MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 1, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:12 a.m., on Monday, May 1, 1995, Chairman Lambert presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Pete Ernaut Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Don Crosby, RPEN; Marty Bibb, RPEN; R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer; Brian Krolicki, State Treasurers Office; Marty Howard, Attorney General; George Pyne, PERS; Clarence Erik, RPEN; Andrew Urban, City of Henderson Chairman Lambert opened the meeting with a scheduled work session and took the bills a bit out of order. ASSEMBLY BILL 328 - Provides annual period of open enrollment during which certain retired public employees may join state's program of group insurance. Assemblyman Neighbors had been asked to do some fact-finding on this measure and had arrived with a good proposal to submit to the committee. He said all parties agreed to an amendment to the original bill to make it more workable. Everyone involved in A.B. 328, retirees, state employees, local government, Risk Management and PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) has agreed to the proposed changes. Mr. Neighbors introduced Marty Bibb, Executive Director of the Retired Public Employees of Nevada (RPEN). Marty Bibb mentioned the proposed changes for A.B. 328 listed in the work session document (Exhibit C) on Attachment C (Exhibit D). He said the original version of the bill called for an annual enrollment period for enrollment into the group insurance program for retired public employees. That has been modified to a one-time only open enrollment window of five months, from September, 1995 to January, 1996. Employees would be allowed to enroll in the group insurance program without proof of insurability and would be pooled and rated separately. This would prevent an impact on any other retirees in the group program. In lieu of the annual enrollment period and following this open enrollment window, then retirees would be allowed to come into the group insurance program in much the same fashion state employees currently do. Retirees who do not choose to go into the group insurance program at the time of their retirement can elect to come in any even numbered year with proof of insurability. Mr. Bibb indicated the amended bill would limit this program to the individual or surviving spouse who did not have the opportunity to enter the group insurance program at the time of their retirement, eliminating those who did have that option and neglected to exercise it. It would also basically delete this once-in-a-lifetime option for retired public employees to come into the program because after the one-time open enrollment period, they would only be allowed to come in every other year with proof of insurability. That constituted all changes that were needed, Mr. Bibb stated. Assemblyman Segerblom questioned the procedure of coming in and going out of the program. Mr. Bibb said the only way a person could go in again after the one-time enrollment period would be with proof of insurability and it was felt that qualifier would address the issue of negative impact that could result from someone repeatedly coming and going in and out of the program. Mr. Neighbors reiterated the one-time open window policy and felt it was a good way to prevent abuse of the enrollment procedure. Assemblyman Bache asked if current retired state employees were required to provide proof of insurability after leaving the plan. Mr. Bibb said yes, they would have to offer proof of insurability if they left and then wanted to re-join the program at a later date. Chairman Lambert questioned the fiscal note on the bill as related to the mailing costs and asked if it would have an adverse effect on the measure. George Pyne, Executive Officer with the Public Employees Retirement System, indicated the notice of open enrollment would be included in the regular newsletter mailing to all state employees so costs would not be significantly increased (Exhibit E). ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 328. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Segerblom said she had participated in PERS but would not be participating in their health insurance. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Neighbors would handle the bill on the floor. Mrs. Lambert expressed appreciation on behalf of the committee for all his hard work. ASSEMBLY BILL 345 - Revises provisions governing sale, lease, or exchange of land owned by the City of Henderson. Mrs. Lambert mentioned this bill was similar to A.B. 428 and S.B. 23 and 24. She said Mr. Bache had been working on some amendments for the bill and suggested taking the four bills as a package as their language overlapped. Assemblyman Bache passed out proposed amendments to A.B. 428 (Exhibit F). Mr. Bache explained the amendments indicating all four bills were reviewed and combined in A.B. 428 to eliminate duplication of effort and streamline the measure. Mr. Andrew Urban, City Attorney for the City of Henderson, spoke of concerns for public safeguards and indicated proposed language that would be inserted at lines 12 and 13 in addition to the two-thirds majority vote of the entire city council. There would also be a public hearing prior to the adoption of the resolution to sell, lease or exchange for lesser value which would be required to be supported by specific findings by the city council. Mr. Urban suggested a phrase be inserted "supported by a specific findings" after the word "value" on page two, line 13. That way the public would have some input. Mr. Bache said section 26 was the same as S.B. 24. There was a new section to the city charter, 2.010, specifying qualifications, term of office and salary of city council members. Mr. Urban said the first amendment to the charter was to clarify the situation as to when an individual had to declare their residency in the ward. The second change is to enable the present city council to have the flexibility to increase the judicial salary for the municipal judge more often than every four years. Salary restraints would remain the same for the mayor and city councilmen. Assemblyman Harrington questioned section 10 in A.B. 428, lines 7-9 on page five and asked if eminent domain were going to be allowed or eliminated. Mr. Urban replied if the amendment were adopted and the language of S.B. 23 were substituted, that language would allow eminent domain to be used by the City of Henderson to obtain land for parking facilities. It would not be as broad as the language currently in place. Mr. Harrington was also concerned about section 12, lines 10-12 where property would be sold at less than market value if it was in the best interest of the city. Mr. Harrington mentioned that had been addressed in A.B. 345 and it was proposed to be decided by a two-thirds majority vote so it would clearly be in the best interests of the city. Mr. Urban confirmed that. He said it would require mandatory language that would also call for a separate public hearing after a notice of intent had been posted and a resolution had been passed. If the council was going to consider selling for less than appraised value, there would be two public hearings. The first hearing would involve discussion of whether or not to offer the property on the market with terms and conditions requiring sale at fair market value or less. The council would then have to articulate the specific findings as to why it would be in the public's best interest to sell for less. The second hearing would review the offers made and public comment would be accepted on the sales transaction. The council's two-thirds vote would then be required to finalize the action. Mrs. Lambert remarked on section nine, line 35, and asked if the word "may" would be changed to "must" to ensure compliance with state planning laws. Mr. Urban answered yes, home builders were concerned about that and the language would be changed. Mrs. Lambert wanted to confirm the deletion of section seven, page four, lines 19-21, was to make lease purchase possible. Mr. Urban said it was to allow the city to do lease purchases and to be able to leverage it through a mortgage situation. Mr. Harrington wanted to support the whole bill except for the eminent domain clause and asked Mr. Urban if he would consider taking that out. Mr. Urban had not been able to talk to the city council to see if they wanted it removed. Problems that had occurred in the past had been resolved through negotiations with property owners. Economically, it would be more expensive to go through an eminent domain dispute through the courts rather than compromise for a relatively small amount of money. Mr. Urban stressed the lack of parking in the downtown area needed to be addressed. Mr. Urban reiterated he did not have the authority to remove the eminent domain clause. Mrs. Lambert said one of the reasons Mr. Bache put all the amendments into A.B. 428 was because they were both quite upset the City of Henderson submitted four bill draft requests overlapping each other. They thought the fair thing for Henderson to do was to put them all into one bill as it should have been done in the first place. Mrs. Lambert indicated as Mr. Harrington had problems with the eminent domain portion of the bill, voting on S.B. 23 separately would be appropriate, amending section ten out of the all-encompassing bill. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 428 DELETING SECTION 10. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Segerblom felt it was important for the City of Henderson to have the opportunity to have eminent domain to solve their parking problems. Mrs. Lambert pointed out there was an identical measure in S.B. 23 and she would give her the opportunity to move that bill ahead. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATE BILL 23 - Revises provisions governing power of eminent domain of City of Henderson. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 23. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Harrington reiterated his opposition to S.B. 23. He said the City of Henderson can already get the parking garage they need and negotiate sales with property owners for desired land. He felt eminent domain was not necessary and considered it a violation of property owners' rights. Mr. Bache said one of the reasons S.B. 23 was being amended into A.B. 428 was because the language was superior and it was the only language the Senate would accept to give them the power of eminent domain. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Urban if the new parking facility would add additional space and if so, how much. Mr. Urban replied it would add space but he did not know exactly how much. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to do pass S.B. 23. THE MOTION FAILED 7 TO 4. ASSEMBLYMEN HARRINGTON, BRAUNLIN, NOLAN AND BENNETT VOTED NO. ***************************** ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 24. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ******************************* ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 345. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Ernaut was confused by the vote on S.B. 23. Mrs. Lambert explained a majority was needed for a motion to be successful; eight votes were needed in the affirmative. The bill remained in flux. Mrs. Segerblom wanted to vote on the bill when all members were present. Mrs. Lambert said she would be welcome to make a motion at that time. ASSEMBLY BILL 369 - Authorizes governing body to direct hearing examiner to take final action on zoning matters. Mrs. Lambert said that was a bill from Washoe County who wanted a small step to be taken with this measure rather than the entire process the bill proposes and that was to limit hearing examiners to take action on variances only. This would slightly amend the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 369. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 202 - Revises act relating to Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. Mr. Ernaut pointed out Attachment A (Exhibit G), which described the proposed amendment to the bill. The amendment reflected the composition of the membership of the board of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The amendment would keep the methodology by which five of the present members are elected intact. The Governor's appointee position would stay as it is and the election of the member at large would remain the same. The major change would take the automatic appointment of the Secretary of State and the automatic appointment of the Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and have those two elected within the Tahoe Basin instead. It would also not become effective until 1998. Cost was another concern that had been addressed. Mr. Ernaut pointed out in Attachment B (Exhibit H) that the fiscal note was zero. As the election would be held during the general elections in 1998, there would be no additional or very minimal cost associated with the printing of ballots. Mr. Ernaut saw no substance to the argument that if the board was elected rather than appointed it would be detrimental to environmentalists. He said that showed a grand disrespect for the voters who reside at the lake. Obviously, those residents have the biggest stake in keeping Lake Tahoe environmentally sound and clean because their businesses and livelihoods depend on it. Mr. Ernaut felt he had done all he could to be fair and address all concerns. He said regionalism had been kept out of it and the majority of people on the board would remain. All he was asking for was some more representation on a board that has the ability to tax and regulate their lives. It was a matter of fairness, accountability and democracy. Mrs. Segerblom told Mr. Ernaut the main thing spoken of regarding the lake was conservation and natural resources and now they were to be eliminated. Mr. Ernaut did not think an expanded environmental consciousness was inherent in the position in that department and it was not crucial that they be on the board. He thought there were enough people on the board with experience in that area who were more local and able to deal with TRPA issues. Mr. Bennett intended to support the amendment. He said the committee had passed a similar measure last week on a housing board issue. The primary concern in that bill was representation by those affected. Mr. Harrington agreed with both Mr. Ernaut and Mr. Bennett. One of the basic principles of our society was that there should be no taxation or regulation without representation. Somebody on that board has to be responsive to those who live under their rules. Mr. Nolan mentioned the TRPA was one of the most valuable resources in the state and an excellent organization. He also believed in fair representation in government and he would support the bill. Mrs. Segerblom still wanted to have a member of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources on the board. Mr. Ernaut asked her if that provision were reinstituted, would she vote to pass the bill. Mrs. Segerblom responded yes. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 202. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Braunlin indicated she could support the bill if the Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources remained on the board otherwise, she could not. Mr. Ernaut said the two votes of his fellow committee members were important and he would allow the Director's position on the board to remain and just remove the Secretary of State. He would amend the main motion to reflect that. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 202. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE AND DE BRAGA VOTED NO. The main motion was amended. Mrs. Lambert finished the vote on the main motion. THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE AND DE BRAGA VOTED NO. Mr. Ernaut would handle the bill on the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL 432 - Requires state engineer, under certain circumstances, to grant extension of time to avoid forfeiture of water right. The bill had been requested to be withdrawn by its sponsors. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 432. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 434 - Revises procedure regarding forfeiture of certain water rights. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 434. ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 435 - Revises provisions governing forfeiture of certain water rights. Mrs. Lambert indicated there had been some complications with the amendment on A.B. 435 and it would be put off for a little while until the language could be revised. ASSEMBLY BILL 446 - Repeals certain provisions governing sale of state securities. Mrs. Lambert mentioned some amendments to the measure in Attachment G (Exhibit I) proposed by the Department of Administration on bond sales, prepared by John Swendseid. She explained the proposed changes would repeal several sections of applicable statutes, call for a notice to be placed in the bond buyer, and would take the flexibility out of when bonds could be taken to market. Mr. Bennett could not support repeal of written and sealed bids and would vote against it unless that section of the bill could be modified to allow for an original signature to ensue a fax or similar type bid to clarify the bid was legitimate. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 446. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT VOTED NO. Mrs. Braunlin would handle the bill on the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL 453 - Revises provisions governing procedure for appeal by person making unsuccessful bid for purchases by state. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED DO PASS A.B. 453. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Harrington would handle the bill on the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL 454 - Revises provision governing investment of state money. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED DO PASS A.B. 454. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Lambert asked Mr. Ernaut if he would handle the bill on the floor. He said sure. ASSEMBLY BILL 459 - Makes various changes regarding committee established to administer program of deferred compensation for state employees. Mr. Bache passed out an amendment to the bill (Exhibit J). Mr. Bache stated there was an additional amendment he did not have a copy of that had been proposed by the State Controller's Office. In section two where it says "...three members who are employed by state agencies whose payrolls are administered by the Department of Personnel...", that would be changed to read..."administered by the State Controller...". On the next line it would be changed to the same reference. He had checked with bill drafting on that and they said that either language would be appropriate and does the same thing; there would be no specific reason to change it to the State Controller. Mr. Bache saw nothing wrong with the current language and felt there was no need to change it. He said on the second amendment, two subsections would be added to provide more flexibility in the employees' health plan program. Mr. Nolan questioned why there was no fiscal note information provided to the committee. He wondered if they were going to assume their own expenses for travel and room and board. Mr. Bache said there was a committee that took care of all that and the composition of the committee would be changing. Mr. Nolan surmised the funding was already in place. Mr. Bache affirmed it was. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 459. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bache, of course, would handle the bill on the floor. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 23. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Segerblom reiterated the importance of the bill. She felt cities needed to be able to make more decisions and determinations regarding their own needs. Mr. Nolan agreed with Mrs. Segerblom and added he thought they had enough latitude under the current law to do what they needed to do. Mrs. Krenzer questioned if the city council's recent problems in regard to the ownership of their land had been addressed. She said she would have to vote against the measure because of that. Mrs. Lambert asked for a roll call vote. THE MOTION FAILED 6-6. ASSEMBLYMEN BENNETT, BRAUNLIN, HARRINGTON, KRENZER, NOLAN AND TRIPPLE VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMEN FREEMAN AND WILLIAMS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. SENATE BILL 232 - Authorizes certification of personnel of public libraries by state librarian. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 232. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Tripple thought the bill had not been worked on enough. She had reservations putting all of the authority into a state organization when surely it would have national impact as well. She also had some concern that it would put some people out of work. Mr. Neighbors did not read the same thing in the bill. He had spoken to some of his rural constituents and there did not seem to be any problems with the measure. Mrs. Segerblom was in favor of the bill. She would support rural librarians by voting for the bill. Mr. Harrington said there was a trend in society to certify every occupation in the world and create government oversight of them all. He understood this was desired in order to exclude a lot of people and maintain a monopoly on their positions. He felt the government did not need to be in the business of certifying every occupational field in existence. He would vote for the indefinite postponement of the bill. Mrs. Krenzer agreed with Mrs. Segerblom and would vote against postponing the bill. Mrs. Lambert asked if there were national organizations of librarians that had certification programs. Committee members agreed there were national certifications possible. THE MOTION FAILED 7-5. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12 - Urges Federal Government to adhere to states' laws governing use, allocation, management and protection of water. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED DO PASS S.J.R. 12. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bennett requested Mrs. de Braga to reconsider her motion to amend and do pass and referred to an enclosed amendment proposal (Exhibit K). He said the Colorado River Commission was currently trying to get the law of the river changed to allow the purchase of water from other states and wheel it down the Colorado River without building an additional pipeline to secure the extra water for the state of Nevada. The law of the river was comprised of three court decisions made in the 1920's and 1930's that has prohibited this action so far. Mrs. Lambert asked Mr. Bennett how he specifically proposed to amend the resolution. He answered the proposal would move the words court decrees in the sentence to convey the meaning of state court decrees rather than federal court decrees. This way the Colorado River Commission's efforts to secure additional water would not be hindered. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R. 12. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bache said there was a problem with the amendment in that the state did not issue court decrees. It would take care of the problem with the Colorado River Commission, but would muddle the state's water policy and what was being done here. Mr. Ernaut thought something as important as this needed more examination to perfect the language and avoid making any serious errors. Mrs. de Braga thought it was already covered under laws and policies but more investigation would be permitted; there were no time constraints to be met. Mrs. de Braga withdrew her motion. Mr. Bache withdrew his second motion and mentioned simply deleting the words court decrees might just solve the problem. Mrs. Lambert asked the committee for their subcommittee reports. Mr. Nolan reported on the subcommittee for A.B. 276, the 911 bill. Assemblyman Arberry, who had authored that bill had requested some additional amended language and it has not yet been provided. The subcommittee recommended making this an informational bill which would require the telephone companies to provide additional information to those users whose services were to be disconnected. There would be a flyer, boldly worded, that the 911 service would be cut, but additional lifeline services would be available at a discount. The subcommittee reached a consensus on that, however they were still waiting for the amended language. Mr. Ernaut reported on the Ponderosa County bill, A.B. 332. The meeting had taken place in Incline Village and was successful. He said the main focus prior to the meeting had been to give the subcommittee members an idea of what the buildings and town looked like and to help illustrate how the county government would function there. The meeting itself was basically a fact-finding mission. The intent was to find as many numbers and figures as possible to agree upon and Mr. Ernaut asked many questions of LCB Fiscal and the pro-county groups to get as much financial information as possible before the next meeting in Carson City on May 17. Mr. Bache reported on AJR 26 which had been heard in Las Vegas last Saturday. He said it was a lively discussion. Senator Bryan led off the discussion followed by Senator Titus. There was a large group of people who testified resulting in a three and one half hour hearing. Mr. Bache was going to work on some revised language for the bill and bring it back to committee when that was ready. Mr. Bennett wanted to add that there was a lot more opposition to AJR 26 in Las Vegas than there was in Carson City. With no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:47 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 May 1, 1995 Page