MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
April 23, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:10 p.m., on Wednesday, April 23, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Bernard (Bernie) Anderson, Assembly District No. 31
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Tara DeWeese, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169
Stephen W. Driscoll, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, and Sparks Redevelopment Agency
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Nevada Home Builders Association, and Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association
Gustavo Nunez, Deputy Manager, Professional Services, State Public Works Board
Dorothy (Dotty) L. Merrill, Ed.D., Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association/Las Vegas, and Clark County District Attorney
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South
Michael Gillins, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, and Nevada COPS
Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City
Bernie Curtis, Board of Commissioners, Douglas County
Norman Frey, Board of Commissioners, Churchill County
Terry R. Crawforth, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
John Slaughter, Lobbyist, Washoe County
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Mary Jane Harvey, Chairman, Paradise Town Board, Clark County
Gary Hayes
John Hiatt, Chairman, Enterprise Town Board, Clark County
John S. Williams, Paradise Town Board, Clark County
Delores Gatliff, Vice Chairman, Spring Valley Town Board, Clark County
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel
Shelley Blotter, Committee on Catastrophic Leave, Department of Personnel
Kathy Augustine, State Controller
Kim Foster, Administrative Services Officer, Department of Personnel
Christi Thompson, Chief Accountant, Accounts Receivable, Office of the State Controller
Linda F. Covelli, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association No. 4041
Betty Farris, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association No. 4041
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs
Susan Boskoff, Executive Director, State Arts Council, Department of Cultural Affairs
Nicole J. Lamboley, Lobbyist, City of Reno
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 56.
ASSEMBLY BILL (A.B.) 56 (1st Reprint): Amends provisions of Charter of City of Sparks governing boundaries of wards and voting powers of Mayor. (BDR S-211)
Assemblyman Bernard (Bernie) Anderson, Assembly District No. 31, said he would present the proposed charter changes on behalf of the city of Sparks. Assemblyman Anderson explained he had served on the Sparks Charter Committee for 10 years and participated in the redrafting of the Sparks City Charter 20 years ago.
Assemblyman Anderson said the Sparks Charter Committee made a number of recommendations concerning the Sparks City Charter. Those recommendations were contained in A.B. 56. The recommendations reflected Sparks’ needs due to its continued growth. Mr. Anderson said he thought Sparks city government operated efficiently. The efficient government operation resulted from good employees who oversaw the day-to-day activities of the city in addition to a strong city charter which kept the city operating smoothly.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether the Sparks City Charter was being amended as the result of an attorney general’s opinion (AGO). Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169, and member, Sparks Charter Committee, replied in the affirmative. He said the changes recommended by A.B. 56 were constitutional in nature. Voters in the city of Sparks currently voted according to the number of registered voters in a ward. The Sparks City Charter would be amended to have the wards based on a ward’s population, rather than the number of registered voters. The new provision would be consistent with state requirements.
The second change prohibited the mayor of Sparks from voting in case of a tie vote by the city council. Mr. Daly stated the city council served in the Legislative Branch of the Sparks government, while the mayor served in the Executive Branch. Due to the separation of powers, the Sparks Charter Committee recommended that the mayor not be allowed to vote in case of tie votes by the Sparks City Council.
Stephen W. Driscoll, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, and Sparks Redevelopment Agency, and assistant City Manager, City of Sparks, said the intent of A.B. 56 had been clearly stated by Assemblyman Anderson and Mr. Daly. The language contained in the bill was designed to ensure the City of Sparks met all constitutional issues and followed the guidelines Chairman O’Connell referred to as contained in the AGO.
Assemblyman Anderson noted under the current Sparks City Charter, the mayor could vote to break a tie vote, and had veto power. This dual authority gave him powers in both the executive and legislative branches of government. The AGO stated the dual authority gave the mayor more power than other elected officials in the city of Sparks.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 56 and opened the hearing on A.B. 57.
ASSEMBLY BILL 57 (1st Reprint): Requires State Public Works Board to adopt certain seismic standards and requires certain governing bodies to amend their building codes to include certain seismic standards. (BDR 28-206)
Assemblyman Anderson stated he had been asked by the Nevada Earthquake Safety Council (NESC) to sponsor A.B. 57. The bill had been carefully drafted. The NESC was the advisory board for the Earthquake Risk Reduction Program. The NESC facilitated public input, and developed consensus about seismic issues within the public and private sectors. The NESC was also the public advisory body for the State Seismic Safety Policy Committee.
Assemblyman Anderson thanked the volunteer members of the NESC for their hard work and commitment. He explained the NESC membership was comprised of business people, engineers, geologists, and state and local governmental officials. Assemblyman Anderson also thanked the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) for supporting the NESC.
Assemblyman Anderson said it was important to remember natural disasters and the risks they posed to Nevada. He cited earthquakes as being a prime example of a natural disaster which could adversely affect Nevada.
Assemblyman Anderson said A.B. 57 implemented the NESC’s recommendation for the State Public Works Board (SPWB) and local governmental bodies to adopt the seismic provisions contained in the bill. The bill also directed the chief of the Division of Emergency Management to adopt guidelines for earthquake preparedness.
Assemblyman Anderson said the bill had been heard in the Assembly. A compromise had been reached as a result of the testimony heard in that House. Assemblyman Anderson reminded the committee members that Nevada was the third most seismically active state in the union after Alaska and California. He said even though seismic activity would be more of a problem for northern Nevada than southern Nevada, the hazards of seismic activity had to be addressed statewide.
Assemblyman Anderson said Living with Earthquakes in Nevada had been published and distributed to make Nevadans aware of the dangers an earthquake posed, Exhibit C. Original is on File in the Research Library.
Senator Tiffany asked whether Nevada’s seismic standards were equal to, greater than, or less than the seismic standards contained in the International Building Code (IBC). Assemblyman Anderson said the IBC standards were new. In the past, Nevada’s seismic standards for construction had been done on a county-by-county basis resulting in a hodgepodge of standards.
Senator Tiffany rephrased her question, asking whether Nevada’s seismic standards were superior or inferior to the IBC’s standards. She also wanted to know whether Nevada would be able to adopt regulations and standards exceeding those contained in the IBC.
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Nevada Home Builders Association, and Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, stated she supported A.B. 57. She had worked on the bill’s compromises with the members of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs.
For the past 75 years, Clark County used the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as a construction guide. The UBCs were in the process of being changed to the International Residential Code (IRC), the IBC and the International Codes Council (ICC). The new codes would be called the International, or I Codes. National and international hearings had been conducted on the I Codes for the last 3 years. Ms. Porter stated approximately 40 states already adopted the I Codes.
In southern Nevada, the Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association and other organizations worked with the Clark County Building Department for 2 years to reach the adoption point of the I Codes. All local governments in Clark County, save one, were in the process of adopting the I Codes, and by summer 2003 would have adopted the I Codes for use in southern Nevada. The I Codes were more prescriptive and performance-based than the UBC. Additionally, the I Codes had been modernized. Ms. Porter said the UBC would no longer be updated or published. As the UBC would not be updated within a certain time frame, the Insurance Services Office rating would no longer be favorable.
Ms. Porter stated the I Codes earthquake standards would be more stringent than the standards contained in other building codes. Clark County was currently incorporating the I Code earthquake standards into building plans approved for use in Clark County. Ms. Porter reiterated that, except for one local government entity in southern Nevada, all other local governments in Clark County would be using the I Codes by summer 2003. Ms. Porter stressed this governmental body would be adopting a different edition of the I Codes.
The earthquake standards would be separate from other provisions contained in the I Codes. The staff at UNR had already adopted some of the earthquake standards. Ms. Porter stated each area of Nevada was unique and that uniqueness needed to be reflected in the I Codes.
Ms. Porter said she did not know whether all the I Code standards would be in place by July 1, 2003. She explained she was not sure of the time frame for the I Code standards, but was sure of the time frame for the building codes.
Assemblyman Anderson answered Senator Tiffany’s question regarding Nevada’s ability to impose tougher standards than those in the IBC. He stated a community could impose higher or tougher standards than the standards contained in the IBC. Assemblyman Anderson noted the new international standards were more uniform in their scope and structure. Due to the new international standards, Assemblyman Anderson said he did not think it likely a governmental entity would try to impose a higher standard than those already contained in the IBC.
Assemblyman Anderson stated the earthquake-induced, soil-liquefaction question was one all agencies were dealing with. It was a difficult topic and UNR had attempted to reach a conclusion about the liquefaction standards. Staff at UNR stated the liquefaction standards would be ready shortly. Those standards were still being finalized.
Senator Care asked Ms. Porter who belonged to the International Code Council and whether the I Codes were fluid. By that, the Senator said he meant the I Codes were not based on geographical boundaries. Senator Care asked whether the I Codes were based upon the soil type at construction sites.
Ms. Porter said the I Codes were tied to the incident or potential incident of earthquakes within certain regions. She referred to a map showing seismic activity in Nevada, Exhibit D. She reiterated Assemblyman Anderson’s testimony that most seismic activity in Nevada occurred in northern Nevada. Ms. Porter pointed out while southern Nevada had numerous earthquake faults; it was not as seismically active as northern Nevada.
Ms. Porter stated homes and buildings in the seismically active areas of Nevada required additional earthquake proofing. Ms. Porter added homes and buildings in southern Nevada would also receive earthquake proofing despite that portion of the state not being as seismically active as northern Nevada.
Senator Care asked whether the increased earthquake proofing would add to the cost of a new home. Ms. Porter said she was not being facetious when she told the Senator everything added to the price of a new home. She stated she was not sure how much would be added to the price of a new home which received earthquake proofing. Ms. Porter said she had heard earthquake proofing could increase the price from $500 to $1500 per home. Ms. Porter stated she was very concerned about the price of housing in Nevada and added the new I Codes were in the best interests of Nevada’s consumers.
Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Porter whether southern Nevada’s sand-based soil would help or hinder during an earthquake. Ms. Porter replied she was not scientifically astute enough to answer the Chairman’s question.
Assemblyman Anderson referred to Exhibit D, which showed the potential for earthquakes throughout Nevada. On the map, a portion of Clark County fell within Area 7; however, the majority of Clark County, and the eastern half of Nevada are located outside Area 7. Goldfield and Tonopah are not seismically active.
Assemblyman Anderson spoke about insurance loss in the case of earthquakes in Nevada. He said only New York State would exceed Nevada’s losses resulting from an earthquake. Assemblyman Anderson said the city of Las Vegas would lose $28 billion as the result of an intermediate-sized earthquake if the new I Code standards were not in place. The city of Las Vegas ranked 23rd in the nation for a loss ratio compared to the city of Reno which ranked 28th.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether a person’s insurance premium would be reduced if his or her home received the earthquake proofing contained in the I Codes. She mentioned she had been told a garage addition in southern California cost the owner an additional $15,000 in order to meet the earthquake standards and building codes. Ms. Porter noted California’s earthquake standards were higher than Nevada’s and that building costs in California were extrapolated 10 times.
Gustavo Nunez, Deputy Manager, Professional Services, State Public Works Board, said the SPWB supported A.B. 57 with the proposed amendments.
Chairman O’Connell asked how much it would cost Nevada to comply with the provisions of A.B. 57 when constructing new state buildings. Mr. Nunez said it would be difficult to provide Chairman O’Connell with an exact figure as any additional costs depended on a building’s location. Mr. Nunez stated he had directed SPWB’s engineer to prepare an assessment on the implementation of the IBC Code. He read from the engineer’s statement:
… If the seismic provisions of the IBC were to be adopted, then the rational approach would be to adopt all of the structural provisions of the IBC. The IBC codes are intended to be used as a cohesive, coordinated document. The IBC seismic provisions represent a significant departure from the traditional seismic design provisions of previous codes. That is not to say it is a better approach or will necessarily produce increased forces for structural design, or result in safer buildings. Those questions will only be answered in time after the method has been proved through practical design and experience with actual buildings. Preliminary studies indicate that seismic forces may increase for certain types of buildings in some areas and decrease in other areas. In general, designs made under the IBC would be about the same as designs historically made under the UBC. The best that can be said for the seismic provisions of the IBC is it will establish a common set of earthquake regulations nationwide, and is consistent with the profession’s move to standardize the strength design format.
Mr. Nunez said with respect to overall building costs, there were areas where the IBC would relax some of the requirements mandated by the UBC. He stated the standards for sprinkled buildings would be relaxed resulting in a savings. The state would be participating in code adoption and would decide which areas of construction, if any, should be relaxed. Mr. Nunez stated the SPWB planned to conduct public hearings on the adoption of the I Codes in conjunction with the State Fire Marshal’s Office. Areas of construction which might be relaxed would be studied prior to the adoption hearings. Mr. Nunez said the State Fire Marshal’s Office dealt with many of the construction issues contained in both the IBC and UBC.
Dorothy (Dotty) L. Merrill, Ed.D., Lobbyist, Washoe County School District, stated she represented the Washoe County School District’s (WCSD) plant facilities department. She said the WCSD board of trustees, superintendent, and employees wanted the WCSD’s public buildings to be as safe as possible. Safety was important for the children, teachers, and staff of the WCSD.
Dr. Merrill said the director of the WCSD plant facilities department agreed with Assemblyman Anderson’s statement that the IBC codes provided superior construction standards. Dr. Merrill said while there would be some cost savings, there would also be some cost increases. When the savings were weighed against the increases, it was projected the increases would be nominal. Dr. Merrill stated the safety issues outweighed the nominal cost increases.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 57 and opened the hearing on A.B. 23.
ASSEMBLY BILL 23 (1st Reprint): Increases compensation of district attorneys and sheriffs. (BDR 20-163)
R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association/Las Vegas, and Clark County District Attorney, told the committee members A.B. 23 was identical to Senate Bill (S.B). 53, which had previously been heard by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.
SENATE BILL 53 (2nd Reprint): Increases compensation of elected county officers. (BDR 20‑21)
Mr. Graham said after the committee members approved S.B. 53, he requested an identical bill, which had been passed out of the Assembly. Mr. Graham’s bill included graduated pay increases for county sheriffs and district attorneys. The first half of the pay increase became effective July 1, 2003, and the second half became effective July 1, 2004.
Mr. Graham said:
As a matter of record, this committee has heard from all of the folks who testified on A.B. No. 66 of the 71st Session, and the Senate, the full body, passed S.B. 53, which went out of here looking like A.B. 23. But, by the time it went out of the Senate, it had all of the public officials from the commissioners to the public administrators added on. We supported and agreed that amendment was a good idea. If there is a battle, it rests now with the Assembly because the good people on this committee, and others, passed that bill out.
Just a little bit of information on what we have asked for in A.B. 23 for our district attorney, and then the district attorneys in the other counties as well. It is just to indicate where we are in this thing. Currently, more than 50 percent of the deputies in Clark County make more than our district attorney. If this bill goes through and the raise goes into effect in July 2003, the assistant district attorney will make nearly $32,000 more from July 2003 to July 2004. Assuming we get this bill through and the pay goes up next July to $155,000, the assistant will still make $8700 more than the boss. After that, it is about $14,000 more. This also applies to the public defender and other department heads in our jurisdiction. David Roger, who is elected, took a significant cut in pay, somewhat in anticipation that this committee would do what we’re asking. We have over 150 attorneys he supervises and over 800 employees. And, of course, the thousands and thousands of cases. The salary, even at the amount which would be in effect in July 2004, is commensurate with the salaries of city attorneys in the surrounding communities, the cities of Las Vegas, Henderson, and North Las Vegas. So, it’s within that range, there. Additionally, it’s within the range of district attorneys in other jurisdictions as well. This is like Groundhog Day. We’ve done it before. If there are any questions, I certainly stand ready to answer those.
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South, said he echoed Mr. Graham’s statements. Mr. Olsen added the Clark County Sheriff earned approximately $20,000 less than the Boulder City Chief of Police. Mr. Olsen noted the sheriff’s salary was set by the Legislature. Mr. Olsen explained the discrepancy in law enforcement salaries by saying one city law enforcement official, who supervised 300 personnel, earned $150,000 a year while the Clark County Sheriff earned $84,000 a year. Further, there were a number of employees at the Clark County Sheriff’s Office who earned significantly more than the sheriff. The same held true in other Nevada counties.
Mr. Olsen said he had been asked to speak on behalf of James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/North, and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. Through Mr. Olsen, Mr. Nadeau urged passage and support of A.B. 23 by the committee members.
Mr. Graham said there were a number of district attorneys, as well as other elected officials, in the smaller rural communities to whom a raise would be important. Mr. Graham said the Senate passed S.B. 53 which included those elected officials not mentioned in A.B. 23. He noted the Assembly was processing S.B. 53.
Mr. Graham requested the Senate Committee on Government Affairs not take any further action on A.B. 23 until S.B. 53’s progress in the Assembly could be determined.
Michael Gillins, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, and Nevada COPS, said he supported both A.B. 23 and S.B. 53. Mr. Gillins said he felt A.B. 23 made the pay scale equitable. He stated the pay increase was seen as a means of compensating the sheriffs and district attorneys for the responsibilities and liabilities incurred during the course of employment. Mr. Gillins noted the district attorneys and sheriffs in Nevada had some of the most difficult law enforcement jobs.
Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City, said he supported the pay raise for the district attorneys and sheriffs in Nevada. He stated those individuals were professionals whose pay were their livelihoods. Mayor Masayko said those elected officials needed their pay to be commensurate with their duties and accountabilities.
Mayor Masayko recommended amending A.B. 23 by providing a pay raise for all county officials elected in Nevada. Nevada’s elected county officials received their last pay increase in 1995. Mayor Masayko stated if the committee members proceeded with A.B. 23 as written, they might create an inequity in the pay earned by all elected county officials. The mayor noted all elected county officials in Nevada run for office on an at-large basis, were elected to 4‑year terms, and their duties were statutorily defined.
Mayor Masayko reiterated previous testimony regarding the fact that some deputies earn more than their appointing authorities. Mayor Masayko pointed out there were individuals who had to take a pay cut when running for office. Mayor Masayko noted the city councils in Nevada set the salaries of city officials; salaries, which were higher than the proposed increase Mayor Masayko was seeking for the county officials.
Mayor Masayko asked the Senate Committee on Government Affairs to true up S.B. 53 and A.B. 23 by amending A.B. 23 to provide for pay raises for all elected county officials in Nevada. Mayor Masayko stated if A.B. 23 were not amended as he requested, then there might not be an incentive for the Assembly to consider S.B. 53.
Mayor Masayko said the hard-working, elected officials in Nevada’s counties
deserved a pay raise. Mayor Masayko stated Carson City had the money to provide
pay raises for all elected officials in Carson City. He added 8 years was a
long time for an employee to go without an increase in pay. The mayor promised
Carson City would find the money to fund pay raises for its elected officials.
Mayor Masayko said it was his commitment to Carson City’s elected officials.
Bernie Curtis, Board of Commissioners, Douglas County, echoed Mayor Masayko’s comments regarding the need to increase the pay of Nevada’s elected county officials. He said he worked in law enforcement for 31 years prior to serving on the Douglas County Board of Commissioners. Due to his law enforcement experience, he knew there was a need to increase the pay of Nevada’s district attorneys and sheriffs. Mr. Curtis urged the committee members to amend A.B. 23 by providing for a pay raise for all of Nevada’s elected county officials.
Norman Frey, Board of Commissioners, Churchill County, stated Churchill County was financially sound. He said he thought the people in Churchill County would accept a pay raise for all the elected officials in the county. Mr. Frey said the elected officials in Churchill County viewed themselves as a team. If only two members of the team were given a pay raise, then the team would be spilt. Mr. Frey said he wanted all county elected officials to receive a pay raise.
Senator Care said he had questions which were not necessarily related to A.B. 23. Senator Care asked whether Mayor Masayko, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. Frey agreed the position of county commissioner was part‑time. All three men replied in the affirmative.
Senator Care asked how often Mayor Masayko, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. Frey had abstained from voting due to a conflict. Mayor Masayko said he had been in office for approximately 6 years and could only recall abstaining once. Mr. Curtis said he had abstained from four votes in 6 years. Mr. Curtis noted the position of county commissioner was a part-time job, but that he worked more than 40 hours per week as a county commissioner. Mr. Frey said he had abstained twice in the last 2 1/2 years. Mr. Frey added he spent 50 percent of his time serving as a county commissioner and 50 percent of his time farming.
Senator Care said he asked the question as he thought it might be time to consider some elected positions as full-time, not part-time, positions.
Mayor Masayko said he had discussed the issue of full-time versus part-time county commissions with the Clark County and Washoe County commissioners and the Nevada Association of Counties. He said the Clark and Washoe County commissioners felt the demands of their jobs made the positions full‑time. The mayor added it was possible that not all Washoe County or Clark County Commissioners felt the position to be full-time.
Mayor Masayko told the committee members he served as Carson City’s mayor on a full-time basis as he was retired and had the time to devote to the position. Should he not have the time, the city would have to hire somebody to assist him. Mayor Masayko said he felt if he had an assistant, that person would earn considerably more than he did.
Mr. Frey said he thought it might be premature to advance the idea of a full-time county commission in the rural counties. Mr. Frey stated it was beneficial for the people in the rural counties to see their county commissioners working at jobs other than the county commission. A part-time county commission was still feasible in Nevada’s rural counties. Mr. Frey noted Churchill County had only three county commissioners, which sometimes created a burden for the membership. However, the county commissioners were willing to accept that burden. Mr. Frey stated he felt a part-time position did the job more justice.
Chairman O’Connell asked the elected officials present whether they knew how much a Legislator was paid. Mayor Masayko, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. Frey all replied they felt the legislative salary was too low. Chairman O’Connell said she asked the question as she felt the responsibilities of a legislator were the same as the responsibilities of other elected officials, whether or not the legislative position was full-time.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether Mayor Masayko, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. Frey were the spokesmen for A.B. 23. Mayor Masayko replied in the affirmative and requested the elected officials attending the hearing indicate their solidarity with his position on the bill in some fashion. Chairman O’Connell said the elected officials could indicate their solidarity in any fashion they desired.
Senator Raggio said:
I had made a commitment to myself that I was not going to speak today on this because I figured we would have to amend this on the Floor of the Senate. You raised the issue about likening this to the legislators’ salaries. I already gave a lecture this morning in Senate Finance, but I am going to repeat it. I think it is apples and oranges.
First of all, I remain firmly convinced we are doing a great disservice if we only raise the salaries of district attorneys and sheriffs. I have said it before, but I agree. I served in a position as an elected district attorney. Historically, because it is required, the Legislature has always looked at the salaries of the county elected officers. We are charged with the responsibility, and it is our responsibility, to see to it that the people who assume those positions of great responsibility, whether it is a small county or a large county, are compensated fairly. I think it is absolutely unconscionable that the Legislature has not raised these salaries since 1995. That is 8 years these people have assumed these positions, some have held them that long, some are new. But, the position ought to be compensated fairly. When you talk about the Legislature, we did this to ourselves. In my history, I have been here for 30 years, the Legislature used to periodically, and on a regular time schedule, raise the salaries of the legislators every 4 years. We raised it to a cost of living. True, we are unlike these others, we are only paid 60 days. That should be taken out. If we had the courage, we would put forth a constitutional amendment to require, now we have a 120-day limit, that legislators be paid for the full time they serve here, not just 60 days. That is an archaic hangover from the days we first formed the State and we had short sessions. They wanted to give a disincentive for the Legislature to stay here forever. But now it is a complex State. We have 2 million to 2.5 million people. We have large responsibilities. The 60-day payment for legislators is archaic and should be done away with.
The other thing we did here was that some years back we voted for a 300 percent pension increase. Madam Chair, you and I were among those that did not. But, the majority did. As a result of that vote, they have become absolutely afraid, again, to even raise a salary for a legislator, or talk about an increase in the retirement or health benefits, or anything else. We used to do it on a very frequent basis and nobody cared, because we were doing the right thing.
So, it is not a comparison to say, “We are legislators. We have more responsibility, more or less, than these county officials do, therefore we should not raise their salaries.” We did this to ourselves. It is not fair to be punitive with these county officials. I really feel emphatic about this. Some are afraid this is going to have political consequences because we are raising county officials’ salaries and we are raising them by a high percentage. When you compute that over 8 years, and they are going to be stuck with it for at least another 2 or 4, it is quite reasonable. So, I do not know where all the fear is. I think we need to quit worrying about getting reelected here. We have to worry about doing the right thing. That’s my feeling. I hope I’ve expressed it. I did not come here for bows. I came here to do the right thing and that is why the majority of the Senate voted for it on the Floor, the majority of the Senate, to include everyone in here. We would cause a great distortion again if we do not do this with the other county officials. Maybe somebody wants to cut out the commissioners. I am not going to argue strongly one way or the other. But, I do think in the urban counties, certainly, those county commissioners are working far more than full-time, even though they might have other income.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 23 and opened the hearing on A.B. 69.
ASSEMBLY BILL 69: Expands exemption from requirement that State Public Works Board furnish engineering and architectural services for buildings constructed on state property or with legislative appropriation to certain improvements made by Division of Wildlife of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 28-521)
Terry R. Crawforth, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said he supported A.B. 69. Mr. Crawforth stated the bill was simple. He referred to section 1, subsection 2, which included the Division of Wildlife (DOW) as a state agency that would be exempted from using the services of the SPWB on certain construction projects.
Mr. Crawforth stated the DOW operated 13 wildlife management areas, 4 fish hatcheries, and a number of office facilities situated on approximately 220,000 acres around the state. Additionally, the DOW owned a number of small buildings, residences, dams, bridges, outhouses, and other types of buildings.
The DOW had a registered engineer and engineering assistant on staff. Mr. Crawforth said both the DOW and the SPWB could become more efficient by eliminating the requirement for the SPWB to provide engineering and architectural services to the DOW.
Mr. Crawforth said other agencies were exempted from using the SPWB‘s engineering and architectural services. He stated the DOW was requesting the same statutory exemption granted to those other state agencies.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether a particular project had prompted the DOW’s request for the exemption. Mr. Crawforth replied the DOW recognized the need to have in-house engineering services. He reiterated his previous statement that the DOW now had a registered professional engineer on staff.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether the exemption would require additional staff or funding for the DOW. Mr. Crawforth replied, “No.”
Senator Tiffany asked for clarification on Mr. Crawforth’s previous testimony. She said she thought she heard Mr. Crawforth say the DOW wanted the exemption because it felt its structures were unique and different, and the DOW staff felt they could do a better job in-house than the SPWB staff. Mr. Crawforth replied, “No,” adding some of the DOW’s smaller projects were unique. The SPWB engineer performed the survey work, project design, project development, and project management on those smaller projects. At this time, the DOW engineer was required to have the SPWB sign off on the different stages of a project.
Senator Tiffany asked whether the DOW employed an architect. Mr. Crawforth said “No,” adding the SPWB would be responsible for oversight of and signing off on the architectural plans for many DOW projects. He stated the exemption would eliminate additional steps for both agencies. Mr. Crawforth cited the DOW fish hatchery project as one supervised by the SPWB.
Senator Tiffany asked whether the DOW requested the exemption as it felt the exemption would expedite certain projects. Mr. Crawforth replied, “Yes.”
Chairman O’Connell noted there was a limit of 1000 square feet on the DOW building projects. Mr. Crawforth said, “Correct.”
Mr. Nunez stated, “For the record, I want to indicate that the Public Works Board is in support of this bill.”
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 69 and opened the hearing on A.B. 151.
ASSEMBLY BILL 151 (1st Reprint): Authorizes public guardian to appoint deputies and revises provisions relating to term of office of appointed public guardian. (BDR 20-580)
For the record, John Slaughter, Lobbyist, Washoe County, read his prepared testimony in support of A.B. 151, Exhibit E.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether other counties in Nevada had deputy public guardians. Mr. Slaughter stated Clark County was the only other Nevada county with an office of the public guardian. Mr. Slaughter said Clark County supported A.B. 151.
Chairman O’Connell asked Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, whether he could answer her question regarding the Clark County office of the public guardian and whether or not that position was appointed. Mr. Musgrove said the Clark County commissioners appointed the Clark County public guardian.
Mr. Musgrove said the Assembly was concerned about the term of office for an appointed deputy public guardian. The concern stemmed from the fact that the public guardian served at the pleasure of the county commission and county manager. Mr. Musgrove said Clark County supported A.B. 151 as written. Mr. Musgrove noted the job of public guardian was overwhelming for one person.
Chairman O’Connell asked what deputizing a deputy public guardian would entail. She was especially concerned about a deputy public guardian’s accountability. Mr. Slaughter stated whenever a public guardian was appointed, he or she signed a bond and took an oath of office. The public guardian was responsible for all of his or her actions through the bond. Mr. Slaughter said the deputy public guardians would also be required to sign a bond and take an oath of office.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether the people whose affairs were handled by public guardians were protected. Mr. Slaughter replied “Very much so.”
Senator Tiffany asked whether the public guardians would be able to delegate all of their powers to a deputy public guardian. Senator Tiffany specifically wanted to know whether a deputy public guardian would have the ability to hire or fire other employees, or spend money.
Mr. Slaughter said the bill’s language was the same as language providing for the appointment of deputies in other positions. The language fell short of permitting a deputy public guardian to hire or fire other employees. The public guardian’s office was seeking the authority for deputies to perform the day‑to‑day functions of the office. Senator Tiffany said she wanted to know whether there was clarifying language in the bill indicating a deputy public guardian could not hire or fire other employees or spend money. She said she did not see language in the bill prohibiting such activities by a deputy public guardian.
Mr. Slaughter referred to section 1, subsection 1 of the bill. He noted there was only one public guardian per county. Mr. Slaughter said he thought that statutory provision would give the public guardians the authority to appoint deputies.
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, said section 1, subsection 1 read, “… the deputy so appointed may perform all duties required of the public guardian and has the corresponding powers and responsibilities.” Mr. Wasserman stated if the committee members wanted to limit the authority of the deputy public guardians, specific language limiting the authority of the deputy public guardians should be inserted in that section.
Chairman O’Connell said the committee members were concerned about the authority the deputy public guardians would have. She read the phrase, “… to perform fully the duties …” from section 1, subsection 1 of A.B. 151, and said public guardians were powerful, as they controlled people’s assets which, in turn, determined the quality of life.
Chairman O’Connell asked Senator Care whether he had dealt with the Clark County public guardian’s office in the course of his law practice. Senator Care indicated he had not.
Senator Care asked about the selection process for the deputy public guardians and wanted to know whether there would be minimum requirements a person must have before being appointed as a deputy public guardian. Senator Care referred to section 1, subsection 4 of the bill which provided for the compensation a deputy public guardian would receive. He said he wanted to know what form the compensation would take.
Mr. Slaughter replied he had discussed the appointment of deputy public guardians with the Clark County public guardian, Kay Giles, who indicated she would appoint only two deputy public guardians. Those individuals were presently employed as senior case managers in the Clark County Public Guardian’s Office (CCPGO). The CCPGO currently employed 10 case managers. Mr. Slaughter noted all the case managers working at the CCPGO were nationally certified.
Senator Care said the intent of A.B. 151 was to appoint deputy public guardians from within a public guardian’s office. He asked whether a public guardian could appoint a deputy public guardian from outside the office. Mr. Slaughter replied the bill’s intent was to appoint deputy public guardians from the current employees of a public guardian’s office. However, there was no requirement that a deputy public guardian be employed by a public guardian’s office prior to being appointed. Mr. Slaughter repeated Ms. Giles’ statement she would appoint her two senior case managers as deputy public guardians in Clark County.
Senator Care again asked about the compensation a deputy public guardian would receive. Mr. Slaughter said he did not have that information, but would provide it to Senator Care.
Chairman O’Connell said she received assurance from Senator Raggio about the need for and ability of the people appointed to serve as deputy public guardians.
Senator Raggio said:
Just to make it clear, I have seen many cases where, fortunately, we had someone acting as a public guardian. Otherwise, there are people out there who get taken advantage of by a neighbor, or a “friend.” This is really the best assurance you can have, somebody in an officially designated position who is bonded. A deputy certainly should have the right to fully perform under the same kind of security situation. I would certainly urge we give them authority.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 151 and opened the hearing on A.B. 84.
ASSEMBLY BILL 84 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions concerning certain town advisory boards. (BDR 21-119)
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9, said the local governments in Clark County requested A.B. 84. She met with the Clark County manager after the 71st Legislative Session adjourned to discuss the changes to the statutes governing town boards. The amendments opened up the membership of town boards in Nevada, while setting term limits for the town board members.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the Assembly amended A.B. 84 extensively. One provision of the amendment eliminated term limits for town board members. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the amendment was a good one. Additionally, the town board chairmen would rotate, in order to provide other individuals with an opportunity to serve as chairman. This provision allowed more individuals to gain experience as a town board chairman and did not limit the chairmanship to one individual.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani felt the rotation of chairmen was a key piece of the legislation. She added that Thom Reilly, Clark County Manager, felt the 90‑day posting time contained in section 1, subsection 2 was too long, and impacted the county commission’s ability to appoint town board members. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said changing the posting time to 30 days worked better for local governments.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani reiterated a term limit of 4 years for town board members had been added during the 71st Legislative Session. She said she thought Mr. Musgrove had a proposed amendment limiting the term of office for town board members to 2 years.
Chairman O’Connell asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani whether she considered the amendment to be friendly. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied, “Yes,” adding she would accept the amendment as long as the provision calling for rotating chairmen contained in section 1, paragraph (c) was left intact.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said rotating chairmen provided a necessary balance and allowed town boards to find new members. She stated people did not always want to commit to a 4-year term of office for town boards. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the 4-year terms for town board members paralleled the 4-year terms of the county commission. She said she thought a 2-year term would be compatible with the terms served by the county commissioners. Additionally, a 2-year term provided for the appointment or resignation of town board members based upon their appointing authority’s term of office.
Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Musgrove whether he had an opportunity to discuss the proposed amendments for A.B. 84 with the chairman of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. She specifically wanted to know whether the Assembly had problems with the amendment.
Mr. Musgrove said he had discussed amending A.B. 84 with the chairman and key members of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. Those individuals indicated they did not have a problem revising the term of office for town board members from 4 years to 2 years. They were concerned about removing the provision which allowed for rotating chairman. Mr. Musgrove distributed a proposed amendment to A.B. 84, Exhibit F, which addressed both those issues. Mr. Musgrove submitted the prepared testimony of Clark County Commissioner Bruce L. Woodbury, Exhibit G.
Senator Raggio said the bill applied only to town boards in Clark County. He asked Mr. Musgrove the following questions: One, whether Exhibit F deleted lines 19 and 20 in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a) of the bill; two, if a town board member’s term of office was 2 years, would the person be eligible for reappointment; and three, if the town board member was eligible for reappointment, how many times could he or she be reappointed.
Mr. Musgrove said it was his intent that a person could serve an unlimited number of terms as chairman of a town board.
Senator Raggio stated he understood a person could serve an unlimited number of terms as chairman of a town board. The Senator said he was talking about a person being reappointed to the town board as a member. Under the proposed amendment, the new term of office for town board members would be 2 years. He asked whether those members would be eligible for reappointment. Mr. Musgrove replied, “Absolutely,” adding it was the bill’s intent to remove term limits for town board members.
Senator Raggio noted there were occasions when an appointed official was not suited to his or her appointed position. In such instances, it would benefit the board or commission not to reappoint the person. Mr. Musgrove said the town boards needed the institutional memory of those appointed to serve as members. Town board members served at the pleasure of their appointing authorities and could be removed from office at any time without due process.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani read section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (d) of the bill:
Removal of a member of the town advisory board if the board of county commissioners finds that his removal is in the best interest of the residents of the unincorporated town, and for appointment of a member to serve the unexpired term of the member so removed.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that statutory provision was different than serving at the pleasure of a town board member’s appointing authority. She suggested rewording the statute. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said there was similar language in one of her bills dealing with planning commissioners. She said appointing authorities wanted the comfort level provided by knowing their appointees would follow directions.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs felt very strongly about retaining the rotating-chairmen provision. She offered to speak to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs about the possible deletion of lines 19 and 20 in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (c) of the bill. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she did not know the intent behind the language in that section of the bill, and added she would not have a problem removing that language from A.B. 84.
Chairman O’Connell asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani whether she could discuss the bill with Assemblyman Mark Manendo, chairman of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. The purpose of the discussion would be to ascertain what the Assembly had in mind when it amended A.B. 84.
Chairman O’Connell also requested Assemblywoman Giunchigliani provide the Senate Committee on Government Affairs with any proposed amendments to A.B. 84 she might have. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she would be happy to talk with the members of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and she would present her proposed amendment to A.B. 84 to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the original town board legislation received negative press when it was enacted. She said she had talked with town board members, who all asked the same question, “How do you get fresh voices, but retain the institutional memory?” Some individuals served on boards and commission for 30 years or more. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani introduced the legislation in 2001 to get a flow of rotation going. She agreed with the Clark County manager that the 2001 legislation might have gone too far. She said she was trying to provide some balance to the town boards membership with A.B. 84. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she knew Clark County Commissioner Woodbury wanted to retain the rotation of the chairmen. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani reiterated her commitment to discuss the bill with the members of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs.
Mr. Musgrove paraphrased the second paragraph of Exhibit G. He said Commissioner Woodbury felt it was the board’s responsibility to determine the chairman and the chairman’s term of office. Commissioner Woodbury also felt that should the majority of board members want to change a town board chairman, they should have the right and authority to do so.
Senator Tiffany said she wanted to know what the vote had been when the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs voted on A.B. 84. Mr. Musgrove said he believed there were two votes cast against the measure and that Assemblyman Goicoechea had cast one of the dissenting votes. The majority of the Assembly committee members liked the idea of rotating chairmen.
Senator Tiffany stated her next question would be hearsay. She said there had been four votes cast against the measure on the Floor of the Assembly. Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Musgrove whether he thought the rotating-chairmen provision was the reason for those four votes. Mr. Musgrove said he believed so. Senator Tiffany stated she liked the rotating-chairman provision of the bill. She added most boards and commissions received fair input during a meeting with the chairman facilitating the meeting.
Mary Jane Harvey, Chairman, Paradise Town Board, Clark County, read from prepared text, Exhibit H.
Gary Hayes said he was an attorney specializing in land use and zoning in Clark County. He stated he supported the comments and suggestions made by Commissioner Woodbury and Ms. Harvey.
Mr. Hayes noted the town board members spent a great deal of time serving on the town boards and were willing to go the extra mile. Mr. Hayes stated the members brought an institutional memory to the town board. He said some chairmen had more time to devote to the tasks than others. If a person wanted to expend the time and effort required by serving on a town board, he or she should not be denied the opportunity to serve. Mr. Hayes said town boards should have the right to change chairmen. Mr. Hayes stated he supported A.B. 84.
John Hiatt, Chairman, Enterprise Town Board, Clark County, stated he had served as the chairman of the Enterprise Town Board for the last 10 years. He had not sought the office, but had been elected by the other board members.
Mr. Hiatt said the current system of having town board members appointed by the county commission appeared to work well. Mr. Hiatt said having the town board members serve at the pleasure of the county commission and the election of the town board chairman by the town board also worked well.
Mr. Hiatt said the changes contained in A.B. 84 would not improve the system. Mr. Hiatt said he supported the changes suggested by Ms. Harvey. Those changes would revert the statutes governing town boards to where they were prior to the 71st Legislative Session.
John S. Williams, Paradise Town Board, Clark County, said he echoed the comments made by previous witnesses. Mr. Williams stated he had served on the Paradise Town Board for a little more than 2 years. He added it had taken him 2 years to become comfortable in the position. Mr. Williams said he was lucky to be appointed to his initial 2-year term as it permitted him an opportunity to determine whether he wanted to continue to serve on the town board.
Mr. Williams stated it was a daunting task to serve as a town board member. Mr. Williams told the committee members that he put 50 to 100 miles on his personal vehicle every month, visiting building sites and talking with his neighbors. He said serving on the town board allowed him to do something for his community. Mr. Williams said 2-year terms would allow town board members to decide whether they wanted to continue in the position. Mr. Williams noted town board members were volunteers serving at the pleasure of their appointing authorities. Further, in Nevada, town boards were advisory committees with the membership serving in part-time positions. Mr. Williams stated he supported the testimony of the other town board members who previously testified on A.B. 84.
Delores Gatliff, Vice Chairman, Spring Valley Town Board, Clark County, said she supported Ms. Harvey’s suggestions, especially the one limiting a town board’s membership term to 2 years as contained on page 2, line 10 of the bill. Ms. Gatliff stated the Paradise Town Board members put in many volunteer hours. She said she drove through town, talking to people in order to familiarize herself with any problems with which the town board might have to deal.
Ms. Gatliff said she felt section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (c) should be deleted from A.B. 84. She suggested A.B. 84 could be further amended by deleting section 2, subsection 2 from the bill; amending the term of office for town board members from 4 years to 2 years, and eliminating the rotating-chair provision.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 84 and opened the hearing on A.B. 217.
ASSEMBLY BILL 217 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes regarding State Personnel System. (BDR 23-495)
Chairman O’Connell asked Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, to explain why the Department of Personnel (DOP) requested the bill and whether a definition existed for the term “essential functions.”
Ms. Greene said the DOP had requested A.B. 217 as current law contained discrepancies concerning which state agency would pass regulations for the DOP. The bill was intended to clarify the statutory language delegating that authority. Certain sections of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) stated the director of the DOP passed the regulations, while other sections of the NRS stated the Personnel Commission passed regulations for the DOP. In practice, the Personnel Commission passed all DOP regulations.
Shelley Blotter, Committee on Catastrophic Leave, Department of Personnel, said “essential functions” is a term used in conjunction with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The DOP, through regulation, had adopted the definition of “essential function” contained in the federal statutes. The term meant the primary responsibilities of the job and did not include marginal job functions which did not reflect the true intent of the job.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether the term “essential functions” was defined in the NRS, and whether the term could be found in ADA regulations or ordinances. Ms. Blotter explained the term was defined in federal statutes and the DOP adopted the federal definition through regulation. The chairman asked why the term had not been included in the NRS. Ms. Blotter said she did not know why the term “essential functions” was not included in the NRS. She added she knew the State operated under federal law. As the term was already defined in federal statute, it would be a duplication of effort to define the term in the NRS.
Chairman O’Connell noted there were times when federal terms were codified into the NRS to make definition searches easier for people. She suggested it might be helpful for the DOP to codify the federal definition of “essential functions” into the NRS.
Ms. Greene read from prepared text in support of A.B. 217, Exhibit I.
Kathy Augustine, State Controller, read from prepared text in support of A.B. 217, Exhibit J, and presented the committee members with a chart detailing the amount of the anticipated pay week overpayments, Exhibit K.Ms. Augustine noted as of December 2002, the anticipated week overpayment exceeded $6 million. She said she hoped current state employees, using their annual leave, would repay part of the money to the state.
Ms. Augustine requested clarification from Ms. Greene of section 24, subsection 8, the pay-back provision of the bill.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether most of the anticipated week problems occurred when the state installed a new computer system. Ms. Augustine said that was exactly when the problem occurred. The State Controller’s Office did not have the Integrated Financial System (IFS) until January 1999. In March 1999, the State went to the Human Resources (HR) System. At that time, the state budget director decided state employees would be overpaid 1 week’s pay which would have to be paid back to the State when an employee left state service. Ms. Augustine said many of the account clerks in state agencies were not withholding that week’s pay. As time passed, the institutional knowledge relating to the anticipated week in state agencies was being lost. The lost institutional knowledge resulted in the state losing money. Ms. Augustine said she thought the state would have a better chance of recovering a portion of the lost money if employees were given an alternative means of repaying the state.
Chairman O’Connell asked why the overpayment had not been automatically deducted from the employees’ next paychecks. Ms. Augustine said she had asked the same question. She had been told it was not the state employees’ fault they received the overpayment, and a decision had been made that state employees would not have to repay the money until terminated. Ms. Augustine stated the DOP and the state budget director made that decision. Ms. Augustine said she thought Ms. Greene could provide Chairman O’Connell with a better answer to her question.
Ms. Greene referred to section 24, subsection 8 which allowed a state employee to use his or her annual leave to offset any overpayment, including the anticipated week overpayment, received by the employee.
Chairman O’Connell asked why the overpayment was not automatically deducted from an employee’s next paycheck. Ms. Greene said when current state employees were overpaid, the overpayment was deducted from their next paycheck. Should the amount of the overpayment be significant, it would be deducted from a series of paychecks. Ms. Augustine told Ms. Greene that Chairman O’Connell wanted to know why the anticipated-week overpayment had not been automatically deducted from the employees’ next paycheck.
Ms. Greene said the money owed for the anticipated week was collected when a state employee left state service. Chairman O’Connell asked why the state had to wait until a state employee left state service before collecting the anticipated-week overpayment. She noted state employees had been given money they had not earned.
Kim Foster, Administrative Services Officer, Department of Personnel, referred to a handout illustrating the overlap between the Legacy payroll system and the IFS payroll system, Exhibit L. Through A.B. 217, state employees were being provided with an alternative means of repaying the anticipated-week overpayment by cashing out a week of their annual leave.
Ms. Foster explained the term anticipated week had first been used in the Legacy payroll system which employed two primary time periods to calculate a state employee’s earnings for each pay period. The two primary time periods were the report period and the pay period. She directed the committee members’ attention to the bottom of Exhibit L, which illustrated the overlap of the two time periods under discussion.
For demonstration purposes, Ms. Foster explained Exhibit L used pay period 19 which ended 2 weeks before the March 19, 1999 payday. The reporting period for pay period 19 was February 27 through March 12, 1999. The next line of Exhibit L showed the pay period which was a 2-week period ending 1 week prior to payday. During this period, the payroll system calculated the pay of state employees and paid them accordingly. The highlighted area of Exhibit L referred to the anticipated week. The state payroll system paid state employees for a week of time which had not been reported on the employees’ time sheets. The system had anticipated the number of hours each employee would work during that week. The practice placed the state at a high risk for both overpaying and underpaying state employees. The practice was confusing, difficult to administer, and people did not understand it.
A legislative study of the state personnel system recommended eliminating the anticipated-week practice. The study determined the most opportune time to eliminate the anticipated week would be during the implementation of the IFS/HR payroll system, which occurred March 6, 1999.
Ms. Foster stated the March 6, 1999 date had been selected as it would not impact the cash flow of the state and its employees. People employed by the state during the conversion process received their last Legacy system paycheck on March 19, 1999. The first paycheck issued by the IFS/HR system was for the pay period March 6 through March 23, 1999. There had been an overlap of 1 week from March 6 through March 12, 1999. In effect, state employees were paid twice for 1 week’s work.
Ms. Foster stressed the overpayment occurred only on paper. There was no cash outlay by the state. The implementation of a new payroll system did not affect state employees who continued to receive their paychecks.
Ms. Foster said the state calculated the overlap week for each state employee. The amount of the overlap was printed on each employee’s paycheck stub. At this point, the paper trail became apparent. Under the Legacy payroll system, when a state employee left state employment at the end of a given reporting period, the employee would receive 1 week’s pay. Under the IFS/HR payroll system, when a state employee left state service at the end of a pay period, the employee received 2 weeks of pay with the anticipated week being deducted from the 2 weeks of pay. The employee received 1 week of pay.
Ms. Foster stated the employees received the same pay under both payroll systems. The DOP transitioned the effective date of the anticipated week from one payroll system to another.
Chairman O’Connell asked, “So are you telling us there was no cash transaction and the employee did not really receive any additional pay?” Ms. Foster replied, “That is correct.” Chairman O’Connell said she wanted to know how an employee could owe the state a week’s pay when he or she had not actually received a week’s pay.
Ms. Augustine said as of December 2002, records indicated former state employees owed the state $6.1 million. The state would have to recover that money which had been incurred during the transition week. The repayment requirement applied to only state employees employed during the transition week. As those employees terminated from state service, the money would have to be recovered from them.
Ms. Augustine said cash had not gone out, but was cash on the books. Ms. Augustine repeated her earlier testimony regarding recovery of the money from state employees who were employed during the transition week. Ms. Augustine reiterated the loss of institutional knowledge was detrimental to the state’s efforts to collect the overpayment from former state employees. Ms. Augustine said she did not think it was State Payroll’s fault that overpayment was not collected from departing state employees. It was the fault of the accounting clerks and the agencies from which the state employees terminated.
Ms. Augustine’s said her office became involved whenever State Payroll learned of a terminating employee who had not repaid his or her anticipated week prior to leaving state service, and State Payroll was unable to collect the money. Ms. Augustine stated her office would seek repayment of the overpayment from former state employees.
Chairman O’Connell said she was not clear on the testimony provided and asked whether state employees received the extra money. Ms. Foster said state employees had not received any additional money over what they normally received under either payroll system.
Senator Raggio asked whether state employees were paid twice during the overlap week. He said he thought the employees received more money and that they had been issued two paychecks during the transition period for the overlap week. Ms. Foster replied, “Yes, that is true. But, they did not receive any more cash.”
Senator Raggio asked whether state employees received their paychecks earlier during the transition week and whether those checks were for a larger amount than the employees normally received. Senator Raggio asked for an explanation of pay period 19 contained in Exhibit L. Senator Raggio asked why state employees owed $6 million if they were not paid twice for the overlap week.
Ms. Greene said the practice of paying state employees for a week they had not worked dated to the 1970s. She stated when she began working for the State in the 1970s, she was paid for a week she had not yet worked, but it was anticipated she would work that week. The practice of paying state employees for time they had not worked created accounting problems when employees took annual leave, leave without pay, or sick leave. To reduce the accounting problems, the DOP eliminated the anticipated week.
On paper only, Ms. Greene said, it appeared that the state paid employees twice for the anticipated week. The State had not paid state employees twice for the anticipated week and the liability associated with that week had always been present. There had always been a week owed to the state by state employees when they left state service. During the March 1999 conversion, state employees did not receive additional money in their paychecks. They received their regular paychecks. The amount of money a state employee owed the state when he or she left state service was now being tracked on paper.
Senator Tiffany said she was confused by the testimony. Chairman O’Connell said she was also confused by the testimony. Chairman O’Connell stated she could not tell whether or not state employees received an additional amount of money over and above their regular pay during the transition week. Chairman O’Connell said she wanted to know why state employees owed money to the state if they did not receive the additional pay.
Ms. Augustine told the committee members that state employees owed the money to the state at the conclusion of their state service due to the conversion. She explained state employees had not been paid twice for the same week’s pay. When the new payroll system was installed, the extra pay had been registered. state employees could pay back the extra week at any time during their employment with the state.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether that would hold true even though state employees had not received the additional money. Ms. Augustine replied, “yes,” adding all state employees had been paid an extra week’s pay which could be repaid in cash at any time during their state employment. She stressed such repayment would be voluntary. Ms. Augustine noted the could not require state employees to repay the money they received for the anticipated week in March 1999. Currently, the only means the state had to recover the money would be by withholding it from an employee’s final paycheck. Ms. Augustine said A.B. 217 would give state employees the option of repaying the overpayment before they left state service. The employees could use a week of their annual leave to repay the money due the State resulting from the March 1999 overpayment.
Ms. Augustine stated it was frustrating for the state to have so much money owed it. She stressed the most current data relating to the overpayments dated to December 2002. She said when her office began receiving the overpayment accounts, she had been curious as to the exact amount due the state. Ms. Augustine said the State Payroll system had a deficit of $6.1 million.
Chairman O’Connell said she was glad to see the audience members were as confused by the testimony being presented as she was.
Ms. Foster stated:
When we first brought up the new system, there was a huge training curve for all employees. The employees in the central payroll area and all of the pay clerks out in the agencies. We were also really working hard to stabilize the system. We had to bring it up really quickly because of the Y2K [Year 2000] computer issues. We were struggling just to ensure all employees were paid on time and as accurately as possible. This anticipated week came as soon as we did the conversion. As Ms. Augustine stated, when employees leave state service, we have procedures set up and reports produced to ensure we take that anticipated week out of their final leave balances or their final pay. When we first brought up the system, because of the huge learning curve, we did not have tight procedures in place on the anticipated week to ensure we received the money before the employee left.
The pay clerks did not understand clearly what they needed to do. We had made huge strides to develop new policies, procedures, and reports. We have implemented new edits into the system to ensure those employees cannot leave state government without us collecting this anticipated week. I just reviewed our reports before I came over here. The year we implemented the system, I have seen about 52 anti-week payments we did not receive before an employee left. In 2002, there were only 5. All of the controls we have installed have really helped reduce the number of employees that leave state government without getting the anticipated week taken out of their check.
Chairman O’Connell stated she did not envy the witnesses dealing with the issue as it made no sense whatsoever. She asked Ms. Greene whether she had been a state employee since the 1970s and whether Ms. Greene still owed the state 1-week’s pay. Ms. Greene replied, “I do,” adding she had been paid an anticipated week. Ms. Greene said the state’s liability for the anticipated week had been in existence for as long as the Legacy payroll system had been used by the state. The liability had not been committed to paper. The state was able to discover the nature and extent of its liability only after it converted to the IFS/HR payroll system.
Ms. Augustine stated her chief accountant for debt collection could assist the committee members in understanding the anticipated week and the state’s liability with the anticipated week.
Christi Thompson, Chief Accountant, Accounts Receivable, Office of the State Controller, stated the anticipated week was a reduction in the liability the state owed to its employees at any point in time. The state went from paying its employees 1 week behind to paying them 2 weeks behind. To accomplish that, the state could not short its current employees 1 week’s pay. The anticipated week was created to ensure state employees did not receive a reduced paycheck due to the lag time involved.
Ms. Thompson said at any point, the state owed its employees approximately $30 million minus the anticipated weekly pay of $5 million. State employees did not owe the state. Ms. Thompson asked whether her testimony was further confusing the committee members. Chairman O’Connell replied, “yes,” adding the matter was “pretty screwed up.”
Ms. Augustine said there were 157 accounts for anticipated-week overpayments to state employees. The average account was $480.05. To date, her office had received $2802.33 in repayment of the anticipated-week overpayments. Her office had written off $3483.70 as non-collectable. Her office had sent 97 overdue accounts to a debt collection agency. The amount sent for collection totaled $46,921.24. Ms. Augustine’s office had been unable to collect those monies because of the age of the debt, or there being no way to contact the employee after he or she left state service.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether Ms. Augustine could provide the committee members with a report detailing the dollar amount of the anticipated-week overpayment situation. Chairman O’Connell labeled the situation a “mess.” Ms. Augustine said she could provide the committee members with the information provided to her office by State Payroll. She added the DOP was the agency which generated the information Chairman O’Connell requested. That agency could provide the committee members with the most current information as it applied to the anticipated-week overpayment situation.
Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Foster whether her agency had the report mentioned by Ms. Augustine. Ms. Foster replied, “Yes, we do.” She was directed by Chairman O’Connell to provide a copy of the report for review by the committee members. Ms. Greene promised to provide the report to the committee members.
Ms. Foster stated:
I would like to clarify that the figures Ms. Augustine is bringing out are the figures for the overpayments directed to her office. We did not collect those and those were probably early figures from before we brought up the system. I have explained we have implemented controls which have reduced those from occurring. In the figures I have, the opening balance we started out with when we did the overlap pay was $8.7 million. As of March 2, 2003, it was down to $5.9 million. We have collected about 30 percent of it back through employees terminating.
Chairman O’Connell said she wanted to know when the law had been enacted saying the state could only collect the overpayment of the anticipated-week pay through employee termination.
Ms. Greene stated there was no law on the books regarding the anticipated‑week’s liability or the collection process. The state collected the money when an employee left state service or allowed employees to repay the money upfront. Some employees had made installment payments. The DOP requested section 24, subsection 8 of A.B. 217 as a means of providing state employees with another method by which the anticipated-week overpayment could be repaid to the state. That section allowed state employees to use a week of their annual leave in lieu of a cash payment.
Senator Care said after listening to the testimony on the anticipated week he was beginning to feel like Bud Abbott.
Senator Tiffany asked Ms. Foster how the anticipated-week policy would be changed beginning immediately. Ms. Foster said she did not think the policy needed to be changed, as through the conversion process, the anticipated week had been eliminated. The anticipated week was part of the defunct Legacy payroll system which paid state employees for time they did not work.
Senator Tiffany asked for and received clarification from Ms. Foster on A.B. 217. Ms. Foster explained the bill cleaned up past policy as it pertained to the anticipated-week overpayment. Ms. Foster stressed the anticipated week was part of the Legacy payroll system which the state no longer used. Under the Legacy system, state employees were paid for time they had not worked.
Ms. Foster said she thought the confusion arose from talking about what the anticipated week was versus the actual payroll overpayments received in Ms. Augustine’s office. Ms. Foster said those were separate issues.
Senator Tiffany said she had worked for a company which paid her an anticipated week. Before she left that company’s employ, she had to repay the anticipated week. Senator Tiffany said the practice of paying employees an anticipated-week’s pay helped employees when they first started a new job. Senator Tiffany noted the anticipated week was not an unusual practice, but it created an “accounting nightmare.” Senator Tiffany said the state employees’ anticipated week was on the books and owed the State.
Senator Tiffany asked how many current state employees would owe the State an anticipated-week’s pay when they left state service. Ms. Augustine stated the numbers she provided to the committee members were the referrals to her office of former state employees who had not repaid their anticipated-week’s pay to the State. Responding to Senator Tiffany’s question, Ms. Augustine said there were thousands of current state employees who would owe the State a week’s anticipated pay when they left state service. Senator Tiffany asked whether a Governor’s Executive or Special Order would be required to collect the money from current state employees.
Ms. Foster said the plan implemented when the state converted from the Legacy payroll system to the IFS/HR payroll system ensured that both the state’s and the employees’ cash flow was not affected. She said if the state wanted to collect the cash back from the employees, the state would be shorting the employees’ pay. Senator Tiffany replied, “yes,” adding the employees would be unhappy and claim they were being shorted in their pay. However, the employees had been paid upfront for the time when they first began their state employment. Ms. Foster agreed with Senator Tiffany.
Senator Tiffany again asked whether a legislative or executive order would be required to collect the anticipated-week’s pay from current state employees. Ms. Greene said she believed legislative action of some type would be necessary to collect the money from current state employees. She noted such action would be changing the conditions under which the employees had been hired by requiring an employee to repay the anticipated-week’s pay prior to leaving stateservice.
Senator Tiffany told Ms. Greene the employment conditions could be changed if the employees were given sufficient notice of the change. By giving the employees sufficient notice, Senator Tiffany said she thought the state could not be sued for changing the conditions of employment.
Ms. Greene said the DOP wanted to provide state employees with another means of repaying their anticipated-week’s pay and had hoped to do so through section 24, subsection 8 of A.B. 217.
Senator Tiffany said state employees would be given a method, but not a mandate, of repayment which allowed them to repay the anticipated-week’s pay. Ms. Greene replied, “Correct.”
Ms. Foster asked for and received clarification from Chairman O’Connell on whether the committee members required additional information from her colleagues or herself. Chairman O’Connell stated she wanted as many of DOP’s records as possible in order to show the committee members what they were looking at in terms of dollars and cents. Ms. Foster agreed to update that information and provide it to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.
Ms. Augustine referred to Exhibit K and stated the figures contained in the exhibit were current as of April 23, 2003. The exhibit explained the anticipated‑week’s overpayments to state employees.
Linda F. Covelli, State of Nevada Employees Association No. 4041, stated she had a different perspective on the anticipated-pay week. She said state employees were shocked when they received notification with their paychecks that they owed the State approximately $400 to $500. Ms. Covelli said when the notice was received, the telephones in her office had been busy.
Ms. Covelli said should the state mandate its employees to repay the anticipated-week’s pay now, the would be receiving an interest-free loan from those employees until such time as the employees left state service. When an employee left state service, the State refunded the money to him or her without interest.
Ms. Covelli noted the state employees received no additional money during the conversion period. Prior to 1999, when an employee went to work for the State, he or she worked 3 weeks, and were paid for 2 weeks. When the employee left state service, the State owed the employee a week’s pay.
Ms. Covelli stated the rules were changed in March 1999. At that time, when a person went to work for the State, he or she worked for 4 weeks and were paid for 2 weeks. This meant an employee would be paid 2 weeks’ pay when he or she left state service.
Ms. Covelli explained when the payroll system was changed in March 1999, the new payroll system could not differentiate between those employees hired prior to March 1999 and those employees hired after that time. As the State did not have software which could tell the difference in the dates of hire, the same payroll date was retained and the weeks moved back. When the weeks were moved back, an overlap of dates occurred. Ms. Covelli said the result was all state employees leaving state service received 2 weeks of pay. She noted the state employees hired prior to March 1999 were only owed 1 week’s pay and the State automatically kept a week of the employee’s pay.
Ms. Covelli stressed state employees did not receive any additional money as a result of the 1999 conversion. All employees were paid what they were owed when they left state service. Ms. Covelli said the entire transaction was a paper trail required by the current payroll system in order to recognize all state employees as the same regardless of the hire date.
Chairman O’Connell said she wanted to know why the employees were required to repay the State for their anticipated-week’s pay if the entire transaction was only on paper.
Ms. Covelli said when a state employee left state service, he or she would be paid an extra week’s pay. Ms. Covelli stated only those state employees hired prior to March 1999 would be affected. Currently, the State owed those employees 1 week of pay when they left state service. The state’s payroll system would automatically generate a check for 2 weeks’ pay when those employees left state service. She added that was the only way the computer knew how to handle the situation. The State would automatically retain 1 week’s pay. Ms. Covelli said the entire transaction was a wash, as the State did not pay those employees anything over their earned pay. Ms. Covelli stressed the matter was nothing more than a paper game which permitted the payroll system to recognize all state employees identically.
Chairman O’Connell said the State was giving the employees a week’s pay along with any unpaid leave an employee might have on the books. In essence, that would be considered money.
Ms. Covelli said if the state employees were to repay the anticipated-week’s pay right now, they would be buying a week when they left state service. She explained how that operated using herself as an example. She said if she were a state employee who repaid her anticipated-week’s pay prior to leaving state service, the money would be refunded to her when she ultimately left state service. She said by repaying the anticipated-week’s pay early, she actually purchased an extra week of time. Ms. Covelli said employees who repaid their anticipated-week’s pay prior to leaving state service were making a no-interest loan to the State. Ms. Covelli said as a state employee, she would only be entitled to 1 week’s pay when she left state service, but would receive 2 week’s pay. Ms. Covelli stressed the early repayment of the anticipated‑week’s pay was only for the State’s benefit as it allowed the State an opportunity to organize paperwork.
Senator Titus said while she was a low-tech person, it seemed to her that software for the payroll system could be modified to eliminate the problem under discussion. She said she wanted to know why the computer was not able to differentiate between those state employees hired prior to March 1999 and those hired after that date.
Betty Farris, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association No. 4041 (SNEA), said a committee had been appointed in 1998 to study the computer system for the state’s payroll system. Ms. Farris, as SNEA’s representative, was invited to sit on the committee. The committee tried to accomplish a couple of things at the same time, which resulted in the confusion. The software was changed from the Legacy payroll system to the IFS/HR payroll system. At the same time, the committee wanted to move from a 7-day lag period to a 12-day lag period. Every state employee hired after March 1999 is on the 12-day lag period.
Ms. Farris said the confusion arose by labeling the overlap the anticipated-pay week. The committee had the dates it needed to pay state employees. Originally, the committee had wanted a new computer system to perform every function the state required. However, such a program was very costly. In an effort to reduce costs, the committee decided to take the program elements in place and adopt those elements as is. The basic program elements were not designed to determine which employees had been hired prior to March 1999 and which employees had been hired after March 1999. The lack of adequate computer programming created the problem of the anticipated-week overpayment to state employees.
The committee had to decide how to complete the conversion without disrupting the pay of state employees. The committee decided to program the computer system to generate paychecks for those individuals hired prior to March 1999, by backing up the pay, which made it appear as though the employees had a 12-day lag period. By doing so, those employees received their paychecks on a regularly scheduled payday.
Ms. Farris said the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) solved the problem by having the notation “Pay, Anticipated Week” (PANTP) and a minus sign printed on the bottom of every paycheck generated by that agency. At first, central payroll did not follow NDOT’s example. Once central payroll realized the extent of the problem, it began printing the PANTP notation on the bottom of every executive agency paycheck for individuals hired prior to March 1999.
As the employees hired prior to March 1999 prepared to leave state service, the payroll system generated the final paychecks as if the employees had a 12‑day lag period. When the employee received his or her final paycheck, the check showed a negative PANTP balance coded for a dollar amount and deducted from the 12-day lag period. The dollar amount generated by the PANTP balance protected state employees by ensuring the correct amount of money was deducted from their final paychecks. The paychecks indicated the amount the State owed employees hired prior to March 1999 for 2 weeks of pay, as well as the negative PANTP balance.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 217 and opened the hearing on A.B. 224.
ASSEMBLY BILL 224: Revises provisions relating to Nevada Arts Council. (BDR 18-531)
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs, read prepared testimony, Exhibit M, in support of A.B. 224 and explained an informational booklet detailing the budget of the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA), Exhibit N, Original is on File in the Research Library.
At the conclusion of Mr. Sisco’s testimony, Senator Titus asked where the Nevada Humanities Committee (NHC) was located within the DCA’s organizational structure. Mr. Sisco explained the NHC was not a state agency. Funding was provided to the NHC through the DCA’s budget. The DCA and the NHC worked closely together on a variety of projects.
Senator Titus explained Senator Schneider introduced S.B. 165 providing for murals on highway sound walls. As Mr. Sisco had not been present to explain how the State Arts Council operated, the bill had been defeated.
SENATE BILL 165: Authorizes State Arts Council to solicit and accept gifts, grants and donations to provide grants for creation of murals on highway sound walls. (BDR 18-821)
Senator Titus said she thought S.B. 165 could be added to A.B. 224 as an amendment. Senator Titus said she thought the bill had been defeated due to a lack of understanding of the manner in which the State Arts Council operated.
Susan Boskoff, Executive Director, State Arts Council, Department of Cultural Affairs, said she thought she was in the back of the hearing room during the testimony on S.B. 165, but had not been called to testify. Senator Titus stated Ms. Boskoff could have volunteered her testimony.
Ms. Boskoff said she had wanted to talk to Senator Schneider before testifying on S.B. 165 as she thought the bill fell under the public art regulations. She recommended to Senator Schneider that he and the State Arts Council (SAC) look for public-private partnerships and funding after the session. Ms. Boskoff said she believed the SAC had the authority to generate funding needed to create the murals on highway sound walls. Ms. Boskoff said she thought the bill had a fiscal note attached. She noted if the SAC wanted to accomplish the bill’s goals, it would need to hire additional part-time staff. Ms. Boskoff stressed the SAC wanted to work on the mural project, but thought the SAC could do it within the agency mandates.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 224 and opened the work session on A.B. 113.
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, explained A.B. 113 revised Carson City’s City Charter and there were no amendments to the bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 113: Revises provisions in Charter of Carson City concerning Charter Committee. (BDR S-264)
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 113.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell closed the work session on A.B. 113 and opened the work session on A.B. 135.
ASSEMBLY BILL 135: Revises provisions governing authority of governing body of city to abate certain nuisances and dangerous and noxious conditions. (BDR 21-460)
Mr. Stewart explained he had included a summary for the committee members’ review. The city of Reno proposed an amendment to the bill which specified the governing body would provide, by ordinance, whether an appeal from a property owner who had been ordered pursuant to an ordinance, to repair or eliminate a dangerous structure or condition, to clear debris, rubbish, or weeds should be made to the governing body or to the court of competent jurisdiction.
Chairman O’Connell asked if the amendment had been offered while the bill was still in the Assembly. Nicole J. Lamboley, Lobbyist, City of Reno, said “No,” adding the bill had been requested by the city of Reno. Due to a drafting error and legislative deadlines, the bill had not received a hearing in the Assembly.
Ms. Lamboley said she had spoken with Mark Manendo, chairman of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs about the amended version of A.B. 135. Assemblyman Manendo indicated his committee would look at the bill and possibly concur if the Senate Committee on Government Affairs adopted the amendment.
Chairman O’Connell asked whether Ms. Lamboley had spoken with the sponsors of the bill. Ms. Lamboley replied, “Yes,” adding the bill had been introduced at the request of the city of Reno. Chairman O’Connell said she wanted to know whether the sponsors had any problems with the proposed amendment. Ms. Lamboley replied she had spoken with the city of Las Vegas who felt the amendment was friendly.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 135.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman O’Connell closed the work session on A.B. 135 and opened the work session on A.B. 147.
ASSEMBLY BILL 147: Revises provisions relating to purchasing by local governments. (BDR 27-799)
Mr. Stewart reminded the committee members that A.B. 147 dealt with the exemption of personal safety equipment from competitive bidding. Exempted would be the personal safety equipment worn by fire department and law enforcement personnel. While there were no specific amendments offered, there had been discussion about the inclusion of additional items in the listing of exemptions from competitive bidding requirements.
Mr. Stewart reminded the committee members of Senator Hardy’s comments regarding replacement parts on equipment such as water pumps. Senator Hardy noted if a local government could sole source that type of equipment, then the sole sourcing of other replacement parts might be beneficial.
Senator Hardy stated he was in the process of researching the subject and was close to an answer. He requested additional time to complete his research and indicated he would have the information ready by the committee’s next work session.
Senator Tiffany asked whether Senator Hardy felt comfortable in mixing personal safety equipment with water pump replacements. Senator Hardy said it was more of an NRS issue than it was mixing the two types of equipment. He stated mixing the two types of equipment did not make sense. Senator Tiffany said she agreed with him. Senator Hardy said the compatibility of the statutes was the issue. He stated he was researching the compatibility of the statutes.
Senator Tiffany said when she talked to Ted J. Olivas, Lobbyist, Clark County, and Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission, he told her the bill had been specifically drafted to ensure cronyism did not occur. As such, specific equipment was included in the bill. Senator Tiffany said she wanted the bill to reflect the author’s original intent.
Senator Hardy said he had made it clear on the record that he did not want to jeopardize the bill as he thought the issue was very important. Senators Hardy and Tiffany noted Assemblyman Oceguera had spent quite a bit of time on A.B. 147. Senator Hardy said he wanted to verify information before he made his report to the committee members.
Chairman O’Connell said there was sufficient time to accommodate Senator Hardy’s request for additional time to complete his research.
Chairman O’Connell closed the work session on A.B. 147 and opened the work session on A.B. 149.
ASSEMBLY BILL 149:Makes various changes concerning local government finance. (BDR 31-322)
Mr. Stewart said A.B. 149 resolved a conflict in the deadlines relating to exemption from filing certain budget documents and audit reports in special districts with less than $200,000 in annual expenditures. Mr. Stewart said an amendment dealing with section 1, subsection 4 had been previously discussed. The amendment might have inadvertently excluded special districts with expenditures totaling less than $200,000 from the audit as described in section 1 of the bill. The language had been changed to “ … a special district that is exempt from the requirement of providing for an annual audit …” pursuant to that section as opposed to section 1, subsection 2. The amended language ensured the capture of special districts with expenditures of less than $200,000.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 149.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell closed the work session on A.B. 149 and opened the work session on A.B. 199.
ASSEMBLY BILL 199 (1st Reprint): Exempts proceeds from annual tax that counties may impose to support county museums, art centers and historical societies from limitation on allowed revenue from taxes ad valorem for counties. (BDR 20-157)
Mr. Stewart said no amendments for the measure had been offered. Chairman O’Connell stated Assemblyman Hettrick sponsored the legislation.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 199.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell closed the work session on A.B. 199 and opened the work session on A.B. 248.
ASSEMBLY BILL 248:Amends Charter of City of North Las Vegas to revise provisions concerning Municipal Judges. (BDR S-449)
Mr. Stewart stated A.B. 248 allowed the city of North Las Vegas to adjust the terms of municipal judges from 4 to 6 years.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 248.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell closed the work session on A.B. 248 and opened the work session on A.B. 409.
ASSEMBLY BILL 409 (1st Reprint): Authorizes public bodies to provide certain notice and information by electronic mail. (BDR 19-1084)
Mr. Stewart said A.B. 409 had been sponsored by Assemblyman Sherer and dealt with public bodies providing certain notice and information by electronic mail, under chapter 241 of NRS.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 409.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:34 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Olivia Lodato,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: ______________________________________