MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
April 11, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:08 p.m., on Wednesday, April 11, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Shari Buck, Councilman, City of North Las Vegas
Mary Kay Peck, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition
Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County
Michael A. Harper, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development, Washoe County
Susan Morandi, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Office of the Secretary of State
Dean Heller, Secretary of State
Kateri Cavin, Deputy Attorney General, Commerce Section, Office of the Attorney General
Larry Lomax, Registrar of Voters, Clark County
Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, The People to Protect America
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Merritt K. Yochum, Lobbyist, Independent American Party
Alan H. Glover, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of County Clerk and Election Officials
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Employers Insurance Company of Nevada
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA)
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association
Brian K. Krolicki, State Treasurer
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 530.
SENATE BILL 530: Makes various changes concerning regional planning in certain counties. (BDR 22-1115)
Shari Buck, Councilman, City of North Las Vegas, stated she was appearing before the committee in her capacity as vice chairman of the regional planning coalition. She said they had worked diligently on the regional plan which was completed and turned in on March 1, 2001 to meet the legislative deadlines. Ms. Buck referred to regional trails and open space plans and said downtown Las Vegas would be the center for the region. She stated they were in the process of working toward a solution on air quality problems, noting the links between land use, transportation and air quality planning, and they were also looking for incentives for in-fill development. She remarked the atmosphere had been collegial among the local entities, and each entity had adopted the plan.
Mary Kay Peck, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC), testified the coalition had been working for 2 years, and the policies developed were an indication they were beginning to think regionally. Ms. Peck pointed out several amendments had been prepared for S.B. 530.
Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, drew attention to the bill itself, stating the bill addressed four problems, although, two additional problems were identified which had not been addressed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) in the original draft. He said they were before the committee today in order to present the revised language and amendments.
Ms. Peck explained one amendment prepared by the LCB dealt with how often plans would be reviewed by the regional planning coalition. She commented on previous legislation, which required a review of plans by local governments, utilities, and regional agencies every 2 years, to insure the entities were in conformance with the regional plan. She said the regional plan had been adopted and they were soon to begin the first conformity review. Ms. Peck said if they conducted reviews every 2 years, their primary work would consist of only that and there were other important policies which required time and effort. When the plan was originally developed, two nationally recognized consultants were hired to assist in providing a fair and balanced plan, she said. A 5-year review had been suggested, based upon regional planning coalitions in other states, she said, and Northern Nevada had been studied as well. She asked for language be changed to every 5 years, which would allow the SNRPC the same review schedule as Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Coalition, so they could proceed in implementing other policies.
Ms. Peck continued, noting the second change referred to grants made by the regional planning coalition to entities which had received certificates of conformance. A certificate of conformance was issued if the plan conformed to the regional policy plan, she said, and funding would come from legislative appropriations and any other available sources to be used for land use planning. She stressed the SNRPC remained committed through staff time and funding allocations to ensure their success.
Ms. Peck called attention to section 4 of the bill, which referred to a continued ability for the coalition to submit requests for legislative bills. She pointed out they had been allocated three bills this session, all of which were used, including S.B. 530, a bill for air quality, and a bill for flood control. She acknowledged the coalition was a work in progress, and as changes took place, they would have to come before the legislature again, therefore, they would like to reserve the number of bills allocated to the coalition.
Ms. Peck said the final changes from LCB were in section 6 of the bill, which dealt with the membership and terms of service for the coalition. She asked the committee to consider making the attendance requirements a part of the coalition bylaws, rather than statute, to give some flexibility to the chairman of the planning coalition in cases of excused absences.
Ms. Peck provided copies of two additional amendments (Exhibit C) from the coalition and asked they be considered separately from the bill and from each other. She referenced chapter 278.02549 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), reiterating they would like to change from a 2-year to a 5-year review of plans, and would add the following language under section 2:
Any state or regional agency plan or development decision shall be consistent with the certified local plan of an entity that is affected by the regional agency plan or development decision, and with the regional policy plan.
Ms. Peck emphasized they had worked well with the regional agencies as the plan was being developed, particularly the regional transportation commission in developing the transportation section. She confirmed to Chairman O’Connell the second proposed amendment would be a new section of law which would provide that local governments, conforming to the plan, unless otherwise precluded by statute, could adopt necessary regulations for public safety, health, and sanitation for the orderly development and redevelopment of communities and the rehabilitation of properties. She also confirmed this language would mean “home rule,” which some of the local governments in southern Nevada strongly supported.
Chairman O’Connell referenced an attempt by the county to prevent expansion of a Wal-Mart store, asking if the proposed amendment would allow such action. Ms. Peck said she thought if such action were done under zoning regulations, the proposed amendment would not provide additional related powers to the county. Mr. Musgrove further responded to Chairman O'Connell, saying the entity would only be allowed to do such things if it were in conformity with the regional plan and reviewed by the SNRPC. He elaborated, stating this would give all the entities the ability to look at a particular master plan, agree upon it, and approve implementation. Mr. Musgrove asserted if there were a violation of the agreement, the SNRPC would speak out against the change.
Rose E. McKinney-James, Clark County School District, submitted a copy of a letter from Sheila Moulton, Vice President, Board of School Trustees, and Member, SNRPC (Exhibit D). Ms. McKinney-James emphasized Ms. Moulton’s support of the bill and the opportunity for communication and participation between the school district and local agencies. Ms. McKinney-James further reported Ms. Moulton’s expressed appreciation to local jurisdictions on the site selection of new schools in Clark County, including 15 new campuses this year. Ms. McKinney James, after hearing the testimony on the proposed amendments, said she believed Ms. Moulton would also support the amended language.
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, expressed support for the original bill presented to the committee and the additional amendment to ensure regional agencies were coordinated as part of the regional plan. With regard to the final amendment presented, Ms. Porter said, it appeared to give additional powers to the governing bodies of the city and county. She asserted the language, “may exercise such powers and enact such ordinances, not in conflict . . .“ was extremely broad, and she could envision each local government enacting many ordinances not guided by state law. She claimed this would be “total land use planning for home rule” and objected to the amendment as leading to more fragmentation where each local government could have different ordinances, rather than being regionally based.
Senator Titus agreed with Ms. Porter, saying she would not support the amendment. She agreed with making the state and regional plans in compliance with local plans, and said she also liked subsection 5, section 3, which would give grants to areas in compliance and provide incentives for smart growth. Ms. Porter agreed, saying they were in support of much of the bill, except the final amendment.
Senator Porter asked for further clarification on the proposed second amendment. Ms. Peck explained local governments did not have any particular pending legislation contingent upon the amendment. She said it was a philosophical position that local governments would like to have decision-making authority regarding the land use law rather than having to come to the state in every case.
Senator Porter asserted this would be a substantial change in policy for the Legislature. He suggested a major change not be made at this time, but should be discussed and properly debated. Mr. Musgrove explained this was the reason they asked the amendments be addressed separately. He reported a great deal of debate had occurred during a SNRPC board meeting and some members of the board had been adamant to include the language in the original bill draft. Mr. Musgrove asked the committee to treat it separately and look at the merits of the rest of the bill.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 530 and opened the hearing on S.B. 410.
SENATE BILL 410: Requires certain larger counties and cities in those counties to establish program for protection of environmentally sensitive areas. (BDR 22-62)
Senator Titus explained S.B. 410 had been designed to force local governments to identify environmentally sensitive areas and protect those areas with buffer zones. The senator noted she had received the bill draft just prior to the deadline for introduction and there were some parts of the bill she would have corrected before introduction, but could possibly correct through amendment. For example, she claimed the 5-mile boundary was too broad, and would not have included the governor in the bill. After meeting with local governments, developers, and environmental groups, all of who had been cooperative, there was consensus this bill could not be fixed in the short time remaining in the session, she said.
Senator Titus reported United States (U.S.) Senator Harry Reid had expressed an interest in introducing legislation to create some wilderness areas in Clark County. Currently, she noted, there was only the Mount Charleston wilderness area in the Spring Mountain National Recreation Area, but there were an additional 19 areas within federally managed land which were wilderness study areas, which Senator Reid would like to convert to wilderness areas. Senator Titus emphasized she would strongly support such a measure, but it would be prudent to wait and see what happened at the federal level. In summary, she stated she would continue to work on the issue at the local level.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 410.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 554.
SENATE BILL 554: Makes various changes concerning land use planning. (BDR 22-322)
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, explained the bill language was not exactly as requested because there were some changes in the final amendments received. She introduced Mr. Harper to review the changes for the committee. Michael A. Harper, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development, Washoe County, provided a summary of the “Purpose and Proposed Amendment to S.B. 554” (Exhibit E), and stated the bill was presented on behalf of Washoe County. He explained S.B. 554 was an omnibus bill on procedural issues Washoe County had discovered while processing planning permits and other processes.
Section 1, Mr. Harper said, would essentially consolidate all the appeal processes for various actions local governments were allowed to take, such as variances, special use permits, administrative decisions, parcel maps, and tentative subdivision maps. Mr. Harper said he appreciated the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s consolidation, saying otherwise it was difficult for those who used the legislation, and the citizenry, to understand where procedural information would be. With regard to a provision for appeal to a district court, he stressed it was not to encourage lawsuits against local governments, but to locate the procedure in a more appropriate area of the statutes.
Mr. Harper drew the committee’s attention to sections 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 16, which essentially referred back to section 1 on consolidation. He explained section 3 would allow the county to voluntarily increase compensation to its planning commissioners to $100 per meeting, not to exceed $400 per month. He said many of the planning commissions in northern Nevada were now the final decision-making bodies except for the ability to appeal that decision. He asserted it seemed fair they have the opportunity to be compensated, but it would be a local option. Mr. Harper explained section 4 had a number of changes from “shall” to “must,” and would authorize electronic map certification. All of Washoe County’s zoning maps were digitally created through their geographic information systems, he said, and it was of primary importance to the county that the Legislature authorize electronic map certification, which is much like a digital signature.
Section 6, Mr. Harper said, related to the ability to appeal an administrative decision by an appointed official. The change would allow the board of county commissioners or the city council to take an appeal, he said, if in fact there were no board of adjustment appointed. He explained a proposed amendment to section 6 would address appeal options once the board of adjustment had made a final decision. Although his department had interpreted the law to provide for the appeal to go to district court, they were concerned it was not very clear, and therefore, proposed the board of county commissioners have the opportunity to review the final decision of the board of adjustment. Further, city and county boards of adjustment might prefer to have the decision on administrative appeal directly sent to a district court, he said.
Continuing, Mr. Harper said sections 10, 11, 14 and 15 dealt with time frames to review an action on tentative and final maps and also parcel maps. In Washoe County, the board of county commissioners as well as the planning commission and staff rely very heavily on 14 citizens’ advisory boards to provide advice on planning matters, he said, especially mapping items such as subdivision maps. He explained tentative maps were no longer just an engineering function, but had become policy in many instances. Mr. Harper said he could not speak directly for the City of Reno, but they have a series of neighborhood advisory boards used for functions similar to those in Washoe County. It was very difficult for the county to process applications to those 14 citizens’ advisory boards, he said, some meeting no more than 1 week before the planning commission was supposed to take action within the current 45-day period which applies to Washoe County.
Mr. Harper explained, under the process, two things can occur; the planning commission “asks” to continue the application until the citizens’ advisory board can provide an option, or it spends a great deal of time drafting a new subdivision map at the table. Washoe County wanted to provide a 60-day process to all counties under 400,000, he said, to meet that obligation to the citizens’ advisory board, to provide the applicants the opportunity to discuss the issues with them, and to find a solution, rather than delaying the process. Counties of 400,000 or more were left out because they had different processes and objectives, he said, but a cutoff was needed and Washoe County had a population between 100,000 and 400,000.
Mr. Harper explained section 12 addressed a very long-standing problem many sub-dividers experience. When a sub-divider decides to record a series of final maps in compliance with the tentative subdivision map, he said, the present law provides for a “floating recordation date.” Unfortunately, sub-dividers miss submission dates for recordation due to difficulty tracking recording dates of previous maps. He said the amendment proposed the anniversary date be used for either a request for an extension of time, or for the recordation of the map, to avoid confusion. He testified verbally to another amendment to section 12, to clarify the map would be presented to the “entity for recordation.” Mr. Harper said current state law allowed a planning director to make a final determination on compliance of a final map, while some counties and cities have elected to have their planning commissions, or even their elected governing bodies make that determination. He said section 17 would repeal a conflicting section and section 18 would set the effective date as July 1, 2001.
In conclusion, Mr. Harper asserted the changes would better serve the citizens by making certain processes much clearer, more efficient, and more effective. Ms. Porter testified support for the changes, which she thought would make the law more consistent. She noted she had been dealing with the subdivision law since 1971 and it was a continuing work in progress.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B.554 and opened the hearing on S.B. 565.
SENATE BILL 565: Makes various changes relating to elections. (BDR 24-608)
Susan Morandi, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Office of the Secretary of State, testified she had proposed amendments to the bill which were mostly deletions due to duplications with Assembly bills. Dean Heller, Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, came forward to explain S.B. 565. Mr. Heller pointed out there were several policy changes he wished to address before having Ms. Morandi address “clean-up” language. He explained section 2 related to a pilot program for which funding was covered under a bill in the finance committee. This program would develop an Internet voting process for citizens of Nevada in the military, he said, noting there were approximately 1500 who were registered voters, and about 1000 participated in the last general election. Mr. Heller said he recognized the need for caution in proceeding with this and would not proceed if all the security issues were not addressed.
In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Heller said he did not think as many people would participate in a non-presidential election, although Ms. Morandi said, irrespective of a presidential election, there was generally a high turnout of military voters. Mr. Heller explained the process would work through Internet access on military bases and ships, but said research would be needed before the development and administration of such a program.
Senator Neal asked what sort of identification would be necessary for this system since voters would not be physically present. Mr. Heller explained several vendors had approached his office on security measures to ensure the identification of participants, suggesting chips or couplers with codes which would be mailed for identification. He explained it had not yet been determined whether such a system would be controlled by the Office of the Secretary of State or the local counties, although his preference would be for county control. He provided further clarification to Senator Neal, saying there was no such system or program available at the present time, but there was Internet voting at the precinct level where identification was easier. He drew attention to the recent presidential election and the problems with military voting, which, he said, his office was interested in solving.
Mr. Heller confirmed for Senator Neal that when a system was in place, a person could vote on the Internet, but there was no current system to provide for the committee’s review. He said if a person was uncomfortable with voting on a computer, they could continue to vote by absentee ballot as they do currently, providing options as to how the voter wished to participate in the process. He suggested such a system was probably one of the better ways of ensuring the military vote, when cast, would be counted on Election Day.
Mr. Heller explained the funding mechanism for section 3 was not in the budget due to a timing issue. Section 3, he said, would establish and maintain a statewide system to organize and manage the registration of voters by linking the 17 counties together. The downside, Mr. Heller said, was this system would also require approximately $2 million. He reported the governor was in favor of this proposal, but knew the budget constraints. Mr. Heller stressed the importance of this issue, and said if it did not work out this legislative session, his office would probably bring it before the committee next session. He reported all the clerks and registrars were very much in favor of this as it would assist in cleaning up the voter rolls and would alleviate some concerns of voter fraud and multiple voting. He asked for enabling legislation in the bill so his office could come back next session and request funding.
Senator Neal expressed concern regarding information on registration of voters, and asked what type of information was anticipated. Mr. Heller said information, such as registration lists, currently was provided by clerks and registrars, with separate databases in the 17 counties. Under the proposed system, he said, this information would be available to candidates and the public through the central location of the Office of the Secretary of State. Counties would load information into a single database which would also avoid duplicate registration, he said.
Ms. Morandi reported, in other states, individual counties or wards still maintained their own lists. An individual would register with their county, which would have all the voter registration information, she said, and the Office of the Secretary of State would act as a clearinghouse for names, checking for duplication of names, deceased persons, court convictions, and so on. They would not delete names, she said, but rather would notify the county if an individual were also registered in one or more other counties. Ms. Morandi explained the system was currently possible and 11 states had statewide voter registration, with some states considering interstate systems. Mr. Heller explained to Senator Neal the Office of the Secretary of State would be linked to the counties and the information would be available instantaneously.
With regard to the filing of campaign and expenditure reports, Mr. Heller explained subsection 3, section 28 would change the maximum penalty for late filings to $100 from $5000 for individuals who received no contributions, no compensation for the office they held, and had no expenditures. He said he believed the larger penalties should be restricted to those candidates who do receive larger sums in contributions and are compensated for their positions. He explained to Senator Neal, some financial reports are filed with the Secretary of State’s Office and some with local county clerks and registrars. He asserted there should be some fine imposed for late filing because the public had a right to know. He continued, saying if an individual was running for office, regardless of compensation or campaign contributions, he still thought the report should be required, otherwise, there would be no way of knowing whether contributions were made.
Mr. Heller then drew the committee’s attention to sections 34 through 38 covering issues brought forward soon after the last election cycle, regarding the Electoral College. He said he was not a political science professor or a history major, but wanted to give the committee a little background about the Electoral College to illustrate his perspective. In the review of options for presidential selection, he said, the founding fathers discarded the popular vote and Congressional appointment as unreasonable and controversial, respectively. He said the third option was the Electoral College, whereby one or two of the “best people” from a state would represent the population of that state to elect the next president of the United States. The number of Electoral College representatives would be determined based on the number of Congressional delegates with an additional two for United States Senators, he said.
At the time, said Mr. Heller, Congress did not determine how members of the Electoral College would be selected, but left it up to the states. Most states determined to use a popular vote for electors, as was the case in Nevada. Technically, he said, we do not actually vote for the president or vice president of the United States, but rather we vote for our electors through political parties. He asserted it was somewhat contrary to select electors through political parties when the founding fathers wanted an independent voice. He explained S.B. 565 would permit a different way of proportioning or reapportioning selection of the Electoral College.
Mr. Heller confirmed to Senator Neal this was not a “winner-take-all” proposal, but would be proportional by congressional district, with three congressional districts in Nevada after this legislative session. It would allow all three congressional districts to cast their vote, he said, and the outcome of the vote would determine how those electoral votes would be cast. The two at-large votes for the state would be determined by how the statewide vote was cast, he added.
Senator Neal clarified the statewide vote would depend upon the candidate who received the majority or plurality of the vote. Mr. Heller confirmed this and pointed out what he believed were three flaws in the current system. He said he did not believe the “winner-take-all” system reflected the intent of the voters, but rather the intent of the political parties. If there were a 60-40 split or 55-45 split, a “winner-take-all” system would not reflect the vote, he said. Senator O’Donnell countered with the following:
You could make the argument that if I had a 65 to 35 race, with Mr. Heller’s argument, then I should probably be on the dais 65 percent of the time and then let my opponent come up the other 35 percent of the time. Where do you draw the line that someone either won or someone . . . lost? . . . And so when you start dividing them up, are you not going to dilute the state’s power?
Mr. Heller pointed out there were two different election systems and Senator O’Donnell was elected by popular vote rather than the Electoral College, which represented the people’s actual vote. Senator O’Donnell asserted the proposed system would weaken the state’s position with respect to presidential candidates who would not visit the state if they knew they could only get a certain percentage of the votes. Mr. Heller responded that was a reasonable view, but argued it could not be any worse than with the current system. Recalling the last general election, he said:
We had one visit from the Republican candidate and one visit from the Democratic candidate. The Republican candidate came into Lake Tahoe just a couple miles from the California border. I believe the only reason the Democratic candidate came into town was so he could get the endorsement of the Teamsters, and if their convention was not being held in Las Vegas at the time, he may never have come. So, I’m saying, the system we have now, if you are talking about candidates coming to the state to actually visit you, I don’t think it could be any worse, Senator, than it is right now. The smaller states, historically, have been vice presidential states. . . . Senator Lieberman and Mr. Cheney both spent far more time than the presidential candidates themselves did in this state.
Senator O’Donnell asserted with this bill, presidential candidates would not even look down at Nevada as they flew over. Senator Titus stated her disagreement and maintained candidates wrote off certain states because they [knew] the state would go Democrat or Republican. She asserted if the state’s Electoral College vote were split and a candidate knew he or she could carry at least one vote as opposed to no votes, the candidate would be more likely to visit the small state, rather than less likely.
Mr. Heller said he appreciated Senator Titus’ comments and thought California was a good example of her theory, because there were a lot of electoral votes, but candidate Bush spent little time there knowing that historically California voted Democrat. Mr. Heller also stated he thought Nevada was often written off as historically conservative. He asserted the proposed changes would provide a better chance of presidential candidates coming to Nevada to discuss Nevada issues, whether the subject was grazing, nuclear waste, or water issues, but somehow Nevada needed to entice the candidates to come to a small state.
As elected officials, Mr. Heller maintained, they tried to find different avenues and options for the Legislature so it could be determined how best to bring those candidates to Nevada to discuss Nevada’s particular issues. He pointed out Maine and Nebraska used a proportional voting system, but Maine had attempted to reverse the system, as had occurred in Nebraska. A third issue in the “winner-take-all” system, he said, was low voter turnout. He reiterated, if a state was historically Republican or Democrat, people in the minority party believe their vote does not count when voting for the president of the United States.
Senator Titus agreed with Mr. Heller, saying the Electoral College was a leftover elitist mechanism and an anachronism that created a system in which a person could win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College vote. She claimed this system worked to the disadvantage of third parties which “always know they will come in third, they will never get an Electoral College vote, never have a chance to win, never be able to raise money or get votes because no one thinks they might have a chance to win.” She described this process as a reinforcing negative which eliminated participation from a large part of the population because increasingly more people consider themselves independents or members of a third party. Senator Titus asserted Mr. Heller’s suggestions were an improvement over the current system to make the process more representative, short of eliminating the Electoral College, which, she added, might not be a bad idea.
Mr. Heller pointed out similar proposals were being made to legislatures in California, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas and Virginia. Nevada was not the only state looking at changing the way electoral votes were proportioned, he said, and a number of states were considering abolishing the system altogether. Mr. Heller reiterated concern with the candidates coming to Nevada and discussing Nevada issues and increasing voter turnout in the process.
Senator O’Donnell stated he disagreed, claiming because Nevada was a small state, it had stature or position with the federal government in terms of the number of electoral votes it had, as one to be counted. He asserted if there were proportional representation, Nevada could be insignificant in terms of determining the outcome of an election. Noting the history of close elections, he said, a presidential candidate would likely only get one electoral vote from Nevada, as opposed to five possible votes under the current system. He described the Electoral College as an “ingeniously crafted piece of legislation,” because the founding fathers wanted to give sufficient weight to smaller states and reduce the power of a few densely populated states.
Mr. Heller argued we have a very different system of communication today than we did 200 years ago and the majority of our population is not an agriculture-based society. People are far more informed, he said, with mass media and the ability to directly observe the political process and their representatives. He stressed there was room for improvement to the system. Senator O’Donnell suggested the east and west coast states had nothing to gain, but Nevada’s issues would be obscured under Mr. Heller’s proposal.
Senator Neal said he disagreed with Senator O’Donnell’s argument, and suggested the proposal could increase the strength of the Electoral College and the electors by breaking up congressional districts and having statewide representatives. There would still be the same number of Electoral College votes, he said, but they would become more representative of the vote in the state.
Senator Raggio said he had previous discussions with Mr. Heller on this subject and they disagreed. He also said he disagreed with Senator Titus’s comment that the Electoral College was archaic, which, he said, would be essentially an endorsement of letting a majority decide who would be president, with which he said he heartily disagreed. Expanding Mr. Heller’s historical analysis, Senator Raggio said one of the arguments for small colonies to form a union was based upon the fact they were assured the majority population urban centers would not determine the future of this nation. Each would have equal representation in the U.S. Senate, and the Electoral College would ensure a popular majority vote for the president could not occur; rather, each colony or state would have a voice in that selection.
Senator Raggio asserted Senator Titus’s suggestion would be an endorsement of proposals from eastern senators for majority vote and pointed out the result of the last general election would not have changed if the proposed process had been in place in every state. He said if the proposal was to have an Electoral College of congressional districts rather than states, it could be more of a problem and more difficult to understand. He also suggested it would violate the initial concept upon which the union was formed and could result in real problems in the future. He stressed he did not want to see Nevada’s voice diluted while other states’ voices were not.
Senator Titus said she agreed with Senator Raggio about the formation of the Senate, which, she said, was part of a compromise for equal representation. However, she said, the Electoral College was not created for that reason. She cited Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, as a well-known and well-accepted interpretation in which the Electoral College was viewed as an elitist provision resulting from the founding fathers’ lack of trust in the American voter. Over time, she said, the system had been distorted because we now voted for party labels, not for electors whom we did not know. “We are not choosing someone who is wiser or more involved to make a good decision for us as intended, rather we vote on the basis of political party,” she said. Furthermore, she said, the Constitution leaves it to the states to determine how electors are chosen, which is why Nebraska and Maine could set up a different system, and Nevada could as well.
Senator Porter said he had grave concerns about turnout in southern Nevada based on recent primary elections where there was a 12 percent turnout in the City of Las Vegas. Mr. Heller noted the turnout in Sparks was 5 percent. Senator Porter asked Mr. Heller for other ideas for improvement. Mr. Heller agreed this was a serious problem, but somewhat typical of off-year elections. He suggested turnout would improve for city and local elections if they were during even-year elections, which some cities have already accommodated. He explained, within the universe of eligible voters, only half were registered and the percentages above were based on the number of registered voters. He noted the turnout for the primary election was down 20 percent and the general election was at 70 percent, reflecting significant apathy. One theory on low-voter turnout in Nevada, he said, was the transience rate and immigrants not feeling like “Nevadans.” He said Nevada’s numbers are similar to those of other fast-growing states, but Nevada’s voter turnout rate is among the worst.
Senator Neal read a statement from Amendment 12, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution concerning electors: “Each state shall appoint in a manner, as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in Congress.
Mr. Heller said in closing he appreciated the opportunity to discuss this issue. After the last election, he said, he did not think the system could be any worse as far as voter participation and visitation to Nevada from national candidates, which did not reflect any “clout” under the current system. There were six to ten swing states under the current system on which the national candidates focus, he said, and the others were taken for granted. He asked if there was a better way than his proposal to ensure the issues of Nevada and other western states would be discussed.
Ms. Morandi reviewed the “clean-up” provisions to the bill, and explained there were additional changes to the written document (Exhibit F) as follows: Item number 5 should read “Delete section 21”; items should be added to delete sections 14 and 23; and section 33 rather than section 34 was to be amended. She said all the deletions were already requested in other bills.
Under section 5, she said, changes to subsection 2 were to comply with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valejo (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, et al (97-930) 120 F.3d 1092, affirmed.), wherein a circulator of a petition does not have to be a registered voter. These changes were made in sections 5, 31 and 39 to bring NRS into compliance, she said, and confirmed for Senator Neal this decision included language that circulators would not have to be residents of the districts where they circulate petitions.
Continuing, Ms. Morandi explained section 6 would conform to a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that there was no state jurisdiction over federal candidates, and therefore, federal offices were exempted from the residency requirements. Section 7, she said, would provide a process for returning filing fees of candidates removed from a ballot. Section 8 would address duplicate language regarding filing of petition copies. Section 9, she said, would clarify a process to help the Secretary of State’s Office and the county clerks. In response to Senator Neal, she said, the problem with the old language included issues such as interpreting “nominee” and what the recording process would be. Section 10, she said, would add “federal office” to the option for “none of these candidates,” which had been a standard practice.
Ms. Morandi said section 11 would provide a procedure to address a candidate’s death prior to a primary election. In response to Senator Neal, she said, currently, in a general election, the death of the candidate would be posted on a notice at the polling place and the bill would add the same requirement for a primary election. If a deceased person were to win in a primary election, she said, she was not sure what would happen, as it had never come up. Senator Neal said if the deceased had won a state senate seat in a primary election, the party would select another individual to run in the general election. Ms. Morandi suggested that could be addressed in statute. Kateri Cavin, Deputy Attorney General, Commerce Section, Office of the Attorney General testified she provided legal advice to the Secretary of State’s Office and believed there was a procedure, if there were a vacancy in the nomination for the party, to select the nominee in the general election.
Continuing, Ms. Morandi explained sections 12, 13, and 14 were all to be deleted. Section 15, she said, was a clarification on the process for a recount, with language in subsection 4 to clarify what the timeframe would be for “trigger dates.” Senator Neal said his understanding was the process was very clear in Clark County, and wondered if that model would be used by the state for a recount. Ms. Morandi stated the actual recount process was already in place, but section 15 would clarify issues related to canvassing after a recount. Under section 16, she said, results would be certified after a recount. Senator Neal asserted county commissioners certify votes after a canvass. Ms. Cavin explained the section change would refer to multi-county recounts, so there would be several county commissioners, and the last county completing the canvass would trigger a date.
Section 17, said Ms. Morandi, would make minor and major party provisions consistent. Section 18 would be deleted, she said, and sections 19 and 24 for counties and cities respectively, would require sample ballots to be available 10 days before the first day of early voting or the earliest practicable date. She acknowledged 10 days would be difficult in Clark County. Senator Neal expressed concern with the requirement in the case of Clark County. Larry Lomax, Registrar of Voters, Clark County, stated the county had been able to get sample ballots to the postal service the weekend prior to the first weekend of early voting, but that was as early as it could be done. He said he could live with the language as written, as long as everyone understood the “as practicable” option would apply to Clark County.
Continuing her review, Ms. Morandi explained section 20 had an equivalent county provision in section 11, which was already addressed. She said sections 21, 22, and 23 would be deleted, and section 24 was addressed with section 19. Section 25 defined what a ballot question was in order to trigger certain reporting requirements, she said, and section 27 would clean up current inconsistencies in the statute. Secretary Heller covered section 28, she said, and section 29 would clarify language on petitions being “submitted to,” versus “filed with,” the county clerks. She reported an attorney general’s opinion found, in petition gathering and signature verification processes, the two terms had separate meanings, whereas the current language in statute used them interchangeably. Sections 30 and 33 would change a time frame from 30 days to 45 days, she said.
Mr. Lomax explained there was a current problem with initiative petitions which may be turned in 120 days before an election and, with enough signatures, the commissioners or city council would have 60 days to act on the petition in order to get it into the registrar in time to go on the ballot. A bill in the Assembly proposed moving the petition filing deadline to 130 days before an election, he said, which would help solve this problem. It would also help to shorten the time the commissioners or city council had to make their decision whether or not to act on it, he said, but he did not think they really needed 60 days, “because they already know one way or another what they’re going to do.” He reported one of the city managers suggested 45 days would be better to accommodate public notice requirements.
Chairman O’Connell asked if there was a bill to clarify who would write the questions for the ballot. Mr. Lomax said a bill in the Assembly would adjust a bill from the prior session to provide some relief in this area. Also, Chairman O’Connell asked if the bill would address a problem with an even-numbered board. Mr. Lomax said it would, and there would be two committees of three rather than one committee of six.
Ms. Morandi noted section 31 was covered with section 5 on the Buckley case. Section 32, she said, was to be deleted. She explained to Senator Neal the language in section 32 was already in other election bills in the Assembly. If those bills were not forwarded to this committee, she said, the relevant changes would not be made to statute this session. Sections 33 through 38 were already addressed, she said, and section 39 would bring statute into compliance with the Buckley decision.
Senator Neal asked for clarification as to whether a petition circulator could verify petition signers as registered voters. Chairman O’Connell explained, currently, both the person doing the petition and one other person signing the petition would verify signatures. Ms. Cavin said a notary public would notarize the circulator’s signature regardless of how many documents the circulator had, but the number of notarizations would depend on how a petition was designed. If there were 50 separate verifications for 50 documents, 50 notarizations would be required, she said; but if a single document had 50 pages with 1 verification, only 1 notarization would be required.
Senator Raggio further clarified, the law provided each verification contain a statement regarding the number of signatures in the petition. Ms. Cavin suggested all the documents could be put together as 200 pages with one verification if there was only one circulator; that choice, she said, was up to the circulator or the proponent of the petition. Mr. Lomax said this was his understanding as well, and explained, the clerks actually verify signatures on a petition, whereas the notary verifies the person collecting the signatures is the person who signed the statement regarding submission.
Ms. Morandi completed her review with subsection 2, section 40, regarding when a signature could be withdrawn from a petition. She said the language would change from “demonstrates good cause,” to “upon receipt of a request from a person,” because the definition of “good cause” was unclear. Regarding the period of time such a request would be allowed, Ms. Cavin explained to Senator Neal the timeframe had not changed at all. Subsection 2, section 40 provided a request could be made either after the verification of signatures was complete, or on the date the call of a special election was issued; whichever was earlier, Ms. Cavin said.
Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, The People to Protect America, testified she had been an elector several years ago. Regarding Internet voting, she claimed it would be highly open to fraud and hacking, creating “big trouble for our state.” She expressed concern with proposed language in subsection 4, section 6, and asked whether district attorneys or federal offices could knowingly and willfully file false statements, or be convicted pursuant to the provisions of the section. Chairman O’Connell pointed out the only new language in the section referred to the federal office, due to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ms. Cox asserted the language was misplaced and might be more appropriate in section 1, subsection 1, of the bill. Ms. Cavin clarified the language would provide that district attorneys would not have to be residents of counties they were elected from, and federal offices would be added pursuant to the above mentioned court decision. Ms. Cox agreed that was probably what was intended, but maintained the language was inappropriately placed. In conclusion, Ms. Cox testified opposition to sections 34 through 38 to change the Electoral College as they would undermine the “clout” of a small state, and destroy the intent of our founding fathers. “No presidential candidate would ever care to come to Nevada if this passed,” she said.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified support for some parts of the bill and opposition to other parts. Most of the bill, she said, was helpful for “clean-up,” particularly the elimination of the “signer” affidavit which had created tremendous confusion for everyone. With regard to notarization of petition signatures, she said each sheet may be notarized, but a batch may also be stapled together with numbered pages and have a single notarization.
Ms. Lusk expressed concern over the proposed change to the Electoral College, asserting the prior discussion sounded like “alternative history,” regarding the original intent of the founding fathers. She asserted the Electoral College structure was unrelated to the level of intelligence or awareness of the general populace, but rather, the balance of power. Specifically, she said, the small states should not be disregarded as insignificant in the consideration of national issues, and with the current population in California and New York, these two states could carry a popular vote and “everybody else could be ignored.” She also suggested Nevada, despite the growth in Clark County, was a small state and might remain small indefinitely. She asked that the proposal regarding the Electoral College be removed from the bill because it would weaken the influence of Nevada as a whole.
Merritt K. Yochum, Lobbyist, Independent American Party, testified there had been no formal discussion regarding the bill among Independent American Party members in Nevada, so he would make an “ex parte” decision himself. He said he disagreed with Mr. Heller’s proposal to change the Electoral College system and thought it should remain exactly as it was.
Senator Neal asked a question regarding individuals removing their names from a petition, after submission. Specifically, he asked whether the copies of the petition were available to the public prior to verification. Ms. Morandi explained petitions were open to inspection, following submission, but were to remain in control of the registrar and clerk for the county. Mr. Lomax said the policy in Clark County was not to allow anyone else to touch an original petition after submission. However, he said, following review, a copy of the petition was available for review or additional reproduction. Senator Neal suggested someone could conceivably use a copy of a petition to submit multiple forms for the removal of signatory names, and asked if a verification process would be used for removal of names. Mr. Lomax confirmed this and gave an example of a recall petition wherein 600 people asked to have their names removed. Five people spent one week manually going through 8000 names on the petition, he said, and among the 600 removal cards received, only 33 had actually signed the petition. He explained signatures were also checked to ensure the one on the removal request card matched the petition signature.
Alan H. Glover, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of County Clerk and Election Officials, testified regarding sections 2 and 3 of the bill. There had been ongoing discussion with the Secretary of State regarding section 3, he said, because the funding would be very difficult. He said the proposed language did not address the issue of who would receive the money for the sale of the names of registered voters to candidates and parties, which would be significant income to a number of counties. He said the concern was if lists were with the Secretary of State, they could be sold without any income going to the county. Some of the counties took it upon themselves to clean up duplicate records from the lists in the past, he said, without finding many duplicate names on a single list or anyone who had voted in both counties, which seemed cost effective at $400. He suggested some protection for counties, by requiring candidates and parties to buy those lists. He suggested eventually going on line with other counties to facilitate the cross checking of voter registration lists.
With regard to section 2 on Internet voting, Mr. Glover reported the clerks were not opposed to Internet voting and supported getting votes from military people, but did not know how it would work and ensure confidentiality. He pointed out it would have to be worked out in the next 6 months, if implemented. He offered minor technical amendments to change language throughout the bill from “7 working days” to “7 calendar days.” He mentioned another amendment from Mr. Lomax, in section 27 where “with the secretary of state” was lined out, and suggested the words, “with the filing officer,” be inserted. Regarding sample ballots for early voting, he agreed with Mr. Lomax’s earlier testimony that 10 days was too far in advance and could not be done because there was not sufficient time between close of filing and early voting, particularly if there were challenges. If voters had the ballot even the day before early voting starts, that should be sufficient, he said, because they can always delay voting since there were 12 days of early voting. He suggested 4 days would be an appropriate requirement, for both cities and counties.
Ms. Morandi said there was some discussion with the clerks regarding a problem getting sample ballots out prior to early voting, and she selected 10 days in advance to be consistent with the general and primary election provisions with the alternative language, “as early as practicable thereafter.” If it were shortened to a four or five day period, she said, then the alternative language would not be necessary. Sample ballots were not required to be available until a week after early voting starts, under current law, she said. With regard to cost of a statewide voter registration system, she said, there would be no problem with the counties getting the money for the lists or doing cost splits with the counties for the system. She said her office was not “in it for the money,” but from a “voter fraud perspective.” She pointed out Mr. Glover’s example of working with two other counties did not address the problem statewide, which needed to be addressed.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 565 and opened the work session. Mr. Ostrovsky asked that S.B. 566 be taken first and Chairman O’Connell agreed.
SENATE BILL 566: Requires release of certain liens created by former state industrial insurance system. (BDR S-1478)
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Employers Insurance Company of Nevada, (EICON) thanked the chairman and committee for taking his bill out of order and noted the committee had asked a number of questions regarding activities of the state industrial insurance system (SIIS), relative to its lien policy. He said no homes had been foreclosed on as the result of a recorded lien and there were 286 liens recorded more than three years ago. Lawsuits pending against employers who had also recorded liens totaled five, he said, and all others had been resolved with employers. From July 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, he said, a total of 22 liens were filed on behalf of SIIS. He recalled the committee had directed SIIS to make some effort to try to settle the case of Echo Penrose, raised at a prior hearing, noting an offer of settlement was made to Ms. Penrose for the approximate value of one-third of the original balance due. Although she had not responded directly to SIIS, he reported, she had responded to the committee members, to say no settlement was acceptable, and only damages over $100,000 would be acceptable. Her position was she did not have to pay worker’s compensation insurance, although the district and supreme courts ruled otherwise, he reported.
Senator Raggio said as long as a good faith offer was made, his concerns were satisfied. Mr. Ostrovsky explained the amendment (Exhibit G) proposed a successor organization to SIIS would use “all due diligence to identify liens filed pursuant to NRS 616B.251 and/or 616B.261 prior to January 1, 1997 and shall release those liens by filing a notice of release or satisfaction of the lien with the county recorder of the county in which the claim of lien was filed.” He said EICON had instructed him to guarantee to the committee, whether or not the amendment was adopted, the due diligence steps would be taken to release every lien possible. He acknowledged it appeared to some people, power had been inappropriately rolled over from a state agency to a private industry. Due diligence was taken by EICON, he stressed, in trying to find employers who did not pay their premiums, to get them back into the system and paying.
Senator Raggio said he reviewed the amendment and thought it should be in the bill to replace other language. Senator Care asked, with regard to the five active lawsuits, what the impact of the amendment would be. Mr. Ostrovsky said he believed the lawsuits would continue with collection efforts. He emphasized very few lawsuits were filed, and then only the most egregious cases involving large sums of money.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified she was appointed to an appeals panel and the first two cases were challenged by EICON asserting the appeals panel had no jurisdiction. The appeals panel viewed the two cases as having fallen through the cracks, she said, because two companies had gone to SIIS regarding their risk classification. Both parties were asked to come to a second hearing with the appeals panel to review additional information, she said, and the day before that hearing, EICON attorneys filed suit against the panel to stop the hearing. The case had not been resolved, she said, and a proposed amendment would allow the panel to go back prior to July 1, 1999 to hear the two cases. Ms. Vilardo reported, in discussion with Mr. Ostrovsky, no resolution could be achieved. For the record, Ms. Vilardo said she was testifying as a member of the appeals panel, and not for the Nevada Taxpayers Association. She asserted the cases could be adjudicated through a simpler process than going to court. The intention of the amendment was not to allow cases from ten years ago to be reopened, she said, but only to address the two cases pending for the appeals panel. She said she was amenable to changing the language in the amendment to only go back to July 1, 1998.
Ms. Vilardo clarified to Senator Neal the basis of EICON’s challenge regarding the jurisdiction of the appeals panel was that employees had been misclassified. She explained a bill from last session created the panel only to deal with classification ratings from the new system and the challenged cases were not part of the new system, but occurred through SIIS. She said her understanding was the intent of the bill was to allow a challenge to a classification rating.
Chairman O’Connell asked committee counsel to determine whether there would be a problem with the two dates, 1997 and 1999, proposed by Mr. Ostrovsky and Ms. Vilardo, respectively. Ms. Guinasso said she did not think there was any substantive conflict, but wanted to make sure the committee understood there would be two different dates.
Senator Raggio said a person who had requested a bill under such circumstances ordinarily would agree to a “friendly amendment.” He said he did not want an additional amendment to the bill if it were not fully agreed to. Ms. Vilardo said they had tried to come to agreement, but could not. Mr. Ostrovsky clarified EICON’s position as follows: whereas classification appeals from SIIS were taken to the manager of the system, then district court, EICON rejected the idea of reviewing old classifications from SIIS which were already reviewed by the manager of the system. He reported the district court had not yet decided whether that was appropriate.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 566 WITH THE AMENDMENT FROM MR. OSTROVSKY.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 123.
SENATE BILL 123: Makes various changes concerning municipal obligations and procedures of debt management commissions. (BDR 30-699)
Senator Raggio noted the committee had voted to amend and do pass S.B. 123 previously. Ms. Vilardo explained a committee member requested the amendments offered by state bond counsel, John Swendseid, Consultant, Swendseid and Stern (Exhibit H), be put in context with the bill to review specific changes. Ms. Vilardo also provided additional amendments (Exhibit I) she had verbally testified on previously, and subsequently put in writing.
Chairman O’Connell clarified, the committee voted on amendments verbally testified to by Ms. Vilardo regarding the 90 percent rate, but did not vote on amendments submitted by Mr. Swendseid. Ms. Vilardo noted an additional amendment to change the makeup of the debt management commission, and said Marvin Leavitt had previously explained the amendments from Mr. Swendseid.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO RECONSIDER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PREVIOUS VOTE, S.B. 123.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas said he did not previously testify on Mr. Swendseid’s amendment because he had not had an opportunity to review the amendment at that time. Since then, he said, he had reviewed the amendment, which would resolve issues to improve the bill. Specifically, he said, Mr. Swendseid’s amendment identified a proposal to increase an elective tax in case of an “override,” and also detailed the issue of when and how competing local governments could levy taxes. Mr. Leavitt said he supported Mr. Swendseid’s amendment. With regard to the amendment proposed by Ms. Vilardo, he said, he thought there would be some controversy with the first part because it would change the membership of the debt management commission by eliminating membership of some representatives from smaller incorporated cities. He said he did not recommend such a change, but confirmed the difficulty of getting a quorum, noting the membership had gradually increased over the years. He suggested the attendance from the smaller cities was as good as the attendance from the larger cities, and asserted the smaller cities should not be penalized.
Ms. Vilardo clarified the rest of the amendment to Senator Raggio, noting priority would be given to essential issues by the debt management commission on an annual basis. To accommodate this, she said, members would need to anticipate issues coming to the board, and review contemplated debt versus existing debt to determine the effect of approval or denial of issues.
Senator Care asked if a two-thirds majority vote was required for every vote of the eight-member commission. Ms. Vilardo said the minutes and agenda could be approved by a simple majority of the entire commission, but a two-thirds majority vote would be required on any issue involving debt general obligation bonds or any special elective overrides. She said an even numbered commission should not be a problem, but it could be adjusted to the committee’s preference. She anticipated the implication of not getting a quorum to enable a two-thirds majority would be rescheduled meetings, and if still unable to get a quorum, possibly denied opportunities to local government entities.
Senator Porter asserted if smaller communities were in fact showing up to the meetings, there could be one representative from the county commission, leaving the two smaller entities on the debt management commission. The county commission would be reduced from two to one representatives, he said, there would be one representative from unincorporated cities, which would be Boulder City, and one from the county, which would be Mesquite. He summarized his suggestion was to change to a nine-member commission. He referenced a news article which indicated an elected member of the commission had intentionally not shown up to a meeting as a strategy in a “turf battle.” He suggested if there were one representative from the county and the city, more people would show up. He supported Ms. Vilardo’s amendment, he said, but with the addition of membership for all communities, and reducing the county to one member.
Senator Titus disagreed with Senator Porter’s proposal because of the large size of the county. She agreed the behavior of not showing up as a political strategy was reprehensible, but also, she said, the representative from North Las Vegas did not show up. She expressed concern with various public bodies not being publicly accountable and asserted smaller bodies with less representation would exacerbate the problem. She agreed with Senator Care’s proposal to compel greater attendance. Ms. Vilardo said she agreed with Senator Titus and referenced a bill from a previous session intended to compel greater attendance.
Senator Neal suggested striking the first part of Ms. Vilardo’s amendment, lines 1 through 10, and adopting the rest of the amendment. He asked for Mr. Leavitt’s opinion. Mr. Leavitt said if he had exactly his way, he would adopt Mr. Swendseid’s amendment, eliminate lines 1 through 10 on Ms. Vilardo’s amendment, and add “education” after “public safety” on line 18 of Ms. Vilardo’s amendment. He clarified with regard to “education,” he was not talking about building administrative buildings, but building classrooms and schoolrooms.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 123.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 157.
SENATE BILL 157: Revises provisions governing Comstock historic district. (BDR 33-954)
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2, proposed an amendment (Exhibit J) at the request of some residents of the Comstock Historic District (CHD). He noted the “split” between support and opposition for the bill at the last hearing, recalling supporters wanted Dayton separated from the CHD. The amendment would give Dayton residents the opportunity to develop their own historical district, he said, with a formal process and hearings, and without input from Virginia City residents. If a separate historic district were formed, he said, individuals would be able to opt out by providing proper notice.
Senator Raggio said his reading of the amendment differed. He interpreted if an historic district were formed, a property owner could file a notice of exemption. Also, the existing statute related to the CHD would be changed to accommodate the separation, he said. Senator Shaffer drew attention to a Lyon County ordinance attached to the amendment titled “Historic Zoning Overlay,” dated December 1, 1994, which would ensure proper maintenance of historic properties through enforcement from the Lyon County commissioner enforcement division. If district residents did not support enforcement decisions, they could vote against the commissioners, he said, whereas currently, they have no vote in the CHD.
Senator Titus said she could not understand the point of having a historic district if people could easily opt out and do whatever they wanted. Senator Shaffer asserted residents would still be governed by the Lyon County ordinance to maintain compatible structures, even if they opted out of a separate historic district. Even if a separate historic district were not established, the ordinance would still be in force, he said.
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, said the CHD was one of the first instances in Nevada of a regional approach to land use issues, and regional approaches had increased over the years. He asserted retreat from a regional approach would not be appropriate. Although he commended Senator Shaffer for responding to residents’ concern regarding heavy-handedness from the CHD, he recalled there was also testimony from representatives of the local government entities involved who wanted things to stay the way they were. They wanted to keep the regional asset under administrative control for the purposes of the CHD, he said.
Senator Amodei pointed out the Dayton-elected representative to the Lyon County Commission was also on the CHD board, which provided “ballot-box access,” by which Dayton residents could vote. Based on his contact with district residents, he said he honestly believed the majority of Dayton residents wanted to stay in the CHD and were proud of the role Dayton played in its development. The proposed amendment would bifurcate the CHD and ignore the regional approach taken for over 30 years, he said, without benefit to either political subdivision.
With regard to the issues raised about disparate access to grant money, Senator Amodei asserted this was not due to any bias against Dayton, but rather because Storey County residents organized themselves earlier. However, he said, he expected Dayton residents would become more organized and be more competitive in future grant applications. He referred specifically to subsection 1, section 3 of the amendment, regarding “the boundaries of a historic district established by the commission,” where “commission” was later defined as the CHD, saying it would give anyone the ability to opt out, creating a patchwork and weakening the integrity of the historic district. He said although he was a republican who normally supported individual property rights, in this case, he thought those rights should be subservient to the CHD efforts. He suggested the CHD Commission had been put on notice by the bill, but requested the committee refrain from immediate action to let the CHD try to address the concerns raised.
Chairman O’Connell asserted committee members had been sympathetic to prior testimony and documentation of an apparent inequity of standards applied to different Dayton properties. She explained some property owners were abiding by the rules and regulations, while their immediate neighbors were not, and asked how this kind of situation might be improved. Senator Amodei said he had been waiting to see if Senator Shaffer’s amendment would address it, but it did not. He pointed out there was a dichotomy between not telling contractors how to construct buildings, but telling individual property owners to clean up their property. He referred to an Assembly bill proposed to change the makeup of the CHD commission by adding a contractor instead of two architects, thereby increasing practical input. Possibly, he said, the Assembly bill could be used as a “tune up” mechanism, giving the committee another opportunity to address the issues.
Chairman O’Connell reiterated the committee’s concern of differential treatment within the CHD, and asked Senator Shaffer’s opinion of the Assembly bill. Senator Shaffer said he had reviewed the bill, but did not see how changing the professional membership of the board would affect enforcement of rules and codes. The Lyon County Commissioners had a full professional staff making decisions on building requirements, he said, whereas the CHD could not afford to hire people with so much knowledge. As it was, he said, Dayton residents felt they were stepchildren to Storey County commissioners. He asserted Chairman O’Connell and the committee members were right about selective enforcement of rules and regulations, and he said, they were not enforced by people who were full-time employees of a county on a day-to-day basis.
Senator Amodei suggested the CHD was being given a “little too much credit,” because the Lyon County ordinance referenced above provided for enforcement of historical maintenance. He agreed there should be equal treatment, but suggested the CHD was not responsible for all the land use decisions made in the area. “Their authority does not abrogate or eclipse the normally possessed county zoning enforcement provisions which were not repealed as a result of the creation of [the CHD],” he said.
Senator Raggio expressed concern with exemptions from historic district requirements. He said he interpreted provision 10.14.03 of the Historic Zoning Overlay to allow exemptions for property owners who request it, which he said he could not support. However, he said, he could support a political subdivision going through a process to determine its inclusion in a historic district. Senator Shaffer said he was similarly concerned, but was informed a homeowner who did not apply to be part of the historic district would not be relieved from conforming to codes applied to the rest of the county. Senator Shaffer said he was open to suggestions.
Senator Care asked Senator Amodei whether a person buying property in a historic district was deemed to have notice of the restrictions imposed by the historic district. Senator Amodei said the title companies in the area did have language included in title reports to the effect, any restrictions or requirements imposed by virtue of being located within the boundaries of the CHD would be enforced.
Senator O’Donnell said he visited the area, and echoed Chairman O’Connell’s comments regarding the apparent disparity in upkeep of various properties. He said he would support Senator Raggio’s compromise proposal and suggested some emphasis be placed on cleaning up the whole district to increase the value and attract more tourists. Senator Amodei noted Virginia City had gone through a period where it was not kept up and residents were not concerned with historical significance, but had more recently shown great improvement. He suggested existing county ordinances and zoning could be used to address the issue of general upkeep, and it was not the exclusive province of the CHD. He also said Dayton was not at the same evolutionary point as Virginia City in terms of restoration because Virginia City started earlier, but Dayton had begun this process and must go through growing stages. Senator O’Donnell acknowledged the regulations were on the books to enforce maintenance, but pointed out the enforcement was not taking place. Senator Shaffer stressed many Dayton residents were low-income, long-term residents with no access to grant funding.
Chairman O’Connell asked Senators Shaffer and Amodei to try to work something out, particularly with regard to the committee’s concern of disparate treatment. Senator Amodei and Senator Shaffer agreed to work on it and talk with CHD residents. Chairman O’Connell noted the following Monday, April 16, 2001, would be the last opportunity for the committee to address this bill. A vote on the bill was postponed until that time. She closed the hearing on S.B. 157 and opened the hearing on S.B. 297.
SENATE BILL 297: Makes various changes to provisions governing elections. (BDR 24-841)
Senator Titus said the subcommittee meeting on this bill was good, with participation from the clerks, the secretary of state’s office, lobbyists, and others. Mr. Glover referred to a draft of the changes the committee already had. The bill was worked through with all the relevant parties to address anything controversial, he said, and there were several important sections. Subsections 1,2,3,4, and 5 under section 2 were the heart of the bill, he said, to set standards and conform language to bills passed out of the Assembly. With regard to standards for counting ballots, this bill would place them in the general section of the law, while the Assembly bill would address the same standards for the duplicating board. He said the amendments would clean up the process for early and absentee voting.
Senator Raggio thanked Senators Titus and Porter for their work on the subcommittee and said he hoped not to see a situation in Nevada similar to the one in Florida with someone squinting at a ballot to determine what to count.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 297.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Neal said his vote was contingent on whether or not the Clark County Registrar had a problem with the bill or amendment.
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 298.
SENATE BILL 298: Revises provisions relating to public employees’ benefits program. (BDR 23-542)
Chairman O’Connell explained the bill was brought by the Public Employees’ Retirement Board and basically contained “clean-up” provisions. She said she did not think there was any opposition.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 298.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator O’Donnell pointed out the bill would permit the board to establish the rates of coverage for employees and asked if that was normally approved by the legislature. Senator Raggio said the legislature approves the funding for the state employees’ rates. Chairman O’Connell noted a bill in the Assembly would address other concerns raised by the board as well as concerns raised by a special committee of the Legislative Commission. Senator Porter said over 300 members of the Public Employees’ Retirement System had asked for exemption from provisions of a related bill from last session, so the special committee had asked the Assembly committee to review the intent of the bill.
Senator O’Donnell expressed concern with making the fund sufficient to pay health care providers, which had been an issue in the past. He noted the current bill would provide for the board to determine actuarial costs, and “may” establish separate rates for coverage. Ms. Guinasso pointed out the original language required the board to establish separate rates and coverage for officers, employees, and retired employees, based on actuarial costs. This would not require the board to establish separate rates unless deemed proper, she said. Chairman O’Connell explained it would also allow retirees from the county and cities to “catch up” with system retirees.
THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 354.
SENATE BILL 354: Prohibits political subdivisions of state from hiring certain state employees for 1 year after termination of state employment. (BDR 23-1335)
Senator Raggio said he would accept the amendment from Mr. Gagnier, which would delete the rest of the bill and provide an employee who receives specialized training “may be required to enter into a contract with a state agency to serve in a classification or related classification for which that training is received for a specific period of time following the training, not exceeding two years.” And if an employee voluntarily left, he would have to reimburse the state agency for the cost of the training, which, Senator Raggio said, went a long way toward addressing the concerns he had initially expressed.
Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified he borrowed part of the language from the Washoe County sheriff’s department, and said there were also provisions in law for employees taking college courses. He pointed out the amendment would provide for a contract between the appointing authority and an employee, rather than requiring local governments to pay training costs, as in the original bill. Also, he said, section 3, regarding fiscal impact, was removed.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 354.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Care asked whether the reimbursement would be pro-rated based on when an employee left. Mr. Gagnier explained it would be addressed in the contract and, typically, the State Board of Examiners develops the contract form. Senators Titus and Neal said they would vote no. Senator Neal asserted it would tie an employee to a particular situation, and there would be money spent fighting lawsuits. Mr. Gagnier responded to Chairman O’Connell he had not discussed the amendment with other people who had opposed the bill.
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, testified he had not seen the amendment, but said he was more receptive to the amended version of the bill. Senator Raggio explained to Senator Neal, who had not heard prior testimony, the amendment would not put any onus or burden on hiring agencies, but would require employees to enter into contracts for specialized training which would require reimbursement to the state for two years following the training. Mr. Grady noted his agreement with the amendment.
Senator Titus said she objected to the proposal because it would weaken state recruitment efforts, and said she could not understand why SNEA supported it. Mr. Grady reiterated his support and said the Washoe County sheriff’s department had used such contracts for two or three years with success for both the department and the employees. Senator Neal suggested the county probably paid well.
Senator O’Donnell asserted the amendment was designed to “kill the bill on the other side.” He suggested hiring agencies should be charged for state training costs and the funds could augment salaries of people who stay on with state agencies to equalize the pay scale and increase incentive to stay.
Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, testified he had not seen the amendment. Upon review, he said, there were two problems: the term “may” did not specify the circumstances under which it would be enacted; and the language regarding an employee leaving state service within two years of training did not specify any reason for the employee leaving. He said he agreed the bill and the amendment would inhibit recruitment of state employees.
THE MOTION FAILED. (CHAIRMAN O’CONNELL AND SENATORS, O’DONNELL, NEAL, TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 354.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell postponed discussions of S.B. 355 and S.B. 426 because amendments were not yet available, and opened discussion on S.B. 363.
SENATE BILL 355: Requires local governments to comply with certain laws and regulations and to pay certain fees and taxes when providing goods or services in competition with private entities. (BDR 31-49)
SENATE BILL 426: Establishes requirements and procedures for strategic planning for state agencies. (BDR 31-429)
SENATE BILL 363: Authorizes use of proceeds of certain taxes for certain highway improvement projects located wholly or partially outside boundaries of this state. (BDR 20-1049)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 363.
Senator Porter said he had information requested by Senator Neal on tax revenues. Chairman O’Connell noted there was a conflict amendment.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 363.
Senator Porter recalled a prior question from Senator Neal regarding the funding source, noting Clark County had committed $7 million in funding for the project to be drawn from the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). He said the RTC would be reimbursed through a $200 million county bond sale and a $5 million per year development tax program created specifically for outlying projects, such as the Needles Highway project. The $7 million would come from RTC programs and would not be taken from sources that would be used for any other purpose, he said.
Continuing, Senator Porter said the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) had committed to using fee and gasoline tax revenues to match funds contributed by Clark County. Due to the constitutional prohibition against expenditure of NDOT outside the state, he said, all Clark County funds would be used for road construction and improvements taking place outside the state. Statutory language needed to be changed due to the “one-mile” rule currently in statute, he said.
In response to Senator Neal, Senator Porter said funds from NDOT were already earmarked to finish the highway on the Nevada side. He explained he had a tentative list of projects included in the same bond issue, and would be happy to provide a copy to the committee. However, he said, he did not have the actual date the bond would be let. In summary, he said, the project funding would include $7 million for work within Nevada, and contributions for work outside Nevada would include $2.5 million from San Bernardino County, California; $1 million, possibly in-kind, from the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe; and $300,000 from the City of Needles. He reported over 14,000 new slot machines were anticipated in California through the expansion of Indian gaming, as compared to 60,000 in the Las Vegas Strip area. He asserted the Needles Highway project would be a minimal investment to protect Nevada interests, such as the $38 to $40 million per year in state tax revenues from the Laughlin community. He pointed out the community was able to find the funds for this project, but needed authority to use those funds.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Care said in discussion with other state legislators, he learned there were a number of residents living close to interstate 515 who were concerned about the traffic noise. He suggested people who had testified for the county were not fully briefed on this issue, and he wanted to know if the project would use funds which could otherwise be used for sound walls in that area. Senator O’Donnell reported there was an audit bill for NDOT presently in the Senate Committee on Transportation which was to be acted upon the following day, and another bill would create an NDOT oversight committee composed of three senators and three assemblymen. His understanding, he said, was the funds for the Needles Highway project were part of an existing list from which projects were prioritized.
Although Senator Porter stated the $7 million in RTC funds would not be taken from sources which could be used for any other purpose, Senator Titus asserted this did not mean the funds were specifically earmarked for the Needles highway. She claimed the $ 7 million in matching funds from NDOT fees and gasoline taxes could be used for any number of things, depending on NDOT priorities. Therefore, she said, $14 million would be allocated to this project which could be used for other projects. Senator Neal expressed concern regarding future complaints about traffic, and asserted the $14 million expenditure to “build a road into California” could not be justified. When a similar bill was introduced a few years ago, he said, he was concerned about road extension and was told it would not extend into California.
Senator Raggio disclosed he was on the board of a company which operated a hotel-casino in Laughlin, but did not see it as a conflict to voting on the measure.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL, TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell noted Senator Raggio was not feeling well and had asked for S.B. 365, S.B. 466, and S.B. 564 to be held. She agreed to hold the bills until April 16, 2001, and opened discussion on S.B. 487.
SENATE BILL 365: Makes various changes relating to Indian affairs. (BDR 18-719)
SENATE BILL 466: Makes various changes regarding ethics in government. (BDR 23-716)
SENATE BILL 564: Requires competitive bidding for printing of certain state publications and other printed materials. (BDR 29-568)
SENATE BILL 487: Authorizes additional types of investments for money in certain public funds. (BDR 31-359)
Brian K. Krolicki, State Treasurer, Office of the State Treasurer, referred to draft amendments in the committee’s work session package. He explained one amendment would remove the “covered call or put option,” in terms of investment capability on all four relevant trust funds. Also, he said, the state treasurer must obtain professional money management services for the investment of equities, with managers who have proven track records. He pointed out there was not a two-thirds majority vote required for passage of this bill, but such language had been included in error.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 487.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 488.
SENATE BILL 488: Revises authority of state treasurer to invest money held in certain trust funds and to administer proceeds from settlement agreements and civil litigation between State of Nevada and tobacco companies. (BDR 18-361)
Mr. Krolicki explained an amendment was added to section 13 of the bill to remove the ability to use certain trust funds in reverse repurchase agreement investments. The prohibition was already in the state general portfolio, he said, and although bill drafters allowed that opportunity, it was amended out to ensure everyone’s comfort.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 488.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Krolicki said the bill and amendments were not partisan and he would:
. . . rather manage monies in known markets and known securities for the next 25 years, than manage the risk and be at the whim of a tobacco industry for 25 years when it pertains to a billion dollars that is crucial to the things we wish to do here in Nevada. At the same time, we do many things to make sure that funding doesn’t come; we are trying to eliminate smoking.
Senator Porter reentered the hearing room and Chairman O’Connell explained to him the status of the vote. Senator Porter said he supported the bill.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL, TITUS, AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 489.
SENATE BILL 489: Makes various changes regarding powers and duties of state treasurer and revises Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act. (BDR 18-360)
Mr. Krolicki explained the committee had been provided with a point-by-point breakdown of each section of the bill, and one amendment to section 45 was requested by his office. The change would remove reference to a $200 fee which triggered a requirement for a two-thirds majority vote.
Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Krolicki to provide explanations to other senators, not on this committee, due to the complexity of the bills, in order to ensure their understanding, in preparation for the vote on the Senate floor. Mr. Krolicki agreed to do so, asserting opposition to S.B. 488 was a philosophical issue. Senator Care recalled he expressed his reservations about the bill during the initial hearing and also had previous conversations with Mr. Krolicki, but was willing to further discuss the philosophical differences with Mr. Krolicki.
Senator Titus recalled concerns testified to by Mr. Gagnier, regarding moving employees out of the classified category, and asked whether those concerns were addressed in the amendment. Senator Raggio recalled someone had suggested the proposal be limited to unclassified positions, and asked how many unclassified positions would be affected by the amendment. Mr. Krolicki said there were 6 unclassified positions out of a total of 23 positions. Senator Raggio asked if this was in the amendment and Mr. Krolicki said he did not delete section 1, but only proposed an amendment to section 45, pertaining to unclaimed property matters. With regard to section 1, he said the issue could be resolved by deleting the section or could be limited to impact the current unclassified system. Senator Raggio asked for the bill to be held for further review, suggesting the section be limited to the currently unclassified positions and salary flexibility be limited to the amount budgeted for those positions.
Chairman O’Connell said she thought Mr. Gagnier’s point was this was originally done for the Governor’s office only, and not intended for expansion. Mr. Krolicki stressed the critical nature of the remaining parts of the bill, regardless of the committee’s decision on section 1. Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 489 and opened discussion on S.B. 501.
SENATE BILL 501: Repeals prospective expiration by limitation of provisions relating to appointment of commission counsel by commission on ethics. (BDR S-1317)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 501.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 552.
SENATE BILL 552: Makes various changes relating to assistance to finance housing. (BDR 25-1448)
Senator Titus said she thought the overall bill went beyond anything to be pursued at this time, and no critical elements were brought forward separately.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 552.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio said he was opposed to the motion and the bill was not given sufficient attention. He said he thought a good case was made for the proposed structure and could see no reason why it should continue with the existing structure. He said he would vote no on the motion and Senator O’Donnell said he also would vote no on the motion, referencing drastic situations in Ely and Lovelock related to housing for prison staff.
Chairman O’Connell provided an overview of the bill to Senator Porter who had missed the initial hearing. She said state control would be removed, making the Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry an independent agency. She said the bill was extremely broad and there was an objection from Legislative Auditor, Gary Crewes, regarding a section which would restrict his office from accessing certain records. She agreed with Senator Titus the bill was too broad and would give too much authority. She pointed out testimony from Ms. Vilardo indicated statements from division staff misrepresented the basis for their bond rating relative to that of the state. Senator Porter said he would abstain from the vote at this time, noting his absence at the initial hearing was due to the death of a close friend.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND O’DONNELL VOTED NO. SENATOR PORTER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Laura Hale,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: