The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:18 a.m., on Wednesday, April 21, 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 Mark A. James, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Laura Adler, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Lyon, Storey, and Carson City counties Assembly District No. 38, stated this bill is the funding mechanism for the regional facility authorized during the 1997 Legislative Session. Last session five counties, Carson City, Storey, Douglas, Lyon, and Churchill, were given $1.25 million to build a juvenile drug treatment center in Silver Springs. The counties joined to develop a plan to fund the operation of the facility, and A.B. 314 provides the means for ongoing funding.

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, emphasized the bill provides the final element to finish the project started last session.

Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City, stated the five counties represented worked diligently to formulate a funding mechanism that all believed was reasonable and fair, and represented the long-term needs for juvenile treatment and rehabilitation, which presently is not provided in any of the five counties. He stressed the counties believe it is their responsibility to fund the center, estimated between $800,000 to $900,000 per year. He said the bill allows the counties a method to create the funding and each pay a fair share.

LeRoy Goodman, Board of Commissioners, Lyon County, stated Lyon County is in favor of A.B. 314, and urged a do pass. He said the roof is on and they are anxious to get started in the operation.

Jacques Etchegoyhen, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Douglas County, declared Douglas County’s support of the bill.

Stephen Snyder, County Manager, Lyon County, emphasized the project is one of which everyone is very proud, and anticipate it will become a model for other agencies.

John Berkich, Lobbyist, City Manager, Carson City, said Carson City is in unison with everyone in favor of this bill.

Senator Wiener noted that Wittenberg Hall in Reno is the closest juvenile facility and already overcrowded, she wanted to know what is being done presently.

Mr. Snyder responded that Lyon County has no facility so juveniles are brought to Carson City. If Carson City is full, they go to the next closest facility. He said sometimes the closest facility is in Winnemucca, which is two and one-half hours from Yerington. He elucidated for court hearings the juvenile would be brought from Winnemucca to Yerington, and then returned. He stressed it was difficult and very costly stating Lyon County was spending in excess of $200,000 a year for overnight stays.

Bjorn (B.J.) Selinder, Manager, Churchill County, expounded that Churchill County spends a great deal of their resources in transportation and accommodations. He said this project will make a significant reduction in transport costs, and provide a readily available and accessible facility.

Mr. Snyder commented that all the district judges stand together in support of the project and the bill. He added that all the chief juvenile probation officers were in attendance to show their support as well.

William R. Lewis, Jr., Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Juvenile Probation Department, Carson City, stated meetings have been held since the fall of 1994 to assess the needs of the juvenile justice system. He said Carson City’s juvenile detention center was built 20 years ago, and frequently is over capacity. He said they would like to focus on post-dispositional alternatives to offer the system more graduated sanctions for offenders who are on probation, but may continue to violate, but hopefully do not reach the point in felony and repeat offenses that necessitate commitment to the state’s training centers, who also have a capacity problem. He stated it is emphasized this new facility will keep the juvenile offender closer to home so families can be more involved, develop life skills, and prevent the necessity to commit these juveniles to long-term correctional care.

G. Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Juvenile Probation Department, Douglas County, called attention to the fact the facility is located next to Lyon County’s mental health services office. He said initially the facility will address a drug treatment program, but the long-range goal is to develop the mental health program needs, so other needs of juveniles can be addressed as well.

Charles R. Steele, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Juvenile Probation Department, Lyon County, said he echoes everyone’s comments. He stressed that the growing communities need the help of A.B. 314, so they can help themselves.

Senator Wiener queried if the facility would also address the therapeutic community program. Mr. Lewis responded that he supports the therapeutic community concept and that is what they are working towards with an emphasis on family rebuilding.

Senator Washington addressed the ad valorem tax issue and what affect it would have on future bond issues for expansion.

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas, and Lyon counties, stated that future bond issues would not be affected. What the ad valorem tax does is allow local governments to go around the operating rate. She said currently there is a $3.64 tax cap, and an operating tax cap. For example, Carson City is capped right now at a $2.50 tax rate. She said the ad valorem allows Carson City to go around that operating rate. She pointed out that the key to funding this five-county facility is that every county is assured of a means to fund their portion on an ongoing operation. She concluded the taxing ability is simply asking for the authority for local governments to implement the tax, if needed.

Senator Wiener noted it presently costs about $200,000 to transport juveniles. She asked if there were any figures on how much would be saved when the facility opens. Ms. Walker stated that three of the five counties do not currently have facilities, but none have a good drug treatment program and facility. She said some of the money would continue to go to regular juvenile services and the rest to start and maintain the drug treatment program.

Senator Washington inquired as to why some of the Washoe County delegation in the Assembly voted against the bill. Ms. Walker responded she believes there was a misunderstanding in perception of circumventing the $3.64 cap. She said the bill does not circumvent the $3.64 tax rate, all it addresses is the operating tax rate. She clarified that there are two different cap rates, and the counties are not going over the $3.64 cap rate.

David R. Gamble, District Judge, Department 1, Ninth Judicial District, stated that all six district judges are in support of this juvenile drug treatment center. All the judges believe this facility will fit within the regional treatment concept and provide much needed space.

Senator Washington wondered how this facility would fit within the scope of intermediate facilities. Judge Gamble replied it would fit exactly into the scope of things. He stated that currently he is sending a number of juveniles to Caliente, which is 300-400 miles from Carson City. He said it becomes impossible to inculcate those juveniles back into the community. He said there are also some private treatment facilities, which are always full and very expensive. He stated this facility would be for those juveniles who need treatment more than they need incarceration.

There being no further testimony on the bill, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 314, and opened the hearing on A.B. 670.

Michael E. Langton, Lobbyist, Washoe County Probation Officers Employees Association (WCPOEA), stated they are in support of A.B. 670, as it would give the same rights to persons employed in Washoe County juvenile services as their counterparts in Clark County now enjoy. He said that in no way does this limit the employee’s rights or the county’s rights to clarify their positions. Mr. Langton noted a letter (Exhibit C) to Senator James, signed by four judges of Second Judicial District Court, as the only judges in opposition to the bill. The four judges consider these people as court employees to be appointed or not appointed, with or without cause. He believes the bill does not interfere with the judges’ rights to dictate what type of programs would be utilized whenever they decide to incarcerate or otherwise treat the juvenile; they will still have that right. He said what is being asked is to have rights as employees, not to have the opportunity to tell the judges how to manage. He said WCPOEA sees this as an equity issue. Currently the employees have health insurance and unemployment benefits paid by Washoe County. He said when the judges ask for pay raises, the employees would like to have input as to wages, hours, and conditions.

Senator Care referenced the letter from Leonard J. Pugh, Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services (Exhibit D), who is in opposition to A.B. 670.

Hank Blagen, Chairman, Washoe County Probation Officers Employees Association, responded efforts for recognition have been ongoing since 1992. He said that presently the association has 61 members who have favorably discussed the type of recognition proposed in A.B. 670. The WCPOEA has not had a formal poll of the membership.

Senator Washington noted the Pugh letter (Exhibit D) references possible adversarial conditions between judges and employees. He wanted to know if that possibility has been addressed.

Mr. Langton iterated that he represents 12 unions of which 4 are public employee associations, including Carson City Employees Association, Reno Police Protective Association, and Sparks Police Protective Association, who support this legislation. He noted there is a natural adversarial situation between employers and employees when the employees desire more input into policies and decisions that directly affect them. He continued that each side may not agree on every issue, but through bargaining the parties can come to a better understanding and a general agreement. He said collective bargaining helps assure due process is served when there is an issue to be addressed. He conveyed he is confident the concerned entities can overcome their differences, as Clark County has done with its employees.

Senator Washington wanted to know if it is not broken, then why does it need to be fixed. Mr. Langton said as things are now there is no requirement for management to give a reason for disciplining or discharging employees, because they are at-will employees. He stated that in 1992, 77 of 100 employees petitioned for representation, he considers that a good indication that something does need to be fixed.

Joe Dufur, Vice President, Washoe County Probation Officers Employees Association, observed that previous testimony covered the issue from his point of view, and supports passage of the bill.

Leonard J. Pugh, Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services, read from prepared testimony in opposition to A.B. 670. He added that under chapter 262 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) there is specific language that governs employees who work for counties with a population of 100,000 or more, but less than 400,000. The chapter specifically states that employees cannot be terminated unless they are given cause in writing. He continued there is an internal personnel manual that says an employee has a right to grieve currently. He stated there are several levels of appeal up to the board of county commissioners, and the appeal avenues are available to all employees. He stated the juvenile service currently has 109 employees of which 61 are members of the association.

There being no further testimony on the bill, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 670, and opened the hearing on A.B. 469.

John P. Sande, III, Lobbyist, Nevada Bankers Association (NBA), stated the NBA is in favor of the bill, and has a proposed amendment (Exhibit E). He said the bill is patterned after a similar law in Alaska, which allows the establishment of a spendthrift trust. He explained a spendthrift trust holding assets after a certain period of time is exempt from creditors of the beneficiary. He said an irrevocable spendthrift trust containing assets is sometimes set up to protect people from themselves. Even if the beneficiary incurs a lot of debt, the trust is untouchable, however, once distribution is made out of the trust, the creditor can pursue the distributed assets. Mr. Sande said that is in law now and will not be affected by this bill.

Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10, clarified that this bill is intended to attract more estate tax to Nevada rather than it going elsewhere. He proposed A.B. 469 would make Nevada as competitive as other states in attracting trusts and trust revenue. He emphasized that Nevada is attractive because of no state income tax, but this bill would make Nevada even more attractive to those with lots of assets. He noted that right now most people protect their assets by going offshore. Assemblyman Goldwater highlighted the bill's features (Exhibit F).

There being no further testimony, the hearing on A.B. 469 was closed, and the hearing on A.J.R. 4 was opened.

Mr. Sande elucidated that a proposed amendment was made in the Assembly to guard against infinite perpetuity. He conveyed that other states’ changes to the rule of perpetuity have included in their statutes that the trustee must have the power of sale of all the assets, and also gives power to a third party to terminate the trust at anytime.

Assemblyman Goldwater gave an overview of what repealing the constitutional rule against perpetuities would do (Exhibit G). He gave example of a dynasty trust in South Dakota as administered by the Whittier Trust (Exhibit H) to give a feel for the services that would be provided to Nevadans, if the prohibition were removed. He submitted a letter (Exhibit I) from William E. Ramsey saying The Whittier Trust Company of Nevada is in favor of A.J.R. 4. Assemblyman Goldwater concluded that passage of this bill would mean economic diversity and generate money back into the economy of Nevada.

There being no further business, the hearing on A.J.R. 4 was closed and the meeting was adjourned at 10:58 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: