MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 14, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 3:00 p.m., on Wednesday, June 14, 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 Bob Price STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Andrew Urban, Assistant City Attorney, City of Henderson I.R. Ashleman, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County Ross Whitacre, Assistant Chief of Benefits, Employment Security Division Janice Wright, Deputy Executive Director, Department of Taxation Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Freedom of Information Don Ham, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, Inc. Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association Nancy Brown, Intern for Senator Titus David McNeil, Energy Program Specialist, Nevada State Energy Office Cathy Pruett, Buyer, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 446. ASSEMBLY BILL 446: Revises certain provisions governing sale of state securities. Having no forthcoming witnesses, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 446 and opened the hearing on A.B. 428. ASSEMBLY BILL 428: Makes various changes to the charter of the City of Henderson. Andrew Urban, Assistant City Attorney, City of Henderson, spoke in favor of the bill. He explained the bill is mostly minor housekeeping items, except two substantive changes. He presented a section by section summary to the committee (Exhibit C). He explained the bill is gender neutral according to state statutes. He drew the committee's attention to section 2 that provides for redistricting boundaries. SENATE BILL 24: Revises provisions governing sale of certain bonds by City of Henderson. ASSEMBLY BILL 271: Makes appropriation to account for local cultural activities. Senator O'Connell asked if three bills were combined into A.B. 428. Mr. Urban responded the bill includes Senate Bill (S.B.) 24, and A.B. 271, and the original contents of A.B. 428 all merged into one bill. Senator O'Connell asked him to identify which language belongs with which original bill. Mr. Urban explained S.B. 24 is section 27 of A.B. 428. He stated this deals with the issue of selling bonds from the Henderson trust at either private or public sales. He said Henderson asked to have the option of having the board select a public sale when it appeared that a private sale, its cost, and time involved, would result in no bidders. Mr. Urban explained the other significant item was section 13. He said this section of the bill allows Henderson to sell land at less than appraised value. He commented that the City of Henderson owns 600 acres of land that is zoned as industrial or commercial property. He explained the Wagon Wheel Industrial Park is 106 acres of land on the east side of town. He said they are developing a 100-acre industrial park on the west side of town. He testified sometimes businesses from California or other states, come through the economic development department, who are shopping for new locations. He said they also look in Utah and Arizona. He told the committee that Utah and Arizona can sometimes offer better incentives to bring business there than Nevada can. He said this portion of the bill would let them make a deal at less than appraised value on the land. Mr. Urban testified this sale of land at less than appraised value would require an additional public hearing at which the city council will set forth fact finding establishing why it is in the best interest of the public to offer the land at less than appraised value. He said if they determine it, they will hold another public hearing for the actual sale itself. He said the vote for selling the land at less than appraised value must be by two-thirds vote of the council. He said these are the additional protections that the Assembly government affairs committee suggested be put into the bill. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Urban to cite an example of why Henderson would want to sell land at less than appraised cost. Mr. Urban responded with this example: When they built Ocean Spray in the Gibson Industrial Park, there is a label manufacturer who does all of the labels for Ocean Spray's bottles. He was looking to establish a printing plant in Henderson so he would be very close to the new factory and cut down on his transportation costs from the Midwest. He was looking at a site in Henderson and a site in northern Arizona. The state of Arizona offered him some tax incentives, and a deal on the price of the land. That is where he ended up going. We had the land appraised and said we would be willing to sell him the necessary 5 or 6 acres he needed with rail access for the paper shipments, but it was at the appraised value. He said, `I can get a better deal in Arizona, can't you cut me a deal, or lower the price on the land. I am going to be building a building. I have got all this printing equipment I'm going to be bringing in, so I have got a lot of expenditures.' We said, `We cannot do that.' We lost that business and that employer. Those are the type of situations we are looking at, senator. Mr. Urban continued his summary of the bill. He said the bill deletes two public officers, the auditor and the city treasurer. He explained Henderson contracts with a different accounting firm to do the audits so there is a fresh view every 2 years. He explained the Director of Finance is the actual treasurer. He said the bill has changed the language from treasurer to Director of Finance. He stated these changes are in section 4 of the bill. Mr. Urban explained section 5 contains a requirement that everyone running for election must have established their residency in the ward 30 days before the last day of the close of filing. He said the charter did not address that before. He stated this language came from the city charter of Las Vegas. He explained a candidate must be a resident of the city 1 year prior to running, and they must be a resident of the ward 30 days before the close of filing. Mr. Urban testified language is being deleted from section 7 and is being moved to section 5. He said this language limits the council from passing ordinances to increase or diminish their salary during their term of office. He said the language now addresses the mayor and members of the city council. He stated the language used to say elected officers. He testified the judge is their only additional elected officer besides the mayor and city council. He said this change will allow the city council to review the municipal judge's salary on a more frequent basis than once every 4 years. He stated this is necessary to attract professional individuals to that position. Mr. Urban continued his testimony with section 9 of the bill. He testified the language removes the prohibition against mortgaging property of the city. He stated this prohibition in the charter conflicts with the Local Government Finance Act. He told the committee they want to clear up the conflict. He said they purchase fire trucks on a lease-purchase deal. He stated the companies want the city to pledge the fire trucks back as collateral on the lease. He explained they have been told they can do that under state law under the Local Government Finance Act, but there is a conflict in the charter. He asked to delete the restriction to clear up the contradiction. Mr. Urban explained the bill eliminates the City Health Board. He stated this has been done because of consolidation, they are part of the Clark County Health District. He stated they are happy with that and do not want their own health board. He explained sections 17 and 18 remove the exemption of the city attorney to not be a resident of the City of Henderson. He said they feel that they have enough housing in the city that any one appointed to that position, or any member of the city attorney's office ought to be able to find a house in the City of Henderson. He testified that when they could not attract attorneys years ago, they gave that person an exemption. He said if the attorney can make a case for extreme hardship, the council will relieve them from the obligation of being a resident. Mr. Urban told the committee that sections 22-26 deal with last session's election law changes. He stated Henderson told the Legislative Counsel Bureau that there were some conflicts with state law. He said these sections address those conflicts. Mr. Urban said other portions of the bill clean up language from "must" to "shall" and spelling errors. He testified section 31 deletes some sections including the city council's powers over the house of prostitution. He explained this eliminates Henderson's power over nonexistent, illegal houses of prostitution. He said they are also removing the power to establish, operate and maintain a cemetery. He said the council indicated they are not interested in exerting that power. He said this language removes the health officer because they are removing the board of health. He said there were qualifications for the jobs in the charter, but over the years the jobs have had qualifications, classifications, and minimum requirements adopted by resolution by the city council. He said they would prefer to use those, rather than listing these restrictions in the charter. He stated this concluded his testimony. Mr. I.R. Ashleman, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, stated his support of A.B. 428. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 428 and opened the hearing on A.B. 437. ASSEMBLY BILL 437: Allows certain state agencies to share their records with local governments. Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County, testified this bill is a request from the Washoe County Collections Department. She explained the collections department is very aggressive. She stated she thinks their collection department is the only one in the state. She explained the collection department is responsible for trying to recoup library fines, public defender fees, court costs, parking fines, and any other revenue owed to the county. She said: ...One of the problems they have experienced in the past few years, is that when they are looking for an individual, or trying to get information on an individual, when they [the collection department] come to the state to track them [the individual] down through unemployment or SIIS [State Industrial Insurance System], many times people are receiving benefits or state dollars, they [the collection department] cannot get information on them [the individual] because it is confidential. What this bill would allow us to do is, and it still maintains the confidentiality, it would only be given to our collections, or any collections operation official. It will allow us to have access to those state records that are confidential so we can track people down...Many times they'll tell us they don't have any form of compensation and we are not receiving anything so we can get an accurate picture of what they are actually receiving from the state. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Henderson to explain the bill language to the committee. Ms. Henderson responded that section 1, line 8 provides that divisions and departments of state may share confidential information with agencies of local government which are responsible for the collection of debts or obligations. She explained section 2, subsection 5 provides that language throughout the bill for all of the state agencies from which Washoe County is trying to collect confidential information. Senator O'Connell asked if the bill prevents access to those records by anyone else? Ms. Henderson stated the records would be treated as confidential records, like those records in the Social Services Department or any other county agency. She said none of the provisions of confidentiality would be affected. The bill is for the Washoe County Collections Department to utilize within their branch. Ross Whitacre, Assistant Chief of Benefits, Employment Security Division, expressed previous concern about the confidentiality language due to their work with the federal government. He stated an amendment to the bill from the Assembly has answered all the concerns of the Employment Security Division and they support the bill. Janice Wright, Deputy Executive Director, Department of Taxation, explained when the bill was heard in the Assembly, she suggested an amendment to include the Department of Taxation Sales and Use Tax Statutes also. She said they had included property tax and senior citizens and business tax. She said these provisions now provide that the Department of Taxation will have the authority to share this information with the local government. She stressed it will be confidential because the Washoe County Collections Department will not be allowed to release it to anyone else. She explained the proprietary information could assist them in the collection of debts and obligations. She stated the language in the bill reprint is easy for the Department of Taxation to administer. She said the restrictions are in place and the process will work well for them. Senator O'Connell asked if there is a penalty should anyone violate the confidentiality? Ms. Wright stated the penalty in the statute is a misdemeanor. She said that is current language in statute, so anyone who violates the confidentiality of the statutes will be governed by the misdemeanor provision. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 437 and opened the hearing on A.B. 495. ASSEMBLY BILL 495: Requires presiding officer from public body to place item on agenda for future meeting upon request of member of body under certain circumstances. Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Freedom of Information, testified that members of public boards and commissions have complained to her that they are unable to get items placed on agendas. She explained either rules or chairmen blocked putting items on the agenda. She said she has heard from all over the state, it did not matter the size of the board or their geographic location. She stated there was concern during the Assembly hearing that such a privilege might be abused, so limitating language was put in the bill. She said someone could not ask to have the same subject reconsidered over and over and over again. Senator Raggio asked if public body included the Legislature. Ms. Engleman responded the Legislature is not considered a public body under the open meeting law, and they post their agendas a minimum of 3 full days before the scheduled hearing. Don Ham, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, Inc., spoke in support of this bill. He said this is an important bill for open government and urged the committee to pass the bill. Assemblyman Bob Price testified next on A.B. 495. He provided the committee with a quick background of the bill. He explained he was approached by the State Board of Education, a local board of education, and the Board of Regents. He said they related problems of trying to get items on agendas. He said it never occurred to him that other elected or appointed people on various boards would have problems over a period of time getting something on the agenda. He said he requested this bill too late last session, so that is why it is here this session. He said the Assembly government affairs committee set up safe parameters so someone could not play games. He said they tried to come up with language that was reasonable. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 495 and opened the hearing on A.B. 518. ASSEMBLY BILL 518: Prohibits state agency from taking certain adverse action against certain employees for testimony before legislative house or committee on their own behalf. Mr. Price spoke first regarding A.B. 518. He said the bill came from an Interim Finance Committee meeting. He said there was an item on the agenda dealing with an agency that was eliminating a position. He testified the person who occupied the position requested and was granted annual leave. That person came to the meeting to appear before interim finance to explain why he thought the position should not be eliminated. That employee's supervisor was there and told the person, upon his arrival, that they had canceled his leave and he had to go back to work. Mr. Price stated Senator Raggio became aware of the situation and asked the supervisor why he canceled the employee's leave and would not let him testify. He stated the supervisor told the committee he was the employee's supervisor and had the right to do so. Mr. Price said that it was the first time it ever occurred to him that "a taxpaying citizen who happened to work for the state, or anyone else for that matter, could be refused...a basic right to appear before our legislative body." He said this is the reason for the bill. He said anyone should have the natural right to appear before a legislative committee. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Price how state employees will be notified that this is their right? Mr. Price responded he was not sure. He told the committee he has a memo in his office from a state agency. He said the memo advises state workers that under no conditions should they contact a legislator "on state business." He said agencies should not be telling the employees not to contact the legislators. He said "state business" is a very broad term because a person could come and not even mention the agency they work for. He told the committee all of the bills in the Senate and Assembly are state business. Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, told the committee he would notify state employees through the state employee newsletter. He said he assumes that the Department of Personnel would give this topic the same consideration that they give the whistle-blower law. He said they do print a summary of the whistle-blower law which they disseminate. He said as soon as the session ends, state workers will be informed. He said the memo that Mr. Price is referring to is from the same agency as the incident which occurred before the Interim Finance Committee. He explained the whistle-blower law is only intended to protect people who bring out wrongdoing. He said this law protects a citizen's right to free speech and to petition the government and to state that clearly in statutes. He said prior to every legislative session, state agencies put out memos to their employees telling them that they are not to contact the legislators; they are not to come to the legislative building. He said upon receipt of those memos, he writes a letter to the director of the agency. He said: The response is always the same. `Well, that's not what we meant. Everybody knows that what we meant is you're not supposed to say that you are representing the agency.' Well, the damage has been done by this time. They have put out the word, `We don't want you talking to those people down the street.' I think the incident Mr. Price talks about happening before Interim Finance [Committee] was so blatant that it focused attention on this, although it has been a problem for as long back as I can remember. It usually is the same agencies, year after year after year, that do it and intimidate their employees. They don't want you to hear the other side of some stories. I can understand their point of view. They're coming over here, trying to sell you on something, just as I do. They don't want the other side of that issue brought to your attention, so the employees are told to stay home. I think this bill is an excellent bill. The amendment the Assembly put on was very minor. We have no problem with the bill. Senator Shaffer asked if the intent is what really happens. He said he has been around government quite a while and it is an unwritten rule that when an employee's supervisor tells him not to do something; clear and common sense tells the employee do not do it. The supervisor is going to find something else wrong someplace along the line and it will be unrelated to the subject they discussed with the employee and told him not to do. He stressed, "There are ways that it comes around and bites you every time." Mr. Gagnier stated it will continue; it has continued under the whistle-blower law. He said people who feel strongly about an issue will come forward. Ms. Engleman said this is important information for the Legislature to receive. She asked how they could be expected to make the wise decisions people expect if the Legislature does not have all the facts and information. She said this law provides that information to the Legislature and to the people who have elected the Legislature so that they may judge the decisions that have been made. She supports the bill. Mr. Gagnier told the committee that employees have been told not to talk to their legislators. Senator Porter states the Boulder City charter directly forbids any policymakers from having any contact on any personnel matters with any city employee with penalty of fine and being removed from office. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 518 and opened the hearing on A.B. 397. ASSEMBLY BILL 397: Requires that certain motor vehicles purchased or leased by on behalf of State of Nevada meet or exceed average fuel economy standards established by Federal Government. Nancy Brown, Intern for Senator Titus, spoke on the bill since Senator Titus was detained and could not present the bill to the committee. She stated the bill came from an interim study on conservation of natural resources. She said the bill was a result of a unanimous recommendation in response to a suggestion by David McNeil, Energy Program Specialist, Nevada State Energy Office. She introduced him to the committee and noted that he would have remarks later in the testimony. She said the bill, as amended, will encourage increased fuel efficiency in state vehicles by allowing the state to develop criteria for purchase of vehicles. Ms. Brown testified the bill does not intend to prevent state agencies from purchasing vehicles to fit the needs of the users, nor does it intend to inhibit police departments, fire departments, and other emergency agencies from acquiring higher performance vehicles to perform their jobs adequately. She said the bill intends to install cohesive language into statutes directing the state Purchasing Division to develop standards to promote choosing the right vehicle for the right job while keeping energy efficiency in mind. She noted the bill also requires a follow-up report to the Legislature on the status and progress of the purchasing procedures so that the intent of the bill remains intact and policy can be adjusted as deemed necessary by this body. She stated, "This is another step in implementing logical programs through our governmental agencies and I urge your support for this bill." Senator O'Connell asked how this bill differs from Senator Shaffer's bill. Senator Shaffer responded his bill is to create a plan for alternative fuels, this bill addresses purchase of vehicles which meet or exceed the fuel economy standard. He told the committee these bills cannot be converged. Ms. Brown stated the bill has been amended from including local and county vehicles. She emphasized the bill addresses only state- purchased vehicles. She said the fiscal note may not have been amended yet. Senator O'Donnell asked for clarification of section 1 of the bill. Mr. McNeil told the committee the U.S. Secretary of Transportation is required to set the economy requirements for corporate fleets for the various car manufacturers. He said section 1 of the bill refers to this. He said the subsection 4 reference to fuel economy refers to the United States Code 32.904. He said this section is the section intended by the interim study to be the source for the information on which Nevada's averages within each car size class would be based. Mr. McNeil stated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produces a publication that is titled the Fuel Economy Guide 6. He said the publication provided documentation such as listing all the vehicle manufacturers, the makes and models, the various engine and transmission combinations, and the fuel economy estimates available both for city, highway, and combined fuel efficiency. He said it is that information which the interim study expected this bill to be based upon because that information is so readily available. He said in the hearings before the Assembly, the witnesses pointed out the differences in the requirements and to try to remove the reference to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation in subsection 1. He explained an amendment is needed to address this. Senator O'Donnell stated the motor pool will be purchasing vehicles. He said the vehicles for the police, fire and safety have been upgraded, not because of fuel economy, but because of safety concerns. He said the bill advocates purchase of smaller vehicles that have better gas mileage. Mr. McNeil responded the design of this bill applies to passenger vehicles and light duty pickup trucks. He reminded the committee that all emergency vehicles are exempted. Senator O'Donnell stated parole and probation uses the motor pool vehicles to transport people. Mr. McNeil provided handouts to the committee (Exhibit D and E). He drew the committee's attention to the 1995 list of model year vehicles which will meet the requirements of this legislation. He said there are very minor differences in terms of the availability of vehicles and would not require state agency personnel and legislators to have to drive vehicles smaller than they normally would drive. He said there are some state agencies and or agency personnel that could get by with a smaller vehicle. He emphasized that vehicles which normally carry one passenger should be the smaller, fuel efficient vehicles. Ms. Brown stated this bill intends to allow the Purchasing Division to set up the exact standards for purchasing. She said the bill intends to bring the affected agencies into the decision making process. She stated if parole and probation needs a certain standard of vehicles, and under specifications, that is accounted for in this bill. She emphasized the bill does not intend to penalize any agency or make their job harder. She stressed the bill is to facilitate the whole purchasing process. She said, "We want to make sure we are buying the right vehicle for the right job." She explained that is in section 2 of the bill. Senator Townsend noted none of the trucks purchased in 1994 would have qualified according to the list provided by Mr. McNeil. He noted all of the vehicles purchased in 1994 qualified according to the list. He asked if the Purchasing Division is already doing this, why is it being pursued in a bill? He said if there is a state policy in the Purchasing Division, why do they need to narrow the scope of the bill? Cathy Pruett, Buyer, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration. She stated she prepared the fiscal note on the bill. She responded, "To answer your question, it was just something that happened. We did not plan it that way, it just worked out that the type of vehicles that were the low bid for the passenger sedan happened to fit into that profile." Senator Townsend stated his concern regarding the list is that the 1995 vehicles that meet the requirements of this bill, the majority of them are required to have manual transmissions. A discussion ensued regarding manual versus automatic transmissions. The discussion included the bid process, air conditioning, and the figures from the federal government for the Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995. Senator Townsend asked if this bill will create a State Motor Pool fleet that becomes a problem because of higher operating costs, complaints, and repairs. Ms. Pruett stated she did not see this scenario occurring. Senator Townsend asked if the State Motor Pool still has the arrangement if they overuse the pool in Las Vegas that cars can be provided by rental car agencies. Mr. McNeil explained that the State Motor Pool has been buying Chevrolet Cavaliers. He explained the Dodge Neons are slightly smaller in terms of engine size. He said the interior passenger space is comparable. He said motor pool will probably go to the Dodge Neon because of the cheaper cost. He explained there are two primary benefits because currently there is no consideration of the total ownership cost of the vehicles, and there is no thought given to the matching the vehicle's intended use to the vehicle purchased. He said there are agencies and agency personnel who could be driving vehicles much more appropriate to their typical driving conditions. He cited examples. Senator Townsend stated that Mr. McNeil has made two important points to the committee: the total cost of the use of the lifetime of the vehicle while it is in state ownership; and if the state is purchasing the appropriate vehicle for its use. Ms. Pruett explained these two items are in subsection 2 when the agency develops the regulations and standards for vehicle purchase. Senator Townsend stated he would like to have them addressed in the bill. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of large class sedans, small passenger sedans, and other classifications of vehicles. Ms. Pruett reminded the committee that the vehicle which meets the needs of the agency is the vehicle which will be purchased. She assured the committee that an agency which needs a six-passenger vehicle will not be required to work with a four- or five-passenger vehicle. She said the Seventh Judicial District purchases a six-passenger sedan every year. She explained they use it to transport juveniles. She said this meets their needs and this is what is purchased. Mr. Gagnier stated his concern that agencies might be required to purchase vehicles which would not meet their needs. He urged the committee to consider this language. He explained that state agencies which purchase only standard transmission vehicles may have problems finding employees who know how to or who are physically capable of driving standard transmission vehicles. Hearing no further testimony, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 397 and adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs June 14, 1995 Page