MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 19, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:04 a.m. Friday, March 19, 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:
Senator Hal Smith, Clark Senate District 1.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Dana Bennett
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas; Mr. Robert van Straten, Division of Archives and Records; Mr. Guy L. Rocha, State Library Archives; Mr. Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities; Judy Matteucci, Budget Division.
SENATE BILL 49 - Revises procedure for payment of claim from state treasury made pursuant to legislative appropriation of authorization.
Ms. Judy Matteucci, Director of Department of Administration, testified in opposition to SB 49. She indicated the genesis of SB 49 related to the establishment of the Cash Management Improvement Act passed by the federal government which required states to pay interest on federal money drawn and not expended in a timely manner; and also allowed states to charge the federal government interest for payments the state made but did not immediately receive federal money which was attributable to those claims.
Ms. Matteucci indicated in May and June of 1992 she and the Chief Deputy Controller wrote the Attorney General for an opinion relative to what the state's requirements were on the availability of cash. Exhibit C is a copy of the Attorney General's opinion.
Ms. Matteucci cited a portion of NRS 353.090 which stated in part that the law required a claim could only be processed after a determination of its correctness and availability of funds within the appropriation or authorization for payment. She felt SB 49 would change that definition to allow a claim to be paid before funds were actually received from the federal government. She did not think it prudent and felt the state should continue with the current definition of availability of funds.
Mr. McGaughey referenced the first reprint of SB 49, Section 1, subsection 2 (a), asking if that meant in a congressional budget they have allocated money to Nevada. Ms. Matteucci replied that was partially true, there were two levels of federal funding, budget authorization and outlay; however the two rarely met. She indicated just because money was authorized or allocated by the federal government, it did not necessarily mean the state would receive it in a timely manner.
Mr. McGaughey asked if the state's budgeting process was based upon participating federal program money. Ms. Matteucci indicated the state budget subscribed to a service through the National Association of State Budget Officers called Federal Funds Information Services in order to estimate how much money would be available to the state from the federal government.
Mr. McGaughey then questioned what the state would do if the federal government took back some of the state's allocated funds after the state had already utilized them in the budget process. Ms. Matteucci replied the state was not allowed to spend beyond the receipt of dollars. She stated SB 49 would allow the state to spend money in anticipation of its receipt and if the federal government took it back, the state would have to make up that money in other ways.
Mr. McGaughey reiterated, "What you are saying, you build it into the budget, you anticipate the money coming, but you actually don't spend the money until it arrives." Ms. Matteucci indicated that was correct.
Senator Hal Smith, Clark Senate District 1, indicated he introduced SB 49 at the behest of another entity. He stated, "I am not an accounting expert. I did read this opinion carefully, and as I understand it from another expert in accounting, that we become liable for interest payments if we don't do what has been suggested in the bill. There is a difference of opinion between the two accounting agents in our state."
Mrs. Lambert asked if the state would be paying the federal government more interest by continuing the current practice, or if the federal government would pay the state more interest if done the other way. Ms. Matteucci answered the reason the controller wanted to change the methodology was because he was concerned about interest payments. She felt it would be more prudent to pay the interest as opposed to having to redo the accounting system which would track the new way of doing things with SB 49.
Chairman Garner requested Mr. Neighbors to work with Senator Smith and Judy Matteucci to find some common ground to work with on the issues.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on SB 49.
SENATE BILL 54 - Requires public body to retain permanently minutes of its public meetings.
Mr. Marvin Leavitt, representing City of Las Vegas, testified in favor of SB 54. He indicated Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) provided the minutes of governing bodies be kept permanently; however, new clerks might look at the statute and destroy the records after five years, not knowing about the Administrative Code provision. Mr. Leavitt stated SB 54 would provide records of minutes would be maintained on a permanent basis, thereby avoiding a conflict with the Nevada Administrative Code.
Chairman Garner indicated he had received fiscal analyst comment on SB 54, which codified in the Nevada Revised Statute record retention requirements already required by Chapter 239 of the NAC and all government entities should already be in compliance.
Mr. Leavitt agreed stating as all governments were already in compliance with Nevada Administrative Code, this would not involve any change.
Mr. Robert van Straten, State Records Manager of Nevada State Library and Archives, testified the intent of the law was to protect the records, unfortunately there had been instances in state government where records had inadvertently been destroyed. He stated his concern was with certain language in SB 54 and offered a letter which would change the wording of Section 1, subsection 2 (Exhibit D). Mr. van Straten said local governments would not want to be burdened with numerous archival repositories in cities and counties, but a way should be created to preserve those records in a centralized manner.
Mr. Hettrick asked if the recommended actions would require additional expenditure by state government. Mr. van Straten replied there were schedules in NAC 239 which provided the record to be permanent, and also provided those records "may" be transferred to an archival repository. He indicated the repositories were already in existence, therefore, why should the local government be burdened by retaining a record permanently when the archives were available.
Mr. Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director of Nevada League of Cities, reiterated Mr. Leavitt's testimony stating SB 54 merely cleaned up the intent of and would bring this bill in conformity with the Administrative Code.
Mr. Ernaut questioned if there was a discernible difference in the cost of having local entities ship information to archives as opposed to keeping it themselves. Mr. Grady requested Mr. Guy Rocha answer the question as he had worked in conjunction with cities and counties to handle archiving records.
Mr. Guy Rocha, State Archives and Records Administrator, stated local government records were being discussed and the state was not directly responsible for maintenance of those records. He indicated there were repositories in the respective counties and cities which could handle the records. Mr. Rocha said the cost was minimal as it entailed only a physical transfer of the items from the government office to the repository.
Mrs. Lambert read from NRS 239.080 and NRS 239.090 as it referred to retention of records (Exhibit E) and questioned if minutes would be considered to be of historical value. Mr. Rocha answered minutes would be considered of historical or permanent value and must be retained permanently. He indicated that value related not only to writers of history but public policy consideration as well. If the minutes were transferred to archive, the governing body would have constructive custody, which meant people could not remove the original record, but could remove a reproduced or microfilmed copy of the original.
Further discussion ensued regarding archiving of records, on both state and local levels.
Mrs. Lambert read from NRS 239.124 and NRS 239.125 as it referred to local government (Exhibit F).
Committee members then discussed with testifiers regarding identification of archival repositories and proper safe maintenance of those repositories.
Mr. van Straten stated in NRS 239 standards had been adopted which defined an archival repository for permanent long-term records.
Mrs. Lambert questioned how SB 54 would change current practice. Mr. van Straten felt if the bill would go through as written, each government entity must then keep the records themselves rather than putting them in a central archival repository, which would ultimately do away with the state archives and historical society. Mr. van Straten stressed records were permanent, but it should not be up to the individual government entities to keep them forever.
Mr. McGaughey asked about environmental concerns of storage facilities, indicating local governments might not have the facilities to keep records safe from fire, water or other problems of that sort. Mr. van Straten indicated state archives had heat and humidity controls, however individual local governments were not mandated to follow that practice.
Mr. McGaughey asked if it would help if there was a change to the statutes to define how a repository should be set up so governments would be mandated to follow safety practices rather than by choice.
Mr. Rocha felt it would be a worthwhile venture but would require a fiscal outlay for the entities involved.
Mr. McGaughey commented he would like to look at the possibility in SB 54, indicating repositories could be regionalized for the local governments.
Chairman Garner suggested Mr. McGaughey discover the fiscal impact this might have and then report back to committee with his findings.
Mr. Marvin Leavitt indicated there would be no objection regarding the proposed amendment as currently drafted (Exhibit D).
After further discussion Chairman Garner closed the hearing on SB 54.
SENATE BILL 55 - Increases salary of board of trustees of Airport Authority of Washoe County.
Mr. John Sande, Washoe County Airport Authority, testified SB 55 dealt with meeting fees for members of board of trustees for the Airport Authority. He stated in 1991 Legislative Session, fees for many boards and commissions were increased from $60 to $80 per meeting, and virtually every board or commission on the state and local level had a minimum of $80 per meeting. Mr. Sande pointed out the Airport Authority of Washoe County had been created by a special act in 1977 and there was nothing included in the Nevada Revised Statues regarding its operation, which was apparently the reason it had been overlooked in 1991 for fee increases. Mr. Sande stated SB 55 would bring the meeting fees of the trustees of the Airport Authority in line with other boards and commissions throughout the state.
Mr. McGaughey asked when was the last time the fee structure had been changed for the Airport Board.
Mr. Jerry Higgins, Airport Board of Trustees, answered it had been changed from $40 to $60 approximately eight years ago.
Chairman Garner entertained a motion to do pass SB 55.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO DO PASS SB 55.
ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Garner assigned the bill to Mr. Ernaut.
ASSEMBLY BILL 8 - Requires, upon request, granting of leave of absence without pay for state employees to care for newborn or newly adopted children.
Chairman Garner entertained a motion to reconsider AB 8.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO RESCIND COMMITTEE ACTION OF A&DP ON AB 8 AND RECONSIDER.
MR. BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mrs. Freeman indicated there had been a lot of discussion to make the length of leave for state employees sixteen weeks instead of six weeks, and asked Mrs. Kenny for her amendment.
Mrs. Kenny moved to amend AB 8 from six weeks leave to sixteen weeks.
ASSEMBLYMAN KENNY MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 8.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Garner entertained a motion to amend and do pass AB 8.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 8.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mrs. Augustine commented AB 8 as passed exceeded the federal family leave act.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
LINDA FEATHERINGILL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
March 19, 1993
Page: 1