ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

May 17, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:20 a.m., on Thursday, May 17, 2001. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John J. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. David Brown

Mrs. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Bob Price

Mrs. Debbie Smith

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Laurie England, Interim Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Benefit Program

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties

Bob Crowell, Lobbyist, Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company

Jim Bell, Public Works Director, City of North Las Vegas

Marsha Berkbigler, Lobbyist, AT&T Broadband Services

Margaret McMillan, Lobbyist, Sprint

Joyce Newman, Lobbyist, Utilities Shareholders Association

Thomas Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities

Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County

Brian Krolicki, Treasurer, State of Nevada

John Adkins, Chief Deputy Treasurer, State of Nevada

Steven D. McDonald, Administrator, Unclaimed Property Division

Sydney Wickliffe, Director, Department of Business and Industry

George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition

Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations

George Caan, Executive Director, Colorado River Commission

Senate Bill 298: Revises provisions relating to public employees’ benefits program. (BDR 23-542)

Laurie England, Interim Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Benefit Program, stated S.B. 298 cleaned up existing language. Section 2, subsection 2, clarified the board “may” establish rates for coverage through actuarial reports for separate nonstate active and retired groups. The standard rate in statute was 105 percent. Additional language outlined the hiring of outside certified public accountants and attorneys to annually review the plan’s compliance with federal and state employee benefit tax laws. Section 3, subsection 5, immortalized into statute what was already taking place with deposits of public money in outside bank accounts. The retiree’s application period was extended from 30 to 60 days.

Chairman Bache asked if the provisions of S.B. 298 contradicted with A.B. 564. Ms. England did not think so but would check and get back to him.

Chairman Bache thought the section concerning rates might have a conflict. Ms. England clarified the rate language in the bill affected nonstate participants only.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 298 and opened the hearing on S.B. 425.

Senate Bill 425: Makes various changes concerning certain utilities operated by certain governmental entities. (BDR 20-1243)

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, supported S.B. 425. A special energy committee formed by the Governor was asked to look at income tax implications related to deregulation and divestiture. The bill placed a two-year moratorium on changes so the commission could analyze all issues. Effective July 1, 2001, a board of county commissioners, city council or general improvement district (GID) could not take over an existing utility company unless there was a problem. The bill detailed the steps to be taken. The entity needed to demonstrate that it was financially feasible to take over the utility and set payments would be part of the agreement. There were very serious tax implications that had not been addressed by the Legislature or deregulation. The Department of Taxation assessed energy plants and transmission lines separately. They formulated “line mile” appropriations for each county based upon the tax rate of the jurisdiction the lines went through. Divestiture allowed the plants assessed value to be split from the transmission lines. Any county that had line miles could go bankrupt if the line miles were devalued. There was no mechanism in statute to provide tax payments to counties when their utility company was taken over by local governments, who were not subject to property or franchise taxes. County payments made from collected property taxes would not be met. Serious unintended consequences could result from not analyzing various tax implications. Rural counties benefited from line miles and could suffer financial hardships if the tax revenue was taken away. The bill allowed two years to study the different scenarios that could arise.

S.B. 425 prohibited local governments from taking over existing electric or telecommunication utilities as defined in NRS Chapters 704, 710 and 711. Procedures were in place for inter-local agreements between jurisdictions for an emergency takeover. The bill had a sunset date of June 30, 2003. Sections 2 through 5 dealt with county law; Sections 8 through 19, city charters; Sections 21 through 29, general improvements districts (GIDs); and Sections 30 through 33 addressed the Colorado River Commission. The proposed amendment (Exhibit C) clarified a “willing seller, willing buyer” situation.

Ms Vilardo explained an amendment was left off in the Senate that had been approved. The provisions of the appropriate city, county and GID sections were amended to say “do not apply to the services provided by a local government through an inter-departmental arrangement or to another municipality, if the municipality has the same governing body.” The act did not apply to local governments who expanded their current service contiguous to existing developments.

Mrs. Gibbons asked if the bill impacted Washoe County's purchase of a water plant from Sierra Pacific. Ms. Vilardo responded the bill exempted any contract entered into prior to April 2001.

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), stated they supported the original intent of the bill. Churchill County operated a phone company that was not taxpayer supported and would be financially crippled if they were not allowed to remain competitive. The confusion related to how the bill impacted their ability to compete by changing their business and service area. They currently provided regular telephone service to Churchill County and cellular service outside the county. They had just become unregulated and had spent several million dollars on equipment to offer their customers cable television. They were unclear whether the bill would affect their ability to provide that service. Some protection should be given to government entities that needed to change their service to remain competitive and expand their service area. He urged the committee to make sure counties would not be penalized for changing their business to remain competitive.

Mrs. Gibbons asked what other companies provided cable service in Churchill County. Mr. Hadfield answered he did not know and indicated Churchill would not be ready to implement their new service before the bill’s deadline.

Bob Crowell, Lobbyist, Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company stated they supported S.B. 425 with the proposed amendments.

Mr. Neighbors asked if someone could address Mr. Hadfield’s concerns. Ms. Vilardo replied they had discussed the issue with bill drafters and she felt the intent of the bill was clear. She would check with the telecommunication industry to see how they read the bill and if they could address the committee. The intent of the bill was to “freeze” service areas except where natural boundary extensions were.

Ms. Parnell asked if the tax implications were the same for electrical and telecommunications. Ms. Vilardo responded all utilities were regulated by the Public Utilities Commission and telecommunication services were centrally assessed.

Mrs. Gibbons asked the difference between counties and private industry offering the same services.

Ms. Vilardo replied government companies could impact private industry because revenue taxes would be reduced. The telecommunication business was highly specialized and government-owned businesses might need to be subsidized from the General Fund.

Jim Bell, Public Works Director, City of North Las Vegas, was concerned about the bill. The bill restricted the city’s powers to provide cost-effective service to their customers. The bill was burdensome bureaucracy and restricted the development of innovative service. The rural counties could be addressed with a population cap of 400,000.

Marsha Berkbigler, Lobbyist, AT&T Broadband Services, said their company was competing with Churchill County for cable service.

Mrs. Gibbons was concerned about county governments competing with private industry within Nevada’s limited financial resources. They could compete at an unfair advantage because they had taxpayer money to subsidize them.

Margaret McMillan, Lobbyist, Sprint, supported the bill as it was amended. Local governments had an advantage because they controlled “rights-of-way.” Currently there was a prohibition against local governments offering telecommunication services.

Chairman Bache asked how the bill related to Churchill County because of the county subsidiary providing service. Ms. McMillan replied the 1997 Franchise Fee addressed the issue by setting population thresholds that allowed Churchill County to provide service. The current bill addressed service expansion.

Ms. Berkbigler stated the issue was not the overall telecommunications market but the limited cable market. They franchised with Churchill County to provide the service and were concerned about tax liabilities.

Joyce Newman, Lobbyist, Utilities Shareholders Association, supported the bill and proposed amendment. The amendment addressed the “willing buyer and willing seller” scenario versus a “willing buyer and unwilling seller.”

Thomas Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, questioned why the bill was needed if there was a moratorium on utility expansion. He felt local governments could not afford to do anything that might harm centrally assessed property values.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Grady if he was referring the A.B. 369 or A.B. 661. Mr. Grady felt A.B. 369 was the most pertinent one.

Chairman Bache explained A.B. 369 ended divestiture for electric utility for two years and did not address the other utilities. It ended deregulation and reestablished “preferred” energy for Nevada.

Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated they were concerned about unintended consequences. S.B. 355 studied services provided by local governments and private industry and determined what problems needed to be mitigated. Local governments needed the ability to solve problems and respond to community growth.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 425 and opened the hearing on S.B. 489.

Senate Bill 489: Makes various changes regarding powers and duties of state treasurer and revises Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act. (BDR 18-360)

Brian Krolicki, Treasurer, State of Nevada, stated the bill cleaned up language and transferred the Unclaimed Property Division (UPD) to the State Treasurer’s office. Section 1 was deleted by the Senate, Sections 2 through 6 dealt with facsimile signatures, and Sections 3 and 4 addressed the transfer of the UPD.

The Unclaimed Property Management System had revamped and upgraded software and hardware systems to eliminate all old claims. FY1999-2000 had shown a 23 percent increase in unclaimed property receipts, $9.6 million to $11.8 million. The number of claims had increased 26 percent and the dollar amount increased 11 percent. Currently there was about $14 million in collections. Reduced property holding periods had increased the General Fund this year by $10 million.

Chairman Bache asked if A.B. 77 of the Assembly Government Affairs Committee had similar types of property acceleration.

Mr. Krolicki responded it had. Unclaimed property issues were a core treasury activity. The National Association for Unclaimed Property Administrators (NAUPA) had moved its headquarters to the Midwest to be part of the National Association of State Treasurers (NAST).

Mr. Krolicki explained Section 5 clarified duties and timelines required by the State Treasurer and Sections 7, 11 through 13 and 49 through 55 addressed some of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) audit findings and assigned certain tasks. Sections 8 through 10 were clean-up sections. Sections 5 through 47 addressed specific holding periods in the Uniform Act of 1995. A.B. 77 defined holding periods and accelerated some of them further. The policy decision was the pursuing of shorter holding periods that increased money availability or compliance with the Uniform Act of 1995. Exhibit D compared the difference between S.B. 489 and A.B. 77 with regards to unclaimed property. Sections 56 through 74 had minor clean-up language.

Mr. Lee asked about the change in written report requirements in Sections 66 and 67. Mr. Krolicki stated the State Controller’s office created those reports and LCB modified the statute to clarify that.

Mr. Lee asked about the deposit of taxicab money to the State Treasurer’s Fund. Mr. Krolicki clarified the money was a cash management item and clarified the money could be deposited directly into the Treasurer’s bank account.

John Adkins, Chief Deputy Treasurer, state of Nevada, said agencies and municipalities were sending their checks directly to the Treasurer’s office. The check was logged in and given to the Controller’s office for deposit. The Controller distributed the money to various counties pursuant to NRS. The bill eliminated the Treasurer from the loop.

Mr. Lee asked how an abandoned safety deposit box got to the Unclaimed Property Division.

Steven D. McDonald, Administrator, Unclaimed Property Division, explained any unpaid safety deposit box would be “drilled” after five years and turned over to his office. After one year of trying to locate the owner, the property would be auctioned off. Those monies would go into an account for the individual and be held forever.

Mr. Krolicki stated unclaimed property was a cash management function that belonged in the Treasurer’s office. Unclaimed property needed to be returned to the rightful owner. Increased technology had allowed the development of national unclaimed property databases that were facilitated through NAUPA and NAST.

Mr. McDonald stated working with the Treasurer had been an enjoyable working relation that had produced assets for Nevada.

Mr. Adkins stated the concept of bringing unclaimed property to the Treasurer’s office was relevant to the public. All unclaimed property should be together so the taxpayer could locate it. Currently, the Unclaimed Property Division did not address lost payroll checks, tax checks or escheated real estate taxes. A single database would bring all unclaimed property together.

Mr. Humke asked what the dollar amount of escheated property was. Mr. Krolicki stated it was less than $82 million. There was approximately $130 million worth of unclaimed property in Nevada.

Mr. Humke asked if NAST was based in Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Krolicki replied affirmatively and stated it was part of the Council of State Governments. Currently 36 State Treasurers had the function of unclaimed property.

Mr. Humke questioned whether the networking ability of NAST and the multi-state unclaimed property functions could address the propensity of Americans to move across state lines and leave unclaimed property. Mr. Krolicki replied it was working toward that goal.

Mr. Humke asked if the Treasurer’s office had a vault to secure the mechanical devices used to issue checks. Mr. Krolicki replied they did.

Chairman Bache said the State Controller had indicated California, Texas, Pennsylvania and New York had unclaimed property in the Controller’s office. Mr. Krolicki replied affirmatively.

Ms. Von Tobel stated a friend of hers in New York had waited over six months to receive monies owed him. Mr. McDonald clarified his department had reciprocal agreements with other states. Typically the dispersing state would send money to the receiving state and that state would disperse it to the correct individual. His department needed a “preponderance of evidence” for identification purposes.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned why the process to verify individuals was so difficult. Mr. McDonald replied it depended on how much information was given to the agency and if you could prove your tie to the property in question.

Mr. Krolicki said it was critical to determine unclaimed property thresholds.

Chairman Bache asked if S.B. 489 should be amended to be consistent with A.B. 77. Mr. Krolicki said whatever facilitated the committee’s desires were amenable to him.

Mr. Humke asked if special accounts needed to be set up to address unclaimed property. Mr. Krolicki replied no.

Sydney Wickliffe, Director, Department of Business and Industry, stated the Unclaimed Property Division was a well-run agency and she did not object to them leaving her department.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 489 and recessed the committee until 10:30 a.m. for work session. The Chairman reconvened the committee at 10:41 a.m. and opened the hearing on S.B. 349.

Senate Bill 349: Makes various changes regarding public employees’ retirement system. (BDR 23-752)

Chairman Bache said he had already stated his position on “25-and-out” and would not make a motion to change it. He had requested a Bill Draft Request (BDR) for the next Legislative Session to provide for 2 percent indexing and 2.75 percent multiplier. Those benefits would apply to all Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) members.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 349.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Smith complimented the Chairman on his diplomacy in handling the heated issues of the bill.

Chairman Bache was concerned that 200 to 300 people would retire within the next few months and cause a fiscal impact on the system. No collections had been received for “25-and-out” and could cause up to a half percent rate increase.

Mr. Neighbors relayed Mr. Pyne had made it very clear to the committee that there would be no fiscal impact.

George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), explained the plan had received significant actuarial gains and there was a variety of options within statutes to improve plan benefits. Each option had a cost assigned to it and the goal was not to raise rates under the contribution programs. Higher multipliers, indexing and “25-and-out” had to be balanced within prospective funds and estimated costs. There would be no rate increase on July 1, 2001, but no one could predict what would happen in the future. Employee pay increases, market fluctuations, plan designs, mortality and retirement rates all affected contribution rates.

Chairman Bache disclosed Mr. Williams and he belonged to PERS but would not be affected differently than other vested members. Ms. Parnell and Mr. Neighbors had retiree status and would not be affected.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 38.

Senate Bill 38: Revises provisions governing Airport Authority of Washoe County. (BDR S-775)

Mrs. Gibbons presented an amendment (Exhibit E) that prohibited former Airport Authority Board members from entering into contracts or employment from the board for one year after their termination.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 38 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 202 and asked Mr. Zeigler if he would review the bill for the committee.

Senate Bill 202: Makes various changes concerning state financial administration. (BDR 18-170)

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst, stated the bill was heard on April 20, 2001, and the Controller said the bill was primarily a housekeeping one. On page 2, line 40, the words “or mail” were added before “delivered.” Page 2, line 43, replaced “state” with “employee” to correct an error.

Ms. Parnell questioned why state funds would be deposited into an employee account. The Chairman clarified the bill referred to the deposit of employee paychecks.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 202.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 255.

Senate Bill 255: Makes various changes concerning contract between design professional and public body for provision of services in connection with public work. (BDR 28-236)

Mrs. Freeman asked if the Chair would review the bill for her.

Mr. Zeigler explained the bill was presented on May 9, 2001, on behalf of the American Engineering Council. The bill would not force contractors to indemnify local governments when they entered into mutual contracts. “Hold harmless” clauses in contracts were standard practice with government agencies and outside contractors. The bill would not require outside contractors to be held liable for local government employees’ mistakes.

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, agreed with Mr. Zeigler’s explanation of the bill.

Mr. Brown stated S.B. 255 was fair and reasonable. Any damage to the design professional from their employees would be their responsibility and local government would be responsible for their employees’ mistakes.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 255.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 228.

Senate Bill 228: Authorizes state controller to appoint persons to certain positions in unclassified service of state. (BDR 18-663)

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 228.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Von Tobel stated the Controller’s office was not in line with other offices because the Controller was called an Assistant Controller rather than a Deputy Controller. She wanted to change the bill’s reference from “Assistant Controller” to “Deputy Controller.”

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE AND NEIGHBORS WITHDREW THEIR MOTIONS.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 228 AS MS. VON TOBEL STATED.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Brown suggested maybe the titles were different for a reason.

Ms. Von Tobel stated she asked the Controller why the language was different and she was not sure. She was okay with the change to “Deputy Controller.”

Mr. Brown asked if the proposed amendment substituted “Deputy” for “Assistant” or “Controller.”

Ms. O’Grady stated other constitutional officers had chief deputies over different departments and did not feel the language change would be confusing.

Chairman Bache stated he would e-mail Ms. Jeannine Coward, the Assistant Controller, and find out what she wanted to do. Ms. Coward responded via the Internet that she was fine with the language change and thought consistency was good. Chairman Bache advised Ms. O’Grady to make sure the amended language was correct in the bill.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 530.

Senate Bill 530: Makes various changes concerning regional planning in certain counties. (BDR 22-1115)

Chairman Bache stated he had researched the issue of eliminating all Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) from the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC), but felt they needed one.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 530 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHANGE BILL DRAFT REQUESTS FROM “3” TO “1” ON PAGE 3, LINE 43.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Parnell felt the bill should not specify how many Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) should be allowed. She was unclear whether other entities had specific numbers listed in statute.

Chairman Bache clarified the statute specified the number of BDR allowed for governmental entities and individual legislators. He felt it was unfair to leave the SNRPC no ability for a BDR.

Mrs. Smith asked if the number could be open-ended and not tied to specific amounts.

Ms. O’Grady stated the number of BDRs was in statute for different entities.

Chairman Bache explained the SNRPC had no ability for bill drafts. The original bill gave them three BDRs and Mr. Humke was concerned about the proliferation of legislation that might develop from the bill.

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition, stated the Legislature created the coalition to deal with local planning issues. He asked for a minimum of one BDR because there were issues unique to southern Nevada and the SNRPC that might not be something the League of Cities or any legislator would want to carry on their behalf. The three BDRs allowed them in the original legislation had addressed unique, regional planning issues and had been met favorably by the Legislature.

Mrs. Freeman asked if the bill only applied to southern Nevada. The Chairman replied it was the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition.

Mr. Musgrove stated yesterday the Assembly Natural Resources Committee passed out S.B. 536 that dealt with air quality and the creation of an independent air quality agency. The Southern Nevada Regional Flood Control District had used the other BDR for regional flood issues and was favorably received.

Ms. Parnell stated she had referenced NRS 218 and was fine with the bill.

Mr. Brown concurred with Ms. Parnell and felt because the Legislature created the coalition they should have the ability to create legislation.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 531.

Senate Bill 531: Revises provisions governing employees of Colorado River commission. (BDR 48-354)

Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, supported the bill with the proposed amendment (Exhibit F). The amendment clarified the Colorado River Commission employees were eligible to organize a union in the future.

George Caan, Executive Director, Colorado River Commission, stated they supported the bill and the proposed amendment.

Chairman Bache hoped the proposed amendment addressed the committee’s concerns about the employees’ status.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 531.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Gibbons wanted to include some of the language from A.B. 391 into S.B. 531.

Chairman Bache stated he did not want to amend the public lands bill into this bill. The public lands bill had already left the Assembly and was currently being heard in the Senate.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 502 and asked Mr. Zeigler to review the testimony heard in committee.

Senate Bill 502: Eliminates state job training office. (BDR 33-1314)

Mr. Zeigler explained the bill was heard in committee on May 10, 2001. The Work Force Investment Act had replaced the State Job Training Program to integrate all employment and training programs at state and local levels. The bill eliminated references to the State Job Training Office. The Displaced Homeowner Program and the State Council on Libraries and Literacy would remain.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 502.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Freeman said she would abstain from the vote.

Ms. Parnell reminded the committee she had asked whether the bill would impact the Vocational Rehab Program in Reno and she had been assured it would not. During the interim she had received many calls on duplication of efforts and training and felt the bill was greatly needed.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 552 and asked Mr. Zeigler to briefly review the testimony heard.

Senate Bill 552: Makes various changes relating to assistance to finance housing. (BDR 25-1448)

Mr. Zeigler stated the bill was heard on May 10, 2001, and the genesis of the bill was a fundamental review process to provide flexibility to the housing division without privatization. The bill helped Henderson, Las Vegas and Reno with downtown revitalization efforts and addressed Senior Assisted Living Programs statewide.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S. B. 552.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Brown asked to abstain from voting so he could review the bill.

Chairman Bache stated Chairman Arberry of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee would review the fiscal impact of the bill.

Ms. Parnell was uncomfortable with the bill and could only vote for it with a “sunset” clause.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL WITH A JULY 1, 2003, SUNSET CLAUSE TO SECTION 8.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache explained they would now vote on the main motion.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache stated they had less than ten bills left to process and would hear a new bill tomorrow.

Ms. Parnell wanted to request an interim study from the committee to review the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP).

Chairman Bache explained Ms. Parnell was making a motion to request a bill draft for a resolution conducting an interim study of the PEBP program.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MADE A MOTION TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT REQUEST FOR A RESOLUTION CONDUCTING AN INTERIM STUDY OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ BENEFITS PROGRAM.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Humke stated the study was needed because of the continuing discussion and controversy with the program.

Chairman Bache stated he would let Assemblywoman Giunchigliani of the Assembly Elections and Procedures Committee know it had been requested.

Assemblyman Neighbors felt a lot of questions had not been answered on S.B. 425 and possibly a future study could address those important rural issues.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache seeing no further business adjourned the meeting at 11:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: