MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 12, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, May 12, 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 Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator McGinness STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller; Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Bentz; Citizen, Charlotte LeVar; Citizen, Daniel LeVar; Citizen, Roger Baltz; Pahrump Town Board, Perry Thompson; Pahrump Town Board, Garland Price; Pahrump Town Board, Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties. ASSEMBLY BILL NO.117- Incorporates City of Pahrump by charter. Mr. Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, testified to the committee A.B. 117 was to incorporate the city of Pahrump by charter. This is the second meeting. During the meeting held in Las Vegas, there were numerous concerns raised by the Board; the size, lack of budget, timing of election, and certified maps. It was his understanding there have been numerous meetings to address those issues. Mr. Neighbors told the committee it was for their determination as to whether or not they have a good charter to put before the people. Senator Mike McGinness concurred with Mr. Neighbors in regard to the city of Pahrump having a good clean charter that is easily understood so the voters can decide. Mr. Neighbors testified the committee would be hearing both sides of the issue and hopefully the rhetoric will stay with the issues of the charter. Mr. Harrington asked Mr. Neighbors if he was satisfied with the Charter as it is now. Mr. Neighbors replied Denice Miller had been working with Roger Baltz, Pahrump Town Manager, and there were technicalities that needed to be cleaned up, but he was comfortable with it. Garland Price, Chairman of the Pahrump Town Board, testified they had completed the items requested by the committee. The boundaries were reduced from three hundred sixty four square miles to one hundred thirty two square miles. They also directed the town manager to prepare a revenue and expenditure budget. He has recommended the incorporation election be held on November 7, 1995. The primary, should it pass, will be held to coincide with the national election of 1996. By doing this, a minor change will be needed on page 21 line 37. Where it says "to become effective July 1, 1996, it will need to be changed to "July 1, 1997." To be consistent with charters of other cities of the state, there are changes to be made on page 12 line 8, where it states "The City Manager is the Chief Executive and Administrative Officer," the change is "The Chief Administrative Officer." He testified all parties have been working diligently on getting all the corrections and added changes from the citizens into the charter. He then submitted an outline map of the proposed charter. See (Exhibit C). Mrs. Segerblom noticed in Section 3.010 the city council shall elect one of its own to be mayor. Mr. Price said the mayor will be elected by the people. Mayor pro-tem will be selected by the council. Mr. Neighbors asked what the original charter was on the map. Mr. Price stated it was originally three hundred sixty four square miles and now it is one hundred thirty one point eight square miles. Mr. Neighbors asked how the decrease was made. Mr. Price replied there was a lot of BLM land, and they tried to eliminate as much as possible and restrict it to residential. He felt with the county seat being in Tonapah, it would be better to include all the residential area instead of splitting it, which would cause duplication of services. Mrs. Lambert asked Mr. Price to explain section 7.010 the debt limit. Mr. Price replied the last legislative session the million dollars was to be deleted. Denice Miller interrupted saying Carole Vilardo had testified about the special election. The only change that occurs in 7.010 over the original charter is that the special election has been deleted. Mrs. Lambert asked if they intend to have bond issues less than one million dollars, general obligation issues, to be approved by the city council without the voters' approval. Mr. Price replied any bond has to go to the vote of the people and if it does not state that, it should be stated, because the city council should not have the power to put any bonds in unless it is approved by the people. He then asked Denice Miller to check with the town attorney on it. Mr. Bennett asked the driving distance north and south, east and west. Mr. Price said the town boundaries east and west are approximately ten miles and twelve miles north and south. Mr. Perry Thompson, of the Pahrump Town Board stated they have expended a considerable amount of time and energy preparing the charter. He urged the committee to approve the charter and pass it on for legislative approval. He stated they need some sort of control over the growth in the Pahrump area. Mr. Harrington questioned Mr. Thompson as to what his opinion was as to the most important reason to incorporate. Mr. Thompson replied it was the tremendous growth. As a result, they are having problems with indiscriminate construction of buildings. Many instances have occurred where people have built large roofs over existing structures, which were not built to code, then subsequently blew down. There has also been homes built on slabs without footings. There is a need for controls in the valley. Roger Baltz, Town Manager of Pahrump, has been in that position for a period of two years. He emphasized he was under strict orders from the town board as to what he can and cannot speak about. In response to the fiscal information requested by the committee, he distributed a Revenue and Expenditure Projection Plan. See (Exhibit D). He noted the current unincorporated town of Pahrump is very solvent financially. The audit report consists of just under a dozen funds which they operate with a total revenue of one point six million dollars. The most activity they have is in their general fund. The report addresses assets distribution, when a town incorporates into a city, property tax rate issues and how they will be involved. The report is broken down into systematic detailed look at what the revenues would be for an incorporated city. It shows how the revenues of a city compare to those of a town. He explained the key figures to the committee. He stated the total proceeds for an incorporated city would bring in three million six hundred eighteen thousand five hundred fifty two dollars annually. The current town of Pahrump brings in one million eighty five thousand three hundred sixty three dollars annually. The revenue sources are stipulated by NRS. He drew attention to page sixteen which is the summary page. The way they arrived at the expenditure levels on the report is through a variety of ways. They did a survey of four incorporated cities. They looked at current spending levels of the town. They looked at the spending levels of Nye County. The expenditure budget is in some degree "speculative," in that there are many ways an elected city council or mayor may choose to provide services, or they may enter into cooperative agreements with the county on certain services, they may contract out, they may seek to privatize. There are different ways the projection could be completed, this was one example. Mr. Harrington asked if there were building codes the county enforced. Mr. Baltz replied "none at all." Mr. Harrington asked Mr. Baltz what he saw as the biggest problem. Mr. Baltz as town manager sees a great deal of growth. There is between sixteen and seventeen thousand people living in Pahrump. Recent demographic information shows approximately one hundred people per month moving into the Pahrump Valley for permanent residency. There is a variety of people. They are getting commuters, senior citizens, quality of life issues. He reminded the committee he was unable to speak as to whether or not there should be incorporation. Mr. Harrington remarked he was concerned the people of Pahrump may be hiding something, if they were not allowing him to speak. Mr. Garland Price remarked they are not trying to hide anything. The town board does not feel that an appointive officer should take a stand on the charter or incorporation. The county commissioners decided at their last meeting that Pahrump is growing and there should be building codes instituted, but as of yet there are none in place. He expressed one of the advantages of having building codes and permits would be that the county assessor would have a record of anything built and they could go on the tax roles. Mr. Neighbors spoke to clarify what the county manager does. It is the direction of the manager to carry out the policy of the board. He does not make the policy, he carries it out. Mr. Neighbors inquired as to the five man board being split. Mr. Baltz replied there were three for incorporation and two against. Mr. Neighbors asked why they felt the need for incorporation. Mr. Price replied local government is most feasible. Mr. Bennett questioned the tax rate of two hundred seventy and what proposed infrastructure will be required if Pahrump is incorporated and how will it affect the tax structure. Mr. Price replied they voted at the last budget hearing to pay off the city hall. Mr. Bennett asked if there would be enough square footage to provide the services of the government. Mr. Price replied in the affirmative. Mr. Bennett asked how would the agricultural land be zoned. Mr. Price replied anything that is in business, such as a dairy, would be grand fathered in as long as it is owned by the same family. He mentioned zoning will be one of the biggest problems they will have due to the erratic growth. They will have to be extremely careful not to cause any inconvenience or financial damage to the businesses there. Mr. Bennett asked if the incorporation will adversely affect some of the current agricultural property tax assessment rates. Mr. Price stated he did not believe so. In discussion with the Department of Taxation, an incorporated city must assume the ad valorem tax rate of the unincorporated town. The present tax rate is sixteen point thirty one cents. The only one lower is Mesquite. That tax rate will be assumed by the city, should incorporation pass. Mrs. Segerblom asked if they received support from the county. Mr. Baltz replied they do receive fees and they use the fees for the ambulance services. They do not receive anything from the brothels, because they are not within the boundaries and would not be included in the incorporated city. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the brothels will be excluded from the charter. Mr. Price stated they have a town ordinance stating there will be no brothel or massage parlors. Mrs. Segerblom asked if they received services from the county such as road maintenance, etc., that they would not receive if they incorporated. Mr. Baltz replied Nye County provides road construction and maintenance service for the town of Pahrump. They have a variety of "road funds" and "revenue sources" which pay for it. He said the last five revenue sources listed on page 14, would be accessible for construction and maintenance. Presently, Nye County does provide those services. The assumption of the report, if the incorporation goes through, the service will be taken over by the city and the revenue sources are in excess of one million dollars a year. Mrs. Lambert asked if the county assessor or the Department of Taxation has been consulted regarding the exemptions for agricultural land. Mr. Price replied the county assessor has his guidelines to follow, and he did not know why the property would be more valuable in the city, than in the outskirts, unless there were improvements put in the area. If the property stays "as is," he does not know why it would change. Mrs. Lambert commented the ranches would be enormous taxpayers. They will only have one or two votes per family. Do these people support incorporation? Mr. Price replied the Chamber of Commerce is in favor of it. Possibly sixty percent of the ranches are in favor of it. Mr. Baltz stated they have spoken to the staff of the Department of Taxation as to what will happen to property taxes if they incorporate. The Department of Taxation cited NRS 354.5981. If you are a property owner according to the county assessor you pay a little over three dollars and ten cents per one hundred dollars of assessed evaluation. He explained the breakdown. See (Exhibit D) . As a point of information on page fourteen the first item listed as a revenue source is property taxes. It is just under four hundred thousand dollars. He pointed out that property taxes do not make up the majority of money used to operate an incorporated city. Mr. Nolan asked what the offset would be to the county if the incorporation is passed. Mr. Baltz replied he had not done any research in that area. Mr. Nolan stated the information given does not address the expense they will save by not providing those services to Pahrump. Mr. Baltz replied he did not research the impacts on Nye County specifically. Mr. Neighbors remarked the "green belt " law, if you have a ranch within the city limits, as long as the use remains the same, will remain the same tax evaluation. If there is a change, then the tax rate will change. Tom Bentz, a citizen of Pahrump, spoke against the Pahrump incorporation. He stated the charter has not changed his opinion. He said there is nothing they cannot do under the present form of government that they would be able to do as an incorporated city if they can afford to pay for those services. He pointed out many of the services would still have to be supplied by the county. Ambulance service would not be covered. Even though the brothel fees do not go directly into the general fund, the county would still benefit from them and have to pay for the ambulance service. He stated it is questionable whether or not the city would be able to take on road construction and maintenance. Sanitary land fill is another issue. If they take on the existing private utility company and have to meet the new federal standards, it would bankrupt the city of Pahrump. The brothel ordinance, which would be passed on to the city, would be up to the new city council, not the chairman of the board. He stated it was his understanding the "shrinking" of BLM land excludes Steward and Johnny. All of the residential area would still be in the incorporated city. To be able to incorporate a valley the size of Pahrump it would be necessary to start off with a small area of feasibility and to solicit input from people who would like to be incorporated by areas, preferably by petition form. This theory has never been serious consideration in all the ten years they have considered incorporation. The idea of a special election is to be justified by an emergency. He does not see this as an emergency, he sees it as a way to not have to pay for election if it fails. It should go to general election first, to see if the people want the incorporation. After that, a special election can be held, paid for by the new city to establish new officers for that city. Mr. Bentz commented there has been a great deal of time spent on incorporation and charter. He is of the opinion that the feasibility of the budget is not realistic. He stated it is obvious to maintain the services in place, they will have to increase costs. The idea of the impact on the county is realistic. The county will still be expected to pay for some of the services. If the town board has the power to do anything they wish to do under the existing system and they do not intend to raise taxes, then he feels services would have to eliminated. In taking the money from the county which they get from the alcohol, cigarette, and gasoline taxes, the county would have to augment that some other way, which would likely be raising taxes. For the average citizen it looks like there will be an increase in taxes to maintain the existing services if they incorporate, not if they expand the services. He maintained this issue has not been handled in an appropriate manner. He testified at the last special election is was said two to one they did not want local government, they wanted county government. He stated had it been a general election, it would have been three to one against local government. He stated zoning is the most unpopular issue in Pahrump. Zoning has been brought up to restrict growth. He urged the committee to have the area reduced to a dozen square miles and have petitions signed by those who wish to be included in that area. Mr. Williams asked if the current town board can establish some type of building codes. Mr. Bentz replied they could put it to their own planning board, and set up their own building codes if they are prepared to pay for the operation of that. He believes the county is prepared to set up special building codes for Pahrump and west of the county. He stated all the county services have now been moved to Pahrump with the exception of the District Judge. With cooperation of the county, anything the town is not doing, could be done through the county. Mr. Williams asked if his main objection was what was proposed here was done in an improper fashion. Mr. Bentz replied his main objection is that it is not feasible to do it with the same amount of money. He stated they should start with an area with the sewer system already in place, then annex on later when funds will be available. Mrs. de Braga questioned Mr. Bentz about the two people on the county commission and where they are from. Mr. Bentz replied one represents the northern end of Pahrump and the other represents the southern end. He pointed out if they do not incorporate, as the population increases they can have three members on the county commission. If they incorporate they will not be allowed to do that. Mrs. de Braga asked what the boundaries of Pahrump are now. Mr. Bentz replied the area was huge. He did not think they have a certified map. Mrs. Segerblom questioned the one hundred thirty two miles. She stated she thought it was so large compared to other cities in the area. She asked if there was someone from the county commission to testify as to area being discussed. Mr. Bentz replied he did not believe there were any county commissioners there to testify. He suggested they poll individual precincts to see which areas were the most opposed to incorporation. Mrs. Segerblom stated she thought downtown Pahrump might be anxious to incorporate and leave out the ranches. Mr. Bentz said the areas which have already been developed would be more likely to be in support of incorporation. Charlotte LeVar, citizen and town board member of Pahrump, testified in past years they have defeated incorporation on a two to one basis. She stated she has been accused of being inflexible about her feelings of incorporation, since she is against incorporation. She has attended all meetings, tried to be fair and use common sense regarding this matter. Her opinion has not changed, because all she saw were tax increases, more stringent controls put on an already burdened people. See testimony (Exhibit E). Mrs. Lambert stated this is a difficult issue before the committee, and there is another way of incorporating a town which is through a petition process, this is done without the legislature being involved. She asked whether or not it was considered and if so, why wasn't that process chosen. Charlotte LeVar replied a petition was never brought up. Two years ago a petition was started. Over a three day span of time, there were over one thousand signatures against incorporation. She commented this has fallen on "deaf ears." Daniel LeVar, resident of Pahrump Valley, stated they need to find "common ground," and resolve this problem. His suggestion is to bring the boundaries in to fifty square miles, and let the citizens vote on it. He said he went to the committee members with signatures of eight hundred and sixty people against incorporation. He stated he would like the committee to cast a "no" vote if they do not bring in the boundaries. He questions why they need so much area in the incorporation. Mr. Nolan commented they are trying to incorporate both rural and urban and there would have to be a lot of consideration to changing the dynamics of what they have. He said he is personally leaning towards seeing an election to give the voters of Pahrump the opportunity to voice their opinion. Mr. LeVar said he did not oppose an election, but the boundaries need to be established. Mr. Bennett asked what the street names were on the map. He asked if those streets would be better north and south boundaries. Mr. LeVar stated they had another map that proposed a boundary from one side of Mesquite Lane north to Irene Street, west to Leslie and south to Gameburg. It took in the winery and race track. It was a total of fifty square miles. He stated the only way this issue is to be resolved is through the boundaries. Mrs. Lambert asked for data on how the property tax receipts would change if the boundary was reduced to fifty square miles and what is the population and how would that affect the population base taxes. Mr. LeVar replied he did not have any idea. If they could not afford to incorporate because they did not have a large enough tax base, then they felt the town was not ready to be incorporated. He stated there are two districts who are against incorporation. Mr. Bache stated the committee will be dealing with this issue in a work session. Mr. LeVar stated there have been "scare tactics" in order to incorporate the area. They were told no major "chain" business would come into the valley unless they incorporated. Smith's market has since moved there. He noted the people are fully aware of what is going on. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, testified about the agricultural deferral. He noted what triggers the loss of the agricultural deferral, is not incorporation, but the change of the land use. The agricultural deferral is a seven year "rolling" lien on property. He gave an example of a subdivision moving on a ten acre parcel, in theory it could be the theoretical value of the land. The assessor then files a lien every year which would be the difference of a higher use value and the value they allow you to continue under the agricultural use. The property would then remain under the agricultural exemption until the use of the land is changed, either through zoning or creation of a parcel map or subdivision. Upon filing of the final map, payment would have to be made for the seven year rolling lien. There is a population density clause now in the law, which related to the notion, that there were people involved not just land. Mr. Hadfield stated Tom Grady of League of Cities was unable to attend the meeting, but stated they did not have a position on this issue, but are willing to assist the committee. Mr. Bennett asked if an owner had one hundred sixty acres and he opted to allow 40 to lie fallow for one year, would he lose the exemption and the lien become effective on the 40. Mr. Hadfield replied there is a dollar production amount, but it is very low. He did not believe it would be affected. Mrs. de Braga interrupted saying it was a low percentage of total income. Mr. Neighbors asked what the name was of the law. Mr. Hadfield replied it was called the "Green Belt Law". Mr. Neighbors stated as long as agricultural use is maintained, and the property is not parceled you can maintain that status. Mr. Hadfield interjected saying "yes," it is a seven year sliding lien with the last year dropping off when the new one comes on. Mr. LeVar in conclusion stated if they want to bring the valley together, the way to do it is by bringing in the boundaries. Mr. Garland Price stated the people for incorporation are not in opposition of reducing the boundaries. He has discussed this with the county commissioners. The feasibility of fifty squares is probably correct. The problem the county would have is the city would be providing services in the area and the county would serve the outlining areas. He stated they cannot put in building codes, permits and zoning without the county commissioners. He stated this is why they want to incorporate, because they take power from the commissioners and give it to the town. Mr. Harrington asked if they had considered splitting the county. Mr. Price said it was tried a few years ago. Mr. LeVar stated this was a good step forward and he was elated with the fact they have agreed to the reduction of the boundaries. Mr. Price stated under the committee's direction they have a town board meeting and a county commissioner's meeting together, and open up discussion for the citizens and let the town manager, county manager and the county financial person research the revenues and changes in the boundaries. He stated there is a change in the charter which states the city cannot take over the wells and the septic systems, unless an individual approves it. Mr. Nolan asked if the conclusion is the boundaries are reduced, will you put to consideration how the municipal and county services will be apportioned and how it would affect individuals such as ambulance, fire and utilities. Mr. Price replied the town takes care of the fire department, the county takes care of the emergency ambulance system. He stated a meeting is needed to discuss this situation. Mr. LeVar interjected they need to deal with the boundary issue. Mr. Neighbors stated an option along with the joint meeting would be a ballot question brought to the people for their views of incorporation. Mr. Price said the concern of the county was the splitting of the services. If something could be worked out, a smaller area may be feasible. But no decision can be made until there is more research done and a meeting of the minds. Fran Thompson, senior citizen and member of the silent majority of Pahrump, stated the closer the government is to the people, the better the people are served and the better they can control the government. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 117. WORK SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 276- Prohibits public utility which furnishes telephone service from terminating access to 911 emergency telephone number or other emergency telephone service after service is terminated for nonpayment. Mr. Nolan stated that he is waiting to hear from bill draft. Mr. Bache stated they will wait until a later date to hear a report. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 483 Broadens purposes and alternatives for expending public money. MRS. LAMBERT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 483. MR. HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED NINE IN FAVOR AND FOUR AGAINST. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 489 - Revises provisions governing actions against certain planning and zoning agencies. Chairman Bache introduced amendments suggested by Mattie Shipman and Irene Porter. See (Exhibit F). Mr. Neighbors stated they had one meeting. Nobody showed up in opposition of the bill. Irene Porter testified. Denice Miller described in detail the amendments to A.B. 489. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 489. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Lambert asked for clarification on the time limit of the protest in writing. Denice Miller replied it was within twenty five days of the final decision. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 495- Authorizes member of public body to have item placed on agenda for meeting of body. Chairman Bache gave a detail of the amendments proposed. Mr. Nolan stated he had received a letter from the Board of Regents, who all with the exception of one, adamantly oppose the bill. Mr. Ernaut stated this subject matter has never come up in previous sessions, and control needs to instituted with agendas, so that a meeting does not become monopolized. He said he could see an abuse with the amendments proposed. MR. ERNAUT MOVED INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 495. MR. NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. There was a discussion held. Mr. Harrington testified a member of the committee of the board should have a right to put something on an agenda if they feel it is important. He stated if we believe in openness of government and addressing the concerns of the individual, they should have the right to discuss it. Mr. Williams stated he supported the concept as well. Another point, regarding the wording, to have an item placed on the next meeting may run into some problems. Some public bodies have work load where agendas are drafted in a draft form while subsequent agendas are being put in place. He felt a member should have the right to place an item on the agenda. He said having consideration for that request would be appropriate. Where the problems would occur would be the overload. He would support it more readily if the person had the right to place the item on the agenda but not being dictated as to the very next meeting. Mr. Nolan testified he "echoed" Mr. Williams' sentiments. He would like to see one other member sustain an item for an agenda so abuses such as "monopolizing" would not happen. He stated maybe the author of this bill could come back at some future time and deal with it. Mr. Ernaut stated this is not denying someone's right to have an item placed on an agenda. It merely keeps in place a "screening" mechanism for someone not to monopolize the board and pursue unrelated and incongruent and personal agendas at the expense of a public body. This is only going to be the ridiculous and frivolous who will be "screened" out. He stated he was not going to get into a personality battle with the board of regents. Mr. Bennett stated the amendment suggests a subsequent agenda which would not necessarily mean the next ensuing agenda. He does feel it should be sustained by another member of the board. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT WITHDREW HIS MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS WITHDREW HIS SECOND. THERE WAS NO OBJECTION. Chairman Bache stated if any of the committee had a particular suggestion, to give it to Denice Miller for presentation at another work session. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 538 - Imposes temporary moratorium on adoption of state regulations and creates advisory committee to study such regulations. Mrs. Lambert proposed they delete sections one and two on the interim study, make it seven members of the legislature, and make an inclusive mailing list. She stated it needs to be discussed carefully during the interim. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Bache asked if this was a permanent interim committee or are they going to sunset it in two years. Mrs. Lambert replied it would be a regular interim study between the 1995 and 1997 legislature. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Neighbors thanked the committee for the way they handled the Pahrump issue. SENATE BILL NO. 98 - Revises provisions governing approval by state engineer of application for permit to appropriate water. Mrs. Lambert stated she had put together some amendatory language which she gave to the deputy attorney general for the State Engineer's office for perusal. She stated she is still waiting to hear from Senator James. So far everyone likes the proposed amendments. What the language does is limits the redundancy of the speculation. She asked the committee not take action until she hears back from Senator James. SENATE BILL NO. 99- Revises definition of "domestic use" for purposes of statutes governing underground water and wells. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 99 ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL NO. 225- Makes various changes relating to Airport Authority of Washoe County. Chairman Bache gave the committee a handout on the proposed amendment. See (Exhibit G). He stated the proposed amendment was to address a concern at the end of section one "...provisions of this section do not apply to the Airport Authority of Washoe County so long as the Authority does not have any general obligation bonds outstanding and does not or propose to issue any bonds...." There would be the additional sentence "...at least thirty days before the annual meeting of the commission each year the Authority must submit to the Department of Taxation a written statement confirming that it does not propose to issue any general obligation bonds." He stated this would take care of the concern and also if they ever did want to do a general obligation bond, they would have to have a vote of the people. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 225. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. LAMBERT VOTING NO. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Kelly Liston, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs May 12, 1995 Page