MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventieth Session

May 10, 1999

 

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:55 p.m., on Monday, May 10, 1999, in Room 2149 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 J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman P. M. “Roy” Neighbors, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral and Nye counties Assembly District No. 36

Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1

Assemblywoman Kathy A. Von Tobel, Clark County Assembly District No. 20

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel

Juliann Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst

Angela Culbert, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Barbara A. McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno

Patricia Lynch, City Attorney, City of Reno

Donald J. Cook, City Clerk, City of Reno

Guy B. Zewadski, Lobbyist, Arlington Towers Home Owners Association

Tim G. Carlson, Lobbyist, President, NTS Development Corporation

Rachel H. Nicholson, Attorney, Nicholson Law Offices

Sandy Harmon, Executive Director, Economic Development Authority for Esmeralda and Nye Counties

Steve Bradhurst, Lobbyist, Nye County

Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City

John Berkich, Lobbyist, Carson City; and City Manager’s Office, Carson City

Shelly Aldean, representing the Carson City Charter Review Committee

Mike Grossi, Concerned Citizen

John K. Rhodes, City Council, City of North Las Vegas

Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County

Drennan A. Clark, Major General, The Adjutant General of Nevada, Office of the Military

Pamela Crowell, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of State

John P. Sande III, Lobbyist, Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Mike L. Baughman, Lobbyist, Eureka County

Lynda Dill, Director’s Assistant, Administrative Office of the Courts

Karen Kavanau, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator

 

Chairman O’Connell called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 309.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 309: Makes various changes to charter of City of Reno. (BDR S-476)

 

Barbara A. McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno, introduced Patricia Lynch, City Attorney, City of Reno; and Donald J. Cook, City Clerk, City of Reno.  Ms. McKenzie distributed a handout summarizing testimony from Reno representatives on A.B. 309 (Exhibit C).

 

Ms. Lynch testified A.B. 309 addresses issues which arose unexpectedly after the City of Reno changed its election dates from spring to fall.  She drew the committee’s attention to section 1 of A.B. 309 which would provide for wards based on population rather than on registered voters.  In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Lynch asserted this change is necessary to more fairly reflect a one-person-one-vote structure.  She pointed out because people might not choose to register to vote, basing wards on registered voters can produce skewed numbers.  She emphasized wards should be based on actual population instead.

 

Ms. Lynch commented section 2 of A.B. 309 would clarify an ambiguity which had resulted in a lawsuit against the City of Reno.  She elaborated that the incumbent mayor of Reno voted for a pay raise and subsequently was sued upon his re-election.  Ms. Lynch maintained the same standards of not being able to vote a pay raise for one’s existing term apply to the Legislature as well.  She concluded the issue would be clarified by deleting the word “elected” from the appropriate statute.

 

Ms. Lynch indicated sections 3, 7, and 8 of A.B. 309 would change the residency requirements for the elected offices of the mayor, the city council, the city attorney, and the municipal judges.  She explained a person only has to be a resident 1 day prior to filing for office.  The bill, she noted, proposes to change the requirement to 30 days, thereby increasing the qualification to 6 months and 30 days. 

 

Ms. Lynch acknowledged that section 4 of A.B. 309 would not require the city to reintroduce ordinances in a month with five Tuesdays.  She explained the current statute does not allow enough time to hear a bill within 30 days, thus the requested extension to 45 days. 

 

Ms. Lynch noted section 5 of A.B. 309 would delete obsolete language requiring the city to provide typewritten or printed copies of codes.  She commented technology has bypassed those requirements.

 

Ms. Lynch stated section 6 of A.B. 309 would allow Reno to deem any misdemeanor established by state law, a misdemeanor against the city when the offense is committed within their jurisdiction.  Currently, she explained, the City of Reno’s charter must be amended every time state law changes.  She pointed out the charter changes sometimes mistakenly miss amendments; thereby, creating legal issues as to which law is in effect.  She requested Reno be allowed this change to comply with other cities in Nevada. 

 

Ms. Lynch pointed out A.B. 309 would repeal two sections of the Reno charter; one of which, she mentioned, allows for special meetings on 6-hours notice.  She noted this provision is in conflict with the open-meeting law.  Ms. Lynch recognized the second section contains the “unconstitutional rebuttable presumption” that in a proceeding for a traffic offense, the registered owner of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of the vehicle.  Ms. Lynch indicated the city does not use this provision and requests its deletion.  She explained this section also contains language allowing a police officer to remove license plates from a vehicle, asserting this to be language duplicated by state law and city ordinance.

 

Mr. Cook testified A.B. 309 addresses his main concern regarding residency requirements.  He elaborated, “ … Prior, we had a 6-month residency, but it was 6 months prior to the election, which … backed it up to 1 day before the first date to file.”  He contended the City of Reno is attempting to mirror state law regarding this issue because the city and the statewide general elections coincide.

 

Guy B. Zewadski, Lobbyist, Arlington Towers Home Owners Association, raised a concern regarding the deletion of the language “elected or” as set forth in section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (b) of A.B. 309.  He contended if the language is stricken, a privilege will be created for the elected officials in Reno that does not exist for others in the state.  Mr. Zewadski distributed handouts (Exhibit D) with excerpts from the Reno code, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), and the Reno charter.  He pointed out a passage in NRS 266.230 (Exhibit D), which, he noted, is the same as a current provision in the Reno charter.  Mr. Zewadski maintained the intent of such language is to make it difficult for elected officials to vote themselves pay raises or to create positions that they will subsequently fill.  He commented Nevada’s public policy to protect citizens from those scenarios is expressed both in the constitution and in statute.

 

Mr. Zewadski requested committee consideration of inserting the words “hold or” at the beginning of section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (b) of A.B. 309.  He explained this would bring the language in conformance with NRS 266.230, thereby making the Reno city charter comparable to that of all other cities in the state. 

 

Senator Neal asked for clarification regarding Mr. Zewadski’s proposed amendment.  Senator Neal pointed out section 2, subsection 1 of A.B. 309 reads, “The mayor and councilmen shall not … be appointed to any office or position created by or the compensation for which was increased or fixed by the city council until 1 year after the expiration of the term … .”  He questioned if the language would give the mayor and the council members an advantage to receive compensation.

 

Mr. Zewadski indicated it would not, explaining the current charter was not designed to prohibit only appointments.  He noted another provision in the charter prohibits midterm pay raises, so if city-council members vote a pay raise for themselves, they cannot receive the increase during midterm.  Mr. Zewadski mentioned this provision would not be changed by A.B. 309.  He stated, “The protection is that the theory is that they should be disqualified at the end of their term[s] [from] running for re-election or being appointed for a year after the end of their term[s].”

 

Senator Neal asserted A.B. 309 reflected this intent.  Mr. Zewadski disagreed, indicating the bill proposes to remove pertinent language.  He contended A.B. 309 would prohibit appointment, but not re-election, so as to allow officials to be re-elected and to receive a pay increase for which they voted.

 

Senator Neal maintained section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (a) of A.B. 309 addresses this concern.  Mr. Zewadski contended paragraph (b) addresses the re-election or appointment of an official to an office or a position for which they created a salary increase.  He reiterated striking the words “elected or” from that paragraph, as suggested in A.B. 309, would create a unique situation for Reno.  He emphasized the mayor and members of the city council would be able to vote for salary increases and then be re-elected into the positions to which the increases were voted.  Mr. Zewadski commented, “The whole object [of] having these protections in there was to protect the electorate from runaway governments feathering their own nests.”

 

Senator Neal indicated if one votes for a salary increase, he or she is permitted under the Nevada Constitution to receive that increase in the case of an intervening election.  Mr. Zewadski replied the Nevada Constitution addresses the Legislature and the courts in this manner.  Senator Neal contended the provision addresses all elected officials.

 

Mr. Zewadski stated:

 

Well, if that’s [that is] true, I don’t [do not] know.  I’m [I am] not an attorney.  But what I would suggest is while you’re [you are] cleaning it up, you go ahead and clean up the Nevada Revised Statutes 266.230 and give the privilege to all of the other cities in the state.  And I’m [I am] not here to complain too much.  I think that elected officials should be well compensated, but I think that the electorate should be, especially on a local level where you’re [you are] talking [about] small government bodies, the electorate shouldn’t [should not] be cut out of the process to this extent.  It is a citizens’ government with a city-manager form of government in Reno, and it’s [it is] not … a full-time job exactly.

 

With no further testimony on the measure, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 309 and opened the hearing on A.B. 528.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 528: Authorizes creation of regional development corporations by local governments in area of Nevada Test Site. (BDR S-979)

 

Assemblyman P. M. “Roy” Neighbors, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral and Nye counties Assembly District No. 36, explained A.B. 528 enables local governments nonprofit partnerships in areas having a population of less than 100,000 within 35 miles of the Nevada Test Site (NTS).  He indicated the measure would organize resources in a way that optimizes all existing programs and capabilities available to support economic diversification and to develop the infrastructure around the Nevada Test Site.

 

Assemblyman Neighbors stated the NTS development corporation; a nonprofit, community-based, economic-development organization funded by the U.S. Department of Energy; has invested $1.4 million in Nye and Lincoln counties.  The corporation’s mission, he explained, is to create employment and income opportunities on and around the Nevada Test Site in order to help the communities who have been economically hurt by its downsizing.  The dollars have funded site master planning, site engineering, identification of target industries, labor-market surveys, and assessment of financing options.

 

Assemblyman Neighbors acknowledged the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs heard testimony and received letters of support from the Lincoln County commissioners and rural economic development authorities.  He noted A.B. 528 was amended in the Assembly to prohibit a regional-development corporation organized pursuant to this act from engaging in any activity which promotes, facilitates or otherwise relates to the transportation, disposal or storage of high-level nuclear waste.

 

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Assemblyman Neighbors indicated the measure was a special act. 

 

Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District, explained A.B. 528 offers great opportunity for the economy in the area of the NTS to diversify.  He noted the impact of the employment, both the diminished and the revitalization efforts, on many of the Lincoln County and Nye County residents.  He commented there have already been positive results, acknowledging the $1.4 million investment into Nye and Lincoln counties and future investments are welcome.  He stated the measure will assist in financing construction and operation of the industrial sites while giving local government the ability to partner with nonprofit entities to generate revenue from industrial-site operations.

 

Tim G. Carlson, Lobbyist, President, NTS Development Corporation, submitted information concerning the NTS Development Corporation (Exhibit E.  Original is on file in the Research Library) and the joint industrial park development initiative (Exhibit F).  He read from a prepared statement (Exhibit G) explaining the way in which A.B. 528 intends to enhance economic diversification both within the State of Nevada as well as within the rural counties of Nye, Esmeralda and Lincoln.  He indicated the bill would help mitigate the negative economic effects caused by partial closure and/or shutdown of many of the defense programs formerly conducted at the Nevada Test Site which have resulted in severe and catastrophic losses of high-tech and scientific jobs in Nevada.  He pointed out the NTS Development Corporation was formed in 1995 to encourage economic-development initiatives to mitigate the effects of this downsizing with economic-development activities to promote the growth of science and technology in Nevada and create high-value jobs.

 

Continuing his testimony (Exhibit G), Mr. Carlson stressed A.B. 528 can serve as a critical factor in fostering redevelopment and expansion of the rural-community economies.  He noted the NTS Development Corporation’s efforts to work with representatives of Nye, Lincoln, and Esmeralda counties to develop a process whereby the counties can resurrect their economies and create an expanded tax base. 

 

Mr. Carlson introduced Rachel H. Nicholson, Attorney, Nicholson Law Offices, indicating she has worked with the development corporation and the three counties in crafting A.B. 528 and was prepared to answer legal questions pertaining to the measure.  He stated the NTS Development Corporation intends to work as a region to solve some of the problems in the rural areas. 

 

Ms. Nicholson indicated she was under contract with Nye County and has worked on this project for the past year.  She offered to answer any legal questions involved. 

 

Senator Neal asked for further clarification regarding the provisions amended out of the bill dealing with the transportation of waste.  Assemblyman Neighbors responded the amendments cleared up the concern expressed by the Assembly regarding involvement in nuclear waste.  He noted the amendments also addressed Indian Springs by clarifying the effect to counties with a certain population. 

 

Senator Neal stated:

 

I … found that kind of odd because the fight has been against transportation of waste into the state, but now we’ve [we have] got a situation at the Nevada Test Site where we’re [we are] getting to transport waste outside of the test site to [New] Mexico.  So I’m [I am] wondering how that’s [that is] going to be accomplished, you know, if we are going to have that hard and fast position.  I saw that in an article this morning, that they’re [they are] planning on transporting high-level waste from the Nevada Test Site to Carlsbad, New Mexico.

 

Mr. Carlson indicated:

 

Senator Neal, first of all, it was low-level nuclear waste, and it’s [it is] only a specific type of nuclear waste that had been placed at the test site for a short period of time until the WIPP [Waste Isolation Pilot Plant] in New Mexico was opened.  The transportation issue, as Assemblyman Neighbors mentioned, is that we’re [we are] not involved in the process of whether it’s [it is] coming or going.  What we’re [we are] trying to do is use the assets of the test site to encourage commercial development and growth at the site not having to do with any of the waste issues.  So that’s [that is] the concern and issue that I think was mentioned in the bill, and they wanted to make sure that it was plainly spelled out.

 

Senator Neal asked, “What about the proposal that the test site now has before it with the … transmutation of waste?”

 

Mr. Carlson answered:

 

That’s [That is] a proposal by Senator Domenici [Senator Pete V. Domenici, United States Senator] of New Mexico to study and research the possibility of transmutation within the boundaries of the accepted site.  The aspect of the science issue is really what’s [what is] going to be at issue there, not whether or not the site is chosen or not.  It’s [It is] how can you deal with waste in a much shorter period of time that would give a better result than just burying it.

 

Senator Neal asked, “Would that add to the increase of that number of technical jobs that you speak of in this proposal?”

 

Mr. Carlson replied:

 

That’s [That is] incalculable right now.  It’s [It is] hard to say.  If the transmutation activity occurred at the test site, certainly it would increase the jobs.  But it’s [it is] not known where that would be taking place.  Most likely the study will take place in Los Alamos, which happens to be in New Mexico, and that’s [that is] what we’ve [we have] been suffering for so many years is the activity’s [activity is] always out of our state.

 

Senator Neal asked, “But you would not object if that project did come to the test site …?”

 

Mr. Carlson responded, “I have no idea.  I can’t [cannot] answer that, sir, because I don’t [do not] know what it really is.  It’s [It is] a science that I know nothing about, and I couldn’t [could not] answer that question intelligently.”

 

Senator Neal asked, “So what jobs are you talking about, then, when you talk about technical jobs that I presume that you are attempting to get back … by having this placed into statute?”

 

Mr. Carlson answered:

 

Well, one of the things the development corporation has been diligently working towards is improving the issues out there in the science and technology world.  You might have heard some of our activities in the area of aerospace, Kistler Aerospace being one of them; I believe, that that type of industry would fit very well within the test site purviews.  I believe that the types of jobs created by that particular company launching their vehicle and recovering their vehicle at the test site would give us the scientific and technology types of jobs that we lost; not in the same vernacular, but in a whole new industry that would enable us to recapture that economic downturn that we experienced.  So that’s [that is] just one example.  We’re [We are] presently working with several other companies; working very hard with the U.S. Department of Energy trying to develop a commercial activity of all natures and trying to show that there’s [there is] another side to the U.S. Department of Energy than just nuclear waste.

 

Senator Neal commented, “Given the activity that you mentioned involving the launching of space vehicles, is it the intent of this bill that there would not be any involvement as far as those vehicles are concerned with nuclear fuel?”

 

Mr. Carlson answered, “That’s [That is] correct.  There’s [There is] not a fuel used in the aerospace industry presently … “

 

Senator Neal asked, “Chlorate?”

 

Mr. Carlson replied:

 

No, they’re [they are] not using ammonium chlorite; they’re [they are] using, actually, a jet fuel, a diesel-fuel type operation and liquid oxygen.  That’s [That is] the Kistler fuel.  The VentureStar fuel is liquid oxygen and hydrogen.  Both of them [are] very clean fuels, and they’re [they are] getting away from the solid rocket fuel propellant as used in the space shuttle presently.  One of the reasons why they’re [they are] doing a reusable launch vehicle is reduced cost. 

 

Senator Neal questioned, “Is it intended that that fuel would be generated on-site?  Would it be transported in or what?”

 

Mr. Carlson responded:

 

            Well one of the possible industries we could attract to the industrial park we are proposing, is a cryogenics plant .…  That is a gas separation plant which creates liquid oxygen and hydrogen and helium and other types of air gasses.  That is a very good point you make in regards to the type of industry we are going to be shooting for …. 

 

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether there would be a cooperative effort with the universities in regards to continuing education.  Mr. Carlson assured the chairman that they are currently working with the school of engineering, and explained their attempts of integrating the aerospace industry into the university structure.  

 

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether there was a coordinated effort with the state to offer training to state employees that have been laid off.  

 

Mr. Carlson indicated they currently ensure created jobs are listed with the state employment security office, stating they currently work very closely with the state agencies today.  Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Carlson said the process is not as successful as they would like it to be because they have not created a high number of jobs. 

 

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the jobs created require a level of education which disqualifies many applicants.  Mr. Carlson concurred that the level of education in Nevada is not the degree it needs to be nor should be to attract some of these industries.  Mr. Carlson stated:

 

            But what we have is a chicken or the egg scenario.  The jobs that could be filled are not there, or the people that are able to fill them are not available.  So we have to start out in allowing industries to come in, encourage them to come in for other reasons other then the employment base, but for the security, for the airspace capability of the test site and use that as our asset to draw them in.  And hopefully, they will work with us and they have indicated this in some of our actual legal documentation with a company like Kistler to work with us in regards to our educational system.  They have met with the magnet school that is concentrating on aerospace already.  They have donated money to Sandy Miller’s Rancho High School program.  And they work with the university presently to help them understand what needs to be done.  But I get back to the fact of the matter is we don’t [do not] have very many jobs that could be gained at this time in the state in that particular arena.  We need to create those jobs and it is really a tough job doing that.  And these kinds of partnerships with counties like Nye and Lincoln and Esmeralda [counties] will enable us to do that because we will have some incentives to give them.

 

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the rural counties can accommodate the housing needs.  

 

Mr. Carlson replied:

 

            I believe in the initial phases of this process, the housing needs will be probably met, if they are large companies, the same way that the employees at the test site were housed.  And that is primarily in the City of Las Vegas.  But if these are commercial companies, and I believe that this is a real plus in this whole concept is that they will understand that those employees are not as … easily high paid to the degree that transportation into the City of Las Vegas is the appropriate way of going.  So I believe commercial and housing units will be attracted to, built closer to the jobs.  And that is another chicken in the egg scenario.  You are not going to get a housing developer to go out in that particular area and build homes unless there is a demand.  We are trying to create a demand. 

 

Senator Neal questioned the areas which would be considered adjacent to the test site. 

 

Mr. Carlson explained there is a mileage restriction and referred the committee’s attention to a site plan layout of the proposed industrial park development (Exhibit F).  He indicated they have been working with the County of Lincoln and the communities of Caliente and Pioche, noting other areas have been seriously reviewed as well.  He indicated the handout (Exhibit F) depicts two sites identified by Lincoln County for possible development.  He pointed out a rail only exists on one side of the test site, therefore they must evaluate assets to ensure industries have a choice in the development.

 

Senator Neal questioned whether Rachel, Nevada was within the boundaries.   

 

Ms. Nicholson explained the original bill included anyplace within 125 miles of the boundary of the Nevada Test Site.  However, she noted, the bill was amended to include any site within the counties of Nye, Esmeralda, or Lincoln as well as Indian Springs in Clark County.  She indicated Rachel could possibly be included in the project. 

 

Senator Porter stated his conceptual support of the measure.  He questioned the need to form a corporation rather than distributing revenues through an interlocal agreement. 

 

Mr. Carlson concurred the corporation needs to be formed to distribute the revenues.  He stated the corporation will be 50 percent owned by the development corporation and 50 percent owned by the counties.  He stated counties cannot contribute land within the partnership, to date, to allow that to happen.

 

Senator Porter noted Clark County would be affected by the inclusion of Indian Springs. 

 

Ms. Nicholson stated;

 

            Yes, in fact, it does include Clark County.  As you know Indian Springs has an advisory form of town government, therefore the Clark County Board of Commissioners is the ultimate authority there.  Also it has to be by county ordinance, in this case, on behalf of the town of Indian Springs.  But if I might speak to why this is needed.  There is now mechanism right now in the statutes that allows for a county … or a town or a city, to enter into this type of arrangement with a nonprofit, an eligible nonprofit.  … Would set up a whole, brand new nonprofit that can, itself, act in all of the ways that a normal corporation does, which makes it very much easier in order to lease property, for instance, to develop property.  Things that right now are very cumbersome because of the way the statutes are anytime you have a public entity dealing with that.  And so it is in hope that we would be able to develop the property much more readily …. 

 

Mr. Carlson called attention to others attending the meeting in support of the proposal including representatives from Nye and Lincoln counties.

 

Sandy Harmon, Executive Director, Economic Development Authority for Esmeralda and Nye Counties, testified to the partnership with Mr. Carlson and the development corporation.  He commented there are many developers owning land in this area waiting for the financial opportunity to build housing.  He expressed the difficulty of selling property in this area is due to the large percentages of federal owned land.  However, he noted, the Bureau of Land Management has “earmarked” land to be made available for release.  He noted the counties hold land in trust due to abandonment or failure of tax payments; but under current law, they are only able to auction this land with the appraised market value.

 

Mr. Harmon indicated Nevada is one of the few states in which local governments cannot enter into partnerships as created by A.B. 528.  He pointed out the bill would allow partnerships between developers and the state so as to generate a tax base.  Mr. Harmon pointed out Nye County has a total of 18,000 square miles with less than 7 percent of that land available to generate revenues needed to provide services, noting much of the land cannot be developed because Nye County is not in a position to compete with other states.  The Nevada Commission on Economic Development has incentives available to businesses desiring to expand or relocate in this area.  He noted the incentives are not as great as they are in many other states, and he stressed the partnerships created in A.B. 528 to be enhancements. 

 

Mr. Harmon expressed support for the bill and noted the cooperative effort that has been made to develop the rural communities and ready them for site-support businesses.  He explained the partnerships that have been created to establish training programs for employment.  Mr. Harmon stressed they have every element needed except the ability to develop the land.

 

Prompted by Senator Neal, Mr. Harmon indicated people from Amargosa Valley are onboard of the partnering organizations and are aware of the proposal. 

 

Steve Bradhurst, Lobbyist, Nye County, indicated he is the president of a nonprofit corporation involved in the development of the Desert Space Station; a hundred thousand square foot hands-on, interactive science museum to be located in the Amargosa Valley Science Technology Park.  He drew attention to a handout (Exhibit H) which depicts the Science and Technology Corridor in Nevada, noting the orange circle marks the site of the Desert Space Station.  He indicated the space station will include an IMAX theater and a Digistar Planetarium.  He noted the intent of the project is to provide education and information on the Nevada Test Site.  He stressed A.B. 528 will help make the Desert Space Station a reality within the next 3 years.

 

With no further testimony on the bill, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 528.  Next the committee addressed A.B. 539. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 539: Makes various changes to charter of Carson City. (BDR S-686)

 

Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City, indicated Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Carson City Assembly District No. 40, was unable to attend the hearing and he acknowledged her work involved in the legislation.  He provided the committee with a proposed amendment (Exhibit I). 

 

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Masayko explained the bill contained incorrect language; noting in order to present the changes to the Legislature, the action needed to be agendized, discussed and voted upon by the board of supervisors.  He indicated this process did not allow the necessary time to present the changes earlier.  He noted the proposed amendment (Exhibit I) contains language agreed to by all officials, including the board of supervisors. 

 

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the Assembly has reviewed the amendment.  Mr. Masayko indicated they had not seen the amendment, but were aware of the time constraints necessitating its existence. 

 

Mr. Masayko explained the charter currently provides the clerk/recorder, the treasurer, the assessor, the sheriff, and the district attorney of Carson City cannot not engage in any other business or profession.  He indicated this would preclude the teaching of a community college class or a partnership with one’s spouse in a retail store.  He noted the language was originally included in the Carson City charter many years ago in order to resolve an issue of an elected official conducting his business in conjunction with the county office.  He stated the concern was expressed that “the bar is set too low” whereby leaving no exception for any other occupation for elected officials.  He contended the laws of the State of Nevada have changed significantly since that time in terms of ethics regulations and reporting requirements.  He noted the suggestion was made to gain the approval of the board of supervisors prior to an official’s engagement in an occupation other than the elected position.  It was decided the board of supervisors ought not to exercise this authority as the ethics laws would make the officials accountable to the voters.  He explained the amendment would remove the language, “without the approval of the board,” in the sections relating to the clerk, treasurer, and assessor; and add, “which constitutes a conflict of interest with the official duties” to the appropriate offices.  The same language would be amended into the section concerning the sheriff while the language to be removed reads, “that creates a conflict between the personal interest of the sheriff and his official duty.”  He indicated this would not apply to the district attorney because there are statutory prohibitions against the district attorney engaging in any other profession.  He pointed out the changes would be consistent with state law and with the prohibitions of all other county elected officials. 

 

Mr. Masayko explained Carson City does not have an ordinance requiring the board of supervisors to appoint a charter review committee, although it is a current practice to do so prior to the legislative sessions.  He noted the established charter review committee is comprised of 11 members including the board of supervisors and each member of the legislative delegation representing a portion or a complete district within Carson City.  He explained the charter review committee takes testimony from citizens and makes decisions regarding modifications to the charter, as appropriate.  The bill, he pointed out, codifies the appointment of a charter review committee.

 

Mr. Masayko indicated A.B. 539 provides a salary increase for the mayor; although, he noted, it would not increase the salary of the mayor in the present term of office.  The bill would also clarify the power of the city manager to make appointments and create administrative positions.  He noted the bill would make various other punctuation and minor language changes to the Carson City charter.

 

John Berkich, Lobbyist, Carson City; and City Manager’s Office, Carson City, stated he was available to answer questions from the committee members.

 

Shelly Aldean, representing the Carson City Charter Review Committee, reiterated Mr. Masayko’s comments, noting the recommendations set forth in A.B. 539 were the result of deliberations of the charter review committee.  She stated:

 

            I wanted to go on record by indicating that obviously these meetings are publicly noticed and it is a very participatory process.  People are asked to come forward with recommendations with respect to the amendment of the charter, and we deliberate on those.  And I think we came forward with a relatively moderate request of changes.  And I want to say that actually I am delighted and very supportive of the proposed amendment, because actually this was a language that was originally proposed by the charter review committee; the language that you see today as a proposed amendment to A.B. 539. 

 

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Aldean stated:

 

            … When we made our presentation before the board of supervisors, there was obviously some concern about what constituted a conflict of interests, whether or not it should be a little more onerous, the requirement that the elected official come before the board.  We were relying on some material that we received from the Legislative Counsel Bureau, I conferred with them on a number of different occasions to determine what like language occurred in other city charters.  There was some language that was going to be cannibalized from the Sparks City Charter that was considered at that meeting.  And quite frankly, I am not certain what happened; but as I said, I am delighted with the proposed amendment because it does truly reflect the input of the charter review committee.  And I think it is far from an equity standpoint, far superior than what was previously proposed.

 

Senator Care questioned the number of members to be on the charter review committee.  He pointed out the language in section 1 allows this to be a floating number as each supervisor may nominate at least 1 candidate.  He called attention to the additional language which provides the board of supervisors may determine the appropriate number. 

 

Mr. Masayko indicated the language was written in such a way to allow for flexibility due to reapportionment after the 2000 census. 

 

Senator Care questioned whether the charter review committee members would be construed as public officials for purposes of the ethics laws and the subsequent required disclosure.  Mr. Masayko replied it was his understanding of the ethics laws that as an advisory committee to the board of supervisors, the members of the charter review committee would be required to file a financial disclosure form.

 

Senator Care noted the language in A.B. 539 regarding the salary increase reads, “The mayor is entitled to an annual salary of 130 percent of the amount specified in NRS 245.043.”  He questioned the exact figure of the referenced increase. 

 

Mr. Masayko said:

 

            Well, I know exactly what the numbers are right now.  And the numbers right now, I think the members of the board of supervisors, like county commissioners of that size are paid $18,000.  And of course 30 percent of that, and I calculated it out over on the Assembly side, would be $4,800.  Which would raise the amount to $22,800 for the mayor and $18,000 for the members of the board of supervisors, with a 30 percent differential.

 

Senator Care questioned the reason the mayor is the only position to receive a raise.  Mr. Masayko indicated he did not vote in favor of the proposed salary increase.  Ms. Aldean explained the increase had been a request of a member of the board of supervisors who felt that there was an inequity.  She pointed out the mayor of Carson City has to preside over board meetings and attend many ceremonial functions.  She stressed it is a very demanding job and although it is considered a part-time position, it is in reality a full-time occupation which was found to warrant an increase.  She pointed out the issue had not been contentious at the charter review committee level.  She indicated she had been informed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau that the mayor of Sparks, also a part-time elected official, receives an annual salary of $29,000.  She noted Sparks has a population of 31,370 while Carson City’s population is over 50,000, stressing the issue to be a matter of parity. 

 

Senator Care questioned the reason the language in A.B. 539 concerning other business interests of the sheriff was different than that pertaining to the other elected officials. 

 

Mr. Masayko indicated this was a mistake in the proposal which the amendment purports to correct. 

 

Mike Grossi, Concerned Citizen, read from a prepared statement regarding A.B. 539 (Exhibit J).  He voiced concern regarding “confusing” language instituting a pay raise for the mayor, stressing if a pay raise is deemed necessary upon review, NRS 245.043 should be amended rather than the charter.  He pointed out the bill proposes to create administrative positions to replace administrative assistants, which, he noted, would “open the door for empire building and favoritism.”  He indicated the recently appointed deputy city manager holds a position not authorized in the charter and earns more than the city manger.  He questioned the supervisory authority of each position.  Mr. Grossi expressed concern regarding the provision to allow the county clerk, treasurer and assessor to have other occupations with the approval of the board of supervisors.  He stated, “What we have here is one elected body of part-time officials, the board of supervisors, to approve another body of full-time elected officials to work at secondary jobs, leaving their subordinate clerical personnel to perform their duties.”  He indicated this provision would usurp “the rights of the … voters who voted for and expect their elected officials to work at their positions full time not part time.”  He stressed that the proposed changes do not benefit the citizens of Carson City.

 

Mr. Grossi pointed out issues the charter review committee did not address.  He expressed concern that the district attorney represents the city as well as other government entities, and he cited a situation where this caused a conflict of interest (Exhibit J).  He suggested the charter be amended to mandate the hiring of an independent counsel to represent future Grand Jury investigations. 

 

Mr. Grossi expressed concern with current election laws allowing candidates for nonpartisan office to be elected during the primary election.  He questioned whether state law supersedes charter law in Carson City, noting the varying practices in different cities in Nevada.  He cited a situation in which a candidate for a nonpartisan office was elected through only a primary election (Exhibit J), and stated in this situation over 60 percent of the voters were disenfranchised.

 

Mr. Grossi said the charter sets forth, “An ordinance or charter amendment to be voted on in Carson City shall be presented for voting by ballot title.”  He indicated this has never happened, and he stressed any amendment to the city charter should be voted on by the citizens of Carson City.  He requested the committee oppose A.B. 539. 

 

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether Mr. Grossi had taken advantage of the open hearings held regarding the charter changes.  Mr. Grossi said he had not attended the meetings, but had written a letter which was printed in the Nevada Appeal.  He indicated he tried to be actively involved in “good government” for the benefit of the citizens rather than for the benefit of special interests. 

 

Senator Neal questioned whether Mr. Grossi was aware that all city elections within the state are nonpartisan.  Mr. Grossi replied he was unaware of this fact.  He gave a brief explanation of his voting history and explained when primary elections were first established, they were strictly for political parties to select the candidate of their choice for representation in the general election.  He indicated he did not know the history of how a candidate for a nonpartisan office was included in the primary election. 

 

Senator Neal indicated the Legislature has the authority to change city charters and has designated all city elections be nonpartisan.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 539 and opened the hearing on A.B. 590. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 590: Revises provisions of North Las Vegas City Charter regarding election of city councilmen. (BDR S-1547)

 

John K. Rhodes, City Council, City of North Las Vegas, testified in favor of A.B. 590, noting the bill was approved in the Assembly with a vote of 42 to 0.  He indicated the intent of the proposal was to equalize the electoral process for the City of North Las Vegas, by requiring a challenger would not have to run against two incumbent candidates.  He stated the disparity in financial fundraising between incumbents and their challengers in the last election was over $50,000. 

 

Currently, Mr. Rhodes explained, the City of North Las Vegas has a system whereby city officials are elected at large.  He noted the city has exceeded the 100,000 mark in population, consists of over 88 square miles, and has 33,000 registered voters.  He pointed out if a challenger was to send out one mailer to all of the electorate, it would cost over $5,000.  Mr. Rhodes stated A.B. 590 would address the issue of equity in city representation.  He told the committee that three of the current city council members in North Las Vegas live within four blocks of one another within the same neighborhood.  He indicated he lived approximately four miles from that neighborhood with the mayor living in between the two.  He attested to the concentration of the elected officials.  Commenting upon the disparity caused by the concentration, he indicated it affects the way the citizens view their elected representatives and their representation.

 

Mr. Rhodes stated A.B. 590 would create a system whereby officials will be elected from wards but will still be held accountable to the full city and electorate.  He recognized this is the system used by the City of Henderson.  He indicated his research has shown that every city with a population over 50,000 in the State of Nevada has an elected district form of government.  He pointed out the bill will provide voters the opportunity to “reattach” citizens with their representatives and their civic duty to vote.  In the recent primary, he noted, there was a 17 percent voter turnout in North Las Vegas, although the average is 28 percent.  Mr. Rhodes stated:

 

            Also, if we look at it from an internal perspective, meaning from the city council perspective, if a person or a voter has a complaint, he calls and leaves the complaint for the mayor and the city council.  That means that he gets five return phone calls which then we usually will call the same person depending upon which department who will give five different views of what that person may have said, which kind of creates controversy in having that one person who is the department head, the city manager, or whatever be able to help that particular citizen in regards to that particular problem. 

 

Mr. Rhodes contended the bill would bring about consistency in the electoral process in North Las Vegas.  He explained the city’s mayor is elected at large, noting the two candidates receiving the highest votes in the primary, run against one another in the general election.  The winner, he noted, is declared mayor.  Currently, he noted, the system under which the city council members are elected, everyone runs against each other, with the four candidates who receive the highest votes going forward to the general election.  The two with the most votes at the general election, he explained, become the council members.  He stated, “We have a process in North Las Vegas and probably in other communities called ‘single shooting,’ and what ‘single shooting’ does is that it empowers a person’s vote by them only voting for one particular person and leaving their other vote, which is basically their right, but it empowers their vote.  What this does is equate that voting to a one-man or a one-woman-per-one-vote voting system in the City of North Las Vegas.” 

 

Mr. Rhodes explained A.B. 590 will make the City of North Las Vegas consistent with the other cities in the State of Nevada with populations over 50,000.  He expressed the importance of allowing the electorate the opportunity to be represented in a way that each elected official is held accountable for his or her own particular actions.  He noted the incumbents are usually elected in the City of North Las Vegas because of name recognition and the higher campaign contributions given to them.  Explaining the fundraising disparity, he called attention to recent changes in the ethics law requiring all money received over $100 be reported.  He stated contributors do not want to be found out as having given challengers money when incumbents are voting on the current issues. 

 

Mr. Rhodes contended that although opponents view the bill as “end-run legislation,” it is the Legislature’s responsibility to change the city charters.  He indicated he was representing his constituents who want district representation and accountability on behalf of their elected officials.  

 

Senator Care clarified this matter had been discussed in some form before the city of North Las Vegas’s city council.  Mr. Rhodes concurred.  Senator Care noted there are 3 current council members of a 4-member city council who live within four blocks of each other.  Mr. Rhodes indicated this to be true. 

 

Prompted by Senator Care, Mr. Rhodes drew attention to section 2, subsection 3, paragraph (b) of A.B. 590 which states, the councilmen “Must continue to live in the ward he represents, except that changes in ward boundaries made pursuant to section 1.045 of this charter will not affect the right of any elected councilman to continue in office for the term for which he was elected.”  He indicated the legislation does not propose to put a person out of office.

 

Senator Care clarified an incumbent who is not living in the ward can continue to run to represent the ward under this proposal, but his or her successor would have to live in the ward being represented to obtain candidacy status.  Mr. Rhodes agreed with Senator Care’s summation. 

 

Chairman O’Connell questioned the reason the issue brought forth by A.B. 590 is not supported by the elected officials if it is popular with the voting public in North Las Vegas. 

 

Mr. Rhodes stated:

 

            I will be candid with you Senator O’Connell, we are people first before we are ever elected officials, and you find that, even though we are elected representatives, we always have an agenda in the sense, or we have our own particular thought process in regards to how the process should work.  I am here, one, because, yes I think this system is a better system for us, but I am also here as an elected representative of the people of North Las Vegas.  And that is really my call to be here today, because you are the only ones who can make that decision and they have asked me to come here to put forth this legislation for the betterment of the citizens in North Las Vegas.

Senator Neal clarified the only function of the bill was to create wards by which the elected representatives would be dispersed through the city.  In that disbursement, he noted, when the candidates run for office, the citizens can vote for any one of the two seats running at the same time in either of the two wards.  Mr. Rhodes concurred. 

 

Senator Neal pointed out the proposal would not change current practice other than by evenly dispersing elected representatives throughout the city.  Mr. Rhodes indicated this to be true.

 

Senator Care stated under the current system, an at-large race is being run.  He questioned the cost of running a winning race for the city council in North Las Vegas.  Mr. Rhodes indicated it would take at least $80,000 to run a good race.  He relayed related costs such as mailings and signage.  He pointed out challengers typically raise approximately $4,000 for the primary and general elections, noting the incumbents raise well over $100,000. 

 

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1, told the committee of his long-term personal and political involvement in the City of North Las Vegas, and pointed out he was a candidate for the North Las Vegas City Council in the 1980s.  He expressed concern that the situation in North Las Vegas today is similar to the way it had been in the past in which all of the political power was located in one neighborhood.  He stressed A.B. 590 could help North Las Vegas by designating wards in which representatives must reside, in both the old and the new parts of the city, and still be elected at large.  He pointed out 10 years ago there was an initiative by the voters to set up a ward system which failed by a very narrow margin.  He recognized the incumbents fought the initiative.

 

Assemblyman Collins stated the vote in the city council was 3 to 2 in opposition of the changing the system of the elections.  At that time, he noted, Mr. Rhodes’ intent was to allow running by a ward, with the candidates choosing who they would run against, rather than running at large.  Assemblyman Collins stated he came in third place when he ran for a seat on the city council, noting he spent much less money than the incumbents.  He stressed the necessity of disallowing the clustering of council members in the new part of town.  He contended the officials should live in different parts of the city while still being elected at large.  He pointed out the candidate would be able to choose his or her opponent as the candidates in Ward 1 would have challengers that reside in Ward 1.  Rather than allowing everyone in the city to run against the incumbents, he noted, it will be a one-on-one race based on geographic boundaries.  He stressed this method to be fairer to the citizens in North Las Vegas. 

 

Assemblyman Collins speculated the bill did not receive as much opposition as it originally had because there is an election pending.  He stressed his support for the legislation, stating it would not remove anyone from office but through an election. 

 

Senator Neal stated the initiative presented 10 years ago proposed a different system than the one set forth in A.B. 590.  The previous proposal would have required candidates run from designated wards.  The bill, however, creates wards from which candidates run at large. 

 

Mr. Collins concurred, stating the current proposal is modeled after the system in the City of Henderson in which elections take place by ward though candidates are elected at large.  He pointed out the population of North Las Vegas is over 106,000 and stressed the necessity of allowing them to act as other cities of similar size.

 

Senator Titus agreed this was the system used by Henderson, noting it works to ensure all of the different elements are represented.  She noted it would preclude abandoning the older neighborhoods for newer ones.  She pointed out the provision would allow the candidates to run city-wide with representation of people living in all of the different neighborhoods.

 

Mr. Rhodes explained currently there is a name identification process in which the person with the greatest recognition will win the election.  A.B. 590, he contended, will create a system whereby candidates will have to debate on the issues and visions concerning their particular community.  Currently, he noted, there are only a limited amount of people that have the opportunity to reach the entire community during a campaign due to the expense involved.  He indicated the bill would allow the candidate to focus on the issues relevant to the advancement of the community rather than achieving name recognition.

 

Senator Care clarified the bill would apply first to those candidates running in the year 2001, noting this would be after the 2000 census.  In section 1, subsection 2 of the bill, he noted, it reads, “The boundaries of the wards must be established and changed by ordinance.”  Initially, he pointed out, the wards must be created.  He commented the bill does not say the creation of the wards must be based on the year 2000 census.  He referenced the requirement to change the boundaries of the wards based on a 5 percent difference in relation to the other wards.  He indicated Clark County had sponsored a proposal to change the ward every 5 years, though it was found the wards could only be changed based on the census.  He questioned how it would be determined a 5 percent population change has occurred without waiting for the next census.

 

Assemblyman Collins indicated there was a pending measure for reapportionment which would allow for ways other than the census to determine population.  Mr. Rhodes stated this could be changed by the state demographer’s population statistics. 

 

Senator Neal pointed out the Legislature permits cities to change the boundaries of the ward, though the counties have to follow the Nevada Constitution which requires both county and state offices to reapportion every 10 years.  The city, he explained, can reapportion on “less than the census data.” 

 

Mr. Rhodes reiterated the City of North Las Vegas can utilize the state demographer’s statistics to determine annual populations. 

 

Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, stated the Assembly heard opposition testimony from William E. Robinson, Mayor Pro Tem, City Council, City of North Las Vegas; Paula L. Brown, City Council, City of North Las Vegas; Stephanie S. Smith, City Council, City of North Las Vegas.  He recognized the council members were unable to attend the hearing, though requested a statement be read for the record (Exhibit K).  Mr. Hardy read:

 

            Dear Senator O’Connell and members of the senate government affairs committee.  We, the mayor and members of the North Las Vegas City Council wish to express our opposition to the passage of A.B. 590.  We certainly understand the positive reasons for this requested change to our charter.  We also recognize the negative aspects.  We debated this issue quite extensively at our pre-council meeting on November 18, 1998, and at our city council meeting on December 7, 1998.  After a lengthy debate, the North Las Vegas City Council voted to reject this request and not submit it to you as a bill draft request.  This vote was three to two.  It was also placed on our February 17, 1999 council agenda but was withdrawn for lack of support.

 

            We are opposed to this end-run approach for two reasons; first we believe in the principle of majority rule.  When the city council has voted, the city has spoken.  There are many issues which come before us where there is a difference of opinion.  However, once the vote is taken, we live with the decision of the majority.  Secondly, this is an issue for the citizens of North Las Vegas to decide.  Currently, there are several proposals offered by various constituencies.  Some citizens are in the process of acquiring signatures for a ballot question.  To now proceed without a mandate from our citizens is, in effect, a preemptive strike against the other proposals.

 

            We recognize our need to come before you when a change is in order, but without a mandate from our citizens and with the denial of the city council, we feel it inappropriate to move forward at this time.  We respectfully ask you to reject A.B. 590 and allow this decision to be made locally first.

 

Mr. Hardy indicated there had been further discussion on the issue on April 21, 1999, regarding the measure in its current form.  At that point, he noted, the council directed the city manager to send a letter to each member of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs stating the council’s opposition.

 

Senator Raggio asked for information on the other proposals being considered.  Mr. Hardy explained they are variations on A.B. 590.  He pointed out the city council has not objected to considering this issue.  He commended Mr. Rhodes for bringing forth an issue which the city council will have to consider in the near future.  He indicated the majority of the council members are open and willing to consider the proposal. 

 

Senator Raggio pointed out Exhibit K indicates some citizens are in the process of petitioning for a ballot question regarding this issue.  He asked when the question would be placed on the ballot if the process is completed.

 

Mr. Hardy stated the referenced ballot initiative failed due to lack of time for inclusion in the upcoming general election. 

 

Senator Neal pointed out the statement provided by the council does not consider the issue addressed by A.B. 590.  Mr. Hardy concurred, though indicated he was instructed not to speak to the merits of the bill.  The council’s objection, he pointed out, is the manner in which the issue has been handled.  He contended this is an issue that the council needed to consider whereby they would consult with the community, hold public hearings, and then make a recommendation to the Legislature. 

 

Senator Neal assumed the council’s awareness that three council members live within four blocks of one another, within one community.  He pointed out this would tremendously empower the represented community in terms of services, possibly to the disadvantage of the larger and older part of the city.  He stated he lives in the older part of the City of North Las Vegas, and expressed concerns regarding the quality of services.  He stated he has not seen council members, other than Mr. Rhodes, participate in this segment of the community.

 

Mr. Hardy stated the council members recognize the need to address this issue.  He pointed out they request the ability to deal with the issue in the way charter changes are generally handled; through consensus from the community.

 

With no further testimony, Vice Chairman Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 590.  At his direction, the hearing on A.B. 637 was opened. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 637: Makes various changes to charter of City of Las Vegas. (BDR S-541)

 

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, testified A.B. 637 was approved by the Assembly unanimously in its original form.  He indicated there were no amendments to propose to the bill. 

 

Mr. Musgrove explained the section 1, subsection 2 of the bill contains a technical change in which the language, “this plat is” should read, “the plat may be.”  He pointed out section 2 of the measure proposes the city auditor be removed from under the direction of the city manager and placed under the direction of the city council.  He maintained that just as the city attorney needs to occupy a position of autonomy in order to stand as a third-person informational and technical arbitrator of certain decisions, the auditor serves in this same capacity regarding fiscal matters.  He reiterated the request to allow the city auditor to answer directly to the city council, contending this would allow a more open process of public government.

 

Senator Raggio questioned the system of local government which operates in the City of Las Vegas.  Mr. Musgrove responded the city technically has a city manager form of government.  He explained there have been problems with the perception that the auditor does not have the ability to make recommendations, explaining a situation in which a former city auditor made allegations that audit recommendations were not acted upon by the city manager.  In an effort to alleviate these problems, he pointed out, the city council suggests the auditor be appointed by and report directly to them. 

 

With no further questions from the committee, Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 637.  He indicated the committee would take a break prior to commencing the scheduled work session.  He recessed the meeting at 4:43 p.m.

 

Chairman O’Connell reconvened the hearing at 5:02 p.m. and asked the committee to consider A.B. 100.  A work session document was provided to committee members (Exhibit L).

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 100: Increases permissible aggregate principal amount of outstanding obligations of housing division of department of business and industry. (BDR 25-744)

 

Senator Raggio indicated he was not present for the hearing on this measure, but noted he was familiar with the process.  He made the assumption the proponents successfully argued the case for raising the authorization to the $2 billion threshold without opposition.  Chairman O’Connell concurred.

 

            SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS AND PLACE A.B. 100 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATORS PORTER AND NEAL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

 

Next, the committee addressed A.B. 142. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 142: Revises provisions relating to certain applications for special use permits. (BDR 22-371)

 

Chairman O’Connell indicated A.B. 142 would allow the setting of population limits, and requested Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, provide the committee further information regarding a previously discussed proposal to limit the application of the measure. 

 

Ms. Guinasso explained there was no way to “carve out” the rural communities by population without affecting Summerlin, which would not be considered rural.  Currently, she noted, Summerlin has a population of 730; otherwise the number by which to appropriately limit the application of the measure is by the 10,000 population mark.  Summerlin, being in Clark County, would be included under this figure.  Ms. Guinasso listed the towns which would fall below the under-10,000 designation in Clark County.  In the other counties, she pointed out, every town would be under the 10,000 threshold with the exception of Pahrump, which has a population of 20,080. 

 

Senator Raggio indicated he had been advised, that because of the language and there not being any unincorporated town in the county, Washoe County would not be affected by the bill.  Ms. Guinasso indicated this to be true.

 

Senator Titus said she would not support applying the measure only to the rural unincorporated towns, stating the town boards should have a voice in this process.  She indicated she would support the bill in its current form.

 

Senator O’Donnell acknowledged he could support the proposed amendment, noting he sat on a town board.  These boards, he pointed out, are only advisory in nature, stating they are not comprised of elected officials and therefore have no jurisdiction.  He recognized the inability of those living in rural districts to travel long distances to attend county public meetings; therefore, establishing such boards could be warranted.  He stressed they were unnecessary in the urban areas of the city. 

 

Senator Titus stated some of town boards provide a voice for larger issues in the county. 

 

Senator O’Donnell pointed out the county commission requires everything be addressed through the town board as a matter of procedure.  If an issue is not addressed in this manner, there must be mitigating circumstances.  A.B. 142, he noted, allows no reason as to why something would not go through a town board.  He stated the original proposal is onerous on the developer and homeowner, pointing out people living in urban areas have the ability to address the planning commission for mitigating circumstances.  In rural areas, he explained, access does not allow for these instances.  He restated his support for the measure to apply to rural and not urban areas. 

 

Chairman O’Connell recapped the previous discussion in which a population level was to be sought, with the nearest break being 10,000. 

 

Assemblywoman Kathy A. Von Tobel, Clark County Assembly District No. 20, stated she understood the concerns addressed in the amendment, though expressed her belief that every applicant should go before the town advisory boards.  She indicated she would support the decision of the committee. 

 

Senator Porter expressed agreement with Assemblywoman Von Tobel.  He indicated the language needs to fit the intent of the measure.  He requested the assemblywoman to restate her intent on the record.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated, “What the county has been grappling with and working on is a rural designation for these rural areas.  And … I do not think it can be based on population as much as it can be based on just a rural designation, would mean, maybe a certain distance from the urban core.”

 

Senator Porter questioned whether the county uses any formal designation to describe the rural town advisory boards. 

 

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated there is no other formal designation than rural townships.  He indicated the county planning department has developed some rural planning and standards. 

 

Senator Porter suggested the town boards be named.  Mr. Spinello clarified there are town advisory boards and citizen advisory councils.  He offered to provide the committee a proper listing.

 

Ms. Guinasso indicated she had discussed this issue with the Legislative Counsel, stating the Legal Division believes the only way to designate areas is through population breaks.  She reiterated the suggestion of using the population of 10,000 as a determining factor; although, she noted, Summerlin would fall under this provision as well.  She stated there was concern regarding the constitutionality of naming the boards and councils in statute.

 

Senator Porter requested the bill be held for further discussion as to the proper language for the designation of rural area town boards.  Chairman O’Connell concurred.

 

Senator Raggio questioned how it can be justified that in one part of the county a person would have to take an extra step in the process for obtaining a variance or a special use permit.  He expressed concern regarding a policy issue in which two people from the same county are required to follow a different process. 

 

Senator Porter stated in the rural areas of urban Clark County, the county has established these boards as an advisory council to handle the special needs of the citizens due to size of Clark County.  He pointed out town boards are given a number of responsibilities, under the direction of the county, for the purpose of representation.

 

Senator Titus pointed out the same town boards are established in the other unincorporated areas.  She stated if it is important for the town boards in the rural areas to give advice to the county commission, then it is equally or more important for the town boards in the urban areas.  She reiterated her support for the bill without the amendment, noting it would provide more information for which to base a good decision. 

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated:

 

            And I tend to agree with that because I do have areas within my district, also, such as Sunrise Mountain, and out near Boulder Highway.  And these folks have issues that they feel are just as rural and a concern to them, as the rural areas.  And let me make one more point.  Keep in mind, Clark County cannot have an elected town board form of government because of the statutes that we have placed on them.  That is why they are advisory.  They cannot form an elected-town-board form of government as the 15 other counties in our state can do.  Pahrump has done that.  So they have almost an equal footing with the board of county commissioners because they are such a great distance away.  And so this is to give a little bit more authority to our unincorporated towns that they cannot enjoy the rights that the other counties have.  And that was because we happened to have an unincorporated town that sits on the strip, and could be a very powerful body if it were an elected-town-board form of government and could be as powerful as the board of county commissioners.  I do understand that.  I tried to allow all unincorporated towns in Clark County to have the same authority the other counties do.  But realize, that would be a major power play that I personally do not have a problem with, but there are those that do.  And so, if we can just keep in mind, that is why our unincorporated towns can only have this.  Fifteen other counties in our state are not held to just an advisory position.

 

Chairman O’Connell suggested Senator Porter and Assemblywoman Von Tobel discuss the issue further and present their recommendation back to the committee. 

 

Next, the committee considered A.B. 182.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 182: Requires Department of Transportation and Clark County to enter into interlocal agreement concerning highways in which both have ownership interest. (BDR S-270)

 

Chairman O’Connell indicated an amendment had been prepared by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) as set forth in the work session document (Exhibit L).  She stated the measure would identify the highways and related infrastructure as either the responsibility of the state or Clark County. 

 

Senator O’Donnell explained the bill provides that both Clark County and NDOT must agree to the transfer of responsibility concerning highways.  He stated it would be to the benefit of both parties if they were allowed to transfer responsibilities based upon mutual agreement. 

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 182.

 

            SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Titus asked for clarification regarding third-party encroachments.  Mr. Spinello responded third-party encroachments refer to requirements for things such as sidewalks, traffic signals, and signs. 

 

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

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell indicated the committee had been requested to delay action on A.B. 200.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 200: Provides for appointment of committees to prepare arguments for and against county and municipal ballot questions. (BDR 24-1082)

 

The chairman drew attention to an amendment submitted by Nevada Concerned Citizens (Exhibit L) and requested the committee review this language prior to further discussion on the measure.

 

Next, the committee considered A.B. 236. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 236: Authorizes Douglas County to enter into certain contracts and agreements for certain purposes relating to operation of transit system in Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR S-112)

 

The chairman briefly reviewed the summary set forth in the work session document (Exhibit L).

 

            SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS AND PLACE A.B. 236  ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 

 

            SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

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

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell directed the committee to address A.B. 603.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 603: Requires conditional use permit to commence operation of certain hazardous facilities. (BDR 22-776)

 

Drennan A. Clark, Major General, The Adjutant General of Nevada, Office of the Military, indicated no amendments had been proposed.  He explained the bill addressed the conditional use permit for the operation of any facility manufacturing explosives or hazardous materials in an area in the county. 

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS AND PLACE A.B. 603  ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

 

            SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

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

 

*****

 

The chairman requested the committee consider A.B. 270.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 270: Revises composition of regional transportation commission of Carson City. (BDR 32-685)

 

            SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS AND PLACE A.B. 270  ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

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

*****

 

Next, the committee addressed A.B. 297.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 297: Requires employer or former employer of applicant for position as peace officer with law enforcement agency to make certain information regarding applicant available to law enforcement agency under certain circumstances. (BDR 19-546)

 

Senator Raggio questioned whether there was opposition to the bill.  Chairman O’Connell indicated Senator Neal, Senator Titus, and Senator O’Donnell had expressed concerns regarding this issue.

 

Senator Care stated he spoke with James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, regarding his concerns on the measure.  The senator had requested Mr. Nadeau provide information as to whether any other jurisdictions have a similar law.  Senator Care suggested the committee hold the measure until this information has been submitted for review. 

 

Chairman O’Connell agreed to the senator’s recommendation.  Proceeding with the meeting, she called attention to A.B. 459.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 459: Revises provisions governing expenditure of proceeds of optional tax on revenues from rental of transient lodging to benefit public transportation within certain county transportation districts. (BDR 20-594)

 

Senator Raggio indicated this was companion legislation with no expressed opposition. 

 

            SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS AND PLACE A.B. 459  ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 

 

            SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

Senator Raggio requested all the bills previously acted upon with a motion of do pass be placed on the consent calendar.  

 

Senator Titus questioned whether A.B. 459 changes the tax or whether the county could use the tax for an additional project that is not listed.  Chairman O’Connell confirmed this to be true.

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

 

*****

 

The committee addressed A.B. 520.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 520: Makes various changes to provisions governing elections. (BDR 24-280)

 

Chairman O’Connell expressed concern regarding the 25 signature provision as provided in section 9, subsection 1, paragraph (b), subparagraph (2) of the bill, stating the number is too low.  She drew attention to an amendment set forth in the work session document (Exhibit L).

 

Senator Titus suggested changing the numbers 200 and 25, to 250 and 100, respectively.  Chairman O’Connell indicated this change would address her concern.

 

Senator Raggio questioned in an other than statewide office, if there would need to be 100 voters within the district from which the candidate is running.  It was found that the amendment offered in Exhibit L would require the signatures be obtained from within the affected district. 

 

Chairman O’Connell clarified the amendment, as requested by the committee, should state, “A petition of candidacy signed by 250 registered voters if the candidate is a candidate for statewide office, or signed by 100 registered voters in the district if the candidate is a candidate for any office other than statewide office.”

 

Senator Titus questioned whether this would apply to a candidate of a minor party as well as a nonpartisan or independent candidate. 

 

Pamela Crowell, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of State, stated an independent candidate has to petition.  She noted an independent candidate refers to an individual who carries a nonpartisan registration but is seeking a partisan office. 

 

Chairman O’Connell confirmed the amendment would need to be applicable to both independent and minor party candidates.

 

            SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 520.

 

            SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

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

 

*****

 

The chairman directed the committee’s attention to A.B. 554.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 554: Requires certain cities and counties to continue to levy and collect certain license taxes which are pledged for payment of certain obligations and authorizes pledge of certain license and other excise taxes to payment of revenue bonds. (BDR 20-1654)

 

John P. Sande III, Lobbyist, Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority, stated the bill would extend the life of the represented authority to the same degree as the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority.  He indicated this would be necessary to expand the convention center in Reno. 

 

Senator Raggio indicated he would abstain from the vote as Mr. Sande is a member of his law firm.

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 554.

 

            SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

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

 

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell requested the committee review A.B. 604.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 604: Provides for creation of districts for maintenance of roads. (BDR 25-674)

 

Chairman O’Connell indicated there was a proposed amendment as set forth in the work session document (Exhibit L).

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 604.

 

            SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Titus indicated she supported the concept of the measure, but inquired into the possible inconsistency with not counting property owners the same way they were counted in the business enterprise districts.  She noted a different approval percentage is required.

 

Chairman O’Connell stated:

 

            … This is a major problem because this is a very large area that they are talking about here.  But it is far enough detached from the City of Elko, and yet they have some really big problems.  They are not a town as yet ….   I had the very same question, Senator Titus, because we are doing things differently and this is not an SID [special improvement district].  It is a whole different thing to try and address these individual problems.

 

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, stated:

 

            The discussion between Senator Titus and yourself has hit the nail on the head.  You have such different circumstances and the major problem in that area for bringing the bill forth is Spring Creek Homeowners Association.  It is larger than most of your cities in the State of Nevada, and yet, it has no commercial assessed valuation to be able to function to take care of these districts.  The County of Elko does not have enough money relative to the numbers that are in there.  It becomes a judgement call.  And that is about all you can say.  That is such an unusual circumstance; it is the only one that I can think of right now, other than possibly the Gardnerville Ranchos District, but they were created to do these roads.  They, in effect, would be like a homeowners association.  And I know that particular group is also looking at GID [general improvement district] or we come back with something next session for a new level of town.  I am not shedding any light on it Senator, but it is definitely something that at one time it would be nice to look at and get a very consistent set of application to all of these.

 

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether Ms. Guinasso had any suggestions for addressing this issue in order to retain continuity in the law.  Ms. Guinasso stated the Legislature may set the percentages in any manner that it chooses.  She agreed this would be a different type of district than the business improvement district.  She pointed out there are currently different requirements in the statutes. 

 

Senator Titus questioned whether there was an interim committee which reviewed all of the different versions of special improvement districts.  Chairman O’Connell indicated these districts were still being reviewed as the separate districts do not agree on the way in which they would like to be treated.  She pointed out the districts addressed by A.B. 604 were not special improvement districts.  The chairman recognized testimony had reflected the necessity of the measure.  She expressed support for the “pay-as-you-go approach” taken by the bill as well as the high levels of involvement.  She stressed it is a policy decision for the committee. 

 

The committee members agreed to hold the bill for further review. 

 

Chairman O’Connell requested review of A.B. 606.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 606: Establishes severe financial emergency fund for loans to local governments in severe financial emergency. (BDR 31-1580)

 

Chairman O’Connell briefly summarized the intent of the measure (Exhibit L) and the questions asked at the original hearing.

 

Senator Titus expressed concern money was being put in small funds and not being used.  She indicated the bill deals with a small amount of money, noting the measure will create another fund thereby keeping the money inaccessible. 

 

            SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 606.

There was no second to the motion.

 

            SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 606. 

 

            SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATORS O’CONNELL AND TITUS VOTED NO.  SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Next, the committee discussed A.B. 614.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 614: Makes various changes to provisions regarding elections. (BDR 24-281)

 

Senator Raggio suggested the bill be held as there was a problem with the mail-in ballot language. 

 

Senator Titus clarified absent-ballot request forms can currently be sent to constituents by candidates.  She pointed out the bill would only allow that if the requests forms were to be sent to more than 500 people, the county clerk must be given prior notification of the mailing.  She indicated this notification was necessary so the clerk would be able to print extra ballots. 

 

Senator Raggio stated he had a concern regarding people mailing in more than 500 registered voter forms.  He drew attention to section 9 of the bill which deals with residency, and expressed concern regarding the additional language. 

 

Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, indicated the sponsor had requested to amend out the provisions concerning residency. 

 

Senator Titus questioned if the residency requirement was being changed from 30 days to 90 days, as set forth in section 9.  It was found this extended requirement had been removed in the amended version of the bill.  Senators Titus and O’Donnell suggested the provision be retained.

 

The committee agreed to hold A.B. 614 for further discussion.

 

Chairman O’Connell called attention to A.B. 615.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 615: Makes various changes to provisions relating to elections. (BDR 24-629)

 

Chairman O’Connell indicated amendments had been proposed by David W. Turner, Lobbyist, Nevada State Board of Accountancy, as well as by the Nevada Press Association, as set forth in Exhibit L.

 

Ms. Crowell drew attention to the secretary of state’s response to Mr. Turner’s proposed amendments (Exhibit L).  She expressed concurrence on behalf of the secretary of state’s office to the first suggestion of setting an ending date on the reporting period for the disposition of unspent campaign contributions.

 

Ms. Crowell expressed concern regarding Mr. Turner’s recommendation of requiring a reconciliation of candidate’s contributions and expenses on report forms.  She stated this would move the Elections Division of the Office of the Secretary of State from a ministerial role into an audit function.  She pointed out the secretary of state’s office does not have audit authority or an audit staff.  She called attention to the prepared fiscal impact statement (Exhibit L) to add an audit staff to the office.  She indicated the suggestion made by Mr. Turner would place a more stringent reporting requirement on candidates than on any other group.  The exclusions, she pointed out, would be to political parties, and committees sponsored by political parties.  She stressed candidates would be the only ones required to make the reconciliation reporting, with the exclusion of candidates who did not raise in excess of $1,000 during a campaign. 

 

Ms. Crowell affirmed the Elections Division’s appreciation for those offering suggestions on making the forms “more user friendly.”  She pointed out they are redesigned every 2 years based upon public hearings.  She restated Mr. Turner’s suggestions regarding the requirement of contributions and expenses reconciliation would require an auditing function be established within the Elections Division. 

 

Senator Raggio drew attention to the amendment offered by the Nevada Press Association (Exhibit L).  He read from the work session document, noting the association is currently required to keep separate files of receipts or bills for political advertising. 

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 615 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY DAVID TURNER, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE NEVADA PRESS ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS THE CONFLICT AMENDMENT. 

 

Senator Raggio indicated Ms. Crowell testified the first proposal by Mr. Turner regarding the setting of an ending date to the reporting period for a candidate’s disposition of unspent campaign contributions was amenable.  He asked for clarification on the ending date suggested  Ms. Crowell responded the date would be set to December 31, and confirmed this proposal was acceptable. 

 

Senator O’Donnell indicated this was the amendment he offered for inclusion in his motion.  He questioned whether the committee had discussed using the measure as a means to fix other aspects of candidate reporting. 

 

Senator Raggio clarified Senator O’Donnell’s motion to amend A.B. 615 to provide an ending date for the reporting period for unspent campaign contributions.  He questioned whether the motion would contain the amendment to repeal the requirement for the media to keep separate files.  Senator O’Donnell concurred the Nevada Press Association amendment would be included. 

 

Senator O’Donnell indicated the measure may be a vehicle for campaign contribution reporting.  He explained the committee had discussed reporting every dollar received so as not to require reporting aggregate amounts.  He stated the law currently requires reporting of anything over $100.  He questioned whether there was a limit to the amount of money received from any one donor.  Senator Raggio confirmed the threshold to be $5,000. 

 

Senator O’Donnell suggested reporting everything, as long as the $5,000 threshold was not exceeded by a single donor. 

 

Ms. Crowell pointed out the limitation on donations was $5,000 in the primary election and $5,000 in the general election from any one donor.  If you lose the race, she pointed out, anything over $5,000 must be returned. 

 

Senator O’Donnell explained the problem by presenting an example in which a candidate receives $100 after an election.  He pointed out upon running for re-election, if another $100 is received from the same individual, the candidate must check all of the records from the previous 3 years for the purpose of accurate reporting.  He recommended all of the money received should be reported, thereby putting the research burden on the interested party.  He stated it was a financial nightmare to keep track of all of the records. 

 

Senator Titus questioned whether the amendment offered by the Nevada Press Association (Exhibit L) would preclude a person’s ability to find out how much political advertising has been purchased.  She stated her opposition to the proposed amendment with this intent. 

 

Senator O’Donnell suggested the amendment would repeal an archaic law which requires the media to keep copies of their receipts and bills of 7 years.  He indicated the argument was made that in the past, most of the advertisement was done in the newspaper, noting it is currently done on television and the radio. 

 

Senator Titus pointed out the repealed language includes newspaper, radio, outdoor advertising, and television.  Discussion ensued regarding the language in NRS 294A.370.  Chairman O’Connell pointed out the statute does not provide a length of time for which the files must be retained.  Senator Raggio indicated if the language was repealed, the media does not have to furnish this information. 

 

Senator Raggio suggested the bill be processed with the first amendment suggested by Mr. Turner.  If it is found the bill needs additional amending, he commented, it could be added on the Senate Floor. 

 

            SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 615 WITH THE AMENDMENT TO SET AN ENDING DATE TO THE REPORTING PERIOD FOR A CANDIDATE’S DISPOSITION OF UNSPENT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AT THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR. 

 

Chairman O’Connell clarified there was also a conflict amendment on the measure.

 

Senator Raggio questioned whether section 2 of the bill would change the present law regarding conducting special elections by mail. 

 

Ms. Guinasso replied the bill would allow a county to conduct only a special election by mail.

 

Senator Raggio indicated his motion would include the deletion of any reference to special elections by mail. 

 

            SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator O’Donnell questioned whether Senator Raggio’s motion would imply all elections can be conducted by mail.  Senator Raggio stated it would not be allowed for any election.

 

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

 

*****

 

Senator Porter clarified the motion only included the amendments concerning voting by mail, setting an ending reporting date, and the conflict amendment.  Senator Raggio confirmed this to be true. 

 

Chairman O’Connell directed the committee’s attention to A.B. 641.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 641: Authorizes certain cities and counties to represent themselves and bring certain actions with respect to certain matters involving use of federal land and authorizes certain counties to create areas for the preservation of species or subspecies of wildlife threatened with extinction. (BDR 22-526)

 

Mike L. Baughman, Lobbyist, Eureka County, explained the first part of the bill authorizes counties and cities that have adopted master plans pursuant to chapter 278 of NRS to participate in federal land management planning activities and to engage in litigation concerning these same issues.  He indicated it is currently unclear as to whether the counties have the authority to sue, noting the intent would clarify their standing thereby disallowing their rejection from federal proceedings.  He recognized the concern expressed by Senator Titus and Senator Neal regarding the extent of the authority.  He indicated no concerns were expressed about the second part of the bill with regards to the habitat conservation plan. 

 

Chairman O’Connell drew attention to the amendment proposed by the Office of the Attorney General (Exhibit L) which would clarify that the bill does not authorize counties or cities to bring or maintain any action on behalf of the state.  She acknowledged Senator Titus’s amendment to delete section 3 of A.B. 641.

 

Senator Titus stated local governments need to be recognized as having jurisdiction as they should be included in the discussion of pertinent matters with the federal government.  She stated:

 

            Given the recent county supremacy movement and the Nye County actions, and Yucca Mountain and all of that.  I think section 3 [of A.B. 641], that allows you to bring suit, even with the additional language that the … Assembly put in to limit it under subsection 2, a and b [section 3, subsection 2, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the bill].  That simply says a state statute.  It does not say a state policy so I would still say that you could solve the problem that you really need to get at without section 3.  At the very least, I would say, you would have to have the attorney general’s amendment in there.

 

Senator Raggio stated if section 3 is deleted, the counties will not have the standing which they need in order to be included in federal proceedings.  He suggested by amending the bill with the changes proposed by the attorney general along with the language set forth in section 3, subsection 2, paragraphs (a) and (b), the intent would be met. 

 

            SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 641.

 

            SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR CARE VOTED NO.  SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

Next, the committee addressed Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 13.

 

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 13: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to revise term of office of justice of the supreme court or judge of district court who is appointed to fill vacancy. (BDR C-916)

 

Lynda Dill, Director’s Assistant, Administrative Office of the Courts, indicated A.J.R. 13 would allow a justice or judge, appointed through the judicial selection process, to serve a minimum of 12 months prior to running for a general election for the purpose of serving the balance of the unexpired term.  She recognized the committee had pointed out that under the proposed language, a justice or judge so appointed with the 12 month minimum in place, could conceivably serve into a new term, if appointed within 12 months of the end of the term.  She drew attention to a proposed amendment included within the work session document (Exhibit L).  The amendment, she pointed out, would preclude the aforementioned scenario. 

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 13.

 

            SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Raggio questioned if the amendment (Exhibit L) addresses the concerns expressed at the initial hearing.  He stated his understanding was if an appointment is made within a short period of time before an election, it is difficult to find someone to accept the appointment because they must also run in the upcoming election.  He questioned how the bill would address the intent of the measure. 

 

Ms. Dill explained the amendment would allow that anyone appointed through the judicial selection process to serve a minimum of 12 months.  Senator Raggio clarified this would not happen within 12 months of an election.  Ms. Dill recognized this would not occur within 12 months of a general election for a new term.  She noted the appointment within 12 months of a new term is the key provision.  She indicated this would address concerns expressed by Senator Neal at the initial hearing. 

 

Senator Raggio asked what the amendment would achieve if an incumbent judge passes away 6 months into the second year of a 6-year term.  He questioned if someone would be appointed and even though there was an upcoming election, the appointee would serve until the end of the fourth year.  He stated the person would have to run for election, not at the end of the second year, but at the end of a fourth year.  Then, he noted, the person would be elected to finish out the term until the end of the sixth year.  Ms. Dill agreed.  Senator Raggio stated if the incumbent dies and the vacancy occurs after the fifth, a person would be appointed, but could not serve beyond the end of the 6-year term.  Ms. Dill confirmed the senator’s summation to be correct.

 

Ms. Dill indicated, as a staff member for the judicial selection commission, she receives many questions at the time of application.  She pointed out, for the most part, the process is understood by those applying for selection. 

 

Senator Raggio contended most applicants would see the selection process as an advantage because they would hold the incumbent status running for the elected position.  Ms. Dill stated some see it as an advantage, though she pointed out, it became apparent to the commission in 1998, that there was a diminished amount of applicants because the period of appointment was very close to an election.  She said she received phone calls from several qualified applicants who indicated they would campaign for the office without applying through the selection commission.  She noted others indicated they would wait for another time to apply when the appointment period was extended. 

 

Senator Raggio suggested these people did not believe they would be appointed through the judicial selection process.  He stated in his experience, most people wanting to become a judge, would see the incentive in receiving the appointment to allow them to run for office as an incumbent. 

 

Ms. Dill confirmed there has been a problem, noting in one recent situation, a judge left his position and his calendars had to be adjusted to fit the appointee’s schedule.  When the appointee was busy campaigning, she pointed out, the calendars had to be adjusted to another judge, thereby changing the schedules for all of those involved including attorneys and litigants.  She stressed the impact of time and money on those other than the appointee. 

 

Senator Care confirmed the hardship of such a situation and the problems involved as a result of calendar adjustment, noting his law firm had several cases before the aforementioned judge.  He stated he had seconded the motion because he believed it solved the problem at hand.  To clarify, he questioned how the bill would work in the case another judge resigns on the last date to file for re-election with the term to end the following November.  He pointed out that in this instance, no one could file for election and the appointee could not run for a full term because it is too late to file.

 

Ms. Dill stated in her previously cited situation when the judge resigned at the final moment of filing in 1998, the measure would permit the appointee to run in the year 2000.  She noted the bill would not require it necessary for the appointee to have to petition for ballot inclusion in the 1998 election. 

 

Senator Titus stated one would have to run in the next general election regardless of when the term expires.  The difference in the aforementioned situation, she explained, was that the judge resigned after filing closed.  Ms. Dill confirmed this to be true under the current law.  Although, she noted, if the judge resigned at the end of his or her term, the people would have already declared candidacy for that election because it would have been opened.

 

Senator Care pointed out in the referenced situation, the judge was unsure as to whether he would run for Congress, and as no one knew his intent, no one filed for the possible vacancy.  He noted the judge did resign and filed on the last day, thereby precluding the opportunity for others to file to fill his current term.  Ms. Dill concurred, noting because the appointee had to run in the next general election for the unexpired term, he needed to petition to be included on the ballot.  She pointed out other people, therefore, obtained petitions to run as well.  If the law had read as proposed in A.J.R. 13, she explained, no one would have had to petition for ballot inclusion, including the appointee, as the next eligible election would have been in 2000, with the term expiring in 2003. 

 

Senator Care proposed a situation in which the judge’s term would have expired in 1999, and he decided to resign at a point when it would be too late for anyone to run for the full term.  He noted the appointee’s term would still expire at the same time.  Ms. Dill stated the bill would not assist in this particular situation.  She stated:

 

            There are going to be cases where it does not solve the problem.  Should there be a death, or a retirement, or a resignation within 12 months of the end of the term.  And that is why we have proposed the amendment because Senator Neal was concerned, and I believe other members of the committee were concerned, that an appointee would get to be, would go into the new term, and that was not acceptable.  … In fact, that would have happened … there was an appointment in the family court … and that term did expire.  So he would have had to run anyway, but two others would not have had to run until 2000.  So that is the safeguard. Is, if it is within 12 months of the end of the term, they do not go into a new term. 

 

Senator Porter said, “I believe that both Senators Raggio and Care asked the question.  It had to do with that 5 ½- year case.  You are saying it is not going to fix that one, is what you are saying.”  Ms. Dill responded, “No, it would not, and as I understand they do not want it to fix it ….  That would stand to reason, that the appointment should not go into the new 6-year term.”

 

Karen Kavanau, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator, pointed out the judicial selection commission understands the proposal is not a perfect solution, and even though each problem would not be solved, it would, nevertheless, optimize and improve the candidacy process.  She stated their objective to improve the slate of candidates, noting accommodating the appointee is secondary.  She indicated the intent was to ensure participation in the judicial selection process while allowing the commission to interview the best possible candidates.  She restated the improvement A.J.R. 13 would make over the current process.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATORS O’CONNELL AND TITUS VOTED NO.  SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 6:47 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                                           

Angela Culbert,

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

DATE: