MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      March 10, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:33 a.m. Wednesday, March 10, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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:

 

      Ms. Dana Bennett

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Marvin Leavitt, representing City of Las Vegas.

 

 

Chairman Garner asked for a motion to approve the minutes as written through the end of February. 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN McGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Garner requested committee introduction of the following bill draft requests:

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 23-834 - Revises provisions relating to specialized or local ethics committees.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 23-834.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 21-571 - Increases term of all municipal judges.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 21-571.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN McGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Garner introduced and welcomed students from Dayton High School.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 249 - Allows private sale of bonds issued by redevelopment agency.

 

Mr. Marvin Leavitt, representing City of Las Vegas, testified AB 249 would make it possible to sell redevelopment bonds in what was termed "a private sale."   Mr. Leavitt stated at the current time bonds could be sold only at public competitive bids, and this bill would open up an additional avenue for those types of bonds.  He indicated most other bonds in the state could be sold by both negotiated and competitive methods.  He gave a brief background on the two types of bond sales. 

 

Mr. Leavitt said general obligation bonds were available to most governments in the state and those were traditionally bonds which had the full faith and credit of the government behind them.  The bonds were usually approved after a vote of the people and a property tax would often be levied for repayment of the principal and interest on those bonds. 

 

Mr. Leavitt indicated revenue bonds were repayable from a particular revenue source, and quite often there was a prohibition in the statute for repaying those bonds from any other source if the revenue was insufficient for repayment.  Those type bonds, which included redevelopment bonds, would be more difficult to sell as they would not have the full faith and credit of the government behind them but could be repaid only from a particular revenue source.

 

Mr. Leavitt pointed out there was a third type bond which was a combination of the two, called "double-barrel" bonds, which were payable first from revenues, then if those revenues were insufficient for repayment, it could also be a general obligation of the government and would be repaid from other revenue sources available to the government.

 

Mr. Leavitt produced Exhibit C which showed the differences between negotiated/competitive sales as they related to both revenue and general obligation bonds.

 

Mr. Leavitt spoke at length regarding the mechanics of negotiated and competitive sales of bonds.

 

Mrs. de Braga indicated she had read criticism on AB 249 which said redevelopment agencies were public agencies and their activities should be public, including public sale and notice, and asked Mr. Leavitt to respond.

 

Mr. Leavitt answered, "The most public of all the bonds, which is the bonds, which are bonds which have the full faith and credit of the government behind them, most were private right now, and the statutes say they can be sold at either public or private sale.  And you can see as I have described, even though technically it's a private sale, the information is available all the way along as to what the prices are, as to what the interest rates are, it's not as if it's really being done in the dark, it's simply a methodology that you're using to try to get the best possible rates.  What you are doing, ... you're not issuing a bid, you are able to adjust your terms so that you can hopefully save interest costs."

 

Mrs. de Braga asked if there would be any type of public notice.

 

Mr. Leavitt replied before getting to the point of sale of bonds, a lot of public hearings would have to be held, so quite a few public notices would be posted.  He referred to line 23 of AB 249, "(b) Private sale without any advertisement or public notice." indicating that meant it would not go through the normal advertisement process by which the public (bond dealers) would be notified there would be a competitive sale.

 

Mr. McGaughey asked how the redevelopment which had already been done was financed, was it through bonds, and were they public or private.  He specifically referred to Main Street Station and the mall at Charleston.  Mr. Leavitt indicated financing for those had been by previously issued public bonds as that was the only method which had been available.

 

Mr. McGaughey and Mr. Leavitt discussed various types of bonds.

 

Mrs. Lambert stated the charts indicated a trend toward more negotiated sales.  She asked what was happening in the market to cause that to happen, and how much better interest rate could be attained with a negotiated sale rather than public sale.

 

Mr. Leavitt indicated the market had gone through a number of aberrations during the past several years, one being a greater number of revenue-type bonds coming into the market than previously, more bonds from a specific revenue source.  Mr. Leavitt stated additionally the country had gone through a period of recession, ratings had been lowered on a lot of issues by rating agencies which had encouraged the issuer of bonds to negotiate for more complex terms.

 

Mrs. Segerblom inquired if the public voted on redevelopment bonds.  Mr. Leavitt indicated there was not a vote on any revenue bonds.

 

Mrs. Segerblom questioned if the taxes would go to the people in the redevelopment area.  Mr. Leavitt replied the taxes on the increments would go to the redevelopment agency.

 

Mr. Bache asked if the bonds would extend beyond the life of the redevelopment agency.  Mr. Leavitt indicated the redevelopment law, which originally allowed for unrestricted length, could not extend beyond the life of the redevelopment agency.

 

Mr. Ernaut inquired if the taxpayers would be ultimately responsible if the bond went into default.  Mr. Leavitt answered the redevelopment agency was responsible for the bonds, the taxpayer would not be required to come up with any more money.

 

Further discussion ensued between Mr. Ernaut and Mr. Leavitt.

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 249 and entertained a motion to do pass AB 249.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 249.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Garner assigned the bill to Mrs. Augustine.

 

At 9:10 a.m. Chairman Garner indicated there would be a ten-minute adjournment.  The committee reconvened at 9:25 a.m.

 

Chairman Garner entertained a motion to approve an amendment to the committee rules which would reflect an addition of a new member, bringing number of members to 14, number of members needed for a quorum to 8, and number needed for a two-thirds majority to 10.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND THE COMMITTEE STANDING RULES.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN KENNY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

AMENDMENT TO NRS 281.145 - Leave of absence for military duty.

 

AMENDMENT TO NRS 412.124 - Ordering National Guard to active duty; pay and allowances.

 

Chairman Garner referred to the amendments he had distributed at a previous meeting and requested a motion to approve a bill draft request for these two items.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO REQUEST A B.D.R. FOR AMENDMENT TO NRS 281.145 AND NRS 412.124.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 90 - Restricts employment of certain former public officers and employees of executive branch of government.

 

Ms. Dana Bennett gave a brief review of Amendment 65 to AB 90 (Exhibit D), indicating it was an amendment Assemblyman Myrna Williams had worked out with Kim Morgan which affected those people who were directly involved in regulating industries and businesses.  She stated there had been concern in the original testimony that the original bill would affect people who might not have been directly involved in those regulations.  Ms. Bennett said this amendment would impact only the state employees who were directly involved.

 

Mr. Bennett asked if the Ethics Commission had been contacted regarding its inclusion.

 

Chairman Garner stated he did not know.

 

Mrs. Lambert remarked she shared Mr. Bennett's concern as she had correspondence from the Ethics Commission indicating staffing and budgetary problems from the responsibilities incurred from the previous session.  She also questioned if there would be a problem hiring auditors if their jobs were restricted after the auditors left state government.

 

Chairman Garner indicated action would not be taken until the questions were addressed.  He stated he would speak with Mrs. Williams to resolve those issues.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 255 - Revises requirements for notice of certain proposed changes to redevelopment plan.

 

Mr. McGaughey gave a brief review of Amendment 84 to AB 255, indicating it related to public notices in redevelopment agencies.  He indicated a major problem was the cost of postage to notify everyone in a given area whenever a change was initiated.  Mr. McGaughey stated this amendment allowed for people within a 300 foot area to be notified for a change in land use such as a zone change, otherwise everyone in the district would be notified.

 

Mrs. Lambert stressed she was opposed to the bill.  She indicated the testimony indicated the postage was high as certified mail had been used, but there was nothing in the law which stated certified mail needed to be used and thought a postcard would suffice.  Mrs. Lambert felt it was important to keep the public informed in all aspects of change.

 

Mr. McGaughey referred to section 1, subsection 2, indicating there was public notice provided through newspapers and posted meetings and thought that would be sufficient to give everyone the opportunity to participate.

 

Mrs. Segerblom felt it would be better to have 600 feet notification rather than 300 feet.

 

Mr. McGaughey pointed out historically 300 feet had been used and he felt the same concept was being followed.

 

Mrs. Kenny commented she agreed with Mrs. Lambert, and stated newspapers would not notify all the people who would be affected by a change.  She felt bulk mail would be a feasible solution and less costly for notification.

 

Mr. McGaughey commented owners of property might not live in the area for bulk mail to be able to reach them.

 

Mrs. Augustine referenced section 1, subsection 3(a) stating the word "impacted" had been a suggested addition to the amendment, but was not included.

 

Mr. McGaughey explained the word "impacted" had been discussed in the meeting with the City of Las Vegas, and they felt it was a word where the definition was rather difficult to determine and would create a problem.

 

Mrs. Segerblom proposed to amend Amendment No. 84 to change the 300 feet to 600 feet, indicating she could support the bill with the change.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 255, WITH AMENDMENT NO. 84 AND CHANGE 300' TO 600'.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. McGaughey drew attention to the fact many bills heard in previous sessions which had increased notices from 300 to 600 feet had all been rejected as the costs were disproportionate to the benefits.  He opposed the amendment.

 

      THE MOTION DID NOT CARRY.

 

Chairman Garner asked for a motion to amend with Amendment 84 and do pass A.B. 255.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN McGAUGHEY MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT 84 AND DO PASS A.B. 255.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Bennett stated he was not satisfied with the explanation regarding additions to redevelopment areas and was opposed to the bill.

 

Mr. McGaughey again explained this was a change in a "land use" and would affect a zoning matter only.

 

Mr. Hettrick reiterated Mr. McGaughey's comments, stating the word "addition" was taken out and referred to zoning use only.

 

Mr. Williams felt any reduction in the amount of information put out would not be good policy and opposed the bill.

 

Mr. Bache indicated he had some qualms over the bill as a whole, but felt the amendment was appropriate.

 

      THE MOTION DID NOT CARRY.

 

      ASSEMBLYMEN AUGUSTINE, BACHE, HETTRICK, McGAUGHEY, NEIGHBORS AND GARNER VOTED YES.

 

      ASSEMBLYMEN BENNETT, de BRAGA, ERNAUT, FREEMAN, KENNY, LAMBERT, SEGERBLOM AND WILLIAMS VOTED NO.

 

As no further action was taken, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 255.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 33 - Increases number of members on certain county fair and recreation boards.

 

Chairman Garner entertained a motion to do pass AB 33.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN McGAUGHEY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 33.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Bennett stated he would vote in opposition as he saw no reason to enlarge the authority membership.  He said there was testimony which indicated if the membership was changed it should perhaps be determined by the amount of room tax the communities contributed rather than by population.

 

Chairman Garner pointed out as North Las Vegas represented the third largest entity in the area, he felt they were entitled to representation on the board and would support the bill.

 

Mr. McGaughey stated he was in favor of AB 33, and thought local governments should be included in the decisions of the county.

 

Mr. Bache indicated his support of AB 33.

 

Mr. Neighbors felt this was an excellent example of bringing government to the people and voiced his support.

 

Mrs. Segerblom agreed she also supported the bill.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED - ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT VOTED NO.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 253 - Enacts interstate compact for certain operations by Nevada National Guard.

 

Ms. Dana Bennett indicated testimony on AB 253 from John Drew, Nevada Division of Investigation, stated there had not been time for his division to review the bill and he requested more time.  She said Mr. Pennington, Legal Counsel for the National Guard, had offered to provide a copy of the legislative packet from Arizona, however it had not yet been delivered.

 

Chairman Garner indicated he would speak with Mr. Drew on AB 253.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 28 - Authorizes certain local governments to collect fees for expenses incurred in responding to certain emergencies.

 

Mr. Williams indicated AB 28 was a bill which had been brought before the judiciary committee last session and was unanimously indefinitely postponed in committee.  Mr. Williams stated there were several individuals who were to provide information which would improve the chances for the bill in this session.  He said although he had spoken to those people, he had not yet received any information.  Mr. Williams pointed out the problem with AB 28 was the ability to prove a person "intentionally" put himself under the influence of a controlled substance and then caused an accident which required emergency services.

 

Chairman Garner indicated further action would be postponed until the information was provided.

 

Further discussion ensued.

 

Chairman Garner closed discussion on AB 28.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      LINDA FEATHERINGILL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

March 10, 1993

Page: 1