MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 19, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, June 19, 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 Jon C. Porter Senator William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Joan Lambert Assemblywoman Gene Segerbloom STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors Gary Milken, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Association of General Contractors Robert Morris, Deputy District Attorney, Douglas County Jack Jeffries, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association John Sande III, Lobbyist, Harrah's Hotel and Casino Ted Finneran, Lobbyist, Laughlin Chamber of Commerce Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State of Nevada Judy Sheldrew, Commissioner, Public Service Commission of Nevada Michael Alastuey, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District Julie A. Wilcox, Assistant to the General Manager, Las Vegas Valley Water District Robert Seale, State Treasurer, State of Nevada Mary Henderson, Director of Government Affairs, Washoe County Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 370. ASSEMBLY BILL 370: Revises provision governing alternative procedure for the creation of a local improvement district. Assemblywoman Joan Lambert provided a proposed amendment (Exhibit C) to the committee. She explained the bill affected an unincorporated town in Nevada that is trying to use a new portion of the assessment district chapter of the Nevada Revised Statutes. She explained they put this chapter into the law for Summerlin. She noted government has to be extremely sophisticated to be able to protect itself if a single developer is not successful in his development, so the local government taxpayer does not become financially responsible for the unpaid bills of the project. She stated the amendment will change the bill to include only cities and counties, and not unincorporated townships. Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas, answered questions the committee had regarding the amendment. He explained about bonds, default bonds and liability. Mrs. Lambert told the committee the unincorporated town is not listening to bond counsel and is selling bonds at the end development price. She said if the development does not go through, paying off the project will be impossible. She stressed they intend the amendment to build safeguards into the system. Mr. Leavitt explained an unincorporated town is dealing with raw land. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 370 and opened the hearing on A.B. 597. ASSEMBLY BILL 597: Authorizes certain cities and counties to allow use of independent contractors to review plans for and inspect buildings. Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, proposed an amendment to A.B. 597 (Exhibit D). They have discussed the difficulties for small and emerging contractors to do any public works projects because of the 5 percent bidder's preference. In an effort to solve some problems for some of these smaller emerging contractors, it had been discussed earlier in the session to establish a monetary threshold under which the bidder's preference would not apply. She said this amendment would say those contracts for public works whose cost is less than $250,000 will not be subject to the provisions regarding best bid with bidders' preference. It is just going to give these smaller contractors an opportunity to bid against each other without having the 5 percent bidder's preference coming into effect. The contractors hope it is a good deal, for instance, for a contractor who has been in the construction industry for many years but goes out and forms his own new company. That contractor cannot qualify for bidder's preference. She opined this might give those people an opportunity to bid on future public works projects. She stated there is no opposition to this concept because it will provide incentives for new contractors. Gary Milken, Representative, Southern Nevada Association of General Contractors, testified they agree on this proposed amendment. He said this amendment would give smaller contractors a chance to get established and then they can meet the criteria for larger public works projects. Robert Morris, Deputy District Attorney, Douglas County, suggested the bill should delegate the authority to get independent inspectors to do the job. He told the committee he would be interested in adding a section for independent contractors are part of the program for building inspection for counties. He cited examples. An example would be zoning. The state has delegated zoning to the counties, but they have put many restrictions on how it can be used. Another board in Douglas County favors this program. He stated the counties could work out the problems with the bill. He asked that independent contractors be used for building inspection for the counties. Senator O'Connell asked why they amended this section of the bill in the Assembly. Mr. Morris stated he understood Clark County has a program that deals with the issue. He said Clark County could put whatever restrictions, such as insurance or bonding, on those inspectors. Senator O'Connell asked, "Are we talking about commercial buildings as well as individual residences? Mr. Morris responded there is a section in the Uniform Building Code which allows owner-contracted inspectors. He suggested this section is for residential inspections. Senator O'Connell asked if the consumer would not have any more response or due process than to the $250,000 if there was something wrong with the building after it had already gotten the inspection? Mr. Morris answered that would be the limitation. He opined the contractor has the primary liability. He suggested the independent inspector be put in the same position as a county inspector. Senator O'Connell proposed removing the limitation from the bill as a protection for the consumer. Mr. Morris contended it was probably a matter of economics. He said if the insurance costs are high, maybe counties will decide the risk is too much or that independent inspectors would not be an economic or viable alternative to a county. Jack Jeffries, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, stated he had some concerns with this bill. He said if the developers hire the inspectors, and then are immune from lawsuits, it seems like the bill is covering the bases from all angles. He said he did not have a problem if the local entity wants to contract with a more established individual to do these inspections. He stated having the inspector answer to the person they are inspecting and then have the inspector free from liability from home owners could create a major problem. Senator O'Connell asked Assemblywoman Gene Segerbloom to explain why her committee deleted this portion of the bill. Mrs. Segerbloom stated: We talked it over. So many counties have difficulty inspecting homes fast enough. They seem to feel that the inspector would not be liable, that the contractor in some cases might be. It did not seem to be enough of a problem that it kept us from passing it. Actually so many counties and cities do not have enough inspectors that it holds up construction, maybe for 2 months until they get around to it. We questioned it. Senator O'Connell asked, "Did you have trouble with the fact that the inspector would then be working for the builder?" Mrs. Segerbloom responded, "Yes, that bothered us because if you have the same inspector, the same contractor uses the same inspector all the time. It would be very difficult then to check on that contractor and inspector. Now, you took out the part on section 3?" Senator O'Connell responded, "No this is our first hearing." Mrs. Segerbloom stated: Well, ...we agreed there were a lot of questions about the inspection of an officer or employee of the state. If there had been any problem ...the inspector from the state or the county should inspect and redo it. We worried too about the liability...It seemed that it was working very well in Douglas County and Assemblyman Hettrick, the post speaker, spoke in favor of it and it seemed to work very well there and they had not had problems and they had been using outside inspectors. Senator O'Donnell commented: As I read the language, the person hired would be hired by the county, who assumes that function of inspection. I would envision a pool of contractors that would offer their services for inspection purposes whereby if the county felt it was getting into a critical stage and they could not handle the proper inspection in a timely manner, they could call these contractors in the contractors' pool and have them go out and represent the county as their inspector. That is the way I read the language, so I have asked Irene Porter to come here today. Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, testified: I am aware of what Mr. Hettrick was trying to do and what has gone on in Clark County on this issue in the past. I will try to volunteer that for the committee. For probably 30 years, pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, there has been a provision, and there still is today, that allows a city or county to utilize an independent inspector or independent plan checkers. We in the trade, have called them fee inspectors for a long time. For instance, when you are doing a major project, a hotel on the strip, there are not enough building inspectors on permanent employ of the local government to be able to do all of the other inspections and also do the amount of daily inspection that is required on a strip hotel. The same thing exists with very large projects. The City of North Las Vegas found itself, a couple of years ago, in a situation of not having enough inspectors to keep up with the home building boom they were having; so using that provision of the Uniform Building Code, they hired special inspectors. They worked for the city. But we paid the city (`we' as the home building industry) an hourly rate to have those inspectors assigned to certain projects and to keep them expedited and going. The same thing has been going on for many years with additional plan checkers. You get large projects in and you get overloaded. The local governments do not always want to hire a full-time employee for that because it is a one-shot kind of thing and there are companies that do a plan check. I believe even some cities in the north have utilized these on a case-by-case basis. My understanding, from the Douglas County builders and from Mr. Hettrick, is that the District Attorney's Office in Douglas County took the position that they had no authority to do this even though we had always done this under the Uniform Building Code. So Mr. Hettrick had brought forth a piece of legislation to have independent inspectors, but have them outside of the realm of city or county. When the bill was considered by the Assembly [Committee on] Government Affairs there was concern about that situation because of liabilities. I believe that Mrs. Lambert, cochairman of the committee, actually worked with Bob Webber, the Director of Building and Safety for Clark County and Mr. Hettrick to help draft this language to take care of the committee concerns, but at the same time to give Douglas County the authorization to do what we have been doing throughout the rest of the state for many years. Senator Shaffer stated: I have used fee inspectors for various projects. Many times a large project would require an on-site fee inspector. We assign that person to the job and he would stay the duration of the job and we would contract out. It is authorized by the Uniform Building Code which dictates the conditions and parameters for plan checking. All these people would be certified properly and have the proper credentials to do that. The state adopts the Uniform Building Code, so unless a local jurisdiction would have an ordinance prohibiting that, the adoption by the state of a Uniform Building Code would then provide the authority for any jurisdiction to do the same thing. And if the ordinance was not there, they can very easily pass an ordinance to accomplish the same thing. Ms. Miller explained the amendment again: Those are the specific statutory references to the condition upon which best bid is met for bidder's preference; describing the tax burden, what the tax must be paid on, how it is construed, monetary threshold, etc. So if those provisions do not apply to projects under $250,000, what it means in essence is the low bid gets the job no matter what because there will not be a 5 percent bidder's preference for those small projects. Many small Nevada contractors are unable to meet the bidder's preference tax responsibilities; so, this is going to give them an in on some of these smaller public works projects. Senator Porter asked if the bill provides that a responsible contractor, at the time he submits his bid, provides the public body proof of the payment of the sales and use taxes imposed and materials used for construction of not less than $5,000 for each consecutive 12-month period? Ms. Miller responded in the affirmative. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 597 and opened the hearing on A.B. 658. ASSEMBLY BILL 658: Facilitates funding of certain projects through interlocal agreements. Mrs. Segerbloom testified her district includes Boulder City and down to Laughlin and out to Jean. She stated the bill is to get a bridge below Laughlin. She said a poll conducted by the Laughlin town board last year showed the bridge is the highest priority to the town. She provided a handout to the committee of all of the casinos and hotels that support the project (Exhibit E). She stated Laughlin's residents feel it would be very helpful if they had a bridge below the town so the residents of the town and people coming from Phoenix and from Lake Havasu can get there easier from Tucson. They need this additional bridge. They have one but it is above the town and they need a different one. Senator Townsend asked, "You are about a bridge rather than what the county can do if they enter into an agreement with the third party? Just help me out on the language of the bill." Mrs. Segerbloom responded, "At the moment, Arizona does not have the funds to build the bridge and so we are going to have an interlocal agreement with them. Clark County, not the state, will build the bridge with an agreement on the repayment of the funds." John Sande III, Lobbyist, Harrah's Hotel and Casino testified: If you note on Page 2 of the bill, line 12, they talk about if the counties entered into an agreement pursuant to NRS 277.080 to 277.170. That provides for these types of agreements between various states and this would be an interstate compact. It would have to contain specific items as to how it would be repaid and it would be reviewed by the attorney general before it was executed to make sure it complies with the statue. If it is a DOT [Department of Transportation] bridge, it would also be reviewed by the Department of Transportation. Senator O'Donnell remarked, "I am still lost. `The county may pay from retained proceeds.' What does that mean?" Ted Finneran, Lobbyist, Laughlin Chamber of Commerce answered: What we are asking for is to use part of our room tax money, so that is the retained funds I think they are talking about. That is what A.B. 658 is all about. All of those items listed in A.B. 658 were originally in NRS 244.33512 and there are many transportation items in there. There are roads, streets, avenues, overpasses and underpasses. They, inadvertently I think, left bridges out of that possibility. So what we are asking to do is add bridges to that list of items that transportation taxes can be used for and asking that we are allowed to enter into an interlocal agreement with the adjoining state. Discussion ensued on how the room tax, arts receipt funds, and transportation funds would be used to pay the bond indebtedness on the potential bridge. The discussion included how they would build the bridge, how to enter into the interlocal agreement, and how to receive repayment for Arizona's portion of the bridge. Mr. Leavitt testified: In this bill, if you turn to section 1 of the bill, I think you can get a feel for how come this term "retained proceeds" is used. We are talking about the proceeds of the tax and you notice that it provides who is going to distribute it, and there is one that it can be remitted to a city if it is an appropriate city. Then finally, you notice in B it says `retained by the County if collected elsewhere.' So that is now retained proceeds and they are allowed by the provisions of this act to issue bonds. In this particular case you would use a portion of the retained proceeds, which is simply the room tax that would come to the county to help defray the costs of paying principal and interest on the bonds until there were other sources of money available which, in this case, would come from some other entity in Arizona. There would be a general obligation of the county for the bonds and there would be no responsibility on the part of the state to pay them off, should these funds not be sufficient. Senator O'Connell asked if they knew the possible cost of the bridge? Mr. Finneran stated, "No." He explained the county has approved a $198,000 study to be conducted which is ongoing at the present time to determine the site of the bridge, the width, how far the bridge would have to go into the river, and how much of the river would have to be crossed at that particular point. He said this will determine the cost of the bridge. He told the committee Mr. Laughlin built the first bridge at a cost of more than $3 million and built it next to his own hotel/casino. Mr. Finneran opined this is an average cost. He explained the bridge would tie Laughlin and Bullhead City residential areas together much more tightly than they are at the present time. He stated it will be a lot easier for employees to get to and from work. Probably 80 percent of all of the Laughlin resort employees live in Bullhead City, Arizona. He said: We are also looking to bring tourist traffic in. We would like to encourage more and more traffic from Phoenix and the way to do it is to get them there a little easier. We think the bridge will help. The present bridge is currently receiving about 26,000 cars a day and the forecast is that it will do 72,000 cars a day by the year 2000. That bridge will not handle the 26,000 and neither will the intersections that bridge connects with. As you come over the bridge, we really have a jam up at the intersection. We would like to spread that traffic out and a new bridge is the only way we can do it. Senator O'Connell asked, "Have the negotiations begun on the Arizona side?" Mr. Finneran responded: Only with our study. The contractor is reviewing all of their needs and their location requests, their priorities, where they would like to see their bridge. Probably they are going to match. If they do not, it is another good plus for Laughlin building the bridge and charging them because we will at least have that greater option of where to put the bridge. Senator O'Connell asked if it would be a toll bridge to help pay back the cost? Mr. Finneran responded it would not be a toll bridge. He explained the state of Arizona would repay their portion of the bridge. Senator Porter commented: We are dealing with another state, the state of Arizona. That is critical to the language and they are trying to expedite the process. With close to $5 million a year in gaming revenues coming into the state, Laughlin, currently using a privately funded bridge, I think if it is appropriate to find the means to construct another facility that will incorporate more traffic into the area for additional revenues. Mr. Sande informed the committee Harrah's Hotel and Casino supports this legislation. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 658 and opened the hearing on S.B. 564. SENATE BILL 564: Enables private contracts for supply of water. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, State of Nevada, testified first. He stated he does not understand the driving force, need, or intent of the bill. He reminded the committee there has been a bill this session dealing with conveyance of titles of water rights. He said this bill addresses private contractors who are wholesalers to municipalities, irrigation districts, and special districts. He said that knowing who the owner of water rights is, is important for his office in case of public notices, etc. He said this bill troubles him because it disregards other state statutes regarding conveyance of property. Judy Sheldrew, Commissioner, Public Service Commission of Nevada, provided a handout to the committee (Exhibit F). She explained they are also concerned with the intent of the bill and cited examples. She asked the committee to notify her if the proponents of the bill appear. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 564 and opened the work session hearing with a hearing on S.B. 248. The work session document is Exhibit G. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 248: Revises provisions regarding approval by general obligation bond commission of certain types of municipal funding. (BDR 30-109) Senator O'Connell told the committee the Assembly has a proposed amendment for the bill (Exhibit H). She temporarily closed the hearing on S.B. 248 and opened the hearing on S.B. 508. SENATE BILL 508: Makes various changes concerning elections relatin g to local governm ent finance . (BDR 30-182) Michael Alastuey, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District, gave the committee a proposed amendment (Exhibit I). He testified bond counsel drafted the amendments and addressed the concerns of the committee from the prior hearing on the bill. Discussion of the amendment ensued. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 508. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS TOWNSEND, O'CONNELL, RAGGIO, AND O'DONNELL VOTED NO.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 508 and opened the hearing on S.B. 294. SENATE BILL 294: Creates Las Vegas Valley Ground Water Replenishment District. Julie A. Wilcox, Assistant to the General Manager, Las Vegas Valley Water District, provided an amendment (Exhibit J). Discussion of the proposed amendment ensued. Topics included domestic well owners and how the bill would affect other counties in the state. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 294. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. SENATORS O'CONNELL, RAGGIO, AND SHAFFER VOTED NO.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 294 and opened the hearing on A.B. 407. ASSEMBLY BILL 407: Makes various changes concerning state treasurer. Robert Seale, State Treasurer, State of Nevada, testified this bill allows the state treasurer to make direct payments to banks in lieu of compensating balances. He stated there are no amendments to the bill. Senator O'Donnell stated the banks assured him there is no need for the compensating balances as there was 5 years ago. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 407. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 407 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 248. Senator O'Connell told the committee they have the copies of the conflict amendment (Exhibit H). Discussion of the amendment ensued. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 1008 FOR S.B. 248. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 248 and opened the hearing on S.B. 511. SENATE BILL 511: Authorizes certain cities to form independent school districts. Senator Porter explained the intent of this bill concurs with the interim study proposed in Senate Concurrent Resolution 30. There was no further discussion of the bill. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 30: Directs Legislative Committee to conduct interim study of desirability and feasibility of dividing large school districts into smaller school districts. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 511. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 511 and opened the hearing on S.B. 521. SENATE BILL 521: Authorizes certain small cities in larger counties to elect not to participate in county fair and recreation board. Senator Porter stated, "The convention authority has been very supportive of the outlying areas for many years. Nevertheless, I think that based on the most recent negotiations, the City of Mesquite and the convention authority are going to be able to work out their differences and will not need S.B. 521 as proposed." SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 521. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SHAFFER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 521 and opened the hearing on S.B. 540. SENATE BILL 540: Prohibits sale of goods on sidewalks adjacen t to highway without local busines s license . Senator O'Connell told the committee the bill has been withdrawn. There was no further discussion on the bill. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 540. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SHAFFER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 540 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 564. Senator O'Connell explained Senator Rhoads contacted her and stated he has no problem with this bill being indefinitely postponed. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 564. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SHAFFER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 564 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. Mary Henderson, Director, Washoe County Government Affairs, explained the original need for the bill. She reminded the committee they are addressing this topic in an Assembly bill. Discussion ensued on the limit of the number of lists. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 450. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SHAFFER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 450 and opened the hearing on A.B. 35. ASSEMBLY BILL 35: Reorganizes Nevada rural housing authority. Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, told the committee there is a conflict amendment on this bill. She stated A.B. 35 conflicts with A.B. 489. ASSEMBLY BILL 489: Revises provisions governing actions against certain planning and zoning agencies. Ms. Bennett explained the conflict is found in section 11, page 5, lines 8 through 10 of A.B. 35. She said, "The language is changed so that the university and community college system is a using agency." She explained the forthcoming amendment to the committee. She said it will be a technical amendment, because the affected statute already appears in both bills. She explained A.B. 39 has gone through both houses and has been sent to the Governor for signature. ASSEMBLY BILL 39: Revises provisions governing state purchasing. Ms. Porter informed the committee they had been waiting for 8 days for the amendment to come back from the bill drafters. She said the amendment just changes the effective date to "upon passage and approval." She said they could live without the amendment. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS DO PASS MOTION ON A.B. 35. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS PORTER AND SHAFFER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. ***** SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND, WITH THE A.B. 39 CONFLICT AMENDMENT, AND DO PASS A.B. 35. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS PORTER, TOWNSEND, AND SHAFFER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 35 and opened the hearing on A.B. 52. ASSEMBLY BILL 52: Requires certain bonds issued by municipalities to be sold by competitive bid. Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, provided a proposed amendment (Exhibit K) from Senator Porter to the committee. Discussion of the amendment ensued. Mr. Leavitt told the committee when the term "chief administrative officer" is used, it means the most responsible person. He said this term will refer to all of the chief administrative officers of every entity in Nevada. Senator Porter continued explaining his proposed section by section amendments to the bill. Discussion of the bill and proposed amendments continued. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 52 WITH HIS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TOWNSEND, O'CONNELL, AND SHAFFER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 52 BY DELETING SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE BILL. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TOWNSEND, O'CONNELL, AND SHAFFER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 52 WITH THE APPROVED AMENDMENTS. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TOWNSEND, O'CONNELL, AND SHAFFER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** As Senator O'Connell and Senator Townsend had been called into other urgent committee hearings, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs June 19, 1995 Page