MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session February 1, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:07 a.m., on Wednesday, February 1, 1995, Chairman Lambert presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Pete Ernaut Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Wendell Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ASSEMBLY BILL 15 - Revises scope of access of office of internal audits to state governmental records. (BDR 31-593) Chairman Lambert called attention to A.B. 15 which had been discussed previously on Monday, January 30. Ms. Pat Eischeid had asked for a language discrepancy to be adjusted. In section one, line 4, the current language of the office of internal audits says "agencies to be audited". The corrected language should read "agencies of the state". This would make the powers of the internal auditors equal to those of the legislative auditors. Mrs. Lambert exhorted the Committee to consider this solution. In addition, Assemblyman Bache suggested special consideration by the Ethics Commission regarding the language parallel, if necessary. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 15. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A work session began on Assembly Joint resolutions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 1 - Urges Congress to expedite ratification of amendments to Tahoe Regional Planning Compact made by State of California and adopted by Nevada Legislature. (BDR R-304) MR. ERNAUT MOVED DO PASS. MR. BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 2 - Urges the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to continue to simplify its operations and procedures and to encourage cooperation between persons interested in protecting environment of Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR R-310) ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED DO PASS ON A.J.R. 2 ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 3 - Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to rank environmental threshold carrying capacities for Lake Tahoe Basin in their order of priority. (BDR R-309) MRS. FREEMAN MOVED DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 4 - Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to assist in coordinating analysis of resources within Lake Tahoe Basin which are potentially finite in nature and to continue to review status of environmental threshold carrying capacities for the Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR R-308) MRS. FREEMAN MOVED DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 5 - Urges Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to carry out its current plans and to expand further its efforts to emphasize implementation of those plans and other plans and projects which enhance environmental quality of Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR R-307) MRS. KRENZER MOVED DO PASS. MR. HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 6- Supports efforts of Tahoe Truckee Regional Economic Coalition to promote strong economy and enhance quality of life in Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR R-306) MRS. DE BRAGA MOVED DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 7 - Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for mission of Tahoe Basin Forest Health Consensus Group and urges Congress and certain federal and state agencies to provide assistance in accomplishment of that mission. (BDR R-312) Assemblyman Nolan stressed the urgent need for tree removal from the Tahoe Basin and wanted to amend the wording of this Bill a bit to emphasize the immediate danger present in the situation. He wanted the word "emergency" put into the summary and line five to read..."and imminent catastrophic fire hazard which threatens life and personal property." Mr. Nolan also wished to insert somewhere in the text there were 110 fire starts last year in the area and limited ingress as well as egress and evacuation procedures present even more of a problem. Mr. Jim Baetge, Executive Director of the TRPA, was asked for his opinion on the text change. He agreed with the rationale and the need for emphasis. Mrs. Freeman indicated a letter had been sent to the Forest Service regarding these same issues. Mrs. de Braga inquired about the profit being made from the tree removal in the Basin. Mr. Baetge mentioned the east shore project and the sale of wood from sales of the tree removal would produce some profit, but the amount varies from area to area depending on the quality of wood and how quickly it can be retrieved. Mr. Nolan wrapped up the language for the amendment, making it more imminent and spicing it up to impress upon Congress the urgency of the situation. MR. ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 7. MRS. KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 9 - Urges Congress and United States Postal Service to provide for delivery of mail in Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR R-320) Mrs. Lambert reviewed a suggestion to send this amended resolution to the Postmaster in Menlo Park. MRS. SEGERBLOM MOVED DO PASS A.J.R. 9. MR. ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion. Mr. Bache pointed out that an amendment was needed to correct line 20 which now reads ...57,000 miles per year and should read...57,000 miles per day. MR. BACHE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION . THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 9. Mr. Ernaut was assigned the bill on the floor. Mrs. Lambert questioned Mr. Ernaut regarding A.B. 12. She wanted to know if he kept the bill, would the situation eventually come to a resolution. He replied that there was a problem getting everyone together at the present time. After the break, he would arrange for a meeting with representatives from all parties to arrive at a resolution. Mr. Ernaut declared a dangerous precedent was being set in mandating a community to embark on a project of such magnitude. Mrs. Freeman asked about the bill. Mrs. Lambert explained Mr. Ernaut was assigned the bill to meet with some of the parties involved and iron out some of the glitches in the proposal. Mrs. Lambert requested someone make a motion to allow Mr. Ernaut to facilitate the bill. Mr. Ernaut added it was his intent that through these meetings there would be a time specific commitment for having this done to the satisfaction of the committee so the bill does not have to be processed. MR. NOLAN MOVED TO ALLOW MR. ERNAUT TO FACILITATE THE BILL. MR. BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion followed. Mrs. Freeman wondered if this bill should be put in a subcommittee due to the fact that it is such a sensitive issue. She wanted to have the meeting minutes on record. Mrs. Krenzer questioned the motion if Mr. Ernaut is already handling the bill in a "quasi" subcommittee. Mrs. Lambert said joint rules did not get passed but there was an intention to make government more open and not have the committee chairs put bills in drawers or suspend action on bills and not bring them up to vote. Every bill would have some sort of committee action. She also wanted the whole committee's opinion on the matter, therefore a motion was appropriate. Mrs. Krenzer questioned if the action was to put the bill into a subcommittee with Mr. Ernaut. Mrs. Lambert said that was not the motion. There were a lot of private individuals involved and getting them all together for a subcommittee might be difficult. Mrs. Krenzer also wondered if a time frame should be put on this. Mrs. Lambert indicated the bill would simply return to the committee. Mr. Ernaut stated he wanted to get this issue over with as quickly as everybody else and if they all had confidence in him to accomplish the task then he would do it. If not, then the committee could deal with it themselves. He has been dealing with this issue for ten years, it is very difficult and to put the bill in a subcommittee would kill the bill. He emphasized many of the parties involved would not come to a subcommittee meeting and the bill would never be resolved. Mrs. Krenzer had a philosophical problem with the motion supposedly making this issue more open Mrs. Lambert pointed out they were trying to follow the spirit of the rules the Senate did not agree to which requires a motion on a bill within a ten day time frame, so it was being brought before the committee. She told Mrs. Krenzer she could kill the bill or vote to pass it which might have the same effect. The solution aimed at was to try to help these people over difficulties, many of whom may not want to be involved because they are dealing with contracts and private property proprietary information which are sensitive areas. Mr. Ernaut restated he had been dealing with this situation for 25 years and drastic times call for drastic measures. He felt the group needed to be brought together behind closed doors in order to finally come to an agreement. Mr. Bache felt confident that Mr. Ernaut could handle the bill. His only other concern was whether or not the meeting should be posted due to all the comments on the record regarding various people meeting. Mr. Ernaut said absolutely, he would not do it outside the law. Mr. Nolan sustained his motion. He believed Mr. Ernaut should be granted all the authority he needed to speak with his constituents without holding a public meeting to discuss issues occurring in his district. He felt an open meeting should be scheduled after Mr. Ernaut's discussions with his constituents. Mrs. Lambert said no definitive action would be taken on this bill anywhere other than in an open meeting. Mr. Bennett indicated if no definitive action would be taken on the bill he would withdraw his second to the motion to allow Mr. Ernaut to facilitate the bill. Mrs. Krenzer wanted to see things work out but did not understand the motion. Mrs. Lambert explained the motion was to do what had always been done in the past which was for the Chairman to ask a member to handle the bill, but now committee approval was required and that is what the motion was for. Mr. Ernaut committed to the rapid resolution of the bill. Mrs. Krenzer wanted to second the motion again. Mrs. Segerblom pointed out again the time spent on this issue with Lake Tahoe people. She also mentioned Speaker Hettrick was in favor of this bill and hoped it would be quickly resolved. Mr. Ernaut swore he would indefinitely postpone the bill if anyone else questioned the time element. Mrs. de Braga remarked the public was just as well served with the doors open as well as closed and being as there were not that many people there to testify in the first place, she could see no reason for not having a subcommittee meeting on the bill. She indicated she would go against the motion. Mr. Harrington inquired as to when Mr. Ernaut might return the bill to the Committee. MR. ERNAUT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 12 MR. BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. More discussion followed. Mrs. Lambert indicated there was a motion on the floor already that was to be dealt with first. She reminded everyone of Mr. Nolan's motion to allow Mr. Ernaut to facilitate the bill. A roll call vote was taken on Mr. Nolan's motion. THE MOTION PASSED 7 TO 6. (ASSEMBLYMEN DE BRAGA, ERNAUT, NEIGHBORS, SEGERBLOM, BACHE AND LAMBERT VOTED NO). Mrs. Lambert returned to the discussion of Mr.Ernaut's motion to postpone A.B. 12. Mrs. Krenzer reiterated the need to resolve this issue. She felt the committee had given Mr. Ernaut the latitude he needed. Mr. Ernaut agreed with the urgent need to settle the bill. He declared if the committee was going to hamstring him and not allow him to proceed as necessary then he did not want to do it. He did not want to be set up to fail by the committee putting limitations on his ability. He did not want to do it if the committee had no confidence that it would be handled in a timely and judicious manner. If his credibility was in doubt, he would not stand for it. He felt he deserved the respect of the committee. Mrs. Lambert offered an apology from the Chair for putting him in that position. She thought the committee had the same faith in his abilities that she did. She thought they did, but were not giving him the tools to do the job. Mrs. Freeman expressed that when she brought up the idea of a subcommittee, she was in no way casting aspersions on his ability or integrity. She was relating her own feelings in this type of situation. Mr. Nolan surmised the straw that broke the camel's back was the reference to a time frame for resolution of this bill. In the motion there was no reference to a time frame, but simply provided Mr. Ernaut with the latitude needed to facilitate the bill with all parties involved. He encouraged fellow committee members not to indefinitely postpone the bill. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 12. THE MOTION FAILED 3 TO 10. (ASSEMBLYMEN BENNETT, BRAUNLIN AND LAMBERT VOTED YES). Therefore, Mr. Ernaut would facilitate A.B. 12 and the bill would not be indefinitely postponed. Mrs. Lambert then assigned the bills discussed to individuals to be handled on the floor. A.J.R. 1, Mrs. Freeman; A.J.R. 2, Mrs. Segerblom; A.J.R. 3, Mrs. Krenzer; A.J.R. 4, Mrs. Braunlin; A.J.R. 5, Mrs. Segerblom; A.J.R. 6, Mrs. Braunlin; A.J.R. 7, Mr. Nolan; A.J.R. 9, Mr. Ernaut. Mrs. Lambert began an introduction of BDR's. BDR 20-166 from Clark County prohibits/restrains competition from purchase for lease county property. MR. BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-166. MRS. DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 48-167, Clark County, facilitates amendment of master plan of district for control of floods. MR. BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 48-167. MR. NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 25-183, Clark County, repeals requirement for formal notice of lien for unpaid charges of general improvement district. MR. BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 25-183. MRS. SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 20-202, Clark County, revises provisions governing expenditure of money by certain counties to encourage preservation of certain species of wildlife. MR. NOLAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-202. MRS. KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 22-204, Clark County, revises provisions for maps required for subdivision of land. MR. BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-204. MR. NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 20-364, Clark County, makes various changes relating to county and city parks. MR. NEIGHBORS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-364. MR. BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 22-434, Clark County, requires local government to refund impact fees for certain housing for low income households. MR. BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-434. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 22-731, Reno, revises provisions governing expenditure of certain money distributed to redevelopment agency. MRS. FREEMAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-731. MS. TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 22-811, Carlin, broadens permissible investment of money pooled by public agencies for non-profit medical facilities for insurance. MR. NOLAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-811. MR. BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 23-928, Clark County, revises provisions governing submission of employment disputes to arbitration. MR. NOLAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 23-928. MRS. DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 20-343, Clark County, authorizes board of county commissioners to convey certain property belonging to county to non-profit organizations for development of affordable housing for low income families. MRS. SEGERBLOM MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-343. MRS. KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Lambert asked if there was any other business to come before Committee. Mr. Bache provided an overview of the Las Vegas meetings to take place the following two weeks. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Denise Sins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs February 1, 1995 Page