MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 26, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:30 a.m., on Monday, June 26, 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 Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Dennis Nolan STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller; Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Hadfield; NACO, Jim Regan; Churchill County, Margaret Lamther; Storey County; Doreen Bacus; Storey County, Eric Cooper; NSCA, Dick Gammick; Washoe County District Attorney, E. Michael Turnipseed; State Engineer, Wade D. Lieseke; Nye County Sheriff, Bill Berrum; Washoe County Treasurer; Ben Graham; Nevada D.A. Association, Bill Bartlett; Churchill County, Kevin Pasquale; Churchill County District Attorney, Alan Glover; Carson City Clerk/Recorder, Al Kramer; Carson City Treasurer, Noel Waters; Carson City District Attorney, Naomi Duerr; State Water Planner, Joe Johnson; Citizen. SENATE BILL NO. 84- Increases compensation of various public officers. (BDR 20-1078) Bob Erickson, Research Director of the LCB, testified that during the last interim he served as the technical staff for the independent commission to review the salaries of elected state and local officers. In 1993 they created this commission made up of non-governmental persons to look at the salaries of local governments and state elected officials. That commission brought its recommendations back to this session. One of the measures recommended from that commission is S.B. 84. He stated the changes made in the bill were as follows. There are salary adjustments of the various county officers set forth in the Constitution. The last time any of these officials had their salaries increased was in January of 1990. On page three the increase by official is based on the CPI from the last time those salaries were increased untill the effective date of this act, which is July 1, 1995. The CPI increase is 20%. A couple of the counties are in different categories, resulting in six counties instead of five. The classes are set up based upon population and assessed evaluation of property per county. This is to provide a classification of salaries of officials based on how big the county is. Section 3, page 4 is a provision which currently provides for longevity adjustments of 1% per year up to a maximum of 20%. The salary commission recommended that percentage increase on annual basis be at 2%, but the cap would be 20% of the base salary once the person was eligible. Eligibility was changed to make sure that once the officer had enough time in office, that being in their fifth year, that longevity pay would be awarded on an annual basis. Section 4 of the bill allows the district attorneys in Esmeralda and Storey County to have private practice. Mr. Bennett asked for a clarification of class 6. Bob Erickson replied he thought the other officers of Storey County have made more than the counterpart officers in Esmeralda County, except for the district attorney position. He stated there was a difference and he would have to do further research. Mr. Bennett stated that Storey County tracks a five county. Is this due to the population. Mr. Erickson replied the main reason it is in a class 6 is to allow the district attorney to maintain a private practice, and the salaries are lower than the others. Mr. Bob Hadfield, NACO, testified this measure has been a long time in the working. For the benefit of the new members of the legislature, prior to the late 1970's there was no uniform system to address the setting of county elected official's salaries. It was done on an individualized county by county basis depending upon your relationship with your legislator. Your legislator would put a bill in to increase county salaries. Senator Gibson, among others in the 1970's, decided it be more appropriate to have a uniform system of addressing the issue of county elected official salaries and this was when the system of class county was established. Work began two years prior to the 1993 session and they have worked the last four years with the seventeen Nevada counties, and the various organizations that represent the county elected officials to come up with a fair and reasonable increase in compensation. Historically the legislature has not addressed county elected official's salaries on a session by session basis. This is something they would prefer. Normally a period of years go by, this time it has been six years since the last consideration of salaries. The increase takes into consideration not only the period since their last increase but also the future consideration. They worked very closely with the salary commission who issued a report to the legislature on the salaries of certain county elected officials. He pointed out that the salary commission recommendation was a 25% increase in salaries. The bill is only asking for a 20% increase. They worked with the Senate committee and looked at the research on the CPI over the period of time since the last increase. They also paid attention to the private sector salaries during the same time. The private sector salaries have increased 20.5% over the same period of time. They were careful to note what was happening with the economy of the state of Nevada and the jurisdictions they represent. It calls for a full 5% less than the commission had recommended. Mr. Hadfield explained that several years ago in conjunction with the first salary commission, they did a study of all the counties to see if the population and assessed evaluation had any relationship to county workload. They were unable to find a better way. Assessed evaluation and population does have a strong relationship to the workload of the offices that they are talking about. The bill does propose changes in the classification system. He stated the reason Storey County was classed as a six, was because they wanted to maintain the ability of their District Attorney to have a private practice. Otherwise they would have remained a class five county. He stated they are here in behalf of Nevada's counties asking the committee to support the recommendations of the salary commission which recommended that the longevity pay go from 1% to 2% to make it consistent with district court judges. He noted they did not change the cap, which is at 20%. In order to receive the benefit of this increase, you have to be re-elected and have to serve more than one term in office. In conclusion he surmised these are the policy setters who are accountable to the people for their actions, and urged the committee's approval. See (Exhibit C). Mr. Bennett asked if someone who has served ten years can be compensated 20% over their base salary. Mr. Hadfield replied "yes," it would be 20% over the base salary, and the longevity after the first four years. Mrs. de Braga asked if the counties have included these increases in their budgets this year. Mr.Hadfield replied "yes," it is budgeted in seventeen county budgets. The counties are fully aware of it and are prepared to address the implementation of the measure. Mr. Neighbors stated he represents four counties and did not recall hearing from Esmeralda County. He asked what was the thinking on Esmeralda County. Mr. Hadfield replied during the work process with the salary commission they had communication with all the counties and asked them to verify the individual positions in the classifications and to bring to their attention any problems or difficulties they may have. Initially, Esmeralda made no comments, and then later on they agreed they were appropriately placed in the schedule. Chairman Lambert mentioned she had received letters from Lincoln County stating this bill was an unfunded mandate and they did not want it passed. She asked if there was any discussion about dropping them to a class six so that their increases would not be quite as onerous. Mr. Hadfield stated this does not qualify as an unfunded mandate under the ballot measure that the association of counties presented to the public and received 84% statewide approval on. They are here on behalf of counties asking for this. With Lincoln County, in 1989 when this was last addressed, Lincoln County was dropped down a class. This measure restores them back to that position where they were before. Lincoln County was on record supporting this measure. They would oppose not keeping the integrity of this schedule. Lincoln County is a perfect example of what happens when you do not maintain the integrity of a schedule. They have done their best to identify the workload indicators and to keep to the system and make the adjustments working with those counties and the adjustments in the bill were the adjustments requested and verified in working with all the counties. Mr. Neighbors recalled he was at that meeting. Lincoln County asked to be stepped lower. Mr. Hadfield stated during the last week of the session they directed their district attorney to request they not be included at that time because of financial hardship. Mr. Hadfield emphasized with the absence of a classification system for counties they have no basis other than individual, county, and political politics to address this issue and they feel that would be unfair to the officials statewide. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the counties would have to raise the salaries if they do not have the money. Mr. Hadfield replied this salary increase would be required of the counties, it is not an option. He was advised early on that the salaries were in the budget for Lincoln County for the coming year and he has not been advised otherwise. Mrs. Segerblom asked if maybe the Constitution should be changed and the counties raise their own. Mr. Hadfield replied it was the topic of discussion on the Senate side. It was also a topic of discussion for the commission to review compensation of certain elected public officials. It was the recommendation of a previous salary commission that the changing of the Constitution be looked at, however nothing came of it. He said this is an item they would be willing to work on if the Legislature chooses to do that. They are attempting to focus on the "now." Jim Regan, Churchill County Commissioner, testified they have an excellent group of elected officials. The concern is to keep them. It is a full time job, and he pools the employees who he thinks would be the heir apparent to those positions if the incumbents left or did not run for re-election. In all cases the heir apparent stated they would not run for office because in some cases they made as much or more money than the position offered. He has had elected officials being offered more money for different positions. He stated by getting this pay increase they would get better people to run for these positions. Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, spoke in behalf of Nevada's seventeen sheriffs who are unanimous in support of this bill. All upper staff make more money than the sheriff does. This is the case in the majority of the counties throughout the state. Many of the subordinates under the sheriff do not want that position due to the amount of pay and they would lose money. The sheriffs are professional CEOs and should be compensated at a level commensurate with the responsibilities. Ben Graham, on behalf of the District Attorneys, spoke in support of this bill. He asked the committee to consider what the private sector is receiving compared to what they are now receiving. He stated there are ten new district attorneys to the state. He stated they need this raise to keep qualified people in these positions. Richard A. Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney, gave the committee a reflection of the Washoe County Employees Association, and it is close to the federal cost of living index. (Exhibit D). Currently he has two attorneys in his office that make more money than him. Within the next year that number will increase to nine. Two years from now there will be probably a dozen people making more than him. He stated he is asking for fairness to get the salaries adjusted where they should be. Sheriff Dick Kirkland, Washoe County, re-emphasized what Eric Cooper stated. He did not run for sheriff because of the money. He is concerned about the future. He stated there are three levels in his organization making more money than him. He took a thirteen thousand dollar cut in salary when he took this position. If they are going to continue to solicit competitively good people for these jobs the salary must be fair and equitable. Bill Berrum, Washoe County Treasurer stated the results of the commission and what is before the committee will put them on a par with the department heads. There is a large gap between the elected and appointed officials. Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk/Recorder read a resolution to the committee. (Exhibit E). Mr. Neighbors asked if the chair would accept a motion. Chairman Lambert stated there were not enough members present. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 84. Chairman Lambert stated they had received a conflict notice on A.B. 52. Mr. Neighbors stated he thought they should concur on it. Assemblyman Krenzer asked if the Senate sends over amendments will they be distributed to the whole committee on the floor. Chairman Lambert stated they are automatically distributed to the floor when the bill is reported back from the Senate. Assemblyman Krenzer asked if it was distributed to all members of the committee. Chairman Lambert replied they were distributed to everyone in the Assembly and they need input from the members since they will not be meeting. Mr. Bache interjected that they need all "eyes" of the committee to peruse the amendments to check for any mistakes. SENATE BILL NO. 489- Provides for comprehensive planning and management of water in certain counties. (BDR 48-1025) Sam McMullen, representing a water planning coalition for Washoe County, including City of Reno, City of Sparks, Washoe County, and Sierra Pacific Water Utility, stated this is a product of many years of concerns and issues. All members have a fundamental working agreement of the four parties which has been put in a memorandum of understanding as of last October. S.B. 489 is significantly different in the First Reprint than it was in its original form. He then went through the bill. He stated this is a very important bill for Washoe County. This bill will put them into a comprehensive water plan within the next two years. The context of the bill is the repeal of a special law and putting into statute as general law a bill that relates only to Washoe County by population distinction and only to the effort for water planning. He then went through the bill section by section. Section 1 is an amendment of Title 48 by adding a new chapter. Section 2 would only apply to Washoe County. Section 3 defines terms. Section 4 defines region. Eliminates Tahoe Regional Planning and Indian reservations. Section 5 allows removal of remote areas or their inapplicability to a water planning effort. Subsection 2 allows them to add back in areas for flood control. Section 6 requires a two-thirds vote for the board to act on any aspect of the bill. Section 7 has one funding source, 3% on the water bill charged by the supplier of water and put on their bill. They consider it a $14.40 increase for one year. Section 8 was deleted. Section 9 is about the powers of the board. Section 10 relates to voting members. Section 11 relates to non-voting members. There was a distinction made between the two because there are many entities in the state who have regulatory authority or jurisdiction that they would need to exercise at some point. Voting members will be nine. They started out with seven but now have added two. They are generally for summarization of a lot of water interests. Line 48(h) they want an amendment request. They asked originally for it to say one member of the public at large chosen by the governing board, to represent environmental, conservation and biological and other public concerns. They would like to see this amendment re-instituted. Line 48(I) is fundamentally to cover agricultural interests. It extends to well owners, and surface water right owners. He mentioned the nine members will be staggered with a two, three and four year term. Thereafter they will have a three year term. The non-voting members involve the office of the Consumer Advocate, the PSC, State Water Engineer, State Water Planner. They clearly want to make sure there are agricultural, environmental interests, and domestic well owners represented. Section 12 provides for a chairman. Section 13 is trying to create a non political board. Section 14 discusses the meetings and quorum. Section 15 is the key portions of the planning requirements. Section 16 is a list of the types of elements included in the plan. Section 17 deals with the water plan in conformity with the regional plan. On line 46 there is a negotiated settlement relating to the Truckee River. This is a clear representation within the law which they must be consistent with. The plan must be consistent with the state water plan. Section 18 is an effort to make sure they are looking at all interested parties who may have information or interests in water planning, usage and supply. Section 19 relates to the planning commission and their requirement to hold public hearings and the notice requirements thereof. Section 20 relates to the submission of the plan to the board. Public inspection. Section 21 is a specific section wherein the board will not be able to automatically or unilaterally change the plan unless or until it has been re-referred to the water planning commission, whose technically based body is to adjust the plan and adapt it to the comments made by the board and re-synthesize it to a technically sound plan. Sections 22 and 23 provide for the conformance review process through regional planning. Section 24 says the initial plan would be five years, with it being a rolling three year plan after that. Major components to be reviewed and revised every year. Section 25 is language to define facilities as they are differentiated in the underlying agreement. Section 26 is recognition that conservation be continued to be addressed with new methods and new exploration. Section 27 is a recognition that water rights may be obtained for use in the future. Section 28 was deleted. It allowed for the creation of discretionary replenishment or re-mediation districts. Replenishment districts are for the protection of the quantity of groundwater. Re-mediation are protection districts for quality or cleanup of groundwater. It also allowed for the possibility for registration fee on wells for replenishment or septic tank registration fee. These were deleted from the bill. Sections 29 through 32 provide provisions related to re-mediation districts for the purpose of creating an automatic cleanup district. There will be a re-mediation plan which must be approved by the division of MDP. Page 10, number 30 states if a condition was not contaminated by a person or was not contributed to by a person, the obligation would be to comply with the re- mediation plan and the assessments, and if done, the person would no longer have any liability. NRS 271 compliance, responsibility for groundwater. Section 31 allows reimbursement for helping re-mediation prior to the district being created will also create a clear recognition by statute that any funds recovered against the party who caused the problem, would be credited against the assessment and go to reducing the cost of the re-mediation for the district. Section 31.5 is a recognition that there is currently in law under NRS Chapter 541 an opportunity for a county by county creation of a subconservancy district. Under this law is a second opportunity to create a subconservancy. This would allow larger counties to control and do specific things to their county. This is done by ordinance to be adopted by super majority vote. A conservancy district by law is given authority of up to ten cents on the property tax to utilize based on its budgeting for construction and implementation of projects. Subconservancy districts would have the same opportunities. In the implementation of such a plan they will need to look at facilities, build them, do improvements, and this is already in the law it could be adapted for use for this bill. Section 32 is a recognition that authorizes language for the board to sell or lease to the utility their county water utilities. There have been discussions for the potential sale of the county utilities because of other legal or practical restrictions which is not envisioned at this time. This is basic operating language to work on operating agreements. Section 32.5 are the interim operating rules by which retail water service will be defined forever by an agreement between Sierra Pacific and Washoe County. Section 33 is a provision for wholesale service of water. This was language agreed to by all parties. The utility will provide wholesale service except for some facilities that the county already has in place or agreed to be put in place or if there is an economical way for Sierra Pacific Power to provide it. Section 34 is the amendment to state water law. It is a deletion under section 34 of language that is moved out of 533.030 and moved to 533.395. It basically says if there is a use determined to be beneficial for purposes of going forward. Section 35 is to insure that Washoe County has a representative on the water advisory commission of the water planning effort at the state level. Section 36 is a recognition of the conservancy laws. Section 37 conforms NRS 541.150 which is the law that relates to the formation of subdistricts to the opportunity under the prior subsection 31.5 to create a subdistrict in Washoe County by ordinance. This would only relate to Washoe County. Section 38 transfers the flood control planning from regional transportation to this board and effort. Section 39 clarifies definitions in the regional planning law. They deleted the original section 40 of the bill. This leaves the regional planning language with respect to the planning responsibilities as it was before. Section 40 is an issue about the use of system that uses or stores ozone, and keeping it away from an occupied residence. Section 41 is the repealer of the special law. Section 42 states the initial comprehensive water plan fundamentally has to be approved by each of the cities and the county as individual governmental entities for it to go into effect. This is only for the first plan and the items defined within it. Section 43 continues a half cent on the property tax which has been in existence for a number of years and is currently being utilized to amortize the cost of the underlying water study which will be utilized in this effort. Section 44 is the effective date. Mr. McMullen introduced people in the audience who helped in the drafting of the bill. Mrs. Freeman asked when would a water system use or store ozone. Mike Ried, Sierra Pacific, replied ozone is used as an alternative in some water treatment processes for chlorine. It is used for a disinfectant. Mrs. Freeman asked in section 28, which was deleted, how do they do a water plan if they do not talk about wells. Mr. McMullen stated they were not taking out anything from the planning authority relating to wells or looking at those aspects. They took out the opportunities for those districts to be created under this law until there is a plan which addresses those issues. They will have to have plan for the protection of well fields. They also have to have good water quality. Mr. Harrington asked if the bill were not to pass who is currently doing the planning and who would do the planning if it did not go through. Mr. McMullen replied there is authority under the special law for the county sitting as the water authority to plan. They have had a great deal of confusion and contention over the issues. This is basically to stop all the fighting and start over with a participative process. Mr. Harrington stated the opposition will testify that this is an eighteen member panel and that everything will be brokered before it gets submitted to the commissioners, and they will not have any say to what goes on. He asked what is his answer to this opposition. Mr. McMullen replied they asked for no elected officials to be on the commission and that they have to be technically strong and supportable individuals, and they have to come up with a two-thirds vote in their plan and there be input from regulatory agencies that would affect the outcome of the plan. They must come up with a consensus product. It will have to be a public process and cannot be "politically" amended. They did try to address these issues and put people in this position who would participate. Mr. Neighbors asked if the Washoe County Commissioners had ruled on S.B. 489 and if so, was it unanimous or what is their feeling. Mary Henderson, Washoe County, replied this has gone through an extensive public policy review. There have been numerous hearings and votes have been taken. This has been a collaborative effort between the cities. The commissioners support this bill. Mr. Neighbors asked if this has been agendized and what was the outcome. Ms. Henderson replied "yes," and it has been supported by the commission. Mr. McMullen stated there is a rule wherein there must be consensus of the four groups, or they do not go forward. He is not aware of any concern of the Washoe County Commission, and there is clearly unanimous support from all three local governments. Ms. Henderson stated the reason this bill was brought so late to session, is because of the public meetings, and the negotiations to get it through. Mrs. Segerblom asked what they envisioned as a district. Mr. McMullen replied it relates to a portion that has been deleted. They do not have a definition of it, and it will be a planning issue. Mrs. Segerblom asked about the taxing districts in section 6. Mr. McMullen stated that region would be everything in Washoe County except for those areas of Lake Tahoe within the rim line. Also the Indian reservations would be excluded. Chairman Lambert disclosed that her husband worked for Sierra Pacific Power. Her voting will not be affected. She asked if the nitrates from septic tanks would be considered a hazardous substance. Mr. McMullen replied he did not think so. They were using the definition under the environmental laws which are toxins and carcinogens. Mr. Dick Reavis, Deputy Administrator of the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection replied, to define it, nitrates can be hazardous or toxic. In certain concentrations they can be fatal to unborn children or very young infants. Hazardous substances all have different definitions. In his opinion, nitrates are a toxic or hazardous substance. Chairman Lambert stated this gives the bill an ability to shut down many of the septic tanks within the county. Mr. McMullen stated it is not only the definition, but there is also the concentration and the loading feature. The only responsible way to deal with this is to look at the areas and all the characteristics surrounding it. It may be a nature of a health hazard. If there is a public water system affected there would have to be a response. This is more of a way to organize a mechanism which is fairly apportioned across the board. This manages the process before the federal government steps in. Mrs. Lambert asked that this be clarified. The funding has been a concern for the fourteen dollars and forty cents a year. She asked for justification for the million dollars per year. Mr. McMullen stated the application for the water fee is that a comprehensive water plan for Washoe County will be a serious value. It will allow them opportunities to solve many of the issues facing the county. It will show that the fourteen dollars over a couple of years will be very well spent in developing a plan. The budget was two numbers put together, 350 and 650 thousand per year, put together by the county. They state it is the minimum they could spend to adequately put together a plan. Chairman Lambert asked for a detailed budget to be submitted. Mr. Neighbors questioned the board totaling nine members. He stated he heard 18 somewhere in the testimony. Mr. McMullen stated if you add non-voting members it would add up to that. Mr. Neighbors asked if everyone in Washoe County was on a water meter, and asked if commercial businesses were also metered. Mr. McMullen replied commercial users are metered and have been for a number of years. Not all residents are on meters. Mr. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, stated there was extensive review on the Senate side dealing with all the changes in the water law. He offered the amendment and therefor supports it. It takes the beneficial use out of the area of NRS 533.030 and puts it where it belongs in NRS 533.395 when considering extensions of time. His main purpose testifying is the need for a comprehensive water plan in the Truckee Meadows. He mentioned there is poor quality water in the southwest Truckee Meadows, the northeast Truckee Meadows, downtown where the solvents are and listed many more. All of these should be addressed in a comprehensive water plan so that they may optimize the use of the service water when available, and let groundwater rest. This is difficult to do when there are ten individual water systems in the planning area they are talking about. Chairman Lambert asked after ten years of water wars, will this mechanism work. Mr. Turnipseed replied this is a good first step. You cannot separate a water plan from a regional growth plan. Included in this plan is going to have to be flood control, drought mitigation, re-use of effluent, and hopefully this is the first step in accomplishing this. Naomi Duerr, State Water Planner, was impressed with the plan that Washoe County came up with. She appreciated the county taking the time to work with the division in the terms of recognizing the role that the state water plan would play. The group has made some changes in the bill to require that the water plan be consistent with the state water plan. She stated presently they have a general state water plan. It has been in place for over thirty years. It is long overdue for updating and amending. She stated the process is lengthy due to public input and several drafts. Once it is in final form it must come before the legislature to become adopted and be put in place. Her concern is the time involved and the coordinating the development of these two plans. It is possible that the Washoe County plan may precede the state water plan by a few months, since they will not have adoption until next session. She asked that on page six it say that .." the plan must be consistent with the state water plan." It is important that these two plans work together. Mr. McMullen stated they submitted the language Ms. Duerr suggested to bill drafting. This plan will be rotating and will be updated. Joe Johnson, a citizen of Washoe County, testified he has concerns that this is not filling a vacuum. He pointed out that this bill would be statutorily implementing or authorizing a water planning process where there are already existing plans in compliance with the Public Service Commission. There are existing water plans, and this is asking for additional money. He stated he would like to see a detailed breakdown as a rate user will be given credit for plans that have already been paid for. In general he supports the bill and the planning process but has concerns for additional revenues being generated in areas he has already paid for. Susan Lynn, representing Public Resource Associates, has followed this bill closely and finds what they are trying to achieve is a good one. She suggested in Section 10, page two line 48 "...member of the public at large.." She would recommend inclusion of the old language, "...one member of the public at large appointed by the board of county commissioners, to represent environmental, biological, conservation and other public concerns..." The reason behind this request is that they wanted somebody who was a non-engineering type. The rest were strongly representing government and engineering, and they felt there should be someone who had understanding of biological and water quality issues as a voting member of the board. She stated she would like to see figures on what the fees generate in terms of revenue and whether or not that revenue is to be applied to just the planning process or whether it goes to constructing facilities. She pointed out in Section 35, page 13, there is a bill coming before the committee, S.B. 101, which amends Washoe County into that. Mrs. Freeman asked why was the public at large language taken out. Ms. Lynn replied she did not know. Mr. McMullen stated he would like to submit a list of small amendments and that one will definitely be first on the list. Mrs. Freeman asked if Ms. Lynn was satisfied that all of the studies done will fit into this new plan. Ms. Lynn replied she hoped it will. It is up to the new commission to take the information and put it into a cohesive plan that is acceptable to everyone. Ms. Lynn mentioned the plan under page 5, line 36, it alludes to "...or alternatives thereof..." They had suggested language that "... cost and financing which must include (a) an estimate of cost of each major facility, source of water or other requirements of the plan, (b) an analysis of alternatives such as conservations and its cost, and an analysis of a funding alternative and sources. Also, Subsection B, an analysis of lease cost and cost benefit analysis. Those words are not in the bill and there are a number of citizens who feel this is a very important item and they want to know what the cost is before they get into it. Chairman Lambert stated someone has to pay for these projects, and the proponents have assured her that this is their intent. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 489. Mr. McMullen interrupted to say on the financing they have a packet that is being adapted down from the first presentation including the operating expenses. Chairman Lambert asked if this will be bottom line, or will there be budget for consultants for ongoing personnel, and costs being shifted. Mr. McMullen replied he would have someone talk to her and let her know the developments. Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 10:37 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Kelly Liston, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Government Affairs June 26, 1995 Page