MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 8, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, June 8, 1995, Chairman Douglas A. 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 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 COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Pete Ernaut GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Jon C. Porter, District No. 1; Senator Dina Titus, District No. 7 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association; Mr. Eric Cooper, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce; Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens; Mr. Marvin Leavitt, city of Las Vegas; Ms. Susan Boskoff, Executive Director, Nevada State Council for the Arts; Mr. Dean Borges, Deputy Manager, State Public Works Board; Mr. Mike Meizel, Administrator, Division of Buildings and Grounds, Department of Administration; Mr. David Edwards, Director, Geographical Information Services, Clark County; Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities; Michelle Gamble, Nevada Association of Counties; Ms. Ande Engleman, Freedom of Information; Mr. Don Ham, Nevada Press Association; Ms. Kathryn McClain, Clark County (see also Exhibit B attached hereto). SENATE BILL NO. 456 - Authorizes local government to establish certain funds for local financial administration. Senator Jon C. Porter, District No. 1, testified. He said one of government's most difficult tasks was to ensure prudent financial practices. He cited the situation with White Pine County as an example of what could happen if such practices were not ensured. Senator Porter read aloud subsection 1 of Section 2 of S.B. 456. He pointed out a local government would be required to document the fund provided for in that subsection and information concerning that fund would be available to the public. Senator Porter advised the provisions of Section 3 of S.B. 456 were similar to those of Section 2 but said the fund discussed in subsection 1 of Section 3 would be used to construct capital improvements. Senator Porter contended Section 4 of S.B. 456 was the most important section of the bill. He advised the purpose of the fund provided for in Section 4 was to stabilize the operations of a local government. He indicated a local government which established such a fund would be required to publish information concerning the fund in both its audit and its annual report and to make such information available to the public. Senator Porter stated the funds which could be established under S.B. 456 would not only protect the stability of a local government but also would protect that government's employees and its citizens. He encouraged the committee to support S.B. 456. Assemblyman Freeman asked whether local governments did not already have the ability to do those things provided for by S.B. 456. Senator Porter replied they did have, however, that ability was not set forth in statute and "...the publishing and the auditing and the budgeting is not required for these specific areas." Mrs. Freeman pointed out the language of S.B. 456 was permissive and asked what S.B. 456 would provide to local governments which they did not already have. Senator Porter indicated local government budgets were confusing to members of the public. He suggested the purpose of S.B. 456 was to cause information concerning the funds it would allow local governments to establish to be clearly stated so citizens could understand that information and know they were being properly protected by those funds. Assemblyman Bennett asked whether Senator Porter had any indications from local governments that they would utilize the provisions of S.B. 456 if it was passed by the legislature. Senator Porter replied he worked closely with local governments in preparing S.B. 456 and local governments were very supportive of the bill. Assemblyman Tripple asked how much money it would cost local governments to maintain additional accounts. Senator Porter replied maintaining the funds provided for by S.B. 456 would involve only an internal accounting mechanism and would impose no additional expense. Ms. Tripple asked, "And, at the same time, that money won't be dormant then?" Senator Porter replied the money in a fund would earn interest until such time as it was used for the specific purpose for which the fund was established. Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified. She expressed support for S.B. 456. She referred to the fact the language of S.B. 456 was permissive. She indicated she would like to see the provisions of S.B. 456 be mandatory but said, if they were, the legislature would then be mandating to local governments what those governments were to do and how they were to do it. Ms. Vilardo maintained S.B. 456 would provide local governments, elected officials and the staffs of such governments and officials with specific fiscal tools. She suggested establishing a stabilization fund was a prudent means by which to accrue monies with which to "...level out the peaks and valleys when you don't have a good economy..." Ms. Vilardo contended the provisions of S.B. 456 which limited to 10 percent the amount of money which a local government could transfer (from its general fund to funds established under the provisions of S.B. 456) would preclude local governments from creating "slush accounts." Ms. Vilardo stated the Nevada Taxpayers Association would encourage local governments to establish the funds provided for by S.B. 456 and urged the committee to support S.B. 456. Mr. Eric Cooper, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified. He advised the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce believed S.B. 456 represented a fiscally sound policy which would benefit local governments. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified. She indicated she supported S.B. 456. She advised she was a member of Clark County's school board, during a time of economic decline, when $13 million dollars had to be cut from the school district's budget. She said she viewed the stabilization fund S.B. 456 discussed as a savings account which would allow a local government to make responsible decisions when faced with economic difficulties. Ms. Lusk pointed out individuals elected to serve on school boards, city councils and similar governmental entities were laymen rather than accountants. She contended local governments' budgets were extremely complicated and difficult to understand and suggested the more those budgets could be simplified and clarified the better those who served as elected members of governing boards would be able to serve the public. Mr. Marvin Leavitt, city of Las Vegas, testified. He said the city of Las Vegas supported S.B. 456 and believed it provided local governments with good mechanisms they had not previously possessed. Mr. Leavitt pointed out S.B. 456 was similar to Assembly Bill No. 48 and suggested it would be necessary to reconcile some of their provisions. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 456. SENATE BILL NO. 265 - Requires certain state agencies to cooperate to plan potential purchase and placement of works of art to be placed inside or on grounds surrounding state buildings. Senator Dina Titus, District No. 7, testified. Senator Titus advised there were two parts to S.B. 265. She explained the first part required the Nevada State Council on the Arts to conduct a periodic inventory of state-owned artwork and an examination of the condition of that artwork and to report its findings to the legislature. She said the second part of S.B. 265 required the Nevada State Council on the Arts to work with the State Public Works Board and the Buildings and Grounds Division of the Department of Administration to incorporate art into the plans for any new state facility. Senator Titus asserted S.B. 265 provided an important first step toward funding artwork and would make artwork a more intrinsic part of state facilities by requiring artwork to be considered in their planning. She contended considering artwork when planning a state facility would protect the integrity of both the artwork and the facility and would aid better budgeting when planning the facility. Senator Titus stated S.B. 265 was also important because it made the statement Nevada recognized the importance of art and wished to work to preserve and protect it. Mr. Bennett asked Senator Titus to address the fiscal notes on S.B. 265. Senator Titus replied there were no fiscal notes. She explained the fiscal note originally attached to S.B. 265 pertained to an appropriation for art and the provisions pertaining to that appropriation had been removed from S.B. 265. Ms. Susan Boskoff, Executive Director, Nevada State Council for the Arts, testified. She provided a packet of written information (Exhibit C) and pointed out that information contained statistics about other states' "...percent for art programs." She indicated the packet of information (Exhibit C) also contained a list of art projects of which she would display slides and an article on public art from the "Encyclopedia of Architecture." Ms. Boskoff said the slides she would show demonstrated the spectrum of art projects used in public places. She stated a national survey of 102 public art programs reported, from 1985 to 1992, 2,268 new artworks were commissioned and 2,852 existing artworks were purchased for art programs throughout the country. She said the art portrayed in the slides was "...created through the professional approach that's been developed that uses management expertise and techniques." She explained "percent for art" programs provided for review and for accountability and involved representatives of the public who would be affected by art projects. Ms. Boskoff displayed her slides to the committee and discussed the art projects they portrayed. Mr. Dean Borges, Deputy Manager, State Public Works Board, testified. He expressed support for S.B. 265 and advised the State Public Works Board would cooperate with the Nevada State Council on the Arts as required by S.B. 265. Mr. Mike Meizel, Administrator, Division of Buildings and Grounds, Department of Administration, testified. He advised the Division of Buildings and Grounds supported S.B. 265. He pointed out the first part of S.B. 265 addressed taking inventory of state-owned artwork and declared there was a real need to do so. He contended artwork required maintenance and stated, at the present time, there was no system for keeping track of the various works of art in state buildings. Mr. Meizel referred to the cooperation among state entities required by S.B. 265 and asserted, over the past few years, there had been glaring examples of the absence of such cooperation. He suggested "...building people...", such as he and Mr. Borges, tended toward utilitarianism but the public was just as concerned about the expression of art in a building as it was about utility. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 265. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED DO PASS S.B. 265. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Bache assigned S.B. 265 to Mrs. Segerblom for the purpose of making a floor statement. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 670 - Provides for electronic access to local governmental records. Mr. David Edwards, Director, Geographical Information Services (GIS), Clark County, testified. Mr. Edwards said A.B. 670 was enabling legislation which addressed an issue about which NRS was silent, to-wit, the issue of electronic data bases and the services and products which could be generated from those bases. He advised Nevada's open record law had not been addressed significantly since 1965, long before the advent of sophisticated information systems, and it tended to discuss duplication and dissemination of public records by photocopying equipment, which was no longer appropriate. Mr. Edwards declared, at the present time, local governments needed to make tremendous financial investments in computers but tended to make those investments only after they had taken care of all other matters requiring financial expenditures. He contended it required a great deal of money to acquire computer equipment and to both hire and train the staff needed to respond to requests for information made to GIS by both the public and the media. Mr. Edwards contended products and services generated by local governments, through their data bases, represented "...a tremendous asset to the private sector..." He said the capital costs of Clark County's data bases, alone, were probably in excess of $3 million. He advised representatives of companies such as Rand McNally, Thomas Brothers and Compass Maps came to his office every day to request information. He suggested those companies realized a savings from being able to obtain information from his office's data bases rather than having to establish and maintain like data bases themselves. He said many companies which used Clark County's resources to generate their products were located outside of Nevada and indicated it was desired to lower the cost to taxpayers of providing information to such companies by having private entities pay a fair price to obtain that information. Mr. Edwards advised, currently, local governments were not specifically authorized by statute to provide the services he was discussing and, therefore, enabling legislation was desired. He indicated he wished to distinquish A.B. 670 from other proposed legislation dealing with open records and declared nothing in A.B. 670 addressed those issues concerning open records considered in the legislature's interim studies. Mr. Edwards advised the director of the Department of Information Systems, the state Attorney General's office and various local governments worked together to draft A.B. 670. He contended A.B. 670 was directed only to local governments and would not affect state government. He asserted local governments maintained the kind of data which was truly an asset to the private sector. He pointed out A.B. 670 gave local governing bodies responsibility for establishing pricing policies and policies to govern dissemination of information. He said A.B. 670 introduced, for the first time, a definitive list of the components of a "reasonable fee." Mr. Edwards provided a one page document explaining the purpose of and justification for A.B. 670 (Exhibit D). Mr. Bennett referred to subsection 4 of Section 1 of A.B. 670 and said he believed the integrity and security of a local government's information system should be protected regardless of the monetary value of the service the local government was requested to provide. Mr. Bennett said he perceived A.B. 670 would impose a cost on local governments to provide electronic security for their information systems. He asked Mr. Edwards whether he would suggest computer terminals be merely work stations "...that don't have any access for floppy disk, any A, B or C drive..." and also asked what protections there were for a local government's data bases. Mr. Edwards replied much of the language of A.B. 670 was permissive and did not require local governments to provide computer terminals (by which members of the private sector could access their information systems). He advised it would be Clark County's intention to furnish computer terminals which provided only the ability to read information and not the ability to access data bases. Mr. Bennett asked whether A.B. 670 should include provisions for minimum security for local governments' data bases. He indicated security for his personal computer system was provided through an "...automatic five minute backup." Mr. Edwards replied he did not like to include technology in legislation and advised local governments' data bases were too large to be backed up in five minutes. He pointed out, pursuant to A.B. 670, local governing boards would be required to establish policies to protect the integrity of their data bases. He referred to the provision which permitted a local governmental agency to require a requester of electronic services or products whose value exceeded $100 to enter into a contract. He explained the purpose of such a contract was to prohibit people from obtaining data from a governmental agency, modifying that data and then representing it as government information. Assemblyman Lambert pointed out A.B. 670 referred to "a local governmental agency" and used the word "agency" many times. She asked whether the intent was a city counsel or county commission make those decisions called for in A.B. 670 or rather the intent was an agency, such as the Department of Public Works, make those decisions. Mr. Edwards replied the intent was a board of county commissioners or a city counsel make those decisions. Mrs. Lambert suggested A.B. 670 should be amended to refer to a "local government entity" rather than a "local governmental agency." Mr. Edwards indicated such an amendment would be acceptable. Assemblyman Harrington commented he could see the tremendous value government data bases would have for many private entities and suggested, in fairness to the taxpayers, those entities should pay a fair value for information they obtained from those data bases. He expressed his support for A.B. 670. Mr. Edwards pointed out, under A.B. 670, no fees would be charged libraries, the press or non-profit civic organizations. He said the policy would be to establish fees for access to governmental data bases in such a way that, even after payment of such a fee, the information a private entity gained from that access would be an economic asset. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified. She said Nevada Concerned Citizens supported most of the provisions of A.B. 670 but did have some concerns about the bill. She advised Nevada Concerned Citizens wished to ensure ordinary public citizens would have access, at no cost, to information which should be open to public inspection. She suggested any charge for copies of such information should be reasonable enough to avoid a chilling effect with respect to a citizen's right to know what his local government was doing. She recommended if a citizen, as a private individual, was to be charged for copies of information maintained by local governments that charge should be "...a copy equivalent fees." Ms. Lusk explained Nevada Concerned Citizens was concerned about "...the de facto closure of government..." which might occur as the trend for electronic storage of information increased. She maintained some information was stored only in electronic forms and contended it was important to arrive at a method which would ensure citizens access to such information. She referred to lines 9 through 12 on page 1 of A.B. 670 and asked the committee to carefully review the provisions of A.B. 670 to determine how citizen access to the information cited in those lines would be ensured. Ms. Lusk referred to the fee waivers provided in lines 20 through 25 of page 1 of A.B. 670 and pointed out such waivers were provided for a number of entities and groups but were not provided for an individual citizen. She contended the primary purpose of governing bodies was to serve individual citizens and said, "...that's where the focus ought to be." Ms. Lusk referred to the provision contained in lines 5 through 8 on page 2 of A.B. 670 and advised Nevada Concerned Citizens did not object to copyrighting provided the public's access to information copyrighted by local governments was not limited. Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, testified. She expressed support for A.B. 670. She advised, approximately two years earlier, the Nevada League of Cities, in conjunction with the Nevada Association of Counties, created a network which connected all cities and counties within the state of Nevada and enabled those cities and counties to share information with one another. She indicated that network provided a means to allow the public easy access to information, reduced staff time and saved money for local governments. Michelle Gamble, Nevada Association of Counties, testified. She stated the Nevada Association of Counties also supported A.B. 670. She maintained A.B. 670 would not limit access the public currently had to local government records. She contended methods by which the public was able to obtain information from counties and cities at the present time would be maintained even if A.B. 670 was passed. She suggested A.B. 670 merely provided an enhanced means to access such information. Ms. Ande Engleman, Freedom of Information, testified. She said she wished to make the committee aware of Senate Bill No. 90, which was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. She advised S.B. 90 addressed converting public records maintained on paper to electronic records and also addressed public access to those electronic records in the event the paper records were subsequently destroyed. She read aloud subsection 4 of Section 1 of S.B. 90, which says: "If a governmental agency destroys any of its records and causes those records to be recorded, copied or reproduced pursuant to subsection 1: (a) the recorded, copied or reproduced record shall be deemed a public record for the purposes of chapter 239 of NRS; and (b) the governmental agency shall render such assistance as is necessary to allow any member of the public access to the recorded, copied or reproduced record if the record is not otherwise declared by law to be confidential." She pointed out the issue of electronic records had been brought before the legislature during the current legislative session. Ms. Engleman discussed her concerns about A.B. 670. She said, at no time, had governmental entities requested the public's permission to spend the money to create all the data bases they were creating. She contended governmental entities had expended taxpayers' monies to create their data bases and now were looking for a means to replace those monies. She asserted Mr. Edwards wished to charge different fees to different people and different entities to obtain information from local governments and said, "...there's a constitutional problem with doing that, with charging one person a higher rate because they may make money from it, then charging another person another rate." She maintained, in order to establish fee rates in such a manner, a governmental agency would be required to ask the purpose for which a person wished to obtain information. She declared members of the public should not have to disclose what they intended to do with information obtained from a local government which was public information. She pointed out businesses also paid taxes and contended those businesses had a right to access and to use governments' information even for the purpose of making money. She advised the federal government had clearly stated government information could not be copyrighted. Ms. Engleman pointed out the language of A.B. 670 was permissive and gave local governments discretion to discriminate and to treat individuals differently. She said, "I have a lot of problem with that." Assemblyman Segerblom commented, in his handout (Exhibit D), Mr. Edwards said A.B. 670 in no way altered or limited the public's right to inspect public records. Ms. Engleman suggested, irrespective of what Mr. Edwards said in his handout (Exhibit D), the language of A.B. 670 was permissive and did not specify public access to local governments' information would not be limited. Mr. Harrington said he would like to see the word "shall" substituted for the word "may" in lines 9 and 20 on page 1 of A.B. 670 and asked Ms. Engleman whether she would find A.B. 670 acceptable if that substitution was made. Ms. Engleman replied she would not. She said A.B. 670 raised the specter of private individuals using public records to create data bases in order to sell information back to the public and make a great deal of money doing so. She said she found the provision contained in lines 6 though 8 on page 1 interesting. She suggested that provision seemed to imply providing information to the public was the lowest priority of those in government. Mr. Don Ham, Nevada Press Association, testified. He advised the Nevada Press Association had several objections to A.B. 670. Mr. Ham said the Nevada Press Association did not believe the public should be required to pay money to obtain information from a public entity. He referred to the fact the committee had previously considered Assembly Bill No. 401 and had discussed at length the subject of depreciation of government equipment. He contended the general consensus of the committee was taxpayers should not be required to pay for depreciation of government equipment "...when it comes to computer access..." and said the Nevada Press Association agreed with the committee in that regard. Mr. Ham advised the Nevada Press Association was very concerned also about the provisions of A.B. 670 which permitted copyrighting of government information. He indicated he agreed with the testimony given by Ms. Lusk and Ms. Engleman regarding that issue but would go even further. He pointed out A.B. 670 would allow copyrighting of computer software and declared if local governments were permitted to copyright their software and deny private individuals access to that software those individuals would be unable to translate information generated by that software into something which they could understand. Mr. Ham said the Nevada Press Association strongly suggested, if the legislature passed either A.B. 670 or substantially similar legislation, the legislature plan to review such legislation each legislative session and, if such legislation contained provisions for fees, the legislature provide one of its interim committees with power to review those fees. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 670. Mr. Bennett asked whether the Chair would entertain a motion on S.B. 456. Chairman Bache replied he would not entertain such a motion and explained he would like to obtain answers to questions he had regarding the bill (before the committee took any action). B.D.R. 21-516 - Revises provisions relating to vacancies in certain city offices. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 21-516. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL NO. 248 - Revises provisions regarding approval by general obligation bond commission of certain types of municipal funding. Mrs. Lambert advised a problem had arisen regarding one of the amendments the committee had proposed be made to S.B. 248. She explained Washoe County wished S.B. 248 amended to provide staggered terms of office for the members of its general bond commission, however, other governmental entities did not desire such staggered terms and the amendment which was drafted provided for staggered terms of office for members of all general bond commissions. She pointed out, if S.B. 248 provided staggered terms of office only for Washoe County, it would be special legislation and, therefore, unconstitutional. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED FOR THE COMMITTEE TO RESCIND ITS PRIOR ACTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 248. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ******* Mrs. Lambert proposed S.B. 248 be amended to "... change the vote to two-thirds to put something on the ballot, with the amendment for Carson City so their two members appoint the other three...and leave off the part about staggered terms." ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 248. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Bache asked whether Mrs. Lambert intended her motion to "...include the conflict amendment..." Mrs. Lambert replied affirmatively. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT VOTED "NO." ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 658 - Facilitates funding of certain projects through interlocal agreements. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED DO PASS A.B. 658. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held among committee members. Ms. Kathryn McClain, Clark County, testified for the purpose of clarifying whether or not governmental entities could enter into interlocal agreements with private entities. She said she was nearly positive NRS 277 referred only to interlocal agreements between public agencies and to interstate contracts. Mr. Bennet advised, until he had further clarification about the intent of the language "in anticipation" in A.B. 658, he would abstain from voting on A.B. 658. Ms. McClain said an attempt was being made to make it clear, when a public entity entered into a contract with another public entity, either party to the contract could fund the project which was the subject of the contract and the parameters for repayment would be established by the contract. Further discussions ensued. Chairman Bache called for a vote on the motion pending before the committee to do pass A.B. 658. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 657 - Revises provisions governing eligibility of certain gaming control agents for early retirement. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 657. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Bache pointed out there had been testimony A.B. 657 would carve an exception to the rules governing the method used to determine who was eligible for early retirement and advised the Gaming Control Board's agents were in the process of applying to PERS to be granted such eligibility. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL NO. 370 - Eliminates certain provisions regarding disposition of money received by agencies, departments and institutions of state. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED DO PASS S.B. 370. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 669 - Revises provisions relating to county roads, highways and bridges. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 669 BY DELETING SECTION 1 AND CAUSING SECTION TO READ "PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER DO NOT APPLY TO A COUNTY WHOSE POPULATION IS 100,000 OR MORE." AND DO PASS A.B. 669. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 9:40 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 June 8, 1995 Page