subcommittee still hasn’t [has not] tendered our report on it either, yet, but it’s [it is] forthcoming. So I don’t [do not] know." In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Senator Jacobsen indicated he does not believe there will be a fiscal impact associated with S.B. 68.

Chairman O’Connell suggested moving forward with Senator Neal’s motion. Senator Neal commented the committee could re-refer the bill to the Senate Committee on Finance at a later date, if necessary.

*****

Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Amelie Welden,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: