The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 5:30 p.m., on Tuesday, May 11, 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:

Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Carson City Assembly District No. 40

Assemblywoman Christina Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9

Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District

Assemblyman Robert (Bob) E. Price, Clark County Assembly District No. 17

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Gordon DePaoli, Attorney, Walker River Irrigation District

Chris D. Weiss, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Water Authority

Juliann Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, elucidated that the Assembly Committee on Judiciary amended S.B. 410 into S.B. 472 because both related to the same general subject of public administrators. The proponents agreed that one bill should be processed rather than two. A substantive part of the bill regarding the monetary threshhold was changed from $250 to $100 for destroying contaminated property of a ward or decedent without notification of the next of kin. It was pointed out that some committee members were concerned with the destruction of property no matter the value.

Ms. Jenson explained the amendment to the bill was suggested by Al Kramer, Treasurer, Carson City, who would like to take advantage of securities lending. The thought was Carson City had the necessary expertise, but was skittish when it came to other jurisdictions. To address that issue, the amendment was phrased that cities or consolidated municipalities of 50,000 or more, if they receive authorization from the State Board of Finance, could lend securities. She stated the committee was cautioned that securities lending was sophisticated and needed someone with expertise to stay on top of it.

Senator Care clarified the testimony suggested the minimum qualifying portfolio amount should be $100 million. It was set that high to absorb any losses should something occur.

Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Carson City Assembly District No. 40, recalled Carson City treasurer Al Kramer felt Carson City could benefit from the bill, and had the expertise which would allow them to be covered under the bill. She said the language of the amendment was specific so it would only be Carson City, and would not include other areas with populations under 100,000.

THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

*****

Chairman O’Connell asked Senator Neal to enlighten the committee on Senate Bill (S.B.) 274.

Senator Neal communicated the Assembly has permitted the City of Las Vegas to increase the council, if necessary, by submitting the question to the voters, rather than returning to the Legislature in order to do that.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 780 TO S.B. 274.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

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

*****

The Chairman invited Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani to come forward and explain Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 16.

Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, stated that A.C.R. 16 probably should have gone to the human resources committee, but she did not think it was that big of a problem. This bill was from the interim committee that studied the issue of "special education and school discipline." She said from the testimony, primarily from parents although some teachers also testified, came the issue that as the proficiency exams have developed, the State Board of Education (SBE) has begun to make changes that do not allow modifications that the child has always been allowed to do in their Individual Education Plan (IEP) for the purposes of the proficiency exam. Therefore, without those types of modifications, the youngster or young adult no longer has an opportunity to pass and get a standard diploma.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said the resolution calls for the State Department of Education to create an advisory task force with parents, special education teachers, other teachers, students, Legislative Counsel Bureau and members from the education department to work on additional recommendations that might broaden the proficiency examination modifications so that all special education students were not locked into only a Certificate of Attendance for graduation purposes.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani elucidated that 2 weeks ago, the State Department of Education finally started to loosen their regulations and allow special education students, if their IEP allows, the use of calculators as a modification. She added they have not gone far enough dealing with the issue that the parents brought to the interim committee, which is causing the students to only qualify for an attendance diploma. She said they wanted the State Department of Education and a committee to look at alternative ways so special education students could at least qualify for a standard diploma.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the use of calculators, and at what age the students would be allowed to use them. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani answered that was only for the high school and it was based on the student’s IEP. The testimony from the parents was that the teacher can make modifications in writing the IEP; the teacher can explain the text, read the test, and explain the directions in a variety of different ways. Once, the student has learned the process, the student can use a calculator. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she taught visually handicapped students who cannot line things up, so she might let them use graph paper to establish or set up their math problems. All of those are called accommodations and modifications. She explained that throughout the student’s special education schooling, they have been allowed modifications until the time they sit for the proficiency exam. That automatically seemed to lock many of them out of the process. She stated what the parents asked was; if modifications have been allowed for the students’ educational experience, why could they not be allowed for the proficiency exam.

Senator O’Connell asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani whether she had an opportunity to go through the performance standards; remarking that she thought they would be very helpful in this regard. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied she would be doing that after session. She expounded the frustration, as a teacher, was too often teachers are told to teach something before it is incorporated. Yet the students are being held accountable for something they have not been taught. She emphasized she needs to know, even though her students may be in a parallel curriculum, she wants them exposed to what the regular education students are doing. This way if there is an opportunity to mainstream the special education student into a regular classroom, they will know what is happening. But she also has to rely on the fact that her student is only reading on a second-grade level, and has severe behavioral problems and attention deficit disorder. It is hard to expect them to meet all of the standards first. She wants them to be able to get there, but needs to deal with the other problems first, that is the long-term crux that teachers have in special education.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.C.R. 16, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 237

Assemblyman Joseph (Joe) E. Dini, Jr., Carson City, Lyon and Storey counties Assembly District No. 38, stated the bill had started as an idea in his travels in the water area as a member of the Western States Water Council, where other states have began helping irrigation districts fund programs for the conservation of water. He said in the State of Nevada, farming and agriculture control about 70 percent of the state’s water. The only way to protect the state’s natural resources, such as Walker Lake, is to have conservation in agricultural waters. He said he had put the bill together using an existing organization, the state Board for Financing Water Projects, through a law that was passed about 10 years ago that has helped a lot of small water companies throughout the state. He noted that by just adding a redefinition of the fund, it was expanded to water conservation and capital improvements in certain water systems.

Assemblyman Dini went on to say the idea of this bill was to make state funding available through the state Board for Financing Water Projects. The bill also provides for an increase in the bonding. So far $40 million in bonds has been issued through the state Board for Financing Water Projects to the current programs. This bill provides for another $10 million in bonds to help support the program. The bonds are not issued all at one time; but, from time to time, by the board when these projects need financing. There is $7 million in unobligated funding left from the last $10 million in bonds that was issued. However, they do have a list of $6 million–$7 million in projects that are eligible now for little cities and counties and water systems to qualify.

Assemblyman Dini said he would propose a couple of minor amendments (Exhibit C). On page 2, lines 38 and 39, "An Indian tribal organization, nonprofit organization or lending institution." This language was never supposed to be part of the bill. He said he had taken it out twice now and both times it has reappeared in the bill. Also, on line 36 to add after county, "unincorporated towns"; and after water district, to add "conservation district."

The Chairman asked Assemblyman Dini if Senator McGinness’ proposed amendment was acceptable to him. Assemblyman Dini replied that he believed it was but depended on how much it opened up the law, and if there would be enough money in the bill to cover it.

Gordon DePaoli, Attorney, Walker River Irrigation District (WRID), stated the WRID supports this bill and the amendments that Assemblyman Dini suggested. He indicated the Walker River system is currently getting the attention of a lot of people interested in issues related to preservation of Walker Lake, and issues related to additional water for the Walker River Indian Reservation. Mr. DePaoli emphasized that one thing is for sure, "We are not going to get any more water than nature otherwise provides." He pointed out one of the solutions for the system will be water conservation. This measure will help the district a great deal in looking at and implementing some conservation measures that will provide benefits to the other interests on the system.

Senator Raggio noted that these are general obligation bonds, and asked how the debt service is handled on these. Naomi Duerr P.G., State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, responded that they are general obligation bonds. Her understanding is that they are not included in the state cap on bonding (natural resource funds) but they are part of the debt service, the 15 cents. Yes, they are part of that package of repayment of bonds.

Senator Raggio concluded there is no repayment of these grants. Ms. Duerr said that was correct; they were grants funded by general obligation bonds, they are not loans. There is a separate loan program also. Senator Raggio said he understood the 15-cent limit has already been reached. He queried if $10 million worth of bonds was added, plus what has not been utilized, but authorized, if that would not push the limit over the 15-cent rate.

Assemblyman Dini responded he doubted that the 15-cent limit would ever be exceeded based on the method the state uses to issue bonds. The state Board for Financing Water Projects does not issue bonds unless they need them. When they originally put up the first $10 million, it was really a small amount of money involved in the repayment of the bonds.

Ms. Duerr said they typically only sold about $1 million–$2 million in bonds at a time. It was sort of a pay-as-you-go type of thing. The board approves a grant, but it is not used until a contract is signed.

Ms. Duerr said actually the board is authorized to sell $40 million of bonds, they have approved about $20 million worth of projects. She said the board has had four bond sales, one for $7.7 million, one for $6.7 million, one for $4 million, and one for less than $1 million. Those have just been sold for projects that have been approved. As for cash flow in the bank, she said they had tried to keep it very low so they do not pay arbitrage and are not accruing interest payments or anything. In other words, they do not have $33 million in outstanding bonds on which they are paying arbitrage or interest. They only have a couple of million dollars at any one time.

Senator Raggio said if they had that much unused authority, he needed to know why they needed another $10 million. Secondly, the treasurer’s office issues bonds; the state Board for Financing Water Projects requests the treasurer’s office for the bond issue.

Senator Raggio said that under existing law, the State Board of Finance issues the bonds. If they issued the total of $50 million the state would be, in his opinion, way over the 15 cents that was authorized; and the state never goes above that in the session for authorization of redemption of bonds. Senator Raggio stressed he needed more information.

Ms. Duerr said she has a detailed report with information on any money. She stated this has been tracked closely and there are projects with a letter of intent that has been approved, which is a preliminary step, or there is a grant that has been awarded. And then there are some that have sent requests or indicated interest. She illustrated, for example, total letters of intent approved for about $9.8 million; total letters of intent received or expected for about another $4 million. So there is about $14 million of the $20 million that has been requested or is in some phase of being requested, which leaves about $6.5 million that is unobligated; no one is in the "pipeline."

Senator Raggio said he would be interested in seeing the list as to what has been authorized, what is outstanding, and what is in the pipeline.

Assemblyman Dini said the reason they added the $10 million was because they did not want to compete with the small water companies, and domestic water companies that had a balance left in their end of the original $40 million. Water planning wanted to add the $10 million for new projects for conservation of water. That was the purpose of raising the bonds.

Ms. Duerr said:

ASSEMBLY BILL 1980 OF THE SIXTY SIXTH SESSION: Establishes programs of grants for capital improvements required of certain water systems. (BDR 30-338)

Ms. Duerr continued:

Ms. Duerr continued that what the Division of Water Planning is proposing in section 3, subsection 3 of this bill, is similar to every other bond fund in Nevada; is basically a statement that the money in the fund may be used to defray, in whole or in part, the cost of administering the fund and the expenses of the board in administering the program. This is de facto; what already happens, it just happens in a delayed fashion. She said water planning would like to be able to have the funding on a continuous basis so they do not have to go through these swings. It is no way to operate a program, hire staff, lay off staff, do the program, pay the board, do not pay the board. It makes no sense. Especially when dealing with a multi-million dollar program of this size. Ms. Duerr added the Board for Financing Water Projects feels they are essentially dead in the water at this point. They have no staff except for her. In summation Ms. Duerr stated that water planning is very supportive of this program. They stand by ready to do it. The Board for Financing Water Projects is willing to take on the workload associated with it and think it will move all concerned ahead as a state.

Chairman O’Connell asked whether there was a charge for the administration of the fund over and above the cost. Ms. Duerr responded they charge about 2 percent of the grant. That is all the overhead in which they get involved, it just pays for the basic staff to review the applications. For example, other bond funds charge 4 percent to 10 percent. She has been told they are one of the lowest that anybody has ever seen. But no matter how low a fund fee is charged, if the fee is not there, the staff cannot be paid. So it is not a change in where the money is coming from, it is a change in the timing.

Senator O’Donnell said he had no problem with the grant process in places like Blue Diamond and Kyle Canyon and similar places, but had a hard time imagining that the taxpayers really feel good about paying for a bond where predominantly the money goes for agriculture; for these big farms and big ranches. He asked for an explanation of how the community really gets excited about retiring these bonds with their money, knowing full well that the bond money is going to go effectively to the ranchers and the farmers.

Assemblyman Dini commented that everyone has to get down to the thought of conservation of water. If the goal is to make additional water to protect resources such as Walker Lake and other lakes in Nevada, somebody has to pay the bill. And it is time for the state to step up to the plate and pay their share of it. He asked why should those who conserve the water donate it to Walker Lake at their cost. If it is a natural resource that the state apparently wants to save, then somebody ought to come up to the plate and help pay for it. This is not going to pay for all of it; they have to match the grants with the program that is already in there. And this just spreads the cost over a statewide basis, a statewide cost, and Assemblyman Dini thinks it will work. Control of 70 percent of the water, is the only way to get any water to protect these resources. And so by distributing it on a statewide basis, everybody that is interested in conserving their resources gets in on the act to pay part of the bill. He thinks it is an infinitesimal amount on a person’s home, on a hundred thousand dollar home.

Ms. Duerr noted it is important to recognize that water belongs to the people of Nevada. It is a public resource that is allocated via the water rights system. But even though the water-right holders hold those water rights, the water still belongs to the people of Nevada. And what needs to be decided is how important it is to preserve resources in Nevada, like Walker Lake. She stated another issue is the whole groundwater-system situation. Whether by accident, whether through lack of knowledge, Nevadans have fully appropriated much of the groundwater basins and over-appropriated them. In southern Nevada there are dropping groundwater levels. The only way to restore that is to reduce the pumping in the groundwater system and start paying back. It is like overdrawing your bank account. She acknowledged, as Assemblyman Dini said, one way to generate more water is through conservation; use less and use it more efficiently. Ms. Duerr emphasized it is very important to recognize that Nevada is the driest state in the nation and that it is one of the last in the nation to have any kind of conservation program. Southern Nevada has gotten very active in their local municipal water conservation planning, but they too need help. These things are costly.

Senator Neal inquired where in the bill does it only apply to small counties. Ms. Duerr replied it actually is in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) chapter 349, and not in this bill, but the bill speaks to the fact that the grants are preferenced to water systems that have less than 6000 connections. And so it is not about small counties per se, it is about small water systems. She surmised it does not show up in the bill because the bill is not amending that part of the current statute.

Senator Titus queried that this bill would result in an increase of property tax. Assemblyman Dini replied, "It certainly does, everybody in the State of Nevada; every property owner." Assemblyman Dini added that it is an increase of $10 million in bonds, and actually the increase does not happen until the bonds are sold.

The Chairman requested that the committee secretary obtain the most current printing of A.B. 237.

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas County and Lyon County, stated all three counties do support this bill.

Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District, referred to a letter from former Senator Erik Beyer (Exhibit D), who works with a lot of small water purveyors in rural Nevada. He said Mr. Beyer talks about small water purveyors near Baker, near the Great Basin National Park, Fernley Utility District and also one near Panaca, in Lincoln County. Senator McGinness stated Mr. Beyer suggested an amendment that would allow for those people to be included in the bill. Senator McGinness mentioned Assemblyman Dini was not overly enthusiastic about the suggestion, because basically it will expand the number of people that would be available to use those funds; in some way, it may dry up the money quicker.

Chris D. Weiss, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), stated the SNWA supported this bill in the Assembly, and strongly support it currently. One of the SNWA’s primary responsibilities in southern Nevada is water conservation. They have done a great deal of work in that area, and support anything at the state level that would contribute to further conservation. In addition, a number of the smaller water systems in southern Nevada have received benefits from the grant program and for that reason it is a valuable tool.

Senator Titus reviewed her understanding of the basics of the bill. It appears she is being asked to vote to raise the property taxes in her district to sell bonds to create a fund from which the water district obtains money to connect wells in the northwest area of Las Vegas Valley

Mr. Weiss replied he could not speak to the exact mechanism of how the grant works or how the bonding works. He stated the proposed amendment (Exhibit E) is narrowly crafted to apply only to those individuals who would be on domestic or community wells. He explained what is being asked of the water authority is that they be given the ability to provide some form of relief to those limited number of individuals who may find themselves under a requirement of the state engineer to hook up to the municipal water system; because, either their well fails or they meet the state engineer’s requirements. He said they actually view this as not different from the requirements of the drinking water act. For instance, the Mayfield homeowners that Ms. Duerr referenced, were required to hook up, if he was not mistaken, because the nitrate levels in their wells exceeded the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards. He said one of the state engineer’s mandates is to manage groundwater, and does manage the Las Vegas Valley groundwater basin, which is a designated basin, and has been over appropriated for about half a century. So they view this requirement as not much different than the regulatory authority of SDWA to ensure the basin is managed in an appropriate manner, that people who draw water from the basin are able to do so now, and can continue to do so either through municipal ways or through wells.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 237, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 371.

Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Carson City Assembly District No. 40, testified that the current final level of an employee’s grievance goes before the employee-management committee. This is a body composed of six state employees and officials appointed by the Governor. The bill would provide an alternative whereby an employee filing a grievance could elect to have the grievance heard by an outside professional arbitrator. She stated she likes the feature in the bill where the losing party pays the arbitrator. She pointed out that under the present procedure, the Department of Personnel bears the entire cost of grievance arbitration. Under the bill the cost could be borne by the agencies which generate the grievances. Assemblywoman Parnell said this bill is one that will also address employee morale.

Senator Care noted one of the outside arbitrators the bill mentions is the American Arbitration Association (AAA). His personal experience with AAA is "you do not get your money’s worth." He wondered if the bill’s proponents would be just as satisfied with the mandated-arbitration program. One arbitrator is selected from a list of arbitrators, usually local attorneys. He envisioned most grievances would not be so complex as to require a panel of arbitrators, as opposed to just one.

Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, responded that a choice between the AAA or the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) was put into the bill. If the personnel commission and organizations that represent state employees cannot decide which they will use, then it will be FMCS. Mr. Gagnier stated the idea was to set up a panel of three from which one could be drawn upon quickly.

Mr. Gagnier agreed with Senator Care that the AAA is a little pricey. He stated his personal preference is FMCS, but AAA was included because they are mentioned in some statutes. He continued the reason for professional arbitrators is because they are bound by their tenets. All decisions are submitted to a national body, and are then published, and those decisions become precedent for the professional arbitrators.

Mr. Gagnier elucidated the state has hearing officers that hear suspensions, demotions, and dismissals in state government as provided by statute. He said these hearing officers are attorneys that are appointed by the personnel commission. He said there are two in the south and two in the north. These people are not full time; they are on hourly contract through the Department of Personnel. Mr. Gagnier admitted the present arrangement is a much more expensive process. He explained hearings could last from half a day up to 7 days.

Mr. Gagnier maintained that there are some agencies with many employee grievances, and the department that pays for the process is the Department of Personnel. He stressed they think there should be some burden on the agencies with a lot of grievances, if they lose. He added that if the employee loses, then the employee or the employee’s organization would have to bear the costs. He expressed they believe this will cut down on the number of frivolous grievances.

Mr. Gagnier clarified the need for the bill is the current system might hold up to four grievances a day; only allowing 1 hour in which both sides are to present their arguments. He noted this is insufficient time for the more complex issues. He stated that if there is a tie vote, the employee automatically loses.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 371, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 591.

Bill Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit F) in support of A.B. 591. He explained the bill would "[modify] the method of generation of operating revenues from a transaction-based administrative charge to an assessment on commodity purchases." He added A.B. 591 would clarify the cost of purchasing for agencies which are not part of the assessment pool.

Mr. Moell asserted the Purchasing Division requested an amendment to the original version of A.B. 591 when the bill was heard in the Assembly. He elaborated the amendment would "allow one calculation for both years of the biennium" and would "allow for the averaging of usage over several years." Mr. Moell indicated the Purchasing Division also previously requested a technical adjustment to the language describing the way accounting transactions flow through user-agency budget accounts.

Senator Neal pointed out Mr. Moell has testified in front of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs regarding other bills that involve the Purchasing Division. Senator Neal asked how A.B. 591 relates to other Purchasing Division bills.

Mr. Moell answered, "We will be billing directly for those services." He recalled a previous bill dealt with service procurements and requests for proposals involving money amounts over $100,000. Mr. Moell maintained:

Senator Neal queried if there were an actual cost figure. Mr. Moell replied that in the past each transaction was done at 4½ percent maximum or $800 per purchase requisition. He said purchasing was generating approximately $2.15 million. Through the bill that amount would be approximately $1.9 million generated over all the Executive Branch agencies. He said it is capped based on legislative approved expenditure budget account 1358. He emphasized purchasing thinks this bill will save state agencies money over the long run.

Chairman O’Connell said she understands that with this bill, purchasing would charge a handling fee for placing the order. Mr. Moell replied that purchasing has always charged a handling fee of 4½ percent, maximum $800. He said with the bill, this would be a quarterly assessment to each agency based upon their purchasing history. He said there are about 25,000 to 26,000 transactions a year, so purchasing has good information for the purchasing volume of each agency. He clarified in the last 3 years purchasing has collected $700,000 to $800,000 in excess of expenses. He explained the $1.9 million figure represents buying down, using up purchasing fund excess balances to offset the cost of the Purchasing Division in the amount of several hundred thousand dollars, thus reducing the fund balance from $2.15 million down to $500,000 over the biennium. He said purchasing has already paid back $453,000 to the General Fund during the last fiscal year as part of the buy-down process. He said the assessment should, in the long run, be revenue neutral.

Tracy Raxter, Administrator, Administrative Services Division, Department of Administration, reiterated that the cost to the agencies will be less, because of the buy down. He said having the assessment instead of the per transaction charge will eliminate the fund balance from increasing to a high level in the future. He said the bill is important in order to give purchasing the control needed to keep a handle on the purchasing volume.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 591 and opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 5* of the Sixty-ninth Session.

Assemblyman Robert (Bob) E. Price, Clark County Assembly District No. 17, refreshed the committee’s memories that there are only a handful of states remaining whose legislatures meet biannually. He opined that 1960 was the only annual session, and then looking through the Nevada Public Affairs Review for 1995 (Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.), the book spoke of sessions in 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, and 1869; perhaps those qualified as annual sessions.

Assemblyman Price noted that if the resolution passed out of the Legislature, it would be voted on in the year 2000 by the voters. And should it pass, the year 2002 would be the first annual session. He said the state had worked pretty well with the biennial sessions, all things being equal over the years. However, as he had visited other legislatures, there has been some concern as to whether Nevada could maintain its citizen-Legislature concept and actual working, if it went to annual sessions. However, he pointed out Wyoming and Utah as states having annual sessions and did a list of their mix of different people that serve; and they still have been able to keep what might be called a citizen legislature, a good cross-reference of people.

Senator O’Donnell stated for the record that he was going to support this measure, because he had promised it would be put on the ballot because of the 120-day session. He cautioned everyone to remember what the Legislature does; raise taxes and spend money. He stated he is not so sure the public wants the Legislature to do that every year. But he was willing to let the public vote on the resolution; and out of courtesy and in deference to Assemblyman Price, of letting the 120-day session out. Senator O’Donnell said he would vote for the measure.

Senator Raggio stated that he had never been convinced of the need, and even today, for annual sessions. But in the last session he had made a commitment with Assemblyman Price and the other house, that if they wanted to pass this bill over this time, that he would not oppose it being put on the ballot. Senator Raggio stated that he would honor his commitment, but that commitment goes only that far. However, he still has strong feelings against the need and the cost for an annual session, particularly one that is limited to 60 days, just because the Legislature was having a difficult time conforming to 120 days. Senator Raggio emphasized he will probably campaign against it, but he agreed with honoring the commitment to put it on the ballot and let the public vote on it.

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association (NTA), came forward to speak in opposition to A.J.R. 5* of the Sixty-ninth Session. She said the NTA was repolled and it has consistently opposed this concept. Ms. Vilardo stated that she would like to give a clearer definition than perhaps was given in previous years as to why they opposed annual sessions. As she recalled, Utah has a 60- and a 45-day session. Wyoming has a 45-day session each year. A number of states, even the states with annual sessions, provide that the budget be done in one session and that there are no tax issues that session. The revenue issues would be done in the even-numbered-year session or the odd-numbered-year session. There is no such qualification in A.J.R 5* of the Sixty-ninth Session.

Ms. Vilardo noted that from the comments received from the NTA board in opposition to this, it was her thought they would have been more receptive to looking at an issue of annual sessions; if the resolution was specifying that the Legislature look at appropriations and budgets one session, and then look at revenue issues the next session. Ms. Vilardo appreciated the commitments that were made. She recalled hearing them made during the last session, but it does not stop the opposition of the Nevada Taxpayers Association.

Kristine K. Jensen, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated they stand in opposition to this resolution. She said Lucille Lusk had previously spoken on this issue so she would not belabor it, but would remind the committee that it is a citizen Legislature. Ms. Jensen asserted the Nevada Concerned Citizens believe it would be even more difficult for common, ordinary people to participate in the Legislature on an annual basis.

Chairman O’Connell formally closed the hearing on A.J.R. 5* of the Sixty-ninth Session, and opened the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 309.

Juliann Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated the only opposition was from a citizen in Reno who had concerns about officials giving themselves pay raises. It was noted the language in the bill already addressed the citizen’s concerns.

Barbara A. McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno, stated Reno’s city attorney took the position that the language covered expressed concerns. It was a matter of semantics, and that the bill was addressing the citizen’s concerns.

Senator Porter addressed the charter portion of the bill, because of testimony in the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations regarding bill drafts for local governments. He said one of the discussions was to establish charter committees for local governments similar to Boulder City who has a charter commission, public hearings, and then ballot questions for their charter changes. He suggested the committee may want to look at that for other communities. He acknowledged there may not be enough time during this session to go into the details. He added the possibility of charter committees may eliminate a significant portion of issues that could otherwise be addressed locally.

Ms. Walker stated that Carson City would still have to come before the Legislature. She said it was noted that there was no establishment of a charter committee in Carson City’s charter. She explained this bill formally establishes the charter committee which presently exists.

Senator Raggio noted that only the mayor’s salary is set. He wanted to know to what the 130 percent of the amount specified was related. Ms. Walker responded that NRS 245.043 lists the county officers, and specifies "shall receive $600 in addition to the annual salary." She stated that has been in statute for decades and cannot be traced to its origin. The city wants to remove the reference to the $600, because that is all the additional salary the mayor was receiving for decades. Ms. Walker conveyed the change would bring the mayor’s salary up to $22,800 a year. She explained the city reviewed the amount of time the mayor actually provides to the city versus the amount of time the supervisors provide, and it worked out to be 30 percent more. Therefore, it was felt the mayor should receive 30 percent more in salary.

Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, City of Mesquite, thanked the committee for holding the bill until the city had an opportunity to speak with the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA). He stated he regrets that the sponsors of the bill actively oppose Mesquite having a full-time seat on the LVCVA. He conveyed this issue will have to be pursued during the interim, in order to return with a recommendation from the City of Mesquite, whether to create their own CVA, or to ask the Legislature to give the 14,000 citizens of Mesquite a full-time seat and representation on the LVCVA.

Senator Porter paraphrased a memo (Exhibit H) from Manuel (Manny) J. Cortez, President and CEO, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority:

Senator Porter added that there is the commitment from the Nevada Resort Association and the LVCVA to compile the appropriate data to make that decision. He said he would help Mr. Hardy by continuing to be a part of the process during the interim.

Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, stated the bill is actually from the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and Nevada Resort Association. He spoke to the memo Senator Porter just read. Mr. Skancke explained the reason no action was taken today on this issue is because there are a couple of items in question. He expounded that there are several million dollars in bonds that are indebted going to the year 2027. The next issue are the current grants and contributions the LVCVA makes to Mesquite and Mesquite makes to the LVCVA, that the LVCVA makes to other organizations. He said the board did direct the staff to look at the financial obligations. He thinks during the interim they will be able to resolve these issues.

Chairman O’Connell inquired of Daniel Musgrove whether he had any comments. Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated for the record that he had no comment.

Senator Neal noted that if the auditor is appointed by the board, then he/she would have five bosses. He suggested it would be better if the city manager appointed the auditor.

Mr. Musgrove responded, "That is the way it is now." He stated there is the perception by the new media that the city manager has that ability to not look at bad news; and has the ability to bury it if he is answering to them, rather than an elected official.

Senator Neal inquired whether it was required by charter that any audit reports be submitted to the council. Mr. Musgrove answered that he did not believe it was part of the city’s charter. Senator Neal said to have that requirement would make it simple; then there would not be the problem of having that one person equal to the city manager. The senator noted that situation could cause all kinds of problems with the city manager. Mr. Musgrove replied the city looks at it as having another fiscal third person, almost a disinterested third party who is looking at the fiscal matters of city government.

Senator Neal commented that having the auditor report directly to the city council would solve the problem, since he understands the problem was they did not get the audit report.

Mr. Musgrove responded it was an inaccurate perception. He said the public records will support that the audit report was received. He added that some of the auditor’s recommendations were not taken. He stated that having the auditor report directly to the council may or may not solve the problem. Mr. Musgrove remarked that all he can testify to is this was a matter of an audit committee made up of private citizens who investigated the issues, who looked at the perception. The audit committee’s recommendation to the council was that city audit should be taken out from under the preview. The audit committee acted on that recommendation in the form of a bill draft now before this committee. Mr. Musgrove iterated except for the three positions in the bill, all other appointive and non-appointive report to the city manager.

Senator O’Donnell stated he has always resisted using legislation to resolve personnel matters. He thinks that is what is happening with this bill.

Senator Raggio pointed out this is another reason why there is no ‘home rule.’

Chairman O’Connell formally adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: