MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 8, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, March 8, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: J. Stephen Weaver, Chief, Planning and Development, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks Robert Dickens, Director, Governmental Relations, University of Nevada, Reno, University and Community College System of Nevada John Sande III, Lobbyist, Airport Authority of Washoe County James Kitchell, Director of Administration, Airport Authority of Washoe County Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, and the Nevada Association of Counties Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, Office of the Secretary of State Margaret Cavin, J & J Mechanical Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Association of General Contractors, Nevada Chapter Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association Mary Henderson, Director, Washoe County Government Affairs BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) 22-745: Allow governing bodies of interlocal contracting parties to delegate ratification of interlocal contracts. Robert Dickens, Director, Governmental Relations, University of Nevada, Reno, University and Community College System of Nevada, testified for the need for BDR 22-745. He stated the reason for the bill draft request is to cut some of the red tape involved in the university providing the expertise of the faculty and staff and the use of the laboratories. He said it is possible that research or work is completed prior to the finalization of the contract so that funds can be expended in a fiscal year, or that work can be conducted in conjunction with different calendars which drive university staff and students. He testified this bill draft request will allow the University and Community College System of Nevada to empower someone in the chancellor's office to sign a contract for services and get on with getting the task at hand done. It only speaks to provision of services, no other types of tasks in the system (Exhibit C). SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-745. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND TOWNSEND WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** SENATE BILL (S.B.) 225: Makes various changes relating to Airport Authority of Washoe County. (BDR 30-517) John Sande III, Lobbyist, Airport Authority of Washoe County, testified in support of S.B. 225 by reading a written statement (Exhibit D). He said the Airport Authority of Washoe County (AAWC) is requesting the change because they do not issue general obligation bonds. He stated the AAWC issues revenue bonds. He said they have no intention of issuing general obligation bonds in the future. He added it is wasted time for the AAWC to create and file a report under the law when they do not have general obligation bonds. Mr. Sande stated the other part of S.B 225 addresses the compensation of members of the board of trustees. He explained under the existing law each member of the board receives $560 per month or $80 for each meeting, or portion of the day spent on airport business. He commented as a practical reality, this is greatly exceeded by the number of meetings in a month and the time spent. This is a request from staff. They expressed it is easier to bill for the $560 per month than to have to keep track of meetings and work days. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Sande when the airport sells bonds do they use negotiated or competitive sales? Mr. Sande deferred response to James Kitchell. James Kitchell, Director of Administration, Airport Authority of Washoe County, addressed Senator O'Connell's question. He stated the sales have been negotiated sales. Senator Raggio announced he would abstain from voting on the bill due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Sande is his law partner. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 225 and opened the hearing on S.B. 190. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 190: Requires establishment of program for rental by state agencies of surplus equipment and property. (BDR 27-1375) Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen explained the origination of the bill to the committee. He stated over the past several years he has toured state facilities, agencies and offices in Nevada, noting equipment and supply needs and unused inventory on hand. He said he has seen equipment sitting year after year in the same place. He cited the 8-yard bucket loader which has been sitting in Jean for 4 years. The loader belongs to the prison system. Senator Jacobsen noted there is a need for different equipment by different agencies throughout the state. Senator Jacobsen said some agencies have equipment sitting around which has no value to the agency, but there is a need for it elsewhere. He proposed instead of agencies purchasing or renting equipment, that an equipment loan list be established between agencies to facilitate sharing of resources. He stated to the committee there is enough equipment sitting at the wildlife ranch in Yerington to fill the Legislative Building, and some of it has never been used. He explained there is a backhoe sitting behind the Legislative Building which costs $40,000 and has been used 1 day this session. He said this kind of equipment should not be sitting around. Senator Jacobsen testified the first step for this bill is to conduct an inventory and establish an inventory list. The second step is to circulate the inventory lists. If an agency needs a piece of equipment from another agency, Senator Jacobsen stated either Division of Forestry or Division of Museums and History can move the equipment from one place to another instead of using rental equipment. He asserted there may be flaws in the bill, but it has merit. Senator O'Connell stated when she read the executive budget, there was $25,000 in it to be allotted to the Veteran's Administration for a backhoe for grave digging. She asked if one could be loaned to the Veteran's Administration, instead of purchasing a new one. Senator Jacobsen stated the backhoe needed by the Veteran's Administration would be used on a daily basis. It would be difficult for them to borrow the equipment. He said he found two which were surplused at the Nevada Department of Transportation. He explained the Northern Nevada Cemetery Committee at Fernley bought one of the surplus backhoes and purchased it secondhand. He added it is needed on a daily basis. Senator Jacobsen reiterated it is unrealistic for every agency to have its own piece of equipment, which is used once a year. Senator O'Connell asked if there is somewhere in the state to store excess equipment. Senator Jacobsen responded his first thought is to conduct an inventory and create an inventory list. He stated this would let agencies know which other agency has a certain piece of equipment. The requesting agency would contact the holding agency and they would make agreements with each other. He related to the committee when he was at the Stewart Ranch, every year he contacted the Nevada Department of Transportation to borrow a weed cutter or dump truck or whatever was needed. He said usually if an agency official asks, they will get their request. Senator Jacobsen said some agencies do not want to loan the equipment without an operator because they do not want the equipment destroyed. He said he appreciates that . He cited Marlette Lake as having a backhoe and a tractor. He has borrowed them and used them at the Stewart facility. He stated The Nevada Department of Transportation purchased a piece of equipment to clean culverts 2 years ago, which cost the state $150,000. He asserted there is not another one around in Nevada, but someone in private enterprise called him and asked him how the state could purchase a piece of equipment which would be used temporarily. Senator Jacobsen cited another example of a light bulb being out at the Women's Prison in Silver Springs. He stated it cost $300 for someone in private enterprise to go to the prison and change the light bulb. He declared there is no reason honor camp crews could not borrow the necessary equipment and change the light bulb themselves. He expressed honor camp crews could use a cherry picker type of equipment to trim trees and do other jobs. Senator Jacobsen gave the committee another example of the experimental station at the University of Nevada, Reno. The experimental station requested two work crews to come to the station to help clean up the mess. Senator Jacobsen stated there were items on the riverbank which have been there for 50 years. He said most of it was deteriorated to the point that the crews loaded it up and it was sold for junk. He said there is still stuff, which has value, sitting down there which can be used somewhere. Senator O'Connell asked what the fiscal note would involve. Senator Jacobsen stated the Department of Administration, Purchasing Division, would need time to compile and print the inventory list. He expressed his concern that the inventory list is authentic, and that some agency does not refrain from listing a piece of equipment because they do not want to loan it out. He asserted all this equipment is paid for by taxpayer dollars and should be used by everyone. Senator Jacobsen reminded the committee that several years ago many agencies were requesting to purchase printing equipment. He explained a survey was conducted and some agencies had better printing equipment than the Department of Administration, Printing and Micrographics Division office. He stated after the survey, legislation was passed to the effect that if an agency wished to purchase printing equipment, the request had to be okayed by the Printing and Micrographics Division office. He said this legislation stopped the frivolous requests from other agencies and enhanced the Printing and Micrographics Division office, enabling it to stay in business and become profitable. Senator Shaffer asked Senator Jacobsen if the intent is for agencies to use the equipment, not private enterprise. Senator Jacobsen stated this is for state agencies, not for private enterprise. He said private enterprise might frown on the bill since leasing agencies or private enterprise might lose money if state agencies are sharing equipment, rather than spending money to rent it. He added it is economical and would better utilize taxpayer dollars. Senator Jacobsen explained the honor camps have 600 chain saws and a chain saw is a "personal piece of equipment." He stated he does not want agencies to come and try to use the chain saws. He said he would rather furnish the crew and their equipment rather than loan the equipment. He emphasized the intent of the bill is not to take equipment from the Division of Forestry or other agencies who use their equipment on a daily basis. He informed the committee he could take them to a couple "boneyards" around the state and it would dumbfound them the amount of equipment sitting around. He related surplused military equipment is picked up by the Division of Forestry who renovates the equipment into usable equipment. He explained they parcel the equipment out to rural areas and he does not want to interfere with that process. He declared if an agency needs a backhoe for a day, he would certainly loan them the one behind the Legislative Building. Senator O'Donnell asked Senator Jacobsen if the equipment in the agencies is currently inventoried in any way. Senator Jacobsen stated Thomas Tatro, (Chief, Purchasing Division), indicated there is some kind of inventory sheet of surplus inventory and then a sale is conducted. He said the big equipment at the agencies has to be on some kind of an inventory. He commented he inquired about the 8-yard bucket loader at Jean. He explained they will use it to build a shooting range out by the prison for peace officers, highway patrol personnel, and enforcement personnel to qualify with their weapons. He contacted the Nevada National Guard Reserve, who will bring the loader from Jean to Carson City as a training exercise. The Nevada National Guard Reserve is having a tank retrieval unit bring the loader up April 1st and will deliver it, at no charge, to Carson City. Senator Jacobsen reiterated this is the way government should work. Senator Jacobsen stated his first idea was to have the Division of Forestry keep the inventory and have the inmates work on refurbishing, restoring and painting the equipment. He said this would give the equipment a home. He reiterated the first step is to conduct an inventory and print an inventory sheet. Senator O'Donnell stated he feels it would be better for the agencies to have this inventory sheet and be able to borrow equipment rather than having to rent equipment. Senator Jacobsen remarked as senators review the budgets and note the requests for office equipment, he wanted to remind them of other offices or budgets which are being phased out and to consider transferring some of that equipment. He stated 2 years ago at Stewart, prior to Christmas, he was contacted by Mike Meitzel, (Building and Grounds Division), to play "Santa Claus." He said he was given the opportunity to give away equipment and furniture in a building "filled to the rafters." He explained on his tours of agencies and facilities in the state he always takes notes of what equipment is needed. Senator Jacobsen spent 3 or 4 weeks at Stewart and gave the equipment away to state agencies, mostly to honor camps and China Springs, the 4-H camp at Lake Tahoe, etc. He explained there were 200 fire extinguishers there. He told the committee when the toilets were replaced in the renovation at the Governor's Mansion, he contacted an agency in Wells which needed toilets. He said the administrator came to his house 5 hours later, in his own vehicle, to pick up the toilets. The administrator loaded them on his pickup truck and took them to the Wells honor camp. He stated they were still useable. He explained most of the stock in the building at Stewart came out of the Nye Building which was torn down. He mentioned panels were given to the Veteran's Cemetery facilities. He said four draftsman tables were given to China Springs. He sent 200 window air conditioners to the Jean Honor Camp. Senator O'Connell thanked Senator Jacobsen for bringing the issue to the attention of the committee and assured him the committee will give it their fullest attention. Senator Jacobsen stated as soon as he has a fiscal note, he will share it with the committee. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 190 and opened the hearing on A.B. 21. ASSEMBLY BILL (A.B.) 21: Repeals authority of administrator of division of state parks of state department of conservation and natural resources to appoint construction engineer. J. Stephen Weaver, Chief, Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, shared a 1-page handout with the committee (Exhibit E). He said this bill is a "housekeeping bill" and the Division of State Parks has no intention of eliminating either of their two engineering positions in the division. They just wish to bring the state statute into conformance with current personnel practice. Senator O'Connell stated it is nice to repeal a law which is sitting on the books and is not used. Hearing no questions from the committee on A.B. 21, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 21 and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 6 of the Sixty-seventh Session of the Legislature. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION (A.J.R.) 6 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to revise requirements for recall of public officer. Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, and the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), testified in favor of A.J.R. 6 of the Sixty-seventh Session. She stated it proposes to amend the Constitution of Nevada revising the requirements regarding the recall of a public officer. She said this resolution changes the wording in the constitution. It will require 25 percent of the registered voters (who voted at the election in which the officer was elected) for the recall petition. She added current language is "25 percent or more of those who voted in the district at the preceding general election." Senator O'Connell stated she understands the language is ambiguous. She remarked in a recall case in Clark County, they did not take 25 percent from the election in which the officer was elected, but took the next election which encompassed a much larger area. The court declined to accept the first petition and the people worked very hard and had to start all over again. She said it was very unfair to the citizen's group. Ms. Howard explained a similar situation occurred in Washoe County 2 or 3 years ago. She continued her testimony by saying the resolution extends the time period from 20 to 30 days from which the special election needs to be held. She stated if it is approved, without amendment, it will be placed on the 1996 ballot. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Howard to address page 2, lines 9 through 15; the issue if another petition be filed, the expense for holding the special election would be at the cost of the people who filed the petition. She asked Ms. Howard to address the thinking behind that language. Ms. Howard stated she would defer the answer to Senator O'Connell's question to the secretary of state's office because she feels they could respond in a more complete manner. Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, Office of the Secretary of State, stated: Senator, you are referring to the requirement that you cannot conduct a second recall drive without posting the bond. The theory there is if a county or municipality has entered into the cost of an election and the officer has prevailed and has been retained (to prevent that officer from being subject to frivolous recall efforts, which is a means of harassment throughout his or her term in office), any subsequent drives have to put up some money. The language you are referring to comes from the court case which ultimately resulted from the incident which caused NACO and the league [of cities] to prepare this bill. The [Nevada] Supreme Court has ruled that the hearing established for recall proceedings currently is a special proceeding under chapter 18 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Thus, you can award attorney costs to the prevailing party; either to the public officer whose recall was sought, or to the persons who filed the notice of intent. That appears to have a chilling effect on the people's right to recall. If you are afraid you are going to have to pay $26,000 in attorney's fees if you lose, the thought is one might not pursue a recall against a public officer. So the language that Secretary Heller has prepared would amend chapter 306 [of the Nevada Revised Statutes] to clarify that a recall hearing is not a special proceeding under chapter 18 [Nevada Revised Statutes] and that attorney fees cannot be awarded to a prevailing party. This protection is already in existence in the constitution to prevent frivolous recalls and that we need not put another chilling effect on the people's right to recall or really on the public officer. As it now stands, if the officer fights the recall petition in court and loses, not only might he or she lose his or her office, but would be assigned attorney fees for losing the court hearing; so they might not fight it in a court and let it go to elections. It really puts the recall statutes in a difficult position and the court recognized that and asked the Legislature to address it. Senator Porter asked clarification regarding the 25 percent. He said the language says the 25 percent has to have voted in the last election, but it does not say "in their district." Are there problems with boundary changes? Ms. Howard replied it is 25 percent of the voters who voted in the election in the official's district. Senator O'Connell stated this is an issue that was not clearly defined in the law and caused problems. Ms. Howard clarified that it is 25 percent of the voters who voted in the election in which the official was elected. Senator Porter asked, "That 25 percent had to have voted in that election." Ms. Howard replied that is correct. Senator Titus stated in the last election there were a number of people who voted at the top of the ticket and skipped races. She asked what effect this would have. She asked if it is 25 percent of the people who voted in his race in that district, or 25 percent of the total number of people who cast ballots in that district. Mr. Erquiaga responded that it is 25 percent of the number who cast ballots. He stated the formula is the same, whether it is an initiative, referendum, minor party or recall. It is not based on a specific race. Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, testified in favor of A.J.R. 6 of the Sixty-seventh Session as it is presently written. She said the press is concerned about the chilling effect of the people's right to petition by the high fees that are leveraged by the court. Senator O'Connell announced to the audience the next step for this bill, if it is passed by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, is a vote by the people. Hearing no further questions for the witnesses, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 6 of the Sixty-seventh Session. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 180: Revises duties of state public works board concerning conservation of energy in state buildings. (SCR 35) Senator O'Connell asked Margaret Cavin, J & J Mechanical, if it is standard procedure for contractors and the public works board to look at energy conservation for public works projects. Ms. Cavin stated she is the owner of a mechanical contracting firm that specializes in public works projects. She said the mechanical portion of her business includes plumbing, heating and air-conditioning. She expressed the idea that heating and air-conditioning are the biggest energy users in a building. She provided background information on energy conservation to the committee. She added 10 years ago energy management was shutting off lights when leaving a room, or turning down the heater when leaving the house. She asserted the bill's concept of energy conservation when building buildings is a good idea, but she has concerns. She expressed doubts about hiring an independent consultant. Ms. Cavin said when the Nevada Public Works Board puts a job out to bid, they hire an architect who then hires a mechanical engineer and an electrical engineer. She stated this team works together. She emphasized energy conservation is a "big issue right now" and it is being used extensively. She explained the remodeled attorney general's offices, the remodeled medical facility at the prison, and the Truckee Meadows Community College (three entirely different designs, and three different mechanical engineering firms) are three very energy efficient buildings. Ms. Cavin testified the consultants are regulated by the national energy code. She said, "I find it difficult to get involved in anything that says 'innovative' because I caution you for only one reason. Nine or ten years ago, solar energy was innovative. It was going to be the wave of the future. You do not hear much about solar energy anymore. It is basically nonexistent because it is not really cost effective." Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Cavin to provide language for an amendment to the bill. Ms. Cavin responded by saying the language she would like to see is, "the design team (starting with the architect and mechanical engineer, with input from the public works board) is very aware of the latest proven effective technology in energy management and that it be incorporated in these buildings." Senator O'Connell asked Senator Titus if this is covered in the interim study committee. Senator Titus replied "proven technology" is preferable language to "innovative technology." Ms. Cavin continued her testimony by saying Honeywell, Allerton, Johnson Controls, etc. are spending millions of dollars to produce the best energy efficient product available. She suggested to the committee to stay with a product with proven research, development and testing. Senator O'Connell asked who should be in charge of the conservation portion of the project. Ms. Cavin replied the whole design team (the people she mentioned before) should be in charge of the conservation portion of the project. Senator O'Connell asked if they should just be called the design team in the language. She asked Senator Titus if there was input regarding this during the interim study. Senator Titus asked Ms. Cavin if this excludes the independent energy consultant. Ms. Cavin stated her problem is when an independent energy consultant comes in and tells other consultants what to do, it is a slap in the face. Senator Titus responded to Ms. Cavin's statement by explaining the committee had heard there is a need for that. She emphasized the building which keeps being brought up to the committee is the Supreme Court Building. She reminded Ms. Cavin she was involved in the Supreme Court Building. Ms. Cavin acknowledged she worked on the Supreme Court Building. She stated it bid in 1989, and since 1989 the technology has changed drastically. She said, "One thing about the Supreme Court Building is that it probably is not the most energy efficient building the state owns, but it is also the only building that has $1,100 toilets in it. It is no secret that everything in that building was for 'gingerbread' not necessarily for energy." Senator Raggio stated he had asked about the cost of the independent consultant and received a reply from Dean Borges, Buildings and Grounds Division. He said the amount listed on the fiscal note is not too high, it is the appropriate amount. Senator Porter noted the Nevada State Energy Office has a bill, S.B. 179, which creates a different agency. He asked why could not the energy office take the lead instead of creating an independent consultant position. He asked if it is possible to add the energy office to the loop. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 179: Establishes state energy office and makes various other changes relating to energy conservation. (BDR 46-411) Ms. Cavin responded that the committee is overlooking the fact these mechanical and electrical engineers are being visited a lot more frequently than they liked by representatives from different entities. She stated they are more likely candidates to handle more of the energy management items, because they have the latest information. Senator Porter stated he is looking at a way to reduce costs. He asserted living 5 miles from the Hoover Dam Visitor's Center project, which is costing $130 million, makes him nervous. He stated this is "gold plating." He explained he understands the private sector is probably on top of things as much as anybody, but it is preferable to use someone internally. He said with an operation the size of the state and its many different arteries, they need someone internally, or maybe use something in place without hiring another firm. He suggested the consultant become part of the design team to which Ms. Cavin referred. Ms. Cavin asserted there is input into the design team from the State Public Works Board. She stated they also have mechanical and electrical engineers on staff. Senator Shaffer agreed with Senator Porter. He said, "I think you have an architect that is going to go out and hire two of his friends and engineers. You have the contractor that's part of the team. You have Johnson Control who is supplying the material. Even though they are all the most honest people in the world, there's room for mischief when putting together a group like that." Ms. Cavin stated she does not know what the policy is. She said the architects go through a bid process to get these projects, as do the consultants. She admitted specific architects normally use specific mechanical engineers or specific electrical engineers, but that certainly is not because that is one of his buddies. It is because he knows if he uses that specific consultant, he will not have any trouble. As far as the contractor being involved, the contractor comes in long after the project is designed. The contractor is not involved in the design phase at all. She explained Honeywell, Johnson Controls and other groups like them bid the projects. Senator Porter suggested the energy conservation portion of the building be in the design phase if the contractor has no input as Ms. Cavin suggested. He stated maybe the energy office should get involved with the State Public Works Board. Ms. Cavin reiterated energy management is done in the design stage. Senator Porter agreed, but there should be involvement in the design stage, or did Ms. Cavin think this is a problem? Ms. Cavin responded that she is curious as to why they would be involved. She stated she feels they do not have the same credibility or updated knowledge that the consultants from the companies have. Senator Porter explained the state has to do things differently from the private sector and the independent consultant would provide a safeguard. He feels the consultant would make the public feel their interests are being served from an agency level. He said perhaps the energy consultant could look over the plans and make recommendations. Ms. Cavin asserted that is the State Public Works Board's job not the energy department's job. Senator Porter reiterated perhaps it is the job of the energy department. Senator Titus clarified the intent is to plug someone into the design stage who is looking at the conservation of energy. She stated whether it is a private consultant, the State Public Works Board, or whether it is the energy office, etc., someone needs to be there to ensure that another Supreme Court Building is not built. She said state buildings need to be built with energy management as an integral part of the whole project. Ms. Cavin stated she feels this is being done. She restated to the committee the Supreme Court Building bid in 1989, and the several projects her company has been involved in since then, have been extremely conscious of energy management. Senator Titus stated Mr. Borges administration is conscious of that and is very conscientious about that, but it is one of the those things where a succeeding administration may not be. She said the committee does not want to lose this because of administration changes. Ms. Cavin told the committee the codes somewhat regulate energy management. She conveyed energy management has gone down in price. She stated current equipment is based on energy management. A copy of a letter from Jon Wellinghoff, Principal, Efficient Energy Systems, Inc., was distributed to the committee. It contained suggestions for amendments to S.B. 180 (Exhibit F). Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 180 and opened the hearing on S.B. 83. She asked the committee to look over the work session document for this meeting (Exhibit G). SENATE BILL (S.B.) 83: Eliminates fees for copying certain documents. Senator Raggio asked if the work session document (Exhibit H) had been seen and voted upon by the committee. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst, responded the committee had passed S.B. 83; had voted to rescind the vote and reconsider the bill, and the language in this amendment (Exhibit H) is taken directly from the language in the Securities Division of the secretary of state's office. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 83. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS SHAFFER AND TITUS VOTED NO.) ***** SENATE BILL (S.B.) 56: Revises provisions relating to collective bargaining between school districts and certain employee organizations. (BDR 23- 651) SENATE BILL (S.B.) 82: Provides that unlicensed employees of school districts have sufficient community of interest to negotiate as separate bargaining unit. (BDR 23-650) Senator O'Donnell gave the committee a report on the subcommittee hearing of March 7th on S.B. 56 and S.B. 82. He told the committee the subcommittee would like to hold these bills for further investigation. Senator O'Connell stated she had been contacted by county personnel. They requested the committee hold the bills for further testimony. The counties requested 10 days because important witnesses are attending a national convention. Senator O'Connell informed the committee there will not be a work session on Thursday, March 16th. She stated the next work session meeting for the committee will be Thursday, March 23rd. Senator O'Connell announced the Thursday meetings will move to 4:30 p.m. Senator O'Donnell noted he may have a conflict with his Senate Committee on Transportation. He said he would schedule light meetings on Thursday to enable him to make the Senate Committee on Government Affairs meeting on time. Senator O'Connell closed discussion on S.B. 56 and S.B. 82 and opened discussion on S.B. 84. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 84: Increases compensation of various public officers. (BDR 17-1078) Senator O'Connell asked the committee to look at the work session document (Exhibit I). She asked the committee to look at the section regarding legislator's pay. She asked the committee if they want to remove the legislators from the bill altogether and have a new bill written for that section. She asked them to look at questions 1 through 7 and discuss what they would like done to the bill. Senator O'Connell asked Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, why the bill is not broken out into three separate sections, instead of two (one for judicial, and one for legislative and counties). Mr. Erickson replied the legislation that created the salary commission said the commission was to make its recommendations back to the Legislature in a bill or a bill draft request. He stated the original intent was to have it all in one bill. He said at the last minute the justices asked to be separated out from the bill, which is why there are two bills. He agreed it would have been better to have had three bills. Senator O'Connell stated she feels the salary increases given should be tied the salary increase given to the public employees. She emphasized it would be wrong of the committee to give a larger increase, even though it has been 10 years since the last increase for the Legislature. She said it is wrong to consider a higher increase for the Legislature than for the public employees. She added it is also wrong to consider a higher increase for elected officials as well. Senators Shaffer, Townsend and Porter agreed with Senator O'Connell. Senator Porter stated if the committee were to discuss legislative salaries, they would tie them to the increase for state employees. Senator O'Connell said she feels very strongly about not voting for the salary increase for legislators; but giving that to the vote of the people. She explained that bosses are responsible for the raises given to employees, and the public is the legislators' boss. Senator O'Donnell agreed with Senator O'Connell. However, he stated he does not want to diminish the hard work done by the commission during the interim. He said they made a good case that legislators if not adequately compensated, will become a body of elite individuals. He emphasized this is not good government. He asserted it is not right, however, for legislators to vote on their own salaries. He explained the commission should take this to a vote of the people, do the advertising, and the necessary informational items in order for the public to be aware and to decide. Senator Titus stated she supports Senator O'Donnell's statements. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED THAT THE LEGISLATIVE SALARIES BE PLACED BEFORE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. Senator O'Donnell asked if Senator Shaffer is referring to the legislative salaries suggested by the commission? Citing the work session document (Exhibit I), Senator O'Donnell stated he would like to delete sections 1-7. Senator O'Connell responded to the confusion of the committee by stating it is actually section 1 that refers to the interim allowance. Section 2 restates the current salary as biennium amount ($7,800). Section 3 Increases salaries from $7,800 to $11,100. Section 4 is a technical change which corresponds with section 2. Section 5 lowers the legislative retirement vesting period from 10 years to 5 years. Section 6 increases the amount of retirement pension from $25 monthly to $30 monthly times the years of service. Section 7-13 and 18-21 are technical changes to correspond with sections 2 and 4. Senator O'Donnell asked if the county and elected officials information started with section 14. Senator O'Connell replied, "Yes, it does." Senator O'Donnell stated his proposal would be to delete sections 1-13, change 14 to the same percentage as the state employees. Senator O'Connell asked Senator Shaffer to change his motion to delete sections 1-13. He agreed. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Erickson if the committee would have problems deleting sections 9-12. Mr. Erickson asked what the purpose is of deleting these portions? He asked the committee if they were making two separate bills? Senator O'Donnell replied that is his suggestion. He requested Senator O'Connell create a subcommittee to look into what kind of fair and equitable measure could be put before the people. Senator O'Connell stated she had asked Mr. Erickson to speak to Jan Needham, (Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau) regarding what kind of a measure could be put on the ballot. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst, remarked she had spoken with Ms. Needham. She stated if the committee wants to place it before the people, it can be done. She said at that point, the committee can work out the specific language. She pointed out the questions on the bottom of page 1 of Exhibit I that the committee should consider if they are going to have the people vote on legislative salaries. Senator O'Connell stated the first step is to complete the motion to remove the legislators from the bill. SENATOR SHAFFER AMENDED HIS MOTION. HE MOVED TO DELETE SECTIONS 1-6, 7-13 AND 18-21 FROM S.B. 84 AND PLACE THESE ITEMS BEFORE THE PUBLIC FOR CONSIDERATION. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION. Senator Raggio asked for clarification. He stated any consideration of the legislators' raises put on the ballot is a secondary issue. He asserted the committee needs to remove themselves from S.B. 84 so they can consider the rest of the bill. He said the ballot is a bigger issue than the committee is ready to speak to at this moment. Senator O'Connell asked Senator Shaffer to amend his motion to remove the legislators from the bill. Then she asked Senator Raggio to look at number 2 of the work session document (Exhibit I), she stated it discusses those issues. She said the committee may want to act on Senator Shaffer's motion and turn the legislative section over to a subcommittee to have them develop the language for the legislators. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO ADOPT QUESTION 1 OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT (EXHIBIT I) BY DELETING SECTIONS 1-13 AND 18-21 FROM S.B. 84. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator O'Donnell asked with that motion, is the committee leaving the county and elected official information intact? Senator O'Connell stated that is correct. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell asked Senator Shaffer to chair a subcommittee for the language for the ballot. Senator O'Connell offered to work with him on the subcommittee. Senator O'Connell drew the committee's attention to page 3 of Exhibit I, saying this deals with the county and elected officials section of S.B. 84. She stated the classification system does not make any sense to her. She asserted she cannot find common interests. She explained the counties who want to be reclassified up in classification will be receiving greater salaries. She does not think the classification should indicate what the raises should be. Senator Porter restated the individual entities should be present to testify because they know what appropriate salaries are for their own county. Senator O'Connell asked if he means commissioners. Senator Porter stated the commissioners and the other elected officials in their counties. He said they know far better than the committee what those salaries should be. Senator Raggio stated he is hesitant to make such a dramatic change. He realizes it is a constitutional obligation and legislative requirement. He emphasized the committee could set in progress a way to change this legislative requirement. He noted changing this law would put the county commissioners in the same situation the committee is in right now. He said no one likes the responsibility of increasing his or her own salary. He stated the public does not have a problem with the legislative raise. He explained the public outcry was from an unacceptable retirement level. He asserted this has made everyone hesitant and afraid to take on responsibility. He declared someone has to set salaries, whether it is legislative salaries, county salaries, or state official salaries. He stated the committee was shirking its responsibilities to put all of those issues on the ballot every time someone wanted to raise salaries. He asserted it is impractical. He admitted he even has reservations about doing so for legislative salaries. He commented soon the public will vote on everything the legislators were elected to do. Senator Raggio reminded the committee they went through this debate, all of its concerns and the reasons that the classes were established at the time. The classes have been altered because they reflected as near as practicable, the population and abilities of the counties to pay their elected officials. Those classifications were selected by the entities involved, the 17 counties. He said before the classification, the process was the senator or senators representing the county pretty much were asked by the county to support whatever the county came in with, which is what usually happened. He said the classification gave reasoning to salary levels. He stated during this process, the Legislature determined to not allow any county salaries to exceed 95 percent of the Governor's salary. He said he has no desire to deviate from the classification system where salaries across the state are kept in reasonable limitations. He said to do otherwise will cause salaries to be out of "whack." He said the salaries will be set at the whim and caprice of every county. He stated he would rather, even if it is not the best way, look at these every 2 or 4 years. If a county changes, they will have an argument for that and the legislators can determine the course. He admitted it may not be perfect, but it is certainly better than trying to do it with no controls. He acknowledged he is prepared to keep the classification. Senator Raggio asserted the committee could factor, within their constitutional obligation, a salary increase which is justified. He stated the elected officials terms are 4 years. He said the state cannot expect these people to serve forever at the same salary. He suggested the committee can factor in cost-of- living-adjustments, or some amount which compensates the fact the officials's salary will not be increased in another 4 years. Senator Raggio stated is unfair to say the county commissioners, district attorney, sheriff, etc., to say they never get a pay raise. Senator Shaffer asked the committee if there is a problem addressing the counties which have a population of 50,000 and over, separate from the counties with a population of 50,000 and less. He suggested they tie it to an index to establish what the county officials should receive, and bring their wages up- to-par. He added they should institute a cap stating the increase cannot exceed the averages of the last 4-years consumer-price-index. Senator O'Connell stated her concerns. She said the cities have been determining salaries for a long time and doing it without problems. She noted when a business fails in a smaller county, it dramatically affects their revenue base. She added she never hears from the public, only from the elected people who want a salary increase. She said the classification looks at population and assessed value. She said four counties have dropped in assessed value, but this is not reflected in the amount of money each of the elected officials are asking for. She stated the public in each county is much more in tune with what is happening in the counties and how much the officials should be paid. Senator O'Connell stated the committee has no information on their budgets and does not know what all of their duties are. She said some counties have one person who is the county manager, recorder and clerk. She said in other more populated areas each of those are more clearly defined. She explained there are problems in four counties where the assessors did not do their job; therefore, those counties are in big financial problems. She asserted there should be a level of expertise for the assessors. She said these things are much better handled on a county level, because the county residents are much more in tune with what is impacting their situation. She said the committee is only hearing from the officials who want a big increase. She said in the classification there are counties who are asking for 25 percent increases and some counties who are getting as much as a 59 percent increase because they have been moved to a higher classification. She stated that is not right because the committee is unaware of the impact of their duties or activities in the counties. Senator Porter stated when he sat on the other side of the dais as a city official, he would say, "How do you know and how can you tell us how to run our business at a local level?" He said he came to this side of the dais and he is saying, "Washington, D.C. how can you tell us how to run our business in Nevada?" He said what he is hearing today is that the committee knows more than the local officials. He said he does not feel the committee does know more. He repeated his request to have those entities hold a public hearing and the communities will say what the officials should be paid. He said they should bear that responsibility. He informed the committee when he was a city councilman and the mayor, a public meeting was held, and they voted on their salary. He said the local officials are accountable. Senator O'Donnell stated he believes it is wrong for the committee to vote on their own salaries; however, to say it is right for the elected officials to vote on their salaries is contradictory. Senator O'Connell insisted the public is there at the county level. She said they will be the same people voting on the legislators' salaries. She said they do not have that ability here, and must speak to the issue when they vote. She does not see it as a conflict. Senator O'Donnell stated, "I do not see how you can make the argument. If you think it is wrong for anyone to vote on their own salary, then it is schizophrenic to think you are going to abrogate the responsibility that we have here to vote on someone's salary, to allow them to vote on their own salary. It does not make any sense. If it is immoral here, then it is immoral there." Senator Titus said, "I did not say it was immoral for us to vote on our own salary. I think we decided to put it on the ballot because nobody wanted to be the one to vote on their own salary. I would just as soon take a vote on the salary package right now, right here. I do not mind voting on it and being held accountable. I think Senator O'Connell is right. The voters are there. They can hold the local officials accountable. Local officials know what their budgets are, what they can afford for the different offices. I agree. I agree with her and Senator Porter on this issue." Senator Raggio stated what will happen is the whipsaw process where the counties are trying to base their salaries on what other counties are paying. Senator O'Connell acknowledged she understands that is why the classification system was started. She stated there are two counties right now who are telling the committee they need to be reclassified into a higher level. She said they are saying "this guy is making that much, I deserve to make that much too. He's no more dedicated than I am. You have that whipsaw thing right now." Senator Raggio stated in the meantime, it would take two elections to amend the constitution, assuming that the voters approve it. He said he does not bet the voters would give the counties the right to establish their own salaries. He said in the meantime the committee has to deal with it at this point, whether or not they want to put it on the ballot. Senator Porter stated having voted on the salary of whoever would be in his position after the next election he believes the committee should vote on their own salaries afterward. He said specifically for the counties, at this moment, they should hold public hearings and set salaries in those public hearings. He said he does not know if this required a constitutional change. Senator O'Connell explained the committee would have to give some kind of raise, preferably tied to what the public employees got, and that they would be given that raise until it could be established whether or not it could go to a vote of the people. She said this does take 5 years. She suggested the salary should be tied to the Consumer Price Index and they should have the same raise the public employees are getting. Senator Porter stated this is two items; what to do in the interim, and if a change should occur. SENATOR PORTER MOVED FOR THE 5-YEAR PERIOD TO GO FOR THE CHANGE THAT COUNTY OFFICIALS VOTE FOR THEIR OWN SALARIES. He reiterated to the committee this is a completely separate issue from voting on their salaries in the interim. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio asked for clarification on the motion, "The motion is that we obtain a joint resolution for the purpose of amending the Nevada Constitution to give the counties the authority to establish salaries for their elected officials. Is that the motion?" Senator Porter replied, "So moved, yes, that is the motion. Thank you for clarifying." SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO OBTAIN A JOINT RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE NEVADA CONSTITUTION TO GIVE THE COUNTIES THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH SALARIES FOR THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS. Senator O'Donnell asked if this means the committee is not giving the county elected officials any salary raise until two sessions from now. Senator O'Connell said no, they had not addressed that issue yet. Senator Porter said it would be even more specific. It would be for whoever ran for their seat. Senator Raggio asked for clarification again. "Are you indicating in the course of your motion that you want to give the counties the authority to establish salaries for elected officials; but that they would be precluded from increasing salaries during their term of office." Senator Porter responded, "Yes, identical to the cities." Senator Raggio stated, "Well, that's a different motion." SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO OBTAIN A JOINT RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE NEVADA CONSTITUTION TO GIVE THE COUNTIES THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH SALARIES FOR THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS, BUT THE COUNTIES WOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM INCREASING SALARIES DURING THEIR TERM OF OFFICE. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator O'Donnell asked for clarification, was the motion for a 5-year period? Senator O'Connell explained it requires 5 years to change the constitution. Senator Raggio said it could go on the ballot next year. Senator O'Connell asked Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, for clarification. Mr. Erickson replied the amendment would have to be approved by the Legislature this session and in 1997. He said it would go on the ballot in November, 1998. He said if county officials could not approve a pay raise in the middle of an election cycle, it might be the year 2002 before they could vote on a raise. He said they are all coming up for election in 1998, because they were elected in 1994. Senator Porter stated the committee could address that equity in the pay raise portion of the bill. Senator O'Connell said they could address it in the Consumer Price Index increase. Senator O'Connell asked if everyone was clear on the motion. Senator Raggio announced to the committee he would be voting "no" on the motion for the reasons he previously stated. He said the same reasons remain why it was placed in the constitution in the first place. He said it is a responsibility the Legislature should assume. He stated the classification system was to provide consistency in wages throughout the counties. He expressed if county officials set their own salaries, it will cause salaries across the state to be inconsistent. He asserted it will create a bad system. Senator O'Donnell stated, "Ditto." THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL, RAGGIO AND SHAFFER VOTED NO.) ***** Senator O'Connell asked if Senator Porter would like to address the second portion of the issue. Senator Porter commented, "I think that one wore me out." Senator O'Connell stated the next issue the committee needs to discuss is the pay increase for the elected officials holding office. She suggested again, that the committee look at the increase being given to public employees. She noted the committee should give elected officials the same increase as the public employees. She suggested salary increases for the time period between now and the time elected officials vote to increase their own salary (5 or 6 years) be tied to the Consumer Price Index. She asked for comments. Senator Raggio stated before he acts upon setting specific salaries, he would need some additional information. He asked when was the last time these respective salaries were raised. Senator O'Connell responded, "1989." Senator Raggio asked if there has been no increase in the elected officials salary since 1989? Mr. Erickson replied the raise was approved in 1989, and it was effective January 1, 1990. He pointed out there have been two additional increases for state employees, one of 5 percent and one of 4 percent. Senator O'Connell stated she thought Senator Raggio was referring to elected officials. Senator Raggio said, "I am, but in the discussion we've been having, there's been some reference to taking the existing salaries for the elected officials and they do not have a longevity package there or do they?" Mr. Erickson replied they do have a longevity factor of 1 percent per year after 4 years of service. Senator Raggio continued, "You were saying during the last 4 years there has been in effect a total what percent raise for state employees." Mr. Erickson responded, "If I am not mistaken, I believe 6 months after the county salaries went into effect, there was one for state workers in general of 5 percent, so perhaps you can consider those were both approved generally in 1989. But there was additionally approved in 1991 session, an increase of 4 percent for state workers that went into effect October 1, 1991." Senator Raggio asked, "By comparison, what increases have gone into effect for state elected officials. I would like to know that before I make a final decision on these." Mr. Erickson said, "Those increases for the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, justice of the supreme court, and district court judges....they all last went into effect on January of 1991. So that was a year after the increase for the county officials." Senator Raggio questioned, "The county officials, the elected officials?" Mr. Erickson interrupted, "January, 1990 was the effective date." Senator Raggio questioned, "And for the state elected officials went into effect?" Mr. Erickson responded, "January, 1991." Senator Titus asked "Do not you have to calculate in there for the county officials that they have like 1 percent per year longevity pay? Let's not forget to count that in there." Mr. Erickson responded, "That is correct, for those that are in their second or subsequent terms of office, there is a 1 percent, up to a cap of 20 percent. That longevity also applies, though, to the supreme court justices and the district court judges, so the only state officers who would not get that longevity are the six executive branch officers and the legislators." Senator O'Connell stated this was not an insignificant amount if someone had held the office more than 4 years. Senator Raggio explained in the case of the district attorney of Clark County whose present salary is $84,000, it means at the fifth year, that position would get $840 more in salary. He said it is 1 percent per year. Mr. Erickson replied that is correct and if a person had been in office 20 years, the figure could be $16,000. Senator Raggio asked if for the second year an elected official got another percent, it would mean $16,840 additionally per year. Mr. Erickson stated this needs to be addressed. Senator Raggio said, "I am talking about current practice." Mr. Erickson responded current practice has been interpreted differently by the district attorney in different counties. He said some counties believe the longevity is granted only once every 4 years. He explained some counties grant the longevity annually, but after the first 4 years passes. Senator Titus stated when the longevity is determined every 4 years, it is not for 1 percent, it is for 4 percent. She reminded the committee it compounds. Mr. Erickson responded this is correct, but in an official's sixth year of service, in counties that do it that way, the official would only get 4 percent. Senator Titus asked if the official gets 8 percent in the eighth year of service? Mr. Erickson answered, "Yes, at the end of the eighth year." Senator Raggio asked Senator O'Connell if she suggested tying the percent of increase for the elected officials to the percent of increase in salary of the state employees. Senator O'Connell noted if it is a 7 percent increase to the state employees, then the committee would begin at 7 percent and each year thereafter, until this question is decided to tie it to the Consumer Price Index. Senator Raggio declared they have never given an automatic Consumer Price Index raise on determining state salary. Senator O'Connell stated that might easily be the thing to do. Senator Raggio asserted that would be a deviation. He said the committee has the opportunity to establish state salaries for 2 years. He stated the Governor in his budget and the Legislature in their budget, will put in the increase into the budget specifically. He added that takes into consideration, among other things, a Consumer Price Index and other factors. He commented if the committee is going to say 7 percent and a Consumer Price Index for the out years, that is a new procedure. He added the counties are not granting similar increases, they are all different. Senator O'Connell stated she was not sure how counties give their increases, but hopefully they are done on a merit increase. Mary Henderson, Director, Washoe County Government Affairs, explained Washoe County has a 5 year merit step plan. She said it is based on the evaluation of the employee and it is the discretion of the department head to grant 0-5 percent on that. She stated once the employee hits the 5 year limit and remains at the top of the class, there is no longer a merit raise. She reported the cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) raises are negotiated. She said they have nine separate bargaining units. She urged the committee to consider who they are going to tie that to in state government. Senator O'Connell stated this is not a merit situation. Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Henderson about the county employees. He said what do raises average out to each year. Ms. Henderson replied the raises are not necessarily every year. She said there is a merit system in place, and should be considered separate from COLAs. She said they may negotiate for 2 years before they do a contract with them. She said the last contract with the largest bargaining unit was 3 percent. She said there is a 2.5 percent increase coming in July (it was a 2 year contract). She said the merit system is at the discretion of the department head. She said they have established ranges of salary. The employee hires in at a certain range, depending where the employee hires in at, they can go up by 5 percent every year. She said once an employee tops out at that range, the employee no longer is eligible for the merit increase. She said an employee may hire in at 50 percent of the salary range. Senator O'Donnell stated a base salary was established in 1989. He said when the committee reviews the base salary and the projected salaries; they are looking at approximately 20 to 25 percent increase which is reflected in the bill. He commented if it is established to a Consumer Price Index, there is nothing more than what the commission has already accomplished. He noted this is already in the bill. He clarified if the committee looks at the counties who are more than that 25 percent, they were down in the $15,000 category. He declared he does not know a county commissioner who would work today for a $12,000 figure. He mentioned he has been around for 11 years and would hate to abrogate the responsibility of this Legislature to the county. He added he is sure the county commissioners do not want to vote on their own salaries because they probably would not get anything. Senator Townsend drew the committee's attention to the work session document (Exhibit I). He said everyone knows the headlines are going to read "25 percent increase for elected officials." He commented the taxpayer says, "You know something, if I added up my last 5 years, I would not have a 25 percent pay increase." He remarked there is a potential for an index of the private sector wage increase. He noted he looked that up for last year in Nevada, and he believes they were as high as any other state and it was only 2.5 percent. He stated that is what working men and women in the state of Nevada got and that is an average which means some people did not get any raise. He admitted the committee can argue the Consumer Price Index is going to be redefined. Senator Townsend continued to say: When we talk about elected officials' wages, unless there is something that reflects what goes on in the private sector, who are Mr. and Mrs. Working Nevada, [that they] can understand; then we do them a disservice, because they cannot reflect that in their own experience. Now whether the salaries on this page catch people up, that has nothing to do with the way working men and women view this. It is going to be viewed as they get a 25 percent increase and I did not get any for 2 years and the last one I got was 2.5 percent. That's how it is going to be viewed. I'm not saying that is wrong. That is how they are going to measure it, by what happened in their own home. So if there is going to be, based on what is going on here tonight, a move with regard to the 5 year interim before the cities and counties can deal with their own salaries, it should be considered that it be tied to what is happening to the working men and women who provide the tax base for those people to get increases. Senator Porter called the committee's attention to the Commission to Review the Compensation of Certain Elected Public Officers study, page 58. (Exhibit J. Original is on file in the Research Library.) He read the proposal to the committee. He said it says each county elected official is entitled to a 2.5 percent salary increase every year, which is akin to the figure Senator Townsend quoted. He commented the booklet offers as an alternative to longevity, that it be left as is in Nevada Revised Statutes 245. He stated he would move to make the salary raise equal to the Nevada's private sector 2.5 percent increase; and make it retroactive from the last year elected officials received a pay increase. He suggested leaving the longevity as it is stated in the Nevada Revised Statutes. Senator Raggio stated he would like to see it computed out. Mr. Erickson stated since the last increase in salary for county elected officers was January, 1990, until what this bill states as the effective date of new salary, July 1, 1995, the estimates based on this index from the Employment Security Department would indicate approximately a 20.5 percent increase in that time period. But, he added, the commission had to estimate what that average salary would be this year. He said they were looking at a 2.5 percent increase to 3 percent increase for 1995. Senator Titus stated there were a couple of times in that period when state employees did not have a raise. She said she was not sure if going back to make up for those times is applicable. She suggested the committee start at this point and say, "We are really sorry about those lean years, but now let's go forward and put in that 2.5 percent automatic for the next years; until this can either go into effect as adopted in the constitution, or it fails and we have to come back and revisit it." SENATOR TITUS MOVED THE COMMITTEE TIE COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS RAISES TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR INDEX. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio asked for clarification. Mr. Erickson stated, "Starting from the 1995, not retroactively, July 1st, it would be tied to the private sector index on a yearly basis and that would go forward for the next 5 years or if the public voted down what we are going to ask them to vote on, then we would deal with it at that time." Senator O'Donnell stated this does not take into account any growth, county responsibilities, or population shifts. He said the committee should listen to the interim study commission. He added this is the most prudent step. Senator Titus stated this motion is one of the recommendations that came from the committee on page 58. She said the committee recommended quite an extensive package for legislators, which Senator O'Donnell rejected saying it is immoral for the legislators to vote on. She asserted the committee should not be inconsistent. Senator O'Donnell responded the commission is put in a tenuous position when the legislators require them to come up with an amount of money for the legislators to vote upon. He said it is immoral to vote on your own salary and he believes the public thinks the same way. He stated it was wrong to establish a commission to establish the salary levels. He noted the committee has done fine work and he is willing to go along with it. He concluded the committee will find the Consumer Price Index 2.5 percent will be more than what is in this bill. He stated the committee has not looked at compounding, which will provide them more salary than suggested in the bill. Mr. Erickson explained page 58 of Exhibit J is a copy of a work session document from the interim study commission. He said this is a work session document, part of the appendix to the report. He wanted the committee to take it in the correct context. Senator Raggio stated historically the Legislature has set fixed salaries for county officials. He said: I think we should do that now. I frankly think it is a bad precedent to just set in place something, although it can be determined, is not a fixed amount, tying it to a Consumer Price Index of some kind. We do not do that with any other officials, elected or appointed, over whom we have that authority. I think it can be excessive in some cases when it compounded over a fixed term. It is a guarantee we do not give to others. At this point in time, I would not support the motion. I would rather we give some attention to either accepting the amounts that the commission who we appointed or participated in the appointment, determined; or that we change the amount to something that we feel is more appropriate. For that reason I will not support the motion. Senator Titus stated after consultation with Senator Porter, she withdrew her previous motion. Senator Porter withdrew his previous second. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE 25 PERCENT LISTED ACROSS-THE-BOARD IN S.B. 84 AS SALARY INCREASES FOR COUNTY OFFICIALS. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio stated he wants to amend the motion. He stated he wants fixed amounts; but he is not prepared to accept the amounts listed in the bill, even though he realizes they will be in place for a fixed period of 4 years. He stated he was willing to accept the classification which was suggested by the commission, the changes in the classification, and come up with a fixed amount. SENATOR O'DONNELL WITHDREW HIS SECOND. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL, RAGGIO, O'CONNELL, TOWNSEND, TITUS AND PORTER VOTED NO.) ***** Senator Raggio declared he was not prepared to present numbers. He stated he would like to develop salary figures other than what is in the bill. He said he has no percentage in mind. He favors fixed amounts. He also favors accepting the classification changes as indicated in the bill by the interim study commission. Senator O'Connell requested a subcommittee to develop salaries. The subcommittee will consist of Senators Raggio, O'Connell, and Shaffer. Senator Raggio stated these people are elected officials across the state and they deserve some kind of salary increase. They have not had a salary increase in some time. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 84 and opened the hearing on S.B. 151. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 151: Eliminates limitations on solicitations of bids for certain public works projects. (BDR 28-524) Senator O'Connell asked the committee to look at the work session document for S.B. 151 (Exhibit K). She stated this bill had been presented by the Northern Nevada Consortium for Cooperative Purchasing (NNCCP) who had failed to contact the people that the bill affected. She stated this issue was passed with consensus in 1993. She stated she felt the committee would be taking a step backward on the issue if the bill passed. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 151. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 151 and opened the hearing on S.B. 180. Senator Titus pointed out the interim committee heard no opposition to S.B. 180. She stated opposition to the bill is not coming from the southern Association of General Contractors, but from ONE contractor who worked on the least energy efficient building in the state. Senator Titus stated the interim committee understands about proven technology. She stated the committee appreciates Senator Porter's addition of rehabilitation of state buildings. She stated if the committee is concerned about the model project, delete it, but do not throw out the bill. Senator Titus drew the committee's attention to the proposed amendments for S.B. 180 (Exhibit L). A discussion of the amendments ensued. She shared a letter from Jon Wellinghoff which answered some of the questions of the committee (Exhibit F). Senator Titus recommended to the committee to change "innovative" to "proven" on line 5, page 1. Senator Titus stated removing the wording for an independent consultant in effect kills the bill. She said if there is not an outside energy consultant to make sure the buildings are as energy efficient as possible, so they qualify for energy rebates, then there is not much left in the bill. She agrees with the current administration that there is an emphasis on energy conservation. The bill would ensure this emphasis. Senator Porter said the State Public Works Board (PWB) is a state entity which has been reluctant to move aggressively in incorporating energy efficient systems. He stated the committee should insist the PWB do their job properly, rather than having to add a consultant. Senator Raggio agreed with Senator Porter that the PWB should have to do their job properly. He explained he spoke with Jon Wellinghoff. He stated he could not support a mandated demonstration project. He said it is not necessary. He asserted he could not support a mandated consultant on every state project construction. He admitted he believes the PWB should have this responsibility, does have this responsibility, and should be accountable for this responsibility. He advised the committee should provide direction to the PWB that in the construction of state buildings, they must in the course of design, do an analysis or have an analysis performed of building energy efficiency. He commented he is not prepared to mandate that under any and all circumstances. Senator Shaffer asked if the committee could ask for recommendations from the state energy office. He said the architect and contractor should consider the recommendations from the state energy office. Senator Raggio stated this is appropriate. He noted the state energy office may not have an interest. Senator Titus stated it is disconcerting to look at the cost of a consultant ($56,000), and think it will be applied to every job. She agreed to eliminate the model project. She asked the committee to consider under section 3, "with the construction of state buildings, the PWB seek or obtain input from the energy office." Senator Raggio stated the PWB needs to work out when it is appropriate. He expressed he does not want to add extra costs. He commented the committee can direct the PWB to work in consultation with the energy office to accomplish these goals. He declared he would not want to mandate the demonstration project or the consultant in every construction. He said his intent is if the PWB has a complex project and did not have the expertise in-house, then they should retain the services of an independent consultant. Senator Titus indicated she would take the input from the committee and come back with an amended bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 180 and opened the hearing on S.B. 152. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 152: Requires certain state agencies to allow classified employees to select working schedules on basis of seniority. (BDR 23-324) Senator O'Connell directed the committee's attention to the work session document (Exhibit M). She stated this was the State of Nevada Employees Association bill to ask that seniority dictate when employees could request time off. Senator Porter asked if this was a bill which should be more agency directed than employee directed. Senator O'Connell responded it is more of a management situation. Senator Raggio stated this bill has a lot of opposition and the committee questioned the rationale of seniority being the only factor. He mentioned agency heads indicated this would create a hardship for them. He noted he would prefer not to act on the bill at this time. Senator O'Connell stated she feels it is a management decision and has trouble supporting the bill from that standpoint. She indicated she does not know how agencies could arrange schedules with everyone dictating his or her wants. Senator Raggio stated Mr. Gagnier (Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association) offered an amendment that the employee evaluations should be standard or above; but he said when it is applied, as suggested, across-the-board, it becomes a difficult problem for management. Senator O'Connell reminded the committee this bill was part of another bill last session. The Assembly removed the language and did not feel it was a workable situation for management. Senator Porter stated his concerns are that it sounds like some of the departments do not have standards, and he encourages standards to be set in all agencies. He said these decisions should be done on a management level. Senator O'Connell indicated there are several things the committee can do. She said the letter could be sent to the managers inquiring about standards. She commented they could send a letter encouraging standards in lieu of the bill to the Governor. Senator Raggio stated the Highway Patrol Manual has some guidelines and referenced the fact that seniority is a factor to be considered, but only one factor. He said it ought to be understood. He announced the committee should not be telling each agency how to assign shifts, work hours, etc. He advised the committee is invading the executive province. He explained if the committee does anything, it should be to indicate a strong feeling that these agencies should set up policies and procedures; but seniority should not be the controlling factor. It should be one of the factors. He suggested perhaps the agencies and Mr. Gagnier can agree on what the committee should express. He stated he would be willing to consider that. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 152. The meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs March 8, 1995 Page