MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
February 28, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, February 28, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Laura Hale, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mark H. Fiorentino, Lobbyist, Nevada Outdoor Media Association
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Steve G. Holloway, Lobbyist, Executive Vice President, Associated General Contractors – Las Vegas; and Chairman, Interim Advisory Committee on Design-Build Projects
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County
Dorla M. Salling, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners
Joe Ward, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General
Robert Crowell, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel
James T. Spencer, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Government Affairs Section, Office of the Attorney General
Jeannine Coward, Assistant State Controller, Office of the State Controller
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 22-156.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 22-156: Requires city or county to pay just compensation or authorize alternative location for certain structures or uses of property under certain circumstances. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 265.)
Mark Fiorentino, Lobbyist, Nevada Outdoor Media Association, testified that this bill protects certain property rights regarding cases where local governments want to remove structures. Specifically, the bill would require local governments to relocate use of property to comparable site or compensate the owner of a property for the removal of a structure.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-156.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on BDR 22-891.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 22-891: Creates chapter relating to tax increment areas. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 266.)
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, testified the bill provides for projects authorized under city and county bond laws, or possibly requested by regional transportation, to finance projects by use of tax-increment financing. This bill would be used more for economic development than redevelopment and the provisions would ensure no conflict with a redevelopment agency. He explained prior tax-increment legislation from the 1970s was repealed because it had not been used. There is now a need for reinstatement, with some changes.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-891.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 22.
SENATE BILL 22: Revises provisions relating to retrofitting of governmental buildings for energy efficiency. (BDR 28-288)
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, reviewed the proposed amendment language under Tab A (Exhibit C) of the work session packet. She explained the constitutional debt limit on outstanding bonds would apply to the provisions of this bill. Ms. Guinasso reported that bond counsel also gave his opinion that these projects would be within the debt limit. She said he explained the natural resources exception in the constitution would not apply because the connection is much too tenuous regarding the amount of electricity saved and whether that would constitute actual savings of natural resources. Ms. Guinasso stated it is pursuant to debt counsel’s opinion that any debt may be issued.
Senator Raggio stated he is reluctant to change the $5 million debt limit that is in current statute because bonding limits are already impacted enough.
Ms. Guinasso added that she did not include language regarding other renewable energy resources in this draft, but would draft additional language, as per Senator Porter’s request, to add “natural gas” in all areas of the bill that read, “purchase electricity.” She explained that, currently, the bill authorizes use of money saved through retrofit, which could include natural gas, to purchase electricity from renewable energy resources. She confirmed with Senator Porter that his suggestion was to allow these cost savings to be used to purchase electricity from a renewable energy system or to purchase natural gas.
Senator Porter requested review of the additional amendment language before moving forward on the bill. Chairman O’Connell accommodated this request.
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 61.
SENATE BILL 61: Makes various changes to provisions relating to use of design-build teams on public works projects. (BDR 28-99)
Steve G. Holloway, Lobbyist, Executive Vice President, Associated General Contractors – Las Vegas; and Chairman, Interim Advisory Committee on Design- Build Projects, provided (Exhibit D) Senate Bill 61, Proposed Amendment. Mr. Holloway explained the proposed amendment sets threshold amounts for which a public entity could contract with a design-build team. In response to Senator O’Connell’s question, he reported the advisory committee meeting was attended by legislators from rural counties, including Senator Rhoads, and Assemblymen Marvel, Carpenter, Hettrick, and Brower. Also in attendance were Mary Walker, lobbyist for Carson City, Douglas, and Lyon Counties; Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board; representatives from Clark County Public Works; and industry representatives including Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors, American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada, and American Institute of Architects.
Mr. Holloway added this amendment gives state agencies a second method, design-build, of designing and constructing their public works, and reviewed the proposed amendments (Exhibit D).
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County, testified the compromise in the proposed amendments would allow a good test case for public works use of design-build on a statewide basis. In response to a question from Senator Neal, Ms. Walker stated the proposed language strengthens the current law and makes design-build available for public works. Each entity can only use it once per year and local governments would need to be educated on how to establish the process. She added that in California and other states that use design-build for public works projects, savings have been from 16 to 20 percent. She said she hopes to report the Nevada experience with design-build to the committee during the next legislative session.
In response to another question from Senator Neal, Ms. Walker stated that the legislation has checks and balances that require bids from three to five finalists before proceeding with a project. There is no requirement for low bids to be accepted, but they do not always work. She said that oftentimes, the lowest bid ends up with 30 to 40 percent increases in cost through manipulation around the laws.
Mr. Holloway also responded to Senator Neal’s concerns. He said the proposed amendments include that cost be given at least a 30 percent weight in the selection of a final bid. Design is also given some weight. Further, he stated the design-build method provides a set price for both design and construction, once the finalists are selected. The design-build team assumes liability for any changes in design that they make.
In response to a question from Senator Care, Mr. Holloway estimated 80 percent of the buildings constructed in Las Vegas are done through design-build.
Further, 38 states now have design-build statutes for contracting for public works projects. He summarized it is a proven and acceptable method of contracting that results in far fewer change orders because if the design-build team does not meet the set price, they assume the liability. With regard to the compromise figures agreed to in the proposed amendments, Mr. Holloway explained they are lower than those advocated by the Associated General Contractors.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 61.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 121 to accommodate members of the audience who wanted to testify while the committee was waiting for the arrival of Senator Amodei to testify on S.B. 75.
SENATE BILL 121: Makes various changes concerning recording of public meetings and attendance of workshops. (BDR 19-32)
Dorla M. Salling, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners, testified the proposed changes to chapter 241 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) will have fiscal and victim impacts (Exhibit E), and the State Board of Parole Commissioners would like to be exempted from the requirements of S.B. 121. She added that currently, only parole violation hearings are recorded. These make up about 15 percent of all the hearings conducted by the board. If required to record, post, and transcribe for all the meetings, as described in S.B. 121, Ms. Salling reported the fiscal impact to the board for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 would be about $123,538 and $94,442, respectively. She added that this bill would also impact victims who are concerned about the recording of their testimony getting back to inmates and there is also a concern about truthful testimony from inmates.
Responding to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Salling said the board is currently under the open meeting law and anyone may attend meetings and record them on their own. She explained parole hearings are conducted throughout the state each month and significant clerical support would be needed to meet the requirements of S.B. 121.
Joe Ward, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General, representing as legal counsel, the State Board of Parole Commissioners and the Nevada psychiatric review panel, testified that the panel is also asking for exemption from S.B. 121. The communications and internal files of the panel are privileged and confidential and should not be on public record, as prescribed in NRS 176.156. Information can only be disclosed through a court order, as prescribed in NRS 213.1075. Mr. Ward concluded if the recording of hearings were required, as in S.B. 121, it would have a chilling effect on victims. He confirmed the panel is also under the open meeting law.
Robert Crowell, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, testified support for the bill and agreed to wait for a later hearing to give further testimony.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 121 and opened the hearing on S.B. 75.
SENATE BILL 75: Clarifies provisions relating to classification of employees of state printing division of department of administration. (BDR 29-751)
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, reviewed the proposed language in the bill, and stated this bill resulted from a constituent inquiry and a request to the Legislative Counsel Bureau for a legal opinion during the interim session. By expanding the definition of employees who are in the classified service of the state, implementation of this bill would avoid a situation where people get “bumped from jobs they’ve held for numerous years as a result of the priority situation.” Senator Amodei stated the bill also makes administrative provisions regarding appeals to match those available for other classified employees in the state. He reported support has been received from the Department of Personnel, the State Printing Division, and the Governor’s office. Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, testified support for the record.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 75.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 96.
SENATE BILL 96: Makes various changes to provisions relating to disclosure of improper governmental action. (BDR 23-450)
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, testified neither opposition nor support for this bill. However, she reported the bill could have significant impact. The average cost of a whistle-blower case is $2300 for the hearing officer and there are additional costs for representation from the attorney general’s office and staff time. According to a contract-hearing officer, this bill could more than double the caseload. Ms. Greene added this bill would permit employees to file an appeal if they believe someone in authority is preventing them from disclosing information, which could have a dampening effect on agency policies. For example, a policy that requires media questions to be directed to certain staff to ensure accuracy could be construed as a violation. She noted current statute allows an employee to appeal if retaliatory action is taken after the fact of disclosure.
James T. Spencer, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Government Affairs Section, Office of the Attorney General, testified that the attorney general is neutral on this bill. He explained, under current law, a hearing officer position is created and appointed by the Personnel Commission for certain kinds of hearings. Permanent classified employees can access disciplinary hearings on demotions, suspensions and terminations. Whistle-blower hearings apply to all state employees, whether classified or not, and deal with retaliation issues, allowing for costs of a hearing officer, witnesses, and an attorney. He further explained S.B. 96 would allow a hearing if an employee thinks there has been an attempt to stop disclosure, even though there has been no retaliation. This would create a new class of hearings.
Mr. Spencer testified that the Tom Fronapfel proposed amendment would allow attorney fees for an employee who is suspicious of an attempt to prohibit disclosure, or it would allow attorney fees if there has been improper disclosure and retaliation. Under current statute, attorney fees are not allowed for an employee who has been terminated. He described a 1993 court case in which the Nevada Supreme Court held that since there is no statutory authority for attorney fees, an employee who had been reinstated as a result of a hearing, was not entitled to attorney fees. Mr. Spencer concluded, if the committee adopts the proposed amendment, there would be no attorney fees for an employee who is wrongfully terminated, suspended, or demoted; but there would be attorney fees for someone who thinks that improper governmental action occurred and thinks they were prevented from reporting it.
In response to questions from Senator Neal, Mr. Spencer stated that he is unfamiliar with the False Claims Act, but the federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 would only protect federal employees, whereas the state whistle-blower act protects state employees. He also confirmed that hearings from the state whistle-blower act could lead to criminal charges if there is a criminal violation.
Senator Titus clarified that the state false claims act that was passed last session, with the help of Tim Terry from the attorney general’s office, was modeled after the federal False Claims Act that entitles employees to a percentage of any recovered monies resulting from their testimony.
Senator Care stated his view that attorney fees are outside the scope of this bill and he asked for more time to review the language. Chairman O’Connell agreed to hold action on the bill until a later date.
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 123.
SENATE BILL 123: Makes various changes concerning municipal obligations and procedures of debt management commissions. (BDR 30-699)
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, testified agreement with the proposed amendment from Carole Vilardo to give some latitude to counties with regard to the 90 percent debt limit. Senators Raggio and Neal agreed an 85 percent debt limit would be okay.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 123.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 150.
SENATE BILL 150: Authorizes board of county commissioners to provide by ordinance for civil liability for person who violates certain ordinances relating to control of animals. (BDR 20-413)
Ms. Guinasso clarified for the record that this bill does not in any way decrease penalties for cruelty to animals.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 150.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing for S.B. 155.
SENATE BILL 155: Authorizes change in boundaries of certain cities to become effective in certain circumstances within specified period before certain elections. (BDR 21-650)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 155.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing for S.B. 200.
SENATE BILL 200: Expands authority of certain local governments with respect to administration of municipal finances. (BDR 21-631)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 200.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing for S.B. 201.
SENATE BILL 201: Makes various changes relating to certain loans made by local governments. (BDR 31-367)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 201.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing for S.B. 202.
SENATE BILL 202: Makes various changes concerning state financial administration. (BDR 18-170)
Jeannine Coward, Assistant Controller, Office of the State Controller, provided an amendment (Exhibit F) to delete section 6 of the bill that would mandate direct deposit of payroll checks for state employees.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 202.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL AND TITUS VOTED NO.)
Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:24 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Laura Hale,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: