ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

May 15, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:17 a.m. on Tuesday, May 15, 2001. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John J. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. David Brown

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Mrs. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Bob Price

Mrs. Debbie Smith

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mr. Wendell Williams

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Clark District No. 6

Senator Dina Titus, Clark District No. 7

Senator Michael A. Schneider, Clark District No. 8

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark District No. 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Larry D. Struve, President, Nevada Technology Council

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties

Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County

Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City

Bernie Curtis, Commissioner, Douglas County

Daniel Holler, Manager, Douglas County

Ron Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County

Mary Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City, Lyon and Douglas County

Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell and Cingular Wireless

Larry McBee, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell and Cingular Wireless

Helen Foley, Lobbyist, VoiceStream Wireless

Ed Guthrie, Director, Opportunity Village

Jan Crandy, Director, Families for Effective Autism

Senate Bill 401: Makes various changes to provisions governing office of science, engineering and technology. (BDR 18-815)

Larry D. Struve, President, Nevada Technology Council, explained the Office of Science, Engineering, and Technology (OSET) was formed to help Nevada diversify its economy and attract technology-based companies to the state. S.B. 401 placed OSET back in the Governor’s Office and helped coordinate activities and programs that were designed to promote technology. Senator Raymond Rawson introduced the bill and was a strong supporter of the council, which consisted of various local members from the business community. Currently, the money committees had not provided any General Fund support for the council. Section 5 outlined the director of the office may accept gifts, donations, or bequests to fund the office (Exhibit C). S.B. 401 gave those promoting technology the visibility needed to obtain necessary funds to fulfill the bill’s mandate.

Mr. Humke asked if there was currently a director of the program. Mr. Struve replied negatively. Mr. Chris Hagan had served as director during the 1999 interim, but returned to his corporate duties when continued funding was questionable.

Mr. Struve introduced an amendment to Section 5 (Exhibit C) that allowed the director of OSET to serve on the Nevada Technology Council.

Mr. Humke asked if Mr. Struve had introduced the original legislation that formed the Nevada Technology Council. Mr. Struve clarified that former Assemblywoman Jan Evans, Senator Rawson and himself had worked with the private sector on the State Economic Diversification Policy and created the original OSET office. The office was funded through grants.

Mrs. Smith asked whether OSET had worked with the 1997 Technology Commission to address education technology in the schools.

Mr. Struve replied, “Not directly.” OSET was a fairly loose organization and did not have any staff or sizeable budget. The council met with representatives from other technology agencies and exchanged information about developing technology. The council was an umbrella that included education, government, and the private sector and had a unique role in bringing the various groups together in the state. Nevada needed to coordinate technology and form a centralized database in the state.

Mrs. Smith agreed with Mr. Struve and felt the 1997 Technology Commission had experienced the same concerns.

Mr. Struve felt there would be a renewed emphasis in Nevada to promote technology and attract technology-based companies. Nevada’s strategy for technology emphasized unification and interaction of entities to accomplish a common goal.

Ms. Berman was interested in S.B. 401 because she worked with biotechnology in the state. Both state universities had associate degree programs in biotechnology and were developing bachelor and masters programs. She proposed an amendment (Exhibit D) to include biotechnology companies in Section 5. She complemented Mr. Hagan on the wonderful job he had done and emphasized his replacement needed to coordinate Nevada’s efforts.

Mr. Mortenson stated he had previously proposed legislation that promoted technology in renewable resources, research and development.

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Clark District No. 6, stated the former governor had moved OSET to the university system. The council had tremendous support and required minimum funding. He felt biotechnology was compatible to the council and supported Ms. Berman’s amendment.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 401.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 401 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FROM MR. STRUVE AND HERSELF.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 150.

Senate Bill 150: Authorizes board of county commissioners to designate animal as inherently dangerous and to provide for civil liability for person who violates certain ordinances relating to control of animals. (BDR 20-413)

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, explained S.B. 150 gave counties the same authority cities had to cite people with civil citations for minor animal control offenses. They proposed one amendment to Section 1, subsection 1, that defined certain animals as “inherently dangerous to humans or property.” (Exhibit E)

Senator Dina Titus, Clark District No. 7, supported the bill because it did not undermine any cruelty-to-animal statues. The bill gave counties the authority to designate certain animals as “dangerous” and required people with those types of animals to post bonds or insurance to cover accidents. In southern Nevada possession of and accidents involving exotic animals had increased (Exhibit F).

Mr. Humke asked if the amendment covered certain breeds of dogs that could be listed as “inherently dangerous.” Senator Titus replied each county would decide that.

Mr. Humke explained the insurance on his rental property had listed six dog breeds as “inherently dangerous” because they caused more losses than other dogs.

Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated Clark County was working on an “exotic animal” ordinance to provide guidelines and address situations that had occurred in the community. The language was intended to remedy problems where Clark County could not require liability insurance. Any local jurisdiction could add animals they thought were dangerous.

Mr. Humke asked how the county determined what animals were dangerous. Ms. Wilson-Pappa clarified Clark County wanted to deal with lions, tigers, bears and other exotic animals. Public hearings would be held to discuss animal control expert reports and community testimony if dangerous domestic breeds were added to the ordinance.

Mr. Lee asked what “horse tripping” referred to. Senator Titus replied horse tripping had been designated as cruelty to animals. A galloping horse had his front legs lassoed and broke his neck during the fall. The practice was done in Mexican rodeos and was not condoned by traditional rodeos. The actual definition was removed from the bill so local governments could set their own regulations and definitions.

Mr. Lee asked if horse tripping carries a civil or criminal penalty. Senator Titus clarified cruelty to animals had graduating penalties depending on the severity of the act.

Mr. Price wondered if Siegfried and Roy’s tigers would be affected by the bill. Senator Titus replied negatively.

Chairman Bache clarified Siegfried and Roy resided in the city of Las Vegas and they were required to carry liability insurance on exotic animals.

Senator Titus stated S.B. 150 allowed counties to form similar ordinances.

Mr. Lee asked if the reference to horse tripping affected Nevada’s rodeos. Senator Titus explained the bill had nothing to with rodeos, ranching, livestock, cows, goats, sheep or horses. The bill did not change existing horse tripping statutes.

Ms. Von Tobel asked how the bill affected property owners with tenants who possessed illegal animals.

Senator Titus stated the amendment did not affect landlords. The civil penalties allowed for animal nuisance might aid in the eviction of tenants.

Ms. Wilson-Pappa clarified S.B. 150 allowed civil courts to have jurisdiction over any barking dog nuisance in the county. The first amendment dealt with liability insurance and exotic animal problems.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 150 and opened the hearing on S.B. 569.

Senate Bill 569: Makes various changes relating to enhancements of telephone systems for reporting emergencies in counties. (BDR 20-1527)

Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City, stated S.B. 569 enabled counties with populations of 20,000 to 30,000 to impose fees on land lines and wireless services for enhanced 911 services. The public safety center in Carson City was built in three years at a cost of $1.7 million. The operating costs were over $2 million annually with $1 million in enhancements to stay current with technology. Citizens expected certain services when they placed “911” calls and S.B. 569 allowed the smaller counties of Nevada to improve their dispatch services. The legislation mirrored Washoe and Clark Counties and charged a $0.25 per month surcharge to fund Emergency 911 systems. A 5-year master plan was required to outline how 911 funds were to be used and that the advisory committee contain representation from local carriers. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled franchise fees attached to wireless telephones were not constitutional unless local governments demonstrated the fees covered costs for use of the “public right-of-way.” The proposed fees were not franchise fees and would not be affected. The fees were needed to improve and advance technology so dispatch centers could pinpoint locations of 911 calls from cellular phones. The bill allowed rural counties to update their systems.

Mrs. Gibbons stated she supported the bill.

Bernie Curtis, Commissioner, Douglas County, supported the legislation because it allowed their county to stay current with the advancing 911 technology.

Daniel Holler, Manager, Douglas County, echoed Mayor Masayko’s comments and felt increased reliance on cell phones was inevitable. The bill required fund accountability and specified the funds were to enhance 911 services. Douglas County had experienced emergency service costs similar to Carson City.

Ron Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County, stated sheriffs from Lyon County and Carson City had supported the bill in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. The bill enhanced dispatch center technology to promote the saving of lives. Twenty-five cents was cheap insurance to locate people who used 911 services on their cell phones. The federal government was in the process of mandating certain emergency equipment and technology and Nevada needed to have the mechanisms in place to implement them. “Caller ID” and future location capabilities were necessary to locate cell phone users in emergency situations.

Mary Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City, Lyon and Douglas County, stated Lyon County’s current dispatch system was so old it could not be repaired. Typically, rural Nevada did not have funding sources available for those services. S.B. 569 was an important funding source for rural Nevada. She thanked Senator Raggio and Speaker Perkins for the bill’s waiver and Senator Amodei for his sponsorship.

Chairman Bache asked Ms. Walker if she was going to introduce the proposed amendment.

Ms. Walker introduced the amendment (Exhibit G) that earmarked wireless business fees collected from NRS 354 for the 911-surcharge.

Mr. Price questioned what the fees would be. Ms. Walker stated the Carson City Finance Department had estimated the fees generated would be around $150,000. Douglas would generate $125,000 and Lyon County approximately $100,000. The bill allowed counties to pay off bond for system improvements. The bill copied Washoe County and charged 25 cents for land and cellular phone lines.

Mr. Price asked if people using roaming phone lines in Nevada would be charged 25 cents. Ms. Walker replied the surcharge was 25 cents per month per phone line and billed to the billing address.

Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell and Cingular Wireless, stated the phone company did not like to be a vehicle for taxes, but supported S.B. 569 because it funded a necessary service. They had helped Carson City, Douglas and Lyon Counties expand the surcharge to their areas. Section 3, subsection 2, outlined a master plan was needed to specify how local governments would provide services with revenues collected. They took their stewardship seriously to make sure the money collected provided the service it was designated to. Section 4, subsection 2, outlined the basic services the surcharge could be used for. Carson City was planning on implementing a computer system to link their 911 calls to the dispatch system. S.B. 569 allowed rural counties the financial resources to implement necessary technology.

Mr. Lee asked if the 25 cents surcharge was the same for businesses with rotary phones and cell phones used as radios.

Larry McBee, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell and Cingular Wireless, replied the “ten-to-one” surcharge ratio was for land lines. Cellular calls would be per individual line. He would get additional clarification for Mr. Lee.

Chairman Bache reminded the committee the bill affected counties with populations of 100,000 or less.

Helen Foley, Lobbyist, VoiceStream Wireless, felt it was appropriate to have fees used for 911 services. She felt it was important for wireless providers to recover their costs of access or trunk lines.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 569 and opened the hearing on S.B. 175.

Senate Bill 175: Makes various changes to provisions relating to disabled persons. (BDR 27-194)

Senator Michael A. Schneider, Clark County District No. 8, stated he was on the Board of Directors of Opportunity Village. The facility handled mentally retarded individuals and S.B. 175 specifically addressed their needs. The bill helped people with disabilities get work and become productive members of society.

Ed Guthrie, Director, Opportunity Village, stated they were the largest provider of vocational services for people with mental retardation and other related conditions in Nevada (Exhibit H). Last year Opportunity Village paid over $1 million in wages for people considered unemployable and projected over $2.5 million in wages this year. The increase resulted from a contract with Nellis Air Force Base to serve over 70,000 meals a month to the airmen on base. The contract required the hiring of 85 people with severe disabilities to serve those meals. Those people were taken off of welfare and Medicaid and received full medical benefits and wages. The federal Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act allowed Opportunity Village to negotiate fair-market value contracts and provide services of the contract. S.B. 175 enabled local governments to enter into similar types of contracts. People with severe disabilities had a 70 percent unemployment rate. Research had shown 87 percent of people employed by those contracts had become independent of all government subsidies. The bill generated 300 jobs in northern Nevada and reduced government benefits by over $650,000 annually. The same individuals paid close to $450,000 in taxes annually. Twenty-two other states had realized the programs were effective procurements for states and municipalities. The governments got quality products and services and removed people from welfare. The city of Las Vegas was interested in doing contracts with Opportunity Village and strongly supported the bill.

Jan Crandy, Director, Families for Effective Autism, had spoken to adults with disabilities and they expressed a desire to be independent, to be productive members of society and get off of welfare. Opportunity Village put citizens to work with work force coaches.

Mrs. Gibbons asked what the benefits of hiring the disabled were and questioned whether they had greater medical costs.

Mr. Guthrie replied people with low-to-moderate disabilities were punctual, hard working and placed in regular jobs with a productivity rate of 80 percent of the norm. Opportunity Village placed people with certain levels of behavior that normal employers might not be able to deal with and who had a productivity level of about 60 percent of the norm. Job coaches provided additional support to help get the job done. Health insurance costs for people with disabilities were comparable to those without disabilities. Most claims on health insurance were lifestyles issues, such as smoking. People with disabilities tended to have healthier lifestyles.

Ms. Parnell complimented Opportunity Village on their work. She had used them many times with statewide Parent Teacher Association functions and had been very pleased.

Mr. Guthrie responded they welcomed visitors and he gave tours daily. Their motto was “Every day is a great day at Opportunity Village.” People who came to work were determined to do a good job and were happy to be there.

Mrs. Smith questioned if the definition of “organization” in Section 3, subsection 5(b), should be designated as nonprofit. Mr. Guthrie clarified other statutes defined the organization as nonprofit.

Senator Schneider stated the University of Nevada, Reno, did a study several years ago and concluded that Opportunity Village saved Nevada $25 million annually. That figure could be substantially higher today.

Robert J. Bryant, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, stated the bill’s first reprint had no fiscal impact on their office (Exhibit I).

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 175 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 569 for Senator Amodei.

Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senate District, indicated S.B. 569 represented an attempt for rural communities to move forward in cellular technology and standardize assets. He appreciated the waiver to move the bill forward.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 569 and called a short recess. He called the committee to order at 10:23 a.m. and opened the hearing on S.B. 569. He introduced the proposed amendment from the Legislative Counsel Bureau that addressed the fees.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 569.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 175 and explained there were no proposed amendments.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS

S.B. 175.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Von Tobel disclosed she was on the board of Opportunity Village and the bill did not affect her and she would be voting.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 150.

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, introduced an amendment to Section 1, subsection 3, that added “for sport” after “horse tripping” to protect veterinarians and horseshoers that used horse tripping in their profession. The amendment mirrored the language in Clark County.

Mrs. Freeman did not feel veterinarians needed to use horse tripping.

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark District No. 1, stated that horse tripping in the bill referred to violent horse tripping in Mexican rodeos. Sometimes a horse had to be laid down for veterinarians, owners or horseshoers and could be loosely defined as horse tripping. The amendment clarified the violent horse tripping that was done for sport.

Mr. Neighbors asked if Mr. Collins was comfortable with the language of the bill.

Mr. Collins said the bill enabled local governments to pass legislation to help them solve some of their domestic animal problems.

Chairman Bache felt the proposed amendment allowed horse tripping as long as it was not done for sport. He felt it was more appropriate to specify horse tripping could be done for medical purposes under the care of a veterinarian.

Mr. Collins stated the language copied Clark County and it was the only county with that type of ordinance.

Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County, did not know the specifics of Clark County’s horse tripping ordinance. The basic premise of the bill allowed civil penalties for minor animal control violations.

Chairman Bache reminded the committee there were two proposed amendments and they would consider them individually. The first amendment was proposed by Senator Titus.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MADE A MOTION TO AMEND S.B. 150 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FROM SENATOR TITUS AND MR. HADFIELD.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Humke felt there might be policy questions about certain breeds of dogs.

Mr. Lee questioned what animals were inherently dangerous to property. Mr. Humke answered household pets were considered legal personal property and might be destroyed by exotic animals.

Chairman Bache asked the committee if there was a concern about including domestic animals in the bill.

Mrs. Smith felt the bill allowed counties the ability to set ordinances. The public gave their input on what types of animals or breeds of dogs should be included in ordinances.

Mr. Collins stated Nevada did not define pet, exotic, domestic, livestock or wild animals separately. The only definitions were under federal statute and Nevada needed to adopt the definitions to concur with federal law.

Mrs. Freeman asked for clarification of the bill because she had not been there when it was originally heard.

Mr. Hadfield stated the basic premise of the bill gave counties the same authority cities had over animal issues. They had worked with Senator Rhoads to make sure they did not inadvertently take away rights that were already in place. After Senate passage, Senator Titus introduced an amendment to clarify issues. The bill did not change any state law and allowed counties the authority to create civil penalties for minor animal offenses by ordinance.

Chairman Bache read the proposed amendment “(to) designate certain animals as inherently dangerous to humans or property and may require owners of such animals to obtain liability insurance therefore in an amount determined by the board of county commissioners.”

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache introduced the second amendment that added the words “for sport” before “horse tripping” in the bill. He handed the gavel to Vice Chairman Lee.

CHAIRMAN BACHE MADE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO “EXCEPT FOR A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE AND MEDICAL PURPOSES” AND LIMIT THE AREA OF THE BROADER PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Brown wondered if additional language was needed to cover other activities beside sport and felt maybe “which is not for the health and welfare of the animal” might exempt activities that were for the betterment of the animal.

Vice Chairman Lee asked Chairman Bache if his language covered that premise already.

Chairman Bache explained his language was more specific than Mr. Brown’s and felt a doctor of veterinary medicine covered the health of the animal.

Mr. Humke felt the committee chairman could work with bill drafters to develop satisfactory language. He felt the addition of “for sport” indicated wagering and was fearful it would not include neighborhood children engaged in cruelty to animals for laughs. He felt the language needed to be broader to cover those types of situations.

Ms. Parnell suggested subsection 4 of the original bill be added back in to help define horse tripping.

Mr. Hadfield explained Senator Rhoads had removed that language.

Senator Collins explained many owners and horseshoers used horse tripping to put horses down when they performed activities that benefited them. The sport of horse tripping had been added to exclude Mexican rodeos. A good horseshoer could shoe 25,000 to 30,000 horses per month and often used horse tripping when necessary.

Vice Chairman Lee asked Ms. O’Grady if she could clarify language to address the issues expressed.

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, felt there was ambiguity in the language and scope of the amendment. There would need to be additional guidance on the issue.

Mr. Humke asked if “except for purposes of providing medical or other care and maintenance” would be appropriate.

Mr. Collins clarified the only county with an ordinance about horse tripping was Clark County and they had more horses than any other place in Nevada. “For sport” addressed the cruel events of the Mexican rodeo.

Chairman Bache felt that “medical or health care” language would cover veterinarian and horseshoeing activities.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Vice Chairman Lee turned the gavel over to Chairman Bache and Chairman Bache called for a vote on S.B. 150 as amended.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 150 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Seeing no further business, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: