MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
March 21, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 11:43 a.m., on Friday, March 21, 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 J. 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 Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Olivia Lodato, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chris Ault, Director of Athletics, University of Nevada, Reno
Rick Bennett, Director of Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Bill Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration
Paula Yakubik, MassMedia/Vanguard
Chairman O’Connell opened with Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R. 19).
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 19: Urges Athletic Directors of University of Nevada, Reno, and University of Nevada, Las Vegas, to schedule annual rivalry football game to coincide with observance of Nevada Day. (BDR R-884)
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2, opened discussion on the resolution. He stated a college football rivalry had developed between the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). Senator Washington said the rivalry between the two schools would be enhanced if the annual game could be played on Nevada Day. Senator Washington recapped the history of the rivalry between the two schools and mentioned some of the players from past teams who had continued to play football professionally.
Chris Ault, Director of Athletics, University of Nevada, Reno, stated he appreciated the rivalry between the schools and wanted it to remain strong. He said, however, the proposal to have the game played on Nevada Day weekend would cause problems for the two schools. Mr. Ault said the schools would be striving to get into bowl games at that time of the year, and would not want to risk injuries to their players so late in the season in a nonconference game. He said the schools were in different conferences. Mr. Ault added if the two schools were in the same conferences, the resolution would be very good.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Ault if there were any chance the schools might join the same conference. Senator Raggio also mentioned he thought more effort should have been expended to keep the two schools in the same conference.
Rick Bennett, Director of Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, stated John Robinson, Athletic Director and Head Football Coach, was unable to attend this meeting due to prior commitments. Mr. Robinson sent a memo to the committee stating the problems he was aware of in regard to a nonconference game in late October, Exhibit C. Mr. Bennett said UNLV supported the resolution in concept, but the various requirements for the two conferences made it very difficult to have a nonconference football game so late in the season. He stated UNLV was committed through 2009 to television contracts and Mountain West Conference schedules. Mr. Bennett emphasized the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, was appreciative of the rivalry between UNR and UNLV and intended to continue the relationship in the future.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.C.R. 19 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 280.
SENATE BILL 280: Revises provisions governing awarding of state purchasing contracts. (BDR 27-846)
Senator Tiffany introduced the bill. She said Paula Yakubik, of MassMedia/Vanguard, a public relations company from Las Vegas, would discuss the bill via teleconferencing. Senator Tiffany said the Nevada Department of Transportation had awarded a $1 million public relations contract to a California company. Several advertising agencies had talked to Senator Tiffany and had stated there were agencies in Nevada very capable of doing the job and the money should have stayed in Nevada.
Chairman O’Connell asked Senator Tiffany to discuss the fiscal note on the bill. Senator Tiffany said the chief of purchasing would testify on the details of the fiscal note. She said the chief had looked at what the contracts entailed, where the contracts would go out of State, and what he projected the cost would be if everything were kept in State.
Bill Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration, stated his division looked at the costs of his department and said they did about $250 million worth of services. In the next biennium, he said, purchasing would do about $85 million in commodities based upon the current budget. He said purchasing did 45 percent of the contracts and bid awards with out-of-State vendors, and 55 percent with in-State vendors. His division estimated approximately one half of the out-of-State awards would be affected by the bill. He calculated a $3.75 million per year fiscal note to the bill. He said the Department of Information Technology would file a fiscal note on the bill also. Mr. Moell added he did not know if the Nevada Department of Transportation would have a fiscal note.
Paula Yakubik, MassMedia/Vanguard, spoke to the committee via teleconferencing. She stated her firm had two State of Nevada accounts. She said she considered the accounts coveted, and very good contracts, and very beneficial for her business. It took 3 years, she said, in order to win her first State contract. She said she could not go to the state of California and bid on a proposal, or a California state contract, unless she demonstrated she had a fully functioning office in California. In Nevada, Ms. Yakubik stated, out-of-State companies can win million-dollar State contracts, and then leave the State and return to California to service the accounts. She asked that those companies have a fully functional Nevada office, pay Nevada taxes, and employ Nevada workers.
Mr. Moell stated he was fundamentally opposed to preferences in bidding contracts. He said for an in-State preference, the Purchasing Division had to oppose the bill as it had been written. However, he said, no Nevada vendor should be penalized in another state. The Purchasing Division offered an amendment to the bill. Mr. Moell wanted to remove the proposed language in sections 4 and 5, and add a new section to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 333.The new section would say if a state other than Nevada imposed a residential preference on Nevada vendors for the procurement of specific materials, supplies, services, and equipment, then the Chief would impose an identical residential preference penalty on the vendors submitting bids or proposals for such from that state. Mr. Moell said for example, if a 10 percent preference for printing were imposed, as is the case in Idaho, Nevada would then assess a 10 percent penalty on any vendor from Idaho. Mr. Moell stated California had not disclosed a penalty on residency, but if purchasing were made aware of the penalty, it would follow up on the information. He said there were 37 states that had reciprocity laws, and there were 6 states that had an across‑the-board in-state preference. Mr. Moell stated there were a number of states with interesting preferences. The Purchasing Division wanted to assess a preference against each state that would be the same as that state’s preference. He said this preference would help Nevada vendors without penalizing them. The State preference as currently written in S.B. 280 would penalize Nevada vendors in 37 states.
Chairman O’Connell inquired about S.B. 146. The bill had been passed allowing smaller counties to attach themselves to contracts for out-of-State buying because it would be more reasonable for them. She asked Mr. Moell to look at S.B. 146 and try to determine the effect it might have on in-State preferences.
Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Moell if he had seen the material MassMedia/Vanguard had given to the committee about California’s qualification requirements for bidding on a request for proposal. Ms. Yakubik iterated, the requirements stated the proposer had to have a fully functional California‑based office.
Senator Raggio commented if a company were going to bid a job in California, it had to have a California-based office, be in good standing if it was a corporation, and be qualified to conduct business in the state. He asked Mr. Moell if Nevada had any similar rules. Senator Tiffany inquired if someone came from California to bid in Nevada, would he or she have to follow the California laws and requirements.
Mr. Moell stated the proposed amendment would have identical residential preference penalties. He said that would mean the bidding company would have to have an office in Nevada if it were bidding from California. There were no percentages added in the amendment because the Purchasing Division did not want to limit it to states with percentage requirements.
Senator Raggio asked if the amendment went so far as to require a residential requirement, would the bill still have a fiscal note. Mr. Moell replied it would have a fiscal note, but the amount would be substantially smaller. He said there were several states that would only accept in-state printing. He would not accept bids from companies in such states because they barred Nevada companies. The purpose of reciprocity was for Nevada vendors to have a fair chance in other states without being penalized. He said if a straight in-State preference were imposed, Nevada vendors would be penalized in 37 states.
Senator Townsend asked if there were any jurisdictions that stated if, in a normal bidding process, all things were equal, the domestic company would get the choice, thereby taking the cost element out of the bid. Mr. Moell said Nevada did that with requests for proposals if all things were equal. He said the problem was the definition of “all things being equal.”
Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Moell if California’s requirements were the most stringent in the United States. Mr. Moell responded California had been social engineering through its procuring practices for a long time. California had set‑asides for minorities, small businesses, and a number of different things. He said the focus needed to stay on residential requirements. Senator Tiffany asked if little rural counties who go out-of-State for services, could then go to most other states except California and not be seriously penalized. She also inquired about a federal law that would keep states from doing business with certain other entities. Mr. Moell said the vast majority of states had no in-state preferences. He said a number of federal grants and programs made it illegal to establish preferences. Mr. Moell said the State wanted to avoid preferences. Senator Tiffany asked if Nevada had a policy that said whatever was good in a home state was also good in Nevada, would a fiscal note still be attached to the bill. Mr. Moell said the fiscal note would be miniscule. He stated the Purchasing Division and the Department of Information Technology would eliminate their fiscal notes if the amendment were accepted with reciprocity.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 280 and opened the hearing on S.B. 329.
SENATE BILL 329: Authorizes review of and objection to temporary regulations by Legislative Commission in certain circumstances. (BDR 18‑730)
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, stated the bill arose from concerns from the last several interim sessions regarding the work of the Legislative Commission and the work of various agencies and departments in the Executive Branch regarding the submission of regulations. Senator Amodei said the concerns were, on several instances in even-numbered years, regulations were submitted after July 1 in accordance with existing statute under NRS 233B.063. He stated some regulations were able to enjoy a longer‑than‑usual temporary status. The concerns were perhaps these regulations were being submitted with that date in mind to allow a significant period of operation under temporary status. Senator Amodei said he voiced his concerns to Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, and the result was S.B. 329. Page 1, line 3 of the bill, proposed, upon the request of a Legislator, the Legislative Commission could review a temporary regulation in the normal way. Senator Amodei stated there were other changes in the bill in section 5, line 7 which extended the period to 35 days between the time a regulation was adopted and submitted to the Secretary of State. He said another matter that came to his attention after the bill was submitted concerned regulations under the statutory health care committee. The committee had a listing of various professions whose licensing board regulations were reviewed pursuant to statute in NRS 439B.225. Senator Amodei provided a list to Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, of seven chapters which had not been included for review. The professions included boards for homeopathic, chiropractic, and oriental medicine, podiatry, optometry, opticians, and marriage and family therapists which had not been included previously. Senator Amodei said he added those chapters in the form of a potential amendment to NRS 439B.225 to bring the licensing boards under the same review procedures as the already-listed licensing boards.
Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Erdoes if all the professions were now covered with the proposed amendment. Brenda Erdoes Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the list was still a partial list, but the proposal covered most of the agencies that had a health-related function. Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Erdoes or Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, to provide the committee with a list of all affected boards.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 329 and adjourned the meeting at 12:27 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Olivia Lodato,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: