MINUTES OF THE
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	June 5, 1995


The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:00 a.m., on 
Monday, June 5, 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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mr. Wendell Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst

OTHERS PRESENT:

Gary Holler, North Las Vegas; John Sande, Harrah's; Christopher Figgins, 
	Clark County; Urban Livengood, Clark County; Ted Finneran, Laughlin 
	Chamber of Commerce; Tom Fronapfel, Nevada Department of 		
	Transportation; Tom Stephens, Nevada Department of Transportation; Dick 
	Goecke, City of Las Vegas; Madelyn Shipman, Washoe County  


ASSEMBLY BILL 658 - Facilitates funding of certain projects through interlocal 
agreements. (BDR 20-2005)

Assemblyman Segerblom, sponsor of the bill, introduced A.B. 658.  She said the 
bill would help Laughlin in many ways.  Mrs. Segerblom provided a letter (Exhibit 
C) from the Laughlin Chamber of Commerce signed by many of the supporters of 
the bill.  The measure would provide for an additional bridge site in the 
Laughlin/Bullhead City area.  A poll was recently conducted by the town board and 
its community development committee and the need for a bridge was the number 
one transportation priority in the community.  It would be a major development to 
have a second bridge for the residents of Laughlin.  That view was shared by the 
majority of operators along the resort corridor.  The county to date has taken the 
lead in this proposed legislation and recognized the need to be proactive before the 
session closes.  Mrs. Segerblom introduced Ted Finneran, representing the  
Laughlin Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Finneran, a long time resident of Laughlin, has witnessed the tremendous 
growth in the city and emphasized the need for another bridge to accommodate the 
increase in traffic.  The bridge currently in place was paid for with private money 
by Mr. Laughlin himself at a cost of about three million dollars plus his donation of 
the land.  

At the present time, approximately 25,000 cars a day are being driven over the one 
bridge in Laughlin.  The county commission authorized a study costing $198,000 
to select an additional site to remove some of the traffic from the bridge and move 
it further downstream where it can be regulated more smoothly.  They are 
expecting more than 70,000 vehicles to be traversing these bridges in the next five 
years.  This project will take time and it needs to be started now.

Kathy McClain, Clark County Manager's Office, pointed out the need for the 
legislation.  The word bridges has been added to A.B. 658 in line 14 as bridges 
previously were not included in the type of projects that could be funded by this 
measure.  On page two, the information there allows for an interlocal agreement 
where either entity could fund the project up front and then repayment would be 
arranged within the agreement.  


Assemblyman Lambert mentioned this dealt with the fair share transportation bill 
of 1994 and questioned whether Clark County had put a district in Laughlin so the 
room tax collected there could be held for that transportation project.  Mr. Finneran 
believed they had.  Mrs. Lambert asked if he had any idea how much money was 
collected and what the bridge would cost. Mr. Finneran did not know the cost of 
the bridge yet; that was to be determined in the ongoing study.  They had to site 
the bridge to determine how long it would have to be and where the approaches 
would have to be placed. Mrs. Lambert reiterated how much room tax had been 
collected.  Mr. Finneran responded about a million dollars per year or a bit less.  
Mrs. Lambert asked if there were any other transportation projects that money 
would have to fund.  Mr. Finneran said the Needles Highway was being funded 
with some of that money and he was not sure what the remaining balance was. 
 
Mr. John Sande, representing Harrah's Hotels and Casinos, remarked they were 
highly supportive of the venture.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 658.

ASSEMBLY BILL 669 - Revises provisions relating to county roads, highways and 
bridges. (BDR 20-2038)

Christopher Figgins, Deputy District Attorney for Clark County, spoke in favor of 
the bill.  He read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D) explaining the purpose of A.B. 
669 was to eliminate Clark County from the provisions of NRS Chapter 403, a very 
old statute that was not relevant anymore.  

The first thing they wanted to do was amend the bill to eliminate section one 
entirely and allow section two to remain (Exhibit E).  This would exempt counties 
of 400,000 or more from the provisions of NRS Chapter 403.  Chapter 403 had 
been enacted in the 1800's in times when there were more horses on the road than 
vehicles and virtually no growth and was outdated. Through the years the 
Legislature has essentially superseded NRS Chapter 403 by adopting newer laws 
which were designed to be more accommodating to the county and the public.
    
Mr. Figgins told the committee Clark County is currently involved in a 
condemnation proceeding wherein the judge ruled the county could not proceed 
under the eminent domain procedures of NRS Chapter 37 and, instead, ordered the 
county follow the mandates of NRS Chapter 403.  This would be burdensome and 
unreasonable for the county.  Their position is that NRS Chapter 403 is outdated 
and the provisions of NRS Chapter 37 provide adequate safeguards for property 
owners and at the same time provide the county with mechanisms by which it may 
proceed to construct new roads as quickly as possible.  In addition, it is arguable 
that NRS Chapter 403 does not serve the best interest of the individual property 
owner either.


In reviewing Chapter 403, Mr. Figgins said it appears most of the powers granted 
to the county are found in NRS Chapter 244. By eliminating section one of the bill 
and allowing section two to go forth as written, the county will have the 
appropriate authority to layout, control and manage the public roads within the 
jurisdictional boundaries of the county.  Accordingly, Mr. Figgins requested 
amendment and passage of A.B. 669.

Mr. Urban Livengood, Director of Public Works for Clark County, spoke in favor of 
the bill.  He had contacted Robert Hadfield of the Nevada Association of Counties, 
who had conducted a survey of the 17 Nevada counties as to whether or not they 
had ever exercised the authority of NRS Chapter 403 through a county board of 
highway commissioners.  Of the eight counties who responded, four indicated they 
had actually used the statute.  That was a consideration in the amendment to the 
bill.  He reiterated the language of Chapter 403 was antiquated and no longer 
relevant in the present time.  He also mentioned many of the laws that are currently 
in place and used instead of Chapter 403 which could be eliminated with no harm 
to anyone.

Gary Holler, Director of Public Works in North Las Vegas, said they were also in 
favor of A.B. 669 if section one was deleted.  They, too, appreciated the burden 
of Chapter 403 and wanted to be relieved of that restriction.  He felt by deleting 
section one, NRS would be made much clearer.

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney for Washoe County, supported the 
bill as amended and requested an additional amendment to put the population cap 
at 100,000 instead of 400,000.  She said all the provisions of NRS Chapter 403 
were covered under other sections of the NRS.  She explained many of the 
provisions of Chapter 403 show it really did not need to exist because of the other 
statutory coverage already in place.  

In Chapter 403.110- 403.160 it deals with county road supervisors and boards of 
road commissioners.  In both Washoe and Clark counties, the boards act as the 
board of highway or road commissioners.  The Legislature required the capital 
improvement projects (CIP's) to be dealt with by local governments and those CIP's 
direct where the money will be spent on the construction of new roads.  

Sections 403.170-403.200 deal with classifications of roads.  These sections say 
roads should be classified as main, general and minor county roads.  No one refers 
to roads by these classifications.

NRS 403.210 deals with bonding which is already dealt with in Chapter 350 of the 
NRS.

Chapter 403.430 deals with opening, changing and maintaining county roads and 
the procedure for these is set forth in NRS 278.

Chapter 403.435 deals with cooperation agreements with the federal government 
which are handled by the RTC or through interlocal agreements with the state 
and/or federal government, defined in Chapter 277 of the NRS.

Chapter 403.440, condemnation, is covered under Chapter 37 of the NRS.  
Sections .450 deals with the apportionment of funding between the county and 
any incorporated cities within its boundaries and that is handled by statute in terms 
of formula under different NRS sections.  

Chapter 403.460-.550 deals with payment, construction of roadworks, inspection 
and claims, all of which are covered under NRS 338 or Chapter 41.  Section 403. 
560 deals with location of water and penalties for defacing public property which 
are handled by county codes.  Sections .580-.610 deal with bridges and exactly 
the same things covered in previous sections and other statutes in the NRS.

Ms. Shipman wanted to be thorough in her coverage of Chapter 403 to assure its 
contents were covered under other provisions as a judge in a courtroom procedure 
will select a specific statute rather than a general one and she wanted to clarify 
those specifics.

Mrs. Lambert said in 403.090 it mirrored section one and was it a concern for 
counties that had cities in them.  No, Ms. Shipman declared.  It was not a problem 
because 403.090 was somewhat a mirror of NRS 244.155 mentioned by the Clark 
 County representative, which gives the county the general jurisdiction and 
authority over all county roads.  Except one says "except provisions of other law", 
and this would have exclusive authority; there is a difference when other laws are 
excepted.  Ms. Shipman said that was true, but if NRS 403 was done away with 
by the Legislature, no one would miss it.  She also pointed out section .090 has 
never been exercised and if the law were thought of in terms of exclusive control, 
cities would be in charge of their own roads and counties would have jurisdiction 
over unincorporated areas.  

Mr. Harrington understood a change in population caps could possibly make the law 
suspect for other counties in the state.


Ms. Shipman was interested in that question.  She said population caps were used 
in this state.  She had an extensive discussion last session with the Legislative 
Counsel Bureau who indicated that law was liberally construed and changing 
conditions were recognized as sufficient reasons for changing an item such as a 
population cap.

Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director of Planning for the Nevada Department of 
Transportation (NDOT), indicated they would not be opposed to the bill as 
amended.  He provided a handout to the committee on the STIP/TIP Project 
Selection Process (Exhibit F), relating to NDOT projects.

Tom Stephens, Director of the Department of Transportation, was neutral on the 
bill.  His concern was with the first section of the bill which was proposed to be 
removed.  He mentioned there was an inference that NRS section 403.090 
somehow gave the county exclusive jurisdiction over all roads in the county.  He 
said that section applied to county roads and bridges.  All subsequent law has 
superseded that law.  If it becomes a 1995 law in another section of NRS without 
restrictions, it would take on a new perspective.  He noted 403.090 had at least 
four Nevada cases and one federal case and five or six attorney general's opinions 
and has always been interpreted to mean only county roads.  He was concerned 
that putting it elsewhere in the statutes would give it a more broad interpretation. 
 As far as supporting the bill, Mr. Fronapfel said without a doubt the old language 
had to go.  He was surprised section 404 was not included as that was another 
antiquated section of the law too.  He would have no objection to the bill as 
amended.

Dick Goecke, Director of Public Works for the city of Las Vegas, said the city of 
Las Vegas would support the bill if the first section were removed, otherwise they 
would oppose it.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 669.

Mrs. Lambert wanted to do a work session on A.B. 404 as she had some 
amendments to the measure (Exhibit G).  

ASSEMBLY BILL 404 - Makes various changes regarding financial disclosure by 
public officers. (BDR 23-664)

Mrs. Lambert said these were the amendments that were decided upon and 
explained them to the committee.  There were four changes in all (see Exhibit G).

ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 404.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Bache asked Mrs. Lambert to handle the bill on the floor.

Mr. Neighbors wanted to check with smaller counties regarding the population cap 
referred to in A.B. 669.  Mr. Bache and Mrs. Lambert both had some concerns with 
the deletion of Chapter 403 in that bill and wanted to be sure that was the right 
thing to do.

Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



	
Denise Sins,
Committee Secretary






APPROVED BY:





Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman





Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
June 5, 1995
Page