MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 8, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 9:37 a.m., Monday, February 8, 1993, in Room 101/102 of the Cashman Field Center, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman
Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Pete Ernaut
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Erin Kenny
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dana Bennett, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Kurt Weinrich, P.E., Director, Regional Transportation Commission; James Barber, Chief of Procurance, Clark County General Service Department; Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas; Anita Laruy, Director of Intergovernmental Relations, City of North Las Vegas; Michael Dyal, City Manager, City of North Las Vegas; Theron Goynes, Mayor Pro Temp, City of North Las Vegas; Carolyne Edwards, Lobbyist, Clark County School District; Judy Witt, President, Board of School Trustees, Clark County School District; Len Paul, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District; Dan Newburn, Member, Board of School Trustees, Clark County School District;
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 14 - Makes various changes concerning purchasing by local governments.
Kurt Weinrich, P.E., Director, Regional Transportation Commission, Clark County, said the purpose of the legislation was to make several changes to the Nevada Local Government Purchasing Act. He proceeded to deliver prepared comments and proposed an amendment as shown in Exhibit C.
Mr. Garner asked if, in addition to the amendment, Mr. Weinrich was asking for a further change. Mr. Weinrich replied yes, Section 4.4, (a), would be changed to read, "Trade secrets or confidential business information that is contained in a bid submitted to a governing body or its authorized representative on a particular contract; and designated as such by the proposer or bidder;."
James Barber, Chief of Procurement, Clark County General Services Department, spoke in opposition to A.B. 14 as it impacted purchasing. Before beginning his prepared testimony (Exhibit D), Mr. Barber told the committee it did not reflect the changes just suggested by Mr. Weinrich.
Mr. McGaughey asked Mr. Barber if his participation at the hearing was under the direction of Clark County. He answered yes, he had been sent by his supervisor, and the administrative staff was aware he was at the hearing.
Mr. McGaughey questioned Mr. Barber's statement "there was administrative ways to solve the problem," by asking, "What would be wrong with putting it in a statute and having defined rules which everyone should operate under? That way it would not be necessary to find ways around a problem, the law would be there. It would give very straight direction. Do you oppose that?" Mr. Barber's response was to question if it was really necessary, stating it seemed too broad of a remedy for the incidence of the problem.
Mr. Garner wanted to know how the legislation would impact or detract from Mr. Barber's ability to do what he needed to do. Mr. Barber's reply was it might be workable if the newly suggested changes were implemented. Mr. Garner then clarified Mr. Barber's comments were in response to the original bill without the amendments. Mr. Barber agreed.
A discussion between Mr. McGaughey and Mr. Barber followed regarding the concept of disclosing proprietary information regarding a bidder, and if a bidder should not negotiate future employment with a public official.
Mr. Hettrick asked Mr. Barber if he had a problem with the language "designated as such." Mr. Barber responded, "Yes, if it is something broken out by the vendor."
Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas, testified in favor of A.B 14 with the amendments.
Chairman Garner asked Mr. McGaughey to take care of the amendments, and he asked Mr. Barber to send his written response to the amendments to Mr. McGaughey. Mr. Garner concluded the hearing by saying A.B. 14 would be handled in a future work session in Carson City.
The hearing on A.B. 14 was closed with no action taken.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 33 - Increases number of members on certain county fair and recreation boards.
Anita Laruy, Director of Intergovernmental Relations, City of North Las Vegas, supported A.B. 33, and introduced Michael Dyal, City Manager, City of North Las Vegas, and Theron Goynes, Councilman and Mayor Pro Temp, City of North Las Vegas. She pointed to the unprecedented growth in Clark County and the continued growth in North Las Vegas as the reason for supporting the legislation.
Mr. Goynes, too, supported A.B. 33 by reading from prepared testimony entered as Exhibit E.
Mrs. Segerblom said she recalled the City of North Las Vegas had a permanent seat on the convention board when she had served on it. The answer was yes, the city had been the second largest city then. Mrs. Segerblom said she acknowledged a difference between Boulder City and North Las Vegas, but Boulder City had not come demanding a seat, but rather, had exchanged with Henderson.
Mr. Goynes said there had been a population explosion in Henderson then, and Henderson had been continuously on the rise. Since then, the City of North Las Vegas had gained a significant number of residents and was still growing. The current count was 47,000 plus. He suggested the "great northwest" would overtake Henderson soon. Mrs. Segerblom then stated, "And now you would have to only be on every 6 years or every 4, because you would have to share with Boulder City and Mesquite rather than have a permanent seat."
Mr. Hettrick asked what the population of Henderson was. The answer was 90,000.
William B. Hammond, Director of Operations, Las Vegas Convention/Visitors Authority (LVCVA), and Luke Puschnig, Legal Counsel, Las Vegas Convention/Visitors Authority, spoke for the Executive Director and the Board of Directors, and indicated they were in opposition to A.B. 33. Mr. Hammond stated the board was functioning very well as currently constituted, it properly represented the entities and the interests in Clark County. To add another member would do nothing to promote the recreational facilities of Clark County.
Mr. Garner queried how another member would detract from LBCVA's ability to function as a convention and visitor authority. Mr. Hammond replied he was not aware of any board which had an even number, although he admitted there could be some. He added it could cause problems by having a split vote. He also pointed out, although direct representation was not currently available, the entities, as in the case of Boulder City and Henderson, watched out for each other's interest. Therefore, representation was available indirectly.
Mr. Garner asked Mr. Hammond if there was not a significant difference in population between North Las Vegas, Mesquite, and Boulder City. Mr. Hammond said the more significant representation would be the amount of room tax which was being generated, as it was what was being used to accomplish the mission of LVCVA, not the population of the entities involved.
Mr. Garner next asked Mr. Hammond if he was suggesting the board should be made up in proportion to the amount of room tax it has collected from various areas. Mr. Hammond countered, "I am saying, to us, that would be more representative than the population, if we were to make a change to the board. We are not recommending a change in the board."
Mr. Garner questioned, "In that case, where would most of the membership come from?" Mr. Hammond replied it would, probably, not change much with one exception, Mesquite generated more room tax and taxes than North Las Vegas, Henderson or Boulder City. Mr. McGaughey then summed up the overall thinking of LVCVA; the people who were contributing the money to the room tax should decide what should be best for the fair. Mr. Hammond again stressed there should be no change at all. Mr. McGaughey then said the reason for the legislation was because North Las Vegas was now the fourth largest entity in the county and they desired to represent the people who lived in the city, the users and the ultimate supporters of the fair, and they were now a major player in Clark County. More discussion followed on the testimony which had been presented, for clarification purposes only.
Chairman Garner again stated there would be a work session in Carson City wherein A.B. 33 would be handled. All written correspondence would be considered by the committee before final action would be taken.
Mr. Puschnig requested any modifications to the bill be sent directly to the LVCVA for review and input. Mr. Garner agreed.
Mr. McGaughey's last question was, "Did the LVCVA, as a group, vote to send you here to oppose this bill, or how did that come about?" Mr. Puschnig responded Manny Cortez, Executive Director, had indicated his board had stated, "This may not be a good idea at this time, to fix something that is not broken."
The hearing on A.B. 33 was closed with no action taken.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 36 - Eliminates certain restrictions on sale, rental or lease of specified property at site of Las Vegas High School.
Carolyne Edwards, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, supported A.B. 36. She said the legislation in the bill gave more latitude in the district's choices of use for the property known as Las Vegas High School (LVHS).
Judy Witt, President, Board of School Trustees, Clark County School District, and mother of a student at LVHS, stated, "This fall the Clark County School District Board of Trustees voted to relocate LVHS to a new state-of-the-art facility in the east side of our town. By relocating LVHS, we are able to provide a magnet school at the existing campus (The Las Vegas Academy of International Studies of Performing Arts). Our board is committed to expanding our curriculum choices to include magnets such as the one to open in the fall of 1993 at LVHS. We are here today requesting some language changes in the bill which would give us the ability to expand our parking area, so that the school would be more accessible to the community, as well as parents, students, and staff. Len Paul is here today to briefly explain the Las Vegas Academy of International Studies of Performing Arts."
Len Paul, Assistant Superintendent, Clark County School District, Secondary Education Division, presented testimony as outlined in Exhibit F.
Mr. Garner wanted to know which buildings were included as historical. Mr. Paul responded it was his understanding one was the old Main Hall building, and the other Fraser Hall. He added there were no thoughts of changing the outside of any buildings except to provide a handicapped access ramp into the auditorium. Minor internal changes would take place; making a dance floor available and providing recital halls.
In response to a question from Mr. Garner regarding restrictions respecting the other buildings, Dan Newburn, Member, Board of School Trustees, Clark County School District, answered, "There is some debate at the district, whether in fact, we are not already permitted to do some of these things. We are coming to you so that there would be no confusion on our part as to what is encompassed in that. It is our understanding, and our intent, not to do anything with the outside of the building or anything that shows the historical uniqueness of that facility, and not to touch that at all. We do need to do some things with the parking lot to create a larger parking lot if we are going to use that facility. There are some technical things we may have to do to meet new disability laws that will affect everybody across the state, and a little confusion on our part as to where we can drive a nail and not drive a nail, but we love that building and there was never any intent to do anything to sell, or change it anyway. We just felt we needed greater flexibility and you were the ones to, probably, give it to us."
Mr. Paul explained where the parking lot would be built in response to a question from Mrs. Augustine. He also explained it would not be a stacked structure, but an asphalt parking lot. In concluding his statement, Mr. Paul said the response from students and parents who liked the concept indicated the program should be successful as there was a great deal of historical significance in the area. Further discussion took place regarding the preservation of historical buildings.
Mrs. Witt pointed out the key reason for moving the LVHS was the lack of amenities, such as parking. Therefore, parking was really needed. Again, a discussion took place regarding land use versus building use as specified in the bill now, and in the future.
Mrs. Witt said it was possible the committee would like to reword the bill to specifically address the intent of the board. She said there would be no objection to that, as use of land for a parking lot was their sole intent. Mr. Newburn then gave an explanation as to past thinking regarding the sale of the LVHS property, and showed why a magnet school may not have the same use for a football field as a regular high school, thereby changing the use of the football field into something else, yet preserving the buildings.
Mr. Garner explained the concern was with the wording of the bill which might create additional problems in the future.
Dana Bennett said, as she understood the bill, it did appear to take out any protection for open spaces. While it would allow for the creation of the parking lot, it did take out all the protection for land without a building of historical significance on it. In the future, perhaps, the school district would not have to come back to the legislature to perform any particular action involving just the land. Further discussion took place regarding the original intent of the affected section of statute.
Mr. Bache suggested defining Las Vegas High School as there were now two in existence.
Mr. Neighbors asked if any of the buildings were listed in the Federal Register of Historical Buildings. Mr. Paul replied all the buildings on the entire campus were listed.
Mr. Neighbors then wanted to know if there would be a saving to the taxpayer. Mr. Newburn responded tax money was in having a baseball diamond which would not be used but could, in fact, be used for parking. The tax saving was in where to park the students.
Mr. Garner asked Mr. Bache to handle the amendment identifying LVHS, and to make sure the language was consistent with what the committee wanted to do. Mr. Garner then asked the committee if there was a need to be more specific with respect to the property. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Garner then said if the appropriate amendments were available and everyone agreed, the committee could take action on the bill in the work session, February 19, 1993.
The hearing on A.B. 36 was closed with no action taken.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:26 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BETTY WILLS
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
February 8, 1993
Page: 1