MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 16, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, May 16, 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 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Jack Holmes, surveyor for Washoe County; Mr. Marvin A. Leavitt, City of Las Vegas; Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association (See also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 541 - Repeals provision requiring governing board of local government to file certain quarterly financial reports. Chairman Lambert advised A.B. 541 would be removed from the agenda. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. A.B. 543 - Repeals provision requiring county to publish or post amount of bills allowed. Chairman Lambert advised A.B. 543 would be removed from the agenda. Chairman Lambert told those present that, with respect to both A.B. 541 and A.B. 543, if anyone present who wished to offer testimony on those bills and upon whom it would impose a hardship to return, his testimony would be taken later in the meeting and would be incorporated with the testimony given at any future hearings on those bills. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 433 - Revises certain provisions governing employment of county surveyors. Assemblyman P.M. Roy Neighbors, District 36, left his chair in the committee and testified from the witness table. He explained A.B. 433 authorized employment of county surveyors on a full-time basis and prohibited a county surveyor, so employed, from engaging in the private practice of land surveying within the county by which he was employed. Mr. Neighbors advised, with respect to A.B. 433, the county surveyors of both Washoe County and Clark County were concerned about "...the appointment..." of county surveyors. He said Nye County wished to be able to appoint a full-time county surveyor rather than to operate under current law, which only allowed the county to hire a surveyor for a particular project. He indicated Nye County would not object to its county surveyor engaging in private employment, in addition to his county employment, so long as his doing so did not conflict with his county employment. Mr. Neighbors provided copies of written communications expressing support for a proposed amendment to A.B. 433 together with the proposed amendment (Exhibit C, collectively). He advised the amendment (Exhibit C) provided a county surveyor could be appointed by a county's board of county commissioners and would serve at the pleasure of the board and it enumerated the functions such a county surveyor would perform. He pointed out the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) also dealt with the manner in which a county surveyor would be compensated. Assemblyman Tripple asked whether the provisions of A.B. 433 would apply only to Nye County or would apply to all counties in Nevada. Mr. Neighbors replied they would apply to all counties in Nevada. Ms. Tripple asked whether A.B. 433 abolished counties' current prerogative to either hire a full-time county surveyor or hire one on a "...fee for service..." basis. Mr. Neighbors replied A.B. 433 would allow all counties to have their own county surveyor. He explained, to the best of his recollection, in the past, Nye County shared a surveyor with Esmeralda, White Pine and Lincoln counties but, now, because of the growth in Pahrump, Nye County believed it needed a full time county surveyor. He pointed out the language of A.B. 433 was permissive and counties would not be required to hire a full-time county surveyor if they did not choose to do so. Ms. Tripple asked whether a county was required to obtain the legislature's permission to hire a surveyor on a full-time basis. Mr. Neighbors replied affirmatively. He explained current law only allowed a county to hire a surveyor for individual jobs. Ms. Tripple expressed concern that some counties might not wish to have a full- time county surveyor. Mr. Neighbors responded they were not required to do so. Mr. Jack Holmes, surveyor for Washoe County, testified. He advised both Washoe County and Clark County opposed A.B. 433 in its original form but could support A.B. 433 if it was amended as set forth in Mr. Neighbor's proposed amendment (Exhibit C). Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 433. Chairman Lambert inquired whether anyone present, who would have difficulty returning at another time, wished to testify on either A.B. 541 or A.B. 543. Chairman Lambert received no affirmative response to her inquiry. Chairman Lambert informed the committee the Senate had amended Assembly Bill No. 139 to reduce the fine provided for in A.B. 139 from $1,000 to $750 and she advised the sponsors of A.B. 139 approved of the amendment. She informed the committee the Senate had also amended Assembly Bill No. 107 to add the language "a university, museum or research center." She indicated, if the committee members so agreed, the committee would move the Assembly concur in those amendments. No objections were voiced. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 266 - Authorizes counties to recover money expended to remove or secure hazardous materials. Chairman Lambert reminded the committee it had held a hearing on Assembly Bill No. 266, which dealt with "...orphan barrels of hazardous materials." She read aloud the body of a letter to Senator Lawrence Jacobsen from the state's Emergency Response Commission (Exhibit D) in which the Emergency Response Commission requested A.B. 266 be amended to include language which imposed a maximum fee of $5,000 on hazardous materials users, storers, manufacturers or transporters and in which it indicated Clark County had proposed such amendment. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 266 AS REQUESTED BY THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION AND RE-REFER A.B. 266 TO THE ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held among committee members. Assemblyman Ernaut said he hoped, when considering A.B. 266, the committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining would pay particular attention to NRS 459.735 and NRS 459.755, which dealt with the contingency fund and its use with respect to hazardous materials, to determine if A.B. 266 duplicated the provisions of those statutes. Chairman Lambert pointed out the proposed amendment to A.B. 266 would remove the original language of the bill in its entirety and insert new language which dealt with a fee cap the Emergency Response Commission had promised (to establish) but which required statutory authority. Mr. Ernaut asked what the fee cap was for. Chairman Lambert replied, "For hazardous materials users, storers, manufacturers or transporters. There's a lot of different fees and there's confusion whether they all pile up together or whether it goes to the maximum $5,000, and the commission agreed it would be the maximum $5,000." Assemblyman Harrington advised he did not like A.B. 266 as it was originally written and was uncertain whether he liked the proposed amendment. He said he would prefer to see the proposed amendment in writing before he voted in favor of "...any recommendation to send it anywhere." He indicated he was concerned also about encouraging local governments to submit bill drafts simply to obtain a bill number so they could later "...gut it completely and submit what they really want..." Further discussions were held. Chairman Lambert called for a vote on the motion pending before the committee to amend and Re-refer A.B. 266. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 107 - Revises provisions governing appointment of certain state employees. Assemblyman Tripple referred to the amendment the Senate made to Assembly Bill No. 107 (discussed earlier by Chairman Lambert) and asked if she correctly understood that amendment would "...take the cap out of the hours for research centers." Chairman Lambert suggested Ms. Tripple review the first reprint of A.B. 107 contained in her bill book and indicated Ms. Tripple would then be able to ascertain the difference between that version of A.B. 107 and the version the committee had voted to pass. Chairman Lambert inquired whether the committee wished time to review the first reprint of A.B. 107 before either she or Mr. Bache moved for the Assembly to concur in the amendment made by the Senate or whether there was a general consensus of the committee that the amendment was acceptable. Mr. Bache pointed out the amendment which the Senate made to A.B. 107 was proposed by Senator Titus who, when not serving as a legislator, was involved in the university system. He advised none of the parties involved with A.B. 107 had any problem with the amendment. Chairman Lambert called for a motion on A.B. 107. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND THE ASSEMBLY CONCUR IN THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE SENATE TO A.B. 107. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATE BILL NO. 248 - Revises provisions regarding approval by general obligation bond commission of certain types of municipal funding. Mr. Marvin A. Leavitt, City of Las Vegas, testified. He advised, during the last legislative session, a comprehensive bill was passed which dealt with numerous issues related to debt. He said experience gained over the past two years had revealed the need for several amendments to that legislation. Mr. Leavitt referred to Section 1 of S.B. 248 and pointed out the designation "general obligation bond commission" was being changed to "debt management commission" which designation more accurately reflected such a commission's current responsibilities. He indicated Section 1 would also provide that short-term financing would not be subject to a debt management commission "...unless there's a special tax which is exempt from the limitations of (NRS) 354.59811..." Mr. Leavitt referred to subsection 3 of Section 3. He said experience had shown the need for certain types of meetings (of a debt management commission) to be held and the time frames within which those meetings should be held. He pointed out in counties with populations of between 100,000 and 400,000, the commission would meet quarterly, in counties with a population in excess of 400,000, the commission would meet monthly and, in smaller counties, the commission would meet only when there was a need to do so. Mr. Leavitt referred to Section 4 and said, "We add these special elective taxes to it. You know, one of the problems we've had, in the past, is that where you get approval for special taxes and intend to go for special taxes, which essentially take you over the cap, and this gives the responsibility to consider those too so that we don't end up with one of those taking us over the limit, even though the normal debt didn't." He advised Section 4 also expanded "...the categories that they have to consider..." He pointed out new language set forth in subsection 1(b)(7) of Section 4 and explained, through that language, an attempt was being made to ensure that anything which affected the tax rate would be considered. He explained subsection 2 of Section 4 would allow two governing bodies to combine their plans. Mr. Leavitt said the bill passed during the last legislative session changed the requirement (to establish a favorable vote by a commission) from a majority (of the members of the commission) to two-thirds. He suggested it was extremely difficult to assemble all members of a commission or even to assemble a quorum and indicated it was because of that difficulty the change (in the requirement to establish a favorable vote) proposed in Section 5 was being made. Mr. Leavitt referred to the language commencing on line 45 of page 4 of S.B. 248 and explained an attempt was being made, through that language, to ensure "...we have together, in one place, all of the various tax levies that are related." Mr. Leavitt contended the provision of S.B. 248 contained in subsection 5(b)(2) of Section 5 was very important and explained, if a general obligation debt was to be incurred by a municipality more than six months after that debt was approved, the governing body of the municipality would be required to obtain approval of the executive director of the department of taxation before incurring said debt. Mr. Leavitt advised the language on line 14 of page 6 of S.B. 248 provided a means by which financial officers of municipalities could be notified when an overlapping debt was proposed. Mr. Leavitt indicated the purpose of subsection 4(d) of Section 7 was to resolve an inconsistency in current law which provided both that the commission consider and that it not consider public need in determining whether to approve or disapprove a proposal to incur debt or to levy a special elective tax. Mr. Leavitt said, "Section 9, essentially, just brings everything up to the July 1st date..." and advised Sections 11 and 12 changed the designation "general obligation commission" to "debt management commission" with respect to library districts and school districts, respectively. He pointed out Section 17 provided an individual presently serving as a general obligation bond commissioner would henceforth serve as a member of a debt management commission. Mr. Bache asked whether, in consideration of the situation regarding White Pine County School District, there was a need to "...amend any of this language into Chapter 387, on financing of schools..." or whether school districts were defined as municipalities under NRS 350. Mr. Leavitt replied he believed school districts were defined as municipalities for the purposes of NRS 350. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether most counties had reached their debt limit. Mr. Leavitt replied they had not. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether a municipality's debt limit was different from a county's debt limit. Mr. Leavitt replied there were two "forms" of debt limit in Nevada and explained those debt limits and their effects. Mrs. Segerblom inquired as to the debt limit imposed on the state. Mr. Leavitt replied the state had a debt limit of two percent of its assessed valuation except as to debt related to preservation of natural resources. Mr. Neighbors asked why S.B. 248 provided such a large disparity in the frequency of meetings to be held by bond debt commissions of large counties and those to be held by bond debt commissions of smaller counties. Mr. Leavitt replied, in a large county, because so many entities had debt to issue, the commission was required to reconvene frequently and upon short notice and it seemed better to have the commission meet upon a regularly scheduled basis in the hope of ensuring better attendance by its members. Mr. Harrington indicated Elko had requested authority to tax its citizens to support its convention center and asked whether any convention center authorities were authorized to issue general obligation debts. Mr. Leavitt replied he believed the debt of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority was a general obligation debt and was essentially secured by room taxes and by a portion of gaming taxes. Mr. Harrington asked whether, if Elko was given the authority it requested, it would have to obtain approval of its debt management commission. Mr. Leavitt replied affirmatively. Mr. Neighbors indicated the committee had considered a bill dealing with the airport authority of Washoe County. He said, "The bonding requirements are going to be paid out of revenues, landing fees or whatever." He asked whether the airport authority would be required to obtain approval of Washoe County's debt management commission. Mr. Leavitt replied, "...if it's strictly a revenue bond and it's not a general obligation...then they would not have to go before (the debt management commission)..." Chairman Lambert referred to lines 29, 33 and 34 on page 4 of S.B. 248 and asked whether, if a "GID" issued debt, that debt would have to be approved by the county commission. Mr. Leavitt replied affirmatively. Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified. She stated the Nevada Taxpayers Association supported S.B. 248. She indicated the Nevada Taxpayers Association had one reservation about S.B. 248 but, nonetheless, urged the legislature to pass the bill. She explained the reservation concerned the requirement for a majority vote. She advised the Nevada Taxpayers Association would prefer a two-thirds vote but understood there had been problems in obtaining quorums of debt management commissions when a majority vote was required. Ms. Vilardo stated, after the last legislative session, articles appeared in City and State magazine and in the Bond Buyer regarding the mechanisms "...within this bill..." and characterizing those mechanisms as very positive. She suggested the provisions of S.B. 248 allowed attempts to be made to balance the competing interests of cities, counties and special districts. Ms. Vilardo urged the committee to support S.B. 248 which she declared was "a good government bill." Mrs. Freeman said Washoe County had a redevelopment agency and she believed there was much confusion among the general public with regard to redevelopment monies. She asked whether debt management commissions would make it easier for local governments to communicate with the general public as to "...just exactly what's going on here..." Ms. Vilardo replied, "...particularly with the addition in this bill of having the various finance officers involved when there's going to be debt sold is definitely going to improve communications." Mrs. Freeman asked whether meetings of a debt management commission would be open to the general public and whether notice of those meetings would be posted. Ms. Vilardo replied affirmatively. Mr. Harrington stated he, too, was concerned about decreasing the requirement of a two-thirds vote to one of a majority vote. He suggested the provisions of Section 3 of S.B. 428, which would cause meetings of a debt management commission to be held on a regular basis, might generate better attendance of the members of such a commission and questioned whether, in light of the provisions of Section 3, it was necessary to reduce the requirement of a two-thirds vote to one of a majority vote. Ms. Vilardo pointed out the provisions for regularly scheduled meetings of a debt management commission applied only to the commissions of Clark and Washoe counties. She stated she always preferred "...the super majorities..." when tax issues were involved but indicated she was willing to support the change in the voting requirement pending the next legislative session. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 248. B.D.R. No. S1853 - Revises provisions governing Virgin Valley Water District. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. S1853. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 9:07 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 16, 1995 Page