MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 31, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, May 31, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman Senator William J. Raggio Senator Jon C. Porter Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Larry Spitler Senator Maurice Washington STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County Irene Porter, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association Michael R. Alastuey, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District Jennifer Stern, Bond Counsel, Clark County School District Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Mary Walker, Director of Finance and Redevelopment, Carson City Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, Las Vegas Paul Howarth, President, Howarth Montague and Associates Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County G. P. Etcheverry, Public Finance Specialist, Smith Capital Markets, Nevada State Bank Edward L. Felsing, Vice President, Smith Capital Markets, Nevada State Bank Brian Krolicki, Chief Deputy Treasurer, State of Nevada Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, James Penrose, Attorney, Nevada State Education Association Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, City of Sparks David Howard, Lobbyist, Greater Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce Ben Graham, Chief Deputy, Office of the District Attorney, Clark County Mary Henderson, Director, Washoe County Government Affairs Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Elko Rural TV District Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Nevada Broadcasters Association Senator O'Connell informed the audience that Senate Bill (S.B.) 509 had been withdrawn. SENATE BILL 509: Limits restriction on overlapping of area served by community antenna television company and boundaries of general improvement district. (BDR 25-710) Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 365. ASSEMBLY BILL 365: Makes various changes relating to elections. Assemblyman Larry Spitler provided a history of A.B. 365. He testified that he has never had a voter challenged in the three times he has run for office. He stated he had never thought of challenging anyone. He said during the last campaign, suddenly he was getting telephone calls from senior citizens who told him that they could not vote. He said he did not understand what was happening, and after a discussion with them, he learned they had received letters from the registrar of voters. He said he realized voter challenges had been filed in his district with the election department. He told the committee there was something seriously flawed in the process under which someone can challenge another voter. He said as it turns out, he had 388 voters in his district who were challenged. These voters were challenged because the person who sought the challenges had purchased a list of voters. The computer-generated list had dropped the last number of the apartments. He said his district has the second largest number of apartments in the State of Nevada. He said if the apartment number is not correct, then the mail issued by the registrar of voters is returned. He said his opponent sent out a first class postcard or letter. He said because of the incorrect apartment number, some mail was returned. The opponent then issued challenges on the returned mail. Mr. Spitler testified he called the election department to see whom they had challenged, so that he could contact those voters. He said he met with the registrar of voters and he learned that he was legally entitled to a copy. He said he had to pay to get the copy, but he was glad to do so. He said it took three volunteers 3 days trying to establish contact with the challenged voters. He said his volunteers were not trying to tell the challenged voters to vote for Mr. Spitler, but to tell them that they could vote. His volunteers told the voters that a challenge had been filed, but there was a way for them to address the challenge so that they could vote. He said voters receive a letter on official stationery and it is frightening to them. He stated the voters get those letters and decide just not to vote. He said there was no time for him to do a first- class mailer to inform the voters of this situation. He testified: The challenge, the way it currently exists, is very loose. There are some lines at the top that talk about the name and address. It is very vague. Some of it is filled in; some of it is not filled in. The way the law is now, the registrar has to accept those as challenges. The other thing, the person challenging you, in two of the precincts where I had challenged voters, you could not read the signature of the name of the person who challenged you. You had no idea why you were being challenged, or who in fact, is signing when they turn that into the registrar of voters that they have knowledge that you are not authorized to vote in the upcoming election. Mr. Spitler explained the right to challenge should not be changed. However, if a voter is going to be challenged; they have a right to know certain things. He said the challenge must be signed and verified by the registered voter. It must include the name, address and telephone number (if available) of the person whose right to vote is challenged as that information appears on the list described in chapter 394 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He said the second thing to be included is the precinct of the person who is challenged, and the name, address and telephone number of the registered voter who is filing the challenge. He said the precinct of the person filing the challenge, the date, and the grounds of the challenge must be included also. Mr. Spitler testified he could have cleared up all 388 challenges the minute he got the list from the registrar of voters. He said purchasing a list could work in some districts, but not in his. He said as a candidate walks along Flamingo Road, those are enormous apartment complexes. He said there is no single family home in that area. He stated if someone were looking at 1050 East Flamingo, that person must know the apartment number, or the mail will be returned. Mr. Spitler explained section 6 as saying the county clerk shall within 5 days after a challenge is filed, mail the notice to the person whose right has been challenged. He read the statement, "Even though your right to vote has been challenged, you are still registered and eligible to vote. Please immediately contact this office for information concerning how you may respond to the challenge." He testified this statement was added by the elections department. He said the rest of the bill is cleanup language on recall voting. Senator O'Connell asked if there was discussion regarding how to notify everyone on their sample ballot if they were challenged, instead of doing a second mailing. Mr. Spitler stated the registrar has to mail out notices of challenged votes along with a copy of the challenge. Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County, stated support of the bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 365 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 504. SENATE BILL 504: Prohibits restriction of use of system for obtaining solar energy by owner of real property. (BDR 22-1665) Senator Titus testified this bill came from the interim study on energy. She stated there are covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) in some housing divisions that prohibit a home from construction and use of solar panels. She explained this bill says that solar energy panels cannot be prohibited, but can be regulated and restricted by size and placement. She stated she met with the home builders' association, and they proposed amendments. She discussed the possible amendments with the committee answering their questions. She stated the bill applies only to single-family dwellings. Irene Porter, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, spoke in support of the bill with the proposed amendments. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 504 and opened the hearing on S.B. 508. SENATE BILL 508: Makes various changes concerning elections relating to local government finance. (BDR 30-182) Michael R. Alastuey, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District, testified regarding this bill. He stated this bill will clarify language. He explained during the last Legislature, local governments were allowed to piggyback upon one another to share election costs on elections which coincided with other local government elections. He said the bond counsel did not recognize the school district, a county-wide entity, as a municipality and was not permitted to piggyback upon a city election in Clark County for the purposes of presenting a bond election question to the voters. He explained the language in lines 5-14 is in similar form throughout the bill to address general bonds, but also certain operating levies. He stated the intent of the bill is housekeeping. He stated the taxpayers' association agrees with the bill. A discussion of piggybacking issues during elections ensued. The discussion included the language of the bill and emergency declarations. The discussion also included definitions of municipalities, local government municipalities, and whether cities and counties have elections simultaneously. Mr. Alastuey stated citywide elections are all held on 1 day and he sees no reason that a county-wide issue could not be on the ballots then. Ms. Ferguson testified next on S.B. 508. She told the committee that the term "political jurisdiction" would include special districts such as the fire district, school districts, maintenance districts, etc., in the voting. Senator Raggio said the term municipality has a larger definition than a city, he suggested the bill be amended to include this. Jennifer Stern, Bond Counsel, Clark County School District, stated they explain the term "municipality" in chapter 350 of the NRS. She explained this is an amendment to NRS 350.020. She said they would look to that definition to see which local governments they include in the definition. She stated a city election and a city bond election that are held in conjunction with a May or June primary or city election would be covered under section 1, subsection 1b. She said if the entity is other than a city, they can consolidate their bond election at the same time as a primary city election or a general city election if part of the municipality is located within that city. Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified in favor of S.B. 508. She said the bill is a clarification of the original intent. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified next. Ms. Lusk said if a person lives in an unincorporated part of Clark County, they do not vote in any of the city elections. She asked if they held an election for a school bond issue, that election would have to be extended so that the people in the county also voted. She explained the people in the county would vote on one thing, which technically makes this a special election. She stated there is an additional cost, although the bill says there is no fiscal note to the bill. Ms. Ferguson responded that fiscal impact is determined by the percentage of the county which does not overlap with municipalities. Otherwise, they would share costs in the overlapping areas. Ms. Lusk stated, "So there is a fiscal impact. `No' cannot be correct; there is definitely a fiscal impact . . . I think we should be holding these elections when we can get the largest turnout, not when it is most convenient for the government body." Discussion ensued again regarding emergency measures, who can declare emergency measures, fiscal emergencies, special elections, conditions for special elections, and cost for elections. Ms. Lusk stated, "We certainly have no objection to the use of the emergency provisions when they are justified. To us, it does not really matter which entity pays for the election, the fiscal impact is on the people regardless." Mr. Alastuey reiterated his request that all entities have the same frequency of opportunity as the city now has. Ms. Ferguson stated the costs for the unincorporated Clark County Fire District election are running about $175,000. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 508 and opened the hearing on A.B. 52. ASSEMBLY BILL 52: Requires certain bonds issued by municipalities to be sold by competitive bid. Ms. Vilardo testified in support of A.B. 52. She provided two exhibits to the committee (Exhibits C and D. Original copy of Exhibit C is on file in the Research Library.) She said one handout is a copy of a Nevada Issues publication that discusses infrastructure financing. She said local governments have been looking at how to finance the infrastructure during the past few years. She said the article is a compendium of how financing is done. She stated one recommendation, found on page 18, is to amend all statutes authorizing the sales of bonds to provide that all bonds will be sold competitively. She testified that Howard Barrett, Director of Research for the Nevada Taxpayers Association, completed the preliminary and definitive research. She stressed competitive sales will insure that the net interest rate at which the bonds are sold is the lowest possible available at the time the bonds are sold. Exhibit E was presented. Ms. Vilardo stated the interim committee took the advice of the local government advisory committee when structuring the bill. She explained the second handout (Exhibit D) explains different sections and amendments to the bill. She said after the Assembly hearing in Las Vegas, she heard from two other states regarding competitive bidding. She stated all bond sales in Idaho are competitive bids. She explained there was a move to have those bids become negotiated bids. She said the surveys from other states were informative. Ms. Vilardo testified this bill parallels recommendations from the Local Government Finance Officers Association. She said those recommendations reflect an "award winning paper" from the California Debt Advisory Commission. She stressed that she is unaware of any problems that caused this legislation to be brought forth. She noted this is an extension of the debt management bill, and provides the taxpayer and the public with a comfort level that what is being done with their tax money is being done in an open arena and is maximizing the use of their tax dollars. She stated the handout contains the Idaho, Texas and Oregon studies. She outlined information from the Oregon information which tracked bond sales for 10 years. She said Oregon found they would have saved $2.8 million, if they had used only competitive bids. She stated the Securities and Exchange Commission has enacted legislation regarding sales of bonds. Ms. Vilardo emphasized that A.B. 52 is a "sunshine measure" regarding the sale of bonds. She testified very large bond issues are being conducted and an issue of trust is needed. She stated this is protection for the citizens. She said the bill will provide safeguards to ensure that situations like Orange County, California, New Jersey, and Florida do not occur in Nevada. She said because the bill ensures public trust, maximizing available public dollars, and addresses the needs of the infrastructure, the Nevada Taxpayers Association wholeheartedly supports the bill. Mary Walker, Director of Finance and Redevelopment, Carson City, testified next on A.B. 52. She stated Carson City has followed the principles of the bill. She said they have always gone to competitive bidding. She explained they have never found the need to go to negotiated bids unless some interim bonding warrants were issued. She stated she is a firm supporter of the bill because over the last year, Carson City has had extensive traffic needs. She said traffic congestion is the number one problem for Carson City citizens. She stated the Carson City Board of Supervisors has been diligent in trying to resolve the problems. She noted a group of citizens formed to try to assist Carson City in looking at some innovative financing ideas for a bypass. She testified they commissioned an Arizona firm to provide proposals. She explained their proposal had some good ideas, but some parts of the proposal concerned staff. Ms. Walker explained that the Carson City Board of Supervisors is always concerned about projects and providing for community needs. She stated the financing for these projects are secondary and are usually complex. She said the Arizona firm's proposal was that they would engineer, construct and finance the bypass. She explained all Carson City had to do was pay money for the next 25 or 30 years. She said Carson City ran the numbers in regard to the financing mechanism from the Arizona firm. They discovered the Arizona firm built an additional $1 million into the proposal for a $16 million project. She cited that $1 million as the interest rate that the Arizona firm proposed. She explained fees and charges of bonds are tied into higher interest rates and the public usually never see those interest rates or charges. She stated she stopped the proposal and that type of financing from occurring. Ms. Walker stated she felt this type of innovative, but costly, financing would impact greatly on smaller local governments where the expertise is lacking. She stressed: This bill sets forth a good road map for local governments and primarily the smaller local governments that do not have the expertise that the larger local governments do. It is a road map that provides some guidelines when it is appropriate and when it is in the best interest of the community to go towards negotiated sales and when it is the best time to go with a competitive bid. I think it sets forth that. I think the proposal is very reasonable. It is generally what local governments follow anyway, but it more of a proactive bill. I think this will set some very good parameters for local government financing in the future. Primarily, I think you will see the smaller local governments issue more and more bonds with the federal government cutting back on the amount of highway funds they give local governments. Bonding is going to be more important as we grow in our smaller communities. I think this sets forth a very good road map for that. Senator O'Connell stated within negotiated bonding, she thought the underwriter had more of a hands-on interest than when the local government entity goes out to bid. She asked Ms. Walker to address this situation. Ms. Walker stated their financing is for expansion of sewer lines, wastewater treatment plants, roads, etc. She said in those cases it does not matter to her if the bonds are negotiated or competitive. She stated she believes competitive bids will come out with the lowest cost. She said a negotiated sale may be the appropriate route if they do something unique to the community. She said the projects are usually basic items, not innovative proposals. She said a redevelopment bond recently went to competitive sale. She testified either method, competitive or negotiated, can be done. Senator O'Connell asked Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, Las Vegas, if he could address Las Vegas with wanting to go with competitive bids versus negotiated bids for the airport expansion. Mr. Leavitt responded that he was not aware of the airport, but he addressed general principles involved in bond sales. He explained that the simpler the issue and the better the credit leans toward competitive sales. He said if the issue is complex, and the credit is weak, negotiated sales are favored. He cited examples. He stated a negotiated sale is usually more expensive. He said this is neither good nor bad, because negotiated sales are usually the more complex issue with the weaker credit. He said it is difficult to understand. He testified: I do not think we can say in every instance that a competitive sale will give you the very best price at the least cost. I would say in general, however . . . 99.9 percent of the time we would go straight competitive sale. It is a fairly simple operation. Suppose you are creating a new redevelopment district. You have never issued any bonds. You are just getting into the district, so you do not have any increment. The assessed value is right at the base. Any increase in the assessed evaluation is based upon projections into the future that you might get some consultant to give you. In other words, the credit is a lot weaker. You might or might not have any increment, so you are basing it upon projections. So, because of that, in order to sell those bonds, you might have to provide a group of restrictions upon yourself. You might provide a certain fund with a certain amount. You might provide that you have insurance on a certain part of the issue. You might provide certain reserve requirements continuing or decreasing. You might provide restrictions on the issuance of additional bonds, or a subordinate issue, just a whole group of restrictions. By the time you get all of those together, maybe the bonds have now become where they are marketable, where otherwise no one on the market would be willing to buy them. That situation is where it would be advantageous to issue negotiated bonds. The bill you have before you provides essentially a general statement that all bonds are going to be issued competitively, and provides, however, a list of exceptions to that. The first exception relates to the credit rating on the bonds, which you see on page 2, so that if you have a bond that is rated below the credit ratings below A-, then you use the negotiated sales. Let us just suppose that you have a small community that is really dependent upon mining and you have seen assessed evaluation jump up and down all over the place. When a credit rating agency looks at that community, they say, `You have an unstable situation here, so we are going to provide the rating of BAA.' In other words the rating is below the guidelines here. Maybe the sales should be negotiated, at least they would be permissible. So that is one of the exemptions. Mr. Leavitt continued his analysis of the exemptions listed in the bill. He stated the bill contains many exemptions. He drew the committee's attention to the exemptions. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Leavitt if he feels the bill gives the city enough room to tailor which direction they can take with specific issues? Mr. Leavitt stated the areas where the city has had negotiated sales are the areas listed under the exemptions. He cited further examples for the committee. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Leavitt if he contributed to the language in the bill? Mr. Leavitt stated the language in the bill is different from the language that came out of the committee. Senator O'Connell asked if there was anything in the bill that Clark County could not live with regarding the issuance of their bonds. Mr. Leavitt stated he was not able to provide an opinion for Clark County. Senator Porter stated the bill refers to the chief financial officer and the chief administrative officer certifying the sale. He asked if there is a reason for both to certify. He said he has a problem with that portion of the bill. Mr. Leavitt stated he does not know how much affect this bill will have on changing anything. He testified he is concerned about section 11 requiring financial officers serving for a short period. He said at one time this bill had the same provision in there for the bond counsel. He said they are dealing with two individual people or firms. He described it as a specialized service. He emphasized the local government is trying to develop confidence in someone or some firm and in their ability to represent the interests of the entity in the market. He testified: In my mind it is like going to bid for your wife every 7 years . . . but at the same time it seems to me that you develop a relationship. This individual works for the government and they provide financial advice and they go to the market on your behalf and you are able to judge performance. You reach a point where you are intimately familiar. It is a professional service, like going to bid for your attorney when you have a capital charge against you or something. You want to be sure the person you get is the person you have confidence in. I am concerned about that particular section of the bill. Senator O'Connell asked how much of a situation could occur if the entity worked with the same company all the time. She asked if the situation could occur where the company does not get the best deal when working with a negotiated situation and there is no competitive interest in the sale. Mr. Leavitt stated it probably would be possible when an entity goes out for proposals for them not to know if the new company is any different. He said when everyone goes to the market, they look to see what kind of interest rate they got and compare it with other entities who are going to the market at the same time. He said it is published information. He explained the entity sees how many bids they get, how well the company put together the financial data, how well they work with the people, and how willing they are to accommodate individual situations and needs. He said a relationship of trust develops. He stressed that government officials, who are interested in getting the lowest interest rates, develop confidence in companies. He emphasized that governments do not have to stay with the same company. He explained Las Vegas might not use the same financial advisors for a redevelopment bond as they would for a jail because the government wants expertise in an area. Senator O'Connell asked when entities work with the same company, is there a certain percentage that is normally a part of that bidding process, and is it constant? Mr. Leavitt stated that a financial advisor will normally give the government a fee structure based on the size of the issue and certain tiers. The government can judge the rate that will be charged based on that information. He stated the government wants someone that is willing to spend the necessary time to get the lowest rates. He said an entity wants to be confident that the financial advisor is going to get the lowest interest rate when the entity is involved in large bond issues. He explained the interest differential of 1/16 or 1/32 of a percent is going to be more than the financial advisor's fees. Mr. Leavitt suggested if there is a concern about how to hire professionals (including architects, engineers, outside attorneys, auditors, etc.) that should be a basic subject rather than concentrating on a very narrow area such as this bond law. He said if there is concern about the general use of professional services, governments are better off looking at the whole list of professional services and do something with the entire area rather than concentrating on a narrow area. Senator Porter stated they should examine the professional services. He explained assistance should be available if an entity needs assistance in a hurry. The entity should not have to wait for proposals. He said the proposal process sometimes takes longer than an entity has to decide. Mr. Leavitt stated this is an important conclusion. He said it is important to have a financial officer available to the entity between issues to consult with them. He stressed that getting their opinion about market situations is important, as is discussing technical things beyond the ability of the local government. He said this is especially true of the smaller local government entities. Senator Porter stated he feels the committee is dealing with a perception problem in the bill. He stated it may appear that improprieties could occur when a government deals with one professional all the time. He encouraged the committee to examine the process of hiring all professionals. He said room needs to be left for emergencies and specific cases where smaller entities require help. Mr. Leavitt stated there is a good example of fast financing in White Pine County where they can find a financial agent who did not charge them. He said there was a need to move rapidly to satisfy the emergency. He suggested the bill may be a hindrance to that kind of situation. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Leavitt to explain his concerns with the bill. Mr. Leavitt stated he would like to have all of sections 11 and 12 deleted from the bill. He said in section 13 where it says a financial advisor cannot have a relationship or be controlled by an underwriter is appropriate. He said an entity should not have their financial advisor working for the underwriter instead of for the entity. Senator O'Connell asked if these two sections, 11 and 12, were in the original bill. Mr. Leavitt stated they were not. Senator O'Connell questioned if the Assembly added those two sections to the bill. Mr. Leavitt explained they were sections proposed by a financial advisor. Senator Porter asked Ms. Walker how she felt about the chief financial officer and the chief administrative officer. Ms. Walker stated she felt it was a double level of assurance. She said the numbers came from the chief financial officer. She explained the chief financial officer is making representations on the ability to pay back the bonds. She said that having their participation is important, but the entities should go through appropriate channels. She said it is up to the city or county manager, and then on to the board of supervisors to make those final decisions based upon the recommendations of the chief financial officer. Paul Howarth, President, Howarth Montague and Associates, testified he had contributed to the original bill. He said the original bill that listed no negotiated sales was too restrictive. He said a competitive sale and a negotiated sale are "like a screwdriver and a hammer. Different tools for different kinds of jobs." He stated he had input on the different kinds of exceptions in the bill for negotiated sales. He provided a graphic for the committee (Exhibit F) to clarify what financial advisors do. He explained that a financial advisor acts as an agent of the seller. He stated the local government is the seller of the bond issue. He said they usually engage a bond counsel and a financial advisor to represent them. He said on the other side, the buyers of the bonds are the underwriters and they represent the investors. He testified one of his competitors submitted sections 11 and 12. He stated he was concerned about those sections' effect on existing contracts. He explained Legislative Counsel Bureau staff explained sections 11 and 12 would not impair existing contracts. Senator O'Connell asked if he objected to removing the sections. Mr. Howarth responded he was not against removing those sections. He said sections 11 and 12 do not recognize or address attractive market conditions or financing deadlines. He explained the $2.8 million dollar loan for White Pine County was to start and close the entire issue in 4 days. He explained it was done on a competitive process. He testified that the winning bidder submitted, through the competitive process, a rate that was 10-basis-points lower than was offered 1 week before. He said in that case, the state benefited from being able to move quickly and do something remarkable in that short amount of time. He stated he suspects sections 11 and 12 would inspire issuers to find ways to circumvent A.B. 52. He concluded his testimony by saying sections 11 and 12 should be removed. He said let local governments decide when they are going to do requests for proposals. He said local governments have requests for proposals when it suits their planning and timing. He said to let the competitors compete in the open marketplace and not at the Legislature. Senator O'Connell asked how Mr. Howarth felt about the bill, other than sections 11 and 12. Mr. Howarth stated he had no problems with the bill. He testified he has clients who are opposed to the bill, and clients who are for the bill. Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, shared some information from the interim study. She said she was a local government representative on the interim study. She explained bonding is a detailed and specialized area. She stated the intent was openness in government, an incentive to the governments to use the competitive process as much as possible. She stated she was not involved in the changes proposed by the Assembly. She explained that Washoe County is extremely pleased with its financial advisor. She reiterated there are numerous times where they go to the advisor for advice and are not billed for it because there is such a significant number of issues. She said it is like an attorney-client relationship, they know the financial advisor is looking after their interests. She stated the chief financial officer usually serves at the will and pleasure of the city or county manager. She said they have the expertise, but she said the city or county manager is the one who signs off on issues. She testified the interim committee did not have any representatives who were city or county managers. Senator O'Connell explained the committee was selected for their expertise in local governments as people who deal with that specific issue, the financing, and the provision for the issue. She explained there were 15 or 16 people on the interim study panel. There were seven or eight meetings, although they authorized only three. She said much time was spent on all of the issues. G. P. Etcheverry, Public Finance Specialist, Smith Capital Markets, Nevada State Bank, testified next. He introduced Edward L. Felsing, Vice President, Smith Capital Markets, Nevada State Bank. He stated bonding in Nevada is complex because of the small cities and jurisdictions. He stated they had worked with the Assembly on the bill. Mr. Felsing testified they were actively involved with the hearings in the Assembly. He stated his understanding of the bill was that the process was to be in an open and fair situation. He asked how does an entity select an underwriter in the bill? He said the entities look at the ability and experience of the underwriter. He stated they examine the needs of the municipality, and they minimize the risks and costs. He explained the bill examines the estimation of fees, commissions and charges. He said the bill includes good things to ensure that it is a fair and open process. He testified that not only does an entity have to go through the process, but they have to certify that they went through a fair process. Mr. Felsing testified next about established relationships between financial advisors and entities. He said: In truth, a great bulk, I would say 80 to 90 percent of bonds, are sold by public sale. Eighty to 90 percent of those bonds are sold by the same financial consultant. Eighty or 90 percent of those bonds are given by the same legal firm. I would hazard a guess that between $1 or $2 million fees are collected by those firms in Nevada in a given calendar year. All I am saying, and all we said about this bill was that if it was important to say to an underwriter, `Are you competitive. Do you have ability. Do you meet the needs of the municipality. Are you minimizing the risk. Are you giving the best cost? You have to disclose fees.' Then why is it not the same for a financial advisor or for bond attorney? I do not intend to demean the people who have the wonderful relationship. You have to take my comments as a competitor. I am the guy looking through the glass door who would like to have more of that business. I think if you want an open and fair process for hiring and having this process open and on the table in the State of Nevada, you should do this. If you do not do this, I think what you have ended up with is a full employment bill for two firms and everyone else is not going to see anything, because it is `professional services.' They do not have to go through these processes. I am saying it seems to me that we have gone through these things and we have set these parameters and we say this is how it has to be done. We want it open, we want it fair; but not in this area. We have cut this thing down the middle and said, `We are happy with this side. We are happy with our financial advisor. We are happy with the bond attorney. Do not ever touch that; but let us be very specific about how we deal with these dirty underwriters who might be sneaking in from California or Chicago or New York.' I do not really care what you do with this bill. I think if you pass it like it is, you have essentially assured that the status quo will stay the same way until the millennium. It is not going to change. If you want an open and fair process, then I think you can have it. In my honest opinion if you want this to be a fair and open process, then you make it a fair and open process. If this process is good for an underwriter, then why is it not good for a bond attorney or a financial consultant? That is my point. Mr. Felsing stated they entered the amendments for section 11 and 12. He stressed if the bill is going to require a fair and open process for hiring an underwriter, then a fair and open process should be required for selecting a financial advisor or bond counsel. He said the underwriters in New Jersey, Florida, and Orange County were not the only bad guys in those scenarios. He said there are plenty of cases where there has been abuse by financial advisors and bond counsel. He cited examples of bond counsel and financial advisors who have contributed to political campaigns. He said they are obviously doing it because they think they can influence getting business. He testified the underwriters are the most regulated group in the nation. He explained the codes under which they have to operate. He said they cannot make political contributions. He said the basis of their business is what they present to the community. Mr. Felsing stated he gets a pricing matrix every day from his firm that tells him how to price different types of bond issues. He said they ran it at the first request for information for the White Pine County situation. He stated they requested new information 10 days later. He stated Nevada is in a declining market, and he picked up the new pricing matrix and it was 10- basis-points lighter. He said it could have been higher, but he priced it off the matrix. He said that to say they changed because of the difference between a negotiated and competitive sale is a falsehood. Brian Krolicki, Chief Deputy Treasurer, State of Nevada, testified next on A.B. 52. He stated they have worked on the amendments when the Assembly heard the bill. He stressed the state treasurer's office has no professional problems with the bill as it is written. He said they are philosophically opposed to the bill. He explained the state is involved with issuing debt and knows the process and the people involved. He said they act as a "big brother" on most of the financial transactions on the local level. He stated the assumption that competitive pricing is better than negotiated pricing is inherently false. Senator O'Connell asked if negotiated rates are more reasonable than competitive rates right now in the market? Mr. Krolicki explained Mr. Leavitt addressed it well. He stated historically in the past, a complex transaction is more likely to be negotiated. He stressed that comparing the two is not that easy. He stated a competitive price has all the fees, charges, rates, overhead, etc. blended into one price. He stated the negotiated transaction has the ability to negotiate rates, overhead, fees, charges, etc. Mr. Krolicki stated: Legislation should not be created with specific people in mind. If we are talking about the whole process, there is the potential for abuse in bond counsel and financial advisors. The underwriting community is the most regulated part of the transaction. If it is an attitude to go in and prevent any abuse from every happening, let us do it all. Let us include all three different pieces. I would suggest letting the local governments that issue debt make the decisions themselves. Suggest or legislate that they have debt management policies that should address how and when they issue their debt. The treasurer's original opinion is that A.B. 52 should not be passed. It is something we feel is not necessary. It is preventative medicine without a disease. We did a research project of all of the debt issued by every and any local government in the State of Nevada for the last 2 years. Only three transactions, we think, and that is on the advice of one of the bond counsels, suggested three deals only would have been precluded from happening if A.B. 52 were enacted prior to the last 2 years. Two were Clark County transactions. One was a Washoe County transaction. Why are we engaged in this? We should address all three pieces while we have this open on the operating table. Senator Porter stated the bill should include the entire state not just local municipalities. He suggested it include all governments. Senator O'Connell stated it might not be a bad idea to include all of the state in the bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 52 and recessed the hearing at 4:10 p.m. before beginning the work session. The committee reconvened at 4:55 p.m. The work session document is Exhibit G. Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 28-1911. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 28-1911: Exempt certain public works projects from certain laws governing public contracts. ASSEMBLY BILL 138: Exempts certain arrangements by general improvement districts with private developers from certain laws governing public contracts. Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, testified for this BDR. He explained this is a "trailer bill" to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 138, an emergency measure that has passed both houses and has been signed by the Governor. He said this BDR will extend the exemption granted to general improvement districts by A.B. 138 to cities and counties. It addresses provisions of chapters 332, 338 and 339 of the NRS that apply to construction projects by private developers for private development and subject to cost contributions from a refunding agreement with a public body. He stressed this bill will allow cities and counties to work with private developers in providing infrastructure requirements, like water and sewer projects, for existing and future developments. The bill will also provide a cost savings to its citizens. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 28-1911. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on BDR 28-1911 and opened the hearing on BDR 21-684. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 21-684: Authorizes adding delinquent sewer billings to tax rolls. Mr. Leavitt explained this BDR would extend the cities the same provisions applicable to districts organized under NRS 318, relating to delinquent sewer charges. He said it would allow them to be collected through the property tax system. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BILL DRAFT REQUEST 21-684. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on BDR 21-684 and opened the hearing on S.B. 509. SENATE BILL 509: Limits restriction on overlapping of area served by community antenna television company and boundaries of general improvement district. (BDR 25-710) SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 509. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 509 and opened the hearing on S.B. 56. SENATE BILL 56: Revises provisions relating to collective bargaining between school districts and certain employee organizations. Senator O'Donnell provided copies of the proposed amendments (Exhibit H and I) to the committee. He stated he feels the open meeting law should apply to those state funds used to pay for collective bargaining wages. He explained this bill does not encompass all of the local governmental entities where they raise their own taxes. He said the bill applies to state employees and educational employees. Discussion of the amendments ensued. Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, testified that she thinks the amendment will open all negotiations. She said the entity cannot determine exactly how a benefit is paid. She said the districts do not wish to make this determination. She said the effect is that all negotiations where money is involved would be open. She said the original testimony on the bill was the encumbrance of posting. She said they are not necessarily concerned about negotiating in public, but felt the posting regulations would encumber the time lines and unduly lengthen the process. James Penrose, Attorney, Nevada State Education Association, testified this is the basic effect of the amendment. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified next. He explained the amendment pinpoints and highlights only one type of local government that is subject to the open meeting law and public meetings. He said school districts will be the only entities affected. He said he is unaware of any other local government entities who receive state money for salaries. He said they testified extensively that there are obvious mechanical problems of subjecting negotiations to the open meeting law. He cited posting notices, and holding the meetings as drawbacks to the bill. He said under the open meeting law, postponing meetings would not be possible if the negotiators had conflicting schedules at the last minute. He proposed another amendment to the bill (Exhibit J). Senator Porter stated he interpreted the first amendment to mean all local government entities since they all receive money from the state in some form to pay salaries. Senator O'Connell asked Senator O'Donnell if that is the intention. Senator O'Donnell stated this was not the intention. He stated there are two amendments. One to address just "state funded" negotiations, and the other to address all negotiations. Senator O'Connell told the committee they were discussing Amendment Number (No.) 256 (Exhibit I). Senator O'Donnell explained that he reads the amendment, "in collective bargaining, subject to the provisions of 241 in any amount of money of the state which is used to pay the salaries." He said a direct appropriation, from the state for salaries for state and educational employees, is considered in collective bargaining. He emphasized that this should not be confused with state funds given to local entities for their general fund. He stated that is not a direct use for salaries. He said if they read it that way, it is not intended to mean that every local government would open its negotiations, only those under the purview of state allocations. He stressed it should be the decision of the local governing body to open their negotiations. Senator O'Donnell stated the new executive director of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) had said he had no problems with the bill. Ms. Cahill asked the senator if he would be attending all of the bargaining sessions since he wants to have them open. Senator O'Donnell responded that he would not since his wife is a teacher. Ms. Cahill told the committee she understands that they feel they have an obligation to the taxpayer. However, NSEA believes that having negotiations under the open meeting law not only encumbers the process, but changes the dynamics of the bargaining. She stated: All of a sudden you are not bargaining with another team across the table. You are now posturing for the press and you are posturing to the public. You are not necessarily getting any further information or more information to the public. Salary schedules of school district employees are public information. The total amount of money spent on salaries is public information. The public can have access to that. We have a concern that this would apply only to school district employees and we do not see a particular benefit to us in that. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Cahill if the law includes permissive language, and allows the bargaining unit to select open negotiations, is there anything that would prohibit the NSEA from doing that now? Ms. Cahill stated her information states it can be done, but she said it should be done by mutual consent of both parties. She said the parties could choose to do that now if they wanted. Senator Townsend explained the thought behind this language is that every entity in the state that receives and expends tax dollars could vote in their normal open meeting forum to open negotiations. This would allow for public participation. Ms. Cahill reiterated this can be done now. Mr. Etchemendy stated this would be his response to that. He said the current law allows those meetings to be open if both parties agree to it. He suggested that the amendment add that each notice shall give complete details and magnitude of each item requested or offered for negotiation. He said this would not open the meetings to the open meeting law, but would give the public the information that they do not have now. He explained this proposal is similar to amendments for S.B. 291. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Etchemendy if he has a problem with the language in S.B. 291. Mr. Etchemendy reminded the committee that the school districts are completely left out of the bill, so the districts have no problem with the bill. Senator O'Connell asked if they had included the districts, would the language be suitable if it were incorporated into S.B. 56. Mr. Etchemendy stated there was no problem with the section that requires that notice be provided in detail. He said the impasse procedures would not affect school districts and their employees because they have binding arbitration. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Etchemendy what happens now when they give notice. He asked if the current notices are nonspecific about the items being negotiated. Mr. Etchemendy stated they detail the notice because they have to notify the local government entity about every item they are negotiating. He explained this is not a public record, however, under the current law. Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Etchemendy was recommending that this detail be public record. Mr. Etchemendy stated this is his proposal. Senator Raggio asked Ms. Cahill if she objected to that portion of the bill? Mr. Penrose stated he was unsure that the notice that they give currently under NRS 288.180 is not already a public record. He said unless an overriding statute or a privacy issue protects it, it is all public record. He commented that without seeing the exact language of the amendment, he was concerned about the potential practical problems of detail suggested by Mr. Etchemendy. He stressed that estimating the cost of a proposal without involving the accountant for the association or obtaining additional information is impossible. He suggested that providing a detailed notice might not be feasible. He noted that they would, however, prefer to give the detailed notice rather than opening all of the negotiation to the public. Senator Raggio asked if there is a discrepancy whether the records are now public? He said apparently no one has an objection whether to make the records public. He asked if they clarified that the content of the notice and the notice itself are public information, would everyone agree? Everyone agreed. Senator Raggio suggested that the contents of the notice be an amendment to the bill. Discussion of the amendments and clarification of the amendments ensued. Mr. Etchemendy explained to the committee that "magnitude" did not mean exact costs, but rather if they asked for a compensation increase of 6 percent, that they would specify the 6 percent. Mr. Penrose told the committee he had no problems with Mr. Etchemendy's explanation or proposal. A further discussion of Amendment No. 470 to S.B. 56 continued. Senator Townsend noted that the proposed amendment does not come close to Senator O'Donnell's intent. He said the intent is a long way away from the proposed amendment. Senator O'Donnell stated he felt that Mr. Etchemendy made a very good case about opening the meetings and that they addressed the issue. He said he is confused that Mr. Etchemendy is retracting his support. Mr. Etchemendy stated there was extensive testimony at the first S.B. 56 hearing about the practical problems with negotiating under the open meeting law. He stated instead of this amendment, which opens the negotiations up to the open meeting law, he is proposing that the initial offers be detailed in public and be in public records. Senator O'Connell asked the committee to vote on Amendment No. 470. She said they would continue working on the proposed amendments through a process of elimination. She explained the committee has the Amendment No. 470, Amendment No. 256, Mr. Etchemendy's proposed language changes for Amendment No. 470, and Senator Townsend's suggested language for the bill, and then the bill itself. Senator Townsend stated, using Amendment No. 470 and Mr. Etchemendy's language, if the committee would reference page 2, section 2, it would read as follows: Striking the new language, it would go back to the original and say, `The following proceedings required by or pursuant to this chapter may be' . . . that is new language, striking out `are not', `may be subject to any provision of the NRS which requires a meeting to be open or public.' New language, `If voted by a majority of the elected body.' I do not know the exact terminology, but that is the gist. So that elected body, in order to open it up, would have to vote on that. Senator Raggio stated `elected body' to be consistent, would probably have to be `a majority of the governing body of the local government employer.' Senator Townsend agreed with Senator Raggio's language. Senator Porter asked if it is referring to the state, would that governing body be the Legislature? Discussion followed about the language reference. Senator O'Connell reminded the committee that they are first voting on Amendment No. 470 without any additional language. Senator Raggio suggested that it is more appropriate to vote on a whole final amendment. Senator O'Connell stated the committee will address Senator Townsend's motion first, to take the language in Amendment No. 470 and add new language on page 2, section 2, subsection 1. She said the language would now read, "The following proceedings required by or pursuant to this chapter may be subject to the provisions of the NRS which requires a meeting to be open or public if voted by a majority of the governing body of the local government employer." Senator Titus asked if this applies to all local governments, not just school districts. Senator O'Connell stated that is correct; that is her understanding of the proposed language. Senator Porter stated this would delete subsection 2 of section 2. Senator Raggio asked if it would be up to the discretion of the local government employer whether it would be an open meeting. Senator O'Connell stated that is the intent. Senator Shaffer asked if the employees' representative would have a say in the decision? Senator O'Connell stated the representatives would decide. She said she imagined they would vote on it as a whole. Ms. Cahill asked for a point of clarification. She asked if it had to be mutual consent to negotiate in open meetings. Senator O'Connell stated that is the intent of the language. Senator Townsend said it is the governing body only. Senator O'Connell asked if it was not the two parties agreeing. Senator Townsend stated, "No." SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AMENDMENT NO. 470 WITH THE NEW LANGUAGE. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS TITUS, O'CONNELL, O'DONNELL, AND SHAFFER VOTED NO.) ***** Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Etchemendy's motion. Senator O'Donnell asked if the intent was to have all the details notified and public. Senator O'Connell asked if it would be addressed in an open meeting. Mr. Etchemendy stated, "The intent is that would be presented at a meeting of the public body and would become a public document at that moment." Senator O'Donnell noted the preliminary documents will probably not look anything like the final negotiations. Mr. Etchemendy stated when the employees' organization gives notice, they have to give details to the negotiating team of the employer. He said this is the basis of the negotiation. He commented that as negotiations continue, there will be compromise on all of the items on that document, but they negotiate based upon the original document. He said, "I would say it is full disclosure." Senator O'Donnell stated he would agree with that if they attached a fiscal note which outlined how much it would cost. He said they could then conduct the meeting in private. Senator Porter explained the final negotiations are public. He asked if Mr. Etchemendy intends to have an open initial offer, closed negotiations, and an open final negotiated contract. Mr. Etchemendy explained the negotiation team must bring the potential contract back that they have negotiated. He said the governing body has to approve or disapprove that contract. He said that is a public affair. Senator Titus asked what good is having the original offer open to the public? Mr. Etchemendy stated people want more facets of the public negotiations opened. He said they feel rather than going to the posting notices and all the ramifications of the open meeting law, that the details of the initial demands are provided to the public. He said these details would satisfy a great deal of the public's interest in "just what are these folks asking for. Because normally you do not know until the negotiations are all done and the contract comes back to the table; that is when you find out. This way the public would find out up front what the demands are, and what they are going to be negotiating on." Senator O'Donnell asked if the fiscal note would be included in the language. Senator O'Connell asked if it is possible to have a fiscal note prepared at the time of the initial proposal. Ms. Cahill responded that any estimate can be given for any proposal. Senator O'Connell noted that the amendment will include the fiscal note language. Senator Titus asked if this bill just applies to school boards, or to all negotiations with public employees. Senator O'Connell stated it applies to everybody. Mr. Etchemendy stated this is an amendment to NRS 288.180 which would apply to all negotiations for local governments and their employees. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AMENDMENT NO. 470 BY ADDING MR. ETCHEMENDY'S PROPOSED LANGUAGE, AND SENATOR O'DONNELL'S PROPOSED FISCAL NOTE. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 291. SENATE BILL 291: Revises provisions governing collective bargaining between local governments and their employees. Discussion ensued regarding two proposed amendments to S.B. 291. Senator O'Connell asked the committee to look at both of the amendments as the old bill will be gutted, and the language in the proposed amendments will become the new bill. Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, stated she had drafted new language to be amended into current law. She said they do not dovetail into Mr. Grady's proposed amendment. Senator Porter asked if they addressed this in the amendments in S.B. 56. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Tyler if the amendment to S.B. 56 satisfied her concerns? Ms. Tyler stated she would like to see the amendment in writing. Senator O'Connell explained Mr. Etchemendy's amendment. It states that all levels of government would now provide, at the beginning of negotiations, a complete detailed list, including the fiscal note, of the items that they wish to have negotiated. She said they would present this detailed list at an open meeting to the governing body. She explained they would conduct the negotiations in closed hearings, and at the end of the negotiations, the contract would be presented at an open hearing. She said before negotiations begin, the public will know what the two sides want. Ms. Tyler asked if the initial proposals would be part of the open meeting law and those documents would be presented and be perusable. Senator O'Connell stated this is correct. Ms. Tyler asked if the final agreement would also be public once they executed it as well. Senator O'Connell stated this is correct. Ms. Tyler asked if they included her impasse language? She said they were concerned that the initial proposal and the final agreements were open to the public. She said she sees no problem with the language proposed for S.B. 56. She explained the middle part of her amendment, addressing impasse language, is not as critical as the other two parts. She said the impasse language is always the most difficult part. Senator O'Connell stated since the committee has Mr. Etchemendy's language, she would entertain a motion to amend and do pass S.B. 56. David Howard, Lobbyist, Greater Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce, stated Mr. Etchemendy's language addresses NRS 288.180 not 288.200. He said there are exceptions listed in NRS 288.200. He asked if the amendment will address the exceptions that are listed. He said if NRS 288.200 subsection 1 remains, this is not the case. He said those exceptions apply specifically to certain bargaining units, namely teachers, firefighters, and police officers. He said if that is left in the law, then they have done nothing with Mr. Etchemendy's amendment. Senator O'Connell asked Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst, to address this. Ms. Bennett suggested that Jan Needham, Principal Deputy, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, be contacted since Ms. Bennett does not agree with Mr. Howard's assertions. Mr. Howard reiterated that as long as the exceptions stay in NRS 288.200, the committee can change NRS 288 and the open meeting law, but they will not accomplish anything. Senator O'Connell stated the intent is to cover all of those, and the bill drafter will have to be contacted to write the language they have proposed into the law. Mr. Howard stated, "Your intent is clear to me." Senator O'Connell stated, "The intent is clear, and that is how we will have it done." Mr. Grady stated his proposed language addresses NRS 288.200 and NRS 288.215 for Mr. Howard's exact reasons. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 56. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Mr. Grady testified that they will remove section 9c on both pages from S.B. 291. Senator Titus stated she had felt this language was ambiguous. Senator O'Connell told the committee she would take a motion on the new language proposed for S.B. 291. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 291. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 56 and S.B. 291 and opened the hearing on S.B. 414. SENATE BILL 414: Makes various changes relating to public administrators, public guardians and other fiduciaries. Senator O'Connell told the committee they are looking at Amendment No. 677 for S.B. 414. Ms. Cahill and Mr. Penrose interrupted the hearing on S.B. 414 for clarification on S.B. 291. Mr. Penrose asked if S.B. 291, as drafted currently and with the proposed amendment, is not intended to affect school districts? He explained their concerns with the bill and the amendment. Senator O'Connell told Mr. Penrose that when Ms. Needham arrives, they will address that issue. The committee resumed their work on S.B. 414. A discussion of the amendment ensued. The committee included a section by section analysis of the bill. Senator O'Donnell explained his concerns regarding sections 2 and 3. Ben Graham, Chief Deputy, Office of the District Attorney, Clark County, explained those sections to Senator O'Donnell. Mr. Penrose addressed his concerns regarding S.B. 291 to Ms. Bennett while the committee worked on S.B. 414. The committee discussed the amount of the bonds suggested in the bill. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND, BY DELETING SECTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 FROM THE BILL, LEAVE SECTIONS 4, 5, AND 6 INTACT, AND DO PASS S.B. 414. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ( SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 414 and opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 23-1830. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 23-1830: Expands definition of "catastrophe" for purposes of catastrophic leave. Senator Maurice Washington asked the committee to introduce this BDR. He explained that "catastrophe" does not apply to the burial and grieving period in case of a death of a terminally ill family member. He explained a constituent was the impetus for this BDR. He cited the constituent's situation for the committee and noted that catastrophic leave will now include the death of an immediate family member of an employee's family. Senator O'Connell asked how long the employee was absent from work. Senator Washington stated he would provide that information to the committee. He added this is permissive and up to the discretion of the supervisor to authorize the extended leave for burial purposes. He testified that the Department of Personnel agrees with the bill. He asked for committee introduction. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 23-1830. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on BDR 23-1830 and opened the hearing on S.B. 446. SENATE BILL 446: Revises provisions for failure to report certain campaign contributions and expenditures. SENATE BILL 420: Makes various changes relating to elections. Senator Titus explained the amendment for S.B. 446 (Exhibit K) is the language lifted from S.B. 420 and incorporated changes from Ben Graham. She said it is an attempt to put the original bill and provisions in S.B. 420 together. She stated the emphasis is to make it a civil penalty, not a criminal offense by putting it under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Secretary of State. She explained the fee changes. She noted that the Office of the Secretary of State has seen and agreed to the amendment. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 446. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 446 and opened the hearing on S.B. 450. SENATE BILL 450: Revises provisions governing distribution of lists of registered voters in precinct, district or county. Senator O'Connell stated the counties handle this situation three different ways. Senator O'Connell said the committee needs to decide the one way all counties in the state will handle it. Ms. Bennett gave the committee a copy of the legal opinion (Exhibit L) regarding the bill. Ms. Bennett explained the legal opinion to the committee. Discussion of the bill, and its intent ensued. The committee discussed who would request a copy of the list, the intent of providing the lists, equal access to the lists and potential money saved by the counties in not providing the lists. Mary Henderson, Director, Washoe County Government Affairs, explained why Washoe County requested the bill. Senator O'Donnell requested that the bill be held until other interested parties could be contacted. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 450 and opened the hearing on S.B. 451. SENATE BILL 451: Requires manufactured homes to be included in definition of "single-family residences" for purposes of certain ordinances relating to planning and zoning. Senator O'Donnell explained the objection to the bill is that it redefines "single-family dwelling" and allows manufactured homes to be put on lots designed for R-1 dwellings. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 451. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 451 and opened the hearing on S.B. 473. SENATE BILL 473: Authorizes imposition of surcharge on telephone service in certain counties for enhancement of telephone system for reporting emergencies. Ms. Henderson testified that the amendments for S.B. 473 have not been prepared. She asked the committee to hold the bill for another week until the amendments are prepared and they have agreed on the bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 473 and opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 21. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 21: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide that state controller is appointed by and serves at pleasure of state treasurer. (BDR C-426) Senator O'Connell stated the object of the bill is to consolidate both of the offices listed in the bill. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 21. Ms. Bennett explained an amendment had been proposed. The committee ignored the amendment. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL AND SHAFFER VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.J.R. 21 and opened the hearing on A.B. 35. ASSEMBLY BILL 35: Reorganizes Nevada rural housing authority. Senator O'Connell explained that the proposed amendment had been withdrawn. She said the bill stood as written. Mr. Grady stated the Nevada League of Cities, the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), and the Nevada Rural Housing Authority support this bill. He explained the administration would fall under the League of Cities and NACO who would appoint the members to the board. He said this is the original intent of the bill. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 35. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 35 and opened the hearing on A.B. 39. ASSEMBLY BILL 39: Revises provisions governing state purchasing. There was no discussion of the bill. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 39. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 39. She explained to the committee that she is holding S.B. 84 and S.B. 420 until Senator Raggio can be present for the discussion and for the vote. SENATE BILL 84: Increases compensation of various public officers. Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on A.B. 8. ASSEMBLY BILL 8: Authorizes creation of general improvement district to furnish facilities for certain radio transmissions. Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Elko Rural TV District, provided an amendment to the committee (Exhibit M) and explained that A.B. 8 is permissive legislation and discussed what the amendments could require radio districts to do. After her testimony, Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Nevada Broadcasters Association, testified that his people did not agree with her proposed amendment. He expressed concerns with Ms. Gang's testimony and with the amendment. Senator Porter expressed the opinion that Ms. Gang's amendment does not address problem areas which the committee heard in the previous testimony. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 8. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS TOWNSEND, O'CONNELL AND O'DONNELL VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 8 and opened the hearing on A.B. 354. ASSEMBLY BILL 354: Authorizes director of department of personnel to adopt certain regulations regarding noncompetitive appointment of employees with certain disabilities. Senator O'Connell explained this bill is a preferred worker's program. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 354. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 354 and opened the hearing on A.B. 382. ASSEMBLY BILL 382: Makes various changes to provisions governing local improvement districts. Senator O'Connell explained this makes various changes to provisions governing local improvement districts and reminded the committee they heard this bill on May 29. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 382. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 382 and opened the hearing on A.B. 403. ASSEMBLY BILL 403: Revises definition of "allocable local revenues" for purposes of provisions governing issuance of state securities to acquire revenue securities issued by municipality. There was no discussion on the bill. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 403. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 403 and opened the hearing on A.B. 407. ASSEMBLY BILL 407: Makes various changes concerning the state treasurer. Senator O'Donnell explained that when he talked with the various banks his previous concerns with the bill were addressed. He said if the state takes the compensatory balance of $22 million, which is used for demand deposits, the banks must find $160 million in new accounts for reserve capabilities. He asked the committee to hold the bill until he can do further research on the bill. He explained about reserve accounts. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 407 and opened the hearing on A.B. 453. ASSEMBLY BILL 453: Revises provisions governing procedure for appeal by person making unsuccessful bid for purchases by state. Senator O'Connell explained this bill provides procedures for the appeal process. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 453. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 453 and opened the hearing on A.B. 454. ASSEMBLY BILL 454: Revises provisions governing investment of state money. There was no discussion on the bill. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 454. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 454 and opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 12. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 12: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to prohibit exemption of elected public officers from laws applicable to general public. There was no discussion of the bill. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 12. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 12 and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 14. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 14: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to remove Lieutenant Governor from position of Speaker of Senate and to abolish additional expense allowance paid to Speaker of Assembly and President of the Senate. There was no discussion of the bill. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 14. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O'DONNELL VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 14 and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 30. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 30: Urges Congress to give consideration to readiness of Republic of China on Taiwan for broader participation in international community. There was no discussion regarding the bill. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 30. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 30 and opened the hearing on A.B. 43. ASSEMBLY BILL 43: Clarifies authority of officer or employee of Federal Government to enforce state laws and exercise powers of peace officer in Nevada. (BDR 23-219) Senator O'Connell explained that Clark County agreed to the amendment (Exhibit N). Mr. Graham stated they had agreed to the amendment. A short discussion of the amendment ensued. Senator Porter explained the reason the Park Service did not testify on the bill is because they are a federal agency and are prohibited from testifying. Further discussion of the bill ensued regarding other cooperative agreements. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 43. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Hearing no further testimony on any of the bills, Senator O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 31, 1995 Page