MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
May 12, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:07 p.m., on Monday, May 12, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 J. Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Assembly District No. 8
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Assembly District No. 42
Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Assembly District No. 1
Assemblyman Roderick (Rod) R. Sherer, Assembly District No. 36
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9
Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Assembly District No. 14
Assemblyman Joseph (Joe) Hardy, Assembly District No. 20
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Joseph Bozsik, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bradford Jerbic, City Attorney, City of Las Vegas
Heather Branagan, Legislative Intern, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Office of Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley
Tom Wood, Lobbyist, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association
Robert Tretiak, Lobbyist, Nevada Well Owners Association
Christopher Knight, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Michael Newman, Chairman, Government Affairs, National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, Nevada Chapter
Ralph Murphy, Vice President, Regional Manager, Harsh Investment Properties
Mike L. Baughman, Lobbyist, Lincoln County
Doug Carriger, County Manager, Lincoln County
Timothy U. Perkins, Commissioner, Lincoln County
Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, Toiyabe Chapter
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Sun Valley General Improvement District
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Incline Village General Improvement District
Bevan Lister
Scott G. MacKenzie, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, No. 4041
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14
Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
Scott A. Simon, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Tommy Ricketts, Lobbyist, Las Vegas City Employees Association
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Kevin Ranft, Correctional Officer, Department of Corrections, and President, Corrections Chapter-South, State of Nevada Employees Association
Harry Schiffman, President, Desert Chapter, State of Nevada Employees Association
Henry Rees, former President, Corrections Chapter-South, State of Nevada Employees Association
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, and Retail Association of Nevada
Susan Chandler Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Social Work, University of Nevada, Reno
Joseph H. Edson, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Stan Fortune, United Food and Commercial Workers Union
Ben Contine, Las Vegans for Affordable Healthcare
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada
John O. Swendseid, State Bond Counsel, Swendseid and Stern
Michael R. Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County
Steve K. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City and Douglas County
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Sherry Grund, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
James W. Penrose, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
F. Martin Bibb, Lobbyist, Retired Public Employees Of Nevada
P. Forrest Thorne, Executive Officer, Board of the Public Employees’ Benefits Program
James Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance
John Madole, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter
Ted J. Olivas, Lobbyist, Assistant Director of Finance, Clark County, and Chairman, Public Purchasing Study Commission
Lori T. Ashton, Lobbyist, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America, Local 169
Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter
Fred Smith, Construction Manager, and Interim Assistant Superintendent, Facilities, Clark County School District
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Southern Nevada
James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission
Senator O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 150.
ASSEMBLY BILL 150: Amends Charter of City of Las Vegas to clarify that City Attorney and Deputy City Attorneys may represent indigent persons in certain circumstances. (BDR S-1054)
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Assembly District No. 8, said the bill would allow city and deputy city attorneys to participate in pro bono work. She noted the pro bono work would allow them to volunteer in the civil area of law because in civil law there was no right to an attorney. Assemblywoman Buckley said her organization ran the pro bono project in Clark County and attempted to get every lawyer to take one case per year to provide some relief, for example, to victims of domestic violence, child abuse, or fraud. She explained, a campaign was started last year to ask public lawyers to consider volunteering. Each office would set up a policy. Attorneys would have to volunteer on their vacation or “comp” time. She noted the attorneys could not use company resources or represent the company. A statute was enacted many years ago for the attorneys in the Office of Attorney General, but the problem was the charter had not been amended to allow city attorneys and deputy city attorneys to volunteer. She concluded she was not aware of anyone opposed to A.B. 150.
Senator O’Connell asked if there was a charge against the attorneys who volunteered their time since they were not being paid even though the charter had not been amended. Assemblywoman Buckley said Mr. Jerbic believed it was not allowed.
Bradford Jerbic, City Attorney, City of Las Vegas, said he supported everything Assemblywoman Buckley represented.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 150 and opened the hearing on A.B. 236.
ASSEMBLY BILL 236: Directs Office for Consumer Health Assistance to assist consumers in gaining information regarding certain prescription drug programs. (BDR 18-203)
Heather Branagan, Legislative Intern, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, office of Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, read her written testimony in support of A.B. 236, Exhibit C. In summary, Ms. Branagan noted many people were in need of prescription drugs. She added, A.B. 236 would allow the Office for Consumer Health Assistance to help consumers find free, low cost, and discounted medications.
Senator O’Connell asked why Americans take more prescription drugs than in other countries. Ms. Branagan said none of her research answered the question, but added, drug coverage was more expensive in the United States and the U.S. government covered less than other countries. Senator O’Connell asked if it was because the other countries were socialistic and paid for medical coverage. Ms. Branagan acknowledged Senator O’Connell could be correct.
Senator Tiffany asked why the State needed to have a full-time telephone person when there were plenty of Web sites available. She added, if someone called, the caller could talk to a general receptionist for information.
Ms. Branagan said people do not know what manufacturer made the medication they might need. The biggest problem was people did not know where to start. The help desk would give people the needed information.
Senator Tiffany again asked why a general receptionist could not provide the information. She noted a tremendous amount of information existed on the Web site and in pamphlets.
Assemblywoman Buckley said Senator Tiffany was correct. She noted the committee should either receive testimony or a letter confirming no need for a fiscal note. Assemblywoman Buckley explained with the use of technology and training, anyone in the Office of Consumer Health Assistance could assist and directly send the information. She added, seniors often did not know the programs existed and unfortunately many were not on the Internet. This would be another way for them to get information. Assemblywoman Buckley said if there were additional costs like new brochures to be handed out in the community, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America had grants available.
Tom Wood, Lobbyist, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, expressed the pharmaceutical industry’s support of A.B. 236. Mr. Wood said A.B. 236 would help link the Office for Consumer Health Assistance to the available resources of patient assistance programs, Exhibit D.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 236 and opened the hearing on A.B. 293.
ASSEMBLY BILL 293 (2nd Reprint): Revises provisions relating to ballot questions and appointment of committees to prepare arguments advocating and opposing certain ballot questions. (BDR 24-312)
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Assembly District No. 42, said A.B. 293 cleaned up a bill passed two sessions ago which prohibited one entity from writing an entire ballot question. Two committees of three people had to be formed. Three had to be opponents and three, proponents. He said the bill had worked beautifully, but school districts and police boards were not included. Mr. Mortenson offered an amendment to include the school districts and police boards, Exhibit E.
Senator Care said the Secretary of State could review an argument and determine whether it was libelous or factually inaccurate. He further noted if somebody did not like the Secretary of State’s determination, it could be appealed to the Attorney General and no further. Senator Care indicated he was concerned the secretary of State could make the determination in the first instance and that there would be no judicial recourse beyond the Attorney General.
Assemblyman Mortenson said several questions had gone through in southern Nevada and the registrar of voters had done a good job of cleaning up ballot question language. It was the registrar of voters and the secretary of State’s mandate to use reasonable language when writing ballot questions.
Senator O’Connell asked if Assemblyman Mortenson had read the information provided by the National Conference of State Legislatures on initiative and ballot questions providing for a constitutional review through a commission. Mr. Mortenson said he had not.
Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39, said he wanted to add five elements to be included in the for and against arguments contained within ballot questions, (Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.). The five elements would be consistently applied throughout the State at every level of government. He indicated the elements, if approved, would help determine the impact of any ballot question.
Senator Care said on a ballot question, one group may believe it would have no fiscal impact and another group may believe it would cost each taxpayer $500. He said, in his example, a dispute of fact existed and according to the mechanism in the second reprint of A.B. 293, an appeal would go to the Secretary of State. Senator Care asked if it was possible to have a legitimate dispute of fact, for example, on a fiscal impact. He further asked if the ballot question could have both statements with contradictory assertions of fact.
Assemblyman Mortenson responded the bill from a previous session stated if a conflict existed, it was the election departments’ responsibility to determine which statements were true.
Assemblyman Hettrick said a legitimate disagreement about the impact of a ballot question could occur. He indicated the point of the legislation was to allow both proponents and opponents to address the ballot question’s impact, so the voter could have the needed information.
Senator Care said, for example, the environmental impact could be woefully open to dispute. He noted he was uncomfortable with having the Secretary of State and Attorney General, both political personae who might be sympathetic for or against a ballot question, to have the final determination.
Assemblyman Mortenson said a good example of the process working was during the Clark County fluoride question. Both sides presented their arguments for and against the question, and both sides gave lists of Web sites to support their respective arguments. He noted the voters had an infinite number of reference sources and it was the best thing for members of the public because it gave them the ability to obtain all of the information they needed.
Senator Tiffany, using the deconsolidation of the Clark County School District as an example, asked how she would note the environmental or public health, safety, and welfare impacts of deconsolidation. Assemblyman Hettrick answered, if no impact existed, she should put “no impact” and move on to the next item. Those elements pertaining to the issue should be addressed. No element could be ignored, but if “no impact” were noted, it would be all that was necessary. However, Assemblyman Hettrick added, somebody might argue an impact did exist and provide a rebuttal argument.
Senator Tiffany asked how Assemblyman Hettrick decided on the five elements. Assemblyman Hettrick said each ballot question would include an impact statement in five areas: environmental, fiscal, public health, public safety, and public welfare. He said the five elements covered the concerns of the public.
Senator Tiffany noted few people read past the first two paragraphs of ballot questions. Assemblyman Hettrick said the impact statements should be as short as possible because he agreed with Senator Tiffany’s statement.
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, said she and the Nevada Eagle Forum were 100 percent in favor of A.B. 293. In 1990, the Choose Life campaign had a problem with the language on a ballot question. She noted both the “for” and “against” language were written in support of the ballot question. Ms. Chapman said there was a lawsuit and they won. She concluded citizen input into the writing process would be helpful.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, noted she had not seen Assemblyman Hettrick’s amendment, so she would speak to A.B. 293 without the amendment. The people widely appreciate getting the entire opposition argument. One individual often wrote both sides of an argument. Usually the person was honorable about writing a decent argument for both sides, but not always, Ms. Lusk said.
Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, said she supported A.B. 293 with the proposed amendments. Ms. Vilardo said the comments made by Assemblyman Hettrick were true. The state should have the benefit of having pro and con arguments. Pro and con arguments were done in California and, in fact, the Attorney General, legislative analyst, and one other member from the Attorney General’s Office checked the arguments before being submitted to the Secretary of State.
Senator O’Connell asked if ballot questions were checked for constitutionality.
Ms. Vilardo said she did not know, but could get the information and provide it to the committee.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 293 and opened the hearing on A.B. 244.
ASSEMBLY BILL 244 (3rd Reprint): Eliminates prospective expiration of provisions for protection of rural preservation neighborhoods and revises provisions relating to protection of rural preservation neighborhoods. (BDR 22-919)
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Assembly District No. 1, said A.B. 244 was amended in the Assembly to extend the sunset provision in section 36 of chapter 619 of Statutes of Nevada, 1999. Assemblyman Collins said the “may” should be put back into the language instead of “shall.”
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, said in section 1, the word “shall” should be changed to “may.” The original bill allowed a local government the option of designating an area as a rural preservation neighborhood. Ms. Porter said if the “shall” remained in the bill, anytime the criteria were met, the local government would have to make the designation.
Robert Tretiak, Lobbyist, Nevada Well Owners Association, said his association was concerned with maintaining the rural lifestyle and rural neighborhood preservations. The bill had been an effective tool in helping preserve rural neighborhoods in both county and city zoning meetings and Mr. Tretiak asked that the sunset provision be removed. Mr. Tretiak said Clark County Commissioner Mark James supported removing the sunset and Mr. Tretiak submitted a letter from U.S. Congressman Jon Porter, which asked for the removal of the sunset as a means to keep this important citizens’ protection bill in place, Exhibit G.
Senator O’Connell asked Assemblyman Collins and members of the public if there was any opposition to A.B. 244. There was none.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 244 and opened the hearing on A.B. 196.
ASSEMBLY BILL 196 (1st Reprint): Authorizes certain local governments in larger counties to require dedication of certain land or impose tax on nonresidential construction projects for regional parks. (BDR 22-653)
Assemblyman Collins said A.B. 196 was amended to apply only in Clark County and it would create a nonresidential construction tax. The residential construction tax dramatically fluctuates and adding a nonresidential construction tax would create a more consistent source of revenue. Assemblyman Collins added, the legislation addressed regional parks with at least 50 acres rather than the small neighborhood parks. Assemblyman Collins offered a map illustrating the existing and potential large regional parks, Exhibit H.
Christopher Knight, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, said A.B. 196 was important to the city of Las Vegas because it would create a partnership with the nonresidential development community in the same fashion as the residential development community. Mr. Knight noted a residential construction tax existed and A.B. 196 would create a nonresidential construction tax at 1 percent of the value of the project with a cap at $20,000 on any nonresidential project. The funds would be used to acquire, improve, and expand regional parks or to install facilities in existing regional parks. The service radius for a regional park was much larger than that of a neighborhood park, which was why the regional parks would be a minimum of 50 acres in size. The facilities would have to be installed, or construction begun, within 5 years or after 75 percent occupancy of the nonresidential project used to fund the project, or the money would revert to the developer.
Mr. Knight said he thought this was a quality-of-life issue for southern Nevada and the legislation would make the nonresidential development community a participant. He said the map, Exhibit H, showed the existing and proposed 50‑acre Las Vegas parks and the proposed parks with the interlocal agreement with Clark County. Mr. Knight named the proposed regional parks, which were Centennial Hills Park, 102 acres at a cost of $30.6 million; Alexander Hualapai Park, 80 acres at a cost of $13.2 million; Buckskin Basin Park, 69 acres at a cost of $10.35 million; an equestrian park, 320 acres at a cost of $16 million; and the Washington Buffalo Park, 140 acres at a cost of $42 million. He noted, all totaled, there would be 719 acres of regional parks at a total cost of $112 million.
He said quite a burden existed to finance the park projects. Mr. Knight explained it was equitable sharing the burden between the nonresidential and residential development communities because the nonresidential development community had employees with families who used the parks. He further noted businesses in the nonresidential community would often sponsor sports teams and have company picnics at the parks.
Mr. Knight said he looked at the 2001 and 2002 commercial construction valuation in Las Vegas. He said in 1991 there were $164 million of assessed commercial construction valuation and in 1992, $182 million. One percent of the 1992 valuation gave the city revenue near $1.8 million. Mr. Knight concluded it would take a while to acquire the $112 million to pay for the projects, but was a step in the right direction and was a commitment the city made to provide a certain level of service to residents.
Senator Care said the effective date of A.B. 196 was July 1. He asked if the city enacted an ordinance 2 weeks after July 1, would the ordinance apply to the proposed projects rather than the projects already begun. Senator Care did note the map showed where the contemplated parks were.
Assemblyman Collins said the legislation would only affect Clark County because Washoe County had recently passed a park bond and felt the nonresidential construction tax would be duplicative. However, he noted Washoe County might want such a tax in a few years. Assemblyman Collins explained the legislation was enabling. It allowed local governments to implement the tax if needed. He noted two lobbyists had issues with A.B. 196, but no longer do.
Michael Newman, Chairman, Government Affairs, National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, Nevada Chapter, said he opposed A.B. 196. Mr. Newman said members of the national association had children, coached soccer teams, and enjoyed parks as residents and individuals, but not as corporations. He explained his industry was facing numerous other taxes this year, like the 30 percent increase in transportation impact fees, increases in property taxes, and in real estate transfer fees. He said members of the association were being taxed to the extent that an additional tax would be damaging.
Ralph Murphy, Vice President, Regional Manager, Harsh Investment Properties, said his company owned and operated about 6 million square feet of industrial property in the Las Vegas Valley. He expressed his concern about A.B. 196 and recommended the committee oppose it. The cost of development was going to cause his company to think twice about future projects. He noted there were a few structural flaws in the drafting of A.B. 196, which could cause multiphased projects to have to pay more than a single-phased project. He explained it had to do with the issue of one permit versus many.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 196 and opened the hearing A.B. 136.
ASSEMBLY BILL 136 (1st Reprint): Authorizes creation of general improvement district for establishment of area or zone for preservation of one or more species or subspecies of wildlife threatened with extinction. (BDR 25‑398)
Assemblyman Roderick (Rod) R. Sherer, Assembly District No. 36, said the county commissioners were bringing A.B. 136 up for the general improvement district (GID) to be able to create an improvement district for infrastructure.
Mike L. Baughman, Lobbyist, Lincoln County, said he was the facilitator for the southeastern Lincoln County Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and provided a timeline of activities for the implementation of the conservation plan, Exhibit I.
Doug Carriger, County Manager, Lincoln County, said the citizens of Lincoln County were concerned with their ability to contain the costs of maintaining the HCP. The Lincoln County commission requested A.B. 136. The legislation would contain the costs of managing the future habitat conservation plan in the area where the effects of mitigating for endangered species might occur. For example, if desert tortoise lands were disturbed in a specific area, residents of the area, 20 years later, should pay the cost of maintaining it, not persons elsewhere in the county. Mr. Carriger said the bill was Lincoln County’s and not attributable to any other source. He said it was not a way for anyone to get around the costs of paying for endangered species mitigation efforts. The legislation would give a GID the authority to manage and administer the HCP. Mr. Carriger explained the map, contained in Exhibit I, by outlining the current boundaries of the HCP. He noted the Coyote Springs properties were going to have their own HCP put together, although it would be eligible to be a part of a GID.
Senator Care said he had not heard of A.B. 136 until he read in the newspaper that it was Lobbyist Harvey Whittemore’s bill and noted he was surprised to read Mr. Baughman’s electronic mail stating it was not. Senator Care asked Mr. Baughman to explain the role of Attorney Carl Savely, who was in the same law firm as Mr. Whittemore, and the role of developer David Loeb with regard to A.B. 136, and any connections to Coyote Springs Investments (CSI).
Mr. Baughman said Mr. Savely was appointed by the board of Lincoln County commissioners to represent large landowners in the planning area. There were two large developments being proposed in southeastern Lincoln County: the Lincoln County Land Act and CSI lands. He said Lincoln County had envisioned there would be planned unit developments created for both areas because infrastructure did not exist. He noted the public utility districts would be created under existing statutes whether A.B. 136 passed or not, which would allow for the creation of water, sewer, park, and road infrastructure. He said there were no large landowners when the steering committee was appointed to represent the Lincoln County Land Act area in December 2000. Mr. Baughman noted the only large landowners project subject to the plan was the CSI project and it was represented by Mr. Savely, as the representative of large landowner interests. The steering committee was composed of 22 individuals representing diverse interests like the Sierra Club, Nevada fish and game, the Bureau of Land Management, the Nevada Department of Transportation, Union Pacific Railroad, and the City of Mesquite. He said Mr. Savely did not demonstrate bias, but instead brought a wealth of knowledge, having been involved with the Clark County desert tortoise and multispecies habitat conservation planning processes.
Senator Care asked Mr. Baughman if he had any substantive conversations with Mr. Whittemore or Mr. Loeb about A.B. 136 and how it would or would not impact Coyote Springs.
Mr. Baughman said “projected funds generated” was on page 108 of the Draft Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan for southeastern Lincoln County, (Exhibit J. Original is on file in the Research Library.). He said CSI was approached about incorporating the same concept into its habitat conservation plan. He said CSI had been encouraged to include a similar type of funding mechanism and revenue projections because they were required to submit a funding proposal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Baughman said he anticipated the Coyote Springs Investments’ HCP would include a general improvement district funding mechanism, which would relieve taxpayers outside of the impacted area from carrying the financial burden. He concluded there had been conversations about Lincoln County’s expectation the general improvement district formed for the CSI project would pay to administer the CSI habitat conversation plan.
Senator Care said there were environmental objections to A.B. 136 presented in the Assembly and asked what they were.
Mr. Baughman said he would characterize the Sierra Club’s concerns in the Assembly as having to do with the CSI project. The Sierra Club was concerned about urban sprawl and the appropriation and use of large quantities of water. He said the purpose of A.B. 136 was to provide a benefit to the county and help implement the HCP by requiring landowners in the HCP area to pay the costs associated with it. The discussion got off track because some were saying, “We just don’t trust and like CSI, and we don’t like using deep carbon aquifer water and pumping all of the water for growth and things like that.” Mr. Baughman said the discussion went down that path, and the newspaper picked up on it.
Senator Care said when the kind of publicity like that surrounding A.B. 136 occurs, legislators had the obligation to address the subject, which was why he asked his question.
Mr. Baughman concluded if anybody benefited from A.B. 136, it was the taxpayers of Lincoln County. He said if anybody paid as a result of A.B. 136, it was the developers, which was the purpose of the legislation.
Senator O’Connell asked Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, if the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) defined “space-heating.” Mr. Wasserman said it appeared three times in the NRS, but was not defined.
Timothy U. Perkins, Commissioner, Lincoln County, said A.B. 136 was an important bill for Lincoln County because it would place the burden on developers, not all of the residents of the county.
Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, Toiyabe Chapter, said he had not signed in for or against the bill in the Assembly, but was concerned the Lincoln County commission was not sensitive to the environmental issues as seen by the Sierra Club. Mr. Johnson stated he would go on the record as supporting the bill. He said members of the Sierra Club had been active in formulating the multispecies plan. He added, the major portion of the money to be raised in those plans was already authorized under existing State law. He noted A.B. 136 would authorize money for administration. Mr. Johnson said he would be remiss if he did not identify the first quarter money as earmarked for the administration of multispecies plans authorized for three counties. It would be a matter of public policy, whether the money would be available upon grant in replacement or in addition to the money the GID would raise.
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Sun Valley General Improvement District, said he had supported another bill dealing with general improvement districts, but the bill failed to meet its deadline. Mr. Hillerby said it was suggested A.B. 136 be used as the vehicle to make the amendment he originally wanted, Exhibit K. Mr. Hillerby explained, currently there was a requirement to publish a notice at least 3 consecutive weeks in the newspaper and he wanted to change it to one time in a newspaper of general circulation. The reason was the information was being sent to the customers via a newsletter. He noted it would save money for the Sun Valley GID.
Mr. Hillerby said since 1977, the annual rate of pay for members of the GID boards of trustees had been $6000, and he asked for permissive language to go to as much as $9000. He explained the safeguards. A majority of members must vote in favor of an increase, which would not go into effect until the January following the next general election. In the case of the Sun Valley and Incline Village GIDs, three of five members would have stood for election after having voted for the increase. Mr. Hillerby said if they were voted out of office because they voted themselves a pay raise, the other two would probably change their minds.
Mr. Hillerby indicated the next change would require bills to be delinquent on the first of the month. The Sun Valley GID had the only fully metered water system in northern Nevada and billed by cycles, with meter readings once a week. He asked that regulations regarding delinquency be left to the GIDs, rather than set in statute.
Finally, Mr. Hillerby said the most important part of the bill would require both the county commission and the elected board of a GID to vote to dissolve, consolidate, or merge the district. He added Washoe County had concurred in this part of the amendment.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Incline Village General Improvement District, said he wanted to be on the record as saying, “Me, too.”
Bevan Lister, a Lincoln County rancher, said he was concerned about the possibility and probability of the Endangered Species Act posing regulatory problems for everyone. He asked the committee and the Legislature to make every effort and action to safeguard the people of Nevada from those kinds of regulations. He said he fully supported Lincoln County and allowing the county to have the GID. He asked that Lincoln County and the Legislature consider tying a district to a designated critical habitat, to keep from splotching the districts anywhere around the country.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 136 and opened the hearing on A.B. 65.
ASSEMBLY BILL 65 (1st Reprint): Authorizes collective bargaining for certain state employees. (BDR 23-659)
Scott G. MacKenzie, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, No. 4041, said an Assembly amendment to A.B. 65 would add two additional board members, one appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and the other by the Speaker of the Assembly. Mr. MacKenzie said James E. Wilkerson Sr., of the “288 Board,” the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board established under chapter 288 of NRS, believed there would be a 34-cent cost per member per month split between the State and employee organizations, 17 cents each. Mr. MacKenzie also said Mr. Wilkerson indicated he would need two additional staff members for administration. Mr. MacKenzie offered an amendment, Exhibit L, which would change the bill from a collective bargaining bill to an employee‑management/workplace‑relations bill. The amendment would eliminate the economics aspect of the legislation. Mr. MacKenzie explained many State workers thought their work environment was not what it could be. He added he was willing to bend, adjust, and discuss the amendment because there needed to be a change in the current system.
He said Carol Thomas, Chief Personnel Manager, Technical Services, Department of Personnel, stated A.B. 65 would cost $548,385 to administer in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 and $482,347 in 2004 and 2005. He noted the monies expended in the existing system, including the six-member employee management committee expenses, salaries of deputy attorneys general working on State worker issues, hearing officer contracts in the attorney general’s office, and litigation, was estimated at a cost of $261,000. Mr. MacKenzie said if the money spent on the existing system were not spent, it could offset the cost of the new system.
Mr. MacKenzie asked if members of the committee wanted to be involved in discussing shift‑bids, seniority, or between workers‑management issues. He said there needed to be a mechanism for dealing with non-economic issues in the workplace. The system currently in effect originated in the 1950s, when there were not as many State workers, which now number 17,000 classified employees. Perceptions of how people treat each other needed to be addressed and updated. He said a cost savings to the State would occur if the State of Nevada Employees Association had the opportunity to work with staff and review costs associated with the attorney general’s office.
State workers are asking for a new system, but were willing to give up the economic part of the legislation because the economic forces for State workers were driven by Clark County. He said raises for State workers were triggered when turnover increased and it became a problem retaining them. He explained the pay increases would occur whether there was collective bargaining or not. Mr. MacKenzie said his priority was to make the workplace less hostile and more responsive. He said the Governor would appoint three to the committee overseeing workplace issues. The Governor would appoint the Employee Management Committee and personnel to deal with the people involved at the hearing level. He said A.B. 65 was a modern system to deal with workplace issues.
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14, said one of the largest issues in State government was creating a uniform set of rules for State employees. Whether through collective bargaining or another form, the rules needed to be set because many State government departments used different sets of rules. Mr. Wolff said he had 30 hours invested in a case defending a State employee. At the hearing, the hearing officer had 3 attorneys from the attorney general’s office. He indicated it cost the State between $40,000 and $50,000 on just that case. He noted a case, several years ago, where a State employee was awarded over $460,000 and Mr. Wolff said he was convinced if rules had been established in State government, the situation could have been avoided.
Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), said the proposed amendment would save the State a lot of money. Bidding shift issues end up in court and he indicated it would be interesting to know the Nevada’s court costs to defend those cases. He said they would have been better worked out privately between the parties. Mr. Thompson concluded he wholeheartedly endorsed the proposed amendment.
Scott A. Simon, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, remarked he endorsed A.B. 65. He said many times there were different rules for different areas, and the rules were ambiguous and difficult to justify.
Tommy Ricketts, Lobbyist, Las Vegas City Employees Association, said his association had collective bargaining for labor issues. He said the economic savings of dealing with issues by using a grievance process and consistent guidelines to provide essential functions to taxpayers were needed because taxpayers were not paying taxes to litigate cases. He concluded the amendment made a lot of sense and asked the committee for its support.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, said the amendment satisfied many concerns of State workers. He said the research association represented some State law enforcement people with Statewide law enforcement equality as the goal. He added local government had equality and would like to see it in State government.
Kevin Ranft, Correctional Officer, Department of Corrections, and President, Corrections Chapter-South, State of Nevada Employees Association, strongly supported A.B. 65 as amended. He said the bill was a quality of life bill. Mr. Ranft asked the committee to move A.B. 65, as amended, to help manage employee rights, grievances, unfair promotions, staffing levels, disciplinary concerns, and training issues. He said quality State workers were being lost due to unfair conditions.
Harry Schiffman, President Desert Chapter, State of Nevada Employees Association, said the present system was broken. The system favored one side over the other. He added A.B. 65 would give State workers an equal voice.
Henry Rees, former President, Corrections Chapter–South, State of Nevada Employees Association, said he was for collective bargaining. He indicated he joined the State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA) several years ago, not because that was what he wanted, but because he had to. Mr. Rees said the agency he worked for did not always have fair policies. It tended to ignore regulations when they favored employees and enforced them when it was in the agency’s favor. He said in his department he went to the administration to discuss safety and security issues and was ignored and rebuffed. He was told he could not conduct employee association business on the property because, without collective bargaining, he had no right to join a union. A lawsuit was filed costing the State thousands of dollars. Mr. Rees said the agency retaliated by placing him and eight others on administrative leave. The agency’s action resulted in the State paying their salaries while paying overtime to the other employees covering the additional workload. He said Senator O’Connell said collective bargaining could result in higher wages for the workers but, he argued, the Legislature would still control the General Fund.
Ms. Vilardo said she opposed A.B. 65, as written. She indicated she had received a number of amendments she had not thoroughly reviewed, although she noted the amendments had removed the objections she testified to in the Assembly.
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and Retail Association of Nevada, indicated he testified against A.B. 65 in the Assembly. Mr. McMullen noted the amendment removed a number of his concerns, such as the implications about collective bargaining, budget inflexibility, and legislative prerogative. He added he was not sure of the impact of some of the procedural issues, like definitions of exclusive representatives. He concluded A.B. 65, as amended, was a step in the right direction and if there were mechanisms by which questions for State employees could be meaningfully resolved, he would be in favor.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 65 and opened the hearing on A.B. 356.
ASSEMBLY BILL 356 (2nd Reprint): Revises various provisions relating to determination of livable wages and establishment of certain benefits for certain employees in private employment. (BDR 18-682)
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9, said the genesis of A.B. 356 was to define self‑sufficiency and a living wage for people in Nevada. The amendments in the second reprint, Exhibit M, were a result of information she had collected and was created with the Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation. She worked with Robert E. Shriver, executive director of the Division of Economic Development, to remove the language Mr. Shriver found objectionable. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the chamber was concerned because of a $1 minimum wage increase, which was eliminated from the bill. She said she felt it was important to determine what was a living wage in Nevada for people to be self-sufficient and not reliant on State assistance.
The next major sections of the bill were sections 7 and 8. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated she was looking at providing an incentive to employers who covered health care for their employees. She added, when employers did not provide a decent wage or health care for their employees, the employees would become more of a burden on county and State services. With respect to the current child care law, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained, with 150 percent noted in the current law, no one applies, it was too convoluted. She said she had looked at inserting 250 percent into the law, but rather than making the law more difficult, she suggested eliminating the reference and using the language in subsection B. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani submitted information regarding what people needed to live in dignity, including studies, and news articles, Exhibit M.
Susan Chandler Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Social
Work, University of Nevada, Reno, handed out “Working Hard, Living Poor: A Living
Wage Report for Nevada,” (Exhibit
N. Original is on file in the Research Library.). The document
Professor Chandler authored was the fruit of nearly three years of studying
wages and family budgets in Nevada. The study carefully calculated what frugal
families of various sizes would need to pay basic bills. Professor Chandler
said the subjects were working families not receiving benefits. The study
looked at items like child care and whether the families prepared all of their
food at home, drove 8-year-old cars, lived in modest houses, or never paid for
recreation, entertainment, or children’s sports fees. Assembly Bill 356
would have the State continue tracking living wage information in Nevada. She
explained the figures have been very useful to State agencies, nonprofit
groups, and in applying for money. The research showed many people were working
two jobs to pay basic bills, which was not good for individuals, families,
school systems, the criminal justice system, or the State. She explained somebody
ended up paying for those people when they were not self-sufficient.
Additionally, Professor Chandler noted A.B. 356 required large grocery stores like Wal-Mart to provide health insurance for its employees. She indicated the lack of health care coverage was a critical issue for Nevada families. Some polls ranked Nevada last in the percentage of insured people in the country. The legislation would reward companies doing the right thing and keep track of companies that did not.
Joseph H. Edson, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, submitted his formal testimony, Exhibit O, which backed up the living wage information Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Dr. Chandler provided.
Stan Fortune, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, managed and worked for a company for 17 years. He said he was concerned about his employees having insurance, but the attitude of his company and supervisors was different. The company had a goal of keeping too many employees and not allowing employees to be full-time. Mr. Fortune said the company’s profitability was partially dependent on not paying employee benefits. The company pushed the burden of insurance on to the State. He noted the insurance benefits the employees could buy was expensive, $118 per 2-week pay period. Additionally, Mr. Fortune said the company taught employees to seek out State-funded health care programs. In fact, he said he recently heard the company was targeting for hire senior citizens who qualified for Medicare, and minors who were insured through their parents’ insurance. He concluded he was sure other companies used similar practices.
Mr. Thompson spoke to the proposed amendment. One of the
biggest problems in Nevada was there were 600,000 uninsured people, of which,
70 percent worked. Mr. Thompson said the number of uninsured was indicative of
a problem not exclusive to one company. When problems occur like those with the
University Medical Center in southern Nevada and Washoe Medical Center in
Reno, the Medicaid budget experiences a rise and, coupled with welfare cases,
the net effect for insured people was costs go up. In fact, he said, the
culinary union settled the largest monetary contract in history with the gaming
industry and every penny went to maintain insurance benefits, with the
electricians paying $1.50 an hour more this year. So, Mr. Thompson said, the
amendment would provide a mechanism whereby an employer who provided employee
health insurance would receive a break and employers not providing employee
health insurance, excluding small employers, would pay a 1½ times penalty
in those calculations.
He said the AFL-CIO believed the legislation provided a far better method to indemnify the State during the current budget crisis. Nevada’s costs in the trust funds had gone up because when Nevadans without health insurance were hurt, the care they received was generally the most expensive kind. If they did not pay, the health care provider would recover its money from all of those who did pay. Mr. Thompson concluded health care issues had to be dealt with proactively to help the situation.
Ben Contine, Las Vegans for Affordable Healthcare, went on record as supporting A.B. 356 because of its potential positive impact on the health care system, primarily in southern Nevada. He said one goal in preserving the long‑term viability of the public hospital was ensuring more people had access to health coverage. The bill was both fiscally responsible as well as positive for community health.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the amendment would take out all of the language applying to one business and looked at something broader.
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada, said she was not aware of an “asterisk” version of A.B. 356 and reserved comment.
Mr. McMullen said he wanted to speak to the bill, but Senator O’Connell asked those speaking to the bill without the appropriate version to review the correct version and attend the upcoming work session to provide testimony.
ASSEMBLY BILL 292: Prohibits political subdivisions from challenging initiative petitions, referendums or recalls under certain circumstances. (BDR 24‑329)
Senator Townsend said A.B. 292 dealt with the political subdivisions working with the petition process vis‑à‑vis ballot questions. He added, it was a bill which passed the committee, but was somewhat confused. Political subdivisions, if the bill passed, could not challenge obviously unconstitutional issues until after the ballot question was put to the public. Also, there was a possibility of affecting Nevada’s bonding procedures.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO RECONSIDER A.B. 292.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 292.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
ASSEMBLY BILL 127: Repeals certain provisions relating to Commission on Ethics. (BDR 23-47)
Senator Townsend said A.B. 127 dealt with provisions involving procedures for the Commission on Ethics and a review of statements in political campaigns. There was concern brought before the committee that the procedure used for immediate review was unconstitutional, but had not been declared unconstitutional. The procedure allowing someone an immediate remedy, rather than waiting 5 to 7 years for a defamation or libel suit, avoided creating a disadvantage to those entering the process. The goal was to have fair and accurate elections.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO RECONSIDER A.B. 127.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED (SENATORS TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 127.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
Senator O’Connell opened the hearing on A.B. 499.
ASSEMBLY BILL 499 (1st Reprint): Authorizes governing body of local government to create maintenance districts to pay cost of maintaining and improving local improvement projects and other undertakings. (BDR 21-274)
John O. Swendseid, State Bond Counsel, Swendseid and Stern, said A.B. 499 would consolidate and change the procedures in existing law for maintenance assessments. Mr. Swendseid indicated existing law allowed assessment for maintenance for four different procedures for each of the four types of projects. The legislation would have one procedure for maintenance of any project constructed or that could be constructed under chapter 271 of NRS. The main change would be to simplify existing law for street beautification projects. He noted the law was used by Clark County for improvements and maintenance along the Las Vegas Strip. The law also required the county notify all Strip property owners and hold a hearing annually on assessments. Mr. Swendseid said the proposed amendment would allow the process to go into a 3‑year cycle, rather than an annual cycle. The maximum limit on the amount of assessments levied would remain the same, which was established when the district was created. It could only be changed if the district was recreated and another maximum benefit established. However, he explained, the exact budget cycles, determined after a contract for maintenance had been left, were covered under the legislation, thereby allowing up to a 3-year cycle.
The purpose of the expansion in the types of projects subject to maintenance was to allow the county to assess the cost of pedestrian overpasses along the Strip against the benefited property owners. The pedestrian overpasses were constructed by the casino and hotel properties adjacent to the pedestrian overpasses out of their own funds and the county did not go through an assessment procedure to pay the capital costs. Mr. Swendseid said the county would like to be able to go through an assessment procedure to pay the maintenance cost of the improvements. Creation of the district would be subject to the existing procedures in Nevada law, which include if more than half of the people paying the assessment protest the creation of a district, the county could not go forward.
Michael R. Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County, said he had nothing to add and would defer to Mr. Swendseid for all of the testimony.
Steve K. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City and Douglas County, said, “Me, too.”
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 499 and opened the hearing on A.B. 298.
ASSEMBLY BILL 298 (1st Reprint): Prohibits public officers and employees from requesting or otherwise causing state and local governments to, under certain circumstances, make expenditures to support or oppose ballot questions or candidates. (BDR 23-408)
Senator Titus said A.B. 298 was introduced by Assemblyman David Parks and was the same bill she introduced in the Senate. The bill concerned the use of taxpayer dollars to advertise for incumbents running for office. She said she talked with Assemblyman Parks and his name was going to be amended onto her bill.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 298.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND TIFFANY WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator O’Connell opened the hearing on A.B. 388.
ASSEMBLY BILL 388 (1st Reprint): Authorizes creation of health and welfare benefit trust for employees of local government employers. (BDR 23-762)
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, said her association had been hearing about the high cost of health care in the rural counties long before the high costs were experienced in Clark or Washoe Counties. As a result, she noted the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) started a rural health care project. Ms. Cahill concluded A.B. 388 would allow for the exploration of the creation of a multi-employer health care trust with the school districts and NSEA rural county affiliates participating.
Sherry Grund, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, noted the NSEA saw many problems with its health insurance and the districts were having difficulties meeting premium rates, which required benefits cuts. She noted the NSEA had met with all of the districts to assess their interest in pursuing the project. She concluded, as a result of research, the NSEA needed to come to the Legislature for enabling legislation.
James W. Penrose, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, said his office was approached to review the statutes to see if the arrangement discussed by the various school districts was authorized. The program was the public sector equivalent of what was authorized under the Taft-Hartley Act for employers in the private sector. Mr. Penrose explained in the private sector in Las Vegas there were a number of employers and unions, which created and managed health and benefit trusts to provide health coverage. The key section of the bill was section 2, he noted. It would require an agreement between local government employers and employee organizations representing their employees. Section 2 would also determine how money in the trust could be used. It would generally require a collective bargaining agreement or what was known as a participation agreement, which would allow an employer, not originally in the trust, to join.
The key feature of the trust would be its governance by a board of trustees comprised equally of representatives from management and labor. The trustees would be fiduciaries and A.B. 388 would require an annually reported audit of the trust to its participants. Mr. Penrose added, the remainder of the bill was designed to bring the trust in line with the health care programs currently provided for in statute.
Mr. Penrose said there were a couple of sections added by the bill drafter’s office while in the Assembly, which had not been requested and created concern. One section included district court judges as eligible to participate in the program. The judges’ inclusion was not appropriate because they were employees of the State. Another provision made the existing reinstatement provisions of NRS applicable to the trust. One argument in opposition to A.B. 388, as amended, was that the trust should be placed on the same footing as other health insurance programs provided by local government. People who participate in the program while they were healthy might opt out of the program for minimal coverage elsewhere at a minimal cost. Those people might develop health problems and want back into the plan by paying the premiums and getting their claims covered. Mr. Penrose explained a significant cost to the trust would occur if that provision was made mandatory, because those individuals seeking reentry tended to be the highest cost claimants. The other issue was one of equity; people who have been in and supported the trust would be compelled to subsidize those returning with significant health care problems. He noted he would like the trustees to be able to provide a right of reinstatement, if appropriate, but it should not be mandated. He indicated his support of the first reprint version of A.B. 388.
Senator O’Connell asked what in A.B. 388 would prevent what happened to the State and Clark County employee health care programs. She said the committee had gone through the issue with two different groups, both of which had protections, but they still failed.
Mr. Penrose said the problem was the employees solely ran the trust. There were no management representatives on the board of trustees. The district was only making a monthly contribution to the trust and from Mr. Penrose’s perspective, the district had a stake in the trust beyond its monthly contribution. He explained if the district had been involved in the management of the trust, both management and labor would have worked together to make sure the trust maintained benefits on a fiscally responsible basis.
Mr. Penrose indicated section 2 of A.B. 388 would address the problem by requiring the trust’s board of trustees be comprised equally of representatives of the local government and employee organizations. Also, section 9 of A.B. 388 would amend the definition of administrator to allow for regulation by the commissioner of insurance. The bill would make third-party administrators subject to regulation by the insurance commissioner. Mr. Penrose said the problem with one of the other trusts or health programs was its administrators engaged in wrongful conduct and the insurance commissioner was not able to take effective action. The people who were simply employees of the trust, like the trustees, would not be subject to regulation as administrators.
Senator O’Connell asked Senator Titus if she remembered when the university was not paying its bills. She said she did not know what the problem was, but the university had a difficult time collecting on what it submitted.
Senator O’Connell said the situation ended up tragically for many people and needed to be avoided. She asked Mr. Penrose if his proposal had a track record. Mr. Penrose said it did. In the private sector the construction industry used a similar arrangement.
Senator O’Connell asked Senator Hardy if Mr. Penrose’s comment sounded familiar. Mr. Penrose noted he might have been incorrect because it was not his area of practice.
Senator O’Connell said the committee was trying to see where Mr. Penrose’s proposal had been successful to avoid having employees being placed in a “fix.” Mr. Penrose said it had been successful in the private sector where a group of employers worked together, rather than each employer going out and attempting to negotiate health coverage with an individual insurer. He explained if a group of employers and unions got together and sought insurance for thousands rather than dozens or hundreds, they could self-insure or purchase insurance and receive the advantages of having large numbers of people. Mr. Penrose said it worked well in southern Nevada.
Senator Hardy said he thought Mr. Penrose was speaking specifically about the building trades. In terms of the industry, he did not hear many complaints or problems with the program.
Senator O’Connell indicated the State did not need any more failures because the impact to the people was devastating.
Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Assembly District No. 14, said she listened with interest to Senator O’Connell’s questions and concerns because she had the exact same concerns A.B. 388 was meant to address.
Mr. Ricketts said the City of Las Vegas had approximately 2650 employees. He noted one unique example of a modified process that would add perspective from both sides. He explained any time there was a problem, the insurance committee, consisting of three members from the employees association and three from the city, would address it. Since the city went self‑funded, it had saved around $500,000 a year. When issues came up, drastic measures to change were taken. Mr. Ricketts spoke of an instance when the bills were not getting paid, people were going to court, and that forced everyone to meet. As a result a new administrator was brought in.
Mr. Ricketts testified in support of A.B. 388 without additional amendments. The Las Vegas plan was successful; it was not a trust, per se, it was self‑funded. However, he did note the City of Las Vegas was unable to negotiate a better rate because it only had 2600 employees.
Mr. Ricketts said he met with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and labor organizations to talk about creating a statewide consortium to pull buying power for better insurance rates, but enabling legislation must be passed to allow public employees to form the consortium. He noted there was a track record for how the consortium would work with parameters to avoid mismanagement. Mr. Ricketts said one of the problems was retirees. He explained there was no insurance available without negatively affecting current employees. Once public employees retired, they were used to 50 to 100 percent paid coverage with a modified rate for their dependents, but they were looking at $900 to $1200 a month with the Public Employees’ Retirement System only for themselves. Mr. Ricketts said cost was a significant problem to the employee and the economy. Instead of visiting merchants and retailers, they had to spend money on insurance. He concluded there was much to be researched and to be done to make the research available and beneficial to all.
Senator O’Connell noted the committee was especially aware of the problems of the retired teachers.
F. Martin Bibb, Lobbyist, Retired Public Employees Of Nevada, said the notion of creating a trust fund to take advantage of purchasing power of multiple entities made great sense. He also noted he hoped the ability to reenter the plan after being in it would be left as an option.
P. Forrest Thorne, Executive Officer, Board of the Public Employees’ Benefits Program, said he had no problem with the concepts behind A.B. 388. However, Mr. Thorne said, he felt the mechanism for providing health coverage for public employees and retirees should be subject to the same mandates applied to the Public Employees’ Benefits Program, local entities, and any program they create.
Mr. Thorne said section 9 of the original bill mandated reinstatement of coverage. The reinstatement for many public employees, as a result of 30 years of service with the state or local government, should be allowed. He explained the retirees were young enough not to fully retire. They would work for a private sector employer who provided them with health insurance. He added, there was no need for them to pay for two health insurance plans, so they would drop the insurance provided by the State or local government. Upon full retirement, they would seek reentrance into the retiree insurance system, which Mr. Thorne said should be their right. He concluded all of the provisions of chapter 287 of the NRS should apply.
James Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance, said he shared Mr. Bibb’s and Mr. Thorne’s concerns. He said he was enthusiastic about A.B. 388 and hoped it would be seriously considered because it offered an alternative to solve the problems smaller entities have in furnishing health insurance. He added he was disappointed the Assembly had deleted section 9 guaranteeing the right of reinstatement.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 388 and opened the work session.
Mr. Wasserman said he identified substantive conflicts the committee might discuss before approving A.B. 295, A.B. 401, or A.B. 425.
ASSEMBLY BILL 295 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing criteria for determining qualification of bidders on public works of local governments. (BDR 28-747)
ASSEMBLY BILL 401 (1st Reprint): Allows public body or Department of Transportation to authorize private entity to develop, construct, improve, maintain or operate transportation facility. (BDR 28-798)
ASSEMBLY BILL 425 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding public works. (BDR 28-405)
Senator O’Connell said the work session dealt with all of the bills regarding the construction industry which had been discussed by the committee. She noted those wanting to review Mr. Wasserman’s information, Exhibit P, and provide testimony in regard to the conflicts could do so at the next committee meeting.
Mr. Wasserman said the first substantive conflict was between section 15 of A.B. 425 and section 6 of A.B. 295. Section 15 of A.B. 425 and subsection 3 of NRS 338.1377 set forth the criteria to be adopted by a governing body to determine whether an applicant was qualified to bid on a contract for a public work. He said A.B. 425 would have added a new provision to the criteria: the performance histories of the applicant on recent completed contracts similar to the work the governing body required.
Mr. Wasserman reminded the committee all technical amendments, as a result of this session’s legislative change, would be taken care of through codification at the end of session. It was the substantive conflicts involving policy determinations the committee should address.
Mr. Wasserman said A.B. 295 had 13 listed provisions. The committee needed to decide whether or not to eliminate the new provision from A.B. 425 or the provision from A.B. 295.
The second potential substantive conflict was between section 9.5 of A.B. 401 and section 37 of A.B. 425. Mr. Wasserman said NRS 338.1727 related to the awarding of contracts to design‑build teams and was provided in A.B. 425, the “cleanup” bill for chapter 338 of NRS. The recommendation was to delete section 37, subsection 7, which stated any provision of contract in violation of section 37, subsection 6, paragraph (c), was declared to be contrary to the public policy of the State and was void. Mr. Wasserman said the proponents of A.B. 425 stated the reason they were seeking the deletion of the provision was because it was redundant. He explained if one were prohibited from having it in the contract, then a provision to say it was void would not be needed. If State law prohibited it, it would be unenforceable. The amendment to A.B. 401 amended subsection 7, by changing the reference from paragraph (c) to paragraph (d). Although it was a non-substantive amendment, at the end of session if both bills passed, legal would not know what to do. Mr. Wasserman added, if the committee did not like the rationale for A.B. 425, he would suggest deleting subsection 7 of A.B. 401, as well. If the committee wanted to keep subsection 7, then the committee should not delete that subsection in A.B. 425.
The third potential substantive conflict was between A.B. 425 and Senate Bill (S.B.) 491. It related to NRS 338.1381. Mr. Wasserman said A.B. 425, the cleanup bill of chapter 338 of NRS, dealt with the amount of time to request a hearing due to a person’s denial of an application to qualify as a bidder. The last sentence of subsection 1 said the hearing must be held not later than 20 days after the receipt of a request for a hearing. In A.B. 425, it would be changed to 30 days. He said S.B. 491 changed the 20 days to 45 days. He concluded the committee needed to make a policy decision as to whether they wanted 30, 45, or some other number of days in the language.
SENATE BILL 491 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes regarding bidding on contracts for public works of this state. (BDR 28-487)
The fourth and last substantive conflict was between A.B.
425 and S.B. 19. Mr. Wasserman said S.B. 19 provided a
new method for approving and expediting contracts not more than $100,000. Senate Bill 19,
if approved,
would state the new provisions would govern projects of up to $100,000 and if a
project was more than $100,000, but not more than $250,000, then the bid would
be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, pursuant to
NRS 338.143. If the project was for more than $250,000, the provisions of
NRS 338.147 would apply and the project would be awarded to the best bid with
the application of the preference found in subsection 2 of NRS 338.147. If A.B.
425 were approved, the reference to except the expedited process for
contracts under $100,000, section 15 of S.B. 19, otherwise provided in
sections 5 and 7 of S.B. 19, should be deleted. He explained NRS 338.147
would only apply to contracts in excess of $250,000, so the excerption for
contracts under $100,000 would not be needed.
SENATE BILL 19 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to advertising and awarding contracts for certain smaller public works projects and requires Department of Transportation to follow contracting procedures used by other state agencies. (BDR 28-409)
Assemblyman Joseph (Joe) Hardy, Assembly District No. 20, said he had no problem deleting subsection 7 of section 9.5.
John Madole, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter, said he did not see a problem with the information Mr. Wasserman went over.
Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Madole if he had a preference. Mr. Madole responded that A.B. 425 represented a lot of work put in with the Las Vegas Associated General Contractors. Senator O’Connell again asked Mr. Madole if he had a preference. Mr. Madole said it was a public policy issue to be decided by the committee as he had worked on both bills and had no preference.
Ted J. Olivas, Lobbyist, Assistant Director of Finance,
Clark County, and Chairman, Public Purchasing Study Commission, said he had
gone through the conflicts. He said when he worked with the industry to put
together A.B. 425, they looked strictly at cleanup type language.
Therefore, he noted, when the fifth criterion was added, it made the criteria
for local governments the same as
state government. Mr. Olivas continued, they looked at the criteria used to
select contractors and added 9 criteria to the existing 4. He said his position
was the A.B. 295 criteria were appropriate for local governments.
In regard to the second conflict, Mr. Olivas said, in one section it stated the contract had to include many different things and if they were missing, the contract was void. If the contract did not contain what the law mandated, it would be void anyway, so, he said it was redundant. Mr. Olivas added, it was appropriate to remove the language, but it did not hurt the county either way.
Mr. Olivas said the third conflict dealt with the number of days to hold a hearing. He said he knew 20 days was not enough, so the county and industry decided on 30 days. However, if 45 days was appropriate, it was a policy decision. Mr. Olivas concluded more days was better, but it was the committee’s decision.
He said he was okay with the fourth change as it related to A.B. 425 and S.B. 19.
Lori T. Ashton, Lobbyist, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, said her only issue was the difference between the criteria. If A.B. 425 added the fifth criterion, it would be an umbrella under which any and all criteria could be adopted. When the public agencies wanted to formally list objective criteria, it became narrower, not broader. Ms. Ashton said the language, “financial ability,” was very specific. She said the carpenters did not have a problem with the objective criteria in A.B. 295 if the proposed amendment they submitted, which required notification for the qualification process to trade unions and other associations, was included in A.B. 295. She also noted the carpenters believed an amendment was needed to address the subcontractors.
Senator O’Connell asked what the disposition of S.B. 491 was in the Assembly.
Ms. Ashton said S.B. 491 had been heard once in the
Assembly without opposition. She noted that subcontractors did 90 percent of
the work performed on any public work project and there should be an avenue for
a public body to
remove them before awarding a project. She explained a process should be in
place to revoke licenses of those who repetitively violated laws for public
works projects. They should not be removed after selection, after there are
vested bidders rights, or after litigation problems. She said the carpenters
would be more comfortable with A.B. 425.
Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America, Local 169, said he agreed with the carpenter’s union. He added, he preferred the language in S.B. 19.
Mr. Madole said upon further review, he thought A.B. 295 gave a more specific set of criteria, which was easier to understand, and would not have to be litigated as much as the others.
Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter, said there were several criteria in A.B. 295 not encompassed in the general criteria in A.B. 425. She concluded A.B. 295 contained more criteria by expanding to 13.
Fred Smith, Construction Manager, and Interim Assistant Superintendent, Facilities, Clark County School District, said he supported A.B. 295 as it was currently before the committee. He added he did not believe anything needed to be put into A.B. 295 with regard to subcontractors. The county was handling it procedurally.
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Southern Nevada, said he preferred A.B. 295 as written.
Senator Care asked how the 13 criteria listed in A.B. 295 would be weighed.
James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study
Commission, said he wanted to avoid a point system for prequalifying general
contractors. He said he believed the governing body or purchasing agent should
be able to determine
whether a mistake was major and deny prequalification, or a minor infraction
and approve prequalification.
Senator O’Connell adjourned the hearing at 5:06 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Joseph Bozsik,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: