ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

April 12, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:11 a.m., on Thursday, April 12, 2001. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John J. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. David Brown

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Mrs. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Bob Price

Mrs. Debbie Smith

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties

Marty Bibb, Lobbyist, Retired Public Employees of Nevada

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association

Jim Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance

Gary Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association and Teamsters Local Union No. 14 and 533

Kathy Naumann, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local No. 14

Danny Coyle, President, Retired Chapter of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

James Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County

Brian Krolicki, State Treasurer, State of Nevada

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County

Assembly Bill 564: Makes various changes relating to public employees’ benefits program. (BDR 23-1346)

Chairman Bache clarified A.B. 564 was the only vehicle available that addressed the Public Employee Benefit Program (PEBP) problems and it needed to be processed before Monday. He asked Mr. Ziegler to outline the bill.

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst, stated he was required to be impartial and convey information that was neither for nor against the proposed measure.

The bill was a response to testimony received during committee in February 2001. The Public Employee Benefit Program governing board was established in statute and appointed by the Governor. The program served state employees, state retirees, the professional members of the University College Community System of Nevada (UCCSN), and participating local governments. There were approximately 21,000 active state employees, 4400 state retirees, 700 to 800 nonstate actives, 1300 nonstate retirees, and about 250 COBRA participants. Dependents brought the total to 47,000. The 1963 program was restructured and renamed in 1999 under S.B. 544 of the Seventieth Session and codified in NRS 287.0402 through 287.049.

Mr. Zeigler explained the plan provided medical, vision, dental, life and other insurance benefits. The third-party administrator, UICI, handled over $100,000 in expenditures annually. Outside operations were handled by outside contractors. The plan was a mixture of self-funded and insured elements. Self-funded money was not taxed and did not need to show a profit or rate of return. Self-funding allowed claims to be paid as needed, did not require premium prepayment, and implemented innovative, cost-effective care prevention or treatment techniques through disease management programs. There were theoretical and conceptual differences between self-funded and regular insurance programs.

Mr. Zeigler stated 19 states paid for the full cost of health coverage for their employees. Several states allowed employees the option to select fully paid plans and seven states paid the full premium for family coverage. The amount paid by the employee varied by the plan and the coverage options selected. Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, and West Virginia varied the portion of the premium paid by the employee’s salary. The remaining states varied the cost of the coverage. All 50 states had programs with varying arrangements and set-ups.

Mrs. Freeman questioned the definition of “self-funded.” Mr. Ziegler explained it was part of the benefits program language and meant claims were paid from the program-generated income.

Mr. Ziegler explained the PEBP operated on a year-to-year plan and rate design schedule. New rates and benefits went into effect annually on January 1after “open enrollment.”

During the 1997-1999 biennium, the program’s surplus of $38 million was depleted. The Committee on Benefits was dissolved in February 1999 and the program authority was transferred to the Governor. S.B. 544 of the Seventieth Session established the Public Employee Benefit Program and their first meeting was held in the fall of 1999.

Mr. Ziegler explained A.B. 564 was intended to solve two specific problems of the PEBP. Earlier testimony had revealed state retired employees were rated separately and received a larger rate increase than active employees. Ms. Reed testified the plan had bought down the initial rate increase. The second problem was Medicare “carve out.” It was implemented January 1, 1999, and discontinued one year later. A reduced benefit for retirees on Medicare was provided. Retirees had the premise of their benefits changed or reduced during 1999. The “carve-out” paid the difference from what Medicare paid and what a normal, active participant would have received. The reduced benefit saved the plan about $1.5 to $3 million annually.

Ms. Berman asked for clarification on how Medicare and the program paid joint claims. Mr. Ziegler explained prior to the “carve-out” Medicare was the primary insurance and the state was secondary. Medicare was always primary and A.B. 564 restored state insurance to “supplemental” status.

Mrs. Smith asked whether the Medicare eligible employee had lower premiums because of plan savings. Mr. Ziegler was not prepared to discuss premiums or rate structures because of their complexity. Portions of the plan charged retirees on Medicare and retirees not on Medicare the same premium.

Mr. Ziegler explained a group of 300 persons or more could petition the plan to leave and take their state benefit with them to another insurance vendor. Section 12.5 of S.B. 544 of the Seventieth Session addressed the issue. The law directed the PEBP to adopt regulations that allowed groups of 300 or more to leave or re-enter the plan as the case came up. The Legislative Commission was scheduled next week to discuss the issue.

A.B. 564 will put into statute one “shared risk pool” for active and retired state employees and would create the largest shared risk pool for all participants. The bill did not address nonstate participants in the shared risk pool because statute required them to be rated separately. Secondly, it would do away with Medicare “carve-out” and similar plan designs. It would revert to the status before January 1, 1999. Thirdly, it required an annual disclosure report of claims experiences for actives, retirees and retirees on Medicare.

Mr. Ziegler explained groups of 300 were not in the bill because it was in the jurisdiction of an Assembly legislative sub-committee chaired by Assemblyman Anderson. It was theoretically possible groups of 300 could be dealt with without legislation.

Mr. Mortenson questioned the “nonstate” group makeup. Mr. Zeigler responded statute defined them as governmental public entities that were not the state of Nevada. Any retired public employee could join the program.

Mr. Mortenson asked if southern Nevada public entities had opted to become part of the pool. Mr. Zeigler replied he did not have a list of the public entities in the program. He knew Washoe and Clark County employees were covered by their own plans.

Chairman Bache commented it was predominately smaller counties that joined the state plan. Clark County school administrators had been part of the state plan at one time.

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, clarified small counties were not large enough to obtain their own insurance. They could join the League of Cities insurance, their own insurance, or the state’s plan.

Ms. Parnell questioned how the bill addressed customer service problems. Mr. Zeigler explained it was a matter of record there had been customer service problems with the PEBP. The suggestion was made to implement a communication officer or single point of contact for the consumer. An additional staff person could be easily added to the statute that described the PEBP staff.

Mrs. Smith stated she thought an “ombudsman” type of position was a good idea. She questioned how deductibles were defined with Medicare “carve-out” removed.

Mr. Zeigler said deductible details were part of plan design. Statute expressed the state plan was supplemental when Medicare was primary.

Marty Bibb, Lobbyist, Retired Public Employees of Nevada (RPEN), stated they supported A.B. 564 because it did not consider retiree employees as a separate cost entity. Coordination of Medicare and plan benefits would be returned to eligible retirees. The Medicare “carve-out” hit Medicare retirees harder than any other single group in the PEBP when benefits were cut to respond to the group health insurance crisis. Retirees, actives, medical, dental, and pharmaceutical costs were on the rise and should be considered as a whole. Disability retirees were considered in the retiree group regardless of their age. A study showed state retirees cost the plan $1.09 in benefits for every $1.00 in premium that was brought into the plan. Nonstate retirees saved the plan $0.07 for every premium dollar.

Mr. Bibb proposed an amendment (Exhibit C) that would do four things. Section 1 clarified a Part A or Part B Medicare recipient was eligible for benefits coordination. The change was proposed because not all Medicare retirees were eligible for Medicare Part A. Number 2 stated lesser charges were subject to benefit coordination. Subsection 2(a) clarified state retirees must be eligible for Medicare coverage to reflect reduced insurance coverage costs. Change number 4 in subsection 3(b) mirrored changes done in Section 1.

He explained actives had received a 4.9 percent increase and retirees an 11 to 12 percent increase. Before 1999, the actives and retirees had a blended, equal rate increase. A consultant’s study indicated active and retiree employees should be pooled together to get an “age range” and a true group insurance pool.

Mr. Bibb stated in 1993 there were approximately 15 other local government entities in the plan. Currently there were approximately 30. The Medicare “carve-out” and noncoordination of benefits could result in a potential increase of $3000 annually. The maximum out-of-pocket expenses for 2001 were projected at $2000. Parts A and B Medicare-eligible retirees, at age 65, paid the first 80 percent after deductibles and co-pays were met. The state plan would pay the 20 percent not covered by Medicare. A 65-year old Medicare-eligible person reduced their state premium by about 30 percent. Last year, the deductible was reduced from $350 to $250. Medicare-eligible retired employees had $100 of their credit eliminated. He felt a public information officer would benefit the program. He felt “group” insurance plans should include the whole group. He appreciated the committee’s commitment to get to the core of the problem.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if Medicare Part A was a prerequisite to having Medicare Part B. Mr. Bibb responded no. People without enough social security quarters would retain the state’s insurance plan as primary and purchase Medicare Part B on their own. Medicare Part B addressed non-hospital medical costs.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned why the self-funded plan reflected the same costs for someone under 65 and someone over 65 with Medicare Part B. Mr. Bibb did not know but would find out for her today.

Ms. Parnell questioned what justification there was to pay for state coverage if you were eligible for Medicare. Mr. Bibb responded the issue was whether the state plan paid for any services. A.B. 564 encouraged benefit coordination and picked up 20 percent unpaid by Medicare. Dependant coverage was expensive and was sometimes not worth it.

Ms. Parnell asked if retirees with Medicare Parts A and B were less costly to the program. Mr. Bibb answered the state had less financial exposure and it could possibly be a cost saver.

Ms. Berman asked what the retirees cost the state plan annually and what their premiums were. Mr. Bibb said the state paid $208.92 per retiree per month to offset premium costs. The premiums depended on when you retired or how many dependants you had. Specific charts outlined what premiums would be.

Ms. Von Tobel stated the total premium for St. Mary’s health insurance was $263 a month, whether you were over or under age 65. Medicare became primary at age 65 and she questioned why the premium was the same for someone under 65.

Mrs. Smith questioned if retirees had a dependant cut-off age. Mr. Bibb replied that was a plan design issue.

Mrs. Smith asked if the state plan required eligible retirees to sign up for Medicare Part B. Mr. Bibb said the plan assumed Medicare Part B was in place when benefits were paid.

Mrs. Smith wondered if the “package” deal was the same for retirees and actives. Mr. Bibb answered the core elements of the plan were identical and included medical, dental, vision and life insurance benefits.

Mrs. Smith commented the state’s prescription plan was worthwhile because Medicare did not cover pharmaceuticals. Some retirees found the 20 percent gap in Medicare coverage difficult to pay. She questioned how many retirees were of Medicare age.

Mr. Bibb stated a general rule of thumb was about two-thirds of the retirees were Medicare eligible. The Medicare “carve-out” netted 35 percent of the $9.2 million that was realized in benefit cuts. Six to eight percent of plan participants were affected.

Mrs. Smith commented the number of people retiring early was increasing and needed to be addressed in future public benefit plan bills. Mr. Bibb stated they were aware that early retirement impacted insurance programs.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned how many retirees had worked outside of state government and were eligible for Medicare Part A. Mr. Bibb replied he did not have any idea because the problem was complex and changed annually.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if Medicare coverage was taken out of current state employees paychecks. Mr. Bibb responded a portion was taken out for Medicare coverage but he did not feel it was for full coverage.

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, said any local government employee had the right to join the state’s plan within 30 days of retirement. Those groups had no active employees to subsidize their medical costs. Many times it was less expensive for retirees to join the state’s insurance plan. The state formed its own, self-funded plan because no independent insurance company would bid on the state’s insurance needs. Section 1 of the bill set a benefit level and precedent for future legislative sessions.

Jim Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance, was concerned about policy being set in Section 1. Previous committees had tried to keep rate increases similar for actives and retirees. He hoped Nevada would be vigilant in protecting their retirees. He felt the bill treated retirees with respect and opened the door for necessary communication. He supported the bill and proposed amendments.

Mrs. Freeman asked if the benefit level should be defined. Mr. Richardson replied the time had lapsed to force discussion on key policy issues. A detailed, interim study could recommend an amendment to the bill. He supported nonstate entities entering the state plan.

Mrs. Smith asked if nonstate retirees participated in the plan as actives. Mr. Richardson clarified any retired government employee could enter the state’s plan regardless of where they were covered when they were active.

Mrs. Smith stated it would be hard for an actuary to project plan costs when you had no control over the influx of participants.

Mr. Richardson explained there were too many variables to project future health insurance costs. The state covered any retirees that joined the plan.

Mrs. Smith noted the state should control factors they could and be aware of factors they could not.

Ms. Parnell explained she would retire from the Carson City School District this year and could save approximately $100 a month by joining the state’s benefit plan. Local governments were seeing a higher increase in their retiree benefit plan and caused a high number of retirees to join the state plan.

Mr. Richardson responded the state needed to look at local government plans and incentives being offered. By analyzing what other government agencies were doing, the state could predict future participation.

Mr. Mortenson asked Mr. Richardson if local governments should be charged a “user fee” for having their retirees enter the state benefit plan.

Mr. Richardson felt local governments had some responsibility to absorb costs of their retirees entering the state plan.

Mr. Mortenson questioned whether legislation should be drafted to address retirees leaving a nonstate system to join the state system. A nonstate entity would provide substandard benefits because they knew the state would cover their retirees. Nonstate entities might have to pay a “user fee” to the state.

Mr. Bibb explained NRS 287.045 subsection 5, talked about political subdivisions that were eligible to participate in the benefit program. It states,

“The claims experience of those retired persons must not be co-mingled with the retired persons who are members of the program before their retirement, nor with active employees of the state. After the first year following enrollment, the rates charged must be the full actuarial costs determined by the actuary based upon the past claims experience of these retired persons since enrolling.”

Those retirees were intended to pay for themselves and were not subsidized by any active employee.

Mr. Hadfield stated retired county employees in the state system paid the premium told them by the plan’s actuary. The retirees should not be labeled as “a drain on the system” if the premium was not sufficient. County retirees did not want to be treated differently than anyone else in the plan. The problem was the plan’s administration. Counties were regulated by NRS 288 and consistent collective bargaining was not enforced statewide. The county should be blamed if the administration assigned an incorrect premium.

Ms. Von Tobel said the state was responsible to cover retired state workers who were not eligible for Medicare. Maybe the state could work with the federal government to get state retirees Medicare eligible.

Mr. Mortenson felt we should not talk about “us” or “them” because, sooner or later, we would all be “them.”

Mr. Hadfield agreed separate groups should not be created. The conception of group insurance was everyone was combined together to benefit the group as a whole. Groups were slowly being segregated and separated. “Group-as-group” collective thinking had to be done or no one would benefit.

Gary Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association and Teamsters Local Union No. 14 and 533, stated they supported the concept of the bill. The bill had a problem because no numbers had been attached. His group had been trying to leave the program and they were waiting for regulations to be adopted. Benefit issues were complex and frustrating. Retirees had no collective bargaining and could not prohibit the deletion of their benefit subsidization.

Kathy Naumann, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local No. 14, said local government entities could choose to put their benefit money into trust accounts. She felt state employees wanting to leave should be able to. The appointed benefit board was not carrying out the spirit of the law. The “opt-out” legislation was part of fixing the retiree problem.

Mrs. Smith asked if the system was too complicated. Ms. Naumann said it felt like a “shell-game” with 35,000 shells and was controlled by confusion. The teamster’s 425 trust was simple and was negotiated per employee. The retirees were part of the “family” that needed to be taken care of. A statewide system should not have different benefits for southern and northern Nevada.

Danny Coyle, President, Retired Chapter of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said he would be 65 this year and did not have enough quarters to qualify for Medicare Plan A. The public benefits board told him Medicare Plan B would be his primary insurance and the state plan would be his secondary. He felt the bill was good but wanted to see some numbers for comparison. He did not want to see retired employees pitted against actives for rate reductions.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 564 and advised the committee they would go into a work session to process bills. The committee needed to take action on the bill because it was the only vehicle available to address the state benefit plan.

Vice Chairman Lee opened the work session on A.B. 564.

CHAIRMAN BACHE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND RE-REFER A.B. 564 TO THE ASSEMBLY WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE.

He commented he did not motion to “do pass” because he felt the committee had not had sufficient time to deal with all of the issues. The proposed amendment would contain, 1) Mr. Bibb’s amendment (Exhibit C), 2) the split of the interim retirement and benefits committee into two separate committees, and 3) the appropriation of $100,000 to the public benefits board to provide northern Nevada participants reproductive services that were not covered through St. Mary’s Hospital. The amendment forced continued discussion and exempted the bill because it contained money.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Neighbors questioned if any members of the public benefits board were here today. Chairman Bache replied he had not seen any of them here.

Ms. Parnell reminded the Chairman she had suggested an amendment to add a public relations communication officer to the board. Chairman Bache responded all current employees of the public benefits board had been terminated or resigned. The remaining employee was leaving Friday. The suggestion was worthwhile and maybe could be addressed at a later date.

Mr. Humke was concerned about passing the bill and setting policy without having further input. He questioned what assurances they had that the Assembly Ways and Means Committee would address the remaining issues.

Chairman Bache replied he had not discussed the issue with Chairman Arberry but felt confident he would realize the seriousness of the issue. He felt Chairman Arberry would want the Assembly Government Affairs Committee to be a significant part of the process.

Mr. Humke clarified the bill needed to be in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee by Monday. That committee would control the bill and the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs would have no input. He was concerned they were giving up their control over policy issues.

Chairman Bache explained the “amend and re-refer” motion signified the Assembly Government Affairs Committee did not have sufficient time to deal with issues as they wanted to.

Mrs. Smith suggested an additional amendment on Section 1, line 3, to change “provided” to “eligible for.” Chairman Bache responded that could be included.

Mr. Brown agreed with the strategy to handle the bill and reserved his floor vote until he looked at the amendments.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 451: Authorizes certain local governments to donate real property to certain nonprofit organizations in certain circumstances. (BDR 20-369)

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 451.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Smith felt the language was too broad regarding “nonprofit, charitable or civic organizations.” The language regarding conveying property should be tighter.

Mr. Brown stated he supported the bill.

Mr. Humke explained the bill expanded “leasing” to a “conveyance of real property” with reservation. It was a home-rule issue and allowed counties the freedom to choose what was beneficial for their community.

Mrs. Smith questioned how “home rule” differed from local issues of annexation and zoning. Chairman Bache responded it depended on what bill was previously discussed.

Ms. Parnell stated she would vote no because property did not need to be conveyed when it could be leased for $1.00 a year. She felt the language needed more definition on who would benefit.

Ms. Von Tobel supported “home rule” so local governments could be accountable to their constituents.

Chairman Bache explained that he would have preferred a tighter definition of “charitable groups.” He felt subsection 3 addressed property automatically reverting to the county and that alleviated concerns over the broader definition.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL VOTING NAY.

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 explained they had two subcommittee sessions and had voted unanimously to recommend an “amend and do pass” to the committee. The amendment added “distributive school account” to specify what part of the subject matter various revenue and expenditure committees would oversee (Exhibit D). An amendment failed that attempted to provide more legislative input into the appointment of various boards and commissions.

Mr. Lee added the subcommittee had felt board members needed to be Nevada residents. He wanted to include that in the proposed amendment.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 19 WITH THE ONE WRITTEN AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Humke recalled the subcommittee’s discussion but no witnesses had come forth. Certain executives were relocated by their employers and still were valuable assets to boards they served on. He did not foresee that as a problem.

Chairman Bache said the board was an advisory board and felt it would be satisfactory to have Nevada nonresidents as members. Various people had businesses in the state and personal residencies elsewhere. Their business expertise was a valuable asset.

Mr. Mortenson asked how Mr. Humke felt about private sector board members not being taxpayers.

Mr. Humke clarified he had expressed that view in the subcommittee and felt that could possibly be a set of parameters for employment. He did not want to put it into law.

Mr. Brown felt mandating residency could be overly restrictive. Possibly business language could be addressed, but it would be difficult.

Mr. Lee commented he served on a Las Vegas city board and was out of jurisdiction when he was in the Legislature. He had no problem with advisory boards.

Mrs. Smith was concerned about the multitude of things the bill created and additional duties that would be assigned.

Chairman Bache reminded the committee the bill was concurrently referred to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and would go there next.

Ms. Parnell was concerned about three new advisory boards with 90 percent executive-level appointees in a soft economy.

Chairman Bache explained he had attended a subcommittee meeting and raised those legitimate concerns.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache explained A.B. 465 had passed out of committee with a conflict notice on it. He had put the conflict amendment under his name and met with Ms. Morgan of the Legislative Counsel Bureau to discuss how to handle the bill so it would not need to be returned to committee for reconsideration. He requested a motion from the committee to allow the Chair to automatically request conflict amendments on bills that had been processed out of committee, in the committee’s name.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO ALLOW CHAIRMAN BACHE TO ACCEPT CONFLICT AMENDMENTS IN THE NAME OF THE COMMITTEE.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Humke explained conflict notices were usually administrative actions taken by bill drafting to resolve conflicts between two bills and encouraged the committee to allow the Chair to handle those situations.

Chairman Bache commented he had discussed conflict notices with new committee members, Mr. Brown and Mrs. Smith.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 60: Authorizes public body to post additional notice of its meetings on its Internet website, if any. (BDR 18-674)

Ms. Von Tobel stated page 2, line 7, could be amended to read “ posting the major meeting agendas on the website” and did not demand a website to be set up. The change allowed counties and cities the ability to determine what they felt was a “major meeting agenda.”

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A. B. 60.

ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Brown asked for clarification of the proposed amendment. Ms. Von Tobel read the proposed amendment, “successor posting the major meeting agendas on the website not later than 9 a.m.”

Mr. Brown felt additional language might be needed to address small counties with “static” websites.

Ms. Parnell asked if “major meeting” was defined. Ms. Von Tobel explained the counties had flexibility to determine what a “major meeting agenda” was. She did not feel it was the Legislature’s place to make that decision.

Mr. Brown felt without defining language constituents might be unhappy because they did not know of meetings. He felt “at the discretion of the local government” should be inserted.

Ms. Von Tobel clarified all meeting agendas were posted in public and the Internet posting was an addition. The bill enabled another avenue for public posting. She felt it was important to make the statement the state wanted to move into the Internet age.

Mr. Lee said larger counties were already doing this and smaller counties viewed it as a tool to help them in the future. He believed the message had been sent to the counties and legislation was not needed.

Mrs. Smith questioned whom “public bodies” referred to. Chairman Bache clarified NRS 241 dealt with all political bodies, including the state.

Mr. Neighbors agreed with Mr. Lee and thought the concept could have been handled in a resolution. He asked Mr. Hadfield to address the bill in relation to the counties of Nevada.

Mr. Hadfield stated counties did not want Internet posting to be their primary source of public posting because of possible technological difficulties. There were logistical problems with canceling meetings because network difficulties had interrupted Internet postings. He felt counties needed protection in regards to “static” websites, technological difficulties, and supplemental noticing. Everybody wanted modern technology but they did not want to be forced to use it. NACO would work to develop technology in the counties.

Mr. Neighbors stated problems could arise if the commissioners used an agenda from the Internet that had mistakes on it. Those concerns needed to be addressed.

Ms. Von Tobel suggested the following language to page 2, line 6, “if the public body maintains a non-static website on the Internet, or its successor, voluntary posting of major meeting agendas on the website, not later than 9 a.m. of the third working day before the meeting.” That would send the message the Legislature felt technology was important. Stronger language could be added next session.

Chairman Bache asked if Internet posting was secondary and the current public meeting posting was primary. Ms. Von Tobel replied legal counsel had stated current posting mechanisms were primary and Internet posting was secondary.

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, clarified if the posting was voluntary it needed to be moved to a separate subsection.

Mr. Brown suggested line 8 be changed from “and” to an “or” to address supplemental posting. Ms. O’Grady replied that could be problematic because it could make physical posting an option instead of a requirement.

Chairman Bache said any new language would go into a separate subsection to reflect it was voluntary participation. Ms. O’Grady replied affirmatively.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMEN PARNELL AND SMITH VOTING NAY.

Assembly Bill 61: Provides certain restrictions relating to regulation of amateur service communications. (BDR 22-672)

Ms. Von Tobel stated she had spoken with Assemblyman Bob Beers and the deletion of Section 3 would be addressed in meetings he had scheduled with the homeowners association.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 61 WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Zeigler stated there had been a request for research on federal preemption of state and local antenna laws. Research had found the preemption was for video receivers and not amateur radio antennas.

Ms. O’Grady said the federal preemption telecommunications act did not apply to that type of antenna.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 63: Revises provisions governing maintenance of certain improvements in subdivisions and planned unit developments. (BDR 22-994)

Ms. Parnell explained they had held four subcommittee meetings. The final language was received today and she requested the bill’s discussion be tabled until tomorrow.

Chairman Bache said that would be fine.

Assembly Bill 182: Makes various changes to process of land use planning in certain counties and revises provisions regarding members of town advisory boards in certain counties. (BDR 22-57)

Chairman Bache explained the proposed amendments had been reviewed and accepted by Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Clark County, and Irene Porter of the Homebuilder’s Association (Exhibit E).

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBOR MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 182.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 92: Authorizes county to exercise additional powers under certain circumstances. (BDR 20-428)

James Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, discussed the proposed amendment (Exhibit F). Clark County homebuilders did not want to reduce requirements for affordable housing projects. They hoped to develop personal, smaller projects that allowed home renovation.

Ms. Von Tobel said the Clark County Commission was one of the most powerful bodies in the state and represented one of the wealthiest parts of Nevada. She did not believe the bill gave indefinite power to the county and hoped the bill gave counties the flexibility they needed to govern themselves.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A. B. 92.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 163: Makes various changes relating to regional planning in certain counties. (BDR 22-105)

Mr. Zeigler reminded the committee the Executive Director of Truckee Meadows Regional Planning had proposed an amendment that removed the provision stating no more than three members of the governing board of the Regional Planning Commission could serve on any advisory committee and could not constitute more than 20 percent of the membership of the committee. The amendment also removed the limitation of one meeting per quarter.

Mrs. Freeman stated she had received objections to the proposed amendment.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A. B. 163.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Brown asked if the bill impacted Washoe County only. Mrs. Freeman replied affirmatively.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 567: Revises provisions governing state financial administration. (BDR 30-358)

Brian Krolicki, State Treasurer, State of Nevada, announced the Nevada Supreme Court had ruled that “lease purchase” was a viable option and was not restricted constitutionally. A.B. 601 was in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and was a streamlined version of A.B. 567.

Chairman Bache stated he was uncomfortable with two bills addressing the same subject area. He suggested they could amend and do pass and rerefer to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and the bills could be combined.

Mr. Krolicki said the intent was to provide a financing vehicle to the state and he was okay with that suggestion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS AND REREFER TO THE ASSEMBLY WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 554: Provides for establishment of Nevada College savings program as authorized by federal law. (BDR 31-357)

Mr. Krolicki introduced a proposed amendment (Exhibit G) that clarified the delegation was administrative in nature.

ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A. B. 554.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned if this was the only proposed amendment. Chairman Bache explained his concerns on the day of the hearing were addressed in the proposed amendment.

Ms. O’Grady noted “administrative” limited the state treasurer powers.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether the Chair was concerned about the section referring to two members of the committee being appointed by the Governor.

Chairman Bache responded he had raised the issue about appointees by the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Assembly for legislative input. He was not concerned about that now.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 462: Authorizes certain local governments to impose tax on nonresidential construction projects or require dedication of certain land for regional parks. (BDR 22-72)

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, supported the bill and introduced a proposed amendment (Exhibit H). “Regions” had been added for consistency. The residential construction tax cap was left at $1000 and the nonresidential cap was $20,000. The residential and nonresidential tax money collected would be kept separate. Residential money would remain in the neighborhood collected for improvements. Nonresidential money would be used for “regional parks.” “Regional Park” would be defined as an area exceeding 58 acres. A sunset provision allowed money collected to be refunded with interest if it was not used within ten years.

Mr. Brown asked how ten years was chosen. Mr. Musgrove said it was an arbitrary figure. Residential areas had three years to complete their projects and they felt ten years was needed for regional parks. Most regional parks needed additional General Fund or bond issue money to be built.

Mr. Brown questioned whether a shorter period would be beneficial. Mr. Musgrove responded regional park land cost $250,000 per acre. The ten years was needed to collect money and coordinate the building of those areas.

Mr. Mortenson stated he would like to see the residential cap at the original figure of $2000. Mr. Musgrove responded that the compromise did not impact them very much. It was more beneficial to get the nonresidential money.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A. B. 462.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 413: Revises provisions regarding cooperative agreements between public agencies. (BDR 22-1305)

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 413.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 542: Makes various changes relating to personal property of state. (BDR 27-528)

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A. B. 542.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 231: Revises various provisions concerning certain wells. (BDR 48-195)

Chairman Bache asked Assemblyman Mortenson if he wanted the same amendments from S.B. 159 to be applied to A.B. 231. Mr. Mortenson replied affirmatively.

ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 231.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Bache explained A.B. 231 was a concurrent referral to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if well owners in her district had agreed with the bill and its proposed amendments.

Chairman Bache explained she could look at the Nevada Legislature Web site at S.B. 159 because it had the same amendments proposed in committee. Mr. Mortenson and the water district had agreed on all amendments.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if the amendments could be furnished in writing and if the vote could be postponed until tomorrow.

Mrs. Freeman stated she needed more time to review the bill.

Mr. Mortenson responded the Well Owners Association and the state water engineer were happy with the proposed bill.

Mr. Lee added his notes reflected a strike out of “the domestic well means” clause in Section 1, subsection 2, and page 4, number 8, “domestic well.” He asked if the proposed amendment reflected that.

Mr. Mortenson explained S.B. 159 was identical to his bill. The Senate bill arose from an interim committee and had removed protection given in A.B. 231. The Senate modified their bill to match A.B. 231.

Mrs. Freeman asked if Washoe County agreed with the bill. Mr. Mortenson explained the bill affected Clark County only and did not change anything in Washoe County.

Mrs. Freeman asked for Ms. Shipman to come forward and address the bill. Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, had been advised by Washoe County their concerns had been addressed. Washoe County domestic well owners had their protections placed in the bill and were fine.

Ms. Von Tobel suggested the committee work on the Senate bill instead of trying to pass A.B. 231. She questioned the sunset clause. Mr. Mortenson replied the sunset clause had stayed in.

Mr. Brown stated he would abstain from voting because of the lack of written documentation. It was difficult to vote without written representation.

Chairman Bache said the Senate had “amend and do pass” the bill on March 26, 2001. The bill would be on general file in the Senate today if there was a floor session.

Mr. Mortenson responded he was content to wait for the Senate bill. He clarified all amendments had been initiated by him.

Mrs. Gibbons suggested Mr. Mortenson’s name be added to the bill as the Assembly chief sponsor if S.B. 159 passed.

Chairman Bache asked if Mr. Mortenson wanted to withdraw his motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL WITHDREW THEIR MOTIONS.

Chairman Bache would keep the bill in his drawer. Ms. Von Tobel suggested the committee give Mr. Mortenson a round of applause for his hard work on the bill.

Assembly Bill 386: Makes various changes concerning public employees. (BDR 23-621)

Chairman Bache was concerned with the repeal of language that protected persons with disabilities on page 6 of the bill. He felt some of the new language did not offer the same protection as the old. He would be comfortable with eliminating the repealers in sections NRS 284.012, NRS 284.317, 284.379.

Mrs. Smith agreed with the Chairman and felt those sections needed to be left in for “safety’s sake.” She did not want to see page 2, line 39, “A person must not be discriminated against . . .” deleted.

Chairman Bache said he would accept a motion to “amend and do pass” with a reinstatement of page 2, lines 39 and 40, and eliminating the repeal of the three citations that dealt with disabilities.

Mrs. Gibbons proposed an amendment defining “emergency communication technician” and allowing certified emergency responders to be released from normal work duty in emergency situations.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 386 AS PROPOSED BY THE CHAIR AND MRS. GIBBONS.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Bache asked Ms. O’Grady if Mrs. Gibbons proposed amendment was germane to the bill and would there be a problem amending the bill.

Ms. O’Grady responded it would be okay.

Mr. Brown questioned if the proposed changes to page 2, lines 39 and 40, should also be done to page 4, lines 31 and 32.

Chairman Bache asked Mrs. Smith and Mr. Neighbors if they were okay with adding that to their motion. They both answered affirmatively.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 568: Makes various changes relating to county recorders. (BDR 20-267)

Mrs. Gibbons explained the proposed amendment (Exhibit I), introduced by Washoe County Recorder, Kathryn Burke.

Chairman Bache introduced a proposed amendment by Alan Glover (Exhibit J), which was heard the day of the original hearing.

Mrs. Smith stated the proposed change to page 12, line 14, was exactly the same as the printed bill. Chairman Bache explained the language “or is a notice of the pendency of an action” was added to line 14.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 568 WITH BOTH PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache seeing no further business adjourned the meeting at 12:24 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: