The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:25 a.m., on Thursday, April 8, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Bache called the meeting to order at 8:25 a.m. and announced work sessions on bills previously heard. He opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 484.

Charles L. Horsey, Administrator, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, indicated he had amendments for the committee’s consideration. He had met with representatives of the Clark County Housing Authority and the Reno Housing Authority, and the group had reached a consensus. He distributed Exhibit C.

It was not the intent that A.B. 484 be applicable to single family homes, Mr. Horsey continued. The focus was on multi-family or apartment-type developments, and part of the amendment language clarified the fact. Mr. Horsey had expressed concern about what he viewed as the lack of adequate financial control and the types of projects to be financed. Agreement was reached that the State Board of Finance be the entity to which findings should be directed, and that in turn would afford the housing division an opportunity to review proposed financing.

The last amendment agreed upon was that unless a bond issue was to be privately placed, any publicly traded bond issue would have to be at least of investment grade. That meant it would not have quite the high standards currently imposed by the Housing Division (which were of grade "AA" or above), but still retained adequate safeguards. Mr. Horsey was satisfied his department could support the efforts of the Clark County Housing Authority and the Reno Housing Authority and fully support A.B. 484 as amended.

Assemblywoman Segerblom was pleased with the bill modifications.

David Morton, Executive Director of the Reno Housing Authority, felt the amendment language was a good compromise, a viable approach, and yet imposed some necessary safeguards. He urged the committee’s approval.

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked how much public versus private money the Housing Authority controlled.

The bulk of funding for the Reno Housing Authority was federal money, Mr. Morton replied. However, over the last few years, focus had been placed on lessening the dependence on federal and public funding, and exploring other avenues, such as bond issues. He explained that Reno and Las Vegas also received a certain amount of Home Consortium funds, which were administered through the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Chairman Bache wanted to be certain all the amendments were acceptable to John Swenseid of the Reno Housing Authority. Mr. Morton replied affirmatively.

Chairman Bache asked for a motion to accept A.B. 484 with both sets of proposed amendments.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 560.

Mr. Bache described A.B. 560 as the silver coin bill and indicated since there was some budget impact the bill should be sent to the Committee on Ways and Means. It contained appropriations not included in the Executive Budget. He entertained a motion.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 445, a bill that had been requested by Clark County.

Mr. Bache asked Alex Ortiz, representing Clark County, for his comments. Mr. Ortiz indicated he and James Spinello, also representing Clark County, were both perfectly comfortable with the provisions of the bill. The Chairman asked for a motion.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 641 and asked Committee Counsel Eileen O’Grady if she and Douglas Bierman had drafted the proposed amendment to the bill as discussed previously.

Douglas Bierman, representing Lincoln and Eureka Counties, indicated he and Ms. O’Grady had combined the two proposed amendments into one. He distributed Exhibit D.

Mr. Bache’s main concern with the bill was if the state had a different position than a local government, such as occurred a few years ago regarding nuclear waste. He indicated the amendment language in subsection 2(a) and (b) addressed his concerns adequately. He had requested additional language in the endangered species portion of the bill that made it a special act for Esmeralda, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, and for the three counties to be allowed to have an interlocal agreement among themselves if they so desired.

Assemblywoman Freeman questioned the language, " . . . may not participate in any proceeding or take any action that would violate a state statute." Was there an area where it would not be in state statute in which one could be in an opposite position, she wondered.

Committee Counsel Eileen O’Grady replied she had referred to a state statute rather than a state policy because otherwise it might be difficult to determine exactly what the official policy was. A statute was reasonably clear, she said.

Mrs. Freeman said she did not think she could support the bill.

Assemblyman Thomas asked if the provisions in section 3 would affect all counties and if so, how the bill affected existing federal law, especially where the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had already established boundaries.

Mr. Bierman did not believe the bill affected existing federal law. It simply empowered the counties to become involved in planning processes.

Chairman Bache asked for a motion.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 575 and asked Assemblyman Humke for discussion.

Assemblyman Humke indicated the bill had been heard 2 days previously and there had been discussions between Ross de Lipkau of the Airport Authority of Washoe County, and Michael Turnipseed, State Water Engineer, regarding possible amendments. Mr. Humke said Mr. de Lipkau did not wish to offer any amendments and sought to have the bill passed as drafted.

Chairman Bache accepted a motion on A.B. 575.

Mr. Bache had concerns with the bill. He felt Mr. Turnipseed had also expressed reservations because the legislation would change existing water laws. Mr. Bache himself had problems passing the bill in its present form.

Assemblyman Humke believed everyone was negotiating in good faith, but indicated there had been no amendment offered that was acceptable to both sides. Assemblyman Neighbors shared Mr. Humke’s concerns.

Chairman Bache asked if Mr. Humke would hold his motion until the following day. He noticed that Hugh Ricci, Deputy State Engineer, was in the audience. He asked Mr. Ricci and Mr. Humke to work together on amendment language for A.B. 575

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE WITHDREW THE MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 575.

Chairman Bache asked Eileen O’Grady if she had amendments for Assembly Bill 298. They were distributed as Exhibit E.

Jack Jeffrey, representing the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, explained the amendment did several things. The State Public Works Board would be required to adopt criteria, which had already been done. The board was in the process of designing a program for prequalification of bidders. There had been concerns at the original hearings on A.B. 298 that if local governments had too much discretion on prequalification of bidders, it could lead to legal problems. The amendment gave local governments the choice of whether to prequalify bidders. And lastly, the amendment mandated criteria permissible for investigation. Those were financial ability, the principal personnel, whether any contracts with a public agency or person in the state had been breached, and whether the applicant had been disqualified from being awarded the contract pursuant to NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) Chapter 338.

If a contractor had an unlimited contractor’s license and submitted a 10 percent bid bond at the time of the bid, and a 100 percent performance, labor and materials, and guarantee bond, he would be exempt from the prequalification process, Mr. Jeffrey continued. In addition, he would also have to be licensed with the state contractor’s board and either would have to have a qualified employee to run the construction company or run it himself.

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked Mr. Jeffrey exactly what the bill was trying to correct.

Mr. Jeffrey explained the original bill from the 69^th Legislative Session had applied only to the State Public Works Board. Present statutes mandated the award of a construction job to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. There was no definition of the term "responsible bidder." He cited the example of the addition to the Legislative Building, wherein the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder who happened to be a pipeline contractor from California. The bill and its amendments were designed to eliminate such problems. Contractors who wished to bid public works projects would apply to the public body and meet the criteria spelled out in the bill prior to submitting their bids.

Mr. Jeffrey indicated he had spoken with Gary Milliken the previous afternoon. Both the Southern and Northern Nevada Association of General Contractors indicated their support of the amendment language.

Chairman Bache entertained a motion.

Chairman Bache asked Assemblywoman Freeman to discuss Assembly Bill 424 and present her amendments.

Mrs. Freeman distributed Exhibit F which detailed the various changes to the process of regional planning in certain counties. She had introduced the bill on behalf of Washoe County. It did not affect the rest of the state. She asked Committee Analyst David Ziegler to walk the committee through the amendments.

David Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst, disclosed he had worked for the Washoe County Regional Planning Board, but neither favored nor opposed the legislation in A.B. 424.

A new section was added to A.B. 424. That simply added legislative findings and declarations presented by Mrs. Freeman at the original hearing. Section 2 of the bill was revised in its entirety and addressed consistency and conformance among local and regional plans. The language in the original bill was confusing to members of the public because it was so close to the language in the statute that it was difficult to differentiate.

Section 4 was deleted upon Mrs. Freeman’s recommendation, Mr. Ziegler continued. Section 5 changed "10 fiscal years" to "20 fiscal years." Section 6 added some clarification language.

Section 7 created a 10-member Regional Planning Commission (RPC) instead of the current 9-member commission. The language removed the requirement that RPC members be from the city and county planning commissions, but did not preclude two members from each jurisdiction from being planning commissioners. It required one member from each jurisdiction to represent citizen or neighborhood advisory bodies. And a 10th member was chosen from the school district. The section also dealt with the issue of training for planning commissioners. That was viewed as something the RPC itself could fund in terms of training.

Section 8 dealt with language changes requested by regional and local planning staffs. Mrs. Freeman recommended the deletion of section 10, because impact fees were addressed in other legislation.

Assemblyman Humke had questions about section 7. He wondered if the intent was to delete all of section 7 (as in the printed bill) and insert the new language. Mr. Ziegler replied affirmatively.

Chairman Bache asked for a vote on the motion.

Chairman Bache indicated two bills he wished to handle concurrently, Assembly Bill 65 and Assembly Bill 347.

A.B. 65 was the water meter bill heard earlier in the week, Mr. Bache explained. The bill required that each mobile home be connected to a water meter, which then treated each home as a single-family unit. That increased the costs to the park itself. He had planned to ask the committee to draft a resolution directing the water district to review its policy regarding mobile home parks. In the same resolution, he felt the water district could also be directed to resolve some of the problems of wellowners. He then recommended eliminating A.B. 65. He asked for a motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 65.

Mr. Bache indicated an amendment on A.B. 347 (Exhibit G) would eliminate state parks from the original provisions of the bill. "The amendatory provisions of section 3 of this act do not apply to a state agency in the Las Vegas Valley groundwater basin until July 1, 2001." It meant there would be 2 years for the water authority to put the $17 fee increase [for water service] into the budget process for state parks, including Floyd Lamb Park.

Assemblyman Mortenson distributed an amendment to A.B. 347 that had been presented by the wellowners association (Exhibit H). He discussed the major provisions.

The wellowners association felt a small portion of people who obtained water from the Las Vegas Valley were being persecuted, Mr. Mortenson explained. Elsewhere in the state, a well was treated as a property right. Approximately 6 percent of the water in the Las Vegas Valley was pumped by small wellowners. The wellowners needed the ability to maintain existing wells, or drill deeper wells, which was the most important part of A.B. 347.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel was also concerned about wellowners. She wondered if the committee was trying to amend an area of law that really could not be amended. "A.B. 347 can’t affect wellowners if they don’t have water rights, and we’re talking to the water right law. We need some explanation on that," she said.

Hugh Ricci, Deputy State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, and Julie Wilcox, Southern Nevada Water Authority, addressed Mr. Mortenson’s and Ms. Von Tobel’s concerns.

Ms. Wilcox discussed the state engineering statutes addressed by the amendment. When the groundwater basin in Las Vegas was over-appropriated and declared such by order of the State Engineer in 1995, all permanent groundwater rights were stopped and no new ones issued. After that time, only temporary permits were issued. The provisions of the amendment would create major changes in state water law, she concluded.

Mr. Ricci also expressed concern. He saw the amendment as granting the small wellowners permanent water rights, which would effectively rescind the statute put into place in 1995.

Assemblyman Mortenson did not feel the wellowners were asking for permanent water rights, only the ability to be able to maintain existing wells or drill them deeper.

Assemblyman Humke did not feel the amendment was good policy. He agreed that section 6 of the amendment did indeed change Nevada water law.

Assemblywoman Gibbons objected to the language on page 2, line 9, which referred to the lien on the property. She questioned the $27 fee on page 3, lines 7 and 8.

Chairman Bache explained the $27 fee went to the cost of reinjecting the wells with water to bring up the level of domestic wells. Currently it was $10. The $17 increase covered the costs of water to be reinjected into the wells.

Ms. Wilcox explained the lien, as stated in the bill, was security for a loan should a wellowner be required to connect his property to municipal water. Chairman Bache reminded the committee the wellowner was perfectly free to seek financing from a commercial bank rather than the water authority.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel was concerned with the "very high" connection fees. "If you don’t have water rights, it’s like being a tenant," she said. "So the best thing we can do is lower those connection fees so when someone who is on a fixed income and their well runs dry, we can provide them with a low-cost loan and the lowest possible connection fees." She felt the language in amendment simply would not work with A.B. 347 and did not feel she could support it.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked Ms. Wilcox to explain the mechanism by which the water authority would provide loans to their customers.

The loan was designed as an extended payment plan for connection charges, Ms. Wilcox stated. Rather than attempt to change existing state water laws, the water authority and the wellowners, after many hours of discussion, tried to institute assistance programs that would alleviate or mitigate the wellowners’ concerns. Ms. Tiffany elaborated her question. She asked if it was traditional on a long-term payment plan to put a lien on someone’s property.

Attorneys for the Southern Nevada Water Authority felt that security was needed for repayment, Ms. Wilcox explained. If a wellowner had contracted for a long-term payment plan and subsequently sold his home, there would be no other way for the water authority to recover its money.

Chairman Bache saw the language as giving permanent water rights to a group of people who currently held revocable water rights. Since the [Las Vegas Valley] water basin was already over-appropriated, water would have to come from somewhere else. "Who do you take water rights from?" he questioned. He did not think it a good idea to change state law in order to do that.

Assemblyman Mortenson indicated the bill did not ask for water rights. If wellowners paid the increased fees for recharging the groundwater, they would like to be able to repair existing wells. Should a wellowner ever fail to pay the fee, the process of reconnection would take effect.

Many costs were involved with wellowners connecting to a municipal water system, Ms. Wilcox commented. The water authority often could do such installations at less cost than if a wellowner was to hire his own contractor. Mr. Mortenson indicated the wellowners had not proposed reduction in connection fees. The wellowners’ main concern was the provision the water authority would finance waterline trenching up to the property line, but not beyond that point. Ms. Wilcox replied discussions between the groundwater management committee and the wellowners would certainly continue to address those concerns.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Mortenson for a motion.

Chairman Bache entertained an alternate motion.

Chairman Bache asked for a motion to request a resolution urging the Southern Nevada Water Authority to review the problems of the wellowners and the metering in mobile home parks.

Chairman Bache informed Committee Counsel Eileen O’Grady the language on the resolution could wait until amendments for the committee were processed. He opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 222.

Mr. Bache indicated he would not be offended should the committee vote to indefinitely postpone A.B. 222.

Chairman Bache said he would continue to work to consolidate police services throughout the state. By streamlining those services, cost savings and better services would be provided.

Chairman Bache asked Assemblywoman Segerblom for recommendations on the subcommittee hearing on Assembly Bill 369 which she had chaired.

The subcommittee, which consisted of herself, Assemblyman Mortenson and Assemblywoman Berman, arrived at a good solution, Assemblywoman Segerblom stated. Section 1 of the bill was added to Chapter 241 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Exhibit I, provided previously, consisted of a letter from Mr. Mortenson, and his recommended rewrite of the bill.

Assemblywoman Berman said the bill was a commendable piece of legislation but felt it should be a resolution. Assemblywoman Freeman agreed with Ms. Berman. Putting the legislation into statute was unnecessary, she said.

Assemblywoman Tiffany, while appreciating Assemblyman Mortenson’s efforts and realizing the need to give the public fair and equal time, also agreed the language should be in the form of a strongly-worded resolution. That would give the public body some flexibility, she said. Assemblyman Neighbors concurred.

Assemblyman Mortenson said the subcommittee worked very hard on the amendment. He felt the equal time provision was terribly abused in some places in the state, and to put the legislation into a resolution would render it worthless.

Chairman Bache did not think dealing with individuals who ran meetings could be legislated. He supported the concept of keeping testimony balanced and providing equal time in open meetings, but he did not feel it should be legislated. He agreed to accept a motion.

Chairman Bache asked for discussion.

Assemblyman Humke responded to a question from Assemblywoman Parnell as to the content of Chapter 241 [of the Nevada Revised Statutes]. It was a body of law that affected how state and local agencies conducted their meetings, he said. He agreed the bill would be better resolution language, and offered to so move.

Assemblyman Mortenson objected. "We do legislate fairness in hearings," he said. "We have passed a great body of wonderful laws called the open meeting laws. It is essentially legislating that citizens get a fair break."

Chairman Bache asked Ms. O’Grady to address the mechanics of changing the bill to a resolution. Ms. O’Grady indicated she was not certain, but would look into the matter and report back to the committee. Since the committee was considering redrafting A.B. 369 into an Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR), Mr. Bache felt it prudent to delay any action or further discussion until the following day.

Assemblyman Mortenson appreciated his colleagues. "A resolution is better than nothing at all," he said.

Chairman Bache asked Vice-Chairman Lee to present any amendments on Assembly Bill 590.

Assemblyman Lee distributed Exhibit J and refreshed the committee’s recollection of the bill. A.B. 590 was a North Las Vegas city charter bill which had been brought to the committee’s attention by Councilman John Rhodes. Inequities were taking place within the voting of council members of North Las Vegas. Mr. Lee believed his amendment would allow the people of North Las Vegas flexibility and freedom of choice in selection of council members, and would be a ballot question in the year 2000 presidential election.

The city was divided into four wards of equal population, Mr. Lee continued. The boundaries of the wards were established by ordinance. Ward boundaries were not to be changed within 30 days of a candidacy. Each council member would have to live within his or her ward, and must have lived there 30 days. All councilmen, including the mayor, were voted upon by the city at large.

Chairman Bache invited a motion.

Assemblywoman Tiffany had questions on the timeline involved between the 2000 census data and the ballot question. Chairman Bache believed the question to the voters would be on the ballot in the November 2000 general election. Ms. Tiffany wondered if the redistricting was done using the year 2000 census data, when the candidates’ names would be placed on the ballot.

The ward election would be 2000, Mr. Bache replied. He invited Marta Golding Brown and Councilman John Rhodes to address the issue.

Marta Golding Brown, representing the city of North Las Vegas, did not feel accurate census data would be available until 2003 or 2004. And the city of North Las Vegas held elections in May, not November.

Assemblyman Humke questioned the cost of the election. He felt the presidential election of 2000 would be the appropriate time to hold any city elections, given the large voter turnout at such a time.

Chairman Bache agreed the November 2000 general election would be the most cost-effective for North Las Vegas.

Assemblyman Williams suggested the committee use amendments 1 through 4 (see Exhibit J) and simply enact them. Assemblywoman Tiffany agreed, but felt census data was still needed. She suggested the May 2003 election as the best implementation date. The actual question could still be placed on the November 2000 ballot. Census data would be available in 2001. Redistricting could be accomplished between then and the May 2003 ballot.

Because similar issues had been addressed in Las Vegas, Chairman Bache opined, redistricting in North Las Vegas could be done immediately. He suggested that Assemblyman Williams look into the matter.

Assemblyman Williams felt if North Las Vegas created the wards soon, redistricting and adjustment of boundaries could be easily adjusted after the census. That would be accomplished for much less money than by putting the issue on the ballot.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel wondered if, in an area where ward boundaries had never been defined, would the 2000 census data be needed for initial definition of those boundaries.

The city of North Las Vegas, by ordinance, did have the authority to realign boundaries by population, Assemblywoman Tiffany said. She felt it should be solely a ballot question, and should be placed on the 2000 ballot.

Councilman John Rhoads of North Las Vegas felt the value of a true ward system was best defined where the people elected candidates from a particular ward. Inequities would be created by holding an at-large election, he said. The true ward system gave the electorate the ability to have more personal contact with members of the council.

Assemblyman Neighbors disagreed. In the city of Reno a candidate ran from a ward in a primary election, he said, and ran city-wide in the general election. In that way the candidate was held totally responsible. "If you’re going to get your feet wet in politics," he said, "you run from your ward. When it’s time for the general election, you are responsible to the whole county."

Assemblyman Lee’s original intent in A.B. 590 was to hold primary elections in the ward areas, and then the city at large could see the candidate and understand his or her vision for the city as a whole.

Councilman Rhoads wanted to be consistent, especially with the population explosion in southern Nevada. "If we’re talking about doing [this] in the best manner," he said, "the initial language of the bill keeps [the election] to the point where it is consistent with the mayoral election where the candidate run with a number of different people. They get down to a general election and then there are two that go on forward and the city still elects them as a whole."

Marta Brown said she had been requested by the City Council of North Las Vegas City Council to notify the committee not to proceed with actions on A.B. 590 or its amendments. She said the city council would prefer the issue to come out of the citizenry via petition onto a ballot.

Assemblyman Lee appreciated Ms. Brown letting the committee know the city council’s position on the bill.

Assemblywoman Tiffany appreciated the innovative nature of the bill. In the effort to unify and accommodate standardization, she said, the intimacy afforded by primary ward elections eliminated the sense of disenfranchisement many voters felt. By the time the city-wide general elections were held, candidates had the opportunity to raise money and become known by the entire constituency. "Yet you have the fight in your [own] district where people get to know you and choose you," she said

The legislature looked at the possibility of expanding the county commission, Assemblyman Williams said. It was an issue that had already been addressed in the city of Las Vegas due to the increase in population. People in North Las Vegas would soon begin questioning if they had enough representation. Mr. Williams felt redefining the ward boundaries in North Las Vegas was vital and should be done immediately.

Chairman Bache asked Councilman Rhoads if North Las Vegas was divided into wards what would his preferred method be – either everyone voting on candidates in the primary election and the general election, or as a second option, ward-only for both primary and general elections.

Councilman Rhoads’ preference was the second option, ward both ways. The true ward system was the only way a constituent could truly feel connected to his or her local official.

Assemblyman Mortenson agreed with both Ms. Tiffany and Mr. Neighbors. "It is a marvelous system that Reno has where you are elected by ward and elected at large in the general election," he said. "I think it’s wonderful and I wish we had it in Clark County."

Assemblyman Lee understood and indicated, "If I don’t go vote of the people on this bill, when it goes to the Senate it’s going to die. I’m only trying to make it palatable to both sides."

Assemblyman Williams said the committee should not be intimidated by "idle threats from people in the Senate. We can’t legislate by some rumor of what the Senate’s going to do. That’s why there are two houses. If they feel they don’t have the courage to do it in the Senate, let them amend it and send it back to us and we’ll work it out in a conference committee," he emphasized.

Assemblyman Humke agreed with Assemblyman Lee and not with Assemblyman Williams. He did not think the issue was so much between the Assembly and the Senate but rather the legislature substituting its judgement for the thousands of citizens of North Las Vegas. "Mr. Chairman, you cannot go wrong with the vote of the people," he said.

Assemblyman Lee told Chairman Bache all questions had been answered, and asked the chairman if he would entertain a motion.

Chairman Bache had already accepted a motion from Mr. Lee which was seconded. Because of the complications and discussions on the issue, he wanted to take a separate vote on the two issues raised: (1) the ward-only elections, both primary and general; and (2) would there be an election, or would the legislation be enacted immediately.

The main motion was to amend and do pass A.B. 590, Mr. Bache continued. He asked Mr. Lee if he would make a motion to deal with whether there would be an election in 2000. He asked Mr. Lee if he wished to withdraw his original motion and the committee could then deal with the matter in parts.

Mr. Lee did not think he so wished. He did not feel it to be the best procedure.

Chairman Bache asked Assemblyman Williams if he wished to move to amend the main motion.

Chairman Bache assumed the legislation would go into effect in 2001. He asked for a voice vote.

The election part was eliminated, Chairman Bache said. The second question concerned the language, "all councilmen included there would be voted on by the city at large and serve for a term of 4 years."

Assemblyman Lee wished to continue the verbiage already in the bill, with amendments 1 through 4. It would allow a ward primary and a city-wide general election.

Chairman Bache interpreted the language differently. He understood the language to mean ward primary and general elections. Mr. Humke asked for an explanation. He asked if the committee had taken a vote to approve the election concept.

"Mr. Williams moved to amend the main motion by deleting the preamble which was the election and go ahead and do it in 2001," Chairman Bache explained. "Go ahead and divide into wards for the 2001 election. That was the first motion. Mr. Lee made the motion to amend with this document (Exhibit J). Mr. Williams moved to amend and Ms. Tiffany seconded, that we delete the preamble which is the ballot question, and that we do it now with it taking place in the year 2001. The motion passed. We are with [parts] 1 through 4 [of the amendment] being enacted to occur for the 2001 election. My question was, because under 4(c) that language, to me, means that you are going to elect in wards at large at both the primary and general. Mr. Lee is nodding his head ‘no’. It is a difference in language interpretation, so I will ask Ms. O’Grady what she thinks the language means."

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, asked for clarification of intent.

Chairman Bache asked for discussion and indicated his opposition to the motion. The opportunity for someone to be elected in a primary would be eliminated. He felt the mixed system of ward in the primary and at-large in the general election was inappropriate because of the additional expense. He asked for either all ward or all general.

Assemblyman Williams agreed and asked for wards only in both elections. If that was not possible, then reverse and have the wards at large in both elections.

Assemblyman Mortenson agreed with Assemblyman Lee and felt it would be "penny foolish" to allow costs to influence a decision on a good system. "If it’s a better system, the money should be spent to do it the right way," he said.

Assemblyman Neighbors could not get excited about campaign costs, since his assembly district was one-third larger than the State of Indiana and Assemblyman Mortenson could probably walk his district in two days.

Mr. Bache asked the Clark County members of the committee if they would like to be nominated in their particular assembly district and then run county-wide in the general election.

Assemblywoman Tiffany felt everyone was mixing "apples and oranges" and thought the idea of walking one’s assembly district and then going statewide in a general election was innovative.

Chairman Bache pointed out there would be an untenable situation if the committee voted to have ward [elections] in the primaries and at-large [elections] in the general. Both proponents and opponents of A.B. 590 would then want to kill the bill. He asked for further discussion.

The chairman asked for a voice vote of all in favor of the proposed amendment (Exhibit J) to make it ward elections in the primaries and at-large elections in the general. The Chairman was in doubt and asked for a roll call vote.

Chairman Bache asked for a voice vote to amend and do pass A.B. 590 which would provide ward elections at-large in both primary and general elections.

ASSEMBLYWOMEN BERMAN AND TIFFANY, AND ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE, MORTENSON, NEIGHBORS, AND LEE VOTED NO TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 590.

Chairman Bache told the committee the bill was not dead, and would continue work on it in the next meeting. He adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Charlotte Tucker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: