The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:45 p.m., on Wednesday, April 7, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. This meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Angela Culbert, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Connell opened the meeting asking for testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 216.

Ivan R. Ashleman III, Lobbyist, Clark County, explained currently the county charges other political subdivisions and in turn are charged a fee for issuing building permits although there is no statute requiring this practice. In fact, he stated, the current law precludes this practice. He noted this causes problems because Clark County’s building fees are an enterprise fund which allows charging only the actual cost of the operation. He stressed it is impossible to subsidize other governments, noting if Clark County must do free work for an airport extension, hundreds of thousands of dollars would be involved. Occasionally, he pointed out, they receive a contract from one of the political subdivisions indicating they are exempt, by statute, from fees and thereby refuse to pay. He stated the intent of the bill is to allow the county to continue to legally collect fees and to pay to other political subdivisions, while requiring the contractors to pay the fees and bid accordingly.

Mr. Ashleman provided the committee with a proposed amendment (Exhibit C) allowing the counties to work for the school district and the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) with any relationship between these entities a matter of consensus. He pointed out the school district and the UCCSN can enter into an interlocal agreement if they choose to do so, but, he noted, if they do not the county does not have to do their inspections. He stated currently the county does not do inspections for any of them as it is either done by the state or by their own internal organizations.

Robert D. Weber, Lobbyist, Clark County Building Department, stated as an enterprise fund the Clark County Building Department only receives the fees that are paid for plan review, inspection, and permits to operate the fund in order to provide all of the requested services. He stressed they do not receive any funds from the General Fund. The enterprise fund, he noted, provides some adaptability so as to keep pace with the development activities and the services requested in Southern Nevada. He pointed out they have not received plans for the purpose of full review, permitting, and inspections from the school district or state entities in the past 20 years.

Mr. Weber cited a situation in which a contractor bid on an airport project, and referred to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.580 to justify an exemption from paying their fee. He pointed out the contractor had included this exemption in his bid. He explained the Clark County District Attorney’s Office recommended they write legislation to clarify the ability to charge these fees and provide the service. He stated, "As a matter of practice for many years, toward 20 years, all of the county-type organizations, airport, internal buildings, library districts, housing authority etc., public buildings in general that are not state buildings but all of the buildings other than state and school district that I can think of have submitted plans for plan review, permitting, and inspections. So that has been a matter of practice so that we can review those; make sure that those type of public buildings are as safe as any private buildings."

Senator Raggio questioned what the amendment addressed in addition to building permits.

Ron L. Lynn, Lobbyist, Clark County Building Department, said the amendment would address issuing of permits and inspections, and plan checking.

Mr. Weber explained the amendment has been proposed due to concerns from the school district and the community college system.

Mr. Lynn pointed out, amendment (Exhibit C) would add the language "except as otherwise provided in this subsection" and reference the governing body’s ability to "fix a reasonable schedule of fees for the issuance of building permits." He explained that typically the building permits are all inclusive with the inspection and plans checking requirements. He stated the fees required would cover the costs of rendering the service. He indicated the representatives of the school district requested the addition of the language, "schedule of fees so fixed does not apply to the State of Nevada, school districts or the University and Community College System of Nevada as defined in NRS 396.005." He stated the changes were supported and thereby made inclusive with the entire state. He stated the amendment explains this subsection does not prohibit the school district or the university as again defined in their sections, from "contracting and paying fees so fixed to the local jurisdiction for permitting, plan review, and inspection of construction." Mr. Lynn noted the amendment also provides, "nothing in this chapter should be construed to require local jurisdictions to plan review or inspect school districts or the University and Community College System of Nevada." He noted "construction projects" should be added to the aforementioned language. He explained if the school districts or UCCSN want those additional services, they can contract through an interlocal agreement, stressing this is not done currently. He reiterated Clark County provides services to other county entities because a level of service is desired. He pointed out they conduct 2,000 inspections a day with over 95 percent completed within the 24-hour request period.

Senator Neal questioned whether the amendment would require or permit the school district or UCCSN to set up their own planning departments. Mr. Lynn stated this would not be the case, noting these entities currently submit their plans to the state public works board and the state fire marshal. He pointed out Clark County School District, has their own inspection staff and construction managers.

Senator Raggio questioned the current process when UCCSN or the state wants to construct a building. Mr. Ashleman answered the state handles this process entirely for UCCSN and State of Nevada projects. The school district of Clark County, he commented, do the work themselves. He commented S.B. 216 does not change the process but recognizes current practice.

Senator Raggio questioned the necessity of the amendment language. Mr. Ashleman explained:

Senator Raggio questioned whether the proposal would apply to all counties. Mr. Ashleman concurred the bill would apply to all counties, noting this has been at their request. Senator Raggio voiced the process should not be different for one county.

Mr. Lynn added the recipients of Clark County’s Building Department services are satisfied with the system as it exists because they realize the cost benefits involved. He noted the other additions made in the amendment (Exhibit C) are references to NRS 278.580, the parent body.

Senator Raggio questioned whether all of the other counties agree with the amendment. Mr. Lynn indicated he was also testifying in representation of the Nevada Organization of Building Officials and stated, "Yes this was one of the amendments suggested because they did want to spread it to all of the counties."

Senator O’Donnell requested an example of how the bill would work. He asked for a proposed situation in which the city and county would not be affected. Mr. Weber gave the example of the library district. Senator O’Donnell questioned whether the library district was currently exempt.

Mr. Weber stated under the strict reading of the statute, the library district can be considered exempt. He noted the county has worked with the district for over 12 years, and the district has been submitting plans because they, as a public entity, want to ensure their buildings comply with all of the codes. He indicated the process has become a matter of practice for all entities other than the school district and the state entities. He restated the bill would authorize what has been taking place as a matter of practice for many years.

Senator O’Donnell asked whether the county building department was being paid by the library district for these services. Mr. Weber concurred, noting many entities pay for the services rendered by the county. He pointed out the amendment allows the school district and the state organizations, if desired, to make an agreement to obtain those services from the county. He indicated this has not been the practice in the past.

Senator Neal questioned the reason a permit fee should be separate from the bid itself. Mr. Lynn indicated usually the fee is not different, noting legitimate contractors bid the fee as part of the full package. What occurred in a couple of instances, he noted, a contractor excluded the permit fee by using the exemption to underbid his fellow contractors. Once the bid was accepted, he explained, the contractor went forward with the project and cited NRS as a way not to pay the county for a permit. He indicated this was a loophole, although both the county and the entity contracting the bid requested payment be made for permitting and inspections.

Senator Raggio stated it could be argued that the taxpayers ended up paying more as they are the ones who pay for the fee. He noted the money comes from one taxpayer’s group to another one, pointing out additional cost is being added through the payment process. Mr. Ashleman maintained there is no additional cost, because this department is self-supporting and not subsidized by the taxpayers.

Senator Raggio commented the end result is that somebody is paying this fee which is not currently required by statute. He pointed out the law currently does not require the university or the state to pay for a building permit. He contended testimony has reflected these entities have been charged by the county for building permits.

Mr. Lynn insisted the county building department has never charged the schools nor have services from these entities been requested.

Mr. Weber stated, "To my knowledge, in 20 years, we have not had any plans from school districts submitted where they wanted their plan reviewed and a permit issued and inspections. We haven’t [have not] had any state buildings either."

Senator Neal questioned whether the permit fee would become a part of the bidding process with the passage of S.B. 216. Mr. Ashleman indicated the fee is currently a part of the bidding process, noting the bill would codify this practice.

With no further testimony, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 216 and opened S.B. 391 for discussion.

Jon C. Porter, Sr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 1, presented the committee with a prepared text (Exhibit D) and testified that there were adjustments that needed to be made to the bill. He indicated the committee would hear from other testifiers wishing to amend the bill, and he noted he considered the amendments in current form to be friendly. The senator explained S.B. 391 provides for the construction of infrastructure services prior to new development in outlying areas of Clark County. The measure, he pointed out, establishes rural preservation areas and provides master development agreements for the provisions of parks, roads, regional transportation, fire, police, and flight control prior to the development occurring in the outlying areas of urban Clark County. Furthermore, he stated, the proposed legislation provides local governments and developers with a mechanism to work together to establish growth management areas prior to any development occurring. It allows developers to agree to provide, in partnership with local government, the necessary infrastructure before building new communities. He contended the bill will assure an infrastructure will be funded and built before the new homes arrive, while allowing for the establishment of growth management areas and for development agreements to be entered into even when large parcels of land are not under single ownership. Senator Porter explained S.B. 391 requires that local governments conduct infrastructure needs assessments to determine appropriate service levels prior to entering into a development agreement, while requiring all development agreements to be sent to the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition for their information so that regional impacts can be assessed.

Senator Porter noted the rural neighborhood preservation components of the bill provide for protection of neighborhoods in rural Clark County as set forth in two different parts of the measure. The first half of the bill, he explained, deals with rural neighborhoods, including several components. He maintained the measure defines a rural preservation neighborhood, adds a component of the master plan to include a rural neighborhood’s preservation plan, builds in protection for developed rural neighborhoods when annexed into a municipality, maintains a density of a developed portion, and provides a buffer around the annexed property. He stated the bill also protects existing rural neighborhoods by requiring buffers adjacent to the neighborhood when there is a zone change request. In essence, he summarized, for a current resident living in a rural area zoned for larger estates, the bill will provide a buffer of 330 feet up to that particular existing residence.

Senator Porter continued by explaining the second portion of the bill which consists of enabling legislation for growth management. He recognized the bill assures that fire, police, parks, and roads, and transportation are provided in new communities without impacting the tax burden of existing residents The measure, he noted, allows for master planning to occur on large tracts of land even when land is not under the control of a master developer while encouraging coordination among all local governments and the planning efforts of the planning coalition. He stressed S.B. 391 provides for an orderly, organized approach to construction of capital improvements, for the use of infrastructure needs assessment, infrastructure master plan, and master development agreements. He indicated the provision may be cross- jurisdictional, and he drew the committee’s attention to a map displaying the 300-foot set back buffer zone for a master plan community.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the infrastructure to be in place prior to development included schools. Senator Porter responded schools had not been included, noting the measure covers fire, police, parks, roads, and transportation provided in the new communities. He indicated he would include schools into the provision at the committee’s request.

Senator Neal questioned whether schools were being left out as an oversight. Senator Porter replied there is currently cooperation between local governments and the school district.

Chairman O’Connell indicated she had previous discussions with the school district regarding the amount of money they must pay for infrastructure when they get into a new development and how that drives up the cost for building new schools. She requested Larry L. Spitler, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, to provide further information on this issue.

Mr. Spitler explained he was aware of several bills introduced this legislative session to assist schools in infrastructure. He pointed out one of the high schools spent $1.5 million just to provide infrastructure to the site. He indicated there is a current bill which proposes, by amendment, to allow the recovering of hookup costs to the infrastructure over a longer period of time. He pointed out the county is often limited on "today’s dollars," noting they never come out with a 100 percent recovery on bringing infrastructure to the site. He stated this a major issue in terms of construction and it can range anywhere from a small amount of money to a large amount of money.

Senator Porter clarified S.B. 391 was not a finding of the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority. He explained most of the areas in his district are rural and developing rapidly. He said a consistent message heard from constituents in the northwest, southwest, and southeast was the concern about losing their rural quality of life. He pointed out the schools have and continue to be addressed in other legislation this session, though he noted his willingness to comply with additional language concerning the schools.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether Senator Porter had heard complaints regarding school location.

Senator Porter responded the most common questions asked about schools has been, "where, when, why, why not." He stated, "There is a lot of hope in the community over construction with the bond freeze and the rollover. And there are numerous new schools being built in the northwest. So yes, it is a concern, it continues to be a concern, but they are starting to see some relief because of the passage of the bond issue. But I think more importantly is the coordination, keeping the costs [down] and being as conservative as possible in the expenses."

Chairman O’Connell indicated construction has been one of the major areas that the school district has wanted to address, as well as the amount of money it takes to provide infrastructure around the school.

Senator Porter commented, "I held a series of meetings a year and a half ago with local governments and the school district, trying to find ways to close those gaps as far as cooperation and with the utilities to make sure that the school districts weren’t [were not] being charged in advance and then not receiving a return. So we have had a series of meetings and hope to continue those to close those gaps."

Senator Neal questioned the reason local government is not allowed to handle these issues without the assistance of the proposed legislation. Senator Porter stated local government has been involved in the bill from its fruition and has worked extensively on the proposal. He indicated this is the reason there have been numerous changes to the measure this session, noting he presented the bill to the planning coalition and has heeded their suggestions.

Senator Neal asked whether there is a requirement for the state law to handle this issue. He questioned whether local government has the powers to generate this type of zoning.

Senator Porter stated he believes local governments are capable and will be more capable with some consensus-building established at the legislative level. He said although the local governments could provide zoning ordinances without input from the Legislature, he has requested their help in crafting language to a specific area which he believes has been missed. He pointed out the local entities have been willing to work with him to find the proper language.

Senator Care questioned the definition of "average residential density" as set forth in the proposal. He asked, "What would be the average residential density … of an older neighborhood in Las Vegas, and I am thinking of somewhere around the area of … Eastern [Avenue] off of Desert Inn [Road]…."

Senator Porter suggested the local government experts could respond to this specific question.

Lesa M. Coder, Lobbyist, Clark County, told of her position as the assistant director of comprehensive planning, also the zoning administrator for Clark County. She testified the bill, as drafted, would recognize existing developed rural estates (RE) which are typically half-acre size lots or larger. Areas along Desert Inn Road, she suggested, would not necessarily fall into that category.

Senator Care indicated his intent of attempting to obtain an idea as to what the older neighborhoods in his district look like compared to what is envisioned by this bill as it includes the average residential density of two and a half.

Ms. Coder explained for more developed areas, the bill would have little affect. She listed areas of greater impact, stating:

Senator Neal questioned whether S.B. 391 could be seen as an antigrowth bill. Ms. Coder stated she would not classify the bill as such. She explained anytime there is a request for high density next to a lesser densely zoned area, planners prefer providing a density transition or buffer for purposes of protection. She stated if the area does not have the same type of density, it can be seen as invasive and objectionable. She pointed out, "By doing this particular type of buffer, it then, if you would, would keep you from having to do a bunch of stair-stepping step-down type zoning or step-up as the case may be, and would simply allow for you to create that buffer again in an effort to protect, not necessarily to prevent growth in any way, but certainly just to protect those folks who have already been there, either recently or for quite some time, who would like to preserve their way of life." She pointed out these are increasingly becoming areas of rapid growths, noting what used to be rural areas are quickly becoming urban.

Chairman O’Connell asked what the bill would allow the county to do that is not currently being done. Ms. Coder replied jurisdictions can currently and effectively do the things set forth in the rural neighborhood preservation portion of the bill. But, she noted, there is not a set rule or way in which this is done. She suggested the bill would help establish a way in which the involved parties can work more cohesively, "rather than jurisdiction to jurisdiction or perhaps on more of a piecemeal basis." She pointed out S.B. 391 would set a uniform standard for all jurisdictions to follow.

Ms. Coder testified in support of the bill with the additional request of amendments. She drew the committee’s attention to section 3 of Exhibit E and requested the entire section not be placed within chapter 268 of NRS which deals primarily with annexation. She suggested section 3 of Exhibit E be placed within chapter 278 of NRS, stating that rather than to make this applicable to areas being annexed, it should be placed effectively across the board as allowed by chapter 278.

Ms. Coder indicated she supported language changes to section 3 of Exhibit E by adding the language, "In a county with a population of 400,000 people or more," to the beginning of subsection 1. Next, she said, the language, "If the governing body of a city annexes territory pursuant to the provisions of NRS 268.579 to 268.608, inclusive, that part of the territory at the time of annexation that consists of," shall be deleted.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Coder stated section 3, subsection 1 of Exhibit E would read, "In a county with a population of 400,000 people or more, a rural preservation neighborhood shall preserved …." She continued explaining the changes in section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (a) of Exhibit E to delete the words, "or planned for" and insert the word "as." She indicated the changes would mean the county would be dealing with existing RE development. She suggested a change to delete the words, "after the annexation" in section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (b) of Exhibit E.

Senator Porter explained the original bill, despite intentions, referenced only annexed lands. He pointed out Ms. Coder is clarifying the bill would affect existing property as well as annexed property.

Ms. Coder continued outlining the proposed amendments, drawing attention to section 5, paragraph (a) of Exhibit E. She requested adding the language, "the provisions of sections 3, 4, and 5 of this act shall expire on June 1, 2004." She explained this would allow the county "to take a snapshot in time of existing development." It would also allow the aforementioned buffer to be put in place for a period of 5 years, during which time, residents would be allowed to either enter or exit the preservation area. She clarified there would be a sunset provision to allow amendment of the boundaries as determined appropriate. She stated, "The reason to take a snapshot in time as to the effective date of this ordinance is, if we are continuing to issue RE permits, we would essentially be ballooning out this rural neighborhood preservation area, perhaps in opposition or in direct conflict with a master plan. So again we think that the folks who are there today is really what the bill should be crafted and drafted to."

Ms. Coder requested section 6 of Exhibit E be deleted as it applies to annexation. She noted although there was no objection to the actual language in the proposed section 7 of Exhibit E, she questioned the placement of section 7 in chapter 278B of NRS as this section pertains to infrastructure. She suggested there may be a more appropriate chapter of NRS in which to place section 7 of Exhibit E, and requested this provision be researched.

Bristol Ellington, Assistant Director, Community Development, City of Henderson, testified in support of S.B. 391 with the changes proposed by Ms. Coder.

Chris Knight, Comprehensive Planning Division, City of Las Vegas, recognized the importance of rural preservation in Las Vegas, and expressed support of S.B. 391 with the additional amendments proposed by Clark County.

Marta Golding Brown, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, pointed out the City of North Las Vegas was opposed to the bill in its original form, but offered support of the bill with the suggested amendments.

Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, concurred with Ms. Coder regarding the inappropriate placement of section 7 (Exhibit E) which references the impact fee statute, chapter 278B of NRS. She stated:

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether Senator Porter had received the information on the proposed amendments. Senator Porter indicated he had received the information on the aforementioned amendments. He drew attention to Exhibit E, indicating this draft copy of the bill reflected proposed changes other than the few items mentioned by Ms. Porter.

Senator O’Donnell said:

Senator O’Donnell asked, "When it is 330 feet, a buffer?"

Ms. Coder replied:

With no further testimony before the committee, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 391 and opened the hearing on S.B. 433.

Senator Porter indicated S.B. 433 was driven by the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority, noting experts were present to represent the bill’s findings.

George Stevens, Director of Finance, Clark County, explained S.B. 433 represents three distinct recommendations on the part of the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority (SNSPA). He indicated these include improving the manner in which local governments develop and report on their annual capital improvement plans (CIPs) as well as the way they finance the construction of infrastructure. He pointed out he had the opportunity to participate in the SNSPA process as part of the finance subcommittee, noting the process included a review of the capital plans of every Clark County local government. He stated the objective was to identify the capital needs of the entities, both funded and unfunded, so as to determine the sufficiency of the revenues for future infrastructure needs. Unfortunately, he said, the review was hindered by lack of consistency in the format of capital improvement plans between the entities thereby making comparison virtually impossible. He pointed out the entities employed planning horizons from 1 year to 20 years. Some entities included all identified projects both funded and unfunded, while others only included funded projects. He explained in projects funded by regional entities, the SNSPA found significant duplication in reporting. This lack of consistency, he maintained, proved to be somewhat frustrating. He declared if finance professionals cannot make sense out of the plans, then they cannot be effective for use by governing bodies or the general public. As a result, he noted, section 1 of S.B. 433, attempts to formalize the CIP submissions of the local governments. The proposed language would require the Department of Taxation develop a standard format for the plans. He indicated the department would develop the format in conjunction with the committee on local government finance to provide all of the entities an opportunity for input to the process. He assured the committee that adding structure to the process will improve the quality and the implementation of the plans, as it will allow the governing bodies a better understanding of available resources for future project funding.

Mr. Stevens drew attention to section 4 of S.B. 433 which is intended to clarify the authority of a local government when entering into contracts for capital projects funded by the proceeds of long-term debt, prior to the issuance of the debt. Historically, entities have sold bonds prior to awarding contracts. He noted because of the length of time required to construct major projects, a local government may be in a position of paying interest on large amounts of debt while having substantial cash on hand even though the entire amount of the proceeds is not needed "up front" based on cash flow requirements of the projects.

Mr. Stevens explained the amendment to chapter 354 of NRS will allow the entities to better match the issuance of the debt with the actual cash flow requirements. He stated the entity would follow all of the steps they would normally follow to issue the debt, and they would take the step of authorizing the bond sale through the adoption of the bond ordinance, thereby allowing them to then enter into the contracts with the issuance of the debt taking place some time in the future. He explained the funds normally used to pay interest during the construction phase can then actually be used to fund a portion of the project on a "pay as you go basis," ultimately lowering the amount of debt into which needed to be entered. He pointed out the costs of issuing the debt can be lowered to the extent the local government can combine financing for several purposes.

Mr. Stevens maintained section 5 of the bill sets forth the community bond bank provision, which, he noted, is a more complicated proposal based on a simple premise. He pointed out a large government entity, such as Clark County, with a double A credit rating, can issue debt at a lower cost than other governmental entities in the county. The provision will allow the county, under certain circumstances, to issue debt on behalf of other governmental entities to allow them to benefit from the larger county’s higher credit rating.

John O. Swendseid Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, testified in representation of Clark County as this entity’s bond counsel. He submitted a prepared statement summarizing sections 5 through 17 of the bill (Exhibit F) and explained to the committee the provisions in the bill outlining the community bond bank would allow Clark County to borrow money on behalf of other local governments in Clark County. He indicated Clark County has a double A credit rating which no one else has other than the State of Nevada. The program, he noted, is designed to provide an alternative for other local governments in situations where they cannot go to the state bond bank. The state bond bank, he explained, is limited to natural resources-related projects, noting S.B. 433 would cover other projects not related to natural resources.

Chairman O’Connell questioned how the process would work in the case of a default in payment and whether the responsibility would be upon the full county.

Mr. Swendseid explained the bill would allow the county to finance situations, except in the case of water. He gave the example in which Mesquite issued a general obligation to Clark County, and subsequently defaulted on that obligation. All of Clark County, he explained, would have to pay the holders of its own bonds, giving them the rights of a holder of Mesquite bonds. This could, he stated, if it is a general obligation bond, mandamus Mesquite to increase their tax levies sufficient to pay Clark County back.

Chairman O’Connell questioned, "Okay, and then does that also count against our, the $3.64 rating?"

Mr. Swendseid answered:

Mr. Swendseid explained the advantages to the bond bank, pointing out economies of scale allows for saving on borrowing costs. He noted the county’s credit rating provides a lower borrowing rate. He noted Clark County currently allows natural resource-type projects for entities controlled by the county, such as the water district and the sanitation district, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). Otherwise, he concluded, the only projects allowed under the bill are non-natural resources related including fire, library, parks, and police.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the southern water district was allowed through the state bond bank.

Mr. Swendseid concurred, restating the water district, the sanitation district and SNWA were exceptions. The setup of the county community bond bank, he commented, is the same as the state’s bond bank, noting the county would acquire general obligation bonds from local entities and then go out on the market with their own bond. He mentioned the county would be able to pass along to the local entities the advantage of the county’s credit rating, and consequently, the other entities would be able to borrow at a lower cost for infrastructure.

Mr. Stevens indicated there is an additional debt limit provided for the county for this type of debt, stating the county’s debt limit is presently 10 percent of assessed valuation. S.B. 433, she said, would allow the county an additional 15 percent for bond bank bonds, stressing the bonds are not for other county purposes. The county’s debt limit would have an additional 15 percent to the extent bonds have been issued to acquire obligations in other governments. He pointed out there are no exceptions to tax caps.

Senator Raggio questioned what municipalities would qualify under the proposal. Mr. Swendseid defined municipalities as cities, towns, general improvement districts, water districts, library districts, park districts, fire districts, water districts and water authorities as set forth in section 9 of the bill.

Mr. Stevens pointed out the school district has not been included due to a concern about whether the large amount of borrowing would dilute the county’s credit rating. Upon speaking with the rating agencies, it has been found the school district would not adversely affect the county’s credit. Conversely, he stated, the school district currently has an A credit rating, noting some advantage may be had for their inclusion.

Senator Neal asked for the location of the language which empowers the creation of the bond bank.

Mr. Swendseid explained section 14 of S.B. 433 allows the county to acquire lending projects; in effect authorizing them to engage in a bond bank. He drew attention to section 11 which outlines the specific procedures for the bond bank.

Senator Neal contended the language does not enable the counties to participate in a community bond bank. Mr. Swendseid pointed out section 14 allows the county to acquire a lending project which, in accordance with the pertinent definitions, gives them authority for such participation.

Larry Spitler, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, testified the previous testimony was the first mention that the school district may be included in the provision. He indicated if the committee were to entertain an amendment, he would first like the district officials to review the proposal.

Chairman O’Connell stated the committee is prepared to act in a timely manner and would be in need of a quick response.

With no further testimony, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 433. Beginning the work session, she asked Senator Porter about the status of S.B. 434.

Senator Porter noted S.B. 434 had been agendized for the day’s meeting, but he requested it be held until Friday, April 9. He stated originally the planning authority had been given a deadline, noting a few of the submitted bills were not finished, and, therefore, there has been a request to postpone some of the proposals for purposes of correction.

Conceding to Senator Porter’s wishes, Chairman O’Connell requested the committee hold S.B. 541 until the Governor’s ethic’s proposal, S.B. 478, has been discussed. She explained the former bill is dependent upon the latter.

Chairman O’Connell asked the committee to address S.B. 144.

Referencing the work session document (Exhibit G). Chairman O’Connell indicated minor corrections need to be made to the proposed amendment.

Ivan R. Ashleman II, Lobbyist, Clark County, explained the changes required. He drew attention to page 10 of Amendment No. 335 (Exhibit G), stating there was an ambiguity in the draft submitted to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal Division. He stated the language in the amendment did not accurately represent the intent of S.B. 144. Section 27.5 of Amendment No. 335, he stated, would prohibit a contractor from taking a public body to court over a violation of the mandatory pay provisions in the case of an arbitration agreement. He explained the intent was for those limited purposes, noting the contractor could pursue a writ of mandamus while the arbitration would apply to other provision. He called attention to section 27.5, subsection 2, paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 335, which, he pointed out, makes the court only allowed to order the entire amount withheld by the public body even if the court were to decide that there were some other amount appropriate. He contended this language should be changed to allow the court discretion. Mr. Ashleman indicated the identical arbitration concern arises in section 28 of Amendment No. 335.

Mr. Ashleman referenced section 32 of the bill, noting the amendment (Exhibit G) deletes line 22 on page 12 with the insertion of the language, "his actual damages, reasonable costs and attorney’s fees." He stated this is an incorrect concept as the amount the public body owes the contractor should be the amount awarded. The term, "actual damages," he contended, introduces a new concept, whereas the intent is to award "the contract amount, reasonable costs, and attorney’s fees."

Mr. Ashleman drew attention to section 35, subsection 2 of S.B. 144, noting a public body does not "pay or cause to be paid to a contractor the actual cost of the supplies, materials and equipment." He explained the contractor gets the contract price because otherwise they might be paid too much or too little.

Senator Raggio inquired into a situation in which there was not a contract price. Mr. Ashleman assured the senator that there would always be a contract price. Prompted by Senator Raggio, Mr. Ashleman indicated the section references supplies in short supply or those specially manufactured and requires their inclusion in the contract.

Senator Raggio questioned whether they would want the alternative of the actual price, if supplies were not in the contract. Mr. Ashleman said he did not have a problem with adding this language. Senator Raggio suggested if the contract does not state a specific cost, then the language would need to determine the cost intended. Mr. Ashleman said, "This problem is not going to come into being, unless we had a contract addressing it in the first place."

Chairman O’Connell expressed thanks to Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, for her work in drafting the amendments.

Next, the committee addressed S.B. 409.

Chairman O’Connell requested the committee review the summary and proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit H). The chairman indicated the Associated General Contractors (AGC) needed to express a concern regarding the measure.

Steve G. Holloway, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Las Vegas Chapter, stated he was representing both the northern and southern Nevada chapters of the AGC. He indicated they had concerns about the bill that, as a result of much work, were not believed able to be corrected by amendment. He pointed out chapters 623, 624, and 625 of NRS have a number of exemptions. Primarily, he noted, if one wants construction work done, an architect or a professional engineer needs to be hired to design the building and submit the plans to a building department. He stated the exemption used for tenant improvements can also be used in the cases in which an architect or an engineer left something out of plans. Mr. Holloway testified:

Senator Raggio questioned whether Mr. Holloway believes the bill to be necessary. Mr. Holloway stated he did not think the bill was necessary, noting it does not address the problem that the Clark County Building Department has with "illegitimate contractors."

Senator Raggio questioned whether there were minimum standards in place to determine the design requirements. Mr. Holloway stated there were standards, explaining the AGC is partnered with the Las Vegas Building Department to create a list of the 100 most common reasons a plan is rejected. This list, he contended, has been distributed to all contractors in Nevada.

Senator O’Donnell said requiring tenant improvements go through the building department plan check would stop construction growth in the state. He questioned whether the planning department would be able to administer all of these projects.

Robert D. Weber, Lobbyist, Clark County Building Department, stated S.B. 409 is not a Clark County proposal He indicated the county was involved as a partner with the State Contractors’ Board; State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design; State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors; Board of Landscape Architecture. Others involved in the review process, he noted, include the state fire marshal’s office and the State Public Works Board. He pointed out this is a broad group of people through the Nevada Construction Industry Review Committee. He explained S.B. 409 addresses a problem building officials and departments across the state experience with the exemption process due to the fact that many contractors are not accountable nor licensed under a state board. He pointed out if a contractor is doing design work, he or she is not held accountable to a board guiding contractors, architects, or engineers. He stressed there is no accountability.

Chairman O’Connell maintained the issue of accountability is currently being addressed in another legislative committee. Mr. Weber stated the lack of authority or responsibility is an issue that presents itself frequently.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether Mr. Weber would still have the same concerns if the accountability procedure and the scope of the contractor’s board were being changed. Mr. Weber stated he had not seen the language in the provision referenced by Chairman O’Connell. He suggested the other measure dealt primarily with the construction activity, while S.B. 409 only addresses design issues.

Chairman O’Connell assured Mr. Weber the entire issue of accountability was being addressed. Mr. Weber recognized the intent of S.B. 409 was to establish standards for plan submittal to create a "level playing field" for those submitting designs. He noted the standards would include minimum life-safety requirements, noting this is currently a concern based on the type of documents the building department receives. He indicated the standards would assist the plan reviewer to complete the work in a timely manner. He stressed the county building department wants to, "do as much as we can at the counter. And I don’t [do not] … see this bill [S.B. 409], if it was passed in the current form, having an impact on contractors wanting to do that work." He suggested various types of contractors submit design work on a regular basis, noting although there are some individuals who do not meet standards, the majority are accountable. He reiterated S.B. 409 would provide accountability through a licensing board and provide a minimum basis for review.

Chairman O’Connell reiterated the depth to which the issues concerning contractors are being addressed in another piece of legislation. She closed the hearing on S.B. 409 and opened the work session on S.B. 478. The chairman drew the committee’s attention to the work session document (Exhibit G).

Scott Scherer, General Counsel, Governor’s Office, provided the committee with potential amendments to S.B. 478 (Exhibit I) and testified the amendments addressed concerns resulting from the previous hearing as well as many discussion on the bill. He clarified the Governor’s Office was not suggesting all of the amendments should be adopted as they include concerns voiced by members of the committee as well as participants in previous discussions.

Mr. Scherer indicated the first potential amendment (Exhibit I) addresses an issue brought up by Senator Care at the hearing. He drew attention to section 7, subsection 2 of the bill which provides new public employees are required to sign an acknowledgement form, though current employees are not. He suggested subsection 2 be deleted thereby requiring only public officers to sign the form as set forth in section 7, subsection 1 of the bill. He pointed out public officers are currently the only ones required to file financial disclosure statements.

Mr. Scherer drew attention to the second amendment in Exhibit I set forth on section 14, subsection 2, noting, due to a concern expressed by Senator Neal, language has been proposed (Exhibit I) to grant the commission authority to issue a subpoena. He pointed out the chairman or vice chairman of the commission would still be able to issue a subpoena upon request of the executive director or the person who is the subject of the opinion request, but, under this additional language, the commission also would have the authority to issue a subpoena based upon their own discretion.

Mr. Scherer referred the committee to section 15, subsection 2 of the bill, and stated a matter has been called to the attention of committee members regarding the introduction of bills by legislators in which his or her general occupation or profession might have an interest. He pointed out there is currently a presumption in the law in which there would not be a conflict of interest or an abstention requirement if a bill does not affect one’s general business, profession, occupation, group, or individual as a member of that group, any differently than the other members. He indicated the change would add that a member of the Legislative Branch may introduce a bill affecting the general business, profession, occupation, or group of which he is a member, so long as he or she discloses his or her affiliation in compliance with section 15. He clarified there would be a requirement to disclose but not a requirement to abstain, noting a legislator could introduce a bill that might affect his or her particular profession as long as it benefited the entire group of which he or she happens to be a member.

Mr. Scherer maintained the recommended language would allow a legislator to introduce the aforementioned bill because it would not affect the particular legislator any differently than any other member of the group.

Senator O’Donnell indicated he has been corresponding with legislative legal counsel regarding an issue brought forward by Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, during the first hearing on the bill. He noted she had raised the question about whether or not it would be constitutional for the Legislature to have an ethics commission which resided in the Executive Branch thereby ruling over the Legislative Branch of government. He pointed out the preliminary opinion deems this unconstitutional. He mentioned there is an ethics commission established in the Judicial Branch and all the judicial ethics complaints go to this ethics commission. He commented the Legislature has established an ethics commission for the Executive Branch of government, though noted the primary purpose of the ethics commission was to act as an advisory commission for legislators. He recognized the commission has since expanded to the Executive Branch of government and to all public employees. He suggested S.B. 478 may affect only the Executive Branch of government personnel and not affect the legislators. He claimed if the legislators want to establish an ethics commission of their own they should, but noted, as written, it is unconstitutional as written. Senator O’Donnell stated, "If you have got the Governor establishing different rules and regulations for the ethics commission which affects the Legislative Branch of government, then you have the Executive Branch as the watchdog over the Legislative Branch. And that is the part that is unconstitutional."

Mr. Scherer suggested Senator O’Donnell’s comments pertain to the existing law and not to the bill. He recognized the Legislature has the right to create a legislative ethics commission if desired, but noted this body has chosen a joint legislative-executive ethics commission. He contended the commission is not necessarily ruled over by the Executive Branch as there are an equal number of appointees from the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch so as to maintain the balance. He stated S.B. 478 would significantly improve the current process.

Mr. Scherer continued explaining the potential amendments (Exhibit I), noting in response to Senator Porter’s concern regarding disclosure, the amendment would change language in section 15, subsection 3, paragraph (c) of the bill. He recognized earlier discussion of the current law requiring disclosure of the full nature and extent of the official’s interests. The change, he claimed, would require disclosure of "sufficient information concerning the gift, loan, commitment, or interest to inform the public of the potential impact of the action or abstention upon the person who provided the gift or loan, upon the person to whom he has a commitment, or upon his interest." He indicated this would address concerns about the "full nature and extent" language in which a former councilwoman was found in violation because she did not disclose the number of shares she had of interest in a particular company when making her public disclosure on an issue. "Sufficient information," he noted, so the public understands what the interest an official has, should suffice as disclosure so that the public can judge for themselves whether they think the official had a conflict.

Continuing his explanation of the proposed amendments (Exhibit I), Mr. Scherer drew attention to section 15, subsection 4 of the bill. He recalled Senator Porter’s suggestion about requiring the duty to vote. The recommendation would require a member of the Legislative Branch to vote on any matter unless he or she makes a disclosure as provided in this section 15. He commented, "So if you disclose and abstain, you would not be required to vote, but you cannot simply abstain and say, ‘Well, I did not have conflict. I just wanted to abstain.’ You would have to disclose the reason for that abstention."

Senator O’Donnell surmised this provision was already in law or a current standing rule. Mr. Scherer expressed uncertainty as to whether this provision currently existed elsewhere. Further discussion ensued as to the existence of this requirement; none was discovered. Senator Porter stated this recommendation seemed to address his concern.

Referencing an amendment in Exhibit I, Mr. Scherer drew attention to the issue of personal relationships as set forth in section 15, subsection 7, paragraph (d) of S.B. 478. He recalled the concerns regarding the types of personal relationships covered by this language. He suggested the amendment to remove the words "or personal" from paragraph (d), and rewrite paragraph (e) to read, "any commitment or relationships that is substantially similar to any one of the relationships set forth in this paragraph." The intent of change, he stated, is to capture a relationship, not listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d), but is so close to the extent the individual considers them family. He commented with this change the ethics commission would still have some discretion to require a disclosure and an abstention in those kinds of cases. But, he pointed out, it has to actually be shown that the relationship is substantially similar to one of the four other relationships listed, including a member of one’s family, member of one’s household, an employment relationship, or a business relationship. The commission, he restated, would have to show the relationship is "as close as" or "substantially similar" to one listed in section 15, subsection 7 of the bill. He reiterated this would give the ethics commission some discretion for those egregious cases that may slip through the cracks otherwise, while still giving some guidance to public officials who need to know what their obligations are. He declared this language to be an improvement on existing law and an appropriate balance between trying to provide guidance and trying to allow the ethics commission discretion.

Chairman O’Connell concurred stating, "I do not think that that language could leave any doubt in anybody’s mind about the relationship. In my looking at it, I think you did a terrific job with that, because it certainly does tell you exactly what kind of relationship you would have with the person and it would make it much easier to determine that before voting."

Mr. Scherer agreed the proposal was superior to the currently undefined, "commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others." He stressed the importance of attempting to give guidance without completely taking away the ethics commission’s discretion.

Continuing his presentation of the proposed amendments set forth in Exhibit I, Mr. Scherer called the committee’s attention to section 16, subsection 2 of the bill. He explained the suggested change would prohibit anyone currently incarcerated in a state prison from filing an ethics commission complaint. He stated it had come to his attention that filing ethics complaints against correctional officers has become "the new sport" for inmates. He pointed out there is currently a procedure available for anyone who has a grievance against any prisons department employee. He noted one can file a complaint, follow the grievance procedure, and obtain a hearing. He recognized inmates have the right to file an action if their civil rights have been violated. Mr. Scherer surmised this would stop inmates from overloading the ethics commission with frivolous complaints as well as from impeding the ability of the Department of Prisons’ officers to do their currently difficult job.

Mr. Scherer drew attention to page 2 of Exhibit I, noting the intent to delete sections 22 through 27 of S.B. 478. He explained these sections deal with the assessment on filing fees originally intended to help defray costs. He stated the Governor preferred to leave out these provisions with the intention of finding an alternative way of paying for ethics commission needs. He said a fiscal note was being drafted for committee consideration.

Referencing the proposed amendments (Exhibit I), Mr. Scherer stated new additions to the bill were proposed as a result of previous discussions. The first, he pointed out, would amend subsection 2 of NRS 281.421; the statute concerning legislative declaration and findings. He noted in a citizen Legislature such as Nevada’s, candidates run based upon their philosophies and perspectives shaped by their businesses and interests. As long as the legislators are not benefiting themselves personally, he stressed, it is not the purpose of the law to require them to abstain just because they are a member of a group that may arguably benefit from a particular piece of legislation. He stated the amendment, as set forth in Exhibit I, attempts to cover this intent.

Finally, Mr. Scherer explained, the last suggestions were to amend NRS 281.581; the civil penalties for late filing of financial disclosure. He explained the issues raised in the previous hearing by Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, concerned unreasonable, automatic fines imposed upon a candidate for filing a late campaign disclosure form. Ms. Hansen had proposed this provision discourages good people from running for office, or from being willing to serve on boards. Mr. Scherer pointed out there has been much discussion regarding allowing the ethics commission authority to waive fines or civil penalties. The suggested provision, as set forth in Exhibit I, would allow both the ethics commission and the secretary of state to waive the civil penalties for good cause, and would require the waiver itself and the circumstances constituting good cause be set forth on record for public review.

Chairman O’Connell further explained the situation cited by Ms. Hansen at the initial hearing in which a candidate had only used his own money in his campaign and therefore, did not file a financial disclosure form. Subsequently, he received notice for fines which he was unable to afford to pay. She expressed concern at this unfortunate circumstance.

Mr. Scherer stated the proposal would clarify the ethics commission’s authority to waive fines under certain circumstances.

The committee addressed an amendment offered by Marnie Miller, Concerned Citizen, as set forth in the work session document (Exhibit G) which would allow greater control over the selection of legislators to serve on various legislative committees.

Senator Raggio stated:

The chairman drew attention to an amendment requested by the Chairman of the Clark County Board of Commissioners as set forth in the work session document (Exhibit G) regarding "two suggestions which would avoid problems of interpretation regarding ‘personal’ and provide some deterrent to the common practice of filing a complaint and immediately leaking it to the press."

Senator Raggio questioned regarding the second suggestion pertaining to a complaint leaked to the press:

Senator Raggio asked, "Why is it different for the judicial discipline committee … as I understand it, that has to be kept confidential."

Mr. Scherer replied:

Senator Raggio questioned, "It wouldn’t [would not] hurt to put it in here would it. It hasn’t [has not] been ruled on by an appellate court."

Mr. Scherer confirmed:

Senator Raggio commented, "If there is unanimity on this committee, I would be prepared to make a motion on these amendments. I don’t [do not] want this to become a partisan effort."

Senator Raggio suggested this issue be addressed in a bill regarding campaign contributions. Chairman O’Connell suggested there may be an opportunity to address this issue in an election bill coming to the committee from the Assembly and requested he work on language regarding this issue.

Senator Titus questioned, "So you could introduce it; you just could not talk about it, lobby it, vote on it … is that what you are saying?"

Senator Neal opined, "I would much rather have it like that than have somebody go to a committee and get a committee introduction."

Senator Raggio continued, "So that is the only addition I would, I think it goes to the very basis of being able to at least start the legislative process."

Senator O’Donnell questioned whether the committee was still looking at the confidentiality aspect discussed. Senator Raggio confirmed this would be included in the motion, stating if legal counsel advises the committee it would be appropriate, then it should be included in the amendment.

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, clarified the amendments proposed by Bruce Woodbury, Board of Commissioners, Clark County, (Exhibit G) relate only to what is already prohibited to be disclosed, pursuant to section 16, subsection 6 of the bill. She noted the committee recommended going further than what Mr. Woodbury has requested in terms of prohibiting disclosure pursuant to the review of the case from Hawaii and additional case law pursuant to the constitutional issue regarding the First Amendment.

Chairman O’Connell indicated the committee is considering the amendment offered by the Governor’s Office as well as the additions made by Senator Raggio. Senator Raggio indicated the motion included the request that, if appropriate, the confidentiality of the initial complaint be added.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell drew the committee’s attention to amendments recommended by Mary E. Boetsch, Chairman, Commission on Ethics, as set forth in Exhibit J. Chairman O’Connell mentioned among the proposed changes was to make members of boards and commissions subject to the provisions regarding the ethics commission.

Senator Neal expressed objection to the first proposed amendment (Exhibit J), stating the members of the Legislative Branch should be distinguished from the term "public officers" due to the limited time served over the course of a term.

Senator Raggio pointed out the intent was to apply the same standard to all members of boards that presently applies to the Legislative Branch, concerning voting on an issue if the benefit received by the voter is not greater than that for any other affected person or group. He indicated this to be a good suggestion.

Senator Neal expressed agreement with the suggested proposal upon this further clarification.

Chairman O’Connell noted the second proposal would give the commission the ability to have somebody found in contempt if they are disruptive to the meetings. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Scherer, as a former member of the ethics commission, to help clarify the amendments proposed.

Mr. Scherer noted Ms. Boetsch’s second suggestion (Exhibit J) changes the grounds for sanctioning someone who files a false complaint. He stated he believed the current language to be superior. The third suggestion, set forth in Exhibit J, Mr. Scherer indicated he did not take objection to as it allowed evidence to be taken by videoconference or by teleconference.

Senator Raggio suggested including provisions to which no objection is expressed. He recommended the inclusion of item 1 and item 3 as set forth in Exhibit J.

Mr. Scherer pointed out the fourth item concerned giving the ethics commission contempt powers, and he noted, some concern had been expressed by committee members regarding this provision at the original hearing.

Referencing item 5 in Exhibit J, Chairman O’Connell requested an explanation of a blind trust.

Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated:

Senator Raggio suggested the committee hold this proposal for another time.

Drawing attention to item 6 in Exhibit J, Mr. Scherer indicated the proposal provides a time limit for complaints to be filed regarding unfair campaign practices and misleading statements.

Senator Raggio stated Ms. Boetsch made a good case for time limitations. He recommended the committee include suggested item 6 (Exhibit J).

Senator Titus questioned the location of the provision regarding the power of the ethics commission to rule on campaign practices. Mr. Scherer indicated the Governor’s Office did not address campaign practices in S.B. 478. He noted this was in a separate section of the law primarily set forth in chapters 281 and 294A of NRS. Prompted by Senator Titus, he mentioned this appears in section 7 of S.B. 540. He said the last amendment referenced would require any complaint be filed within 10 days after the election in which the false statement was allegedly made. Senator Titus clarified this would be addressed in S.B. 478. Mr. Scherer concurred. Senator Titus questioned whether there was an Assembly bill attempting to eliminate this provision. Mr. Scherer indicated there was a bill which would repeal those provisions, noting he had not spoken with the Governor regarding his view on this issue. He opined the 10-day time limit would make sense with the current provisions.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Senator O’Donnell requested Ms. Erdoes explain the constitutionality of having one ethics commission that rules over the Legislative and the Executive Branch.

Ms. Erdoes stated the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division was currently working on an opinion, noting the current consensus is that there is a fair body of law that would indicate, because the ethics commission is an Executive Branch agency, it may violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. She pointed out there is a provision in the Nevada Constitution which says a member of one branch cannot exercise functions in another branch. She expressed the concern regarding the possible "chilling affect" on issues such as standards of voting. She pointed out if there is an Executive Branch agency, such as the ethics commission, dictating voting standards to legislators, the agency may be in violation of separation of powers. Many of the other states, she remarked, have either separate ethics commissions for the legislature or have entities that are not a part of the Executive Branch. She noted another concern referred to a constitutional provision which requires both houses to be the determinates of the rules of procedures of their house. She pointed out some courts have held that having one house dictate the operations of another is unconstitutional, Ms. Erdoes clarified the opinion has not been completed.

Continuing the discussion, Senator O’Donnell stated the legislators adjudicate the budget for the ethics commission while the ethics commission dictates voting standards to the legislators. He contended this is a conflict. Ms. Erdoes concurred, noting ethics opinions have been issued on whether a legislator can vote on the budget. She said requesting bill drafts is a primary function of the Legislative Branch, noting this is a problem as it concerns the Executive and Judicial Branches of government.

Senator Neal questioned, based upon the testimony given, how the attorney general (AG) is able to prosecute a legislator for violating the law. Ms. Erdoes stated the AG’s office does not have power to prosecute the official as a legislator, noting they are immune for their legislative activities. She clarified, "They [the attorney general’s office] could prosecute you as a person, but the only power to … go after you for an action as a legislator in your house. And they can kick you out. Ultimately that is the power that the Legislature has, both the Assembly and the Senate."

Senator Neal pointed out, "But we make a statute requiring a duty or an action on the part of a legislator, and that is violated, can that person not be prosecuted for that?" Ms. Erdoes stated, "Not if it is an act as a legislator. You could not enact a law, for example, that says legislators can murder people …. There is a blending of the law certainly and perhaps there is a gray area there. The point is that if you made a law that said, you can’t [cannot] vote twice on Tuesday, the attorney general could not come in and enforce that law."

Senator Neal questioned, "How is it then that we are able to create quasi judicial legislative agencies?" Ms. Erdoes asked for clarification. Senator Neal gave the [State] Gaming Control Board as an example. Ms. Erdoes explained, "The [State] Gaming Control Board’s authority is … executive in nature. It is truly to carry out the laws that you have. And that is why, for example, if they rule something about a license or whatever, then ultimately, if there is a conflict there, it goes to the courts."

Senator Neal asked, "If we create a law, can we also create an ethics commission to carry it out, even though the legislators might vote. Even the public officers, as they put it, not just legislators but public officers?" Ms. Erdoes stated, "You could if you stayed within the branches …."

Senator Neal clarified, "If we create a body, to make judgement upon ethical matters regarding public officers, which would include legislators, we can do that can we not?" Ms. Erdoes recognized, "That is part of the question here, whether you could do that. It is the same problem with the open-meeting law." Senator Neal asked, "But does it not become a delegation of authority when we do do that?" Ms. Erdoes replied:

Chairman O’Connell requested the committee vote on the bill as amended.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 478.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Care stated he would vote for the bill in committee. He noted it is a "weighty" subject in demand of further discussion. He said he would do further research, and recognized his vote in committee does not necessarily reflect his final vote on the Senate Floor.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell drew attention to the work session document (Exhibit K) dated April 6, 1999. She requested the committee to address S.B. 194.

The chairman requested explanation of the amendments.

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified the amendments offered provide more flexibility to a local government without the creation of many funds. She stated the intent was to expand existing funds rather than creating a separate fund, thereby requiring another "10 percent set-aside." She said this would put more flexibility into the original stabilization fund which could be expanded to cover disasters. Many local governments, she noted, have already established a stabilization fund so if a disaster were to occur, that money would be available for use. She pointed out in these situations, the local governments would also be allowed an additional 5 percent.

The chairman indicated there had been an amendment proposed as set forth in Exhibit K. Senator Neal pointed out S.B. 419 would allow the Commission on Economic Development to establish a job training program. Chairman O’Connell recognized this is currently being done, although the program is not specifically for the training of a workforce.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 419.

Prompted by Senator Titus, Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, noted with a skeleton bill such as S.B. 419 everything with substance is added. She indicated they do not take the time to check the internal references as this is a long, technical process, and rarely turns up substantive issues. In the amendment process, she noted, the bill loses its skeleton designation and becomes a full bill.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Next, the committee reviewed S.B. 457.

Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, indicated the proposed amendment would tighten the language as it defines fire suppression and park projects.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 457.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Porter questioned whether the amendment addresses concerns brought forth by the Southern Nevada Home Builder’s Association and the Nevada Taxpayers Association. Mr. Leavitt stated the problems expressed by these groups are related to the broad definitions. He indicated the amended definitions reflect that if there is an impact fee imposed, a park construction tax could not be imposed at the same time.

Ms. Vilardo indicated S.B. 455 amends chapter 364 of NRS to ensure if there was a change in the category of licensing from flat fee to gross, then the base would also be adjusted to disallow raising the flat fee greater than the Consumer Price Index (CPI). She referenced the version of the bill with an asterisk at the top of the front page which reflects a technical change prior to introduction. She explained she believed something had been inadvertently left out of the bill. She explained because of the section removed by the asterisk version of the bill, there has been an unintended interpretation of the statute regarding licensing procedures. She stated it was necessary to amend S.B. 455, by adding the language previously removed in the asterisk copy of the bill. Ms. Vilardo indicated besides this correction, the bill is a housekeeping and clarification measure.

Senator Neal, referencing the asterisk copy of the bill, questioned the language added to section 2, subsection 3. Ms. Vilardo explained the change addresses a situation that occurs in which the larger counties run gross fees as a measure of their business license charge. She proposed a situation in which licensees of the same occupation pay a flat fee of $100. The county, she noted, can change the charge from the $100 flat fee for everyone in the same business to a gross fee which is based on a measure of the individual businessman’s income. Ms. Vilardo indicated the intent of the legislation was to provide notification to all affected when a change in the fee calculation would be proposed. She stressed this is a substantive change. She gave the example of this change by describing a situation in which businesspeople working on commission are put on a gross fee structure. She explained the statute requires the gross fee is based on the full sale without taking into account split commissions, percentage commissions, pro bono work.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the full amount of the split fee would be taken into account in the licensing procedure for both people receiving the fee. Ms. Vilardo concurred this could be the case. She reiterated the necessity of notification prior to changing the fee calculation for possible explanation or adjustment. Ms. Vilardo credited Clark County with repealing the gross fee calculation once the financial implications on businesses were discovered. She indicated the statute was necessary to avoid another city or county from adopting such an ordinance prior to allowing businesses the opportunity to respond.

Senator O’Donnell expressed concern regarding a city council or a county commission having the authority to adopt ordinances to change a flat fee to an income fee. He questioned the reason for this authority to change the means by which a fee is calculated.

Ms. Vilardo indicated a county charges business license fees to protect the consumer by keeping track of businesses in a community and establishing their reliability. The statutes, she noted, have allowed fees for business licenses as a way of recouping the cost of administering this function. The intent of the licensing fee was to avoid using money for this purpose from the General Fund, as established during the tax shift in 1981. Generally larger entities, she explained, use the measure of income to charge the fee for retail businesses. Ms. Vilardo gave an example of this fee referring to a business she previously owned. She pointed out this authority to regulate businesses was given to local governments, in effect, to pay for the support of the regulation.

Senator Neal described the language in the bill as "convoluted." Ms. Vilardo indicated she had disliked the language used as well, but noted, it was worded specifically for purposes of legality

Senator Neal indicated the language should simply say that if the city or county changes a tax or fee on a private enterprise, which is measured by the income or revenue of the enterprise, the city or the county must send a written notice at least 14 days before the adoption of the ordinance that changes the tax or the fee.

Senator Titus questioned whether the cities and counties hold a public meeting prior to changing aforementioned taxes and fees. Ms. Vilardo indicated a public meeting was held in such a case. Senator Titus asked if the 14 days would be enough notification for the meeting. Ms. Vilardo suggested this was enough notice.

Prompted by Senator Neal, Ms. Guinasso said by changing the language, as suggested by Senator Neal, would change the meaning of the bill. She explained other taxes or fees are calculated differently. The language set forth in S.B. 455, she noted, would specifically address changing the taxes and fees calculated on the income or revenue. If the specific language is not used every time, she indicated, it would refer to other taxes and fees not calculated this way.

At the request of the Chairman, Ms. Vilardo indicated she would provide copies of the original, non-asterisk version of the bill. It was decided to review this additional language prior to voting on the issue.

Next, a brief discussion ensued regarding S.B. 144, in which Mr. Ashleman told the chairman that some changes were necessary to S.B. 144, noting the participating parties have had some second thoughts. Chairman O’Connell requested Mr. Ashleman share the changes with Ms. Guinasso for further drafting of amendments.

Continuing the work session, Chairman O’Connell directed the committee’s attention to S.B. 470.

Mr. Leavitt provided a brief summary of the proposal. Chairman O’Connell read from the work session document (Exhibit K) concerning the proposed amendments. On the first proposal, Mr. Leavitt indicated there had been discussion at the hearing as to whether the Department of Taxation was able to provide technical assistance without incurring additional cost. It had been suggested this assistance only be required to the extent the Department of Taxation had resources available.

Chairman O’Connell indicated a second amendment had been offered to change the effective date to January 1, 2000 in order to provide additional time to ease the transition and reappointment of commission members. The third suggestion, the chairman noted, sought to clarify language regarding commission membership. Mr. Leavitt stated the experience requirements would not relate to elected members.

Senator Neal indicated a letter should be sent to the Department of Taxation assuring them they had indicated they were able to provide technical assistance without an additional tax.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Leavitt recalled a suggestion to specify in the measure when an unfunded mandate was made at the request of local government.

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, explained it had been suggested that unfunded mandates in excess of $5,000 be specified rather than those at the $2,000 level. He noted a similar bill in the Assembly had been amended to raise the threshold to $5,000 at the request of the Assembly committee.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether both bills were necessary. Mr. Grady stated the two measures were identical. Senator Neal suggested the bill be considered to ensure the measure’s passage.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 471.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Titus expressed support for the bill, however, she noted S.B. 471 would provide one more requirement for inclusion on the face of the bills. She considered the many directions currently on the bills including fiscal notes, two-thirds majority vote requirement, and exemption status.

Senator Porter suggested all of the requirements be listed on the face of the bill in the same area rather than all over the page.

Chairman O’Connell drew the committee’s attention to S.B. 473.

Mr. Leavitt explained S.B. 473 addresses a situation in which a local government is in severe financial circumstances and provides a process whereby a vote can be taken as to whether the local government will be continued. If the consensus is made to continue the entity, the bill provides that taxes be increased sufficiently to fund the government.

Senator Neal recognized the bill is in skeletal form. Chairman O’Connell pointed out the bill would be incorporated into many different chapters of NRS, noting it has not yet been "flushed out" as it will affect all counties. Ms. Guinasso concurred. She indicated she did not believe there would be any more sections included in the measure though pointed out the committee had never discussed the process for dissolution of some of the districts covered by S.B. 473. Ms. Guinasso recognized a generic provision had been included to apply in the case a procedure was otherwise unspecified. There are specific provisions, she noted, providing for the procedure of disincorporation of cities, but no procedures, as they relate to less common districts, exist.

Chairman O’Connell indicated an amendment had been proposed by the Nevada Taxpayer’s Association (Exhibit K) to recommend a reduced time frame.

Mr. Leavitt indicated some concern had been addressed that the proposed time limit reduction to 2 years would not be sufficient.

Senator Neal questioned whether a law for disincorporation exists in present statute. Ms. Guinasso recognized the statute does not cover every type of government. There are statutes, she noted, which provide for the disincorporation of cities and various districts. Senator Neal interjected the Nevada Constitution would provide for the disincorporation of a county. Ms. Guinasso agreed, though noted S.B. 473 did not address counties.

Senator Neal recognized if the Nevada Tax Commission makes a determination that there is a financial emergency, then the provisions in S.B. 473 for the possible dissolution of a local government would be triggered. He questioned the types of procedures which would be needed to initiate a dissolution.

Mr. Leavitt indicated the previous discussion pertained to the specific procedures to be followed after a determination has been made by the voters to dissolve the district. He suggested the generic language in the bill would be sufficient to cover the necessary procedures for the districts without such provisions in statute.

Mr. Grady recognized the reduced 2-year time frame suggestion had also been brought forth by Howarth and Associates. Mr. Grady contended, "You go through the whole process which you are probably taking 6 months to do that. And if they are broke at that point, they are not going to be in any better shape in 2 years, or 5."

Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, indicated she was a member of the technical committee to the Legislative Committee to Study the Distribution Among Local Governments of Revenue from State and Local Taxes. She gave the Nye County Regional Hospital as an example of an emergency situation which could not wait 5 years. She pointed out the bill does not provide a "quick fix" because the process may not be completed for 3 years or more. She stated the members of the technical committee supported the time-reduction recommendation so as to allow the problem to be addressed when necessary and prior to the bankruptcy of a local government.

Senator Titus expressed the desire to reduce the time limitation to 3 years.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 473.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Next, the committee reviewed S.B. 528.

Mr. Leavitt provided the committee a brief summary of the bill. He noted the main provision indicated development must take place prior to redevelopment.

Senator Raggio drew attention to a recommendation to delete the language in section 3, subsection 2, paragraph (b) of the bill, which states, "Any remaining land in the area included in a redevelopment area must by subdivided or parceled land."

Mr. Leavitt recognized Douglas County had suggested this change, noting the concern that if 75 percent of the land is already developed, the remaining 25 percent need not fit the subdivided or parceled category.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether this change was necessary. Mr. Leavitt concurred this would be a good idea as it does not make much difference as to whether the remaining 25 percent of the land is subdivided or parceled.

Senator Neal questioned the language in section 1 of the bill. Mr. Leavitt explained this language is a pledge indicating that once bonds are issued, action will not be taken to impair the security of the bonds or change the revenues available for their repayment. He pointed out it is a contract provision guaranteeing to the bond holder that there is some protection to the outstanding bonds.

Senator Neal asked whether the language would put the "full faith and credit" of the state behind the taxes of local government. Mr. Leavitt indicated it would not refer to the state’s "full faith and credit" behind the bonds, but rather the faith of the state that the provisions regarding the securities for the bonds will not be changed. Chairman O’Connell noted it is incumbent upon the Legislature not to do anything to jeopardize the security of the bonds. The chairman clarified, "For instance in taxation, if we were to do an exemption, and that money was already pledged to pay for debt, then we would not … be adhering to the law, because we would have caused a problem with paying off that debt." Mr. Leavitt stated, "The situation where you allow a certain money to be pledged for the repayment of the debt, and then somebody issues bonds based on them, then 3 years later you repeal that section, and the money is no longer available for repayment."

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 528.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

The chairman noted the amendment would be to delete the language on page 2, lines 22 and 23 of the bill.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Once again, Chairman O’Connell recommended the committee address S.B. 455. She called attention to a copy of the non-asterisk version of the bill as previously discussed, noting the committee had requested to review the language removed from the original bill. She reminded the committee that Ms. Vilardo requested passage of the original bill, or the non-asterisk version, as certain language had been removed in error (Exhibit L).

Senator Raggio questioned the current powers of a local government. Mr. Leavitt stated there is a provision in statute allowing the increase of business license fees for emergency conditions. He pointed out the amount of revenue received from business license fees in relation to the total operations expense is relatively insignificant. He noted business licenses are not the source of income meant to assist in alleviating emergency situations. He pointed out although the measure would place an additional restriction on local government, the general consensus did not reflect concern.

Chairman O’Connell inquired into the necessity of the bill. Senator O’Donnell stated he understood that the local governments were holding public hearings without notifying business owners affected by a proposed increase in licensing fees. He pointed out the bill would require the entities to notify those affected if the intention was to raise a fee.

Prompted by Senator Raggio, Mr. Leavitt explained a separate cap exists on flat and gross fees. He explained, "If you want to go from one to the other … this essentially says, ‘I am not going to free up allowed revenue in the one that I left to go to the other one.’ This I suppose eliminates the possibility of someone would try to use that benefit and get two bites of the apple, so to speak."

Senator Raggio clarified the committee is considering passing the bill with the inclusion of Exhibit L. Ms. Guinasso concurred. Senator Raggio questioned the intent of the changes to be made. Mr. Leavitt explained a problem had arisen as a result from a district attorney’s opinion that an ability to license a certain type of business was eliminated upon removal of the language.

Upon questioning by Senator Raggio, it was found there had been no opposition to the bill.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 455.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Next, the committee addressed S.B. 529.

Mr. Leavitt stated S.B. 529 requires that when a special improvement district is organized, a segregation of the tax right applicable to operations and to the repayment of debt must be established. This would provide that when the debt has been repaid, it would go away but the operating rate would continue. Currently, he noted, there is no separate designation and the entire rate continues indefinitely.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 529.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell drew the committee’s attention to the work session document dated April 7, 1999 (Exhibit G). The committee reviewed S.B. 429.

Chairman O’Connell briefly summarized the bill, noting it addressed assessments for growing local improvement districts. She drew the committee’s attention to a proposal presented by Clark County for inclusion in the measure (Exhibit G).

Colleen A. Wilson-Papa, Lobbyist, Clark County, indicated after discussion with the county’s public works department, it has been suggested to change "shall" to "may." She stated an agreement had been made with the bill’s proponent to work together on language to address the issue at a future date.

Mr. Leavitt explained the situation as it relates to the special improvement districts (SIDs) is difficult. The basis of operation followed by SIDs, he noted, include a series of public hearings in which citizens voice their willingness to pay the assessment prior to the levying of that assessment. He questioned the way in which residents not originally in the district will be able to exercise the right to express their willingness to belong. He questioned, "How do you get past this process, and if you do it for an existing district … what do you do about the bondholders when you have essentially reduced the obligation to pay for those who are already in the district." He stressed the issue of fairness should be addressed in the process for those who have not had a chance to originally state their willingness to come into the district.

Chairman O’Connell stated, "I am glad that you are here tonight, because I had asked that very question if this was an issue that had been voted on by the district that had the assessment and what the debt levy was that was associated with that vote. And we did not know, at that time, we were going to be investigating that."

Senator Raggio questioned how the intent of the measure would be accomplished. Mr. Leavitt stated he did not know. Prompted by Senator Raggio, Mr. Leavitt said:

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether this problem can continue to be worked upon without the proposed legislation. Ms. Wilson-Papa said, "Absolutely." She also noted remarks made by Mr. Leavitt had addressed the same concerns expressed by Clark County, noting this was the reason for the aforementioned suggested amendment.

Chairman O’Connell suggested the committee hold the bill in order to allow the time to share the concerns voiced with the bill’s proponent. Mr. Leavitt commented the bill would essentially change the entire way in which assessment districts would be reviewed.

Drawing attention to the work session document (Exhibit G), Chairman O’Connell requested the committee consider S.B. 437, noting it had been a consensus decision to narrow the intent of the bill to only address the bidders’ preference statute.

Chairman O’Connell noted the bill was amended to address only bidders’ preference. Steve G. Holloway, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Las Vegas Chapter, stated it had been agreed to use S.B. 437 as a vehicle to change the bidders’ preference statutes as agreed upon by the construction industry and the public works agencies. Ms. Guinasso pointed out in the mock bill (Exhibit M), the green language changed the original version of the bill by suggested amendment and substantive changes requested by the bill’s proponents while the blue language was new in terms of amendment to existing NRS.

Mr. Holloway explained the amended language on section 1 subsection 2 of Exhibit M was added at the request of the district attorney’s office in Clark County to make it possible for public works agencies to legally reject a bidder who was unresponsive to the bid solicitation. In section 1, subsection 4 of Exhibit M defines "prime contractor" which, Mr. Holloway noted, is used extensively through chapter 338 of NRS. Next, he drew attention to section 1, subsection 8 of Exhibit M in which additional language provides that prevailing wage rates do not have to be paid to design professionals. He said this was added in the event the committee decides to approve S.B. 475; the design-build bill.

Mr. Holloway continued, explaining the language in green print was added as clarification and presented to the committee on March 31, 1999. He pointed out the changes in section 2, subsection 1, and section 2, subsection 2, paragraph (a) (Exhibit M) are conforming language. Referencing section 2, subsection 2, paragraph (b) and section 2, subsection 3 of Exhibit M, Mr. Holloway explained the language attempts to simplify bidders’ preference by allowing the State Contractors’ Board to issue eligibility certificates. He pointed out the language had been developed over a 2-year period of time with input from the State Contractors’ Board. He stressed the task would be strictly administrable for the board. He noted disputes will continue to be handled as they currently are by the public works agencies and the courts. He cited the estimate that there will be no more than 300 certificates issued a year, and it will be done at such time when a contractor renews his or her license.

Mr. Holloway drew attention to changes on section 2, subsection 3, paragraph (a), subparagraph (1) of Exhibit M, which were requested by the deputy district attorney for Clark County. He expressed concurrence with this amendment, noting there has been some dispute over whether taxes paid to the state by contractors working on reservations or other federal properties would be included within the provision. Generally, he pointed out, these areas have been accepted as "counting towards the bidders’ preference. "

Mr. Holloway explained the amendment to section 2, subsection 3, paragraph (a), subparagraph (2) of Exhibit M was made to clarify that when the State Contractors’ Board issued the certificates it was considered an administrable task, noting an affidavit would be presented by the certified public accountant. He pointed out there is no application involved in the process, but an affidavit would clarify the proper licensing of a general contractor prior to a certificate being issued. The language added to section 2, subsection 3, paragraph (b) of Exhibit M, he noted, was intended to protect local contractors desiring to gift, give through inheritance, or transfer their business along with their bidders’ preference status.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the reason the language was removed in section 2, subsection 3, paragraph (a), subparagraph (3) of Exhibit M. Mr. Holloway explained the language had become redundant due to language added to section 2, subsection 2, paragraph (b) and section 1, subsection 3 of Exhibit M regarding the State Contractors’ Board.

Continuing his explanation, Mr. Holloway referred the committee to section 2, subsection 4, paragraph (a) of Exhibit M. He explained the language was added for clarification of taxes paid by an affiliate or parent company of the contractor. He noted the language has been developed over the past 2 years. The intent, he pointed out, was to clarify that those taxes would count, but only if the affiliate or parent company was also a general contractor. Section, 2, subsection 4, paragraph (b) of Exhibit M, he recognized, contained meaningful clarification language pertaining to joint venture, noting it was requested by the district attorney’s office.

Mr. Holloway called the committee’s attention to section 2, subsection 5 of Exhibit M, which allows the contractor renewal of the eligibility certificate every year when the State Contractors' Board renews his or her license. Section 2, subsection 6 of Exhibit M requires a contractor to submit his or her affidavit at the time of license renewal or the process must be completed a second time. He explained section 2, subsection 7 of Exhibit M provides a 5-year reapplication penalty for a contractor who has submitted false information to obtain bidders’ preference.

Continuing his summary of the amendments (Exhibit M), Mr. Holloway pointed out the deletions of previous section 2, subsections 6, 7, and 8 of Exhibit M, were intended to clarify the problems experienced with joint ventures. Mr. Holloway stressed all of the proposed changes have the unanimous support of both the construction industry and the public works agencies. Section 2, subsection 10 of Exhibit M, authorizes the State Contractors’ Board to adopt any regulations they may need to certify bidders’ preference. For instance, he explained, the board could dictate the requirements of the affidavit received to certify bidders’ preference. He recognized the additional language would also authorize the board to assess reasonable fees. He assured the committee the construction industry is willing to pay the fees to have a central depository for bidders’ preference. Currently, he mentioned, a contractor has to reapply every time he or she bid on a job with a different public agency.

Mr. Holloway referred the committee members to section 2, subsection 11 of Exhibit M, which clarifies that the validity of a bidders’ preference may be challenged under the current time requirements; after a bid is submitted but before the award is granted. He commented this language has been worked out with the public works agencies and the district attorney’s office. Section 2, subsection 11, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Exhibit M , he noted, further specify this point. Paragraph (a), he recognized, puts the filing burden on the person making the protest. Finally, section 2, subsection 12 of Exhibit M, requires substantiating evidence or proof in order for the public works agency to consider the objection.

Senator Neal noted he may vote differently on the issue in the future based upon further review of the measure.

Chairman O’Connell referred the committee’s attention to S.B. 475, noting a draft of the suggested amendments were contained in the work session document (Exhibit G). She questioned whether Mr. Holloway had a section-by-section explanation of the bill with the suggested revisions. Mr. Holloway indicated he could prepare a written explanation of the bill with identification of the new language to committee members. The chairman indicated the committee would address the measure at the next meeting.

Next, Chairman O’Connell indicated there has been a request to revise an amendment on S.B. 91.

The chairman indicated it had been recommended a replacement amendment be drafted. She pointed out the amendment would change "must" to "may." She indicated the language would read, "The statement may include the name, age, occupation of the candidate, and a brief description of the education." Senator Neal confirmed these would be instructions to the secretary of state. The chairman noted the language would indicate that the statement must be authorized by the candidate. She clarified the purpose of the amendment is to allow a candidate to do his or her own editing.

Senator Neal pointed out the secretary of state can reject the information submitted by the candidate. He stated he did not have a problem with the amendment.

Senator Raggio indicated he would support the amendment, but he reserved the right not to vote for the final legislation. Senator Porter concurred with Senator Raggio’s statement.

The chairman indicated an amendment would be requested on S.B. 91. Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Angela Culbert,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: