MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 17, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, March 17, 1995, Chairman Bache 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Mr. Robert Price Senator Joseph Neal Jr. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Lorne J. Malkiewich; Legislative Counsel Bureau, Denice Miller; Research Analyst. OTHERS PRESENT: Robert L. Crowell; Attorney, Peter Glaser; Attorney, Doug Busselman; Nevada Farm Bureau, Lew Dodgion; NDED, Ray Bacon; NMA, Susan Southwick; Douglas County Law Library Board of Trustees, Joe Johnson; Toiyabe Sierra Club, Pat Coward; Nevada Association of Realtors, Stephanie Tyler; City of Sparks,Robert Gagnier; SNEA, Amy Halley; NSIA, Marilyn Stabinski; Consumer Advocate. Chairman Bache called the meeting to order. Chairman Bache opened the meeting on S.B. 137. SENATE BILL NO. 137- Provides for free distribution of publications of legislative Counsel bureau to county law libraries. (BDR 33-1252) Chairman Bache recognized Senator Neal. Senator Joseph Neal of District 4 spoke in favor of S.B. 137 stating it was a bill that applies to law libraries, but in this particular case only applies to one law library located in Clark County. He said the bill would permit the Legislative Counsel Bureau to send all of the bills and pertinent information that the legislators normally receive to this particular library. He said presently the Clark County Law Library does not receive this particular information from the Legislative Counsel Bureau. He said the library is already in existence and would not require any additional funding other than the bills produced and sent. Chairman Bache recognized Ms. Tripple. Ms. Tripple asked if law libraries differ from county libraries. Senator Neal responded "yes", they mostly deal with legal publications and they do not have the regular type of books for reading. He said in Clark County, one hundred people a day utilize the law library. He said he took interest in this bill in December of last year. He stated that while he was in Clark County, it was requested of him to see if he could get the advance sheets and what was being introduced in the legislature, so the citizens could come in and read about it. He said at the present time all other libraries, including county libraries, would receive the same information. Ms. Tripple asked if there was a law library in Washoe County. Senator Neal responded he did not think so. He said there was the Judicial College, which is self sustained by the finance committee. Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. Lambert. Mrs. Lambert questioned Senator Neal about the fiscal note for S.B. 137 being a total of eighty eight thousand, of which seventy five thousand is a one time cost of distributing old publications, and thirteen thousand that would recur every session for sending publication. Senator Neal stated the fiscal note was incorrect. The old publications and implied laws, the library already has. He said actually information sent is what you would send an individual citizen and that is what they would be receiving. It has been looked at and the fiscal note was questioned, apparently it was not studied well enough to get the proper information. Mrs. Lambert stated she thought all libraries requesting bills, received them. Senator Neal responded "no", not the law libraries. The Law libraries are exempt, and they only have the one in Clark County, which has a fifty thousand volume area of legal information. The law library was not receiving, and had to purchase the information that comes from the state of Nevada. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Nolan. Mr. Nolan stated it said it would be distributed without charge to the county clerk of each county. He asked why it was not delivered straight to the law library. Senator Neal replied all county clerks get a copy of what is happening at the legislature, which keeps the local government informed. The provision being dealt with is line 9, Nevada Revised Statutes 345.050, which prohibits the law library from receiving the information which is presently going to the counties and other libraries within the state. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Neighbors. Mr. Neighbors made a comment regarding Nye County and it having a law library, and the county clerk having to take care of this issue. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett asked if the fiscal note funds will be dispersed to the Legislative Counsel Bureau to accommodate, or are there additional funds going to the LCB for this. Senator Neal replied each individual assemblyman and senator now has four mail outs which they can send to the various constituents they choose. This would add the library to that particular category and they would receive that particular information. He said the budget is already set for that particular mailing. Chairman Bache recognized Susan Southwick. Susan Southwick, Trustee of the Douglas County Law Library, spoke stating she was not familiar with the bill. She said according to her calculations, there are eight county law libraries established by ordinance in the state. She said she has not discussed this with her board, and was not fully authorized to speak for the board. She said as a law librarian and member, certainly the provision of the current materials prospectively would be very useful to any small law library. She said all small libraries rely on filing fees for their funds, which are problematical in how they come in. She said any provision of basic legal resource from the Legislative Counsel Bureau would be extremely helpful to those small libraries.(EXHIBIT C) Chairman Bache recognized Lorne Malkiewich. Lorne Malkiewich of the Legislative Counsel Bureau stated the fiscal note was based upon the drafting of the bill. The bill says each county clerk is allowed to be distributed upon request a copy of all the publications without charge. NRS 380 provides for establishment of a law library in each county. He said theoretically you could have seventeen law libraries established. He said some of these libraries already have these publications, other counties do not have law libraries, and although eighty eight thousand may be the value of the publications, as a practical matter what this will result in is some publications taken out of inventory and sending them. He said if the counties have not bought them in the past, they probably would not have the money to buy them now. He said it would not be a loss of revenue. He said eighty eight thousand is an accurate fiscal note, but as a practical matter the real affect is going to be taking some publications out of inventory which can be absorbed with the current budget. He said this is probably why it did not go to finance on the Senate side notwithstanding the fiscal note. Having no further testimony the meeting on S.B. 137 was closed. Chairman Bache opened the meeting on A.B. 214 ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 214 Authorizes legislature to reject certain proposed administrative regulations. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Robert Price. Mr. Robert Price of Assembly District 17 spoke and introduced Lorne Malkiewich. Lorne Malkiewich, Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau said A.B. 214 was the product of an interim study of structure and function of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. He said when the interim study considered the work load of the legal division, the subject of administrative regulations arose. The issue of the constitutionality of legislative review of administrative regulations came up. He spoke of different cases such as the CHATA, the Federal Case, and a number of state cases that have indicated legislative review of administrative regulations are unconstitutional. He said there are other cases which suggest a legislative veto is not per se unconstitutional, if properly framed and limited it would withstand constitutional challenge. He said A.B. 214 is an attempt to do that. He said there is already in place legislative review of administrative regulations. The legal division of the LCB during the interim reviews proposed regulations to insure that they are clear, concise, and suitable for incorporation in Nevada's administrative code. The regulations are returned to the agency and upon adoption, returned to the legislative commission for review. If the legislative commission determines that either the regulation exceeds the authority of the agency or is inconsistent with the intent of the legislature in granting that authority, the commission may object to the regulation. He said up until 1987 at that point, the regulation would not have been filed. If the commission would have objected, it would be returned to the agency and they could not adopt it. The regulation would be held until the convening of the next session when the legislature as a whole would review it. He stated around 1987 or so, there was a district court case in Carson City which determined this legislative veto power rendered legislative review of administrative regulations unconstitutional. At that time the statutes were revised to make the commissions review advisory. The commission now, if it determines the regulation exceeds the agencies' authority, advises the agency of that and then the agency has a choice of either directing the counsel bureau to file the regulation notwithstanding the commission's objection or they can revise it to respond to those objections. He stated they do not have the authority to stop the regulation from being filed. He said this has been in place for about the last eight years. He said A.B. 214 goes back to the prior provisions, but makes some changes to make as good of a constitutional case as possible. He said one of the changes made was that language has been inserted which indicates that this does not apply to an agency deriving its powers directly from the Constitution of the State of Nevada, avoiding argument that we are encroaching on powers assigned by the constitution to other entities. He said a concurrent resolution by which the legislature declares a regulation will not become effective, must state it violates legislative intent. The LCB research indicated that is the strongest ground for the legislature rejecting this. He said this is concurrent of both houses. It provides a concurrent resolution would be needed to reject the regulation. He said it only permits the legislature to reject the regulation. It does not permit the legislature to revise or amend the regulation. He said that would perhaps be engaging in executive branch activity. He went through the bill noting the first section. Declaration of legislative intent. He said this is preparing for litigation. If this provision is challenged they want to set forth in the statute the basis for the defense of this statute. Formulation of public policy is the legislature's duty and they may not delegate the duty to adopt statutes to another body. He said the legislature authorizes agencies to adopt regulations, that delegation of duties does not include a delegation of a duty to enact statutes to set public policy, but instead is a limited delegation of the authority to make regulations and the authority to adopt regulations derived solely from the power the legislature delegates to them. Because the legislature may delegate some of its authority, it may properly condition the exercise of that delegated authority upon performance which meets its approval. Subsection 9 on page two states....by limiting its reserve power of review to the point before proposed administrative regulations considered to be permanently effective, legislature does not impinge upon the constitutional duty of the judicial branch to interpret statutes or regulations. The substantive provisions of the bill page three line fifteen they are deleting from lines fifteen through twenty. This is at the point where the legislative commission has indicated it objects to the regulation, prior language said if the agency notifies the director, it intends to file; then the director is to file the regulation. He said they are deleting that language and replacing it with the new procedure which in section three will become 233B.065, if they object the agency may revise it and return it as many times as necessary to get the commissions' approval. If they refuse to revise the regulation, it is returned to the next session of the legislature and by the thirtieth day of the next session by concurrent resolution the legislature may reject it, if it violates legislative intent. If it is not rejected within the first thirty days, the regulation is filed. Subsection four is the statement that it does not apply to agencies deriving their power from the constitution. He said section four of the bill is the parallel provision for review of forms. The Nevada Administrative Procedures Act contains a provision which allows people to have forms adopted by agencies, and reviewed by the commission. He said there is now an advisory review, the commission can indicate that they believe this form is contrary to legislative authority, but cannot do anything about it. He said if this bill is passed with changes, and it might be asked what would happen if the commission objects to a form, the form would not be used until the next thirty days of the next session for the legislature to have time to review it. He said the Act becomes effective July 1, 1995, which is roughly the time the agencies start adopting permanent regulations. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Neighbors Mr. Neighbors asked about page one line 18... the authority of the administrative agency and the executive branch, except agencies created...... What agencies are they talking about? Mr. Malkiewich replied they are constitutional officers, and gave an example of the Attorney General, and only the officers created in the constitution. He said an example would be the Secretary of State being an authority over securities. He said all the other state agencies derive their existence and authority from legislation. He said their case is much stronger for those agencies they create than for those agencies created within the constitution. Mr. Bache recognized Mr. Price. Mr. Price spoke about the reason and theory behind the bill. He said there are some people who speculate, with respect to many of the agencies, the regulations that are continuously considered and passed, the affect on constituents is greater than on the legislature. He said the bureaucratic system is dealing with constituents every single day and over a period of time there will be complaints, and it is not uncommon that you will find regulations that are borderline on what the intent was of the legislature while in session. He said other legislatures in other states have dealt and struggled with this problem over the years. He said this has been an attempt over the last few years to try to keep a handle on things to the most constitutional extent possible. He said he hoped the committee would give it a positive consideration. Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. Freeman. Mrs. Freeman made a comment she had served on the subcommittee of the legislative commission with Mr. Price. She said there was a great deal of struggle. They considered a possibility of having a preamble to rebuild to explain the legislative intent, asking that there be a declaration of legislative intent with every bill. She said this was probably the best solution to the problem. She said she supports this bill. Chairman Bache recognized Ray Bacon. Ray Bacon from the Nevada Manufacturers Association, stated they wanted to be put on record in support of A.B. 214. Chairman Bache recognized Carole Vilardo. Carole Vilardo spoke in support of A.B. 214 saying it was a necessary piece of legislation, and stated that Elections and Procedures has a parallel bill to A.B. 214 which takes this one step further in making a constitutional change Chairman Bache recognized Joe Johnson. Joe Johnson, a citizen, spoke stating he was opposed to A.B. 214. He made comments stating he was in favor of the bill in most parts. He said they are caught in a discrepancy in that you claim the authority and then you immediately give it to some other non-represented body, that being the legislative commission rather than the legislature. He said it was of legislative preview and the legislature should not be claiming the authority and then putting it on to a sub-legislative body. He said in understanding the practicality, as an idealist, and understand that government should proceed and both entities, the legislative commission and the interim finance committee, certainly represent actions that are not necessarily representative of the entire legislative body. He understands this is delegated because you need those functions served. He said this is a strong argument for annual sessions or sessions on a more reasonable basis. He said he was asking for the committee to process the bill in conjunction with several others that would be coming forward and put in a sunset on this. The earliest possible time that you could address this constitutional basis would be sometime early in March of 1999. Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. Freeman. Mrs. Freeman stated the support of annual sessions was discussed in Elections and Procedures and the fact that we do not have annual sessions, she feels is the need for this bill. Chairman Bache opened the meeting on A.B. 286. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 286 - Revises provisions governing contents of notice for proposed administrative regulations. (BDR 18-1462) Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. Lambert. Mrs. Joan Lambert of Assembly District 29 brought before the committee A.B. 286. She said it deals with administrative regulation. She said it is a very simple change in the process of adopting regulations. The language in section one came from 233b.0266 at the portion of the informational statement this requires to be filed with every regulation. The regulation is filed with the Secretary of State's office after it has gone through the notice process, the public hearing process, and LCB review for form. They also try to have the regulation have some sort of style and structure that make them easy to read. She said no one sees this informational statement. She proposes the portion of the statement that would be a benefit to the public and to business regulated by the state, the estimated economic effect, the estimated cost of the agency to enforce, and whether there are any regulations that are duplicated or overlapped, should be on the notice of the public hearing for the regulation. She said as she perceived there would be no more work because it has to be done at some point anyway. She said she was sure agencies, before the proposed regulations, must go through the process of seeing what effect those regulations would have on the citizens of Nevada, plus what costs there would be to enforce them and whether or not there is a regulation already in effect. She said she hoped that was part of the process at the onset. She gave a handout as an example of informational statement. (Exhibit D). She said only portions of these would apply to the bill. She gave examples according to the handouts. She said there is a wide variance in the extent and quality of the informational statements. She said some agencies do a very good job, and some consider this something to be overlooked. She said Employment Security Department gave a good example. She said a benefit of this would be to improve the whole process if it is made public early on. She hopes it will give people more information about the regulation before attending the public hearing. She said even better, would be if the press would go over to the state library and read some of the statements, find stories to write, so even more people would be notified of a regulation that is being proposed. She said the more people that know early on, and have input into the process, hopefully there will be less complaints after the regulation is implemented. Mrs. Lambert gave examples of brief informational statements. In closing she said if this is done already, why not make it public and open up the process. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Doug Bussleman. Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke in support of passage of A.B. 286 and to urge the committee's favorable consideration of this measure. He said whether it is on a national level or state level, the concepts of careful analysis of regulatory costs and benefits are solid precepts for good government. He said the requirements called for in A.B. 286 are fair, balanced and justified. He said they also serve as appropriate safeguards to assist in keeping the regulatory climate on track. He urged the committee to pass A.B. 286. (Exhibit E). Chairman Bache recognized Lew Dodgion. Lew Dodgion, Administrator of the State of Environmental Protection said the SEP works with the State Environmental Commission, and the SEP administers the regulations the environmental commission adopts. He said they hold about six hearings a year and deal with about four regulatory changes at those hearings. He said he would like to go on record supporting A.B. 286. He said they are required to do this at the tail end of the regulatory process, and felt it would be much better doing it up-front. He said they have found the more up-front work they do with the regulations, the better the regulations they end up with and it becomes easier to implement. He said however there is a downside to this bill for the environmental commission in that the notice that is required to be given, is a notice in a public newspaper in an area to be generally affected. This notice is to be thirty days ahead of the hearing on the regulation, and then once a week for three weeks, prior to the hearing. He said this will increase the cost of the commission's public notices about seventy five percent. He said if you do a minimum analysis, it would increase around seventy five percent. He said it would have an impact on the commission's budget of approximately twenty-five hundred to three thousand dollars. He suggested the notice should give summary and have the economic analysis available in the libraries with mailing available to people who request it. He said the notice would tell the public how to get copies and where available for review. He said it is a minimal expense, but when the commission has a budget of perhaps three thousand dollars now for public notices, and it doubles, they have to come up with more money. Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. Freeman. Mrs. Freeman asked what the budget was for the Environmental Commission and if the bill should pass, has the budget been heard yet and how would you find more money. Mr. Dodgion replied the commission's budget had previously been heard. The budget is approximately seventeen thousand dollars, most of it goes to travel, then some of the commissioners are entitled to eighty dollars a day salary, and approximately three thousand goes for operating expenses. The major portion of that being public notice. He said if the bill passes, they would have to make up the difference in one of their other budget accounts. Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. Lambert. Mrs. Lambert commended the commission on publishing notice. She stated she would be willing to work on budget problems, and thought that it should be charged back to the agency that is requesting the regulation. She said she liked the idea of publishing and wished all the agencies would do this and publish the information in an abbreviated form in the paper. Mr. Dodgion said an abbreviated notice in the paper could be worked out with the information available. He said it would enhance the job agencies do with developing this information by having it done up-front. He said it should be available for public review before the regulation is heard. He said the environmental commission is required by their operating statutes to publish the notice in the newspapers. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Ray Bacon. Mr. Ray Bacon of the Nevada Manufacturers Association spoke in support of the bill and said it is needed. He gave a case in point, which may come before the legislature this session. He said last session the legislature authorized Assembly Concurrent Resolution 4, which was to look at emergency response for hazardous materials in the interim session. He said the report that came back has some duplication. He said they are now going back and revising the A.C.R. report to get rid of the duplication. He said if this statute had been in place, it would have been addressed up-front. He said it would have saved time and money and they would have wound up with a better report. In general he said this is a major step in the right direction. Chairman Bache recognized Robert L. Crowell. Robert Crowell appearing on behalf of the Center for Energy and Economic Development spoke and introduced Peter Glaser of Washington, D.C. Mr. Peter Glaser, attorney with the law firm of Doherty, Rumble and Butler, gave his statement in behalf of the Center for Energy and Economic Development, otherwise known as CEED. He said it is a non-profit organization comprised of coal, railroads and related organizations. He said CEED's purpose is to provide input into state legislative and regulatory processes on energy, environmental and other similar regulatory concerns. He said CEED strongly endorses this bill, with the purpose of ensuring the economic impacts of regulatory action are considered during the regulatory process. He said far too often regulatory agencies act without giving adequate consideration to the economic impacts their actions will have on businesses and the public. He said CEED is particularly concerned about regulation in the electric utility industry, which is regulated by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission. The electric utility industry is now undergoing dramatic changes as forces of competition and deregulation are increasing. He said these changes are creating a great deal of uncertainty and complexity facing regulators in the electric utility industry sphere. He said it is absolutely critical, given these complexities and uncertainties in this one field of regulation, that any regulation that is undertaken must carefully consider the economic impacts very early during the regulatory process. He said CEED strongly endorses this bill and believes it will have beneficial effects. Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. Lambert. Mrs. Lambert disclosed that her husband works with an electric utility and she has never heard of CEED, nor has she spoken to them prior to this hearing. She said she thought the Nevada Public Service Commission was one of the agencies that did a decent job of getting notice up front, and by having public hearings before their formal hearings. Mr. Crowell said he agreed with Mrs. Lambert and said they did not discuss this bill with her prior to the testimony and was not designed to put anyone in an uncomfortable position. He said he believes the Public Service Commission does make strides in this area because it does copy into law what is currently there in the initial input stages. Chairman Bache recognized Pat Coward. Pat Coward of the Nevada Retail Association said the retail association strongly supports the concepts brought forth in the bill. He said he thinks it will enhance the partnership between business and local government. He said it is a great planning tool for business to be able to look at what the economic impact of regulations will be on their businesses and will enhance their planning as well as government's planning to put a sharper focus on this area. He said this is a very important aspect of what will come forward to people, not only in business, but the general public. Chairman Bache recognized Stephanie Tyler. Stephanie Tyler representing the Nevada State Chiropractic Association and the Nevada Nurses Association spoke. She said both of these agencies live under the regulations of regulating boards and anything that further opens up that process and makes their rationale with regard to the promulgation of regulation more public, her clients strongly support. She said the concept of the bill is outstanding. Chairman Bache recognized Carole Vilardo. Carole Vilardo of the Nevada Taxpayers Association spoke saying one of the reasons the committee heard from so many people from business and industry and the trades today, many of which have supported regulatory reform since 1989, is because this bill provides a user friendly government. She said in support of the bill you only have to look at California. One of her counterparts listed six items which caused the decline in California. She said third on the list was the regulatory environment. It was no longer user friendly. She thinks the bill is marvelous in context with everything else done and urged support. Chairman Bache recognized Amy Halley. Amy Halley representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and the Nevada Self Insurer's Association, asked to go on record supporting A.B. 286. Chairman Bache recognized Joe Johnson. Mr. Joe Johnson representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, said in part the reason he signed in objection to this bill, he perceived there would be a fiscal note and stated the impact would be minimal and would withdraw the objection to the bill from the fiscal note standpoint. He said he would like to discuss cost benefit. He said the cost to society, not having a clean environment, is much more difficult to establish. He said risk analysis will say one in a million get cancer from this function, one in a hundred thousand or one in a thousand. The benefit to the industry is easy to calculate and that is profit by not implementing a particular program. The cost to society, whatever the legislative commission has determined to be at risk, is much more difficult and particular. It is difficult to tag who is to pay the cost. What part of society is at risk for the cost or reduction in profit experienced by a business entity. He said there are various ways establishing cost benefits. One, is the courts have held in absence of a legislative mandate, it is determined if there is injury, harm or genetic malfunction caused, the harm that is cost from lost wages of a certain individual based on age. Another one in debate, is the avoidance cost. He asked what would people pay so that a child would not suffer harm. He said that is probably a more accurate and representative basis for determining the benefits to society from established regulations. He said granted this bill does not deal with those things, legitimately if the agency did what is said in the bill, both adverse and beneficial effects, those items should come into play. He said the Sierra Club, both nationally and locally have concerns in this area. He said they recognize the regulatory environment is duplicate and overregulated in many areas. He said he works in environment remediation assessment, and is familiar with complexities. He said there needs to be simplification. If there is a hindrance in developing regulations to simplify, not saying to reduce standards, but the reduction of the overlapping and often contradictory regulations that do nothing for helping the environment and cost business, these should be addressed. He said the issue of cost benefit analysis, risk assessment will become highly politicized. He asked to go on record in support of the intent of the bill and that is to make open and public exposure to those items that are already in the regulatory process. He said if this bill should be used to further expand, from a legislative view of requirements, then he thinks it should be addressed and debated in a separate issue. Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. Lambert. Mrs. Lambert advised Mr. Johnson to get a copy of her handout. She explained about the estimate of the economic adverse effect on the public, in regard to the Physical Therapists. She stated most of the people writing these regulations are in favor of the regulation proposed. She said the fear of looking at the cost and not any of the beneficial effects beyond economics, do not seem to occur today. Mr. Johnson responded he was aware most of the regulatory environment is outside the area of direct review of the Sierra Club. He said the comments are, there is, and will be, a continuing effort to tighten up those benefits and at sometime to attribute actual dollar values to them. He said the economic basis often shifts on the basis of a desire to have a specific regulation implemented. He said he wanted to express some concern on cost benefit analysis, and would like to withdraw his signature in opposition to having public notice given. With no further testimony, the meeting was closed on A.B. 286. Chairman Bache called a five minute recess. Chairman Bache called the committee to order and a work session was held. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 8 - Authorizes the creation of general improvement district to furnish facilities for certain radio transmission. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 8. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion was held. Mrs. Lambert stated the bill provides a service to the rural areas, and the amendment would be to include Beatty and the unincorporated towns. She said there just is not the ability to get FM radio out to many of the rural areas without this vehicle. She said she would compare it to the public library. She said libraries provide educational materials and entertainment materials just as FM radio can. She said this is something the people in rural Nevada would not want taken away from them. Mr. Nolan said his only concern with this bill is allowing this system to remain in place, that it does not directly compete with private enterprise. He said for the record, it should be mentioned it is not this committee's intent to create something that would directly compete with private business. Mr. Ernaut said in response to Mr. Nolan's statement.. "it might not be the intent but he thinks it is the effect." Mr. Bennett said the intent is not to compete with private enterprise, he said he does support the bill because the private enterprise does have recourse to block certain transmissions at the county commission level. Mr. Harrington said he would vote against the bill because there are radio signals available there and this would allow government financed competition. He said when you choose to live in a rural area, you choose certain benefits, you choose to have the stars at night, a nice neighborhood where everyone is known. When you choose to live in the city, you get some other benefits and you give up others. He said it is not the government's responsibility to compensate either group for the choices that they make. Mrs. de Braga commented this is only enabling legislation and still has to go back to the local boards for implementation. Mr. Neighbors spoke saying he "echoed" Mrs. de Braga's sentiments. Mrs. Segerblom stated she agreed with both Mrs. de Braga and Mr. Neighbors and stated the county commissioners should do their job. There being no further discussion, Chairman Bache called for a vote on the motion before the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT AND ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON VOTING "NO". ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 16 - Revises provisions governing calculation of compensation of sheriff or chief of police for purpose of determining retirement benefits. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 16. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion was held. Mrs. Segerblom would like to have a vote on this bill. She said she felt that so few people will benefit from it, and if we can get better chiefs of police from out of the state, they should be able to get into the retirement system. Mr. Ernaut said he felt there were two things at work. He said it hamstrings the ability to recruit the rural communities outside of the area for qualified and experienced administrative people in the police force. He said it also sends an awkward message to the counties for the sheriffs, when the deputy sheriff in many cases can make more money than the sheriff, and we disincentive people who are experienced coming up through the ranks in a particular county, from taking over the ultimate job of becoming sheriff. He said although the sheriff is an elected position, this bill would create a situation where a person who has particular experience in the county, with that force, would not want to become sheriff and that would allow an opening for sheriffs with lack of experience and local knowledge. Mr. Ernaut stated he would vote against the motion. Mr. Harrington agreed with Mr. Ernaut. Mr. Neighbors stated he disagreed with Mr. Ernaut's concept altogether. He stated as far as the deputies or the amount of money made, is an issue which will be brought up in a Senate bill. He said in fact, due to step grade, it has caught up with them. He said that is a separate issue. He said he could not believe if you were to bring in a sheriff from out of state, that you would not sit down with that person and discuss with him all the issues such as retirement benefits, etc. Mr. Bache said there were two separate issues to the bill. One was the sheriffs' issue and their particular complaint was that they had taken a reduction in salary and they did not get the additional increase upon retirement. He said Mr. Pyne had testified to the fact that was not the case, that either the Supreme Court or the attorney general had ruled you could not reduce the sheriff's salary for the purposes of going employer paid, so they did not take the reduction. Secondly, a separate issue of the police chiefs from out of state. He said it was one where you had to have served on patrol to qualify for the early retirement in Nevada; that it was to encourage Nevada residents to move up the ladder. He said the chiefs that are recruited out of state do still participate in the retirement system, but they do not qualify for the early retirement under the other system. Mr. Bennett stated he would like to reiterate that it is two entirely separate issues. One highly valid, one highly invalid. He said he thought the committee would do much better to kill this legislation and re-introduce a bill draft request to the committee to take care of the valid points of this legislation. Mrs. Segerblom suggested the bill should be divided into two bills. There being no further discussion, Chairman Bache called for a vote on the motion before the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT, ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON AND ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM VOTING "NO." ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 35 - Reorganizes Nevada rural housing authority. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED DO PASS A.B. 35. He went on to say that it is not actually appropriate to refer to another committee within a committee, though it has been a practice before. ASSEMBLY NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion was held. Mr. Ernaut stated with the recommendation of Mrs. Lambert, it is the intent of the Republican Floor Leader to send this to Ways and Means once it reaches the floor. He said after talking with Mouryne Landing, because he had a concern about committees making re-referrals of bills to another committee within the committee, he learned it is more appropriate to be done on the floor or in the initial referral of a concurrence. It will be referred to Ways and Means to alleviate anyone's concern. Mrs. Freeman addressed the question on funding. Mrs. Krenzer said she was comfortable with the bill going to Ways and Means. Mr. Bennett said due to the change in the make up that is being discussed and since there are changes in the commission in the bill, he is wondering if there is a conflict between the two bills, to go ahead and send this one through and then send another change through regarding the same statute. Mr. Bache replied the two bills would create a conflict amendment. It would come out from LCB, and it would be amended into the bill. Mr. Neighbors asked what the motion was. Mrs. de Braga asked if there was an amendment to the bill concerning area appointment to the boards. Mr. Bache responded it was being taken care of in Mr. William's bill, A.B. 204 and as it is processed it would generate the conflict amendment he described. Mrs. de Braga made a statement about employee benefits. There being no further discussion, Chairman Bache called for a vote from the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 54 - Revises provisions relating to distribution of uncommitted balance in fund for municipal bond bank. Mrs. Lambert asked if Ms. Miller did research on the Internal Revenue Service implications of having this money refunded to the municipalities. Ms. Denice Miller stated she conferred with Paul Mouritsen, who is the resident expert on these IRS provisions. She said it was his opinion the arbitrage provisions which were discussed during that meeting, are the very provisions that could result in a reversion to the municipalities being declared illegal or against the arbitrage provisions. She said it was highly likely that would happen. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 54. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion was held. Mr. Bennett stated in addition to the problem he has with the arbitrage questions, he stated it violates the simple process of business that he who takes a risk benefits either the gravy or the consequences. He said if the state general fund is taking the ultimate risk on the bonds, they should be able to reap the benefits. There being no further discussion on A.B. 54, Chairman Bache called for a vote from the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 137 - Prohibits restraint of competition to purchase or lease county property. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 137 ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion was held. Mr. Bache stated A.B. 137 parallels the provision in Nevada Revised Statutes 332.165, the state purchasing language. He said the counties have indicated they are not concerned about the fiscal note, it dealt with jail and prosecution. There being no further discussion, Chairman Bache asked for a vote from the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 199- Revises provisions governing organization of Department of Information Services and administration of state communication system. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 199. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion was held. Mrs. Lambert said this was a good government bill. She said if you are going to have someone who is working with computers, be qualified, and who is better to judge that, than the Department of Information Services. Mr. Ernaut asked if on line 13 NCIC was to be added. Mr. Ernaut asked if the maker of the motion would indulge him, he would make an amendment on her motion to amend and do pass, adding simply NCIC to line 13. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 199. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Bache recognized Ms. Kavanau. Ms. Kavanau asked for clarification. Mr. Ernaut spoke to Ms. Kavanau stating there was discussion that they were going to add to line thirteen after ...community college system Nevada, National Criminal Information Center application. Mr. Ernaut asked if this amendment was correct. Ms. Kavanau said it was consistent with all the other legislation in NRS 242. Mr. Harrington stated his concern about the power given to the Director of Informational Services. He said since so much of what is done is informationally related, that one person could control what happens in every agency of the state. He said that needs to be watched carefully over time. Ms. Kavanau stated it is restricted to those people who perform technology related, not user information related. She said it is just a few classifications and it is not certainly everyone who touches information services. Mrs. Krenzer said her concern had been answered. There being no further discussion, Chairman Bache asked the committee to vote first on Mr. Ernaut's amendment to amend and do pass. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Bache asked for a vote on the main motion of A.B. 199. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 200 - Revises provisions governing organization of Department of Information Services and administration of state communication system. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 200. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. There being no discussion, the Chairman asked for a vote from the committee. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Bache asked for discussion on the Subcommittee Reports. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 36 - Revises provisions governing inspection of certain records in state archives. (BDR 33-1115). Mrs. Braunlin showed the committee a memo.(Exhibit G). She added Ande Engleman and herself met with representatives at the Governor's office and they will be getting back in touch with the Governor, due to him having surgery. She said they will be having another subcommittee meeting within another ten to twelve days. Mr. Ernaut asked if it was the intent of the subcommittee to take out provisions that would single Governor Miller out as having to have open records from the day he leaves. Mrs. Braunlin replied it is not the intent of the subcommittee at this time.. Mr. Ernaut asked if it was the intent of the subcommittee to change the policy. Because every Governor up until now has had a cooling off period delineated by themselves from anywhere between fifteen to twenty five years for executive orders. Mrs. Braunlin replied "yes" in regard to the executive agreements that some of the Governors have had. She said the intent is what currently in the law will not be changed, and therefore the governor will not be able to enter into an executive agreement. Chairman Bache then moved on to A.B. 39. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 39- Revises provisions governing state purchasing.(BDR 27- 841). Mrs. Krenzer stated the subcommittee met and heard testimony from Ande Engleman, Carole Vilardo and Tom Tatro. She said they had basically come to an agreement. (Exhibit H). She said the agreement changed as follows: Section one would remain as is of the bill. Section two would remain as is of the bill. Sections Three and Five relate to the list and the bidding process. She stated Mr. Tatro had requested the committee wait, because they thought they would have their information systems on line, and now explained they will not be on line in time for a demonstration. She said with this inability to comply with the request from the subcommittee to see them in action, the committee felt they could not make the changes in NRS at the present. She stated she thought it was a classic case of technology is ahead of where the legislature is. The subcommittee has requested they delete section three, which in essence leaves the language the way it was. In section four line thirty six, the committee extended them an extra year to do a contract for two years. She said upon Mr. Tatro's request, the committee deleted the brackets, and listed the provision that if they are extending a contract for the efficient use of energy or to promote products, the committee will extend them a three year contract. In section five it relates to the issue of the list. The committee is deleting the brackets on page two line thirty three. She said it basically leaves the provision as it was originally. Section six addresses bill bids. The committee is requesting the section be deleted, best leaving the language as it existed previously. Section seven, the committee had no problem with it being removed from the state purchasing fund. Section eight remains the same, with the deletion of the brackets around "sealed". Section nine remains the same. She said that was the bill in essence. She said the power of the bill was to delete the university system from the purchasing act and allow two year contracting instead of one year. She remembered that in section five, it was suggested on line four page three, that a compromise was made at fifteen thousand. Mr. Harrington asked as far as the bidding was concerned, didn't we agree on a previous bill, to keep at ten thousand. He asked if going to fifteen thousand is going to make it inconsistent with the bill already heard. Mrs. Krenzer replied it was not inconsistent, the testimony was that about thirty percent of the bids that go out are within this provision. She said it reduce the number of bids that go out by about ten percent. She said the seventy five hundred dollar estimate is about fifteen years old. Mr. Bache asked for purposes of clarification in section four; you were returning to original language, except going from one year to two years. Mrs. Krenzer replied in the affirmative. Mr. Bache asked on section five where they went to the fifteen thousand, which was an area of concern to Ms. Engleman, what was her comments on that. Mrs. Krenzer replied she would be happy at leaving it at seventy five hundred, and fifteen thousand was a compromise between the twenty five thousand and the seventy five hundred. She said, she herself, was comfortable with ten thousand . Mrs. de Braga stated she thought it was a good point. She said fifteen thousand as an arbitrary compromise would be better served to rural areas as a lower figure then fifteen thousand. Mrs. Krenzer stated that was agreeable with her, and requested the pleasure of the committee to lower that. Mr. Bache asked if Mrs. Krenzer was suggesting for consistency, to go with the ten thousand. Mrs. Krenzer said she would be happy to do that. Mr. Ernaut asked about section five and the notice requirements. Mrs. Krenzer replied they stay the same. Mr. Bennett said he wanted to point out that his vote on the subcommittee was to maintain a higher threshold as far as his recommendation of amend and do pass. That was one of the points he was strong on. He said his original intent was to keep it at twenty five thousand. He said the reason being, it costs additional money to do a purchase on a lower amount. He said the original seventy five hundred, was the year 1979 in dollars. He said with ten thousand now, they would be unable to buy a half ton pickup truck. He said it would cover the purchase of only one and one half personal computers, with this low threshold. He said he will adamantly change his vote if lowered any further. Mrs. Krenzer said there was a great deal of testimony on the bill. She said there are two issues; one is the time it takes for a sealed bid, and in opposition to that is in fact it goes out to bid. She said in small rural counties, fifteen, ten or five thousand annual bid or contract with a state is a big deal to a small business owner. She said in keeping with open government and keeping with open processes, and also encouraging a low bidder from among a number of bids, she said she was comfortable with ten thousand as the amount. Mr. Bennett said he was still not going to back down. He said that whatever the threshold, there is a list maintained with roughly three hundred prospective people to go out for bid. He said it is the approval process, a bunch of bureaucratical red tape to jump through, and costs all taxpayers to maintain low thresholds. Mrs. Krenzer stated it was a good bill and well worked through with a consensus by all and moved amend and do pass. Mr. Bache asked what the amendment was. Mrs. Krenzer said as stated in the page, with the exception of the ten thousand on line 4 page three section five. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B.39 ASSEMBLYMAN dE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. Further discussion was held. Mr. Ernaut said Mrs. Krenzer discussed his concerns and Mrs. de Braga brought up a valid point. He agreed that some things were cumbersome; one is not the ability to do away with collusion and nepotism in the purchasing process. He said a lower threshold guards against that very well. He said unfortunately bureaucracy and red tape are necessary, and when it comes to safeguarding taxpayers' money it is absolutely necessary. There being no further discussion on A.B. 39, chairman Bache asked for a vote from the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 52 - Requires certain bond issues by municipalities to be sold by competitive bid. (BDR 30-406). Mr. Neighbors stated the bill was very controversial and complicated. He said one meeting was held with a secretary present. He said there was some very informative testimony on both sides in favor or opposed. He said A.B. 52 requires certain bonds issued by the municipalities to be sold by competitive bid. He said they had testimony on both sides talking about either competitive bid or negotiated sale. He said another meeting will be scheduled, and no action will be taken until then. Mrs. Segerblom wanted to go back to A.B. 36. She stated this was her bill and if they are going to meet with someone from the Governor's office, they should have someone there from the archives, and she wants them involved. Mr. Bache asked Mrs. Braunlin to note Mrs. Segerblom's comments and deal with them accordingly. Mr. Bache then stated there were Bill Draft Requests to be introduced. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION ON B.D.R. 23-876. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 23-874. ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 30-948. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 25-951. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. ASSEMBLY MAN LAMBERT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R 25-952. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 20-953. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. Chairman Bache listed the bills as Do Pass to be introduced on the floor session. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 8, introduced by Mr. Marvel. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 35, introduced by Mr. Marvel. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 137, introduced by Mr. Harrington. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 199, introduced by Mrs. Freeman. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 200, introduced by Mrs. de Braga. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 39, introduced by Mrs. Krenzer. Chairman Bache asked for any new business. Mrs. Braunlin wanted to clarify with Mrs. Segerblom that the meeting they attended did not pertain to her portion of the bill, it pertained to section one. She asked if Mrs. Segerblom would like to have Mr. Rocha involved, and if so, she would be happy to discuss that. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF A BILL DRAFT REQUEST ELIMINATING THE TWO YEARS FIELD SERVICE IN THE STATE OF NEVADA FOR PARTICIPATION IN "PERS" BY CHIEFS OF POLICE. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. A discussion was held. Mrs. Lambert opposed the motion, she did not see any point of going to the expense of recruiting people out of state, and then making it very easy for them to retire in a short period of time. As long as they know what they are getting before they get the job, I believe they can make a reasonable decision. Mr. Harrington stated he thought it would be a good idea. He said it will help this area recruit the top quality person, whether in or out of state, and it puts out of state people on an equal footing with those in state. Mr. Neighbors stated he echoed the sentiments of his colleague from Washoe County. Mrs. Krenzer said she would need to look at the bill. Mrs. Segerblom stated she is in favor of this section of the bill going back to a new BDR. There being no further discussion, Chairman Bache asked the committee for a vote. THE VOTE WAS ASSEMBLYMEN BENNETT, HARRINGTON, KRENZER, SEGERBLOM, and NOLAN VOTING YES. THE VOTE IN OPPOSITION WAS ASSEMBLYMEN BRAUNLIN, de BRAGA, FREEMAN, NEIGHBORS, TRIPPLE, BACHE, and LAMBERT THE MOTION FAILED. Seeing no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Kelly L. Liston Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs March 17, 1995 Page