MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
April 24, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:17 a.m., on Thursday, April 24, 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. 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:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
JoAnn Aldrich, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Steve Robinson, State Forester Firewarden, State Division of Forestry
Rich Harvey, Resource Manager, State Division of Forestry
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County
Kimberly J. McDonald, MPA, Special Project Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
John Perry Comeaux, Director, Nevada Department of Administration,
Senate Bill 72: Authorizes State Forester Firewarden of Division of Forestry of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to determine amount of wages paid to certain offenders in conservation camps. (BDR 16-1005)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on S.B. 72 and asked Steve Robinson, Nevada State Forestry, to introduce the bill.
Steve Robinson, Nevada State Forester Firewarden, stated that the Division of Forestry endorsed the legislation proposed by Senator Amodei (Exhibit C).
Mr. Robinson said that forestry conservation crews were made up of approximately 1,700 prison inmates statewide. Under the supervision of state forestry supervisors, inmates accomplished a diverse array of duties: everything from common roadway projects, to more intricate and challenging jobs of building schools. Most importantly, approximately 40 to 50 crews, including females, were trained as firefighters, and inmate fire crews had become essential to fire suppression efforts in Nevada. Some of those crews were the initial attack offensive in remote parts of the state and worked with helicopter attack crews. Over the last 30 years, the Nevada Forestry Conservation program had become the largest in the West, and the projects were more complex and more diverse, and the fires more demanding of inmates. Currently, the crews were on the border of Utah and Nevada, searching for shuttle debris.
Mr. Robinson stated that, as the inmate fire crews evolved over the years, their pay had remained unchanged. Since 1970, over 33 years, inmate pay went from about $2 per day to $3 per day, depending on the length of service, and from $.80 per hour to $1 per hour for firefighting pay. Last year, the Governor’s Panel on Corrections brought up this issue, and it was discussed at length. All agreed that this issue needed to be addressed. In the proposed legislation, Mr. Robinson said they were not proposing to raise the pay rate for all projects, and they were not proposing to raise pay rates for the unreimbursed duties, such as maintaining veteran cemeteries and the state park system.
Mr. Robinson said it would be possible to increase inmate pay for firefighting because most of those positions were reimbursed by the federal agencies, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the United States Forest Service (USFS). However, those proposed raises would only happen in consultation with the Department of Corrections, and Director Jackie Crawford had already endorsed the legislation.
Chairman Manendo clarified that the last time inmate pay was raised was in 1970. Mr. Robinson said that was correct.
Chairman Manendo asked what the different types of guidelines were in determining the different pay scales.
Mr. Robinson replied that if they were working on conservation projects, such as thinning forests, those rates ran between $2 to $3 per day. A beginning member of a fire crew made $.80 per hour, and over 90 days, the rate jumped to $1 per hour.
Chairman Manendo asked if restitution was deducted from the inmates’ pay.
Mr. Robinson said that the pay was deposited in an account for the inmate, and they received “good-time credit” for their time.
Chairman Manendo said he meant were there court fees and other charges deducted from the accumulated pay in the inmate accounts. Mr. Robinson said that was correct.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked how Mr. Robinson would figure what to charge for inmate crews. Mr. Robinson said they did not have an actual plan and that the pay was negotiated, partly based on geography and the prevailing rates and wages, making sure they did not compete with local labor. He said pay for working in the northeastern part of the state would be different than the market in southern Nevada. He then referred that question to Rich Harvey.
Rich Harvey, Resource Manager, State Division of Forestry, said that the Division of Forestry had a “full rate,” which was the cost to provide the service, including transportation, personnel, and inmate pay. They tried to negotiate the full rate whenever possible, especially with the Nevada Department of Transportation. He said they had the ability to negotiate lower rates for conservation-related work in order to accomplish worthwhile projects. Mr. Harvey said they also performed work at no cost, called “non-reimbursed projects,” which had public benefit, such as helping at the veterans cemeteries, or laying sod at Little League fields. He said the actual rates were determined by the full rate, the value of the project to the public, and what they could negotiate in terms of reimbursement for operating costs.
Assemblyman Hardy asked, since there was no fiscal note for either local or state government, who actually paid the money for the pay raises.
Mr. Robinson said that firefighter wages were reimbursable from the federal government, and not just inmate wages, but supervisory wages also. The income for projects was from a private company, and the wages were a little higher, but the net cost to the General Fund would always be zero. S.B. 72 would give the Department of Corrections the authority to negotiate wages, but always with a zero impact to the General Fund.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked who set the pay rates.
Mr. Robinson said that the pay rate resulted from tradition, and the agreement between the Department of Corrections and the Division of Forestry had stood for 33 years. S.B. 72 would give both departments the authority to renegotiate inmate pay rates.
When no one else came forward to testify, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on S.B. 72 and opened the hearing on S.B. 110.
Senate Bill 110 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to purchase, sale or exchange by county of certain real property and provisions relating to notice that county must provide before selling or exchanging certain real property. (BDR 20-273)
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, said that this bill was well-written and did not need amending. He said that S.B. 110 applied to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244, which related just to counties and gave broader authority in buying, selling, or exchanging property, in that they could align streets, alleys, avenues, and also work on flood control projects.
Section 1 of the bill granted the authority to Clark County to dispose of the properties for practical and flood control purposes. Without this language, Clark County had not had the authority to exchange remnant properties. For example, driving on Highway 215, the Las Vegas Beltway, as it crisscrossed the valley, one would see there were some unique and obscure parcels remaining because of the road engineering. If S.B. 110 passed, Mr. Musgrove said it would allow Clark County to exchange or sell those properties to the adjoining property owners. The parcels alone were not worth much to anyone, but could enhance adjoining property owners’ existing locations. Noticing and posting requirements would still be observed.
Section 2 of S.B. 110 discussed a slight change in notification procedures, not in the number of notifications, but they would allow more flexibility in what to print in the newspapers. Currently, the entire resolution must be printed, which was a great deal of “legalese.” This change would save the county’s money, and would still print notice of the “who, what, why, where and when” of the project. On page 3, starting at line 28, all that would be necessary to print in the proposed notice procedure would be:
· Property description
· Minimum price
· Places where the complete resolution had been posted
· Where to get a copy of the resolution
Mr. Musgrove said it was an incredible cost-saving proposition to counties throughout Nevada, to not have to pay for the legal language that only a few persons might want to read. This would give some flexibility for keeping land on the tax roles as much as possible. If someone wanted to purchase those properties, they would need to go through the normal auction process.
Chairman Manendo asked what the approximate cost saving would be per transaction.
Mr. Musgrove said the saving would be in reducing the cost of the notice, probably by about three-quarters.
The Chairman asked for an estimated saving to just Clark County.
Mr. Musgrove estimated at least $100,000 in savings per year minimum because of the large number of notices. He offered to obtain a more exact number, if the Chairman wanted one.
Chairman Manendo said page 3, lines 22-23, referred to three public places for posting notices, and asked where those three places were.
Mr. Musgrove replied that notices were always posted at the government center and at city hall, and he thought that the other locations were the clerk’s office and district courts, and usually the location nearest the property. He said they also made the notices available to anyone who requested them. In addition, there were notification lists of persons who were mailed certain kinds of notices.
Chairman Manendo asked about page 1, where the language referred to establishing alignment. He asked if there would be any significant change to those notifications.
Mr. Musgrove said no. This was added language because the old language on flood control projects, “realign, change, vacate, or otherwise adjust,” was not usable. It did not change the notifications at all, but just covered new flood control projects, as currently noticed.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked about the existing statute on line 42, page 3, which said, “A Sale: the notice must state the name of the licensed real estate broker handling the sale.” Mr. Goicoechea said he did not know that a local government was required to have a real estate broker for a sale.
Mr. Musgrove said that was not his area of expertise, and he did not know, but someone had to broker the deal.
Mr. Goicoechea hoped that rural Nevada had not been in violation of the law. He asked who received the commission if you did not have a broker or staff to handle the deal.
Mr. Musgrove said those costs would be for professional services, and no bidding process was required. Mr. Grady added that he read the statute as applying only if a realtor was involved. Mr. Goicoechea agreed with that interpretation, that the language was permissive, not mandatory.
Assemblyman McCleary asked if S.B. 110 was amended in the Senate Government Affairs Committee. Mr. Musgrove answered yes. The Senate committee suggested a change. On page 3, line 24, the notification period was 3 successive weeks, but on page 4, line 34, the old language stated the notification period was 2 successive weeks. The Senate Committee changed line 34, so both read 3 successive weeks.
Assemblywoman Pierce said that her concern was that when the new notice format appeared in the newspapers, people who were used to scanning those notices would not catch on to the new format immediately.
Mr. Musgrove said he would make sure the public was aware of and understood the new format. He said that those notices should be more user-friendly, and that a public information campaign would be a good strategy. He said that Ms. Pierce made an excellent point. Clark County’s intent was not to subvert the process or to deceive anyone. Ms. Pierce thanked him for that effort and said a lead in that noticed the change would really help the public.
Chairman Manendo asked Kimberly J. McDonald, MPA, Special Project Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, who was present in the audience, if she supported S.B. 110. Ms. McDonald said she supported this bill.
There was no testimony in opposition, so Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on S.B. 110 and opened the hearing on S.B. 173.
Senate Bill 173: Exempts certain licensing boards from State Budget Act and certain provisions governing financial administration. (BDR 31-506)
John Perry Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, said that in the last legislative session, the administration proposed, and the Legislature approved, removing occupational licensing boards from the requirements of Chapter 353, the State Budget Act, and Chapter 353A, which dealt with internal accounting and administrative controls. Instead of being subject to those two chapters, occupational licensing boards were required to engage, either annually or biennially, the services of a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), or public accountant, to audit their financial records and to submit the audit report to the Legislative Auditor and to the Chief of the Budget Division of the Department of Administration.
Mr. Comeaux said that in putting that legislation together, they inadvertently excluded two boards: the Private Investigators Licensing Board and the LP Gas Board. Passage of S.B. 173 would correct that error and would add those two boards to the exclusions and requirements mentioned above.
· Section 1 of this bill would add those two boards to the boards excluded from the provisions of Chapter 353.
· Section 2 would exclude them from the requirement to develop written procedures to carry out a system of internal accounting and administrative controls.
· Section 3 would exclude them from the requirements to submit a report on their system of internal controls annually.
· Section 4 would exclude them from the list of agencies to be reviewed by the Executive Branch Internal Auditors.
· Section 5 required the boards to be audited annually or biennially by a CPA or accountant and to submit the audit report.
Chairman Manendo said he had received a letter from Thelma Clark, who served on the LP Gas Board for 10 years (Exhibit D). She stated, “This should not be a stand-alone board. It should be audited at least one time every two years.”
Mr. Comeaux replied that this bill required that the board should be required to engage an independent accounting firm to audit their records either annually or biennially, and that a report of the audit must be submitted to the Legislative Auditor and to the Chief of the Budget Division of the Department of Administration. He concluded that Ms. Clark’s concern was covered by this bill.
Since there were no questions and no further testimony on S.B. 173, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing. He submitted the letter from Thelma Clark into the record of the meeting.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 72.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Christensen and Mr. Williams were absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Mr. Goicoechea to present on the Floor.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 110.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Christensen and Mr. Williams were absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Mr. McCleary to present on the Floor.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 173.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Christensen and Mr. Williams were absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Mr. Atkinson to present on the Floor.
Chairman Manendo informed Mr. Christensen, who had just returned to the room, that the Committee had DO PASSED all three bills on the agenda today. He asked if Mr. Christensen wanted to go on record that was in support of the three bills. Mr. Christensen answered yes.
Senate Bill 28 (1st Reprint): Provides that certain money set aside for group insurance for officers and employees of school districts must not be used for other purposes. (BDR 23-195)
The Chairman then asked Committee members to turn to S.B. 28, on which was a bill the Committee heard testimony on April 18, 2003.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 28.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked if anything in this bill would conflict with other bills the Committee had passed, which were currently in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. Chairman Manendo conferred with Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, and Ms. O’Grady, Committee Counsel, and answered that there were no perceived conflicts at this time.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Williams was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Mrs. Koivisto to present on the Floor.
Senate Bill 358 (1st Reprint): Provides for certain protections relating to certain lands adjacent to Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. (BDR 22-645)
Chairman Manendo announced that there would tentatively be a hearing on S.B. 358 in Las Vegas on Saturday, May 10, 2003, in the Grant Sawyer Building. The time was not yet determined.
Assemblyman McCleary asked if those who needed to remain in Carson City could attend via videoconference. Chairman Manendo said that would be fine. He said there was a significant interest to residents of southern Nevada and that there had been many requests to hold the hearing in Las Vegas.
Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 9:14 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JoAnn Aldrich
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: