MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
March 14, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:09 a.m., on Friday, March 14, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
JoAnn Aldrich, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Anna Marie Theuret, State and County Ambassador, 4-H Clubs of Nevada
Dan Musgrove, Intergovernmental Relations, Clark County, Nevada
Chairman Manendo reminded Committee members who plan to go on the scheduled tour of Carson City tomorrow, Saturday, March 15, 2003, to meet at 9:00 a.m. in the south parking lot of the Sedway Office Building.
Chairman Manendo invited a spokesperson for the guests in the audience to introduce the group. Anna Marie Theuret introduced herself as a State and County Ambassador for the 4-H Club, and said her companions were 4-H Club members from Nevada. Chairman Manendo told the visitors that Assemblyman Williams, Speaker Pro Tempore, Chairman of the Education Committee, and Vice Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, had been a 4-H Club member as a youth.
Chairman Manendo said that no bills were scheduled today and opened the work session. He added that the work session documents, in black 3-ring binders (Exhibit C), should remain in the Committee room.
Assembly Bill 135: Revises provisions governing authority of governing body of city to abate certain nuisances and dangerous and noxious conditions. (BDR 21-460)
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, to bring the Committee up to date on A.B. 135. Ms. Scholley said that A.B. 135 was sponsored by the Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the City of Las Vegas. The bill changed “city council” to “governing body of a city” and provided for the recovery of costs for nuisance abatement through the collection of special assessments, in the same way that ordinary property taxes were collected. She said there had been questions from the Committee regarding public notice of the special assessments, and that those questions had been answered. There were no proposed amendments and no fiscal impacts.
Assemblywoman Weber had contacted the City of Las Vegas regarding public notice procedures. She stated that because the City of Las Vegas had provided a flow chart to all Committee members, and that the lien was recorded and the release was appropriate as the assessment was paid. Ms. Weber said her questions had been answered.
Assemblyman Williams argued that this bill would reduce wasted staff time in dealing with neighborhood nuisances. He felt that proper notice was important, but that property owners had been given too many notices and opportunities to correct those nuisance situations in the past. A.B. 135 would enable officials to take action on the liens in a more timely manner, and lead to safer neighborhoods.
Assemblyman Collins said that, on one hand, he had witnessed a situation where it took two years to fix an unsafe place; on the other hand, he had also witnessed “a misunderstanding between a person’s treasure and what someone else thought was junk.” He guardedly supported the bill with reservations.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 135.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo assigned A.B. 135 to Assemblywoman Weber to defend on the floor.
Assembly Bill 147: Revises provisions relating to purchasing by local governments. (BDR 27-799)
Chairman Manendo turned the Committee’s attention to AB 147, and asked Ms. Scholley to summarize the bill and its history. Ms. Scholley said that A.B. 147 was sponsored by Assemblyman Oceguera. The bill would revise the provisions on judging bidders in local purchasing as set forth in NRS Chapter 332. The amendments were minor and were not the subject of significant discussion during the Committee hearing. A.B. 147 would exempt from bidding requirements the purchase of personal safety equipment used by local fire departments or law enforcement agencies in responding to emergencies. This would be subject to a determination of those conditions by a local governing body. There was some discussion on this point but the issues were resolved. No amendments had been proposed, and there were no fiscal impacts.
Assemblyman Grady noted that page 2, line 39, of the bill might conflict with the recycling requirements in A.B. 116, which would revise provisions relating to state purchasing. Chairman Manendo and Susan Scholley agreed that A.B. 116 had been indefinitely postponed.
Assemblyman Hardy stated that recycled paper products with 50 percent recycled material could be hard to obtain. He suggested the Committee might want to change the percentage to 30 percent recycled material.
Chairman Manendo thought that Assemblyman Oceguera had not discussed that point in the bill hearing, and it was not part of the bill itself.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Clark County, Nevada, came forward and testified that there had been no change to, and no intent to change, the requirement that specified using a minimum percentage of recycled material. The percentage regarding recycled content was existing language in the bill.
Assemblywoman Pierce said she understood that products with a much higher percentage of recycled content were beginning to become available. She would favor leaving the 50 percentage recycled content requirement as is to encourage recycling.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 147.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Assemblywoman Pierce to back up Assemblyman Oceguera’s statement on the Floor of the Assembly.
Assembly Bill 196: Authorizes certain local governments to require dedication of certain land or impose tax on nonresidential construction projects for regional parks. (BDR 22-653)
Chairman Manendo turned the Committee’s attention to A.B. 196 and asked Ms. Scholley to summarize the bill and its history. Ms. Scholley said that A.B. 196 would allow local governments to tax non-residential construction to fund regional parks. At the direction of the Chairman, A.B. 196 was referred to a subcommittee chaired by Assemblyman McCleary. She asked Mr. McCleary to present the subcommittee report.
Assemblyman McCleary said that 25 to 30 people came to the meeting, which showed there were some concerns. His statement was brief because a summary of the report had been included in the work session document. Mr. McCleary said that the subcommittee met on at 7:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 4, 2003, and all three of the subcommittee members were present. The subcommittee recommended that the bill should be amended to only affect Clark County and that the Committee should amend and do pass A.B. 196.
The second recommendation was to amend the bill to include the language changes suggested by Dan Musgrove, representing Clark County, which were outlined on page 3 of the section on A.B. 196 in the work session document. New language would replace the section starting on page 1, line 17, “The proposed subdivision…” through page 2, lines 1-2, “…or development and the future residents occupants of the subdivision for development….” The recommendation proposed to delete that section and add “…neighborhoods, regions or communities of interest within the city or county.”
Assemblyman Hardy asked if maintenance had been discussed, since the bill was a “one-shot funding” vehicle, which might burden the Parks Department in the future. Assemblyman McCleary said that question had been addressed, and he had personally talked to City of Las Vegas staff about that issue. They told him that there would be costs, but that the bill would free up other monies in their budget to help defray the costs. Mr. McCleary said he would revisit the issue in two years.
Assemblyman Knecht said that Mr. McCleary’s notes showed that some who testified against the bill said that they would not oppose it if it were limited to Clark County. Mr. Knecht asked if others were opposed to the bill, even if limited to Clark County. Mr. McCleary did not remember, and deferred to Assemblyman Collins, who said that only one group whose lobbyist had some concerns “understanding the gap and making sure the intent was for a whole project and not for each permit purchased.” He said that issue had been clarified. Mr. Collins said that, as of yesterday, the lobbyist’s concerns seemed to be significantly diminished, “meaning that there was really no opposition anymore.”
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 196.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Collins to defend his bill on the Floor of the Assembly and thanked Mr. McCleary, Mr. Grady, and Mr. Collins for their work on the subcommittee.
Assembly Bill 199: Exempts proceeds from annual tax that counties may impose to support county museums, art centers and historical societies from limitation on allowed revenue from taxes ad valorem for counties. (BDR 20-157)
Chairman Manendo turned the Committee’s attention to A.B. 199 and asked Ms. Scholley to summarize the bill content and background for the Committee. Ms. Scholley said that the bill was sponsored by Assemblyman Hettrick. A.B. 199 would exempt the proceeds from the ad valorem tax used for the support of county museums, art centers, and historical societies from the revenue cap in NRS Chapter 354. When presenting the bill, Assemblyman Hettrick proposed an amendment to clarify that, although exempt from the cap, the actual expenditure of such funds would be discretionary. On page 1, line 18, of the bill, the “must” was changed to a “may.” There was no testimony in opposition to the bill and no fiscal impact.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 199.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo said that the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Hettrick, would defend it on the Floor of the Assembly, and Mr. Knecht would back him up.
Assembly Bill 216: Revises manner in which certain claims against state are audited. (BDR 31-491)
Chairman Manendo turned the Committee’s attention to A.B. 216 and asked Ms. Scholley to review the bill’s content and background. Ms. Scholley said that A.B. 216 was sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the Department of Administration, Division of Internal Audits. The bill would make two changes. It would change internal audits by the Division from a pre-audit to a post-audit format, and it would clarify that the standards of the Institute of Internal Audits would be applicable only to internal audits. Concerns were raised during the hearing as to why the Division was moving from a pre-audit to a post-audit format, and there were some questions regarding legislative audits; and recently, background information had been provided to the Committee in response to those questions. Ms. Scholley said if there were additional questions, she would review the information again. No questions were asked by the Committee. Ms. Scholley said there had been no testimony in opposition to the bill and no fiscal impacts.
Assemblyman Koivisto said she saw the opportunity for problems with this process. She said that they needed to keep a close watch on it and perhaps revisit.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 216.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. COLLINS VOTING NO.
When Chairman Manendo called for the question on A.B. 216, he noted for the record that there were some concerns by the members. He assigned the bill to Assemblyman Hardy to defend on the Floor of the Assembly.
Assembly Bill 224: Revises provisions relating to Nevada Arts Council. (BDR 18-531)
Chairman Manendo turned the Committee’s attention to A.B. 224, and Ms. Scholley summarized the background and content of the bill. She said that A.B. 224 was sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the Department of Cultural Affairs. The bill would change the name of the Nevada Arts Council and clarified entities within the Department of Cultural Affairs. It also revised provisions related to the reorganization. The changes were necessitated by a bill that passed last session. There were no amendments, no opposition, and no fiscal impact. Although the attached fiscal note indicated there was a state government impact, the fiscal note submitted by the Department of Cultural Affairs indicated otherwise.
Assemblyman McCleary said he did not understand the bill and asked who could explain it to him. He said he was tempted to vote no, so he did not have to represent the bill on the Floor of the Assembly. Mr. Atkinson agreed.
Assemblywoman Pierce said that the purpose of the bill was to clarify confusion between an entity outside the government, which received grants from the government, and an actual government entity of the same name. The bill proposed to change one of the names to prevent confusion.
Chairman Manendo said he had concerns about who could represent the bill on the Floor of the Assembly, if it passed.
Assemblyman McCleary asked what the old name was and what the new name was. Eileen O’Grady clarified that the previous name was the Nevada Arts Council, which referred to a nine-member board with an executive director and staff. The reorganization had separated the nine-member board from a newly created division in the Department of Cultural Affairs, called the Nevada Arts Council, with an administrator and staff. The board currently served as an advisory board to the newly created division of the department. Therefore, the name of the board was changed from Nevada Arts Council to the ”Board of the Nevada Arts Council.” Mr. McCleary thanked Ms. O’Grady for the clarification.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PIERCE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 224.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo assigned Assemblywoman Pierce to defend on the floor.
Assembly Bill 225: Provides that Public Employees’ Deferred Compensation Program approved by committee to administer the Program may consist of any plan to reduce taxable income. (BDR 23-505)
Chairman Manendo turned the Committee’s attention to A.B. 225, and Ms. Scholley gave a brief description and history of the bill. She said that A.B. 225 was sponsored by the Assembly Committee of Government Affairs on behalf of the Committee to Administer the Public Employees’ Deferred Compensation Program. The bill would authorize that Committee to administer the Public Employees’ Deferred Compensation Program and to offer other federally approved deferred compensation plans to state employees. Ms. Scholley said that the missing references to NRS Chapter 287 were listed in the work session document. The Chairman had called those sections to the attention of the Committee. No testimony was offered in opposition, and no fiscal impacts were noted. Ms. Scholley said that there was one concern raised by Assemblyman Christensen, who would address that issue.
Assemblyman Christensen stated that this bill would allow the state to “go shopping” for tax savings and/or retirement programs. The programs might include deferred compensation programs or could include other programs.
Assemblyman Christensen’s interest was sparked by a witness who had mentioned that the Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (VEBA) plan might be an option. Mr. Christensen said that the VEBA plan was complex and had recently experienced problems with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), because they “change their code all the time.” His concern was the elevated risk. For example, he said, on a scale of one to ten, a 401(k) might rate a one or two, while a VEBA plan might have a risk factor of seven or eight.
Assemblyman Christensen talked to the witness again and with others who administered those types of plans. He was told that the VEBA plan option would satisfy federal and state laws. However, Mr. Christensen wanted assurance that if the state did allow a VEBA plan option for employees, they would first obtain a letter of approval from the IRS. He was assured by administrators that VEBA options would need prior approval through the Attorney General’s office. Having received that reassurance, Assemblyman Christensen said that A.B. 225 was a good bill, because it would allow employees to save tax money and put away more money for retirement.
Assemblyman Hardy said that, for those still concerned about paying the state back, this was after they paid the state back. He also asked what the amendment was to this bill. Chairman Manendo answered that the amendment would correct four references in NRS Chapter 287.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 225.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Assemblyman Christensen to handle on the Floor of the Assembly. He submitted the itinerary as an exhibit (Exhibit D). Ms. Scholley gave credit for the work session notebooks to Julie Wood, Research Division. Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 9:56 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JoAnn Aldrich
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: