MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 15, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, May 15, 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: Assemblyman John W. Marvel Assemblywoman Joan Lambert STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Ray Davis, President-Elect, American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada Marsha Berkbigler, Lobbyist, American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada Ande Engleman, Concerned Citizen Lauren R. House, President, L.R. House Insurance, Inc., Alan Biaggi, Chief, Bureau of Corrective Actions, Division of Environmental Protection Ray Ritch, American Red Cross Disaster Technician Ramon R. Dominguez, American Red Cross Volunteer Dale Erquiaga, Concerned Citizen Betsy Fretwell, Strategic Issues Manager, Administrative Services, Clark County Lucy Stewart, Acting Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Clark County Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas Karen Kavanau, Director, Department of Information Services Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 44. ASSEMBLY BILL 44 Revises provisions governing forfeiture of annual leave by state employees. Assemblyman John W. Marvel testified in favor of A.B. 44. He explained two sessions ago, the budget director reported this situation to the Legislature. He stated during the past two interims, Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, did a study on forfeiture of annual leave. He explained abuses of the current structure have occurred and this bill addresses those abuses. He told the committee that the state employees' association has seen the bill and suggested an amendment incorporated into the reprint that the committee has. Mr. Stevens explained the bill impacts the provisions relating to forfeited annual leave. He stated under current law a state employee's annual leave in excess of 30 days, or 240 hours, is forfeited at the end of each calendar year. He noted, however, an employee can be paid for any leave in excess of 240 hours if he or she meets a couple of conditions. He told the committee these conditions are included in lines 9-18 on page 1 of the bill. An employee can be paid for excess leave over 240 hours at the end of the calendar year if on or before October 15, the employee requests permission to take annual leave and that request for leave is denied in writing for any reason. The forfeited annual leave payments have been examined for years and based on that information, A.B. 44 modifies the statute. The major changes are proposed in lines 18-23 of the bill which provides that an employee who has final authority to approve his annual leave cannot receive payments 2 years in a row. Under current law, an employee can be paid each year that their annual leave is in excess of 240 hours if the two provisions on lines 14 and 15 are met. He provided a handout to the committee (Exhibit C) which indicates the annual forfeited leave payments from 1989 to 1994. The names and the agencies have been eliminated from the schedule, but each line represents an employee that was paid forfeited annual leave within that 5-year period. Senator Townsend asked if this affects positively or negatively the staff at the Legislative Counsel Bureau? Mr. Stevens explained the provisions in statute also apply to legislative employees. Legislative employees have to bring their leave balances down to 240 hours or forfeit the hours. This provision would apply to them also. Mr. Stevens continued his testimony. He explained the shaded areas indicate an employee who was compensated at least 2 years in a row during that period of time. He explained the shaded employees are potentially impacted by this legislation. He stated in its original form, A.B. 44 would have applied to all state employees. In its amended version, the first reprint version, it only applies to those employees who have final authority to approve his or her own accrued leave. For those employees, who approve their own leave, they cannot be compensated 2 years in a row for any forfeited annual leave. As there were no other questions from committee members, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 44 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 427. SENATE BILL 427: Revises provisions governing public records which contain copyrighted material. Ray Davis, President-Elect, American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada, distributed a handout with most of the major issues outlined (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.) He stated chapter 239 of the Nevada Revised Statutes is the public records access statute. He said the existing statute does not provide for intellectual property rights and appears to violate federal copyright law. State agencies cannot allow people to copy copyrighted documents because that would violate federal copyright law. He said the agencies have to allow people to copy those documents according to state statute, however, the agencies have tried to prevent this problem by not accepting any copyrighted documents. He stated he has gotten two professional opinions that say the existing Nevada statute appears to violate federal copyright law and those opinions are presented in the first and fifth sections of the exhibit. He stated he had discussed this with the attorney general's office and told them the existing statute is in violation of federal copyright law. He asserted the attorney general's response was that their mission was to support Nevada law, right or wrong, and if he thought it was wrong, he'd have to sue them to have a court decide who was right. He declared, "As a resident of this state, I find that response appalling. I don't want to sue my state. It costs me twice. It costs me to bring suit and it costs me for the state to defend itself. I would like to see the state statute changed to conform a little more closely with the federal copyright law." He explained the sections of the handout. Marsha Berkbigler, Lobbyist, American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada, testified in favor of S.B. 427. She told the committee there is a problem with line 6 of page 1, "accept any books or records which are copyrighted," appears to put the bill in the position that literally nothing that is copyrighted, including encyclopedias and newspapers can be used by the public. She stated, "Our concern is not that we are trying to keep these documents from being looked at by the public. We are not interested in closing something down. What we are interested in is two things. Number one, allowing the copyrighted document to be filed as a document as certification of the work that is being done here in Nevada. Number two, keeping the public sector or someone from using that document without the permission of the engineer or the consultant who has put out the document." She discussed a possible amendment with the committee (Exhibit E). Ande Engleman, Concerned Citizen, stated her support of S.B. 427 and its amendment. She recommended to the committee that next session they look at Nevada's state copyright law and improve it. She stated it is not really public records that they are dealing with, but copyrights and their enforcement. Lauren R. House, President, L.R. House Insurance, Inc., professional affiliate of Consulting Engineers Counsel of Nevada, stated his support of S.B. 427. He told the committee he represents several architectural and engineering firms which purchase liability bonds from his company. He stated: Our concern is because of Nevada's legislation not being in consonance with the architectural works copyright act of 1990, it does not afford them the protections that they are entitled to under that act. We are concerned with the unauthorized reuse of documents that they own and it creates a potential liability claim that could occur. They would not have had, had the protections been afforded under the federal statutes. The fact that it is not in consonance with that statute is...not what is intended. The intention is to allow that to smoothly take effect and for them to receive their protection. We would like to go on record as being in favor of S.B. 427 for the principal reason that without this, you will find many firms not being able to properly correct that inequity and provide the insurance necessary to provide coverage for that liability that vicarious liability they might have through the unauthorized reuse of their professional contracts of service. Alan Biaggi, Chief, Bureau of Corrective Actions, Division of Environmental Protection, read a prepared statement to the committee (Exhibit F). Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Biaggi if he had seen the amendment. Mr. Biaggi responded he had not. Senator O'Connell suggested that he review it. Mr. Biaggi offered to work with the proponents of the bill to achieve an amendment which would be acceptable to all. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 427 and opened the hearing on A.B. 327. ASSEMBLY BILL 327: Authorizes leave of absence for certain public officers and employees to assist American National Red Cross during certain disasters. Assemblywoman Joan Lambert, Assembly District 29, testified in favor of A.B. 327. She explained that a volunteer from her district asked for this bill. She told the committee the constituent is currently in New Orleans, helping the American Red Cross with the flood disaster there. She stated the constituent would be represented by his son who is also a American Red Cross Disaster Technician. She explained there was a revision to the fiscal note due to a lack of understanding of the bill by one of the counties (Exhibit G). She stated this bill will allow a public officer or employee of the state or local government to get up to 15 working days of leave with pay if he is classified by the American Red Cross as a disaster technician, and if the American Red Cross calls this person to help with a disaster, and with the approval of his employer. She told the committee the employer does not have to approve the employee to leave. She said if all of these provisions are met, then the employee is allowed 15 working days off work with pay. She stated it is similar to what volunteer firefighters have now. She stated this bill has been crafted to allow Nevada employees to help with disasters in neighboring states. She explained it is a reciprocal agreement that if there is a disaster in Nevada, American Red Cross volunteers from neighboring states would come to help here. She commented there are many of these bills being passed throughout the United States. Ray Ritch, American Red Cross Disaster Technician, read written testimony by his father (Exhibit H). He explained how complicated it is to be an American Red Cross Disaster Technician. He told the committee what his volunteer work entails. He explained that nationally he is a Disaster Mental Health Coordinator. He told the committee if all the 13 people, in the state who are qualified and who are state or local government employees, worked for all of their 15 allotted days, it would cost the state $16,000. He told the committee that supervisors will always have the option of denying an employee these 15 days if the leave would cause an adverse affect on services or coworkers. He stated the bill does not directly affect him since he is covered through collective bargaining of his union. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Ritch if the federal government pays disaster workers? Mr. Ritch responded that disaster workers for the American Red Cross are all volunteers. He explained in the northern three-fourths of Nevada, there are four paid professionals in American Red Cross administrative positions only. He stated all other services of the American Red Cross are provided by volunteers who receive no compensation from the federal government. He stressed to the committee that the American Red Cross receives no federal compensation. Senator O'Connell asked why 15 days was chosen as the figure. Mr. Ritch explained that this is the standard set by most states. He stated during the 100 years that the American Red Cross has been around, this 15-day figure is the maximum that volunteers can be maintained on assignment in their most effective position. He stated in his field in the American Red Cross, they only use volunteers for 9 to 10 days because these are psychologists and psychiatrists. He commented that 9 or 10 days is the maximum that they can deal with the intense level of human suffering that they are dealing with in mental health services. Mrs. Lambert also responded to this question. She stated other states do allow more time, and the proponent of the bill had asked for more time, but she choose the 15 days as more of an average. Senator O'Connell stated, "I have a real problem. If we can deal without somebody for 15 days, I don't know that we need the person to begin with." Mr. Ritch explained he was a school guidance counselor and he does not go during the school year. He explained he has gone with the American Red Cross for every summer during the past 8 years. He stated: As that affects the positions...I have been a supervisor now for 18 years of various people who have worked with this. When someone goes out, everyone works to help provide the services as well as the benefits of the people who come back having worked with the American Red Cross in the variety of positions vastly overwhelms any detriment that their being gone for 2 1/2 weeks would provide. Senator O'Connell stated, "You say there are eight people currently qualified to do this." Mr. Ritch stated: Correct. We have over 300 volunteers with the American Red Cross in the State of Nevada. Of those 300, the vast majority work only at the local chapter level with the American Red Cross as disaster volunteers. The eight people that we are referring to, specifically work for various state and county agencies. That goes back to the level of training required to reach national disaster services level. It is a minimum of six courses and it usually takes a minimum of 2 years to achieve that. We are not talking about people who just come in off the streets and want to volunteer a few hours every now and then. We are talking about people who are very seriously committed. Those eight people who are working for state and local governments are presently using their own personal vacation time to provide these services. Senator O'Connell asked if there has been complaints about having to use their own personal vacation time? Mr. Ritch responded that to his knowledge, there has not been one single complaint from any of these employees. He explained their level of expertise and level of commitment is manifested in their traditional occupation as well. Senator O'Connell asked Mrs. Lambert if these people would be paid for the 15 days as well as being gone? Mrs. Lambert responded: The intent of this bill is to encourage...we only have eight people in Nevada. These people coordinate the disaster relief, that can tell all of us, that want to help, what to do in an effective way. Eight in Nevada is not very much. We want to encourage more people to go through this training so if we have a problem, we have some help here at home early on. That is part of the reason for this. It does not require everyone, in addition to all of the hours of training and the internship they have to go through, to when they go on relief to always have to take their vacation. There would be some relief there, just as volunteer firefighters get. Senator Raggio commented the bill stated that it is mandatory that the person be relieved from duties, yet the language of the bill states, "upon the request of the American Red Cross and the approval of the employer. He asked Mrs. Lambert to explain this inconsistency. She stated the American Red Cross must ask for that person's help and the employer must agree to let the person go. Senator Raggio asked if the word "employer" was used in a specific definition. He asked who had to approve the leave if the person was an employee of the State of Nevada. He asked if the immediate supervisor had the authority. Mrs. Lambert responded, "The intent was the immediate supervisor. The person who generally approves vacation, leave without pay and those sorts of personnel decisions." Senator Raggio asked Mr. Ritch if this was his understanding also. Mr. Ritch responded: It would be direct supervisory approval. We are not talking about small disasters such as a single family or an apartment building, or the Rainbow Bend floods in Sparks recently. We are talking a much higher level of disaster where the national system is implemented in the areas. The calling up of the national volunteers is usually followed in a period of time by the President's or Governor's declaration of a disaster area. We are not talking about small, like the Cottonwood fire. Senator O'Connell stated, "I do not see a fiscal note from any of the other counties." Mrs. Lambert responded that there is a generic fiscal note in the bill books. She told the committee the original fiscal note had a $1 million overestimate. Senator Raggio asked if the eight qualified people are only in Washoe County or are they in the entire state? Mr. Ritch responded that the figure is statewide. Ramon R. Dominguez, American Red Cross Volunteer, testified in favor of A.B. 327. He told the committee of his experience with the American Red Cross. He stated if he had been more involved with the American Red Cross, he would have gone to Mexico City when they had the earthquakes since he is bilingual and they called for bilingual volunteers. He added that he could have been called to California during the Oakland earthquake because of his bilingual abilities. He outlined what this bill would mean to his abilities to volunteer on a national level for the American Red Cross. He explained if he gives his personal vacation time for the American Red Cross, he would be unable to meet any emergency leave time needed for his family. He stated the American Red Cross works with volunteers and funds itself via donations. He explained the money and time is given freely without judgement of rich, poor, race, color, or creed. He stated they judge people by their need, what is left in their life and how they are affected by the disaster. He stressed: I ask for your support of this bill and hopefully, hopefully one day you will take time to drop by American Red Cross and talk to some people or talk to individuals who have been affected by this. I think our services are very important. I don't think our services will ever be too vast. I think we need more people. The more doors we open like this, the more volunteers will get involved. I have training, I could be among one of those eight, or I could not be among one of those eight, depending upon this bill. Dale Erquiaga, Concerned Citizen, testified in favor of A.B. 327. He told the committee he used to be the Director of the American Red Cross, Sierra Nevada Chapter, before he came to state service. He urged the committee to pass this bill. He stressed the American Red Cross has a congressional charter. He stated it is a nationally chartered charity formed by the Congress of the United States. He said: By doing this, you are not opening the door for every charity to come before you and make this sort of request. The [American] Red Cross is unique. Beyond that, the disaster technicians that you have heard described to you are also very unique. It is a limited class of people, it is difficult to get into. Their services are very rarely requested and when they are, it is truly a disaster. They need those people. Having served on that side of this agency and now in state government, I can tell you that organizations like the [American] Red Cross, leverage state dollars. The assistance that the [American] Red Cross provides, it provides for free. It raises its own money. It does not use FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Association) money. FEMA does its own thing. The [American] Red Cross is a completely separate organization. They work very closely together, but the assistance that it provides means that the state, through its emergency services operation, does not have to provide that service. When I worked at the [American] Red Cross, and I know this is true today, the two state and [American] Red Cross agencies work very closely together. I would submit that by allowing 8 or 12 or 20 Nevadans to serve in this state and other states, you are building resources for future disasters, which unfortunately do occur. It is an investment the state is able to give to this very worthwhile organization. For that reason, I would encourage your support of this bill. Hearing no other testimony, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 327 and opened the hearing on A.B. 199. ASSEMBLY BILL 199: Expands state agencies that are required to comply with procedure for employing or reclassifying persons who provide primarily information services. Karen Kavanau, Director, Department of Information Services, testified in favor of A.B. 199. She stated NRS 242.071 defines the purpose of the Department of Information Services and requires the department: to prevent the unnecessary proliferation of equipment and personnel among the various state agencies. Chapter 284 in the NRS refers to the Department of Personnel. During the 1993 legislative session, NRS 284.172, the statute to which this bill applies, was passed to help the Department of Information Services and Department of Personnel meet the mandate of NRS 242.071. The existing language, however, in NRS 284.172 has led to some confusion. This bill is consistent with the language throughout NRS [chapter] 242, with regard to exemptions in that it clarifies that the law applies to all executive branches except the two identified under paragraph 3a. This bill also replaces an old term, data processing, with the words 'information systems and services.' The last point I would like to point out is while this law, NRS 242.172, requires my agency's review of positions, it has nothing to do with personnel or incumbents. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Kavanau to provide examples of the reason for the Department of Information Services being involved with the Department of Personnel. Ms. Kavanau stated one of the statutes in NRS 242 defines the role of the Department of Information Services and its purpose. She reread the statute to the committee. She stated this statute has been on the books for a long time. She said agencies send reclassification requests for information technology type of positions to the Department of Personnel. She explained the Department of Personnel accepts those on face value without any expertise to look at that agency's request. She told the committee the result is a small core of information technology positions exist in an agency and within time, that core evolves into a bigger and bigger arena of information technology costs and personnel. She stated: Based on NRS 242.071, which is the statute which defines the Department of Information Services purpose, I believe it is the Legislature's desire to keep the costs down as they pertain to information technology, equipment, and personnel. Therefore, this law, which was passed last session, permits the Department of Information Services to have input to reclassification and position requests as they pertain to information, technology and personnel. Again, we do not have the authority, nor are we asking for it, to review any incumbents or personnel selection. We are simply looking at job duties...job descriptions." Senator O'Donnell stated, "Right now there are several agencies that are exempt from Department of Information Services; can you enumerate which ones they are?" Ms. Kavanau told the committee: Actually, this bill only has two exemptions...which are defined in NRS 242.115 and 242.111; and basically they are the university and the personnel involved in dealing with the Nevada Criminal Repository, Application, and Law Enforcement Computer System. The other agencies which do not use our data processing and programming services, but do use some of our other services, are the ones you are referring to. They are agencies like the Department of Transportation, SIIS [State Industrial Insurance System], the Comptroller's office...agencies that have data centers. In practice, since that law was passed last session, those agencies reclassification requests and position requests are being sent to Department of Information Services for review, so they are not really being exempted, but that is why we need clarification of this law. Senator O'Donnell stated, "I don't understand what you want to do. Are you going to be able to make a list for all of the people that are using information services at SIIS, and what their job description is?" Ms. Kavanau responded: The list you are talking about says the director shall prepare...that refers to the director of personnel. The purpose of this is...let's say there is a group of persons working in SIIS, and they have convinced their management that they belong in the information technology series rather than in a management analyst position. The Department of Personnel then sends us the reclassification request and we review it. If we agree with that determination, then the Department of Personnel would approve the reclassification; if we disagreed with it, then they would not approve the reclassification request. The purpose is to put a little extra barrier in there so you can stem the proliferation of unneccessary information technology personnel and equipment in the agencies. Experience has taught us as these groups of employees grow, so do the costs. Senator Raggio asked, "I have a question on the first reprint with the way it now reads. The language in subsection 2, if that is bracketed out and not included below, this would then apply to constitutional officers?" Ms. Kavanau answered, "Constitutional officers are already considered in our oversight. If you look at [NRS] chapter 242, which is Department of Information Services authority, constitutional officers are indeed, and have been for many, many years, included in whatever we do." Senator Raggio stated, "I don't know if it is a concern, but I do know every time we get into a situation like this; there is concern expressed by the constitutional officers on having to go to an appointed department head to get some kind of approval. I would like to get a reading from them that this...that they don't have a concern with it." Ms. Kavanau remarked, "I would appreciate that. I would like that clarification too. We spend an awful lot of time talking about who it applies to and who it does not." Hearing no other testimony on A.B. 199, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing, and opened the hearing on A.B. 267. ASSEMBLY BILL 267: Revises various provisions relating to land use planning. Betsy Fretwell, Strategic Issues Manager, Administrative Services, Clark County, testified in favor of A.B. 267. She told the committee there are two parts to the bill. The first part deals with the composition of the planning commission. She told the committee the second part of the bill will be addressed by Lucy Stewart, Acting Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Clark County. She told the committee the second part of the bill deals with subdivision of land. She said: I'd like to start with the change to the planning commission membership. This changes the terms of the appointments of the planning commission to be coterminous with the term of the recommending member of the governing body, which is a little bit different from the way it is currently written. Right now, the planning commission person serves for a 4-year term and those are staggered and they are a little bit off from the elected terms of office. Only if that planning commission member leaves during their term, or voluntarily resigns, would the elected official be able to make an appointment to, or make a recommendation for appointment to the chair of the Board of County Commissioners. That is the change to this law that we are requesting, is to make those appointments coterminous with the recommending official from the governing body. Senator Titus asked, "Will this affect anybody who's in office now?" Ms. Fretwell responded, "We think the way it reads right now, yes, it would." Senator Titus asked, "Can you do that? Can you make..." Ms. Fretwell interjected, "Well what we would like to see happen, obviously, would be that the people who are currently serving would voluntarily resign. Whether or not that happens is a different story, but that is what we would like to see happen." Senator Titus stated, "That's two different things, hoping they'll resign because you passed this, and being able to force them out, that's two different things. Which is it?" Ms. Fretwell answered: If you look at page 2, line 5, what we have done is a slight change in the language to make it a little bit broader. It says that members of the planning commission may be removed after a public hearing by a majority vote of the governing body for just cause. The reason we asked for that change is basically to give a little more flexibility. The thing about the planning commission is that right now there is no direct vote for planning commissioners. That's the bottom line. What we are looking for is that the elected officials who are voted in, i.e., the Board of County Commissioners who typically make these appointments through the chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners, would have a little more flexibility in dealing with the issues that obviously arise. When you have, like we did this year, three new elected commissioners, there is a mandate of the people to change the way we do some of the things that we do. With our vast growth, that's one of the things that our board is dealing with right now. This bill draft was requested a long time ago, and we amended it in February to include this planning commission change because it is an issue for our commissioners right now. This provision of law affects two of our current commissioners that were just currently elected in the last election. Senator O'Connell queried, "Let me back you up to make sure we understood what you said about mandating. The voters mandated a change..." Ms. Fretwell responded, "When I said mandated...when they voted in new people then obviously they expected some sort of change in the way we deal with things, especially as it relates to growth. So it was not a quote, unquote, written down mandate 'We voted on this.' I didn't mean to imply that." Senator O'Connell asked, "You didn't mean any particular agency? Such as the planning commission?" Ms. Fretwell answered: It applies broadly. There are a lot of public safely things that our commissioners are dealing with as well that seem to be the will of the public through the surveys the newly elected officials have been dealing with. So, that's what I mean when I say the people have voted in new people based on the platforms they ran on. Some of that related to public safety, some of it related to how well our neighborhoods are kept, in addition to some other things including growth and how we deal with it. Senator O'Connell stated, "Right now the way the planning commission works, it will make a decision and that decision goes to the Board of County Commissioners. The planning commissioners don't have the last word on something." Ms. Fretwell agreed, "You are right. There's seven voting members so one or two people have the influence of one or two people and the vote of one or two people. But nonetheless, you want to make sure everyone's voice is represented." Senator O'Donnell remarked, "These planning commissioners are not elected officials?" Ms. Fretwell responded, "They are not." Senator O'Donnell stated: This bill appoints them into a position of being a planning commissioner by the county commissioner for a period of 4 years to run coterminous with the other commissioner. Everywhere I have ever seen any type of appointment, it usually...they usually run at the pleasure of the appointing person. So if you have an individual who is completely out of step with everything that you stand for, and he or she is your appointment, I would think you would want the flexibility to remove them for 'just cause.' There's a lot of decisions that get made every planning commission meeting and if you are completely out of step with what your county commissioner wants, I would think that you would want that flexibility. Sometimes you don't know that until you appoint somebody and they get in there and they happen to be a problem and you want to get rid of them. I think this bill...doesn't go far enough. I would want them to run at the pleasure of the county commissioner. Senator Raggio asked, "The planning commission in Clark County is not a unified...you don't have a regional planning commission as they do in Washoe County for example. Each city and each county has its own planning commission." Ms. Fretwell responded, "We have the Regional Transportation Commission and some other boards that are regional in nature; however this one is not." Senator Raggio stated, "You don't really have a total regional planning commission in Clark County which is something I have advocated for a long time." Ms. Fretwell responded, "No...something you may be interested in knowing as well is this is one of the areas that we've been working closely with the City of Las Vegas to try and make boundary planning more cohesive and congruent so they work together and we don't have commercial [areas] abutting single-family residences." Senator Raggio commented: That's always amazed me and I try to avoid getting into strictly sectional problems, but it just seems so inconsistent to me. You really need to have a complete regional plan for that reason. You are going to have a line going down the middle of a street and one planning commission allowing something on one side of the street and not on the other. It troubles me that today planning commissioners are selected by the chief executive officer, the mayor or the chairman of the county commission for a term of 4 years. This is such an unusual concept. Each commissioner apparently somehow determines who is going to be appointed and that person should leave if that commissioner leaves. Is that what you are saying? Ms. Fretwell responded, "No. Let's say for instance, if a commissioner leaves in the middle of office, that planning commission appointee could stay on for the remainder of that term with this change. Let's say one of our commissioners left next year for whatever reason, that person could serve out the term. They could voluntarily resign, who knows?" Senator Raggio remarked: Does not that make the planning commission a pure political board if each position is dictated by a commissioner? Ms. Fretwell responded, "Um hum, (sic) I think to some extent the reason we have the just cause in there is because you want your planning commission to remain independent to some extent. What you don't want to do is have planning commissioners who don't actually violate the letter of the law the way it is currently written, but have actions that maybe don't meet those criteria but limit public input, do not allow people to participate in this process. When that happens, then that's the reason for the language 'just cause' was selected so that it is not arbitrary but..." Senator Raggio interjected, "I don't know what 'just cause' means and I'll defer to our advisor, but I hope it does not mean that the commissioner voted against what the member of the commission or council wanted that member to vote for. Is that what that means?" Ms. Fretwell stated: I don't think that is what it means, because we've got a seven-member planning-commission board. It is going to take at least four of them to take one of those issues either direction, to deny or to approve. If there is an appeal and it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, then you have seven additional votes there to balance out. No one person is going to be able to say, 'I am sorry, that's not good enough.' I understand your concern, but with the seven member boards, it is going to be a little bit difficult to draw those lines that distinctly. Senator Raggio remarked, "It seems to me if we do this in Clark County, it is going to be a much more pure political process where each commissioner who is elected would be able to dictate what that particular planning commissioner does. My idea of an effective planning commission is one that is removed, as far as possible from politics, who can look at overall concerns and needs of a local entity and make decisions on that basis without fear or concern." Senator O'Donnell stated: Those individuals are not elected. They are not elected people; they are appointed by the county commissioner and in doing so the county commissioner essentially places a stamp of approval as to what that planning commissioner is going to do. If the planning commissioner is approving apartment complexes next to R-1 zoning all day long because he does not like you anymore and he wants to see you get unelected because his buddy is the one he wants elected, I think you are going to have a problem. Both scenarios could happen, but realizing that the individual is appointed by the county commissioner, I think he should serve at the pleasure of the county commissioner. If you have a situation where the county commissioner leaves office, and you have a planning commissioner who is going to be there for 2 more years; he might have his designs on what needs to be done and you might have your designs, and you might just be a total 180 degrees from each other. I would think at that point you would want to be able to ask for a resignation and get one and move on. People vote for county commissioners; they don't have a clue who the planning commissioner is going to be until after the election. Ms. Fretwell stressed, "I think the intent is to make the planning commission as responsive as possible. That's what the intent of this bill is, to try and move that along so they can be responsive to the community needs and that's what we think this bill does." Lucy Stewart, Acting Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, addressed section 2 and 3 of the bill. She explained these two sections of the bill are housecleaning. She stated section 2 requires the signature of the owner whose property is being subdivided on the parcel map. She said they accept partials, easements and rights of way and feel the owner should sign the map. She explained section 3 requires the property owner agree to the preparation of the map when they sign land dedications. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 267 and opened the hearing on a bill draft request from Clark County. She told the committee a bill is being proposed by the county. She stated she understands there have been language changes to the proposal. She asked Ms. Fretwell and Mr. Leavitt if they need time to work out the language prior to asking for a bill draft request. Ms. Fretwell apologized that it is late in the session and this is a late request, but she stated Clark County wants the proposal to go to the bill drafter so that input from the Legislative Counsel Bureau can be received. She stated as they need to make adjustments, they will deal with that at a later time. She stated the county feels it needs this proposal in its entirety so that they can support an unincorporated town and its development. She provided the proposal to the committee (Exhibit I). Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas, stated he had not seen the proposal but understands what it does. He explained it does not affect Las Vegas but does affect Henderson, Boulder City, Mesquite, etc. He said, "We are talking about a big, huge sales tax fight here is what we are talking about." Senator O'Connell stated since it does affect the SCCRT (Supplemental City County Relief Tax) and it is going to be something that addresses an issue for Clark County, she advised Ms. Fretwell to call her people and ask if they want a fight where they might lose the bill afterwards, or if they want to work the language out prior to the meeting. She warned Ms. Fretwell that it will take longer to draft an amendment than it would take now to agree before the proposal is drafted. She asked Mr. Leavitt if this bill will affect all of the entities in Clark County. Mr. Leavitt responded that it would affect every entity in the county. Senator O'Connell stated, "My personal advice, since it is so late in the session, you are really better off to have the language right to have it come in so it can go out of the committee quickly; and when you get it to the other side, there's not going to be a hangup there. You know if there is a fight in the committee, the committee is not going to let it go through without amendments." Ms. Fretwell responded: The direction that I received on Friday was to pursue the entire bill [proposal] in its entirety. We realize this is probably going to be a fight. However, it really shouldn't be. The impact to the city and to the other cities is fairly minimal compared to what has been an inequitable system for the last 10 years in Spring Valley. We feel this is a fair approach and an equitable approach that helps us get ready for an unincorporated town. Senator O'Connell told the committee that Clark County is trying to be proactive to a situation in Summerlin, as opposed to being reactive to. She explained it has to do with infrastructure in creating a city where there is no one living in the city yet. Ms. Fretwell explained that was one portion of it. She explained there are three parts to the bill. She stated the first part of the bill creates an unincorporated town for the Summerlin South area which is south of Desert Inn in Las Vegas. She said a part of that is changing with NRS [chapter] 354 which allows to add revenues of this unincorporated town via property taxes. She noted the second part of the bill addresses the inequities of the SCCRT distribution to the unincorporated towns. She told the committee if an unincorporated town is created after 1981, they do not receive a portion of the motor vehicle privilege tax and the SCCRT. She stressed this is what they are looking for. She outlined the third part of the bill which weaves Spring Valley into the situation. She explained that Spring Valley has not been receiving either of those two revenues since they were created over 10 years ago. She testified that other urban unincorporated towns have been subsidizing the growth in Spring Valley. She asserted this is not fair to the towns or to the taxpaying citizens in those towns. She explained that Summerlin South is the same situation, but a much larger developmental area. She stated both situations should be remedied at the same time. She commented: It would be silly to move forward and leave out Spring Valley. That is the only direct hit, if you will, to the cities in this bill. We estimate it is about a $5 million impact to all of the local government entities that would be affected. Probably about a million dollars to the city and that's it. I'm not saying that's a drop in the bucket, but it is not $15 million that if we were receiving the cigarette, liquor taxes and things that we currently don't receive for the strip. There's some inequities we would like resolved and we think this is just a small portion of that. I don't mean to belittle a million dollars, but in comparison to some of the other inequities, this is a very small portion. Mr. Leavitt stated, "What she said is accurate, that it only involves a $1-million hit to us out of current revenue. However, the more that Summerlin grows, it will take a little bit now and hit you hard later." SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO ASK FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. A discussion of how this proposal would affect other counties and town laws ensued. The committee discussed how the board of county commissioners would spend this revenue. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 15, 1995 Page