The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Thursday, March 18, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Robert (Bob) E. Price, Assembly District 17

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Assembly District 27

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Bache called the meeting to order and introduced four Bill Draft Requests (BDRs).

• BDR 31-1580 – Establishes severe financial emergency fund for loans to local governments in severe financial emergency (A.B. 606).

• BDR 28-1578 – Revises provisions relating to state public works board

(A.B. 605).

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 28-1578.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

**********

• BDR 42-1491 – Makes various changes regarding duties of state fire marshal (A.B. 607).

.

• BDR 23-1277 – Expands applicability of provisions regarding collective bargaining and occupational diseases to include certain additional peace officers (A.B. 412).

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 405 and introduced Assemblyman Robert (Bob) Price, Assembly District 17, who would speak on the bill.

Assemblyman Price began testimony on A.B. 405 by describing it as a proposal to control what was normally referred to as "slamming" on long-distance telephone service. Mr. Price was "slammed" three times during 1998. On those occasions his long distance company was changed to a different provider than the one he had and preferred. He recalled in two cases he had signed a piece of paper in support of something, or perhaps entered a contest. He could not recall the exact details. As he checked further, he learned the practice was becoming quite common. He felt it was a deceptive practice and introduced A.B. 405 as a means of controlling it.

The same problem was occurring with utilities other than telephone service, Mr. Price continued. As various phases of deregulation occurred around the country, "slamming" would become more common. A.B. 405 required a utility or alternative seller to include a request to change service be printed in very large letters and require the signature of the customer.

Chairman Bache referred to a note he had received from Judy M. Sheldrew, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission. Ms. Sheldrew made reference to Assembly Bill 306 of the 69^th Legislative Session and Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 704.985 which stated, "The Commission shall establish procedures to ensure that a customer of an alternative seller is not switched to another alternative seller without a reliable confirmation of the customer’s intent to make such a change and approval of the specific details of the change." Mr. Bache felt the intent of A.B. 405 was already in law, but it would prohibit utilities from making changes by telephone. A.B. 405 would require changes in writing.

Commissioner Sheldrew, who was unable to attend the hearing on A.B. 405, had provided the committee with a letter and documentation reiterating her observations on both A.B. 405 and A.B. 449 (Exhibit C).

Assemblyman Price felt there was an appropriate procedure, especially for the handicapped, for authorizing changes by telephone, perhaps by a third party verification.

Assemblywoman Gibbons remarked she had been "slammed" three times and applauded Mr. Price’s efforts.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Price if he had reported the "slamming" incidents to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Mr. Price responded in the negative. Ms. Gibbons reported her incidents to the Office of the Attorney General.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel reported she had switched to Sprint. The company from which she switched objected. As a result Ms. Von Tobel’s long distance calls were routed through the original company to Sprint. She was being charged $3.30 per minute for the first minute. The excessive charges were always credited by Sprint. She did not know if it could be considered "slamming," but it was aggravating.

Mr. Price remarked consumers should always read telephone bills carefully and verify charges.

Assemblyman Mortenson made several suggestions to alleviate the problems. In cases where switching was done by telephone, written verification should confirm the customer’s wishes. He also felt the use of a personal identification number such as used by credit card companies could be considered.

Representatives of several utility companies were introduced.

Debra Jackson, Senior Manager for State Regulatory Affairs of Southwest Gas Corporation, expressed support for A.B. 405. She told the committee Southwest Gas already required written confirmation from customers wishing to switch providers.

Susan Miller, Senior Government Services Representative, Sierra Pacific Power Company, also supported A.B. 405, which she termed a "nice consumer protection piece." She asked for clarification of section 1, subsection 1 of the bill which did not specify a form had to be used, but if a form was used a definite format would be required.

Judy Stokey, Government Affairs, Nevada Power Company, saw A.B. 405 as a way to protect customers.

Margaret McMillan, Director of Government Affairs for Sprint, explained that her company was well aware of the problems described. There were over 100 companies providing long distance service in Las Vegas. Sprint had billing arrangements with those companies. Many switching agreements were tape-recorded and loaded into Sprint’s computers. Other requests for switching were handled by telephone, she continued. If a customer felt he had been "slammed", arrangements were made between the customer and the provider to switch back.

Ms. McMillan went on to describe a practice known as "cramming," which was being addressed by the Office of the Attorney General. Services such as voice mail and internet service were being sold and being billed to the customer’s telephone. Ms. McMillan reiterated customers should review telephone bills carefully.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was also dealing with the issues, Ms. McMillan continued. Sprint had two requests: (1) that it comply with the FCC rules as written which included written or third party verification; and (2) allowing for adjustments to be made when a customer was "slammed" against his wishes.

Ms. McMillan went on to answer questions from the committee and described some of the more bizarre methods used by unscrupulous companies to get customers to switch providers or to subscribe to unwanted services. She indicated the Attorney General’s Office had three telecommunications-related bills, not yet introduced.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 405 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 449.

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Assembly District 27, testified on A.B. 449. She agreed to sponsor the bill because she had been approached by the power companies and she felt it was a good government bill.

A.B. 449 added one statement to the current statutes related to applications for orders that authorized issuance of securities, which were submitted to the Public Utilities Commission, Ms. Leslie explained. The bill allowed a utility to better plan its financial activities by requiring the PUC to hold a hearing on a financing application within 60 days or issue an order within 90 days. The bill did not attempt to remove any of the commission’s oversight authority. It simply provided a mechanism by which financing applications could be expedited.

Under current statute, it was difficult for a utility to plan financing activities, because it did not know when to expect an order on an application. The uncertainty reduced the utilities’ financial flexibility which resulted in increased costs to customers. Ms. Leslie asked permission to have representatives of the utilities further explain their positions.

Susan Miller, Sierra Pacific Power Company indicated support of A.B. 449 and introduced Richard Atkinson, Assistant Treasurer, Sierra Pacific Power Company and Sierra Pacific Resources, who discussed the financial aspects in detail.

Mr. Atkinson stated he was responsible for essentially 100 percent of the financing activities of Sierra Pacific Power Company, which was in excess of $800 million of debt, preferred stock and other securities. During the last 6 months the increasing volatility in financial markets were difficult to anticipate. Since last August treasury rates had fluctuated from above 6 percent to as low as 4.7 percent. Sierra Pacific financed on a spread or margin above those rates. During those rate swings financial opportunities could show that would be beneficial to the company and its consumers. Even with the time frame in the bill, he said, the time from anticipated financing to the issuance of securities would take 5 to 6 months. Regulated companies such as Sierra Pacific could respond to market opportunities within days. It was important to have a balance between the flexibility needed to access the markets and the protection to consumers. He felt the timeframe proposed was more than reasonable for balancing those interests.

Assemblyman Mortenson hoped Sierra Pacific had provided provisions in the event a security application was incomplete, the Public Utilities Commission would not be held responsible.

The commission had sufficient authority to reject applications that were insufficient, Mr. Atkinson replied. He was told the PUC could reject an application within 30 days.

Mr. Mortenson referred to Exhibit C (Commissioner Sheldrew’s letter in support of A.B. 405 and A.B. 449), wherein it was stated the PUC had processed 11 applications in an average of 79 days. Of those, two were incomplete and were rejected. As long as the PUC could reject incomplete applications, he had no objections.

Judy Stokey and Richard Schmalz of Nevada Power Company, supported A.B. 449.

Richard C. Schmalz, Treasury Director of Nevada Power Company, discussed his company’s financial strategies. Nevada Power Company, which served southern Nevada, was one of the most rapidly growing electric utilities in the country. They had a construction budget of $250 million to $300 million annually. Most of its funds were used to issue new securities into the marketplace. That in turn raised money to buy poles, wires, meters, generating plants, and everything else needed to provide service to new customers. It was imperative for Nevada Power to be able to receive financing approval from the PUC on a timely basis to be able to take advantage of the fluctuating markets and raise necessary capital.

Chairman Bache expressed regret that PUC Commissioner Judy Sheldrew was unable to attend the hearing. Hearing no opposition, Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 449 and announced a short recess.

Chairman Bache indicated that Denice Miller of the Governor’s office had presented an amendment to A.B. 460 during a previous hearing. The bill dealt with the qualifications of the director and the administrator of various museums.

Assemblywoman Freeman was nervous about changing statutes for the purposes of one particular person [the director]. She applauded the present director [Dale Erquiaga] and wished the legislature did not have to pass a statute to facilitate that approval. She asked the term of office of the director and if it was a governor’s appointment. She thought the legislature could reevaluate the matter in four years.

Chairman Bache, seeing Ms. Miller in the audience, invited her to come forward and address those concerns. He said he thought the governor was looking at a standardization policy for directors of departments as far as qualifications were concerned.

Denice Miller, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor, concurred with Mr. Bache’s observation. The requirement was added in the 69^th Legislative Session

The Governor’s Office wanted all department heads to have the same general requirements. The point was to have consistency in the statutes.

Ms. Freeman asked why the statutes were changed in the 69^th Legislative Session. Ms. Miller could not speculate. She was not involved with the previous administration.

Chairman Bache observed that the jobs of state librarian and director of museums, library and arts, were originally one position. It was recently split into two positions. The state librarian was required to hold a master’s degree in library science. Since the two positions were combined together, the advanced degree requirement held for state librarian as well as director of museums, library and arts.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel wondered why the bill required a two-thirds majority vote for passage, as there was no fiscal note attached.

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, said it referred to section 15 of the bill where the language said "may establish fees." She indicated she would find out why the two-thirds vote was required.

Chairman Bache called for a motion on A.B. 460.

Chairman Bache opened discussions on A.B. 408 by reiterating his understanding of prior debate on the bill. On page 2, line 3, by deleting the phrase "just cause", removing the brackets from "any purpose" and changing "purpose" to "use", line 3, subsection (b) would read "Deny applications to appropriate ground water for any use in areas served by such an entity." By keeping "just cause" in the other section, problems with the bill would be resolved. Mr. Bache invited a motion.

Chairman Bache told the committee there was one technical correction to A.B. 12 which was why copies of the bill were asterisk copies. The asterisk copy meant that bill drafting had made such a correction. He invited a motion.

The Chairman indicated Assemblyman Humke had some concerns about A.B. 318 during previous discussions. He invited a motion.

Assemblyman Humke had questions as to why the removal of the language on page 1, which had the effect of eliminating one hearing, was important to proponents of nonprofit organizations. The groups had to apply for a conveyance of the property, go through the hearing process, and yet had no interest in land. He felt it ridiculous. Mr. Humke withdrew his questions and reluctantly supported the legislation.

Chairman Bache indicated A.B. 414, presented by Al Glover [Carson City Recorder], had a proposed amendment to delete the fee increase in section 4. There was also an amendment presented by Myla Florence [Nevada State Welfare]. Both amendments had basically the same information.

Mr. Bache referred the committee to section 3, subsection 2, line 16, and said the language from both Mr. Glover and the Welfare Division was identical except for the two words "or media." He read subsection 5. "Each county recorder shall on or before the 10^th day of the month forward to the Welfare Division of the Department of Human Resources the information contained on each affidavit delivered to him during the preceding month. The information must be forwarded in a form or media approved by the Welfare division of the Department of Human Resources." Mr. Bache asked David Ziegler to clarify.

David Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst, indicated that Myla Florence, in her testimony on Wednesday, March 17, had been technically uncomfortable with the words "the 10th day" and she simply wanted the information forwarded monthly. Mr. Ziegler said he had met with Mr. Glover after the meeting and Mr. Glover agreed to the language provided it just said "forward monthly." He felt there had been concern about timing problems on the 10th day.

Mr. Bache believed the language, " . . . each county recorder shall forward monthly to the Welfare Division . . ." would resolve the questions. He asked Ms. O’Grady if that was her understanding. Ms. O’Grady indicated it was.

Assemblyman Humke, having missed parts of the prior hearing, wondered if regulations would be promulgated whereby the Welfare Division could have an email transfer of the required information.

Chairman Bache did not recall email transfer specifically, but felt it could be allowed since Clark County made such information available on the internet. That was why the language "in a form or media approved" was used.

Mr. Humke reminded the committee that fraud prevention was of the utmost concern. The documents being transferred were affidavits of death and joint tenancies and the like, and it appeared to him there was a perfect opportunity for fraud. He objected to changing the requirement for transferring such documents from 3 days to 30 days. He was satisfied the Welfare Department would promulgate regulations for the instantaneous transfer of information. That would alleviate his concerns.

After some discussion concerning the fee schedules in the bill, the Chairman asked for a vote.

Noting there had been a subcommittee hearing on A.B. 74, Chairman Bache asked for a report.

Assemblyman Williams, who had chaired the subcommittee, said no vote was taken, and that the members had come away with the realization it would be best to come back to the full committee with no recommendation. However, he added, Assemblyman Thomas had introduced amendments during the subcommittee meeting. Chairman Bache asked Mr. Thomas to present his proposed amendments.

Assemblyman Thomas introduced two amendments:

• The first amendment limited the legislation to those who accepted employment within the School of Education within either one of the universities. Mr. Thomas wanted to narrow the focus to resolve problems with the number of teachers that would be graduated from the universities to fill the schools in southern Nevada.

A 2-year sunset was provided. That was done to allow the legislature to review it in 2 years’ time to make certain no problems had been created.

There was no fiscal impact on the bill.

Chairman Bache indicated he too had planned to suggest a 2-year sunset to allow a study of the issue, and a report in 2 years when the sunset would occur. Noting that George Pyne was in the audience, Mr. Bache invited his thoughts on the matter.

George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), referred to his testimony at the subcommittee hearing. He said the PERS board had not had an opportunity to review the amendments proposed by the university. However, the board did review the bill as originally drafted and opposed it by a 7 to 0 vote. The board did feel a study would be appropriate and a 2-year sunset would be consistent with that study. The main concern of the board was that an exception to the reemployment laws for a special group of retired employees was being created.

Assemblywoman Parnell noted that several members of the PERS board had school district backgrounds. She wondered if they, especially, felt the original bill was of crisis proportions and really needed, especially in the Clark County area.

The overall philosophy of every member of the PERS board was when someone retired from state public employment he or she should be retired from any public employment, Mr. Pyne answered. Everyone on the board agreed there was a teacher shortage in Clark County, but there could be a more direct and favorable way to deal with the situation.

Assemblyman Humke felt he could not support A.B. 74 on public policy grounds, even as amended. Having served on the subcommittee, he had several comments.

• The committee was dealing with the PERS system. Testimony was heard from the university as well as from people from the Clark County School District. The intent was to find kindergarten through 12^th grade teachers who were retired and who were PERS participants, to come back out of retirement and fill certain clinical supervisory positions at UNLV through the College of Education. Mr. Humke reminded the committee the legislation, while designed to bring the K through 12 teachers out of retirement and into employment with UNLV, could affect retired UNLV faculty, retired UNR faculty, and retired out-of-state faculty from other universities who, at one time or another, were PERS participants. The essence of the public policy argument against A.B. 74 was that PERS wanted to be protected and assure the actuarial soundness of their system.
• There was a discrepancy between what Assemblyman Thomas stated and what Assemblyman Williams stated as to the amendments, Mr. Humke continued. Mr. Thomas had suggested the bill be restricted to those persons becoming employed at the two colleges of education at UNLV and UNR. Mr. Williams had quoted Mr. [Rick] Bennett, Director of Governmental Relations at UNLV, as wishing to restrict the bill only to UNR and UNLV.
• Mr. Humke’s final point suggested that sunsetting by the legislature was meaningless. In his experience it was always rubber-stamped by a future legislature, the sunset provision removed, and the bill became permanent. "Sunsets in my opinion are a joke," he concluded.

Assemblyman Williams said there had been concerns about the colleges’ ability to deal with the legislation. He had no strong feelings about Mr. Humke’s other objections. He did feel there was some good and some validity in sunset. If something was sunset for 2 or 4 years, it would automatically go away.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if the bill would place a burden on the retirement system. He cited two scenarios: (1) a PERS retired teacher who came out of retirement and resumed teaching; and (2) a teacher from out of state, never having been a member of PERS, started teaching and joined PERS. Was there a different burden on PERS from those two scenarios, he asked.

On an individual basis, Mr. Pyne replied, the impact would be slight. If the situations described by Mr. Mortenson were widespread, there could be a considerable burden on PERS.

Mr. Mortenson asked if the bill mandated a person who came out of retirement would not continue to pay into PERS. Mr. Pyne did not believe that was correct. Mr. Mortenson could not see why there would be a greater burden to the system under either scenario. When a teacher came out of retirement, he said, the public was gaining the benefit of an experienced teacher. He failed to understand why there was reluctance to let A.B. 74 go forward when there was no additional burden to the system.

Chairman Bache explained the university system had a different retirement structure unless an individual was a previous member of the PERS system. Professional university employees were removed from PERS because of concerns of some of the professors who transferred from one university to another and did not have the amount of time to vest in affordability issues.

Mr. Mortenson felt the bill had good intent and probably needed only to be modified in order to keep teachers coming out of retirement, lend their expertise, and augment their retirement salaries.

Mr. Pyne replied the bill had no fiscal impact on PERS. However his concerns were that it would set a precedent and would open the floodgates to let all retired employees return to government service in the state, which in turn would impact the system.

Mr. Bache, a teacher himself, felt the bill would affect him no differently from anyone else. However, he had problems with the policy of opening up the floodgates. He indicated he would not seek reemployment with the university. He asked if the two other teachers on the committee, Assemblyman Williams and Assemblywoman Parnell, would care to address the issue.

Assemblywoman Parnell said she would feel better if the bill were amended. Subsection 7 did not address the sunset issue, and she was uncomfortable voting on information that was not in writing.

Assemblyman Humke attempted to explain Mr. Pyne’s statements. Mr. Pyne was concerned about the precedential value of the bill. "This is known as a foot in the door bill," Mr. Humke said. Once the bill was passed, the PERS board would not be able to stop retired university employees from seeking reemployment. It was the shortage of qualified teachers in the Clark County School District that precipitated the drafting of A.B. 74, he continued. He was not certain that the UNLV College of Education could avoid quality control issues if the bill was passed.

Assemblyman Williams took issue with Mr. Humke’s statements. A precedent was already set, he said. He referred the committee to section 6 of the bill which stated, "A person who accepts employment or an independent contract with either house of the legislature or by the legislative counsel bureau is exempt . . . " It was not a foot in the door bill, he said. The foot was already in the door. There was no fiscal impact on the PERS system. It was a pro-education bill that was badly needed in Clark County and possibly in Washoe County, and was really an education bill. Mr. Williams hoped the committee would look at the bill in that regard.

Assemblywoman Segerblom indicated she would be more likely to support the bill if the language stated K through 12 teachers rather than university professors. Retired secondary school teachers were badly needed. She asked Mr. Pyne to explain section 6.

Subsection 6, Mr. Pyne suspected, was a very special, one-person piece of legislation which had probably been passed years ago. Both sections 4 and 6 were exceptions. Section 4 was an exception for a retired employee who was chosen by election or appointment to fill an elective public office. The rationale was the reemployment restrictions of PERS should not stand in the way of the will of the people with respect to having whomever they wished to serve in an elective public office.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel indicated she would abstain from voting on A.B. 74 because her husband, a retired schoolteacher, epitomized the exact type of employee addressed in the bill.

Mr. Pyne explained teacher retirement more fully. If a teacher retired today and went back to work full-time as a teacher, his benefit would be suspended for the duration of that employment. However, the teacher had the option to re-enroll in the retirement system and earn additional service credit. But if a teacher retired from the PERS system and became employed as a professional staff person at the university, he would be subject to a $16,000 earnings limitation that increased yearly based on actuarial evaluation. Mr. Pyne suggested the committee could consider a provision that allowed a teacher or other retired employee who became a member of the professional staff at the university have his benefits suspended and then be allowed to re-enroll in PERS and earn additional credit.

Assemblywoman Berman felt Mr. Pyne’s suggestion would discourage teachers from returning to the system. She asked for an explanation.

They would receive full-time pay, Mr. Pyne said, which, for a professor was $40,000 plus additional credit in the retirement plan.

In the scenario just stated, Ms. Berman said, a teacher was asked to return to work and wait for his second retirement until he received retirement benefits. In the first scenario, he would get more money when he returned to work. Real time money was worth more than postponed money, she opined. It seemed like punishment instead of a reward.

Mr. Pyne agreed there was no doubt if somebody retired and returned to work the next day he would be better off financially. He indicated he was concerned about the various policy and cost issues associated with it.

Assemblyman Mortenson felt a lot of talent would be wasted if A.B. 74 was not passed.

Chairman Bache felt Assemblywoman Parnell’s request for amendments in writing was reasonable, and asked Assemblyman Thomas to meet with Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, in order to draft the proposed amendments. He felt Assemblyman Humke’s statements that the few exceptions in the statutes were minor and limited were valid ones. "This is a major policy issue," he said. The issue of reemployment had arisen in other committees and he directed Mr. Pyne and the PERS board to study the issues and report their findings to the 71^st Legislative Session. "There needs to be some finality to the issue of reemployment brought before this legislature," Mr. Bache concluded.

Chairman Bache indicated since A.B. 375 was not a controversial bill and there had been no opposition testimony, he would entertain a motion. There was an amendment proposed by Al Kramer [Carson City Treasurer] that resolved some issues.

Chairman Bache indicated there were two proposed amendments to A.B. 237, one pointed out by Assemblywoman Gibbons and the other requested by Speaker Dini (see Exhibit D) because of the limited amount of bonding capacity. It would increase the amount from $40 million to $50 million, and would require, besides an amend and do pass, a referral to Ways and Means.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel supported the bill, but asked for clarification due to conversations she had with several people regarding the language on page 2, lines 20 to 36. She wanted to make sure that would include, in addition to irrigation, the ability for some areas to also bond.

Chairman Bache felt there was a technical problem and that Mr. Dini needed to address it. However, he said, by amending the bill and referring it to Ways and Means, the technical problems could be handled.

Chris Weiss, Southern Nevada Water Authority, indicated their interest in the bill as it was written was that the use of measurement and metering devices could be used for the outlying areas of Clark County. Since some outlying areas had already benefited from the bill as it was first written, he felt the new language would expand it.

Assemblyman Thomas recalled a suggested amendment regarding rainwater collection and redistribution. He had spoken with Assemblyman Dini about whether the amendment was appropriate, but had not yet heard back from Mr. Dini. He was uncertain what would be better, to amend the bill in committee, or wait until it was referred to Ways and Means.

Chairman Bache indicated the bill addressed water systems and the amendment

dealt more with individuals’ water use. He said he would ask Assemblyman Arberry to notify him when the hearing was scheduled.

Assemblyman Neighbors thought A.B. 237 was a good program, especially for small rural areas and urged committee support.

Chairman Bache dealt with the two bills simultaneously. He reminded the committee they covered the same issues. S.B. 139 was from State Purchasing, while A.B. 264 was on the local level. He felt the language in S.B. 139 describing personal property was superior. He spoke with Senator [Ann] O’Connell and the sponsors of the bill, and all agreed to amend A.B. 264 into S.B. 139, thus taking care of both bills.

A.B. 264 donated personal property that the county no longer needed to private organizations, Mr. Bache continued. S.B. 139 allowed the state to donate their excess and obsolete equipment to charities. The language that described the personal property as " . . . commodities, supplies, materials, and equipment that are determined reached the end of useful life," was a better description than just "personal property." It provided a better comfort level so no one could circumvent the law by saying as an example, a 6-month-old computer was obsolete and the agency could give it to a charity, for which that person might work, therefore being able to acquire the computer.

Assemblywoman Berman inquired if the intent was to combine both bills or simply put the language from S.B. 139 into A.B. 264.

Chairman Bache’s suggestion was to combine the bills. In that way, there would be one less bill the Senate had to worry about processing. Senator O’Connell indicated she had no problem with the amendment.

Eileen O’Grady understood about combining the bills but was uncertain as to which of the amendments would be put into S.B. 139.

Mr. Bache’s intent was to amend all of A.B. 264 into S.B. 139 as an addition to S.B. 139, but to replace the term "personal property" with the parallel language in S.B. 139 as far as commodities and the specific citations of statute.

Thomas Grady, Nevada league of Cities, indicated Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick and Douglas County both agreed to be included in the bill.

Assemblywoman Tiffany could see only one section in either bill which referred to a chapter of the Nevada Revised Statutes. She felt combining different chapters and sections would be awkward and that it would be easier to separate them.

Chairman Bache explained the sections were not in the same [NRS] chapters because one section dealt with counties, and Mr. Grady’s proposed amendment dealt with cities. It was all the same subject matter, and consistency would be provided by the parallel language.

Mr. Grady indicated the Douglas County District Attorney had drafted language which had been given to the bill drafters.

Chairman Bache decided to hold action on the two bills until after March 22^nd to allow the Legal Division time to meet the deadline.

The meeting adjourned at 10:43 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Charlotte Tucker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: