The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:14 a.m., on Tuesday, May 18, 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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

STAFF MEMBERS EXCUSED:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Bache had a question with regard to S.B. 274 and the city of Las Vegas’ Advisory Question No.1 (Exhibit C), which regarded an ordinance amendment to increase the ward seats from four to six in the city of Las Vegas. The advisory question would be placed on the ballot for a vote on June 8, 1999. The amendment had been concurred by the Senate and was currently awaiting Governor Guinn’s signature. He stated the notice printed in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, dated May 15, 1999, had indicated to the electorate it was an advisory question; however, the bill as currently written required the vote of the people to decide ward expansion and would make that decision mandatory. He queried whether the city was going to draw up a revised notice based on S.B. 274 and asked Daniel Musgrove, representing the city of Las Vegas, to explain.

Mr. Musgrove explained the sequence of events in order to bring the committee up-to-date. The city council had determined the question would be proposed to the voters; however, because of the timing of the question it was to remain advisory. The only time the question could be mandatory to the voters would be if it was petition driven.

Mr. Musgrove said Senator Neal proposed S.B. 274 that would require the city council to adhere to the people’s decision for ward expansion. Although there had already been a mandatory ordinance passed in the city of Las Vegas that required the council to respect the decision of the people. It had been determined the ordinance and the bill would go hand-in-hand in order to mandate the council abide by the citizens’ decisions.

Mr. Mortenson asked if it was to be a mandatory process why was it not currently mandatory by law. Mr. Musgrove said on the ballot was an advisory question only. There was concern from legislators, as well as the people, the council would not necessarily abide by the peoples’ preference once the legislature adjourned on May 31. If the people decided to expand the number of wards from four to six, both the existing ordinance and S.B. 274, upon passage by the governor, would then require the council to adhere to those wishes.

In response to Mr. Mortenson’s question, Mr. Musgrove said it would be placed on the municipal election ballot on June 8. With the interest in the mayoral election on the same date, he felt the turnout would be high. It was anticipated a good representation would decide Question 1. No further discussion ensued.

Chairman Bache stated there were amendments from the Senate on Assembly Bills on which the committee was to decide to concur or not concur.

Amendment 761 was proposed to A.B. 626 in order to resolve a conflict with S.B. 92. Chairman Bache said due to questions that had arisen during a recent committee meeting, he had information clarifying that amendment. He discussed with the committee the contents of a letter written by Juliann Jenson, senior research analyst for the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, whereby the amendment proposed would move the administration of the emergency assistance account from the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) to the Division of Emergency Management. The SERC area of responsibility would be limited to hazardous materials whereas the kinds of emergencies to which the division reacted would not be limited to a specific area. The kinds of activities that were eligible for funding through the emergency assistance account were broad-based as were those processed through the disaster relief fund. The applications processed through the relief fund had been previously administrated through the Division of Emergency Management. The fiscal staff of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff supported the amendment.

Chairman Bache asked the committee members if there were any objections to concurring with the amendment to A.B. 626, to which there were none. No motion was needed.

Dave Ziegler, committee policy analyst, distributed packets for the committee’s information containing the proposed amendments (Exhibit D). He explained the packet contained amendment numbers 784, 765, 881, 761, and 850 to Assembly Bills 94, 295, 539, 626, and 641, respectively.

Referring to page 1 of Exhibit D, amendment 784 to A.B. 94, Chairman Bache said two new sections had been added and the committee should review those in case they had questions.

Concerning page 2, section 1, subsection 7, Ms. Segerblom remarked there had been concerns with monetary gifts that had been donated to the veterans’ committee for specific items, and it had not been specified to what specific item or items that money was to go. The proposed amendment clarified the issue.

Chairman Bache commented verbiage in sections 2,4, and 5 had been amended to "veterans’ homes" as opposed to "veterans’ home."

Mr. Humke asked if the state treasurer controlled both the gift account and the veterans’ account. Indicating section 1, subsection 7, Mr. Humke was concerned with the executive director having control over the gift money, but it made him comfortable knowing the state treasurer would manage the account. He was unsure of the veterans’ account, however. Mr. Bache believed the amendment clarified there were two separate accounts, the veterans’ homes account, which was administered by the executive director with the advice of the deputy executive director, and the gift account that was established in the state general fund.

Ms. Segerblom remarked the amendment satisfied all concerns that had arisen regarding funds remaining in the gift account. The funds must be carried over even if it was in the general fund and credited to the veterans’ gift account.

Mr. Humke expressed concern about the creation of numerous little accounts and the possibility of fraud or neglect in the management of those funds. He noted if administration concurred with the amendment, he would also.

Chairman Bache asked if there were any objections to concur with the amendment to A.B. 94. There were no objections from committee members.

Chairman Bache said amendment 765 to A.B. 295 provided for technical changes only. Amendment 765 provided for dates that particular sections of the act would become effective. Section 1 of the act would expire on the same date in the year 2013 that section 2 of the act would become effective. Both sections would amend the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 338.143.

Warren Hardy, representing Moapa Valley and Virgin Valley Water Districts, said amendment 765 resolved several issues, and he believed it to be sensible.

Chairman Bache requested Mr. Ziegler explain the reasoning for the amendment to the committee.

Referring to lines 2 and 3 of A.B. 295, Mr. Ziegler indicated there were references made to NRS 338.1906 and 338.1907. On page 2, lines 42 and 43 of A.B. 295, those references had not been included. He concluded the proposed amendment conformed A.B. 295 to the existing statute.

Chairman Bache asked if there were any objections to concurring with the amendment. There were no objections from committee members.

Chairman Bache said amendment 881 to A.B. 539 was a substantive amendment.

Ms. Parnell remarked she spoke with Mary Walker, the lobbyist for Carson City and there had been confusion in the original version of the bill. The confusion stemmed from whether or not the treasurer in Carson City should be able to teach a class at the community college in the evenings. The amendment would further clarify what would warrant denying a second job.

Chairman Bache asked if there were any objections to concurring with the amendment to A.B. 539. There were no objections from committee members.

Chairman Bache said amendment 850 related more to section 3 of A.B. 641 and was clarifying language provided by the Senate. He had been concerned when the amendment was adopted that the local government, in intervening with a federal action, not be in conflict with the state and its position. The amendment clarified the issue. He asked members if there were any objections to concurring with that amendment, to which there were none. No further discussion ensued.

Chairman Bache informed the committee he would accept a motion to approve the minutes of the following dates: 3/15, 3/16, 3/17, 3/18, 3/19, 3/22, 3/23, 3/24, 3/26, 3/29, 3/30 (subcommittee), and 4/1.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Rachel Baker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: