SENATE COMMITTEE MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-second Session

March 5, 2003

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:18 p.m., on Wednesday, March 5, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 2144, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, 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 Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Warren B. Hardy II

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Michael (Mike) A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 11

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Alice Nevin, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Douglas County, Lyon County

Ted Olivas, Assistant Director of Finance, Clark County

John Madole, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter

Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Operations Division, Nevada Department of Transportation

Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169

Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties

James J. Spinello, Assistant Director, Administrative Services, Clark County

Kathleen Janssen, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Clark County

Steven Sweikert, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Clark County

Al Kramer, Treasurer, Carson City

Holly Gordon, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Clark County

Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties

James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission

Frances Deane, Recorder, Clark County

Lon DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County

Alan Glover, Lobbyist, City of Carson City

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State

Michael R. Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County

Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association

Madeline Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County

Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 165.

SENATE BILL 165: Authorizes State Arts Council to solicit and accept gifts, grants and donations to provide grants for creation of murals on highway sound walls. (BDR 18-821)

Senator Michael (Mike) A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 11, said this bill authorized the State Arts Council to solicit and accept gifts, grants, and donations for the creation of murals on highway sound walls. He noted, “Especially in Las Vegas, we are building concrete canyons.”

Senator Schneider stated cities, such as Wichita, Kansas, were removing housing and building expressways. He explained for beautification purposes, the murals were added to sound walls and retaining walls on overpasses. He commented these were very nice murals reflecting pioneers, the Chism Trail, cattle drives, and wagon trains. He expressed the murals and landscaping softened the concrete freeways.

Senator Schneider said the same thing was done in Phoenix, Arizona. He observed Las Vegas was known for the arts and adding murals would be something to consider for various Las Vegas neighborhoods.

Senator Schneider pointed out different groups would need to work together; for example, the highway department and the arts community. He said in some cities, artists had worked with engineers and architects to create cheaper ways to build buildings and sound walls. He advised it would be a nice enhancement for the Las Vegas community for generations to come.

Senator Schneider testified the State owned the sound walls and although there was no fiscal note to this bill, one would probably be requested. He noted a grant fund was in place, but State approval was required to access the funds.

Senator Tiffany clarified this bill would create a State-sanctioned fund, but an appropriation would need to be requested.

Senator Care expressed there could be liability issues while artists were painting murals on sound walls or expressway walls. He asked who decided which artist would display his or her work.

Senator Schneider said the State Arts Council would make those decisions.

Chairman O’Connell clarified rather than having artists paint murals, it could be stamped or molded in the concrete.

Senator Schneider said stamped designs could be used on the newer portions and perhaps a combination of art forms on existing walls.

Chairman O’Connell announced Senator Schneider would place a hold on the bill while he worked out the details.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 165 and opened the hearing on S.B. 19.

SENATE BILL 19: Makes various changes relating to advertising and awarding contracts for certain smaller public works projects. (BDR 28-409)

Senator Schneider said he served as chairman of the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study Competition Between Local Governments and Private Enterprises. He presented the subcommittee’s final report, “Competition Between Local Governments and Private Enterprises,” Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library. He acknowledged two members of the subcommittee were Chairman O’Connell and Senator Townsend.

Senator Schneider said S.B. 19 was the product of an interim study. He said the subcommittee heard testimony regarding contracting and construction matters. He stated representatives from the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Nevada pointed out a number of weaknesses in Nevada’s contracting provisions. Local government representatives expressed they were burdened by unnecessary regulations for smaller scale public works projects valued under $100,000.

Senator Hardy disclosed he worked for a construction trade association.

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Douglas County, Lyon County, said S.B. 19 was a good bill for both groups. She noted the bill would encourage local governments to bid out smaller projects rather doing them in‑house. She added the bill would make government more efficient and contractors in the private sector would get more projects. She stated another advantage was the smaller public works projects could be done in a more timely fashion.

As background, Ms. Walker said public works directors, purchasing managers, and contractors from around the State met to work on this issue. She presented “Local Government and Associated General Contractors Legislative Proposal to the Legislative Committee to Study Competition Between Local Governments and Private Enterprises,” Exhibit D. She said it contained four general concepts, which were the heart of the bill.

Ms. Walker also presented “Proposed amendment to Senate Bill No. 19 for consideration of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs,” Exhibit E. She
reviewed the suggested changes, explaining it contained technical amendments. She said the AGC concurred with the language in the proposed amendment.

In response to Chairman O’Connell’s question for clarification, Ms. Walker stated this was a prefiled bill and after it was read and reviewed, the proposed amendments were suggested.

Senator Hardy said:

I would like to clarify “exempt provisions” for the record. The question I am asking is not impacted by the amendment or the original bill, but is something that exists in the law. I would like to get clarification while we still have an opportunity to identify any problem areas.

This exemption exists in every section of the bill. For example, page 11, lines 26 and 27, [S.B. 19], “This section does not apply to: (a) Any utility under the provisions of chapter 318 or 710 of the NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes];” and then lines 29 and 30 say “Any work of construction, reconstruction, improvement and maintenance of highways subject to NRS 408.323 or 408.327.” That deals with the director of NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] and I am wondering exactly what we are exempting and have been exempting NDOT from doing.

Ted Olivas, Assistant Director of Finance, Clark County, stated he could not answer the question.

John Madole, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter, said the section appeared to exempt anything called “maintenance of highways.” He said a previous director of NDOT had written a letter saying they did not have carte blanche and were restricted to very minor work. He commented, “Letters tend to expire with the people who wrote them and there have been two directors of NDOT since then.” He concluded this would be an appropriate time to look at the issue.

Senator Hardy said he would like to clarify the issue of exemptions because it could be more far-reaching than intended by the Legislature.

Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, clarified this section addressed the publication requirements. He said the projects listed in the subsection were exempt from the publication requirements. He pointed out NRS 408.327 set forth the publication requirements for the department. He added he would look at the interpretive effect of the exemptions and clarify it when the bill returned with the proposed amendment.

Senator Hardy said, “At the beginning of each section, sections 2, 3, and 4 are referenced and that is my concern.”

Mr. Wasserman said new language was added to this version of the bill and the reference to sections 2, 3, and 4 of the bill was for the smaller projects under $100,000. He said, “What is being exempted are only the publication of the notice provisions of the section and we can clarify it by referencing those provisions.”

Senator Hardy said he would like to be educated on the need for exemptions on the advertising portions as well.

Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Operations Division, Nevada Department of Transportation, said the department would not request an exemption from the advertising laws. He noted NRS 408 governed NDOT advertising and he questioned the reason for being under NRS 338. He observed the information was readily available for any project and said he understood the intent of the bill was to provide work for smaller projects. He voiced a small project for NDOT would be $500,000.

Mr. Edgington said under the new pavement preservation program, contracts were given to contractors for major routes, and the rural low-volume routes were done by NDOT maintenance crews as money and time allowed. He stated if a maintenance project was done, materials were purchased from industry contractors in Nevada. He suggested the exemption remain the same because the system was working.

Senator Hardy questioned whether the language exempted NDOT from any other requirements of the bidding process.

Mr. Edgington said NDOT advertised all projects. He stated it would be a problem if NDOT were not exempt, because he believed in free enterprise. He noted the department had a very large prequalification requirement and anyone could bid on projects. He commented even with an emergency project, three bidders were solicited.

Senator Hardy said he looked forward to getting an opinion from legal counsel on this issue.

Senator Care asked Mr. Olivas if the definitions in section 8 of S.B. 19 were already in the statute. He noted page 5, lines 28 and 29, defined “eligible bidder” as “a responsible and responsive contractor.” He asked the meaning of the words “responsible bidder.” He called attention to page 2, line 24, “The public interest would be served by such a rejection.” He questioned the meaning of “public interest” and what would happen if a certain bid was rejected in the public interest.

Mr. Olivas answered “eligible bidder” meant a “responsible bidder”. He noted the reference to page 2, line 24, of S.B. 19 was wording similar to the verbiage in the regular bidding process for bigger projects over $100,000. He added the department wanted to be sure the bids were both responsive and responsible. He said responsiveness meant procedures were followed as required by the jurisdiction and the law, and responsibility meant appropriate licensing and the ability to perform the work. He said the same criteria were used for all projects. He added the city wanted to ensure the review process was not minimized just because the project was under $100,000.

Senator Care questioned in page 2, lines 13 and 14, of S.B. 19, “If the estimated cost of the public work is $25,000 or less, solicit a bid from at least one properly licensed contractor.” He asked how it was determined who would be chosen for the project.

Mr. Olivas replied the current law addressed the process for projects between $25,000 and $100,000. He noted the intent was to make sure all jurisdictions had to solicit at least one bid from a properly licensed contractor. He added this would prevent work going to a maintenance company when it was considered to be a public works project. He explained this was an added requirement not currently in the law. If the project were between $25,000 and $100,000, bids were solicited from at least three licensed contractors; under $25,000, at least one properly licensed contractor must be used.

Senator Care stated he wanted assurance the process would be fair. Mr. Olivas replied the intent was to add a requirement to a section that had not been previously addressed. He added he supported the bill because it would clarify an area that had been a concern for years.

Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America Local 169, testified he was neutral on the bill. He said the union was in favor of the bill and the amendments, but he wanted to discuss NDOT’s exemption.

Mr. Daly noted page 11, line 26, of S.B. 19, “This section does not apply to:” and page 11, lines 29 and 30, “Any work of construction, reconstruction, improvement and maintenance of highways subject to [NRS] 408.323 or 408.328.”

He said:

¼ Maybe it was intended for maintenance, but it says they are exempt under their bidding practice for construction and reconstruction. ¼ Mr. Edgington was correct, NDOT has bid all of their stuff, ¼ if it is not on paper, they do not have to follow it. When you get to ¼ [NRS] 408, it says “any project” they bid, and that was the only bidding reference in the statute I could find.

There are other provisions of [NRS] 338 they are bound to because [NRS] 338 is the only section of the law that it is covered by. In other words, NRS 408 has no requirement for them to list their 5 percent or 1 percent bidders ¼ so they have to refer back to [NRS] 338 in order to meet that requirement.

I believe if you are trying to meet the intent of this bill, ¼ to keep government agencies from competing against private enterprise, to leave a gaping hole for the State of Nevada highway department I think you are missing a big share of what the bill is intended to do.
… We would like to see that exemption. Take out the two little words in all the sections it is appropriate.

The exemption for emergencies, I don’t have an objection to; if there is an emergency, I want the State to go in and fix it as soon as they can and do the public service that they’re there to do. ¼

Those are my concerns. ¼ Despite what was said here, the State is exempted from a great deal of the intent of this bill, including the provision ¼ on page 10, line 9, they would be able to divide ¼ a project into separate portions to avoid the requirements of paragraph (a), which is the $100,000 limitation. If they have a project under $100,000, there is no requirement for them to bid it.

Senator Raggio pointed out the bill said they shall not divide such a project.

Mr. Daly said yes, however, NDOT was currently excluded under NRS 338.143.

Senator Titus said she had hoped for a continuing legislative oversight committee and an audit of NDOT, but perhaps this bill could be a vehicle to deal with some of the issues.

Mr. Edgington said he was not opposed to the bill, but NDOT should have been included in discussions on the bill. He noted he did not think the original intent was for this to apply to NDOT.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 19 and opened the hearing on S.B. 145.

SENATE BILL 145: Makes various changes concerning counties. (BDR 20-172)

Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), said the bill addressed the issue of county flexibility. He stated it proposed to extend the authority of counties to address local concerns as long as their actions did not conflict with the NRS. He presented “Testimony of the Nevada Association of Counties Before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs on SB 145,” Exhibit F.

Mr. List referred to Exhibit F, conveying that Judge John Dillon, Chief Justice, Iowa Supreme Court, had influenced the powers of local governments throughout the nation. He said Dillon’s Rule of 1868 had been interpreted over time to limit the authority of county governments to those powers specifically delegated by the State Legislature. He said Nevada was one of 11 states that had not done away with Dillon’s Rule.

Mr. List reviewed Exhibit F. He said:

¼ it, with the amendment, ¼ it seeks county authority in three important policy areas. First, it clarifies when a county may provide for a civil citation in lieu of a criminal penalty.

Second, it would allow counties to apply for and accept grants, permits, leases, and patents in accordance with the federal land law.

The third item, also requested by Clark County, this bill would allow the county to designate employees to issue citations and enforce existing ordinances.

Mr. List concluded this bill was a high priority to the membership of the Nevada Association of Counties.

James J. Spinello, Assistant Director, Administrative Services, Clark County, testified the original bill was overly broad and the proposed amendments in Exhibit F would look at provisions specific in nature to those kinds of issues that occurred on a daily basis. He said Clark County was a large urban county and because of the nature of the growth, unincorporated Clark County was larger than any individual city in Nevada, by about 100,000 people.

Mr. Spinello said there were issues because of the powers granted through the city charters versus Dillon’s Rule limitations as applied to the counties. He voiced there were often different levels of enforcement on opposite sides of the street in the urban areas of the county. He said some areas of county enforcement required bringing in the police department. He added the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was dealing with a lot of issues and it had no time for some of the fairly simple enforcement issues.

Mr. Spinello said NACO brought about the bill and it should apply to all Nevada counties. He noted county government was the only government in some rural areas and enforcement issues for them were just as real as in the larger counties.

Mr. Spinello noted several Clark County deputy district attorneys would testify regarding their actual experiences which brought about the necessity for the bill. He said they represented specific operating departments that dealt with these issues on a daily basis, and they could provide a much more detailed explanation of the bill and amendment.

Mr. Spinello testified in a hearing last session, people said they liked living in areas where there was less enforcement. He emphasized people should be reminded it was no less illegal to drain a radiator or change the oil in a desert area of Clark County, or any other county, than it was in an urban area. He commented there should be no difference in the level of enforcement for those kinds of activities.

Mr. Spinello concluded there were repeat offenders in the business license area and the board was frustrated by its inability to exact levels of enforcement more appropriate for the activity.

Kathleen Janssen, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Clark County, addressed sections 1 and 2 of S.B. 145 on behalf of the Business License Department. She said the intent in section 2 was to add to the enumerated powers by providing the ability to draft ordinances and to include licensing issues in other departments. She noted there were changes in section 2, but in reading the existing ordinances, the counties already had statutory authority to create their own ordinances regulating businesses, including liquor, gaming, and adult businesses.

However, Ms. Janssen said, counties did not have the same ability as municipalities to impose administrative fines. She said, “Misdemeanor citations often do not get the attention of the licensee, but the ability to impose a fine does.” She added the language in section 1 clarified there was no intent to usurp any areas where statutes specifically provided for a misdemeanor. She indicated there would not be many instances of overlap, but the bill would
provide the ability or discretion to go with either a misdemeanor or administrative fine.

Chairman O’Connell said, “My concern is there could be a penalty on a person and they are charged a fee as well as the ability to restore, for instance, a piece of property you might declare as a health hindrance or some kind of public nuisance.”

Ms. Janssen said the Business License Department would have the ability to impose a fine, rather than take the license away, when license holders violated portions of the code and required disciplinary action. She restated it would give the business an opportunity to pay the fine; it was completely separate from the fee paid to get the license. This had to do with actual violations pertaining to daily operations, Ms. Janssen clarified, as in serving liquor to minors.

Steven Sweikert, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Clark County, said the NRS provided fairly broad authority with respect to nuisance abatement. He said within the authority there were procedures and regulations to limit what the county could do. He advised if these two statutes were to interact, the statute regulating nuisances would take precedence.

Chairman O’Connell verified it would give the ability to penalize with a fine.

Mr. Sweikert said the statutes addressing nuisances also had civil penalty authority, but the fine amounts were much lower.

Senator Tiffany restated, if a violation occurred, the Business License Department would levy a fine. She asked if the fine went into the business license fund.

Ms. Janssen answered, “It would be one or the other.” She said using the liquor example, if a liquor business served minors, there would be an opportunity to issue a misdemeanor citation. But, she noted, if there were a State statute specifically addressing this issue, the statute would be used. She said without a statute, the county code provision would be consulted. She said sometimes the department would ask for a full license revocation, but S.B. 145 would give the business an opportunity to pay an administrative fine.

Senator Tiffany said she thought the purpose of a licensing agency was to give a license or take a license.

Ms. Janssen said this was a good opportunity for business owners because they could pay the penalty. She said especially liquor establishments would take that avenue. She voiced it was a tool for solving the problem in a different way. She explained instead of revoking the license and closing the business, it gave the business an opportunity to continue on even though it had paid a price for the violation.

Senator Tiffany said she had never seen a business license department have the authority to fine. She expressed she thought it was done in court.

Ms. Janssen answered, the Business License Department made recommendations to appropriate county boards and the boards enacted the ordinances. She noted the Clark County Liquor and Gaming Licensing Board would enact ordinances and set a fine schedule for liquor licensees. She clarified, the board setting the schedule would determine whether or not there would be a fine.

Mr. Spinello stated the authority would be the Board of Commissioners, Clark County, and a hearing would be held before a fine was levied.

Al Kramer, Treasurer, Carson City, said he administered the Carson City business license program. He noted one problem was home-based businesses. He stated it was against city ordinance to have employees come to work at a home-based business unless they lived at the residence. He said the only recourse was to issue a misdemeanor citation with a fine as high as $700. He stressed in some cases it could put the company out of business.

Mr. Kramer said S.B. 145 would provide an opportunity to work with the small business owner without putting him out of business. He voiced this would beneficial for Carson City.

Mr. Sweikert addressed the proposed amendments to sections 4 and 5 of S.B. 145. He noted these sections related to the county authority to issue misdemeanor citations. He said NRS 171.1773 addressed both counties and cities. He stressed he could not speak for the cities, but had no opposition to
including the cities in these changes. He referred to page 4 of Exhibit F, explaining the suggested changes as depicted in the exhibit. He noted the principle difference in section 4 was the process would be streamlined as to the number and type of inspectors who could issue citations.

Mr. Sweikert noted section 5 of S.B. 145 would simplify the criminal enforcement process, reduce costs, and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the public. He explained section 5 would not expand those areas which could be regulated. He advised the bill did not confer additional police powers, it only simplified the criminal prosecution method. He said without authority to issue citations in certain areas, inspection officers went through a cumbersome request-for-prosecution process. He expressed that process was not as favorable to enforcement because it was not an immediate threat.

Senator Care asked about a proposed Clark County ordinance that prohibited driving with a cellular phone. He asked for information on the proposed penalty for the ordinance. Mr. Spinello said he was not sure what the specific penalties were, but he would provide the information.

Chairman O’Connell said she felt this was a whole new bill. She said it would have to be reformatted and then the committee would look at it again.

Mr. List said NACO saw the bill before it was printed in final form and thought it was what they wanted. He added, after the bill was released and various discussions were held, it was decided the bill was too broad. He explained it had been scaled back to address various situations.

Mr. Spinello pointed out section 3 of the bill had not changed.

Holly Gordon, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Clark County, said she represented the Real Property Management Department, which was responsible for construction of parks and buildings in Clark County. She noted it was fiscally desirable for the department to obtain real property and it could be done by leasing federal land from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). She said the current version of NRS 244.277 allowed counties to accept grants of rights‑of‑way under the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761 ‑ 1771). She noted this only helped the department of public works because they built roads.

Ms. Gordon explained real property management needed similar authority to agree to the federal requirements and regulations in the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (RP&P) leases through the BLM. She stated, “The regional BLM office drafts the leases and until recently had been including indemnification language which the county thought it did not have authority to agree to.”

Ms. Gordon continued, the current language in NRS 244.277 granted authority with regard to grants of rights-of-way. She added the current bill, as written, gave authority to agree to the requirements in rights-of-way, particularly indemnification. She said the department wanted to add language to give authority to agree to the federal requirements in RP&P, so the department of real property management could continue to enter into agreements legally. She said the RP&P leases had included the language until recently when it was modified so the county could agree to the leases.

Ms. Gordon commented on a forest service contract problem. She said certain property had been occupied for 20 years under a special use permit. She explained the special use permit had expired and the new one contained an indemnification clause, to which the department had been advised they could not agree. She noted page 2, line 37, of S.B. 145 contained a request for the county authority to agree to federal conditions and requirements contained in special use permits.

Chairman O’Connell said other counties in the State would need to see this bill since the bill affected them also. She requested the information be available to the other counties and the issue would be reviewed and discussed at a later date.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 145 and opened the hearing on S.B. 146.

SENATE BILL 146: Revises provisions governing purchasing contracts of local governments. (BDR 27-321)

Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), presented “Testimony of the Nevada Association of Counties on Senate Bill 146,” Exhibit G. He pointed out page 2, lines 16 to 20, of S.B. 146 clarified allowing counties and other units of government to purchase from
national contracts in and out of Nevada. He said there were conflicting opinions on whether counties could purchase from contracts bid by other government entities. He commented today even the State of Nevada purchased from contracts bid by the Western Governors’ Association. He added NACO wanted to have the same opportunity by taking advantage of agreements and contracts that were publicly bid.

Chairman O’Connell stated the language was very broad and the bill lacked price or mileage limits.She requested clarification of the intent of the bill, because it seemed to cover everyone and any department.

Mr. Hadfield said the intent of S.B. 146 was to provide help to several counties which had no local businesses.He stated those counties purchased from catalogs and this bill would enable them to have more opportunities to get the best prices.He said the intention was not to take business away from local providers, but certain counties did not have the opportunity to purchase locally.

Chairman O’Connell asked if these agencies would be on record with the Nevada Department of Taxation so the tax would be collected for purchases. She stressed this was a very important issue at this time.She stated specific information was not included in the bill and she wanted to make sure supplies, equipment, and materials purchased outside the State incurred Nevada sales tax.

Mr. Hadfield said some agreements were with suppliers such as Office Depot, which has a presence in the State, but he added, paying sales tax could be made a requirement.

James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission, clarified the State had a clear provision that any Nevada municipality could join in on any other Nevada municipality’s existing contract.He explained S.B. 146 would expand the authority for a Nevada municipality to join an existing municipality’s contract outside Nevada.For example, he said, West Wendover could call Salt Lake City and, if it had a municipal contract for copy paper, West Wendover could join the existing contract for paper to get a good price.

Mr. Keenan noted paying tax was another issue. He said as purchasing manager for Douglas County, if he bought something from a California vendor, California
sales tax was paid to the vendor. He said there was some confusion in current law as to whether it was allowable to go outside the State.He noted the purpose of this bill was to clarify the issue.He said theoretically, Douglas County could join on a contract awarded by the city of Chicago for delivery to Reno, but the prohibitive freight cost would negate any savings.

Chairman O’Connell said she was thinking about all the school buildings in the south and the loss of tax revenue for the equipment, supplies, and materials for those buildings.She commented she hated to lose those tax dollars.

Mr. Keenan commented there were so many vendors in Las Vegas, agencies would not need to go outside the State except for considerable savings. He added, this bill would allow agencies to go out of State to join an existing municipal contract, but not to an out-of-State vendor.

Senator Hardy asked if the bidder-preference laws for in-state purchases applied. Mr. Keenan replied only for supplies and materials under NRS 332. For example, he said, cement purchased for a public works contract would not fall under the proposed amendment.

Senator Hardy asked if an agency decided to purchase a product out of State, would the agency consider the fact Nevada sales tax would not be paid. Mr. Keenan said as a purchasing manager, he was obligated by his profession and State law to award a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, including contracts for supplies and services. He added he was not talking about large items, but supplies and service-type items with no bidder’s preference. He said when Douglas County bought a $250,000 bulldozer, it was bought in Nevada.

Mr. Hadfield said when the NACO moved into a new building, they wanted to have a specific kind of table for their offices.He said they might have purchased the tables out of State, but a local office supply store matched the out-of-State price.He noted even though local governments do not pay tax, it was useful to compare prices in order to make the best decision.

Mr. Keenan voiced this was a permissive process, and every purchasing department used it along with their other evaluations of the best place to make a purchase.He noted it was a tool to help with price comparison in determining the best value, but there were occasions where purchasing out of State was
more feasible to get a lower price.He informed local governments did not pay Nevada sales tax, but they could be required to pay another state’s tax in some cases.

Senator Hardy confirmed products purchased in California were cheaper, even with payment of California sales tax, than if purchased in Nevada.He commented most items were available in Clark and Washoe Counties.He said the distinction under this bill was if something were purchased in California from a municipal contract, no sales tax would be paid.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 146.As a special request, she called for additional testimony on S.B. 80.

SENATE BILL 80:Authorizes board of county commissioners to adopt ordinance providing that office of county recorder of county will be filled ex officio by another elected officer of county.(BDR 20-418)

Frances Deane, Recorder, Clark County, testified against S.B. 80.Ms. Deane spoke of the importance of the county recorder position.She explained she campaigned for the job by promising to deliver improvements in customer service, to implement an automated recording system, to assist in protecting citizens from identity and property theft, and to improve employee morale.She expressed great progress had been made in all of those areas.

Ms. Deane noted voters had expressed concern over this bill. She said the recorder’s office worked to preserve the past.She stated the records told the story of the county’s history, for example, the weddings that had taken place.She said these records would be used for generations to come. She stressed other county offices dealt with the present and she thought the past and present should remain separate.

Ms. Deane said some in the county believed combining the recorder’s office with other offices would accomplish greater efficiency.She said she recognized the importance of working with the other departments in the county, but asked the committee to use wisdom and vision to agree the recorder’s office should remain an elected position.

Chairman O’Connell stated the bill had been heard previously, but the committee wanted to afford Ms. Deane the opportunity to testify.

Chairman O'Connell opened the work session with S. B. 16.

SENATE BILL 16:Clarifies effect of abstention from voting by member of certain public bodies on necessary quorum and number of votes necessary to take action on matters.(BDR 19-377)

Senator Care noted the bill was originally intended to correct an oversight by the Legislative Counsel Bureau after the last session.He noted further discussions brought about the suggestion to add a provision for a genuine abstention. He stated after talking with several governmental agencies, he would like to offer an amendment.He presented “Senate Bill No. 16 Proposed Amendment by Senator Care,” page 3 of the work session document, Exhibit H. Original is on file in the Research Library.

Senator Care noted not everyone would be happy with the proposed amendment.He said he was not looking for a lengthy written opinion, just something that said, with specificity, the reason for the abstention.He noted this was written with Clark County in mind.

Senator Raggio said his concern was it required someone who was abstaining from receiving and disclosing a written opinion prior to the vote.He stressed this would apply to all elected officials.He noted the county commissions in smaller counties, where everyone knew each other and did business together, would have the right to disclose and abstain; but if two or three abstained, there would never be a quorum.He added this could preclude formal action from being taken.

Senator Raggio said it appeared the district attorney furnishing a legal opinion was giving an overly broad definition of what constituted a conflict.He said it was not consistent with what was described in the law as a pecuniary interest to constitute a conflict.He voiced he understood the purpose, but could not condone something that precluded elected boards in the smaller areas from taking action.

Senator Care said:

What we are dealing with here are two things.Number one, ¼ you could have a situation develop where you have a seven-member ¼ board where only one member of the board is left without a conflict, so the ordinance gets enacted with only one vote.That is what I want to avoid. ¼

The second issue, ¼ I guess I have no objection to this applying to a population of 100,000 and I would alter the amendment for that.

Senator Titus said Douglas County and Carson City would not be included although they were substantial governmental bodies.She asked why size would matter if they could still abstain.

Senator Care said if you had a three-member board in a small county with two members abstaining, only one would be eligible to vote and measures could never be enacted.

Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Hadfield to name the counties with boards of less than five members. Mr. Hadfield replied there were seven boards in counties below 50,000 in population: Churchill, Storey, Lander, Esmeralda, Eureka, Mineral, and Pershing counties.

Senator Care said, “I would offer an additional amendment incorporating the proposed amendment here, but adding the additional language that would apply to counties with a population of 50,000 or less.”

Senator Hardy said he thought this amendment would not impact the current quorum issue.

Senator Care said there were two issues.He acknowledged an abstention issue where there would be a quorum anyway, and an abstention issue where there was a conflict and someone abstained.He said there might be a situation where there were seven out of seven present and four out of seven present.He noted if there were seven out of seven present and one abstained, it would not matter.He added with one abstention, it could be three out of seven because the other three members were absent.

Senator Hardy said if there were three members present and two abstained with legitimate abstentions, with written opinions, one person could still vote and that vote would apply under this amendment.He stressed the only thing this amendment would guarantee was that abstentions were legitimate.

Senator Care said it would not reduce the number of votes necessary except in those counties of 50,000 or less.

Mr. Wasserman said using the second part of the amendment to limit the application to counties over 50,000, if you were to abstain for a conflict of interest and you had the written opinion, it would lower the quorum requirement and the number necessary to pass the action.He noted in counties with fewer than 50,000 people, the statute would apply even without the written opinion.He opined it would still lower the quorum and the number necessary to vote.He stated with a population over 50,000, you would need a written opinion for the statute to apply.

Senator Titus said she thought this bill would only require a written opinion justifying the abstention.She noted Douglas County had a population of 40,000 and a five-member board.She suggested changing the 50,000 population figure to 40,000.

Mr. Wasserman said the amendment was drafted in response to testimony.He said in certain circumstances, if there were legitimate conflict‑of‑interest claims on the body, if for example there were five people and three had conflict‑of‑interest claims, without this exception, if a majority of the body were required to pass the act, it would never pass.He continued, the amendment was not drafted to allow forwhen someone had a conflict of interest, but if the claim were supported by a legal counsel’s opinion, it would lower the number and less than a majority of the board would be needed to pass the action.

Senator Raggio said with the population limitation, it would not apply just to boards of county commissioners, but to any public body composed of elected officials.

Senator Care noted Mr. Wasserman was correct.He said he agreed with the bill amendment, but stated to go further would defeat the notion that there should be a majority of the members of the elected body casting votes.He added, the original bill last session included appointed boards and those words were removed.

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 16 WITH THE AMENDMENT ON PAGE 3 OF EXHIBIT H AND THE POPULATION LIMIT OF 40,000.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.(SENATOR RAGGIO VOTED NO.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on S.B. 53.

SENATE BILL 53:Increases compensation of district attorneys and sheriffs.(BDR 20-21)

Senator Raggio said elected county officials had not received a pay raise since 1995. He noted last session bills were introduced with suggested salary increases and a mechanism to give automatic raises to judges and elected county officials.He stated the Senate finance committee indicated the bill would be considered, but not with the automatic salary increases because no other agency had automatic raises.

Senator Raggio commented the bill for elected county officials reached the Senate the last day of the session.He explained for various reasons the bill, although meant for passage, did not get passed.He acknowledged elected county officials did not receive a pay raise, but a separate bill for district judges passed both houses.

Senator Raggio said his feeling was the majority of the Legislature made a commitment in the last session and it seemed appropriate to bring S.B. 53 forward this session.He emphasized the bill was consistent with the previous bill.

Mr. Hadfield testified the recommended salary increase was based on a private sector wage and salary survey.He said the original bill upgraded Humboldt and
Storey Counties by one classification in order to employ a full-time district attorney in each county.He added, last session, salary adjustments for Washoe and Clark Counties were recommended because there was a much greater level of responsibility.

Mr. Hadfield said a proposed amendment for Assembly Bill (A.B.) 66, S.B. 53’s companion bill in the Assembly, changed the effective date from January to July 2003 and made sure counties experiencing economic hardship could delay implementation of the bill.

ASSEMBLY BILL 66:Increases compensation of certain elected county officers.(BDR 20-170)

Senator Raggio said he supported an amendment to the bill to add other county elected officials as set forth on page 4, Exhibit H.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 53 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INCLUDING THE LANGUAGE IN A.B. 66.

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Hardy said he would support the motion and amendment, but he questioned whether the Legislature should be determining these types of actions.

Senator Raggio said he made the motion with the understanding the counties involved could appeal implementation of the raises if needed.

Mr. Hadfield said all of the counties supported this bill.He noted Mineral County might need a 2-year waiver.

Senator Hardy said he assumed budget discussions were held and the public had been given the opportunity for input.

THE MOTION FAILED.(SENATORS CARE, O’CONNELL, TITUS, AND TIFFANY VOTED NO.)

*****

Senator Titus said the raises were deserved, but these were tough economic times.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 53 WITH A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MOVE THE START DATE TO JULY 2003, INCLUDE THE ABILITY FOR COUNTIES TO SEEK WAIVERS, EXCLUDE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, AND RAISE SHERIFF SALARIES BY ONE‑HALF OF THE AMOUNT REQUESTED IN THE FIRST YEAR AND INCORPORATE THE OTHER HALF OF THE PROPOSED RAISE THE SECOND YEAR.

Senator Care said he agreed with the motion, but felt Clark County district attorneys should have the raise.He asked if the amendment could include the district attorney offices.

Senator Raggio said it would be a slap in the face to pass the bill without a raise for the district attorneys.He noted he did not want to eliminate the salary raise for the district attorneys, particularly in the larger counties. He declared he would not support a bill that singled out one group of people in the State.

THE MOTION FAILED FOR A LACK OF A SECOND.

*****

Chairman O’Connell said the motion before the committee included only sheriff’s departments.She asked Senator Titus if she wished to revise the motion to add the district attorneys.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 53 WITH A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MOVE THE START DATE TO JULY 2003, INCLUDE THE ABILITY FOR COUNTIES TO SEEK WAIVERS, INCLUDE BOTH DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND SHERIFFS, AND RAISE THE SALARIES BY ONE-HALF THE AMOUNT REQUESTED THE FIRST YEAR AND INCORPORATE THE OTHER HALF OF THE PROPOSED RAISE THE SECOND YEAR.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS HARDY, TIFFANY, AND O’CONNELL VOTED NO.)

*****

Senator Hardy said he voted no because he believed the motion should have supported the original measure.

Chairman O’Connell asked if there was a motion to support a pay bill for the elected county positions other than district attorney and the sheriff.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO FIND A VEHICLE, USING THE IDENTICAL MECHANISM OF THE PREVIOUS BILL, FOR THOSE REMAINING IN A.B. 66 INCLUDING COUNTY ASSESSOR, COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY CLERK, COUNTY TREASURER, AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR, EXCLUDING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TO RECEIVE THE SALARY INCREASE.

Mr. Wasserman said it was beyond the deadline for the committee to request another bill draft.He stated the only way to change the provisions would be to further amend this bill or wait for A.B. 66 to come before the committee.

Senator Raggio said historically, county salary requests for elected officials had been honored.He said if this committee wanted a bill draft request and would support it, he would grant the request for a waiver.

Senator Townsend withdrew his motion.

*****

Chairman O'Connell opened the work session on S.B. 78 and announced there was an amendment proposed to this bill.She referred to pages 15 through 17 of Exhibit H.

SENATE BILL 78:Makes various changes relating to assistance to finance housing.(BDR 25—467)

Lon DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, reviewed the proposed amendments listed on pages 15 through 17 of Exhibit H.

Mr. DeWeese noted the amendments were in response to the concerns expressed at the first bill hearing. He reviewed the concerns about high-income groups taking advantage of expanded “special groups” lending authority, the concern about ”too broad and/or uncontrolled authority,” and the new explicit language requiring findings of need for special groups to be reviewed and approved by the State Board of Finance prior to future debt issuance.

Chairman O’Connell asked for an explanation of the median family income.

Mr. DeWeese said the median income was defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and depended on whatever local jurisdiction was specific to the group.

Chairman O'Connell said, “I would like verification of the amounts $45,000-plus for Nevada and $56,500 for the United States in 2000.Does it mean 150 percent of the figure?”

Mr. DeWeese said new information had just been released from HUD and he could provide updated figures.

Chairman O’Connell said she felt the law needed to be very specific regarding who would be helped.She noted teachers and nurses did not fit the description of low-income families.She asked for information about the poverty line to qualify for a home.

Mr. DeWeese said there was lending limit of 120 percent at this time, but the average applicant was far below the amount.He noted it was rare to have any applicants even close to the income limits.

In response to Chairman O’Connell’s question, Mr. DeWeese said the figure used was gross income, not net income, for the tax circumstance unique to that particular person.

Chairman O’Connell said the committee would await more information before taking action on the bill.

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on S.B. 80.

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, explained there was a proposal from Clark County to shift the duties of county recorder to the purview of the county commission.He referred to suggested amendments listed on pages 18 and 19, Exhibit H.He noted there were two amendments, one proposed by Clark County, and a second amendment proposed by the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors.

Senator Raggio said he did not understand the amendment by the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors. He said he understood the intent of the bill, but felt an amendment could not be proposed in this case.

Mr. Wasserman said he thought the qualifications would need to be set forth.

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, explained this bill would combine the county recorder position with another position and was written for Clark County only.He indicated the bill would not take effect until the current term of the person serving as county recorder expired or until there was a vacancy in the office.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 80 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY CLARK COUNTY.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.(SENATORS CARE, HARDY, AND RAGGIO VOTED NO.)

*****

Chairman O'Connell opened the work session on S.B. 109.

SENATE BILL 109:Requires only name of candidate receiving majority of votes in primary of certain nonpartisan elections to be placed on ballot for general election. (BDR 24-324)

Mr. Stewart referred to page 21, Exhibit H.He stated there were no amendments offered, but there was a note to the committee which contained a definition of a nonpartisan office.He noted the “50 plus 1” provision was in the statute for partisan offices.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 109 AND MAKE THE BILL EFFECTIVE FOR ALL COUNTY NONPARTISAN OFFICES.

Mr. Wasserman said the current bill addressed all nonpartisan county offices. He advised if the intent was to place a limit, it would take an amendment to specify which county offices were to be eliminated.

Senator Titus said it should apply to all county offices and it should include nonpartisan State offices like Board of Regents and State Board of Education.

THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

*****

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 109 TO INCLUDE ALL NONPARTISAN OFFICES IN THE STATE.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Raggio said he would have difficulty supporting the bill if it included additional offices.

Senator Titus said the nonpartisan races would appear on all ballots and more people would participate in the primaries.

Senator Townsend referred to page 21, Exhibit H.

He said:

Under subsection 1 of NRS 293.195, a nonpartisan office includes judicial offices, school offices, the office of county sheriff, the board of regents of the University of Nevada, city and town officers, the State board of education and members of boards of hospital trustees of public hospitals. Isn’t the bill, as written ¼

Senator Titus clarified the bill covered nonpartisan county offices, and the motion would apply to all nonpartisan offices.

Senator Townsend asked, “¼ your motion is amend and do pass taking out the word “county” on line 33, page 2?”

Senator Titus said, “Right.”

Alan Glover, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, said in an off-year election, the non‑presidential year when county officials were up for election, there was a higher primary turnout than in a presidential election year, triggered by sheriff and justice of the peace races.

Chairman O’Connell clarified the motion was to amend the bill to apply to all nonpartisan offices on the ballot.

THE MOTION FAILED.(SENATORS HARDY, TOWNSEND, TITUS, AND RAGGIO VOTED NO.)

*****

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 109, BUT DELETE THE PROVISIONS ON PAGE 2, LINES 15 THROUGH 19 OF THE PRESENT LAW.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Hardy said he did not hear the testimony when the original legislation was passed.He commented there might be other unintended consequences.He requested more time to explore the issue.

Senator Titus withdrew the motion.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on S.B. 110.

SENATE BILL 110:Revises provisions relating to purchase, sale or exchange by county of certain real property and provisions relating to notice that county must provide before selling or exchanging certain real property.(BDR 20-273)

Mr. Stewart said this bill would add “flood control facility” to “street, alley, avenue, or other thoroughfare.”He referred to pages 22 through 26, Exhibit H, explaining there were two proposed amendments to the bill.

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 110.

SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on S.B. 111.

SENATE BILL 111:Changes dates for filing of declaration of candidacy for certain judicial offices.(BDR 24-617)

Mr. Stewart said no amendments were offered for the bill.

Senator Raggio said he thought it would be a mistake to have a different filing period for judicial candidates than for other candidates.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 111.

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on S.B. 112.

SENATE BILL 112:Makes various changes to provisions relating to Secretary of State.(BDR 18-557)

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, referred to the proposed amendment on pages 28 and 29, Exhibit H.She noted the proposed amendment requested a $25 fee for each returned check and a $50 fee if the person had three or more checks returned to the Office of the Secretary of State within the previous year.

Chairman O'Connell said if returned checks were a problem, the person could be required to pay on a cash-only basis.

Senator Care said the proposed amendment said the office “may” charge the following fees.He thought it should say “must,” so people were all treated the same.

Ms. Parker said she agreed to Senator Care’s suggestion.

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 112 WITH THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE EXCEPT TO CHANGE THE WORDS “MAY CHARGE” TO “SHALL CHARGE.”

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Townsend questioned whether this bill would accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.He said one issue was if a person bounced a check for one filing.He noted a second issue was agents could use this to kite or float funds.He stressed if there were revenue problems because clients were inappropriately handling their money, it would require more thought and discussion.

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS MOTION.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Ms. Parker said the current process was no filings would be accepted until the back fees were paid.She agreed the bill did not address the issue of the hours of staff research time involved.

Chairman O'Connell suggested charging the direct costs to the client because it would be the best deterrent possible.

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 112KEEPING THE LANGUAGE “SHALL CHARGE” AND SUBSTITUTING THE SPECIFIC FEES MENTIONED IN THE AMENDMENT TO REIMBURSE COSTS TO THE STATE.

THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

*****

Senator Raggio suggested putting “shall charge a minimum of $25 or the actual cost, whichever is greater.”

Chairman O’Connell said the reason she used the verbiage, “direct,” was when she checked with Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, to see which was narrower, Ms. Erdoes advised using the words “direct cost.”

Senator Raggio suggested amending the language to say, “shall charge a minimum of $25 or the direct cost of processing the returned checks or whichever is greater.”

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 112 AMENDING THE LANGUAGE TO SAY “SHALL CHARGE A MINIMUM OF $25 OR THE DIRECT COST OF PROCESSING THE RETURNED CHECKS OR WHICHEVER IS GREATER.”

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on S. B. 113.

SENATE BILL 113:Revises manner of valuing certain property that becomes exempt from taxation for purposes of allocating certain tax revenue among taxing agencies and redevelopment agency.(BDR 22-263)

Senator Raggio noted this bill affected Carson City because it was the only redevelopment district containing State property.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS S. B. 113.

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on S.B. 140.

SENATE BILL 140:Revises provisions governing acquisition by county or state of municipal obligations issued by certain water authorities. (BDR 20-854)

Senator Townsend expressed concern about the proposed amendment.He noted it opened up an opportunity in the future for those agencies to get into other businesses.He added it was against the recommendation of the interim study.He said, “The proposed amendments from the Clean Water Coalition, although I value what they do, might take us in a direction the original
proposers of this bill had not intended.”He said this bill would not change the position of the Southern Nevada Water Authority because the water authority was a wholesaler to local governments who were their members.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 140.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on S.B. 141.

SENATE BILL 141:Revises provisions relating to certain investments made by local governments.(BDR 31-458)

Mr. Wasserman said under the existing law, the cities of Henderson, Reno, and Las Vegas, and Washoe and Clark Counties were authorized to lend securities from their investment portfolios if the city or county had at least $100 million in its investment portfolio, if its treasurer had established a policy setting forth procedures to be used in lending securities, and if the city or county received collateral from the borrower in the form of cash or authorized marketable securities comprising at least 102 percent of the value of the securities borrowed.

Mr. Wasserman noted there was a similar provision for Sparks, North Las Vegas, and any other consolidated municipality whose population was 60,000 or more, but less than 150,000.He noted the key provision was under existing law: any investments made with the collateral received must mature not later than 90 days after the date the securities were lent.

He summarized this bill would remove the requirement for each of these investments to mature within 90 days.He added it would provide the total investments must have an average-weighted maturity of not more than 90 days.He explained if the collateral were invested so a large proportion had a maturity date of 30 days, a smaller proportion could be invested in a much longer
investment with a maturity date of more than 90 days because, based on the weighted mechanism, it would average out to less than 90 days.

Chairman O'Connell clarified the risk factor was in the rate of interest and Mr. Wasserman agreed.

Senator Townsend clarified the bill would not change the grade of security, risk analysis, risk criteria, or establishing a rate.This bill would provide the ability to average the securities into a longer time period.

Senator Titus asked if this were a common practice.

Michael R. Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County, said average weighted maturity was a term commonly used in investments.He said he did not know the pattern of investment contemplated in this bill, but generally it depended on whether the securities were held to maturity.

Senator Townsend said if the government were restricted by a time certain, those who participated would know the parameters and put the government at a disadvantage.He noted one reason to go to an average weighted maturity was to blend the portfolio so it would allowa little more flexibility in negotiations for different rates.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 141 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM THE WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Raggio referred to page 35, Exhibit H.He said, “S.B. 141 lowers the threshold amount of the original issuance of bonds or other municipal securities to $10 million or more.”

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on S.B. 142.

SENATE BILL 142:Revises provisions concerning adoption or amendment of master plan by governing body of local government.(BDR 22-424)

Mr. Stewart said the bill contained a provision to give local governing bodies the option to require a supermajority vote to amend or change the master plan.He noted there were no amendments to the bill.

Senator Raggio said he thought there was a proposed amendment limiting this to counties under 100,000 in population.

Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, said Douglas County requested this bill because of issues in the county.She advised other governments in counties under 400,000 in population had not expressed a desire for this bill, although now it appeared counties with under 100,000 residents wanted to be included. She expressed the bill would exempt counties with over 400,000 in population.

Senator Titus said she could not support the proposed amendment.

Ms. Porter said there was confusion over the supermajority vote issue.She said NRS 278 currently had supermajority vote, a two-thirds vote, of the planning commission on master plans or any amendments thereof.She stressed it was actually the planning commission that adopted the master plan, so it was already in the statute.She said the issue got complicated and confusing once it went beyond the parameters of the original intention of law to have two-thirds vote with the planning commission, the body who adopted master plans.

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, said a plan that was not a master plan was a different vehicle and would not be affected by this bill.

Senator Raggio requested holding this bill.He asked Ms. Shipman to meet with representatives of Washoe County regarding this bill.

Senator Titus said Clark County had recently enacted provisions to make it tougher to change the master plan.She added it took two-thirds of the planning commission, but they were advisory to the county commission.

Ms. Walker said Douglas County’s master plan did not allow ranches to be divided in order to preserve the master plan.She noted ranchers did not like it, but it was very important to a community of this type.She said Douglas County had a very restrictive growth policy.She said, “This is one thing we can offer the public that says we have sustainable growth in the master plan and we are going to retain the integrity of the master plan.”She addedthe Nevada Supreme Court ruled they did not have the authority by statute to putsupermajority in the master plan.She said, “We are here to have you give us the authority to maintain the integrity of our master plan.”

Mr. Hadfield said most counties would not take advantage of this, but they did not wish to stand in the way of Douglas County.

Senator Raggio asked the chairman to hold the bill.

Chairman O'Connell opened the work session on S.B. 143.

SENATE BILL 143:Authorizes certain counties to appoint public property trustee to perform duties of public administrator of county. (BDR 20-419)

Chairman O’Connell noted this bill was similar to S.B. 80, heard by the committee earlier in the day.She noted the person in this position needed to be a jack-of-all-trades because knowledge was needed in so many different areas.She said it could be a major concern if the person elected did not have knowledge in some areas such as estates.She said if the committee did not wish to support the bill, perhaps some qualifications for the position could be drafted.

Senator Raggio noted the bill, if enacted, would allow the appointment of a public property trustee and the elimination of a public administrator position in all counties. He asked for further clarification.

Mr. Musgrove said only Washoe and Clark Counties had elected public administrators.He stated this action would go into effect after the current public administrator’s term ended or if the position became vacant.

Senator Raggio reviewed this law would allow the county manager to make an appointment at the expiration of the current term and the new person would be called the public property trustee.He noted the county manager would set the compensation.

Senator Care noted the public administrator responsibilities were extensive. He voiced there was good reason to retain this as an elected position, so the voters could determine who should hold the position.

Mr. Musgrove said other states call this position the public fiduciary, which was an applicable name because the person acted on fiduciary responsibilities for the state.He noted many other states have changed the position to an appointive position.He said it was an elected position and therefore audits could not be performed, so there was no accountability over the position.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 143.

THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

*****

Chairman O'Connell encouraged the committee to amend the bill and give the county the ability to audit the office.

Senator Hardy said he would support formulation of minimum qualifications.

Ms. Shipman said Washoe County had the authority for the county commission or county to conduct an audit of selected officials holding cash accounts.She noted the language was already in place in NRS 244.

Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Musgrove if he was aware of this.He noted he would verify the information and work on minimum qualifications.

Mr. Alastuey said elected officials could be audited.He noted the treasurer of Clark County was audited on many occasions and findings were made; however, the recommendations were not pursued by the independently elected treasurer.He stated part of the impetus for the bill was to change the ability to audit or make financial observations and recommendations.He noted the bill would also bring about a potential change in the chain of authority, through the
appointment process and the resulting accountability, which was independent from the electoral process.

Senator Care said it might be difficult to have specific qualifications beyond age and residency.

Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Musgrove to relay the concerns.

Mr. Musgrove said new language would be formulated requiring the position to report to the county commission for audit purposes.He said minimum qualifications should be probate and trust estate law experience.

Chairman O’Connell opened the work session on S.B. 144.

SENATE BILL 144:Authorizes Administrator of Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to charge and collect certain fees under certain circumstances and authorizes Division to enter into certain cooperative agreements.(BDR 35-493)

Chairman O'Connell asked if the purpose of this bill was to have the State return the Floyd Lamb State Park.

Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified the Floyd Lamb State Park was a different issue.He referred to page 38 of Exhibit H.He noted a proposed amendment, Exhibit I, was submitted as a revision to the bill.

Chairman O'Connell said earlier testimony indicated most of the responsibility would fall on the counties or cities where the property was located.

Ms. Walker said this project would be implemented at the local government level.She added a request to fund one person was developed, where the original bill had a formula to fund one person.

In response to Chairman O’Connell’s question, Mr. Perock said the money for the position was not in the budget.

Mr. Hadfield said NACO had worked to formulate the current amendment and would pay its fair share in the administration.

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND AND RE-REFER S.B. 144 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.(SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman O'Connell opened the work session on S.B. 174.

SENATE BILL 174: Makes various changes concerning powers and duties of Commission on Economic Development. (BDR 18-529)

Mr. Stewart said there were no amendments offered for the bill.

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 174.

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.(SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman O'Connell opened the work session on S.B. 176.

SENATE BILL 176:Makes various changes regarding planning and zoning.(BDR 22-583)

Mr. Stewart reviewed the proposed amendments on pages 41 and 42 of Exhibit H.

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 176.

SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.(SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 5:57 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Alice Nevin,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: