The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, May 14, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. 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 Alice Constandina Titus, Senatorial District 7

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Irene Porter, Executive Director,

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, representing the city of Henderson

Berlyn D. Miller, representing Nevada Contractors Association 125

Steve G. Holloway, representing Associated General Contractors,

Chairman Bache asked whether the committee wished to concur with the senate’s amendments to A.B. 588.

Assemblyman Humke inquired as to the basis for the amendments made by the senate. He asked whether different testimony was given in the senate than was given before the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs.

Discussions ensued between Chairman Bache and Mr. Humke.

Dave Ziegler, committee counsel, informed the committee amendment 760 to A.B. 588 resolved a conflict between A.B. 588, Senate Bill 92, and Senate Bill 533. He explained the amendment merely changed three words in section 3, three words in section 9, and the effective date of the bill.

Chairman Bache said since the amendment was a conflict amendment, he assumed the committee had no objection to concurring with that amendment.

Dave Ziegler, Committee Analyst, explained the senate’s amendment to A.B. 626, amendment No. 761, resolved a conflict with Senate Bill 92. The amendment also made a substantive change to A.B. 626. He pointed out in section 13, on page 9, line 25, the words "State Emergency Response Commission" were replaced with the words "Division of Emergency Management of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety." Corresponding changes were made throughout the remainder of section 11, and section 29 established an effective date of October 1, 1999, for the provisions of section 11.

Chairman Bache explained the purpose of the change in agency titles was to transfer responsibility for administering the emergency assistance account of the disaster relief fund from the State Emergency Response Commission to the Division of Emergency Management. He asked whether the committee would like more information as to why that change was made before deciding whether or not to concur with the amendment.

Mr. Humke indicated he would like additional information. He suggested it might be appropriate not to concur with the amendment.

Chairman Bache announced the committee would take no immediate action to concur or not concur with the amendment, and he would talk with Senator O’Connell to determine the reasoning behind the amendment.

Chairman Bache pointed out A.B. 639 was amended on page 2, commencing at line 16, to include new language. He read aloud the new language, which pertained to publication of notice, and said the amendment appeared to have been made for the purpose of clarification.

Chairman Bache asked whether the committee had any concern about A.B. 639. There was no response by committee members.

Chairman Bache announced his intention to move that the assembly concur with the senate’s amendments to A.B. 588 and A.B. 639 and said he would obtain more information about A.B. 626.

Chairman Bache turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Lee.

Mr. Bache explained his proposed amendment to S.B. 125 was to move the Division of Unclaimed Property from the Department of Business and Industry (B & I) to the Office of the Secretary of State rather than to the Treasurer’s Office.

ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Vice Chairman Lee asked whether there was any discussion.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked why Mr. Bache proposed the Division of Unclaimed Property not be placed in the Treasurer’s Office.

Mr. Bache pointed out during both the 1995 and 1997 legislative sessions, a proposal was made to transfer the Division of Unclaimed Property to the Treasurer’s Office, but the committee chose not to do that. The same proposal was again before the committee in the form of S.B. 125.

Mr. Bache explained in the course of the hearing on S.B. 125, a comment was made about the possibility of transferring the Division of Unclaimed Property to the Office of the Secretary of State, and he investigated that possibility. The director of the Department of Business and Industry had no interest in retaining the division. The Office of the Secretary of State had a Securities Division in Las Vegas, and since most unclaimed property consisted of bank accounts, stocks, bonds, and securities, he believed the Division of Unclaimed Property would fit well in the Office of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Bache pointed out the Treasurer’s Office had only one employee in Las Vegas, and that person was not employed in a supervisory/management position. He believed it would be more costly to place the Division of Unclaimed Property under the control of the Treasurer’s Office than it would be to place it under the control of the secretary of state. The secretary of state indicated although he did not seek responsibility for the Division of Unclaimed Property, if the committee chose to assign him that responsibility he could perform the task of fulfilling it.

Mr. Humke observed although the Securities Division dealt with money and financial instruments, its dealings had to do with active securities. It did not deal with lapsed securities or with unclaimed money or property.

A brief discussion ensued among committee members.

Vice Chairman Lee called for a vote on the pending motion.

Senator Alice Constandina Titus, Senatorial District 7, testified. She reminded the committee the purpose of S.B. 191 was to require developers to submit infrastructure impact statements to local governments, prior to approval of their development projects, so local governments could use the information in those statements to make more informed decisions. She stated she worked with Elizabeth Fretwell, legislative representative for the city of Henderson, to address local government concerns about the bill and also worked with Irene Porter, executive director of Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association to address homebuilders’ concerns. She said, "Our support is mainly to be sure that planned communities that have already adopted their plans don’t have to fall under this."

Senator Titus submitted two one-page documents containing proposed amendments to S.B. 191 (Exhibits B and Exhibit C). She said it was proposed to change the first amendment set forth in Exhibit C to read "approval is defined as prior to the approval by the governing body." She explained in some local governments, final maps were not submitted to the city council for approval; they were approved by the planning division. Therefore, the amendment as originally proposed would not solve the problem it was meant to solve.

Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, testified, saying only that the association concurred with the proposed amendments.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, representing the city of Henderson, testified that the city of Henderson also concurred with the proposed amendments.

Chairman Bache announced he would accept a motion on S.B. 191.

Assemblyman Williams stated there had been considerable reaction to S.B. 182 and pointed out the city of North Las Vegas had its own provisions concerning water. He said Warren Hardy, legislative representative for the city of North Las Vegas, had information concerning S.B. 182 which was not brought out during the committee’s hearing on the bill and which shed new light on what the city of North Las Vegas was trying to do.

Warren Hardy, representing the city of North Las Vegas testified. He explained North Las Vegas’ city council requested S.B. 182 in order to change both the city ordinance and city charter with respect to the current beautification fee of 25 cents per customer, and there was some confusion as to what constituted a "customer." Currently, the city was charging a fee of 25 cents per customer per hookup. Under that policy, the city charged a fee of 25 cents per single-family dwelling and the same fee for an entire apartment complex or mobile home complex. The city council believed it more equitable to require each customer to contribute to the beautification fund, and it was the council’s intent to hold public hearings and go through the process of changing the city ordinance in the city itself.

Mr. Hardy explained North Las Vegas’ beautification fund was used for graffiti abatement, and the city wanted to purchase a new spray gun to aid in such abatement.

Mr. Humke asked for clarification concerning the fee to be charged for mobile homes. He asked whether it was intended the fee be charged for each mobile home in a park regardless of whether there was a separate hookup for each mobile home or, instead, a master hookup for the entire park. Mr. Hardy replied affirmatively. He explained under current policy, the fee was imposed for an individual mobile home only if it had a separate hookup. Under S.B. 182, if a park had a master hookup, each individual mobile home unit would be assessed the 25 cent fee. In that way, residents of single-family homes would not be subsidizing beautification efforts on behalf of the rest of the community.

Mr. Humke asked what connection there was between water service and graffiti removal. Mr. Hardy replied, "In the city charter, there’s a provision for charging 25 cents per hookup, and that’s just when the legislature set up the charter, that’s the way it was set up."

Mr. Humke asked whether it was Mr. Hardy’s testimony there was no connection between water service and graffiti removal. Mr. Hardy replied affirmatively.

At 9:15 a.m., Chairman Bache declared a recess.

At 10:48 a.m., Chairman Bache reconvened the meeting. He informed the committee it had only one bill left to consider and declared a recess until 4:30 p.m.

At 5:15 p.m., Chairman Bache reconvened the meeting.

Assemblyman Lee submitted a written proposed amendment to S.B. 475 (Exhibit D) to allow Nevada Contractors Association to be represented on the interim advisory committee discussed in the bill. He explained Nevada Contractors Association was comprised of approximately 110 companies who employed approximately 3,000 people. The association represented some of the largest contractors in southern Nevada, who performed the majority of the type of work described in S.B. 475. He believed it to be of the utmost importance that those contractors be represented on the interim advisory committee.

Berlyn D. Miller, representing Nevada Contractors Association 125, testified. He informed the committee Nevada Contractors Association represented some of the largest employers in Nevada’s construction industry. Some of the association’s members supported the concept of S.B. 475 while others opposed it; however, the association would like to " . . . be part of the process . . . " and be represented on the interim advisory committee.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Nevada Contractors Association proposed the committee increase the number of members of the interim advisory committee by one as opposed to replacing a member of the committee with a representative of Nevada Contractors Association. Mr. Miller replied affirmatively.

Chairman Bache asked whether the contractors that Nevada Contractors Association represented were those capable of performing large, design-built projects. Mr. Miller replied the association’s members were quite capable of performing such projects.

Mr. Lee said everyone involved agreed to the proposed amendment (Exhibit D).

Warren Hardy, representing Associated Builders and Contractors and Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority, testified. He declared the entities he represented entirely agreed that the interim advisory committee should be inclusive and everyone should be involved. However, it had come to his attention that adding a representative of Nevada Contractors Association to the committee would cause representation on the committee to be uneven, in terms of public and private sector representation. He proposed two additional members, to be members of Clark County’s board of commissioners, be added to the committee to equalize representation of the public and private sectors.

Mr. Lee pointed out the committee under discussion was merely an advisory committee and said he saw no need to add two more members to the committee unless those members could " . . . add something to the process."

Mr. Hardy contended the additional members he proposed would add something to the process.

Ms. Segerblom pointed out the trouble with having a 14-member committee was it could result in a vote of 7 to 7.

Mr. Hardy reiterated the entities he represented believed both the public and private sectors should have equal representation on the interim advisory committee and said he believed the committee would be able to reach a consensus of opinion.

Ms. Segerblom suggested one member of the interim advisory committee be appointed by the governing body of Boulder City.

Ms. Von Tobel asked whether the city of Mesquite desired a full-time seat on the interim advisory committee. Mr. Hardy replied Mesquite chose not to participate in the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority. However, Boulder City did participate. He proposed rather than adding two members of Clark County’s board of commissioners to the interim advisory committee as he previously suggested, one member of that body and one representative of Boulder City be added to the committee.

A brief discussion ensued between Ms. Von Tobel and Mr. Hardy concerning the city of Mesquite.

Chairman Bache announced he would accept a motion to amend S.B. 475.

Assemblywoman Freeman said she would like Washoe County excluded from the provisions of S.B. 475 because she did not believe Washoe County’s local governments had the expertise to accomplish the things required by the bill.

Chairman Bache said he would like to dispose of Mr. Lee’s motion before considering Mrs. Freeman’s motion.

Chairman Bache called for a vote on Assemblyman Lee’s motion to amend S.B. 475.

THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM VOTED NO;

ASSEMBLYWOMEN TIFFANY AND PARNELL AND ASSEMBLYMAN

WILLIAMS WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.

Mr. Lee said it made sense if there were seven representatives of the private sector and six representatives of the public sector on the interim advisory committee, there might be some disparity. He stated Clark County Regional Transportation Commission asked to have a representative on the committee to maintain even representation of the public and private sectors.

Mr. Lee said he believed even representation of the public and private sectors on the interim advisory committee would resolve future problems. He pointed out in the future, many large projects in Clark County would be transportation projects, which was why he entertained the idea of placing a representative of the regional transportation commission on the interim advisory committee.

Chairman Bache stated the estimated cost of a public works project in Clark County was at least $5 million but less than $30 million. He asked whether Nevada’s smaller governmental entities, such as the city of Mesquite and Boulder City, were capable of performing projects of that size.

Steve G. Holloway, representing Associated General Contractors, Las Vegas Chapter, testified. He maintained a $5 million project was no longer a particularly large project. Most high schools cost between $20 million and $25 million to construct.

Mr. Holloway said, "The RTC has already one major exemption that the legislature did last session for design-build, a transportation project down in Las Vegas . . .." He asserted transportation projects, particularly those for mass transit systems, lent themselves well to "design-build."

Chairman Bache called for a vote on Assemblyman Lee’s motion to amend S.B. 475 to add a representative of Clark County Regional Transportation Commission to the membership of the interim advisory committee.

THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A MAJORITY.

Mrs. Freeman withdrew her motion to exclude Washoe County from the provisions of S.B. 475.

Cheryl C. Blomstrom, representing Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors, testified. She said Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors agreed to work with Mrs. Freeman during the legislative interim. If it appeared a project might be considered for design-build in Washoe County, she would personally make certain Mrs. Freeman was notified.

Mr. Lee asked why the provision on page 3, line 6, pertaining to removal of asbestos was included in S.B. 475. Mr. Holloway replied most general contractors did not want to engage in asbestos removal because of the liability involved and the special insurance required. Asbestos removal was generally accomplished by " . . . specialty contractors . . .," and he believed only two companies in Clark County engaged in asbestos removal.

Chairman Bache called for a vote on the pending motion.

Chairman Bache said Eileen O’Grady, committee counsel, asked for clarification regarding an amendment previously made to S.B. 544. He asked Dave Ziegler, committee analyst, to address Ms. O’Grady’s concern.

Mr. Ziegler stated the committee previously voted that members of the board of the Public Employees’ Benefit Program could be removed for just cause. According to a note he received from Ms. O’Grady, the state constitution stated the governor and other state and judicial officers were liable to impeachment for commission of a misdemeanor or malfeasance in office. The state Supreme Court concluded the constitution established the only means by which a state officer could be removed from office for malfeasance or commission of a misdemeanor. Therefore, if the committee said a member of the Public Employees’ Benefit Program’s board could be removed for just cause, it was probable every removal of a board member would be subject to challenge on the basis of whether or not the removal related to malfeasance or a misdemeanor. If it did, the only method of removal from office was impeachment.

Mr. Ziegler said in her note, Ms. O’Grady further stated, "If the committee leaves out any reference to removal or service at the pleasure of the governor, the member cannot be removed during his term unless he is impeached for a malfeasance or a misdemeanor, or the committee could say ‘just cause other than malfeasance or misdemeanor.’"

Chairman Bache said it was not his intent to " . . . raise the bar that high in the removal." His main concern was that board members not be subject to removal merely because they did something which might be financially prudent but politically unpopular.

Mr. Humke said he trusted the governor not to remove people from office on a whim or on the basis of ministerial or politically unpopular decisions. With the Chair’s permission, he would move to revert to the original version of S.B. 544, which said members of the board would serve at the pleasure of the governor.

Chairman Bache said he would accept such a motion if it included a requirement that the governor must provide written justification for removal of a board member.

Ms. Tiffany indicated she did not believe a requirement for written justification would accomplish much. She contended there were many ways to pressure a board member into resigning, and she believed that had happened many times in the past.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 544.

Mr. Humke explained his amendment was to include language in S.B. 544, in the appropriate sections, to provide the governor had the power to appoint the members of the board of the Public Employees’ Benefits Program, and those members served at the pleasure of the governor. However, if the governor terminated a member of the board, the governor would be required to " . . . present, in writing, the reasons therefore and notice and a date of the termination."

Ms. Tiffany said she believed requiring the governor to state, in writing, his reasons for terminating a board member, might be embarrassing for the board member and the information in the statement might be used against him. She suggested it might be better to allow the governor to work things out behind the scenes.

Chairman Bache said he believed " . . . if you have this . . ." and a board member acted inappropriately, discussions would be held between that board member and " . . . the executive office." If the board member felt it was justified, he would probably resign. If not, and the governor considered the situation serious enough, he would remove the board member from office and provide written justification.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked whether there was a definition of "state officer." He said, "It was officers that . . . in what you were reading about could only be removed from office."

Chairman Bache said he believed state officers were state officials who were either elected or appointed to office and had a specific term of office. It was his understanding if an individual was appointed to a board or commission, he fell under the category of state officer.

Mr. Ziegler said Chairman Bache’s definition was consistent with the definition contained in Ms. O’Grady’s note, wherein she said "state officers are those who are created by constitutional or statutory provision, whether appointed or elected."

Chairman Bache observed it appeared a state officer did not have to have a specific term of office.

Chairman Bache said Mr. Ziegler pointed out it might be necessary, procedurally, for the committee to reconsider S.B. 544 in order to adopt the amendment proposed by Mr. Humke.

Chairman Bache suggested Mr. Humke withdraw and remake his motion to amend and do pass S.B. 544.

Assemblyman Humke withdrew his motion.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sara Kaufman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: