MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 23, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 9:08 a.m., Wednesday, June 23, 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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Ray Shaffer
Senator Ernest Adler
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robin Gonzalez, University of Nevada, Reno
Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas
John Swendseid, City of Las Vegas
David Horton, Committee to Restore the Constitution
Marty Bibb, Retired Public Employees of Nevada
Margi A. Grein, Director of Finance, Nevada State Contractors Board
Ed Presley, Home Rule Coalition
Janice Gunderson, Communications Workers of America
Joe Johnson, Sierra Club
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION-27 Proposes to amend ordinance of Nevada constitution to repeal disclaimer of interest of state in unappropriated public lands.
Chairman Garner announced there would be no further discussion on SJR-27, and it would not be heard. He advised he had been notified by legal counsel this resolution was unconstitutional and could have serious ramifications.
SENATE BILL 460 Authorizes sale of call feature of municipal bonds.
Marvin Leavitt, representing the City of Las Vegas, and John Swendseid, Bond Counsel, City of Las Vegas, testified in favor of S.B. 460. Mr. Leavitt explained the bill dealt with "calling" of bonds, which was similar to refinancing a house. When local government provided bonds, he stated, the initial covenants outlined the ability to "call" the bonds at a certain point in time. When one called in a bond, a new one, a "refunding bond", was issued in its place, and he explained refunding bonds bore an interest rate less than the bonds called in. Mr. Leavitt advised a problem with the procedure was the interest rate differential which had to be great enough to offset the substantial costs of calling in the old bonds, underwriting, legal costs, et cetera. Mr. Leavitt advised S.B. 460 provided a new mechanism in a "call option", which was detachable from the bond itself. If a bond was issued at nine percent, and the market rate of interest was six percent, the detachable call option could be sold at market. As an example, he explained, if he sold a detachable call to Mr. Swendseid, Mr. Sevendseid then had the right to call in a particular bond. Mr. Leavitt explained since Mr. Swendseid could get a bond that bore an interest rate of nine percent, and the market was only six percent, he was willing to pay money for that right. He pointed out by using the mechanism in this bill, one achieved the same effect as calling in the bond without going through the formal process of calling in bonds and issuing new refunding bonds, which saved substantial underwriting costs.
Considerable discussion took place between Mr. McGaughey, Mr. Swendseid and Mr. Leavitt concerning various possible scenarios.
Mr. Swendseid called attention to a memorandum dated June 3 which reviewed the transaction (Exhibit C). He hoped the committee passed the bill.
Mr. Leavitt thought the concept behind the bill was good and could provide some real savings over the years to the various local governments if they chose to participate in this program.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 460.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Bache and Neighbors were absent for the vote)
Chairman Garner requested Mr. McGaughey handle the bill on the floor.
SENATE BILL 536 Requires certain licenses to engage in business to be granted in certain circumstances.
Senator Ray Shaffer, Senate District 2 in Clark County, testified in favor of S.B. 536 and explained this was a fair business practice bill. Growth and expansion in many of the counties required various businesses to relocate, he stated, because the counties needed their property for expansion and used an example to clarify what the bill tried to address. He explained some businesses had restrictions as to how close they could be to one another. For example, he said, if there was a bar and a restaurant with the bar, with two liquor licenses, they had to be 1,500 feet apart in some counties. The county decided, he explained, to pass an ordinance stating if a business was caused to be relocated by an action of the county, the business was allowed to move closer than the 1500 feet, if necessary, to find a location. S.B. 536 stated both licenses must be made equal so they had an equal opportunity to compete for the business. He claimed S.B. 536 was good legislation that made fair business practice.
ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 536.
ASSEMBLYMAN KENNY SECONDED THE MOTION
MOTION CARRIED
(Assemblyman Bache was absent for the vote.)
MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman Garner requested Assemblyman Augustine handle the bill on the floor.
SENATE BILL 156 Requires certain state agencies to obtain approval of department of personnel before purchasing any computer software used for preparation of payroll.
Ms. Robin Gonzalez, representing the University of Reno Staff Employees' Council, testified in opposition to S.B. 156 (Exhibit D). There were no proponents of the bill present.
Ms. Margi Grein, Director of Finance/Public Relations with the Nevada State Contractors Board, also testified in opposition to S.B. 156. Ms. Grein presented an amendment (Exhibit E) which exempted her organization from this bill for several reasons. She said they had several attorney generals' opinions over the last thirty years declaring they were not state employees. She explained they were not subject to the personnel chapter and were exempt pursuant to NRS 284.013. Therefore, since they did not use the state personnel system to hire their employees, she thought it would be a waste of the state's money to have them oversee their payroll software when they were a completely separate entity from the state.
ASSEMBLYMAN MC GAUGHEY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SB-156.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED
(Assemblyman Bache was absent for the vote.)
ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION - 10 Adopts condensation, explanation, arguments and fiscal note for Assembly Joint Resolution No. 24 of 66th session.
Chairman Garner stated he did not feel it necessary to have further discussion on the resolution.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO ADOPT AR-10.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED
(Assemblyman Bache absent for the vote.)
Mr. Gardner stated he would handle the bill on the floor.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 27
In response to a protest from Senator Ernest Adler due to the fact SJR-27 was not being heard in committee, Chairman Garner suggested the senator meet with Lorne Malkiewich as soon as possible. He advised Senator Adler arrangements could be made to reschedule the resolution the following day or sooner, if time permitted. Senator Adler was disturbed he had not been advised of the possible unconstitutionality of the resolution and stated he was sorry he had not been advised of this prior to the hearing. He advised the bill had passed out of the Senate with no problem and had been declared constitutional. Senator Adler reminded Chairman Garner the bill, if passed, had to be forwarded to Congress for concurrence, but that did not mean the people could not vote to remove it. The attorney general's office, he said, did not share the opinion of the Legislative Counsel Bureau on this matter. He advised Chairman Garner he would meet immediately with Lorne Malkiewich.
Chairman Garner suggested the senator return when he had spoken with Lorne Malkiewich and the matter was clarified so he could reschedule the resolution for hearing.
SENATE BILL 416 Makes various changes relating to collection of accounts receivable and removal from records of uncollectible accounts receivable.
Kirby Burgess, representing Clark County, and John Sherman, representing Washoe County, testified in favor of S.B. 416. Mr. Burgess stated he and Mr. Sherman had placed an amendment in the bill on the Senate side. He explained they were requesting a procedure by which to write off bad debts throughout the state. Currently, he advised, there were no procedures. The bill, Mr. Burgess stated, would allow them to use a centralized collection system in the counties or the district attorney's office.
Mr. Sherman declared they supported the bill and thought it was badly needed legislation which allowed a mechanism to properly write off bad debts and also be confirmed by outside auditors that all rules were followed.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 416.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED.
(Assemblyman Bache absent for the vote.)
Chairman Garner requested Mrs. Freeman handle the floor statement.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION - 27
Chairman Garner called on Senator Adler who reported the results of his discussion with Lorne Malkiewich.
Senator Adler had spoken to both Lorne Malkiewich and Harry Swainston, of the attorney general's office, in an attempt to arrive at language with which everybody was comfortable. He advised they had agreed to reinsert the third paragraph on the second page, lines 26 through 30, into the first reprint of the original bill. This section urged Congress to consent to the amendment to the constitution, he explained. He reported they agreed to insert lines 37 through 42 from the original bill, which clarified the bill became effective upon passage and approval, "if approved and ratified by the people of the State of Nevada, does not become effective until the Congress of the United States consents to the amendment,..." He stated at this point they wanted to add, "...or upon a legal determination that such consent is not required."
Senator Adler advised the disclaimer clause of the Nevada Constitution had created a number of problems in lawsuits for the State of Nevada. He read, "That the people inhabitating said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;..." He declared Nevada was required to sign that agreement when they became a state and essentially gave up right to all of Nevada's land and forever disclaimed it to the United States Government. He claimed, that was how the state got to the point where 87 percent of its land was controlled by the federal government. In virtually every lawsuit between the State of Nevada and the United States Government, he said the disclaimer clause was used as a means of dismissing Nevada's claims.
The senator cited several instances where the use of the clause came into effect, including mining inspection at Yucca Mountain and enforcement of boating regulations at Ruby Lake in Elko County. He reported, if Nevada agreed to the disclaimer clause originally, a few years later large tracts of public lands were to be conveyed to the state. Not only did that not happen, he said, but in 1976 the government passed the Federal Land Policy and Managements Act which essentially took those lands away from Nevada forever. Senator Adler maintained this had worked against almost every interest group in the state, and he felt it was time to remove it.
Chairman Garner asked if this was addressed some years back in the Sagebrush Rebellion.
Senator Adler advised that was true, and the clause was used against Nevada in the Sagebrush Rebellion; that was the reason many of the cases were lost.
Mrs. Augustine asked Senator Adler to address page 2, third item, having to do with tax on lands and properties.
Senator Adler thought that meant property tax could not be assessed to non-resident citizens of the United States at a rate higher than its own citizens. It also said Nevada could tax the United States, he stated.
Mrs. Lambert asked if there was any idea of the expense involved in litigating the case. Secondly, she questioned if the issue had come before the Legislature's Committee on Public Lands.
Senator Adler responded the matter was constantly being litigated. He did not think there would be a special lawsuit, since there was always some litigation going on. He imagined the committee would support the issue but did not think they had voted on it.
Chairman Garner asked if the constitutionality question was raised on the Senate side in testimony before the committee.
Senator Adler stated it had been a couple of times, but the Senate had a different version of the resolution.
Chairman Garner wished to confirm both the Attorney General's office and the Legislative Counsel Bureau were satisfied with the proposed amendment.
Senator Adler stated they were.
Mr. Neighbors asked if there was any opposition on the Senate side.
Senator Adler advised the bill had passed 21 to 0.
Chairman Garner told the committee a vote would be taken the following morning, after he had received the language and confirmed with legal counsel.
David Horton, representing the Committee to Restore the Constitution, testified in favor of SJR-27, advising it was important to understand this resolution would be amending an ordinance of the Territory of Nevada. The reason why the constitutional amendment procedure was selected was in 1955 an amendment to the territorial ordinance was initiated, and the constitutional amendment procedure was followed. The most important point, he thought, was the fact they already had a definition of what the rights of the federal government were supposed to be in Article 1, section 8, clause 17. There was a determination by the Supreme Court of the United States which declared the disclaimer clause void. He stated there was the conclusion the right to impose the disclaimer clause was void in Section 5 of NRS 321.596, and the disclaimer clause itself was void. He stated Frank Daykin was of the opinion the disclaimer clause precluded going forward with the Public Lands Ownership Act. Mr. Daykin later came around to the position the disclaimer clause was void, so Mr. Horton recommended the committee do anything they thought necessary in order to eliminate some void language in the territorial ordinance.
Mr. Ed Presley, representing the Home Rule Coalition, stated he worked with a group which had done considerable research on the matter. The conclusion, he said, was the matter needed to be cleaned up, because when there were problems with the federal government, this clause was always thrown in Nevada's face. He strongly supported the bill.
Mr. Joe Johnson, representing the Sierra Club, testified in favor of SJR-27, and declared what was really being talked about was sovereignty and control.
Ms. Stephanie Light, representing Nevada Wool Growers, testified in favor of SJR-27. She reported she lived in Elko, and was aware the Ruby View Golf Course, a municipal golf course, had to have its golf course fees approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior because it was on Bureau of Land Management land. Having been in the ranching community, she stated there were a lot of problems with the federal regulations. Ms. Light urged the committee to support the resolution.
Chairman Garner closed the hearing at 10:20 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara D. Tonge
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
June 23, 1993, 1993
Page: 1