MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
Seventy-First Session
May 15, 2001
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operationswas called to order by Chairman Jon C. Porter, at 3:15 p.m., on Tuesday, May 15, 2001, in Room 2144 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 Jon C. Porter, Chairman
Senator Mark A. James, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Bernice Mathews
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Valerie Wiener (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel
Johnnie L. Willis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, President, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Philip J. Gervasi, Lobbyist, President, Police Officers’ Association, Clark County School District
Elliott C. Phelps, Lobbyist, Chief of Police, Clark County School District
Tamara Evans, Chief of Police, Washoe County School District
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association
Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Eagle Forum
Denell A. Hahn, Lobbyist, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center
Kami L. Dempsey, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell
Senator Porter:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 86.
SENATE BILL 86: Directs the Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning use of police powers on public school grounds and at school activities. (BDR S-823)
Senator Rawson:
We have a number of bills this session that deal with the issue of extending jurisdiction, which is a crossover between various police groups, primarily school police and community police. When considering pursuing this issue, I invited the principle people to my office and talked about what needs to be done to solve some of the problems.
I have my preferences as to what should be done, however, there is not enough time in this session to draft this legislation and accomplish the necessary changes. So, we turned the bill into a study and sent it to this committee.
I believe this is an important study that needs to be done. Essentially, we have the potential for some serious problems on our campuses and need to make progress toward an ultimate solution to these potential problems. This bill will allow us to take the interim to study the problems and ascertain some solution.
Today I received a proposed amendment (Exhibit C) that I support. The amendment removes the words “school police” and replaces them with “limited jurisdiction police.” This would allow us to deal with more than just school police. It would allow the interim committee to study any of the numerous issues of limited-jurisdiction peace officers.
Senator Mathews:
Could I get a better explanation of limited-jurisdiction peace officer?
Senator Rawson:
It could be school police, capitol police, and university police; there are many kinds of limited-jurisdiction police officers.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, President, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada:
We suggested this bill to Senator Mathews. We asked her to look at this with the intent of expanding the jurisdictions of the school police in Washoe County and to study some of the problems those limited-jurisdiction police are having. The bill has now become an interim study. We have no problem with the interim study committee looking at limited-jurisdiction peace officers.
Police officers in the state of Nevada are described in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 289.150 to NRS 289.360 inclusive. This bill would allow us to look at a variety of issues. Several bills this session deal with jurisdictions and how school police should function when interacting with other police departments, and how limited jurisdictions operate. This would allow all of us to voice our options and input over the next several years as to what seem to be the problems and how to correct them. We also have the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) doing a study on the evaluation process of police and fire systems. So, this would enhance the PERS study and help us bring together a variety of issues.
On behalf of the Police Officers Research Association of Nevada, S.B. 86 has merit and we support it.
Philip J. Gervasi, Lobbyist, President, Police Officers Association, Clark County School District:
We are in favor of S.B. 86. The problem with the limited-jurisdiction issue is there are many bills this session that repeatedly ask the same question. We would like to see all the other bills put aside and let the interim study investigate all the limited-liability jurisdictions. Then next session we could do what needs to be done to solve the problems the study turns up.
Senator Porter:
Those bills were S.B. 291, S.B. 220, and S.B. 319 and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 364.
SENATE BILL 291: Makes various changes concerning reporting and investigation of certain violent or sexual offenses committed on school property, on school buses or at school activities. (BDR 34-199)
SENATE BILL 220: Provides for regulation of off-road vehicles. (BDR 43-148)
SENATE BILL 319: Provides for licensing and regulation of halfway houses for alcohol and drug abusers as facilities for dependent and repeals requirements for certification of operators of such halfway houses. (BDR 40-1211)
ASSEMBLY BILL 364: Requires annual reporting by regional subdistricts in certain school districts. (BDR 34-1163)
Mr. Gervasi:
Yes, those are the ones.
Elliott C. Phelps, Lobbyist, Chief of Police, Clark County School District:
I have been a municipal police officer for over 30 years. When I arrived in Nevada, there was an unclear position as to where school police fit into the total philosophy of policing. That issue is further clouded with the number of upcoming bills. As I discussed with Senator Rawson earlier, this study is something that is important.
Twenty years ago, the Clark County School District hired police officers and placed them on its campuses, which was years ahead of the term “school resource officer.” School resource officers are now the upcoming method of reducing violence on campuses. In fact, the school resource officer is so much the upcoming method that President Bush has reallocated all Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants from the Universal Hiring Program to the COPS in Schools Grant Program (CIS) (also called COPS on Campus) to specifically focus on school resource officers.
To have other bills come forward which tinker with the success of school district policing is something that concerns me. This tinkering clouds an already unclear position of where school police are placed within the policing forces. Therefore, I would request these other bills be placed on hold until the interim committee can look at the long-term issues and take a look at school policing issues. I fully support S.B. 86.
Tamara Evans, Chief of Police, Washoe County School District:
I had about 19 years of law enforcement experience prior to my appointment to my current position. Before that, I was a watch commander for the Sparks Police Department.
I have a mission, and my mission is to help improve our current school police agency and make those officers as professional a group of officers you could ever find in the state of Nevada or on the West Coast.
After 5 months of being in this position, I would like to invite anyone interested to conduct a study of our police officers. I would like you all to see the progress we are making, the improvements we are making, and the steps we are taking towards being a progressive police agency in the state of Nevada.
I hope our efforts will not be cut short before we have the opportunity to explain to everyone just what we are doing.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Capitan, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
We also support S.B. 86 and the proposed amendment. The Washoe County Sheriff’s Office thinks this is a good idea. Over the last 10 years, there has been a blurring of lines of authority and jurisdiction. I think this study is important towards redefining those lines.
I think Assembly Bill (A.B.) 220 is probably the first step to help clarify those lines of jurisdiction. I will also say this study is very important because I think it will help solve many of the issues.
ASSEMBLY BILL 220: Revises provisions governing duties of certain peace officers when certain felonies are committed or attempted in their presence or in area that is within their jurisdiction. (BDR 14‑141)
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association:
We will echo much of what Captain Nadeau has stated. However, we believe A.B. 220 does need to move forward. Other than that, our association and the Las Vegas police support S.B. 86 and the proposed amendment.
Senator Porter:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 86 and open the hearing on S.B. 305.
SENATE BILL 305: Requires Legislative Commission to appoint committee to conduct interim study of and disseminate information regarding programs for certain at-risk pupils. (BDR S-263)
Senator Rawson:
The “Reconnecting Youth: An Indicated Prevention Program for Curbing the Progression of Co-occurring Problem Behaviors” research paper (Exhibit D) that has been handed out to you documents a program considered a prevention program for dealing with children that have problem behaviors.
Many legislators attended a meeting in New Mexico where the centers of disease control and other groups in a coalition presented statistics, and circumstances, associated with at-risk youth in a 3-day conference.
We first went through the statistics of death rates, accident rates, and injury rates and the risks that our youths face. Then we discussed the point that at-risk children can be recognized. There are indicators that point toward these children dropping out along the way. These dropouts will then be subject to risk factors that will probably impair them for the rest of their lives.
Out of these presentations, came the idea that we delve further into the issues of getting our school districts to recognize the risk factors and to develop programs.
There are many programs being used in the school system today. This study would initiate a similar conference to the one in New Mexico, so that legislators and the school districts’ decision makers could receive the information and possibly work out a program that could help these children.
We are not trying to mandate a specific program and there will be many concerns about the risk factors and implementing a new program. Reconnect youth providers have worked out a very nice program. They have also demonstrated a success rate. They not only can intercept some of these children, but they can change their behaviors, which can redirect them towards a more successful life.
Martha Tittle, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
We would like to offer our support for the interim conference and study in S.B. 305. As has been mentioned, the school districts have many programs, but are always looking for other programs that have proven research behind them, and we need to continue to look at those programs across the country.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Eagle Forum:
Senator Rawson recently gave me a copy of Exhibit D and I have quickly skimmed it and wanted to mention a few concerns I have. I am always in favor of programs where we can actually see that they work before we start using them. I think often we have many programs that do not work, such as the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) that has been shown not to reduce drug abuse in our youth. This program was so promoted that many people are not aware of its failure. The studies clearly indicate that DARE is not helping our youth. So, I think it is very important to have a program that has research which shows it does work. It is also important to look at some of the possible “pitfalls.”
I know there has been considerable concern around the nation about such things as suicide courses. A lot of that was connected with what happened in Columbine, Colorado. They had suicide courses there for many years and did not actually reduce suicide, in fact the course ended up promoting suicide. This is documented in the book, Child Abuse in the Classroom: Excerpts From Official Transcript of Proceedings Before the U.S. Department of Education.
One thing that does help keep children from dropping out of schools is if they learn to read at an early age. I did not see that being addressed in Exhibit D.
Another issue that needs to be considered is depression. Often the answer for problem children in our schools is putting them on Ritalin, and Ritalin has now been shown to have a definite connection to long-term drug abuse later in life. We need to be very careful not to let our children think the answer to their problems is to take a drug.
My son became very ill on his church mission, and was hospitalized with a bleeding ulcer. When he came home for medical treatment, a doctor gave him a battery of tests and told him he needed to take a psychologically altering drug called Paxil. I was infuriated because my son had lost a lot of weight, was very ill, and had to come home from his church mission and that was the reason he was depressed.
When I took him to another doctor, that doctor discovered his depression had nothing to do with the weight loss or having to come home from his mission. What happened was that my son had food poisoning, which had caused him to be seriously ill and unable to keep down food. When we cleared up that problem, it was shown it was not necessary for him to be taking any other drugs.
I think it is important to look at these kinds of issues and not settle for the easy solution. There are often solutions in other things, such as developing real skills, or alternatives in nutrition. I hope if the Legislature looks at these programs they will look beyond the standard answers, and they will look towards helping children be successful in coping with their problems. Children will be helped by teaching them how to read, and by teaching them how to avoid drugs in meaningful ways, rather than using programs that have been proven to be unsuccessful.
I do not know anything about the Reconnecting Youth program. I think, as the state looks at these kinds of options it needs to be very careful in the direction that it takes, and needs to make sure the programs are helping and not just another program.
Senator Porter:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 305 and open the hearing on S.B. 355.
SENATE BILL 355: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of competition between local governments and private enterprises in provision of certain goods or services. (BDR S-49)
Denell A. Hahn, Lobbyist, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center:
A few weeks ago, we had a lengthy hearing in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs regarding unfair competition. Sunrise Hospital tends to agree with the vendors that the governments are practicing unfair competition. This study would be an appropriate vehicle to look at the problems and try to come up with some solutions. It would be a review of public/private competition, especially government-subsidized services, especially medical care.
We have no problem with local government subsidizing our county hospitals. We have a situation in Clark County where local dollars are subsidizing a quick-care system for about $8.2 million. Those quick-care offices are located in high-income areas of the community. I think this warrants a study.
We would like the committee’s support and appreciate your consideration of this bill.
Kami L. Dempsey, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce:
We did have a lengthy hearing in the Senate government affairs committee, and I testified. We also support the bill because we think any information that can be found which has public entities competing with private companies is something important we need to study to try to find solutions to the problems.
Senator Porter:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 355. We will open the hearing on S.B. 570.
SENATE BILL 570: Makes various changes relating to legislature and legislative counsel bureau. (BDR 17-1073)
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB):
This bill is what we call our generic LCB bill. We throw in all the miscellaneous changes relating to the Legislature and the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Each of the individual provisions of S.B. 570 is severable, and will stand on their own. This allows the committee to decide what provisions it wants to pass and what provisions it wants to remove or amend.
When I presented this bill before, the only provision that raised an objection was the one about the deadline for legislators to submit additional information for proposed bill drafts. If you want to take that out or perhaps limit that to non‑legislative requestors, that is not a problem.
As for the remaining provisions I would also like to remind the committee, I proposed two additions to the bill.
The first provision is to require statutory committees to submit bill draft requests on or before September 1, preceding session.
The second provision is to authorize the LCB to use space in the Capitol Apartments, which are now legislative grounds, for day care and to include the contract of state employees for the purposes of limitation of liability.
Would you like me to walk through the individual provisions again, as most of them are fairly minor; minor changes on procedure, and cleaning up some items that need to be changed in the statute?
Senator Porter:
Please go through the provisions again for those of the committee who were not present during your first presentation.
Mr. Malkiewich:
First, there is changing the reference from before September 1, to “on or before” September 1, because most people think when they see September 1, they have until that date to submit bill drafts.
Next, we need to clarify that interim requests from standing committee chairmen must be submitted on or before the December 15, preceding session.
The next change is to authorize LCB department administrators to submit bill drafts relating to proper exercise of his or her duties.
The next provision is to clarify that requests submitted by certain constitutional offices are subject to the limitations. There is one place that says they can submit requests, and another place that says how many drafts they can request. This provision clarifies that those two are joined.
The next change is to eliminate the requirement that bills requested by the Judicial Branch be submitted to the judiciary committees, instead they would be divided, as are all agency bills, randomly between the houses and to the appropriate committees.
There are various changes relating to fiscal notes. The most significant change is to raise the threshold for the preparation of a fiscal note from $2,000 to $10,000. That change was requested by Kevin Welch, the Deputy Fiscal Analyst who works on fiscal notes.
Next, we would like to allow the committees to use court enforcement for subpoenas instead of the existing statutory provision.
We also want to add the Capitol Apartments to the description of the legislative grounds.
The Legislative Counsel Bureau would also like to be allowed to reprint volumes of Statutes of Nevada that are out of print or in short supply.
Next request is to repeal the requirement for the Executive Branch to reimburse the Legislative Counsel Bureau for bills drafted on its behalf. That is just a paper exercise; the Legislative Counsel Bureau appropriates the money to cover it.
The two amendments I requested were to require statutory committees to submit bill draft requests on or before September 1, preceding session. The deadline for interim studies would be July 1, so this would still give them more time, but would set a deadline for statutory committees to finish up their interim work.
As I mentioned a couple of minutes ago, authorizing the use of space in the Legislative Counsel Bureau grounds for day care, and to include any contractors within the provision for limiting liability. No state funds would be used. If this is feasible, it would be paid for by the employees. If it turns out this is something we could do, we would like the authority in the statutes.
Senator Titus:
I have some serious concerns about section 1 of the bill. This is another consequence of the 120 days, where legislators are giving up their authority. Now legislators are giving up their authority to staff. Sometimes you just do not have the information within 15 days. Some bills are very complicated and you have to obtain the information from several different sources. I understand that it would be nice if you could submit the information and more convenient, but I would oppose that.
Mr. Malkiewich:
As I indicated, that provision could be excised in its entirety or limited to agencies that submit bill drafts, either way the rest of the bill will stand.
Senator Titus:
Is that provision related to the provision on page 3 somehow?
Mr. Malkiewich:
Yes, there is also a section-by-section summary. Section 3 has a couple of changes in it. One is the addition of subsection 3, which is the limitation for legislators, but there is also the “on or before” language. Section 3 would stay in, but we would delete subsection 3. Section 1 is intended to apply to people other than legislators. We could clarify in section 1 to say “state agencies, and local governments” that submit bills to be drafted. We could make it clear section 1 is limited to them, or you could take out section 1 and subsection 3 of section 3 and remove the change entirely.
Senator James:
I propose removing section 1, section 2, section 3, section 7, and section 16. I have no problem with the two new sections Mr. Malkiewich suggested.
I think it is inappropriate for the legislative process to put the impediment that is proposed in section 1. Section 2 is just the cross reference to section 1.
I can see the desire to have the committee chairman meet the December 15 deadline, but frankly that is something that should be a request to a committee chairman.
In regards to section 7, we have functioned with these measures being transmitted to the judiciary committees and I do not see any reason to change that.
In section 16, why should we not keep track of the expense the LCB has on behalf of bill drafts requested by agencies. I do not see a reason to change that, nor do I believe there should not be a cross-accounting record of legislative funds.
Mr. Malkiewich:
I believe in section 3 there is one change we might want to keep in subsection 1 that is the “on or before” language. The two changes Senator James suggested are substantive. However, the “on or before” September 1 language should remain.
Senator James:
I am fine with “ons and ors.”
Senator Porter:
You are talking about eliminating, on page 3, subsection 3?
Senator James:
Yes and the changes in subsection 2 lines 41 and 42. Just leaving the “on or before” language in subsection 1, paragraphs (a) and (b).
Senator Raggio:
What does section 5 do?
Mr. Malkiewich:
Pursuant to subsection 3 or 4 of NRS 218.2455, which is page 4 of the bill, you can see below where the limitations on the number of bills the Lieutenant Governor, the Secretary of State, the Treasurer, the Controller, or the Attorney General, and the Board of Regents may submit. That section is to clarify the number of bills requested by the Board of Regents and the other constitutional officers are within the limits specified in that provision, for the next session.
Senator Raggio:
I understand the desire not to prepare a lot of fiscal notes, but in section 8 if the amount is raised to $10,000 there could be a dozen bills go through without a fiscal note at $10,000 each that could be $100,000 or more. How could we figure an extra amount like that into the budget? I do not think I could accommodate that.
Mr. Malkiewich:
I think the change of eliminating fiscal notes on appropriations is obvious, since the amount of the fiscal note is the amount of the appropriation. But the change from $2,000 to $10,000 is clearly the most significant change on fiscal notes.
Senator Raggio:
We put $2,000 in there because we did not want to bother with something that has trivial amounts, but $10,000 on bills adds up very quickly. I would question the wisdom of doing that.
I do not disagree with taking the fiscal note out of an appropriation. I think it is very clear the amount of the appropriation is the same amount as the fiscal note.
What is section 9 for? Is that just taking out “at the end thereof?”
Mr. Malkiewich:
Exactly, it is just the name of the person or agency that prepared the fiscal note should be somewhere on the fiscal note, rather than always at the end of it.
Senator Raggio:
What is the purpose of section 12? Why are we taking that language out?
Mr. Malkiewich:
I believe this has something to do with the duplicate copies. A copy of the note is submitted to the requestor, and duplicate copy is submitted to the bill. The point of that change is what we need to say is, “if it is obtained before the bill is introduced then it must be retained by the fiscal analysis department to be used for the printer’s copy.” One of the changes we took out was the requirement for quadruplicate copies, and this section is saying the duplicate goes here, the triplicate goes there. All we need to take care of is the original one and we can attach copies as necessary.
Senator Raggio:
What is the necessity for section 13?
Mr. Malkiewich:
Right now, if a legislative committee issued a subpoena, the procedure for enforcing it is archaic. The sergeant at arms is to arrest people and things like that. Right now for many of our standing committees, the Legislative Commission’s subpoenas power our statutory committees’ subpoena powers. What you do is go to court. You issue a subpoena, someone does not comply, and then you seek a court order and use that to enforce the subpoena. This does not take away the existing requirements; this just allows that option for a legislative committee to enforce a subpoena, which is the standard way to enforce a subpoena.
Senator Raggio:
If Senator James is going to make a motion, I would like to delete line 25 of section 8, on page 5 of the bill.
Senator James:
And lines 20 and 21?
Senator Raggio:
That is okay; strike out is okay on that.
Mr. Malkiewich:
I would like to respond to Senator James’ comments about the payment for services of the Legal Division and preparation of measures. The way it is currently done is to make an appropriation to the Executive Branch to pay the costs of session. We could do that and then reduce the appropriation to the Legislative Counsel Bureau for the cost of session.
One of the things Senator James was concerned about was tracking the costs. We can still do that. Our timesheet system will keep track of the number of hours spent on state agencies’ bill drafts. If that is the concern, I can assure you we can provide that information and keep providing it. We will have to make some budget adjustments to leave this in place. We would appropriate $200,000 to the Executive Branch. We would then send them an itemized bill for $200,000. They would use that appropriation to pay the bill and those funds would come into the legislative fund.
If we do not do this, we just make an appropriation to the legislative fund to pay the remaining costs of session. It is just one way to get money into the legislative fund to offset the costs of session.
Once we put limits on the number of bills state agencies can request, the amount of time spent on them became less of a factor. I also know there are some objections from the Governor’s office to the concept of having to pay the Legislative Branch for services we have provided. In fact, it has been suggested that perhaps we should pay the Executive Branch for the services they provide us when we request information during session. It will take some adjustments. If your concern is tracking the hours, we can provide you with that information.
Senator James:
If you turn to section 6, an alternative would be to strike that entire section from the law and just have a section that indicates other branches of government should get their measures introduced through a legislator. Then we would not have to worry about all this tracking of funds.
Mr. malkiewich:
As I indicated before, this is certainly a measure in which we have put bill draft limitations. My concern here is simply do we want to make these changes in the budget at this point in session.
Senator James:
What I really think we should do is to continue to track the expense that is created. We have a compressed process and are not here long. We are saving the taxpayers a lot of money by having a short biennial legislative session. I think that is one good thing about it. However, I think it is appropriate for us to keep account of cost between branches of government. We need to know what the legislative process is costing. If the process costs additional amounts because we are doing requests of other branches of the government, then I think it is fully appropriate for us to keep track of those costs.
Mr. Malkiewich:
Senator, I will be glad to keep track of those records and provide that information to you.
Senator James:
If you can do that without the statute you are intending to repeal, then that would be fine.
Mr. Malkiewich:
Senator you have my commitment that we will continue to track those funds.
Senator James:
When there is an article in the newspaper that the Legislature cost “x” amount of dollars it would be nice to have the information as to where those costs were incurred.
Mr. Malkiewich:
As I indicated, taking out the provisions that have been suggested by Senator James and Senator Raggio allows the rest of the bill to stand. I think I have kept track of things as they are going, if that is the final decision of the committee.
Senator Porter:
I would like to review the changes one more time before we take a motion.
Mr. Malkiewich:
My understanding of the changes that have been proposed is to delete sections 1 and 2. In section 3, leave the “on or before” language and delete the rest. Delete section 7, and delete the change from $2,000 to $10,000 in section 8. Add the two new sections.
Senator Porter:
What about section 16?
Mr. Malkiewich:
I believe Senator James said we could go ahead and repeal that clause if we kept track of those expenses.
Senator James:
How does it help you to repeal that clause?
Mr. Malkiewich:
It means we do not need to put through an appropriation that has to be passed through both houses of the Legislature explaining that the appropriation is really just pushing paper around.
Senator James:
I would defer to Senator Raggio.
SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 570.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Titus:
I just wonder how many bills the Attorney General requested this time. Did she need 25 bill drafts?
Mr. Malkiewich:
I do not have that information, but we could provide it.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WIENER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Porter:
I would like to request an interim study regarding health care programs of government agencies such as the State of Nevada, and numerous other agencies in southern Nevada, such as law enforcement, and school districts. I would like to ask that we have an interim study bill drafted for our consideration.
SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT FOR AN INTERIM STUDY OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HEALTH SYSTEMS. [BDR R-1549, LATER INTRODUCED AS SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 50.]
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WIENER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Porter:
I have a request from Senator O’Connell for additional testimony on S.B. 355.
SENATE BILL 355: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of competition between local governments and private enterprises in provision of certain goods or services. (BDR S-49)
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association:
The Nevada Taxpayers Association is very much in support of S.B. 355. I wish there was the ability to make it a state government and local government study as well. I think we share some of the same issues.
While there is a reference specifically in the bill to pay particular attention to health services, we also have issues with telecommunication, electrical, and building departments being operated by local governments that do rehabilitation and construction work. We have sewer plants being operated by local governments. That is not to say these plants should not be run by local governments. However, there is a point in which statute allows the displacement of these local government services within city general law and county general law. There is more and more discussion, particularly in technological areas, about the displacing of private sector businesses.
That is fine, but at the same time, what about lost tax revenue. In some instances the local government is not subject to the same regulations as the private sector. We find there have been problems, because they are not subjected to the same regulations.
We think this study is extremely important. If for nothing else, it will help set up some guidelines and parameters for how you could evaluate displacing a private sector service. If you do displace a private sector service, what would the provisions be to replace lost tax revenue? That is a serious consequence to local governments. If the state ever goes back to collecting property tax, it would be a serious implication for the state to have that loss of revenue.
Senator Porter:
You are suggesting we add “state” to the study.
Ms. Vilardo:
I would love to add “state” to the study. I know that expands it out. I would like to have on page 2, line 1 the language amended so that it says the study of the feasibility of applying some of the same tax laws and regulatory provisions. When you are evaluating the provision of a service, both in the area of cost and ensuring the service will be well provided to serve the taxpayers, those two cost centers should be addressed in the area of displacement. That would be my suggestions.
Senator Porter:
I would like you to prepare a draft of the changes and give them to Mr. Erickson (Robert E. Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst), so it can be put into the working document.
Ms. Vilardo:
I realize by expanding the study to the state increases the scope tremendously. I think the committee needs to be comfortable with doing so. I am comfortable with doing it. I will write it for inclusion of the state, but I know that is a serious consideration, and that you are trying to limit the number of studies being done for this interim.
Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell:
Equal taxation burdens and regulatory burdens, I think, are extremely important from our company’s perspective. We do compete with various interests on the public sector side that are getting more and more involved in things like the telephone business. We do not have a problem with them exploring those options, but it has to be done on a level playing field. Currently, the law does not require that. That leaves jurisdictions that are robbing Paul to pay Peter, and are launching various different traditionally private sector types of endeavors and are not taxing them. They may be saving a few dollars on the front end but they are losing those tax revenues.
I know the Legislature does not generally like to tell local governments how to do every possible level of their business, but I think this is a global-enough issue that is clearly worthy of study.
We are not looking for preferential treatment, for either the private sector, or the public sector, but we are looking for a level-playing-field type of approach for regulatory and taxation maters.
Senator Porter:
We will again close the hearing on S.B. 355 and, it being 4:15 p.m., will adjourn the meeting.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Johnnie L. Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Jon C. Porter, Chairman
DATE: