The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:22 a.m., on Thursday, April 22, 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 Mark Amodei, Capital Senatorial District

Senator Bernice Mathews, Washoe Senate District 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, testified the bill had its genesis in the 1997 session in a measure that passed, putting a ballot question on the statewide general election in 1998. The passage was supported statewide, and the largest support came from Las Vegas and Carson City. As a result he was appearing to request that the last Friday in October be codified as the day to celebrate Nevada Day. There had been comments it was simply an attempt by Carson City to make more money from the Nevada Day celebration. He wanted to place that in a proper perspective, with the current rotating cycle every 3 years October 31 fell on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday and had not been a positive event in terms of financial benefit. He added it was a self-supporting event and not an attempt to make more money, but to build the event into a 3-day weekend context so the event could continue. There would be testimony from people involved in the event that if it continued as it presently was done, it may go by the wayside due to funding problems because of trying to sustain the event over a constantly changing day of the week. It was hard to break even when the holiday fell on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday because there was just not the turnout. The bill was an attempt to restore some fiscal stability to the event so it could continue and also allowed it to be in a context where the widest support statewide could be garnered. He added the last time there was a band from the south was 1987, when the Western High School Warriors attended the festivities and in 1998 Gorman High School came up. It was important to have the maximum participation for the event from all over the state.

Marv Teixeira, former Carson City mayor, wanted to defer his comments to Mr. Rocha.

Guy Rocha, assistant administrator for Archives and Records, testified he had been asked several years ago when the initiative was first contemplated, to do a background and history of Nevada Day. October 31, 1865, was when Nevada was accepted into the union without celebration. It was not until 1891 that Nevada’s admission day was even declared a judicial holiday, with no court business transacted on October 31. In 1908 the State Federation of Women’s Clubs wanted it declared an annual legal holiday, but they were not successful. It was not until 1914 there was some sort of consistency in celebrating Admission Day with the first celebration held in honor of the 50^th anniversary, or the semi-centennial, of Nevada statehood. The historical director at that time was able to prod the governor for a proclamation with the celebration held in Reno and the initiation of an annual celebration in Reno from 1914 until 1937. It died out as the pioneers who were instrumental in creating the celebration passed on.

Judge Clark Guild and Tom Wilson, a Reno advertising executive were able to salvage Nevada Day which was changed from Admission Day in 1933 and moved the celebration to Carson City. In 1939 it was made an official state holiday if that day fell on a Monday through a Friday. When the war came along the holiday was suspended for 3 years. The first time Carson City had problems was when Nevada Day fell on a Sunday because the Christians objected to the celebration being held on the Sabbath, so the celebration was moved to Monday, November 1. After that the legislature followed up by saying that when the holiday fell on a Sunday it would be observed on Monday. That was the first time it was changed, then in 1954 it was held on Saturday when October 31 fell on Sunday. In 1971 it was decided the holiday would be Friday, October 30 if it fell on Saturday, so even back then a 3-day holiday was being observed when the date fell during the weekend.

In checking with other states to see which ones observed admission day, he found only two other states did anything similar. Those states were Hawaii who celebrated August 21, since 1959 and the other battle born state, West Virginia who celebrated June 20, 1863. He also learned those states only held celebrations every 25 years, and only small observances in the interim years. Nowhere else in the nation was there something done in the magnitude of the celebration in Carson City held every year. He was testifying as to the historical nature of the holiday, but he also wanted to see the celebration sustained.

Senator Amodei interjected one of the mechanics of the bill was it did not affect the celebration for 1999. The effective date was 2000 so the bill would only start on October 31, 2000. He had not realized that calendars were built out as far as they were, and so the actual holiday would fall on Monday, November 1 in 1999.

Ed Blanchard, former chairman of the Nevada Day Committee stated he had served 26 years on the committee. In trying to have the whole state involved they had reached out to each of the territories working with their Visitors Bureau statewide. It was decided each territory would be in charge of the theme for each celebration. In 1998 the "cowboy county" picked the theme of the parade, the grand marshal, and designed the button. In 1999 it would be the "pony express," in the year 2000 it would be pioneer territory, in 2001 "Las Vegas territory," 2002 "Reno-Lake Tahoe territory," and in 2003 "Indian territory." A lot of people had no idea what Nevada Day meant, and that was what they were trying to accomplish.

Mayor Ray Masayko, Carson City testified he had spent 8 years on the Nevada Day committee, starting the parade at 10 a.m. for each of those years. He also spent a lot of time with the business communities attempting to convince them of the need to participate in the unique celebration. The parade was a significant undertaking and done completely by volunteers. There was no funding by government, and he felt it was important to continue the tradition. He thought Nevada Day was a prime opportunity for all citizens to join in the celebration and having a Friday holiday and a Saturday parade day gave the bands an opportunity to participate as they had to travel from as far away as Ely and Elko. He added the voters in Carson City approved the advisory measure by 55 percent in 1998 supporting the change that was included in the bill. For the record the Carson City Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to support S.B. 31 changing the date allowing the continuation of the celebration. He wanted to go on record as supporting the bill.

Former Mayor Marv Teixeira said 2 years ago, when the measure was brought before the legislature, it was not the intent to break tradition. It was also the intent to preserve and enhance Nevada Day. He pointed out in 1969 a similar measure was brought before the legislature to have the holiday changed and it never came out of committee nor should it have. It was the intent to go to the voters of Nevada to see what they thought. The argument for the change was to allow all working citizens to attend the celebration, have the ability to bring bands from other areas, and have a consistent 3-day weekend. The argument against passage was "The legislature should not break with tradition and historical accuracy for the sake of creating another 3 day weekend." The convolution of Nevada Day had caused a real problem in keeping the event going.

If the change was not approved he felt it would just be a matter of time before the event would disappear. In looking back over his years as Mayor he felt the most disappointing item during his tenure was the loss of the V & T roundhouse. The city lost a piece of history that could never be brought back and although by law it had to demolished as the property had been sold, but for 35 previous years the legislature had the opportunity to address the issue and chose to ignore it. The point was Nevada Day needed to be preserved and enhanced and that was why he was supporting the legislation. Sponsorship in the parade was needed and in order to retain that, there must be a consistent event to be able to market year after year. He added there was also participation from neighboring states, and with all the enhancements to various things such as the museum and train museum, all pieces of Nevada history needed to be preserved and enhanced including Nevada Day.

Ms. Segerblom stated she had never missed a vote in the legislature but she had to go Washington, D.C., for a meeting of a national conference on historic preservation, and while she was gone Senator Amodei came up with a bill to change Nevada Day. When she returned she discovered her state had become "un-preserved." There was a fourth of July parade in Boulder City and they did not ask for a 3-day holiday, they did not care what day of the week it was. She felt Nevada day was a traditional holiday and she could not support changing the day.

Senator Amodei remarked he understood her perspective as he had grown up in Carson City and participated in the parade. When he first heard of the change he had some trepidation, but when the reality of losing the tradition set in he decided it was better to accommodate a 3-day weekend rather than seeing that event disappear. He would rather have the change so the event could continue the way he remembered it rather than people just gathering in a backyard somewhere and toasting the silver state.

Chairman Bache declared he had voted against the previous measure. However, with the vote of the people indicating they wanted the change he felt he would have to observe the wishes of his constituents.

Marcedes Parsons, representing herself testified she was not in support of the bill. She was a traditionalist and there had already been many holidays changed, making them 3-day holidays. She understood the logic of making it a 3-day holiday in assuring monetary input and participation, but so much tradition had gone by the wayside. A good example was when Memorial Day was changed to a 3-day holiday, and it seemed more appropriate to maintain at least 1 traditional holiday. She felt a lot of children perceived the holiday as associated with Halloween rather than Nevada Day, and that was why schools were not in session. She was also speaking on behalf of friends from Reno, Ely, and Elko who also believed it should be retained as October 31.

Chairman Bache asked if it only applied to school districts, as in section 3 it was noted, "if they decided to observe the holiday." Senator Amodei replied the school districts by law had the ability to take the day off, but they could elect which day so it could be shifted to another day. As an example Eureka held class on Nevada Day, observing it in the classroom and then took that day off from school at some other point in time during the year.

Chairman Bache indicated, as there was no further testimony the hearing on S.B. 31 was closed and action would be taken in the near future.

Senator Mathews, Washoe Senate District 1 testified Paula Berkley would address the bill, she merely wanted to stress she thought it was a good bill and was in full support.

Paula Berkley, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, stated approximately a year ago the colony was going to enter into an agreement with the county to exchange some land for mutual benefit. At that time it was discovered there was no legal ability to do so in state statute. Escrow accounts had to be set up, as the two entities purchased each other’s property, and it entailed a fairly cumbersome process. Basically the bill was drafted to address that issue. Every session the colony had her introduce a bill to enhance the tribal/state relationship and S.B. 52 was the bill for the 1999 session. The bill did not force anyone to do anything it merely gave an option. The first section defined an Indian tribe as a public agency, and that was basically what had been missing and would enable them to lease, sell, and exchange lands with other agencies. The second section allowed the ability of giving land to each other for a public purpose such as a cultural center or park. Section 3 included educational institutions because they were not considered public agencies, so in the future if schools wanted to exchange lands with tribes it was permissible. The last section indicated the exchange of lands must use the same process as a public agency even if it was a school.

Arlan Melendez, chairman, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony testified the tribe had worked for many years in cooperative agreements with the State of Nevada and the thrust of the bill was to make things easier in the relationships between the colony, the counties, cities, and different public agencies. One example was a nature conservancy group that wanted to donate land to the colony, and it was land no one else wanted. It was small acreage, and the colony was interested in acquiring it because of the natural plants including willows that were used in traditional baskets. There were also medicinal plants that were on the parcel, and he felt it would benefit the tribe, as they were interested in keeping the lands in their natural state. He wanted the committee to understand the reason for the bill and urged them to pass the bill.

Maddie Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, stated she appearing in support of the bill. In acquiring the previous referred land, it was a cumbersome task and she felt with verbiage in S.B. 52 acquisition would have been easier if it had been in effect at that time.

Ms. Gibbons questioned what happened after 99 years, did the land then reverted back to the government if there had been a trade. Ms. Berkley replied it would revert back, but that only referred to leased land. When the land was traded, and the colony accepted it, usually Indian lands were put in trust.

Senator Mathews added the bill brought forth in 1997 from the Indian Colony was just for that purpose, tax was paid on land that went into trust on anything acquired after July 1, 1998. So not all the tax dollars were lost, only if it was a gift.

Chairman Bache left the meeting to testify before another committee and turned the gavel over to Vice-Chairman Lee.

Ms. Berkley declared the goodwill bill from 1997 clarified the procedure when tribes put lands in trust. Before that bill was passed the assessed valuation did not go to the Federal Government, and the states also lost it off their tax rolls. Quite often, especially on raw lands, it was the largest value of that land. When the law was passed it said when Indian lands went into trust the assessed valuation remained where it had been purchased, so it remained with the state or the county. The legislation was being touted as forward thinking through the National Congress of American Indians in Congress, and it was currently under consideration so Indian tribes across the nation could do the same thing in allowing states to retain their tax base.

Mr. Lee asked if Mr. Melendez could give the committee an idea of who the members of the colony were and a little background. Mr. Melendez stated the colony consisted of about 1,000 members with 2 reservations. One was the original reservation of 30 acres in downtown Reno across the freeway from the Reno Hilton. 2,000 acres were acquired in Hungry Valley, 17 miles north of Sparks on the Pyramid Lake Highway where the majority of members resided because of the space. The makeup was Washoe, Shoshone, and Paiute so there were three tribes in one and there was a historic vote on the membership, as it was becoming a controversial issue. There were also some small commercial developments adjacent to their land in downtown Reno.

As there was no further testimony Vice-Chairman Lee said they would take testimony on S.B. 216.

Ron Lynn, assistant director, representing Clark County, stated the bill basically made one change with a lot of words. The words "and its political subdivision" were removed in the charging of fees. Scheduled fixed fees did not apply to all of the State of Nevada. Currently Clark County charged and paid fees for all the activities of construction, they were an enterprise system, and there was impact whether in plan checking or inspection. The remaining portion in italics, merely enabled the university, community college system, or any school district to enter into an interlocal agreement but did not require the county to provide services. It was only a vehicle by which it could be accomplished.

Mr. Lee asked if he read the bill right the county would do the plan checking and all the technical matters in building a school without charging a fee. Mr. Lynn related it did not refer to those areas. What it said was if the school district or anyone wished to use the county system with plans checked then an inter-local agreement could be entered and appropriate fees were paid as established by the agreement. If they wished, the school district could have an inspection conducted by the county, there would then have to be an inter-local, agreement and there would be a mutually established fee rate. It was not imposed on the local governments.

Mr. Lee inquired if Clark County currently was doing plans checks for the Clark County School District. Mr. Lynn responded that was done by state public works.

Mr. Lee queried if he could give an instance outside of the school district where the bill might come into play. Mr. Lynn said the city oversaw all plans checks, inspected all fire departments, police departments, parks and recreation for the county, as well as other facilities such as the water district, waste water treatment plants, housing developments, and the city of Las Vegas housing if construction occurred in the unincorporated areas of the county. They charged for their services including the airport, county buildings, or a building in the center of the city. They provided a high level of service and appropriate fees were needed to maintain that high level of service.

Two incidents happened since the 1997 Legislative Session, as contractors looking for an edge, underbid their competitors by not being up front about getting permits. One of those was for the airport, they bid it for 10 percent less and got the bid. Then they said they would not pay fees for plans check or inspections. The airport said, "yes you will," as they wanted that quality of safety incorporated into the structures. Eventually there was a hearing with a decision they would have to get the appropriate permits and inspections and pay for the appropriate services just like every other contractor. That type of occurrence had happened twice on county facilities and if the bill passed it would clear up any misinterpretation.

Martha Tittle, Clark County School District, testified they were in support of S.B. 216 as amended.

Rick Bennett, director, Government Relations, University of Nevada Las Vegas indicated as currently written in the first reprint, the university system also supported the bill.

Marta Brown, with the city of North Las Vegas added their support to the bill.

Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association testified she was speaking in support of the bill but by default. She pointed out the bill resulted from the S.B. 253 committee and one of the bills that occurred as the committee was looking at the issue of "rate-creep." In trying to totally evaluate that issue one of the things that came to light was the White Pine School District, where there was some due diligence missing. It had the school district ratcheting up the rate because of incorrect calculations. When discussing how things like that could have been prevented, the fact was since 1995 the debt management commission played a much larger role, and now information was available to add another level of checks and balances. In the smaller counties with populations of less than 30,000, sometimes there was a lack of technical expertise needed that was appointed to a debt management commission. It would allow the smaller counties to approach the Department of Taxation and request assistance in looking at projections of assessed value. They could then determine if the debt rate being proposed was the correct rate. The department had testified that if there were resources available they would have no problem with the bill.

Those counties larger than 30,000 were covered by the second section of the bill, stating county commissioners were responsible for appointing the members of the debt management commission. They would also provide the necessary staff assistance available in reviewing the paperwork and making information available as requested. She knew that a few years ago Clark County was assigning a county attorney and staff out of the commission offices, ensuring that information was compiled and went to the members and those in the public sector. In the larger counties with populations over 50,000 the debt management commission was allowed to have 2 public members, and in Clark County she was a member of the debt management commission. The concern was there must be people with expertise as the issues became larger, and there were more issues coming before the commission. It was not an evaluation as to whether a project was meritorious but whether the debt rate was sufficiently covered by the assessed value in relationship to other outstanding debt coming before the commission. It was a bill to set qualifications and strengthen the support of the existing debt management the commissions had.

Mr. Lee asked why there seemed to be a difference in attendance for the different counties. Ms. Vilardo replied in the 1997 session, because of the number of issues coming before the larger entities, the debt management commissions were one of the oddball commissions to which no one paid much attention. Because the debt management commissions were at the bottom of the heap of commissions, it was the same with picking public members. In the larger counties the commission was structured so they had to meet every month while smaller ones met quarterly. There were still people who did not realize the implications of the debt management commission particularly with the provision in law mandating all issues must be evaluated. It was difficult sometimes to get a quorum even in Clark County and was the reason for setting the requirement, that if a member was not going to attend someone would replace them who would.

Ms. Tiffany questioned from where the bill came. Ms. Vilardo responded the original bill and expansion came from the S.B. 253 committee, and there were another three or four bills resulting from that committee. There were general obligation bond commissions, and because of a number of things that happened during the 1991 session, the 1993 session expanded the due diligence provisions, and the present bill was an expansion of that.

Ms. Tiffany wondered about the bond indebtedness, and if there was any way to address expenditure problems. Some of the rural counties had a lack of sophistication when it came to appropriate expenditures. Ms. Vilardo indicated she had seen local government finance committee meetings where expenditures became an issue of great concern. Because there may not be expertise in the smaller counties for some of the technical financial issues that came before them, Nevada Association of Counties and the league of cities provided consultants to conduct workshops on cash management. Those provided and elevated the level of understanding of the people dealing with those fiscal issues. She added the Department of Taxation now had the ability to look at quarterly reports and resolve problems at a much earlier point in time.

Ms. Tiffany pointed out it seemed in some of the counties there appeared some practices in bookkeeping might be in violation of statute. Ms. Vilardo responded since 1995 the legislature actually added some provisions to statute that required the annual audited financial statements of the entities specifically address some of the trust, and other funds created to make sure they were being used appropriately. Generally a number of the local financial audited reports were scrutinized and the department was seeing less and less serious or repeat type issues raised by outside accountants. She felt during the next several sessions there would be more streamlining as other elements came to the attention of local government finance committees and the Department of Taxation.

Ms. Tiffany remarked when looking at the problems of attendance she understood the people appointed were Chief Executive Officers of large corporations and she felt that was an inappropriate appointment. They were vision people and were not aware of the day-to-day operations of a detailed committee, and she questioned who made the appointments. Ms. Vilardo said as required by statute appointments were made by the county commission. There were changes made in the bill, requiring qualifications for committee appointees and was another evolution in trying to have a competent commission that functioned properly.

Ms. Tiffany questioned if Ms. Vilardo thought it made sense to change county boundaries. Ms. Vilardo felt the changing of county boundaries became a political issue. In all probability what needed to be examined for smaller counties where there was little financial stability, was those services should be regionally funded.

Ms. Tiffany added she felt the school districts were also in the same situation and she would like to even see a bill giving a statute change allowing regional services and eliminate the political problem so county boundaries were not broken down.

Ms. Freeman stated she was happy to hear the association of counties and cities was offering workshops to local people. She had been on the committee for 13 years and home rule was often an issue for local governments, and as for White Pine County School District problems, she felt there would never be a willingness to do that. Almost every session "regionalization" was suggested when an individual county, particularly when they were having difficulties with funding, needed to change boundaries so those kinds of regional services could be shared.

As there was no further testimony Chairman Bache closed the hearing. He did not want to take action on any of the bills they had just heard at the present time. However, there were three resolutions that could have action taken as they had heard the testimony the previous week.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO ADOPT S.C.R. 15.

SECONDED BY MR. LEE.

MOTION CARRIED (MR. MORTENSEN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).

*********

Mrs. Freeman stated Senator Jacobson gave testimony on the bill indicating the review needed to be continued. It had to be done every session in order to get the appropriation from the Committee Ways and Means and the Committee on Senate Finance. The Senator had talked about getting together with the California delegation, and it never worked out, so he felt it was appropriate to place it in a resolution so the staff and the rest of the legislature did not forget. Chairman Bache added unlike Nevada, California did not have a committee to deal with Tahoe. It meant meeting with Californians who were concerned with the issue.

Mrs. Freeman said the resolution came about because of the funding formula for the Tahoe Regional Planning (TRPA) and what Nevada did to fit in with what was done at Tahoe. If there was no meeting with the California delegation then some serious issues needed to be addressed.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT S.C.R. 16.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE.

Chairman Bache stated there had been discussions on the resolution a few days previous; however, joint resolutions required a "do pass" rather than adopt.

Chairman Bache stressed he had the bills scheduled out so there would be a hearing on all of them by May 7, then the last week would be work sessions. As there was no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Virginia Letts,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: