MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 22, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:10 p.m., on Monday, May 22, 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 Max Bennett, Assembly District 14 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Tatro, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association Susan Dunt, Workers' Compensation Manager, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration, Pat Coward, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, Washoe County Steve Bradhurst, Chairman, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Governing Board, and Vice Chairman, Washoe County Board of County Brian Herr, External Affairs, Nevada Bell Jonnie Finch Pullman, Deputy City Manager, City of Sparks Gale Bowmen, Communications Director, Communications Division, City of Reno Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Department Diane Loper, Domestic Violence Task Force, Washoe County James T. Endres, Assistant Vice President, Law and Government Affairs, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Margaret McMillan, Government and Business Affairs Manager, Sprint Central Telephone-Nevada Fred Schmidt, Consumer Advocate, Office of Advocate for Customers of Public Utilities, Office of the Attorney General Bob Barengo, Representative, Cellular One Nevada and California Anastasia J. LaRue, First Vice President, Nevada Chapter of National Emergency Number Association Richard A. Mirgon, Communications Director, Douglas County Sharon Counterman, President, Nevada Chapter of National Emergency Number Association Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry Carolyn Stockton, Director, Nevada Rural Housing Authority, Department of Business and Industry Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties Tonie Jacobs, Staff Professional Trainee, Nevada Rural Housing Authority, Department of Business and Industry Kimberly Morgan, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 39. ASSEMBLY BILL 39: Revises provisions governing state purchasing. Tom Tatro, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration, testified this bill removes the requirement that the university system use Purchasing Division contracts. He explained education discounts offered to the university system are not available to the rest of the state. He said they have purchasing operations of their own in each of their business centers at University of Nevada, Reno and University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He testified two sections of the bill allow the university system to use Purchasing Division contracts if the university chooses to use them. Senator O'Connell asked if a problem brought this bill to Mr. Tatro's attention. Mr. Tatro responded that working with the university system, it became clear that their access to educational discounts gave them a better deal by using those than by using the Purchasing Division contracts. He stated this is addressed in sections 1 and 10 of the bill. He provided a handout to the committee (Exhibit C). Senator Townsend, referring to section 1 of the bill, asked if the university can use the Purchasing Division contracts if those contracts provide a better deal than the educational discounts. Mr. Tatro stated the university can use whichever system provides the best discount. Senator Townsend suggested that this intent be included in the bill. Senator O'Connell asked how this process would work. Mr. Tatro responded that they provide a copy of the contract to the university system. He said another change in the bill will allow the university to order from the vendor without having to go through the Purchasing Division. Senator O'Connell asked if the university has to pay a fee to the Purchasing Division if the division handles the paperwork on the contract. Mr. Tatro responded that it is a 5 percent handling fee. Senator O'Connell asked what the Purchasing Division does when it charges 5 percent. Mr. Tatro responded they establish a contract and currently they generate the payment to the bidder, and facilitate the collection from the bidder. He stated typically where they are involved with the payment, there are two people whose full time job is paying vendors. He remarked the Purchasing Division often gets lower prices because they are timely in their payments to the vendors. He cited promptness of payment and a single contact source as the reason the Purchasing Division can get lower prices on contracts. He stated it used to be a 15 percent charge but has been changed to 5 percent. Senator O'Connell asked if the university system thinks they can save that 5 percent through their educational discounts. She asked if they can do that, would the Purchasing Division explain why the university can get a better price? Mr. Tatro responded there will be educational discounts on some items. He explained on some items, which the Purchasing Division does not have contracted, the university system will purchase large quantities to receive a discount. He told the committee, "I am confident they will not beat our contract prices." Senator O'Connell asked if the university system will be paying a higher price for their supplies because of this bill. Mr. Tatro responded they will either match the price and save the markup, or use the Purchasing Division contract. He stated the bill allows for that flexibility. He stated they will have the best of both worlds. Senator O'Connell asked if other agencies will ask for this ability also. Mr. Tatro responded that one change in this bill will remove that 5 percent charge and will reduce the Purchasing Division charge for conducting these transactions by allowing the agencies to purchase on their own. Senator O'Connell stated, "I remember what we went through trying to get all of the state agencies coordinated because we thought we could get a much better price for taxpayer dollars." Mr. Tatro responded that the university system is separate because they have a Purchasing Division at both business centers; they use products not used by other state agencies; and they are eligible for educational discounts. Senator O'Connell asked for examples of products not used by other state agencies. Mr. Tatro cited scientific equipment, laboratory equipment, medical school supplies, and engineering school supplies. Senator O'Connell asked if the laboratory equipment is that much different from what the sanitation department and the health department use? Mr. Tatro responded there is a small laboratory in Reno for the state Health Division and their usage is much lower than the university system. Senator O'Donnell asked about the 5 percent fee. He stated a 5 percent fee on a $100 item is a lot less than a 5 percent fee on a $350,000 item. He asked why the Purchasing Division does not charge what the item costs, instead of a percentage. Mr. Tatro responded that the budget is based upon matching the revenue to the expenses required to provide services that they deliver. He told the committee they have reduced the budget $1 million from the previous biennium. He testified the Purchasing Division is attempting to hold the costs down. He stated by statute they must maintain a uniform charge for their services, so they base it on a percentage of sales. He explained they have a cap of $800 so that they only charge on the first $16,000. Senator Shaffer asked if they are talking about the same quality of products. Mr. Tatro responded they are talking about identical products. Senator O'Donnell asked what is the length of the contract change. Mr. Tatro stated they currently can contract for 1 year and they can extend that contract from year to year. He testified they are asking for the ability to contract for a period up to 2 years. Senator O'Donnell asked if he meant a "supplier" when he said "contract." Mr. Tatro responded, "Yes, at a fixed price or at an increase with an escalation provision." Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 39 and opened the hearing on A.B. 354. ASSEMBLY BILL 354: Authorizes director of the department of personnel to adopt certain regulations regarding noncompetitive appointment of employees with certain disabilities. Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel, testified in favor of A.B. 354. She stated it would amend Nevada Revised Statutes 284.305 that is the statute that lists those instances where state jobs can be filled without competition. She stated this would cover State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) employees who have sustained injury and cannot return to their original position. She explained the position would have to be at the same or lower pay grade as the employee's pre-injury position. She stated names of qualified employees would be placed on appropriate hiring lists and referred for interviews as vacancies occur. She noted these employees would receive a preference in the hiring process. She stated expanding this statute will aid in the recovery of injured workers. She outlined the streamlined process which will return state employees to work before they become dependent upon workers' compensation. She cited benefits to the state and to the worker as a result of passage of this bill. Senator O'Connell asked how this bill is different from the SIIS and rehabilitation bill which the Senate Committee on Government Affairs has already heard. Ms. Willis responded that the two bills address different statutes of law. A discussion ensued on how the bill would affect injured workers. Ms. Willis reminded the committee that the worker must meet the minimum qualifications for any position. Senator O'Donnell asked if SIIS will pay the difference in the salary that the worker was receiving before the injury and the salary the worker receives now that he is injured? Ms. Willis stated the goal is to place the injured worker in a job that is at the same pay grade, but there may not be a job at that level. She stated the pay may be less, but the worker may need to learn new skills and acquire additional training to move up in a new occupational area. She stated this would allow the appointment to a position. She emphasized that it would not put them in a higher-grade position. Senator O'Donnell stressed that he was concerned with equity. A discussion regarding the preferred worker program ensued. Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified in support of this bill. He stated this is a good concept. He stated until last session, many state agencies refused to accept workers on light duty and the workers could not come back until they could perform 100 percent. He stated this is an additional step in rehabilitating injured workers and getting them back on the job. Susan Dunt, Workers' Compensation Manager, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration, spoke in support of the bill. She testified they have been working with the Department of Personnel on a proactive return-to-work program. She cited some regulations placed in personnel regulations which deal with temporary modified duty for employees. She stated this bill would expand that system to employees with permanent disabilities. She explained that some agencies are more cooperative about accepting disabled workers than others. She stated there should be consistency in the system. She emphasized they try to find appropriate placements for their injured workers. Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Dunt to explain how they deal with this situation. Ms. Dunt responded they try to find a lateral transfer for the worker. She stated if they can offer an employee 80 percent of their base wage from their previous job, under the SIIS regulations, the employee is required to take that position. She said if it is below that 80 percent, SIIS has to look at that position to see if the employee will advance in the next 2 years to 80 percent of their base wage. She explained if that is the case, the employee must cooperate and take the position. She cited the example of a correctional officer, a grade 29 position, and the vacancies at the time of the worker's return are grade 25, the vacancy can be offered to the employee, but if the worker chooses not to take it, that is his or her option. She stated the division is often at the mercy of the vacancies when trying to place a person. Senator O'Donnell asked if the person wanted to take that grade 25 position, and wanted to be compensated since he or she lost an ability or the base money he or she have lost, is there no renummeration system? Ms. Dunt stated there is no independent system from SIIS. Senator O'Donnell stated that it sounds like a win-win situation if SIIS gets the person back to work and pays the difference up to the 80 percent, rather than have the worker have to be rehabilitated. Ms. Dunt explained other programs which they are working on at this time. She outlined on-the-job training programs. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 354 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 473. SENATE BILL 473: Authorizes imposition of surcharge on telephone service in certain counties for enhancement of telephone system for reporting emergencies. Pat Coward, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, Washoe County, introduced his panel of testifiers to the committee and explained the topic each testifier would cover. Steve Bradhurst, Chairman, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Governing Board, and Vice Chairman, Washoe County Board of County Commissioners, provided the position of the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Governing Board, the Washoe County Board of Commissioners, the City of Sparks, and the City of Washoe regarding S.B. 473. He stated the position of all the entities he represented was that they support this bill and have done so at public meetings. Mr. Bradhurst told the committee he would provide the origin for S.B. 473. He stated the Regional Planning Governing Board was created in 1989. He said the goal of this board was the creation of a comprehensive regional plan for the Truckee Meadows area and to implement that plan. He explained the composition of the board. He outlined the regional plan for the committee. He stated the focus is land use, protection of natural resources, provision of regional services, and investment of capital in the Truckee Meadows area. He stated a component of the plan is public facilities and services. He read from the plan: ...Police and fire protection, as well as other public safety services, are essential to maintaining and promoting community health, safety and welfare. As the Truckee Meadows region continues to grow, increased pressure on existing facilities will dictate the need for both the expansion and the improvement of public safety services. Mr. Bradhurst stated this plan was adopted in 1991, and as the plan was being implemented, a fire protection services study was conducted in March, 1993. He testified the plan calls for the implementation of an enhanced 9-1-1 system. He explained S.B. 473 is the product of this study. He explained an enhanced system provides for address identification that comes up on the screen when someone calls in an emergency. He said if there is any reason the person cannot communicate the emergency, the address identification flashes on the screen. He restated the need for the bill. Senator Porter asked if all the agencies Mr. Bradhurst referenced had public hearings on this bill and if they had taken official action in support of the bill. Mr. Bradhurst responded, "Yes." Senator O'Connell asked if this bill requested a surcharge to purchase equipment to bring up the address of the emergency call. Mr. Bradhurst responded, "Yes." Senator O'Connell asked if there was a plan for this to come off the telephone bill anytime, or would there be reassessment to continue upkeep and repair. Brian Herr, External Affairs, Nevada Bell, clarified how expenses are collected and distributed. He told the committee there are equipment costs associated with the automatic location identification feature. He stated, however, the largest share of the budget is the maintenance of the data base that actually provides the address link with the telephone number to the dispatch personnel. He stated the ongoing expense is about $500,000 to $600,000 per year above what the local governments are paying for their 9-1-1 service. He said it is not a case of buying the equipment and then having small incremental expenditures. Mr. Herr testified Nevada Bell and many members of the telephone industry have opposed surcharges on the telephone bill. He stated this has been a Nevada Bell policy for many years. He said for S.B. 473 they have made an exception to that policy. He testified: We were approached by the cities of Reno and Sparks and by Washoe County and asked to look at the surcharge as a funding method for an enhanced 9-1-1. At that point, we asked to do an independent research to determine a couple of very important points. Do the people in our serving area really want the service and are they willing to pay for it on their telephone bill? We surveyed over 450 residential customers and over 200 business customers. The survey was conducted by an independent market research group. It was done in September of last year, so it is very current information. The survey was jointly funded. We did ask those two questions . . . 94 percent of the residential customers surveyed wanted the enhanced 9- 1-1 service and 96 percent of the businesses surveyed desired the service. The next question was, 'Were they willing to pay for the service.' Overall, 75 percent of the customers were willing to pay a surcharge at a cap of 25 cents per month for the enhanced 9-1-1 service. The support increases to about 80 percent for a surcharge at a 20-cent level. Let me explain why I am using those two figures. We have done quite a bit of work around the budget for this particular service and we show the 25-cent cap will fund the budget adequately in the first 3 years of the enhanced service. From that point forward, the budget would require a surcharge . . . of 20 cents per month. I will conclude by saying Nevada Bell will continue to have a policy in opposition to surcharges on our telephone bill. We feel the strong figures that came out of the research warranted an exception to that policy in this particular case. This is not an unusual way of funding enhanced 9-1-1 services. I was told today by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), that 27 of 44 states which have addressed enhanced 9-1-1 services are getting some funding through the telephone companies. Nevada Bell stands in support of S.B. 473 today. Jonnie Finch Pullman, Deputy City Manager, City of Sparks, provided the committee with a complete copy of the bill with the requested technical amendments (Exhibit D). She testified these are minor technical amendments. She clarified the added language for the bill is in the shaded areas on the exhibit. She explained the language that is to be deleted. Senator O'Connell asked why this was not found before the bill draft request became a bill? Mr. Coward stated these are technical amendments that came back from a committee meeting between Washoe County, the City of Sparks and the City of Reno. He stated these are technical language definitions. He explained the addition to the bill is from the Public Service Commission of Nevada since they do not have jurisdiction over the cellular telephone companies. He stated this duty would revert from the Public Service Commission of Nevada to the county commissioners. Senator O'Connell asked if the Public Service Commission of Nevada had taken a stand on the bill. Mr. Herr stated they discussed this legislation with the Public Service Commission of Nevada on several occasions. He stated they were not aware of the difficult position they had put the commission in with the oversight of the collection of the expenses from the cellular industry. He explained the need for this part of the amendment to the bill. Ms. Pullman explained each section and the changes to the sections. Senator O'Donnell asked if they would calculate the surcharge into the rate base or is it outside the rate base? Mr. Herr responded this would be a line item on the customer's bill and would not be part of the rate base. Senator O'Donnell remarked the Public Service Commission of Nevada would have no authority to govern the profitability of the company. Ms. Pullman testified the 25-cent surcharge would go directly to the county; it would not go to the telephone company. She stated local elected officials would administer the proceeds from the surcharge. Senator O'Donnell asked how the telephone companies get paid. Ms. Pullman responded this is a regional effort and the county will administer it for the three local governments. Senator O'Donnell asked if the county was purchasing equipment from Nevada Bell. Ms. Pullman explained the three local governments, via the county purchasing department, would purchase the equipment with input from Nevada Bell. She stated this is a service provided by the local governments and the surcharge would go to the local governments to administer. Senator O'Donnell asked what the interaction process was between the local governments and Nevada Bell? Mr. Herr explained that Nevada Bell is currently the provider of some telephony that goes into the 9-1-1 service in a community, however the dispatchers and the equipment that are on-site at a dispatch center are provided by the local governments. He stated as business gets more competitive in the future, he expects other vendors will come forward and may replace Nevada Bell as the telephony provider. He commented he expects it to be a competitive situation in the future. Ms. Pullman testified that they are talking about purchasing a piece of equipment for the dispatch center to provide the address mechanism on the 9-1-1 calls. Senator O'Donnell asked if the 25-cent surcharge was a maximum? Ms. Pullman responded, "Yes." Senator O'Donnell asked if Nevada Bell gets to decide what the figure would be. Ms. Pullman testified the figure would be subject to audit. Senator Townsend asked the persons testifying on the bill to tell the committee if they support the bill and if they support the funding mechanism. He explained they are two independent issues for the committee to deal with. Gale Bowmen, Communications Director, Communications Division, City of Reno, testified next. She explained how the operation of the 9-1-1 service occurs. She stated the two primary answering points for the 9-1-1 service in the area have sought an enhanced 9-1-1 system available for the community. She explained that an enhanced 9-1-1 system reduces response time and saves lives. She offered to cite examples if the committee needed that testimony. She stated they supported funding the enhanced 9-1-1 system through the surcharge because the cities and counties have problems funding emergency services overall and this service in particular. She stated this is alternative funding which will provide an enhanced 9-1-1 system. Ms. Bowmen explained from the operation side, without an enhanced 9-1-1 system, they will continue to have difficulty providing service in emergency calls to any individual who cannot communicate the emergency to the dispatch personnel. She stated during a domestic violence call last year, the male partner ripped the phone off the wall, after the female partner had initiated the 9-1-1 call, and used the phone as a weapon on the female partner. She stated because the dispatch crew does not have this feature, there was a 45 minute delay in response and the woman was severely beaten. She stated, "That is exactly why we need to have this benefit, to make sure those incidents, while they may be rare, may be reduced even further than they are today." Senator Townsend asked the witnesses to explain where they would house the receiving units to be purchased from the surcharge. Mr. Cooper explained there is existing equipment for 9-1-1 in Reno and Sparks manned by center personnel. He stated this will provide enhanced 9-1-1 system equipment that will provide telephone numbers and locations of calls. He stressed the calls must come to 9-1-1 to receive this feature. Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Department, further clarified Senator Townsend's concerns. He stated there are two public safety answering points contemplated in Washoe County and those points are the Reno Police Department Dispatch Center and the Sparks Police Department Dispatch Center. He stated the telephone software will call the appropriate dispatch center. He explained this is how it works in Las Vegas. North Las Vegas receives their emergency 9-1-1 calls at their dispatch center, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) receives the remaining emergency 9-1-1 calls at their dispatch center. He explained Henderson operates the same. He testified the telephone software will route the call to the appropriate place. Mr. Cooper outlined the advantages of the system to the committee. He cited examples of problems with calls where the caller cannot communicate with the dispatch personnel. He stated: The most striking one that I can recall occurred a few months ago where we had a home intrusion. A criminal broke into the home of an elderly couple and wanted to break into their safe. The male half of the family was able to pick up the phone, dial 9-1-1, set the phone down before the criminal discovered he had done that. The criminal then began torturing the elderly couple with his knife in an attempt to get the combination to the safe. All of this we heard and we recorded on tape. Meanwhile, our units were rolling. Sergeant Eric Ducharne was the first one on the scene, came through the door, drew his gun. The suspect drew his gun and Mr. Ducharne killed him, saving the lives of the elderly couple . . . a very heinous crime. Emergency 9-1-1 was the reason that we were able to save that couple's lives. We have children who call who have an emergency. They don't know their telephone number or location. We are still able to get there to handle the problem. We have stupid crook tricks. Crooks will call up METRO and make a bomb threat and we are able to take them into custody quite quickly, as a result of that. We get crank phone calls; we are able to deal with those. Law enforcement is able to keep computerized files on dangerous locations . . . We are able to know what homes have serious medical problems so that if someone does call, we can call it immediately up on the screen and we can know this address . . . there is a person there with a cardiac problem. All of these things are an enhancement that law enforcement simply cannot do without. I am surprised that Washoe Valley has not had E 9-1-1 before this. If you will pardon a little flippancy here . . . you cannot buy a candy bar for 25 cents anymore; 25 cents a month is a pittance to pay for something as vital as E 9-1-1. Senator Porter asked if the emergency 9-1-1 system went on the ballot in Las Vegas in 1987? Mr. Cooper responded that it went on the ballot because of the tremendous costs involved, because Las Vegas did not even have a 9-1-1 system. He reminded the committee the costs were for the entire 9-1-1 package. He said if it were just the enhancement, which is what Washoe County is seeking, Las Vegas would have attempted a surcharge also. He stated Las Vegas included the program in the property tax because they had to purchase the hardware, and the software all at once. Diane Loper, Domestic Violence Task Force, Washoe County, supported the testimony provided in support of S.B. 473. James T. Endres, Assistant Vice President, Law and Government Affairs, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) stated AT&T's support of any community that plans to set up E 9-1-1 services. He stated it is critical for society to have this enhanced service. He said, however, he would address the funding mechanism (Exhibit E). He stressed the funding mechanism is not appropriate at this time. He said there are alternatives and shared those alternatives listed in the exhibit. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Endres if he had shared this information with the proponents of the bill. Mr. Endres responded that he began discussing the alternatives with them during the prior week and testified he feels the proponents are clear regarding his alternatives. Senator O'Connell asked if the proponents had accepted any of Mr. Endres' proposals. Mr. Endres responded, "I don't know. I cannot answer that." Senator Raggio commented, "Mr. Endres, you have listed four proposals. The first proposal was that E 9-1-1 could be deployed by utilizing a portion of the amount of excess earnings that Nevada Bell must return for the benefit of its ratepayers. According to the report that you reference, the ratepayers that are mostly in Washoe County are entitled to receive a telephone credit in excess of $3.6 million. Is that correct?" Mr. Endres responded, "Yes." Senator Raggio continued, "Your suggestion is that to deploy E 9-1-1 would cost less than that...and this suggestion was one that was suggested by the state's consumer advocate." Mr. Endres stated, "Yes." Senator Raggio asked, "If you did that, if that were feasible, and I would want to hear from the proponents what they think of the proposal, that would not answer the continuation of this service? How would you deal with the continued operation of the service?" Mr. Endres answered, "It is my expectation that...or hopes that the continued ongoing maintenance and administration of the enhanced E 9-1-1 would be accomplished through the existing legislative authority provided for under [NRS] 244A.765." Margaret McMillan, Government and Business Affairs Manager, Sprint Central Telephone-Nevada, Las Vegas, stated this is a departure from custom. She stated she is normally on the same side as Nevada Bell. She said Sprint is in support of 9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1 and recognizes the system saves lives. She stated they have worked with cities and counties to establish the service. She stressed the intent of the bill has merit, but the funding mechanism has faults. She stated that local municipalities provide 9-1-1 and E 9-1-1 through existing taxing authorities. She commented the bill, as it is presently written, only applies to Washoe County. She stated if the bill becomes law, it will be easily amended to apply to other areas in the future and create additional taxes on telecommunications services. She testified it is a precedent that she would not like to see established. Ms. McMillan informed the committee a recent Assembly bill addressed that when telephone service is disconnected due to nonpayment, the customer no longer has access to 9-1-1 or other emergency services. She stated telephone bills already include a variety of federal, state and local taxes which equal the amount of the local basic service. She feels any additional tax burden further adds to the cost of telephone service, makes it less affordable, and more people will drop off the telephone network. Senator O'Connell asked if Ms. McMillan had the figures to support her testimony. Ms. McMillan responded, "Assuming that you have long-distance service as well, it will run about the same amount it currently does. There's a federal excise tax on long distance. There's city franchise fees on basic service and on long distance. There's a Federal Communications Commission imposed network access fee charge and there's TDD taxes on there as well." Senator O'Connell stated, "So you are telling us that in Clark County we pay as much in taxes as we do for the service." Ms. McMillan responded, "Assuming that you have long distance. It is not true if you only have basic service. But that's right, it is about the same amount." Fred Schmidt, Consumer Advocate, Office of Advocate for Customers of Public Utilities, Office of the Attorney General, testified against the bill. He stated, "My reasons for testifying against the bill are several. I think it is a dangerous precedent, not only because the bill is a surcharge on phone bills, but because it is only applied to one county's phone bills which discriminates in the manner and mechanism of which it applies to other customers of the same company or other telephone customers in the state." He explained that he supports an enhanced 9-1-1 system, but offered the committee an alternative funding mechanism for the project (Exhibit F). He stressed: In my view, you do not need to pass this new tax in order to develop enhanced 9-1-1 service. You can use Nevada Bell money that was generated from its ratepayers in order to provide it. You could also still do it in a manner that does not require Nevada Bell ratepayers outside of Washoe valley to fund the system in Washoe County, because those ratepayers should not have to. They have already, in most of those counties, funded their own 9-1-1 systems and done so through the mechanisms that this Legislature already put in place. Senator Raggio asked how many counties have 9-1-1 service. Mr. Schmidt responded Clark, Lyon, and Douglas County. Senator Raggio asked if everyone present agreed that it is a desirable service. Mr. Schmidt informed the committee that some rural counties do not believe it is appropriate or necessary to incorporate the address figure. He explained the address identification for many rural counties is not of real value. Senator Raggio stated, "I do not see this as a great benefit to the telephone company. Nevada Bell is not in this to make a lot of money. They are in this to assist in the collection of the surcharge. Is that really what they are doing here?" Mr. Schmidt responded, "Well, Nevada Bell actually has a financial interest in this...Nevada Bell currently is the only provider of the equipment that would be purchased by the county for implementing the system...They will be paid right back with some of that money. They will also be paid back in the provision of the data base for identification of the addresses, because once again, Nevada Bell has a unique situation where it is the only company that has that service." Senator Raggio remarked, "They are going to be paid for that service...they also receive some amount to collect the surcharge." Mr. Schmidt responded, "Yes, there would be expenses they incur in that regard too." Senator Raggio asked, "If we go to your suggestion, what is the difference whether...this is paid for by a rebate that they would be getting otherwise, or if it is paid for by a surcharge and they get the rebate in that case. What is the difference?" Mr. Schmidt answered, "The difference is that we do not have to increase the phone bill on a continuing basis and add another line item surcharge on a continuing basis that I assume would not be removed indefinitely." Senator Raggio stated, "We would have to provide, at some point, for the continuation of the service. As I understand it, there is an annual cost." Mr. Schmidt replied, "I do not know if Nevada Bell would have to do it. If the need were there to continue the service and the county was not willing to fund it the way all the other counties are [funding] in the future, and the source of revenue from Nevada Bell ran out, then there would be a need to address that. But, under my proposal, that would not be for at least several years." Senator Raggio commented, "This is not really a precedent, because we have already authorized a precedent for a surcharge for TDD and TDD relay. That's already a surcharge on telephone service throughout the state, so this is not really a first time precedent." Mr. Schmidt stated, "I agree with that senator, and I think I would have less opposition to this bill concept if it were done on a statewide basis, so that we had a common, recordable source of funding throughout the state. The fact that other counties have already gone to their voters and asked them to fund this, and have put in place on that basis, is part of my opposition." Senator Raggio stressed: That does not necessarily make it the best way because they have already done that. There's an alternative where this could be done statewide and the voters in those counties could maybe have that tax taken off. They could get a tax reduction. The reason I am pressing this is because I was one of the sponsors of the surcharge for the TDD, the access for the deaf. I recognize that I ruffled a lot of feathers of the telecommunications industry when I supported that. It was modeled after other states. California for example had a surcharge for that purpose. As I recall, it was much less than this, maybe $1.20 per year. What we were providing for was the easiest way to fund access to a very necessary service. We were providing access to those who were hearing impaired. Maybe we were way ahead of everybody who today sees the need to provide for disadvantaged people. Maybe we are to be commended instead of criticized. In this particular case, I see this as a way to fund access to the telephone system for very essential public-safety functions. I'm not having a lot of problem with setting a precedent. That may sound unusual, because I'm usually one who preaches against taxing and additional taxation. I think we are overlooking the fact that this is providing access to people who use the telephone system for public-safety purposes. I could take the position that this is a far better way to do it, than to raise people's taxes for this purpose. The fact that some other counties have gone ahead and raised taxes to provide this, I think is not too much of a selling point. Why is it fairer for real property owners to pay the cost of this. Why is not it fair for everybody who has this service to pay a much smaller charge and have it used for a very essential public-safety purpose? I mean, people who are not property owners should be paying some of this cost, I would think. You, collectively, lose me when you say it is fairer to go ahead and raise property taxes to pay for this kind of a service. Mr. Schmidt responded: I supported your TDD surcharge and testified as one of the proponents of it. I guess the only distinction I made was with TDD, I felt we were talking about a surcharge that applied to utilize the telephone for communicating via the telephone back and forth between people with the telephone instrument. Here, I think there is a distinction, at least in my mind, that although you are utilizing the telephone as a vehicle, the service you are really paying for is county emergency services. The ability to access and to have those provided to you. If that is not a distinction in your mind, I can appreciate that. I still have a strong preference for a common system of application as opposed to a surcharge on one phone customer's bill and not on another. Those always cause us problems in terms of explanation. How do we explain to the person who has a business in Washoe County and lives in Carson City when they say, 'Why is this surcharge on my bill here and not there.' You can do that, but it causes a lot of unnecessary dislocation in terms of customers' support for the mechanisms that we have in place today for pricing utility services. Senator Porter asked, "If 90 percent want enhanced service and 96 percent of the businesses want enhanced service; 75 percent are willing to pay 25 cents; 80 percent are willing 20 cents; could it not be an enhanced service they could pay for if they wanted it, since 80 percent are going to pay for it anyway? Could it be an option for 30 cents?" Mr. Schmidt responded: I guess I would make a comment on the poll. I think the poll information is a little misleading. The amount of people who are willing to pay for it...we did a poll like that for solar power once and people were willing to pay more than their disposable income was for it. I do not think those polls are necessarily accurate. Secondly, I think in some of the numbers and percentages that were given to you, there were combined categories between people who were very willing to pay on their phone bill that way and people who were somewhat willing. We all know on those polls, the way the question is asked, and whether any other options or alternatives are given is important too. I think you probably have a percentage of people who are not interested or willing to pay any more tax or surcharge. You might have, because of the appeal or the attraction, the issue being 9-1-1, have a significant percentage of people who are willing to. But I do not think the polls are a very good basis on which to adopt this type of legislation. At least I think you would want to see those questions first... Senator Porter remarked, "Pardon me for interrupting, I guess my question is that it is not a tax, it would be an option, like caller identification or call waiting, that I could chose to have it or not for 50 cents, whatever it is." Ms. McMillan responded, "Senator, someone from the E 9-1-1 system would probably be better able to answer that. As I understand it, one of the benefits is to be able to call back and have that information for everybody. What you are talking about, you would have one time when it would come up with just your number, and then if I am paying for it, the next time it would come up with an address. I am not sure that can be done." Senator Porter stated, "I may not understand, but if you have 266,000 access lines in the county...it seems to me if 60 or 70 percent would like to have it, why not just provide it to those who want to pay for it?" Ms. McMillan reiterated, "I'm not sure the system can do that. I'm being told it cannot." Bob Barengo, Representative, Cellular One Nevada and California, testified against S.B. 473. He asked how enhanced 9-1-1 would track the address of a cellular phone which is mobile in a vehicle? He asked why they should be included in the surcharge when their customers already have a residential phone that would pay the surcharge? He stressed that Cellular One has no equipment which would interface with the equipment that is being provided by Nevada Bell. He stated, "I think it is a case of us paying for something that is...no public benefit is being received by it. I would ask the committee to leave us out [of the bill]." Senator O'Connell suggested a meeting of the minds needs to occur. She asked both groups to work together to achieve consensus on the proposals and amendments and return to the committee with recommendations. Anastasia J. LaRue, First Vice President, Nevada Chapter of National Emergency Number Association, addressed the mapping questions posed earlier by the committee. She stated she is a computer systems technician for the city of Reno Police and Fire departments. She stated they have worked on a geographic computer base for 8 years in preparation of the enhanced 9-1-1 feature. She explained they cover a lot of outlying areas, such as Gerlach, Via, Sutcliff, and in some cases they have to create an address for people so that it can come into the computer system. She stated they are prepared to handle a variety of mapping and geographic problems. Ms. LaRue addressed another concern of the committee. She stated it is true that at this point they technically cannot see an address when a cellular phone call is made to the dispatch center. She said the dispatch center makes the notation that it is a mobile phone. She stressed that cellular phones have provided one of the biggest problems that they have in their dispatch centers. She stated they continually get phone calls from people in Carson City, depending on what cell site they hit, their 9-1-1 calls will end up in Reno. She cited Truckee, California people will end up in the Reno 9-1-1 center. She stated they run to addresses which do not exist. She commented that the Federal Communications Commission is working on some technology to use global positioning chips to allow 9-1-1 centers, via satellite, to start seeing where mobile people are. She stated the mobile telephone people use 9-1-1 as much as any residential users do, and they are "the biggest problem children." She stated NVNENA is moving forward with 9-1-1 throughout the state. She explained there are some areas of the state which do not have basic 9-1-1. She said the state organization will be coming to subsequent legislative sessions looking for basic 9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1 services throughout the state. She emphasized they will not exclude cellular phone service in their efforts. Richard A. Mirgon, Communications Director, Douglas County, advised the committee to consider ongoing costs for these services. He stated that Douglas County, with 20,000 access lines, pays $77,000 per year to CONTEL just to maintain the data base, the equipment, and the access lines to the computer system. He stressed it is not a small cost, but it is an ongoing cost. He stated when addressing the problem of funding 9-1-1, the committee must consider the ongoing costs. He testified, "If you are going to solve the problem, you may as well solve the entire problem." Mr. Mirgon continued his testimony: My second concern is disparity among different locales. I do not think there is any way in the world you can fund a 9-1-1 system with 25 cents per phone line statewide. If Douglas County were to do that, we would not even cover the costs of the maintenance on the equipment itself, or the data base. Subsequently, the Legislature has been wise in the past in passing separate legislation for different locales because of the diversity in the state. In this particular case, I think it is wise to do this for Washoe County. It addresses their problem in their community. In perspective to that, I think it would be difficult to go to the voters because of a lack of understanding. Today they can dial 9-1-1 in Washoe County. What they do not know is that they do not get the address, the location and the name. They see TV every night that shows that's's occurring and that's not a reality. To educate every voter that that's not happening becomes difficult. Along with that the issue, comes that they have an expectation that people are going to know where they are at. That problem, again, has to be resolved because from my way of thinking in public safety, one life was well worth any amount of administrative brain damage that was gone through to accomplish this. Finally, I would like to echo...cellular carriers are providing minimal location services in certain areas of the county. Portland is doing it. Ohio has a new system that they are providing. As we go into the wireless communication era, we have to address this issue. People have the expectation that if they dial 9-1-1 from a telephone, whether it is connected to a cord or not, they are going to get the help they have been getting for so many years. It is time to address that issue, it is time to get the cellular players to come up to the plate, not only pay their part, but to address the technology. Motorola, the major manufacturer of equipment in this country, clearly knows that they can provide that service down the road, and it is going to be a very short road, because they have been planning it for years. I think it is time for cellular to come up to the plate and be part of the process and provide that service to their people who they are providing dial tone to. Sharon Counterman, President, Nevada Chapter of National Emergency Number Association (NVNENA), testified she is a supervisor with the Las Vegas Police Department, and was the transition coordinator for the 9-1-1 service when it went on- line in 1986-1987. She reminded the committee and the audience that TDD comes into the dispatch center the same as a hearing person calls 9-1-1. She stated they get the address whether or not someone speaks to them. She stated without enhanced 9-1-1, they could not help anyone. She stated NVNENA represents everyone. She urged the state to work together to help the public in the best way possible. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 473. Discussion of committee business ensued. She assigned responsibility for bill testimony on the Senate floor to different senators. She opened the hearing on A.B. 35. ASSEMBLY BILL 35: Reorganizes Nevada rural housing authority. Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, testified in favor of A.B. 35. Mr. Grady stated this bill was sponsored by Assemblyman Marvel who asked that the following comments be read into the record: A.B. 35 will remove the Nevada Rural Housing Authority from the Department of Business and Industry and instead, operate the agency under NRS 315 as originally intended. Nevada Rural Housing Authority was created by Nevada rural communities with the assistance of the Nevada League of Cities and the Nevada Association of Counties to meet the housing needs in their areas. State oversight was provided only until such time as the housing authority became self-supporting. That time is now here. The authority has always operated under the direction of a board of directors hiring an executive director and until recently, managed their own financing. Nevada Rural Housing Authority is supported totally by federal and private funding; no state funding has been used to assist in the purchase of any assets. The authority operates in 15 counties, excluding Clark and Washoe counties. Nevada Rural Housing Authority is the only housing authority under state control and has matured enough to break away from this oversight. The board is presently comprised of county and city officials along with private business representatives. They represent a good cross section of rural Nevada. Carolyn Stockton has been employed by the authority for the past 11 years and assumed her new duties as Executive Director in 1994. Senator O'Connell asked if this is the same bill which has been around for the last four sessions. Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties responded that it is. Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry, testified that there were several issues regarding state fiscal impact. She stated there is state cost allocation. There was a cost allocation to the attorney general's office. There was a cost allocation to the director's office. She explained those are the fiscal impacts to the bill. She stated there has not been a resolution yet, but all aspects are being examined. She explained her concern was the allocation to her office which totals about $23,000. Senator O'Connell asked if she had planned to have this money in her budget? Ms. McKinney-James responded, "Yes." Carolyn Stockton, Director, Nevada Rural Housing Authority, Department of Business and Industry, provided a handout to the committee which explained the issues of the bill. She drew the committee's attention to the personnel assigned to work with the authority. She assured the committee that all of the personnel understand the transfer and layoff rights if the bill passes. She testified the effective date of the bill is October 1, 1995. She explained the new positions which might come on-line for Business and Industry are effective October 1, also. She stated this will work out well for the personnel who will be affected if the bill passes. She pointed out the differences in staff assignments if the bill passes. Ms. Stockton testified regarding cost allocations. She stated in the past the Nevada Rural Housing Authority has paid cost allocations to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, personnel assessment and payroll assessment. She explained in 1994 and 1995 a cost assessment was paid to the Department of Business and Industry. She stated the state cost allocation and the attorney general's cost allocations are both new for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. She said with the passage of A.B. 35, the Nevada Rural Housing Authority will retain a lawyer or a law firm. She explained this will cost them approximately $100 per hour. She testified to have an attorney present at each board meeting will cost approximately $3,000 and there are a total of nine meetings scheduled for the next year. Ms. Stockton reminded the committee that the Nevada Rural Housing Authority is federally funded. She testified the employees are aware of all aspects of the situation should A.B. 35 pass. She stated they have to lay off every state and classified employee. She stated 50 percent of the employees have stated they will stay with the Nevada Rural Housing Authority and 50 percent would like to stay with the state. She stated that 50 percent will be working with the Department of Personnel and the Department of Business and Industry to place them in new positions. Senator Raggio stated this bill may have to go to the finance committee due to the large impact on several budgets. He asked how they would handle the transfer of employees? Ms. Stockton responded according to layoff rights, every employee in the Nevada Rural Housing Authority, when the bill becomes effective October 1, would receive a layoff notice. She stated at that time those employees have the option of "bumping" other employees within the Department of Business and Industry or they can opt for the layoff list. She explained the layoff list makes them number one in their classification for any department or agency that needs to hire a new position. Senator Raggio asked if someone would be bumped under personnel rules? Ms. Stockton replied they would be bumped if the employee opts for the bumping rights. The employee is required to give that bumping rights notice within 3-working days after they receive their layoff notice. She stated she is hoping that most of them decide to stay with the Nevada Rural Housing Authority and not go through the layoff or bumping procedure. She testified she understands that no employee is looking at the bumping rights that they have. Ms. McKinney-James told the committee it is critical to understand that this bill has been revised from the last session, but as long as the Nevada Rural Housing Authority is a state agency it is not recognized by the federal government within their definition of a "local entity." She testified this restricts the Nevada Rural Housing Authority from access to certain federal dollars, which impacts the programs for which they are responsible. She stated she feels in view of the nature of the clientele and the programs, the format set forth in A.B. 35 would be the best way to pursue the split at this time. She stated it is difficult to anticipate exactly what the fiscal impact would be, since the bill has been around for a period of time. She stated it would have been better if they could have resolved those issues before the bill came to the Legislature. She explained changes at the federal level, adding that the Nevada Rural Housing Authority will be in additional transition. She noted the Department of Business and Industry wanted the Nevada Rural Housing Authority to be as strong as possible to stand alone and deal with the new federal statutory authority. Mr. Hadfield testified that all work done to make the Nevada Rural Housing Authority an independent entity has been done with complete knowledge of the employees working for the Nevada Rural Housing Authority. He stated it was the position of the board members that they want all of the people who are working for the authority to remain with the authority. He stated they will be treated fairly and equitably. He said there has to be a mechanism to allow those employees to remain state employees if they so choose. He remarked there has been concern regarding the future of the authority and the transition to be made. He said there will be program cuts and there will be additional transitional adjustments. He noted, "We believe it is in the best interest of both the State of Nevada and the residents and local governments in Nevada to have this [be] an independent authority." Mr. Hadfield told the committee he wants them to be comfortable about the accountability of the Nevada Rural Housing Authority. He stated their main problem is that the Nevada Rural Housing Authority cannot afford to remain a state agency. They have been seeking to remove the Nevada Rural Housing Authority from the state for procedural matters. He stated because of the unavailability of federal funding and the high cost allocation system of Nevada, the authority will lose direct revenue at a critical time. He noted it is even more urgent for the authority to become an independent entity to function and access as much funding as possible; yet at the same time not be forced to pay additional costs which are much greater than they had been paying in the past. He urged the committee to pass this bill. Ms. Stockton continued her testimony by explaining how the budget was put together last year. She also explained various rulings of the federal government and how those affected work completed by the Nevada Rural Housing Authority. She referred to pages 3, 4, 7 and 8 of Exhibit G during her testimony. She stated page 4 is a proposed budget. She said she had reduced every expense she could if the authority stays within the state. She stated she would have to lay off four employees and would still have a $37,000 deficit in fiscal year 1996 and a $44,000 deficit in fiscal year 1997. She told them the non- state budget could be found on page 5 of Exhibit G. She pointed out the differences in the two budgets. She explained if they become an independent authority, she only has to reduce the staff by two positions. She stated they have replaced the Accountant I position with a Staff Professional Trainee position. She stated for a while they will have salary savings. She stated one of the rural county representative positions will come into the authority office and work out of the authority office to enable them to realize more savings. She explained page 7 is the weekly letter from the federal authorities and page 8 is the financial pages from the government. She stated their administrative fees are being reduced and the fair market rents are being reduced. She outlined the proposed increases for the committee. Ms. Stockton testified, "Right now with the cost allocations and the reduction that we are looking for from [Housing and Urban Development] HUD, we are looking at $200,000, approximately, from an administrative fee budget of $529,000." Senator O'Connell asked if Ms. McKinney-James considered the potential loss of $20,000 to be an actual cost? Ms. McKinney- James responded, "Yes...It is an actual cost to the extent that the entire director's office budget is based on a cost allocation from all of the agencies in the department. My budget is dependent upon those amounts being available. The budget has been designed to cover salary costs and operational costs. Yes, I consider them real costs." Mr. Grady told the committee this bill has passed through the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, and they chose not to make changes and to leave the budget as it was. Tonie Jacobs, Staff Professional Trainee, Nevada Rural Housing Authority, testified the budget issues have been discussed. She stated her concerns are for the people that the Nevada Rural Housing Authority services. She stated rent checks was processed in house prior to 1984 which had a 2- to 4-day turnaround time for the landlords. She explained the present system, with the state controller's and the state treasurer's offices, causes a rent check to go through four computer systems and four state agencies. She testified the turnaround time is 1 to 2 weeks. She stated: We are not welfare where a client gets a welfare check. That's a privilege for them to receive that. Landlords...it's a right for them to receive their rent and they expect their rent on time. We have landlords now that are threatening eviction. That's hurting the clients. This whole bureaucracy that the checks are going through is now hitting the bottom, and that's the clients. We need to do something. If pulling us out of the state fixes the system, then that's the way to go. I have opposed this bill for the past three sessions. I am in favor of it this session because it is the clients now that are getting affected. I have been a state employee for 14 years. I will stay with the Nevada Rural Housing Authority, should we separate. I understand all my rights. I know that I will still be in the retirement system, but I want to stay with the agency to help the people. Mr. Gagnier testified next regarding A.B. 35. He stated two things have changed since the Nevada Rural Housing Authority had this bill last session; they have a better director, and "They are now part of the miraculous reorganization that was going to save the state $25 million dollars." He stated all the reorganization has done is cost this one agency a lot of money. He reminded the committee of the $25 million savings from the 1993 session and asked the committee where that money went? He stated other than the costs, this bill does not improve services. He offered a proposed amendment (Exhibit H). He said the director of the Nevada Rural Housing Authority has made it clear that they want to have employees who chose not to stay with the authority to be assimilated into state service. He stated he does not believe the provisions of the bill adequately address this intent. He said an amendment is needed and read it to the committee. He remarked the people who worked for the Nevada Rural Housing Authority will not be allowed to bump "willy nilly" within the Department of Business and Industry. He explained they can only bump within their class series and if a class series does not exist in the overall agency, they will not be allowed to bump. He testified if they are in a unique class, they will have difficulty. Mr. Gagnier stated that more important than bumping would be the number of jobs available in July and October. He wanted them to have lay off employment rights for the entire time, and not have to wait until October. He told the committee regardless whether the employees will be in the retirement system or not, there are a lot of other benefits to being in state government. He stated the employment benefits for the Nevada Rural Housing Authority will have to be set. He outlined this was a concern for some of the Nevada Rural Housing Authority's employees. He stated these benefits can be changed by the board of directors unless there is a negotiating agent under collective bargaining laws. Senator O'Connell offered to make the amendment available to Ms. Stockton. She closed the hearing on A.B. 35 and opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 12. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 12: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to prohibit exemption of elected public officers from laws applicable to general public. Assemblyman Max Bennett, Assembly District 14, spoke regarding A.J.R. 12. He stated he feels that the abuses on the federal level have been noted and this bill is an attempt to prevent this from happening in Nevada. He cited examples of how legislation is sidestepped. He testified Congress, on a national level, has finally responded with a law that prevents exemption of elected public officers from laws applicable to the general public. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Bennett if there are any state laws that the legislators are exempt from? Mr. Bennett responded there are quite a few which is why there is the prospective clause in subsection 2 of the bill. He gave a quick overview of the exemptions. He cited examples of exemptions for sheriffs and chiefs of police. He outlined different sections of the Nevada Revised Statutes where these exemptions are located. He told the committee the bill passed unanimously out of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and passed with a majority (two absent votes, all others voted yes) on the Assembly floor. He reminded the committee which exemptions the bill addresses. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 12 and opened the hearing on A.B. 278. ASSEMBLY BILL 278: Revises provisions regarding granting leave of absences without pay to certain employees. Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel, testified in favor of A.B. 278. She introduced Corrine Masters, Personnel Administration Specialist. She explained the history of the Nevada Family Leave Act, NRS 284.360. She explained the federal Family Medical Leave Act. She stated these two acts conflict with each other. She outlined the steps in requesting and qualifying for family leave. She commented that Nevada's act provides for 12 weeks of leave for the birth or adoption of a child. She stated this is provided for under the federal law. She stated since state employees are already covered under the federal law, the conflicting Nevada law is unnecessary. She stated A.B. 278 will delete subsection 5 of the statute. Senator O'Connell asked if there are funds attached to the federal law which require the state to adopt the legislation? Ms. Willis stated there are no funds. Senator O'Connell asked why the State of Nevada's family act law had to comply with the federal family act law? Ms. Willis stated the federal law is much broader and provides more benefits than the state law. She stated the attorney general's office advised the Department of Personnel that the federal law supersedes the state law. Senator O'Connell commented, "So just because the federal government decides something, the state government is going to have to comply to it, even though the federal government does not have the right to dictate to the state, according to the 10th Amendment?" Ms. Willis responded that she cannot address areas of constitutional law. She suggested the bill drafter address Senator O'Connell's concern. Senator O'Connell asked if this was questioned during Assembly hearings? Ms. Willis responded that it was not. She drew the committee's attention to the chart which outlined the differences between the state and federal law (Exhibit I). She stated it comprehensively explains the problems which the Department of Personnel has been experiencing. Senator O'Connell explained her concern to Kimberly Morgan, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau. A discussion ensued regarding federal mandates. Ms. Morgan responded there are many times when the federal government uses its general powers for the health, safety and welfare of the nation. She stated they are allowed to set policies and controls for the states in issues such as this. She told the committee that this substantive question needs to be addressed by the attorney general for the Department of Personnel. Senator O'Connell stated: I know how it stands if we have accepted funds in any area. But when we have not accepted any funds. This is simply dictating from the federal level to the state level on how we are going to do this. When we are talking 6 months out of a division's or agency's time; we are talking....again, I don't personally feel...that we need that person if we are talking about 6 months and having to hold that job for 6 months, then I really question the need for that employee. I would be interested in knowing this. Ms. Morgan asked if Senator O'Connell is asking if the federal law should apply to Nevada. She responded that they have assumed that it does. She asked Senator O'Connell if she wanted them to examine the premise and determine if the federal government has the right to do that to the state; and if they do, does the State of Nevada want to adopt that federal regulation by changing its own state regulation? A discussion regarding the length of time in the state statutes versus the federal statutes ensued. Ms. Willis reiterated the differences between the two statutes on Exhibit I. The committee discussed the chart. Ms. Willis explained to the committee that the Department of Personnel is currently implementing both laws and it is confusing to personnel implementing the laws and to persons applying for leave. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Willis to have the law examined and to provide the committee with information if the Nevada law must be amended to comply with federal law. Mr. Gagnier testified next regarding A.B. 278. He explained SNEA's main concern with the bill is that the wording of the bill puts the state law on hold. He stated if the federal law is repealed, then the state law would resume. He said they do not want the bill repealed, they only want it put on hold. He drew the committee's attention to the end of the bill and showed them the language which would put the state bill on hold, page 2, section 2. Senator O'Donnell clarified this language is called "parallel statutes." Since no further testimony was forthcoming, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 278 and adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 22, 1995 Page