MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 27, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:38 a.m., on Monday, March 27, 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 Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Pete Ernaut GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Barbara Buckley STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Howard Skolnik, Dept. Of Prisons; Cam Walker, Las Vegas Valley Water District; Norm Starrett, Public Purchasing Study Commission; Larry Osborne, Carson City Chamber of Commerce; John Balentine, Washoe County Purchasing; Charlie Joerg, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association. ASSEMBLY BILL 287 - Removes prohibitions against individual water meters in mobile home parks. (BDR 58-80) The meeting opened with testimony by Cam Walker (Exhibit C). He briefly advocated the benefits of individual water meters for mobile home owners. A water meter installed in each manufactured home would allow the homeowner to see the actual benefits of water conservation and to more efficiently manage their water use. He also read one sentence in a supportive letter from Jeannie Deeg, State President of the Mobilehome Owners League of the Silver State (Exhibit D). Assemblyman Lambert questioned the term "company town". Mr. Walker said the term was defined in the statutes and did not refer to any specific town. The language used in this bill was from last session's Senate Bill 532. It had passed the Senate but not in the Assembly as it was introduced so late. They took the same language and used in this session. Assemblyman Bennett asked which rate was higher; those who use a little water or those who use a lot. Mr. Walker answered in a general sense, the water use was based on usage. The basic service charge was lowered in 1991 and the rate of usage was taken into account so those who use more pay more. Mr. Bennett queried if the fee or surcharge for installing the meter would be recovered from the homeowner or would it be a one-shot deal or pro-rated over time. Mr. Walker indicated those details had not yet been finalized. He did say the homeowners would not have to pay for it; this is mentioned in the bill. The expense for the meter itself would be borne by the park owner and constructor/developer. The mobile homeowner would only have to pay for conversion which will hopefully be a part of the maintenance process. Assemblyman Freeman inquired what year Las Vegas started using metered water, encouraging water conservation. Mr. Walker stated it was in 1958. Mrs. Freeman did not understand what a company town was. Mr. Walker explained it was a town which drew its water from a company well. Assemblyman Tripple asked why the term "shall not" was in the bill referring to meter usage in a company town. Mr. Walker replied the term could be removed if the committee wanted. He said the thought was the diligence of a company town in working toward efficiently using the water might be different in the case of a mobile home park. The individual mobile homes cannot efficiently manage their water usage and yet are being billed for it. A company would check the water use of the individual structures in the town just as a hotel does in its separate rooms. Mrs. Tripple intimated this must be protecting somebody. Mr. Walker responded he could not find out who it was. He had checked with many sources including WestPac, Sierra Pacific, the Las Vegas Valley Water District and with the other municipalities of the southern water authority. Assemblyman Segerblom spoke of Round Mountain and the company town there and thought they would be protected from having meters put in. She figured there would be other towns like that as well. Mr. Walker felt she would know as a more experienced resident of the state. Chairman Bache confirmed he did not request the language on the company town. Mr. Walker indicated he did not. Mr. Bache would submit the bill to bill draft to see how it got in there originally. Assemblyman Nolan mentioned at one time Blue Diamond met the definition of a company town. He understood that recently, the James Hardy Gypsum mine entered into an agreement to start providing them with their reclamation water and did that fit into the metering arrangement. Mr. Walker agreed there was an agreement and work was constantly being done on the Blue Diamond water system to improve it. He could not say if it was indeed a company town. The Blue Diamond water district is a purveyor of the Las Vegas Valley Water District; they manage and operate that. He would check with his attorney for clarification. Assemblyman Neighbors indicated he would do some research into a town near Round Mountain he thought might be a company town. Mr. Bache referred to subsection g, section two and asked how do we know the park owner will not pass on the increase in their costs for the water meters. Mr. Walker remarked it was not his realm to discuss what the owners and tenants would do. He pointed out today, a manufactured homeowner would not see the benefit of water conservation. The purpose of the bill would be to enable this to occur. Assemblyman Buckley spoke in support of the bill. She has over 1500 seniors living in mobile home parks in her district and this is a very important issue for them. She quoted the President of Pleasant Valley Mobile Home Park in Las Vegas, "why should a widow with desert landscaping pay the same water bill as someone who lives next door who has four individuals who do not give a thought to conserving?" This bill takes a step to prevent that injustice from occurring. Mrs. Buckley had a couple of concerns with the bill. One was when would the conversion begin to occur. In October, 1995, the present rate system for the water district will change and seniors will be adversely affected. Previously, there was a rate increase, but they were exempt from that because of their peculiar circumstances. They are billed as commercial businesses, but they are actually residences. The other concern expressed was would there be a pass-through cost to residents. In the bill there is a prohibition against this type of pass-through, but some are concerned it will still get passed through via the next rent increase. Mrs. Buckley mentioned a possible way to prevent that from happening. That would be for the Las Vegas Valley Water District to pay the cost of conversion as part of their conservation efforts. It was understood two sessions ago, that offer was made and hopefully it was still available today. It would serve all those involved and would lead to greater conservation efforts. Mrs. Buckley urged support of the bill. Mr. Neighbors had no problem with the bill. He remarked the cost would be huge to install the water meters and would not some of that cost be passed on to consumers. Mrs. Buckley said in essence, everything is always passed to the ratepayers or the taxpayers. She wanted to explore the fact this offer was made two sessions ago and it was probably made at that time with the thought of conservation in mind. She assumed that was already researched and thought it would be prudent for the ratepayers when the offer was extended. Mr. Neighbors was looking at the big picture and surmised savings but realized someone somewhere would have to pay. Mrs. Buckley stated hopefully the water district would contribute something toward the park owners' expense, especially if it would save water for Nevada. Charlie Joerg, representing the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, wanted to be on record as supporting the bill. He clarified the company town issue. It was simply a construction of the bill to include that segment of individuals plus add the term mobile home park. The company town provision was already in the statute. Mrs. Freeman wondered how the bill would affect Washoe County. This would need to be clarified prior to taking a vote on A.B. 287. ASSEMBLY BILL 77 - Exempts purchase by local government from industry program in correctional institution in this state from local government purchasing act. (BDR 27-1103) Howard Skolnik, Assistant Director for Industrial Programs, Department of Prisons, spoke in favor of the bill. He stated this would authorize units of local government to do direct purchase from the state's prison industry program. The bill is permissive in nature, it does not require counties to do so, it provides the same opportunities currently given to state agencies to buy directly from prison industries. One of the concerns that has been expressed about the bill is unfair advantage. He pointed out statutes already prohibit prison industries from having a significant negative impact on local business. There is an advisory board appointed by the legislature that oversees the prison industry operation to assure that what is done will not have a bad impact on any local businesses. The majority of operations in competition with prison industries are out-of-state and they have also worked actively with many local businesses. Mr. Nolan noticed new furniture that had been provided by prison industries for the legislature. If it can be done better and cheaper anyway, why does there need to be a provision in the statutes that gives the opportunity to not be involved in a competitive bidding process. Mr. Skolnik said inmates are paid a prevailing wage in most instances as the products they produce end up in the open market. Some smaller units of government have requested this measure due to the inefficiencies of having to bid in smaller dollar amounts when they could come to prison industries and save the costs of the bid processing and all the necessary bureaucracy to oversee that process. Mr. Nolan commended their work. Mrs. Krenzer thought they were doing a great job, however she has always taken issue with exempting anyone from the competitive bid process. With the exception of the time element, why did they not participate in the competitive process. Mr. Skolnik replied as often as not they did participate in the competitive process. He indicated this becomes an issue for the local government in terms of their efficiency and he believed there were some representatives present to address that. Mrs. Krenzer affirmed if the state wanted to contract with prison industries, they would not have to put it out to competitive bid. Mr. Skolnik agreed. Mrs. Krenzer was not entirely happy with that. She asked what services were provided. Mr. Skolnik said their primary industries were metal furnishings, stainless steel products, mattresses for institutions and office furnishings. Mrs. Krenzer wanted to know the total amount of income from the business last year. Mr. Skolnik stated the total sales last year amounted to approximately 3 « million dollars. Mr. Harrington asked what the net proceeds were. Mr. Skolnik answered very little. The total income last year was about $50,000 and most of that goes back into the program. Mr. Bennett questioned the range of the prevailing wages. Mr. Skolnik replied it is minimum wage in most cases. Some inmates do make more. The wages are set by the employment security department in accordance with federal legislation. Inmates do earn as much as seven or eight dollars per hour for certain types of piecework. Mr. Neighbors wanted a list of the various wages paid to inmates for different types of work. Mr. Skolnik said Nevada has the highest inmate wage in the country. This involves 330-350 out of 7,000 inmates. Assemblyman Williams wanted a list of goods produced by prison industries, both current and proposed products. Mr. Norm Starrett, Public Purchasing Study Commission, wanted to express support of the commission for A.B. 77. They felt it brought value to the taxpayers' dollars as well as creating a good rehabilitation program for the prisoners. As far as whether or not the prison industries' prices are competitive, they have historical records of what has been normally paid for similar products on the open market and it does not take long to see the money savings. John Balentine, Washoe County Purchasing Contracts Administrator, supported the legislation. He stated the county has higher bid limits as did Clark County and probably would not be affected by this bill, but the members of the Nevada Northern Consortium of Cooperative Purchasing of the smaller counties who have the lower bid limits would be affected and they have expressed their support as well. Larry Osborne, Executive Vice-President of the Carson City Chamber of Commerce, stated they were opposed to A.B. 77 on the grounds that it would give even more advantage to a government-run industry that already has advantages over businesses in the private sector. Most of the members would be surprised to learn how much the inmates are earning. The prison industry program is supported by the Chamber of Commerce. They like the idea of the program itself, but as they already have distinct advantages, taking out the competitive bid process would give them a wide open program. They are primarily opposed to that. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, opposed the bill. She said many years ago, the Press Association had printers as part of its regular membership. At one point in the 1980's, prison printing activities were opposed because it was negatively impacting the newspaper business in the state due to the cost factor. The main concern was the taxpayers' dollars were funding the competition. A compromise was worked out where the state printing division would be paid by the printers in the state for certain kinds of work. That way the private sector was preserved and the state printing industry still made money as well. They are also opposed to the bill because anyone who wants to open a business has to take out a business license as well as pay taxes in that county. The taxes support the county. Business should be conducted first with those county entities before entering into ventures with the state. Another concern would be an adequate audit trail. Without going to bid, some information can be lost. Mr. Bache confirmed that the Press Association simply wanted to see prison industries compete on the same basis as everyone else. Mrs. Engleman said that was correct. Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 77. Several bill drafts were introduced. BDR 30-822 - Revises definitions of allocable local revenues for purposes of provisions governing issuance of state securities to acquire securities issued by municipalities. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 30-822. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 23-664 - Makes various changes regarding financial disclosure by public officers. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 23-664. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 19-1125 - Establishes procedure for inspection of public records. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 19-1125. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 19-1126 - Requires charges for public records to be reasonable. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 19-1126. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 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 27, 1995 Page