The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 6:45 p.m., on Thursday, April 8, 1999, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Connell opened the meeting by requesting testimony on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 9.

Chairman O’Connell drew attention to the work session document (Exhibit C). Senator Care recalled the committee had proposed to amend and do pass S.J.R. 9 on March 5, 1999, though the motion had failed. He noted he had voted against the proposed action, and reminded the committee of his comments regarding the impressive testimonies of both Robert L. Seale, ex-State Treasurer, Office of the State Treasurer, and Kathy Augustine, State Controller, Office of the State Controller. He had indicated at the previous hearing he would need supplemental documentation to justify approving S.J.R. 9. Senator Care pointed out further information had been provided to him by Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, which had caused a change in his position on the measure; therefore, he requested the committee reconsider their previous action.

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, drew attention to the proposed amendment set forth in Exhibit C, and she clarified the recommended changes to section 3 of the bill was made by the Office of the State Treasurer and by Mr. Seale. The amendment (Exhibit C) proposed on page 1, line 15 through page 2 line 4 reflected Ms. Vilardo’s request to "fast track" the bill. However, she pointed out, changes would be needed for exact date clarification. Ms. Vilardo stated the dates should "piggyback" the primary election on the municipal elections as set forth by the date proposal of June 2001. Article 16, section 1 of the Nevada Constitution, she explained, allows the Legislature to put a resolution on a ballot at anytime, noting this interpretation was agreed to by the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. For further clarification, Ms Vilardo read the accurate proposed amendment:

Ms. Vilardo drew attention to the first paragraph of the proposed amendment (Exhibit C), and explained testimony indicated there needed to be some accounting for the treasurer’s records if the bill was passed. She pointed out the change from "controller" to "director of financial reporting" in regards to the individual assuming these accounting duties.

Senator O’Donnell questioned the reason the provision needed to be placed on a fast track. Ms. Vilardo noted the Nevada Taxpayers Association has been consistent in their support for the consolidation of the offices. She explained the purpose for the fast-track amendment was so that a person running for the controller’s office would not need to go to the expense of an election if the voters did not approve the continuation of said office. If the voters approve consolidation of the offices, she maintained, the proposed amendment would make the process more efficient.

Senator O’Donnell noted the controller currently sits on the highway board, and questioned the individual that would fill this seat if the controller’s office was to be eliminated. Ms. Vilardo suggested the treasurer could fill this position, noting in the past, the board of directors has approved changing the composition of the highway board to allow more private- than public-sector members. She indicated this issue to be separate, noting it would be addressed in the next legislative session.

Senator Porter asked for further explanation from Senator Care regarding the documentation which assisted in his reconsideration of the measure. Senator Care indicated the documents conclude checks and balances are not of great concern in this matter due to the current internal control process. He reminded the committee of previous discussion regarding the $500,000 in annual savings by office consolidation; and noted the overtime, as computed in Ms. Augustine’s figures, "might not mean all that much … because it was a one-time shot at the institution of the IFS [Integrated Financial System] project." He expressed his original confusion about the opposing testimony regarding the $500,000 in savings, but, he explained, further information verified this amount.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R. 9.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Chairman O’Connell drew the committee’s attention to Senate Bill (S.B.) 457.

Chairman O’Connell pointed out the committee had voted on the measure on April 7, 1999, and indicated she wished for verification of this action. She called attention the proposed amendment (Exhibit D), stressing the bill would provide an impact fee. The chairman stated the committee had approved a separate amendment offered by the City of Las Vegas, which, she noted, did not cover the concerns of Ms. Vilardo and Irene Porter, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association. She requested the committee reconsider their previous action on the measure.

Prompted by Senator Neal, Chairman O’Connell explained the amendment proposed by Ms. Vilardo and Ms. Porter intended to remove the "fire suppression project" while allowing the impact fees to address "park projects" only.

Ms. Vilardo explained:

Senator Neal questioned the suggestion that builders of homes and facilities do not need fire protection. Ms. Vilardo responded she was not suggesting fire protection is not needed, but pointed out the fee is being used for mobile equipment. The impact fee statute, she explained, requires a nexus of the area in which money is being spent. Ms. Vilardo stated, "For the most part, facilities have been acceptable, but when you … equip the facilities and the items can be moved to another physical location, then you have lost the nexus of the group and the people that paid for it and the area that that was supposed to service. And that has been held, U.S. Supreme Court case, to be unconstitutional." Ms. Vilardo indicated law exists which disallows impact fees paying for equipment.

Senator Neal clarified street sweepers or any equipment that would have a general application would not fall under the impact fee provision. Ms. Vilardo stated, "If you are using impact fees and imposing the fee based on that provision of law, then I am saying that if you are outside the area, or you have the ability to take and move that equipment to another fire station, where, maybe you or I live …."

Senator Neal questioned the way in which the provision would apply to schools. Ms. Vilardo indicated impact fee laws for schools are not covered in the measure. Prompted by Senator Neal, Ms. Vilardo pointed out that current impact fees apply to counties with populations under 400,000; providing a $1,600 restriction and a 4-year levy period. She stated if an impact fee for a school is going to be levied for a longer period, it would require the approval of the Nevada Tax Commission. She pointed out the impact fees for schools is not in chapter 278B of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), but in chapter 387.

Ms. Porter explained she had suggested an additional amendment affecting the "park language"; although, after speaking with the representatives from the City of Las Vegas, it had been determined it would be appropriate to use the city’s "park language" until the another recommendation could be approved by the proper authorities.

Senator Neal questioned the number of acres the City of Las Vegas requires for parks. Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, explained there are several different types of parks, noting neighborhood parks financed under the residential park construction tax are relatively small. The proposed legislation, he pointed out, addresses parks of a larger size in relation to the impact fees. He indicated he had requested more information be given prior to agreeing to park language specifying size as in the aforementioned additional amendment offered by Ms. Porter.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Vilardo clarified the suggested amendment to S.B. 457 (Exhibit D) would, itself, be amended to remove the changes to sections dealing with parks, but would retain the deletion of the fire suppression language. She pointed out further changes might be recommended if an agreement could be reached on the language concerning parks. Ms. Porter concurred with this summation. She indicated the precise language regarding parks larger than neighborhood parks has not yet been determined.

Chairman O’Connell asked whether the committee should vote on the changes if additional amendments were going to be added in the Assembly. Ms. Porter recommended the fire suppression language (Exhibit D) be removed at the current hearing, while Mr. Leavitt voiced his preference that the language not be removed at all.

Senator Titus expressed agreement with Mr. Leavitt, stating the previously adopted amendment narrowed the language adequately. She suggested the language regarding fire facilities should be retained, stressing a nexus can be established between a fire station, fire trucks, and a neighborhood. She questioned the number of fire trucks that would be taken from one neighborhood fire station across town to fight a fire. The senator stated the way for which fire is provided at the local government level to be capricious. Senator Titus stated:

Senator Titus suggested the problematic situation could be "taken care of" by the S.B. 457 without further amendment.

Senator Porter questioned whether Mr. Leavitt had seen the amendment (Exhibit D) prior to the committee hearing. Mr. Leavitt concurred, noting there is a difference of opinion on the subject. He pointed out the section regarding parks is more important to the city, although he requested the retention of the fire suppression provision as well.

Senator Porter questioned the effect of the measure if the amendment was limited to address buildings. Ms. Vilardo stated she could support limiting the provision to affect buildings, noting they can not be moved and meet the nexus test. She expressed concern regarding retaining language affecting fire equipment. Ms. Vilardo stated, "If you leave the buildings in for fire, it doesn’t [does not] thrill me, but at least it makes sense insofar as what the intent of law is. And take the equipment out."

Senator Porter recalled there had been previous discussion that fire buildings would be reasonable for consideration rather than the inclusion of fire trucks and equipment. Ms. Porter concurred this recommendation had been discussed, although, she maintained the opposition expressed by the home builders association. However, she recognized the rational nexus to the fire buildings.

Chairman O’Connell stated her intent in bringing the bill forward was to avoid passing bad legislation. She expressed the importance of taking the time to hear both sides of the issue.

Mr. Leavitt stated for the record, "Someone … asked me last night if it was my understanding that the amendments that I had drafted satisfied the concerns that had been expressed by Ms. Vilardo and Ms. Porter. And I indicated that was yes. And I thought … at that time … that statement was factually correct. … I thought at the time I was expressing to you what was factually true, and if I did not do that, then it was not my intent."

Senator Porter expressed the inclination to retain "facilities" in the amendment, though noted his concern that 7 committee members voted on the amendment, though only 4 members are currently present. He suggested it would not be appropriate to take further action without all of the committee members present. Chairman O’Connell indicated they could vote on the measure at the next meeting. She reiterated her intent to provide the opportunity for testimony by both sides.

Senator Porter stated, "If I could give my logic for the facilities as opposed to the ancillary. A lot of those are disposable items as compared to a structure, and that is why I would stay with the facility."

Senator Titus indicated she could support this recommendation, noting the importance of retaining language regarding fire suppression.

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated, "We would agree that it looks like that moveable equipment, in terms of financing, that with an impact fee might be problematical in terms that there would not be the connection to the land that is being impacted. And so, I wanted to point that out that it might be problematical down the road, if we did include equipment in the assessment of the impact fees on the fire protection project language."

Based upon Ms. Guinasso’s statement, Mr. Leavitt withdrew the request for the specification of equipment regarding fire protection projects.

Chairman O’Connell remarked that if the committee concurred, the amendment could be voted on and processed.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

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

For the record, Senator Porter stated the intent of the amendment "would be to have the City of Las Vegas amendment include facilities and exclude the rest of the ancillary items." Chairman O’Connell stressed the park projects would be retained, while the language regarding fire equipment would be removed.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Guinasso pointed out the bill references waterworks, hydrants, and other water supply facilities. Chairman O’Connell confirmed these references would be deleted as well.

Senator Porter commented the building is the least expensive part of a fire station from the taxpayer’s standpoint, noting the service and the employees will be another serious issue.

*****

Next, Chairman O’Connell requested the committee to address S.B. 144.

Ivan R. Ashelman II, Lobbyist, Clark County, indicated section 13, subsection 2 of the proposed reprint (Exhibit C) should be deleted. He pointed out that there was an ambiguity between "progress payments" and "withholds;" noting if subsection 2 is not deleted, interest will be paid on funds withheld because a project was not properly done. He stated this to be contrary to intention.

Secondly, Mr. Ashelman explained the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau had indicated language in section 27.5 of the proposal which states, "Unless the parties have a written agreement to submit any controversy arising under the contract to arbitration," is a typographical error. The amendment, he noted, should remove this language as agreed upon by the involved parties.

Prompted by Senator Neal, Mr. Ashelman stated section 27.5 should begin, "A contractor who believes … ."

Mr. Ashelman testified the amended version of the bill appears to accurately reflect the intent of the bill as agreed upon by the involved parties and the committee members. Mr. Ashelman voiced appreciation of the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s work on the measure.

In response to Senator Neal, Mr. Ashelman indicated the county and the contractors agree with the proposed amendment (Exhibit C). Senator Neal asked if the union representatives agreed to the changes, as well. Chairman O’Connell responded that the unions were not involved as the bill concerns the prompt pay issue between the counties and the contractors.

Cheryl C. Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors, indicated she had discussed the amended bill (Exhibit C) with a union representative who had expressed concurrence with the changes.

Steve G. Holloway, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Las Vegas Chapter, stated in his discussions with union representatives, they have expressed support for the amended bill.

Chairman O’Connell recognized the entire committee was not present to vote on this issue, and requested the proponents of the legislation to be present at the next meeting to address questions, if they should arise.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 144.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Neal indicated his motion would include the amendments offered previously in the meeting concerning section 13, subsection 2, and section 27.5 of the bill.

*****

Senator Porter requested S.B. 436 and S.B. 394 be addressed.

The committee referred to the work session document (Exhibit C).

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 436.

Senator Porter explained the bill currently provides for membership of elected and private sector individuals on the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition. However, he noted, the testimony in the initial hearing requested all members of the coalition be elected, with supplemental committees consisting of appointed members. Senator Porter noted this would require the deletion of section 6, subsection 2, paragraph (f) of the bill.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman O’Connell called attention to S.B. 422.

The chairman indicated the bill was never heard and had been withdrawn by the sponsor of the measure.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 422.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Next, the chairman requested action be taken on S.B. 525, noting the measure, too, had been withdrawn.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 525.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman O’Connell drew attention to S.B. 429.

Chairman O’Connell indicated the bill had been sponsored by Senator Rawson, noting Clark County had agreed to work with him during the interim to reach a consensus. James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated, "… The county is firmly committed to working on the various aspects of this bill during the interim. That is just a commitment that is, I assure you, very solid."

Chairman O’Connell drew attention to S.B. 394 at the request of Senator Porter.

Senator Titus noted the amendments (Exhibit C) had been proposed by the City of Henderson and Clark County. She explained the amendments clarify the regional authority that would be performing the functions set forth in the measure. Rather than preparing separate reports, she noted one report would be issued, and she pointed out the state public lands office will become a repository for receipt of the report every 2 years in lieu of their previous responsibility of creating guidelines.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 394.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Chairman O’Connell directed the committee members to review S.B. 409, suggesting the bill was no longer necessary as a proposal before the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor aims to address the issue in a more complete way.

Ms. Blomstrom stated, "I think that a lot of what is being done in the commerce and labor committee is aimed at residential contractors. However, strengthening the [State] Contractors’ Board will give them the hammer that they need to discipline contractors who are not fulfilling …." Chairman O’Connell stated, "And the accountability is there." Ms. Blomstrom agreed, "Absolutely."

Mr. Holloway testified to his knowledge of the legislative proposals dealing with the State Contractors’ Board. He asserted that a portion of S.B. 409 was being addressed in S.B. 32, by amendment, in regards to the requirement that the building departments will report repeating violators to the State Contractors’ Board. He suggested S.B. 409 to be redundant in this respect.

SENATE BILL 32: Revises provisions concerning contractors. (BDR 54-22)

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 409.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

In regards to general business, Senator Titus remarked that in light of the shortened legislative session, it might be appropriate to revisit session rules concerning the way in which the bills are assigned to committees. She commented on the amount of proposals with overlapping jurisdictions. Chairman O’Connell agreed and cited a situation in regards to inappropriate committee bill assignment.

At the request of Mr. Leavitt, Chairman O’Connell requested the committee address S.B. 501.

Mr. Leavitt pointed out the bill provides for the standardization of ballot language, noting there had been no opposition to the measure. (See proposed amendment Exhibit C).

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 501.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

The Chairman drew attention to S.B. 542 .

Mr. Spinello summarized the amendment as set forth in Exhibit C.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 542.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION

*****

Senator Porter directed attention to S.B. 434, noting the planning authority decided to withdraw the measure due to lack of time.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 434.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Next, Senator Porter requested discussion of S.B. 393.

Senator Porter stated that although there were provisions in the bill which could be used, it was his opinion that S.B. 393 should be indefinitely postponed at this time.

Senator Titus recognized some of the items in the measure were worth saving, and indicated she would be willing to support Senator Porter’s recommended action, if a commitment was made to work on the important items for inclusion in another proposed planning bill.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, stated:

Chairman O’Connell suggested Senator Titus point out, for the record, items of particular interest. Senator Titus stated, "The things that I would like to see us work on are the aspects of the bill that deal with consistency between master plans and zoning and the changing of master plans at … set intervals rather than just … randomly, all the time. Those are my main concerns."

Senator Porter stated, "I think with this, I guess, we are looking at a long courtship between Senator Titus and myself on planning issues. I think that this has, this evening, shown some cooperation between the Legislature and local government and our commitment to work together for southern Nevada."

Mr. Leavitt stated, "We can go on record with the same comments regarding these items."

Marta Golding Brown, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, stated, "We, too, will work in concert with the two senators on planning bills."

Mr. Spinello stated, "We also believe that some of these things can be made manageable and be worked into other bills."

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 393.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

At the request of Mr. Spinello, the committee addressed S.B. 216.

Mr. Spinello reminded the committee of the original hearing in which both the school district and the university system were comfortable with the proposed language.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the fiscal note on the bill. Mr. Spinello pointed out the language is permissive, noting if inspection work was done for the school district or the university system, a fee arrangement could be worked out through an interlocal agreement. He noted this would affect capital construction costs. Indicating this to be current practice with regards to local governments, Mr. Spinello cited an example of the county paying inspection fees to the city on a county facility.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 216.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

The committee reviewed S.B. 433 as outlined in the work session document (Exhibit C.)

Ms. Vilardo testified to the school district’s desire for inclusion in the measure. She expressed concern regarding the amount of revenue issues being presented without a "cap," and cited an example concerning sales tax to illustrate this necessity. She pointed out the provision of adding a cap was being reviewed for possible amendment further in the session. Ms. Vilardo indicated the bill to be a good measure if the provision regarding schools was added.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the entities affected by the proposal. It was discovered the measure was only applicable to Clark County as set forth in section 14, subsection 3 of the bill.

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, suggested that the measure’s applicability to all counties should be expanded now, stating it would be helpful.

Mr. Leavitt pointed out if a situation arose in which it would not be financially advantageous to use the procedures outlined in S.B. 433, then they would not be used. Mr. Leavitt stated, "I cannot conceive of any situation where someone would be disadvantaged by enacting the provision or making it applicable to … general law instead of just specifically to Clark County."

Referencing section 14, subsection 3 of the bill, Senator Neal questioned if the bill applies only to Clark County, or whether any county can combine resources to receive a better bond rating for fire protection, libraries, municipal buildings, and parks. He asked if Clark County could lend its resources to Washoe County. Mr. Leavitt responded inter-county transactions were not allowed, noting the bill would only relate to the marketing of bonds without changing the normal approval process.

Ms. Guinasso clarified the language removed in section 14, subsection 3 of the bill would only be that concerning the limitation to the population break while retaining the remaining language in subsection 3. Chairman O’Connell and Senator Neal concurred with this clarification.

*****

Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Angela Culbert,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: