MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
April 13, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:14 a.m., on Friday, April 13, 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. Vivian Freeman
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Mr. Bob Price
Ms. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Wendell Williams
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman David Parks, Assembly District No. 41
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Daniel O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board
Steve Holloway, Executive Vice President, Associated General Contractors
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County
Warren Hardy, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties
Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriffs Office
Toni Weeks, Detective, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association
Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County
Kent Lauer, Executive Director, Nevada Press Association, Inc.
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Assembly Bill 428: Revises provisions governing state public works board. (BDR 28-229)
Daniel O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board, stated Assemblyman Hettrick had approved the proposed amendments (Exhibit C). Change No. 2 added the phrase, “The criteria for determining a change in scope shall be established by the development of regulations pursuant to NRS 233B,” and allowed the projects’ scope to be reviewed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB). Change No. 6 allowed for the State Public Works Board to hire contractors to perform “constructability reviews.”
Steve Holloway, Executive Vice President, Associated General Contractors (AGC), stated a major problem of large construction jobs was the plans were not constructible. Independent contractor plan reviews prevented construction delays and expensive change orders.
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors, strongly supported constructability review. Numerous change orders would decrease with contractor’s input.
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated they were in full concurrence with the modified bill.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 428.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 461: Revises provisions relating to qualification of bidders on certain contracts for public works in this state. (BDR 28-591)
Mr. O’Brien stated entities involved had approved the proposed amendments (Exhibit D). He detailed the changes and stated many of them cleaned up the bills or renumbered section numbers. Proposed change No. 3 allowed for annual or biennial review of contractors. The bidder qualification provisions would be developed in the future. Proposed change No. 40 removed certain contractor’s exemption clarified specific criteria that needed to be met.
Chairman Bache reminded Eileen O’Grady, committee counsel, the bill had a conflict notice and the conflict amendment needed to be included.
Mr. Brown questioned if a contractor with an “unlimited” license needed a bond.
Ms. Blomstrom answered local governments wanted the flexibility to use prequalification. If a local government did not establish prequalification criteria they could require the contractor to bond. The provision would not allow a contractor to “bond around” prequalifying criteria.
Ms. Parnell questioned how the bill and its proposed amendments would help the proposed Carson City school remodeling.
Ms. Blomstrom answered the school district had two options. They could develop criteria to prequalify bidders or require the contractor to bond the job.
Mr. Brown questioned what a “guaranty bond” was. Mr. Holloway responded it was a payment bond that provided assurances when prequalifications were not used. It was existing language approved by contractors.
Mr. O’Brien noted the language in Section 15, subsection 2(b), “provides a bid bond, a performance bond, a guaranty bond, and a labor and material bond in such amounts as the state public works board or governing body,” did not apply to the state public works board. He proposed the words “state public works board or” be deleted.
Assemblyman David Parks, Assembly District No. 41, supported the proposed amendments and wanted to make sure additional construction fiascos did not happen in Nevada.
Ms. Wilson-Pappa stated they were comfortable with the bill and the prequalification bidder provision. The Nevada Association of Counties and the Nevada League of Cities had agreed to facilitate the development of prequalification criteria.
Mr. Brown asked if prequalified contractors had their bonding requirements impacted by the bill. Mr. O’Brien answered it did not affect them.
Mr. Holloway clarified bonding requirements were discretionary if you were prequalified and were not changed by proposed amendments.
Ms. O’Grady questioned if proposed change No. 6 added additional hearings to the regulation hearings outlined in NRS 233B. Mr. O’Brien answered it did not.
Ms. O’Grady suggested the removal of No. 6 because NRS 233B covered it. Mr. O’Brien clarified it had been included because they wanted to be in compliance with NRS 233B and exempt from additional hearings.
Warren Hardy, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors, thanked Mr. Parks for his sensitivity to contractors’ concerns.
Chairman Bache thanked everyone for all the time and hard work that they had gone into modifying the bill.
Mr. O’Brien echoed his appreciation for the work that had been done.
ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 461.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Bache noted the amendment would include the proposed amendment and the conflict amendment.
Mr. Brown stated he wanted time to study the proposed changes and reserved the right to change his floor vote.
Chairman Bache commented the amendment was complicated and the committee might want to review it before it went to the floor. He seldom found any mistakes because Ms. O’Grady does an excellent job.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 256: Increases annual salaries of certain elected county officers. (BDR 20-420)
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), stated they had incorporated two of Ms. Vilardo’s changes (Exhibit E), but did not want to change the current longevity section.
Mr. Lee stated he felt the Sheriff had a 24-hour job with incredible responsibility and civic duty. He proposed an amendment (Exhibit F) that made the Sheriff’s salary equal to the District Attorney. The proposed raise would need individual county ratification.
Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriffs Office, supported the proposed amendment. The Sheriff had a multitude of responsibilities that made his job difficult and time consuming.
Chairman Bache said he would consider each amendment separately because of their unique concepts. After the separate amendment votes they would vote on the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND A.B. 256 WITH THE NACO AMENDMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Smith questioned what the “average wage” increase would include. Mr. Hadfield responded Section 3 referred to the county average hourly private wage or the average percentage of county employee increases for the previous fiscal year. The increase would take the lesser of those figures.
MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. GIBBONS VOTING NO.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND A.B. 256 WITH HIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT ON SHERIFF SALARIES.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Brown questioned if the Sheriff had deputies appointed to help him with his responsibilities. Mr. Lee answered yes and the District Attorney had deputies appointed to assist him as well.
Mr. Brown felt additional criteria was needed to warrant the substantial raise.
Ms. Von Tobel stated she would approve the amendment if the Sheriff had to justify his proposed increase before the county commission. The Legislature set policy and the Sheriff went before the commission to support his position.
Chairman Bache asked if the proposed amendment would increase the Washoe County Sheriff’s salary above his subordinates.
Captain Nadeau stated comparably police chiefs made more than Sheriffs of Washoe or Clark County.
Toni Weeks, Detective, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, concurred with Captain Nadeau. Sheriff Keller of Las Vegas made less than his subordinates.
Mr. Lee stated the Sheriff reported to the city council and county commission. Detective Weeks replied affirmatively.
Mr. Williams questioned if different salary negotiations were used for elected officials and salaried employees. Mr. Lee replied employees had bargaining units and the Legislature was the “bargaining unit” for county elected officials.
Mr. Williams stated he was not against the raise but wanted justification for it.
Mr. Humke inquired if the Sheriff had special education or licensure requirements that were equivalent to the District Attorney. Mr. Lee stated “on-the-job-training” was equal to a law degree and additional technical training enhanced the position.
Captain Nadeau stated Sheriff Balaam of Washoe County had a bachelor’s degree and had attended the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Academy and received executive level management training by the Peace Officer’s Foundation. He had academic and considerable police management training. Sheriff Keller of Clark County attended the FBI Academy and was a member of the Major Metropolitan Police Agency Board.
Detective Weeks stated Sheriff Keller was a graduate of the FBI Academy and she could find out what his academic achievements were.
Mr. Williams stated the bill sounded like it was being tailored for specific persons. Faces should not be put on legislation because the education of a future Sheriff could change.
Mr. Brown concurred with Mr. Williams. He felt any person that became Sheriff had a tremendous amount of education and on-the-job training.
Mr. Lee clarified the legislation was not personal. The specific qualifications had been discussed because of previous questions.
Mr. Williams stated outlining specific names and qualifications was not the intent of the bill.
Ms. Smith questioned legal counsel if the waiver affected all salaries or could it be individually applied.
Ms. O’Grady clarified the bill specified the waiver applied to all salaries as a whole. The county could not choose what salaries they would or would not increase.
Ms. Von Tobel questioned if the word “salaries” caused the waiver to affect all salaries equally.
Ms. O’Grady stated language could be clarified further but subsection 4 intended all salaries across the board to be affected.
Ms. Von Tobel felt the waiver was not meaningful because each office did not justify their salary increases before their constituents and she could not support the amendment.
Mr. Lee stated he felt the amendment was good and the Sheriff deserved the raise.
Mr. Humke stated he did not want personal information about incumbents, but wanted to make a comparison between the Sheriff and District Attorney’s office. Statute required the District Attorney graduate from law school and to be a member of the Bar. He questioned whether there were specific educational or certification requirements of the Sheriff’s office.
THE MOTION FAILED AND CHAIRMAN BACHE REQUESTED A ROLL CALL VOTE.
CHAIRMAN BACHE NOTED THERE WERE ELEVEN NAYS AND THREE AYES. THE MOTION FAILED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN LEE, PRICE AND NEIGHBORS VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
Chairman Bache introduced the Vilardo amendment that addressed the deletion of the longevity pay.
Mr. Hadfield commented they opposed the deletion of longevity pay. Longevity pay could not be received until you had served one full term in office and were reelected and was capped at ten years. Longevity pay was a reward for expertise and was a reward for people who had successfully filled a term in office. If it had been intended to be a cost-of-living raise then it would not have been called longevity in statute. He felt strongly it was two separate issues.
Mrs. Gibbons felt salary increases and longevity pay were too significant for Nevada’s soft economy. State workers were having their positions and benefits cut. Possibly the state Constitution should be rewritten to allow for counties to set position qualifications and salaries. The public wanted accountability from their elected officials.
Mr. Neighbors felt the deletion of the longevity pay was a step backward. Longevity pay should not be confused with cost of living raises. The state gave longevity pay to employees and the county should do the same.
Ms. Von Tobel felt counties should have “home rule” and justify salary increases. She did not want the county to spend time reviewing salary justifications. She wanted to delete longevity pay and draw up a resolution that changed the Constitution. The matter should not be decided by the Legislature. Each staff agency had to come before the Legislature and justify their budget and positions. The county should have the same requirements.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, commented any changes to the Constitution must be done separately. She suggested leadership might give up one of their bills to adopt a resolution (Exhibit G, page 2).
Mrs. Smith questioned why the longevity pay deletion (Exhibit G) did not appear in the original bill.
Ms. Vilardo answered longevity pay and salary increases were in different statutes. The longevity pay section had to be added to the bill to be removed. She did not want to retroactively remove existing longevity pay that had been granted. The amendment would be effective upon date of passage.
Chairman Bache commented he felt the committee was uncomfortable with indexing and longevity pay in the bill. He suggested a compromise where longevity pay would be cancelled after the 2002 and 2004 elections for current elected officials.
Mr. Hadfield stated if the committee could not process the bill with both pay provisions he would accept the Chairman’s suggestion ensuring that current elected officials were not penalized. He believed elected officials were entitled to both but would accept the compromise.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE VILARDO AMENDMENT TO A.B. 256 AS MODIFIED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Bache asked if NRS 245.044 applied to county commissioners or all county elected officials.
Mr. Hadfield responded NRS 245.044 applied to all elected officials that were addressed in the bill. He felt the committee did not want the salary hearing buried at the end of a lengthy agenda. He committed that NACO would work with counties to clearly note and give importance to the agenda.
Mr. Williams stated he was uncomfortable with county commissioners voting on their own salary. He felt it would be hard to address the issue fairly.
Chairman Bache reminded the committee to keep their discussion limited to the amendments. After the amendments he would address the bill.
Ms. Berman said NRS 245.044, “Payment for longevity for elected county officers…” clearly stated who the statute addressed.
Mr. Neighbor clarified a “no” vote would keep longevity pay in statute.
Chairman Bache responded affirmatively. He stated the motion would phase out longevity pay after the current elected officials received it in 2002 and 2004.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. FREEMAN, MR. NEIGHBORS AND MS. PARNELL VOTING NO AND MR. WILLIAMS ABSTAINING.
Chairman Bache commented the committee had reviewed all amendments and would accept a motion on the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 256 WITH THE ADOPTED AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Parnell questioned the addition to Section 1, “the first regularly scheduled county commission meeting,” that made the effective date July 1, 2002. The new salaries would be granted upon passage and approval and the county commission would not vote on salary increases until July 1, 2002. She felt the dates were inconsistent with each other. She believed the new salaries would not be effective until the county commission approved them.
Mr. Hadfield responded the new addition posed a logistic problem. Counties needed flexibility to implement the committee’s recommendation. Counties could realistically have had their first meeting before the bill passed.
Ms. O’Grady responded Section 2 of the bill was transitory and intended to address the first fiscal year. New salaries were effective July 1, 2001, unless a county applied for a waiver pursuant to Section 2. Section 1, subsection 3, applied to future increases after July 1, 2002.
Ms. Parnell clarified public meetings to review salary increases would not take place until next year.
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, said the committee could make the raise effect July 1, 2001, pending the approval of county commission in August or September. The raise would have an inception date of July 1, 2001, but would not be effective until the commission ratified it.
Chairman Bache asked Ms. Parnell if she wanted to make that a proposed amendment.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MADE A MOTION TO AMEND A.B. 256 AS DESCRIBED BY MR. GRAHAM.
ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Von Tobel stated she could not support the bill unless there was a resolution to change the Constitution. She would abstain from voting because she felt the decision of raises should be done at the local level.
Mr. Humke asked Mr. Graham to please restate the amendment. Mr. Graham anticipated the Legislature would pass the raise with an effective date of July 1, 2001, and would be held in abeyance until the ratification concept could be implemented.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Bache clarified they were back to the original “amend and do pass” on A.B. 256.
Ms. Parnell did not feel it was the Legislature’s place to spend the county’s money. Each county needed the discretion to decide what funds were available and how they could be spent.
Mr. Price agreed and said the Assembly Constitutional Committee was not bound by timelines or subject matters. The committee could introduce an amendment to address salary issues.
Chairman Bache asked Mr. Price to check on developing a constitutional amendment that addressed county salaries. He questioned if constitutional amendments needed to be germane to subject matter. Mr. Price replied they did not need to be subject-oriented.
Mr. Brown felt county salaries were not legislative matters. Qualified people would not run for county offices if salaries were not compensatory with job responsibilities.
Mrs. Freeman agreed with the committee.
Mr. Williams felt the Legislature should set a salary “range” and counties could set the exact amount. There should be some mechanism in place for justification.
Mr. Graham stated they had worked with legal counsel for many years to draft a bill that gave counties the ability to set their salaries. A.B. 256 was the closest they had come.
Mrs. Smith echoed the sentiments of Mr. Williams. Many “rank-and-file” employees from struggling counties had contacted her because they were worried about the bill. She was comfortable with tying future salary increases to something appropriate and requiring public hearings for justification.
Ms. Berman agreed a constitutional amendment should be crafted that allowed counties the ability to set their own salaries.
Mrs. Gibbons asked why a constitutional amendment had not been asked for before. Mr. Graham answered it was not a “black and white” issue and there were many arguments for and against the concept.
Ms. Von Tobel stated she would withhold her vote until there was a resolution to take the matter out of the Legislature and put it in the counties. She knew it would be difficult for county officials to vote on their own salaries.
THE MOTION CARRIED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 256 WITH MR. BROWN, MR. WILLIAMS AND MRS. GIBBONS VOTING NO AND MS. VON TOBEL ABSTAINING.
Assembly Bill 225: Makes various changes to provisions regarding meetings of public bodies. (BDR 19-82)
Mrs. Freeman explained the proposed amendments (Exhibit H) and several verbal ones. She asked Mr. Lauer and Ms. Shipman to come forward and address the committee.
Chairman Bache asked if the proposed amendments were in writing. Mrs. Freeman responded they had only decided the amendments that morning and did not have time to type them.
Chairman Bache stated with the limited time left he would prefer to not discuss the bill without amendments in writing. He asked if she could have the amendments in writing by Monday’s meeting. Ms. Freeman stated she felt the amendments were not that difficult.
Chairman Bache responded with only thirty-five minutes left before floor session he did want to confuse the committee with three different written amendments and new verbal ones. Mr. Barengo had given his amendment to Mr. Price (Exhibit I) for distribution and the committee needed time to review it. Ms. Freeman wanted to ignore the amendment because it had not been brought to her attention.
Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, stated she had talked to Mr. Barengo and he was okay with Ms. Shipman’s amendments. He had discussed his changes with Ms. Freeman.
Mrs. Freeman confirmed she had talked to Mr. Barengo, but wanted the committee to ignore his proposed amendments. Ms. Shipman would make the argument.
Chairman Bache stated everything in writing would be considered and he asked Ms. Shipman to go over them.
Ms. Shipman stated Mr. Barengo had agreed with her proposed amendments (Exhibit J).
Kent Lauer, Executive Director, Nevada Press Association, Inc., stated his amendment (Exhibit H) protected attorney-client-privilege. Change No. 4 ensured the attorney-client-privilege discussion did not go into deliberation. The attorney could give advice to the public body but could not guide the deliberations of the public body. An attorney could meet with the public body as long as discussions did not lead to action or deliberation. Any guidance or deliberation needed to be done in an open meeting.
Ms. Shipman stated she had placed a period after the word “litigation” in Mr. Lauer’s amendment. The sole purpose of meeting with an attorney to discuss litigation or related issues was for the purpose of limiting discussions in public meetings. Washoe County sent confidential letters to public board members outlining pros and cons of the case. The letters advised them to not discuss the case with anyone in public. Public discussion of the case before an actual agreement was met did not serve the public and could extend the case. Settlement amounts were public record. Mr. Lauer’s amendment compromised attorney-client privilege. The McKay decision of the Nevada Supreme Court [103 Nev. 490 (1987)] stated an attorney could deal with board or commission members on an individual basis. The proposed amendment went beyond the issue of open meeting law and could overturn a Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Lauer replied he did not feel the attorney-client-privilege was eliminated. His amendment allowed the attorney to meet with the public body, give advice, and lay out the “pros” and “cons.” The difference was all deliberation needed to be done in the open. It was not the attorney’s role to guide the public body in the deliberative process as that was the reason members were elected to those bodies. He did not feel the Nevada Supreme Court decision allowed an attorney to meet with members of the public body and deliberate in closed session.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Lauer if he thought the passing of the amendment would overturn the Supreme Court decision. Mr. Lauer replied he did not.
Ms. O’Grady asked if the proposed amendment allowed a quorum to meet with their attorney behind closed doors if an action or decision was not met.
Mr. Lauer answered he felt the amendment applied to the “serial meeting” section of the bill. An attorney could meet with individual members of the public body or in small groups less than a quorum.
Mr. Brown echoed the concerns of Ms. Shipman and felt some of the language was not clear and could be subject to litigation. He did not want to infringe upon the attorney-client relationship.
Chairman Bache explained he would do the same procedure on A.B. 225 that he had done on A.B. 256. He would vote on individual amendments separately.
Ms. Shipman explained the Supreme Court did not address deliberation. The case addressed whether the attorney-client privilege could be maintained in an open meeting law scenario. The court stated very clearly it could be maintained by dealing with members individually. The proposed amendment would not overturn the Supreme Court decision but would take away the court’s remedy for attorney-client meetings.
Mr. Brown questioned if the definition of deliberation had been discussed. Ms. Shipman explained local governments had agreed with the definition.
Mr. Brown asked if she was okay with deleting the definition of deliberation. Ms. Shipman did not oppose that.
Mr. Lauer read the McKay decision that stated an attorney could guide a public body into making a decision.
Nothing whatever precludes an attorney for a public body from conveying sensitive information to the members of a public body by confidential memorandum, nor does anything prevent the attorney from discussing sensitive information in private with members of the body singly or in groups less than a quorum.
Ms. O’Grady questioned subsection 4 where “avoid or minimize deliberation of litigation at a public meeting” was problematic because it was already in the definition of meeting. She suggested, “provide the intent of such discussions is not to take action or to deliberate towards a decision regarding the litigation” in its place. Mr. Lauer agreed that would be fine.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO ADOPT THE PRESS ASSOCIATION AMENDMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Brown accepted the deletion of the word “deliberate” in the amendment but could not accept the rest of it.
Ms. Parnell stated she was confused because the amendments appeared to be competing. She felt it might be more appropriate to go section by section and would abstain from voting on the amendments.
Chairman Bache asked Ms. O’Grady if competing amendments for the same section could be addressed.
Ms. O’Grady suggested it might be easier to deal with subject matter or by section instead of by amendments.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS AND ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON WITHDREW THEIR MOTIONS.
Chairman Bache referred to NRS 241.015, Section 1, subsection 2, and the deletion of word “deliberate” in lines 10 to 13.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MADE THE MOTION TO AMEND SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 2, BY THE DELETION OF THE WORD “DELIBERATE.”
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION TO REMOVE THE DEFINITION OF DELIBERATE.
Mrs. Smith commented she was confused and questioned how the other amendments would be considered.
Chairman Bache asked Ms. Shipman what the difference would be between deleting the definition of “deliberate” and modifying the definition. Ms. Shipman stated they did not care if it was changed in statute and they were fine with the deletion.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT TO DELETE SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 2, LINES 10 TO 13.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE LANGUAGE IN THE PRESS ASSOCIATION AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 3(b).
ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Brown asked if the amendment was accepted would it preclude the Shipman proposed amendment for the same section.
Chairman Bache explained if one preferred the language of Ms. Shipman’s amendment one would vote no on this motion and move to adopt Ms. Shipman’s language.
Mr. Brown was concerned the “piece meal” approach might affect how the bill appeared as a whole.
Chairman Bache echoed the committee’s frustration but the bill needed to get out of committee.
Ms. Shipman stated the basic difference was she would have a “period” after the word litigation in subsection 3(b). The prior language was the same.
Ms. O’Grady stated she had clarified Mr. Lauer’s language for purposes of writing but had not interpreted it. Ms. Shipman restated her amendment ended at the word litigation.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MOVED THE DISCUSSION OF A.B. 225 AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BE TABLED UNTIL MONDAY.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Mortenson felt any delayed discussion would not clear up the confusion.
Mrs. Freeman was disappointed the committee could not move it on. She did not see the confusion and felt the issues could be resolved.
THE MOTION DID NOT CARRY.
Chairman Bache called for a vote on the Nevada Press Association proposed amendment.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. BROWN AND MRS. SMITH VOTING NO AND MS. PARNELL AND MS. BERMAN ABSTAINING.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO DELETE THE NEW LANGUAGE ON PAGE 2, LINES 26 THROUGH 35.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Shipman explained the proposed amendment was exactly the same as hers.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO DELETE SUBSECTION 4, LINES 13 THROUGH 16.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Shipman stated the proposed amendment was exactly the same as hers.
Mr. Price questioned why people would follow the open meeting law if penalties were removed.
Mrs. Gibbons stated the section was deleted because they did not want to burden public boards with determining who would pay the penalty.
Mr. Brown reminded the committee they had discussed removal from office and public scorn were sufficient punishment.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Bache asked Ms. Shipman if there was anything else. Ms. Shipman replied no.
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst, reminded the committee Assemblyman John Carpenter had proposed to amend NRS 241.033 with a new section.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO ACCEPT ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER’S AMENDMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Bache read the proposed amendment introduced on March 22, 2001 (Exhibit K).
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 225 WITH ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT HAD BEEN VOTED ON.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. WILLIAMS.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Bache stated they would recess upon adjournment of floor session and would go through as many bills as they could.
Ms. Von Tobel stated she received an opinion from legal counsel that stated, “the committee that would have subject matter jurisdiction may request a new Bill Draft Resolution for joint resolution.” Because Government Affairs had jurisdiction over the county pay bill they could request a resolution.
Chairman Bache recessed the meeting at 11:10 a.m.
Chairman Bache called the committee to order at 1:27 p.m.
Assembly Bill 482: Makes various changes relating to regulation of fireworks. (BDR 42-1024)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 482.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 59: Requires special election to fill certain vacancies on or offices of additional members of governing body of city. (BDR 21-71)
Chairman Bache read the proposed amendment to A.B. 59 (Exhibit L). He asked Ms. O’Grady if subsection 3(b) allowed for the addition of council seats and the election of council members in the same election.
Ms. O’Grady clarified the addition of seats would be at the general election and would be filled at the general city election.
Chairman Bache explained any expansion would occur in November of even-numbered years elections and subsequent general elections in June of odd-numbered years would elect the councilmen.
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated that was acceptable to them.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 59.
CHAIRMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 571: Authorizes board of county commissioners to provide by ordinance for the covering or removal of certain graffiti on private property at county expense. (BDR 20-389)
Ms. Wilson-Pappa went through the proposed amendments (Exhibit M). Amendment No. 1 allowed the county to enter a residential area for the sole purpose of removing graffiti; No. 2 outlined the criteria for entering residential private property; and No. 3 allowed the county board of commissioners to adopt by ordinance an order for commercial property owners to remove graffiti that was visible to the public.
Mr. Humke asked whether a “certified letter with return receipt request” and a “posted notice” could both be used. Using both vehicles gave the property owner a better chance of actual notice.
Ms. Wilson-Pappa stated it was a timing issue to get the graffiti removed from the exterior subdivision walls before more could be added. The 72-hour time frame could be problematic if the owner was not reached.
Chairman Bache asked if she could accept the “and” in there instead of seeing the bill fail. Ms. Wilson-Pappa replied affirmatively.
Mr. Humke stated he was talking about private property rights. He felt actual notice was needed when you were painting someone’s private property.
Mr. Mortenson questioned the average cost of graffiti removal. Ms. Wilson-Pappa did not have those numbers but felt it was minimal for residential areas.
Mr. Price questioned how graffiti would be removed from plain cement block walls. Ms. Wilson-Pappa replied the public response office had many different types of paint that could handle that. They were sensitive to homeowner’s that wanted to paint or remove the graffiti themselves.
Ms. Parnell questioned how “residential zoned private property” defined the area in question was exterior. Ms. Wilson-Pappa said they could add “exterior” if it was needed.
Ms. Parnell commented she liked the definition “which is located on the exterior portion of a fence or wall and is visible from a public right of way,” and would like to see that same intent in the beginning of the bill.
Mr. Brown questioned the commercial community’s attitude toward graffiti abatement. He felt it was unfair to charge commercial customers because their establishment had graffiti problems.
Ms. Wilson-Pappa stated they had procedures in place to contact commercial property owners and hoped the addition to the original bill would expedite the process.
Mr. Brown appreciated 72-hour graffiti removal, but was concerned about giving proper notice to homeowners. He suggested the time frame be extended to five days.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 571 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Humke wanted the “72-hour” time frame extended to “five days” and wanted “and” to replace “or” in subsection 2.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION WITH HIS PROPOSED SUGGESTIONS.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Bache commented they would vote on the main motion to amend A.B. 571.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 63: Revises provisions governing maintenance of landscaping, public lighting and security walls in subdivisions and planned unit developments. (BDR 22-994)
Chairman Bache asked Ms. Parnell, the subcommittee chairperson, to review the proposed amendments (Exhibit N).
Ms. Parnell commented there were four subcommittee meetings that addressed the maintenance of exterior landscaping and lighting without forming a homeowners association. All entities had agreed to the proposed changes.
Ms. Shipman explained the amendment defined amenities included in landscape maintenance districts. Alternative administrative procedures, adoption of trails and bike paths, and conversion from homeowners association to landscape maintenance district were addressed.
Ms. Parnell clarified the recent change by Ms. O’Grady was a technical change.
Ms. O’Grady explained the change had to do with implementing the term “administrative approval.”
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 63.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. GIBBONS ABSTAINING.
Assembly Bill 563: Authorizes additional deferred compensation plan for state employees and employees of political subdivisions. (BDR 23-1345)
Chairman Bache reminded the committee A.B. 563 was about deferred compensation plans and Ms. Shipman’s proposed amendment had been presented at the original hearing.
Mr. Ziegler read the proposed amendment from the original hearing (Exhibit O).
Ms. Shipman explained the proposed amendment clarified an employee could participate in several deferred compensation plans.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 563.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 395: Revises provisions governing authority of city or county to control location of certain residential facilities. (BDR 22-1118)
Chairman Bache stated Assemblyman Oceguera had introduced the bill to address group homes and halfway homes congregating in residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Ziegler went over the proposed amendment introduced by Stephanie Garcia at the original hearing. She had proposed “recovering alcoholics” or “recovering drug abusers” be added to the bill’s language (Exhibit P).
Ms. Von Tobel explained the definition addition had to do with Henderson’s ability to require special-use permits on homes that had a certain number of residents. The city would have more control over those homes. She was concerned the additional distance requirement would be challenged in a city or county hearing.
Chairman Bache stated someone might question the constitutionality of the distance requirement. The Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) had indicated 1000 feet was the maximum constitutional defendable limit. He did not want to lose existing limitations in a court setting because the new limitation did not meet constitutional standards.
Ms. O’Grady responded case law defined distance requirements depending on the circumstances of the case. The courts had not definitely defined any distance requirement and LCB felt 1500 feet was constitutional.
Chairman Bache questioned if the distance requirement would revert back to 660 feet if it was challenged in court. Ms. O’Grady answered it would be difficult to predict whether the court would go back to the original requirement or would throw the distance requirement out in totality.
Chairman Bache wondered if an amendment could be added to revert back to the original 660 feet if the distance requirement was successfully challenged.
Mr. Brown suggested maybe “in the alternative” could be inserted to give flexibility.
Chairman Bache suggested the amendment would state the minimum distance was 660 feet and the maximum was 1500 feet. Local governments would decide actual distance requirements by ordinance.
Mr. Humke stated the idea was good because it set a range of 660 to 1500 feet and gave the responsibility to the county. He suggested they pass the bill because it would be further reviewed by the Senate.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH STEPHANIE GARCIA’S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND THE CHAIR’S SUGGESTED AMENDMENT FOR A FLOOR AND CEILING BY ORDINANCE.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Bache reminded the committee they had 18 bills to do on Monday and seeing no further business adjourned the meeting at 2:08 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Glenda Jacques
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: