MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 14, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, June 14, 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:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, District 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Principal Research Analyst
Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Anita Laruy, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, North Las Vegas
Theron H. Goynes, City Councilman, North Las Vegas
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Thomas E. McPherson, Deputy City Manager, City of Las Vegas
Donald Snyder, Representative, Downtown Progress Association
Andrea Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Bill Noonan, Manager, City of Las Vegas
Larry Struve, Director, Department of Commerce
Larry Bettis, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors
Karen Larson, Lobbyist, Clark County
O.C. Lee, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs
Randy Oaks, Captain, Las Vegas Police Department
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, City of Reno
Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 536.
SENATE BILL 536: Requires certain licenses to engage in business to be granted in certain circumstances.
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, District 2, testified in favor of S.B. 536. He told the committee this bill is like a fair share bill in business practices. He explained many business have identified separations between business such as bars, but due to a lot of expansion work by county property, some businesses are caused to relocate because the county has taken the land on which their business is located. He stressed this bill states if a person relocates his business and he wants to penetrate that 1500 feet separation between taverns or any other distance restriction, the businesses that exist there have to be equal in license. He gave an example of one business which has a tavern license and also sells food and next door is a restaurant which has a bar and serves alcohol, the restaurant must keep the kitchen open all night to keep their bar open, but the tavern can stay open all night without any extra cost of operating their kitchen. Senator Shaffer stated this would only happen when the cause of relocating is due to the county and the individual with the business chose to stay in the area and they move their business next to an existing business.
Senator Lowden asked why the city or county would not handle this type of problem locally.
Senator Shaffer stated the individual who helped prompt the drafting of this bill was relocating due to county takings of his property. He explained when this individual applied for the same license he already had, he was told he was within 1500 feet of another tavern and he was not allowed to move into the new location. He emphasized to the committee this bill would only allow this exception when the county has taken business property, causing the individual to move his business.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 536 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 33.
ASSEMBLY BILL 33:Increases number of members on certain county fair and recreation boards.
Anita Laruy, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, North Las Vegas, spoke to the committee in support of A.B. 33. She told the committee because of the continued growth in North Las Vegas that city feels they need a seat on the Las Vegas Visitors and Convention Authority Board. She explained North Las Vegas has a population of approximately 60,000 they feel it is inequitable to share a rotating seat with Boulder whose population is 13,000 and Mesquite whose population is 3,000.
Theron H. Goynes, City Councilman, North Las Vegas, spoke in favor of A.B. 33. He explained the guidelines for the county and fair and recreation boards were created by state statute. He stated in metropolitan areas with a population of over 400,000 guidelines were drawn up for local representation and southern Nevada is the only area with a population of over 400,000 in the state. He explained when the legislature first created a representation on this board six seats were designated for local government and five seats for the private sector. He further explained the six seats, telling the committee two seats went to county representatives, two seats went to the larger cities which is historically the City of Las Vegas, one seat went to the second largest city and one seat alternates among all the other cities. He explained the terms of appointments are for 2 years. Mr. Goynes emphasized because this board is responsible for overseeing the establishment, construction, purchase and improvement of fair grounds, convention halls, auditoriums, public parks, playgrounds, museums, historical sites and other recreational facilities. For that reason it is important that the citizens in the region have equitable representation. He pointed out during the years since the makeup of the board was determined, southern Nevada has grown considerably with an estimated 1992 population of well over 800,000. He maintained the way the statute reads now the third largest city will either be North Las Vegas or Henderson. He told the committee since Henderson recently had a big surge in population, they now serve on the board, which means Boulder City and the newly incorporated Mesquite and the city of North Las Vegas will serve on the board for a 2-year term once every 6 years. He emphasized the city of North Las Vegas is fast approaching a population of 60,000 people and is continuing to grow. Mr. Goyne told the committee with the present structure of board representatives he feels North Las Vegas is not directly represented on the board for 4 years. He stated Boulder City with an estimated 1992 population of 12,000 and Mesquite with an estimated 1992 population of just over 2,000 are much closer in size. He pointed out by adding 1 seat to the county fair and recreation board there would be two representatives from Clark County, two from the City of Las Vegas, one from Henderson and one from the city of North Las Vegas and the seventh seat would alternate between Boulder City and Mesquite. He told the committee it is his belief the citizens and taxpayers of southern Nevada would be more appropriately represented by the addition of one more seat on the county fair and recreation board and he also asked the committee to give strong consideration and support for A.B. 33.
Chairman O'Connell stated her understanding of what the convention authority does really impacts the gaming industry and the funding for it is funded by the gaming industry and she is trying to justify in her own mind North Las Vegas' contribution as far as gaming is concerned. She explained she does not see any equalization as far as
gaming's representation on the board and North Las Vegas. She asked what kind of financial contribution does North Las Vegas make as far as supporting the convention authority.
Mr. Goyne stated North Las Vegas has four casinos and they would contribute a small share.
Ms. Laruy stated North Las Vegas does not contribute as much as Las Vegas or even Mesquite, however, she asked how many hotels are in Henderson. She explained North Las Vegas is about the same population as Henderson within 15,000 to 20,000, however, they both have hotels projected to be built, therefore they are not getting the same type of revenue as the convention authority is getting from the other cities.
Chairman O'Connell stated she could understand putting another member on the board if it was going to represent the strip itself, but she stated that board's responsibility is to bring tourism into the state, especially to the strip area and she stated she has trouble justifying a board member from North Las Vegas.
Senator Hickey told Chairman O'Connell that was not what the board was instituted for. He explained the board is for construction of fairs and recreation facilities which was put into gaming originally and the reason the smaller populated areas are represented is because of the recreation money coming from those areas. He emphasized the money initially was the promotion of gaming, however, he stated when the bond for the expansion of a convention center was turned down the board decided they would develop funding to expand. He concluded North Las Vegas is asking for representation of their casinos and the possibility of the expansion of small casinos off the strip area so he feels they have some interest in what happens on that board.
Ms. Laruy stated she would get some more information to Chairman O'Connell and some actual numbers which may help her understand what the city actually contributes.
Senator Hickey stated if they are going to look at dollar per dollar contributions then the committee must look at what dollar contributions each city makes to the board or remove completely the financial people on the board and turn it over to the politicians and representative groups. Senator Hickey pointed out this board is funded by government money.
Chairman O'Connell stated she thought most of the money was raised by the casino room tax.
Senator Hickey stated tax is generated by the government and it is a room tax.
Senator Lowden stated the casinos levied this tax on themselves in order to create that board.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 33.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O'CONNELL VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 33 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 411.
ASSEMBLY BILL 411: Provides for creation of pedestrian malls in certain larger cities.
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, spoke on A.B. 411. He stated this bill is a redraft of another proposal, but the cost of maintenance and operation would be included. He went through the bill section by section as shown in Exhibit C.
Chairman O'Connell stated section 8 refers to eminent domain and she asked what area the drafters had in mind when proposing this bill.
Mr. Leavitt stated there is some property located in the area where a garage was going to be built and they have been able to purchase parts of that from the First Western group, but there are parts which make up the entire block they feel they may have to acquire by eminent domain. He stated as far as he knows that is the only area of the project right now that would be affected.
Chairman O'Connell asked if the owners had been contacted to see if they would be willing to sell.
Mr. Leavitt stated they have contacted those individuals and they are in the process of negotiating with them. He pointed out they are not certain they will have to use eminent domain, section 8 of the bill simply provides the means if need be, but they will attempt everything possible not to use these means.
Chairman O'Connell asked for a list of the individuals whose property is involved in this so she could contact them and get their feelings for this project.
Mr. Leavitt stated he Is willing to give her that list and to provide current information.
Senator Nevin stated this bill is similar to what Sparks did when they did the Victorian Square.
Thomas E. McPherson, Deputy City Manager, City of Las Vegas, told the committee they have been negotiating with all the property owners in this area. He explained some have indicated a willingness at this point to participate and others are still considering this and have not really committed one way or another whether they are interested in this or not. He stated they have three individuals who are definitely interested in participating in the projects and they are hoping not to have to use eminent domain.
Chairman O'Connell asked if these individuals are very sophisticated in knowing this property can be taken from them if they do not wish to sell.
Mr. McPherson stated these individuals have been informed of this. He explained they have a legal format which was provided to them in writing explaining exactly how the process works.
Chairman O'Connell asked why they need eminment domain in this bill if the city already has that authority.
Mr. McPherson stated the Redevelopment Agency has the authority to do some eminent domain action and that might be particularly with the parking garage Mr. Leavitt mentioned. He told the committee there are two other areas which are not part of the redevelopment project as much as they are this particular Freemont Street Experience and the pedestrian mall. He explained one problem is the property lines along Freemont Street which are not a straight line. He explained some of the city right-of-way zig-zags and the city is anticipating a need, in some cases, to use eminent domain in order to straighten out what they need to on the pedestrian mall. He stated the other issue is air rights where the Freemont Street Experience itself may actually overhang some of the properties.
Senator Raggio stated his question is relevent to section 12 which sets up the district in which assessments are levied. He stated this appears to create a district and the boundries extend not more than 4 blocks from the pedestrian mall and he asked if that area can be justified in relation to the benefits that will be received. He explained if there is a property 4 blocks away from a pedestrian mall, will that property actually receive some benefit from being in that district. He also asked if there had been some open to the public hearings locally to get the support of property owners.
Mr. Leavitt stated this had been done before so that the tax is only on those properties that were to benefit by the particular project. He stated with A.B. 411 they have exactly the same thing in mind so the assessments could be levied against those properties which are receiving benefit from the mall. He told the committee the properties which they have in mind now to levy an assessment against have agreed to the project and there is nobody dissenting from this. Mr. Leavitt explained to the committee it is conceivable that in the future if the project is successful and they have new hotels built in the downtown area, perhaps an assessment might appropriately be levied against them. He emphasized it is because they would be building there to benefit from the mall and it would allow assessment against them.
Chairman O'Connell asked if this assessment was done according to a sliding scale.
Mr. Leavitt stated that is correct. He explained the properties on Freemont Street directly where the canopy is and where the light show and such will take place will be assessed at a higher level than those that are located away from there. He stated both the city and the Downtown Progress Association recognize that, as well as the hotels that are being assessed. Mr. Leavitt pointed out this bill contains a section where there may be a possibility of a business license being assessed against those properties in lieu of an assessment. He explained they have not worked out the details of this and whichever works out will be adopted.
Senator Hickey asked what they are planning to do with the Freemont Street area and what will be the cost.
Mr. Leavitt stated Freemont Street will be redone and they will redo the street and it will be all level there. He explained the whole idea of the project is to improve the looks of the downtown area.
Senator Hickey asked again what the initial cost of this project is going to be.
Mr. Leavitt stated the street and sidewalk construction will be approximately $5 million. He told the committee the hope is they can eventually improve streets and traffic in the downtown area.
Senator Hickey asked if the initial program is to fix Freemont Street as a mall.
Donald Snyder, Representative, Downtown Progress Association, addressed Senator Hickey's questions. He stated the total project costs are estimated at $63 million and the cost of creating the pedestrian mall are included within that. He explained the costs that are covered by any assessments which would be generated under this bill are strictly to defer a portion of the operating cost associated with running it, meaning the maintenance.
Senator Hickey asked what would be the cost of the mainenance.
Mr. Snyder stated the total cost of operating the Freemont Street Experience, when they add in special events and promotions, is between $6 and $8 million a year and it is that cost which will be underwritten by the hotel-casinos. He added any costs which are laid off to other participants within the district through this legislation would be a very small amount which has not been determined because the operating budgets have not been completed. He emphasized the downtown hotel-casinos are really underwriting the largest share of all costs associated with this project from an operating point-of-view.
Senator Hickey asked if there would be no other involvement other than these property owners who are benefiting from the mall.
Mr. Snyder stated that was correct.
Senator Hickey asked if there is an advisory board or if an advisory board is in the works for this project and an operating entity under the advisory board.
Mr. Snyder stated that is right. There would be an advisory board and under their authority would be the operating entity. He explained the operating entity is envisioned to be the Freemont Street Experience limited liability company which is the company being formed by the hotel-casino owners, which is a private company. Mr. Snyder stated he would be the president and chief executive officer of that company and they will be funded by the Freemont Street Experience shareholders which are the hotel-casino owners downtown. He explained they are the same properties which are putting up the $18 million to cover a portion of the capital costs.
Senator Hickey asked where the city street and sidewalks fit into this plan.
Mr. Leavitt stated the city would enter into an agreement with the private operating entity by which they would specify what controls they retain and what controls the city will have and all the other details. He explained the city would have that in an agreement they would enter into privately so the public would be protected.
Senator Hickey asked who would sit on the advisory board.
Mr. Snyder stated there are parallel paths setup in this bill that provide the city the opportunity to contract with a private entity or create a public entity. He explained the advisory board is envisioned to be used only in the case where it was not contracted with a private entity and this bill provides the framework for doing either of these.
Mr. Leavitt continued with his explanation of the bill which is contained in Exhibit C.
Senator Raggio told Mr. Leavitt in section 16 it states there is a cap imposed on local governments for business fee purposes and it has a mechanism on the cap. He asked if there would be a cap on the additional fee which is allowed under this provision.
Mr. Leavitt stated it would not have a cap. He explained he does not know how practical it would be to design a cap which would be appropriate, because as a practical matter they incur expenditures in this project and the more they do with it. He stated the more successful it is the higher the expenditures, but if it is not successful it would be at a very low level. He told the committee it would seem inappropriate to try to control the total expenditures.
Senator Raggio clarified section 13 of this bill would authorize the business license fees and section 12 would apply only to business property.
Mr. Leavitt stated Senator Raggio is correct on section 13. He explained the properties taxed would be the properties which benefit by the mall.
Andrea Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, Inc., stated they are neutral on the pedestrian mall, but they do have some concerns with this legislation. She explained during the past year they have had some problems with the city and that specialized district which is an association unto itself. She told the committee when they launched the idea of a pedestrian mall, even though there was city money involved, some of the meetings were closed to the public and the report which was half paid by the city and half by the private group was kept confidential until after being released at a closed meeting of the association. She feels there has been some confusion as to where the public ends and begins and where the private ends and begins. She told the committee her association is concerned about section 9 on page 5 where it states "the uses to be permitted or restricted" and she stated they would like that deleted. Ms. Engleman stated they also have some concerns about lines 12, 13 and 14, subsection G which states they may close the pedestrian mall to the public for purposes of special events or activities for limited periods-of-time. She explained their concern is to what that means since this is going to be public property and why they would close it to the public.
Mr. Leavitt stated it would not be in the best interest of the casino owners along Freemont Street to essentially close off the entire area which is the area in which their customers have to come in, so there is no intent to do that. He explained they discussed previously the construction site of the Freemont Street Experience and that they could have somebody want to have a private party in one certain area which would be restricted to certain participants. He emphasized they would essentially sell them the use of certain space for a certain period-of-time, but there would be no intent ever to completely close access to all of the casinos. He pointed out it would not be in anyone's best interest to do that.
Bill Noonan, Manager, City of Las Vegas, stated what they are proposing in this section is special event programming. He explained that is the kind of opportunity the downtown will have to show itself off for special events such as a Chinese New Year where they theme a portion of the downtown Freemont Street Experience project towards a special function or event. He emphasized they have no desire whatsoever to close off the area and keep individuals out of the casinos and other activities that are taking place along Freemont Street. He reiterated this is just an ability to utilize special event programming in specific small areas of the project.
Chairman O'Connell asked Ms. Engleman if she has any specific language she would like to suggest for section 7.
Ms. Engleman stated at the top of page 5 they would like to delete newspaper vending machines.
Senator Raggio asked if it would be appropriate to at least have unsightly vending machines or having them in a certain area which would be less of a hazard.
Ms. Engleman stated the decision is usually worked out between the newspapers and the local government and they would find most newspaper publishers are amenable to suggestions if they are approached on a voluntary basis.
Mr. Leavitt stated they are not going to do anything illegal. He explained whatever rules are established for the operation of the project are going to conform to the Nevada Supreme Court guidelines.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 411 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 339.
ASSEMBLY BILL 339: Revises provisions relating to specialized or local ethics committees.
Karen Larson, Lobbyist, Clark County, told the committee this bill addresses local ethics committees. She explained in 1985 under the state statutes the board of county commissioners established a local ethics advisory committee and they concurrently do two things. She stated the first thing is they recommend to the board of county commissioners a code of ethics and the second is they issue opinions to employees as well as elected officials on questions of their personal ethics. She explained an individual can take a question to the advisory commission about personal conduct or something an individual plans to do or a business they plan to get involved in and the advisory committee can individually give advice. Ms. Larson stated only a handful of cases have been brought to the committee. She told the advisory committee they went around and talked to employees about a variety of issues they had many requests for some education on ethics such as why they could not ask hypothetical questions or why the ethics committee could not give out some guidelines. She pointed out they want to do some education for employees and allow the employees to ask questions and get some answers from the ethics committee about specific things such as the use of county equipment, what is proper and what is improper in some situations, to try help through education. She explained it is important to give employees information upfront.
Larry Bettis, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, read proposed amendments from written testimony (Exhibit D).
Senator Nevin asked if there is a fiscal note for the proposed amendment from Mr. Bettis because they are talking about adding additional staff.
Mr. Bettis stated it would be at the city level that they would use the existing staff of the city attorney's office and the only time additional staff may come into play is if the city deems it necessary to hire a special prosecutor if there is a conflict of interest with the city attorney's office. He explained this would be paid through the city funds and no additional money would be requested.
Larry Struve, Director, Department of Commerce, stated he testified in support of this bill on the assembly side. He explained their main interest is in subparagraph 2 of the bill which expands the authority of a departmental ethics committee to give advice in a hypothetic context which he feels could be very helpful in providing guidance and education to employees in the department as to what are the ethical standards. He pointed out current law seems to limit the ability of a specialized ethics committee to only respond to requests from individuals who are seeking guidance on their own conduct which is very important. He explained to the committee circumstances have changed over the years and it is very helpful to administrators and others in the department to get these hypothetical opinions addressed for the guidance of employees to keep them out of trouble. He stated, therefore, the Department of Commerce supports this bill, particularly subparagraph 2 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 281.541 which would allow them to build on the ethics experience they have had in their department.
Chairman O'Connell asked him if he has any comments on the proposed amendments.
Mr. Struve stated it is primarily an amdendment to section 1 which further clarifies what a local government can do in setting up an ethics committee and or establishing an ethics code. He feels his department is not really affected by this change.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 339 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 619.
ASSEMBLY BILL 619: Provides that statutes governing metropolitan police departments do not prohibit participating political subdivisions from establishing certain units of specialized law enforcement.
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, spoke on A.B. 619. He stated this bill is at the request of the city. He told the committee he would like to tell them about the situation which prompted this bill. He stated in 1973 the legislature approved the creation of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and prior to that date the city had its own police department and the county had the sheriff's department. He pointed out it was recognized at that time that it would be appropriate for the city to continue with what the bill calls specialized law enforcement units which are primarily regulatory. He explained they would include such things as animal control officers, marshals, park rangers, arson investigators and parking enforcement officers. Mr. Leavitt stated the city continued to maintain and fund these types of units until the municipal court judge questioned the validity of those types of officers because they are not specifically permitted in the act creating the Metropolitan Police Department. He explained they then questioned the validity and legality of the actions by these particular individuals. He stated subsequent to that time the city appealed the decision and the district court confirmed the right of the city to employ these types of officers and the court has authorized the city to continue with these units. Mr. Leavitt stated sometime in the future an individual may say the actions of these officers are invalid because the city does not have specific statutory authority even though the city has previously gone through the district court level of this process to prove what the city is doing is legal. He stated there may be some language in this bill which needs reexamination and he turned it over to Larry Bettis, City of Las Vegas, to explain the amendment to this bill which should correct the language problem.
Larry Bettis, Attorney, City of Las Vegas, spoke on A.B. 619 and gave the committee a copy of the proposed amendment which is Exhibit E. He told the committee under subsection 3, paragraph a and b be merged which is not in the proposed amendment. He stated it should then read "the authority and jurisdiction of a unit consisting of marshals or
park rangers is limited to a; the issuance of citation in accordance with the provisions of NRS 171.17751 and the enforcement of state laws and city and county ordinances on real property owned, leased or otherwise under the control of the participating political subdivision."
Chairman O'Connell asked for an overall statement of content on NRS 171.
Mr. Bettis stated that is the procedure whereby a peace officer can issue a citation and it also permits non peace officers to issue citations in certain areas where there is an infraction of the city or county ordinance. He explained the citation notifies the individual they violated the ordinance and they have the right to appear in court and enter a plea and it also provides they do so on their own recognizance and they are not put into custody at that point in time. He told the committee what merging paragraphs a and b in subsection 3 does is specify the marshals may issue these citations on property owned by the city or county or under lease or control of the city or county. He explained the way it is worded now it may be interpreted they could give those citations throughout the entire jurisdiction which was not his intent. He stated Exhibit E is a new paragraph which would provide service of warrants of arrest issued by municipal court persuant to the provisions of NRS 5.060 and the removal of abandoned vehicles is authorized by NRS 487.2230. He explained the state marshals are currently performing both of these functions and there are numerous warrants of arrest issued annually by the municipal court, but if this language is not included the burden would fall on the Metropolitan Police Department to pick up this responsibility. He stated it is his understanding the police department is in agreement that the marshals should be able to carry out this function and lighten the burden on the police department. He told the committee the same would be true with regard to the removal of abandoned vehicles. He stated they have had many complaints regarding this and they are currently doing this so they need to include these amendments to continue this jurisdiction in the specialized law enforcement unit known as city marshals. He also pointed out there is new lanaguage following the suggested paragraph D. He stated the current language limits the city marshals or park rangers for issuing citations for traffic violations within the boundaries of recreational areas or city or county parks and the new language would allow those officers to issue those citations on city or county owned property.
O.C. Lee, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, spoke on A.B. 619. He stated this is a piece of legislations which has been involved in deliberations and they have worked it out so he stated they support this bill with the amendment.
Randy Oaks, Captain, Las Vegas Police Department, testified on A.B. 619. He stated they support this bill with some changes on the assembly side. He told the committee they have reviewed the amendment and in fact they suggested the combination of paragraphs a and b in subsection 3. He stated the sheriff supports this bill with the amendments making, it clear that the jurisdiction of these rangers is confined to city property.
Senator Nevin asked Captain Oaks if he was referring to any city property or just where the parks are located.
Captain Oaks stated the bill contemplates city property such as city facilities, city hall, the downtown transportation center and other parks, recreation or detention facilities.
Senator Nevin asked if the park rangers are going to be in city hall towing cars.
Captain Oaks answered with this bill they could.
Senator Nevin stated he believes park rangers belong in parks and not at city hall towing cars. He pointed out they get paid to be in the parks.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 619 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 376.
SENATE BILL 376: Restricts preference given to certain contractors on public works.
Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, spoke on S.B. 376. She told the committee all interested parties have gotten together since this bill was first heard and they have come to a consensus which is in Exhibit F. She stated with this amendment this bill allows certain companies that joint venture with another entity strictly for financial purposes to still continue to joint venture in Nevada.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 376.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 376 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 474.
SENATE BILL 474: Makes various changes to relating to public works projects.
Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, explained the amendment to S.B. 474, see (Exhibit G), to the committee. She stated this amendment incorporates the amendments asked for by the Public Works Board and the school administrators. She stated they deleted subsections 4 and 5 of the original bill under section 2 as had been previously requested. She told the committee all of these amendments have been discussed with all interested parties and they are all in agreement with these amendments.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 474.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 474 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 188, Senate Bill (S.B.) 349, Senate Bill (S.B.) 350 and Senate Bill (S.B.) 374.
SENATE BILL 188: Revises provisions governing preference given to local contractors on public works projects.
SENATE BILL 349: Restricts preference given to certain contractors on public works.
SENATE BILL 350: Provides that various provisions governing construction of public work apply to construction of certain projects that are not public work.
SENATE BILL 374: Allows unsuccessful bidder on public works contract under certain circumstances to bring civil action for damages against contractor who was awarded bid.
Senator Nevin explained all four of these bills were brought together in S.B. 474.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 188, SB. 349, S.B. 350 AND S.B. 374.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 196.
SENATE BILL 196: Requires state agency receiving appropriation from state general fund to submit report to certain legislative committees and appropriates portion of any money that state agency does not expend to increase salaries of its employees.
Senator Nevin explained the amendment to this bill (Exhibit H).
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, stated she supports the amendment to this bill.
Senator Raggio stated all of his concerns had been addressed with this amendment.
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 196.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 196 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 285.
SENATE BILL 285: Requires executive branch of state government to prepare assessment of takings implications on private property for certain governmental actions.
Senator Rhoads told the committee he had been working with various government agencies and they all decided to turn S.B. 285 into a resolution which is contained in Exhibit I. He explained it allows the attorney general to set up a checklist or guideline and it will be done on a trial period for a 1-1/2 years. He stated he would like to add something in the resolution that they have to report back to perhaps a standing committee in the legislature with their progress and any suggestions. He added all the parties are signed off on this.
Senator Nevin stated the resolution only urges the attorney general to report back so if she does not do it there will be nothing to report back.
Senator Rhoads stated she signed off on this and indicated she would follow up.
SENATOR RHOADS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS TURNING S.B. 285 INTO A RESOLUTION WITH THE NEW LANGUAGE.
Chairman O'Connell asked Senator Rhoads if it is his intent to add to the resolution by having a reporting back from the attorney general.
Senator Rhaods stated that was correct.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Nevin asked if the committee had any idea of how this resolution will read. He explained he hated to vote out a portion of an amendment he has not seen. He asked Senator Rhoads how he is going to word the reporting back portion of the resolution.
Senator Rhoads stated he was not sure if it should go to the Legislative Commission or the standing committee of the Senate Government Affairs Committee. He suggested they discuss this with the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Senator Nevin asked if the attorney general also bought off on that also.
Senator Rhoads stated he does not feel there would be a problem with that report back. He asked if anyone has discussed that issue with the attorney general.
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, City of Reno, stated there was some discussion while working on the resolution and the attorney general had originally suggested there be a sunset placed on this resolution. She stated she does not want to speak for the attorney general, but it is more appropriate to have a report back than a sunset.
Senator Rhoads stated he would work with the Legislative Counsel Bureau to get some appropriate language.
Chairman O'Connell asked if it is the committee's wish, if they act on this bill now, they agree an amendment should come back to the committee before it goes to the senate floor.
Senator Nevin stated he has no objections if Senator Rhoads does not have one.
Chairman O'Connell stated they would vote on the motion to amend and do pass S.B. 285 with the language that has been provided by Senator Rhoads which will be shown as an attachment to the minutes (Exhibit I), plus the additional language of a reporting back to either the commission or government affairs for the 1995 session.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 285 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 90.
SENATE BILL 90: Establishes policy and procedure for naming state property.
Senator Callister told the committee he would still like to see some policy even if this bill does not go into effect. He asked if Nevada is the first state to look at this issue.
Chairman O'Connell stated they had investigated the other states and Nevada would be the first to adopt this kind of legislation.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 90.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER AND SENATOR HICKEY VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 90 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 403.
SENATE BILL 403: Requires local government employer under certain circumstances to appropriate amount sufficient to cover cost for employees' health insurance.
Senator Nevin told the committee he has been working on this bill and he is waiting for an amendment. He requested the committee hold this bill for the next work session.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 403 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 381.
SENATE BILL 381: Requires specified additional source of revenue for local governments when new or increased program or service is required.
Senator Callister requested the committee hold this bill for the next work session.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 381 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 281.
SENATE BILL 281: Authorizes administrator of division of state parks of state department of conservation and natural resources to collect fees from senior citizens for special services.
Senator Hickey stated he was supposed to have a report to the committee on the previous Friday on the movement of the gas tax into the park roads, on a percentage basis, to help maintain the roads within the parks, but he stated the amount was so small they may have to move the gas tax to take care of all the expenses. He stated he is still working on this and requested more time.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 281 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 221.
SENATE BILL 221: Revises manner in which salaries of county sheriffs are calculated.
Chairman O'Connell reminded the committee this is the bill which deals with the salaries of county sheriffs and there was an amendment to set up a commission.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 221.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio stated the committee did not get a chance to discuss this bill in detail. He explained it sets up a compensation commission of nine members who will submit their findings and recommendations to the legislative counsel before the 15th of November of each even numbered year. He further explained they would then draft a bill for the compensation of all constitutional officers, state legislators, justices, judges and elected officers of counties. He told the committee within one month of the start of the next session the counsel shall submit the recommended bill draft and findings to the appropriate standing committees.
Senator Lowden stated she is going to vote against this bill because she feels it is a cop out of sorts that they need a middle man to tell them which direction to go. She stated she feels it is a cushion for those who have to vote on such difficult issues such as increasing salaries, but she does not feel she needs someone to direct her to whether or not this should be done. She maintained she could make that decision herself.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O'CONNELL AND SENATOR LOWDEN VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 221 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 324.
SENATE BILL 324: Requires performance of certain activities by private enterprise unless public performance is compelled.
Senator Rhoads told the committee he is working on this bill and they are trying to make a trial performance out of this bill and limit it to just certain items. He asked for a couple of days.
Chairman O'Connell asked Senator Rhoads to make sure this bill is ready to be voted up or down the following Monday.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 324 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 457.
SENATE BILL 457: Creates Nevada commission on long-term planning.
Senator O'Connell stated this is Senator Adler's bill that creates the commission on long-term planning.
Senator Lowden stated in her notes on the prior meeting for this bill Senator Adler thought the Kentucky 21 member commission was a bit lengthy and he was going to request a smaller number of individuals on the commission which is part of what the amendment mentions.
Senator Raggio stated he has a lingering concern about the fiscal note which is attached to the bill. He asked that the bill be held.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 457 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 460.
SENATE BILL 460: Authorizes sale of call feature of municipal bonds.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED DO PASS S.B. 460.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 460 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 469.
SENATE BILL 469: Revises provisions restricting definition of "single-family residence" in local ordinance.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 469.
Chairman O'Connell suggested the committee send a letter requesting the division inform the immediate neighborhood prior to opening one of these homes in their area. She also suggested they give a telephone number to call in case of a problem that needs to be identified.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 469 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 496.
SENATE BILL 496: Requires registrar of voters to allow registration to vote of eligible person who will meet requirement of age or residence on or before next succeeding election.
Senator Nevin stated the problem with this bill is a 17-year-old can register to vote, vote in a primary and file for office which is in violation of Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 496.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RHOADS ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 496 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 156.
SENATE BILL 156: Requires certain state agencies to obtain approvial of department of personnel before purchasing any computer software used for preparation of payroll.
Chairman O'Connell stated there is a request for an amendment from the treasurer's office. She explained there would be automated teller machine (ATM) cards so they would not be issuing checks which get lost. She stated this could be amended into the section of law that already exists.
Senator Raggio stated this is one of the bills which came out of the interim committee and the purpose is to eventually consolidate the payroll function. He explained this is a transitory measure that would require any state agency which is going to purchase computer software to purchase one which is compatible to the other programs for payroll. He told the committee the university opposes this. He stated he feels the bill ought to be processed as is with no exemptions because the state payroll systems should be uniform at some point. He did state he could concede to the university being on a different system.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED DO PASS S.B. 156.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 156 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 166.
SENATE BILL 166: Makes various changes relating to department of data processing.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 166.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio explained this will be covered by whatever reorganization bill the state passes and he does not feel this bill will be necessary.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 166 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 417.
SENATE BILL 417: Revises provisions governing budget and requires fiscal note on legislation containing appropriation to indicate if appropriation is included in executive budget.
Senator Hickey stated he had made a notation that this bill needs a fiscal note.
Senator Raggio asked that they hold this bill.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 417 and opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 5.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 5: Directs Department of Data Processing to conduct study of feasibility of consolidating state centers for data processing.
Senator Raggio stated this is needed and may be an interim study or just a study by data processing. He asked the committee to hold this bill until they decide what they should do with it.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.C.R. 5 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 33.
ASSEMBLY BILL 33:Increases number of members on certain county fair and recreation boards.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 33.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTIN.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O'CONNELL VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 33 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 339.
ASSEMBLY BILL 339: Revises provisions relating to specialized or local ethics committees.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 339.
Senator Hickey stated he was not here for this meeting and he wanted to know what this bill does that is not already done by the state.
Chairman O'Connell stated it has to do with the county and it is a vehicle to allow the county departments to share with their employees what their policies are as far as ethics.
Senator Hickey asked the committee to hold this bill. He explained what caused the pushing of this ethics bill is the city determination of ethics which is overruled by the state.
Seantor Nevin withdrew his motion.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 339 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 619.
ASSEMBLY BILL 619: Provides that statutes governing metropolitan police dpeartments do not prohibit participating political subdivisions from establishing certain units of specialized law enforcement.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 619 TO INCLUDE A AND B UNDER SUBSECTION 3.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
June 14, 1993
Page 1