MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 14, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:14 a.m., on Wednesday, June 14, 1995, Chairman 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning Assemblyman John Carpenter Senator Dean Rhoads STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Di Grazia, City of West Wendover; Steve May, West Wendover Recreation Dept.; Roy Trenoweth, State Forester; Gene Williams, State Fire Marshal; Diane Davis, North Las Vegas Property Owners Improvement Association; Dick Carver, Nye County Commission; Janice Wright, Dept. Of Taxation; Tim McKoy, Black Jack Fireworks; Bill Vaeretti, Wisconsin Pyrotechnics Association; Karen Shepherd, City of West Wendover; Judy May, City of West Wendover; Walt Sanders, City of West Wendover ASSEMBLY BILL 694 - Makes various changes relating to regulation of fireworks. (BDR 42-1373) Assemblyman Chowning, prime sponsor of the bill, introduced A.B. 694. She represented an area in Clark County where many of the residents were seniors and families living in older homes with shake roofs and wooden fences, presenting an extreme fire hazard during the Fourth of July holiday. Roman candles that shoot balls of fire go into these people's yards and start their fences on fire causing great trauma, expense and sometimes even death. The Fourth of July is supposed to be a time of happiness and celebration and too many times this event is marred and turns into tragedy. The reason for this bill is to try to establish a state law to bring uniformity to the types of products that could be sold for the holiday; a safe and sane product. Every county and city could still establish their own regulations so non-profit organizations could still sell safe and sane fireworks to benefit their communities. Local ordinances would remain intact but the products sold would have to be approved by the State Fire Marshal. Some areas in Nevada have previously forbidden the sale of fireworks due to the danger involved. With the passage of this bill, those communities may now consider selling fireworks because the products would be safe. The Fire Marshal would make a list of items that were safe. Currently, there is no state law regarding fireworks in Nevada. The only other state that has no law is Hawaii. All the other states either ban them totally, allow any type or permit only safe and sane fireworks. Having a state law send a caring message to its citizens, Mrs. Chowning remarked. It says the state of Nevada is taking a stand for the safety of its communities and its people. Without a uniform law, the Fire Marshal is not able to publish a list of safe fireworks. If this law were passed, Mrs. Chowning envisioned an education program, public service announcements and training for fire officials so they truly know the difference between dangerous items and safe and sane fireworks. That type of firework is defined in the bill. The sale of wholesale fireworks would not change in any way because anyone purchasing fireworks in another state where they were legal, that item would be allowed. The purchaser would have to bear the responsibility. If a citizen of Nevada chooses to purchase an item that is shown to have caused all of the fires and injuries that have occurred, then they should be held responsible. This bill provides for a misdemeanor penalty and a fine up to $25,000. Although $25,000 is enough to get someone's attention, Mrs. Chowning pointed out, it is not the $300,000 cost of the fire that engulfed Peavine Ridge in Nevada last season or the expense to replace a home owner's residence. Year after year, there are fires caused by dangerous fireworks. Mrs. Chowning referred the committee to a packet of supporting materials in favor of A.B. 694 (Exhibit C). Assemblyman Tripple asked what would happen to fireworks put on by the city or in public displays that light up the whole sky? Mrs. Chowning said that would be in the individual city's jurisdiction and the Fire Marshal would elaborate on that. Ms. Tripple hoped people would not try to stop that type of display. No, Mrs. Chowning affirmed. Assemblyman Bennett favored a total ban on fireworks. He questioned whether the penalties specified in sections one and four were more in line with a gross misdemeanor or a simple misdemeanor and felt it should be amended to clarify it would be a gross misdemeanor with up to six months in prison and up to $25,000 bail. He said it was a technical problem. Mrs. Chowning said it would be within the purview of the committee to make that change. Currently it reads as a misdemeanor. Anything more than that would have to be approved by the Ways and Means Committee, would involve imprisonment and she honestly thought fines or restitution was a much more responsible path to take. She did not think putting people in prison made any sense. Mr. Bennett indicated whether the penalties specified in the bill exceeded what would be classified as a misdemeanor. Mrs. Lambert said they would check on that. Assemblyman Harrington said most of the fireworks sold in his neighborhood were from the Indian reservation; would this bill affect the sale of those items? Mrs. Chowning reiterated it would be a person's choice to purchase non-approved fireworks. The Indian reservation at least has an area designated for the discharge of fireworks. Assemblyman Williams questioned if banning the sale of certain items had been considered as a stronger deterrent than the misdemeanor penalty. Mr. Gene Williams, Acting State Fire Marshal, said the bill was directed at the authorization of the sale of safe fireworks to the general public. If most of the stands available allow only safe and sane fireworks to be sold, then there would be a limit to the danger right away. There are some areas where they cannot currently limit the sale of fireworks, for example the Indian reservations. Those facilities on Indian reservations in some states have been limited to the sale of safe and sane fireworks only because the state had a safe and sane law that was enacted and enforced. The first step is to have a criminal public safety law and enforce it. Assemblyman Freeman asked what kind of support Mrs. Chowning was getting from the law enforcement community. Mrs. Chowning told her she had total support from the law enforcement community and referred to letters of support in her exhibit packet (Exhibit C). Gene Williams discussed the mechanics of the bill at the request of Mrs. Chowning. He said the first section of the bill related to NRS Chapter 473 which is a fire protection district under the State Forester Fire Warden. Previously, on line 7, page one, it was illegal to set off fireworks, period. On the second page, line four, it sets parameters for fireworks. It does not specifically allow fireworks, but makes the State Forester Fire Warden review and determine whether or not he wants to issue a permit, but it does not require that he do so. On line 29 is the penalty clause which was designed to be a misdemeanor with a top end of a $25,000 fine. It leaves it up to the judge by saying "up to" $25,000. He did not think anyone would ever be fined that much. Mrs. Lambert interjected this was of particular interest to her as she had constituents in her district wanting information on the bill. She said the law that is currently in place works. The law requires if a person starts a fire they are required to pay for it which could amount to a lot more than $25,000. Mrs. Lambert did not see the need for this penalty clause. Mr. Williams said that was a restitution clause and he would be much more in favor of a restitution clause including the cost for disposal of fireworks that were taken into custody as opposed to a fine. Mrs. Lambert asked him to proceed with his explanation of the bill. Mr. Williams said section two for a 474 district, which is a district by election or county commission that has the authority to issue fireworks and fireworks permits, brings the restriction up that fireworks have to meet the criteria set by the State Fire Marshal. Section three, line 33b., the term "flammables and fireworks" has been eliminated and replaced with "fireworks for commercial display, and flammables". As previously noted, that was their licensing capabilities under NRS 470.033 and that is the control of those who put on public displays at casinos and other outdoor events. That is already a regulatory function of the Fire Marshal's office. Mrs. Lambert reiterated they were not taking away the ability to regulate the storage and use of all fireworks by doing this. No, Mr. Williams answered, they were not. That still comes under the prevention of fire under NRS 433.030 on line 32. This is to clarify the control of aerial displays. Section five says the counties who already have the authority to say yes or no to fireworks, if they say yes would have to meet the safe standards promoted by the State Fire Marshal's office. Section six would allow cities to do what they are already doing, and that is local regulation of fireworks within the city limits. Previously, there was no statutory authority for that. Mrs. Chowning added the cities of Boulder City, Henderson and Las Vegas all have their own regulations and ordinances as does Clark County. It was not the intention to take those ordinances away, but to support them and still allow the cities to have their own individuality. Ms. Tripple referred to page 3, line 33 and questioned what the word commercial meant. Mr. Williams told her the term was defined in the State Fire Marshal's regulations as being a public display in front of a body or for the purpose of theater or movies. That would consist of those fireworks used for casino's magic shows, rock bands at Lawlor Events Center and so on. Ms. Tripple remarked it was regardless if there was a price. It made no difference, Mr. Williams affirmed. Mr. Harrington referred to page four, lines 7 and 8, where it gives the Fire Marshal the ability to restrict any type of fireworks he wants, and queried whether that clause would enable him to prevent the use of any fireworks at all. Mr. Williams, as Acting State Fire Marshal, has approached both the fire service and fireworks communities and said they were in a position where their regulations set the minimum standard for the state and local authorities, but due to the extensive public hearing and legislative processes, it would be difficult to legislate fireworks out of existence in the state. Clark County, for example, already has a safe and sane fireworks list and they would be proponents of something that at least measured up to those current standards. Mr. Harrington said on line seven it says "he determines"; it does not say anything about the public hearing or legislative process. Mr. Williams referred him back to the previous page where it says on line 30 "except as otherwise provided in this section, the state fire Marshal shall enforce all laws and adopt regulations relating to:" and then on to line 3(f) on page four "the types of fireworks which local governments may authorize...". This requires they do this by standard regulation and meet all processes which includes public hearings. It is not an arbitrary decision on the part of the State Fire Marshal. Mr. Harrington wanted to see that more clearly stated in the bill. Mrs. Lambert would check with the bill drafters for clarification. Mrs. Chowning added in 1976 there was a fire Marshal who came out with a regulation banning all fireworks in the state of Nevada. Needless to say, the protest was immense from every part of the state and the decision was rescinded. Diane Davis, President of the North Las Vegas Property Owners Improvement Association, spoke in favor of the bill. The association was responsible for the clean-up of parks and city property such as baseball diamonds, elimination of graffiti and so on. They have a program for handicapped and senior property owners to provide repair of their homes at no cost. As a taxpayer, Ms. Davis stated, she was concerned about the expense brought on every year by the explosion of dangerous fireworks. She understood the revenue to the state was less than $10,000 per year whereas the cost of fighting fire caused by dangerous fireworks runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It did not make sense to let this continue with no regulation whatsoever when the cost exceeded the income from the sale of these fireworks. As a member of a nonprofit organization that earns most of its funds by selling safe and sane fireworks, Ms. Davis was concerned most reports of fires and damage caused by fireworks did not separate which ones were caused by dangerous fireworks versus safe and sane fireworks. As a result of this, people are given the impression that all fireworks present the same danger. This hurts the sales of safe and sane fireworks and fuels the move to outlaw fireworks totally. She would hate to see this happen as Independence Day as we know it would not exist. Ms. Davis had one regret selling safe and sane fireworks. Every Fourth of July, she spends the day in a booth which leaves her home unguarded in an area where dangerous fireworks are discharged. Each year, she finds scorch marks on her roof where bottle rockets have landed and smoldered until they went out. One year, she was extremely alarmed to find one-third of her yard and fence burnt from fireworks landing in her yard. Fortunately, her neighbors called the fire department before her house caught on fire. Ms. Davis was present with the hope of making a difference. She told the committee if they passed this bill, come next election time they would know they had made a difference to those in neighborhoods with shake shingle roofs. Ms. Davis showed a copy of the Nye County monthly which said "have a safe and sane Fourth of July". It was ironic, she iterated, that the county known for selling the most dangerous fireworks would advertise to have a safe holiday. The reason for it, she said, was those who purchase these dangerous fireworks were required to sign a statement they would take them out of Nye County and shoot them off elsewhere. If they are too dangerous to discharge in their own county, then why were they selling them? The Indian reservation also sells explosive fireworks, but they do not promote taking them somewhere else to fire them. They provide a place to shoot them off and do not encourage taking them to another locale. Ms. Davis urged passage of the bill. Bill Vaeretti, Wisconsin Pyrotechnics Association, stated the bill as proposed would create uniformity throughout the state and create opportunities for cities and towns to have safe and sane fireworks they currently do not have. He was against the bill, however, and proceeded to show the committee why. One of the greatest problems in Clark County was dangerous fireworks coming from Indian reservations. Although they are sold in other places such as Nye County, the extensive publicity given to the sale of fireworks on Indian reservations generates over half a million dollars in revenue each year. Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done at the state level to control what is done on the Indian reservations. Currently, the regulation in Nevada is done on a county by county designation. If the new legislation is passed, it would create more problems. He said this bill did not control fireworks but fragmented the law, creating a bad situation for firemen and law enforcement agencies because every city and town would have its own law. A proliferation of different laws in neighboring cities would create more confusion. Mr. Vaeretti addressed some of the mechanics of the bill. He indicated A.B. 694 would turn over the power to determine what is dangerous to the State Fire Marshal. Currently, on a federal level, Consumer Product Safety and U.S. Customs test products that come into the United States. He questioned what would happen with this bill; would the State Fire Marshal set up a lab to test these materials that were already being tested at the federal level? At what cost? Mr. Vaeretti also mentioned if a new State Fire Marshal came into office who loved fireworks, the definition of dangerous could be completely changed. He felt there were real workability problems with the way the bill was written. Mr. Vaeretti mentioned sparklers as being one of the most dangerous types of fireworks. A sparkler burns at about 1200 to 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. Most injuries and damage to shake roofs come from sparklers, he emphasized. Many areas have banned the sparkler. There is nothing in this bill to outlaw sparklers. He said safe and sane fireworks can cause problems just as much as dangerous ones. He felt the bill created a lot of confusion. He felt Nevada had uniformity on a county level and this bill would not be consistent with that uniformity. It would not solve any problems and he urged serious consideration prior to its passage. Assemblyman Segerblom queried if he was suggesting they make a state law. Mr. Vaeretti replied this would be a state law, but it would allow too much flexibility on a local level. Mrs. Segerblom suggested they make a state law prohibiting the cities and counties from making their own laws. Mr. Vaeretti responded the counties would argue that because they would like to retain their power in that area, but it would provide more uniformity on the state level if the options were eliminated at the lower levels. Roy Trenoweth, State Forester, was not opposed to the bill. He indicated there would be no negative impact on their fire district. He wanted the 473 district amendment put back into the bill to eliminate the need for a list of safe and sane fireworks and it would not affect the bill at all. It would make him a lot more comfortable. Mrs. Lambert agreed with him. She said it was too bad that even though fireworks were banned in some areas, people used them anyway and a lot of damage and trouble were caused. Dick Carver, Nye County Commission, was in opposition to the bill. He passed out a copy of the Nye County fireworks ordinance showing they have banned fireworks (Exhibit D). He said the reason they have continued to allow the sale of fireworks by two distributors in Nye County was they were in business and did not want to disenfranchise them. They also realized people were going to buy them no matter what, so they banned their discharge and continued to permit their sale. Mr. Carver had a problem with constitutional jurisdiction and mentioned Nye County was currently involved in a lawsuit over that issue. He stated the constitution says the Legislature shall not pass local or special laws in regulating county or township business. He felt the regulation of fireworks was county business and they should look out for themselves in that regard. Another concern of Mr. Carver's was the section about the Code of Federal Regulations on page four of the bill. He said there were 26 feet of the Code and they do not necessarily conform to the Constitution of the United States of America. He said the regulation referred to in the bill did not have anything to do with fireworks and was unconstitutional. Mr. Carver did not think it would be appropriate to base a Nevada law on something that was unconstitutional. Mr. Carver indicated Nye County was benefitted by the sale of fireworks because they employed local residents and paid sales tax and a yearly fee to stay in business. On page two of the bill, Mr. Carver pointed out the hefty fine and jail term constituted an unfunded mandate. He said Nye County was currently building a new courthouse and jail which was 95% complete and they did not want to fill it up on the Fourth of July with people arrested for setting off fireworks. Another concern of Mr. Carver's was the creation of a bureaucracy in the Fire Marshal's office. He said it takes months to get something passed through there as it is and as elected officials, they do not govern the people in their counties; the federal and state appointed bureaucrats do. Tim McKoy, representing Black Jack Fireworks, told the committee the Indian reservations sell fireworks of all types and some of those are not tested. Mr. McKoy said all the fireworks he imported from China were all tested and had regulations and standards on their performance. If an item does not pass his or the Consumer Product Safety Commission's tests, the item gets sent back to China. His main concern with the bill was the lack of oversight of the Indian reservations and the fact they are allowed to sell anything they want. He was neutral on the bill and would be in the safe and sane business if the bill passed. Assemblyman Nolan questioned if there were any manufacturers of unsafe fireworks in the United States or were they regulated out. Mr. McKoy replied dangerous fireworks were items that shot up in the air or spun around letting sparks fly. Some so-called safe and sane products currently on the market and sold at large were also considered dangerous. It was an area that called for a lot of clarification. Mrs. Segerblom asked Mr. McKoy who he worked for. Mr. McKoy replied Black Jack Fireworks. Mrs. Segerblom thought he worked for the state. Mr. McKoy said he tested imported products for the Consumer Product Safety Commission; perhaps that had been confusing. Mark Balen, representing professional firefighters in the state, told the committee there were no safe fireworks. He said anything that could be done to ban fireworks and their use would be a benefit to the state. Mr. Balen illustrated if the folks on the committee could be firefighters in Las Vegas during the Fourth of July weekend, they would understand the fire department's concerns. Beginning in the early evening until approximately midnight, there are no fire engines available for emergency calls because they are all out answering fire alarms caused by fireworks. All fireworks cause fires; whether safe and sane or not. Mr. Harrington reiterated he wanted to see all fireworks banned if possible. Absolutely, Mr. Balen confirmed. Mr. Harrington questioned whether the power given to the Fire Marshal to determine what types of fireworks were allowed would be used to ban fireworks completely. Mr. Balen indicated the fire department would support any type of ban on fireworks if that was the Fire Marshal's decision. Mr. Harrington had mixed feelings on the bill because as a doctor, he worked with burn patients at the hospital over the Fourth of July weekend. He also advocated personal freedom as well and felt the bill needed more modification prior to its passage. Mr. Balen described the view from the top of any of Las Vegas' casino skyscrapers on the Fourth of July and likened it to a war zone. The rockets, roman candles and every sort of projectile firework available lit up the sky; these were not professional pyrotechnic displays either. Chairman Lambert closed the meeting on A.B. 694. ASSEMBLY BILL 696 - Revises provisions relating to collection of certain license taxes levied by county in newly incorporated cities or towns. (BDR 21-2037) Gary Di Grazia, representing the West Wendover Recreation District and the city itself, did not think the bill as drafted really addressed the two purposes for the original request of the bill. Consequently, he provided the proposed revisions to the bill in the attempt to achieve the measure's twofold purpose. Mrs. Lambert asked him what those two original purposes were. Mr. Di Grazia stated the West Wendover Recreation District was created in 1984. It is co-terminus with the city boundaries and is charged with all recreational activities in the city of West Wendover. For its bonding funding before the city was incorporated, 9% of the room tax monies were pledged to the West Wendover Recreation District for the purpose of assisting additional security for bonding and funding. NRS 268.460 currently says is when the city of West Wendover becomes incorporated, the county has an obligation to continue the imposition of that room tax revenue until the existing indebtedness ends. The change would accomplish two things: 1. To add the words "or such other party as the county may designate" so once the city is incorporated it would be their responsibility to collect the room tax and conducting the activities. 2. To add the sentence "following such incorporation, if the entity responsible for payment of the bonds or other obligations for which the license tax was pledged causes additional bonds or other obligations to be issued, they may also be secured by a pledge of the proceeds of such license tax which shall continue to be levied and which shall be collected by the incorporated city or town provided that the rate of such tax may not be increased following such incorporation without the consent of such city or town" (Exhibit E). What is currently happening is the Wendover Recreation District is limited to its existing bond and cannot do anything else. They are requesting the same pledge for room tax revenues that existed at the time of the incorporation will continue to be used for existing bond indebtedness. He also mentioned the city of West Wendover had submitted the minutes from their city council meeting reflecting their support of the bill (Exhibit F). Mrs. de Braga queried whether Wendover was actually located in two states. No, Mr. Di Grazia corrected. He said West Wendover was in Nevada and Wendover itself was in Utah. Mrs. de Braga asked if the schools were all in one town or the other. No, they are not, Mr. Di Grazia replied. How are school districts and taxes regulated when the area is abutted the way it is. Mr. Di Grazia said the school districts were separate. There were a lot of governmental interlocal agreements between the two cities via NRS 277 concerning interlocal agreements. They are two different cities and states. Mrs. Lambert questioned why the city did not incorporate the recreation district in the first place. Mr. Di Grazia told her the issue came up because of statutes indicating where the incorporation occurs and is co-terminus, the board of county commissioners can cause that to occur. Substantial hearings took place on that issue and it was decided it was in the best interest of the city to keep the two entities separate. Mrs. Lambert asked what chapter the recreation district was formed in. Chapter 318, Mr. Di Grazia replied. So you have a general improvement district inside your city, Mrs. Lambert concluded. Exactly right, Mr. Di Grazia affirmed. Well, you are unique, said Mrs. Lambert. Steve May, Secretary/Treasurer of the West Wendover Recreation District, mentioned the district's responsibilities were focused on recreation development and they did not have the concerns and demands the city typically has in providing infrastructure. All efforts were concentrated on providing and maintaining the excellent recreational facilities in the town. This has stimulated the economy in West Wendover by offering more attractions for destination visitors. Mayor Walt Sanders from West Wendover reiterated some of the previous comments and also indicated their full support of A.B. 696. The city feels they have their hands full keeping up with their rapid growth. With the help of the recreation district they can continue to provide essential services. They do not feel the city has the ability to take on the responsibility that the recreation district now assumes. Mrs. Lambert was unclear as to whether the pledged room tax rate was 9% of the county room tax revenues or 9% of the city room tax revenues. Mr. May responded they were county before they were incorporated now they were city imposed. Mrs. Lambert confirmed they came from the hotels in West Wendover, not the whole county of Elko. That was correct, Mr. May stated. Mrs. Segerblom queried if any of their room taxes went to the Elko County Convention and Visitors Authority. Yes, in the sense the 1% that is a statutory requirement. Nine percent goes to the Wendover Recreation District and the one percent goes to the county/state fund. Assemblyman John Carpenter had requested A.B. 696 on behalf of the Wendover Recreation District. There were some amendments to the bill offered by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority which Mr. Carpenter indicated were compatible (Exhibit G), as expressed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. As far as A.B. 703, which was yet to be heard, Mr. Carpenter felt it covered the problem with regard to vacancies which may occur in certain city offices. Tom Scanke, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (CVA), referred to the amendments proposed for A.B. 696 (Exhibit G). He said the amendment would allow the CVA to continue to collect room taxes if there are no outside bond obligations. Mr. Scanke mentioned the language was drafted by John Swendseid of the bond counsel and it would clean up some of the language in the bill and allow the CVA to continue to operate. Mrs. Lambert assumed all language in the bill referring to counties with population of 600,000 or more would be changed to 400,000. Yes, that would be fine, Mr. Scanke agreed. ASSEMBLY BILL 703 - Revises provisions relating to vacancies in certain city offices. (BDR 21-516) Gary Di Grazia said A.B. 703 was a very specific statute because it only addressed the six NRS 266 cities in Nevada. There were two obvious aspects to the bill. When there is a vacancy in the office of mayor or city councilman, the wording of the statute speaks of the next general election, which does not mean exactly that. It means the appointee stays in office until the next general election for the term he was appointed to serve. This measure will simply clarify the statute. A 266 city has to change its ward boundaries on a regular basis due to population growth to try to keep the population in the wards relatively similar in number. The effect of that is it takes away the residency of an elected official if his boundary is changed. The result of that is NRS 238 says if that member ceases to be a member of the ward to which he or she was elected, they can no longer be a council person. Mr. Di Grazia said it was inappropriate to mandate these ward changes, involuntarily placing an incumbent in another ward. They should be allowed to remain in office until the expiration of his or her term. Mr. Bache clarified the contents of section one, allowing a city councilman to complete his or her term in office. Mr. Di Grazia told Mr. Bache his understanding of the section was correct. Mrs. Segerblom questioned whether this would affect cities that were not divided into wards. Mr. Di Grazia responded it only affected cities under NRS 266. Mayor Walt Sanders, West Wendover, advised the committee they had spoken to various other 266 cities and had copies from two of those cities (Exhibit H) indicating they had no objections to the revisions of the bill. He also said due to the rapid growth and adjustment of ward boundaries, some of their council members have been displaced and have to live in neighboring Wendover, Utah. If the measure is passed, at least those elected officials who are in office can remain there until the next general election. Mrs. Lambert pointed out one could not be an elected official of Nevada and live in Utah. Mr. Sanders said that was not their intent. They wanted to be sure an elected council member could remain in office until the expiration of his or her term. Mrs. Lambert questioned if the current council members could be kept in their own wards once the boundaries were adjusted. Mr. Sanders replied it was not impossible, but very difficult to do. The ward boundaries must be as close to equal population and definitive boundaries as possible. No gerrymandering is allowed. Mrs. de Braga wondered what the reasoning was for allowing someone who was not elected to stay in office for a longer period of time. Mr. Sanders responded the rationale was twofold. First, there was an attempt being made to be consistent with the Supreme Court decision on the issue and second, there have been many resignations and changes in positions and this would simplify some of the attendant problems. Mrs. de Braga asked him if he felt this situation was unique to Wendover rather than a general problem. Mr. Sanders answered it was probably not unique to Wendover. If they were involved in looking at the whole statutory scheme, it would probably be appropriate in remaining consistent with the Supreme Court decision. Mr. Bennett wanted to make sure Mr. Sanders had received a positive response from the other affected 266 cities. Mr. Sanders told Mr. Bennett they had talked to individuals in Ely, Fallon, Winnemucca, Lovelock and Mesquite and they had no objections. Mrs. Lambert asked Mr. Sanders what Supreme Court case mentioned the general election time frame. Mr. Sanders replied it was Grant and McNamee, number 60 Nevada 250, 1940. Karen Shepherd, City Clerk for the City of West Wendover, clarified the other 266 cities provided verbal support and written support when they were able. At this time, she said it was a toss-up on how the cities were interpreting the statute. The purpose of the measure is to maintain an experienced council and a consistent election period between offices. She supported the bill as it would make it easier to maintain consistency in the city council. Mrs. Lambert questioned if wards were required or could candidates be elected on a city-wide basis. Ms. Shepherd replied they could be elected at large. West Wendover just went to five wards in the 1993 election. Mrs. Lambert remarked if the requirement would remain for ward residency if there were city-wide elections; could the wards be eliminated? Ms. Shepherd would check into that. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 703. SENATE BILL 535 - Requires certain appointments by governor to be confirmed by senate. (BDR 18-1415) Senator Dean Rhoads said the bill requires confirmation of governmental appointments by both the Assembly and the Senate. This would involve 23 specific positions in the executive budget. This bill would also include members of the Parole Board. Nevada is one of only five states that does not have some type of confirmation for appointees. Thirty nine states require confirmation by the Senate, four other states require confirmation by both houses and two require confirmation by their Governor's Council. Only Nevada, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee have no confirmation process (Exhibit I). This bill would allow a joint meeting of the standing committees of both houses with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appointment. Upon joint approval, it would then go to the Senate for the final confirmation. The person the Governor appoints would serve as "acting" until the next Legislative session when confirmation could be reached. Mr. Rhoads quoted from NRS 223.190: "At the earliest day practicable, the governor shall lay before the Legislature a statement of all appointments made by him to fill vacancies in office since the preceding session." From 1861-1961, the Governor reported the information to the Legislature every two years, Mr. Rhoads stated. Since then, both republic and democratic governors have ignored this statute. The Governor appoints over 700 people. Mr. Rhoads believed the Legislature had a right to know who these appointees are. The statute adopted in 1866 says the following about the governor's appointments in NRS 283.080: "whenever a vacancy shall occur during a recess of the Legislature, and any office which the Legislature is authorized to fill be election or which the governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate, is authorized to fill, the governor, unless it is otherwise specifically provided, may appoint some suitable person to perform the duties of such office." Evidently, Mr. Rhoads indicated, our founding fathers must have felt the appointment powers would soon come and was never attained. This bill is a check against the use of political favoritism or poor judgement in the appointment of persons who may be unqualified to manage the business of the state. This legislation is not a criticism of the past or current governors, but a criticism of the system. It allows checks and balances that are working well in 45 other states and would be good for the public. Mr. Harrington was concerned with the brevity of the legislative sessions and wondered how long these appointment deliberations would take. Senator Rhoads mentioned this process would probably take place at the beginning of the session when there is not very much to do so he did not see a problem with a time crunch. Mr. Harrington felt this diffused the responsibility as to who is responsible for the appointment of these people. He did feel the lines of responsibility needed to be delineated so people will know who to blame when something goes awry. He said the confirmation process would be nice to prevent favoritism and such things from occurring. Mr. Harrington asked Mr. Rhoads if he saw any problems with favoritism while in office. Senator Rhoads said definitely; even this session. Mr. Bache questioned if a person was appointed knowing he could be removed after 18 months, why would they want to serve in the first place? Mr. Rhoads indicated it would probably be a twelve month or less wait until they were confirmed and the person would not be likely to lose their appointment. Mr. Bache asked why the Administrator of the Division of Wildlife was the only one listed. Mr. Rhoads answered the original bill, which was brought out three sessions ago, had all the major government appointees in it and he could see trouble getting it through the Senate. After talking to a lot of people, key positions were removed in order to obtain a reasonable number of positions. Mr. Bache pointed out Mr. Molini was the only administrator listed and thought perhaps this was a shot at him in particular. It is no different in other states, Mr. Rhoads replied. In Oregon, for instance, once a month during the interim, members of the Legislature come in to review governmental appointments. Mr. Bennett questioned why a simple revision to the NRS was not made instead of using a Nevada Constitutional change. Mr. Rhoads said would you rather see this go to a constitutional process or change the NRS? Mr. Bennett responded when the NRS is changed, it is left open to change every time. Mr. Bennett would rather see it as a house joint resolution. That is a good idea, Mr. Rhoads agreed. Maybe we should process this bill and then go to a joint resolution and get it in place. It would not go to the voters until 1999 and it is needed now. Mrs. de Braga understood an appointment would first be reviewed by the standing committee and then make their recommendation. Yes, Mr. Rhoads responded. They would have a hearing, ask questions, respond and then vote. Both sides would have to pass it on an individual committee basis. Ms. Tripple was unclear on the role of the Senate and the role of the Assembly. It seems it all relies on the Senate. Mr. Rhoads told her most states only have the Senate review these appointments; that has been customary. This bill would allow the Assembly committee that has jurisdiction to meet jointly with their Senate counterpart to confer on the appointments. The Senate would vote for it on the full floor. Mr. Rhoads felt almost 100% of the recommendations from the joint committees would be accepted and the final Senate vote would be more protocol than anything. Mr. Harrington queried the Governor's attitude on this measure. Mr. Rhoads replied two years ago, he vetoed a similar bill. It is something he will have to live with as the general public would respond favorably to a checks and balances system. Mr. Rhoads said if he were Governor, he would want to have someone else responsible for his appointments; it was good legislation. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, indicated their support of the bill. They advocated the checks and balances system for governmental appointees. She said it was important to have representation from both houses. Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 535. Mr. Bache had some amendments to A.B. 9 (Exhibit J). Mrs. Lambert wanted to allow 24 hours for the committee members to peruse the amendments and the vote would be taken another day. Mr. Bache spoke about the amendments to A.B. 9. He had discussed them with all concerned and they were acceptable. Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 10:24 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 14, 1995 Page