MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

March 26, 2001

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:38 p.m., on Monday, March 26, 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 Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator William R. O’Donnell (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Michael A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel

Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst

Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst

Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Edward Guthrie, Executive Director, Opportunity Village

Dean McCubbin, Concerned Citizen

Bryan Coulter, Concerned Citizen

Alvin Coulter, Concerned Citizen

Kathleen Barth, Administrator, Governor’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, Department of Business and Industry

William C. Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration

Janet Serial-Onosigho, Concerned Citizen

Lana Buehrer, Concerned Citizen

Sonya Joya, State Director for United States Senator John Ensign

Miguel Ferretra, Concerned Citizen

Rudolph Romo, Concerned Citizen

Fernando Romero, Concerned Citizen, President, Hispanics in Politics

Eddie Escobedo, Concerned Citizen, President, Mexican Patriotic Committee

Liz Carrasco, Regional Representative for United States Senator Harry Reid

Judy Fleischman, District Representative for United States Representative Shelly Berkley

Otto Merida, Concerned Citizen, Executive Director, Latin Chamber of Commerce

Leticia Acevedo, Concerned Citizen, Member, Board of Directors, Latin Chamber of Commerce

Ray Vega, Concerned Citizen, Member, Board of Directors, Latin Chamber of Commerce

Marlena Burnet, Concerned Citizen, Member, Fair Treatment for Immigrants

John E. Scott, Concerned Citizen, District Director, Nevada District Office, United States Small Business Administration

Elena S. Eaves, Concerned Citizen

Robert E. Shriver, Executive Director, Division of Economic Development, Commission on Economic Development

Alan DiStefano, Concerned Citizen, Director, Global Trade and Investment

Paul Gowins, Concerned Citizen, Member, Disability Forum

Scott W. Youngs, Program Coordinator, Americans with Disabilities Act Nevada

Bonnie James, Concerned Citizen, Member, Blind Connect

Jean Peyton, Concerned Citizen, Member, Blind Connect

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association

Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada

 

Chairman O’Connell:

The hearing will opened with a subcommittee on Senate Bill (S.B.) 175.

 

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

 

A document titled, “Creating Training and Employment Opportunities for People With Severe Disabilities” (Exhibit C) was presented to the subcommittee members for their review.

 

Senator Michael A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8:

Thank you, Madam Chairman.  Even today, people with disabilities have the highest rate of unemployment of any group in Nevada.  Opportunity Village provides vocational training and employment services for at least 500 people with severe disabilities every year.  One way it does this is through a federal purchase exception which allows federal agencies to purchase from agencies like Opportunity Village without going through a competitive bid process.  Opportunity Village then hires people with disabilities to provide the goods or services.

 

Today we are asking support for S.B. 175, which will allow state, county, and municipal agencies the same purchase exception enjoyed by federal agencies, so we can create even more jobs for people with severe disabilities.  However, before we discuss the bill, we want to introduce you to three people who have benefited from our federal contracts. 

 

In Las Vegas, we have Dean McCubbin.  Dean works as a janitor, through our federal contract, at the Veterans Administration (VA) Ambulatory Surgical Center.  Bryan Coulter works in housekeeping at the VA.  His father, Al Coulter, is also here to speak to S.B. 175.  Each would like to take a few minutes to tell you their stories.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Mr. Guthrie, are you going to go through your amendments of the bill first (Exhibit D)?

 

Edward Guthrie, Executive Director, Opportunity Village:

Yes, we can.  We have kept the proposal primarily the same as it was through section 3.  The balance of the bill, sections 4 through 14, were deleted because they are repetitive of items in other sections of the law.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

So, we are not creating a committee any longer?

 

 

Mr. Guthrie:

That is correct.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Is the paid director also taken out?

 

Mr. Guthrie:

That is correct; it has all been deleted.  We saw no reason to re-create what already exists.  The idea behind S.B. 175, in its genesis, is to amend the purchasing laws to enable state agencies and political subdivisions, such as local governments and schools, to negotiate a fair market price for services and goods with groups like Opportunity Village and other groups that serve people with severe disabilities.  The law would also allow the state agencies and the political subdivisions to contract with programs like Opportunity Village without going through a competitive bid process.

 

This is similar to a bill called the Wagner-O’Day Act, which was passed by the federal government initially in the 1940s and amended in the 1970s to serve all different types of people with disabilities.  In Las Vegas, Opportunity Village has over $2 million in contracts through that program, and expects to expand by another $3 million in contracts this May 1, 2001, when we take on a contract for serving 70,000 meals a month to airmen at the Nellis Air Force Base.

 

Even with that, we have hundreds of people with disabilities who still need work.  What we are trying to do with this job is enable state and local agencies to have the same opportunities that folks like Bryan Coulter and Dean McCubbin have right now.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Gentlemen in the south, please identify yourselves for the record and then, if you would, give us your testimony.

 

Dean McCubbin, Concerned Citizen:

I am here to speak on behalf of S.B. 175.  My understanding of the amendment to this bill that its intent is to include local and state government agencies to be able to afford jobs to people with disabilities, like me.  I work on a federal government contract right now.  This amendment would afford state and local governments the same opportunities federal government contracts have for people with disabilities who want to become productive members of society.  We have a hard time finding real jobs out there.  With places like Opportunity Village, we have a chance to do that.  It allows us to earn a substantial living and support ourselves and not have to rely on welfare to carry us through.  I am in strong support of this amendment.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Committee, do you have any questions?

 

Bryan Coulter, Concerned Citizen:

I work at the VA Hospital and the VA Clinic in the housekeeping department.  I like my job very much; Opportunity Village helped me to get this job.  It is hard work, but I like to keep busy.  I work from 4 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. 5 days a week. 

 

When I moved to Nevada from California, I tried to get a job.  I applied for many jobs; it was difficult because of my physical and mental disabilities.  Did you know people with severe disabilities have an unemployment rate of 70 percent, even though they want to work and be productive members of society?

 

Before I got this job, I stayed at home.  My dad found out about Opportunity Village; now I work and earn a paycheck and pay my own way.  I pay my bills, rent, groceries and car insurance.  I am considered a client at Opportunity Village, but I do not receive government funds.  There are jobs for people like me; I am a taxpayer, not a tax burden.  At this time of year, many people complain about paying taxes.  I am proud to be a taxpayer.  Please make it easier for people with disabilities to get work by passing S.B. 175.

 

Alvin Coulter, Concerned Citizen:

My son Bryan Coulter is a 45-year-old adult who has struggled most of his life with his disabilities.  Through his own perseverance, he has worked to maintain an independent living style.  We came to Nevada 5 years ago, and he tried very hard, and I tried to help him to obtain jobs.  He joined the culinary union and tried to work with them to get employment in that industry; nothing ever came of it.

 

Fortunately, I found Opportunity Village, where they do offer opportunities for people who have independent living styles, yet need help to maintain a quality job with the correct supervision.  Since he has been there, 4½ years, he has been able to maintain his own apartment, his own living style and has become a productive person in this type of environment.  Opportunity Village provides these things and needs the help from S.B. 175 to continue to do so.  I strongly encourage you to support this bill so people like my son Bryan can be independent and maintain a decent living style.  Thank you.

 

Senator Schneider:

S.B. 175 will enable the state, county and municipal agencies to provide hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs through contracts with programs like Opportunity Village.  Opportunity Village is now saving the state of Nevada over $25 million a year.  Thank you for your time.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Tell us why the local government could not go ahead and hire these people right now.  What is the problem?

 

Mr. Guthrie:

Usually, Madam Chairman, many of these folks do not have the productivity levels that allow the county or state to hire them directly.  Because Opportunity Village receives a special certificate from the United States Department of Labor (USDOL), we are able to do time studies for the individuals and then prorate the individuals’ salaries based upon their productivity.  Dean McCubbin and Bryan Coulter are probably making between $9 and $10 an hour.  That is the base rate for the jobs they do at the VA Ambulatory Surgical Center in Las Vegas.  They may not work at 100 percent productivity.  Let us say the rate is $10 an hour; if they were to work at 70 percent of the rate, the VA could not hire them.  Opportunity Village can, though, and we can pay them $7 an hour instead of the $10 an hour rate because of the special certificate we receive from the USDOL.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

I see; so this is a federal program, in essence.

 

Mr. Guthrie:

It is a federal exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act that allows us to do that.  The purchase exception is a state program that has to be passed, but it teams up with the federal exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  That exemption has been there since the 1950s.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

With the deletion of sections 4 through the end of the bill, do you know what kind of a financial impact it now has; does that change the fiscal note?

Mr. Guthrie:

Yes, ma’am it does, but I do not know exactly what the change would be.  I am going to have to defer to someone else on that.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

The committee on employment has already been established, so that is not an unfunded mandate.

 

Mr. Guthrie:

That is an agency that exists already in the state government.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Would that agency be the one doing this survey?

 

Mr. Guthrie:

The way the bill is written right now, the fair market survey is the responsibility of the group that comes to the committee.  So, if Opportunity Village were going to try to negotiate the custodial contract for the Grant Sawyer Building in Las Vegas, we would be responsible for coming in with the fair market survey to allow the agency to show the committee and others this is, in fact, a fair market price for the services. 

 

We do a similar thing through the General Services Administration with the federal government.  We do the custodial services at the Foley Federal Building right now.  A group called the Building Officers and Managers Association (BOMA) publishes some custodial work standards for different costs per square foot, depending on the type of building.  If you are doing the chief executive officer’s (CEO) office of International Business Machines (IBM), there is a different level than if it is a “B” level office building or a “C” level office building.  There are different rates for high-rise buildings versus scattered sites.  It is a very sophisticated process most commercial contractors use now when they are trying to develop their bids.

 

We would use a similar survey to come back to the state government and say, “Here is the BOMA standard for doing commercial custodial work.”  For example, using these formulas, with this amount of square footage, this is the fair market price for doing the custodial services at the Grant Sawyer Building.  It would be our responsibility to prove to the state and the committee this is, in fact, a fair market price.

Chairman O’Connell:

All right, and then the entity pays you?

 

Mr. Guthrie:

That is correct.  We would then pay the individuals with the disability.  They work for us, and we take care of all the benefits, the workers’ compensation premiums and everything else that goes along with that.  It would be a normal contract between the entity and us.  However, the state would not have to go through a competitive bid process.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Does the committee have any questions?

 

Senator Schneider:

Before I leave, Madam Chairman, I would just like to disclose I am on the board of Opportunity Village.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you, Senator Schneider.

 

Senator Porter:

I would just like to applaud you, Mr. Guthrie, and your staff for the creative idea in trying to help those in the community; it is a true partnership.  We appreciate your bringing this forward.

 

Mr. Guthrie:

Thank you very much, senator.

 

Kathleen Barth, Administrator, Governor’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, Department of Business and Industry:

I am the administrator of the Governor’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, an already-in-place agency operating under the Department of Business and Industry, providing the services described further back in the bill.

 

Mr. Guthrie spoke to our committee, which is made up of ten business leaders across the state, including, people with disabilities.  All of the committee members were very impressed with the opportunities the bill would offer to people with severe disabilities.  It is very difficult to find and maintain competitive employment practices and positions for this particular population.  This was a doorway of opportunity we saw with which the Governor’s committee could assist.

 

We signed on as a supporter of S.B. 175.  When the bill came out, Bill Moell, (William C. Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration), and I got together and looked over the bill, and we saw the heart of the bill was wonderful, but the language of the bill became difficult.  I have handed out the bill as it stood when we looked at it (Exhibit D).  It contained a pretty impressive fiscal note (Exhibit E), unfortunately, for our agency.  My first response was to ask why are we doing this; this belongs to purchasing; they have the people, the staff and the criteria.  We should be in a consultative role.  Mr. Moell and I spoke, and we both agreed with that concept.  We discussed how we could create the bill to meet purchasing needs and maintain the integrity of the bill and its purpose. 

 

We re-created the bill so the entire fiscal note is eliminated.  It puts the Governor’s committee in a consultative role to market the particular contracts for which state and other governmental agencies might be seeking bids.  We know the people, and work directly hand in hand with the service providers and the community-based training centers.  So, we go right to them to see if they can fulfill that need.  It is a position we are already in and are already doing, so, there is no fiscal note there.  By giving the contract to the Purchasing Division, where it belongs, extra staff is not needed because purchasing already has the staff to administer contracts.

 

At the end of the bill, when they re-created the committee on people with disabilities, they looked at a very old operating venue for the Governor’s committee and the President’s committee; so we updated it.  By doing that, we were able to eliminate the balance of the fiscal note.  So, the amended version you have in front of you (Exhibit D) contains no fiscal note from the Governor’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities or the Department of Business and Industry.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Senator Raggio, they have deleted everything from section 4 on.

 

Senator Raggio:

I apologize, Madam Chairman, for not being here earlier.  Is the fiscal note from the attorney general’s office?

Ms. Barth:

The fiscal note is from my office.

 

Senator Raggio:

The $86,000 each year?

 

Ms. Barth:

No, that is not our fiscal note.

 

Senator Raggio:

The fiscal note from the attorney general’s office is $94,000 in fiscal year 2002, and $86,000 in fiscal year 2003; has that been alleviated?

 

Ms. Barth:

Correct.  That has also been eliminated by the changing of a few minor things, such as, not having to create a fair market survey, but going upon the basis that it is the responsibility of the community-based training centers, at the federal level, to do such surveys.  The same information they provide at the federal level would be utilized at the state, county and, local government levels.

 

There was an attorney general’s note because it put us into a regulatory mode.  We have moved ourselves back into a consultative role.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Sections 4 and 5 created a committee, and a director of the committee.  Those, I am sure, were the largest impacts on the fiscal note to the bill.

 

Committee, are there any other questions?

 

Mr. Moell:

I whole-heartedly support the bill, as amended.  I think it is extremely important.  I also have been authorized to speak briefly about the local purchasing and the fact the local purchasing officers also support this bill.  Thank you.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you very much, Mr. Moell.  Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the bill?

 

 

Janet Serial-Onosigho, Concerned Citizen:

I am speaking as a parent in support of this bill.  I was asked by the Nevada Women’s Lobby, as a parent of a special needs child, to speak before this committee.  As a parent, I take seriously my obligations to prepare my three under-aged children to become self-sufficient, independent, productive individuals and citizens. 

 

As a parent of a child who is both physically and mentally challenged, I have the additional responsibility of ensuring she is afforded the opportunity to live as normal a life as possible.  My daughter Delvonne is 17 years old; she is enrolled in the community-based program at Reed High School.  She is also mainstreamed into regular classes in Sparks, Nevada.  Davone is a straight “A” student and has been for the 2 years she has been enrolled at Reed High School.

 

As a parent of a disabled child, I found it a very enormous task to find opportunities for her to be as productive as possible and to basically do the things her friends do in terms of experience and work opportunities, as well as other social opportunities 17-year-old kids want to be involved in.  In fact, she just attended her first junior prom on Saturday, which was a life-changing event for my whole family.  Programs like Opportunity Village would, basically, give Delvonne more opportunities to live a normal, productive life.  Thank you.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

We appreciate your testimony.  Is there anyone else wishing to testify?

 

Lana Buehrer, Concerned Citizen:

I represent the Nevada Women’s Lobby and I am on a steering committee for this effort.  I am speaking on their behalf to tell you we fully support this bill.  We feel it would provide a great resource for jobs for people who need them, who want them, and who should be given the opportunity to feel a part of the community.  Also, it is going to provide them with money they can put back into the system.  So, we fully support it.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on S.B. 175?  If not, we will close the hearing on S.B. 175 and open the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 7.

 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 7: Urges United States Department of State to approve establishment of Mexican Consulate in Las Vegas. (BDR R-1148)

Senator Porter:

I appreciate the opportunity to bring this bill before the committee and the subcommittee.  First, I would like to look at where we have been and where we are today regarding Hispanic culture in the state of Nevada.

 

Hispanic culture is strong in the Silver State, dating back to 1829, when Mexican scout Raphael Rivera discovered an area officially named Las Vegas, which is the Spanish term for “The Meadows.”  Unlike any other states in the American Southwest, Nevada was never a sight for permanent Hispanic settlement until the nineteenth century, after it had become part of the United States.  The first Hispanics in Nevada were the businessmen who made up the caravans on the Old Spanish trail, from Santa Fe to Southern California. 

 

Later, in the 1860s, Mexican miners came here to show us how to extract the silver from the Comstock lode.  After that, Mexican vaqueros worked on Nevada’s developing cattle ranches.  However, Nevada’s Hispanic population remained relatively small until recent times. 

 

In the 1950 census, only 894 persons stated they had been born in Mexico or Latin America.  Fewer than 1,000 persons listed Spanish as their native language.  Nevada’s largest ethnic group, at the time, was the Italian community.  If we fast-forward to 1990, we will find a dramatic change happened in Nevada.  Just a short 10 years ago, there were 124,419 Hispanics calling Nevada home, accounting for almost 10.4 percent of the population.  By 1997, that number doubled to over 240,000, or about 15 percent of Nevada’s population. 

 

As you know, we have just completed our census.  The numbers in the year 2000 show Nevada’s Hispanic population as 393,970, which is almost 19.72 percent of our population.  Out of the 393,970, 302,143 live in Clark County, or 21.96 percent of the Clark County population.  I assure you the number is going to rise.  Over the next 25 years, the estimated population in Nevada is close to 600,000 of Hispanic and Latino descent.  At that time, Hispanics will make up 25 percent of our state’s population.  These numbers tell us the Hispanic community is going to get larger and exert greater influence over our culture, business community, and public service.

 

 

 

Senator Porter:

Madam Chairman, in summary, Nevada has the second fastest growing Hispanic population in the United States (U.S.), and is the state with the fifth largest Hispanic population in the country.  Nevada is facing the toughest economic fight it has ever faced, with the expansion of tribal gaming across the country, the expansion of Internet gaming, and the impact of actions in Washington, D.C., on our community.  Never before, has it been more important for Nevada to expand its tourism base. 

 

Last year, in Nevada, we had a 50 percent increase in tourism from the country of Mexico, with almost 300,000 visitors last year, alone.  If we were to assume the top 10 percent of the Mexican population is wealthy enough to visit Las Vegas, that is 10 percent of 9.7 million people as a future tourism base.  Then we have the Cana-Mex (Canadian-Mexican) corridor, which is being considered right now in southern Nevada.  This should show a net gain in jobs for the state of Nevada of close to 240,000.  The Cana-Mex is a partnership among Canada, the United States, and Mexico.

 

Many individuals have worked hard to bring a consulate to Nevada for many years to improve services to visitors and Nevada residents from Mexico.  Let me give you an idea of what a consulate does.  A consulate provides general services, anything from working with U.S. residency, to citizen information, to helping obtain Mexican documents from passports to identification (ID) cards, to military IDs, to duty and import fees.  It also provides protection.  Currently we are served by San Bernardino County, California, and a member of the consulate visits southern Nevada once a month.  If you can plan your time, once a month is fine.  But, as the community base and our tourism base has grown, that is not enough to serve our community. 

 

I touched briefly on the tourism aspect and the services it provides.  But, from the protection of our residents, to the protection of our visitors, to the impact on our economy, a consulate plays a major role.  Again, we are fortunate to have services from the consulate today, once a month, but we feel that a consulate locally, would play a major role in improving our quality of life.

 

Where are we today; what is the status?  Las Vegas has been considered for some time as a priority location for a consulate.  A decision has not been made yet, but I believe it will be made by the Mexican government shortly.  They have communicated with us they needed to eliminate two or three other consulates around the world, because the expansion and growth is not the numbers they had expected.  That has happened.  We are still waiting for financial approval from the Mexican government.  The key for us in Nevada is to have U.S. federal government approval.  The purpose of our resolution is to honor those citizens of Nevada who are our sisters, brothers and neighbors and hardworking members of our community, and to encourage the tourism base into our great state of Nevada.  It is also to show, as a Nevada Legislature, that we encourage and open our arms to a consulate in southern Nevada.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

What qualified San Bernardino to achieve its status of having a consulate?

 

Senator Porter:

A consulate is really an extension of an embassy.  It is a smaller version; they are hoping to have 10 to 12 individuals in the southern Nevada area providing services.  But that is kind of a brief overview of what it is.

 

Sonya Joya, State Director for United States Senator John Ensign:

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman.  I am here on behalf of Senator John Ensign, who asked that I come and express his support for S.J.R. 7.  Ms. Joya read a prepared statement from Senator Ensign:

 

I am happy to support this legislation that is so essential to the communities in southern Nevada.  Not only is it important to strengthen the friendship between Nevada, the U.S. and Mexico, but, also, the sky-rocketing growth of the Hispanic community requires a Mexican Consulate here in Las Vegas. 

 

A Mexican Consulate would have a profound impact on our community.  It would assist immigrants with information, provide information concerning the Hispanic community and travel, coordinate business expansion for both Nevada and Mexico, and, more importantly, establish that the Mexican community is growing, effective, and in need of more recognition by our national government.  I strongly support this measure and look forward to working with the Mexican Foreign Ministry in Nevada, and I applaud Senator Jon Porter for bringing this to the forefront.  Thank you.

 

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Committee, any questions for either Ms. Joya or Senator Porter?

 

Senator Neal:

Yes.  Senator Porter, just looking at your resolution and your statement, given the number of Hispanics who are now present in the state of Nevada, you seem to suggest the number in itself determines the need for a consulate general’s office.  As I understand, a consulate general’s office is based upon taking care of citizens of a foreign country who come to this country and might need the assistance of that country to do things here.  So, the population you mentioned seems not to have anything to do with it because, if the people are here, and they are here as citizens, then there would not be any need for a consulate general’s office.  Is that correct? 

 

Senator Porter:

Senator Neal, I think that is an appropriate and very good question.  One of the biggest challenges for our Hispanic-Latino community is communication with family members.  It is a serious challenge for them to be able to see family members and provide visas for them to visit the U.S.  From the very personal side, certainly, these are American citizens; they have extended family in grave need of help and assistance.  But, also, the other areas I mentioned, from business to communication, would be facilitated.  It is not just for those visiting our country, it is for those living here and their families and their business ventures between the U.S. and Mexico.

 

Senator Neal:

So, I understand when you talk about the economic benefits, you are talking about a population coming here to gamble or visit this particular state.  I fail to see the enhancement of, say, what has happened in California.  California has a consulate general’s office, and I just heard San Bernardino had one.  Are we saying Reno should also have one?

 

Senator Porter:

I would certainly encourage any community that would like to have a consulate.  With southern Nevada having the largest percentage of the Hispanic population, (over 300,000), I think that should be the beginning.  I would hope from that, this consulate could have a satellite in Reno, and possibly other parts of Nevada, so it would not be limited to just southern Nevada.  Certainly, the 3‑hour drive to San Bernardino is very difficult for many people.  Having the consulate representative visit Las Vegas once a month really does not cover their needs.  But, if we could establish a consulate in Las Vegas and have satellites throughout the state, I think that would be very positive for the balance of our community.

 

Senator Neal:

Is there a consulate general’s office in Phoenix or Tucson?

 

Senator Porter:

I cannot answer that, but I am quite sure there is, and I would be happy to verify it.  We first called the consulate office in Los Angeles (L.A.).  Staff there suggested we talk with staff at the San Bernardino consulate office.  We then communicated with the embassy in Washington, D.C., and with the U.S. State Department.  We have not been communicating with the Phoenix area; communications have been with San Bernardino, L.A. and Washington, D.C.

 

Senator Neal:

Thank you.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Are there any other questions?

 

Miguel Ferretra, Concerned Citizen:

Like most members of the Hispanic community, I am an interpreter at heart, and this is why I would like to share some of my experiences while trying to start a business relationship with Mexico. 

 

In 1998, as a marketing student at University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), with the explosion of Latino supermarkets in Las Vegas Valley, I saw a unique opportunity to start a business here.  I quickly learned that most of these supermarket operators were driving, almost on a regular basis, to Los Angeles to purchase Mexican dry goods products which were in high demand, and continue to be in high demand in Las Vegas. 

 

That is when I created “ImpoMex,” with the concept to bring groceries directly from Mexico to Las Vegas so we could offer the same availability of products, at the same competitive prices, but with local convenience.  ImpoMex was planned to be a cash-and-carry system with low overhead to pass savings on to supermarket operators.  The project came to a standstill while I was trying to find reliable information.  Information available through the Internet was “bogus,” and, eventually, I was directed to the San Bernardino consulate.  But they were overwhelmed with requests for services and information, leaving me with the alternative of hiring an agent or attorney to get the same type of information, at outrageous fees.  If there had been a consulate in Las Vegas, I could have gotten the information for free. 

 

I became frustrated with the lack of information and the lack of proper communication channels to Mexican authorities, and decided not to pursue ImpoMex.  However, I wanted to do something to avoid losing business opportunities with Mexico, so I contacted Senator Porter, who represented my district.  We met for about 2 hours to discuss the benefits of a Mexican consulate in Las Vegas.  Since then, he has kept me posted with regard to his efforts in this area.

 

For a few years now, California has benefited from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its free trade opportunities.  Las Vegas, on the other hand, has not, perhaps because we rely too much on the gaming industry.  As we all know, with the gaming markets starting to get saturated, we need to diversify our business base in Las Vegas so we can keep up with the growth we are currently experiencing.

 

Las Vegas provides the perfect setting, with its close location to Mexico, for a trading partnership with Mexico.  With the Hispanic population at nearly 20 percent in the Las Vegas Valley, most of Mexican descent, we can no longer ignore the services a consulate would provide to the citizens here.  The family ties between Mexicans in Las Vegas and their families in Mexico are very close.  Although we live in different countries, there are still very close ties.  As Senator Porter addressed earlier, Nevada’s Hispanic citizens need to be able to assist their families in Mexico, and a consulate would provide those types of services.

 

I would also like to say that over 200,000 tourists from Mexico visit Las Vegas every year.  In order to provide better service to this growing market, we need to be able to assist them should they encounter any type of problems while visiting Las Vegas.  A consulate would address those problems.  So, I am asking the Senate to please support the efforts of Senator Porter in bringing the Mexican Consulate to Las Vegas, so Las Vegas can start reaping the rewards of free trading and provide the needs the Hispanic community demands today. 

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Are there any questions from the committee?

 

Senator Neal:

I would like to inquire of the witness as to some of the difficulties he had in terms of trying to establish a business relationship with Mexico, if he could be specific in his comment.

 

Mr. Ferretra:

I was trying to start an import-export relationship.  I wanted a reliable source of information that was not available locally.  I wanted to speak with someone who had some type of official representation from the government of Mexico.  I was trying to find official information; you do not want to invest money in something, unless you know you are dealing with official, reliable information.

 

Rudolph Romo, Concerned Citizen:

I contacted Senator Porter to bring a consulate to Las Vegas.  I have been a Nevada resident for 3½ years, and there have been many things for which I have had to contact the Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles.

 

In 1992, my family had an unfortunate incident.  I had a second cousin who was here from Mexico.  While driving, he had an epileptic seizure and ran into a wall and killed himself instantly.  When I learned about this, I was talking to a friend of mine who suggested I call the Mexican Consulate for help.  I called the Mexican Consulate and talked about the problems we were having.  My cousin had no real immediate family here; all his family were from a little town on the outskirts of Guadalajara, Mexico.  We needed to fly his remains there.

 

The consulate staff assured me it would be taken care of promptly, and it was.  They flew his parents in from Mexico to L.A. to identify the body, and then flew the body and the parents back to their hometown.  The Mexican government picked up the tab.

 

I do not know if any other country does this for their citizens, and if they do not, I would hope they would start.  That brought a lot of relief to me, to know that being a citizen of Mexico, I had the support of the government.

 

I am in the process of getting my U.S. citizenship, but, right now, I am a U.S. resident, and I still would need the services of the Mexican Consulate to conduct any type of travel or business in Mexico.  Of the number of Mexicans Senator Porter says are in Nevada, not all are U.S. citizens.  We all need the services of the Mexican Consulate.  If you have to drive 3 hours to the consulate in San Bernardino or L.A., it is going to take at least 1 or 2 days away from your job, which means money has been taken from your table and your kids’ mouths, because there is no adequate representation here in Nevada, and you have to go 200 to 300 miles to get the help you need.

 

Senator Neal:

I seem to recall you had a gentleman by the name of Ray Vega, who acted as a special consulate for this area.  Does that position no longer exist in southern Nevada?

 

Mr. Romo:

Senator Neal, I am not sure if it exists or not.  The fact is, my work schedule does not permit me to conduct personal business during the time the consul from San Bernardino is here.  I would have to go to L.A. or San Bernardino to take care of business.  I do not know if Mr. Vega’s office still conducts business here; I know there is a consul from San Bernardino who comes once a month.  But, to try to orchestrate my time and my company’s time on a once-a-month basis is almost impossible.

 

Senator Titus:

This is a question for our staff.  I know the Legislature has a real close relationship with Taiwan and the embassy or the consulate in San Francisco and there have been a number of exchanges.  Has there ever been anything like that with any other government or with the Mexican government where there is a relationship with the Legislature?  If not, I wonder why not.

 

Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel:

I have no idea.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Senator Titus, we do not seem to have an answer for you, so, we will request staff get one. 

 

Mr. Romo:

Well, Madam Chairman, as I was saying, I brought this forward to Senator Porter who listened to all I had to say.  I speak for myself and my family when we say we greatly need a Mexican Consulate in the city of Las Vegas to conduct business; it would be a win-win situation for everybody.  I would just hope everybody in the Senate would support this bill, so we can see we have the support of state government and will be recognized, not just because of the numbers we have and the economic impact we bring, but because this will really show the Mexican population we are being taken seriously by the state government.  Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Porter, and the rest of the committee.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you, sir.  Is there anyone else wishing to testify?

 

Fernando Romero, Concerned Citizen, President, Hispanics in Politics:

Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this so important issue Senator Porter has so diligently been working on.  I had a prepared statement which I will cast aside to answer some of Senator Neal’s concerns.

 

Senator, all things being equal, in the past 10 years, your constituency has grown 217 percent.  I, as president of Hispanics in Politics, would like to know you and the other senators recognize this and would simply support S.J.R. 7.  The idea of a constituency growing 217 percent obviously also dictates services should increase likewise.  When you consider that in all of southern Nevada, including Clark County, only two individuals represent all of the Mexican nationals and anything dealing with issues with the Mexican government, it is obvious the need for a third office, particularly one here in Clark County, is essential.  We need one; San Bernardino is a bumper-to-bumper, 4-hour ride, 200-some-odd miles from here.  The urgency is on a daily basis, as has just been mentioned.  It is something we definitely need in Clark County.

 

I have had the pleasure of working in various industries in Clark County for the past 34 years.  One of them has been tourism.  I can tell you, Chairman O’Connell, many tourists who visit us from Mexico, who bring in solid dollars just as green as the ones in your pocket, need the services of a consulate office in times of emergencies.  When you are talking about, as Senator Porter mentioned, 300,000 to 500,000 visitors from Mexico in one year, even if you look at a bottom line 10 percent, or 1 percent, even, of individuals needing assistance from a consulate’s office here, the needs are great.  We urge you to support this ambitious project.  We need it here in Nevada, and we need it in Clark County.

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you, sir.  Would you happen to have any information on the steps taken in San Bernardino to acquire the consulate there?

 

Mr. Romero:

I do not have that information firsthand.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you very much.  Is there further testimony?

 

Eddie Escobedo, Concerned Citizen, President, Mexican Patriotic Committee:

I am president of the Mexican Patriotic Committee, and, also, publisher of a Spanish newspaper, El Mundo.  I have been living in Las Vegas since 1954, when there were only 80,000 people in the entire state of Nevada.  The Mexican Patriotic Committee was established in 1990.  Our first involvement with the Mexican Consulate in San Bernardino was the fire at the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.  Thanks to the relationship we had with the consulate at the time, we were able to solve those problems.  Thank God, no other tragedy like that has happened since.

 

Madam Chairman, you asked how many people we need to have a consulate.  Twenty years ago, the consulate in San Bernardino was still serving 3 counties, San Bernardino County and Riverside County, in California, and Clark County, Nevada.  For the Mexican government to establish a consulate, it needs a population of at least 300,000. 

 

Now, here in Clark County alone, you already know the number of Hispanics we have.  A good percentage of them are of Mexican descent.  That is one of the reasons we need a Mexican Consulate here.  The Mexican Consulate has been coming to town since the days we first established a relationship with them.  That was 20 years ago.  Now, they come once a month, but they do not have enough staff or facilities, and they are not able to process all the people needing the services of the consulate.

 

Mr. Ray Vega has been doing a great job here since he was appointed the honorary consul.  However, his office is not equipped to process any of the cases most of us have with the consulate.  Therefore, once again, we would like to ask the state Senate for your support of S.J.R. 7 to have a Mexican Consulate established in Las Vegas.  That would alleviate a lot of the problems we are having right now.  You would not believe how many hours it takes when you go to San Bernardino to be processed for any case, even to get a visa.  As a Mexican national, you still have to have a visa.  If you want to go to Mexico in your automobile, you need to have another type of document.  If you are going to take children born in the U.S., you have to take another type of document.  Before you spend 3 or 4 hours driving to San Bernardino, first of all, you have to see if you are able to get an appointment that day.  Therefore, it is a necessity; it is a must for us to have a Mexican Consulate here in Las Vegas.

 

Once again, I would like for all of you to support Senator Porter’s resolution to establish a Mexican Consulate here in Las Vegas.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Committee, any questions?

 

Liz Carrasco, Regional Representative, Representing United States Senator Harry Reid:

I am representing U.S. Senator Harry Reid today.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.  I would like to ask the following letter from Senator Reid be recorded into today’s proceedings (Exhibit F):

 

Honorable Chair O’Connell, Vice-Chair Raggio and Committee Members:

 

Las Vegas is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States.  Although, still well-known for gaming and entertainment, Las Vegas is now home to a thriving university community, an increasingly rich cultural scene, and a dynamic business sector.  In each of these areas, the Latino community is playing an ever-important role.

 

Latinos have been coming to Nevada at an amazing rate in recent years.  Today, about one in five Nevadans is of Latino descent and more than 80 percent of these are of Mexican ancestry.  During the last 10 years the Latino population of Nevada has grown 265 percent, and only four states have a higher percentage of Latino residents then Nevada.

 

There is no better place to appreciate the interface between Latino immigration and U.S. society than in Nevada, and I recognize that this change in population demands new services.  It is with this in mind that for the past several months I have been in talks with the Mexican Embassy in Washington to facilitate an Official Mexican Consulate in Nevada.  The last Honorary Consulate was overwhelmed by immigration cases that required the attention and services of immigration experts.  Moreover, Nevada needs an Official Consulate to serve the city’s growing Hispanic population with travel and tourism information, visa applications and the like.

 

The Mexican Foreign Ministry approved a consulate for Las Vegas, contingent on getting money from the Mexican Finance Ministry and approval from the U.S. State Department, to serve the city’s growing Latino population with travel and tourism information and visa applications.

 

This morning I met with the Mexican Ambassador to the United States, Juan José Brener, to discuss locating an Official Mexican Consulate in Las Vegas.  I offered him any additional assistance necessary to facilitate such efforts.  I also took the opportunity to extend an invitation to President Vicente Fox to visit Nevada, so that he can witness firsthand why Nevada needs an Official Mexican Consulate.

 

I look forward to working with state and local officials in Nevada, as well as with Ambassador Brener and President Fox, in order to continue the good relations between Nevada and Mexico, and to make Las Vegas the newest home to an Official Consulate of the United States of Mexico.  I hope you will join me in supporting this effort.

 

Sincerely,

Harry Reid

United States Senator

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you very much.  We appreciate the testimony. 

 

 

 

Senator Neal:

How do you go about establishing a consulate office?  I noticed in the resolution, it is directed toward the State Department to act upon this.  Is it the State Department or is it the government of Mexico who is involved here?

 

Ms. Carrasco:

This is federal jurisdiction.  This resolution before you is simply a supportive measure, to support the efforts of bringing these two communities together.  The Mexican government and the U.S. State Department decide how the consulate gets here.

 

Senator Neal:

So, it would be those individuals.  In Senator Reid’s conversation with them, do they seem to be amenable to establishing such an office?

 

Ms. Carrasco:

Yes, they do, sir.  Apparently they have been amenable to the idea for some time, and it is an issue Senator Reid has been working on.  The Mexican Foreign Ministry did not have the funds, until recently, to open an office here in Las Vegas.  The recent numbers released in the census made it even more necessary to establish a consulate.  But, this has been in the works for some time now.

 

Senator Neal:

What would be the quid pro quo for the Mexican government to open a consulate in Las Vegas?  I can understand L.A. and California where you have a lot of products and manufacturing, and California is so closely located near the border.  What would be the quid pro quo here?

 

Ms. Carrasco:

I believe, as some previous folks mentioned, it is not just Mexicans visiting the U.S. who are in need of those services, but rather, folks who are living here in the community and are either legal, permanent residents and have family members who are Mexican, or have dual citizenship.

 

So, the services of the consulate would serve not only those tourists who are coming here and helping our economy, but also the folks who are living here and need to get documentation for their family members to travel or need to apply for visas.  There is a myriad of different services necessary for folks who live here in the community, as well.

Senator Neal:

There does not seem to be a problem with individuals who are living here and want to go to Mexico; you are saying it is just a problem from the other side, the families actually living in Mexico who would like to come here but have a difficult time getting visas.

 

Ms. Carrasco:

It is both, sir.  It is not only tourists who come here and are in need of services.  It is like when we, as American citizens, travel outside of the United States and situations arise for which we may need the help of an American Embassy.  It is that scenario and also for the folks who are living here who are either legal permanent residents or dual citizens with both countries.

 

Senator Neal:

Do we presently have flights coming here from Mexico?  How are they getting here?

 

Ms. Carrasco:

I do not understand how that question relates to the testimony.  Could you clarify what exactly you are asking, Senator Neal?

 

Senator Neal:

Well, the fact is, if you have tourists coming here, and they are coming here on Mexican airlines, what seems to be the problem?

 

Ms. Carrasco:

They are not arriving just on Mexican airlines, but on American airlines as well.  The air travel is not the issue, but rather, the documentation for people who need to be serviced for immigrant visas or tourist visas, or for a family member who may have died, those kinds of situations where people need assistance in transporting a body.  San Bernardino is too far away.  In Las Vegas, the Latino population has grown immensely.  I think having the government affairs committee supporting this resolution only solidifies the support for the Latino community and recognizes the fact Latinos and, more specifically, Latinos of Mexican ancestry, are an important part of everyone’s constituency.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you for your testimony.  Is there anyone else to testify?

 

Judy Fleischman, District Representative for Congresswoman Shelly Berkley:

I have a letter from Congresswoman Berkley (Exhibit G), which she wanted to share this afternoon, and it reads as follows:

 

Dear Government Affairs Committee Members,

 

I am writing to express my support for a Mexican Consulate to be built in Las Vegas, Nevada.  I believe that this is necessary to serve our fast-growing Latino population.

 

The past 10 years have seen tremendous growth in Nevada.  Included in that growth is a 27 percent increase in the Latino population.  The projected Latino growth for 2009 (year 2009) is approximately 539,709 people.  The only current consulate dealing with the needs of this community is located in San Bernardino, California, over 200 miles away.

 

It is estimated that, on an annual basis, 15,000 documents are generated in San Bernardino that originate from requests from Nevadans.  This includes passports, general identification cards, notary services, and military enlistment forms.  The growth we are experiencing in Nevada clearly suggests that these types of requests are going to continue to increase.  It is essential that we make it easier for the Mexican community in Nevada to have its needs met, to help new immigrants deal with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and help Mexican workers obtain documents.  Furthermore, a Mexican Consulate in Las Vegas will help the hundreds of thousands of Mexican tourists who travel to Nevada every year; and, the consulate will help promote Mexican culture and businesses throughout Nevada.

 

It is my understanding that the Mexican Foreign Ministry has tentatively approved a permanent Mexican Consulate in Las Vegas.  I sincerely urge you to expedite this process to help serve the many needs of Mexican citizens living in Nevada.

 

Thank you for your consideration of my view.

 

Sincerely,

Shelly Berkley

Member of Congress

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you for the testimony.  Is there anyone else wishing to testify?

 

Otto Merida, Executive Director, Latin Chamber of Commerce:

Before I make my remarks, I want to introduce Leticia Acevedo.  She has a letter written by one of our city councilmen.

 

Leticia Acevedo, Concerned Citizen, Board of Directors, Latin Chamber of Commerce:

Good afternoon, this letter states:

 

Dear Chairman Porter [sic] and committee members,

 

As a member of the Las Vegas City Council, and Latin Chamber of Commerce, I am writing this letter in support of establishing a Mexican Consulate in southern Nevada.

 

With our Hispanic population growing at such a phenomenal rate, it is important we provide resources that serve the interests of our constituents as well as the needs of our visitors from Mexico.  Our community has undoubtedly [reached a size to meet] the demands for the services a consulate would make available.  And, I believe it would be a valuable addition to southern Nevada.

 

I am excited about the fact that the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs has approved Las Vegas as a location for a consulate and hope the United States Senate Department [sic] does the same.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to express my support on this issue.

 

Sincerely,

Lynette Boggs-McDonalds

Councilwoman

 

Mr. Merida:

I also have another member of the board of directors, Mr. Ray Vega, who would like to make some remarks.

 

 

 

Ray Vega, Concerned Citizen, Board of Directors, Latin Chamber of Commerce:

I had the pleasure of being the Honorary Consul for Las Vegas for 4 1/2 years.  I learned a lot in that time about my Mexican roots, and the people who are here from Mexico.

 

We were served through the Honorary Consul in San Bernardino.  The city of Las Vegas gave us an office to use at the Rafael Rivera Center, and once a month we would have a mobile consul from San Bernardino.  We were taking care of 400 to 500 people for passports and any other kind of paperwork.  Also, if someone were to die and a family wanted to send the body back to Mexico, be it a tourist or anyone else, we would help the family get the papers from San Bernardino, so they could ship the body.

 

Also, if you went to Mexico and had a problem with law enforcement, you would go to the U.S. Consulate, and the U.S. Consulate would send someone to help you.  I would visit the center every 2 weeks to explain the laws to people and see there was justice and they were treated in a humane manner.  What is needed is a permanent consul, a career consul.

 

The Mexican government had one party in power for 71 years, but now we have a new party.  This is to show the state is supporting a consulate.  A consulate has already been allocated.  We are asking for your support for the Mexican community.  Someone coming from Mexico as a tourist has to have permission from the U.S. government to come into the United States.  Once here, if they were to lose their passport, get sick, or have a problem, they would call our office and we would assist them.  I have seen what this office can do, and a career office will have a career consul to sign papers and take care of any emergencies.  It would be a complete asset to Las Vegas.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you very much, Mr. Vega.

 

Mr. Merida:

On behalf of the Latin Chamber of Commerce, its membership and board, we are here today to support S.J.R. 7.  This resolution urges the U.S. department of state to approve the establishment of a Mexican Consulate in Las Vegas.  Starting in 1992, the Latin Chamber of Commerce Office served as a Mexican Consulate for 4 years.  After this effort, the Mexican government named Rafael Ray Vega to serve under the Consul General, who was in San Bernardino at that time.  As its Honorary Consul in Las Vegas one Saturday a month, Mr. Vega served with pride and distinction for approximately 4 1/2 years.

 

By looking at the numbers, in the recent year 2000 census, Clark County shows a Hispanic population of 22 percent, or over 302,143 individuals.  Of those, at least 60 percent, or over 181,000, are Mexican or Mexican-American.  In addition, approximately 1,433,000 Hispanics visit Las Vegas every year.  Of those, 860,000 are Mexican or of Mexican descent.

 

As of 1997, there were at least 6,600 Hispanic businesses in Nevada, over 50 percent of them Mexican.  You can ascertain this consulate is long overdue.  The conditions are right, not only for this consulate to work and provide services to the Mexican population, such as passports, ID cards, certified papers, and so on, but to work closely with the International Trade Division of the Economic Development Commission to help the expansion and development of commerce and trade between Nevada and Mexico.  Therefore, we want to reiterate our support for this resolution, since the community deserves a permanent consulate and Las Vegas merits this distinction.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you very much.  Is there anyone else to testify?

 

Marlena Burnet, Fair Treatment for Immigrants:

I am with Fair Treatment for Immigrants and a resident of the state of Nevada since 1972.  I am here, not only to reassure you of the great need of having a consulate, but also as an American citizen who travels to Mexico frequently and making plans to retire in Mexico with my belongings.  It takes a great deal of doing to obtain all the documents needed to travel to Mexico, to take your belongings, your cars and everything you need.

 

There are certain warnings and things all citizens should have.  The U.S. State Department does a great service for that, but we need to travel to San Bernardino, Los Angeles, or San Francisco to complete the paperwork, and it is very time consuming and very costly.  I urge your committee to pass this resolution to help the Mexican community.  Conversely, the American community is in great need of services when they travel to Mexico, also.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you very much for your testimony.

John E. Scott, Concerned Citizen, District Director, Nevada District Office, United States Small Business Administration:

I want to echo the sentiments expressed with respect to the business perspective on the possible establishment of this Mexican Consulate in southern Nevada. 

 

The Hispanic business population in this state, as recently as the 1997 formal business census by the U.S. Department of Census, which is the last one and, of course, is already nearly 4 years old, indicated there were 6,600 Hispanic businesses here in the state of Nevada, predominately in southern Nevada and in Clark County.

 

We think the establishment of a consulate would have tremendous benefit for establishing a number of linkages in Mexico with a commercial attaché among the mix of 10 to 12 possible consulate staffers Senator Porter alluded to a moment ago.  We see a great deal of potential for expansion of tourism with sister-city links to various chambers of commerce across the country of Mexico.  We think this symbolic gesture by the State of Nevada in support of this particular resolution would be an extremely strong signal to Mexican-Americans and Mexican nationals, as well as to small business and economic development, not only here in southern Nevada, but in Mexico, too, since Mexico is one of our three leading trade partners in the world.  And, of course, we have even stronger ties with them through NAFTA of 1993. 

 

With that, I would like to personally lend my support to this senate resolution.  Thank you.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you, sir.  Is there anyone else wishing to testify?

 

Elena S. Eaves, Concerned Citizen:

My company recently moved to Nevada.  We had a Florida corporation license to do business in Nevada.  Our business is to consult exporters, do some training and promote trade between the two nations.

 

Nevada has over 800 exporters, and that is one of the reasons we looked into moving into Nevada to do business.  A Mexican Consulate, for example, can issue the FM3 form, which is the business visa American citizens and manufacturers need in order to sell their services in Mexico.  It is an expedited way to sell our services, and we would not have to travel for miles to obtain the documentation.

 

It is not just for those of Mexican descent, but helps every exporter.  Also, exports leaving the state of Nevada will be counted more readily as Nevada exports if documentation is done in this state by the Mexican Consulate, rather than as a California export, with a Mexican-San Bernardino Consulate stamp on it.  We are losing a lot of credit, and that is why we look like the 45^th state in exports; we do not have a Mexican Consulate to stamp our papers as a Nevada export.  I want you to consider this because it is good for all Nevada residents.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you for your testimony.  I hate to ask this question, but is there anyone else wishing to testify?

 

Robert E. Shriver, Director, Division of Economic Development, Commission on Economic Development:

I think questions raised about trade and the importance of this office, by Senator Neal and others, were important.  I would like to have Mr. DiStefano highlight very quickly what is going on.

 

Alan DiStefano, Concerned Citizen, Director, Global Trade and Investment:

What I would like to do is just briefly give you some quantitative data about what the consulate does, and data to address Senator Neal’s very good questions about the importance of the consulate, not just for American citizens. 

 

There are two handouts you should have before you that I have prepared.  One has to do with our trade with Mexico (Exhibit H).  The other has to do with job creation through NAFTA (Exhibit I).

 

After NAFTA, our export trade with Mexico increased rapidly (Exhibit H).  In the last 2 years, from 1998 to the year 2000, our exports to Mexico have gone up.  Mexico has gone from our fourth largest trading partner to our second largest trading partner.  From 1998 to 2000, our exports to Mexico went from $21 million to $127 million.

 

The other report you have before you is called “NAFTA Delivers for Nevada” (Exhibit I).  This documents the number of jobs created through 1999.  The report was issued in September 2000 and discusses how, under NAFTA, a total of 2,748 jobs were created in Nevada and that 293 of these are directly related to our exports to Mexico.  With our exports doubling in the last year, the number of jobs in Nevada has gone up commensurately.

 

It is important to have our export data.  Our largest area of export, 63 percent, is in what the U.S. Department of Commerce defines as electronic and electrical equipment.  The products manufactured by Nevada’s high-tech companies amount to 63 percent of our exports to Mexico, so this is a very important area for us.

 

California has ten Mexican Consulates.  Right now, because of the way Nevada is divided, the Consulate General’s Office out of San Bernardino handles southern Nevada.  Northern Nevada is handled out of the Sacramento office.  These are both part-time offices.  These two offices do not always communicate, so, if there are Nevada-wide issues, especially trade issues, you have to deal with two different offices in California, which only work on Nevada issues part-time.  So, having a full time consulate office in the state of Nevada will really help to address those Nevada issues. 

 

One of the key members of a consulate is called a Trade Consul.  That person helps facilitate the trade between Nevada and Mexico.  It is not just the population of Hispanics in Nevada, but also the importance of the increasing trade with Mexico.  The trade between Nevada and Mexico is growing at a rate of 100 percent a year, and Mexico can easily become our largest trade partner; therefore, it is economically very important to us.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Are there any questions from the committee?

 

Senator Porter:

I just want to say thank you to a couple of people; I will be very brief.  Ray (Vega) was here today, as were Fernando (Romero), Otto (Merida), and Eddie (Escobedo). They are four of the leaders of the Latino Hispanic community and have been for many years.  They should be commended because, although there are close to 400,000 members in this community, it is a very diverse group with different ideas and different opinions.  They have worked very hard for this community for a number of years.  I applaud them for their efforts.  Also, a young man in my office, Josh Martinez, who is of Mexican descent, has been diligently working on this project, and, for the record, I would like to thank him, too.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

We will close the hearing on S.J.R. 7 and open the hearing on S.B. 324. 

 

SENATE BILL 324:  Requires that toilet facilities in public buildings and places of public accommodation be identified with signs discernible by blind and other visually impaired persons. (BDR 28-78)

 

Senator Titus:

Senate Bill 324 was brought at the request of an outstanding organization in southern Nevada known as Blind Connect.  This group includes several individuals you all know, including Jean Peyton, who is also very active in Mediators of Southern Nevada, and Bonnie James, who lobbied here in Carson City for years for the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce.  This organization, Blind Connect, provides a number of services, outreach information and assistance to people in southern Nevada who are seeing-impaired.

 

Many of the things we take for granted are major challenges for people who cannot see.  Imagine waking up in the morning with no sight, or having been born without ever knowing the color of the sky.  Amazing scientific progress has been made over the years in the area of sight enhancement and we have come a long way towards making society and its institutions more “blind friendly,” but a lot more needs to be done.  Under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) passed in 1990, there are certain requirements for signage for the blind.  I have handed to you a section of the ADA that covers those regulations in relation to signage (Exhibit J).  These are very good, and that is why I included the provision that any signs we have in the state should meet these requirements in the bill.

 

There is just one thing wrong with these requirements.  They leave out something that is very important.  Section 4.30.6 (Exhibit J) discusses mounting location and height.  In relation to placement of a sign, the only requirement is that it be placed right outside the door of the restroom.  The problem is many times restrooms are down at the end of a long hall.  They are difficult to find or sometimes the men’s restroom is at one end and the women’s restroom is at another.  If you cannot see, you do not know which way to go.  So, I offer this bill, which would require the State Public Works Board to set some recommendations for placing signs in an area where they can be found, without having to go into these difficult places, and then require local governments to adopt the recommendations of the State Public Works Board.

 

In addition, I would ask there be one amendment to the bill, which is the other handout I gave you (Exhibit K), regarding enforcement.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Regarding this fiscal note on the bill, are we talking about signs?

 

Senator Titus:

We were just talking about signs, and I do not believe there is going to be a fiscal note.  There is already a requirement by the ADA to put these signs up.  The signs have to meet ADA requirements, in terms of size and Braille.  This would just be a requirement they be placed somewhere more convenient and more accessible.  I do not think there is going to be a real cost.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

I wonder if we could ask staff if they would look into this, because they have almost a $900,000 fiscal note on this.

 

Paul Gowins, Concerned Citizen, Member, Disability Forum:

I am here on behalf of the Disability Forum.  Jean Peyton is a member of the forum and she originally contacted me about this.  When she explained to me, the issue was the placement of the signs, I began to understand.  It would not be convenient for a woman to be at the end of the hallway and realize she was at the men’s bathroom.

 

As this bill was being developed, I got several calls from different places and different agencies, trying to add a fiscal note to this bill, asking about what signs cost.  I informed the callers it costs between $30 and $55 for an appropriate sign, which is in conformance with the ADA.   I think the fiscal note attached to the bill is based on replacing all the signs in all buildings.  After further investigation, it was determined the issue was where to place the signs, not that more or different signage would be required.

 

In looking at a way to implement a solution, Nevada is somewhat at a disadvantage because there is not a state building code.  So, you could not just amend the state building code.  Each municipality uses different codes.  There is not an easy way to address this issue because it is not addressed in the ADA.  So, I think you are seeing the fiscal note because everyone thought we would have to change all the signs.  Much of that fiscal note could go away, should this bill pass as currently proposed.

 

We often forget the ADA signage guidelines are a bare minimum standard.  We look at it as a gold card, when really, it is a basic item.  We hope this will be considered.  These issues are going to come forward in Nevada as they have in the past.  This is one way to deal with it.  We would hope we could look at it as a positive method of working out where to put signs. 

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you, sir.

 

Scott W. Youngs, Program Coordinator, Americans with Disabilities Act Nevada:

I have been working with the ADA for about 10 years, ever since it was passed.  There are two things in this bill I think are important, and we need to expand on.  Title 2 of the ADA, regarding public entities, contains a requirement for signage.  The other component is the impact of private places which offer services to the public.  There is a lack of enforcement in ADA with regard to an existing facility.  Existing facilities are required to remove barriers, if it is readily achievable to do so.  That part of the language of the bill leaves it up to private entities to take upon themselves any necessary action.  If a person with a disability recognizes a private entity is not meeting those requirements of the ADA, he or she can file a complaint.  The complaint process is very time-consuming and burdensome. 

 

This bill could substantiate that language in the law and enforce it at the state level.  No longer can you just sit back and wait until somebody files a complaint.  This is actually a proactive step to have ADA look at buildings and signage and make sure the needs of those with disabilities in the state are met.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Can you tell us, in trying to correct this problem, where would you place the signs?

 

Mr. Youngs:

That would depend on the nature of the facility.  The ADA requires the sign be placed 60 inches from the floor on the latch side of the door.  We have heard getting to the actual location is the issue for those with visual impairments and those who are blind.  The signs might be placed at the beginning of corridors, depending on the flow of the public in a particular facility.  Casinos have a particularly daunting task of directing people through their buildings.  You would have to look at that on a case-by-case basis.  Look at the design of the facility and use some common sense.  Determine the public flow, and place those signs in sensible locations.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

This presents an interesting problem; you can usually look up and it will say “restrooms,” with an arrow or something.  But, of course, those whose sight is impaired could not possibly reach that signage to read the Braille.

 

Mr. Youngs:

There might be a way to handle that.  The size requirement under the ADA that a sign must be at a particular height might help meet the needs of some people with limited vision.

 

There may be a way to include tactile information in Braille on a marquee, information desk, or somewhere in a centralized location where people would be able to get that information when they entered the facility, whether it be public or private.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

But, the ADA does not give any suggestions other than maybe the height in some instances.

 

Mr. Youngs:

There is language in the law that provides a scope.  It mainly has to do with any fixed room or spaces not likely to change, like a restroom or office.  That is where tactile and Braille signage placement is mandated.

 

Senator Titus:

Information centers with maps might be good places for signs.  We realize it is going to be difficult, which is why we did not put any specifics in the law.  We left it to public works, working with all the people involved, to try and come up with a common-sense approach.  It is a challenge.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Are there any further questions for these folks?

Bonnie James, Concerned Citizen, Member, Blind Connect:

I do not have too much to add, other than as a personal observation, to what Senator Titus has said and what you already recognize from the earlier conversation.  Having just recently lost my central vision, I still have peripheral vision which helps a great deal, but I cannot read. 

 

I was at Boulder Station for dinner and needed to go to the restroom.  Having no thought I would need someone to help me find the restroom, I just got up and excused myself and I went out into the casino.  I traveled around the casino; usually the restrooms are identified with very brilliant neon large signs.  The problem is all those lights blend together.  I could not find the big sign that said “Restrooms,” so I went back to the table and asked my companion to lead me to the restroom.

 

The restroom was down a long hall; the “Restrooms” sign was very high and could not be seen by me or anyone with low vision.  You had to go down the corridor, and when you got to the end, you went one way for men and another way for women.  Now, I can go up, and, by rubbing my hand on the sign, identify which is which.  If there had been a sign at the beginning of the corridor as I went by, I would have seen it and made the correct turn to go down the corridor.

 

I think, in public buildings, it is one thing, but in private buildings, I do not think the cost of putting up a sign for restrooms to make it easier for people with low vision to find the men’s or women’s restroom, should be an issue.  The only alternative would be to “co-op,” and have unisex bathrooms.

 

Ms. Peyton has worked very hard with Blind Connect.  We have talked to a lot of people who have finally found their way to someone who can give them some information.  She has been very active and very busy in listening to some of the problems and coming up with some of these ideas.  I would like Ms. Peyton to make some comments on this, as somebody who has been personally involved for a very long time.

 

Jean Peyton, Concerned Citizen, member, Blind Connect:

I am a blind person.  I travel with a male guide dog.  I only tell you that so, as I reflect on some incidents, you will understand why these signs are so important.

 

Unless you are blind, you do not understand what it really means to try to be an independent woman and not be able to find a restroom on your own, or when you finally find the restroom, not being real sure that it is for women.  The issue is two-fold: we do have the ADA, which requires all restrooms be identified in a standardized way, with a gender sign in Braille raised print, and with the sign on the latch side of the door.  I can tell you that probably 50 percent of places in Nevada are either out of compliance with the ADA or do not have a clue as to what the ADA requires.

 

If you go to a restroom, you cannot find the sign where it belongs.  You find it in the center of the door.  So, you are feeling the sign to see if it is men’s restroom or a women’s restroom; someone opens the door, and there you are with your fist right in their face.  It happens.  The other difficult thing is when you cannot really see or touch the sign to see what it really says.  That happens quite often in what we define as vestibules, where from the body of a building, the restroom is at the other end of a vestibule.  You have to make a commitment to go down a long hallway or vestibule without actually knowing if you are going in the right direction.  That is why I mentioned I travel with a male guide dog.  Because when I need to use a restroom, rather than asking a person, I tell my dog to “find the room,” and he does.  He gets to the restroom, but he cannot read, either.  He does not know if he has gone to the men’s room or the ladies’ room, and so he just makes a choice and enters.  More often than not, I am greeted with a very strong male voice informing me I am in the wrong location.

 

There are an estimated 16,000 blind folks in Clark County.  The blind population is growing faster and faster here.  There is a need for us to be able to identify restrooms independently.

 

I would like to see the gender identification sign on the wall at the intersection where a vestibule meets a corridor or a hallway.  That way I can commit to go down a hallway knowing I have made the right decision, because I have all the information I need.  At this point, I am forced to make a commitment to go down a hallway without all the information.  That is unfair.  Those of you who have sight know you have made the right decision.  Those of us who do not have sight do not have a clue until we get to the end.  That is why we are looking for this.  It is to maintain our independence.  We do not think it is an unreasonable request.  I do not agree with the folks who say they believe there will be an impact on money because it requires one sign.  It can be moved from wherever it is currently.  Even if it costs $30, that is not a ton of money to allow blind folks and visually impaired folks to maintain their independence.

 

The last thing I would like to talk about is enforcement.  I just hate to insist on sign enforcement, because it seems to me it is the right of people with disabilities to have the things promised them in the Americans with Disabilities Act, but we know that does not happen. 

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Are there any questions for Ms. Peyton?  I wanted to ask Mr. Youngs what they do, as far as enforcement is concerned, to address the problem Ms. Peyton just mentioned?

 

Mr. Youngs:

As far as title 2 of the ADA goes, if you are talking about a public entity, they have to do a self-evaluation and transition plan to identify those barriers.  With regard to cost, there is a term in the ADA called “program accessibility.”  For a public facility, “program accessibility” means you will not be treated differently based solely on your disability.  So, if you are going into any public building, you should have the same rights as those who do not have disabilities.  I think putting a sign in a location to provide program accessibility for visually impaired or blind individuals is something they should be doing already.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Who currently does the enforcement?

 

Mr. Youngs:

Under title 2 of the ADA, if it is a programmatic accessibility issue, it is the Department of Justice (DOJ) and also the DOJ for the private entity.  Or, somebody could enter into a private right of action, hiring an attorney and suing a private entity in federal court.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

You would not go to that extreme probably.  I am just wondering, is there a building inspector who looks for these things when performing an inspection?

 

Mr. Youngs:

No, the ADA is a civil rights law; it is not a building code.  Therein lies the problem; you can build a building to meet local code requirements and still fall short in some of the ADA requirements.  When the law was enacted, some of the language recommended local building departments and local entities apply for a “Certificate of Equivalency,” where they would get all their model codes together and submit those to the DOJ.  The DOJ would  look at the model codes and say, “These codes meet or exceed ADA requirements.”  The only enforcement body out there is the federal entity which hears complaints at the federal level.  There are no “ADA police” who are going out there and ensuring access. It is the separation of federal law from local control.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Thank you.  It would seem to be, certainly with new buildings, a place to start, because you do need to have handicap restrooms.  So, maybe a building code might be an answer, to begin with.

 

Is anyone else in this room interested in testifying on S.B. 324?

 

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association:

We have some concerns about certain sections of this bill.  I think it would be appropriate to take the time to find out what this bill really does.

 

Section 2, page 3, requires the State Public Works Board to adopt a regulation about signage in publicly-owned buildings to make sure they are available to, and identifiable to, the blind and other visually impaired persons.  Further, as Senator Titus pointed out, they should at least conform to the requirements of the ADA.  The building operators could go beyond the requirements of the ADA because, if they just conform to the requirements of the ADA, there will not be any change in the current law.  I can speak for law-abiding firms who have spent lots of money trying to comply, in new construction, when the building was remodeled, or if, in fact, they had to go in and make a change under the ADA.

 

Section 3 requires each governing body of local governments to adopt an ordinance which conforms to the regulation adopted by the State Public Works Board.  Essentially, it is saying, whatever the State Public Works Board does, which affects state government buildings, those same rules must apply to anyone covered under 42 United States Code (USC) 12181.  It is important we get into the record what that means.  Under that section of the federal code, it means:

 

An inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building containing no more than five rooms for rent or hire and actually occupied by the proprietor, as the residence of such proprietor; a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink; a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, other place of exhibition or entertainment, an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, other place of public gathering, a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center or sales or rental establishment, laundromat, dry cleaners, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or a lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital or other service establishment, terminal, depot or other station used for specific public transportation, museum, library, gallery, or other public display or collection, park, zoo, amusement park or other place of recreation, nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, postgraduate, private school or other place of education, day care centers, senior citizens’ center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency or other social service center establishments, gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course or other place of exercise or recreation.

 

I think it is important, because you have a fiscal note with a $900,000 appropriation to the state.  Can you imagine what that note will be for private industry?  This bill would require the State Public Works Board to adopt some standard above what is currently contained in the ADA.  That is clearly what the testimony indicated.  If we were satisfied with the ADA in its application, we could accept that. 

 

Senator Titus:

I think we made it very clear we did not want to change anything in the ADA, except location, not the signs, not anything else except location.  Now, are not all of those places you just listed already covered by the ADA?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

Yes, they are all covered.

 

 

Senator Titus:

So, they are already covered by the ADA.  What we said in the testimony, very clearly, was we did not want to add any restrictions.  I even passed out the restrictions the ADA has already established, with the exception of location.  Now, how can you say this is such an added burden and great expense, and give this list as though I am including all these new things not already covered by the ADA?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

I believe this bill would require a physical change in each of those businesses covered by the ADA today and also require a change in signage.

 

Senator Titus:

I do not believe that.  Why do you say that?  We just said we would have a hearing concerning where the sign is convenient.  We would use common sense to determine if the location is at the end of a corridor or if there were other choices.  If it were just one bathroom or one door, then you would not have to make any changes.  I would suspect some of those places you just listed there at great length would fall into that kind of situation.

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

Senator Titus, I am not sure what the answer would be, because, in a regulatory process, I do not know what the limits might be.  Perhaps if the bill were more specific about what it wanted done, we would reconsider our position.

 

Senator Titus:

Well, maybe you could help us make it a little more specific instead of coming in here acting like we are imposing these great restrictions on you, when in reality they are already in place by the ADA.

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

Our member hotels try to meet, and I think do meet, all those requirements today.  Unfortunately, this bill requires, by January 1, 2002, we meet the requirements of whatever regulations are written.  We think that is unreasonable and could get expensive.

 

My suggestion is: we start with local government and government in general and see if it makes sense, and then we can get a working regulation.  If we can, then I would have no objections to moving on to the private industry.  I just do not know what the impact is going to be.  I certainly am not trying to make life difficult for citizens of this state who are disabled.  We have done a lot to try to achieve a lot more access for the disabled in this state, at least in my industry, which is a casino industry.  I see an awful lot of things that have been done, I think, to the benefit of those individuals as well as to the benefit of the business.  I think people with disabilities now come to our state, whether they are locals or visitors, and spend a considerable sum of money in our casinos because we have made it friendly through the ADA for them to have access.

 

Senator Titus:

Do many blind people gamble?  Is that the problem?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

Do many blind people gamble?  I do not know.

 

Senator Titus:

You do not have any studies showing what percentage of your customers might be seeing-impaired?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

I do not know, “seeing-impaired” to me is a different definition than “blind” Senator.  I guess low-vision people probably do gamble.  I do not know about the blind; that, to me, would seem to be very difficult, without some assistance.

 

Senator Titus:

I think maybe that is the reason you are not too concerned about making accommodations.

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

We have accommodations now; we have Braille, and we have signs.

 

Senator Neal:

I just wanted to ask the question, Madam Chairman, as to whether or not the people Mr. Ostrovsky represents think blind people have different needs for restroom facilities than the seeing public?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

Senator Neal, I am not an expert on what requirements the disabled have, or specifically, what the blind have and what their needs are.

Senator Neal:

If you are human, you need restroom facilities.  That is a fact, whether you are blind or whether you see.  The point is, do the people you represent think blind folks have different needs than people who see?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

From that perspective, no, they are like anyone else; they need restroom facilities.  They are asking here today for some special requirements to get assistance in finding those facilities, I understand that.

 

Senator Neal:

I could hardly be concerned about your objection, because, if you are in business, and if the place you represent is open to all people, including those who are blind, then it seems to me proper facilities would be provided.  That would be the humane thing to do, would it not?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

That is correct, and we do provide proper facilities, but I am a little perplexed about what standards we might find in the new regulation.  For example, we are going to have to change the size of the signs we currently have.  This regulation could clearly require that, without limitation.  We do have signs now that fit the requirements of the ADA.

 

Senator Neal:

The simple fact is that you would much rather the person find a restroom as go to the restroom on the floor of your facility, right?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

I certainly would agree with that statement, Senator Neal.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

So, your concern with this bill is that it is going to be identified with some regulation unknown at the present time.  Is that the major concern?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

We are concerned because we do not know what the regulation might contain.  It is not limited in any way by the language of this bill, as it is currently drafted.  There is an expense which all businesses will have to incur.  That is why I read the list; it does not just cover casinos. 

We would all have to comply, under this language, by July 1, 2002, without exception. For the purposes of adopting a regulation, it became effective upon passage and approval.  It seems to me, this would have to be done in a big hurry for most businesses.  We would have to integrate those signs into a themed hotel, or a gas station, or whatever it is we may have.  I think that is asking a lot in a short period of time.  I would be happy to work with Senator Titus to try to find some language that, perhaps, we could live with.

 

Senator Neal:

Mr. Ostrovsky, you have checked off the list of things and talked about the gas station, the lawyers’ offices, and things like that.  Is it not a fact, when you go to those types of places, even the sighted people ask for directions?  The attendant usually says, “The second door on the right,” or something like that.  Have you had that experience?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

Senator, I have.  I believe that is a violation of the law.  If you make a person who is impaired follow some procedure other than that which the non-impaired person has to follow, then you may, in fact, have violated the law.

 

Senator Neal:

So, you are saying it is best not to do it at all?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

No, I am saying, one way to accommodate the disabled is by personal assistance.  It is my understanding this is really the last option, because people who are disabled want to be self-sufficient, and I understand.

 

Senator Neal:

The natural thing to do would be to put some direction there, where the person could feel it and see it, right?

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

We have such direction now.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Ms. Peyton, you are the only person other than Ms. James we have in the room right now who has difficulty with blurred vision in a lighted situation.  Can you share with us, in your experiences going through this on a regular basis, what would be the answer for you, if you were the only person making this decision?

 

Ms. Peyton:

May I step back a moment and respond to Mr. Ostrovsky?  This does not affect every single restroom in the world.  It affects only those restrooms where you cannot immediately identify whether it is a men’s room or a women’s room, and separated from the body of the facility by a vestibule.  That eliminates a lot of things.  If you are in a corridor or a hallway, and you are walking down, and you are trailing the wall with your hand until you find that restroom sign, that works.  But, it is when you do not have the ability to find the restroom sign that this bill would really have an impact.

 

Having said that, if I could do whatever I wanted with this bill, I would say, anytime there is a vestibule leading to a restroom or restrooms, and that vestibule could be from 2 feet to 20 feet, at the point where the vestibule meets the hallway or corridor, a gender identification sign should be placed as the ADA requires, 60 inches above the finished floor on the right hand side of the wall.  That is all I am asking for.  I think if you can do that, you can really open up the independence of blind and visually impaired folks.  You do not have to be totally blind to not be able to see those signs.  Many visually impaired people cannot see them, particularly if the signs are above eye level.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

So, that is what you were trying to get at with this bill?

 

Ms. Peyton:

Correct.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Well, I certainly think we can easily accommodate that, if Senator Titus does not have a problem with it.  If we could, perhaps, in the codes, write something and then see what we can fashion out of the language you just shared with us.  Your concern is, specifically, a vestibule or a corridor where you do not know which side of the hallway is going to accommodate a women’s restroom or a men’s restroom.

 

Ms. Peyton:

That is correct.

Chairman O’Connell:

OK, I think we might be able to work with that easily enough.

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

If it was limited to that, and the signs called for here are just the signs required by the ADA, the same signs, we would agree to that.  I do not know if that meets everyone’s needs, but certainly that is a reasonable request we would like to meet.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

She is taking it a little bit further in that she wants to be able to tell if the men’s restroom is on the right-hand side or on the left-hand side.  You would need to know whether there is a dead end at the end of the corridor or whether people could be coming from both directions, to accommodate that.  I think that would probably handle the question.  So, we ought to be able to address the issue pretty easily.  Ms. Guinasso, do you think you could come up with some language for us?

 

Ms. Guinasso:

Certainly, it would be my pleasure.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Would you also look into the building codes, so for any new construction this would be a requirement as well?

 

Ms. Guinasso:

Madam Chairman, if I may, I believe section 3 would do that.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

We are talking about changing the bill, though, to limit it to just what we are talking about here and deleting some of the other areas which might affect some unknown ordinances.

 

Ms. Guinasso:

The statue would require the governing body to adopt an ordinance with compliance language as well as require public buildings to comply with the language we have just been given.  I think that would accommodate what you are trying to get at with the building codes.  What I am saying is we would require governing bodies of local governments to adopt, by ordinance, a requirement similar to what we are doing for state buildings, through the language we have just been given.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

So, if you are talking about local government, would it also apply to the private sector?

 

Ms. Guinasso:

Yes, that is what section 3 requires now.  Although the way it is written currently, we would not know necessarily what the specific requirements would be; however, if we could set them forth as has just been testified to, which would be part of the proposed amendment as I would envision it, then it would take into account all places of public accommodation.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Very good.

 

Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada:

Madam Chairman, that was mainly our concern.  One of the things businesses have problems with is specificity and inconsistent regulations.  The vestibule problem and things like that, I can thoroughly understand. 

 

As Mr. Youngs alluded to earlier, some of the remedies are very confusing, and there are no specific building requirements in codes.  Suzanne Thomas, Community Program Consultant who is with the Nevada Governor’s committee on ADA, is one person who is very helpful in getting information to both business and the public, because quite often we will get an approved set of plans and find out we are not in compliance with ADA.  Ms. Thomas has been very helpful with that.  So, our concern was consistency and not going into retrofitting and things like this.  We would be happy with that.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

So, Ms. Guinasso, we need to make sure we also have a definition for a vestibule, if it would be a hallway or a corridor, something that is very clearly leading to the restroom facilities, so there is no confusion.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Youngs:

Two points I think are important here.  We are talking about, for clarification, existing facilities and are not entering into any major alteration, correct?  We are requiring a facility to look at retrofitting.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Well, I do not know what you mean by retrofitting.  We are talking about signage.

 

Mr. Youngs:

The ADA requires these things take place in new construction and alterations.  Also, the “readily achievable” language in the ADA gives a larger-size casino the ability to look at its barriers and remove them, if doing so is readily achievable.  Language may be needed to provide relief from compliance if it is a burden, or is not readily achievable and involves substantial cost.

 

When I hear the casino industry saying, “It is going to cost too much money,” there is not a casino out there that is going to be able to bring that defense forward: that it is not readily achievable to put a sign up so people know where to go.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

The key here is where the restrooms are located.  The problem is when you are directed down a long hallway and all you know is the restrooms are there, but you do not know which side is which.  You cannot always reach a sign, especially if you are in any kind of a wheelchair, to determine if it is a men’s or women’s restroom.   So, we are dealing with a very narrow request.

 

Mr. Youngs:

Then there is even more reason to go forward with it.

 

Ms. Peyton:

I just wanted to address the retrofitting issue.  We are not talking about any construction at all; we are talking about taking an ADA sign and putting it on a wall.  It seems so simple to me.

 

 

 

 

Chairman O’Connell:

We have just made it very complicated, Ms. Peyton, by the language in the bill.  It is not complicated, and we think we can accommodate your dilemma and your concern pretty easily.  So, we are going to do that for you.

 

Ms. Peyton:

Great!  All of us blind folks appreciate that.  Thank you.

 

Mr. Ostrovsky:

To make it very clear, I did not say the casinos could not afford it.  I said it would be very costly for businesses in general.  Businesses that cannot do this can use hardship rules under ADA.  But, I do not know of any casino that would be eligible for a hardship rule.  Now, it is more expensive for some people.  If you have wallpaper and themes and your signs are in lights, if you want consistency, it is going to cost you more money.  If you are just a small little business, and you can buy a sign that meets the requirements of the law down at the local Home Depot or some place, it is going to be less expensive.  As I said, if we can find some reasonable language, we would be happy to accommodate the senator’s bill, understanding exactly what she is trying to do now after listening to the testimony.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

You know, every business has to have that strip over the door indicates each exit.  I do not see this proposal as really any problem at all, as long as we find the proper language and specify the placement of the sign at approximately 60 inches above the floor as Ms. Peyton has suggested.  She also suggested that it be on the right-hand side.  I think we can easily accommodate the concern that has been raised.

 

Is there anyone else to testify on S.B. 324?  If not, we will close the hearing on S.B. 324, and open the hearing on S.B. 401.

 

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

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6:

Senate Bill 401 is a bill I was asked to draft by the Governor’s office when they exceeded their allocation of bill draft requests.  The bill really came out of a discussion of trying to keep the director of the office of science, engineering and technology.  I do not have to go into a lot of history with it, but, essentially, several sessions ago, under another Governor, we were able to put this office under the auspices of the Governor’s office.  The Governor went through a phase where he was not sure if he really needed it in his office; so, in a subsequent session, it was changed to the chancellor’s office in the university system.  This was to try to keep the position alive.  There had been a donation of services and we have had several science officers who have been able to advise the state.  The present Governor, Kenny C. Guinn, has now determined this can be an important part of his, Lieutenant Governor Lorraine T. Hunt’s, and the Commission on Economic Development duties.  Governor Guinn feels there is a great need for this office, and would like to be supportive of it.  Frankly, this is what we had hoped for when the office was created.  I will quickly go through the bill.

 

In section 3, the office of science, innovation and technology is established in the Governor’s office and the members are appointed by the Governor.  The Governor is able to take recommendations and shall give consideration to any recommendations from the chancellor’s office.  The Governor may also establish a panel, which might be a search committee or a science panel, to seek the most qualified and experienced person for that position.

 

In subsection 3, it indicates this director shall devote his entire time to the position.  So, it is not desirable to have him involved in another occupation or making money from another source.

 

Senator Rawson:

For this reason, in subsection 4, the Governor has asked this person not be in the classified service or the unclassified service.  This allows the Governor to come up with commensurate pay for the kind of individual we may need.  We are talking about a nationally or internationally recognized individual who will have advanced degrees, and will probably come at a significant price.  The person would still serve at the pleasure of the Governor, much as an unclassified person would, but would not be subject to the typical unclassified personnel pay schedule.

 

Section 4 describes the duties of this person.  He or she will advise the Governor and report to the Governor.  This individual will also work in coordination with the Commission on Economic Development and will report periodically to the chairman and executive director of the commission. 

Section 5 allows the acceptance of any gifts, grants, and donations; it allows fund-raising.  Section 6 establishes an account for this money to go into.  It is not an account that would revert to the state; money would be deposited there to further the goals of this office.  The money could only be used to carry out the duties of the director. 

 

That is essentially the bill.  Senate Bill 562 was introduced earlier today.  We think it is a duplicate request for a draft.  At the time I was asked to do this, there were a number of people who were also asked.  I think the word came back there were no bill drafts anywhere, and so, we did this and worked it out with the Governor’s office.  I am not particularly partial to this bill, but I think the other one is a duplicate and accomplishes essentially the same thing.

 

SENATE BILL 562: Transfers office of science, engineering and technology             within University and Community College System of Nevada to office of             governor. (BDR 18-1446)

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Senator Rawson, usually it says one way or the other, but I am assuming it is covered in the Governor’s budget.

 

Senator Rawson:

Yes, it is in the Governor’s budget, and the senate finance committee has reviewed the money set aside for it.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Perhaps I can ask Ms. Guinasso this question.  Ms. Guinasso, usually we have the text of the repealed sections, but I see in here we only have the lead lines.  Is there a reason for that?

 

Ms. Guinasso:

Yes, Madam Chairman.  We have a standard where, if we have three or less repealed sections, we put in the text, but if we have more, we just put in the lead lines, simply because sometimes entire chapters are repealed.  It could be extremely burdensome to include each section; this is just an arbitrary cutoff in our drafting rules.

 

 

 

Senator Rawson:

I can tell you, the emphasis of this started out simply as a change from the university system back to the Governor’s office.  Then there was the addition of the language which discussed the pay and required some repeal of the existing language.  I think it allows gifts, grants, and donations; I am not sure that was in the original document.  It does set up an account for the office here, so, there is a repeal of where the money would have been housed otherwise.  I do not think there is any surprise in what this is doing.  It is straight-forward as it is spelled out there.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Committee, any questions for Senator Rawson?

 

Senator Rawson:

I might just indicate there is an agreement within the science community, the university system, and the Governor’s office.  There is a significant group of test site contractors and others who are all interested in having evaluation advice get to the Governor.  I think they all feel their ability to be able to communicate with the Governor is significantly enhanced by doing this.  So, there is a good sense of this in the community, as well.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Mr. Shriver, did you want to add anything to this?

 

Mr. Shriver:

As Senator Rawson has indicated, the discussion was how do we keep this office and make it function appropriately.  As some of you are aware, through Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 19 of the Seventieth Session, we have completed and hoped to debut the technology strategic plan for Nevada, better known as the Battelle Memorial Institute Study, sometime in the next 60 days or so.

 

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 19 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION:  Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of methods to encourage corporations and other business entities to organize and conduct business in this state. (BDR R-534)

 

Part of what came out of there was a need to focus this office and give the Governor the ability to use this.  As we well know, technology is changing dramatically.  We did change the name to better reflect the twenty-first century by substituting “innovation” for “engineering,” not to slight engineering whatsoever.  But this person would be the advisor to the Governor for science, innovation, and technology issues, and as Senator Rawson said, it is very important to make sure this person is outside both the classified and unclassified system, and the Governor can set it up through the advice of technology groups.  Basically, all S.B. 562 did was change the chapter of citation from the university to the Governor’s office.

 

The Governor’s staff, Senator Rawson, Lieutenant Governor Hunt, and I looked at this, in light of the Battelle study, to determine how we can make this even more meaningful and more productive than it has been in the past.  With the funding Senator Rawson was able to procure last session, and the enthusiastic endorsement the Governor has now given this office, I think we are going to see some great things come from this position.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

Tell me, do we know what is the appropriation for this office?

 

Senator Rawson:

I am not positive.  I want to say $250,000; it is in that neighborhood.

 

Chairman O’Connell:

That is a nice neighborhood.  OK, thank you very much, we will close the hearing on S.B. 401.  Chairman O’Connell closed the committee hearing at 5:21 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

Sherry Rodriguez,

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

 

DATE: