MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
March 6, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:02 a.m., on Tuesday, March 6, 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
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Mr. Bob Price
Ms. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Wendell Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. John Marvel, Assemblyman District 34
Mr. Greg Brower, Assemblyman District 37
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Cheryl Meyers, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, State of Nevada
Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff, and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, Legislative Liaison, Reno, Nevada
Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Prisons, State of Nevada
Ron Dreher, Director, Peace Officer Research Association of Nevada
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Government Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Las Vegas, Nevada
Thomas Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities (NLC), Carson City, Nevada
Kimberly McDonald, Management Analyst, City of North Las Vegas, Nevada
Dan Musgrove, Legislative Advocate, Las Vegas, Nevada
Mary Walker, CPA, Representative, North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District, Incline Village, Nevada
Chief James Linardos, North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District, Incline Village, Nevada
Claudette Springmeyer, Comptroller, Administrative Services Department, Douglas County, Nevada
Warren B. Hardy II, Warren Hardy & Associates, Government Affairs, Las Vegas, Nevada
Assembly Bill 10: Requires agency of local government to reimburse agency of this state for cost of training peace officer under certain circumstances. (BDR 23-93)
Assemblyman John Marvel, District 34, testified one of the continued frustrations experienced, especially on the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, was the amount of money the state expended in training for category I, II, and III police officers. The problem had been magnified in the recent past with a substantial amount of state trained employees leaving the state for other employment. A.B. 10 helped the state recover some of the training costs if people left the state of Nevada employment within a two-year period. The fiscal impact to the state of Nevada from the training costs necessitated the recovery of the cost of training and the cost associated with employee probation. The bill would reimburse local governments for the cost of training if the situation were reversed and the state hired away from a local agency. There would be a proposed amendment to that effect.
Chairman Bache clarified since the state probably paid far less than local governments, there would be few employees transferring into state employment from other agencies. Mr. Marvel stated it was uncommon for the state to hire away from local agencies. He reiterated there had been a strain on the state’s training budget over the last couple of years and also the amount of money that was spent training while the officers learned the job for two years.
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, stated there was a bill in the last Assembly his association testified against that stated the employee paid the cost of training. The most obvious problem was money. He stressed the state would never be able to retain personnel until it had a different tax structure. He read from Exhibit C and stated the serious salary erosion in state government began in 1981 and turnover started to increase after that legislative session. He recently reviewed the collective bargaining agreements for deputy sheriffs in a small county and their agreement provided for cost of living adjustments for the next five years. He stated his organization could not even propose any change for over two years. The legislature had told his organization there could be no committing of a future legislature. A.B. 10 was not aimed at an employee who received training from the state and determined after a two-year period on the job to seek other employment. The bill would not affect those employees. A.B. 10 was considered to affect only those local governments who used the state as a training ground. He stressed there was no one way to stop the turnover in state government; however, this bill would free up training money.
Mr. Gagnier read the latest turnover statistics received for the six-month period, July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. Twenty-nine correctional officers had left state government to go to work for a local government. Almost all of these officers were from southern Nevada. The state had an avoidable turnover for those 6 months of 116 correctional officers and the 29 would then represent a third that had left to go to local governments. The statistics indicated a growing trend with a considerable increase over the same period last year. Assemblywoman Gibbons asked how many of the 29 correctional officers that left for local government had been employed by the state within the two-year period. Mr. Gagnier stated he did not have that information.
Assemblyman Brown asked Mr. Gagnier for the average cost of training an officer. Mr. Gagnier stated the department of prisons was prepared to answer the question.
Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, State of Nevada, testified the statements made by Mr. Marvel and Mr. Gagnier were accurate. The state was in a crisis. In the parole and probation departments during the past four years the state had lost 528 employees. There were only 479 assigned to work in those departments. The Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) had lost 158 employees and currently there were 9 people on a list in the south with 13 employees that had left employment. Mr. Kirkland stated he had dealt with the turnover problem at the local level in his position as Chief of Police for Reno and as Washoe County Sheriff. He disagreed with Mr. Gagnier in the terms of responsibility. He opined the majority of people who left employment had calculated where the future would be for them. Those employees took advantage of getting trained, getting the job and when they had the chance to compete for a new job they would do so. He suggested the state turn to the method of using a hiring contract. The newly hired employee would be advised of the cost of their training at the start of their job. If they left employment in the first year, the second year or the third year, the employees would repay the taxpayers a proportionate amount of the training costs. When an employee knew the contract was to be signed at start of employment, they made wiser choices.
Mr. Kirkland stated other agencies had a tax base less than Washoe county and less than the state. Counties such as Lyon and Nye would lose police officers to counties such as Washoe when there was a need for more officers. He encouraged the committee to come up with some way to decrease the turnover, and the mistakes that were made because of the turnover. There was a need to constantly process employees through the system that cost the state money in liability, lawsuits and less qualified law enforcement service provided. He believed it applied statewide.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked if a hiring contract would hinder the hiring process and deter new employees. Mr. Kirkland stated he had not seen that situation occur. If the state did not strengthen its hiring requirements, he indicated, the state would see more turnovers and more errors. He stated his departments were hiring people that were not the “best of the best.” In law enforcement the agreement was generally that officers had authority, power and responsibilities and the officers should be the best. He stated he would rather have fewer people and have the best than to have more people and have those employees cause the kinds of problems that he could outline for the committee.
Ms. Gibbons stated the problem again was the salary and asked if there was a bill pending to solve the issue. Mr. Kirkland stated the Governor had asked for an increase of 13 percent over two years. He indicated the increase would help the individuals who were currently 27 percent behind in salary. The agencies in the north and south, however, as Mr. Gagnier testified, were receiving 3-, 4- and 5-year contracts at 3 and 4 percent per year compounding each year. The state would still be 13 to 18 percent behind other agencies. Washoe County paid longevity at 20 years and paid 20 percent. One of the state officers in Las Vegas stated when he made the change to a local agency he increased his salary $17,000 per year. Mr. Kirkland observed the state would continue the downward spiral of 100 to 115 percent turnover in some agencies and he indicated that destroyed the state’s ability to do a good job.
Assemblyman Brown queried if the city of Reno was the location where Mr. Kirkland had the hiring contract. Mr. Kirkland responded that it was Washoe County. Mr. Brown asked what percentage of turnover had the county experienced. Mr. Kirkland stated there had been a significant amount of turnover when he started the job as sheriff. A multi-pronged attack was formed with legislators and policy makers to increase salaries, institute hiring contracts, etc. Washoe County became competitive at that time and reduced the amount of turnover.
Mr. Brown asked how long the county had the practice of the hiring contract. Mr. Kirkland responded the contract was used for 2.5 to 3 years.
Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff Office and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, responded the hiring contract had been in effect for 2 to 2.5 years. During that time period there had been one individual who had left and had the sanction imposed. Assemblyman Brown asked if the hiring contract was still in use. Mr. Nadeau stated in the affirmative and added anyone who went to work for the Washoe County Sheriff’s office as a deputy sheriff and went through the training was required to sign the contract. Mr. Brown queried the time line of the contract. Mr. Nadeau stated the contract was a three-year contract, prorated over the three years. At the end of the third year no money would be owed the county.
Assemblyman Humke asked for clarification on the contract. He queried if the contract came into effect when the employee went to another agency or just when the employee left employment in that agency. Mr. Nadeau stated the contract was imposed when the person left the agency regardless of where the transfer was made. Mr. Humke asked if the contract cited the contract sanctions were in exchange for the county providing training and the cost incurred. Mr. Nadeau responded the contract stated the employee had been sent to High Sierra Academy, a full-time training facility, and the cost involved in training and salary while in training.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel queried how the county could collect the funds owed the county by the former employee. Mr. Nadeau stated the collection was done as any civil contract stated. Ms. Von Tobel asked if the one employee actually had paid the county. Mr. Nadeau responded the county was in the process of negotiating the pay schedule for repayment. Ms. Von Tobel queried what type of power the county had in the collection process. Mr. Nadeau indicated the county had the same full effect of any contract an individual would sign. Therefore, he perceived the county expected the former employee would pay the amount due by contract. Ms. Von Tobel wanted to ask the maker of the bill to explain what method the state would use to collect from an agency hiring a former state employee.
Mr. Kirkland stated the idea of the contract was not for the county to collect money necessarily, but to encourage the potential employee to make a mature decision before starting the position. The potential employee knew at the time of employment there was an agreement to sign and a sense of responsibility and consequences in follow-through for the position. The contract had not negatively impacted the ability to recruit new employees, he indicated.
Chairman Bache asked what was the statutory authority of the county to be able to write these types of agreements and, secondly, was the action part of a collective bargaining in Washoe County. Mr. Kirkland stated the statutory authority was the same that any government entity had to make contracts. The county had an excellent attorney that worked with the sheriff’s office and he formulated a contract that was not unlike any contract the agency would make with a vendor. Mr. Kirkland made a recommendation to Assemblyman Marvel to adopt the hiring contract for the state. Mr. Bache asked if the contract was a part of the collective bargaining agreement. Mr. Kirkland responded it was not.
Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Prisons, State of Nevada, reiterated the state of Nevada was in crisis with the attempt to recruit employees. The state had 10,000 inmates and a total of 2,400 staff. Of the 2,400 staff approximately 1,300 were correctional officers. When Nevada opened up the largest facility in the south last year the department experienced great difficulty in recruitment. When the recruitment was completed the Metro division of Las Vegas and the city of Henderson began to open their facilities. The salaries were very lucrative and the people hired by the state left for employment at those facilities. Ms. Crawford stated the prison looked at alternative scheduling to retain employees. The scheduling helped; however, the accelerated pay scale at local government agencies meant the state could never compete for wages.
Ms. Crawford submitted to the committee the training cost of a correctional officer was $3,834 for each person. In a two-year period the prison had 154 employees leave to work at Metro in Las Vegas or some other government agency. Ms. Crawford was not before the committee to advocate a certain path to solve the problems; however, she stated something had to be done. Metro in Las Vegas would be recruiting an additional 400 people for the opening of the new jail, and she stated the salary and location of the jail would be very attractive to current state employees in the south. She hoped the committee could recommend some policy to solve the very expensive issue now in existence in the department of prisons.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked Ms. Crawford if she knew how many of the 154 employees that left the department were in the middle of a two-year period of employment. Ms. Crawford stated the data was the most current and it indicated those were employees that had been employed less than two years.
Assemblyman Brown asked Ms. Crawford if all state training took place in the same facility or did each department have a separate training program. Ms. Crawford indicated there was a different program depending on the agency. Nevada Highway Patrol’s training for officers was considerably longer than the Department of Prisons’ five-week period. The department had trainers on sites in the more rural communities and training facilities in Carson City and Warm Springs. Mr. Brown asked if the cost of the five-week training was the $3,834 figure. Ms. Crawford stated that was correct.
Mr. Humke asked for clarification on the 154 employees that left employment with the prisons. He wondered if they all went to local law enforcement. Ms. Crawford stated for the most part that was correct. She stated the employees that left state employment originated primarily in the south. Mr. Humke asked for the reason she believed they left state employment. He also stated Mr. Gagnier had testified there were many reasons for leaving state service; one reason was salary, another was remote location with the requirement of living in those remote areas, and yet another was working conditions. Ms. Crawford stated she did not have those specific breakdowns; however, she could retrieve those figures from the exit interviews that were done when an employee left. She could share her experience about employees in remote areas that wanted to move to a metropolitan area, as she had been a warden in a rural area. She also added working in a prison was a high-stress job and some employees did not find it a job they wanted to do, especially when the paycheck they brought home was only $810 a pay period. Part of the problem was money or the lack of it; however, the prison department had also worked on creating a friendlier working environment and created employee relation committees, something that had not been done in the past.
Ms. Gibbons stated the committee appreciated the work Ms. Crawford and her staff had done.
Chairman Bache disclosed in the past there had been hostility concerning the prison issues the committee considered. Since Ms. Crawford’s involvement as director there had been an improvement in communications and a more positive environment. He stated he believed one of the reasons for the large turnover in the past could have been a result of her predecessor’s lack of a positive working atmosphere. The lack of salary was, however, the primary source of the problem and he hoped there could be some improvement in her rate of turnover.
Ms. Crawford assured the committee the department of prisons would continue to work toward a positive and safe environment for their employees.
Ron Dreher, Director, Peace Officer Research Association of Nevada and a representative of the police officers of the state of Nevada, requested the committee’s opposition to A.B. 10. Mr. Dreher had served the citizens of Nevada for over 26 years. He believed Mr. Kirkland was the best sheriff Reno had ever employed. A.B. 10, he summarized, required local government to reimburse the state for costs of training an officer if that local agency hired an officer that had completed training that was at the expense of an agency of the state within two years of employment at the state agency. Currently under the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) Section 289.200 basic Peace Officers Standard and Training (POST) requirements stated a peace officer that terminated employment with a law enforcement agency in the state maintained their post certification for two years. If the officer did not work for another law enforcement agency within those two years, the officer must be recertified and complete the training again. The two-year restriction would economically penalize the officer and the local government agency.
Mr. Dreher stated the recruitment issue in the state was a continuing problem. If a peace officer wanted to take advantage of the many programs now available with local governments for lateral transfers that offered a better salary and a better benefit package, he/she should not be penalized; rather, the state should improve the package offered for employment. The impacted parties as a result of this bill would be the state’s trained professional police officers, as well as local agencies. He indicated the amount of funds to train police officers (Exhibit D) was a significant amount; to then lose those officers to better paying jobs outside of state service was fiscally devastating. He said there were many ways of accomplishing the task including support of S.B. 84, which provided a formula to calculate salaries of the NHP and the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. Other methods to improve conditions for state police officers included collective bargaining, comparative studies and the possibility of hiring back retirees. Finally, A.B. 10 would penalize the local government and our communities under the state conditions described in Sections 1 and 2. It would penalize the local government for seeking the best-qualified applicants. It would restrict professional police officers from enhancing their careers by restriction of career opportunities. Mr. Dreher stated the fiscal note on A.B. 10 did not show a fiscal impact on local government. The cost of training professional police officers was enormous. If A.B. 10 passed, he foresaw a fiscal impact on local government, on law enforcement and on every community.
Assemblywoman Smith queried what the cost offset would be if the local agency had to train the officer anyway. The cost to reimburse the state could not be as high as training from the beginning. Mr. Dreher responded the state of Nevada had a live-in POST academy, the High Sierra Academy. He stated the cost of salary, living expenses and training had to be extremely high. The amount of money a local government paid over a 2-year period to keep an officer employed and the 18 months it took to train them was extensive. If the cost of entry salary was $34,000 for a Reno police officer and the training cost was approximately $3,000, there would be a tremendous cost involved if a rural agency hired an officer in this situation. A.B. 10 had no retroactive clause in its language and he believed it would have an impact on everyone in state government. Mr. Dreher stated he had a son who worked for the NHP in Wells, Nevada and under this bill if his son chose to go to work for another agency he would have to pay back the cost of training, approximately 18 months.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated if a person worked for over two years in state service A.B. 10 would not have an effect on that employee. She asked if a person who came from state training was not a benefit to another agency. Mr. Dreher stated any law enforcement training and especially the state’s training was excellent. Then, Ms. Von Tobel stated, Mr. Dreher believed it should not be local government’s responsibility to pay for the training. Mr. Dreher stated it would be a hardship on the peace officer.
Assemblywoman Parnell clarified the intent of A.B. 10 would not affect the employee. The individual would not be responsible for the cost of any of the training. Mr. Dreher stated that was correct; however, there would be an impact on a collective bargaining issue with local governments to protect employee rights. Ms. Parnell stated Mr. Dreher then anticipated A.B. 10 in current form could cause local government to choose to honor the contract from the state and make the new employee bear some of the costs through the hiring contract. Mr. Dreher stated that was a possibility.
Mr. Humke asked for clarification using the hypothetical story of Mr. Dreher’s son, an NHP officer. If A.B. 10 would be amended, Mr. Dreher’s son would be held accountable for his training costs. Mr. Dreher stated that was correct. His understanding of the bill was anyone that was employed as a peace officer in state service, even if the term was 15 years, and then went to work for someone else, the training costs would have to be paid. Nothing in the bill stated an effective date or a restrictive date, he indicated. Mr. Humke stated if the interpretation were correct, the committee would certainly not want such a situation to occur. He suggested an amendment should be applied to the bill to cover an effective date and he would be pleased to make that motion.
Assemblyman Brown indicated his interpretation of A.B. 10 would be no impact for anyone after two years of employment. If there was a lateral move in employment over two years after the training there was no reimbursement by anyone, he stated. He queried Mr. Dreher as to how the bill would penalize an officer. Mr. Dreher stated under A.B. 10, if the peace officer left state employment and went to work for a local agency without a two-year absence, the local agency would have to pick up the cost of training. He stated if the peace officer did not work at all for two years in law enforcement the peace officer would have to be recertified, as specified in NAC 289.200, and in essence was penalized. Mr. Brown asked if Mr. Dreher was suggesting someone would opt not to remain in the industry to avoid penalty. Mr. Dreher stated that was correct and gave the example of Elko or Lovelock police departments who would not be able to hire someone and have to pay back the state. Those departments could make someone wait two years to gain employment. A.B. 10 would have an impact on the local government and the employee, he restated.
Mr. Brown asked for clarification on the loss of certification. He asked if individuals could recertify themselves, or did the certification have to take place under an agency as an employee. Mr. Dreher stated the current requirement stated the officer must work for another agency within that two-year period. He clarified the individual could go through any police academy, public or private to be recertified. Mr. Brown asked if the individual would go through the whole course of training again. Mr. Dreher stated that was correct. He thought Reno was talking about implementation of a lateral program; however, the training was separated into categories I, II and III, with each training and cost different.
Ms. Smith asked for clarification on her interpretation of A.B. 10. She was not clear if the two-year time frame was from the date the training was completed, and then the employee could not leave without repayment of training costs. She was confused about testimony that suggested there had to be a two-year gap between the time an employee left and the time they were rehired. Mr. Bache asked Ms. O’Grady for clarification of language and interpretation. Ms. O’Grady determined the language of the bill did not specify a two-year gap; however, in testimony she heard about the recertification every two years and was not sure if the issue was a new training cost every two years.
Assemblywoman Gibbons stated she felt there was conflict between NAC 289.200 and the two-year provision in A.B. 10. Mr. Dreher stated for clarification the employee could go to work within the two-year period; however, the local government would be penalized and if the employee stayed away for two years the officer lost their training and had to be re-certified. Mr. Brown stated the two two-year periods of time were confusing. The first two-year period of time mentioned in Subsection 1 of A.B. 10 stated, “completed training and was certified as a category I, category II or category III peace officer within the two years immediately preceding the date the agency of the local government hires that person.” Mr. Brown stated that subsection was the heart of the bill. The local agency was only mandated to repay the training costs if the officer transferred to a different agency within two years of the receipt of training. Mr. Brown stated the only concern Mr. Dreher had was in regard to a hypothetical situation where a local agency might indicate they would not hire an officer within two years of training because they would have to reimburse the state. The situation at that point would cause a hardship for the officer. Mr. Dreher stated that was correct.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated she understood why Assemblyman Marvel brought A.B. 10 to the committee. She felt local governments had benefited from the training the state provided. Local governments, she indicated, saw the benefit of hiring officers who had been provided with the excellent state training. She proposed the state could have a resource pool where state and local agencies paid a fee into the resource pool for training all peace officers. The effect would be to pay for the training and not necessarily the individual. Everyone would pay for POST training. Mr. Dreher stated there were a number of officers that attended basic training throughout the state however there were different standards and methods used by different agencies.
Mr. Nadeau testified in opposition to A.B. 10 in its current language on behalf of the Washoe County Sheriff’s office and the Nevada Sheriff and Chief’s Association. He stated for clarification the hiring contract for Washoe County totaled $10,000 in reimbursement of training costs. Washoe County had lost more employees to the state than the reverse. Everyone who came to work for Washoe County as a peace officer had to start in the detention center. Many officers wanted to be on other assignments so they found other opportunities to accommodate that desire within state agencies. From the rural county perspective, the problem persisted in losing officers to metropolitan areas and state agencies. Some agencies paid very little and an employee would work for the experience and make a transfer as soon as possible. The reimbursement in A.B. 10 should be enacted for both ways; from rural to state and state to local government, he stated. Also, he declared, A.B. 10 did not mention what the reimbursement cost would be and that amount could be in a vast range and very substantial.
Assemblyman Brown ascertained in any career an individual would build their career and start at an entry level. The first beneficiary would be the individual who would build their career. He felt the contract was fairly reasonable as long as the cost was not too great. The particular agency was the means and mechanism to the individual building a career and therefore the reimbursement should go both ways. He asked Mr. Nadeau if the hiring contract was fair to the employees. Mr. Nadeau stated the employee went into the position with a clear understanding of the situation and the commitment. There was an entry-level situation and progression in every vocation, and the situation was the same here. If an individual was recruited by another agency, the contract could be part of the recruitment package. If agencies were looking for officers with certain experience the contract could be part of the terms of employment. Mr. Brown agreed the contract clarified to the employee the terms of employment. Using a previous example he emphasized that if an employee would get a $17,000 pay increase it would not be unreasonable to cover some of the cost of training that was a benefit to the career.
Assemblyman Neighbors indicated whatever agreements were derived out of the comments in the hearing should be in statute. He also stated if an employee refused to repay the cost of training it would seem the legal fees to collect could amount to more than the training. Mr. Nadeau stated there would obviously be a point of diminishing returns, which would be up to legal counsel to determine.
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, stated the growth had been tremendous in Las Vegas and had significantly impacted Las Vegas Metropolitan police, Henderson police and North Las Vegas police. Sixty-eight percent of the current department employees were not employed by the Metropolitan police department six years ago. The average age on patrol was 25 years old and the average time on patrol was 3 years. The Metropolitan police department had 1,400 on patrol and over 240 employees were hired each year for the police ranks. Las Vegas was prepared to open a new jail next year and would be drawing applicants to fill positions from the population. If A.B. 10 were to pass it would unfairly punish southern Nevada for trying to keep up with the growth of population. Mr. Olsen testified the Metropolitan police department had a policy of requiring all new hires to go through the department’s training program. On the average it would cost the Metropolitan police department $32,000 to train an employee through the police academy. The department was already paying an amount for training and A.B. 10 would force the department to pay an additional amount to the state. The department conducted active recruitment all over the country, and Mr. Nadeau indicated there would be an additional 1000 employees needed in the next 5 years. He asked the committee to oppose A.B. 10.
Mr. Humke questioned if the Metropolitan police department put all peace officers through the department’s training regardless of years of service. Mr. Nadeau stated that was correct. If an employee had a minimum of three years experience, there was a shortened basic training program, however all field training and testing would be done. Mr. Humke asked if Mr. Nadeau would agree that a peace officer with experience was a valuable commodity. Mr. Nadeau stated law enforcement throughout the nation struggled to find applicants that were quality applicants.
During their absence, Chairman Bache and Vice Chairman Lee appointed Assemblyman Williams to chair the committee.
Ms. Von Tobel asked Lieutenant Olsen if any of his employees had gone from the Metropolitan police department to state employment. Mr. Olsen replied they had, on very rare occasions. Salary was a major issue in all departments and Metropolitan police department paid less than Henderson and North Las Vegas. The next law enforcement agency in salary benefits below Metropolitan was the state highway patrol. Ms. Von Tobel asked if A.B. 10 was amended to include all city, county and state agencies would it be more appropriate to the situation. Lieutenant Olsen stated if the amendment still made agencies pay for the training the department would still be in opposition to the bill. A.B. 10 would force the department to take a close look at the candidate and possibly ask the candidate to wait two years. That situation could possibly create a lawsuit situation if the employee wanted to leave their current position. Employees left the Metropolitan police department all of the time and were not charged for training. The department considered this to be the “cost of doing business.”
Ms. Von Tobel recognized there was a real problem to the state. Every budgetary committee heard the problem time and time again. She believed something must be passed this legislative session to help out the state. She felt it would be fair to include all agencies and felt the agencies did value the peace officers that were trained by the state. She declared the state should be reimbursed by any agency for a police officer that terminated before the two-year period was ended. She stated the same would be true for the state if the employee had been trained by another agency.
Assemblywoman Parnell offered the opinion the main issue was about competition. The issue was who could offer the best program, the best benefit package, the highest salary and the best working conditions. No matter what A.B. 10 could do it would only be a “band aid” on the real issues. It did not settle the issue of state employees, in this case those that were trying to protect us, being paid a competitive salary and being offered the kind of benefits that other agencies offered.
Captain Nadeau stated the committee could not lose sight of the impact on the rural counties if A.B. 10 was passed. The job was not necessarily all about salary; sometimes the matter was the quality of life. In some cases, a highway patrol officer might prefer the rural establishment and must leave the state employment and work for a local agency to keep his family in the rural environment. The rural areas would be seriously fiscally impacted if A.B. 10 passed, he opined. The rural areas would be least prepared to pay for, at this point, an undetermined amount of reimbursement.
Assemblywoman Smith echoed Ms. Parnell’s comments in regard to the issues all state employees were facing. The Legislature had been hearing about the crises in the teacher shortage and the nurse shortage in the state. The issues were very similar in regard to working conditions and salary. She stated the Legislature needed to look at long-term solutions instead of “band aid” solutions. The Legislature also needed to examine how they recruit employees and other issues as well as salary instead of punishing other agencies.
Lieutenant Olsen pointed out if A.B. 10 passed, the experienced peace officers in state government would leave. If the experienced officers left, there would be no one to train the new officers in the field. Mr. Humke asked if this problem already existed with new officers trained and leaving state employment. A.B. 10 just stopped the new people from being trained and then leaving, he stated. Lieutenant Olsen stated if the Metropolitan police department had a fiscal note for hiring a new peace officer they would target the older, experienced officer for recruitment. Mr. Olsen questioned how many lawsuits the department would receive if they told potential employees to come back after a two-year period to avoid paying training costs. The concern would be if the department turned the potential new employees away for the two-year period the department would end up being sued. The department would be financially damaged in each circumstance. The benefit and salary package offered all over the country in law enforcement agencies drove the changes in turnover for every department.
Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities (NLC), stated many cities, schools and agencies were in the process of recruitment. The process was a two-way street. Mr. Grady stated when he was mayor of the city of Yerington the city lost many employees to the sheriff’s department and to the highway patrol that paid more in salary. The process still continued in the city and as soon as officers got trained the officers chose another entity for work. NLC had talked to Mr. Marvel about the process and explained the cities were suffering the same consequences of turnovers and recruitment as the state. He believed there would be a great fiscal impact on local government if A.B. 10 was passed as written. The NLC could not support the bill. As an example, he stated in Lovelock the police chief transferred to the prison as an officer and in Winnemucca the same situation had been noted.
Kimberly McDonald, Management Analyst, City of North Las Vegas, stated the city was in opposition to A.B. 10. The bill would place an undue burden on the city. The estimation was $40,000 to $50,000 to the city that included training, staffing, salary and incidentals.
Dan Musgrove, Legislative Advocate, City of Las Vegas, agreed with the comments of Ms. Parnell and Ms. Smith, and opposed A.B. 10.
Mary C. Walker, Representative of Carson City, Douglas County and Lyon County, stated she was not prepared to speak until she examined Exhibit D. The exhibit stated on page 1, paragraph 2, the cost to hire and train for Nevada Highway Patrol. She indicated she believed the state would be prepared to charge those amounts to local government for hiring officers with less than two years of service. She read from paragraph 2 that outlined the training costs to include items such as uniforms, food service, dormitory lodging and cost of suppliers. She referred to page 2 of Exhibit D that explained hard dollar costs. She stressed the state would charge for items such as credit report, written psychological, drug screens, uniform purchase and other items every city and county would pay for when any new employee was hired. She noted the cities and counties would also be required to pay for the employee time away from service plus the training officers’ salaries. In total, the counties and cities would be charged nearly $54,000 per employee. She guaranteed in the rural communities an employee would never be hired from the state. Perhaps, she stated, that was the intent of the bill. She also agreed with previous testimony that the counties could be sued because they would not hire a state peace officer knowing the state would have to be reimbursed.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked Ms. Walker if she would consider this bill to be an unfunded mandate and also perhaps a way to keep state patrolmen from salary increases and doing their job. Ms. Walker agreed because the real problem was the patrolmen were not getting the salary they needed. The process was a competition and the salary needed to be increased. Carson City and other local areas had also experienced difficulty recruiting new officers for the sheriff departments, she stated.
Vice Chairman Williams closed the hearing on A.B. 10 and turned the chair back to Chairman Bache.
Assembly Bill 252: Revises provisions governing certain county fire protection districts. (BDR 42-995)
Assemblyman Brower, District 37, testified on behalf of A.B. 252, which dealt with fire protection districts in the state. He introduced Mary Walker and Chief James Linardos, North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District (NLTFPD). He mentioned Senator Jacobsen was a cosponsor of the bill but could not be in attendance. The creation of fire districts was provided for in NRS 474.010, which stated “contiguous unincorporated territory lying within one or more counties and not included in any other fire protection district, and not including timberland patrolled by the United States Forest Service . . . may be formed into a county fire protection district.” There were several fire districts within the state that had been created by this statute, he stated. A.B. 252 cleaned up a very old set of statutes that governed the way a fire protection district could conduct business. The bill basically sought to do three things: allow the treasurer of the fire protection district to pay bills rather than the county treasurer, remove the limit on bonding (some districts were bound by the limit and others were not), increase the emergency fund limit from $50,000 to $250,000. The statute required each fire department district to have a certain amount of money in a fund for emergency fire fighting purposes. The current $50,000 limit in the statute, he indicated, was too old and would not cover the increased cost of fighting fires over the years.
Mary Walker, Representative, North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District, stated the change in A.B. 252 involved an area of the old bill that allowed the treasurer to pay the bills of the district. The bill was originally enacted in 1937. The North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District had an agreement with Washoe County for the past 20 years to pay the bills of the district. Chief Linardos and staff discovered this past year they were not in compliance with the law because the law stated only the county treasurer could pay the bills. She stated there were problems associated with county treasurers paying the bills for NLTFPD with a $7 million budget. Some problems involved auditors that would be required to look at bills in the individual district as well as auditing the county treasurer’s books. More importantly, when a claim was processed, the review and approval had to be obtained from the district as well as the county. The bills would take several weeks longer to be paid.
Other counties were contacted that would be affected by A.B. 252. Humboldt County suggested if the districts were allowed to pay the bills the approval of both the county commissioners and the district board were needed for a check and balance. Section 2 stated a provision on the bond limit at $50,000 and that amount did not pay for even one piece of fire-fighting equipment. The debt limit was enacted in 1953 and had not been changed. The fire districts, she stated, had been using leases, at a higher cost, in order to purchase the necessary equipment. Ms. Walker had contacted Carole Vilardo of the Nevada Taxpayer’s Association and gained her approval for the bill. The debt limit in Section 2, paragraph 2, page 2, would be under the provisions of NRS 474.514 that stated the debt limit could be up to 5 percent of the assessed value. The debt limit would be equal to what the other fire districts currently used. Section 5 was changed at the request of Douglas County and would enable the district fire emergency fund to increase from $50,000 to $250,000, she stated. She indicated $50,000 today would not purchase two hours of fire fighting.
James Linardos, Chief, North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District, testified the changes were housekeeping matters that had been discussed with most fire districts in the state. More questions about antiquated laws were discussed with the districts and he indicated future bills would be sought. He believed the bill would help the districts with their efficiency, their government and responsiveness to their customers. He thanked the committee for their response to A.B. 252.
Assemblywoman Gibbons questioned Mr. Brower if NRS 474.220 had a limit on bonding for fire protection as well. Mr. Brower replied there was and the bill was intended to bring all of the fire districts into conformity. Ms. Walker responded to Ms. Gibbons’ inquiry in regard to the change in Section 2, paragraph 1. The current restriction of $50,000 was removed. In paragraph 2 of Section 2, page 2, the provisions would change to make sure the districts had a debt limit and the limit would change to 5 percent of assessed value.
Assemblyman Brown inquired what the new debt limit would be. Ms. Walker replied the assessed value was currently $1 billion, so the assessed value would be $50 million. She stated part of the problem had been the district could not handle voter-approved tax overrides because the district had the $50,000 limit.
Claudette Springmeyer, Comptroller, Douglas County, Nevada and Representative of the East Fork Fire Protection District, testified the district was very interested in the increase in emergency funding. There was no provision for the interest income in the old $50,000 limit and no direction after the $50,000 cap as to where the interest income could be placed. A.B. 252 would place the interest income back into the operating fund.
Chairman Bache asked for further testimony and seeing none closed the hearing on A.B. 252 and opened the hearing on A.B. 257.
Assembly Bill 257: Revises provisions governing Virgin Valley Water District. (BDR S-935)
Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated A.B. 257 indicated a change in language to allow the terms of office on the board of the Virgin Valley Water District to be staggered.
Warren Hardy II, Warren Hardy & Associates, Las Vegas, Nevada, represented the Virgin Valley Water District. Mr. Hardy indicated when the district was incorporated in 1995 into the Bunkerville township circumstances arose from that incorporation that might create a situation where all of the board members could be up for reelection at the same time. He had been assured by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) that the bill did what the board needed to correct the situation.
Vice Chairman Lee inquired if the term of office was an elected position and not an appointed position. Mr. Hardy stated there were five positions on the board with two elected from the city of Mesquite, one elected from Bunkerville, one appointed from Bunkerville and one appointed from Mesquite. The LCB decided it would be easier to change the transitional language as it affected the appointed positions. This bill affected the terms of office of the appointed officials.
Chairman Bache seeing no other questions closed the hearing on A.B. 257 and stated he would take a motion on the last two bills.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MOTIONED TO DO PASS A.B. 252.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOTIONED TO DO PASS A.B. 257
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Chairman Bache asked for the proposed amendment on A.B. 87. The Chair discussed the two subcommittees that would be meeting the next day.
Assembly Bill 87: Makes various changes concerning confidentiality of certain information relating to bonds for industrial development. (BDR 30-550)
Chairman Bache stated the proposed amendment was e-mailed from Douglas Walther, Chief of the Department of Business and Industry, state of Nevada (Exhibit E). Mr. Bache said he believed Mr. Walther shifted the burden from the applicant to the director as to the determination of confidential information. Mr. Walther thought the change in Section 2 and the deletion of subsection 3 of the bill to be important, stated Mr. Bache.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOTIONED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 87.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Brown suggested there was one individual from Las Vegas that had testified. He did not know if it was protocol that other individuals are shown the new language to approve or disapprove. The language did sound appropriate to Mr. Brown. Mr. Bache stated the proposed language put the bill in conformity with public records and that had been his main concern.
Assemblywoman Gibbons stated she would be voting no on A.B. 87 but would perhaps change her mind later.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MS. GIBBONS VOTING NAY.
Chairman Bache seeing no other business adjourned the meeting at 10:08 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cheryl Meyers
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: