MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
May 24, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, May 24, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Joan Lambert, Assembly District 29
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dana R. Bennett, Senior Research Analyst
Ricka Benum, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks
Cindy Cook, Member, Sparks City Council
Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Government Affairs Director, Associated
General Contractors, Nevada Chapter
John Madole, Executive Director, Associated General Contractors
Jack Tedford, President, Tedford Construction
Chris Denning, Associated General Contractors, Las Vegas Chapter
Jesse C. Paulk, President, TAB Contractors, North Las Vegas
Tom Stephens, Manager, State Public Works Board
Anita Laruy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
James A. Bell, City Engineer, City of North Las Vegas
Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards
Brian Hutchins, Deputy Attorney General, Department of
Transportation
John Sherman, Lobbyist, Washoe County
Jack Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Building and Trade Council
Andrew Urban, Lobbyist, City Attorney's Office, City of Henderson
Alan Glover, Lobbyist, Helms Construction Company
Elaine McNeil, Associated Builders and Contractors, Southern
Nevada and Sierra Nevada Chapters
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Clark County
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
George L. Cotton, Affirmative Action Manager, Clark County
Kirby Burgess, Lobbyist, Clark County
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing and requested testimony on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 443.
ASSEMBLY BILL 443: Authorizes city council when sitting as redevelopment agency to add mayor as member of agency. (BDR 22-830)
Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, summarized the background of A.B. 443. Ms. Foster stated the bill was requested by the City of Sparks to enable the mayor, who is not technically a part of the city's legislative body to sit as a member of the redevelopment agency. She explained that staff determined the statute language was not clear, as to the mayoral position of such as the City of Sparks. Ms. Foster stated the mayor votes in cases of a tie, vote, presides over council meetings and may veto council actions. The Sparks' mayor may represent the city in a voting capacity on certain boards, such as the regional governing board and the convention authority. According to Ms. Foster, current law allows for the council to appoint itself or five citizens to comprise the Redevelopment Agency. Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Reno have appointed themselves, with the mayor being appointed as either the chairman or a member of the agency. Carson City has appointed a group of citizens, leaving Sparks as the only city with the mayor omitted as a part of the Redevelopment Agency. She pointed out that no other city has started a Redevelopment Agency, so they requested enabling legislation giving any city starting a redevelopment agency in the future, the option of whether or not to include the mayor.
Ms. Foster indicated the inclusion of the mayor as a member of the redevelopment agency, could potentially result in a tie vote situation. The city council and the redevelopment agency addressed this question before requesting the bill draft. Ms. Foster indicated since the most important duty of the agency is deciding how funds are to be spent, the feeling of the city council was if a project is worth spending on, it is worth requiring a majority, or four votes.
Cindy Cook, Member, Sparks City Council, echoed Ms. Foster's comments in support of A.B. 443. Ms. Cook also pointed out the third phase of Sparks' redevelopment was created and initiated by
the current mayor.
Senator Nevin made note of the fact that the language in A.B. 443 would enable the mayor to take part in the redevelopment agency. If in the future, other mayors chose not to participate, they would not be required to do so.
Chairman O'Connell indicated she would accept a motion on A.B. 443.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 443.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing to testimony on SENATE BILL (S.B.) 474.
SENATE BILL 474: Makes various changes relating to public works projects. (BDR 28-1401)
Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Government Affairs Director, Associated General Contractors (AGC), Nevada Chapter, offered testimony in favor of S.B. 474. Ms. Miller stated amendments submitted by the AGC have been incorporated into the bill.
Ms. Miller outlined each section of the bill and its effect and the reasons for specific requests. She said section 1 serves to declare the legislature's intent regarding bid shopping. According to Ms. Miller, the language implies bid shopping is not an ethical practice and shall not to be done during the bidding procedures.
Continuing, Ms. Miller stated the language in section 2 requires a listing of subcontractors on public works projects, and also sets out what may cause the removal of a subcontractor from a project. She explained this portion of S.B. 474 requires that the successful contractor awarded a public works bid, must submit a list of sub-contractors complete with Nevada contractors license numbers, and adhere to the other guidelines set out in this section, within 2 hours of completion of the bid.
Section 3 of the bill was changed to include convention facilities as public projects. Section 2, subsections 4 and 5 of the original bill were entirely taken out.
John Madole, Executive Director, Associated General Contractors, explained the new subsection 4 of the bill encourages public bodies to accept informal bids on projects between $25,000 and $100,000. These offers for bids would be sent certified mail to contractors, rather than by formal bid, in an attempt to simplify the process of those projects with the smaller dollar amount. According to Mr. Madole, this would serve to open a portion of public works market that typically, has not been available to the private industry because of the cumbersome bidding process. He indicated this would benefit minority, small or new contractors.
Jack Tedford, President, Tedford Construction, spoke favorably of this section of the S.B. 474. Mr. Tedford stated there is a need for the small contracting companies to have the opportunity to do these public works projects, in order to work into the bid jobs. This would enable them to compete with the government agencies for work in this price range of public projects.
Mr. Tedford pointed out that oftentimes governmental agencies may spend tax dollars in excess of $150,000 on equipment that is only needed for a few weeks a year. The result is taxpayers end up paying for full equipment yards, not to have streets and roads repaired. If these small projects are bid out, the entire amount goes to work and not equipment.
In the brief discussion that followed, the committee requested these small types of bids requests, be sent to all qualified, properly licensed bidders. Senator Hickey questioned the wording "properly licensed."
Mr. Madole clarified that a company's financial strength is what determines the dollar limit on a contractor's license. The licenses are issued with limits,. Mr. Madole stated the wording in S.B. 474, would prevent a contractor with a $35,000 limit on their license from bidding on a $50,000 project, because he would not be properly licensed for that large of a project.
Ms. Miller outlined the language in section 6. She stated it defines the meaning of "5-year term" in regard to construction contracts. This clarification was requested by the AGC after controversy arose, which resulted in litigation. The difficulty came in determining if the intent of the statute is to mean 5 calendar years, or the immediate preceding 60 months, she added.
Continuing, Ms. Miller further explained the AGC also requested as clarification, that the sales and use tax imposed also applies to Chapters 372, 374 and 377 of Nevada Revised Statutes. She added that S.B. 474, also states any combination of the sales and use tax or the motor vehicle privilege tax, will qualify a contractor for
the bidder's preference. This language was included to assist small contracting companies to qualify for the preference.
Section 6 subsection 3 of the bill allows a contractor to update its bidder preference status on a quarterly basis. Ms. Miller explained this serves to reduce the amount of documentation a public agency has to review during the bid award process. Section 7 repeals the prospective provision of qualifying for the preference from the amount of their business tax. This language was included to ensure that the amount a contractor uses to qualify for the bidders preference, is tied to actual use in construction projects.
Chairman O'Connell asked Ms. Miller to clarify for the record, if S.B. 474 is a consolidation of the other public works bills heard by the committee. The chairman listed those bills as:
SENATE BILL 188: Revises provisions governing preference given to local contractors on public works projects. (BDR 28-131)
SENATE BILL 196: Establishes program for payment of bonuses to certain state employees. (BDR 31-134)
SENATE BILL 349: Restricts preference given to certain contractors on public works. (BDR 28-723)
SENATE BILL 350: Provides that various provisions governing construction of public work apply to construction of certain projects that are not public work. (BDR 28-724)
SENATE BILL 376: Restricts preference given to certain contractors on public works. (BDR 28-1644)
Ms. Miller responded that S.B. 474 covers the same areas as the other public works bills, the language is similar, however, not exactly the same. She indicated the provisions in S.B. 474 are an attempt to accommodate the small contractor and offer protection to subcontractors on public works jobs. Also, it is meant to give some relief to the overburdened public agencies. Ms. Miller stated the topic of joint ventures in regard to public works projects is not addressed in S.B. 474, at the request of Senator Nevin.
During the brief discussion that followed, Senator Nevin agreed with the chairman, that the other public works bills have been addressed in S.B. 474.
Chris Denning, Associated General Contractors, Las Vegas Chapter, offered support for the bill. Mr. Denning indicated he had worked with Ms. Miller on amended language and urged the committee to support the measure.
Jesse C. Paulk, President, TAB Contractors, North Las Vegas, echoed the comments of Mr. Denning.
Tom Stephens, Manager, State Public Works Board, testified in favor of the provisions contained in S.B. 474. Mr. Stephens submitted amended language (Exhibit C) to be included in the measure. He explained the amendment would allow the project owner to object to a subcontractor and request a substitute. He indicated the owner would then be responsible for any increase in cost that may occur due to the substitution.
Anita Laruy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, spoke in opposition to S.B. 474. She introduced James A. Bell, City Engineer, City of North Las Vegas, to discuss the sections of the bill they have difficulty with.
According to Mr. Bell, the majority of all public work in the City of North Las Vegas is contracted out. He cited poor bid response as the major reason for using contracts rather than the bidding method to award projects. Mr. Bell indicated section 4, subsection 2 of S.B. 474 would place severe limits on public entities, especially a small city like North Las Vegas. The requirement to solicit bids for any project estimated to be more than $25,000 would place extreme burdens on small public bodies. Mr. Bell testified his city oftentimes contracts projects up to $100,000. He added this language also serves to increase the level of government and may reduce responsiveness.
Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified similar language to that in section 6 of S.B. 474 was drafted as an assembly measure. Mr. Etchemendy indicated the language proposed by the AGC would adequately address the concerns he raised and the assembly bill could be indefinitely postponed when it is heard.
Mr. Etchemendy offered an amendment to S.B. 474 (Exhibit D), to be included on page 4, line 44 of the bill. This proposed language would require contractors to submit proof of payment of taxes to qualify for the bidder's preference.
Brian Hutchins, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Transportation, voiced his agreement with the bill in its amended form. Mr. Hutchins also was in agreement with Mr. Etchemendy's proposal.
Regarding page 4, lines 34 through 36, it is Mr. Hutchins belief, the proposed language is not an attempt to make sure that contractors have paid sales and use taxes in each of the 60 months, prior to submission of the bid. But, rather, that they have paid the taxes in each of the 12 month periods.
Mr. Hutchins suggested making the language on lines 41 and 42 of subsection 3, consistent with subsections 1 and 2 of S.B. 474. He offered as proposed language:
...any combination of such sales and use taxes and motor vehicle privilege tax in an amount of not less that $5,000.
It was brought to the committee's attention by Mr. Hutchins, that the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) requested a bill draft that would allow a public agency that has a pre-qualification program, to allow its contractors to requalify for the bidders preference on an annual basis. To his knowledge, NDOT is the only agency that has a pre-qualification program.
John Sherman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, expressed concern that the type of bid soliciting referenced in section 4 of S.B. 474, could leave the public entities open to litigation. He pointed out it is not clear who should maintain the bidder list and it does not state if this list is mandatory, for an informal bid.
Jack Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Building and Trade Council, offered support for S.B. 474. He commented favorably on the quarterly review for the bidder's preference.
Andrew Urban, Lobbyist, City Attorney's Office, City of Henderson, expressed concern with section 4 of the bill and the method in which three contractors would be chosen from the list. Mr. Urban requested that portion of the statute be left as it is currently, to allow public entities the flexibility to select whether to bid or contract for a project.
Alan Glover, Lobbyist, Helms Construction Company, offered support for S.B. 474 in its amended form.
Elaine McNeil, Associated Builders and Contractors, Southern Nevada and Sierra Nevada Chapters, also spoke in support of the measures.
Senator Hickey requested the chairman to consider amending S.B. 474 with language appropriated to exclude the smaller cities of the state. He suggested the addition of an exclusion based on population.
In response, Chairman O'Connell asked Senator Nevin to include working out appropriate language that would address the concerns expressed by the city representatives, along with the other
amendments requested. She closed the hearing on S.B. 474 and opened the meeting to testimony on A.B. 438.
ASSEMBLY BILL 438: Revises provisions of Senate Bill No. 307 of this session to limit authorization for creating and financing park districts to certain larger counties. (BDR S-1900)
Assemblyman Joan Lambert, Assembly District 29, explained to the committee that A.B. 438 is a trailer bill to Clark County's park district bill S.B. 307.
SENATE BILL 307: Provides for creation and financing of park districts by counties. (BDR 20-601)
Explaining that S.B. 307 seems appropriate for Clark County, Mrs. Lambert stated it would not work well for the other counties in the state. Since there was not time to amend the first measure, she introduced A.B. 438.
Mrs. Lambert continued:
...while Clark County had tailored it to fit their situation, other counties have not had the ability to do that. They have different situations and needs...many have had the residential park instruction tax in place for a longer period of time...at a higher rate. Some are much closer to the...statutory property tax and have trouble implementing it. I think some of them would not feel comfortable with people in the district paying for building and maintaining parks that are outside of the district...
If other counties want park districts, I think there can be a better mechanism put into place to fit their needs ...I would ask you to pass A.B. 438, making the park districts in Clark County exclusive to Clark County...
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, offered amendments to A.B. 438 in written form (Exhibit E). Ms. Vilardo recounted for the committee's information, she originally requested amendments for S.B. 307 that would make the measure applicable only to Clark County.
Ms. Vilardo suggested the committee rescind action on S.B. 307, since there is, at present, requests introduced in the assembly for interim studies on taxing districts and infrastruction. According to Ms. Vilardo, S.B. 307 is flawed and contradictory to the method used to establish other taxing districts. She offered the
amendments to be added to A.B. 438, that would serve to "clean-up" the S.B. 307, if the committee's choice is not to rescind passage.
After general discussion among the committee members, the chairman requested motions on the measures discussed.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 438.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR
THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO BE EXPEDITED TO REPEAL S.B. 307 OF THIS SESSION.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR
THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 442: Requires counties hiring permanent residents of United States to obtain certain documentation and makes various changes to provisions relating to employment of deputies of certain county officers. (BDR 20-453)
George L. Cotton, Affirmative Action Manager, Clark County, testified A.B. 442 will serve to bring current Nevada statutes into compliance with federal laws. Mr. Cotton indicated those most affected would be county clerks and recorders. The present law came about in 1941 and states that in order to hold a position in the clerk's office one must be a United States citizen, 21 years of age, reside in the county for 30 days and in the state for 6 months, prior to selection. Mr. Cotton indicated this language is now unconstitutional, if challenged.
Chairman O'Connell asked what brought this to the attention of management if it had not been questioned since 1941. Mr. Cotton explained that a person from Nebraska had applied for an administrative position in the county clerk's office. The applicant was rejected by the personnel department, for not meeting the county and state residency requirements. The applicant threatened a lawsuit, which resulted in the research of current state statutes.
Chairman O'Connell noted the reference to the immigration reform act, mentioned by Mr. Cotton is stated on line 7 of A.B. 442.
Senator Raggio questioned whether this language would also pertain to U.S. citizens. Mr. Cotton indicated that persons would not have to be U.S. citizens, but, would have to meet residency requirements. He noted that it is consistent with the federal guidelines after the immigration reform act became effective.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 442 and began the work session portion of the meeting. The first measure discussed was A.B. 441.
ASSEMBLY BILL 441: Authorizes creation of municipal library district in North Las Vegas. (BDR S-934)
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 441.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman O'Connell informed the committee that she requested the legislative counsel to review the language that references the operating rate of the proposed library district. In response, counsel advised that the language is broad enough to allow North Las Vegas to be taken in under the operating rate of Clark County. The chairman recounted that was not the intention of the representatives from North Las Vegas, who proposed A.B. 441.
Ms. Laruy agreed with the chairman and stated it is her understanding that North Las Vegas would have the same tax rate, but not be included in the county library district.
General discussion ensued and it was clarified that the intent of the bill is to create a municipal library district, of its own, for North Las Vegas.
Senator Raggio commented his main concern is with subsection 3 of A.B. 441. He noted that the last time a library district was created, the language inadvertently, included it in the distribution of the Supplemental City-County Relief Tax (SCCRT). After the error was discovered, the district would not relent on the language, which resulted in a monetary shortage to the other entities. Senator Raggio pointed out that mistake should be corrected, because that was not the intent when the Clark County Library District was created.
Chairman O'Connell asked Ms. Laruy if the measure allows for the library district to levy a rate without a vote of the people.
Ms. Laruy stated that is correct, it would be operated the same as the other library districts in the state.
Chairman O'Connell clarified for the record, that Ms. Laruy understood that if passed, the measure would include the operating debt of the county district, which is currently at 10 cents.
Ms. Laruy stated yes. She would relay that information to the staff and the City of North Las Vegas. Ms. Laruy indicated that during discussions with city officials and staff, the 10 cent rate would not present a problem.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O'CONNELL VOTED NO.
SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell told the members the requestor of S.B. 251 has requested the measure be withdrawn.
SENATE BILL 251: Establishes confidentiality of certain criminal records. (BDR 19-433)
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 251.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The next order of business discussed was S.B. 381.
SENATE BILL 381: Requires specified additional source of revenue for local governments when new or increased program or service is required. (BDR 31-342)
The committee was reminded by Chairman O'Connell that the measure was requested by the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO). NACO is concerned that without passage of S.B. 381, the legislature would not be required to supply funding for mandates.
Chairman O'Connell expressed reservations on the broadness of language contained in the bill.
Senator Raggio pointed out that evidenced by the recent statewide vote, the public clearly supports the concept of S.B. 381. He stated an attempt should be made to incorporate it into law. Senator Raggio suggested consulting with legislative counsel to discuss methods of including limitations to the measure before any action is taken.
The next measure considered was S.B. 416.
SENATE BILL 416: Requires county to establish procedures for collecting accounts receivable owed to county and removing uncollectible accounts receivable from records of county. (BDR 31-1956)
It was noted by Senator Raggio that suggested amendments from the Washoe County representative, Mr. Sherman were submitted. Please see Exhibit F.
Continuing, Senator Raggio stated:
...instead of limiting it to the district attorney, [the language] should be 'or a central collection function' and also...amend NRS 352.486 with the language 'rather the accounts receivable are being removed in a court, with proper procedures.' That would be an audit function as well...
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 416
AS STATED.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Rhoads questioned the possibility that the other counties may have procedures for removing uncollectible accounts from their records. He noted that during the original hearing of S.B. 416 he had requested input from county representatives.
Kirby Burgess, Lobbyist, Clark County, told the committee the bill was discussed during the recent NACO board meeting. He stated there was general consensus with the measure and comments indicated there were no foreseeable problems with passage of S.B. 416.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR
THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell brought up A.B. 106 for discussion.
ASSEMBLY BILL 106: Allows high school pupils to act as trainees for position of election board officer.
(BDR 24-210)
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 106
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Lowden expressed concern with the portion of the bill that allows that students to receive payment for election work. She pointed out the students are given academic credit for the work as well as time away from school.
Senator Nevin recounted that testimony indicated students are paid, as all other election workers, to ensure that all the workers are considered on an equal basis. He also made note of the fact that students must get credit for government, whether or not they work at the election polls.
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO AMEND SENATOR NEVIN'S MOTION BY CHANGING LINE 1 ON PAGE 2 OF A.B. 106 TO READ A TRAINEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICE.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A MAJORITY. (SENATORS RHOADS, HICKEY AND NEVIN VOTED NO. SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO AMEND LINE 1 ON PAGE 2 OF A.B. 106 TO READ A TRAINEE MAY RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICE.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATOR NEVIN CHANGED HIS MOTION ON A.B. 106 TO DO
PASS AS AMENDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR
THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell moved to the next order of business, A.B. 143.
ASSEMBLY BILL 143: Makes various changes regarding county fire protection districts. (BDR 42-255)
The chairman requested the members to review the proposed amended language, submitted by Lyon County (Exhibit G), included in their meeting packets.
It was pointed out by Senator Nevin the amendment should include additional changes in the compensation figures. He said he understands the amount on page 2, line 35 should be changed from $6,000 per year to $3,600 as compensation for serving on the board of directors of a fire district. The senator requested to have
Mr. Pappageorge clarify the amended figures.
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, was requested by Assemblyman Gibbons to speak to the bill on his behalf. He was instructed by Mr. Gibbons to offer those figures mentioned by Senator Nevin, in an attempt to compromise on the compensation figures.
Chairman O'Connell shared with the committee the most recent developments on the changes. She said that since A.B. 143 was originally heard in committee, Assemblyman Dini had proposed to further amend the compensation figures. Continuing, she relayed comments from Mr. Gibbons that he sees such a strong need for the bill, that if necessary, he would agree to leave the language on line 35 at $1,800, rather than $3,600.
Senator Lowden commented she does not see a justification for a salary increase. She added this is not the time to be raising salaries when the state is looking in every direction to cut costs.
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 143 BY ELIMINATING THE COMPENSATION FIGURE OF $6,000 ON PAGE 2,
LINE 35.
Chairman O'Connell requested the amendment offered from Lyon County be considered and addressed as part of the motion.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO AMEND SENATOR LOWDEN'S MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS BY ADDING THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE REFERENCED AS EXHIBIT G AND TO INSERT THE FIGURE OF $3,600 AND DELETE THE FIGURE OF $1,800 ON PAGE 2 LINE 35 OF A.B. 143.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED SENATOR HICKEY'S MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR LOWDEN VOTED NO. SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell requested a motion to amend and do pass as stated above.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 143 AS AMENDED IN THE PREVIOUS ACTION.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR LOWDEN VOTED NO. SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The next measure considered by the committee was A.B. 198.
ASSEMBLY BILL 198: Revises procedure for refunding surplus money from local improvement districts.
(BDR 21-837)
Senator Nevin stated his concern with the language contained on page 1, line 18 of A.B. 198. He suggested the phrase "administrative cost" be amended to read "actual cost."
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 198 BY CHANGING "ADMINISTRATIVE COST" TO "ACTUAL COST" ON PAGE 1, LINE 18.
Senator Rhoads questioned if Senator Nevin's proposed wording would serve to broaden the costs. Chairman O'Connell clarified the intent was to narrow the costs.
Dana R. Bennett, Senior Research Analyst, brought to the chairman's attention that it was her understanding the wording originally discussed was "actual administrative" costs. Senator Nevin agreed with Ms. Bennett and corrected his motion accordingly.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR
THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 354: Clarifies that municipality may by condemnation acquire property for project within or without municipality. (BDR 21-819)
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 354.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
* * * * *
There was brief discussion by the members of the committee on whether to hold the bill or take further action.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 354.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 253: Enacts interstate compact for certain operations by Nevada National Guard.
(BDR 36-756)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 253.
Senator Callister indicated that during testimony, the proponents did not present a strong case citing the reasons this compact is necessary.
Chairman O'Connell said she understands the Governor does currently have the ability to send the Nevada National Guard to another state. She further explained the focus of A.B. 253 is to have an interstate agreement. It is the attempt by the proponents of the bill, to have the same language passed in every state, so there is uniformity, and assurance they would be operating under the same rules from state to state.
Senator Rhoads expressed concern there was no testimony from any law enforcement agencies or divisions. Therefore, it is not clear if they would need or want assistance from out-of-state military personnel, should the need arise, he added.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
* * * * *
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 253.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator Raggio commented:
I understand the committee's action and there has been a lot of communication against this bill...but I still believe it is misdirected. The testimony we heard here was really not pertinent to this bill but, more to the issue of takings and governmental intervention in other matters...it was misdirected...I think the national guard people made a strong case for this type of cooperative effort, clearly under the control of the Governor, who could...authorize or rescind this authority...
I think unless we do some things like this to deal effectively with the rampant proliferation of drug abuse and allow for this kind of meaningful drug interdiction that we are never going to solve this problem...I think this was a worthwhile attempt and I commend the states that are going to get involved in it...I do not think the fears of some kind of national police force, or the role they might be asked to play otherwise is clearly delineated in the proposed compact. For that reason, I felt they had made a meaningful case.
Senator Nevin commented that he was informed the Governor has the ability to send the guard to another state at present. He questioned if his information was not accurate.
Senator Raggio stated he did not believe the Governor has that power without the type of compact referenced in A.B. 253. He noted it is clearly limited to drug interdiction and counter drug activity.
Chairman O'Connell stated her information from legislative counsel is that the Governor currently has the right to send troops. There is nothing in the statutes that would prevent the Governor from taking that kind of action.
The next measure discussed by the committee was A.B. 376.
ASSEMBLY BILL 376: Makes various changes to statutory provisions governing public employment of persons with disabilities and prohibits expressly discrimination against certain persons. (BDR 23-687)
There was brief discussion disclosing that the language in A.B. 376 was nearly identical to federal language. There was clarification the measure would serve to bring Nevada statutes in line with the federal disability laws.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 376.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell requested the committee's consideration on whether or not to concur with Amendment No. 370 to S.B. 54.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 370
TO S.B. 54.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ricka Benum,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
May 24, 1993
Page 1