MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
April 2, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:42 a.m., on Monday, April 2, 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
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Ms. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Wendell Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mr. Bob Price
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman John Oceguera
Assemblyman David Goldwater
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Utt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer, Public Employees Retirement System
George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System
Rick Bennett, Director, Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties
Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Martin Bibb, Lobbyist, Retired Employees of Nevada
Laura Wallace, Investment Officer, Public Employees Retirement System
Assembly Bill 431: Requires public employees’ retirement board to establish deferred retirement option plan. (BDR 23-985)
Chairman Bache opened the meeting as a subcommittee until a quorum was reached.
Assemblyman Oceguera, District 16, presented A.B. 431, which required the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) board to establish a Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP). DROPs provided an avenue to retain skilled public employees in the work force. The focus of a DROP was not to return existing members to the work force but to retain members in employment after they became eligible to retire.
Mr. Oceguera said a report issued by the PERS board in December of 2000 introduced DROP plans and various structures in the plan. The most common plan took monthly benefits earned by the employee through the date they elected to participate in the DROP, and froze them until retirement. Meanwhile the employer contributed to the employee’s DROP account and upon retirement the employee received both their monthly pension, based on service through the DROP election, and a lump sum distribution from the DROP account. Employees might favor a DROP account because they were allowed to accumulate a retirement savings prior to retirement. Mr. Oceguera stated the employee could use the money to pay off a home mortgage, college education, or any number of other purposes. Mr. Oceguera explained employers favored DROPs in order to retain employees eligible for retirement and the employer gained time to develop strategies for replacement of the retiring employee. If properly structured, DROPs allowed the employers to offer additional benefits at little or no cost for experienced employees.
Mr. Oceguera said a DROP was a cost-neutral program designed to establish and operate required training and education. A.B. 431 required the PERS board to adopt regulations regarding the DROP. The program was limited to a fixed period of time of no more than five years and the PERS board set the policy.
Assemblyman Lee stated whenever he did something for his employees as incentive in the form of a dinner, they indicated to him they preferred money instead. He asked why the money was deferred and not given to the employee to use right away rather than waiting up to five years. Mr. Oceguera said that was another option but was outlined in a different bill. If retired and collecting a monthly income and then rehired at the bottom of the salary range the employee would collect retirement and receive another paycheck. This bill was created to offer one of those many options. Mr. Lee stated he looked for someone at the same level and instead of sending the money to a DROP program his employee would receive the higher pay to add to his or her paycheck. He felt most people were good about saving their own money. Mr. Oceguera stated that could be one of the many options.
Debbie Cahill, lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, said they were in favor of A.B. 431. They currently were facing a serious shortage of teachers and were very interested in the rehiring provisions provided in the bill. She emphasized the importance of retaining qualified teachers.
Dana Bilyeu, Operations Manager, PERS, testified on A.B. 431. The board wished to amend the bill (Exhibit C) and provide the board with an opportunity to study the lump sum retirement plans which included deferred retirement option plans. The request was made because the retirement board had pending legislation that would be heard in the next bill, which was A.B. 555. Lump sum plans were very important but design issues affected the cost of the plans as well as the efficacy of the plan once enacted. PERS wanted to insure that all types of optional programs were available to employees and proposed an amendment, which included reporting to the interim retirement and benefits committee of the Legislature on their progress during the study. Hopefully all issues would have been studied and recommendations would be made in the next legislative session.
Chairman Bache asked why PERS could not comply with the bill as it was currently without the amendments. Ms. Bilyeu stated there were issues with respect to the bill as currently drafted. First, it required them to establish a DROP program that had specific types of definitions within the retirement field. There are many types of DROPs, such as forward and back DROPs, and there were FLOPS and PLOPS and different variations. They needed to establish a separate account for an individual with specific rules, all of which were a single option within the vast array of their deferred retirement option plans. PERS needed to make sure the design would be appropriate especially for membership and benefit recipients as well as their employer base. Employers controlled whether or not someone would enter a deferred retirement option program. They were using it as a tool to retain people for purposes of maintaining their experience. PERS would have hundreds of questions that needed to be answered and they wanted to process those in a methodical fashion and establish an appropriate program in the retirement system.
Assemblyman Oceguera said after review of the PERS amendment he was agreeable in concept but he also passed out an additional change to their amendment (Exhibit D). He suggested and agreed to a study and felt it could be completed before the next legislative session. In Section 1 of their amendment he wanted to make the new language “the board shall conduct a study regarding lump sum optional retirement programs including deferred retirement option plans (DROPs) designed to meet the needs of members and employers.” That not only covered what they wanted in the bill but also gave them latitude. In Section 2 the final study would be submitted to the benefits committee on or before August 1, 2002, and would contain recommendations for legislation necessary to carry out the plan. PERS had an option to move in the plan in order to have the study completed by the interim. A.B. 74 of the Seventieth Session had the opportunity to study this and they had a start already so he felt two years was not necessary for the study.
George Pyne, Executive Officer, PERS, did not have a chance to study the amendment but looked at subsection 2 and said, “PERS would submit the final study on or before August 1, 2002, and shall continue to make recommendations for legislation necessary to carry out the plan.” He did not think there would be a problem completing the study by that date. If there were legislative changes they could submit those to the 2003 Legislature. The only concern Mr. Pine had was as a member of the Interim Retirement and Benefits Committee he was aware of the irregularity of their meetings. He preferred to have language that stated the system should have the study completed by August 1, 2002, and report to next session or the next meeting of the Interim Retirement and Benefits Committee. Chairman Bache responded and said as a member of that committee he thought they only had one meeting over the last biennium, which on the benefits side was very disappointing. Chairman Bache asked Mr. Oceguera if he preferred to have the Legislative Commission conduct the study since they did meet on a regular basis. There were no other meetings. He felt the interim retirement committee should have someone who met on a regular basis to accept this study and the Legislative Commission would be an acceptable alternative. Mr. Oceguera stated he thought Mr. Pyne and other interested parties could get together before any further decisions were made and make a decision on how that could be done.
Assembly Bill 555: Makes various changes to provisions governing public employees’ retirement. (BDR 23-547)
Dana Bilyeu, Operations Manager, Public Employee Retirement System (PERS), explained A.B. 555 was a systems technical bill and contained modifications to the retirement act, which were “cost neutral.”
She explained Section 1 of the bill contained systems-requested reemployment modifications, designed to assist their employers with reemployment of retirees in areas of critical labor shortage. This area was a result of a study PERS conducted under A.B. 74 of the Seventieth Session. PERS surveyed pension systems across the country in regards to retiree reemployment. They also held well-attended employee-employer association meetings and the results of the collaborative efforts were seen today with A.B. 555.
Ms. Bilyeu explained the retirement board requested their reemployment restrictions be lifted in positions where employers were determined to have a critical labor shortage. The governing body of the employer made the determination. The State Board of Examiners would determine reemployment for the state employee and the Board of Regents would make the determination for the university system. The Supreme Court would determine positions of critical labor shortage within the judicial branch and the Department of Education would determine the needs of the school districts. The governing body of local government would also determine the shortage of positions within their perspective jurisdictions.
Ms. Bilyeu said the governing body would need to take into consideration turnover history, the number of openings versus qualified candidates, the length the position had been unoccupied and the history of out-of-state recruitment. Currently a retiree of the system could be employed in one of those positions without impacting the receipt of his benefit if, at the time of his reemployment, he received an unreduced benefit, meaning retirement with full age and service eligibility. Now they wanted to liberalize the section to allow retirees with early retirement penalty to be able to go back to work in a position upon attaining the age they would have needed to retire without the penalty (Exhibit E).
Ms. Bilyeu asked that Section 1 of the bill be amended to conform to the recommendations of the A.B. 74 of the Seventieth Session study that included language that provided reemployment exemptions “sunset” on June 30, 2005, and be reenacted on July 1, 2005, provided a funding policy consistent with actual experience for the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2004, be in place. Those reemployment restrictions would not be contained in their technical bill without that language. They felt it was an oversight as to why the provision was not included. The exemption did not require advance funding because they were having a “sunset” ability to study the experience. Without the “sunset” amendment in place the actuary told them there would be a cost associated with the provision.
The last requested amendment was in the retiree reemployment section of the bill. There was confusion with the employer who hired a retiree that currently did not have to participate in Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) again and could elect not to participate to set up a retirement account for that individual retiree. It had never been PERS’ position to restrict such action on the part of the employers. She provided that information to the committee for consideration.
Ms. Bilyeu stated Section 2 of the bill provided the creation of an assisted investment officer’s position to assist with the daily management of their investment portfolio. The position would be responsible to the investment officer and would perform duties at the middle portfolio management level. Their investment staff employed two people at the agency, which were the investment officer who served the executive officer and the administrative analyst who was responsible to their investment officer. The assistant investment officer’s role had the authority to make the multimillion-dollar investment decisions that were required daily within the scope of the investment program administration. The investment program had significant growth and activity recently and PERS believed the trend would continue. The portfolio was projected to grow to over $19 billion managed by up to 30 investment managers. They also included the cost of the proposed position in their proposed budget for Ways and Mean’s consideration.
Ms. Bilyeu said Section 3 of the bill broadened the retirement board’s rule-making authority to have the ability to adopt regulations to keep the plan qualified under the Internal Revenue Code. The regulations took advantage of new federal laws, which would provide members with opportunities not available to them until the next legislative session. One example would be the ability to make purchases within the plan using money from members’ 403(b) or 457 deferred compensation accounts. Congress considered allowing pretax rollovers from those types of accounts into qualified benefit programs like PERS. PERS then had the ability to adopt regulations allowing the roll-in as soon as Congress provided that ability but currently they only had authority to allow roll-in from other types of plans. Congress gave them that ability prior to the last legislative session. The problem was the timing between Congress and the Legislature here in Nevada and they wanted the ability to give their members the opportunity when they had the authority.
Section 4 held restrictions on the purchases of “service” required by the Internal Revenue Code. If an employee became a member after January 1, 2000, and became eligible to purchase service, which meant attaining five years of service credit in the plan they needed to be actively employed. There was a provision in the Internal Revenue Code that provided for annual additions to a plan but was based on salary while the employee participated; however, if they no longer participated, the salary was zero. Therefore there was limitation to make purchases in the plan. If an employee entered into an agreement to make purchases and defaulted on the agreement while actively employed the Internal Revenue Code prevented PERS from refunding the employee contribution on the agreement unless they were no longer employed. They could not refund money out unless they participated in the plan. If they were participating in the “default” the Code required the member’s service be prorated to the amount that was paid and no refund was available. If they refunded while someone was actively employed the Internal Revenue Service interpreted that as an in-service distribution and it was prohibited. Section 5, Ms. Bilyeu explained, kept their refund provisions within the act “in sync” with the restrictions on refunds under the purchase of service provisions that she described.
Ms. Bilyeu described Section 6 as a modification of employer reporting requirements. The employers needed to provide accurate payroll information on forms prescribed by the board. She said most employers do a terrific job complying with their reporting requirements; however, they had some employers who had problems and that complicated their ability to provide service credit updates to their members’ accounts. The modification in this section strengthened the language related to the employer’s responsibility to report accurately. When an employer failed to file their report or the funds associated with their report in a timely manner, PERS wanted the ability to penalize rather than wait until they received the balance of funds. The current statute was written so PERS could only assess a penalty on the unpaid balance prorated for the period that was delinquent and assess the amount when they received some money. Effectively they could have an employer not pay them and PERS could do nothing until they received a payment. The proposed language allowed PERS to assess a penalty immediately upon delinquency and use the month’s prior report to establish the estimated penalty charge for the agency.
In the last section, Ms. Bilyeu stated Section 7 modified another section of their act concerning retiree reemployment in accordance with their requested modification. She concluded her testimony on A.B. 555.
Assemblyman Lee mentioned page 4, line 20 through 22, and asked for an explanation of “the backdating in the short window of time to purchase credible service hours.” Ms. Bilyeu replied that section was a requirement of the Internal Revenue Code. The January 1, 2000, date was the date needed to maintain the qualified status as a tax-exempt trust. If someone was hired prior to July 1, 2001, they could not purchase service in their plan until they had accrued 5 years of service credit and would not be eligible until January 1, 2005. There was no time crunch for the member but the purchase would not be able to be made until after that date.
Assemblywoman Parnell asked about Section 1, subsection 1(b), which stated, “At the time of his reemployment he is receiving an unreduced benefit.” Ms. Bilyeu explained the employee who had 30 years of service credit in the plan could retire at any age. The regular fund included employees with over ten years of service who could retire with full eligibility at age 60 or with five years of service at age 65. Ms. Bilyeu explained that section was what PERS wanted modified to cover employees who reached the age requirement but not the years of service to retire. Currently the penalty was 4 percent for every year under the age of full eligibility. As an example, a person who retired with 18 years of service credit and 58 years of age would need to wait 2 years until they were age 60 to be reemployed into a position deemed as a critical labor shortage. Ms. Parnell confirmed her amendment would allow even those with reduced benefits to qualify for reemployment.
Chairman Bache wanted clarification on Section 1 and did not see anything about how the employee would be paid from the local government. Ms. Bilyeu stated PERS would continue to pay the benefit and the rest would be between the employee and the employer. Secondly, he understood that some local governments already adopted policies that said those people who retired after September 1, 2000, would not be eligible for the program. Ms. Bilyeu said she was not aware of that policy in the local governments. Chairman Bache asked if Ms. Bilyeu would agree to an amendment that stated if they met the requirements of the statute, local governments could not discriminate against anyone who retired after September 1, 2000. He understood they did not want people to retire so they could collect the PERS benefit and then be reemployed. Ms. Bilyeu summarized for PERS’ purposes A.B. 555 would apply across the board and not eliminate local government practices and regulations. The local government could control its expenditures by not declaring a position to be of “critical labor shortage” and would not need to hire those people into positions. She felt if they wanted to prevent people from participation in the program the position would not be deemed to be of a critical labor shortage. Chairman Bache stated the Clark County School District took positions along those lines. He knew a person who was approaching 90 percent at the 35-year level that hoped to be able to take advantage of the program and was not the typical employee who wanted out as soon as possible.
Assemblywoman Parnell was concerned for many people and verified this was not the language they had in 1999 which gave school districts the option to use their accrued sick leave towards an additional year of retirement. She suggested possible additional language would clarify the bill so a district or local government would not interpret who would qualify and who would not.
Assemblywoman Gibbons was confused when she read NRS 286.525 and applied it to the changes. She wondered if it affected reemployment. George Pyne, Executive Officer, PERS, responded and stated a subsection allowed for an employee who became reemployed to enroll in the system as provided. The key word was “may” and when they returned because of the shortage in a position they had the same options current reemployed retirees had with respect to coming back to work for public employers. If employees were able to reenroll in the system, they would continue to accrue an additional benefit not to exceed the maximums set forth in statute which was 90 percent for anyone hired before 1985 and 75 percent for anyone hired after that date. Mr. Pyne stated PERS was just trying to give them options to reenroll in the system but if the employee did not want to reenroll they were not required to do so.
Rick Bennett, Director, Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the University System, wanted to indicate support for Section 1 of the bill and also for the proposed amendments. The University System understood a “sunset” clause would be included in the section. He wanted to commend the PERS board and George Pyne and his staff for their handling of the study and providing to their group the updated information on their progress.
Assemblyman Lee asked Mr. Bennett how he perceived a critical labor shortage in his capacity with the university. Mr. Bennett noted subsection 4, lines 19 through 23, included criteria they discussed with Mr. Pyne and the board. The Board of Regents had to determine if certain positions within the system might have difficulty hiring faculty. Also the university looked at the high turnover in a position and the quantity of qualified applications to provide a good “pool” for applicant choices. After that they would determine if there was a critical shortage and would consider hiring currently retired employees in the system. Mr. Lee asked if there was a part of A.B. 555 that would help them. They felt there was a shortage of clinical faculty within the College of Education for students doing their student teaching and therefore hoped to hire some retired educators to fill those positions. He understood they hired four faculty members under A.B. 74 of the Seventieth Session, which preceded this bill.
Assemblywoman Berman questioned if a member of the system entered into an agreement and paid for the purchase of service in credit installments could they default if they were short on money. She wondered if there would be a time limit or if they defaulted would they be reinstated. Ms. Bilyeu said if an individual signed an agreement with the retirement system to purchase service on installment of up to ten years depending upon the amount and they defaulted they would give them a small grace period of a month. The contract they signed stated if they defaulted they had to prorate the service for them and in the future they were required to process on a lump sum basis. The provision made sure PERS complied with the Internal Revenue Code and money could not be refunded back while the employee still worked because the Internal Revenue Service termed that an in-service distribution.
Debbie Cahill, lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, appeared in support of A.B. 555 and was very supportive of the rehire provision. The pupil expenditure in Nevada was $1,000 below the national average and the average teacher’s salary in Nevada was $1,200 below the national average. The starting salary was $3,000 to $4,000 below the starting salary for teachers in the neighboring state of California. Because of the lack of funding Nevada was not able to offer incentives to bring teachers to Nevada from other states. Ms. Cahill explained they had a serious shortage and believed the State Board of Education would have no problem establishing a critical shortage in several areas related to subject matter such as math, science, special education and bilingual instruction. For that reason they believed anything they could do to keep qualified teachers in the classroom with those students was of critical need in Nevada and they urged support of the bill.
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, wanted to lend their support to A.B. 555 and thought it was a good balance and therefore supported the bill.
Tom Grady, lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, said they also supported the bill and commended Mr. Pyne and the PERS staff for the excellent job of keeping them informed and inviting them to the meetings.
Martin Bibb, lobbyist, Retired Employees of Nevada, said they, along with several other groups, were involved in the study conducted by PERS and felt it was thorough and detailed. The retired employees always wanted to ensure a solid PERS system along with reasonable benefits and the questions were answered because of the PERS study.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 555.
Assembly Bill 650: Makes changes to population basis for exercise of certain powers by local governments. (BDR 20-1074)
MRS. FREEMAN MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 650.
MR. LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
Chairman Bache requested the committee provide reports on the subcommittee’s actions. He requested a report on A.B. 19.
Assembly Bill 19: Creates forecast council and related technical advisory committees to produce long-term forecasts of state revenues and expenditures and estimates of impacts of proposed programs. (BDR 31‑203)
Assemblyman Humke stated the committee met on two occasions and determined they would accept Mr. Al Bellister’s proposed amendment. The amendment showed the distributive school account was included in the subject matter of the bill to be studied by the various committees and commissions. There was some concern by subcommittee members the legislative branch should be more involved in the selection of some of the commission members as opposed to the Governor. Mr. Humke said he favored the bill as drafted and noted governors serve no more than eight years under the constitutional term limits and there would be frequent change in the chief executive within the state. The subcommittee voted unanimously to amend and do pass.
Chairman Bache asked Mr. Ziegler if there was a prepared written amendment from Al Bellister. Mr. Ziegler stated he did not have the Bellister amendment but said it was somewhere. He also understood there were tune-up amendments coming from the Legal Division.
Chairman Bache asked Ms. O’Grady to provide any additional comments on A.B. 19. She explained the bill was in “skeleton” form so she was working on a few additional sections that needed to be included to bring everything together. She said she could have everything prepared to present to the committee the next day. Chairman Bache stated when they had a draft of the amendments they would take action on the bill.
Assembly Bill 63: Revises provisions governing maintenance of certain improvements in subdivisions and planned unit developments. (BDR 22‑994)
Chairman Bache requested a progress report on A.B. 63 from the subcommittee Chairman Assemblywoman Parnell. Ms. Parnell stated the subcommittee reached a resolution after four subcommittee meetings. She said the process was difficult but the local governments and the homebuilders associations reached an agreement with the language in the bill. They also modeled good definitions for the term “exterior” in Section 1 of the bill. The subcommittee made the process of when to go to a full homeowners association an administrative option. Language presented at their final meeting last week was being developed and finalized by Ms. O’Grady and Ms. Shipman and would soon be available for the committee.
Chairman Bache stated since the committee was together he wanted to vote on a few bills. Mr. Bache stated they would now take a vote on A.B. 555.
MS. PARNELL MADE A MOTION TO AMEND DO PASS A.B. 555.
Chairman Bache said since they also had the proposed amendments of the system he suggested to Ms. Parnell they include additional language so local governments could not discriminate against someone based on when they retired as long as they met the qualifications of the bill. He had heard of some situations where they required only those people who retired by September 1, 2000, to be eligible.
MS. PARNELL MADE A MOTION TO AMEND DO PASS A.B. 555 WITH LANGUAGE PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.
MS. BERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Von Tobel asked if the discrimination amendment was added whether the language regarding the date would be removed. Chairman Bache replied he was referring to the Clark County School District and other local governments’ adopted policies that stated if a person retired after September 1, 2000, they would not be eligible to be rehired under this program. The local policy was to keep people from retiring if they met the thirty years of service or 60 years of age. Employees who met retirement requirements and were eligible to retire could create a discrimination lawsuit after the September 1 date. Ms. Von Tobel asked Chairman Bache if he felt the language would be strong enough to make the school district comply. Chairman Bache said it would force them to eliminate a policy; however, they could still discriminate without having a written policy and then anyone who applied to be rehired could file an age discrimination lawsuit if it occurred.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 365: Requires that certain local governmental employers and employees submit certain disputed issues to arbitrator for binding arbitration in certain circumstances. (BDR 23-1057)
Assemblywoman Smith thought they had good support on the bill to provide binding arbitration rights for non-state public employees. She felt the language, as it was written in current statute for the firefighters, was proven to work and they should move forward with the bill as written.
Chairman Bache asked Mr. Ziegler if he had anything in his notes on A.B. 365 to indicate changes in the language of the bill. He confirmed there were no amendments presented.
Assemblywoman Parnell said on page 5 there was a question during the testimony about the April 10 date and she was not sure if it was staying in the language of the bill. Chairman Bache replied he remembered the April date carried language for the current statutes. Ms. O’Grady said the language was moved from NRS 288.205 to fit in another section and there was no change in the language.
MS. SMITH MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS ON A.B. 365.
MS. GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED (MR. BROWN AND MS. VON TOBEL VOTED NAY.)
Assembly Bill 314: Makes various changes concerning collection of debts owed to state. (BDR 31-642)
Chairman Bache said the Controller had submitted some amendments to the bill. Assemblywoman Gibbons said she had four amendments to A.B. 314. She named them as Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Wildlife (DOW), Kent Lauer and Kathy Augustine.
Dave Ziegler stated the full committee heard A.B. 314 on Tuesday, March 27, 2001, and Controller Kathy Augustine walked them through the bill section by section. Ms. Augustine handed out amendments and the DMV and the DOW also passed out their own amendments. The Controller said she did not object to their amendments. The Nevada Press Association submitted an amendment in writing and the testimony was lengthy. Ms. Gibbons was correct in that there were four amendments.
Chairman Bache stated he found Mr. Lauer’s amendment, which proposed a simple one-word change in Section 4; subsection 2, on lines 19 of the bill. He requested to change the word from “may” to “shall.” Mrs. Freeman asked if on line 19 the wording would say “the state controllers shall make the reports available for public inspection and may without charge make available for access on the Internet.” Chairman Bache said that was not what Mr. Lauer addressed in his proposed amendment. Mr. Lauer had a concern for Section 4 that by having “shall” it would mean it was a public record and not be withheld from the public.
Chairman Bache read the DOW proposed amendment on Section 15.1, subsection 1, page 8, lines 22 and 23, which said “delete a license to practice commercial taxidermy and replace with any other license or permit that an agency issues.” Also on line 25 in the same section, following the word suspension, add “cancellation or refusal” and a fee of $25.00 for each check returned to the division because the person had insufficient funds or credit with the drawee to pay the check or because the person stopped payment on the check. Currently the statute had a $25.00 fee for returned items. On lines 30 through 37 on page 8, Section 15, subsection 3, they asked to delete the language from lines 30 through 37 that gave them the ability to suspend a license using current language. Chairman Bache said the new language would replace “upon receipt of notice” from the State Controller. The division could suspend, cancel or refuse license or permit of a person who received notice pursuant to subsection 1, line 38, subsection 4, and add “following permit if it is still valid and not expired.” Line 45 of Section 15, again in subsection 5, deleted “to practice commercial taxidermy” and replaced it with “any other license or permit that the agency issues.” On line 46, Section 15, subsection 5, following suspended they needed to add “cancelled or refused.” The Controller indicated those amendments were all satisfactory.
Chairman Bache also had another proposed amendment from the DMV. On line 41, Section 14, subsection 3, on page 7 added “upon receipt of notice from the state controller” on line 41 and after “department” deleted “shall” and added “may.” After “suspend” added, “cancel or refused” and after “license” added “or permit.” This also followed what DOW asked for language consistency. On line 43, after subsection 1, delete “without providing you with an opportunity for a hearing unless within 30 days after he receives the notice the department received a notice from the State Controller has a) paid the dept including all penalties, interest costs and fees if any; b) entered in agreement for payment of debt on installation basis pursuant to NRS 353.130, or c) obtained a discharge in bankruptcy of the debt.”
Chairman Bache advised the committee he could also read to them the Controller’s amendments but if they were ready he would accept a motion.
MS. GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH ALL FOUR AMENDMENTS TO A.B. 314.
MR. LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Parnell asked to abstain from the vote because she was providing testimony on her bill when this was heard and with all the amendments she was hesitant to place a vote.
Assemblyman Williams abstained on voting also due to similar circumstances with his colleague Ms. Parnell.
THE MOTION CARRIED (MS. PARNELL AND MR. WILLIAMS ABSTAINED.)
Assembly Bill 475: Establishes account for payment of certain benefits to state employees. (BDR 23-1202)
Chairman Bache reminded members of the committee about the bill needing to go to Ways and Means because it was concurrently referred. They had one amendment from State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), which said page 1, line 5, insert the phrase “on a fulltime basis” following the word state, and before the period. For the purpose of the section “fulltime service” meant at least an average of 20 hours per week.
MR. NEIGHBORS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 475.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked why the bill was not amend and do pass and rerefer to Ways and Means. Chairman Bache explained A.B. 475 was a concurrently referred bill and automatically would go to Ways and Means after leaving the committee.
Assemblyman Brown stated he was out the day of the hearing and as he read the bill and correspondence he was surprised all of the people had to pay for parking at the universities. Was there any discussion about a waiver for those people during the presentation of the bill? Chairman Bache stated they had tried in various ways to eliminate the parking fee for the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and understood it was becoming more of a problem at University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), also. Also, he stated, there were certain licenses that were required of employees which was not a condition of their employment at the time they were hired like commercial driver’s licenses or other driver’s licenses. They looked at this as a way with the maximum amount of money not reverted to the General Fund and the money part of the bill would be reviewed in Ways and Means.
Assemblyman Neighbors recalled last session having a discussion on parking at the universities and he understood the rates for parking might be increased.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 16: Urges certain governmental agencies to post agendas of their public meetings on Internet. (BDR R-1502)
Assemblyman Lee explained he saw the resolution as a way to send a message back to local governments and would not mandate anything. He stated if the committee thought they wanted to hand the resolution to different lobbyists then it would give them notice they were aware of the need to go on the Internet.
MS. GIBBONS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.C.R. 16.
MRS. SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Humke opposed the motion. He indicated this was the kind of resolution you received when a bill does not pass and when people complain by saying it was too costly and they could not hook up to the Internet. He explained to the committee the seriousness was the “cost factor” and the Legal Division cost of drawing up a resolution. The resolution was drafted and it cost so little more to just process the bill. The local lobbyist could then read it and be persuaded by the meaning. He urged the committee not to vote to indefinitely postpone (IP) and thought it was worthwhile.
Assemblyman Williams supported the motion. He said Mr. Humke needed to understand there was a cost for a resolution to be processed but it paid to do the right thing and to stop things that were bad. The cost in this case would benefit the taxpayers and the cost of “killing” the bill would be a fiscal “benefit” for the taxpayers. He stated he would vote for Mrs. Gibbons’ motion to IP.
Assemblyman Humke stated the resolution held scant hope but possibly the only hope there would be of any leverage over the local governments to be called to account and actually answer why they do not post their agendas on the Internet. He felt the words in the resolution were very important.
Assemblyman Neighbors offered an additional option. Put the bill back on the desk and look at it again on June 6, 2001.
Assemblyman Williams said Mr. Humke’s request to speak about the bill a second time strengthened his position on “killing” the bill. His message now indicated that the message would go to lobbyists who would inform local governments and the fact he had spoken in favor twice would get the message out to the local governments.
THE MOTION CARRIED (MR. HUMKE AND MS. VON TOBEL VOTED NAY.)
Assembly Bill 381: Makes various changes regarding cities and towns. (BDR 21-67)
Chairman Bache stated A.B. 381 was the bill he introduced to the committee. It had changes that dealt with cities and an interim study and he worked with Mr. Grady on the amendments.
Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities, testified he and Chairman Bache tried to make the amendments clear and they would help with the bill. Also, Ms. O’Grady would be able to eliminate some areas that would not pertain to the bill. Although it looked lengthy, the major part of the bill was in Section 15. The rest was cleanup language. Instead of 250 electors residing within the limits of the city or town the language was changed to 1,000. They just had the results of federal census but there was also a governor’s certified census so they included both so they could use the latest census results. Because of the surge in growth they wanted to use both of the censuses. On page 2 they changed Section 2, subsection 1, so those cities that had 50,000 rather than 20,000 would fall under a population category 1. Cities with 5,000 to 50,000 would be category 2, and fewer than 5,000 would be category 3. The rest of the bill was basically cleanup language until they got to Section 15, which required and asked for an interim committee. They would not only study towns but also incorporated cities. They asked for the subcommittee to be made up of members of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Government Affairs, and the Senate and Assembly Tax Committees. There would also be a technical committee consisting of members of the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, Nevada Association of Counties, the Nevada Taxpayers Association, and the Committee on Local Government Finance and others as deemed necessary with the subcommittee chairman’s approval.
Assemblywoman Freeman requested more information on the Governor’s certified census and the federal census. Mr. Grady explained every ten years there was a federal census and every year the Governor with the state demographer’s help did a certified census. The certified census would be what they used for the bill except when there was a federal census.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked Mr. Grady if he was able to work with Ms. Vilardo on the amendments and if they were in agreement. Mr. Grady stated Ms. Vilardo received a copy of their amendments and he understood she only questioned one portion of the bill. Chairman Bache stated he was not sure of Ms. Vilardo’s comments on the amendments but as far as the bill overall she was eagerly in support and requested to be involved in the interim committee.
Ms. O’Grady requested a clarification on the references to the population category 1 and category 2 because they were in another bill, which was S.B. 555. After discussion with Mr. Grady she did not think that would be incorporated in the amendment. Mr. Grady replied they did have a bill S.B. 555 that changed the way NRS 266 currently read and had cities listed as cities of the first class, cities of the second class and cities of the third class. He said this would just change to say population categories rather than “class” of cities.
MR. HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 381.
MR. LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Neighbors asked a question regarding an article that appeared in the Reno Gazette-Journal newspaper that morning about the city of Gabbs. If they requested a federal census other than the normal time period, could they have one if the town was willing to pay? Mr. Hadfield stated he understood the county could pay and a census would be made at any given time.
Assembly Bill 538: Authorizes sheriff to adopt certain policies, procedures, rules and regulations for administration of metropolitan police department. (BDR 22-186)
Mr. Ziegler gave a briefing on A.B. 538 to the committee. Lieutenant Olsen presented the bill from Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Mr. Olsen offered an amendment in Section 1; lines 7 and 8, to say ”must not conflict with the civil service rules” instead of the current language. He requested page 2, line 12, which was deleted, be retained.
Ms. O’Grady said she spoke to Mr. Olsen after the bill was introduced and the only change needed was to change the word “committee” to “board” to clarify that was the civil service board regulations and would not conflict with the sheriff’s policies. The term “board” was defined for the Chapter to mean the civil service board and the other committee on fiscal affairs was defined as “committee” so they would be clear on the differences.
MR. NEIGHBORS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 538 AS OUTLINED BY LEGAL COUNCIL.
MR. MORTENSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 326: Requires local governments to disclose certain expenses relating to lobbying. (BDR 31-496)
Assemblyman Goldwater, District 10, stated they heard a number of people testify on A.B. 326. The bill was a “convenience” bill and no one offered any amendments. Mr. Goldwater said those who have been on the Ways and Means committee know budgets are public information and available on a daily basis to review.
Chairman Bache asked Ms. O’Grady to comment on the bill. Ms. O’Grady said the state employees were excluded from the definition of lobbyists when they appeared before legislative committees to explain effective legislation related to their departments and divisions or agencies.
Chairman Bache stated there was already a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 326 so they needed a motion to reconsider A.B. 326.
MR. LEE MOTIONED TO RECONSIDER A.B. 326.
MS. PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Neighbors understood that if a newspaper person was in the committee hearing to cover a story they did not have to be considered a lobbyist. Mr. Goldwater said the purpose of the bill was not to redefine lobbyist. Some people in the media took a lobbyist slant to their reporting, but that did not fit the purpose of the bill and would be a separate issue.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel understood the lobbyists for the higher education budgets now did register. There was a requirement they wear a lobbyist badge. She said she also served on the Ways and Means Committee and found state agencies would place something in their budget under “fictitious reasons;” she discovered that in her first term as an Assemblywoman. Ms. Von Tobel said what was an equipment budget was actually supposed to be for salary increases, so they could not always say the money went specifically for what was denoted. If there was a requirement that said state lobbyists were included, there could be a line item in the budget that clearly showed the amount that was going for lobbying.
Assemblyman Humke said he read the statute that was provided by Mr. Goldwater, which clearly exempted state employees while on duty promoting the cause of their agency. He read that legislation to cover contractors who lobbied for any state agencies. Certain non-general fund agencies might be authorized to hire contract lobbyists and if so they were covered under existing law. Mr. Humke also heard Mr. Goldwater make the comment to another committee that the state of Nevada was superior to local government and by voting to rescind the motion would indicate your ratification of the position.
THE MOTION CARRIED MS. VON TOBEL VOTED NAY.
********
MR. NEIGHBORS MOTIONED DO PASS ON A.B. 326.
MRS. SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED MS. VON TOBEL VOTED NAY.
Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:44 a.m.
Linda Utt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: