MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session April 28, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, April 28, 1995, Chairman Bache 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 Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Ernest E. Adler STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller; Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Wyble; SNPOA, DeeAnn Parsons; Energy Office, Linda Johnson; SNEA, Gary Yoes; SEIU, Dean Borges; Public Works Board, Nancy Brown; Senator Titus' Office, Mike Meizel; Administration Offices. Chairman Bache called the meeting to order. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO.23 - Provides for recognition of certain associations that represent state employees. (BDR R-1783) Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, spoke regarding A.C.R. 23 as a simple bill allowing recognition of other organizations for purpose of dealing with grievances, etc., within agencies. It should not affect anything such as collective bargaining. She stated there needs to be one more highway patrol group listed on the resolution. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett asked if this resolution would pose a conflict to the group that represents the majority of the workers. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she did not believe so. She said the intent was not to affect collective bargaining, it was for recognition within agencies. She said there was only one or two recognized within statute, and that caused problems with agency heads as well as the organizations coming in and being told they were not on the list. Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. Lambert. Mrs. Lambert asked if during a grievance procedure, several organizations show up and all want to be the one to be dealt with, how will that be resolved. Ms. Giunchigliani replied currently through regulation there are certain specifications on how to deal with the procedure through the Nevada administrative code. She testified until collective bargaining occurs, an appointment would be set up based upon an individuals situation. If there are three or four involved in a same manner, then an administrator may ask them to all come together to resolve the situation. Mrs. Lambert stated that if an individual who was not represented by an association, came forward with a grievance procedure, the recognized organizations would want to become a party to that and wanted to be included. She asked if that sort of thing could occur in these situations, and if something to set up guidance should be done to prevent chaos. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out it was a valid point. She said she was not aware they would want to be represented or at least hear what is going on. She said she would not want to make an administrator deal with that many people or organizations. The intent was for them not to dismiss someone or dismiss an allegation because there was not a represented group that was recognized. She expressed it was only a few agencies that tended to do this. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Neighbors. Mr. Neighbors stated assuming they have collective bargaining and someone was left off the bill, would it make any difference. Ms. Giunchigliani replied if you had collective bargaining and it was chosen to do either by groups or one group as representation, then that would be the only group that would be properly represented. She said this list should go away in the event collective bargaining passes. Chairman Bache asked as an example if they only had collective bargaining for classified service, then PAGE would still stay there as a representative for gaming enforcement people to handle grievance procedures. Ms. Giunchigliani answered yes. She mentioned the University System has debate amongst the system itself. She went on to say some community colleges want to have collective bargaining and others in the system do not. Until they make a decision, they will still be listed until the issue of collective bargaining is resolved. Chairman Bache recognized Gary Yoes. Gary Yoes, Political Action Coordinator for SEIU Local 1864 delivered a message from the President, Dan Holbrook, who was absent, stating A.C.R 23 is an uncomplicated resolution that recognizes the fact that the named organizations in the resolution all represent state workers in disciplinary and grievance appeal conditions of employment in hours and wages. He went on to say although in practice, every organization currently performs these representational functions, there is no formal recognition of any of these organizations except for some reference in statutes. See (Exhibit C). He said there are some editing problems that need to be corrected and offered to help with those changes. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Dave Wyble. Dave Wyble, President of the Nevada Peace Officers Association, testified they felt it was a good bill and that the bill be amended by adding the Nevada Peace Officers Association to the bill. (Exhibit D). Chairman Bache recognized Linda Johnson. Linda Johnson, SNEA representative, submitted a written statement on behalf of Bob Gagnier. (Exhibit E). Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett asked Ms. Johnson to elaborate on an administrator having to deal with more than one labor organization. Ms. Johnson stated there have been situations in the past, where there has been more than one group representing an issue with conflicting due points. She said this creates a problem with the employee, and with the administrator. She implied it is a detriment to the employee on occasions. Mr. Bennett questioned line 9, and asked if it would work better to say individual members. He said he could see where this would be a problem on a grievance. He asked if there should be further clarification. Ms. Johnson stated she did not know if further clarification was necessary. She pointed out that right now under the current administrative rules and regulations an employee can have anyone they choose to represent them. She testified the employee has the option of whom they wish to represent them and it does not have to be a labor organization. Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. Segerblom. Mrs. Segerblom asked Ms. Johnson if members of the other groups belonged to SNEA. Ms. Johnson replied some do and some do not. Galen Mitchell, retired employee of Department of Motor Vehicles, testified that a bargaining unit cannot go in and arbitrarily represent someone. He said the individual being represented has to be a member of his/her unit, and they must request representation. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Ernaut. Mr. Ernaut asked if this might be an argument against the bill because if you have to have a certain threshold of legitimacy or representation to be recognized as a bargaining unit, then why would this bill be needed. Mr. Mitchell replied this is an interim bill and it will go away when and if a collective bargaining bill comes into effect. He stated presently it recognizes only those units which have been representing the employees up until the collective bargaining bill comes in. Mr. Ernaut stated assuming there was no collective bargaining and they had to deal with this bill, what is the logic to limiting only to those listed on the bill. Mr. Mitchell replied the bargaining units have to go through a series of "hoops" to get members and recognition by the State Treasurer's office to have payroll deductions and so forth. He added this clarifies for the administrators which units are doing what. Mr. Dave Wyble interrupted stating that the organizations on the bill are currently representing and have represented state workers throughout the state. He said the list is probably the only ones who will represent state workers, unless a collective bargaining bill is introduced. Mr. Ernaut interjected that he did not see the Carpenter's Union on the list. Gary Yoes asked if they currently represent any state workers. Mr. Ernaut stated "no," but three years ago neither did SEIU. He said it would be logical to think in a few years they might try. Mr. Dave Wyble testified currently locals 3 and 12 and also SEIU are representing the bulk of those people. Mr. Ernaut interrupted saying the first emergence of SEIU was not with state employees, it was in the casino industry, later on it came to the state. Mr. Bache interjected stating there was to be no testimony from the front row. Mr. Ernuat stated that possibly a few years down the road there will be another group of people who want to represent state employees and they will have reprocess this bill over and over again. Dave Wyble believes these are the only organizations that will be seen representing state employees from now on. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Harrington. Mr. Harrington asked if they would mind changes in the wording, eliminating a monopoly of any group. Mr. Wyble replied it was his bill, but he would have no problem with that. Chairman Bache asked if Mr. Wyble knew of any circumstances where any departments, divisions, or sections refuse to deal with the representative organization of an employee with regards to grievances or personnel matters. Mr. Wyble mentioned the word refusal could be determined as vague. He said the problem is some of the departments of people they represent tend to shy away from them because they are not recognized. Linda Johnson, SNEA concluded her testimony saying there are occasions, even with the number of years they have been in the state, that administration refuses to meet with them, they refuse to respond, and they have requested informal meetings that administration has denied. She added there is a grievance procedure that can be gone through to get it to the employee management committee in order to make management pay attention. She said this situation has been going on for quite some time. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Harrington. Mr. Harrington asked how much money the employees pay in dues to the SNEA. Ms. Johnson answered it was eighteen dollars per month. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.C.R. 23. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 381- Provides for use by state agencies of money attributable to energy savings. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Donald O. Williams. Mr. Donald O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst with the Legislative Counsel Bureau testified he served as the primary staff for the legislative study on energy. He said the report from the study was the conservation and development of resources bulletin 95-7, which the committee members had previously received. He then listed the members of the interim committee. He noted in reviewing energy conservation state programs for state buildings, the subcommittee on energy discovered that state agencies have no incentive to participate in energy efficiency conservation, particularly programs such as utility rebate programs. He said the reason is, because the money saved or the rebates received under such programs revert back to the general fund and are not available to the agencies for investment in additional conservation and efficiency projects. In response to a proposal from a representative of the state building and grounds division, the subcommittee recommended that the legislature allow the state, which implements such conservation and efficiency programs, be able to use that energy cost savings and be able to use that funding without reverting back to the general fund. He concluded that was the proposal of A.B. 381. (Exhibit F). Nancy Brown, staff member of Senator Dina Titus' office, was asked to come before the committee to testify on A.B. 381. She summarized that this bill would allow for state agencies to reap the benefits of investment and energy efficiency programs. She testified if a state agency has funds remaining at the close of the fiscal year, that are attributable to energy savings, that agency can retain those funds for use in further energy efficiency tactics with the conditions specified in section 1 subsection 3. She said her office would support an amendment to this bill allowing state agencies to use these savings for items other than reinvestment in energy efficiency programs. She hopes agencies will choose to reinvest these monies, as long as economically feasible, if they feel the freedom of the agency to choose how they spend their savings would prove to be a greater incentive. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Ernaut. Mr. Ernaut asked if they would be able to throw a party with the money. Ms. Brown replied she hoped they would be fiscally responsible with the money saved. Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. de Braga. Mrs. de Braga asked if the amendment could read that energy saving devices have to be looked at before money was given for anything else. Ms. Brown said they could do that. Chairman Bache recognized Ms. Tripple. Ms. Tripple agreed with the suggested amendment and asked if it had been given to the committee. Ms. Brown responded saying they would formalize it and refer it back to the committee. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Neighbors. Mr. Neighbors asked if the Governor or Perry Comeaux had testified to the fact that this account money is not rolled back into the general fund at the end of the year. Ms. Brown replied she believed as the system stands now, the money which would be saved and not used by these energy savings, would be rolled back into the general fund. She went on to say energy budgets are appropriated to each agency within the agency and the money saved, unless it can be reappropriated through formal processes, is rolled back into the general fund, hence the need for this bill. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett asked if this could be a "one shot" budget item whereby if administration sees a savings in energy cost, that their next budget submitted will not be as large to compensate for it. Ms. Brown replied it was possible. She noted it would be to the best advantage of the agency to re-invest the money they save, because the more they reinvest to a certain point, the more they will reap in benefits as far as energy savings. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Nolan. Mr. Nolan asked if they kept an accounting of savings between departments or buildings on month to month or year to year basis. Ms. Brown replied that with certain efficiency equipment, which the initial cost may be more, but in the long term it is cost efficient. Mr. Nolan asked if savings could be used for pay increases. Ms. Brown testified it should be used for reinvestment, but could possibly be used at the department's discretion. Chairman Bache recognized DeeAnn Parsons. DeeAnn Parsons, Chief of the State Energy Office, testified in support of A.B. 381 although adding amendments. See (Exhibit G). Chairman Bache recognized Mike Meizel. Mike Meizel, Administrator of Buildings and Grounds, testified that he worked on this bill originally. Mr. Meizel stated they envisioned this bill to do exactly what it states. He added whatever money was saved, they could use the money for continuing energy type of retrofits and conservation. He stated the Department of Buildings and Grounds pays a lot of the utility bills in the state, with the exception of the Department of Transportation and the University System. He mentioned they are not appropriated, but fee funded. The money does not revert. He stated this bill would be an incentive to other departments to continue programs in energy conservation. He expressed a concern in regards to the rebates from utility companies, which goes back to the general fund. He felt they could use the rebates to continue programs throughout the state buildings. He noted documentation of energy savings, and it does work well on thoughtout programs. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett asked if there were agencies which would benefit percentage wise greater than others. Mr. Meizel replied that is correct. He stated some of the agencies which have one or two buildings throughout the state would benefit smaller then larger agencies. Mr. Bennett reiterated saying he was speaking percentage per employee, as an example, a machine shop, with high amp usage, versus general office type workers. Mr. Meizel responded saying he supposed it could. The high energy usage places would probably not benefit. They would probably get more of a savings off what they do, but it would more or less benefit all the other agencies throughout the state that they would file savings back into. Mr. Bennett asked if the high energy groups bill to the other agencies, the savings would be passed on. Mr. Meizel replied in the affirmative. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Neighbors. Mr. Neighbors asked if Buildings and Grounds depends on fees, and if so what type. Mr. Meizel stated it is primarily rent from state owned buildings. All of the budget is either fee or rent funded, it is not appropriated. At the end of two years the money is not reverted, it is carried forward. Mr. Neighbors asked if those fees or funds still come from the general fund of the agency. Mr. Meizel, stated yes. Chairman Bache recognized Ms. Tripple. Ms. Tripple asked how many state agencies might directly benefit from the bill. Mr. Meizel answered, the prison, the university college system, some of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Agriculture, Department of Wildlife, and SIIS. He stated there are quite a few agencies out there that are not within their facilities management. They are agency owned buildings. Chairman Bache recognized Dean Borges. Dean Borges, acting Manager of the Public Works Board, stated he accomplished many of the retrofits that were producing savings in buildings. He gave the Kinkead Building as an example. Power bills started on a yearly basis in the hundred and forty thousand dollar range and when he left there it was lowered to eighty six thousand dollars a year for the entire building. He emphasized there is a tremendous dollar savings that can be made if efforts are put into those things. He explained the efforts put into the Kinkead Building was some lighting retrofits, and energy management system that would turn the lights off and air-conditioning systems down. This bill gives some incentive to those who are interested in saving energy. He pointed out as a result of that activity, they did receive funding. The tracking of the utilities was done under a computerized system known as "Faser", which tracks every state owned building. This gave them a baseline to work with. Chairman Bache recognized Ms. Tripple. Ms. Tripple asked if there is still more energy conservation that can be done. Mr. Borges replied yes. He noted the easy systems to replace are lighting systems. He stated there is a whole world in terms of energy retrofitting in the buildings that are maintained. Ms. Tripple asked where the money comes from to do the retrofitting. Mr. Borges testified it comes from bonds from last session. Ms. Tripple asked if the money to add those savings devices would come from the savings amount or another source. Mr. Borges replied the funds would come from the bond indebtedness of the state, the savings associated with are the various accounts or budgets that are associated with those departments. Mr. Meizel interrupted saying in some cases, the funds come from within an operating category they have, and they have been able to do things at a snail's pace. He noted the capital improvements program over the last few years has various things in there from the public works board. Direct digital controls, for heating and air-conditioning as an example, of paying back energy savings. He pointed out the funds would be self perpetuating. Once you made the energy savings, you could isolate funds that could be used for future programs. Dean Borges interrupted to say at the Grant Sawyer State Building in Las Vegas, there are rebates available up to ten thousand dollars and up to twenty thousand dollars in electric monies coming back from Nevada Power. He surmised these things can be designed into these systems also and there is money available for that. His understanding of section three "b", applies more to the public works board's new design issues. Chairman Bache suggested on subsection 2 of section one, line seven, change may to must, so they have to use it for conservation instead of giving them the discretion of how to spend that money. Mr. Meizel replied from his standpoint he would have no problems with that. Chairman Bache recognized Linda Johnson. Linda Johnson, State of Nevada Employees Association, Southern Nevada Representative, testified she was neither for or against this particular bill. She explained about two situations that occurred in a department within the university system related to energy conservation. In one of the buildings the lighting system was set on a timer, scheduled to turn off at ten thirty each evening. The concern was raised from those employees who were assigned to 5:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. shift. These employees would be working and the lights would automatically shut off. They attempted to resolve this matter on their own unsuccessfully, and eventually were forced to bring the matter to SNEA. The second incident involved the air conditioning system. It was directed to be turned off by 5:00 p.m. However, employees were still working in these buildings until 1:00 a.m. in the morning. This occurred during the months of June and July in Las Vegas. These employees were working in buildings where the temperature was reaching ninety to one hundred degrees. They also, tried to resolve this problem on their own and again it had to be brought before SNEA. She stated energy conservation and cost factors do merit consideration, but not to the extent it creates unsatisfactory working conditions, hazardous conditions or endangers the health of the employee. She pointed out it took thirty days and appealing to the president, before action was taken and this matter resolved. Her concern rests not only with the type of situations identified, but equally important is the length of time it can take to resolve these matters. She maintained in situations like these, employees are caught in an unusual position. When a grievable issue has been determined the employee has two immediate avenues to resolve the problem. They can file a formal grievance, which can take six to eight months to resolve. When dealing with problems such as air-conditioning, the employee does not have that kind of time. To expedite, the employee can try resolving the problem informally. However, administration tends to drag it out for long periods of time. This caused substandard working conditions for the employees. She hoped the committee would consider the needs and rights of employees. She stated they deal with heating and air-conditioning problems on a yearly basis. Usually it takes thirty to sixty days for the problem to be resolved. In most cases, it involves a work location where it is the rank and file employee who suffers. This has caused grave concerns about the rights of employees in determining the conditions of the work location and the length of time it takes to resolve these problems. Ms. Johnson stated some of the concerns brought from the northern part of the state and in particular University of Nevada Reno, is that work schedules are being changed. The hours are changed, buildings closing, employees are being forced to take annual leave to make up time. This is all supposedly in a cost savings factor mode. She stressed that the employees need satisfactory working conditions so they may be productive, efficient and have a positive attitude toward the public. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett asked if SNEA has taken a stance on the transfer of money that has been proposed. Ms. Johnson replied "no", their main concern is the protection of comfortable conditions for the employees and the time it takes to resolve problems. Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. de Braga. Mrs. de Braga asked if they amended the bill to recognize the employees' comfort and safety would that be sufficient. Ms. Johnson replied that would help greatly. She stated she would like to see something done about the time limitation, in that if there is a problem, management would have incentive to respond to the problem quicker than thirty or sixty days. Chairman Bache recognized Ms. Tripple. Ms. Tripple stated it was assumed that within the budget of each department there was a line item that said utilities. They were looking at that which was allocated for utilities, that which had been spent and if there was going to be some savings. She stated this has become a more complicated bill than first thought. Ms. Johnson stated there are some areas of government and management that do not have the consideration for the employees in order to adjust the hours during times of breakdown. She pointed out the closure of buildings was not due to air and heating systems being inoperable, but for cost saving measures. Chairman Bache recognized Ms. Krenzer. Ms. Krenzer asked if the conditions are unbearable, the employees are sent home having to use their annual leave, why are they not just sent home. Ms. Johnson replied any number of situations can occur. In order for some of these employees not to lose time, they were told they could take annual leave. In Las Vegas when air-conditioning systems are down, they try to get administrative leave. The main concern is the time factor it takes to get agencies to act on these. Nancy Brown from Senator Dina Titus' office stated it was not the intent of this bill to put state employees through any undue environmental stress or making the working conditions any less suitable. She testified by implementing this bill and creating more efficiency in a building we can afford to run the systems more frequently, and create a more hospitable environment for state employees. She stated this bill will benefit the state employees in the long run. Mike Meizel stated mechanical systems do break down on occasion. He could not think of a case where the energy management system caused problems. He said what they have done has not created employee discomfort. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31 - Urges National Museum of the American Indian to return portion of tule duck decoys to Department of Museums, Library and Arts of State of Nevada. (BDR R-1903) Chairman Bache recognized Mrs. de Braga. Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35 testified in 1887 the Lovelock Caves were discovered. Over the years a great many Indian artifacts were discovered. In 1924 they found a cashe of eleven tule duck decoys. They were carbon dated at two thousand one hundred and sixty years old. This is a second of a trilogy of bills on this issue. This bill asks the National Museum of the Indian to return a portion of those duck decoys to Nevada on either permanent loan or as a gift. She let the committee see an actual tule duck decoy. She testified the Northern Paiute Indians as a group use tules for just about everything. She pointed out many of them look identical to real ducks. What they hope to do is pass this bill and then pass another bill memorializing the Indian artisans who made these decoys and passed on the technologies to future generations. At that same time the chairman of the Fallon Shoshone Tribe wants to be here and present the legislature a copy of "In The Shadow of Fox Peak", which is a newly finished ethnology of the "Cat Tail Eaters", compiled by Kathryn S. Flower. See (Exhibit H). State Senator Ernest E. Adler of Carson City, testified he became involved in this issue when some constituents asked for the bill declaring the Tule Duck be the official state decoy. He stated it is a rare artifact of the western state. He pointed out that none of the decoys are presently within the state of Nevada. He went on to say they are all back at the Smithsonian Institute. He mentioned the carbon dating indicates the tule ducks are two thousand years old, but because of the way carbon dating is done some could be as old as five thousand years old. There is only one other artifact similar to this which is an Egyptian Tule Duck Decoy and the age is similar dating. He stated they are extremely rare, and there are only eleven in the world today. It was by complete accident there are any left at all. He stated by the way they were covered up, and if several events had not converged, they would not be preserved the way they are. For any artifact made out of tules to survive this long is amazing. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Neighbors. Mr. Neighbors asked how did the state lose these artifacts. Senator Adler replied the archaeologists dug them up in Nevada and the Smithsonian bought them. Mr. Neighbors asked if we have communicated with the people at the Smithsonian. Senator Adler testified they have communicated on several occasions in attempts to have them returned. The Paiute Tribe and many people in the Fallon area have also made efforts. Mrs. de Braga stated they are now in contact with those people at the Smithsonian to work on this issue. One of their objections was that Nevada would not have the sense to take proper care of them. A letter from the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony in support of A.J.R. 31 was introduced into the record. See (Exhibit I). Senator Adler interrupted to say we had two in the Nevada State Museum in a climate controlled glass case. Mrs. de Braga recited the tules are very much like straw. They do last for a very long time. The Northern Paiutes used these for clothing, shoes, food, etc. She mentioned the Tules, besides arrowheads, are the oldest artifact in the state of Nevada and there is a possibility to have them declared a funerary item, and the Indians through that approach could demand their return to the state of Nevada, but hopefully it can be worked out and we can get them on permanent loan. Chairman Bache recognized Ms. Tripple. Ms. Tripple asked if the Department of Museums and Art is prepared to accept this valuable item. Senator Adler replied the Museum has had them in the past and they have the climate controlled case. He mentioned if the Smithsonian was concerned about how they were treated they certainly could come out to Nevada and assist the Department of Museums to set up a special case for them. Mrs. de Braga stated she thought they would be better cared for in the state of Nevada because they come from our state and are a treasure to us. Chairman Bache recognized Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett reiterated saying he toured the Nevada Museum and the climate in Nevada is very unique for preservation of artifacts. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.J.R. 31. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED DO PASS ON A.J.R. 31 ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. There were several Bill Draft Requestsintroduced. BDR 31-780 - Repeals provision requiring county to publish or post amount of bills allowed. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 31-780 ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 31-782 - Repeals provision requiring governing board of local government to file certain quarterly financial reports. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 31-782 ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 48-963 - Makes various changes relating to the Colorado River Commission. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 48-963 ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Bache stated there were request for two Bill Drafts . ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO AMEND NEVADA REVISED STATUTES 244.155, ROADS AND BRIDGES, BY ADDING A NEW PARAGRAPH. See (Exhibit J) .. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Lambert asked to introduce a request for a bill draft from Mr. Carpenter dealing with the Wendover Recreation District. They want the ability to continue revenue bonds from room tax. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Bache reminded the committee that they were meeting at 9:00 a.m. on the following Monday. Chairman Bache reminded the committee of the Subcommittee on A.B. 444 and A.B. 506 which includes Mrs. Krenzer as Chairman, Mr. Harrington, Ms. Tripple and Mrs. Segerblom. Mr. Bennett asked if later on in the session will there be a possibility for requesting an interim study. Chairman Bache replied he would have to make that request with Elections and Procedures. There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Kelly L. Liston, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs April 28, 1995 Page