MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 23, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 3:00 p.m., on Friday, June 23, 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: Assemblyman Doug Bache, Assembly District 11 Senator Michael McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36 Assemblyman Robert Price, Assembly District 17 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Ken West, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller Bob Seale, State Treasurer, Office of the State Treasurer Jim Wadhams, Lobbyist, Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company Fred Hinners, Management Analyst, State Industrial Insurance System Mary Walker, Director of Finance and Redevelopment, Carson City Brian Herr, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association Andrew Urban, Assistant City Attorney, Henderson Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Freedom of Information Don Ham, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association Thomas Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities Ellen Nelson, Lobbyist, Common Cause/Nevada Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Reno/Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority Erin Kenny, Commissioner, Clark County Guy Hobbs, Comptroller, Clark County Jan Jones, Mayor, City of Las Vegas Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas Mary Henderson, Director of Government Affairs, Washoe County Mike Alastuey, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District Matthew Callister, City Council Member, Fourth Ward, City of Las Vegas Senator O'Connell opened the hearing with testimony on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 459. ASSEMBLY BILL 459: Makes various changes regarding committee established to administer program of deferred compensation for state employees. Ken West, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller, read a written statement from Darrel Daines, State Controller, Office of the State Controller (Exhibit C). An excerpt, from the statement read by Mr. West, states: A.B. 459 does some good things. It reduces the number of members on the committee, but best of all, it requires that any member of the committee must be a contributor to Deferred Compensation. In other words, they have to have some of their personal money at risk. The amendment that was slipped in is not good. It does two things. It would require that the committee go out to bid every 2 years, regardless of how satisfied the members were with the program and in addition, would require that at least one more plan administrator be allowed into the program. The amendment to A.B. 459 section 5, paragraph 3(d) and (e) should be removed [page 3, line 19-22]. With this change, the bill is a good bill. If it cannot be amended, then the entire bill should be killed. Senator O'Connell asked Assemblyman Doug Bache, Assembly District 11, to address Mr. Daines' concern. Mr. Bache stated Mr. Daines did not testify on A.B. 459 and added the amendment was placed on the bill 30 days ago. He stated he heard concerns that the way the plan is run now, it is completely locked up; no open bidding process occurs. He stated to encourage competition, they should make two different plans available to allow the participants in the Deferred Compensation a choice. Senator O'Connell asked if testimony was provided regarding the cost. She further asked if anyone was concerned about the cost. Mr. Bache responded, "That issue wasn't raised on the Assembly side." Bob Seale, State Treasurer, Office of the State Treasurer, addressed periodic bidding of services which the treasurer's office does for banking services every two years. He agreed it was a laborious task, but cited the successes they have had in bidding out those services. He stated the price from the vendor and the services that they get from the vendor make it worth the effort. He emphasized, just because they bid the services out, it does not mean that the program would change from one vendor to another. He voiced his support for the bill. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Seale if the 2-year bid process was costly? Mr. Seale testified, "Yes, there is a cost attached." Jim Wadhams, Lobbyist, Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company, urged the committee to pass the bill. He stated he is an active competitor nationwide in this business. He stressed although they are employee funds, the program is state-created and controlled. He surmised the program should be conducted in a manner consistent with other state laws. Senator O'Connell explained this bill was passed out of committee. Fred Hinners, Management Analyst, State Industrial Insurance System, read his written statement to the committee (Exhibit D). Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Hinners why he did not attend previous hearings on the bill. Mr. Hinners responded he was not aware of the other hearings. Senator O'Connell reminded him that this is not a "hearing"; she was merely providing the state controller the ability to object to the amendment. Mr. Hinners told the committee it is true that things are "locked up;" there is only one Hartford asset management company. He stressed any type of investment can be made under the Hartford program, unless it is wildly speculative. He explained the program has nine major options, four management companies, and several different stock funds. He told the committee transfer charges will be made by each company. He suggested, "If you ask the participants, I think they would say they will be against this." Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Bache if he talked to the participants before introducing this bill, and if any of them testified. Mr. Bache responded, "Originally, A.B. 359, from last session, which became A.B. 459 this session, was at the request of various constituents, but they were in Las Vegas and did not personally testify before the committee on Assembly government affairs. In fact, very few people testified, all in support." ASSEMBLY BILL 359 OF THE SIXTY- SEVENTH SESSION: Makes various changes regarding administration of program of deferred compensation for state employees. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Bache if there were any calls opposing the program. Mr. Bache responded there were none. Senator O'Connell informed the committee there were no calls in opposition received on the Senate side either. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 459 and opened the hearing on A.B. 561. ASSEMBLY BILL 561: Makes various changes concerning issuance and redemption of certain state obligations. Mr. Seale testified A.B. 561 combines the issuance of the general obligation debt in the State of Nevada so that it is all issued in the treasurer's office. He stated: It is combining the municipal bond bank debt issuance that I am responsible for, the general obligation debt in the Department of Administration, and the general obligation debt out of the Colorado River Commission. This kind of a combination was recommended in the Peat-Marwick study of a couple of years ago. A number of states have already gone in this direction. We believe you will be able to combine the sophistication needed in order to issue debt in one place. We think that will certainly save costs in terms of issuance. We also believe that the impact of doing so, will have an impact on the cost of debt for the State of Nevada. It could have some very significant implications in terms of savings. ...It takes the oversight rules and puts it into the [State] Board of Finance...[comprised of] the Governor as the chairman, the treasurer, the state controller, and two outside members...appointed by the Governor, one of which has to be in banking. So the knowledge that that particular board embodies, we think is a good place for debt to be overseen, by the [State] Board of Finance. We have, in the State of Nevada, because we issue debt in so many places, no significant debt management policies. The debt management policy in the State of Nevada is 2 percent of net assessed value. We think that consolidating this gives us an opportunity to do a better job with debt management. I intend to write a debt management plan. Also, there is an opportunity, because I am responsible for the asset side, the management of the assets, to take a look at both sides of the equation if it's all in one place...I urge your approval. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Seale to provide a section-by- section analysis of the bill, complete with an example of a transaction. Mr. Seale stated he would provide an analysis. He advised the committee that the Colorado River Commission and the Department of Administration support the bill. Senator O'Connell asked if any opposition testimony was presented in the Assembly. Mr. Seale responded there was none. He noted there were two modest language amendments incorporated into the bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 561 and opened the hearing on A.B. 117. ASSEMBLY BILL 117: Incorporates City of Pahrump by charter. Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, stated the Nevada League of Cities will not oppose the bill and have offered to help Pahrump if it becomes incorporated. Senator Michael McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District, read a prepared written statement into the record (Exhibit E), and submitted a summary of A.B. 117 (Exhibit F). Senator O'Connell asked if Pahrump has developed a budget and if they can afford to incorporate. Mr. Neighbors stated they have met that requirement at an earlier meeting. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 117 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 568. SENATE BILL 568: Makes various changes concerning fees charged by cities and counties to public utilities. Mary Walker, Director of Finance and Redevelopment, Carson City, voiced her support for the bill. Brian Herr, Lobbyist, Nevada Bell, provided a synopsis of the bill for the committee. He stated the bill addresses business license, franchise, and right-of-way fees assessed by local governments on gas, electric, and telecommunication industries, but does not deal with water providers. He maintained it does not impact the 2.5 percent net paid by utilities to schools, or the cable television industry unless they become a retail provider of telecommunication services. He asserted the bill insures that they assess all utility competitors the same fees. He said S.B. 568 brings stability and predictability to the revenues generated by the fees, and is important to utility industries and local government. He stressed it provides a stable fee structure in the State of Nevada, and contains sufficient safeguards. Mr. Herr advised the bill limits the revenues to an overall 5 percent fee cap, limits the increase to 1 percent in 24 months, and maintains the local ordinance requirement to impose or change fees. Mr. Herr offered one amendment to the bill (Exhibit G). He cited the amendment as a technical correction for the definition of "public utility." He added all entities impacted by the bill have agreed to the bill and the amendment. He read a list of the entities who support the legislation. Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, stated the amendment prevents taxation of telecommunication services within the hotels. He said this was not the intent of the bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 568 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 345. ASSEMBLY BILL 345: Revises provisions governing term of office of municipal judge of City of Henderson. Andrew Urban, Assistant City Attorney, Henderson, told the committee this bill will allow the City of Henderson to change the municipal judge's term from 4 years to 6 years. He explained this will make the term compatible with the terms of the justice court, district court and supreme court judges. Discussion of the effect this bill would have on charter cities ensued. The committee discussed the proposed amendment from Senator Lowden. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 345 and opened the hearing on A.B. 602. ASSEMBLY BILL 602: Defines "action" for purposes of open meeting law. Assemblyman Robert Price, Assembly District 17, stated this bill clarifies some language in the open meeting law. He told the committee it is possible to conduct a meeting via facsimile (fax) machines. He reminded the committee that transmitting information and coming to decisions via the fax machine, instead of an open meeting is not the intent of the open meeting law. He said meetings which are videoconferenced to another location allow people the opportunity for input and qualify under the open meeting law. Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Freedom of Information, voiced support for the bill. Don Ham, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, provided the committee with a written statement from the Nevada Press Association (Exhibit H). Senator Townsend asked Ms. Engleman, now that they are defining "action" in the bill, does that mean that a meeting does not have to meet the requirements of the open meeting law if no action is taken? Ms. Engleman responded that is absolutely not the intent of the law. She said it is still a meeting even if they take no action. She cited people going behind closed doors and arriving at a decision; but deciding, since they did not take a formal vote, it does not qualify as "action." She emphasized that decision was made behind closed doors. She stated it is the intent of this bill to let the entities know that decisions made behind closed doors are a violation of the open meeting law. Thomas Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, stated his support for the bill. He added the attorney general wants the "action" part included in the bill. Ellen Nelson, Lobbyist, Common Cause/Nevada, voiced his support for the bill, but cited some concern about the legislative portion of the bill, and asked for further clarification of section 3. Ms. Engleman informed the committee that the interim committees will follow the open meeting law. Mr. Price provided a history of interim committees and the open meeting law. He said the Legislature, while in session, is exempt because provision of a 3-day notice at the end of session is impossible. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 602 and opened the hearing on S.B. 569. SENATE BILL 569: Makes various changes relating to tax on transient lodging and county fair and recreation boards. Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Reno/Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority (RSCVA), stated this bill clarifies enforcement of the room tax law and application for a business license, and amends the membership of the Reno/Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority. The tax provisions are the same for the cities and the counties. After the law was amended last session to allow a 6-month period for attachment of a lien, there was a legal opinion that, although an audit showed 2 years of delinquent taxes, the authority could go back only 6 months to attach the lien. He stated they were losing 18 months taxes from entities which were in arrears. He stressed that was clearly not the intention of the lien or tax enforcement laws. He maintained that language is clarified in the bill. Mr. McMullen addressed the business license problem. He stated a couple of businesses have received their license but have paid almost no room tax. He said they are able to continue to operate under their license, and sell rooms or transient lodging. He said the bill provides that, if the RSCVA sends a notice to the business license issuing entity that a business license needs to be revoked until the taxes are paid, this is a mechanism to receive the taxes due. Mr. McMullen spoke to the portion of the bill that addressed the membership of the RSCVA. He explained a person can serve two terms. The bill now provides no succession rights. A person can no longer succeed himself or herself and a property cannot have a representative term, after term, after term. He said everyone will serve staggered terms also. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 569 and opened the work session. The work session document is Exhibit I. The committee began the work session with a discussion of Exhibit J, which are the suggestions for legislative pay raises. Senator Raggio stated the legislators cannot delegate the authority to fix the compensation of the legislators under the constitution. He said they cannot create a salary commission under the constitution. He provided a history of trying to fix and determine legislative salaries. Discussion of Exhibit J continued with examination of various proposals. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DRAFT A BILL TO REQUEST A BALLOT REFERENDUM QUESTION IF THE PUBLIC APPROVES THE POLICY OF GIVING LEGISLATORS THE SAME RAISE AS STATE EMPLOYEES, THEN THAT POLICY WOULD GO INTO EFFECT THE NEXT SESSION. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on legislative pay increases and opened the hearing on S.B. 556. SENATE BILL 556: Provides additional circumstances for creating unincorporated towns and revises provisions governing establishment of basic ad valorem revenue for certain local governments. Senator Porter summarized the hearing of June 21, the subcommittee hearing of June 22, and the other meetings that he has held with the county manager and city managers. He noted a consensus agreement has not been reached. He asked Erin Kenny, Commissioner, Clark County, and Guy Hobbs, Comptroller, Clark County, to give the committee the list of capital improvements for Spring Valley. Mr. Hobbs gave the committee a list of capital projects that are pending at this time (Exhibit K). He said once the additional Supplemental City/County Relief Tax (SCCRT) and Motor Vehicle Privilege Tax (MVPT) funds are phased in, the Board of Commissioners has the option of using the revenue stream to leverage and possibly finance, on a more expeditious basis, some capital projects on the list. Senator Porter questioned, "So in 1996-[19]97, you are proposing to spend $3 million on a police substation." Mr. Hobbs answered, "This represents the list of current requests. These are unfunded requests at this point in time . . . . " Senator Porter interjected the committee has asked for the plans for the immediate future of Spring Valley if the revenues do revert to the county. He asserted, "The issue was Spring Valley wasn't being serviced properly. You were going to show us what you were going to do with this shift." Ms. Kenny responded any decisions have to be made by the Board of Commissioners after they had agendized the meeting, noticed, conducted and voted upon each issue. They have to determine priority among the projects. Discussion of the revenue stream and the priority of the projects ensued in which Senator Porter asked if this list is just on the drawing board at this time, and Ms. Kenny responded positively. Senator Porter commented, "The request was, `Assuming you are going to receive additional revenues, what immediately would these residents see?' These are already on the drawing board, correct? So maybe we are going to see these move up a little quicker? Can you be more definitive?" Ms. Kenny stated she would like to do that, but reiterated her testimony regarding the steps which the Board of Commissioners must take. She stressed the Board of Commissioners would like to move forward to do as much in as quick a fashion as possible to remedy this situation, because they are all aware of the void that exists there. Senator O'Connell stated she has received phone calls from Spring Valley residents who state a park fund was established 4 years ago. A dedication was held at that time. Money was supposedly set aside for that fund. Every time a new home is purchased $100 is deposited into that park fund. She asked how much is presently in that fund. Mr. Hobbs rejoined he does not know the balance but will provide that information for the committee. He noted more than one residential park district covers Spring Valley. Senator Shaffer noted they earmark the park funds for development in a concentrated area and there is a certain distance between current existing parks. He added there are some contingencies on that money regarding where it could be used. Mr. Hobbs commented, "In general terms, it can only be spent within the park district in which it is generated." Senator Porter asked, "Is that the residential construction tax?" Mr. Hobbs responded, "Yes, sir." Senator O'Connell informed the committee she received, from the Spring Valley Town Advisory Board, the minutes of the meeting of April 13, 1995, which included a presentation from the Spring Valley Park District. She stated the park district advised there is more than $1 million to enhance parks and build ball fields later this summer. She asked if this figure was familiar to any of the witnesses? Senator Townsend reminded the Clark County commissioners that this is a Clark County bill. He asked why they did not have the authority to make a decision to solve some problems in Spring Valley? Ms. Kenny asked if he meant, "Solving the problem in terms of bringing the money back to spend in that area, or do you mean in terms of the mechanism?" Senator Townsend explained, "If there is some agreement that there are dollars that should be shifted, you do not have the authority to come to some resolution here without going back to the county commission and posting, and having hearings. Is that correct?" Ms. Kenny responded, "I think Mr. Porter was asking specifically on what block would something be done and which would be done first. We would have to look at the exact dollars. I am sure that you understand with the phase-in, the full monies will not be realized until the year 2000. We would have to move some monies forward, what is coming in the future, to accelerate that to be able to get a community center or a park built." Senator Townsend stated, "Let me ask the mayor. You are here representing the city. Do you have the authority to come to some resolution on this bill and what the city is willing to do or not do, without going back to a meeting of the city?" Jan Jones, Mayor, City of Las Vegas, responded: Yes, we got together with the county and we felt that we had attempted to approach the subject in good faith. The immediate issue appeared to be Spring Valley. We agreed, although it does have a negative impact on our own funds, that we would allow that township to be created. Any other portions of the bill, specifically the Summerlin township would be pulled from the bill until we had a chance to study how we collect, how we redistribute, and how we are really funding both regional and urban services in southern Nevada. We thought that we were discussing the issue in good faith, but that does not seem to be the case. Senator Townsend questioned, "So we are not in agreement on that issue at all then are we . . . or are we?" Ms. Kenny interjected: Excuse me Senator, maybe I misunderstood your question. If you are speaking as to our position on Senator Porter's amendment, I certainly am able to speak on that. When you are asking . . . I thought you were asking about what bricks and mortar were going up first. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. Senator Townsend queried the city is willing to come to some resolution, although it would impact their current service level. They feel they are operating in good faith, but now the county is saying "trust me." He stressed the people in Spring Valley ought to know what they are going to get or where that money is going to go. He said ". . . for this committee to make a decision and say, `Okay, we will come to some resolution on transferring these funds,' and [the county ] says, `Thanks for coming by,` . . . nothing may happen. I don't think it is fair to people in Spring Valley." Ms. Kenny responded since the county will have a new opportunity to provide even better services, she wanted input from the Spring Valley residents about what is going to be the highest priority from their position and how fast the county can facilitate those things. She stated she expected this to be a collaborative government public enterprise. Senator Townsend surmised: We appreciate that, however, if we're planning on leaving here relatively shortly, that sounds like a `Trust us,' kind of statement. I am not sure it is fair to the five people here from Clark County to ask the city in good faith to give money; then you are going to say, `Trust us, we are going to give them what they want.' That is a tough one for them [the committee members]. That's awfully tough. Ms. Kenny retorted: I don't think it is when I put it clearly on the record. Clearly, if we did not follow through, I am sure they would put us in line very quickly. I feel that there are a lot of checks and balances in the system. It only helps the community to provide the services that we assured would be provided. I simply want the opportunity to let the people in Spring Valley talk to me and talk to the other commissioners and the other senators who represent them, and the Assembly people and let them know what they think. I just think it is a fair process. Senator Townsend asked, "You're the commissioner from Spring Valley?" Ms. Kenny answered in the affirmative. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Hobbs to answer her question regarding the balance of the park fees. Mr. Hobbs responded he would confirm the amount with Mr. Trowbridge from the Spring Valley Park District. He said it appears the first and second documents refer to Phase 1 of the park development on the proposed list (Exhibit K). Senator O'Connell asked if the revenue for the parks has been transferred and if the project is on its way. She reminded the committee that on June 21, Commissioner Kenny testified it would be 20 years before completion. Ms. Kenny responded one park is a 20-year plan. Senator O'Connell asked where the $3 million of revenue transferred to the recreation budget in Fiscal Year 1994-1995 was spent? She said the residents have contributed to the fund and it is available. She questioned Ms. Kenny concerning her testimony that one park is a 20-year plan, but cannot account for the $3 million in park fees. Mr. Hobbs clarified they are dealing with multiple-phase projects where they may be building 10 to 25 acres at a time for something that may be a 40- to 80-acre park site. He said phases of it may be funded incrementally over a long period of time. That is the case with the funding for the [Highway] 290 park that they are dealing with. He stated, "I'd like to be able to confirm to you that both the million dollars that was referred to in the first item that you showed me, plus the residential construction tax is being used for Phase 1 of the [Highway] 290 park." Senator O'Connell stated, "The only thing in the ground now is a stick saying, `A park coming soon.' I'm sure that the stick didn't cost that much money. I am very interested in knowing the follow-up on this end." Mr. Hobbs responded, "We can determine the status of the project, whether it is in design or out to bid. We will determine that for you." Senator O'Connell reiterated, "I think we can, from evidence of this, give them a little more hope than 20 years away." Ms. Kenny responded, "Oh yes. This is a huge portion of land acreage. Before all of the services we hope to put in there are done, it will take approximately 20 years into the current system as we anticipate what funds would be allocated back to Spring Valley." Senator Porter summarized the commitments made by the county and the city: I had suggested in lieu of their proposed bill as amended, that the county also agree to a study of the Summerlin South, plus all of the other areas in Clark County that are in question. Because in their testimony, they stated it has been a 12-year tax distribution problem, it is not something new. It is a problem that has been on the books for a long time. It seemed natural to me that we would take a look at the problem and properly address it in the next 18 months; because currently there isn't anyone living in Summerlin South. The City of Las Vegas did agree to that, but the county would not agree to a study. They would prefer to remain as is, as amended. I then offered, today, that anything that came out of the study would be retroactive to the end of our session so that they would not be at risk; as they feel they have been the last 12 years. So any monies would then be divided proportionally. The City of Las Vegas did agree to a retroactive means. The county would not accept that. My frustration is, as I opined 3 days ago, is that in your testimony they mentioned a 12-year problem. They have been under negotiations for a little over 3 years with Summerlin South for this particular area of development. I know it is a big concern to them because of the financial impacts that development is going to have on the county. But again, it has been in negotiations for close to 3 years. The bill draft was presented to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Jan Needham, on May 15 because the negotiations were completed on May 12 with Summerlin. There was a reason for them to expedite this, is that deal did come together on the 12th. On the 15th of May, it was presented. We held our first hearing on June 21, which was Wednesday. For the record, the library system, who is directly impacted did not find out until yesterday or the day before. My suggestion would be that we have the appropriate study done and look at the tax division in southern Nevada. I am sure that 12 years ago, they did not anticipate a million and some people being in Clark County. I appreciate the City of Las Vegas and the county trying to protect their interests. But another comment that I made to all parties today, as I did yesterday, this is having a major impact on southern Nevada and its relations throughout the business community, throughout the smaller communities. It is sending a really poor message. I certainly don't want those folks in Spring Valley, who apparently are the most affected, to be left out of this. I would also suggest that we do allow the county to do what they are planning in servicing these folks in Spring Valley immediately with the phase-in that has been proposed by the county so that the impact financially won't be so great on the smaller communities. I am disappointed the county would not support a study, but I do feel that we have to [conduct a study] based upon what we have learned in the last 3 days. One of the arguments has been, `How can we do this?' and not provide representation to the Summerlin area. I agree that they need appropriate representation and that in the next 18 months we will be able to come up with some resolution so there is appropriate coverage for those folks. I would encourage that this committee amend the bill that is before us to provide for the study and to allow the division of Spring Valley to take care of those folks. For those that haven't been involved in this, this committee has requested a home rule study take place in the interim. It did pass yesterday. I would like to see a subcommittee of that group take a look at the tax divisions of southern Nevada to make sure that not only those folks in Spring Valley, who are very important, but everyone else in Nevada are properly serviced. Senator O'Donnell summarized the history of Spring Valley, Summerlin, and the affects of SCCRT and MVPT. He outlined the lack of basic services. He stated: I think what will happen, let me make a prediction, the money from this SCCRT and MVPT goes into the county general fund. So if we need pipes out to the new Summerlin, I wonder where the money is going to come from? I think it is going to be the Spring Valley money that is going to pay for the infrastructure for Summerlin. I don't understand this. The bill, to me, solves the problem; even if you phase it in. This sort of `half-way' type of thing isn't going to solve the Summerlin South problem. If you know anything about the demographics in Las Vegas, you can't run the sewer up hill. The Summerlin South is downhill from the pipe in the city. Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, Las Vegas, responded: We had agreed with Senator Porter that we have even retroactively provided the funds that would have been earned in Summerlin situation. The amount of money that would go there now over the next 2 years is not money sufficient to put in water and sewer lines. You could do almost nothing with that money that would go there. Our position is, and has been, that why get ourselves into another one of these until we have worked out the basic distribution system that is going to go into the future. Why do it now when we don't have a clue? Discussion of the infrastructure duties of a developer ensued. Senator Titus said: I think if you just do this half of the bill, you will improve the status of Spring Valley, but what you will do is put it in the position now as Paradise and Winchester and some of the other towns and it will still be left to subsidize Summerlin. Is that right? Mr. Leavitt stated, "If Summerlin was in existence prior to that, but our understanding is that it is not really going to be an operational problem until after the 2 years is over anyway." Ms. Kenny voiced: Actually, that is not true. We are beginning our negotiations on the development agreement in a number of months. Within 15 to 16 months, we should have 500 to 600 residents living there. So no, there will be people living there who are going to be needing services in a rather short period of time. Senator O'Donnell expressed, "You can't go forward until you get an agreement first. Everything is in limbo." Senator O'Connell told the committee that they will not vote on the issue until Senator Raggio returns. Mr. Hobbs reiterated previous testimony that Summerlin is what Spring Valley was 12 years ago. It is very easy to extrapolate from this point forward and say with some degree of certainty that as far as its tax structure, its ability to receive tax distributions; it will be where Spring Valley is today some number of years into the future unless it is addressed at this point. It is a mirror image of what Spring Valley was 12 years ago. Senator O'Connell stressed somehow the residents of Spring Valley seem to have gotten the idea that as soon as this bill is passed, they are going to see all kinds of improvement in their area. She stressed the county owes Spring Valley residents an explanation of what is going on in that area, how it is going to affect them, and when it is going to affect them. She stated, "We want some assurances before we do pass this, if we pass it, that those people and their concerns are going be addressed because that is what they are expecting from this legislation." Mr. Hobbs acknowledged: Madame Chair, I believe that a very strong identity has been created between what net revenues would come back to Clark County and their use in Spring Valley. I don't think there is any question about that. Commissioner Kenny, a moment ago, summarized the process that we have to go through, that she is one of seven commissioners and each year we approve both an operating budget for the county, and we approve our capital plan for the county. Senator O'Connell noted: The county has pushed harder for this bill than they have for any other bill. That means to me that those other county commissioners must be squarely behind this bill. I am not accepting that we have to go back and sell this to them. So let us just get it on the record right now. . . . Ms. Kenny interjected, "No, no, let me clarify. . . ." Senator O'Connell continued her statement: Let me clarify what my intent is here. Those people are going to see some response if this bill is passed. Not that it is going to be put off, not that we are going to have to wait years for things to happen, because I think we've got some information here that is saying that something should be happening. I want to know that something is going to happen for those constituents. Ms. Kenny explained with the 5-year phase-in, the true financial or fiscal benefits will not be realized until the year 2000. She stressed: In terms of whether it will necessarily be a community center versus a park next week, I would not be able to tell you. Not because I don't want to tell you, but because I think there is a two-step process that we intend to go through. One, we have to go through the physical mechanism of the agenda. Two, we would like to get some input back from the Spring Valley folks and let them give us a feel for their priorities." Senator O'Connell stated, "I'm just going to say for the record that we are going to send verbatim minutes to that Spring Valley board." Ms. Kenny responded, "Oh...that's a great a idea. I attend all of the meetings..." Senator O'Connell interjected, "That is a great idea so that they will know exactly what has transpired in the hearing." Ms. Kenny added, "I appreciate that." Senator Porter commented: I represent over 17 communities in southern Nevada. Many of those are incorporated, and many of them are not. I probably have a larger city constituency than any one in southern Nevada. I am responsible for all of those folks. I can tell you that the phone calls throughout the county from these communities are very upsetting to me and to their constituents. I can tell you these communities are afraid to get involved. That is a disservice to those folks and to us because they don't want to upset the apple cart. In 4 days, we're looking at changing a whole tax structure for over 1 million people. This is why I have said we should slow this down. That is why I offered to have it retroactive so that the county would not be penalized, or the folks in Spring Valley. I share with Senator O'Connell's comments that this is not acceptable. We have to have your assurances. That is why we are here. For all of those 17 communities, it had better be done right. Senator O'Connell temporarily closed the hearing on S.B. 556 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 171. ASSEMBLY BILL 171: Authorizes the use of straw and solar energy under building codes. There was no discussion on the bill. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 171. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 171 and opened the hearing on A.B. 412 ASSEMBLY BILL 412: Revises provisions governing contests of elections of certain state officers. There was no discussion on the bill. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 412. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 412 and opened the hearing on A.B. 437. ASSEMBLY BILL 437: Allows certain state agencies to share their records with local governments. Mary Henderson, Director of Government Affairs, Washoe County, testified this bill will allow any state entity to establish a collection's department. She stated they are the only entity in the state, however, to have a collection's operation. She said it would allow them to collect for the state, and they have been working with some southern Nevada public agencies. She said they have been working with the attorney general's office to do some collection work for the state. The bill would permit them to access records for state agencies as well. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 437. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL, PORTER AND RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 437 and opened the hearing on A.B. 518. ASSEMBLY BILL 518: Prohibits state agency from taking certain adverse action against certain employees for testimony before legislative house or committee on their own behalf. Senator Titus reminded the committee this bill is similar to a bill from last session which protected private citizens who came before the Legislature and testified. She stated the concept is good because it extends that privilege to state employees. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 518. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL, PORTER AND RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 518 and opened the hearing on A.B. 525. ASSEMBLY BILL 525: Authorizes certain counties to create commission to study Asian-American communities. There was no discussion on the bill. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 525. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 525 and opened the hearing on A.B. 602. ASSEMBLY BILL 602: Defines "action" for purposes of open meeting law. Senator O'Connell informed the committee that Senator Raggio asked the discussion and vote on the bill be held until he was in attendance. The committee held the bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 602 and opened the hearing on A.B. 562. ASSEMBLY BILL 562: Removes limitations on cost of printing ballots for elections. Ms. Henderson explained this bill will sanction what the counties have been doing in the past in terms of printing the ballots. She said they would appreciate the ability to go out to competitive bid. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 562. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 562 and opened the hearing on A.B. 586. ASSEMBLY BILL 586: Revises provisions governing committee on benefits. Senator O'Connell informed the committee that Senator Raggio wants to be present for the vote on this bill. The committee held the bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 586 and opened the hearing on A.B. 597. ASSEMBLY BILL 597: Allows certain cities and counties to allow use of independent contractors to review plans for and inspect buildings. Discussion of the bill and proposed amendment (Exhibit L) ensued. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 597 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM THE NORTHERN CHAPTER OF ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** 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. There was no discussion on the bill. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 658. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 658 and reopened the hearing on A.B. 459. She asked the committee if they had changed their minds after Mr. West's testimony. The committee decided to stand on their previous vote. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 459 and opened the hearing on A.B. 561 with a request for a motion. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 561. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell called for a vote on A.B. 117. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 117. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell called for a vote on A.B. 602, despite Senator Raggio's absence. ASSEMBLY BILL 602: Defines "action" for purposes of open meeting law. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 602. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell called for a vote on A.B. 569. ASSEMBLY BILL 569: Revises provisions governing early voting by personal appearance. The committee is holding the bill until Senator Raggio is present to address his concerns on the bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 569 and asked the committee if there were any bills listed on the work session document which they wanted to consider. Senator Porter asked if it would be possible to reconsider S.B. 294. Senator O'Connell stated they could reconsider when Senator Raggio is present. She reminded Senator Porter that it might be a tie vote again since there are six members present. SENATE BILL 294: Creates Las Vegas Valley Ground Water Replenishment District. Senator O'Connell recessed the hearing at 5:25 p.m. She reconvened the hearing at 5:30 p.m. Senator O'Connell reopened the hearing on A.B. 586. Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, stated they still oppose the bill. However, if the committee wants to pass the bill, he has an amendment (Exhibit M). He explained the amendment to the committee. Discussion ensued. The committee chose to hold the bill to present the amendment to Assemblyman Doug Bache, the proponent of the bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 586 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 556. Senator Porter requested a few minutes to meet with City of Las Vegas personnel. Senator O'Donnell asked the committee to reconsider the legislative pay raise issue. Discussion ensued. Senator O'Donnell changed his vote from yes to no. Senator O'Connell informed the committee there will be a hearing on Saturday, after the floor session, to hear amendments on A.B. 532. ASSEMBLY BILL 532: Requires governmental bodies to provide monetary payments for dwellings and business establishments destroyed by governmental acquisition of real property. Senator O'Connell closed the discussion of A.B. 532 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 569. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS ON S.B. 569. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell reopened the hearing on S.B. 294. Discussion of the bill ensued. A previous vote on the bill was a 3-3 tie, with Senator Townsend absent for the vote. Senator O'Connell stated nothing has changed in the bill. The committee decided to hold the bill. Senator O'Connell reopened the hearing on S.B. 556. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 556 BY DELETING LANGUAGE REFERRING TO SUMMERLIN SOUTH; INCLUDE SPRING VALLEY IN THE BILL; INCLUDE THE TWO AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE COUNTY, HOLDING EVERYONE, SPECIFICALLY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND INCLUDE AN INTERIM STUDY IN THE NEXT 18 MONTHS; AND TO INCLUDE THE 5-YEAR PHASE-IN. Senator O'Connell asked if the committee has the amendment from the school district? Mike Alastuey, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District, informed the committee they had his amendment in rough form at the subcommittee hearing. Ms. Jones noted the retroactive agreement was for Summerlin only. Senator Porter suggested the interlocal agreement between the City of Las Vegas and Clark County be left intact. Senator O'Donnell asked about the 5-year phase-in? Senator O'Connell stated those are the two amendments suggested by the county at the subcommittee hearing. Senator O'Donnell stated: The county does not sit here and vote. I do, and I am not going to agree to a 5-year phase-in of money that is rightly owed to the residents of Spring Valley and will, in turn, be owed to the people of Summerlin South. I will not support that. Senator Titus questioned: Senator Porter, yesterday during the hearing I asked would we have a commitment from the city, if during the time that the study was going on, they would not be pursuing annexation. The mayor responded they would not. Is that part of your motion and part of the agreement? Senator Porter stated, "That is not a part of the motion." Ms. Jones answered the city adamantly opposes the bill. She stated if the bill were dropped and an interim study to examine how taxes are collected and distributed is approved, and if the study included delivery of regional services, the city would not annex any of the county islands. She said under the existing agreement, the city cannot annex unless asked to do so. She declared, "...the city has in good faith agreed to give money back to the Spring Valley township to try to address some of those needs. I believe that we have really gone to the middle line and that is as far as we are willing to go." Matthew Callister, City Council Member, Fourth Ward, City of Las Vegas, testified the county brought this bill to the Legislature in an attempt to stifle the growth pattern of another competing municipal entity. He agreed to honor previous agreements to not annex and stated this does not need to be put into law. Senator Porter explained, "Madame Chair, on the annexation issue, I do not support and will not support additional annexation unless those residents in those areas are in concurrence, because that is how the process works..." Ms. Jones interrupted, "And Senator, we agree with you." Senator Porter responded: I am sure that you do, but for the record, we are not here to discuss annexation, although it is a pertinent part of this particular negotiation, because that part was not agreed to. But I want to go on the record that I do not support, and I do not believe that my constituents support annexation. During the campaign that was quite a topic of conversation in my district. I would not support that. There was no second to the motion. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 556. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Titus stated her support of the bill for three reasons. One, it takes the burden off parts of her district that now have to subsidize Spring Valley or Summerlin in the future. Second, it is phased in over 5 years so that the part of her district is held harmless. Third, the bill addresses growth and provides the opportunity to be proactive instead of reactive. Senator Porter asked for clarification on the motion; does it include the county amendments? Senator O'Connell asked Senator O'Donnell to clarify. Senator O'Donnell stated, Madame Chair, let me put it on the record and make it specific. I move do pass, no amendments, no changes, the bill as it is." Senator Titus clarified, "Madame Chairman, well, now I'm sorry. I have to withdraw my second because I do it with the amended phase-in 5-year version." Senator O'Connell stated, "Motion dies without a second." SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 556 WITH THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Callister asked for clarification on the amendments that Senator Titus referenced. Senator O'Connell stated they are the amendments proposed by Clark County at the June 21, 1995 meeting. Mr. Callister asked if Summerlin was part of the motion. Senator O'Connell stated Summerlin is part of the motion, and there is no study in the motion. Senator Porter stated: Assuming this motion is going to pass, based upon the discussion, I will shortly afterward request that we do have the study based upon the one that is in place. We may have to take those steps ourselves without the support of the entities to make sure that it is done appropriately in the next session. Senator O'Connell asked, "Any other remarks for the record?" Senator Raggio stated: I have been listening insofar as I have been able to on this issue. I have drawn one conclusion. There is obviously an issue here that is difficult for the Legislature to resolve, and I find it difficult having heard what has been presented on both sides. I would find it difficult at this stage of the Legislature, in the closing days, to support either this, without some compromise or consideration, or the other interests. I find some difficulty in the artificial mechanism that is suggested by this bill. I may be simplifying it, but it is the creation of a city in which there, at the present time, are no residents. I understand the manner in which it is being suggested ...Although I understand that the intentions are from the county standpoint, desirable, I can certainly understand their argument. I need to make clear that I will have to vote against the measure. I was interested in the amendment that was proposed, which to my understanding addressed the immediate financial concerns of Spring Valley and I could have supported that proposal. But I would be unable to support a do pass on the bill as it is under the present form. Senator Titus spoke again: I was interested in a compromise too. I felt like I could have gone along with Senator Porter's compromise if the city had not changed its position after I asked them a specific, very narrow question about committing to not pursuing annexation, which the mayor answered. Then they have decided they do not want to take that position. I don't know why the majority leader didn't second that proposal if he supported it because we didn't even get a second for that compromise. Senator Raggio stated: Well, I don't know if this is my fight, Senator Titus. I think I have made my position clear. I don't have any direct interest in it. I understand the annexation laws. I think they are pretty restrictive. I did hear the city say that unless somebody came to them and wanted to be annexed, they were not going to be seeking annexation. I thought that was a pretty responsible answer. I don't want to take either the city's side or the county's side on it. I know that it's difficult at best to go through annexation without the consent of property owners. I think it is almost impossible. Ms. Jones responded the city will not annex, unless an entity requests annexation. Senator O'Connell asked, "We are back to Senator Titus's motion with the amendment. So everybody is clear what we are voting on?" THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS PORTER, TOWNSEND AND RAGGIO VOTED NO.) ***** Hearing no further testimony forthcoming on any of the bills, Senator O'Connell adjourned the committee meeting at 6:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs June 23, 1995 Page