MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
March 19, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:08 p.m., on Wednesday, March 19, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 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
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Tara DeWeese, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, and Northern Nevada Economic Development Association
Keith Marcher, Supervising Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter/Sierra Club
Weldon Havins M.D., J.D., Chief Executive Officer and Special Counsel, Clark County Medical Society
Rudy R. Manthei D.O., President, State Board of Osteopathic Examiners
Gail J. Anderson, Administrator, Real Estate Commission, Department of Business and Industry
Kaitlin A. Backlund, Lobbyist, Nevada Conservation League
Kent F. Lauer, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Barbara Smith Campbell, Chairman, Nevada Tax Commission, Department of Taxation
Charles Chinnock, Executive Director, Department of Taxation
Christine Milburn, Lobbyist, Nevada Golf Course Owners Association
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Keith L. Lee, Lobbyist, State Board of Medical Examiners
Alan Glover, Lobbyist, City of Carson City
Barbara Reed, Clerk/Treasurer, Douglas County
Bill Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration
Mary Wherry, Deputy Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources
Tom Wood, Lobbyist, Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America
Mark H. Fiorentino, Lobbyist, Health Plan of Nevada, Incorporated
Leo Drozdoff, Chief, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Robin V. Reedy, Deputy of Debt Management, Office of the State Treasurer
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 229.
SENATE BILL 229: Makes various changes regarding public meetings. (BDR 19‑16)
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County:
The amendment offered Exhibit C, addresses sections 2 and 3 of the bill. There are no amendments being proposed by the local governments on the State agency sections of the bill. So, there may be some minor amendments suggested by other entities, but this amendment addresses what I believe, based upon the conversations I have had, that the local governments must allow people to speak before they take action on an item. Page 3 of the proposed amendment identifies what local government is supposed to do. Essentially it does six things.
First, a public body is broadly defined in the open meeting law to include everything, even informal boards which were never appointed by a board, but who may make recommendations to a board. So you are talking about every task force, steering committee, advisory committee, permanent or temporary board there may be. I know Washoe County has over 20 standing boards, of which most are statutory: your board of equalization, the Regional Transportation Commission, just the county itself, planning commission, and board of adjustments. You have all of those, but in addition you have all of your citizen advisory groups, your community management plan groups, which are temporary in nature, so you have potentially another 25 boards. I do not think it is unusual to not use audio for every one of those meetings. We do not have the equipment, nor do we provide secretaries equipment to take the audio, however, we always have a secretary taking minutes because they are subject to the open meeting law. But in all of the standing boards and committees, you have audio, and you do have minutes taken by the clerk of the county.
The first thing we did was try to divide up what types of boards should be the ones of big concern. The policy-making boards have the mandatory provisions of audio, Web site, and minutes postings. I created a definition for a public body that is a governing board, the ones to make the final executive or legislative decisions, to mean a body that meets the basic criteria set forth in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 241.153, which is the definition of a public body. So the Web site requirement of posting notice and posting minutes for up to a year, and the audio requirement, would apply to those types of bodies.
The rest of the rules would allow for the minimum noticing which was the previous noticing. This would include boards of trustees of every general improvement district to be a final decision-making body, and they would be subject to the mandatory provisions of audio and Web site posting. But the other entities would not be forced into that as a minimum noticing. This is all we were trying to get to, other than the other change to existing law. We realize the process is not being followed, or capable of being followed by everyone. We felt the trade-off was if the tapes were going to be available within 10 days, a tape would always be available of the meeting.
I believe this deals with the rural communities, some with governing boards that do not have Web sites, and there is a disclaimer in the bill that says if a Web site is not operating, because of some equipment failure or if there is no Web site maintained by the governing body, then it would not be a violation.
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties:
We were able to get together and work on this and we believe this amendment improves the bill and makes it workable for the counties.
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
I think Mary Henderson has one additional thing to add, and at that point we would feel very comfortable with S.B. 229 as it has been amended.
Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, and Northern Nevada Economic Development Association:
I think what we have before us with these amendments (Exhibit C) really makes it workable for all of us. This makes it much easier for us to manage. Knowing the technological limitations in some of the smaller cities, this gives us some ability to do what we need to do. The other thing it allows us is a little bit of room, so we do not need to stop a meeting midstream because a Web site is down, or not have a meeting because we could not get it posted. That gives us a little more flexibility and we still stay with the routine public noticing required.
The language we wanted to offer comes on the first page of the bill under section 1, line 5, which states the length of time allowed for public comment on the item is at the discretion of the presiding officer of the public body. One of the concerns was we thought it might be better, and we will craft some language for you, if it fell under the adopted rules of the governing body versus the discretion of the presiding officer. Just so everyone is very clear about it, the council or commissioner is making those decisions, not a mayor or a commission chairman. I think it is a fairer approach to take with the citizens as well. Since they all meet in public, which means they adopt those rules, then they know. So, you cannot have anyone say you get to speak for 3 minutes and you get to speak for 15 minutes. I know that was not the intent, we just wanted to make sure it was very clear. We will provide you with some language.
Senator Hardy:
I have a question for the record to Madelyn Shipman. Would the Boulder City library board be considered a governing board for the purposes of your definition?
Ms. Shipman:
If it is a library district and it is a board, it would fall under the definition, as I intended it. Maybe legislative counsel has a better way of saying what we want, which is “final decision-making bodies.” So if they were, library district board meetings would be subject to the mandatory or the additional requirements.
Senator Hardy:
I need to check with Boulder City. I did receive a call from them and would have to check on their status.
Ms. Shipman:
It is easily done unless they do not have a Web site, or if it is not working.
Senator Care:
Ms. Henderson, when you sit down to offer the amendment on section 1, could you give me some idea of what you will be looking at? I know North Las Vegas has had to wrestle with this issue. My experience is we will have a bill with no public interest and somebody can go and go for 30 or 40 minutes, then maybe the chairperson gets a little tired, or we have to issue some sort of a hint. But then sometimes, there is a situation where there is intense public interest and there are 200 people who show up, everyone is forced to limit to 5 minutes. In other words, here is something no one cares about and you get 45 minutes, and then maybe here is something everyone has an interest in and a person gets 5 minutes. How do you address that without cutting off somebody when they really do have something to say and they have not had a chance to say it?
Ms. Henderson:
I know exactly what you are talking about. The concern we had on this is, you have adopted rules, and most of the councils and commissions have ones they adopted in public as to how they are going to conduct meetings and conduct themselves at the table. What we were trying to do is remove discretionary leeway from a presiding officer, so public comment falls under the rules of the council or commission, which they adopt; that way the public has a clear understanding. The intent was to give a little more ability to the entire governing body to make that decision as opposed to just the presiding officer.
Senator Care:
I would suggest there be rules to make certain the public knows those rules before the hearing begins.
Senator Raggio:
I want to follow up on Senator Care’s concern, because I would have the same. If you are going to make a hard and fast rule, I think some discretion is absolutely necessary. While I understand the goal is to allow everyone to comment, the question I hear from those I represent is, why does that body allow people to go on ad nauseam about matters or comments not germane to the topic? There has to be some control and if you try to put it in a rule, you have to at least have something that says they must be germane. It is fine to let people speak, but when they get up there and are completely off the subject, ranting and raving about something else, that is taking up a public body’s valuable time and should be used for the purposes of why they are there. But to put in a rule which would take discretion away and allow everyone a set amount of time to comment, I do not think it is guaranteed under the First Amendment. I suggest you look at discretion if you are going to change this language. I think discretion is necessary. I would rather have discretion than a rule to allow people to go on and on and waste people’s time. That time is money for any public body.
Ms. Henderson:
Senator Raggio, I could not agree with you more. We are actually required by this body to have a public comment portion and it is addressed.
Keith Marcher, Supervising Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General:
A letter from the attorney general’s office Exhibit D, which is seeking an amendment of section 1 of S.B. 229 with regard to an exemption concerning contested cases heard before disciplinary or professional occupational licensing boards, makes the rationale for the amendment clear.
Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Toiyabe Chapter/Sierra Club:
We have supported open meeting laws, but we have a concern about limiting some of the requirements of the bill and some of the proposed amendments just to the governing board. The history and the ability to go on the record is very important for interest groups and environmental organizations to base their appeal at the decision-making level. We need to look at how this might impact these other boards not defined under the proposed amendment as a governing board. All in all we support the efforts and the bill.
Weldon Havins M.D., J.D., Chief Executive Officer and Special Counsel, Clark County Medical Society:
We are in favor of the bill as is. The one section of the bill which is somewhat of a concern involves the teleconferencing of meetings of the health boards. We feel these meetings should be teleconferenced.
Rudy R. Manthei, D.O., President , State Board of Osteopathic Examiners:
As a board member, I am definitely in support of the bill. We find this creates no technical difficulties for us, though the teleconferencing will be an additional financial necessity. I would also note our board feels these actions are necessary; it is just a common courtesy that should be extended to the public. We feel it is important to have the public’s input prior to any decision we make.
Gail J. Anderson, Administrator, Real Estate Commission, Department of Business and Industry:
On section 2, requiring posting on the Web site within 30 working days after the adjournment of a meeting at which the minutes were taken, is there any concern about unapproved minutes being posted? Or was that addressed?
Chairman O’Connell:
Since we are asking for an audio tape to be available within 10 days, the changed language in section 3, page 4, lines 16 and 17, would read, “upon adoption, and approval by the public body.” Would that address your question?
Ms. Anderson:
Yes it would. Thank you very much.
Kaitlin A. Backlund, Lobbyist, Nevada Conservation League:
Our organization conducts educational activities, trying to engage the public in environmental policy-making, therefore we have a vested interest in the public’s ability to access information on decision-making. We support the bill in its original form. In the initial amendment, one concern is the Web sites for rural areas who cannot afford them. I would hate to think this might actually dissuade them from having one, so they do not have to comply with the bill. I would suggest we work with a lot of people in rural Nevada who could benefit from having things posted.
Kent F. Lauer, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association:
We support the bill as written. We have some concern with the amendment’s limitation to governing bodies only. The bill does not specify how much it would cost if the public would like a copy of the audiotapes. We prefer the bill in its original form.
Barbara Smith Campbell, Chairman, Nevada Tax Commission, Department of Taxation:
In section 8, the new language would require at least one member of the body to be present at any regulatory meeting. For us this would be somewhat problematic to comply with and we would like your assistance on how we would comply.
Charles Chinnock, Executive Director, Department of Taxation:
I have four things I would like to comment upon. The Department of Taxation provides support to four public bodies, the Nevada Tax Commission, the State Board of Equalization, the Legislative Committee for Local Government Taxes and Finance, and the Appraiser’s Certification Board. I would like to echo what the attorney general’s office said about contested cases. On the handout I provided Exhibit E, there is an agenda of a typical tax commission meeting. There are a substantial number of contested cases, with respect to the contested cases; they are required to file full legal briefs before the commission. If there is going to be anyone else testifying before one of the previously mentioned bodies, they are required to obtain in advance an intervenor status before they testify. To require public testimony on every case, we would support what the attorney general’s office proposed as an exception for contested cases. I think it would solve that problem.
Concerning section 2, with respect to trying to group confidential portions of hearings, the Nevada Tax Commission has substantial confidentiality statutes on contested cases, the parties are allowed to request a closed hearing. We do not know that until the time of the hearing, and at the time of the particularly scheduled hearing the Nevada Tax Commission then makes a decision about whether that hearing would be closed. There is language, “if practical”, which would allow us to do that.
The other comment concerns the audio hearings. Both the Appraiser’s Certification Board and the Committee for Local Government Taxes and Finance have no problems complying with the audio recordings. Because there are so many contested cases for the State Board of Equalization and the Nevada Tax Commission, for many years, those two boards based on how they conduct their minutes, have certified court transcripts of the entire meeting. The reason for that is so much goes on to the judicial level, so we have proposed in paragraph 3, if a certified transcript is taken in accordance with chapter 656 of Nevada Revised Statutes,then an audio recording is not required of that meeting. I hope the committee would concur, certified court transcript is more substantial than minutes would be. Finally, I would echo what Ms. Smith Campbell testified with respect to the regulations.
Senator Raggio:
On the closed hearing, because I know those are essential and they do come up in court hearings, you are making a record here now so we will have legislative intent that if this is passed would answer the problem if the request occurred and you had to immediately go into a closed hearing?
Mr. Chinnock:
Yes.
Christine Milburn, Lobbyist, Nevada Golf Course Owners Association:
We support S.B. 229. In particular, section 1, the very first sentence, “A public body may not take action by vote on an item on the agenda of a meeting on which action may be taken until public comment on the item has been allowed.” The Nevada Golf Course Owners Association has recently encountered some problems in southern Nevada on a vote taken at a Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) meeting on the drought plan. Southern Nevada Water Authority’s proposed drought plan was not made available to the public prior to the meeting and this would have been avoided if the Nevada Golf Course Owners Association had been able to make public comment prior to the vote. I am sure this is an oversight of SNWA; the vote was rescinded due to a violation of the open meeting law and came back the following month for a vote. However, a vote prior to public meetings defeats the purpose of a public hearing.
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
Both agencies support this bill. Although the 28 conservation districts do not have computers or tape recorders, they do comply with the open meeting law. They are happy to comply, but have tightly stretched budgets. I would ask for consideration for the plights of small districts. You might want to put in another exemption if they do not have audio equipment.
Senator Raggio:
I note the bill requires a fiscal note. If we pass this, we need to ask them to prepare one to cover both situations, one with the amendment and one without. If we are going to enact this we have to put the usual provision in to answer the concern about an unfunded mandate. Conservation districts do not have any money, and if they are going to be required to buy the equipment, then there has to be some way to fund it. If we send it out as an unfunded mandate, it falls back on the State without some protective language in the bill. I think it is prudent; we need to request a fiscal note.
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Wasserman, could you look into a fiscal note for S.B. 229?
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel:
Certainly. While I have the opportunity with the microphone, Mr. Lauer asked about the audio recordings. I will point out, on page 4 of the bill, the language says the audio recording of a meeting is a public record and also in NRS 239.052, a governmental agency can charge only actual costs for providing a copy of a public record. So, these items are covered in S.B. 229.
Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada:
I am concerned the language does not include an advisory board. I work with nonprofit organizations, which would like to see their meetings become public record. I would be concerned the definition used here would not include that type of advisory board. If there is some way you could put advisory language in there, or encouraging those kinds of boards, I think it could be broader without hurting the smaller entities. I think it would be beneficial.
Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
I want to echo the concerns of the attorney general’s office with regard to contested cases. I believe their testimony mirrors ours and we are satisfied if that change would be made.
Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
We have just a minor issue with the language regarding minutes in 30 days. We prefer to have the minutes approved before the public sees them, in similar fashion to Ms. Anderson’s comments. I believe the language offered in this amendment will address this issue; otherwise, we would have a fiscal concern. Then we would have to hire a court reporter to do the minutes and try to make them available within that time frame.
Keith L. Lee, Lobbyist, State Board of Medical Examiners:
I assume the amendment offered will take care of my concern, although we are opposed to section 35, which requires the meetings of the Board of Medical Examiners be held via the Internet, telephone, or videoconferencing. I do not see why the law should apply only to the Board of Medical Examiners.
Dr. Manthei:
I disagree with Mr. Lee. I think the meetings should extend to teleconferencing, that way the public could be more involved.
Chairman O’Connell:
We now close the hearing on S.B. 229 and open the hearing on S.B. 262.
SENATE BILL 262: Requires certain abstracts of votes to be transmitted to certain public libraries. (BDR 24-906)
Alan Glover, Lobbyist, City of Carson City:
I personally think a library is a good place for people to go and research how many votes a particular candidate received. With the new election equipment we will be getting in the next year, the abstracts can be electronically sent. We are required by the secretary of state to give them a hard copy of the election results and the canvas of the vote. We also give them the disk of the election, but they cannot read it because they do not have the program on which to read it. So, I think sending the abstracts to the library in hard copy or electronically is a good idea. They can get it a lot cheaper at a library than they can from a county clerk.
Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4:
The bill to have the election results, in particular the abstracts, transmitted to various library districts, is to keep the public informed as to what the election is about and let them understand voting is important. I had some students who tried to get some information about the election results at the library, but the information was not there, so maybe this is a way to expand the public’s awareness as to what happens during and after an election.
Senator Tiffany:
Would it be just as satisfactory if the registrar’s Web site had a link to election results?
Senator Neal:
Yes, it would be just as satisfactory. We do need to send word down to the various library districts that this information is available.
Barbara Reed, Clerk/Treasurer, Douglas County:
I think the libraries would be a good place for the information. My only comment is about the word “transmitted.” I just hope it can be in electronic and/or hard copy for some of our small counties who might not have the technology to receive the abstracts electronically.
Mr. Musgrove:
We are completely in support of this bill.
Chairman O’Connell:
The hearing is now closed on S.B. 262 and opened on S.B. 277.
SENATE BILL 277: Requires using agencies to purchase prescription drugs, pharmaceutical services, or medical supplies and related services only through Purchasing Division of Department of Administration under certain circumstances. (BDR 27-26)
Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District no. 3:
My intent for this bill was to come up with a way to make this State more efficient in how we do business. I do have another bill, S.B. 327, which addresses recycling of medication under careful consideration by those who do it, and today before you is S.B. 277, which addresses the opportunity for agencies to get the best deal and allow purchasing to acquire that information and make better deals for the State of Nevada. Section 1, subsection 1, addresses states using agencies and their purchasing of prescription drugs, pharmaceutical services, or medical supplies and services. Using agencies includes officers and boards and agencies in the Executive Branch. In subsection 2, one or more agencies can come together and work within the State with other governmental entities or outside the State to make purchases of these same drug services, and then make the Purchasing Division aware of those services. Then they are able to make a better deal than purchasing is able to offer. They can make these deals if purchasing cannot match or exceed the good deal they can make outside on their own. This will provide medications and services to more agencies in the State at a lower cost. This is a time when we are looking for ways to save the taxpayers money to create greater efficiencies for public dollars and still address individual needs of the agencies and the particular issues they have to address. I seek your support.
Senator Raggio:
I was interested in the language, where it talks about medical supplies and related services. I am not sure what that means. What would related services be?
Bill Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration:
Related services are kind of a catchall phrase that does not fall into prescription drugs or pharmaceutical services. Medical supplies and medicine are the most complicated commodity groups with which we deal. It is controlled by physicians, nurses, pharmacists, program laws, by various consortiums, and buy-in co-ops all around; we were just trying to make it all-encompassing. The purpose of this bill is to keep us clearly informed and put the challenge on the Purchasing Division to buy the best deals for the State. What we buy are prescription drugs, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies. In our service procurement unit sometimes we will buy transcription services, but when we were putting the bill together, we thought if something came up, for instance if someone is getting good occupational therapy services and they are getting it at a discounted rate, we want to know about it and this is something that would ordinarily go through the Purchasing Division.
Senator Care:
Who is qualified to make the decision on what is a better deal? What kind of consultation would the Purchasing Division give this other entity? How would you know they got a good deal?
Mr. Moell:
We would talk to them. We are not the experts in prescription drugs or medical supplies, that is why the agencies talk to us. For example, in the Health Division the family planning program buys its family planning supplies from a consortium out of region nine. The Purchasing Division could not touch that price through our Minnesota coalition on cooperative purchasing. We have talked to the Health Division, we have discussed it with them, and it makes huge sense to us. We work with pharmacists, we are getting more proactive with physicians, and we understand the Purchasing Division’s limitations when it comes to understanding the medical community and what is there. This is why we want to know what they are doing with their consortiums.
There is one phrase in section 1 we felt was onerous on the using agency and we thought we would offer a one-word amendment on line 9, page 2, where it says, “within 10 days after purchase.” What we are interested in is after the initial purchase. The 10 days after purchase puts the onus on the using agency. We do not think it is a good idea. All we want to do is be aware of these contracts, so we can go to work with the using agency and the vendor to try to put something in place. If we cannot put it in place, then it is our intention to not get in the way of the using agency, and let them continue with making their best value of purchases.
Mary Wherry, Deputy Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources:
It is not exactly clear how Medicaid would fit into this, but we wanted to make sure the committee understood how we purchase our pharmaceuticals. At this point it is through the Social Security Act, amended by Congress in 1990 in a drug rebate program. In the program we pay our pharmacies the cost of the drugs, so we do not actually purchase pharmaceuticals, or medical supplies. We pay pharmacies to give our recipients the drugs, which have been ordered by their provider. We pay the average wholesale price, minus 15 percent. Then we have the opportunity to go back to the manufacturer to give them how much we purchased, and they give us back the difference. We go by the Medicare fee schedule and what we would pay. We wanted to inform you how Medicaid is and we do not know how we would fall into this or what the opportunity would be.
Tom Wood, Lobbyist, Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America:
Senator Wiener came to us to address issues we might have with the purchasing arrangement she is trying to set up and she has taken all of our concerns into consideration. We are officially neutral on this bill, but if they can make a better purchasing situation then we certainly applaud the efforts to do that.
Chairman O’Connell:
The hearing is closed on S.B. 277 and we will open the work session with S.B. 173.
SENATE BILL 173: Exempts certain licensing boards from State Budget Act and certain provisions governing financial administration. (BDR 31-506)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 173.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Our next bill is Senate Bill 181.
SENATE BILL 181: Revises provisions relating to amendment of master plans and redevelopment plans. (BDR 22-992)
Senator Terry Care, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7:
Originally the purpose behind the bill was because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Las Vegas Redevelopment v. Crockett, and I am satisfied the amendment proposed does what I want it to do. The important part of it was there would be statutory definition of a material deviation, which was discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court on that case. We are taking out sections 1 and 2, it goes to master plans, it was an afterthought I had, I still want to examine it a little further, but this is the third time we scheduled this bill for a work session and I would like to get the bill moving. I am satisfied with the bill with the proposed amendment, it does what I want it to do.
Mark H. Fiorentino, Lobbyist, Health Plan of Nevada, Incorporated:
There is a typographical error we need to correct, it is on the third page of the proposed amendment. This error was my fault so I take responsibility for it. In subsection 3, the first sentence says that in addition to the notice published pursuant to subsection 1, that should say subsection 2. Notice requirements are in subsection 2 not in 1.
Senator Tiffany:
Senator Care, would you just go over the salient points to your bill.
Senator Care:
The Supreme Court case had this downtown redevelopment authority, and arguably there really was no plan, it was as they needed additional property, then they would contemplate doing things with it. But there were a number of home owners on various streets who found their homes taken, I think a park was relocated. The U.S. Supreme Court said there was not a material deviation from the plan, when in fact there was no plan with which to begin. This bill is intended to correct that, so we now have a definition of what constitutes a material deviation. The notice requirements now, basically would require anybody within an area, who would have an interest in this sort of proceeding taking place, getting notice to at least be able to appear and testify. The bill does not prevent takings by a redevelopment plan, it simply puts into effect how they could go about doing that, where they did not do that before.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 181.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
The committee will address S.B. 200 and S.B. 233 together.
SENATE BILL 200: Authorizes grants to pay certain costs associated with connections to community sewage disposal system. (BDR 30-889)
SENATE BILL 233: Increases amount of general obligation bonds that State Board of Finance may issue to provide grants to certain water systems. (BDR 30-553)
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Wasserman you were going to try and find out for me the impact, if any, on the funding and the information on the State’s credit.
Mr. Wasserman:
Under section 3, of Article 9 of the Nevada Constitution, it provides the State may contract public debts, but such debts shall never in the aggregate, exceed the sum of 2 percent of the assessed valuation of the State. That is the limitation we are talking about. However, that section of the constitution also provides:
… notwithstanding the foregoing limitations, may, pursuant to authority of the legislature, make and enter into any and all contracts necessary, expedient or advisable for the protection and preservation of any of its property or natural resources, or for the purposes of obtaining the benefits thereof ...
Senate Bill 200 and Senate Bill 233 would not be part of the calculation of that limitation because it relates to water and natural resources. The second question related to the ad valorem tax is set forth in the capital improvement projects bill. Because the consolidated bond and redemption fund must be used to discharge the obligations of the State, the bonds issued pursuant to these two bills would need to be considered in the determination of the amount of the ad valorem tax on each $100 of assessed value of taxable property. According to our Senate fiscal analyst, these two bills were not included as part of the Governor’s proposed Executive Budget. It may not change the rate of the ad valorem tax, which the Governor has apparently proposed at $0.16 per $100 of assessed valuation. Even if it did increase that amount, this money would have to be taken out of consolidated bond and redemption funds and therefore would not be available for a capital improvement project, so it still has some impact. That is the information provided by the fiscal division.
Senator Raggio:
I certainly support the concept here, but there are a couple of things needed. One, in order to accommodate this, the present amount the State is taking is 15 cents. The Governor is suggesting an additional 16 cents. At least 1 cent and an additional 15 cents, but an additional 1 cent for capital improvements, which must be approved by the Legislature and it will be considered by the Senate taxation committee. I think we could, if we have the amount of support necessary, pass this bill, but I think it is going to have to be re-referred to finance. That would be my opinion. We have to consider the amount of bonding and service to be set forth in the budget. I am just commenting on what Mr. Wasserman said. My understanding is that it does not come within the 2 percent debt limit, but it does impact the amount of money that is going to be required for debt service. The Governor has not put it in the existing 15 cents, but he has proposed some additional there. There are other bills that would bring the State more from real property assessed value also. If we were going to process the bills, I would think that both of them could be passed, but re‑referred to finance.
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2:
After hearing Mr. Wasserman, I know the exceptions are within the parameters of natural resources, and I understand that because it does raise the debt limit, it does have to be re-referred to Senate finance. I would indicate there is a growing emergence within our State concerning these nitrate levels and falling within the standards of the Environmental Protection Agency. Whether the State continues to mandate the clean up of these septics throughout the State, either in Spanish Springs or Pahrump, it is going to have to be done sooner or later, so the incurred cost could either be delayed now or could be escalated later when we would pay a lot more money. Senator Titus did mention during the hearing that we did make exceptions for those that were coming off wells to be hooked up to the water system in southern Nevada. So, I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that when these residents moved into this area, the master plan had indicated that septic tanks were acceptable at that time. Because of the development of the area, their growth is going to continue to persist and be a problem. I hope Senate finance takes that under consideration and we can move expediently with this bill.
Senator Raggio:
Let me explain something. Right now the Governor’s budget is utilizing the authorized 15 cents to the full extent. In fact, it is being used because of the lack of general funding for many projects such as deferred maintenance which is critical. We do not have the ability within the 15 cents that the State is now getting, and which is contained in the budget, to do anything like this even though it is critical. It needs to go to finance to be considered. There will have to be some enlargement of the funds available to service this kind of debt.
Mr. Biaggi:
We have been in discussion with the State treasurer on ways to limit the potential liabilities to the bond pool.
Leo Drozdoff, Chief, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
We have been in discussion with the State treasurer’s office about understanding impacts to both the capital improvement projects list and on what that project list was based. Senator Raggio is correct. The treasurer’s office made their improvement plan list based on the 16 cents ad valorem. We have been working with Robin Reedy in terms of establishing limitations on when we would actually ask for our process, that we ask for bond sales, so we did not impact the other projects on the list based on phasing or based on approving projects, but not funding them immediately. We have those provisions ready to go.
Robin V. Reedy, Deputy of Debt Management, Office of the State Treasurer:
Indeed we have been working together to mitigate any type of impact on the capacity and affordability reports. It still will require that extra penny because that is what we base those reports on, but when we did our estimates, we estimated they would be increasing usage in their water fund and we estimated this usage at approximately $6 million a year. This estimate is included in that affordability-and-capacity report. They do have long lead times on their projects, so when they are asking for money, they do not necessarily use it right away, but they need to have it on the books to even offer it to the communities. The treasurer’s office is officially neutral. We will bond for whatever you tell us to bond for, but as far as any immediate impact, it is included in the affordability report. Not included was that bonding was going to be up to $87 million, but would probably not impact anything for 2 to 4 years.
Mr. Biaggi:
We were considering these bills together in the financial and fiscal impacts.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS AND RE-REFER TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE S.B. 200 AND S.B. 233.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senate Bill 249 is now under consideration.
SENATE BILL 249: Creates Nevada Commission on Minority Affairs. (BDR 18‑766)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 249.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O’CONNELL AND TIFFANY VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Next is Assembly Bill (A.B.) 137.
ASSEMBLY BILL 137: Revises reporting requirements of Bureau for Hospital Patients within Office for Consumer Health Assistance. (BDR 18‑474)
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 137.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
This meeting is adjourned at 3:58 pm.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tara DeWeese,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: