MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES
Sixty-seventh Session
June 21, 1993
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, June 21, 1993, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator William R. O'Donnell, Vice Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana M. Glomb
Senator Lori L. Brown
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Alexander, Committee Secretary
Pepper Sturm, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ashley J. Hall, Lobbyist, Las Vegas-Clark City Library District
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Clark County
Fred Smith, Director of Construction Management, Clark County School District
Henry Etchmendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards
Bob Weber, Director, Building Department, Clark County
Douglas L. Dickerson, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Richard Knapp, State Public Works Board, Chief, Architectural/Engineering Services
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, City of Reno
Jean Laird, Chief Financial Officer, Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation, State of Nevada
Chairman Rawson opening the meeting with the continuation of the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 468.
ASSEMBLY BILL 468: Makes various changes relating to powers and composition of board of trustees of consolidated library district. (BDR 33-92)
Ashley J. Hall, Lobbyist, Las Vegas-Clark City Library District, Board of Trustees, explained the board unanimously attempted to work out a number of areas of concern with Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams. However, there are some inconsistencies in the reprint of the bill, with the testimony given in the assembly. Their concerns begin on page 2, line 8, with reference to the new board of trustees, and suggest substituting the word "shall" for the word "may." He explained, it is essential that a qualified individual be there to run that district on a day-to-day basis.
Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Hall, who is the director at the present time. Mr. Hall responded, Mr. Charles Hunsberger is Director of the Consolidated Library District.
Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Hall, who would appoint the executive director, if the trustees did not. Mr. Hall answered, no one, which would leave the district, without an executive director.
Mr. Hall referred to line 16, page 2, and recommended to keep the old language and remove the new language that was presented.
Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Hall, who would make up the bond commission referenced in Section 3, paragraph 2, line 26. Mr. Hall answered, representatives of the governments of Clark County and the City of Las Vegas, who are elected representatives.
Mr. Hall referred to page 2, line 44 of section 4, and suggested adding language after librarian, which would read, "or in the case of a consolidated district the executive director." He said, "Simply referring to, in the case of a district, to establish, supervise, maintain a library, appoint, evaluate the performance of and if necessary, dismiss the librarian, or in the case of a consolidated district, the executive director." The board of trustees indicated to him, the necessity for adequate accountability, as a strong issue.
Mr. Hall referred to page 3, line 9, and said, the library trustees would like to change the word "approval," to "review and recommendations," in conjunction with a change to page 3, paragraph 3. The trustees will submit a quarterly report to the board of county commissioners and governing body of the city, concerning the budget and programs of the library, and provide additional information requested by either governing body, as soon as it is reasonably practical after receiving the request. Chairman Rawson commented, if an executive director or board of trustees submitted a preposterous budget to the county commissioners for recommendation, is the ability there, to be able to influence or change that. Mr. Hall responded, yes. It was indicated to him by the board of trustees, they do want to be accountable, and are willing to go before the board of county commissioners and city council quarterly, to report their progress, to answer questions, review programs, etc.
Mr. Hall commented, there is no prohibition to the county commission or the city council appointing five of their own members, who are elected officials, to the board of trustees of the library district. He stated, in individual conversations with county commissioners and city council members, he found that very few of them wanted the formal process of approval. The county commissioners and city council members felt, that with the reconstruction of the board periodically through new appointments, they have adequate control over someone taking the library district, in a direction that would not be desirable. Chairman Rawson asked, how long are the terms of the commission. Mr. Hall advised, the terms are 4 years, and they are restricted to two terms.
Chairman Rawson asked, does the county commission or city council have any provision to remove a person from the board of trustees. Mr. Hall responded, yes, and referred to page 2, lines 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Chairman Rawson asked, if a resident feels their needs in the community are not being served, what course of action can they take. Mr. Hall explained, they can go to the library board of trustees and, or to the city council or the board of county commissioners.
Chairman Rawson asked, where can a person go to find out what is the budget. Mr. Hall explained, the person can go to the executive director of the consolidated library district and referred to page 3, subsection 3, line 13.
Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Hall, is there any objection to including the budget information in the county budget, and is there a major concern with the county commissioners approving the budget, versus recommending it. Mr. Hall responded, the board of trustees would not have a problem to place in the county budget and the City of Las Vegas budget, either a summary or a line item relative to the budget. He added, the board of trustees unanimously implied responsibility to the county commissioners.
Mr. Hall suggested two other recommendations. He stated, the word "the," would be stricken on page 3, line 25, 26 and 27. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Hall, is there a reason why you would not want to have an executive director subject to evaluation. Mr. Hall responded, no. He continued by saying, the last recommendation is on page 3, line 44, and this language should be kept. The board meetings are at least monthly and compensation for the members is referenced in the bill.
Chairman Rawson read an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal/Sun, June 20, 1993, "Las Vegas Builders Honored", (Exhibit C). The article informs of two Las Vegas builders being honored at San Francisco's Moscone Center, with the highly coveted Gold Nugget Grand Award, from the Pacific Coast Builders Conference. He commented, there has been a lot of criticism by people in Las Vegas about the library, and people should be proud of this building.
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams presented to the committee, an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal/Sun, June 19, 1993 (Exhibit D). He explained, the highlighted areas reflect some of the things he discussed in the hearing on Friday, June 18, 1993, and he read to the committee the highlighted area. He stated, he had a list of people, throughout Clark County, who have tried to submit bids to the library district and have documentation, that their bids were, in come cases, less than half of what was accepted. He continued, these people were advised by members of the board of trustees, that their bids were turned down because the jobs are given to whomever they chose and that the board does not have to accept bids.
Chairman Rawson commented on the reference in the article (Exhibit D), that the district either has complied or will comply with all of the audit's recommendations. His concern is when a state agency comes in with a lot of audit exceptions and takes an attitude of not needing to comply.
Assemblyman Williams referred to a meeting last summer, with Mr. Hunsberger and the chairman of the board. This meeting was in reference to corrections to the auditorium, at the Las Vegas branch. The director indicated in that meeting that he had a slush fund of over several hundred thousand dollars, with which he could do some of that work. Assemblyman Williams stated, in his opinion, with the remarks the director makes in the newspaper article about being short of staff, having that type of slush fund is unreasonable.
Senator Neal asked Assemblyman Williams, was he suggesting that if the recommendations list of A.B. 468 would have been in place, that these audit exceptions would not have occurred. Mr. Williams commented, some of the outlandish dealings of the library may not have occurred. He stated, A.B. 468 would correct some of the disparities and illegal actions of the library district. He advised also of a problem with various people getting responses from Mr. Hunsberger.
Senator Neal pointed out to Assemblyman Williams, there are five other districts existing in the state, in which A.B. 468 would not cover and asked, should the bill be expanded to include those other districts. Assemblyman Williams explained, those five districts are county districts, which operate differently than the Las Vegas-Clark City Library District, a consolidated district. County libraries operate under elected officials who govern and have some say so and oversight. Those library district tax dollars will go into the county or city. The Las Vegas-Clark County Library District tax dollars go directly to the library district. It is a separate district and operates like an independent government. They operate off of tax payer dollars, but there is no representation. It is taxation without representation.
Chairman Rawson announced, the committee is now in subcommittee.
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Clark County, indicated to the committee that they approved of the bill and amendments, as it was received from the assembly.
Chairman Rawson announced, we are now out of subcommittee.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 468.
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on A.B. 543.
ASSEMBLY BILL 543: Authorizes supervision and inspection of certain construction by board of trustees of school district and allows state public works board to waive certain requirements concerning construction, alteration or repair of school building and delegate corresponding powers and duties to school district. (BDR 34-1915)
Fred Smith, Director of Construction Management, Clark County School District (CCSD), stated A.B. 543 addresses a conflict between the school districts and cities and counties regarding responsibility for and legal liability associated with plan checks and inspections of public works projects for public schools. He stated, the main thrust of A.B. 543 is to provide language which makes it clear, that school districts have the authority to supervise and inspect for code compliance, as well as for compliance with contract plans and specifications for the construction of public schools. In the last 5 years, the Clark County School District has constructed over 15 new schools and 35 major additions, worth over $500 million, under this concept. During the period, CCSD employed 18 full-time, fully qualified inspectors. The proposed legislation would clarify that the school districts would have the authority to continue to operate in this manner. The purposed legislation also enables the State Public Works Board, upon request of the board of trustees of the school district, to delegate to that school district as political subdivisions of the state, as it currently does to other state agencies, some of their responsibilities. Mr. Smith explained, the intent of this provision is to allow school districts to perform an internal plan check on projects that have a minimal potential for code problems and for which the need for a faster than normal plan check is required.
Mr. Smith stated, the City of Las Vegas and the State Public Works board, represented by Mr. Tom Stevens, came together with CCSD to work out language problems, when the bill was in the assembly. He stated, this basically becomes a policy decision, as to whether plan checks and inspections should be done at the local government level or with the political subdivision, such as the school district. He explained, the Clark County Building Department may purpose language today, which would make the legal liability clear. He stated, CCSD would support the proposed wording on that.
Mr. Smith responded to a question from Chairman Rawson and explained, at present CCSD submits all plans to the State Public Works Board for plan checks. CCSD does not submit to the local entities for plan checks.
Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Smith, is this a turf fight, why is there resistance by the local entities to this being done. Mr. Smith responded, in his opinion, there may be some turf battles. He explained, CCSD has met with the City of Las Vegas and the county, regarding this issue. It was indicated that it is preferred to see the conflict resolved. There is a preference, it be resolved in favor of the local entities doing the inspection. The City of Las Vegas and Clark County would be amenable to allow the school district and the State Public Works Board to do the plan checks and inspections, as long as it is clear that the city and the county are relieved of legal liability.
Mr. Smith responded to a question from Senator O'Donnell and advised, the board of school trustees is responsible for everything in the facilities division and construction management department. The concern raised by the cities and counties, is that there are other statutes which basically say that school districts must comply with city and county codes. The cities and counties have no assurance that those codes are being complied with, unless they are performing those plan checks and inspections. Senator O'Donnell asked, does the salary for the 18 inspectors come out of the school district fund. Mr. Smith responded, yes.
Mr. Smith stated, the primary task of the 18 full-time inspectors, is to ensure code compliance. Even if the code compliance inspections were done by the city or county, CCSD would still employ those inspectors as the owner's eyes and ears on the job site, to ensure compliance with plans and specifications.
Mr. Smith responded to a question from Senator Neal and stated, the issue in conflict is, who has the responsibility.
Henry Etchmendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards, stated they are in support of A.B. 543. He referred to page 1, lines 9 and 10 of the bill, and advised that all school districts, cities and counties in the state, hire a clerk of the works, to perform the ongoing contract administration on school projects, to ensure that every detail of the contract, specifications and construction documents is followed.
Senator Neal asked Mr. Etchmendy, what are the duties of the State Public Works Board. Mr. Etchmendy explained, the board approves the plans, but does not do the inspections of school buildings. He referred to page 2, line 19 through 22, and advised, this would be the exception, when the State Public Works Board would waive its duties to approve the plans.
Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Etchmendy, what kind of experience is required of a clerk of the works. Mr. Etchmendy explained, usually a lot of building construction and inspection experience, a lot of knowledge about building practices, reading plans, and actually a full-time employee of, in this case a school district, to be a construction manager for that school district, to ensure that the contractor follows all the plans and specifications. He is not a superintendent of the construction job. The clerk of the works is paid from the capital improvement funds.
Senator Glomb asked, why is this bill needed. Chairman Rawson summarized by saying, there are policy decisions to make, whether or not the local districts should be in charge of the building inspection or if the local areas should be exempted, and the school districts should be responsible for it. In either case, the State Public Works Board would have the ability to waive their responsibility, if they so desired. The issue would be, whether the local district or the local community should have the responsibility of the building inspections.
Mr. Etchmendy stated, his testimony is directed at two lines in A.B. 543 on page 1, supporting CCSD's need for the bill and then clarifying lines 9 and 10, page 1, with regard to inspection of projects, not plan checking.
Bob Weber, Director, Building Department, Clark County, stated, in general he is against the bill as published, because of the conflicts the bill creates, based upon other statutory language. He stated Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.580 establishes some standards currently, for building departments through cities and counties to review plans, make inspections and approve buildings. He presented to the committee, an outline of his comments and policy issues (Exhibit E).
Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Weber, does this create safety issues by allowing the districts to do this. Mr. Weber pointed out, the issue is checks and balances. If only one party is doing the design, construction and inspection, the built in checks and balances as intended by the statute for all construction, is not there. The issue for public protection is one of the issues he is charged with, as a building official for Clark County. The second issue is the liability responsibility they have under the statute, to cover all buildings, other than the state buildings.
Mr. Weber read for the committee, Policy Options (Exhibit E). He explained, depending which option the committee selects, page 2 (Exhibit E) presents Optional Amendments.
Chairman Rawson referred to page 2, Optional Amendments, number 1, item c), and asked, what would fees run on a $10 million school. Mr. Weber advised, the fees would be less than 1 percent. He explained, there are published scales which are adopted, that identify what the appropriate rates are for plan review and inspection.
Senator Glomb asked Mr. Weber, do the school districts either have the option of going through the State Publics Works Board or through local planning. Mr. Weber responded, the bill as written in first reprint, would allow school districts the option of the waiver on page 2, and not have to go through the State Public Works.
Douglas L. Dickerson, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated their concern is to make sure it is clarified that the City of Las Vegas does not have a liability, under these laws.
Richard Knapp, State Public Works Board, Chief, Architectural Engineering Services, explained he represents Mr. Tom Stevens, Manager. He advised, the official position of the State Public Works Board on A.B. 543, is a neutral position. The public works board role is strictly the plan checking, plan review process and they are not involved in the inspection or design. The concern is, if school districts are waived out, there would be the lack of checks and balances. Also, considering the opportunities, experiences and abilities of the people involved at the school district level, and the size and scope of the project, it may be that they are very capable of these responsibilities and could save the district some expenses.
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, City of Reno, concurred with some of the concerns that were stated by Mr. Weber. She stressed, if this bill is passed, the school districts would be exempt, as the state is currently. If a variance is granted on a fire code, it is important that the City of Reno be notified, so if in case of a fire, the firemen would know about any change in the building. She explained, notification of variance requests is important, not for control, but so the city has the opportunity to make input and comment. The main concern of the City of Reno, is that if school districts are allowed to be exempt from local regulation, that provisions be clearly defined, there is not any underlying liability for it.
Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Smith, if A.B. 543 is processed in its present form, is there an objection to adding language which would exempt the school districts. Mr. Smith responded, CCSD would not have an objection.
Mr. Smith clarified for Chairman Rawson, the two issues in A.B. 543 are plan checks and inspections. He stated, CCSD has elected to observe NRS 393 as saying, plan checks or reviewing the designs, is a function of the State Public Works Board. In NRS 278.585, the law states that political subdivisions must comply with city and county codes. CCSD's position is that they are doing that, although they are not submitting those plans to the city and county for plan checks. Chairman Rawson stated, is it because CCSD is going through the State Public Works Board, and Mr. Smith responded, yes.
Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Smith, if a waiver is applied for and the State Public Works Board were to grant the waiver, then the additional language, which would eliminate any liability, may be necessary. Mr. Smith answered, that is correct. Mr. Smith stated, CCSD would never request a waiver on construction of a new school. would only request a waiver on minor projects, such as a minor building addition, or a facade that would be of minor dollar value and little potential for code problems.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 543. He stated, in his opinion, if the committee supports this bill, we would want to add language, so that if a school district wants to self regulate, none of these provisions shall apply to public schools.
Vice Chairman O'Donnell asked permission to work with several people, for a few minutes, in subcommittee.
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on A.B. 602.
ASSEMBLY BILL 602: Makes various changes regarding payment of fees for treatment of indigent clients in state mental health facilities. (BDR 39-674)
Jean Laird, Chief Financial Officer, Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation, State of Nevada, introduced to the committee Jim Bowman, the regional business officer for the northern region. She stated, A.B. 602 is proposed by her division. The division is required to provided services, regardless of the ability of a person to pay for those services. Statute requires a person to bill for those costs, of those services. If the client does not have income or resources to pay the bill, the division uses a sliding fee scale to adjust the bill to the person's ability to pay.
Ms. Laird stated, the proposed amendments in A.B. 602 address the billing statutes and mainly address the following two issues: 1) client responsibility, 2) responsibility of relatives. She presented to the committee a handout, which addresses each section (Exhibit F).
She stated, regarding client responsibility, there has been some confusion regarding intent, as to whether all clients, regardless of the manner in which they are admitted to a division facility, are responsible to pay for these costs. Part of this confusion rests within inconsistent provisions of the law. This amendment takes out what is believed to be those inconsistencies and will clarify that all clients, even though they have been admitted involuntarily, are obligated to pay for the services, if they have income or resources to do so.
Ms. Laird explained, regarding the responsibility of relatives, there has been some concern regarding who is a responsible relative, when it comes to paying mental health bills. This bill clarifies the responsibility and makes it consistent with other Nevada law, addressing the rights and obligations of family members toward each other, for other purposes. She stated, this amendment would remove an adult child's responsibility for a parent.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 602.
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 602.
SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The committee went into a Work Session with Vice Chairman O'Donnell giving a report from the subcommittee on A.B. 543. He explained, it is agreed, that option 2 would be adopted, which eliminates the building departments from inspection, as well as any liability. It is agreed, that by regulation, the fire department would be encouraged to have the school district submit a copy of the plans to the building department, for reference and records.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH OPTION 2, AND THE LANGUAGE, THE FILING OF A COPY OF THE PLANS WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTION FOR PURPOSES OF SAFETY.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Neal stated, this still leaves the school district to review its own plans and make its own judgment about those plans. In his opinion, the legislature should not trust that particular judgement of just one entity, since children are involved.
Chairman Rawson commented, one check and balance on this would be that the state would not have to waive its responsibility. If the state would have concerns about this, they would still have jurisdiction.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL VOTED NO. SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Rawson asked the committee to return to A.B. 468 and look through the proposed changes. He directed their attention to page 2, line 8, and advised, Assemblyman Williams and all parties would accept changing the third word "may," to "shall."
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND THE WORD MAY, TO SHALL ON PAGE 2, LINE 8 OF A.B. 468.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Rawson explained, the next change in A.B. 468 would be to remove the brackets on page 2, line 16. The language would read, "the trustees of a consolidated or county library district may propose the issuance of general obligation bonds, etc." He explained, that change would be dependent upon a change in lines 23 and 24.
Chairman Rawson responded to a question from Senator Glomb and clarified, if the committee strikes line 22, 23 and 24, the trustees of a consolidated library district would be able to propose the issuance of bonds, without the approval of the proposal by the board of county commissioners. That would leave it as it is today, as a taxing district, without having to go through the county commissioners.
A discussion ensued by the committee, reflecting concerns and opposition to this change. Senator Coffin advised of a situation in White Pine county where the school district raised taxes to the maximum, pushing all the other units over the limit, resulting in near bankruptcy. Senator Glomb commented, the board of trustees are appointed by the commissioners. If this language is not included, the board of trustees could issue bonds. Senator Neal clarified, bonds go before the people and are voted upon. Chairman Rawson stressed, the trustees can be removed, both for cause or for lack of performance.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO STRIKE THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE 2, LINE 22 THROUGH 24.
Chairman Rawson stated, the motion dies for lack of a second.
Chairman Rawson commented, in the past, the county commission has taken great responsibility for the water district, the hospitals and a number of districts which have been established. One of the reasons trustees are appointed, is that a certain expertise is wanted.
Chairman Rawson stated, this has worked without this language in it because this is new language, and the Las Vegas-Clark City Library District has operated since 1985, without this language. He asked would this affect White Pine County? Mr. Hall responded, the district only includes the unincorporated areas of Clark County and the City of Las Vegas. Any bonds that would be approved because of their actions, would count against the county capital funds.
Senator Brown explained, the reason she wants to have county commissioners to have input into this, is that a county commissioner is the representative for their area of the county. She stated, she would like to see more accountability.
Mr. Hall responded to a question from Chairman Rawson, and explained something is necessary to come out of this legislative session that diffuses the process, which is destructive to the library district.
There needs to be accountability by the trustees.
Chairman Rawson directed the attention of the committee to page 2, line 44, and explained, the suggested language here would be, librarian, or in the case of a consolidated district the executive director.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND LANGUAGE TO PAGE 2, LINE 44, WITH THE LANGUAGE, OR IN THE CASE OF A CONSOLIDATED DISTRICT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OF A.B. 468.
SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Rawson referred the committee to page 3, line 9 of A.B. 468 and explained, the suggested change in the language is to change the word approval to "recommendation." He said, the question here is, should the budget be submitted for approval or annually submitted for recommendation and review.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND THE WORD APPROVAL TO "RECOMMENDATION" ON LINE 9, PAGE 3 OF A.B. 468.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator O'Donnell stated, if the county commissioners are asked to review and comment on the budget, in his opinion, that is appropriate.
Chairman Rawson commented, this brings into the process the review with the budget, so there is public discussion and comment, etc. He stated, he would like to place in the language, once the budget is finished with this process, that it be placed in the city and county budget. Senator O'Donnell stated, he would like to add that to the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Rawson drew to the attention of the committee to line 25, 26, 27 of A.B. 468.
SENATOR BROWN MOVED TO STRIKE LINE 25, 26 AND 27, PAGE 2 OF A.B. 468.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Rawson directed the committee to line 44, page 3 of A.B. 468.
SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND LINE 44, PAGE 3 BY DELETING THE BRACKETS IN A.B. 468.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Glomb questioned to whom the board of trustees are accountable. Chairman Rawson responded, the county commissioners have the responsibility or appointing authority. He explained, if a separate account was established, then that board of trustees would be responsible for the expenditures, approval, and the supervision of the account.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Rawson referred to page 2, line 22, 23 and 24 of A.B. 468.
Chairman Rawson handed the gavel over to Vice Chairman O'Donnell.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO STRIKE THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE 2, LINE 22, 23 AND 24 of A.B. 468.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Vice Chairman O'Donnell returned the gavel to Chairman Rawson.
Mr. Hall pointed out for clarification, on line 24, page 2, with it being a consolidated district, he suggested to amend the language, to the city council with county commission. Senator Brown suggested that the wording be county commissioners or city council, depending on what would be local. Senator Neal reminded the committee, it is a consolidated district, which is made up of the City of Las Vegas and Clark County.
Senator Glomb referred to page 2, line 24 of A.B. 468 and suggested the language to read, "without a public hearing before the board of county commissioners and or city council."
SENATOR GLOMB MOVED TO AMEND LANGUAGE ON PAGE 2, LINE 24 of A.B. 468 AS SUGGESTED.
SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE, SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AS INDICATED BY EACH OF THESE PROVISIONS AND DO PASS A.B. 468.
SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE, SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
There being no further business, Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Judy Alexander,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
June 21, 1993
Page 1