MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
April 11, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:25 a.m., on Friday, April 11, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. Jason D. Geddes, Washoe County Assembly District No. 24
Mr. Lynn C. Hettrick, Douglas County and portions of Carson City and Washoe County, Assembly District No. 39
Mr. John Oceguera, Clark County Assembly District No. 16
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
JoAnn Aldrich, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
James A. Bell, P.E., Public Works Director, City of North Las Vegas
Jim Avance, Consultant/Lobbyist, Carson City
Rusty McAllister, Professional Firefighters of Nevada
Richard Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson
Dan Musgrove, Director, Clark County Manager’s Office
Scott MacKenzie, SNEA/AFSCME Local 4041
Christi Thompson, State Controller’s Office
Danny L. Thompson, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Nevada AFL-CIO
Assembly Bill 427: Makes various changes with respect to requirements relating to land use that may be imposed by governing body. (BDR 22-1050)
Chairman Manendo stated they would begin the work session with A.B. 427, and asked Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, to summarize the bill’s status.
Ms. Scholley stated that A.B. 427 was sponsored by Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick. She said that, in its original form, A.B. 427 set forth limitations on dedications of land and other exactions. Quite a bit of testimony was heard at the hearing, and the bill was referred to a Subcommittee. Testimony was received in opposition by private citizens, the Carson Valley Trails Association, and various local governments, both at the hearing and in the Subcommittee. There was no fiscal impact at either the state or local level. A proposed amendment brought forward by Assemblyman Hettrick was included in the Subcommittee report. Ms. Scholley turned the floor over to Assemblyman Collins who presented the Subcommittee report.
Assemblyman Collins stated that they discussed the issue extensively and came to some agreement. However, they brought the bill back to the Committee without recommendation because most of it was conceptual and the bill was greatly narrowed in scope with the proposed changes. He referred the Committee to the work session documents (Exhibit C), where changes and additions were plainly marked.
Assemblyman Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39, said he met with the Subcommittee and, with some compromise, worked out new language. He said that the proposed language addressed the issues brought up in testimony, but left governments with adequate power to perform their duties. He recommended that the proposed language be adopted.
Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Collins, Ms. Pierce, Mr. Grady, and Mr. Knecht for their time, and asked if the Committee had any questions. There were none.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 427.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo said that Mr. Hettrick, the bill’s sponsor, would present A.B. 427 on the Floor, and assigned Mr. Grady to back him up.
Assembly Bill 450: Prohibits designation of certain positions in government as being position for which monthly service retirement allowance may be paid when previously retired employee fills position during critical labor shortage. (BDR 23-34)
Chairman Manendo turned to A.B. 450 and asked Ms. Scholley to summarize the bill‘s progress to date (Exhibit C).
Ms. Scholley stated that A.B. 450, sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, would add criteria for designating critical labor shortage positions, which allowed retired persons to be reemployed while they continued to receive retirement benefits. She said this was an amplification of A.B. 555 of the 2001 Legislative Session, which addressed the purposes of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 286.523). She stated that amendments were proposed at the hearing by the bill’s proponent, Douglas Bache, which would remove the salary cap as a criterion, and substitute other limitations.
She added that testimony in opposition to the bill was presented by the PERS. Others who testified withdrew or softened their opposition based on Mr. Bache’s amendments. At the conclusion of the hearing Justice Rose, District Judge Saitta, Clark County School District, Washoe County School District, Nevada Association of School Administrators continued to express concerns about the bill’s impact, based on the substitute limitations in Mr. Bache’s proposed amendments.
Ms. Scholley said that, subsequent to the hearing and based on testimony received at the hearing, new amendments were negotiated. Turning to the mock-up in the work session document (Exhibit C), Ms. Scholley outlined the suggested changes on page 2:
· Lines 25-26, to address the concern that the recruiting period would have to be longer than 3 months. In lieu of that, “a reasonable standard” was included. Each situation would determine its own “reasonable” time period.
· Going down to lines 32–34, taking out the salary limitations would, instead, provide a limitation that the position would “not be an administrative head of a department, commission, board, school district, or agency, nor an immediate deputy or assistant of such an administrative head.” The purpose was to capture the intent of Mr. Bache’s amendments.
No fiscal impacts at the state or local level had been identified. Ms. Scholley said she and Ms. O’Grady, who drafted the proposed amendment, would be glad to answer questions.
Assemblyman Williams asked Ms. Scholley if she knew how the Supreme Court Justices felt about the bill with the proposed amendment. Ms. Scholley said they had not asked the administrative office of the courts to review the new language, but that it was specifically worded to exclude the Senior Judge Program. She said that she and Ms. O’Grady did not think it would negatively impact their program.
Assemblyman Grady said he was still nervous about what “a reasonable period” might mean. If there had been a lack of qualified candidates for multiple openings, that would give a bit more comfort. Mr. Grady wanted to know who would determine what would constitute a “reasonable period.”
Ms. Scholley replied that the designating authority would determine what was a reasonable period of time.
Assemblyman Collins asked if criteria a, b, c, and d would all apply to a unique position opening, such as a biologist or scientist. Ms. Scholley said that, based on the “and,” on line 27, the critical shortage designations would have to meet all those requirements.
Assemblywoman Koivisto said she knew, since she worked in this arena, that those criteria were not difficult to meet. They were criteria that had to be met every day when recruiting and hiring qualified employees.
Assemblyman Collins said that he did not want to see small towns have to recruit out of state. He felt the out-of-state language was still too strong for rural areas. He said that his concerns were with the vagueness.
Assemblyman Hardy suggested that perhaps they could leave out the “from other states” language, page 2, line 28. Assemblyman Collins replied that, on second thought, looking at the existing law, he realized the change was not a very big one. Mr. Collins said he could see that it was mostly cleanup language, and would support the proposed language.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 450.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Mr. Hardy to present on the Floor of the Assembly.
Assembly Bill 537: Revises provisions regarding state personnel. (BDR 23‑1155)
Ms. Scholley stated that A.B. 537, sponsored by the Committee on Government Affairs, and had three primary components (Exhibit C):
· Provided holiday pay for employees working alternative shifts.
· Provided for transfer of one-half of the unused sick leave of retiring state employees to the Catastrophic Leave Fund.
· Provided for arbitration of certain grievances.
At the hearing the Department of Personnel, the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, Department of Human Resources, and the Department of Corrections testified in opposition to provisions 1 and 3. Also testifying at the hearing was a representative from the Local Government Employee Management Relations Board, who testified against the arbitration provisions. There was no opposition against provision 2 for donation of sick leave to the Catastrophic Leave Fund. No fiscal impact to the local government had been identified, but copies of the state fiscal note were attached to the work session document (Exhibit C). There were no amendments proposed at the hearing, but subsequently the State of Nevada Employees’ Association (SNEA) requested additional amendments germane to the topic of the bill.
The three conceptual amendments were located immediately following the bill summary sheets for A.B. 537.
Chairman Manendo noted that there was a substantial state fiscal note attached to the bill. He asked if there was any discussion.
Assemblywoman Pierce stated that, regardless of the amount of the fiscal note, the Committee should be aware that having items resolved through arbitration was much cheaper than resolving them through the court system, as was currently the case.
Assemblyman Grady stated that he supported the bill in its original form, but had problems with the amendments. Assemblyman Christensen asked what his concerns were. Mr. Grady said he thought that ten days was too long in the first conceptual amendment, and he was not pleased with the other two amendments either.
Assemblywoman Pierce reiterated that A.B. 537 included arbitration, which was much less expensive way to decide grievances. She said that the proof was the demonstrated success of arbitration, which served thousands of employees currently covered by collective bargaining. Assemblyman Christensen agreed with Ms. Pierce.
Assemblyman Goicoechea was concerned about amendments number 2 and 3.
Assemblyman Collins said he thought the Committee should pass the arbitration issue and amendment number 2. He thought that two out of three would ensure the bill passed, but that “two weeks was a long time to go to a funeral.”
Mr. Goicoechea said he would support the bill without the conceptual amendments. He had not heard the arguments for them, and would prefer to pass the bill without them.
Assemblywoman Koivisto said that they had heard a number of state employee bills this session, and how they were not treated fairly. She found many of their concerns nit-picking.
Assemblywoman Pierce said that new classifications and pay rates were easily sidestepped by passing collective bargaining for state workers. Regarding the ten days for family leave, she said they were using their own sick leave anyway, so she did not see why it was a problem. It was their choice.
Assemblyman Hardy said that the catastrophic leave fund may have a problem staying solvent, and could be problematic. Regarding bereavement, he felt that “the physiological way of looking at it often meant we do better when we get back into the saddle.” Time off was good, but getting back to work soon was also important, and too long away could have a negative effect.
Assemblywoman Koivisto said that five days did not leave much travel time, if you had to go across the country. She did not think many people would actually use the full ten days.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said that he did support collective bargaining for state employees, but the problem with this particular amendment was that it only applied to the Department of Corrections. He thought there was a need for collective bargaining statewide.
Assemblyman Hardy asked for a clarification on conceptual amendment number two, which would require all classifications working in contact with inmates to be classified as correctional personnel, and hence, entitled to corresponding wage rate increases. He wondered if those people were different than those mentioned in conceptual amendment number three.
Scott MacKenzie, SNEA/AFSCME Local 4041, replied that that amendment was to right a wrong from last session when pay raises were given to state workers. Correctional personnel were given additional raises because of the high turnover rate and the difference in wages between county and city workers. The average state worker was currently 18 percent behind; the average correctional worker was 41 percent behind county and city workers. Forensics and maintenance personnel were not included in the pay raise, leaving them even further behind. This provision would bring their pay up to what it should be. The reason for adding all correctional classifications together was that they were all exposed to the same dangers within the institution, especially employees who worked in situations where the inmates used tools. Joining all the Department of Corrections classifications together would make sure their pay scales were uniformly affected. The overall intent was to slow the turnover rate and to correct other inequity problems that had occurred in legislation passed last session.
Mr. MacKenzie replied also to the bereavement question. Currently state employees were not entitled to Family and Medical Leave Act benefits. In spite of the fact that State statutes said that employees were covered, per the 11th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, state workers had not been entitled to those benefits since 1996. Mr. MacKenzie said he was shocked to recently discover that, per changes to federal law in 1996, state workers were no longer protected by any of the federal acts that protected workers’ rights. In other words, nonunion and private sector employees had more rights than Nevada state employees. Because state employees rights were addressed in the NRS, the net effect was that coverage was granted at the discretion of the appointing authority, and could even be punitive. If an employee wanted to sue, the person would automatically lose in federal court.
Mr. MacKenzie said that the intent of the conceptual amendment was to grant employees the time they might need during a family crisis or death. Implementation of that policy would not cost the state any money.
Assemblyman Hardy asked if the time off would be without pay, in accordance with the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Mr. MacKenzie said that was the intent. Mr. Hardy asked if the ten days reflected the same standard that the federal government had, with paid time off. Mr. MacKenzie said he was not sure if the FMLA time off was paid time off or without pay. He said he would find the answer for the Committee.
Chairman Manendo clarified that the FMLA authorized eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave each year off for specific family and medical reasons. Mr. Hardy asked if they should submit an amendment to protect state employees by the same Federal FMLA law as federal workers. Chairman Manendo asked if Mr. Hardy was currently running for U.S. Congress.
Assemblyman Grady said that this was not a money committee, but a policy committee, and the more costs they added to the bill, the more it would be jeopardized in Ways and Means Committee. Mr. MacKenzie countered saying that the more they pass on to the Senate, the more negotiating room they would have there. If they had to negotiate away some of the provisions, in order to pass the bill, they would rather do it in the Senate.
Mr. MacKenzie commented on the fiscal note on arbitration, saying it was a “real steal.” He said it reflected a huge discount for the state, from the current legal costs of employee dispute resolution. He said that his legal bills to the state in the last four months were over $75,000. The fiscal note was $14,000. “Don’t let that get away. Save the taxpayers some money.”
Chairman Manendo said they were checking on another bill via Internet, and called for a recess. When he called the meeting back to order, Chairman Manendo entertained a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 537.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY MOVED TO AMEND and DO PASS A.B. 537, including the original language and conceptual amendments numbers two and three, but striking conceptual amendment number one.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 398: Establishes temporary alternative procedure pursuant to which certain performance contracts for cost-savings energy measures in buildings occupied by governmental entities are bid. (BDR 27-1115)
Chairman Manendo said that there were two proposed amendments to this bill: One by Assemblyman Jason Geddes, and one by the University and Community College System of Nevada.
Danny Thompson, Nevada AFL-CIO, explained that originally he had objections to the bill, until Mr. Geddes and others met and came up with the revised amendment. What the revised amendment would do was to ensure that prevailing wages would be paid on public works projects. It removed some references to improved safety, which may not be a good idea, but the intent was to tighten up the bill. For the record, the intent of this bill was to see that those types of contracts provided cost-saving energy-efficient measures to state agencies. The intent was not to circumvent any other laws of the state of Nevada. Mr. Thompson said that the revised amendment had removed his objections to the bill (Exhibit D).
Assemblyman Jason Geddes said he agreed with what Mr. Thompson said 100 percent regarding the intent of the bill. The “Examples of Actual Projects” handout (Exhibit E) showed examples of what was being done in other states.
He said the best example was Louisiana State University where $18 million in energy upgrades and improvements was paid for by outside sources. With the $18 million, they were guaranteed energy savings of at least $4.2 million per year. At $4.8 million per year, Louisiana State University’s actual savings had exceeded the guarantee, and they were able to buy out the loan within 5 years.
Assemblyman Geddes said that the mock-up handout (Exhibit F) was the mock-up he previously presented to the Committee that incorporated changes that needed to be included in drafting the bill, as well as some Clark County concerns. The second 1-page amendment the Committee received today listed seven items plus two Clark County items that needed to be rolled into the previously amended mock-up.
Mr. Geddes added that both he and Mr. Thompson supported the University of Nevada System amendment (Exhibit G), as well.
The University and Community College System of Nevada amendment (Exhibit G) would insert a new section, Section 16.5, that defined “using agencies” to include only the University and the College System of Nevada, for the purposes of Sections 17 through 29. That definition would be applicable to the amended language in A.B. 398 only, and was not intended to revise the definition of “using agencies” found in NRS 333.020, which applied to the entire Chapter 333 of the NRS.
Assemblyman Williams stated that he was comfortable with the intent of the legislation as articulated by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Geddes. However, he would like to require a letter of intent signed by both Mr. Thompson and Mr. Geddes to be part of the record. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Geddes both agreed to submit such a letter.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 398 as proposed in the mock-up, Exhibit F, and including two amendments, one by Assemblyman Jason Geddes, Exhibit D, and one by the University of Nevada System, Exhibit G, and including a dual-signature letter to be signed and submitted by Assemblyman Geddes and Mr. Dan Thompson, Nevada AFL-CIO.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 408: Revises provisions relating to freedom to display flag of United States. (BDR 22-910)
Chairman Manendo asked the Committee to turn to A.B. 408, sponsored by Assemblyman Josh Griffin, Clark County Assembly District No. 29. He said that an identical Senate bill was currently working its way through the Senate, which had been heard on March 31, 2003.
Ms. Scholley described the bill status and history. A.B. 408 was related to display of the American flag, and would, in effect, prevent homeowners’ associations and other groups from issuing covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), or other requirements, that would prohibit citizens from displaying the American flag. The proposed amendments (Exhibit H) addressed the manner of displaying the flag and ensured that the manner of display was in conformance with the United States Code of Federal Regulations. There was no opposition to the bill.
Assemblyman McCleary said that he had proposed an amendment at the hearing that was not included in the current bill draft. Since the United States was involved in a war on terrorism, he would like to amend the bill to include:
Assemblyman Williams said that he could easily vote for this bill today, but he was remembering a day, ten years ago when we were not at war, when Chairman Manendo had presented a similar bill in Assembly Chambers. Mr. Williams said he remembered Chairman Manendo’s speech on the Floor of the Assembly “as clearly as if it were today.” The Chairman’s speech referred to the need to be patriotic and to support our country and our troops even in times of peace. Assemblyman Williams said that A.B. 408 brought home the same message, and it was always a good time to pass a bill like this. He said he just wanted to remind the Committee of the Chairman’s leadership in this area four or five sessions ago.
Assemblyman Collins suggested deleting item number 2 from the Howard Hughes Corporation amendment (Exhibit H), which said they could “adopt reasonably restricting rules” because he was not familiar with reasonable rules in most homeowners’ associations. Ms. Scholley stated that the intent was referring to size of the flag, to ensure that the flags were an appropriate size and height. Mr. Collins suggested that a specific size restriction be imposed, rather than leave the language vague.
Chairman Manendo said that Mr. Collins and Mr. McCleary’s amendments should be checked first with the codes, or they could do a Floor amendment later. Ms. Scholley said it would be possible to clarify reasonable rules, but that language was structured similar to language used in court cases that attempted to restrict other free speech activities in language, or in time, place, or manner. It was typical language, and used only to grant the homeowners’ associations some leverage at the outer limits of reasonableness.
Chairman Manendo said a bill had passed earlier dealing with political signs in mobile home parks, and there was still some debate on political signs in homeowners’ associations, even though you would think that the right to display political signs would be protected under the Constitution of the United States. He said that in many cases homeowners’ associations had mailed letters to residents forbidding political signs.
Assemblyman Knecht asked if it would be possible to pass a conceptual amendment and let the staff fill in language for the Service Star and Gold Star. Chairman Manendo responded that if they did not find the reference, the Committee would have to pass an amendment to remove the addition. Better to err on the side of caution, and add it in later. He did not want to jeopardize the bill at that moment.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 408, which would include the Howard Hughes Corporation amendment, Exhibit H.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Assemblyman Knecht to back up the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Josh Griffin, on the Floor of the Assembly.
Assembly Bill 484: Requires governing body of certain cities and counties to adopt ordinances regarding licensure of mobile and nonpermanent vehicle wash vendors and ordinance regarding recovery of wastewater by such licensees. (BDR 20-1303)
Chairman Manendo asked the Committee to turn to A.B. 484 in the work session document (Exhibit C).
Ms. Scholley said that A.B. 484, sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, would require Washoe County and Clark County and incorporated cities over 60,000 in population to adopt ordinances to license and regulate mobile and other nonpermanent car wash vendors to prevent the discharge of polluted runoff. At the hearing, no amendments were proposed, and Committee members requested additional information on city and county obligations or requirements under the Federal Clean Water Act. Opposition was received from representatives of the Cities of Las Vegas and Henderson. Ms. Scholley said she had included a response from the City of Henderson and a report of fiscal impact at the local government level in the work session notebooks. There was no fiscal impact recorded at the state level.
Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Christensen, who facilitated the legislation, if Mr. Hardy’s concerns regarding health district regulations and licensing had been satisfactorily addressed.
Assemblyman Christensen said he had talked to the City of Las Vegas and to the City of Henderson, who provided information to the Committee. Mr. Christensen said that it seemed everyone had different ideas on the subject, and there appeared to be no consensus.
Jim Avance, representing the International Car Wash Association, said he had two conceptual amendments to offer the Committee. Mr. Avance said that most of the opposition to the bill was because it seemed to be “no different that a person washing his car in his front yard.” In other words, “One car, one wash.” Mr. Avance said if that theory was good, then the hazardous waste regulations should be removed from fixed locations, as well, because the principle would remain: “One car, one wash.” Mr. Avance said his clients were paying approximately $100,000 per location per year to trap the hazardous waste and to dispose of it legally.
The first amendment he proposed would require that the county health district set regulations in each area, and would require cities to license businesses in accordance with guidelines established by the counties, that is, Washoe County and Clark County. He observed that in Clark County, a member of each local government sat on the Clark County District Board of Health, which would ensure that the regulations would be representative. He also noted that there were no deadline dates for compliance. Specific changes were as follows:
Mr. Avance said he would support amending the bill. He continued:
When he was a kid in the early 1950s, there was drinkable water and a swimming hole in Vegas Wash, near Cashman Field. Following the stream downhill, near the football stadium, you could catch frogs and eat the legs because it was not polluted, and you could catch fish where the water from Vegas Wash ran into Lake Mead. Now, you can’t eat fish in Lake Mead within a half-mile of Vegas Wash because the fish are polluted. One-mile further down from Vegas Wash is a thing called a straw. That straw, which is merely a hole under water, supplies 90 percent of the drinking water to Las Vegas. That’s located just one mile downstream from where the Vegas Wash empties its polluted water, polluted frog legs, and polluted fish into the stream.
Mr. Avance said he used to be Police Chief in North Las Vegas. He said that the City of Las Vegas had indicated that all they wanted to do was to license those folks, and did not want to enforce the pollution regulations. Mr. Avance said that his guess was that the lobbyists had not talked to elected officials from those cities. He urged the Committee to pass the bill to the Senate, so he could talk with Senator McDonald.
Mr. Avance said that although many people in Las Vegas were drinking bottled water, when he was a cop and up until 1976, when there was a car wreck, the wrecker did not flush out the oil or radiator fluid. He put kitty litter on it and swept it up. He thought that some of the same regulations should apply to tow-truck services. Chairman Manendo then asked Rusty McAllister, representing the Professional Firefighters of Nevada, what happened when there was an accident and vehicles were leaking oil, gas, and antifreeze when the fire department arrived.
Mr. McAllister said that, speaking for his employer, the City of Las Vegas Fire Department, they were required to carry 25 pound bags of absorbent material, such as kitty litter, to spread on spills. They did not wash the material into the gutter or down drains. He said they were told not to sweep it up, and usually the tow truck drivers disposed of it.
Assemblyman Collins said he would like to compliment the Las Vegas Fire Department for changes they have made. He said he had been on many calls where the fire department was called. Years ago it was washed down the gutters, but no more. The utility companies used an absorbent, the same as the fire departments. The linemen he worked with cleaned up every bit of it and the hazardous material went to an environmental container that went to a hazardous materials dump, not into a normal landfill.
Mr. Collins applauded Mr. Avance for bringing the bill forward. Chairman Manendo agreed that everyone had to be more conscious about the impact on the environment.
Assemblyman Grady asked what the amendments would do that the health department was not already required to do under the Federal Clean Water Act.
Mr. Avance replied that, assuming the county had a wastewater standard, the counties required cities to license people in commercial enterprises that engaged in disposition of hazardous materials and required cities to mirror in the licensing procedure the standard that the health district had established. If there were no standard, it would require the cities to create one. Then the cities and counties would hold the licensees to the existing standards.
Mr. Avance answered that it was his opinion that the cities and counties were not doing their jobs. They would license, but not follow up or enforce the standards. In the bill, the licensee would be required to sign that he understood the regulations.
Mr. Grady asked if this was not being done currently. Mr. Avance said he did not believe so.
Mr. Hardy said that he had talked to Mr. Avance, Mr. Musgrove, and Richard Wilkie. Mr. Hardy stated he would like to invite the Clark County Health District to teach the Committee about how they regulate and enforce. He said he wanted to know more about what was going on because the large carwash businesses were about to impose a restrictive method on smaller mobile businesses. He wanted to support the Federal Clean Water Act because everyone benefited from it. Mr. Hardy asked for some testimony from the City of Henderson.
Richard Wilkie, City of Henderson, said that he had not seen the amendments, but was in opposition to the bill and to the amendments at this time. He said that they were concerned about water pollution, and that was why they had adopted an extensive wastewater ordinance, which was distributed to the Committee via e-mail. The ordinance met the Clean Water Act standards, so they were meeting those requirements at this time. Those who violated the ordinance would be guilty of a misdemeanor. They also required Henderson businesses to have a business license. Licensing of businesses and enforcing the Clean Water Act were already in progress in the City of Henderson.
In conclusion, Mr. Wilkie said that this bill was only talking about a few small businesses with a minimal impact on the environment. Looking at mobile units, there was no comparison to the impact of big car washes. Small mobile units were very water conscious. He said they would be willing to work at the local level to enhance business licenses to help with the problem, but Mr. Wilkie requested that the issue be left to local governments to deal with. He said that all Las Vegas cities had wastewater ordinances, but that currently the Clark County Health District was not involved in wastewater issues. The City of Henderson enforced federal laws, which were more stringent than state or local laws.
Assemblyman Collins wanted confirmation that the City of Henderson issued licenses to car wash companies. Mr. Wilkie replied that they did license those companies, and said that the licenses required that those companies adhere to the ordinances regarding wastewater runoff. Mr. Wilkie said that they would be glad to do a better job of making sure that licensees understood the laws, and he said they wanted to address that at the local level. Mr. Collins said he suspected that the reason for the bill was to forge a coordinated effort from all local governments to do a better job of education and enforcement.
Mr. Collins asked if Henderson had “water cops” like Las Vegas. Mr. Wilkie answered that no one had water cops like the Las Vegas Water District. Mr. Collins said he also remembered unpolluted days in Henderson. He could not understand why Mr. Wilkie would oppose a simple request to coordinate efforts to make the water cleaner. He said this would not be a burden on any local government, and he could not see why Mr. Wilkie would oppose such an effort because “it won’t cost you a dime to help us keep drinking water clean.”
Assemblyman Hardy asked Mr. Musgrove what services the Clark County Health District provided, if he thought this legislation would be a burden, and what the potential fiscal impacts were.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Clark County Manager’s Office, stated that the Clark County Health District was not a part of Clark County. They were a multijurisdictional agency, with representatives from every city, and he could not speak for them. Mr. Musgrove did not believe that the Clark County Health District had jurisdiction over this issue because it was a wastewater issue, not a health issue. Each local government with its own sewer facilities was responsible for enforcement of those issues.
Mr. Musgrove was a native Nevadan and remembered unpolluted days, as did Mr. Avance and Mr. Collins. He said we all had a responsibility to make sure that what went into the storm drains was nontoxic. The question was how to enforce the regulations because everyone had limited resources. He said that current statutes and ordinances were in place, but he did not know if the legislation would make things better. He said that Clark County was neutral on the bill as initially proposed, and he had not reviewed the amendments.
Assemblyman Hardy asked if the federal wastewater regulations were currently being met in Henderson, what this bill would do that was different, aside from licensing mobile vendors, requiring that they understand the laws, and educating them to be environmentally sensitive. He wondered if enforcement would be better than it was today. He wondered if there would be some kind of additional burden.
Mr. Musgrove said that he thought Mr. Hardy had a point. From Clark County’s perspective, other than bringing in a new category of business licenses, he did not think they would have a problem.
Mr. Wilkie said that what it would do differently, aside from targeting small business people, was nothing. Enforcement would be the same. They were doing the best they could with the resources they had. They were not opposed to the educational component, to licensing changes, to a flyer that would educate folks that it was a misdemeanor, or to working with Mr. Avance on educational approaches. They wanted to keep the water clean, too.
Mr. Avance asked if anyone knew how many licenses had been issued to mobile car wash businesses. Mr. Wilkie said he would find out. Mr. Musgrove did not know either, but would track down the information.
Assemblyman Collins said that even with limited resources these entities had to enforce the issue. He thought they should either process the bill, or per state statute not allow mobile car washing. “Either make them conform to the existing laws, or don’t tax and take license fees,” said Mr. Collins.
Assemblyman Hardy commented that he was not sure if there was a mobile car wash franchise. He thought it was a borderline business at best, there was no real demand for it, and the businesses did not last.
Ms. Pierce said she thought it was a growing business. She said it was unlikely that the folks understood the pollutants that they were putting into the sewer, and how the pollutants affected the environment. She said it was a considerable amount of water and she thought there was no reason not to educate them about the issue and the consequences. She felt that the business would probably not go away, but would grow.
Chairman Manendo said that he had also seen those businesses doing vehicle interiors, cleaning carpets, and total detail work. They would even block the driveways while they worked.
Mr. Collins said that in the upscale housing areas he visited, he observed that the work was not cheap, and it was not a borderline business. They made over $100 per job or more. They were making big money and may not be paying taxes on it.
Assemblyman Grady noted that how many people were washing cars was not the question. The question was about the level of enforcement. If local governments were not enforcing the laws on the books, they should be. He did not think that this bill would change the enforcement situation. If enforcement of the Clean Water Act was a problem, then the Legislature should confront that problem.
Assemblyman McCleary said he appreciated the environmental thoughts. He said last night he could not get this bill out of his mind at 3:00 a.m., which was strange because, initially, he was not interested in the bill. However, it bothered him a great deal. He echoed what Mr. Grady had said: Those things were already being done. If not, they should be. He did not think this was a big issue.
Mr. McCleary said that the men washing cars did not cause “one one-millionth” of the environmental impact that the Committee did washing their cars at home. He read the fifth point in the City of Henderson’s list of five arguments against this bill: “This bill is simply an attempt by big business to limit, and/or eliminate, competition from small vendors.” He said that this was the main underlying issue.
Mr. McCleary said that he came to the Legislature to represent the “little guy” who could not afford to hire a high-paid lobbyist to argue in his defense. He said he could not accept this bill at all, and he urged his colleagues to vote no.
Chairman Manendo agreed that they were all there to represent their constituents, and did not want to put anyone out of business. He did not know if protections for the environment would, in this case, put those folks out of business, but every little bit possible in saving the environment would help. He said that those folks that the Committee protected by saving the environment were also “our constituents.”
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 484 with the amendment to include new language at the bottom of page 1 that said, ”as established by the county health district,” and which would also delete lines 1-9 on page 2, delete lines 40 through 44 on pages 4, and delete lines 1-6 on page 5.
Mr. Collins said that the Clark County Health District had the authority to apply regulations to all the cities within the county. He stated that anyone opposing the bill was not concerned about clean air and clean water. He would like to see the mobile units regulated, or just outlawed, because they did not comply with the Clean Water Act, and the local governments did not enforce it. “We’re here to get local government to enforce those regulations. That’s our job,” he said.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Manendo asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
Chairman Manendo clarified Mr. Collins’ motion regarding language to be deleted and inserted, in conjunction with Mr. Avance. Mr. Collins wanted the amendment to insert “as established by the county health district” at the bottom of page 1. The amendment would also delete lines 1-9 on page 2, delete lines 40 through 44 on pages 4, and delete lines 1-6 on page 5.
Assemblywoman Koivisto said she did not often disagree with her colleague, Assemblyman Collins, from Assembly District 1, however she had reservations with this legislation. Nevertheless, she said she would support Mr. Collins’ position on this bill.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said that all he saw in the bill was that it only required Clark and Washoe Counties to do what they were already doing. It just required it by statute, so he said he would support the bill.
Assemblyman Williams said he would also support his colleague from District 1, because he felt that to vote against this bill would be a vote for dirty water.
Assemblyman Christensen said that he used both the “big business and the mobile guys,” and that the environmental regulations should apply to everyone from corporations on down to the little guys. Although Mr. Christensen would have liked to hear more discussion on liability insurance that the businesses would be required to carry, he supported the bill because it would clarify and enforce licensing, and encourage sensitivity to the environment.
Assemblyman Knecht said that if the bill required the cities and counties to do nothing more than they are already doing, then there was no reason for it. Mr. Knecht said he would vote against it because he thought it was over-reaching and unnecessary.
Assemblyman Hardy said he would vote against it because he had not calculated the ramifications for the Clark County Health District, and he reserved the right to change his vote, pending new information.
Chairman Manendo said he was looking for representatives from the Clark County Health District, but did not see them in attendance, nor did he see them during the hearing. He was not sure who represented the Washoe Health District on this issue. He commented that with only a 120-day Legislative Session, attendance was important.
Chairman Manendo restated the motion and second, and placed the question:
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 484 with the amendment to include new language at the bottom of page 1 that said, ”as established by the county health district,” and which would also delete lines 1-9 on page 2, delete lines 40 through 44 on pages 4, and delete lines 1-6 on page 5.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Grady, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Knecht, Mr. McCLEARY, and MS. Weber voted no.
Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Christensen to present the bill on the Floor.
Chairman Manendo informed the Committee that there would be a Floor Session in a few minutes. His understanding was that it would be a very quick Floor Session. He said there were a few amendments that the Committee needed to address this afternoon because of next week’s deadlines. He anticipated the Leadership would be holding double Floor Sessions most of the week.
Chairman Manendo recessed the meeting at 11:07 a.m., and said they would reconvene after the Floor Session, and later called the meeting back to order at 12:23 p.m.
Assembly Bill 295: Revises provisions governing criteria for determining qualification of bidders on public works of local governments. (BDR 28‑747)
Ms. Scholley stated that A.B. 295 revised the criteria for determining the qualifications of bidders on public works project for local governments. The bill was sponsored by Assemblywoman Kathy A. McClain. Amendments were proposed at the hearing, and because the bill related closely to the subject of A.B. 540, both bills were jointly assigned to a subcommittee. A.B. 540, sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, also revised criteria for determining the qualifications of bidders, but it included the State Public Works Board (SPWB) and addressed notification procedures.
The Subcommittee report and recommendations, including a mock-up with proposed amendments, were included in the work session document (Exhibit C), as well as the local government fiscal note, which found an impact for A.B. 295. Ms. Scholley stated that Assemblyman Collins, the Subcommittee Chairman, would present the Subcommittee report to the Committee.
Assemblyman Collins said that the Subcommittee had met twice and discussed both bills. Mr. Collins reported that language had expanded from the few items in the original bill, to address and clarify prequalified contracting on large taxpayer-funded projects. The bill was amended to broaden and approve language for pre-qualified bidding, which was supported by a broad range of labor, business and construction groups, including Clark County, City of Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas, Washoe County, Associated General Contractors of Las Vegas, Associated General Contractors of Nevada, construction managers from the Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas Valley Water Districts, Las Vegas Public Works Directors, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades, and the State AFL-CIO.
Mr. Collins noted that the language in the bill was permissive, meaning that local governments did not have to use the suggested criteria to pre-qualify bidders. Not everyone was happy with everything, but all groups united to negotiate until they came to a consensus of support.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 295.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman mentioned that some local governments did indicate some expenses, but many did not respond and some had no answer. Being familiar with Eureka County, Mr. Goicoechea questioned where the $1,500 figure came from on the fiscal note. [No reply.]
THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. McCLEARY voted no.
Chairman Manendo said Assemblywoman McClain, the bill’s sponsor, would present the bill on the Floor, and he assigned Mr. Collins to back her up.
Assembly Bill 415: Directs Governor to appoint committee to study authorizing entrepreneurial activities to generate revenue for State. (BDR S-1164)
Ms. Scholley said that A.B. 415, sponsored Assemblyman Knecht, would authorize the State Treasurer to engage in entrepreneurial activities, as spelled out in Section 1 of the bill. Section 2 would authorize the Governor to appoint a committee to study the potential opportunities for the State Treasurer to make use of the authority granted in Section 1. At the hearing, a constituent of Mr. Knecht’s who had proposed the concept, testified in favor of the bill, the Treasurer’s Office stated they were neutral, and there was no testimony in opposition. There was no fiscal impact at the state or local level.
Assemblyman Knecht stated that if a study group, or the State Treasurer, found any cost or risk, they would not undertake the effort, since the bill was written in permissive and not mandatory language. The idea was to take state assets that do not compete with private enterprise, and find ways to make money with them, at no risk and with no capital cost. He hoped to capitalize on assets and help budget problems, all without raising taxes.
Mr. Atkinson objected that the bill did not outline what was acceptable and what was not acceptable.
Assemblyman Knecht said that the bill did not spell out what was acceptable because it would take too long. The intent was to trust that the Treasurer’s Office and the Governor’s Office would not abuse their discretion. He was comfortable with that.
Chairman Manendo said that if they passed the bill, the Treasurer’s Office could have that flexibility. However, he was concerned that it might set a precedent for lawsuits against the state for discriminating against other state officers. The State Treasurer’s Office testified that they were neutral on A.B. 415. He asked if Mr. Knecht had further discussions with Mr. Krolicki to find out why he was neutral, and not in favor of it.
Assemblyman Knecht said they appreciated the intent, and that if the authority was granted that they would make use of it.
Assemblywoman Koivisto said that, regarding the part of the bill that referred to advertising, sale or lease of a stadium, and arena naming rights, she did not think that Perry Thomas or the Mack family would like the names of the Thomas & Mack Center, or the Sam Boyd Stadium, changed. She said that many southern Nevada legislators would remember the brouhaha that resulted when the Mayor of Las Vegas suggested using the Seal of the City of Las Vegas to raise funds.
Assemblywoman Pierce said there were some places where commerce did not belong. She did not believe that commerce should be everywhere. She said we trust our Governor today to not put a Domino’s Pizza sign on top of a state vehicle. She said the Committee should remember that Jesse Ventura was a Governor, and Legislators could not guarantee that it would not happen in Nevada.
Assemblyman Collins remembered that Chairman Manendo worked to promote advertising on school busses. He added that state public safety vehicles already worried about the number of decals printed on them. He suggested that Mr. Knecht research the issue.
Assemblywoman Weber asked if there had been any testimony describing what was being done in other states. She said she was not sure if the government sector and entrepreneurial efforts were compatible. She wanted to know if there was a precedent set in another state.
Chairman Manendo said he did not think that subject had been discussed in testimony.
Assemblyman Atkinson said that state agencies would open themselves to problems if they decided to advertise on state vehicles. He thought it would be misusing the equipment to utilize state vehicles for advertising. It did not seem right.
Assemblyman Knecht said the Committee should keep in mind the alternative: if they do not raise funds in this way, if we do not trust public officials’ prudence in this matter, we would need to cut programs or raise taxes.
Chairman Manendo said that the second section would implement an interim study group that would report to the Legislature next session. In that case, even if clients and possibilities were determined to be appropriate venues by the study group, no revenue would be generated in this budget cycle, and the funds would not be available to help us in the near future.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked Mr. Collins to confirm whether they had killed a bill in the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Committee that would have used pamphlets for advertising. He remembered that the bill did not pass, and that they should be careful not to allow it in one agency and not in another agency.
Assemblyman Collins explained that in considering A.B. 71, the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Committee had denied the agency’s request to go outside the State Printing Division because there was an $800,000 fiscal note. They did allow the agency to address advertising in their brochures. He said it took about three or four sessions to develop a process that would allow that kind of advertising, and the standard that had been developed was restricted to nonemergency vehicles, and for the purpose of enhancing funding for school districts. He had not seen any advertising on a school bus yet.
Assemblyman McCleary thanked Mr. Knecht for bringing this issue to the attention of the Committee. He said he understood that the panel had many questions and reservations, but that Nevada needed this kind of innovative and creative thinking. He did not want to reject the creativity, nor the spirit in which the concept was brought forward. Mr. McCleary said he would support the bill to see what the Treasurer’s Office might do.
Chairman Manendo agreed that Mr. Knecht was doing his job in bringing forward a proposal from a constituent. He said they all respected that, but that the bill would not help them this budget cycle.
Assemblyman Knecht suggested that the Committee had the option to pass Section 2, and to delete Section 1 of A.B. 415. That would allow the Governor’s Committee to study the matter and report to the Committee next session. Chairman Manendo said the Governor and State Treasurer probably had the authority to do that now, without passing the bill. Mr. Knecht agreed, but said that passing the bill would ensure a timely response.
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked if the Assembly Government Affairs Committee had the authority to direct the Governor to do things.
Assemblywoman Pierce said she also appreciated the spirit in which the measure was brought forward, but argued that commerce did not belong in that arena. She said that there needed to be places where they were not bombarded with advertising everywhere. Even on computers, pop-up ads hit us in the face. She did appreciate the effort.
Assemblyman Knecht said the Committee needed to keep in mind the various options that were listed in Section 1. There were options like the Affinity credit card, which could be marketed to University alumni and friends. He could see that a “Battle Born” Affinity credit card, or a “Silver State” Affinity credit card, might be viable options.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO AMEND BY DELETING SECTION 1 AND DO PASS A.B. 415.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Atkinson wanted to be sure they were voting only on Section 2 of the bill. Chairman Manendo said Committee Counsel noted that Section 1 was referenced in Section 2, so some areas of Section 1 would have to be moved into Section 2.
Assemblyman Collins noted that, at the Legislature’s direction, the Governor had put together a panel a few years ago to identify new sources of revenue. These ideas were not on the list, as he remembered. Assemblyman Knecht said he thought that was the “Tax Force,” and what they addressed were taxes. He wanted to find other ways to raise money.
Chairman Manendo restated the motion to amend and do pass A.B. 415, and said that the Legal Department would amend Section 2 as necessary.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Collins, Mr. Goicoechea, Mrs. Koivisto, Ms. Pierce, and CHAIRMAN Manendo voted no. (Mr. Williams was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Mr. Knecht to present on the Floor.
Assembly Bill 481: Makes various changes concerning state financial administration. (BDR 31-101)
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. Scholley to describe the history and status of A.B. 481. Ms. Scholley said that this bill provided for the suspension, cancellation, or revocation of certain licenses, permits, or registrations for those defaulting on debts to certain state agencies. It also required the State Controller to adopt regulations establishing fees that would be charged for returned checks and drafts. At the hearing, there was no testimony in direct opposition; however, concerns were expressed by the Departments of Motor Vehicles, Employment Resources, and Taxation. No amendments were proposed. There was no fiscal impact to local governments. The BDR should have no material impact on the Office of the State Controller, so there was actually no dollar cost to the bill. For the record, Ms. Scholley received a letter from Birgit Baker, Employment Resources, stating she had withdrawn all her concerns, and worked out issues with the State Controller’s Office.
Chairman Manendo noted the bill would go to the Ways and Means Committee.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 481.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Christensen said that his questions were answered. He understood that it was just another handle to get the job done, and he would vote for the bill.
Assemblywoman Koivisto said that it bothered her that they had to pay outside agencies to do a job they had elected someone to do. Mr. Christensen said that he had that concern also, but after looking at the best practices and consolidation of operations in order to streamline the organization, he was now comfortable with outsourcing, in this case.
Assemblyman Collins said that the State Controller’s Office had all the financial responsibilities. It puzzled him that we would let them contract out when Nevadans pay taxes for those services.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Williams was absent for the vote.)
Assembly Bill 457: Makes various changes concerning collection of debts by state agencies and State Controller. (BDR 31-102)
Chairman Manendo said that A.B. 457 would also be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for fiscal analysis.
Ms. Scholley stated that the bill was sponsored by the Assembly Government Affairs Committee on behalf of the State Controller. A.B. 457 would turn over state agency debts that were over 60 days past due to the Controller’s Office for collection. The bill would centralize collection procedures in the State Controller’s Office on behalf of state agencies. Some concerns were raised, primarily by Birgit Baker from the Employment Resources Department, because of their state-federal partnership rules; however, Ms. Scholley had received a letter stating that they had withdrawn their objections. There would be no fiscal impact at state or local levels. At the hearing, there was no opposition to the bill, but concerns were raised about Section 5, page 3, line 8, which would include all debts, costs, and fees to be charged to the debtor. There was a proposal to reinstate the bracketed language at the end of line 8, so that debts under $200 would be excluded from the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO AMEND BY REINSERTING THE $200 LANGUAGE AND DO PASS A.B. 457.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Grady wanted to clarify Section 6, “Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, State Controller’s Office shall collect all accounts.” Some entities were listed as exempt, like the Gaming Commission and the Tax Commission.
Ms. O’Grady referred to Chapter 353C, regarding applicability, which stated that, to the extent that the provisions of this bill conflicted with another specific statute which provided for the collection of debts by an agency, the provisions of the other specific statute would control. In other words, if another statute allowed an agency to collect debts, then this bill would not apply to them.
Assemblyman Christensen said, after having reservations, he had again grilled the Controller’s Office representatives in order to understand those provisions. As a result, he supported the centralization of the collection system, partly because “everyone should do what they do best.”
Assemblywoman Weber said that she had worked in accounting, and she could testify that tracking receivables down was a difficult and labor-intensive work. She applauded the effort to streamline this process.
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked since the job was so labor-intensive, if they might need more staff.
Christi Thompson clarified they would eventually contract out to collect $118 million of agency debt, of that, $7 million had been collected so far, and $60 million was due to uncollected taxes. They were not requesting any additional staff. They currently collected about $100,000 per month. They now collected about 30 percent of debt, as opposed to only 20 percent that was collected in the past. The amounts that were being turned over to the Controller’s Office were amounts that had been determined to be uncollectible by the agencies. She said that the $7 million had been collected by two outside collection agencies, with which they had contracts. They also had an offset program in the office that had generated about $230,000.
Assemblyman Collins had reservations about taking all the agency debt and putting it into “one funnel.” He said that in 1993, a similar consolidation effort found that individual agencies were not as responsive to questions or audits, and that individual agencies’ collection systems were more effective.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Williams was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JoAnn Aldrich
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: