MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
May 2, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:18 a.m., on Friday, May 2, 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 Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Tom Collins (excused)
Mr. Pete Goicoechea (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
JoAnn Aldrich, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk Recorder
Kathryn L. Burke, Washoe County Recorder
Mary Milligan, Lyon County Recorder
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County
John Slaughter, Manager, Legislative Affairs Program, Washoe County
Terry McHenry, Editor, The Nevada Traverse, representing the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors
Irene Porter, Southern Nevada Home Builders, Las Vegas
Phil Rosenquist, Director, Development Services, Clark County
Senate Bill 451 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing account established for acquisition and improvement of technology in office of county recorder and certain provisions regarding format of certain documents filed in office of county recorder. (BDR 20-293)
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk Recorder, stated that S.B. 451 completed the work that the recorders started four years ago, when they began a complete rewrite of Chapter 247 in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) for the first time since 1923. The rewritten sections would take effect on July 1, 2003, because, at the time legislation was passed in 2001, the national standards had not been finalized, and local governments, title companies, financial institutions, and other institutions needed time to prepare for the changes.
Mr. Glover said that S.B. 451 was based on a white paper that addressed recordable document formatting standards prepared by the Property Records Industry Joint Task Force, a coalition of public and private participants of the property record industry cooperating to formulate positions on issues of common interest. Their latest information showed that 36 states had adopted the proposed standards. Mr. Glover said that two trends had combined to bring the recordable document formatting standards to the forefront.
The first trend was the nationalization of the real estate financing industry. In the past, formatting was strictly a local matter. Companies and financial institutions knew what their local recorders needed and conformed to those requirements. That approach was no longer viable in the current national economy.
The second trend was the quest to improve customer service. Recorders looked to new technology to improve service, and new technology required new practices. Image capturing was one area of new technology and included, for example, larger document margins to prevent text from being cut off and lost, larger font size to ensure documents were readable when retrieved in the future. Section 1 of the bill dealt with those two issues.
Mr. Glover said that this bill completed the process by allowing an exemption for certain documents that did not meet recording standards. Section 2, page 4, lines 3-11, was the heart of the bill. Transitional strategy had proposed a nonstandard fee of $25 for recording a document that did not meet the new recording standards. The fee was to encourage companies to comply with the new standards as quickly as possible. They expected that, after a few years, the fee would no longer be necessary.
Mr. Glover said he could not emphasize enough how important the bill was, because, without it, there would be a large number of documents that could not be recorded in Nevada after July 1, 2003. He said it was very important that the legislation be approved this year, and the sooner, the better, because they needed time to notify financial institutions, title companies, attorneys, and others that the changes would take effect on July 1, 2003.
Mr. Glover said that Section 3 of the bill was the only controversial area. He said it was the recorders’ attempt to clarify language regarding the technology fee. Mr. Glover said Mr. Musgrove would present some proposed amendments in that area that the recorders were reluctant to consider.
Mr. Glover said he had been in contact with Mickey Johnson, President of the Land Title Association, Las Vegas, who noticed that, on page 3, line 2, the word “or” after a semi-colon should be changed to “and.” He wanted to know if an amendment was needed to make that correction.
Kathy Burke, Washoe County Recorder, said that she came to testify in support of the bill, and that her customers were awaiting the outcome. Her office had been inundated with calls from clients who were ready to move to the new forms and who were waiting for a complete set of guidelines that could not be distributed until S.B. 451 passed. As the new standards were passed into law, Ms. Burke was ready to change their Website and notify customers.
Mary Milligan, Lyon County Recorder, said that everything had been said and she agreed with those who testified. If there were questions, she would be glad to answer them.
Assemblyman Grady asked if the $25 fee was per recording, not per page. Mr. Glover said that was correct. The fee was $25 per document, not per page.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, offered an amendment to S.B. 451. He said that they believed in the bill and that it was very important to pass Sections 1 and 2 into law. He said that Clark County did not want to do anything to jeopardize those two sections. However, Section 3 caused Clark County some concern. He said that he could not find any logic for including Section 3 in any of the recorders’ testimonies, and he would give the reasons why Clark County wanted Section 3 deleted.
Mr. Musgrove said that Section 3 authorized county recorders to control and utilize the technology fund without oversight and without synchronizing the technology they purchased with other systems within the various jurisdictions in Clark County. Computer technology in the Recorder’s Office significantly affected the Assessor’s Office, Clerk’s Office, Treasurer’s Office, and Comprehensive Planning Departments, and current statutes required the Recorder to present a proposal to the County Commissioners prior to purchasing technology, thus ensuring that the equipment would be compatible with other county offices and systems.
Mr. Musgrove stated that what Clark County wanted was to return to the current existing statute, which required prior discussion, justification, and approval of proposed purchases to ensure the systems were compatible. He said Clark County currently had a $5 million computer system that was going into the Recorder’s Office, and that project was about $3 million complete. If the recorders decided to change systems at this point, it could be very expensive and detrimental to county operations.
He concluded by asking the Committee to delete Section 3 of the bill, which would preserve the existing statute that included the proper checks and balances. Preserving the current laws would ensure technological compatibility throughout Clark County offices. He said deleting Section 3 would not affect Sections 1 and 2, which they completely supported.
Chairman Manendo asked if Mr. Musgrove had checked with the Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.
Mr. Musgrove said the issue was presented to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, but other issues had precluded discussion. He said that he was not sure if their message about deleting Section 3 was completely heard or addressed by the Senate Committee. However, Mr. Musgrove had since spoken to the Chairwoman, who was in complete concurrence with the deletion of Section 3.
Chairman Manendo asked if the bill supporters in the room felt it was a friendly amendment. There were no comments.
Assemblyman Grady asked Mr. Musgrove if he wanted to delete Section 3, or to return it to the original language. He said that the amendment (Exhibit C) stated that Section 3 would be deleted.
Mr. Musgrove said that deleting Section 3 in the bill would, in fact, cause the statute to revert to existing language in NRS 247.306, Section 3.
John Slaughter, Manager, Legislative Affairs Program, Washoe County, said that he agreed with Clark County’s proposed amendment because Washoe County would like to see the existing Section 3 preserved in state statute. He said the current system worked well, and he supported deleting Section 3 in the proposed bill.
Assemblyman Hardy asked what the argument was for keeping Section 3 in the proposed bill.
Mr. Glover stated that there were conflicting opinions over who would control the technology money in Clark County. The recorders decided they should have control, since the technology fund was their creation. It turned into a turf battle. Not having to have the County Commissioners approve their choices would ensure that monies in the technology fund were used for technology purposes. He said there were problems because the systems Clark County had wanted to purchase were not compatible with those in the Assessor’s Office, and that the whole process had became rather “tortured.” Recorders felt this was their best option for getting the equipment they needed. He said, “It was about trying to define who really had the power in this situation. That is about as frank as I can be.”
Ms. Burke, Washoe County Recorder, said that the current system was working well in Washoe County, but the intent of the legislation passed last session was that recorders would have control, as far as how to best meet the needs of their customers. She said Washoe County was using their technology money for those purposes, partly because the accountability factor in Washoe County was through the budget process. Estimated revenue and estimated expenditures were approved by the County Commissioners and figured into the effort to balance the budget. She thought it was a good direction for ensuring equal and fair treatment of recorders throughout the counties.
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked if Section 3 was not deleted, and recorders had total control over the technology account, if that would mean they could purchase whatever they wanted because there were no requirements that the equipment had to be compatible with the existing equipment and with other departments. She said it happened all the time in state agencies, and it was a very expensive problem. She did not think it would be a good direction for the counties to go.
Mr. Glover said he could not speak for other counties, but in Carson City, they could not buy any new technology without approval from the Automation Committee. The purchase had to meet its standards and be approved by the committee and by the city. He said they had checks and balances in place to prevent what Mrs. Koivisto described. He did not know if other counties had those checks and balances.
Ms. Burke said that Washoe County also had similar checks and balances. The products she was getting ready to order required approval from five departments, and standards were in place. The five offices that approved technology contracts were: Information Technology staff, Risk Management, the Purchasing Department, District Attorney’s Office, and Finance Department. She said the process had worked very well.
Terry McHenry, Nevada Association of Land Surveyors (NALS), said that he fully concurred with the amendments made in the Senate. Regarding Section 3, NALS’ concern was that the technology fund, which they supported, was specifically earmarked for technological improvements in recorders’ offices for the benefit of the public and the users, such as the NALS. He said no one here would argue against compatibility of technology within government offices or between government offices. Mr. McHenry wanted technology fund monies to be spent for designated purposes and not siphoned off for use in other areas. That was his concern.
Mr. Musgrove argued that current statutes allowed funding designations for specific purposes and did not allow dedicated funds to revert to the General Fund. If the money were not spent, it would carry over to the next year. There was no intent on the part of Clark County to siphon off the money for other purposes. He said that the existing statute, as testified about by previous recorders, was working. The key was that new language in Section 3 would allow circumvention of the current checks and balances. The recorders in this room believed in those checks and balances and had testified to them. He said those same checks and balances were in place in Clark County, but their recorder did not want to follow the law. If Section 3 remained in the proposed bill, those checks and balances would be unenforceable.
Mr. Musgrove emphasized that offices changed hands and newly elected officials took power. Some of those officials had different philosophies and different ways of thinking. Clark County wanted to make sure that there was a joint decision-making process because the Recorder’s Office should not be an isolated entity. They needed relationships and a process that included checks and balances. The existing statute provided that. He said that Clark County supported the amendment that would remove Section 3 and asked the Committee’s concurrence in order to pass Sections 1 and 2 of the bill.
Chairman Manendo asked for questions and if anyone else wished to testify. There were none. Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on S.B. 451, and opened the hearing on S.B. 452.
Senate Bill 452 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing enterprise funds for building permit fees. (BDR 31-838)
Irene Porter, Southern Nevada Home Builders, said that S.B. 452 would slightly expand the existing law regarding enterprise funds. She explained that an enterprise fund was a special fund that could be organized within local governments. The City of Las Vegas, Clark County, Henderson, City of Reno, and others, had enterprise funds. Normally, all the monies from building permits, inspections, and plan check fees were deposited into a dedicated fund, called an enterprise fund. Expenditures, such as salaries, equipment, cars, and all costs associated with the building department were then paid for from the enterprise fund. If money were lacking, fees would be raised. The fund was self-contained, self-funded, and no taxpayer dollars were used to support the building department if a city had an enterprise fund. The buildings constructed and paid for from an enterprise fund could be either residential or commercial.
In Clark County, Ms. Porter said they had been working for over 1½ years to expand the enterprise fund to cover a proposed Development Services Department, which would contain the building department, public works, and planning employees. She said a committee from the development sector and the county worked for over a year to assemble this department and to make it fully functional. In order to allow it to pay for itself, changes need to be made to the enterprise fund law to allow some of the permitting from public works to be part of the department, so that those public works employees would be paid for from the Development Services Department. Planning staff was being handled differently.
Ms. Porter said they had worked with the enterprise fund law since 1998. Enterprise funds were entirely controlled by a county commission, or a city council, and they had not experienced any problems. It had been a great public‑private partnership and adventure. She noted that technology had been purchased from monies of the fund, and the huge county building built on Russell Road was paid for entirely from the enterprise fund. It worked well for both elected officials and for staff.
Phil Rosenquist, Director, Development Services, Clark County, said he had worked with Irene Porter for many years. When the 25‑member Customer Participation Committee began discussing the financial structure of the enterprise fund in Clark County, they appointed a Finance Subcommittee. The report from the Finance Subcommittee to the Customer Participation Committee provided a detailed description of the enterprise fund. That report was available on the Development Services Department Website.
Mr. Rosenquist said there were two primary aspects to the development process. One was construction, and the other was off-site development, which referred to the public infrastructure that would support the development, and which included surrounding streets, internal streets, lights, curbs, gutters, fire hydrants, and more. In most cases, detailed traffic and drainage studies were required. A building permit could not be issued until off-site plans and studies were reviewed and approved. Near the end of the development process, a certificate of occupancy could not be issued until both the on-site and off-site improvements were inspected and approved.
In order to provide better customer service, Clark County was trying to move the civil side of the Public Works Department into an expanded version of the current enterprise fund. It took three weeks to review one drainage study, and reviewing a traffic study took 6-8 weeks. Those turnaround times were unacceptable because, without moving to an enterprise fund, they would not be able to keep pace with public safety and fire plan reviews. A minor benefit of the proposed bill was that it would also facilitate encroachment and barricade permits, which facilitated traffic and excavation services on construction sites. They had not been collecting fees for those services, but fees could be initiated if those services were included in the enterprise fund.
Mr. Rosenquist reminded the Committee that limitations and caps were part of the existing statute relating to enterprise funds and would continue to apply to their plans and purposes.
Assemblyman Knecht said he did not have a problem with the bill except on page 2, which indexed the fees that local governments could charge. He wondered why those restrictions were needed. He said that local governments should be able to set fees without guidance from the Legislature.
Ms. Porter answered that the majority of that section was existing law. She said that when Nevada shifted taxes in the early 1980s, they instituted caps on permit fees and other fees. They developed the enterprise fund in 1987, partly because enterprise funds were not subject to existing caps and limitations. She said that the caps only applied if fees were not going into an enterprise fund, because there were many other controls over an enterprise fund. Departments often used enterprise funds as a way to raise money for the General Fund.
Assemblyman Knecht said that he understood the development history and that local government could abuse that power, but he had faith in local government and supported home rule. If he had a choice, Mr. Knecht would like to remove those restrictions and make officials be accountable to the voters.
Ms. Porter said that it would take a substantial amendment to remove the caps. Then the amendment would revert to the Senate Government Affairs Committee for concurrence, which would not be productive because the Chairwoman had helped to establish the caps. Mr. Knecht replied that her point was persuasive.
Chairman Manendo asked them to describe the proposed changes to existing law, and the rationale behind them.
Mr. Rosenquist said he would describe the change that was made in the Senate Government Affairs Committee. There was only one change, on page 2, which added “Western urban nonseasonally adjusted” language.
Chairman Manendo asked if that was the only change from the original bill to the first reprint.
Ms. Porter said that the proposed amendment from the City of Henderson included using the “Western urban nonseasonally adjusted consumer price index,” which would be more favorable to the Western United States, rather than the National Consumer Price Index. She said that it was a good change, and they had no problem with it.
Mr. Rosenquist said the original bill that was introduced was different. A new bill had been proposed in Senate Government Affairs Committee that reverted to existing NRS language and did not contain substantial changes. That bill was introduced over the counter at a Senate Government Affairs Committee meeting, and it included the additional change described by Ms. Porter.
Chairman Manendo asked if anyone had questions or if there was any other testimony on S.B. 452. There was none. The Chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 452 and called for a short recess.
Senate Bill 112 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions relating to Secretary of State. (BDR 18-557)
Chairman Manendo called the Committee back to order and opened the work session (Exhibit D, which also included information on S.B. 78) on S.B. 112.
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), summarized the background and current status of the bill. S.B. 112, in its first reprint, was sponsored by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the Secretary of State. If passed, S.B. 112 would clarify the date on which a document was determined to be filed with the Secretary of State and would amend certain fees related to the filing of documents, copies, and returned checks. At the hearing on April 23, 2003, the Nevada State Resident Agents, Ltd. expressed concern about certain provisions relating to the effect of a postmark and about certain fees. Their suggestion was that the Secretary of State should be authorized to adopt regulations to address those subjects in detail. A mock-up of the proposed amendment prepared by the Legal Division was attached to the work session documents (Exhibit D). There was no opposition to the bill and no fiscal impact at the state or local level.
On page 1 of the mock-up, lines 14 and 15 consisted of a directive to the Secretary of State to adopt regulations defining care, custody, and control. On page 3 of the mock-up, lines 8 through16 addressed the fee issue and directed the Secretary of State to establish procedures by regulation for the imposition of fees and for the manner in which fees would be calculated. Ms. Scholley added that Ms. O’Grady, the Committee’s Legal Counsel, might need to change the language slightly prior to discussion on the Floor.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 112.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Collins and Mr. Goicoechea were absent.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Mr. Williams to present on the Floor of the Assembly.
Senate Bill 141 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to certain investments made by local governments. (BDR 31-458)
Chairman Manendo turned the Committee’s attention to S.B. 141 (Exhibit D).
Ms. Scholley said that the Senate Committee on Government Affairs on behalfof the County Fiscal Officers Association sponsored S.B. 141, in its first reprint. The bill would extend the period over which a local government may invest any collateral received in exchange for lending securities from its investment portfolio by changing the maturity deadline from 90 days to an average weighted maturity of not more than 90 days. The bill also revised provisions related to the investment and reinvestment by certain municipalities of the proceeds of bonds or other municipal securities.
The bill proposed to lower the threshold amount for investing or reinvesting proceeds of bonds or other municipal securities to $10 million, down from the $40 million in the current statute. This provision would only apply to a municipality whose population was 50,000 or more. The State Treasurer proposed an amendment that the threshold amount should be raised to $25 million because he wanted to ensure that eligible municipalities had sufficient expertise to handle such complex transactions and to immunize them from possible problems.
Representatives of the Washoe County School District and Clark County had testified that they would prefer to leave the threshold at $10 million, and to leave the bill as it currently existed in statute. They would prefer a do pass motion. A mock-up of the proposed bill was attached, and on page 3, line 13, the $40 million, in red, was the amount in the current statute. The $10 million limit was in the current bill and represented a lower threshold that would allow more of those transactions. The State Treasurer would like to see the threshold raised to $25 million, which would reduce the number of eligible transactions. There was no opposition, other than the State Treasurer’s proposed amendment, and no fiscal impact at the state or local level.
Assemblyman Knecht said he would like to make a motion with the $10 million threshold.
Assemblyman Hardy said he would like to make a motion with the $25 million threshold.
Assemblyman Williams agreed with Mr. Knecht’s motion with a $10 million threshold.
Assemblyman Grady said he would also be more comfortable at the $10 million level.
Assemblyman Knecht pointed out that local governments who would be issuing amounts under $25 million were typically represented by the same counsel, with the same capabilities, and were similarly situated, so it was not clear why they needed to go to a $25 million threshold.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 141.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Christensen asked Mr. Hardy why he supported the $25 million threshold. Assemblyman Hardy replied that he would not have a problem supporting the majority on this bill. Mr. Christensen agreed with Mr. Hardy.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Collins and Mr. Goicoechea were absent.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Mr. Knecht to present on the Floor.
Senate Bill 200: Authorizes grants to pay certain costs associated with connections to community sewage disposal system. (BDR 30-889)
Chairman Manendo turned to S.B. 200 and asked Ms. Scholley to summarize the bill (Exhibit D).
Ms. Scholley said that Senator Maurice E. Washington and Assemblyman John W. Marvel had jointly sponsored S.B. 200, which was heard by the Committee on April 28, 2003. S.B. 200 would add required connections to community sewer systems to the existing grant programs for improvements to local water systems. To support the additional items, the bill increased the cap on bonds by $4 million, which would raise the amount that could be issued to fund the grants from the current $69 million to $73 million.
The provisions of this measure could only be triggered when the State Division of Environmental Protection mandated an area to convert from septic tanks to a community sewer system. There were no proposed amendments and no opposition to the bill. The fiscal impact at the local government level was zero. The fiscal impact at the state level was attached to the bill summary in the work session documents. Ms. Scholley noted that this bill had been concurrently referred to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY MOVED DO PASS S.B. 200.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Hardy said he talked with the presenters of the bill at some length prior to this meeting. He went through the maps and charts, and discussed problems with rural water supplies and sewer systems in the Spanish Springs area and in the rest of the state. He said it would be productive and realistic to recommend an interim study on this issue because it was a common problem all over Nevada. He expected more problems to surface over the next few legislative sessions. This bill would support getting a head start at evaluating the problem and would provide a valuable pilot project.
Assemblywoman Weber, who also discussed the issue with a different witness, agreed that this bill could be a model for the future. She agreed with Mr. Hardy’s comments, and noted that federal monies were available for these projects, through Nevada’s U.S. Senators. Ms. Weber would also support an interim study on this issue.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Collins and Mr. Goicoechea were absent.)
Senate Bill 240 (1st Reprint): Revises various provisions relating to benefits payable to surviving spouses and children of certain police officers and firemen. (BDR 53-696)
Chairman Manendo turned the Committee’s attention to S.B. 240 (Exhibit D).
Ms. Scholley stated that S.B. 240 in its first reprint was sponsored by Senator Randolph J. Townsend and was heard on April 29, 2003. The bill would make the provisions of S.B. 404 of the 70th Session retroactive to January 1, 1998, in order to cover a surviving spouse and/or children of a deceased police officer or firefighter killed in the line of duty, and to continue participation in group insurance for medical and hospital coverage provided by the decedent’s employer. The measure would assist Carolyn Sullivan, the widow of 43-year-old University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) police officer, Sergeant George Sullivan, who was killed January 13, 1998, at UNR after 19 years of service. Officer Sullivan had five children. There were no amendments and no opposition. The fiscal impact at both local and state levels was attached, but there was testimony by the bill’s sponsor that, since the Senate amendment had removed the continuation of death benefits under industrial insurance after remarriage of the surviving spouse, that amendment significantly reduced or avoided the fiscal impacts of the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 240.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Christensen asked if this bill would be referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Chairman Manendo said that it was not currently referred, but indicated it was very likely that the Committee on Ways and Means would review the bill.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Collins and Mr. Goicoechea were absent.)
Senate Bill 359 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to freedom to display flag of United States. (BDR 22-310)
Chairman Manendo turned to S.B. 359 (Exhibit D).
Ms. Scholley said that S.B. 359 in its first reprint was sponsored by Senator Dina Titus and was heard by the Committee on April 30, 2003. She said that the bill was virtually identical to A.B. 408, which was heard by the Committee on April 11, 2003, except in two respects. S.B. 359 contained an additional provision that prohibited a local government employer from preventing an employee from engaging in a display of the American flag in various situations. In addition, S.B. 359 would specifically permit a local government to include height and setback restrictions as part of its ordinance regulating the time, place, and manner of display. There were no amendments, no opposition, and no fiscal impacts.
Assemblyman Knecht said that he supported A.B. 408 and supported the concept behind this bill. However, he was a little concerned about creating the right of a public employee to use even the flag insignia on public property.
Chairman Manendo referred Mr. Knecht to Section 11, page 9, lines 4-8, that described time, place, and manner restrictions on displaying the American flag. After reading the passage, he said his comfort level had improved.
Assemblyman Grady asked how the two bills would be meshed together into one bill. He wondered if there would be conflicts. Chairman Manendo replied that both bills could pass with no problem. Eileen O’Grady, Committee’s Legal Counsel, agreed that there were no conflicts.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 359.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED (Mr. Collins and Mr. Goicoechea were absent.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Assemblywoman Koivisto to present on the Floor.
Senate Bill 439: Makes various changes concerning Public Employees’ Retirement System and Judicial Retirement System. (BDR 23-563)
Chairman Manendo turned to S.B. 439 (Exhibit D).
Ms. Scholley stated that S.B. 439 was sponsored by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), and was heard on April 29, 2003. The bill would make several changes to the PERS, changing “firemen” to “firefighter,” requiring 4-year degrees for several positions within PERS, and requiring review of positions designated as a critical labor shortage after two years. Critical labor shortage designations related to the re-employment of retired persons without loss of retirement benefits.
Ms. Scholley stated that there did not appear to be a conflict between A.B. 450, which imposed additional requirements on positions that were designated as critical labor shortage positions, and this bill. She said that the bill also amended provisions relating to the Judicial Retirement System (JRS) to establish parallel treatment between the JRS and the PERS. The bill would correct an oversight, which appeared to limit benefits under the JRS to less than what would be available under PERS, and would allow a maximum benefit of 75 percent of a member’s average salary. There were no amendments, no opposition, and no fiscal impacts.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 439.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Collins and Mr. Goicoechea were absent.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Assemblyman Christensen to present on the Floor of the Assembly.
Having no more business to bring before the Committee, Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 10:12 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JoAnn Aldrich
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: