MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
March 27, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Tuesday, March 27, 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
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Wendell Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
Mrs. Debbie Smith
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Kathy Augustine, Nevada State Controller
Sonia Taggart, Deputy District Attorney
Jeannine Coward, Assistant Controller, Controller’s Office
Patty Wagner, Program Officer, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Dennis Colling, Chief, Administrative Services Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel
Kim Foster, Administrative Services Officer, Department of Administration
Perry Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration
Richard Tiran, Northern Vice President, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs
Gary Wolff, Business Agent, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Jim Spencer, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Government Affairs Section, Attorney General’s Office
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women’s Lobby
Kathleen England, Attorney for Nevada Women’s Lobby
Chairman Bache stated there would be a meeting on Saturday, April 7, in Las Vegas. For those who wanted to stay up north the meeting would be telecast. He anticipated time to hear four or five bills, but reminded the committee that no official action could be taken, as they were not physically in Carson City.
Assembly Bill 314: Makes various changes concerning collection of debts owed to state. (BDR 31-642)
Kathy Augustine, Nevada State Controller, testified A.B. 314 basically was a debt collection bill for the state of Nevada. She indicated she had passed out information packets (Exhibit C), to which she would be referring. Section 2 allowed the controller to act as a collection agent between an agency and private businesses. A bill was passed during last session that gave all agencies more authority to collect their debts, but the desired results were not accomplished. Agencies were now required to report their revenue receivables on a quarterly basis to the Controller’s Office. Receivables had risen from $82 million in December of 1999 to $172 million in December of 2001 and the packet included a debt collection report from her office. The controller had signed two contracts with private debt collection companies the previous week. Those contracts would be submitted to the Board of Examiners for approval on April 10. She felt it was essential to establish uniform and consistent collection efforts and centralize information on debtors. A.B. 314, if passed, would allow any agency to turn over any debt deemed uncollectable to the Controller’s Office for coordination of collection, in order to maximize collection of revenues and minimize further losses. According to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), that was a key issue in the collection process, especially in large governmental entities where there was a need for centralization of records. Currently 16 states had consolidated centralized debt collection.
Since passage of S.B. 500 of the Seventieth Session, only one state agency had pursued a debt collection agency contract. In allowing agencies to turn debt collection over to the Controller’s Office it would enable the office to coordinate over $170 million in outstanding debt. A returned check fee of $25 would be allowed for those agencies allowed by statute to charge a fee — the Department of Taxation, Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Insurance Commission. The present Integrated Financial Systems allows only one returned check fee, so a $25 dollar check fee was chosen mirroring 1995 legislation allowing Nevada businesses to charge $25 for returned checks.
Ms. Augustine added the final section allowed the State Controller, the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS) and the Division of Wildlife of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to establish a pilot program improving collection by restricting or suspending vehicle registrations, licenses and permits issued by the state. In November 2000, the Internal Auditor’s Report of DMV&PS recommended “DMV seek legislation prohibiting customers from conducting business with any branch until outstanding debts were resolved.” The pilot program allowed withholding of licenses, permits and services (such as driver’s licenses and vehicle registrations) until debt to the state was paid and establishment of policies and procedures which would eventually prohibit all debtors from receiving certain services from not only DMV but the Division of Wildlife, such as hunting licenses. The initiation of the pilot program was permissive and if implemented, would sunset October 1, 2003. Ms. Augustine said there were also several proposed amendments to the bill that had been suggested by the Division of Wildlife (Exhibit D).
Mr. Brown questioned the notice from one agency to another with demand for credits, as he was confused. Ms. Augustine explained there was a warrants offset program presently in a pilot stage.
Mr. Brown directed her to page 6, line 12, subsection 4, “Every person notified by a demand to transmit shall, within ten days after receipt of the demand to transmit, inform the department of, and transmit to the department all such credits, other personal property, or debts in his possession.” He wondered if there should be exculpatory language included and if there was any type of liability to the debtor. Ms. Augustine replied it was language added by LCB and their Attorney General (AG) had reviewed it and found no problems.
Sonia Taggart, Deputy Attorney General, indicated the offset program put in place indicated that prior to any offset, there would be a 10-day notice, allowing a hearing to address any due process concerns. Mr. Brown asked if that referred to the debtor. Ms. Taggart replied that was correct; it advised them that there was going to be an offset from one agency to another.
Mr. Price stated there had been rare occasions where a bank failed and he presumed there would be people writing checks on that bank, and questioned if those people who lost money would still be liable under the bill. Ms. Augustine replied they were only interested in debts over 90 days, and usually a person was aware of a returned check within a four- or five-day period.
Mr. Mortenson was curious about the largest number of outstanding debts, which seemed to belong to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and wondered why that division would incur so many. Ms. Augustine stated actually DMV had the largest volume of bad debts and Taxation had the largest dollar amount of bad debts. She added bad checks were listed differently from receivables so if one looked at the returned checks from DMV, the checks outstanding over 60 days amounted to $2,995,042.
Mr. Neighbors questioned the $1.4 million figure due from released inmates. Ms. Jeannine Coward, Assistant Controller, replied reports came from state agencies and currently they were only required to report total dollar amounts. They had no breakdown of what a particular debt was for, but thought inmates’ debts were mostly money owed to the Victims Restitution Fund.
Mr. Neighbors wondered what the difference was between released and incarcerated debts. Ms. Coward said the incarcerated inmates were liable for any harm or damage done while they were in prison and released inmates were liable for restitution to victims. Mr. Neighbors asked to be provided with a breakdown of incurred debts. Controller Augustine interjected her office did not have authority to ask what specific debts were for, only that they report their receivables.
Mr. Brown questioned the issue of the removal of debt from the books in Section 7 and also the amended language regarding a debt of an agency and wondered if the state then was assuming the debt. Controller Augustine responded the language was from LCB Legal Division, but basically agency debt was state debt.
Mr. Brown asked if the agencies wrote bad debts off of their books. Controller Augustine related the agency did not write them off, but took bad debts to the Board of Examiners for write-off.
Mr. Neighbors queried how many years the bad debt figures covered. Controller Augustine replied some agencies inadvertently dropped their debts when converting from their Legacy System to the new Integrated Financial System so some additional debt was never recorded. Some debts were up to ten years old and almost impossible to collect.
Patty Wagner, License Office Supervisor, Division of Wildlife, testified they had reviewed the bill and appreciated what the controller was attempting to accomplish. The division issued hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses through a licensed agent program. There were approximately 200 businesses serving as licensing agents throughout the state. Wildlife also issued special licenses and permits for commercial, noncommercial, and hobbyist pursuits and were manually issued. They were in the process of developing a new automated system but it would not be implemented until February of 2003, so presently there was no way to red-flag any of those accounts. As debts owed to the division were low there had been discussions with DMV regarding the possibility of giving them a list of debts, and DMV could flag their customer records. When DMV submitted their amendments, the Department of Wildlife also had some amendments. The first change would be deleting “a license to practice commercial taxidermy” and replacing it with “any other license or permit that the agency issues.” In Section 15.1, following the word “suspension” add “cancellation, or refusal and a fee of $25 for each check returned to the division.” The change in section 15.3 reflected the suspension, cancellation, or refusal of a license or permit. The remainder of the changes related to the licensing and permitting.
Dennis Colling, Chief, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), stated they were in support of the bill with the amendments the controller proposed. The department also had some amendments (Exhibit E). The most important change was adding “noticing by the controller” when a person had paid the debt, entered into an installment payment plan, or obtained a discharge in bankruptcy court.
As there were no further questions or testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 314 and opened the hearing on A.B. 358.
Assembly Bill 358: Transfers duty to certify state payrolls from director of department of personnel to state controller. (BDR 23-1129)
Assemblywoman Merle Berman, District 2, testified that A.B. 358 dealt with certification of state payroll from the Director of Personnel back to the Office of State Controller. That office was responsible for implementation, training and rollout of the Integrated Financial System (IFS), and therefore already involved in payroll activities. It would give the office direct purview in order to streamline the process and centralize all payroll functions.
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, stated they were in opposition to the bill. Payroll for state employees resided in the Department of Personnel and had undergone several changes in that process due to implementation of IFS. To move payroll would be very disruptive to long-term plans by the department and interfere with complete system implementation and rollout to agencies. The Department of Personnel was responsible for training and rollout of payroll functions, not the Controller’s Office.
Kim Foster, Administrative Services Officer for Department of Personnel, thought it was important to remember the key objective in processing payroll was to serve state employees in a timely and effective manner. Separation of the payroll and personnel functions between two administrators would complicate the currently smooth process. When the state first implemented Information System and Human Resources (IFSHR) system, it was a technology improvement that integrated personnel and payroll systems making them one and the same, creating a more efficient and effective processing of workflow. There were currently 13 staff members running the payroll and records sections and they were supported by one single system. There were four Department of Personnel employees and five IFSHR employees. To separate what the department had tried to integrate made little sense as tasks would have to be separated and entire staff reorganized which would not be cost-effective and of no benefit to the state. If removed, three major functions that drove the pay for each employee would be affected as the department was responsible for administering the state pay plan, and longevity pay, which determined ranges for each class, grade, and group of positions, and appropriate rate of pay. The second function the department was responsible for was establishing regulations and ensuring the state work force was appointed, promoted and reinstated as required by law. The department also was responsible for regulating annual and sick leave and many functions interrelated with tasks performed to produce payroll. Payroll provided 50 percent of those functions.
Mr. Brown questioned what the 50 percent interrelated functions encompassed. Ms. Foster replied the functions consisted of processing time-adjustment sheets, report distribution, direct deposit statements, payroll and general information, personnel and payroll operation training, collection of overpayments, processing semiannual longevity, service credit verification, processing retroactive salary payments for prior years, hand-typed payroll check requests, maintaining agency and distribution files, and processing monthly retirement reports.
Mr. Williams said the prime sponsor stated the change was needed to streamline the process and it seemed Ms. Foster indicated that there was more benefit to the staff and state if it was left with the Department of Personnel. Ms. Foster replied she did not see any specifics from the Controller on how the streamlining would work if the functions were transferred to the Controller.
Ms. Von Tobel asked if the Department of Personnel would lose any positions if the bill passed. Ms. Greene responded she was not sure, as she had not seen anything in writing regarding how the entire process would be implemented. Her understanding was that the Controller planned on taking the payroll staff, consisting of nine employees. Their proposed budget had been structured with the payroll function still in their department and it would be extremely difficult to extract all payroll related costs.
Controller Augustine testified the bill was a result of a belief there should be a separation of duties. There was an Attorney General (AG) opinion sent to Mr. Comeaux in December of 1995 analyzing the constitutional role of the State Controller in the employee/payroll process. When Nevada became a state there was no constitutional statement regarding duties. The Nevada Supreme Court, by implication and referencing the meaning of offices in other states, determined that the Controller was the supervising officer for revenue. Among those duties was the final auditing and settling of all claims against the state and NRS 31.249, section 2(b), provided any garnishments be served on the State Controller. NRS 227.130 required the controller to withhold from wages of state employees any amount of federal tax as required by federal law. NRS Controller Augustine cited many other statutes directing payroll functions to be under the control of the Controller. Controller Augustine stated she was surprised Ms. Greene was in opposition to the bill, as Ms. Greene had suggested to the Director of Administration that payroll subjects be addressed in the Governor’s Fundamental Review. The Controller’s Office was responsible for implementation, training and rollout to all state agencies. The Legislative Counsel Bureau’s recent audit showed there was a need for revising processes and controls in the payroll system. It was also her intent to have access to on-line timesheets and payroll records within the next two years, thus eliminating paper timesheets. She pointed out the effective date of the bill needed to be changed from July 1 to October 1, due to a proposed move of the controller’s office staff.
Perry Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, stated he was in opposition to the bill as he saw no valid business reason to make any change, as change was never without risk. The present payroll system was working well and had worked well under the Department of Personnel since he had been in Nevada. Employees were paid accurately and in a timely manner. Problems sometimes occurred but they were manageable and fixable, so he saw no valid reason to make any change.
Mr. Humke asked if the Department of Personnel employees would be transferred between classified and unclassified positions. Mr. Comeaux replied presently all staff was classified. Mr. Humke wondered if they would remain classified after the transfer to the Controller’s office. Mr. Comeaux said unless some change was made, they would remain classified although he had not seen any written plan regarding implementation.
Mr. Humke asked if there was any type of protection to a classified employee in a change such as was being contemplated. Mr. Comeaux responded that, generally speaking, safeguards were in place.
Richard Tiran, representing the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, stated they had reviewed the bill and were in support. Basically he felt all money and employee payroll functions should be in the hands of the money manager. The person holding the checkbook should be writing the checks. The Governor’s Fundamental Review process found payroll functions should be placed in the Controller’s office and he agreed with that.
Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, Teamsters Local 14 and 533, said on behalf of labor organizations, he was in support of the bill.
Mr. Neighbors questioned what the Governor’s position was on the proposed change. Mr. Comeaux responded he did not believe the Governor had a position. The Departments of Personnel and Administration opposed it, but he did not have any information on the Governor’s position.
Ms. Von Tobel remarked that as hand-typed checks and overpays were already taken care of by controller’s office, it seemed they should have more control over the process. She wondered if there was a problem with the payroll system being in two different places. Mr. Comeaux pointed out the system had been in place for many years and although it was not perfect, it worked well the way it was.
Ms. Von Tobel felt he did not want to see any change. Mr. Comeaux said he saw nothing to be gained by changing procedures and agreed with comments made that relocation would not be simple. Although nine positions were identified as currently handling payroll, there were also other costs involved.
Ms. Von Tobel queried if the bill were passed was it possible to make changes in the budget. Mr. Comeaux replied anything was possible.
Mr. Brown asked about garnishment issues, as NRS 31.249 stated it was to be served on the Controller and wondered how that was coordinated. Mr. Comeaux asserted he was not aware of that statute, as he thought they were served on payroll.
Mr. Mortenson said it had been brought up in previous testimony that the Governor’s committee was looking for ways to streamline government and had recommended the payroll system be moved under the Controller. Mr. Comeaux related the Committee for Fundamental Review of State Government did look at that issue and had made recommendations on other items, but he did not remember that specific recommendation. There was a report on the findings of that committee and he would provide a copy to the committee.
Controller Augustine interjected that the garnishments were served on her office, and they in turn sent them to payroll. Hand-pays, as well as regular paychecks, were sent from payroll to her office, where they were actually issued. The Assistant Controller had met with the Governor but because the payroll staff was in the Department of Administration and under his purview, he did not want to make any statement against one of his directors.
Mr. Neighbors queried who audited the office. Controller Augustine replied every four or five years the Legislative Counsel Bureau audited state offices, but the Controller’s financial records were audited annually by Kafoury Armstrong.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 358 and opened the hearing on A.B. 386.
Assembly Bill 386: Makes various changes relating to state personnel system. (BDR 23-621)
Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, testified there was a chart (Exhibit F) with some changes. During the Fundamental Review of State Government it was identified the state’s rules and regulations needed to be streamlined and simplified. She had met with Bob Gagnier on proposed changes in A.B. 386. It was a housekeeping bill only, clarifying current personnel practices, consolidating language that was redundant in other statutes, and removing obsolete language. It had no effect on current business practices. Current unclassified service language included individuals who served on advisory boards and commissions, patient and inmate help in the state’s mental and correctional institutions, officers and members of the National Guard, and persons employed by contractors. Benefits provided to some unclassified employees did not apply to that group, so language in NRS 284.140 was obsolete and inappropriate. In Sections 2, 7 and 12 language was being removed that addressed discrimination because it was covered in NRS 281.370. Section 3 clarified that the director prepared and maintained an occupational index, categorizing positions in the classified service. Section 4 clarified that each employee automatically received a copy of their performance evaluations. Section 5 proposed consolidating appointing authority reporting requirements for personnel actions. Section 6 clarified when a decision was made by a director in refusing to certify an applicant, that applicant could appeal directly to the Personnel Commission. Section 8 clarified provisions relating to drug and alcohol abuse applied to both classified and unclassified employees. Changes in other sections were minor changes that were either redundant or obsolete in other areas of the statutes.
Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, said as part of the Fundamental Review there was a personnel subcommittee appointed that was advisory to the review committee. He and Ms. Greene worked together and the changes became a consensus of both their opinions.
Mr. Humke asked the director if the bill saved any budgetary money. Ms. Greene stated it was only a housekeeping measure and clarified current practices.
Mr. Humke stated in previous testimony, it had been asserted streamlining procedures would save money and because this was a streamlining process he was surprised it did not save any money.
Ms. Von Tobel said she realized they were not a money committee but she wondered if the department had requested additional positions. Ms. Greene responded they had requested one additional clerical support position in the Las Vegas office due to increased workload.
Mr. Gagnier interjected he felt it was important to occasionally go through statutes and remove obsolete language. That had been done in the statute relating to personnel activities, but some references when those statutes originally passed in 1953 were no longer used. For instance, if a bond was not required for employees, why keep a statute requiring such a condition?
Chairman Bache stated his concern was with the references regarding discrimination references. Although it was covered under other statutes, sometimes those protections were placed in a certain section because there were loopholes in other sections of the statutes. He did not want any perception that a minority was being discriminated against, be it the disabled or someone with a particular religious belief. Another concern he had was in Section 7 where reference to discrimination was deleted as he recalled an incident where a trooper had been disabled but had continued working with the agency in a different capacity.
Ms. Greene said based upon legal opinion discrimination was thoroughly covered in NRS 281.370, which applied to state employees and local government. Mr. Gagnier pointed out NRS 281.370 had a much broader and inclusive definition.
Chairman Bache questioned if the language covered nonclassified employees. Ms. Greene responded the language did not address that category of employee. Chairman Bache wondered if that class should be addressed in the bill. Jim Spencer, Deputy Attorney General, replied that generally nonclassified service was designated only in the Governor’s Office. He felt his employees should not be in the classified or unclassified service. For convenience those employees were termed nonclassified employees, and he understood that there was at least one bill submitted to do that same thing in another elective office. The term would apply to an enumerated, identifiable group of people in a specific statute and he did not feel it needed to be addressed in A.B. 386.
Chairman Bache believed there was a growing group of state employees being designated as nonclassified and questioned their rights. It seemed a category had been created but perhaps a better classification would be “confidential employees.” Mr. Spencer thought that was a fair term to use. When the Governor’s bill passed in the Seventieth Session, the Legislature provided protection for those employees by requiring the Governor to adopt policies and procedures dealing with those employees. He understood there was a bill being submitted by the Attorney General to have her employees designated as non-classified and if passed, her office would have to adopt policies and procedures.
Chairman Bache questioned if the Governor’s staff were currently the only employees who were designated as nonclassified. Ms. Greene responded they were the only ones in the Executive Branch.
Mr. Gagnier interjected SNEA had serious reservations about the legislation during the Seventieth Session that created the nonclassified designation, for the simple reason they felt it would open the door to that classification in other agencies. Classified and even unclassified employees had rights including coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was a federal law. Two groups of employees were exempt from that act. Some employees were in the legislative branch and the other group was in the Governor’s Office. In all fifty states, employees in the Governor’s Office did not have the protection of the act.
Chairman Bache thought there was a similar situation at the Printing Division. Ms. Greene stated there were about ten employees at that division represented by a union and were considered a labor group, but they were not considered nonclassified.
Mr. Gagnier noted Printing Division employees had a special section of law devoted to that particular employee group and was referenced in the State Printing Act. It had been adopted many years ago because those employees were covered by the National Topographers Union and hired and laid off as the need arose.
Mr. Neighbors wondered if salaries in adjoining states or local businesses were ever taken into consideration. Ms. Greene replied a salary survey was completed every two years, which had been released to the Legislature in January. There were salary comparisons between local public and private entities in all ten western states.
Mr. Mortenson was curious about the comparisons with the western states and wondered where Nevada State Employees ranked. Ms. Greene believed Nevada was approximately 6 percent behind the other western state employees, but within the public and private sector the state was 26 percent behind. She added in comparing benefits within Nevada with public and private sectors, state employees were 44 percent behind.
Mr. Gagnier commented he did not have figures from the ten western states, but nationally state employees ranked fifteenth among all fifty states according to the United States Department of Labor.
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women’s Lobby, introduced Kathleen England, an attorney from Las Vegas with expertise in areas of law regarding discrimination.
Kathleen England stated her expertise was discrimination law and was concerned with the repeal of certain provisions in the bill. There was a Supreme Court decision indicating the American’s With Disabilities Act cannot be applied against a state. Most concerns she had were assuaged by her review of Chapter 281, which was the larger provision and prohibited the State of Nevada, as an employer, from discriminating on a disability basis. She wanted to recommend the committee make sure the policy remain in effect and if the committee was sure the issue was completely covered by other parts of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), she had no problem. As a lawyer, when problems were brought before federal court the federal judge looked at state statutes and what the intent of the Legislature was when that legislation became law.
Mr. Bache wondered if some of those revisions could be deleted. Ms. England replied she was satisfied with the amendments and felt Chapter 281 completely covered any concerns she might have had. That statute mirrored Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination and American’s with Disabilities Acts. She added the Legislative Counsel Bureau could advise what language should be used in the legislative history to assure the intent was accessible when an issue arose in a court of law.
Mrs. Gibbons said as an Assemblywoman and part of the committee she strongly urged the Assembly to mirror all definitions in NRS 281.370 with those in federal statutes giving equal opportunities to everyone.
Mrs. Berman asked if Ms. England’s statement made at their meeting could precede the bill on the floor so the floor statement reflected what she wanted to accomplish. Mr. Bache asked legal counsel the appropriate action to take in reflecting Ms. England’s remarks. Ms. O’Grady opined the language should plainly and clearly indicate what the committee’s intent was before the floor statement.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 386. He added he had neglected to bring forth a letter from the Nevada Press Association (Exhibit G) during the hearing on A.B. 314. He wanted to make sure it was in the record as Mr. Lauer had submitted it with an amendment. He wanted the word “may” changed to “shall,” in Section 4, subsection 2 of the bill. Unless prohibited by state statute or federal law, the release of information by the controller should not be discretionary.
Chairman Bache requested status reports from the subcommittees.
Dave Ziegler, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated seven bills were assigned to subcommittees and although most had completed their work, the full committee had not yet followed through. A.B. 19 dealt with forecast reporting with Mr. Humke, Mr. Mortenson and Mrs. Smith holding two meetings. The subcommittee had completed their deliberation, but they were waiting for amendments from the legal division. A.B. 60 was Mr. Beers’ bill, which dealt with Internet agendas. Mr. Lee, Mr. Neighbors, and Mr. Humke met twice, the full committee had discussed recommendations, but there was no resolution at that time. A.B. 61, which dealt with antennas, was scheduled for hearing the following day. That subcommittee consisted of Mr. Bache, Ms. Parnell, and Mrs. Berman. A.B. 63 was a bill submitted by Speaker Perkins for the southern Nevada homebuilders, dealing with landscape improvement districts. Ms. Parnell, Mr. Brown and Mrs. Smith had met three times with an additional meeting set for the following Thursday. From his observation it seemed they were converging on a consensus. Chairman Bache requested a decision be forthcoming, one way or the other on Thursday. Because of time constraints he asked them to make the best recommendation they could, even if they were not all in agreement.
Mr. Ziegler continued A.B. 94 was the bill from NACO regarding fees that county clerks and recorders may charge. That group, consisting of Mr. Neighbors, Mr. Humke and Mr. Price, had met twice with the subcommittee work completed. A motion was made and approved by the subcommittee to submit it to the full committee, but they were awaiting research results. A.B. 104, relating to the Overton Power District met one time and completed all subcommittee discussion, but there was a request for a letter of intent, which was ready and awaiting full committee discussion. That subcommittee consisted of Mr. Lee, Mr. Neighbors and Mr. Brown. Mr. Lee had also requested a legal opinion before proceeding with the bill. A.B. 131 was Ms. McClain’s bill regarding powers of counties in dealing with chronic nuisances. Mrs. Freeman, Mr. Mortenson and Mrs. Gibbons met one time and no more meetings were planned. Mr. Mortenson had asked to work with the sponsor on some final language.
Mr. Mortenson related there was a difference of opinion among the sub-committee members regarding how much power the Legislature should delegate to the counties.
Mr. Bache said subcommittees usually made recommendations and it seemed an unusual procedure to have the chairman of the subcommittee ask one of its members to work with the sponsor. Mr. Mortenson stated he and Ms. McClain had tried to get together but all three schedules had to be postponed.
Mrs. Gibbons pointed out Ms. McClain brought forth a completely different bill and it all referred to NRS 244.3601, so she was not certain what the concern was by Mr. Mortenson.
Mr. Ziegler said there had been a motion made by the committee to make a recommendation but it had died for the lack of a second. His notes reflected some audience members at that meeting had requested more time and that was one reason the motion failed.
Chairman Bache stated he would provide direction and requested Mr. Mortenson meet with Mrs. McClain and work something out. If there was a lot of controversy over one particular issue and he suggested they draft an amendment and refer it to the full committee because they were beginning to deal with time constraints.
Ms. Von Tobel reported to the committee that Overton Power had a board meeting the previous week and they would be sending her copies of their minutes, which she would share with the committee.
Mrs. Gibbons questioned if a subcommittee could not reach a consensus of opinion, was it appropriate to advise the chairman they had no recommendation. Mr. Bache responded the appropriate method was if the subcommittee could not reach a recommendation they advised the committee they had no recommendation and then each committee member could voice their opinion regarding understanding of the discussions. The committee then, as a whole, would deal with those issues in the bill.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Virginia Letts
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: