MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 29, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Wednesday, March 29, 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 Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman John Carpenter STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association; Jim Connelly, Citizen; Geoff Dahl, Citizen; Andrew Urban, City of Henderson; John Rinaldi Jr., City of Henderson; Harold Ridgway, Elko County School District; Greg Betts, Rural School Districts; Kathy McClain, Clark County ASSEMBLY BILL 341 - Makes various changes concerning group insurance coverage of trustees of school districts. (BDR 23-1448) Assemblyman John Carpenter introduced A.B. 341 on behalf of the school trustees in Elko County who are retiring from the board. Currently, a school board member who retires is not eligible for state or district health insurance. This is seen as an issue of inequity by Mr. Carpenter. The Elko County Commissioners have had this opportunity for years. He felt the trustees should have that same opportunity. They are insured when employed by the district and then upon retiring, all of a sudden they have no coverage. Mr. Carpenter referred to a couple of amendments to the bill (Exhibit C). He wanted a school board member to have completed at least one full term of office in order to be eligible for insurance coverage. Section six only applies to the state's program of insurance and the district's program needs to be added. The present school board in Elko wanted paragraph three deleted entirely because they feel the school board members should pay the entire cost of the program. Mr. Carpenter thought there would be no problem leaving it in the way it was as the verbiage says"may" and it would be up to the school board to decide that. Assemblyman Segerblom questioned if the school board members were under state retirement. Mr. Carpenter could not answer for sure. Assemblyman Krenzer disclosed she worked for Sierra Health Services and had to get an opinion as to whether or not she could vote on this. Mr. Carpenter introduced Geoff Dahl and Jim Connelly who would testify next. Jim Connelly, a rancher from Mountain City, Nevada, spoke in support of A.B. 341. He was elected to the school board in 1982 and served for 12 years. Sometimes during the process the board was meeting up to six times a month, only being paid for four times per month. He represented the rural areas in Elko County and traveled 170 miles round trip to every meeting. After 12 years, he decided he had performed his civic duty and did not run for reelection to the board. He found out last October, that due to an omission in the law, school board members were excluded from being able to maintain at their own expense their group plan insurance coverage for themselves and their families. He instigated this bill along with Mr. Dahl. He agreed with the bill as written and amended and wanted paragraph three left in to be used at the discretion of the school board. He produced a letter from the current clerk of the board in support of A.B. 341 (Exhibit D). He said this was a fairness issue and felt they should be allowed to continue their insurance coverage at their own expense. In reference to Mrs. Segerblom's question, he added that the board members were not in the state retirement system. Assemblyman Lambert asked when they were on the school board did the board pay their insurance premiums. Mr. Connelly replied yes, they did pay the premiums for the employees but the workers had to pay dependent coverage on their own. Geoff Dahl, a Star Valley rancher, mentioned he served 16 years on the Elko County school board. He said for all that time they had insurance coverage and now that they have to shop for insurance in the marketplace, pre-existing conditions and other factors would be looked at and possibly preclude them from obtaining health coverage. He restated the fairness issue was at stake. Mr. Bache questioned if insurance coverage could be continued under the federal COBRA guidelines. Geoff Dahl stated they were covered under COBRA but it was only for 18 months and then it is discontinued. Harold Ridgway, Deputy Superintendent of the Elko County school district, testified for the bill and the amendments. The current board was in favor of the amendments. He also felt this was a situation of fairness and equity. He reiterated many of the reasons already espoused by his compatriots for the passage of the bill. Assemblyman Freeman was confused on the COBRA issue for school board members and asked for an explanation. Mr. Ridgway said anyone who belongs to an insurance plan and for whatever reason is no longer eligible to continue in that plan has COBRA rights under federal law. Those rights give that person 18 months to continue in their plan and pay the premium themselves until the time they would be able to attain other insurance coverage. Greg Betts, representing Nevada Rural School Districts, was obviously in favor of A.B. 341. He urged the committee's support. Assemblyman Tripple noted most of the discussion had been about Elko County and she wanted to know if this was unique to that county or did it pertain to all counties in the state. Mr. Betts said he liked the idea of leaving paragraph three in the bill in order to leave it up to the board of each local area. He could not speak for all 15 districts he represented, but felt it would be accepted as a viable option in all districts. Ms. Tripple thought it sounded like the board members are paid and insured by the county. Now that they are retiring, why are they asking the state to insure them instead of the county. Mr. Betts indicated they should have the option of either the state or the local plan that they had been on all along. Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association, spoke in opposition to the bill as currently written. The concept of the bill was acceptable. He did not want to denigrate the school board trustees. His intent was to stop people from coming into the state health plan if they have not previously been enrolled. This bill allows that. If that was not the intent, then it needs to be changed. He offered an amendment of page one, line eight that would take out all references to the state plan. If the school district happened to be in the state plan, the remaining language would still cover them. He also wanted to delete subsection six of section five which contained more references to the state plan. Mr. Gagnier thought the amendment made the bill worse from the association's viewpoint as it would allow any school board trustee who has ever been defeated for re-election or has chosen not to run for re-election join the state's health plan. There would be no objection for a retired school board member to stay in the school's health plan. The state plan would offer better benefits to non-state employees than it does to those who already work for the state. The bottom line was if they are in a health plan in a school district, they should stay there. If employees are enrolled in the state plan, then they should stay there. Mrs. Segerblom queried how long a state worker had to be employed before he could stay in the state health plan. Mr. Gagnier replied one would have to work for a minimum of five years but would also be required to retire. A person could work for the state for ten years but if they left, they would not be able to stay unless they were to retire. Mrs. Segerblom questioned whether or not age mattered. Mr. Gagnier answered retirement could commence at age 65 with five years of service or at age 60 with 10 years. There would also be a conflict in the method of payments for retired state employees versus these other potential members. This would more than likely cause an increase in administrative costs which would then be passed on to the participants in the program. Mr. Bache clarified that currently enrolled school district members would be able to stay on that plan. He wondered if there were any school board member on the state health plan. Mr. Gagnier was not sure whether there were or not. He did say there were some school district personnel in the state's health plan, for example Clark County's school administrators were all in the plan. However, there are several plans available in southern Nevada. Mr. Bache queried if they were in the state plan while employed in the district would there be an objection to them remaining in the plan when they were no longer trustees. Mr. Gagnier said there would be no problem and the language of the bill would allow for that. Assemblyman Neighbors questioned if the administrators mentioned were full time employees. Mr. Gagnier responded in the affirmative. Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 341. ASSEMBLY BILL 337 - Revises provisions requiring affidavit for business license. (BDR 32-707) Kathy McClain of the Clark County Manager's Office spoke on behalf of the business license department. She pointed out NRS 364.110 requires a retail business to file an affidavit to certify the applicant is in compliance with chapter 104 of NRS when a business license is issued. The District Attorney has ruled that because a business license has a specific expiration date, renewals are considered an issuance and thereby require the affidavit. The business license department processes approximately 8,000 of these affidavits annually. Part of the problem is even if there are no changes, the business owner is still required to file the affidavit which is then notarized and a three dollar fee is collected. The intent of the bill is to eliminate the requirement for the affidavit filing for standard annual renewal provided there is no change in location or ownership. The affidavit would only be required on the issuance of a new business license or upon any change of ownership or location. She read from written testimony provided to the committee (Exhibit E). Mrs. Lambert clarified that if they did not have to file the affidavit every year they would save the three dollar filing fee. Ms. McClain replied yes plus the notarization cost as well. Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 337. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 337. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 345 - Revises provisions governing sale, lease or exchange of land owned by City of Henderson. (BDR S-751) Andrew Urban, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Henderson introduced Mr. John Rinaldi, Property Manager for the City of Henderson. Mr. Rinaldi said his role with the city was to effect property sales, purchases, leases and exchanges at the direction of the city council. He presented written testimony covering three major changes to the city of Henderson charter (Exhibit F). The first change would allow the city council to sell, lease or exchange real property for less than the appraised value. The second change would be in paragraph eight dealing with the use of land sale proceeds to facilitate the purchase of software site licenses or major software systems for the police department. Third, the responsibilities for racing would be transferred to the Nevada Gaming Commission thereby eliminating the Racing Commission. All details of the process were covered in the reading of his testimony (Exhibit F). Mrs. Lambert asked if they would consider a separate finding and a 2/3 or super majority vote on decisions of purchasing land at less than appraised value. This would show the city council's careful consideration of all the variable aspects of those types of deals. Mr. Rinaldi indicated he would take that suggestion back to the city council and perhaps they would agree to an amendment for that provision. Mr. Neighbors questioned if blocks of land were purchased from the federal government. Mr. Rinaldi answered no, the federal government through the Bureau of Land Management deeded the land to the city of Henderson to form a land bank which was used to develop public facilities and to help build the city. It was granted, not purchased. Mr. Neighbors wondered if there were any restrictions on the use of the land. Mr. Rinaldi said not to his knowledge. The city council was responsible for determining the use of the land for the city's benefit. Mr. Neighbors queried how long ago this occurred. Mr. Urban responded the initial grants occurred in 1953 and some of them as late as the early 1960's. He mentioned several parcels of land granted to the city were under the RP&P patent that requires them to be used specifically for public purposes such as schools and recreation centers. The 1971 charter of the city of Henderson involved extensive procedures to be followed in order for the city to sell land. Even with the proposed changes, all public hearing aspects would still remain in effect. Mr. Neighbors mentioned obtaining appraisals was sometimes difficult, even one or more as the proposed language states. He went along with Mrs. Lambert on the 2/3 majority for the purchase of land at less than the appraised value. Assemblyman Krenzer agreed with the need for the city to be able to sell at a discount in order to be competitive with other states. She wholeheartedly supported that idea but felt a super majority was necessary to prevent a sweetheart deal or someone purchasing land at a discount inappropriately. Mr. Urban had no trouble with her suggestion but could not make an independent determination on the matter. He would have to consult the city council for a hearing to be conducted above board. It was in the city's best interest to sell at less than appraised. Mrs. Krenzer wondered if a limit should be put on the lowest acceptable value. The council had thought of that but they did not want to preclude the ability to give land away. Mrs. Segerblom asked what the Henderson residents thought of all the growth occurring in the city. Mr. Urban indicated various factors influenced the way many people viewed it and there did not seem to be a general consensus of one particular sort. Mr. Rinaldi stated the city has commenced development of an industrial park next to a residential neighborhood. There were a lot of meetings with residents to make sure all development met with their criteria and concerns. Mrs. Freeman asked how much of the undeveloped land deeded by the federal government was currently in the land bank. Mr. Rinaldi replied there were 700 acres that had the potential to be developed. Mrs. Freeman wondered if the appraised value would be less than market value. Mr. Rinaldi said the terms were synonymous; the appraiser determines what the market value is and the appraised value is an estimation of what the property should bring on the open market. Mr. Neighbors queried whether an attempt had been made to sell some of that land and get it on the tax roles. Mr. Urban stated they started out with over 10,000 acres of land and they have been moving forward in putting it on the tax roles. Some of it has been designated for future parks and fire stations. In the 1970's there was a huge land deal where the city sold 2,000 acres to the Greenspun family and that helped establish what is now known as Green Valley. Sales have been made for both residences and industrial uses. It is a lot of land and it will take some time to sell it all. Mrs. Segerblom wanted to know if they were saving the land for the railroad. Mr. Rinaldi said they were preserving the right of way for the railroad and constructing a fully protected crossing. The railroad will run all the way to Boulder City. Clarification was needed for Mrs. Krenzer regarding giving away land for schools and parks. She queried if the land given away would be for public use only or would it also be given for private use. Mr. Rinaldi stated the council directs each case individually but based on the known history, he had never seen any land given away to a private entity that would used for anything other than to benefit the public. An example of this was the proposal for a golf course that would be publicly/privately owned. Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 345. There was a ten minute recess prior to the work session. ASSEMBLY BILL 47 - Revises provisions relating to impact fees. (BDR 22-403) There was an attached amendment to the bill drawn up by Madeleine Shipman and Roger Means. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 47. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMEN NEIGHBORS AND ERNAUT VOTED NO. The bill was assigned to Mr. Nolan on the floor. A.B. 337, which was passed earlier, was assigned to Mr. Bennett on the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL 280 - Makes various changes to provisions governing notaries public. (BDR 19-930) Mr. Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, provided an amendment to the committee (Exhibit G). Even though this bill is truly the minutiae of government, Mr. Erquiaga felt it was nevertheless important. He addressed Mr. Neighbors' concern from the last meeting. The issue was an Attorney General's opinion from 1911 which prohibits postmasters who are paid more than $500 from serving as a notary public. This was based on cases from 1892 and 1899. The intention was rather than to try to fix that opinion statutorily, the Secretary of State today will ask formally for an Attorney General's opinion on that issue. It does not appear necessary or possible to fix statutorily. The opinion should suffice since it is based on a very old law. Mr. Neighbors had a bill pending and if an Attorney General's opinion was not achieved, he would proceed with his legislation. The other amendments were based on Mrs. Lambert's concerns and comments from the Attorney General. The adjustments can be seen in (Exhibit G). Assemblyman Harrington was concerned about section 17 on page five which broadens regulatory authority. The proposal was to strike the current amendatory language and insert "the Secretary of State may adopt regulations proscribing the procedure for the appointment and voluntary training of a notary public." There is a dramatic need to train new notaries and this would permit that. Assemblyman Bennett wanted to address some concerns on embossed seals. Several concerns were raised about how a notary gets his stamp printed, how a notary uses the seal and how he inks a document. All of his concerns could be found in section nine or nineteen of the measure, stated Mr. Erquiaga. A requirement has been instituted that when a notary receives his certificate of appointment, he must present that in order to get the rubber stamp made. The embossed or crimping seal has not been required since 1965. Notaries in this state use a rubber stamp but can use a crimping seal if they wish. Another issue raised dealt with actually licensing the companies who make the rubber and mechanical stamps. Secretary Heller felt this was an onerous requirement and they do not want to be in the business of licensing those people. Instead, the requirements for what a stamp must contain, a number and the presentation of the certificate at the time of ordering the stamp have been instituted. Mrs. Freeman wondered if there have been any major problems in Nevada regarding notary publics. Mr. Erquiaga said there have been no major problems but the number of complaints has risen in the past 3 « years from four to 38 complaints. The more notaries, the more complaints. This is the main reason for this clean-up bill. Mr. Harrington questioned if they had the capabilities to institute the numbering requirement. Mr. Erquiaga answered yes, they could proceed with that. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 280. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A.B. 280 was assigned to Mrs. de Braga on the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL 285 - Revises provisions governing support of airports by county fair and recreation boards in certain counties. (BDR 20-1684) ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED DO PASS A.B. 285. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Segerblom had another letter from Laughlin in support of the bill (Exhibit H). She also had a picture of the riverfront casinos that need the airport most. Mr. Bennett remarked this bill would provide a good investment for the future. Mrs. Lambert mentioned Reno had been trying to expand their air service for decades and she wished Mrs. Segerblom well in her efforts. The vote commenced. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Naturally, the bill was assigned to Mrs. Segerblom on the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL 294 - Increases number of members of Reno civil service commission. (BDR S-729) ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 294. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Tripple questioned whether line 15 was changed from five years to four years or was that idea dropped. Mr. Bache pointed out there was no amendment so the terms would stay as they are. Mrs. Tripple said if there would be seven members instead of five would one be in every ward or would that be up to the city council. Barbara McKenzie, representing the city of Reno, stated the location of the representative would be up to the city council. Currently, there are five wards, five council members. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 309 - Revises provision governing requirements for early retirement of police officers. (BDR 23-799) ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 309. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATE BILL 124 - Prohibits deduction from salaries of state employees for service as volunteer emergency medical technicians during working hours. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED DO PASS S.B. 124. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Subcommittee update reports followed. Assemblyman Ernaut stated basically A.B. 189 did not do a lot. None of the parties involved were very concerned about it either. He wanted to move the bill along. Mr. Neighbors, also on that subcommittee did not see what the bill accomplished either. He did not see why the bill was needed and felt it should be indefinitely postponed. This would be recommended to the committee upon the next meeting. Mr. Bache had some problems with the testimony provided by the Public Service Commission. They did not identify any specific problems that led to the drafting of this bill which seemed unusual. Mr. Neighbors remarked they already had the authority to do what they needed to do. Mr. Ernaut, as Chairman of the subcommittee, said they would meet upon adjournment on Monday to vote on the measure. Assemblyman Williams reported on A.B. 204 and said he met with the rural housing authority and would have the written amendments ready on Friday for the committee. The other entities have already signed on to support the amendments. Mr. Neighbors told the committee the subcommittee on A.B. 52 was scheduled for Wednesday. Mr. Bache mentioned A.B. 139 was on general file, Mrs. Lambert would handle A.B. 214 and 286 and Mr. Ernaut would cover A.B. 295 on the floor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 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 29, 1995 Page