The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, May 26, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 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. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Ms. Sheila Leslie

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Christina R. Giunchigliani, District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Nolan to review the status on S.B. 360.

Assemblyman Nolan stated he, Stan Olson, and Jim Nadeau had testified before the Senate on Tuesday May 25, 1999. They gave the same testimony given before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. The primary objection concerning the Senate was the pointing of lasers at the general public. There was some confusion for the Senators because they did not have the third reprint of the two amendments in front of them. The Senate did not want to deal with the amendments. They wanted to have a conference committee deal resolve the differences. The Senate had the same concerns as the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, about lasers pointed at aircraft or operators of equipment.

Chairman Anderson did not want to hold up S.B. 360. If the Senate did not agree to the amendments, Chairman Anderson wanted to go to a conference committee. If the differences could not be resolved the conference committee would recede. The conference committee would have Mr. Nolan as the chairman with Assemblymen Anderson and Claborn as members. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Nolan to arrange the conference with the Senate Committee on Judiciary as soon as possible.

Chairman Anderson announced the amendment for A.B. 688 was ready for the Assembly floor meeting.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 689.

Ms. Lang explained the new amendment (Exhibit C). Section 4.5 was added at the request of the governor’s office. Section 4.5 provided for an advisory question to be placed on the general election ballot on the November 5, 2002. "Should each public water system in this county that serves a population of 100,000 persons or more cease the fluoridation of the water?" Section 5 provided for an expiration date, January 1, 2003 if a majority of the voters voted yes on the ballot question. On page 2 in section 3 there was a technical change "councilmen will seek to represent. A…" a period was added after the word "represent."

Chairman Anderson reminded the committee A.B. 689 eliminated the required dollar cost of bills to be considered. In the future bills having a fiscal impact on local governments would have to be identified.

Denice Miller, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor came forward to testify. Ms. Miller had tried to meet with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani earlier, but Ms. Giunchigliani was in a meeting. Ms. Miller admitted she was not present at the meeting between Ms. Giunchigliani and the governor. Ms. Miller stated it was her understanding the agreed date with the governor was the next presidential election November 7, 2000. The presidential election was picked because in the past more voters voted at presidential elections.

Ms. Lang responded she had reviewed the language with Ms. Giunchigliani shortly before this committee meeting. Perhaps Ms. Giunchigliani did not notice the date of the election.

Ms. Miller stated she had met with the governor on May 26, 1999. It was the governor’s understanding the date agreed upon was November 7, 2000.

Chairman Anderson wanted to know when the fluoridation system would be in place and deployed.

Julie Wilcox Slay, representing Southern Nevada Water Authority testified it would take between 18 to 24 months to have the system ready to fluoridate the water. There would be an initial start up cost of $200,000 before the people either confirmed or voted down the fluoride question.

Assemblywoman Angle stated she wanted the people to vote on the question of fluoride in their water. She was in favor of the presidential election of 2000 for the fluoride ballot question.

Assemblyman Collins noticed on the first page of the amendment the election date was November 5, 2002 and the expiration date was January 1, 2003. His first question was if the date for the election was changed to November 7, 2000 would both dates be changed. Mr. Collins thought A.B. 590 had been signed into law. His second question, why was there an amendment to A.B. 590 at the top of page 2 of the amendments for A.B. 689.

Chairman Anderson responded to Mr. Collins’ second question. The amendment to A.B. 590 should have been in the original language of the bill. The amendment revised A.B. 590. The Assembly Committee on Judiciary had the responsibility to process the revision to bills signed by the governor.

Chairman Anderson noticed Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had entered the committee room. He informed her there was a question between the governor’s office and the amendment to A.B. 689 as to when the election was to take place.

Ms. Giunchigliani responded the conversation she had with the governor was the next general election. She had no problems with the year 2000 presidential election.

Chairman Anderson said since the installation of the fluoridation equipment would take between 18 to 24 months, the presidential election would take place before the completion of the installation of the fluoridation equipment. Southern Nevada Water Authority would be spending about $200,000 to purchase and install the equipment.

Ms. Giunchigliani responded she was not aware until recently that the Southern Nevada Water Authority would take 18 to 24 months to have the fluoridation equipment installed. She stated the law would go into effect on October 1, 1999 no matter what else happened. The general election would be November 7, 2000. If Southern Nevada Water Authority did not have the equipment installed, they would have to progress at their own pace.

Chairman Anderson stated the bill would expire on January 1, 2003 if a majority of voters voted yes on the ballot question. Ms. Giunchigliani responded the date was stated January 1, 2003 because the amendment was written for the election to be held in 2002. The committee needed to change the date on the bill to end on January 1, 2001.

Assemblywoman McClain asked if it was correct that the installation of the fluoridation equipment would be completed 18 months from now. Before the installation was to be completed, voters would be asked if they wanted to stop the fluoridation. Ms. Giunchigliani responded Ms. McClain had stated the situation correctly. The fluoridation equipment would not be completed until after the 2000 election.

Assemblywoman McClain asked why would the voters be asked if they wanted to stop something that had not been started. Ms. Giunchigliani interjected the governor wanted the voters to have a voice at the election polls on the fluoride question.

Ms. Miller stated Ms. Giunchigliani had represented the governor’s position accurately. The governor wanted the citizens to vote on the fluoride question in the year 2000 presidential election. The governor had received a number of calls both for and against fluoride in the water. She agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani the changing of the election would change the kill date for the bill if the voters voted yes to the fluoride question in the year 2000 election.

Chairman Anderson informed the committee the amendment was to clarify the intent of the Legislature for A.B. 284. A.B. 689 should not change the intent of the original bill.

Assemblywoman McClain hoped the voters would vote to keep fluoride in the water. She asked why the Southern Nevada Water Authority would spend $200,000 to have the question go before the people and possibly be voted yes to remove fluoride from the water.

Chairman Anderson responded it would appear the committee was trying to satisfy the governor’s comfort level with the fluoride question.

Assemblywoman Koivisto asked why the governor was amending the bill. Chairman Anderson responded the governor was not amending the bill. Assemblywoman Koivisto did not know where the amendment had originated. Chairman Anderson reminded her the committee had heard A.B. 689 on May 24, 1999. A.B. 689 was to clarify the fluoridation issue and to clarify the notification for bills of local financial impact. Ms. Giunchigliani presented an amendment which resulted from a meeting between her and the governor concerning a mandate of the voters in the reviser’s bill. The governor wanted to know exactly when the election concerning the ballot question would take place. Those were the events leading up to this point in time.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the governor signed A.B. 284. The governor requested the additional provision be added to A.B. 284. Senator Rawson and she were the sponsors of the bill and agreed to the governor’s request.

Chairman Anderson requested Ms. Lang to change the dates in section 4.5 of the amendment for the ballot election to be held November 7, 2000. Section 5 of the amendment changed the date for the bill to expire on January 1, 2001.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 689.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN VOTED NO.

Chairman Anderson said he or Mr. Manendo would defend the bill on the Assembly floor.

Chairman Anderson recessed the committee at the call of the chair at 10:02 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Kenneth J. Beaton, Sr.

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: