MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 2, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, May 2, 1995, Chairman Joan A. 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 Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Robert E. Price, District 17 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth A. West, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller, State of Nevada; Ms. Ande Engleman; Mr. John Richardson, Vice Chancellor, University of Nevada; Mr. Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO); Ms. Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County; Mayor Marvin Texeira, Mayor, Carson City; Ms. Barbara Reed, Treasurer, Douglas County; Ms. Kathryn McClain, Legislative Analyst, Clark County; Ms. Sue Morrow, the Nevada Press Association, Inc.; Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Tax Payers Association; Ms. Jean Botts, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (See also Exhibit B attached hereto). SENATE BILL NO. 288 - Revises requirements for annual report of state controller. Mr. Kenneth A. West, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller, State of Nevada, testified. He advised S.B. 288's only purpose was to modernize statutory language pertaining to responsibilities of the state controller. Assemblyman Tripple referred to the proposed deletion of statutory language pertaining to plans for lessening public expenses, lines 18 and 19 of S. B. 288, and indicated she believed lessening public expenses to be very important. Mr. West responded the controller was not funded to conduct performance audit functions and believed that function was best left to the legislature and, for those reasons, it was proposed the language to which Ms. Tripple referred be deleted. Ms. Tripple asked approximately when the state controller's job description was changed. Mr. West responded he did not know. He indicated he doubted whether, within his own lifetime, the controller had conducted a performance-audit. Chairman Lambert observed the language "...better management...," on line 19 of S.B. 288, might encompass some of the statutory language which S.B. 288 would delete. Mr. West reiterated the only purpose of S.B. 288 was to modernize the language of existing statute. He explained the state controller's office was not staffed to perform performance audits and such audits were not viewed as being part of the controller's mission. He discussed some things the controller presently did to promote better management by state agencies. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 288. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 495 - Authorizes member of public body to have item placed on agenda for meeting of body. Assemblyman Robert E. Price, District 17, testified. He stated, approximately four years earlier, it came to his attention that members of (state government) boards were unable to place items on the agendas of the boards on which they sat. He said it appeared to him an elected or appointed member of any board or commission which dealt with public business should have the opportunity to place issues on that board's agenda. He suggested that would be good public policy and advised was the purpose of A.B. 495. Assemblyman Bennett suggested a board member might overload his board's agenda with issues he wished the board to consider and asked whether the chairman of such a board would have the right to prioritize agenda items. Mr. Price indicated the chairman of the board could, if he wished, place an issue raised by a member of his board at the bottom of the board's agenda but suggested the member would have a right to raise the issue again (if it was not heard when first placed on the agenda). He said A.B. 495 would provide board members the opportunity to bring issues they believed important to the attention of citizens. Assemblyman Segerblom asked whether it would require a vote of a board or commission to place an item on its agenda, pursuant to the request of one of its members, or whether the member's request was all that would be required. Mr. Price replied only the request of the member would be required. Assemblyman Bache commented he had no problem with the concept of A.B. 495 but believed it could lead to abuses. He suggested, if a board or commission took action on an issue and one or more of its members was dissatisfied with that action, the dissatisfied member could have the issue placed back on the agenda and could do so, repeatedly, if he continued to be dissatisfied with the action taken on that issue. Mr. Price responded the committee might wish to change some of the language of A.B. 495. Assemblyman Nolan suggested, in order to prevent an individual board member from monopolizing his board's agenda, it might be more appropriate to require the concurrence of two or more board members to place an item on the agenda. Mr. Price advised the Board of Regents of the University and Community College System of Nevada required there be a consensus of several of its members in order to have items placed on its agenda. He discussed the difficulty that requirement created for individual members of the Board of Regents who wished to have matters placed on the board's agenda. He gave examples of items he believed should have been placed on the agenda of the Board of Regents but were not. He contended any elected official or any individual appointed to a board, who had a responsibility to the public, should be able "...to get a subject matter before the public so that it can see the light of day." Ms. Tripple said she would be in favor of A.B. 495 as it pertained to state agencies but had a reservation about the legislature issuing mandates to other governing bodies as to how those bodies should conduct their business. Assemblyman Harrington asked whether Mr. Price would object to including language in A.B. 495 which would limit the number of items a board member could cause to be placed on a single agenda. Mr. Price indicated he would not object. Chairman Lambert asked, "There are four members of the eleven member Board of Regents that are willing to request those two examples that you gave to be put on the agenda?" Mr. Price replied there were not. Ms. Ande Engleman testified. She advised she was testifying as an individual (rather than as a lobbyist) but her testimony was based on her ten years of experience as head of the Nevada Press Association. She said, during those ten years, she received telephone calls from members of various public bodies, throughout Nevada, in which those members complained about being blocked in their attempts to have items placed on the agendas of the bodies of which they were members. She indicated, most often, the item those individuals wished placed on an agenda had to do with Nevada's open meeting law or "...some other area of openness that they feel the public needs to know about..." She suggested boards often used various means to circumvent the open meeting law because they wished to keep information from the public. She contended nearly every board had one or two members who were disturbed by those practices and wished to correct them and who believed, if they could cause an item, such as the open meeting law, to be placed on their board's agenda, the problem could be corrected. Ms. Engleman commented on the fact various members of the Board of Regents had difficulty in causing items to be placed on the board's agenda. Ms. Engleman referred to Mr. Bache's suggestion a limit be placed on the number of times a board member could place the same item on his board's agenda and to Mr. Harrington's suggestion a limit be placed on the number of items a board member could place on a single agenda and indicated she was not opposed to A.B. 495 being amended to impose such limits. Mr. Harrington asked whether it would meet with Ms. Engleman's approval if A.B. 495 was amended to limit the number of items of business a board member could place on a single agenda to two items. She replied it would. Mr. John Richardson, Vice Chancellor, University of Nevada, testified. He provided written testimony (Exhibit C), which he reviewed for the committee. He indicated the Board of Regents had not taken a position on A.B. 495 but would meet later in the day to determine if it wished to adopt a position. Mr. Richardson advised he had worked for the Board of Regents since 1992 and said the agreement of four members of the board had always been required to place an item on the board's agenda. He explained, in approximately 1993, the size of the Board of Regents was increased from nine members to eleven members, which necessitated changing a number of the board's bylaws. He said one change which was considered would have increased the number of board members who had to agree that an item be placed on the board's agenda from four members to five, however that proposed change was defeated. He pointed out it required the agreement of far less than a majority of the members of the Board of Regents to cause an item to be placed on the board's agenda. Assemblyman Neighbors asked how frequently the Board of Regents met and how many items the board usually had on its agenda. Mr. Richardson replied the board met approximately every six weeks and the number of items on its agenda varied. He advised, typically, the length of the board's meetings was one and one-half to two days, during which the board met from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. Mr. Neighbors commented, "But there's certainly no question that the chairman certainly, under your policy, has a lot of power." Mr. Richardson replied Mr. Neighbors' comment was correct. He stated the chairman's power was given to him by his fellow regents. He asserted the Board of Regent's could implement what A.B. 495 proposed, at any time, if a majority of the board chose to do so. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 495. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 499 - Revises requirements for publication of certain information by counties. Mr. Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), testified. He submitted a letter he had written to Chairmen Lambert and Bache with a summary of A.B. 499 attached thereto (Exhibit D). He advised the purpose of A.B. 499 was to eliminate a mandate which required county governments to provide information to the public "...in a single format..." by publishing that information in newspapers. He explained A.B. 499 concerned whether or not counties should be allowed the opportunity to provide information to the public in a format different from that historically required. He contended NACO believed some of the information counties provided to the public could be made available more effectively, more efficiently and at less cost. He explained it was proposed counties be allowed, if they chose, to publish a notice in a newspaper advising the public of information available to it and of where that information could be obtained. Mr. Hadfield discussed the various sections of A.B. 499. He said Section 1 eliminated the requirement that a county publish a quarterly statement of its receipts and expenditures and would allow it to publish a notice, in a newspaper, indicating where its quarterly statement could be obtained. He said, in the past year, it cost Nevada's counties $67,861 to publish quarterly statements. Mr. Hadfield advised Section 2 eliminated the requirement that a county publish notices of lien with respect to county charges which had not been paid. He explained current law required counties to communicate with those individuals who had failed to pay county charges by means of registered or certified mail and suggested counties should not be required to publish notices of lien also. Mr. Hadfield stated Section 3 would eliminate the requirement that a county publish a list of all bills to the county and the names of those to whom the county made payment and would permit counties to publish a notice advising the public where that information could be obtained. He indicated county government was the sole governmental entity required to publish a list of all its bills. Mr. Hadfield pointed out Section 4 would eliminate the requirement that a county publish a quarterly budget report and Section 5 would eliminate the requirement that a county publish "...the delinquent property tax list..." He declared publishing that list cost $249,890 each year. He suggested some counties might choose to continue to publish that list. Mr. Hadfield stated A.B. 499 would also repeal a section of NRS which required a county to publish a list of its registered voters prior to the close of voters' registration. He advised the cost for such publication was $127,386. Mr. Hadfield advised the issue was not whether or not counties should provide the information to the public they were required to provide but, rather, was whether they should be allowed the flexibility to determine whether there was an equally beneficial but more cost effective means of providing that information than publishing it in a newspaper. He pointed out, as counties continued to grow, the cost of publishing the information they were required to publish would increase. Mr. Harrington indicated he was opposed to eliminating the present requirements for notice to the public of those items identified in Sections 4 and 5 of A.B. 499. He asked whether Mr. Hadfield had prioritized the provisions of A.B. 499 on the basis of their importance to him. Mr. Hadfield responded the requirement that counties publish their bills was one which counties did not understand. He said the remaining requirements to publish information would have to stand on their own merits. Assemblyman Krenzer asked whether any studies had been done to determine the amount of revenue generated by publishing delinquent property tax lists. She suggested the publishing of notices of delinquent property taxes might serve to remind a property owner he had forgotten to pay his property taxes. Mr. Hadfield agreed what Ms. Krenzer suggested did, in fact, occur and was the reason some counties said they would continue to publish those notices. Ms. Krenzer asked whether the revenues which resulted from publishing notices of failure to pay property taxes would not greatly exceed the cost of publishing those notices. Mr. Hadfield indicated he did not know the answer to Ms. Krenzer's question. Chairman Lambert asked whether the $127,386 which Mr. Hadfield had quoted as the cost to publish a list of registered voters was the cost to Washoe County alone. Mr. Hadfield replied it was not. He advised the cost to Washoe County to publish its list of registered voters was $35,988.36. Mrs. Segerblom commented she had spent the weekend in one of Nevada's rural counties and said its citizens were very upset about A.B. 499, in particular about Section 1. She indicated those citizens felt they needed to know what expenditures were made by their county. She stated, "I also don't think five conspicuous places would handle Clark County." Mr. Hadfield responded, "...that five conspicuous places was the result of a previous hearing on this, some years ago, in the senate. I think it's fair to say that, if we're looking at the publication issue, if we publish where it is, if we put out a half a page in the newspaper, in a big bold print, saying where the information is available, the five conspicuous places gets those people that don't read the newspaper." He suggested information counties published in newspapers, whether in the format presently required or in the form of a notice, would not reach everyone. Assemblyman de Braga observed Douglas County incurred tremendous publishing costs but pointed out its publications were done in very large type, which used the greatest possible space. She contended there were less expensive ways to publish, which Douglas County could have used. Mr. Hadfield said he would defer to Ms. Engleman to respond to Mrs. de Braga's observation. Ms. Engleman advised the law required no smaller than six point type be used and said, "...you can't pay more than ten cents per name for six point type or fifteen cents per name for eight point type..." Ms. de Braga suggested reducing the number of times a legal notice was required to be published might help reduce publishing costs. Mr. Harrington asked whether, if A.B. 499 was passed by the legislature and certain counties then chose to publish information in one given year but not in another, counties would be vulnerable to lawsuits by individuals who felt embarrassed because a county published information pertaining to them, in a given year, when it had not published information of the same nature in other years. Mr. Hadfield responded he did not know what effect would be caused by a changing situation such as Mr. Harrington described. He suggested decisions as to whether or not to publish certain information would not be taken lightly by governing bodies. He indicated he assumed such decisions would be based upon communications between those governing bodies and their citizens. Ms. Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County, testified. She stated Washoe County supported A.B. 499. She advised Washoe County had requested bills be drafted to repeal the statutory requirements that voters' registration lists and lists of county expenditures be published and pointed out A.B. 499 would accomplish those purposes. Ms. Henderson said none of Washoe County's local newspapers would accept the county's bid to publish its voters' registration list because not enough money could be made from publishing the list. She explained Washoe County finally arranged for a Spanish language newspaper to publish the list and the county was then required to distribute copies of the list to markets and convenience stores to provide the public access to the list because the Spanish language newspaper had no general circulation within the community. She asserted that method was the best the county was able to arrive at to have its voters' registration list published and said the county's registrar of voters believed that method was cumbersome and did not accomplish "...what originally was intended." Ms. Henderson stated she wished to address the issue of open government. She advised local governments used mediums other than newspapers to communicate with their citizens. She said she spent five years preparing budgets for Washoe County and would have welcomed having members of the public attend the county's budget hearings. She advised, although the county provided public notices of its budget hearings and newspaper stories were generated by those hearings, it would be unusual if more than five or ten members of the public attended a budget hearing. She indicated Washoe County's board of county commissioners made a large commitment to have its hearings broadcast on public access television because of its belief in the public's need to participate in those hearings. She suggested there might be a need to consider how technological changes impacted some of the things counties were required to do to provide information to the public. Mayor Marvin Texeira, Mayor, Carson City, testified. He referred to an agenda for a meeting of the board of supervisors of Carson City, held on April 6, 1995, and advised that agenda was six pages long. He explained Carson City published agendas for the meetings of its board of supervisors in the Nevada Appeal. He declared Carson City did not do so because of any statutory requirement but because notifying the public of the business which transpired in its community was the right thing to do. Mayor Texeira read into the record a letter received by Mr. John Berkich, Carson City's city manager, on December 1, 1994, as follows: "Dear Mr. Berkich: Per Chapter 241 of NRS, please send me all meeting notices and backup material, including proposed ordinances, for the Carson City Board of Supervisors. Also please send me a copy of the mayor's report on the NACO meeting as was discussed during today's board meeting. This report is, of course, a public record under both NRS Chapters 241 and 239. Materials should be sent to Ande Engleman, The Nevada Press Association, Carson City, Nevada. Thank you for attention to this matter. Sincerely, Ande Engleman" Mayor Texeira said Ms. Engleman was advised it would be very expensive to mail the materials she requested and was asked if a board packet could be assembled for her (to pick up). He indicated this was done for anyone who requested it and displayed board packets for the months of January, February and March which had not been picked up. He declared it took much money and much time to prepare board packets and suggested the preparation of board packets illustrated what Carson City attempted to do to accommodate people with respect to their right to have information. Mayor Texeira contended both some of the requirements placed on Carson City to provide information to the public and some of the things it did to accomplish that purpose no longer made sense. He said all meetings of Carson City's board of supervisors and of its planning commission were televised. He declared, "The media is not solely (confined) to the Nevada Appeal." He said, if he was going to attempt to reach the members of his community to inform them of the business he was conducting on their behalf, he should do so through the media which provided the most coverage. He contended that media would be either the Penny Saver or the Big Nickel because those were the only publications which reached his entire community. Mayor Texeira asserted he had a fiduciary responsibility to his constituents and must provide them with the best, most open and most responsive government he was able to provide with available funds. He said he was asking for the flexibility to serve the public and to avoid needless expenditures of funds which could be put to better use. Mr. Neighbors asked whether Carson City's board of supervisors required advance notice of the items placed on its agendas. Mayor Texeira responded the agenda for a meeting of the board of supervisors was "...mailed and published, noticed and sent to the newspaper on the Friday prior to a Thursday's meeting." Discussions ensued between Mr. Neighbors and Mayor Texeira. Mrs. de Braga referred to delinquent tax lists and suggested many people paid their property taxes prior to the time such a list would be published because they did not want their names to appear in a newspaper. She conjectured whether, if delinquent tax lists were not published, that would result in either a loss of property tax revenues or a delay in receipt of those revenues. Mayor Texeira suggested the purpose of publishing a delinquent tax list was to alert those individuals who were delinquent in paying their property taxes of the fact they had not paid them rather than to threaten them with the prospect of their names appearing in a newspaper if they did not pay their property taxes. He questioned whether publishing such a list was the best way to provide notice to the community when only 60 percent of the community received notice by this means and it cost a lot of taxpayers' money. Mr. Bache asked, "Mayor, is the point of all of the paperwork you have here that you don't have a problem providing it to the public but that you're upset that it was ordered and then not picked up?" Mayor Texeira replied it was not. He indicated the paperwork represented a lot of taxpayers' money and reiterated his request for flexibility in the means by which information was provided to the public. Mr. Neighbors referred to the documents generated for hearings of Carson City's board of supervisors and suggested members of the public were charged a fee to obtain copies of those documents. Mayor Texeira stated he was required, by law, to supply copies of those documents to anyone who wished them and no fee was charged for those copies. Discussions were held between Mr. Neighbors and Mayor Texeira as to whether a fee was or was not charged to provide copies of documents to members of the public. Mayor Texeira reiterated no fee was charged. Ms. Barbara Reed, Treasurer, Douglas County, testified. She said she supported A.B. 499. She declared counties were required to provide packets of information pertaining to meetings of their county commissioners and to do so free of charge. She advised Douglas County prepared approximately 25 such packets each month and said it was very expensive to do so. She said, at one time, Douglas County published the agendas for its county commissioners' meetings and stated it cost the county $3,000 per year to do so. She advised, since there was no legal requirement that the county publish those agendas, it decided to see whether or not it would receive any complaints if it did not publish them. She explained the county was required, by law, to mail copies of those agendas, free of charge, to anyone who requested them and said the county mailed approximately 120 copies of the agenda for each meeting of its county commissioners. She said, when the county quit publishing the agendas, it received one telephone call asking whether the county had ceased to publish the agendas. She explained the caller was advised he could be provided an agenda through the mail and the caller indicated he would prefer to receive the agenda by mail rather than to read it in the newspaper. Ms. Reed advised the concern county treasurers had about tax lists was based on the fact those lists had to be published for four consecutive weeks. She stated a bill had been introduced in the Senate which would provide for those lists to be published only once. Ms. Reed said, in an attempt to reduce Douglas County's delinquent tax list, she had implemented a policy which provided for a courtesy notice to be mailed to each taxpayer who had not paid his property taxes in full. She indicated providing that courtesy notice had substantially reduced the delinquent tax list the county was required to publish. She indicated the Senate bill to which she previously referred provided for the giving of such a courtesy notice. She contended the people who received the courtesy notices were grateful for the notification. She said many of those people did not receive the newspaper in which the delinquent tax list was published. Ms. Reed said, for years, she had kept track of how many people called the county after Douglas County published its list of registered voters. She advised it cost Douglas County nearly $4,000 to publish the list. She stated there were approximately 22,000 registered voters in Douglas County and said the county received less than 12 telephone calls in response to publication of its list of registered voters. Ms. Reed indicated, in the past, the county was able to purge the name of anyone who did not vote in a general election from its list of registered voters. She explained a federal law now prohibited the county from doing such a purge and, therefore, the cost of publishing the list of registered voters would increase. Assemblyman Ernaut commented most of the people he knew paid their property taxes to their mortgage company and the mortgage company was responsible for paying those property taxes to the county. He indicated, if a mortgage company forgot to pay those property taxes, its failure to do so affected many people who had lived up to their responsibilities. He asked Ms. Reed how Douglas County addressed such a situation. Ms. Reed replied she mailed a courtesy notice to anyone whose property taxes had not been paid in full advising them of the amount of tax which remained unpaid and the amount of penalty being charged. She advised, with the notice, she included a statement which advised the property owner that, if the unpaid taxes had been paid to a mortgage company's impound account, he should either contact his mortgage company immediately or contact the treasurer's office for further details. Mr. Ernaut asked whether Ms. Reed knew of any other counties which utilized the same procedure. Ms. Reed replied, to her knowledge, no other county did. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether Ms. Reed could charge those individuals whose names appeared on the delinquent tax list for the cost of publishing the list. Ms. Reed replied affirmatively. She advised the law provided that a delinquent tax- payer was responsible for the taxes he owed, the penalties imposed and all costs incurred (by the county) by reason of his delinquency. Mrs. Segerblom contended the cost of publishing the delinquent taxpayer list was recouped from the delinquent taxpayers. Ms. Reed replied Mrs. Segerblom was correct but advised, if a property upon which taxes were owed was the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding or of a probate proceeding, it might be several years before the treasurer received unpaid taxes. Mr. Harrington observed that publishing its list of delinquent taxpayers did not impose cost on a county, and he declared such lists should be published. Mr. Neighbors asked whether Ms. Reed received many requests for the packets of information prepared for county commissioners' meetings. Ms. Reed replied such requests were received and the county was required to provide those packets at no cost to those who requested them. Chairman Lambert asked whether Ms. Reed could provide the bill number of the Senate bill of which she had spoken. Ms. Reed replied she believed it was either Senate Bill No. 308 or Senate Bill No. 309. Ms. Kathryn McClain, Legislative Analyst, Clark County, testfied. She submitted written testimony (Exhibit E). She indicated she wished to address the issue of publication of registered voter lists. She stated, in the prior year, the cost to Clark County to publish its list of registered voters was nearly $60,000 plus an additional $5,000 "...for the Henderson and Boulder City areas." She advised, when Clark County first looked into the matter of publishing the list, two newspapers indicated they did not want to publish the list because "...it would amount to 400 newspaper pages and they said it was too large for street sales, too bulky to deliver." She advised one of those newspapers said it would cost the newspaper between $75,000 and $100,000 more than Clark County was able to pay to have its list of 400,000 names published. Ms. Ande Engleman testified. She advised she was testifying on her own behalf (rather than as a lobbyist) but, in doing so, would have to refer to a number of things which occurred when she ran the Nevada Press Association. She indicated she wished to clarify for Mr. Neighbors that A.B. 499 had nothing to do with the open meeting law. Ms. Engleman advised she opposed A.B. 499. She referred to an auditor's report concerning White Pine County (Exhibit F) and pointed out the report indicated one of the things which White Pine County's school board did not do was to publish its quarterly reports, which it was legally required to do. She advised there was a statute which required every school district to publish its bills and claims just as counties were required to do. She contended, if the White Pine County school district had published its quarterly statements and its claims and bills, as required by law, "...its very possible we would not be in the mess we are in right now because the public, then would have had some idea what was going on with their local school board..." Ms. Engleman said she did not care whether or not the information presently required to be published in a newspaper was published. She indicated her only concern was that she be able to obtain that information as easily as she had obtained it in the past. She declared she should not be required to go to some location where the information was posted. She advised, at one time, Carson City did not publish its claims in the newspaper and explained the problems she encountered in obtaining information about those claims. Ms. Engleman discussed the publication of voters' registration lists. She advised the cost of publishing such a list, which was established by law, had not been increased in 25 years. She advised, as the cost of living increased, everyone's pay was increased but the cost of publishing a voters' registration list had not increased. She stated newspapers, for years, had published such lists at a loss because their publication served a good public purpose. She contended counties wished to sell their voters' registrations lists in order to make money, which was one reason they did not want to publish those lists. Ms. Sue Morrow, the Nevada Press Association, Inc., testified. She expressed opposition to A.B. 499 and, in lieu of further oral testimony, submitted a copy of an editorial which appeared in the Lovelock Review-Miner and which she said addressed the Nevada Press Association's concerns about A.B. 499 (Exhibit G). Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified. She indicated the Nevada Taxpayers Association's position on A.B. 499 was "...on the line..." because of the dilemma posed by attempting to balance taxpayers' right to information against the increasing costs of providing that information. Ms. Vilardo referred to Senate Bill 309, about which there was some testimony, and indicated it was hoped providing courtesy notices to delinquent taxpayers would reduce the volume of the lists of delinquent taxpayers which counties were required to publish. She suggested it might be possible to arrive at a compromise between the language in S.B. 309 and the language in A.B. 499. Ms. Vilardo observed there were "...multi-disciplines..." with respect to methods of communication and asked the committee to carefully consider A.B. 499 to ensure information was provided to the public but perhaps allow more flexibility in the manner in which it was provided. She said, if the committee chose to eliminate publication requirements, she would ask "...that you require a display type ad so that the public know where it may get this information and how they may obtain it..." Mr. Harrington indicated he believed the items discussed in Sections 4 and 5 of A.B. 499 should be published. He asked Ms. Vilardo, whether, with respect to the remaining items, she would consider it a good compromise if the legislature eliminated the requirements those items be published but required local governments to mail those items, at no cost, to anyone who requested them. Ms. Vilardo replied affirmatively. Mr. Harrington asked Mr. Hadfield and Ms. Engleman whether the compromise he had suggested to Ms. Vilardo would be acceptable to them. Mr. Hadfield replied, "We do that in many other areas, so it wouldn't be inconsistent, but I'd certainly like the opportunity to understand the ramifications of it if there are any." Ms. Engleman indicated she believed the compromise suggested by Mr. Harrington was a good one. She suggested the money local governments would save on publishing costs would offset their costs to mail information to those who requested it. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 499. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 501 - Authorizes temporary advance from state general fund for authorized expenses of state land registrar and division of state lands of state department of conservation and natural resources. Ms. Jean Botts, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, testified. She explained A.B. 501 was requested by the Budget Division of the Department of Administration and its purpose was to allow the Division of State Lands to obtain temporary advances of funds from the State's general fund while it awaited receipt of fees. Ms. Botts advised, prior to the 1993 session of the legislature, the Division of State Lands was nearly totally funded by the state's general fund and did not collect fees, other than fees for maps or for the use of school lands which fees were deposited in the permanent school fund. She explained budget cuts were made during the 1991-1993 biennium and the budget target which the Division of State Lands was asked to meet would have forced it to eliminate two employee positions. She explained, as a way to retain those positions, the division proposed it be allowed to charge fees for services and for uses of land for which fees had not previously been charged. She said it was estimated those fees would produce $126,000 but, in fact, the division collected $178,000 during the first year it was allowed to charge those fees. She indicated, however, those fees were collected late in the year and the division was plagued with cash flow problems. Ms. Botts advised the administrator of the Division of State Lands requested that the division be placed back in the position of being totally funded by the state's general fund and that the division deposit the fees it collected into the general fund. She indicated, pursuant to budget hearings conducted during the current legislative session, it appeared what the administrator of the Division of State Lands requested would be done and A.B. 501 would not be needed, however, budget matters had not been completely finalized. She advised the Division of State Lands' budget was approximately $650,000, of which 70 percent came from the state's general fund. She said she believed the legislative committees who dealt with state funds felt it was burdensome to require the division to borrow money from the state's general fund and then repay that money. Mr. Bache indicated a bill was being considered by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources which pertained to fees related to buoys, as well as other things, and asked, "Does that play into this at all." Ms. Botts replied affirmatively. She said, "...those are part of the fees that they anticipate will raise $120,000 to $150,000 a year. There are, as I understand, a number of bills or proposed bill to do away with or modify the charge for piers, and that could greatly impact the fees, and because of the instability of that, we chose to fund this agency (from the) general fund, as it had been in the past..." Chairman Lambert summarized the status of A.B. 501, indicating it was likely there would be no need for A.B. 501, however, there was a possibility it might be needed toward the end of the legislative budget process, at which time it would be more appropriate for A.B. 501 to be considered by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means than by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. Ms. Botts indicated Chairman Lambert's summarization was correct. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 501. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO MOVE A.B. 501 OUT OF COMMITTEE WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. B.D.R. 23-1802 - Revises the amount of transportation allowance for public employees. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 23-1802. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs May 2, 1995 Page