The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:18 a.m., on Thursday, April 1, 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

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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ward Patrick, deputy manager, State Public Works Board, explained there were three primary sections to the bill. Section 1 formalized the duties of the State Public Works Board manager and made him the ex-officio state building officer. Section 2 clarified the board’s authority in approving the architecture of buildings on state land with money appropriated by the legislature. Although it was already included in statute the language needed clarification. Section 3 covered the responsibilities covered by the fire marshal and those falling under the authority of the State Public Works board. The board would like to hold the bill at abeyance S.B. 413 paralleled A.B. 605 and contained the exact three sections relating to the same three statutes. If the bill was to go forward; there was an amendment that he would submit and was approved by the fire marshal and the State Public Works Board.

Chairman Bache stated if the bill was held, with no action taken by April 9 it would be considered dead and if the bill on the other side did not pass, there would be no change in the statutes. He suggested it would be better to have both bills pass and once they were both on the Senate side an agreement could be reached with one of them passing.

Mr. Patrick said if the bill went forward, he would provide the same friendly amendment to the committee.

Mr. Marvin Carr, state fire marshal, testified the fire marshal’s office had no problem with the bill. He added, they had a proposed amendment (Exhibit C) on page 5, section 3, NRS 470.030, 9(a) which would read, "Assist in checking plans and specifications for construction of a building for which the State Public Works Board has final authority for approval pursuant to NRS 341.145, by an interlocal agreement acceptable to both parties." It was an amendment approved to by the parties involved.

Chairman Bache questioned the required a two-thirds majority vote and also he did not see anything dealing with fees. Mr. Patrick replied he was not sure why that language was inserted into the bill.

Chairman Bache pointed out on page 2, line 27, it authorized the building officer to charge a reasonable fee for services.

Ms. Gibbons asked if the fees went into the general fund. Mr. Patrick said those fees were basically for administration of plan checking which was conducted by building officials. The State Public Works Board used the funds to either reimburse plan checkers, third party plan checkers, or to fund in-house plan checkers. He added the funding would have to be approved by the Interim Finance Committee for disbursement.

Cheryl Blomstrom, representing the Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors, questioned page 2, line 28, which allowed the state building officer to delegate his authority to any political subdivision in the state. Her organization had concerns with that particular item and felt because other political subdivisions had their own rules and regulations in statutes, there was no need for the State Public Works Board to delegate its authority.

Chairman Bache questioned if the same issues were raised in the Senate. Ms. Blomstrom responded they had provided the same testimony to the Senate. Chairman Bache queried what action the Senate took. Ms. Blomstrom said no action had been taken.

Mr. Patrick interjected it was the permissive part of the bill allowing the State Public Works Board to cover the responsibilities of being the state building official.

Chairman Bache questioned if they already had the authority to enter into inter-local agreements. Mr. Patrick replied there were a number of agreements not only with the state fire marshal but also other entities.

Chairman Bache felt that particular language was not needed if they already had the power to enter into inter-local agreements.

As there was no further discussion, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 605.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

*********

Dave Pursell, executive director of the Department of Taxation, explained the bill was requested by the department to create a severe financial emergency fund. The Department of Taxation would use it to help entities having severe financial difficulty that were defined under NRS 354.685 to 354.725. If it was determined the loan would help with cash flow and operating expenses of those types of entities, they would receive an interest-free loan for a period of up to 12 months. The department would be in control of the interest-free loan funding so repayment would be assured. Reports would also be made to the Nevada Tax Commission and the Local Government Finance Committee regarding the reason the loan was needed, as well as what type funds would be used to repay it. Most of the members were familiar with two of the entities having severe financial difficulty in the past; White Pine County School District and the Nye Regional Hospital.

In the information he handed out (Exhibit D) there was a brief explanation of how the fund was created. In the 1981 Legislative Session the supplemental city/county relief tax was created and if revenues exceeded estimates, the excess monies were deposited into a reserve. The reserve could only be used if it was determined by an Interim Legislative Committee on Local Government Finance the local government had some type of an emergency. In 1983, distribution responsibility was transferred to the Nevada Tax Commission to make those determinations. Once again responsibility was transferred to the Interim Finance Committee in 1985 and a cap of $2.5 million was placed on the reserve. In 1989 the statewide revenue limitation formula was changed and the reserve fund was eliminated, but the emergency portion remained.

The emergency funding process was eliminated with the passage of A.B. 104 in the 1991 session and also changed the distribution of the Supplemental City-County Relief Tax (SCCRT) at the county level. The only activity remaining in the fund was the receipt of payments for one of the three loans that were outstanding at the time of passage. He indicated $500,000 was appropriated to the Clark County Irrigation District. However, Mr. Pursell said on the third page of the handout there was a letter from the Clark County Conservation District to the Department of Taxation indicating they could not meet the requirements and therefore could not use the $500,000. Since 1989 the interest earned on that fund was put into the SCCRT pot and distributed on a monthly basis. In the opinion of the Department of Taxation, the $500,000 principal could be used as revolving fund to be used in the event those entities were placed in severe financial difficulty to help get them back on their feet.

There was no further testimony so Chairman Bache said he would entertain a motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 606.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.

*********

Chairman Bache pointed out A.B. 587 was concurrently referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. Because there was no fiscal note attached, the bill needed consideration as soon as possible.

Ron Sparks, executive director of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), explained the bill would allow WICHE to receive an advance when they were paying fees to the different schools Nevada students were attending. In the past the fees were due and payable up front, but WICHE did not collect the money up front. It took 12 months to collect all of the funds, and because of that there was a shortfall, so they had been unable to pay the regional office their fees putting the students’ payments in jeopardy. With the help of the budget office WICHE requested to be allowed a funding equal to the amount of money they would be collecting during that period. He indicated there was a potential need in both 2000 and 2001 in the amount of $128,838 as of December 1. The way the bill was written it limited the advance from the general fund to 25 percent, and he would like that raised to 50 percent so the full amount could be covered. Currently there would be a shortfall of $128,000 the way the authorization was written. Basically, the concept was similar to the distributive school fund where an advance was received and would be paid back by the end of the year as the flow of fees and paybacks went into the fund.

Ms. Berman asked if there was any interest paid on the money they received. Mr. Sparks replied they would not pay any interest because it was state money and it would be paid back.

Mr. Lee questioned how many students took advantage of the program and how many schools in other states participated.

Mr. Sparks thought there were about 36 new students each year. Currently there were about 200 students in schools outside of the region. WICHE participated in physical therapy, occupational therapy, pharmacy, dentistry, graduate library studies, the largest being veterinary medicine. Presently there was a request underway to fund some in-state WICHE students in physical therapy and nurse practitioner. WICHE required students, once they graduated in certain fields, to return and practice in an under-served community as part of their commitment under the program. Those fields included dentistry, physical therapy, pharmacy, and physician assistant.

Ms. Parnell declared it was a wonderful program and hoped everybody fully understood it allowed Nevada’s students to participate in courses and receive degrees that were not available within the state university system.

Mr. Sparks wanted to make it clear that in the past WICHE had been a program involving only out-of-state programs and they were trying to fund some in-state programs as well. He stressed whether the program was in or out of the state, the incentive to use the program was to assure people practiced in the under-served communities and most important were the physical therapy and nurse practitioner programs for the rural counties.

Ms. Freeman said a bill passed last session for creation of a dental school and wondered if it had become a reality. Mr. Sparks stated the bill that passed was for a dental residency program and they were currently in the process of getting it started in the south and should be available in the north shortly. He thought it would be an excellent way to provide the opportunity to a WICHE dentist who was unable to pass the exam to practice, instead of losing them to another state, which would happen if the in-state programs were not in place.

Mr. Sparks wanted to comment about the way the statute for the dental residency was written. In the statutes it stated if the test by the board was failed a limited license for dentistry was denied. He understood it was done to protect the public. He stressed a contract was entered into by the WICHE student so they had to pay the money back if they left the state without fulfilling their obligation of practicing for a certain period of time in the state. With the opportunity to fulfill the obligation the WICHE student received approximately $80,000 worth of education.

Mr. Lee questioned how long they needed to stay in the state. Mr. Sparks indicated there were two different programs. The professional student exchange program covered funding for students to attend schools outside the state. They had a commitment to return for 1-year for each year of education. If they were participating in the brand new health care access program developed in 1998 there was a 2-year commitment. They had 5 years to complete those 2 years, so for example they could work 4 days in Carson City and 1 day in Yerington or 4 days in Las Vegas and 1 day in Pahrump.

Mr. Bache understood an amendment to the bill was requested, but since the bill had to go to the Committee on Ways and Means the amendment should be requested in that committee due to approaching deadlines.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 587.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Harvey Whittemore, partner with Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, and representing the Nevada Resort Association, testified he was submitting a proposed amendment (Exhibit E) for the committee’s review and approval and was done at the direction of a number of the participants in discussions regarding the merits of the bill. The bill was sought by the Nevada Resort Association to resolve a dispute, which was pending with the chamber of commerce. As a result of continued negotiations between partners in the firm and the chamber, the main dispute was resolved. The proposed amendment resolved the minor disagreement and he believed it was sound public policy.

The proposed amendment would increase the board from 12 to 13 members, and creating a process by which both the chamber and the Nevada Resort Association (NRA) would submit three members each. The remaining public members were designated in the amendment indicated in categories, (a) through (e). Category (f) was where the change took place, and the requirements were listed. One of those members must be representative of commercial interests or interests related to tourism. Two members must be representative of tourism, with at least one a representative of the resort hotel business. What the chamber was requesting in the amendment was a process by which they could create and represent a very broad range of interests throughout the county. There was a requirement that one member came from the central core business district in the largest city, i.e., Las Vegas, and the other two members could be from any location. It did not preclude two downtown members of the Nevada Resort Association from serving on the board, but it required at least one.

In the past two major strip resort/hotel interests were represented on the board and one from the downtown and the NRA would like that process continued. What was being proposed in the amendment was that all five existing nonpublic members’ terms would expire on June 30. Beginning on July 1 there would be six new members and what the chamber and the resort association proposed was two 1-year terms, one 2-year term, and then the reverse for the resort association.

Kara Kelley, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, echoed Mr. Whittemore’s comments and stated they appreciated the efforts of the Chairman and leadership in making sure they reached a compromise. The chamber of commerce was happy with the amendment and hoped it would be adopted. Ms. Kelley pointed out the chamber represented a cross-section and a broad-based constituency of all tourism businesses throughout the entire county.

Warren Hardy, representing the city of Mesquite, introduced Mayor Ken Carter, who would present the testimony.

Ken Carter, mayor of Mesquite, offered an amendment to A.B. 599 and his written testimony to the committee (Exhibit F). The amendment addressed the concerns the community had regarding the makeup of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA). Since 1984, the city of Mesquite participated in the LVCVA and he had personally served on that authority during his tenure as mayor. He believed the city’s relationship with the LVCVA had been both productive and mutually beneficial. However, his concern was that Mesquite only participated as an active voting member of the authority on a rotating basis every 2 years. He felt in essence, the city was a part-time, second class member of that convention authority, and it was mentioned more than any other issue in discussions with both state and city residents.

He pointed out since 1984 Mesquite had developed from a small farming community into one of the fastest growing communities in the United States. Since 1991, Mesquite blossomed from a community of 2,300 residents to a city of over 14,000. In cooperation with the gaming and business community, Mesquite became a true successful resort area destination, as well as a wonderful place to live, work, and raise a family.

Along with the population increases in Mesquite, there was a substantial increase in gaming and tourism, which lead to the need for increased involvement with the LVCVA. Mr. Carter added the gaming and tourism growth had resulted in increased financial contributions to the LVCVA. He had included in his handout a breakdown of financial contributions Mesquite made to LVCVA over the past few years. He was not suggesting that the size of contributions should be the only standard in determining membership on that board, but the figures did illustrate Mesquite was not the tiny, rural community it once was.

He said the amendment offered for consideration, provided each incorporated city of Clark County full representation on that board. If the amendment was approved it gave Mesquite a new seat and allowed Boulder City to take the rotating seat now filled by Mesquite. The proposed change would also preserve the balance between public officials and private representation on the board. He felt if the committee saw fit to alter the membership of the board, Mesquite was justified in requesting full representation on that board. The board would then consist of 14 members and would retain parity within all the communities. He stated that without the amendment, Mesquite could not fully endorse the bill.

Ms. Tiffany questioned how long Mesquite had been trying to obtain a seat on the board. Mr. Carter responded since 1986 Boulder City and Mesquite shared a full seat for 2 years on a rotating basis, neither of them was on the board at the same time.

Ms. Tiffany wondered how long they had been asking for a full-time seat on the board. Mr. Carter replied it had been at least two previous legislative sessions. Warren Hardy representing the city of Mesquite interjected each session when it was brought up, the participants of the convention authority asserted it was an issue they would rather not address. In fact, for the record, they had been told that again. He felt they were productive members of the convention and visitors authority and because they had been treated well they did not want to "rock the boat." But when the new legislation came up Mesquite felt compelled to offer the amendment.

Ms. Tiffany questioned why it was so easy for the resort association to get an extra seat added and yet Mesquite had been asking for a full seat for such a long time. She wondered if it was based on contribution or some other formula. Mr. Hardy replied it was the first time they had actively pursued a full seat because they had been asked not to, and they respected that.

Ms. Tiffany asked him if he knew why it was so easy for the resort association to get a seat added. Mr. Hardy did not want to comment. Mr. Carter guessed it was "clout."

Ms. Tiffany questioned if it was financial contributions, more room tax, or what, as she understood the political connections, but asked if there was something other than that. Mr. Hardy opined he wanted to believe the main mission of the convention and visitor’s authority would be having full representation on the board. He felt the amount of contribution should not be the only consideration for addition to the board. Because until recently, Mesquite put more money into the convention and visitor’s authority than North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City combined. Their issue was simply one of full representation as they were spending taxpayers dollars and believed they should be able to have full-time representation.

Ms. Tiffany remarked since the issue on the table was adding another seat, she was in full support of Mesquite being full-time. She saw no difference if one seat was being added, why Mesquite could not also be added.

Ms. Segerblom revealed she had served on the convention board when it was rotating between Henderson, North Las Vegas, and Boulder City. Mesquite was not even a rotating member because those other 3 were the incorporated towns. She agreed to support Mesquite acquiring a seat if Boulder City got the rotating seat. Although they did not generate a lot of revenue, every visitor to Nevada passed through there to reach the dam.

Mr. Hardy said he concurred, as there was no intent on the part of Mesquite to eliminate Boulder City. The interest of full representation was to have every incorporated city serving on that board. The intent was to have both Mesquite and Boulder City as full-time participants on the board, and that was proposed in the amendment.

Ms. Von Tobel said she was also in full support and realized how much financial benefit was provided to southern Nevada by the city of Mesquite. The city had a promotional event that brought national attention to the city with coverage by CNN and some stations from Spain. Mesquite was a vibrant growing community and she believed they deserved a full seat. She added when she was approached about a problem with the bill, she made the suggestion to add a seat doing a three-three split, rounding it to an even number. She felt 14 seats made sense. She would appreciate support by the committee as it had grown faster than any city in Nevada and probably faster than any city in the United States, for 6 years in a row.

Mr. Hardy stressed he wanted to make certain the committee understood they were in support with the amendment offered by the resort association and the chamber of commerce to each receive three seats. Our mission was to provide the best level of representation for all entities and concerned parties.

Mr. Lee said after listening to statements by Ms. Segerblom a question came to mind. As there was no gambling in Boulder City, and not to discredit Boulder City, he did not see a reason for them to be included in the process. Mr. Hardy stated it was important to remember that the money supporting the convention and visitor’s authority came from room taxes and not simply gaming interests. The other issue that involved the convention authority was the Clark County Fair and Recreation Board, from which Boulder City certainly benefited.

Mr. Lee thought Boulder City was receiving enough funding, as every time one turned around, more was being given to the hotel in which no one slept. Ms. Segerblom stressed to Mr. Lee, that long before his time, Boulder City was there, and a very historic city. Hundreds of people came to see the dam and they supported the convention and visitors authority. It was a Clark County board and they had a seat long before a lot of other places when there was Boulder City, Henderson, and North Las Vegas. Those entities were rotated and that was how she came to sit on the board.

Mr. Mortenson thought the present statute was very fair because it did not enumerate any specific city and there would be inequities if one started enumerating various cities. The language mandated one member from each of the three largest cities, and if Mesquite became the third largest city they would automatically acquire a seat.

Mr. Thomas questioned if Mesquite had been represented in 1998. Mr. Carter replied he had been on the board since 1997 and would relinquish that position in June.

Mr. Thomas said according to the spread sheet he had distributed, the city of Mesquite provided an investment of about $.7 million, and if that was added to what came back through grants and other allocations, a total of $2.8 was received which indicated they had been well represented. Mr. Carter pointed out that was an exceptional year. At one time, Mesquite approached the authority for assistance with $400,000 in funding for a convention center for Mesquite. The city was turned down, but with insistence and pushing, the issue of a full seat there was finally a grant, which appeared to be an appeasement to the city. He added if the rest of the report was perused it was apparent those years were just the opposite.

Mr. Thomas thought their representation was sufficient, and as Mr. Mortenson had pointed out when Mesquite became the third largest city, they would enjoy full-time representation.

Ms. Parnell interjected she too was comfortable with the language that had been presented and thought the chamber and the resort association should be complimented for working together on a comprehensive piece of legislation.

Ms. Von Tobel observed that what she was hearing was everyone was happy with the current statute and the board’s current makeup of five seats selected by the chamber. If that was the case she wondered why one amendment should be accepted over another one.

Ms. Parnell clarified that she was pleased with the proposed amendment that was the result of the ongoing negotiations between the NRA and the chamber.

Tom Skancke, representing the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, explained the convention authority had always been comfortable with 12 seats on the board. There would be a board meeting on April 13 to discuss the issue so he could not take a formal position on the amendment until after that date. Regarding the Mesquite amendment, he pointed out when the board was established it was based on population and not on generated room tax or money received in gaming revenues. Mesquite and Boulder City had similar populations and the board had worked hard over the years to ensure all grants and funds were allocated appropriately to the surrounding communities and the participants in the convention authority.

Over 47 percent of the funds collected by the LVCVA were returned to the community in infrastructure grants, school construction, and those kinds of things. He stressed it was a room tax not an ad valorem tax, the local taxpayers did not contribute directly to the room tax. He took exception with the insinuation the funds the LVCVA contributed to Mesquite were made as an appeasement to keep them off the board. Significant grants were given to basket weaving associations, fairs and recreation, the Boulder City parade, and to a lot of smaller organizations throughout Clark County by the LVCVA. If the decision were based only on the amount of room tax being generated, the Las Vegas Strip and Clark County would comprise all 12 members of the board.

Ms. Gibbons questioned what happened in a tie vote situation when there were 12 members. Mr. Skancke replied to the best of his knowledge there has not been a tie vote at the convention authority board since its inception.

Ms. Gibbons noted there was a breakdown of room taxes, collection, and recreation for different entities, but nothing broken down for population in the handout (Exhibit F). She was curious about the comparison of the population in Mesquite as compared to Henderson or North Las Vegas. Mr. Skancke stated the population of Mesquite was around 14,000; the population of Boulder City about 14,750; and thought Henderson was around 200,000; Las Vegas was approximately 400,000; with the total in Clark County 1.3 to 1.4 million, and North Las Vegas 75,000 to 100,000 people.

Ms. Von Tobel felt it sounded as if he did not support either amendment and would like the board to remain at 12 seats. If the bill did not pass and the board remained at 12 seats, the chamber would apparently have the five seats and gaming remaining with the current representation and asked if that was the point he was making. Mr. Skancke replied he was not making a point, but saying the board had not an opportunity to vote on a position, but they would be doing that on April 13, 1999.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if he was aware if the bill was not passed out of the committee by April 9, it died. Mr. Skancke responded he was not asking for the legislation to be held he was simply stating the position of the board.

Mr. Mortenson stated a few days before, the committee was faced with the choice of either siding with the chamber of commerce or with the casino group and the two people who were principally involved worked together and came to an agreement. He did not understand why the bill needed to be amended any further.

Ms. Tiffany questioned if Mr. Skancke was aware of the feelings of the executive board of the convention authority with regard to adding a seat. Mr. Skancke replied, in the past, when expansion of the board was discussed, they had been comfortable with the composition of the board staying at 12 members.

Ms. Tiffany asked why the item of the composition of the board had not been placed on the agenda before the April 13 board meeting. Mr. Skancke responded he did not know.

Warren Hardy wanted to clarify when Commissioners Woodbury and Kincaid, from Clark County sat on the board they represented the convention authority quite well. It was not mandated there had to be a county commissioner from either Mesquite or Boulder City the only stipulation was "two county commissioners."

As there was no additional testimony Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 599

Ms. Von Tobel requested a vote be delayed at least 24 hours to discuss it with the members of the convention and visitor’s authority since they had not had a chance to discuss it and since Mr. Skancke very clearly stated they were comfortable with 12 members. She felt their seats were being directly affected by the proposed amendment, and she wanted to make a couple of phone calls to members of the board.

Mr. Bache asked what the committee’s desire was. Mr. Lee thought the committee was as prepared as they could be and did not feel anyone was going to change their opinion on the bill. If further amendment was needed it could be done on the Senate side.

Ms. Tiffany said she did not appreciate her colleague saying committee members had made up their minds as she too would like to make a couple of telephone calls to board members. Mr. Skancke stated they were satisfied with the make-up of the board and she thought the bill could be brought up again at the evening meeting.

Ms. Parnell interjected as the maker of the motion, the bill had been presented 2 weeks previously, and it was not the first hearing on the bill. It seemed to her all the key players should have been alerted the bill was being considered and had ample time to obtain input.

Ms. Tiffany stated she did not know who had lobbied Ms. Parnell, but it was the first time she had talked to Mr. Skancke or heard his testimony and whenever new testimony was presented there should be the opportunity to review it.

In response to Chairman Bache’s question on withdrawing their motion, neither one desired to do that. He asked if there was a motion to second the motion adding a second seat for the city of Mesquite.

Chairman Bache clarified the motion would be to amend the motion to amend by adding a second seat for the city of Mesquite as proposed by them, which made 14 members.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Von Tobel stated she believed Mesquite deserved a full-time seat rather than sharing with Boulder City and felt strongly that Boulder City would then deserve that full seat also.

Mr. Mortenson wanted to repeat that the fairest way of selecting the board by individual cities was using existing legislation, which said, "The largest city, the second largest city, and the third largest city."

Ms. Segerblom pointed out Boulder City was already on the board it was just it rotated every 2 years. She felt she certainly could not return to Boulder City and tell Mayor Ferraro, Boulder City was off the board.

Chairman Bache reminded the committee there was a motion on the floor to amend by adding the additional seat for Mesquite.

THE MOTION FAILED.

Chairman Bache said the main motion would be considered, which was to amend and do pass with the amendment presented by the chamber and the resort association.

Mr. Lee wanted to go on record he had visited with Mr. Hardy and felt that he had done an admirable job trying to convince him, but he would continue voting the way he had seconded the motion. He wanted Mr. Hardy to know it was not intended to fault him, he just felt it was proper legislation.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Ms. Parnell related A.B. 494 was the bill she presented regarding state workers, especially in situations where they were employed at 7-day a week, 24-hour a day facilities and seniority was not used as consideration for bidding on shifts and days-off. She offered an amendment (Exhibit G) as the highway patrol was concerned they would be affected by the bill. She and Mr. Gagnier worked on the amendment specifying it only addressed those dealing with mental health facilities and those dealing with prisoners.

The second area was on page 1, lines 8 through 13, which provided a list of special circumstances under which an appointing authority may use a factor other than seniority in determining the selection of a shift or schedule. She felt with the changes, perhaps the committee would be more comfortable with the bill.

Chairman Bache thought the amendment addressed the problem areas. When the original hearing was held Mr. Bayer of the prison system had stated every session a version of the present bill was submitted. He added 90 percent of the problems were with the prison systems and less than 10 percent dealt with the mental health facility in Sparks.

Ms. Parnell stressed she was appalled when meeting with both Mr. Gagnier and individuals from the correctional officers association, and found seniority was not considered when officers were bidding for shifts and days off. She found 6-month employees had weekends off, while a 20-year veteran did not.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Humke commented he did not have any notes on the bill, and questioned if someone from administration opposed the bill.

Mr. Bache related Mr. Bayer from the prison system opposed it, while Colonel Hood from the highway patrol had problems with it. He felt the amendment took care of Colonel Hood’s concerns.

Ms. Berman interjected Kareen Masters, personnel officer with the Department of Human Resources was also against the bill.

Mr. Ziegler reported on March 23, Bob Gagnier, representing SNEA indicated a different form of the bill passed the committee and full Assembly in 1997. Some of the objections were addressed in A.B. 494 by placing much of the substance into the hands of the Personnel Commission taking various agency needs into consideration. The primary criteria of the Department of Prisons, was seniority and there was a pilot program of which SNEA did not approve as they felt it did not address the problems. Gary Wolff, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) expressed concerns but had faith in the Personnel Commission. Kareen Masters from the Department of Human Resources also had some concerns as staff decisions included many factors such as experience, gender-mix, cross training, and so on. Mr. Bayer from the prison system was also opposed.

Ms. Parnell thought the change in section 1, subsection 2(b), addressed Mr. Bayer’s concerns that the previous language was too limiting.

THE MOTION CARRIED (ASSEMBLYWOMEN VON TOBEL AND TIFFANY VOTED NO).

Chairman Bache stated there was not enough time to reshape the bill and he would accept a motion to indefinitely postpone.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 67.

ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Bache stated the bill had been submitted by the water district and related to 40-year bonds.

Chairman Bache indicated there was no opposition but Carole Vilardo with the Nevada Taxpayers Association provided subsequent information on the 40-year bond.

Ms. Berman stated she had received from the water district, several articles from Wall Street Journal indicating changes by other utilities throughout the country to 40 years. She felt it might be something that could become common practice and requested reconsideration of the motion.

Mr. Humke said Ms. Vilardo had clearly and unequivocally testified it was poor public policy to go to 40 years and he stood by his motion.

Ms. Tiffany related the issue was discussed extensively in 1997 in the infrastructure committee and statistics and the numbers presented showed there was a large increase in payback figures over the 40 years. She agreed with Assemblyman Humke’s motion to indefinitely postpone the bill.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Bache referred to a letter signed by Dean Molburg, from the Southern Nevada Fire Chiefs Association, State Fire Marshal Marvin Carr, and Eric Raecke, State Public Works Board, indicating they had reached an agreement (Exhibit H). They would provide to the committee before the close of session a cooperative inter-local agreement in reviewing of plans, designs, specifications, and inspections relevant to state public buildings and public schools. As the agreement had been reach by all the parties he felt there was no longer a need for A.B. 607.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Ms. Von Tobel testified there was a proposed amendment deleting sections 1 through 8 of the bill and renumbering section 9 as section 1 (Exhibit I). In previous testimony, the county agreed to the amended language as some applicants bypassed the town advisory boards and went directly to the planning commission and board of county commissioners. Quite often the commissioners were angered, and they sent the application back through the process creating delays. The county agreed that it helped the process when it had to be discussed at a public meeting of the town board or town advisory board.

Chairman Bache thought an interim study was to be included in the amendment. Ms. Von Tobel replied it was her intention, but it would require another bill.

Chairman Bache felt it could be included in the bill, because there had been a bill dealing with regulations a few sessions ago submitted by Mr. Humke and it was amended to provide for an interim study. Ms. Von Tobel stated she would rely on staff because they indicated it needed an actual resolution and would have to be heard by the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics.

Mr. Humke interjected the issue had come up the previous evening in another committee where a suggestion was made to treat an issue in an interim study. During that meeting Ms. Giunchigliani referred to the number of interim studies proposed by the Assembly, and there were 18 proposals while there would only be time and staff to pursue 4 or 5. He felt if the interim study amendment was included; it was not likely to pass.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Neighbors remarked the bill indicated a variance of special use permits discussed at public meetings, and pointed out other counties did not have the extra town board. He wondered if that should have been included. Ms. Von Tobel remarked they were all town advisory boards, even Winchester. Staff had advised her the term "town board" or "town advisory board" included all different types of government, and all of the unincorporated towns within Clark County were either a town advisory board or a town board.

Mr. Mortenson said unless things had changed in the last couple of years, there were two different designations determined, one he could not remember, by the size of the community it served. Ms. Von Tobel believed he was probably thinking of the citizens’ advisory council, and that language could certainly be added.

Mortenson felt the language should be added. Ms. Von Tobel felt the clarification she needed to make was because Clark County was not allowed to have an elected town board form of government, they were all town advisory boards regardless of their population. She wanted to have the bill passed in its current form to provide some relief to small towns so at least they had input from the applicant in the beginning of the process.

Chairman Bache commented he was trying to locate the difference in wording between subsection 4 on page 6 and the subsection 4 presented in the amendment. Mr. Ziegler understood the desire was to retain the 5 lines on page 6 and move it forward. The problem was in Clark County with a population of over 100,000 and all unincorporated towns had a town advisory board form of government. In line 21, there was a reference to town boards that did not exist in Clark County or Washoe County. His suggestion was to include both town advisory boards and town boards, depending on which form was in place.

Mr. Thomas questioned if all unincorporated towns had town boards and if an unincorporated town did not have a town board could it then be shown there had been an attempt have it discussed at a town board or town advisory board. Mr. Ziegler responded, there were two types of unincorporated towns under chapter 269 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). There was a town board form of government and towns formed under the unincorporated town law. In Washoe County and Clark County they were limited to the town advisory board form, all the other counties had their choice of the town board or the town advisory board form. He added in Nye County there was a mix of both, but he did not think there were any unincorporated towns that did not have one or the other.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Virginia Letts,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

Date:________________________________________