MINUTES OF THE
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	March 8, 1995


The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:06 a.m., on 
Wednesday, March 8, 1995, Chairman Lambert presiding in Room 330 of the 
Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the 
Attendance Roster.


COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman
Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman
Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman
Mr. Max Bennett
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Pete Ernaut
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington
Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom
Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Wendell P. Williams

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman John Marvel

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst

OTHERS PRESENT:


David Pennington, Nevada National Guard; Dale Askew, Clark County; Randy 
	Oaks, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept.; Stephanie Licht, Elko County; 
John Russum, Humboldt County; Tom Fransway, Humboldt County.

ASSEMBLY BILL 179 - Revises circumstances under which board of county 
commissioners may authorize use of certain county equipment on private roads. 
(BDR 20-1438)

Assemblyman Marvel, sponsor of A.B. 179, introduced the bill.  He mentioned this 
bill was passed by the Senate last session but did not make it through the 
Assembly.  The bill sets up some guidelines to allow the county commissioners to 
declare when there is an emergency so county equipment can be used on private 
property.  Many times in remote areas, water, gravel and things of that nature are 
often needed for road grading and other repairs.  This bill would provide access to 
private roads in exchange for needed commodities.   

Mr. Tom Fransway, Humboldt County Commissioner, spoke in favor of A.B. 179. 
 He stated this was a good bill for all counties in the state.  It would give local 
government the flexibility to assist constituents in the manner needed.  He related 
an incident about a rancher who had starving cows and could not get food to them 
due to heavy snow blockage of the road.  He came to the county commission to 
ask for help plowing the road so he could feed his cows.  Because of the current 
language in the statutes, the commission was unable to help the man.  In another 
instance, a lady school bus driver who parked her bus on a farm 1/4 mile from the 
county road was snowed in and the children did not get to school because the 
county commission could not authorize the use of county equipment to plow the 
1/4 mile to get the school bus out.  The commission needs to be able to make 
those decisions and this bill will only allow those decisions in a public forum and 
through the consensus of local governing bodies.  There would be no competition 
with private enterprise.  It would just enable the commission to help citizens out 
 in an emergency.

Assemblyman Freeman wondered what type of commodities would be provided to 
the county as compensation for services.  Mr. Fransway mentioned there are times 
when the road department would like to utilize private property for housing 
equipment or have access to water.  If these generosities were provided and then 
some damage was done to their property, the commission would be able to 
authorize repairs.  Mrs. Freeman questioned if this was to be a permanent 
arrangement.  Mr. Fransway said it was definitely not a permanent arrangement.

Assemblyman de Braga asked what the opposition to the bill was during the last 
session.  Mr Marvel indicated it was personality conflicts.
      

Assemblyman Bennett had a problem with the word "and" on line 12 of the bill as 
opposed to "or".  Mr. Marvel stated it was in there to assure a piece of equipment 
would not be arbitrarily pulled off the line simply to satisfy a private owner's needs.
  
Assemblyman Ernaut pointed out the word "may" in line 17 and wanted an 
example of why it said that and when the board would not require the property 
owner to repay.  Mr. Marvel mentioned if an owner had a gravel pit, he might just 
exchange the gravel for a payment in kind. Mr. Fransway said some snow plowing 
of the homeowner's private road might be the exchange.  Whatever it was, it 
would be equitable.  

John Russum, Humboldt County Road Superintendent, approached the 
commissioners a couple of years ago after a winter of heavy snows to propagate 
this bill.  There are approximately 3,150 miles of road that are maintained by 
county forces.  It is cut back to about 1,000 miles during the winter.  This takes 
a great deal of time.  Under the current law, the county was unable to help trapped 
residents reach the county roads which were the only ones plowed.  If this bill 
passes, residents would no longer be victims of foul weather.  There are other 
times the county would like to be of service to residents and mutual cooperation 
by being able to store trailers or equipment on private property in exchange for 
plowing services or whatever is needed.  

Assemblyman Segerblom queried if the county would use this bill to go through 
private property when the residents did not want them to.  Mr. Fransway replied 
no, they would not access anyone's property against their wishes.  He also 
mentioned Humboldt County was in the forefront of property rights advocacy.  

Assemblyman Neighbors reiterated there would be no competition with private 
enterprise if they were available to do the job.  Mr. Fransway confirmed there 
would be no interference with private enterprise.

Tom Grady, representing the Nevada League of Cities, spoke on behalf of Bob 
Hadfield and the League of Cities to support the bill.

Stephanie Licht of Elko County indicated Elko County would support A.B. 179 as 
enabling legislation to allow the governing boards of counties more freedom to do 
the things necessary when they need to be done.

Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 179.


ASSEMBLY BILL 198 - Creates alternative method of providing, and increases fees 
for, services of constable. (BDR 20-201)  

Dale Askew, Assistant Manager of Clark County, and Randy Oaks, Captain of the 
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department introduced A.B. 198.  Mr. Askew spoke 
first.  Mr. Bob Nolan, acting constable of Clark County, was also in attendance. 
 He noted the bill summary and said although they did want to pursue an 
alternative method of creating services, they did not want to increase fees.  Their 
desire was to maintain the current fees.  The primary intent of this bill is to 
consolidate the sheriff's civil bureau with the former Las Vegas township 
constable's office into a single department.  This issue began in 1993 when the 
incumbent constable resigned.  This provided the board of county commissioners 
an opportunity to restructure the functions of both the civil bureau and the 
constable's office in Clark County.  Under the statutes, the county commissioners 
had the authority to appoint a new constable or abolish the office upon vacancy. 
 The commissioners decided to abolish the office, effective December, 1994.   Bob 
Nolan was appointed as interim constable at that time.  The Las Vegas constable 
is one of eleven elected constables in Clark County.  The office covered by this bill 
would be just the Las Vegas constable; the other counties would not be affected. 
 The constable appoints his own deputies and compensates them on a piecemeal 
basis.  When Bob Nolan took over the office, from October 1993 to December 
1994, he maintained the exact model that was being done under the former regime 
of Don Charlieboy.  In January, 1995, things changed.  At that time, the 
commissioners passed a resolution to appoint the sheriff as the constable as an 
interim measure until this legislation could be passed.  Bob Nolan has been 
maintained as the Acting Director and the employees have been put on a salary 
basis rather than a piecemeal basis.  The constable's function in the past and to 
this day has been accounted for in an enterprise fund because it is a self-supporting 
function; that is the cost of that office has been paid for by the users who receive 
the service.  The civil bureau is not accounted for in an enterprise fund; it is part 
of the county's general fund.  This is because the processes being served by the 
civil bureau do not have fees associated with them.  Most of the papers being 
served out of that division emanate from the family court and this is done at no 
cost to the public.  The bill does need some significant changes to accomplish the 
county's original intent.  They would like to end up with a single department under 
the auspices of the county commissioners with a Director of Court Services to head 
the department with the combined functions of the civil bureau and the constable's 
office.  He mentioned amending the language to accomplish their intent and to 
continue to provide services to the public in a more effective and cost-efficient 
manner.  


Captain Randy Oaks, representing Sheriff Jerry Keller and the Las Vegas 
Metropolitan Police Department, spoke next.  He is the Acting Director of the 
sheriff's civil bureau.  He explained some of the statutory duties of his department. 
 His office has been delegated the responsibility of serving civil court orders which 
do not carry a fee recovery schedule.  The county currently supports the bureau 
entirely, a budget in excess of $800,000.  Last year only $200,000 was recovered 
in fees.  The constable's office does not have the same financial problems; they 
operate in the black. 

Mr. Oaks remarked what first brought him to the civil bureau was a Channel 8 
television news investigative report on irregularities in the sheriff's civil bureau 
which implied fraud, overcharging for mileage fees, serving out-of-state papers and 
failing in an obligation to serve civil warrants issued by a court.  In the face of that 
investigation, the Director of that bureau, who had been appointed by the sheriff 
under the previous administration, resigned.  The sheriff sent Mr. Oaks in with an 
audit team and appointed him as Acting Director of the civil bureau at that time. 
 He was instructed to "fix it" and submit a recommendation to the sheriff on what 
should be done with the agency.  The Metropolitan Police Department has gone to 
some length to distance itself from the civil obligation.  When the Metro became 
an accredited police agency about 5 years ago, the accrediting commission was 
told the bureau was not part of Metro.  That is a duty and obligation of the sheriff 
by statute, not by department.  That probably led to some of the neglect the civil 
bureau has suffered.  His recommendation to the sheriff was to combine the two 
offices and put them under the jurisdiction of the county.  This would cut the ties 
 between the Metropolitan Police Department and the unit of civil process.  
Although Sheriff Keller agreed with the recommendation and wishes to proceed, 
this bill in its present form does not encompass the sheriff's civil bureau and needs 
to be amended to reflect that it does indeed cover that as well.  

Mrs. Lambert wondered when the proposed amendments would be available.  Mr. 
Oaks said he would get them ready by the end of the week.

Mrs. Segerblom wanted reassurance that Mr. Oaks was not referring to the 
constables in Boulder City or other towns.  Mr. Oaks stated they were not talking 
about those constables.  The amended language would be clarified to exclude 
them.            

Mrs. Freeman requested Washoe County be informed should they proceed with any 
type of consolidation.  Mr. Oaks assured her they would definitely assist if and 
when needed.  


Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 198 pending the amended language.

SENATE BILL 57 - Prohibits member of state militia or his dependents from 
receiving workers' compensation under certain circumstances.  (BDR 36-866)

Colonel David Pennington, General Counsel for the Nevada National Guard, spoke 
in support of S.B. 57.  He indicated the purpose of S.B. 57 was to amend NRS 
412.142 which would prevent National Guard members from recovering twice for 
the same illness or injury; once from the federal government and again from the 
state.  This happens because the National Guard has a two-fold purpose.  On the 
one hand, it is a military force available to the Governor for state emergencies such 
as fires or riots.  Secondly, the Guard is part of the federal reserve force available 
to the President for national emergencies such as the Gulf War.  Unlike other 
federal reserve forces such as the Army or Air Force, all federal training of the 
Guard is carried out by the Governors of the states; it is not carried out by the 
Department of Defense.  Because their training is for a federal mission, it is funded 
100% by the Department of Defense.  When a Guard member becomes ill or is 
injured in the line of duty, they are fully compensated by the federal government. 
 The problem is, when some Guard members have qualified for their federal 
benefits, they also apply for state benefits through SIIS for workers' compensation. 
 These claims have been allowed by SIIS.  During a claims dispute with one 
member, SIIS pointed out that duty under Title 32, the United States code title 
under which the National Guard performs its training, is not service to the state 
since the purpose of such training is to fulfill the Guard's federal mission as a 
reserve component of the United States armed forces.  There is no statutory 
authority under NRS 412.142 which indicates the state legislature intended to 
provide duplicate state benefits for Guard members already eligible and receiving 
federal benefits.  The National Guard is asking the legislature to codify that finding 
in order to avoid litigation and the unnecessary expenditure of state funds through 
the workers' compensation bureau.  They are also requesting the passage of S.B. 
57.

Mrs. de Braga asked if it was the policy to pay into SIIS 100% or was there a 
differentiation made as to what is covered under state and what is covered under 
federal law.  Mr. Pennington indicated when SIIS payments are made, they are for 
the purpose of covering a National Guard member in the event of an injury in the 
course of state military duty.  That is the basis on which SIIS payments are made 
to the state.  The type of benefits to which the member is entitled depends on 
whether he was in federal or state service at the time of injury.


Mrs. Lambert questioned line 4, "service of the state" and wondered if it needed 
clarification.  Mr. Pennington said he did not believe so.  He mentioned the problem 
was in the militia clause of the United States Constitution which states all federal 
training is conducted under the auspices of the Governor and so all military orders 
are executed by the Governor.  When SIIS sees those orders that are signed by the 
Governor, they automatically assume the service was for the state when that is not 
necessarily so.

Mrs. Krenzer wanted some clarification on subsection 2.  Mr. Pennington defined 
the duties which would be deemed federal and those which would be seen as state 
duties.  Mrs. Krenzer referred to Mrs. de Braga's question about SIIS payments. 
 She asked if the premium took into account service in both a federal and state 
capacity .  Mr. Pennington indicated he was not an expert and offered to seek out 
additional information if necessary.

Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 57.  A work session followed.

ASSEMBLY BILL 174 - Eliminates requirement of residency for city clerk of City of 
Sparks. (BDR S-1219)

MR. BENNETT MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 174.

MR. BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Bennett stated this was a common sense bill.  City clerk is not an elected 
position and this bill will allow the most qualified person to be hired.  

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

SENATE BILL 80 - Designates tule duck decoy as official state artifact of State of 
Nevada. (BDR 19-172)

MR. BACHE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 80.

MRS. KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

SENATE BILL 116 - Designates December 7 as Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. 
(BDR 19-1309)

MR. NOLAN MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 116.

MRS. DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Lambert affirmed this was not a state holiday.  The committee agreed it was 
not.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

ASSEMBLY BILL 179 - Revises circumstances under which board of county 
commissioners may authorize use of certain county equipment on private roads. 
(BDR 20-1438)

MS. TRIPPLE MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 179.

MRS. SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The bill was assigned to Mrs. Segerblom on the floor.  Mrs. Lambert also assigned 
S.B. 116 to Mr. Neighbors, S.B. 80 to Mrs. de Braga and A.B. 174 to Ms. Tripple.

ASSEMBLY BILL 137 - Prohibits restraint of competition to purchase or lease 
county property. (BDR 20-166)

Mrs. Lambert recalled the bill had dealt with collusion on bidding for county 
property.  Mr. Ernaut could not remember if the bill had a fiscal note or not.  He 
mentioned a penalty was provided, but could not figure out what that meant except 
for the bid becoming void.  Mrs. Lambert wondered how collusion could be proved 
and laws against it enforced.  Mr. Nolan referred to Terry Lamuraglia's testimony 
where he indicated in NRS 332.165-244 the law was currently in place.  

Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst for the Legislative Counsel Bureau, read an 
explanation on the fiscal note in question.  She said the statute states that 
collusion would amount to a default misdemeanor which is punishable by six 
months in the county jail for not more than six months or a fine or both.  That is 
why there is a fiscal note in the bill.  The most likely result of the discovery of 
collusion or disclosure before the execution of the lease or sale is that the whole 
bidding process could be thrown out.  If the collusion was only between one or two 
of the bidders and did not affect the remainder of the process, the bids of the 
colluding bidders would be thrown out and one of the next lowest bids would be 
accepted.  If the collusion or disclosure was discovered five years after the 
execution of the sale and the colluders still have possession of the property the 
board of county commissioners could bring action, recover the property and file for 
damages.  If the colluder was not still in possession and had sold or sub-let the 
property to a bonafide good faith purchaser, there would not be much recourse 
available.  Subsection 2 is not a prohibition against disclosure so no penalty would 
attach, however in most cases such disclosure would result in an ethics code 
violation for which a civil penalty of up to $5,000 would be imposed.  

Mr. Neighbors was sure this was covered in the purchasing act.  Mrs. Lambert 
pointed out this was involved in selling, not buying.  She suggested waiting to take 
action on A.B. 137.  

A.B. 143 was mentioned, but Mrs. Lambert stated it needed clarification and would 
be dealt with at a later date.

ASSEMBLY BILL 144 - Broadens permissible investment of money pooled by public 
agencies or nonprofit medical facilities for insurance.  (BDR 22-811)   	

MRS. KRENZER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 144.

MRS. FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

ASSEMBLY BILL 164 - Revises provisions governing jurisdiction and authority of 
certain units of specialized law enforcement established by political subdivision. 
 (BDR 22-687) 

MR. BACHE MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 164.

MR. NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. Lambert assigned the bill to Mr. Bache on the floor.

ASSEMBLY BILL 49 - Revises provisions relating to alteration of boundaries of 
certain districts for support of public parks. (BDR 20-401) 


Mr. Bache passed out an amendment to the bill (Exhibit C).  Mr. Bache explained 
the amendment was submitted by Clark County.  In subsection 3, lines 13-19 are 
deleted and replaced with similar language and an additional subsection which 
states "receiving a petition from 100 percent of the property owners in the 
proposed area which was not previously included in the district requesting inclusion 
in the park district."

MR. NEIGHBORS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 49.

MR. BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Tripple asked if it was reasonable to require 100% on the petition.  Mrs. 
Lambert mentioned it was already in annexation law and often it involved only one 
or two property owners.  She said there have been no complaints as there is 
always the other option of going for an election.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mrs. Lambert assigned the bill to Mr. Bache on the floor.

ASSEMBLY BILL 48 - Provides for establishment of funds for extraordinary repair, 
maintenance or improvement of certain buildings of local government. (BDR 31-
402)

Mrs. Lambert commended Mr. Bache on all the hard work put forth to amend this 
bill.  He passed out copies of the amendment to the committee (Exhibit D).  Mr. 
Bache explained in section 2 the establishment of a population cap for local 
governments.  He also mentioned the formation of a fund with separate accounts 
which Mr. Leavitt had deemed necessary during the hearing of the bill.  An 
additional statement was included saying "Upon the sale of the capital project for 
which the account in the fund was established, any remaining balance in the 
account must be used to offset the debt service of the local government."  Section 
2.5 parallels section 2 but makes it permissive for those under 100,000 but 
mandatory for those over 100,000.  Section 3 deletes the provision for the 
legislative auditor.  Sections 5 and 6 will be deleted.

Mrs. Lambert stated she was not ready to vote and encouraged the committee to 
ask as many questions as they needed to resolve any remaining concerns with the 
bill.  


Mr. Ernaut questioned Mr. Bache as to whether the Nevada Association of Counties 
(NACO) and other involved groups had signed off on the bill.  Mr. Bache indicated 
there were no problems with the bill.    Mr. Ernaut thought Washoe and Clark 
counties were more interested in the bill.  Mr. Bache said he had discussed it with 
Tom Grady of NACO and the permissive language in the amendment takes care of 
everything.  

Mr. Harrington wanted to know if there was a way to retire the fund and if that 
was in the amendment.  Mr. Bache stated that was covered in section 3.  Mrs. 
Lambert queried if it was transferred to another government, was there language 
in the bill to address that.  Mr. Bache stated the language was not set up that way 
because it would not be appropriate to transfer that money to another local 
government because it was the original local government's bond issue and the 
money from their taxpayers should go back to pay off their taxpayers' debt service.

Mrs. Segerblom mentioned doing away with sections 5 and 6.  Mr. Bache said the 
legislative auditor was not appropriately included in those sections.  Mrs. Lambert 
thanked Mr. Bache for his work on this complicated issue.  She suggested all 
committee members study the bill and amendments thoroughly.  

Mrs. Lambert asked Mrs. de Braga if she had checked on A.B. 50 and the reference 
to the farm bureau.  She said yes, she spoke with Doug Bussleman and he felt that 
section could be deleted.  Denice Miller had talked with him and she stated the 
farm bureau should not be in there.  Mrs. Lambert asked Ms. Miller if she had 
conferred with the tax experts to see if there would be repercussions if taken out. 
 She indicated Mr. Bussleman spoke directly with Paul Mouritsen of the Research 
Division which would indicate no problems in that area.  Mrs. Lambert stressed a 
review of A.B. 50.  Mrs. de Braga suggested deleting lines 24-29 in section 6.  
Mrs. Lambert said lines 16-22 on page one needed to be amended as well.  She 
also had problems with the capital expenditure for public safety being outside the 
caps and would like to amend that as well.  

Mr. Bache pointed out in A.B. 50 the only change was to pull language out of 
chapter 354 and put it into chapter 350 and to change short-term financing to 
medium-term financing.  

Mrs. Lambert adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



	
Denise Sins,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:






Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman






Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
March 8, 1995
Page