The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:18 a.m., on Tuesday, April 13, 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:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Bache called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 312.

Greg Salter, Deputy Attorney General, testified on S.B. 312. Part of his job was to enforce the open meeting law. As the committee was aware, public agencies were required to send out written notices of their upcoming meetings. The purpose of the bill was to ensure those notices were sent by first class mail and without charge to the recipient.

Recently, the Attorney General’s Office had become aware of some public agencies who wished to charge a "subscription fee" to place people on their mailing lists. Justification for so doing was the new Public Records Act, passed in 1997 that indicated agencies could charge for copies of public records unless a statute specifically said otherwise. The purpose of S.B. 312 was to have a statute that specifically said otherwise. He distributed Exhibit C.

Assemblywoman Freeman asked what justification agencies used for charging the fees.

Mr. Salter explained within the last year or so, four complaints had been registered in the Attorney General’s Office against two public bodies. When questioned, the agencies explained they were simply trying to recover fees and be efficient. No specific statutory authority granting them the right to charge the fees was indicated. However, the agencies felt the Public Records Act, NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) 239.052, which would become effective on July 1, 1999, would give them the specific authority to charge for making copies of public records. By amending the statutes with S.B. 312, that argument would be prevented.

Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Salter for his interpretation of the Public Records Act and why he felt the statute would lead public agencies to feel they were given authority to charge fees.

Mr. Salter did not believe a notice of a public meeting was public record until after the meeting was completed. He realized opinions might differ, and the Attorney General’s Office simply wished to resolve the question by statute.

Assemblyman Humke inquired about the fiscal impacts of the bill. Mr. Salter could not give an exact figure because he had not surveyed local governments. However, for the vast majority of public bodies there should be no fiscal impact since fees were not being charged anyway. It did not increase nor decrease the spending for those agencies.

Chairman Bache indicated the bill language was more for clarification than additional requirements. The old language said mailing a copy of a notice to any person who had requested such notice of the meeting of a public body be mailed in the same manner as a notice to a member of that body. With the change in language to "first class mail or its equivalent," Mr. Bache asked, was that basically saying the same thing in a slightly different way.

Mr. Salter replied the Attorney General’s Office originally interpreted the language to mean the notices be mailed without charge. Because the interpretation was being questioned by the Public Records Act, his office simply wanted to amend the statute to clarify the language.

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, went on record in support of the bill

Tom Skancke, representing the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, distributed Exhibit D, which was a proposed amendment to the bill. He said he had attempted to amend S.B. 312 in the Senate, but it had moved in and out of the committee so quickly that he thought he could amend it on the Assembly side.

The convention authority occasionally made grants from tax dollars to Clark County entities, Mr. Skancke explained. Their main concern was to make certain those entities that received grant money from room tax dollars were required to operate under the open meeting law. The amendment redefined the term "public body" to include all corporations or nonprofit corporations which obtained funding from tax dollars and where such corporation’s governing body was represented by members appointed by a government entity.

Assemblywoman Segerblom wanted to make certain Mr. Salter was in agreement. Mr. Skancke said Mr. Salter had suggested some small language changes. The language would then read, "includes members" rather than "represented by."

Assemblyman Neighbors cited the example of an enterprise fund, the Tonopah Public Utility. Its funds were not derived from taxes but rather from fees for water and sewer and the like. He wondered if such an entity would be covered under the bill. Its meetings would have to be open to the public. He asked Mr. Salter to research the question.

Mr. Skancke said the language dealt strictly with people that received grants or contributions from a government agency in tax dollars, whether ad valorem tax, room tax, or whatever, but not a utility.

Assemblyman Mortenson supported the bill and felt anyone that used taxes should operate under the open meeting laws.

Assemblyman Humke questioned the language in the third line of the amendment. He wondered if it could cause a minority of an entity such as a city council, which might have members on a convention and visitors’ authority, to come under the open meeting law.

Mr. Skancke did not understand the question, but cited an example. Currently, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors’ Authority was made up of two members of the city council, two county commissioners, and one member from Henderson. There was no majority of any elected body on the board, and he did not feel the board would be affected.

Mr. Humke replied that sometimes people who brought suit under the open meeting law would have an action to which they could relate, in Mr. Skancke’s example, to the two members of the Las Vegas City Council. He wondered if there was the possibility those two members, by participation on the convention authority, could cause any problems to for the city council by any sort of open meeting law violation.

Mr. Skancke did not think so, because the two city council members on the convention authority did not represent a true majority of the council, and thus no open meeting law would be violated.

"I just want to preserve the record to show that it is your intent not to overcome the situation whereby a city council, if a minority of the city council is present, they can [still] receive a briefing on information, so long as they do not take action," Mr. Humke said. Mr. Skancke concurred.

Chairman Bache suggested that Mr. Salter, as the attorney who originally handled the open meeting law, could address the questions from the committee.

Mr. Salter had not seen the proposed amendment prior to the meeting, nor had he discussed it with the attorney general, so could not give an official position. As a general rule, the Attorney General’s Office believed in openness in government. He suggested expanding the word "funding" in the amendment, and cited several examples that worried him.

He concurred with Assemblyman Humke’s question. If there was a non-quorum of a public body, such as the city council, participating in a meeting of an entity that would be covered by the open meeting law, and since the law already applied to the entity, it would not be necessary for the city council to send notices about the meeting that two of its people were planning to attend, he opined.

Assemblyman Humke wondered if the amendment could be improved by limiting the language to non-profit corporations. Mr. Salter agreed that clarification of the funding of corporations should be addressed

Mr. Skancke emphasized the amendment language dealt with corporations and non-profit corporations who received funding from taxes from entities whose members were appointed by a public body. It could relate to entities such as EDAWN (Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada), or the Nevada Development Authority. The proponents of the amendment wished to broaden the scope of the open meeting law to cover such groups as the convention authority.

Assemblyman Humke had a hypothetical question. He cited EDAWN in Washoe County as a private, nonprofit corporation. One assumed the city of Reno paid dues of $500 to EDAWN and obtained a seat on the board, which was filled by a city council member. Therefore, under the proposed amendment and bill, EDAWN was subject to the open meeting law. Was that correct?

Mr. Skancke believed dues were excluded. The amendment addressed only funding. He indicated that much work needed to be done on the language of the amendment.

Mr. Humke posed another hypothesis. The city of Reno wished to commission EDAWN to conduct survey research. The city obtained a contract with EDAWN for $1,000 to conduct that research. Did that constitute funding, and was that indeed the intent of the amendment?

Mr. Skancke responded negatively. The amendment was specifically geared toward organizations that requested grants or funding, and would not include contracts or consulting services agreements. Mr. Humke commented it would be a rather big policy question should EDAWN or other similar entities be subject to the open meeting laws.

When the Attorney General’s Office investigated EDAWN to determine if it was subject to the open meeting laws, Mr. Salter said, it was noticed in their bylaws that the members of their board of governors were only ex-officio members. He indicated that factor should be more carefully studied.

Many rural counties had five-member boards, Assemblyman Neighbors said. If three of them decided they wanted to come and listen to a committee hearing, he wondered if the board needed to have an agenda in its county in order to indicate a quorum was planning to attend the hearing.

If the three members simply sat in the audience and observed the hearing, Mr. Salter replied, a meeting would not take place. A meeting contemplated deliberation toward a decision or some form of an action.

Chairman Bache asked if any member of the aforementioned county commission should address the committee, but did it as an individual, not as a representative of the governmental entity, would that constitute a violation of the open meeting laws.

Mr. Salter indicated affirmatively, unless the group had gathered in order to formulate a consensus position and that one person came forward and said, "I am speaking for the city council." Then, in order for that person to have obtained the authority to speak, he or she would have had to obtain a consensus from a quorum of the public body and that act of forming a consensus would constitute a meeting.

Assemblyman Mortenson believed the open meeting law stated that public officials in a quorum could attend informational meetings as long as the purpose was to receive information.

It went toward the interpretation of the definition of a meeting, Mr. Salter said. If a meeting was conducted, it had to be done in accordance with the open meeting laws. The definition of a meeting contemplated the presence of a quorum, the quorum was deliberating toward a decision, or action was taken. Action was the promise to make a vote, actually taking a vote, or making a decision. He cited an example in California where the courts ruled that even the collective gathering of information was covered by California’s open meeting laws.

Tom Grady, representing the Nevada League of Cities, told the committee S.B. 312 was legislation many counties had addressed. Most counties were already sending meeting notices by first class mail. He indicated most counties supported the measure and would continue to do so.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Salter to confer with him on amendment language. He closed the hearing on S.B. 312. After a brief recess, he opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution 15.

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District, described S.C.R. 15 as the Lake Tahoe oversight resolution. Although he had opposed the formation of TRPA (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) because he did not believe in regional government, he agreed the agency was productive and necessary.

The Legislative Commission’s study of TRPA functioned as an independent body, Senator Jacobsen continued. It allowed the public to come and discuss mostly environmental concerns in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and the two resolutions before the committee had resulted from recommendations by the commission.

The Lake Tahoe Basin presented unique situations both environmentally and physically, not only for the people who lived there but also for tourists. Because six counties were represented, three from Nevada and three from California, it was often difficult to coordinate the wishes of the different entities and make certain "all were going in the same direction," Senator Jacobsen said.

Senator Jacobsen wished to discuss the use of volunteer and inmate labor by state agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin and which was addressed in S.C.R. 15. He found it was hard to find someone to "pick the weeds" unless incentives were offered. "I’ve found that especially true with prison crews," he said. "They look for special favors. A lot of times they say, ‘Well, what are you going to do for us?’ I say, ‘Well, you did it to yourselves. But if you get this job done I’ll furnish the soda pop at noontime.’" He learned one of the main catalysts in inspiring young people and inmates to work was to work along with them.

Both Assemblywoman Freeman and Assemblywoman Segerblom had served with Senator Jacobsen on the Interim Legislative Committee, and were enthusiastic in their support of the committee’s efforts. Mrs. Freeman especially appreciated there would be no effect on employment on Nevada residents with the passage of S.C.R. 15. Ms. Segerblom approved of the efforts to control housing and gaming around the perimeter of Lake Tahoe.

Fred Welden, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, had served as staff analyst to the oversight committee and indicated both resolutions when introduced on the Senate side had each been supported by several agencies. He offered to obtain additional testimony should the committee wish.

Assemblywoman Gibbons inquired as to the type of road salt being used in the Lake Tahoe Basin for snow removal.

Senator Jacobsen did not know. He deferred to Mr. Welden, who was not certain. Mr. Welden indicated the TRPA representative might be able to better answer her question.

Pam Drum, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, addressed Ms. Gibbons’ question. The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) had become a real leader in making advances in sand and salt application, especially at Lake Tahoe. The California Department of Transportation was following the lead set by NDOT. Through computerized equipment and materials studies, NDOT drastically reduced the amounts of salt and sand deposited on highways in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Ms. Gibbons asked about the tree mortality in the basin, and whether it was from road salt or automobile pollution.

The tree mortality problem came from different sources, Ms. Drum replied, not necessarily wholly from road salt. Drought and bark beetles were the main culprits, as well as being mitigated by road salt. It was a combination of many factors, and the road salt "was the final coffin nail in those trees," she said.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked about the controlled burn areas in the basin, most especially where there were dead trees.

The dead tree problem realized no boundaries, Ms. Drum responded. The United States Forest Service was actually in a better position to recognize and correct potential forest health problems. The state park system was hampered by lack of funding. But oftentimes the dead trees were first cut down, left to dry, and then burned. The denuded areas and debris were termed "slash". Much more open burning was done in the last few years because agencies had agreed it was the most effective method of dealing with the slash problem.

Senator Jacobsen agreed the health of the forests was one of his major concerns. He said there had been some controlled logging in the areas along the highways. TRPA was mostly responsible for implementing much of the recent conservation efforts at the lake. Since any area of the Lake Tahoe Basin was "a disaster waiting to happen," fire prevention was mandatory. All the firefighting agencies in the basin were linked together with an agency called Sierra Front, which was a combination of federal and state agencies in both Nevada and California.

It was important that TRPA and the members of the Legislative Commission meet with its California counterparts more frequently, Senator Jacobsen said. In 1998, "they wanted to do an audit using some of our money, and they realized that we [Nevada] pay only one-third and California pays two-thirds. I thought the fact they wanted to audit using some of that money that we should be a party to it as well, and we finally did," he concluded. So-called regional government or bi-state government was awkward unless real efforts were made to make certain both states were affected equally, and that blame was shared equally in case something went wrong. And much of the forest land in the Lake Tahoe Basin that contained dead and dying trees was private property, which presented certain obstacles.

Assemblywoman Freeman referred to a summit with California officials that had been planned but had never taken place. Mr. Welden replied that some contacts with California legislators had been made. There were problems with scheduling the meeting because of elections and legislative sessions. However, some of the California legislators indicated their willingness to help coordinate future meetings, especially if both S.C.R. 15 and S.C.R. 16 were approved.

Mrs. Freeman wished to consider an amendment to a future bill that would mandate a plan for a summit meeting with California legislators. She then asked about the logging activities taking place at the lake. Since she had heard there was no longer a profit to be realized by logging, she wondered if the Forest Service was actually removing the trees.

Ms. Drum replied that once a dead tree was so dead it had little or no merchantable value to it, no private logging company could make a profit by removing it. She indicated there was about $2 million or $3 million in the state budget for the Division of State Parks to begin dead tree removal on state lands. Such activity was already subsidized on federal lands, and if the State of Nevada was to do it in a manner appropriate to the Lake Tahoe environment, public subsidies would be required. And there was still some contracting with private logging companies.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.C.R. 15 and opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution 16.

Senator Jacobsen described S.C.R. 16 as necessary legislation because he felt continuing review of TRPA was mandatory. He discussed several issues that would be addressed during the interim review process.

Pollution from motorboats was an ongoing problem. Nevada was somewhat ahead of California in controlling effluent, which was then diverted into creeks to remove it from the Tahoe Basin. "We’ve learned to utilize the kinds of things you might call detriments," he said, "but today the prison farm south of here is irrigated with the effluent from Carson City. During the last couple of years we never bought a bale of hay and we’re milking 83 cows [at the prison farm], and we’re using inmate labor as well."

It was very important to continue the oversight committee. Anyone wishing to serve could submit his or her name. The committee met four times in 1998, usually hosted by TRPA or some of the other improvement districts.

Assemblywoman Freeman inquired about the 1997 Federal Summit and the amount of funding that had come to Nevada as a result of the summit.

Because both the President and Vice President had been personally involved in the summit, Senator Jacobsen said, he believed there would be considerable federal involvement with Lake Tahoe in the future.

Pam Drum, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, addressed Mrs. Freeman’s question in more detail. The 1997 summit proved to be extremely valuable, she said. During the last two federal fiscal years nearly $55 million in additional funding was received, which was over and above what was already being spent in the Tahoe Basin. The summit also helped to bring Nevada and California together, most especially with regard to state agencies such as the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Department of Transportation.

Mrs. Freeman asked for a specific breakdown as to how the federal funds were spent. She recalled a helicopter flight taken by the committee on Natural Resources and Conservation previously, and wondered if, during the interim, such a tour could again be possible. Senator Jacobsen said he thought arrangements could be made through the Division of Forestry for such a tour.

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked about the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.

The compact was an agreement between the states of California and Nevada, Ms. Drum replied. It was passed in 1969 and amended in 1980 as part of Chapter 277 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. It was part of the California statutes and part of the Federal Record. It was a document that created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and defined TRPA’s authority.

TRPA enthusiastically supported S.C.R. 16, Ms. Drum continued. She felt the whole interim committee process was valuable and productive. TRPA valued the time spent with legislators. The California legislature had two appointments to the TRPA governing board, and Nevada, while having seven board representatives, none was appointed directly by the legislature. She urged continued support of the interim committee.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.C.R. 16 and announced the committee would take no action at that time.

Committee Research Analyst David Ziegler said the Chairman had asked him to disclose that he had a "live" contract with TRPA in order to provide expert witness services in the case of Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council vs. TRPA. The case was under appeal at the present.

Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Charlotte Tucker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: