MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 22, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Wednesday, March 22, 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 Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Mike McGinness STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst Kim Morgan, Assembly Bill Drafting Advisor OTHERS PRESENT: Ted Finneran, Laughlin Chamber of Commerce; Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association; Barbara Willis, Nevada State Personnel; Bob Seale, Nevada State Treasurer; John Sande, Harrah's; Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties; Kareen Masters, Nevada State Personnel; Tom Skancke, Las Vegas; Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities. SENATE BILL 124 - Prohibits deduction from salaries of state employees for service as volunteer emergency medical technicians during working hours. (BDR 23-1368) Senator Mike McGinness, sponsor of S.B. 124, spoke on behalf of the bill. White Pine County had requested the legislation. He stated this bill would put Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) in the same category as volunteer firemen. In White Pine County there is a shortage of EMTs. There have been some problems at the prison in Ely which have necessitated additional assistance in responding to emergency situations. There are some EMTs at the prison but they were unable to assist in making ambulance runs because their pay was docked if they did so. This bill would allow the EMTs at the prison to go on those runs without losing any pay. Assemblyman Tripple asked if the volunteers were paid. Mr. McGinness answered no, they were not paid. Ms. Tripple wondered how often a person might be pulled off the job for emergencies each month. Mr. McGinness did not have a clue. Assemblyman Bennett inquired whether or not these EMTs were covered by SIIS and state insurance. Mr. McGinness responded they were indeed covered. Bob Hadfield, Executive Director of the Nevada Association of Counties, stressed the serious situation in White Pine County. He also mentioned Pershing County would also be similarly affected upon the opening of the new prison there. There are very limited volunteer resources in the rural communities. He said it is getting to the point where the few volunteers they have are getting tired and worn out. This bill would provide an opportunity for those resources to be used more efficiently and help the prison system as well. In White Pine County, the sheriff's department supplies the ambulance driver and the prison would provide the EMT to ride along with the prisoner. Currently, the county has to provide both driver and EMT. This bill would alleviate some of the stress on the sheriff's department and the prison too. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director of the State of Nevada Employees Association, supported the bill at the urging of the association members in Ely. Several of the six EMTs work at Ely State Prison and feel this bill is extremely necessary. Assemblyman Marcia de Braga testified in favor of the bill. She reiterated some of the problems at the prison. Some of the volunteers do not like to go out there. If medical staff working at the prison were able to transport inmates it would make things much easier all around. She mentioned the prison is not enthusiastic about the bill because the prison does not have an ambulance. Another of Mrs. de Braga's concerns was the lack of benefits for the volunteers. Assemblyman Nolan questioned if prison guards would still have to accompany prisoners in the ambulance along with the EMT or would they now take on the role of guard/caretaker. Mrs. de Braga answered the prison policy was to transport the injured inmate right to the gate and then be accompanied by one guard to the hospital. Assemblyman Ernaut felt Mrs. de Braga's concerns could not be addressed in this bill draft. She replied the bill was necessary at this time for the sake of the volunteers, even though some issues still remain to be dealt with at another time. Tom Grady of the Nevada League of Cities indicated their support of this bill. Assemblyman Freeman asked if there was a fiscal note attached to the bill. Mr. Grady responded there would be an effect on the state industrial insurance. Mrs. de Braga inquired who would provide an ambulance for the prisoners. Mr. Grady deferred her question to Mr. Hadfield. He said there would be no change in the protocol that is used in regard to the equipment that is responding. This would allow the ability to have one of those volunteers replaced by a staff member already employed at the prison. This does not require the prison to have an ambulance on prison property; that is strictly their option. Chairman Lambert referred to the fiscal note indicating the ratio of EMTs to population and the costs associated with emergency runs. She also pointed out that allowing the staff EMTs to go on emergency runs with pay was an option not a requirement and there is nothing in the bill that says the approval of the supervisor is needed for that person to go. She wanted some assurance there would be discretion used to determine when EMTs would be allowed to take paid leave. Mr. Hadfield thought that would be a prison policy decision. Mr. Nolan observed this would only provide appropriate pay for employees' services already being rendered. Mr. Hadfield agreed. Mr. Nolan saw the merits in this bill as this would apply to other employees as well such as police, fire and highway patrolmen. Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 124. ASSEMBLY BILL 295 - Revises certain limitations on investment of state money. (BDR 31-824) Bob Seale, Nevada State Treasurer, said this bill was vague. He mentioned language had been added in several places to help define what the limits will be. Page two, line 40 adds "par value of the portfolio" which clearly defines exactly what the limits are and what they are to be measured against. Assemblyman Harrington questioned lines 14, 15 and 24 on page one and asked if Nevada was currently investing in county bonds from other states. Mr. Seale replied no we were not. Mr. Harrington inquired about the investment in school districts within the state mentioned on line 24 and referred to the White Pine situation. Mr. Seale responded not in the portfolio however they do from time to time purchase bonds from local entities that go into the municipal bond bank, but only after careful consideration and they have never had any problems in that regard. Mr. Harrington wanted to know if it was desirable to keep the option open to invest in other counties in other states. Mr. Seale felt that was a reasonable option. Brian Krolicki, Chief Deputy Treasurer, pointed out those securities were tax exempt and that was not an incentive for the state because they do not have that liability. The yield would have to be pretty special to attract state investment. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 295. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 295. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 285 - Revises provisions governing support of airports by county fair and recreation boards in certain counties. (BDR 20-1684) Assemblyman Segerblom, sponsor of A.B. 285, introduced the bill. She mentioned this bill was passed two years ago but had a sunset clause of three fiscal years so after this year there would be no money left. This bill would remove that clause only and the rest of the bill would remain the same. Mrs. Segerblom pointed out all the hotels in Laughlin support the measure. She provided a letter of support to that effect (Exhibit C). She introduced Mr. Ted Finneran, Executive Director of the Laughlin Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Finneran explained some enabling legislation had been attained through A.B. 706 which allowed the use of room tax to support an airport in Arizona. He brought a photograph of the airport to show its close proximity to the resorts and stressed the importance of the facility to Laughlin. They consider it Laughlin's airport as 95% of the passengers who fly there are destined for that city. They are in the second year of the funding provided by A.B. 706 last session and will run out of money prior to the next session so now is the time to remove the sunset clause and allow the continuing funding of the airport with room tax dollars. In the past couple of years the money has gone for a new tower, widening of the airport and advertising and marketing of the facility in a joint effort with Reno Air to establish air service from San Jose. They expect to continue to expand all air services in an effort to bring in more tourist trade. The Laughlin economy would suffer greatly without the airport. If they could increase the number of tourists coming in via air, Laughlin would have a very wealthy economy and provide the state with a lot more funds. Mrs. Segerblom pointed out the land formation of the surrounding areas in Laughlin and emphasized it would be a long time before an airport would be constructed there. This is the main reason for the support of the existing air facility. She also mentioned taxes would not be raised by this bill. Mrs. Segerblom said the bill states the convention and visitors bureau may return the money. They saw fit to do it last time and probably will again. It is the tax money that is already paid to the convention authority that they would return to Laughlin to use to get more tourists to pay more to the convention authority. Assemblyman Freeman questioned what type of arrangement was made with the neighboring state as to the room tax money supporting their airport. Mr. Finneran said the other state, Arizona, did have some enabling legislation last year that had no sunset clause which allowed them to accept the money from Nevada to support the airport. A.B. 706 is the enabling legislation that was used to send the money to Arizona. Mrs. Freeman asked what Nevada statutes allowed this to happen. Mr. Finneran replied it was NRS 244a.622 and it was revised by A.B. 706 last session. Mrs. Freeman thought this was a rather unique arrangement. Mr. Finneran said actually, it is not. In the United States there are several states that use the same airport. Mrs. Segerblom referred her to a portion of (Exhibit C) for more information on the airport collaboration. Mr. Harrington remarked about 180,000 people per year arrive in Laughlin via air travel. He wondered how much was spent by each person. Mr. Finneran did not have figures for individual profiles, but stated the group figure was approximately several hundred dollars per person; he said the actual figures were available in the gaming abstract. Mr. Harrington concluded this was a good investment. Mr. Finneran agreed indicating if more passengers were brought in, there would be more occupancy at the hotels enabling rate increases and thereby yielding more room tax dollars. Assemblyman Bennett pursued Mr. Harrington's line of questioning regarding the amount of the investment involved. Mr. Finneran indicated the benefits of the investment would not be seen until air traffic was improved by marketing the airport. Mr. Bennett queried what was the current growth rate of Laughlin. Mr. Finneran stated it has been 11% to 12% in the past few years. Mr. Bennett surmised the budget would break even and begin to make a profit about four years down the road. Mr. Finneran agreed. John Sande, an attorney representing Harrah's Hotels and other resorts in Laughlin, strongly supported the bill. Tom Skancke, representing the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority neither opposed nor supported the bill. He requested additional information for Mr. Cortez and for the committee to wait until he comes up in April before taking action on the bill. Mrs. Lambert indicated the committee would make their decision at a later time but any written correspondence was certainly welcome. Greg Ferraro, Nevada Resort Association, made the statement he would provide the letter sent to Mr. Bunker for the record. Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 285. ASSEMBLY BILL 278 - Revises provisions regarding granting leaves of absence without pay to certain state employees. (BDR 23-875) Barbara Willis, Director of the Department of Personnel, along with Kareen Masters, also of State Personnel, spoke in favor of A.B. 278. Mrs. Willis said in 1993, the legislature passed a very important parental leave bill which guaranteed state employees twelve weeks of leave without pay for the birth or adoption of a child. However, Congress passed a federal family medical leave act which presented conflicting provisions. The federal law is more generous than the state law. Mrs. Willis provided a handout illustrating the conflicting provisions (Exhibit D). Virtually all aspects are different. The state is left with the attempt to administer two laws that provide the same type of benefit that definitely conflict. The requirements are cumbersome to administer; each leave request from an employee must be examined to determine whether the employee is qualified under the federal law, the state law or both. It is a source of confusion to both agencies as well as to the employees involved. The current proposal is to put subsection five, section one of the bill on hold, which is what the state now provides for parental leave, and allow the federal law to prevail. However, should the federal law be removed or changed significantly, the current state law, subsection five, would be reactivated. Mr. Ernaut understood the intent of the bill but said one legislature cannot bind another. He was concerned that the removal of section five instead of changing it to conform to federal guidelines would result in problems trying to get it back. Mrs. Willis pointed out if the federal law were no longer in effect, section five would automatically be reactivated. This was confirmed by the bill drafter. Mr. Ernaut was confused. He stood by the standpoint it was difficult to bind another legislature. He wanted an LCB opinion as to the appropriateness of this legislation. He felt it would set a dangerous precedent for a lot of other language. Assemblyman Tripple said this was called family leave and yet it relates only to children. She thought it related to care of the elderly. Mrs. Willis stated the current state law provides leave only for the birth or adoption of a child. The federal law includes that provision but also includes care for an employee's spouse, child or parent. The federal law is broader than the state law. Mr. Bennett questioned if federal law is more lenient than state law, why was there no fiscal note attached to this bill. Mrs. Willis answered they had no choice but to follow the federal law. They are following both state and federal laws at the present time. Assemblyman Krenzer had concerns similar to Mr. Ernaut's and wanted further clarification. Mr. Ernaut was dumbfounded at how the bill was drafted. He said it was backwards to take a whole chunk of the bill out with the caveat that if something changes someone else will put it back in. He did not feel comfortable with that at all. He would rather see the bill re-drafted. Assemblyman Bache mentioned he had read section two three or four times due to ambiguous wording and pointed out that section two provides for the reactivation of subsection five. Mrs. Lambert asked the legal counsel for clarification on the language so the committee would be comfortable with it. Mr. Ernaut was still not sure we had the ability to do this. Mrs. Lambert said as far as binding another legislature, all the laws that are in the books are there and any future legislature may change any of them. Mrs. Freeman thought if there was any ambiguity in the bill, legal counsel was necessary and any changes needed should be made so the intent of the bill was clear. Mrs. Krenzer asked Mrs. Willis if she had any objections to putting the federal law into the statutes. Mrs. Willis replied that was one of their options when the bill was being drafted and the current result was the final decision of the legal staff of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. They felt this was a more efficient and as effective way to do it. This method has been used in other agencies. She did not have any objection to putting the federal law into the statutes. Mrs. Krenzer reiterated the input of the federal law would ease much of the cause for concern. Mrs. Lambert queried if anyone has applied for benefits under both the federal and state laws. Kareen Masters responded they do overlap so one could take leave under both laws. Twelve weeks were entitled under the state law and could be supplemented with twelve additional weeks under federal law. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director State of Nevada Employees Association, explained when he met with Kim Morgan, the bill drafter, she assured him this version of the bill was the most efficient way of addressing the issue. Although they would be more comfortable with the federal language put in, it is fairly lengthy, is in a different format from NRS and this bill has had a tremendous amount of work put into it that would not want to be lost. Mrs. Krenzer wanted to know if there was a way to leave the language in but have an additional statement put in for clarification. Mr. Gagnier mentioned they had discussed putting in language to the effect that whichever law provided the better benefits would apply. Kim Morgan felt that would really leave it open to interpretation. Under the federal law, the benefit can include both paid and unpaid leave; under the state provision the entitlement is to twelve weeks of unpaid leave. He said she likened this to a time bomb; if the federal law changes, the fuse is lit and the state law comes back into effect automatically. Mrs. Lambert mentioned someone from LCB would try to come up to explain this bill a little bit better. Mr. Ernaut expressed concern that if the state clause was eliminated, there could be ramifications in the event of a constitutional challenge. Mr. Gagnier reiterated if the federal law is changed in any way, the state law automatically comes back into effect. Mr. Ernaut emphasized if there was a challenge to that simultaneously would there be a potential for problems. Mr. Gagnier replied there is always that potential when you are dealing with lawyers. Mrs. Lambert wanted to get a legal opinion on the matter of being able to bind another legislature. There is nothing in the statutes enabling that to occur because they can always change it. A legal opinion would be forthcoming. Mr. Bennett commented on page two, lines 13-17 and thought the reference was to something that would not exist in the future. It violated his horse sense to look at it. Mr. Neighbors indicated the only way to bind the legislature was through a constitutional measure. One legislature can always change something they do not like in the following session. There was a ten minute recess while waiting for Kim Morgan to arrive. After the recess, Kim Morgan, Assembly Bill Drafting Advisor, informed the committee of the legalities of the bill and answered all of their questions. Mrs. Lambert asked her if we could bind another legislature in this way. Ms. Morgan stated just as this legislature is changing what has come before, the next legislature can change what is done during this session. There is a procedure that is followed but it is constitutional. The constitutional concern would be whether a particular employee's vested right to a certain leave was being interfered with. Mrs. Lambert questioned who would monitor the federal legislation to see if it should ever drop below the state standard in the future. Ms. Morgan said no one is specified to do that. The LCB thought it was a big enough subject that it would be in the public train of information; if Congress addressed this issue, we would know. Mrs. Lambert queried how subsection five would be located after it was taken out of the statutes. Ms. Morgan indicated the bill was drafted this way as a parallel statute. There will be two versions with different effective dates and both will be visible. Mrs. Krenzer reaffirmed the parallel statute would always be available. Ms. Morgan agreed. The assemblyman was concerned about when Congress would possibly change the bill. Ms. Morgan referred to lines 16 and 17 on page two stating it would be an amendment by Congress that ceases to provide leaves of absence at least equal to what the state statute provides; not just minor changes. Mrs. Krenzer wondered if there was any advantage to leaving the present language in and adding that these apply except as otherwise provided for in federal law. Ms. Morgan said it could be drafted from that approach but it would be tougher to describe what the result would be and what the employee was really guaranteed. Mrs. Lambert questioned if there was any other such mechanism in the statute or was this setting a precedent. Ms. Morgan indicated there were several of these things, one being a seat belt law, and at least four others that she was aware of. Mrs. Freeman wanted to reiterate the importance of a clear understanding of this bill for now and for the future. If this is confusing to us now, what can be done to avoid more confusion in the Senate. Mrs. Lambert suggested lobbying like crazy. Mr. Bennett queried if subsection five is deleted and there are parallel bills, how does that appear in print. Ms. Morgan answered there would be two sets of statutes; one would have only four sections while the other would have all five. The one that has four would say it is effective now but only until Congress changes the federal law. The other one would say it is not effective now, but will become so if Congress changes the federal law. Both sets will be available in the blue NRS volumes. Mrs. Lambert expressed appreciation to Ms. Morgan for her explanations and technical expertise. She asked the committee if they were less confused and they confirmed they were. Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 278. There was a 15 minute recess. After the recess a work session ensued. ASSEMBLY BILL 139 - Revises provisions governing expenditure of money by certain counties to encourage preservation of certain species of wildlife. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED DO PASS A.B. 139. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion followed. Mr. Nolan was concerned whether or not all indigenous candidate species would eventually become endangered and would it be appropriate to preserve land for these. Mr. Bennett pointed out the difference between the wording protection versus preservation and indicated the word preservation would allow a more broad interpretation to the bill. This has overcome Mr. Bennett's initial objection to the measure. Mrs. de Braga shared some research with the committee regarding the wording of the bill. The term protection is more stringent than the term preservation. The bill's advocates were very comfortable with the verbiage change from protection to preservation in A.B. 139. Mr. Bache pointed out he was on the subcommittee in 1991 that originally enacted this legislation. Had this law not been created and the tortoise issue dealt with, construction would have come to a halt in Clark County. This continuation would protect southern Nevada from having federal intervention there. Mrs. Segerblom supported the bill and remarked how refreshing it was to have the home builders and the Sierra Club on the same side. There was no more discussion and the committee voted. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 141 - Revises provision governing expenditure of certain money distributed to redevelopment agency. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 141. ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. MRS. LAMBERT VOTED NO. ASSEMBLY BILL 143 - Authorizes board of county commissioners to convey certain property belonging to county to nonprofit organizations for development of affordable housing for low-income families. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 143. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Lambert explained the amendment. It would limit nonprofit organizations to 501(c)(3), as nonprofit can have a very broad definition. Second, to follow the notice procedures, on page two, lines 26-38, which goes before the planning commission, notifies the property owners within 300 feet, and has a public hearing. Hopefully that would allow the ability to look at this transfer from a land use aspect for compatibility with the neighborhood before it goes forward with the donation. Mr. Harrington had two problems with this bill. One was the eminent domain is still there; he had a problem with the county being able to take private property from one person and turn it over to another. He would like to see that section deleted. If the land was obtained any other way, it would be acceptable. Second, the accountability issue is helped by the amendment, but he would still like to see some record of the county donation of land show up on the county's year end financial statement. Currently this does not show up. This would make the information more available to the public at large. Mrs. Lambert asked him if that was a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 143 TO PRECLUDE LAND ACQUIRED BY EMINENT DOMAIN FROM BEING DONATED. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion ensued. Mr. Ernaut thought the intent of the bill was to not allow the use of eminent domain for the sole purpose of constructing low-income housing. Mr. Harrington stressed the use eminent domain would be inappropriate to acquire property for one purpose and then turn it over to yet another private property owner as a donation. Mrs. Lambert said even if the land was acquired for a freeway, plans changed and some was left over, it would not be able to be transferred because it was acquired by eminent domain. Mr. Harrington confirmed that was his train of thought. Mr. Ernaut shared the concerns of the whole public policy statement on the use of eminent domain for this project, but to eliminate its use in all instances would be inappropriate and unworkable. He said it would encompass too gray of an area specifically for eminent domain usage in this area. Plans change and eminent domain rationale changes from year to year. Mrs. Krenzer agreed with Mr. Ernaut and would vote against the amendment. Mr. Bache originally had some concerns about eminent domain but it was his understanding that the county did not have the power of eminent domain for use in low-income housing. He said he would not want to infringe on the possibility of some land that was condemned by eminent domain two or three years previously and no longer used for the same purpose to be used for housing. Mrs. Freeman agreed with all the previous speakers. She opposed the amendment. Mr. Nolan thought Mr. Harrington should modify his amendment. He had some of the same concerns and mentioned a living model of the abuse of eminent domain in Clark County. He related people's homes were taken into eminent domain and they were moved out for construction of the airport. The plans for the airport were then changed and the Clark County Commission chose to rent out those homes to other people. The original tenants were outraged. If there can be a guarantee that the property would not be used for anything but the intended purpose, that would make the bill acceptable. Mrs. de Braga agreed with the other committee members and would also vote against the amendment. She felt there would be no other legitimate purpose for the land once it was acquired. Mrs. Lambert asked the committee to read lines 15-17 on page 3. She said it read to condemn the land by eminent domain for renting to another family, it could not be rented to another family or donated to a nonprofit until you allowed the person from whom the land was acquired to buy it back. Mr. Harrington stated basically this amendment would force the county to sell the land on the open market and that way it would keep all motives pure. There would be no question of a "bait and switch" operation where they say the land is for one use and then turn around and use it for another. The committee voted on the amendment. THE MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED THAT ANY LAND DONATED BE REFLECTED ON THE COUNTY'S ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion followed. Mr. Neighbors believed this was already being done. He said the county assessor had to show the exempt property on the tax rolls. Mr. Harrington said yes, but it has not been shown on the year end statement and this is what he is requesting. Mr. Ernaut wondered why. Mr. Harrington simply said accountability. He wants the public to know what the county government is doing. If it is on a financial statement it is more easily available. Mrs. Krenzer asked if that was easy to do. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, believed Mr. Harrington was asking for a note in the financial statement of the year-end audit report of the county noting the county had donated land in a certain value for a certain purpose to a particular organization. He has not seen this sort of transaction show up. Mr. Bache asked Mr. Hadfield if putting it on a financial report would provide any more information to the public than anywhere else it might appear. Mr. Hadfield replied it probably would. It would be on the assessor's records and if someone was attempting to identify transactions by the county it would make the process easier. The committee voted on this amendment. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. They returned to the main motion, which had been amended, to change nonprofit on line 13 to 501(c)(3) to include the notice on page two, lines 26-38, and to include the donation will be on the year end financial statement the auditor prepares. THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMEN NOLAN AND HARRINGTON VOTED NO. The bill was suggested to be assigned to Mrs. Buckley on the floor as it was her bill. Mrs. Krenzer offered to handle it if that was not the case. ASSEMBLY BILL 171 - Authorizes use of straw and solar energy under building codes. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 171. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Lambert asked what the amendment was. Mr. Bache indicated the July 1 date caused some problems with the counties as far as changing any codes or regulations and leaving it at October 1 would give them the necessary time they need. The date will not be changed to July 1. The sponsors agreed to that. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Lambert suggested that Assemblywoman Guinchigliani or Assemblyman Schneider would handle the bill on the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL 214 - Authorizes legislature to reject certain proposed administrative regulations. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bache quoted some previous legislators and stated "itsa gooda bill." THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Lambert would ask Assemblyman Price if he wanted to handle the bill on the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL 286 - Revises provisions governing contents of notice for proposed administrative regulations. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Lambert would handle the bill on the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL 200 - Revises provisions governing organization of department of information services and administration of state communications system. Mrs. Lambert mentioned A.B. 200 came from information services and the amendment was to include chapter 242.131 which was accepted by all concerned at the time. The PERS system is not listed in that statute and everyone agrees they should not be covered in A.B. 200. There is a proposed amendment that has been submitted by George Pyne of PERS and agreed to by Karen Kavanaugh of the department of information services that they want to add to the amendment already riding on the bill. Mr. Bache read the amendment. Mrs. Lambert thought the appropriate motion would be to rescind the first action taken on March 17 and amend and do pass the new amendment. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO RESCIND THE ACTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON MARCH 17, 1995 WHEREIN THE VOTE WAS TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 200. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ******************************* ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 200 ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Segerblom passed out a letter to Richard Bunker of the Nevada Resort Association signed by all the resort owners in support of A.B. 285, previously discussed. Mrs. Segerblom suggested action on the bill. Mrs. Lambert asked for the pleasure of the committee on the measure. Mr. Ernaut stated with all respect to his colleague from Boulder City, he would feel uncomfortable moving the bill along when the main entity involved has not been heard from in any official capacity. He was also concerned with waiting until April as requested and felt agreements could then be reached. Mrs. Segerblom said the only trouble with that was the hotels were really the ones paying the bill. Mr. Ernaut countered with reference to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority as an administrative body of that entity and if there were problems he would not want to send a piece of legislation to the Senate that was flawed. Mrs. Krenzer shared Mr. Ernaut's concerns but mentioned a representative was here and did have the opportunity to respond. She wanted to give them a couple of days. Mrs. Krenzer pointed out the bill says "may" use the money so it is up to them anyway whether or not they want to use the money. She did not see any reason to hold it up at length. Mr. Bennett concurred with Mr. Ernaut. Mr. Bache stated the bill could be put on the work session for next week which would give everyone time to contact the Convention and Visitors Authority to see what problems they had, if any. The bill was introduced on March 2, so it has been out for awhile and the meeting was posted. Mrs. Lambert thought that was an excellent idea. Mr. Neighbors agreed to the work session next week. Mr. Ernaut did not want to suspend the bill in perpetuity but to simply wait a week to see what developed and get the official word from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. Mrs. Segerblom mentioned she had spoken with Mr. Cortez and he had requested the committee wait until the April 11th board meeting and then they would get back to the group on the 13th or 14th. Mrs. Lambert indicated since the committee holds bills for a work session on another day and because some members wanted more information, she felt more at ease waiting to hear both sides of the issue before taking action on the bill. Mrs. Lambert wanted to get a report from Assemblyman Williams on A.B. 204. He said the language he received and discussed with several local entities did not affect the bill any differently than the way it was originally written. The suggested language he received from Clark County, at the end of line 13, they would like one of the commissioners must be an individual who is a recipient of assistance from the housing authority. He said this would cover housing projects that they oversee as opposed to other types of housing programs. They were also concerned about legislative intent which read "any existing authority which has a duly appointed commissioner who is a recipient of housing assistance from the authority shall be deemed to have met the requirement of this provision. Following the expiration of term, such existing appointment of the authority will continue to reserve such seat for a commissioner nominated and appointed as set forth above." If this bill was enacted, the city of Reno would keep that same process going. Mrs. Lambert asked about the concerns of the rural housing authority with their complexes in five different far-flung places; did they have any input. She wanted Mr. Williams to get something in writing that the committee would be able to see next time. Mr. Ernaut suggested the legislative intent be put into statute form. Mrs. Lambert agreed. Mrs. Krenzer wondered if the nomination process would be defined more clearly. Mr. Williams remarked the suggested language should be left up to Clark County. Mrs. Lambert requested Mrs. Krenzer discuss this with Mr. Williams. Mrs. Lambert brought up the subcommittees for an update. On A.B. 36, another subcommittee meeting was scheduled for April 4. The A.B. 52 subcommittee was scheduled for Wednesday, April 5. Mr. Ernaut would chair the subcommittee on A.B. 189 on Monday, April 3. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 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 March 22, 1995 Page