MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
May 2, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 3:26 p.m., on Wednesday, May 2, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Clark County Assembly District No. 42
Assemblyman Bob Beers, Clark County Assembly District No. 4
Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning, Clark County Assembly District No. 28
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City
LeRoy Goodman, Member, Board Of Commissioners, Lyon County
Kelly Kite, Member, Board Of Commissioners, Douglas County
Ronald Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County
Rod Banister, Sheriff, Carson City
Sid Smith, Sheriff, Lyon County
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Douglas County
Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Cingular Wireless
Stephen Snyder, County Manager, Lyon County
Dan Holler, County Manager, Douglas County
John Berkich, City Manager, Carson City
Colleen A. Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County
James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County
James T. Endres, Lobbyist, AT&T
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Verizon Wireless
Alan H. Glover, Lobbyist, Nevada Association Of County Clerk and Election Officials
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City Of Las Vegas
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing beginning with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 299.
ASSEMBLY BILL 299: Revises provisions relating to ballot questions and petitions. (BDR 24-598)
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Clark County Assembly District No. 42:
Last session, this committee and the full Senate passed Assembly Bill 200 of the Seventieth Session. This bill mandated, during local elections when there is a ballot question, instead of one person being able to create the ballot question, which has the potential for bias, two committees be formed of three people each, three known to be for the bill and three known to be against the bill. They would write the ballot questions with the supervision of various people.
Assembly Bill 200 of the Seventieth Session: Provides for appointment of committees to prepare arguments for and against county and municipal ballot questions. (BDR 24-1082)
There are a few problems with this legislation. Some timelines need changing. Some of the wording was misinterpreted to imply there would be one chairman for both of the committees, although the intent of the bill was a chairman for each of the committees of three would be elected, so there would be two chairmen.
In the Assembly there was no one in opposition. Essentially, A.B. 299 is a cleanup bill or a fine-tuning tool.
Chairman O’Connell:
Did we make arrangements to have a chairman elected for each of the two committees?
Assemblyman Mortenson:
The Registrar of Voters had a terrible time initially because of a misinterpretation of the bill. It had been thought there should be one chairman. This bill makes it plain there are two chairmen, one elected for each committee of three.
Chairman O’Connell:
Any questions from the committee?
Senator Neal:
In section 2, subsection 2, what do you have in mind there?
Assemblyman Mortenson:
I should mention one other thing. The Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures and Ethics amended this with another bill, and this had nothing to do with my bill. I really do not know the intent of anything amended to this one.
Senator Neal:
If it was election procedures, I guess we dealt with it in the secretary’s bill.
Chairman O’Connell:
Ms. Guinasso, could you clarify this for us? Assemblyman Mortenson is telling us this was put in from another bill. We were wondering if perhaps it has to do with when it was amended with a conflict amendment which came over on the other side due to the secretary of state’s bill?
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel:
It was not amended because of a conflict. I am not sure if it did come from another bill, I do not have the information.
Chairman O’Connell:
Ms. Guinasso, could you check with Assemblywoman Christina Giunchigliani (Clark County Assembly District No. 9)?
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Actually, it came as a surprise. I did not realize my bill had a minor amendment, and then I realized I had another bill amended to it, which I know very little about.
Chairman O’Connell:
Anyone else wishing to testify on A.B. 299?
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
We are in support of the bill as it was originally intended and as amended with regard to the committees.
One item in the bill has one meaning only. It was brought forward by the county clerks. It states when people request to have their names removed from a petition, the county clerks only have to go through the actual removal process if there are sufficient names requested to be removed which could affect the outcome. It is an election cleanup for them to save them time so they do not have to go through the process if there is no potential for it to affect the outcome.
Chairman O’Connell:
So, what do they do, start a list as people are turning their names in to have them removed, and when they feel there are enough to affect the outcome, then they remove them?
Ms. Lusk:
They actually keep a count. For example, if a petition required 30,000 signatures to be valid, the gatherers turned in 60,000 and there were 2000 requested to be removed, they would not need to actually take any action with that. However, if it required 30,000 and the people turned in 31,000 and 2000 were requested to be removed, then they would have to actually go through the detail of removal.
I consider the language quite confusing. I sat down and actually worked it out on paper, it does say what it is intended to say but it says it in a confusing way.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
We are pleased to support this bill. One of the reasons is there have been problems in the past. For example, in Washoe County in 1998 it was felt the proponents wrote both sides of the school bond question; a lot of people were upset about it. There are often problems with language for explanation of ballot questions. Ultimately, we should look at allowing this same process to take place with questions the secretary of state places on the ballot. In 1990 we ended up suing the secretary of state and going to the state supreme court. The language was changed because she happened to be a proponent of a certain ballot question, and the language was very unfair.
It would be much more profitable for people trying to read and discover what these ballot questions mean, if there were concerned citizens on both sides of the issue who could participate in the process. This process locally has been very advantageous and I think it should be extended.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else to speak on A.B. 299? Okay, we will close the hearing on A.B. 299 and open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 569.
SENATE BILL 569: Makes various changes relating to enhancements of telephone systems for reporting emergencies in counties. (BDR 20-1527)
Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City:
We are here in support of S.B. 569. This bill makes changes to the 911 emergency systems. This legislation enables communities to enhance their 911 systems. This is a special purpose revenue fund; the surcharges are passed on directly to the customers. This legislation is a little more restrictive than the legislation for Washoe and Clark Counties because it does require a master plan, including funding sources, and an advisory committee. The advisory committee must include a representative of the local exchange carrier. The provisions require the master plan to include the functions and the activities for which the fee will be put to use. The master plan and the budget must be created and then the surcharge for local exchange telephone lines is created, as opposed to the other way around.
It limits it to a maximum of 25 cents per line. As local government, we need to continue focusing a significant amount of resources on public safety. We continue to enhance and expand facilities and resources our citizens expect for public safety in their counties and communities. If you pick up your telephone and dial 911, it is just the beginning of a long series of events which will eventually get you a sheriff’s deputy, a police car, a fire department, an ambulance, or whatever it takes.
These are very complicated and very expensive systems. These systems need a certain amount of redundancy and they need people there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Any system is probably not a complete system unless there is the capability to fully integrate the system into the other parts of the county management. Everything from gathering statistics to report writing to information law enforcement, and even the courts and jail systems need to have complete start-to-finish processes.
This is a user fee, it is specifically targeted and intended only to enhance the 911 system and its ancillary facilities.
Senator Neal:
In section 6 of the bill, why is language being removed?
Mayor Masayko:
I am informed the item was struck to mirror language, contained in the Washoe County bill for 911 services, which was just addressed by another committee.
Chairman O’Connell:
Anyone else?
LeRoy Goodman, Member, Board Of Commissioners, Lyon County:
This is definitely needed in Lyon County, which is the fastest growing county in the state. Our 911 systems are not up to par as they should be. This bill addresses the need, because the money is collected just for the repair, the upgrade, and the maintenance necessary for this. We support it fully. I think the people in Elko, Nye, Douglas, Carson City, Churchill, and Lyon Counties, and the counties affected by this would like to see this happen.
Kelly Kite, Member, Board Of Commissioners, Douglas County:
I need to point out, in Douglas County, as frugal as we can be, the revenues are not keeping up with the cost of doing business. We are having a hard time keeping the 911 system we have currently going. We have no means of financing the system. When you get into the rural counties, if you ever get in the wrong cell and call 911, you might get a dispatcher in Reno. We definitely need the funding.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are there any questions from the committee? Is there anyone else in support of the bill?
Ronald Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County:
We are in favor of S.B. 569. One of the things we need to do is look at the safety of our residents inside our counties and provide the best emergency services possible. Seventy percent of the calls we get through 911 are from people on their cellular phones in Douglas County. When they dial 911, they do not go to our dispatch center. This 70 percent normally goes to Reno. Hopefully, this tax on the wireless phones would assist us in purchasing and maintaining the proper equipment to address this dilemma.
As you know, a lot of federal mandates have been in the works to upgrade the communication systems, especially 911; they call it phase one and phase two. Hopefully, with this kind of revenue the equipment will also be able to retrieve the actual numbers for wireless phones, so if we had to call someone back we could probably do it. And, eventually, we could have a locator device and could actually find the person in case he or she is involved in an accident, for example. As the system works today, we have no idea where to find that person.
Chairman O’Connell:
What kind of price tag are we looking at for this equipment?
Mr. Pierini:
I do not know.
Rod Banister, Sheriff, Carson City:
In Carson City we recently installed a new dispatch center which cost well over $1 million. About $158,000 of it was strictly for the 911 lines. The cost to maintain 911 in Carson City is about $120,000 a year.
Sid Smith, Sheriff, Lyon County:
We have had some serious problems within the last several months with our 911 systems. It is a fairly old system in technology years. We are having problems even locating landline calls. When we add the federal mandates for locating wireless calls into the mix, we are probably even farther behind the curve. We do support this bill; we seriously need to upgrade our systems.
Chairman O’Connell:
Any questions from the committee?
Senator Neal:
How much will this bring in?
Mr. Pierini:
In Douglas County we estimate about $75,000.
Senator Neal:
You are now paying $120,000 for use of your trunk lines?
Mr. Pierini:
Carson City is.
Mr. Banister:
The estimations were between $150,000 to $200,000 for Carson City, with the maximum amount which can be levied.
Mr. Smith:
I have been told it is about $60,000 for Lyon County, but I have no way to confirm it.
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Douglas County:
Carson City estimates $150,000 to $200,000 per year. The $75,000 for Douglas County was just the landlines. It did not include wireless. If you include wireless, it would then be a little over $100,000. Lyon County would be a little bit less than Douglas County, probably about $100,000.
Senator Neal:
Does the technology exist now with which you can identify or locate a wireless customer?
Ms. Walker:
Not at this point; it is very expensive. What this bill will actually be funding goes further than the Washoe County bill because we actually delineate what the money can be used for. It is not just for the cellular locator. It is also to pay for equipment and software upgrades. Carson City is spending a couple million dollars related to those types of 911 upgrades. They are extremely expensive. This will help provide the funding we need to upgrade those systems.
It is not just the 911 locator which is further down the line. We are having difficulty just funding basic 911 equipment and software services. We have the same types of needs Washoe County has.
Senator Neal:
Did I understand this would be 25 cents per line charge?
Ms. Walker:
Yes, per line charge.
Senator Neal:
What do you mean by line charge? Is it a telephone going into a house?
Ms. Walker:
Yes.
Senator Neal:
So, if I had two telephones, I would pay 50 cents?
Ms. Walker:
It would depend on whether you split the line or had two different lines going in.
Senator Neal:
If it is a party line, would it just be one charge?
Ms. Walker:
We would have to have our telecommunications expert answer that.
Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Cingular Wireless:
There are no party lines in the counties we are contemplating here. There are toll stations and similar things in highly remote areas of Nevada, but I am aware of none where you would have E-911 (Emergency-911) capabilities “overlying the party lines.”
Senator Neal:
Do you have any existing party lines?
Ms. Tyler:
We have some toll stations and similar things. I can get you specific information. We have a $21 million rural improvement project we are working on right now to address the few remaining party lines, as well as toll stations, in extremely rural areas such as Tuscarora.
Nevada Bell is merely a vendor in this process. We have worked closely with elected officials and the county managers. We do appreciate the situation they are in. We do feel very strongly, however, as the custodians of our customers’ telephone bills, we are in a position to basically act as a taxing vehicle for a service like this. We take it very seriously.
We feel strongly about the language on page 4, lines 10 through 20, which would finally codify in statute what this 25-cent surcharge could actually go towards. It goes towards the cost of providing services. From the telecommunication provider standpoint, it would pay for costs of personnel training for individuals who actually update the database, and a very important piece of E-911 is to have totally accurate information. It would also allow the money to go towards the purchase, leasing, or renting of equipment necessary to provide the E-911. I know Carson City is interested in a CAD (computer-aided design) system to link its E-911 system to its larger law enforcement database. We feel this is a legitimate use of those surcharge dollars.
Lastly, it is paying the costs associated with the maintenance, upgrade, and replacement of the equipment. Again, finally defining in statute what this surcharge should be used for is an important part of this legislation.
Senator Neal:
Could you explain why you would be paying a recurring and a nonrecurring charge? What is the difference?
Ms. Tyler:
A nonrecurring charge would be a one-time charge, for example, setting up the system initially, setting up the billing schedules so the process could begin. The recurring charges would be the trunk lines and the actual phone service necessary to provide the E-911 service.
Senator Neal:
Have you developed a system whereby you can identify the location of a cellular phone user?
Ms. Tyler:
From a federal standpoint, the legislation has been put in place. There is a time frame just beginning now where local entities, for example Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, could request Cingular Wireless to start providing E-911 service. Then we have a 6-month window of time to get our systems up and operational.
There are a couple of different systems available, which a provider or a law enforcement agency can decide to use. I like to compare it to the Beta versus VHS debate going on 15 years ago. There are two different technologies. Selecting which technology to use becomes the key component at this point. Cingular Wireless, which I also represent, has not had any requests from a police department yet to begin such a process, but it is around the corner.
Senator Neal:
So, what you are telling us is, if I am out on the road somewhere and not in a “dead zone,” if I have an accident, I could use my phone and they could locate me, if they had such a system in place?
Ms. Tyler:
That is the purpose of the system. There are a couple of outstanding issues we do not feel are necessary to specifically codify in this legislation. As the local governments go forward, there are some housekeeping issues we need to work with them on, such as billing cycles, coordinated dates, and other functional things. I do not see any reason why this would be a problem at all with regard to billing cycles, being able to coincide with existing dates and those functional things. Also, we would be looking to work with them over 60 or 90 days if, in fact, this does pass into law to get these systems up and running. It is not specifically outlined in this legislation and it is not something you just switch over to. We would like this opportunity if this does pass.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, are there any other questions? Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the bill?
Stephen Snyder, County Manager, Lyon County:
I am here to speak in favor of this also. Lyon County is a rural “cow county.” However, we are transitioning into suburbia. We have high growth in the Fernley area. Last year it was 17.7 percent, and in the Dayton/Moundhouse area there is a similar kind of growth. We are having a hard time maintaining and keeping our heads above water as it is, without major infrastructure replacements or enhancements. I am advised if our 911 system goes down, it may not be able to be repaired. It is an old system and the parts may not be available anymore. We have had recent experience with Carson City of how much it may cost, which is in the range of $1 million plus. Frankly, Lyon County does not have this kind of money.
Lastly, I want to mention it has come to our attention there has been a federal district lawsuit ruling. We believe and have been advised it does not affect the bill or us. In our minds, this bill is only for enabling. I want to make sure it is on the record that is our opinion and we were advised of that.
Dan Holler, County Manager, Douglas County:
The one thing I would like to add is, in Douglas County we work on expanding our tourism business. We are seeing more and more usage of cellular phones from a tourism standpoint. It creates challenges on both sides. The tourists who call us normally do not know where they are because they are visiting. It gets even more complicated if they are talking to a Reno dispatcher. We see some real improvements which can enhance the emergency services in Douglas County through the enhanced 911. We believe the process will take some time to put into place, but it is definitely something we need to take steps towards. People have a service expectation when they dial 911 to get the resource there, where they are. It is a real concern to us; we would hate to have anything bad happen due to those types of calls going out. We have had minor incidents in which people have called and the ambulance dispatcher from Reno responded. In one case, a gentleman was actually looking at a volunteer station waiting for the ambulance to go out and was arguing with the dispatcher that the ambulance had not been dispatched. The dispatcher was adamant it had been dispatched. Finally, the person figured out he was talking to the wrong dispatcher. We think this is a step in the right direction, and we definitely support the bill to move forward with this type of funding mechanism.
Senator Neal:
I am curious as to how you would cure the situation in which a person is in an outlying area and dials 911 on a cellular phone. It seems to me you are talking about significant expense to develop some type of triangulation system to identify and pinpoint the location of the person. Are you talking about going in that direction?
Mr. Holler:
Ultimately the technology you end up with is the triangulation process onto the cellular phone so you know the location. Also, if the number comes up you can get the phone number which can help at times too. For example, if you can call but you cannot speak, it is as if you are at home. You can do this now and they would know where you are. It would be the same concept for wireless, but is probably further out at this time.
Senator Neal:
But at home you have an address. If someone gets injured out in the boondocks and dials 911, unless there is some type of triangulation system to pinpoint the area on the map, it would be difficult to find the person.
Mr. Holler:
Hopefully it will be the technology employed.
John Berkich, City Manager, Carson City:
Emergency communications is a top priority for our community; it is very expensive to do. The sheriff was light on one of his numbers. He used “just over $1 million.” It cost $1.7 million to open the facility we opened last April, to build it and equip it as we did. In Carson City, just for the telephone service to the communication center, we spend a total of $2 million a year just in the communications center for operation of the center. On top of that we are looking at an additional $1 million in hardware and software to completely equip the center with the state-of-the-art amenities it needs.
Contrary to what some might think, at least for Carson City, times have not been so easy for us. The budget has been tough to handle. These kinds of expenditures take quite a bit of effort and commitment from the community to put into place. It is a huge infrastructure cost; it took us 3 years to put the funding together for what we have done so far. We used a combination of local, state, and federal funds to make this possible. We certainly urge you to give this careful consideration.
Senator Neal:
I understand you three represent three different counties. Did we not pass a bill in this committee to allow counties to come together and develop projects across county lines? Would this project come under that?
Mr. Berkich:
It may, Senator Neal. We have explored in the past the notion of joint communication centers. To some extent it may be possible. It is perhaps an opportunity in the future as these counties look to enhancing their existing systems.
Senator Porter:
I know this is specific to counties under 400,000, but regarding Clark County, the question would be regarding the master plan required by the legislation. The board must first adopt a 5-year master plan for the enhancement of the telephone system for reporting emergencies in the county. Do we have a 5-year plan in Clark County?
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone here from Clark County who could answer that? I know we have had ours for a number of years.
Senator Porter:
I do not think all areas of Clark County have it yet, which is the next part of my question.
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Spinello, do all areas of Clark County have access to E-911 service?
James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County:
I will find out. I do know just recently Indian Springs and Sandy Valley agreed to come onto a 911 system. I thought those were the only two not on it. I think they do it a little differently in Indian Springs. A very serious incident occurred a couple of years ago when somebody was unable to get emergency services; it prompted the whole thing. I believe the entire county has access, but I will check it out to be certain.
Senator Porter:
You missed the first part of the question. There is a requirement in S.B. 569 for the county commissioners to adopt a 5-year master plan for the enhancement of telephone systems for reporting emergencies. I wondered if Clark County has such a master plan?
Mr. Spinello:
Our 911 system is run by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. The system was just recently enhanced. I can find out if we specifically have a master plan on it. It is an operation of considerable attention and interest; a lot of resources are put into the system and it is constantly being enhanced. But, I will get a specific answer.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else to speak in favor of S.B. 569? Is there any opposition to S.B. 569?
James T. Endres, Lobbyist, AT&T:
I am not speaking in opposition; AT&T is really neutral on this bill. We have worked with the proponents of the bill throughout this session. We moved to a more neutral position on the bill largely because of what occurred with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision as it relates to ordinances, franchise fees governing rights-of-way, and access to those roadways and places of public property for public utilities. In the state of Washington, another telecommunications company challenged the rights of local governments to impose such fees for access of use of rights-of-way. Last week the court decided in favor of this telecommunications company and decided local governments could not impose payments for use of rights-of-way.
We moved to a more neutral position on S.B. 569 because, in our view, this bill is not just enabling legislation. As you heard a moment ago, the cost of deploying E-911 service is a very expensive proposition and it gets more expensive in rural communities needing this type of public safety protection.
Having said that, I have to say AT&T is very much a proponent of assuring those public safety mechanisms and services do get to citizens of every state. We also want to make sure those things are properly funded.
We had to move to a more neutral position because this legislation, in respect to the 25-cent surcharge as it relates to the wireless contribution our wireless customers will pay, was incorporated with the first section of the bill. In our opinion, chapter 354 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) contains the same types of ordinances struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as invalid and unlawful. Without contributions of monies from the business license fee and right-of-way ordinances, in addition to the 25 cents, we do not think in the near term, consumers are going to get the E-911 wireless services this bill proposes to deliver. It will be a very long way down the road. It does place in jeopardy, because of this Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, all of the ordinances in this state, should they be challenged. It is a concern to us and it may be a concern to the members of this committee. It is a very serious amount of money which needs to be looked at in terms of continued support of public safety.
Chairman O’Connell:
We have asked the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) to look into this. Ms. Guinasso would you like to state, for the record, LCB’s opinion on the court case and the bill?
Ms. Guinasso:
The first section of the bill does tie the 911 services into the types of fees that are contemplated in NRS 354 that is specifically set forth in NRS 354.59881 to NRS 354.59889 inclusive. Those provisions were included in the NRS in 1997, partially as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Those provisions do not directly relate to franchise fees in that, they do not provide specific authority. What they do is limit the ability of local governments to charge those types of fees and, in what manner they may do so.
Chairman O’Connell:
Ms. Guinasso, I want to ask the secretary to take this verbatim. It will be very important for the record.
Ms. Guinasso said:
Since this opinion was actually handed down just a few days ago, we would feel more comfortable with looking at it more in depth in terms of whether the provisions of [NRS] 354, et al, are in direct contravention of the case. At the outset, we do not believe they are. It depends definitely on the types of fees the local governments are charging and what they are using as a basis for what they are charging.
The case speaks in terms of “non-tax franchise fees,” which are the types of fees assessed for usage of the public right-of-way. However, chapter 354 of NRS [defines fees as] “a charge imposed by a city or county upon a public utility for a business license, franchise, or right-of-way over streets or other public areas.” Now, there is some question as to whether, for example, fees for business licenses would fall into these types of fees the court is saying are preempted by the Telecommunications Act [of 1996]. The point being, . . . part of what the case is going to is the cities in Washington that were at issue were doing several things, including requiring telecommunication companies, as part of their franchise, to build them networks. [Also, the cities were differentiating] among the telecommunication companies in terms of the type and amounts of franchise fees being charged. In our 1997 legislation a large amount of that was prohibited by not only the provisions in [chapter] 354 [of NRS], but also provisions in chapters 268 and 709 [of NRS]. There are sections in there that, while they do prohibit those types of arrangements, they are capped at population levels and so the smaller communities were not encompassed in those prohibitions. . . . we would like an opportunity to go over [this] in depth, but, . . . according to [the committee’s] desire, [it may be preferable] to clarify what would be prohibited for all municipalities and local governments.
Certainly the manner in which each local government decides to use its authority to assess these types of fees is going to be restrained by this case, because this case is controlling. Currently it is out of the Ninth Circuit, [and is controlling] in the State of Nevada. There is nothing in statute that requires the local governments to assess the types of non-tax fees at issue in this case. So, preliminarily we are of the opinion the statutes, on their face, are not necessarily problematic, although they may well be, as chosen to be implemented by the local governments.
Senator Neal commented:
Ms. Guinasso, I have not seen the full opinion, but just given a cursory look at the information that has been provided, the question seems to have been put before the court as to whether or not state law and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempt city ordinance. With that question answered in the affirmative . . . it seems to me the open question becomes whether or not the state can institute these particular fees. Was that a question your staff considered?
Ms. Guinasso replied:
That is correct. The case looked at not only whether state law in Washington preempted these types of ordinances enacted by the localities, [but] I believe someone spoke of [the cities] of Auburn, Renton, Tacoma, and so forth. That particular issue, in terms of state law preempting these ordinances in this case, is not what is at issue for us here, because we do not have the same scenario, directly.
Senator Neal stated:
I understand that, but where they may not be able to do it, from the ordinance standpoint, the question then becomes whether or not we, as a state body, can do the same thing within the area, by using our population base.
Ms. Guinasso replied:
The case, in our opinion, is clear the state, [through] the legislature, could determine that taxes could be imposed. This does not relate to the taxation power of the legislature in terms of preemption. The preemption issue goes towards non-tax fees. And, the case at issue [goes] to the specific authority of local governments to assess franchise fees and fees for the use of rights-of-way. It does, however, also say there is an exemption. I believe [there is a] “Safe Harbor” provision in section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that provides it is permissible for local governments to assess certain fees for the use of the public rights-of-way and the franchises. But, it may only do so for management of those public rights-of-way.
Again, what was at issue in this 9th circuit case was local governments, in addition to just those administrative fees for management of the public rights-of-way [were requiring other] things. When the telecommunication companies need access to their lines under a public street, it is permissible for the local government, after digging and repairing of lines, [to require the companies] to repair [the work area]. [Other] requirements [could be] that as part of a franchise, the telecommunication company provide the local government with special rates, or provide the local government with a fiber optic network. Those types of things, under this case, are preempted. They are also prohibited under our law, but I would point out, only for certain larger communities. Now, obviously, smaller communities would not be authorized to do that under this case. So, I do not know that there is an inherent problem with our statute.
Senator Neal asked:
Are local governments prohibited from acting in the area of the general welfare of their citizens? They might have to establish a 911 line to respond in emergencies. Are you saying they would not be exempted from acting in those areas? Could they require telecommunication companies to develop systems to provide for that?
Ms. Guinasso replied:
That is where the problem starts, Senator. As was testified before, the 25-cent surcharge is something that is permissible for counties and cities to do, but not required, because it is a pass-through charge to customers of the utilities. I do not know that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits the 25-cent surcharge. I think the concern is the larger issue of franchise fees and fees for use of the public rights-of-way. If those fees are being used to construct public safety networks, . . . under this case and under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the federal act which prohibits actions by government entities that would tend to prohibit entry into the open market . . . The purpose of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was to foster competition among the telecommunication companies and to foster entry into the market place of new telecommunication companies. So, the way it appears to us at this point, and again, we would certainly like greater opportunity to look at the case . . .
Chairman O’Connell interjected:
Ms. Guinasso, the concern is . . . this is an exempt bill [from standard deadlines], but of course we know that has a very limited time. Does the period within the exemption give you enough time to study the issue? We were going to take action on the bill today. I need to know how much time you think you are going to need.
Ms. Guinasso responded:
It would depend on what the committee’s desire is in terms of whether they want to amend the bill, or . . . amend the other areas in NRS to deal with this issue the Ninth Circuit case has brought up. We would be very happy to spend whatever time it takes to get it done in a timely fashion and to avoid problems with deadlines because of this bill being exempt. It is certainly the committee’s pleasure in terms of whether you would even consider amending this bill to take care of these larger franchise fee issues.
Senator Neal stated:
Madam Chairman, I would like to suggest that in doing [the] research, the controlling point here would be emergencies. I think when we talk about emergencies, we are adding a different type of circumstance here in terms of allowing these systems to go forward being operated by local government. When we talk about emergencies we are talking about the general welfare of the citizens.
Ms. Guinasso:
I think it is going to depend on the method by which that is effected. I do not think we could just say, “Local governments may assess these franchise fees because it is for public safety.” I do not believe the case or the Telecommunications Act of 1996 would permit that. It is probably more convoluted than that, I am sorry to say.
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Verizon Wireless:
We are also neutral. Clearly, with the way the 25-cent surcharge is set up to establish the 911 service, my company and other wireless companies merely become conduits. We collect the fee and forward it to the counties assessing it. The way the bill is drafted to earmark this money for a separate account for E-911 is laudable.
The good news is 25 cents a month is not very much money; the bad news is 25 cents a month is not very much money. With the length of time it will take for this technology to be affordable for these small counties, in Verizon’s opinion, our wireless customers who will be paying this fee will probably never have much of a service available to them in terms of E-911.
Those of you with wireless phones know the problems of using them in some mountainous areas. To have a system in place sophisticated enough to find someone in a car wreck out in a rural area is remote at best. Right now in Washoe County, for example, the E-911 we have paid for over the last 5 years allows a call back feature to a wireless phone. If you cannot answer it, after you have made the initial call, it is of no value either. It cannot define where you are even in Washoe County. So again, we are not opposed to the bill. I understand what they are trying to do, and it is laudable. But, for the wireless customer, I think it will be far past the length of my career before we will ever see anybody with a wireless phone being located.
I do not know if these small counties would ever be able to generate enough money through these fees to implement such technology. They may get to where they can go under a landline to get the call back, and perhaps even get the locator; that is a much easier technology. I just wanted this committee to be aware of this as you decide the public policy of charging this fee to a class of customers who may never receive any benefit from it.
Senator Neal:
What company do you work for?
Ms. Walker:
Madam Chairman, there is one thing I wanted to add to the discussion. We may have a lawsuit problem because section 1 refers back to NRS 354. If we enact the 25-cent surcharge in rural counties combined with franchise or business license fees, the section requires the wireless revenues to be earmarked for 911 service. The rural counties are going a lot further than what the Washoe County bill specified. We added this language because wireless providers wanted to make sure the money they provide to local government is going to something. So, we took the extra step. It is ironic the request from the wireless providers is the one potentially causing the problem with the lawsuit.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, I am sure Ms. Guinasso is taking notes since she is investigating this.
Senator O’Donnell:
This is for the wireless companies. Do you charge a fee if I call 911 on my cellular telephone? Do I get charged airtime for it?
Mr. Endres:
No, you do not.
Senator O’Donnell:
Do you get reimbursed for it?
Mr. Endres:
No, we do not.
Senator O’Donnell:
Why?
Mr. Endres:
Because the mechanisms have not been installed to reimburse us for it. One of the reasons we are supportive of the Washoe County 25-cent surcharge and supportive of the business license fee being applied to the 911 development of those services is so we can begin to get reimbursed for the transaction. When a 911 call is made over a wireless device, we transact the call and exchange it with a local exchange landline company. We get charged for the transaction. There is not a mechanism in place yet for us to recover those costs.
Senator O’Donnell:
Do you think it is unfair?
Mr. Endres:
We certainly have felt it has been unfair which is why we are always saying our wireless customers have yet to receive the real benefit from 911 and the surcharge appearing on their phone bill.
Senator O’Donnell:
Is there any provision in this bill to allow you to get reimbursement for the cost of those 911 calls?
Mr. Endres:
What we were contemplating was, in addition to the business license fee the wireless customers pay, the 25-cent surcharge would more quickly allow rural counties and cities to deploy E-911, which would provide for the appropriate mechanism and the funding source for reimbursement. On page 4, line 11 provides funds derived from this would compensate the wireless companies for the recurring and nonrecurring charges.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else on S.B. 569?
Senator Porter:
Mr. Endres brought forward a very pertinent issue regarding fees and charges. I would suggest when we look at the different fees, charges, and taxes next year, we should look closely at the telecom industry. It has been an ever-changing industry and it could well be they are paying fees they should not in certain areas and maybe there are some applicable fees they are not paying. I think we should look at it closely with the “253 committee.” (Senate Bill 253 of the Sixty-ninth Session created a legislative committee and Senate Bill 557 extended the expiration date and changed the name of this committee to the legislative committee for local government taxes and finance.)
SENATE BILL 253 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Creates legislative committee to study distribution among local governments of revenue from state and local taxes. (BDR 17-193)
SENATE BILL 557: Makes various changes concerning distribution of certain revenue from tax on certain motor vehicle fuel. (BDR 32-893)
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you, Senator Porter, for your suggestion. We will close the hearing on S.B. 569 and open the hearing on A.B. 60
ASSEMBLY BILL 60: Authorizes public body to post additional notice of its meetings on its Internet website, if any. (BDR 18-674)
Assemblyman Bob Beers, Clark County Assembly District No. 4:
I recommend you indefinitely postpone (IP) this bill. It started out as a mandate for governments to post their agendas on the Internet and was amended into neutrality and inertness in the Assembly. Your processing of this bill or failure to process this bill will have absolutely no impact on anyone anywhere. I think there was a fair amount of opposition to this bill in the Assembly, the degree of passion of the opposition correlated inversely to the degree of computer literacy of those complaining. The opposition won.
Chairman O’Connell:
Did you bring anybody else along to testify on this bill?
Assemblyman Beers:
No, Madam Chairman.
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, do you have any strong feelings on this?
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 60.
Chairman O’Connell:
I like the bill, frankly. I like the vehicle and think it has possibilities.
Assemblyman Beers:
The other alternative, as you point out, is to amend it.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, we do have a motion do we have a second?
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator O’Donnell:
If the bill does not really help, but it does not really hurt, putting it on the books does establish the intent and addresses the issue. Why not put it on the books and work with it next session?
Chairman O’Connell:
I can promise you there will be another bill next session anyway; this one just says “may.”
Senator O’Donnell:
I think “may” is perfectly acceptable.
Senator Titus:
Madam Chairman, it says, “may” but then it goes on to say, “if the public body maintains such a web site” why do we not at least change it to “shall,” if they maintain a web site? Then we are not making them create a web site, but if they have a web site they should at least post the agenda.
Senator Porter:
I withdraw my motion, Madam Chairman.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 60
WITH “SHALL” REPLACING “MAY.”
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 487.
ASSEMBLY BILL 487: Allowing for challenges of qualifications of certain candidates for office and providing that candidates who file certain false documents are ineligible for public office for 5 years. (BDR-586)
Assemblywoman Vonne S. Chowning, Clark County Assembly District No. 28:
The bill you have before you sets up a procedure for a challenge to a candidate for public office. As you know, when we run for office there are necessary qualifications, such as age or residency, and for some of the offices you have to be an attorney. If someone challenges a candidate because of one of these reasons, existing law makes it very difficult; it is very cumbersome. I am trying to clear it up. I have brought this to you because there is ambiguity in the law. I brought a very short bill, but the Assembly made it a long bill. It does make it clearer. I agree, if an elector is going to file a challenge, it should not be frivolous; they should have to have all of their evidence intact and in the form of an affidavit.
I also agree, if it is frivolous, they should have to pay reasonable costs, because too many times people file challenges just out of spite or they are not properly prepared. So, this bill sets out all of those cases.
First, someone files for office, and then they have a time period to withdraw. A challenge may be filed within 5 days after the filing for office. Then, the filing officer does certain things. The bill sets up a procedure to go to court if necessary. At the hearing, the court would deem whether the challenge is valid or frivolous.
On page 4, the bill would add a telephone number and mailing address to the existing declaration of candidacy, in case someone is unable to be served with the notice, and the mailing address is appropriate.
I would like to tell you what happened to me personally and why I believe this is so important. Someone filed for office, in opposition to me, who willfully and knowingly filed at a commercial address where she did not reside and never resided, and did this not only in one election, but in two elections. You would think the person should be dealt with through the court system. This person was given a sentence of a fine, which she did pay; in addition, she was given community service, which she did not do. There are now two warrants out for her arrest; it did not mean a thing. This person came back to the next election and filed again. The process we follow in such a dedicated fashion, people like this view as frivolous; it does not mean anything to them. I think it is an insult to the voters to have people like this able to flaunt the process in everyone’s face.
The penalties of this bill include: the person’s name must not appear on the ballot, and the person may not enter upon the duties of the office. Section 3 provides if they knowingly and willfully file erroneous information, then in addition they may not be eligible to be a candidate for any public office for a period of 5 years. This is in existence in some other states’ laws.
In another assemblywoman’s district, because of residency, a person was dealt with through the district attorney’s office. The form of settlement was the person agreed not to run for office for 3 years. Therefore, I bring this bill to you proudly, trying to put a resolution to something without the court process being drawn out. In my case it was over 2 years to finally get a resolution. There are many other instances in which people have filed frivolous cases. Whether they are serious or frivolous, this sets out a process to let everyone know this is the procedure to follow.
Chairman O’Connell:
In the trial you went through, did you ever have a problem as far as the residency was concerned? It is my understanding you do not have to live at the address you put on your candidacy filing. Is the address immaterial so you could run in any district without a problem? Ms. Guinasso, maybe you could answer for us. I know it is right in federal races, but I am not sure about state races.
Ms. Guinasso:
Madam Chairman, NRS 281.050 provides for what constitutes residency for being eligible for office. It talks about maintaining an actual residence within the district as opposed to constructive residence. It defines actual residence as meaning, the “place where a person is legally domiciled and maintains a permanent habitation.” It also provides for the instance in which you may possibly maintain more than one permanent habitation, “If the person maintains more than one such habitation, the place he declares to be his principal, permanent habitation when filing a declaration or affidavit pursuant to [the election laws], shall be deemed to be his actual residence.”
It goes back to a long line of common law, which basically maintains your residence as where you lay your head. Your residence can also be a state of mind, really. It is where you honestly intend to stay, because you could be in Europe for a year, but obviously you would consider your home to be the house you own. It is a problematic concept, but there are certain concerns with nailing it down too tight and interrupting people’s freedom to travel and so forth.
Chairman O’Connell:
I had the very same thing happen in my race. In talking to the registrar of voters, he told me nothing could be done because of some case law. I remember when another assemblywoman brought a bill to us which determined the law you just read. In actuality the registrar told me he could not enforce it. I just wondered if the issue came up during your research on your bill.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
No, it did not. However, as soon as I realized this, remember, we are talking about two different elections, I immediately took the information to the registrar of voters in the first election. In the second one the person used an apartment address where I knew very well a Hispanic family lived. I personally spoke with the people and asked if they would mind if someone else came and asked them questions. I told them the importance of the issue. They said it would be fine. Their last name was Sanchez; they had lived there for almost a year before the filing. So, there was absolutely no possibility the person could have lived there. This is why I say it was willfully and knowingly.
In both cases the registrars of voters said they had no authority; they could do nothing. They said because state law is unclear it does not give them any authority, and I had to go to the local district attorney, which I did. As I said, it was a very long, drawn out process. This shortens it up, gives some time certain and it hopefully will help. There was no case law cited. When you file for office, the oath to tell the truth includes stating you live at the address given in your declaration of candidacy.
Senator Neal:
Your premise seems to be that running for office is a privilege rather than a right. On page 2, line 45, the person is not eligible to be a candidate for any public office for 5 years. I question whether or not this can be done, because to run for office is based on being a voter. To be a voter is a constitutional right. It seems to me you dampen the right by saying this person is barred from running for any public office. I would take issue with that. Did you discuss this with the legal folks to find out whether or not you could actually bar a person based on the circumstances you have given the committee?
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Yes, they did state this was legal and it is based on other states with this language in their state laws.
Senator Neal:
You can actually just bar a person from it? I can understand barring a person from a category who did not meet the requirements of the category, but to further bar a person from running for office in other categories, I doubt the bar can be extended to those other offices.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Well, it is an additional form of penalty which is really sought to get the people’s attention, if you will, to make them behave, when nothing else seems to get their attention. It has stood constitutional muster in other states and I thought it was a good idea as well, which is why I brought it.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are there any other questions?
Alan H. Glover, Lobbyist, Nevada Association Of County Clerk and Election Officials:
This has been a problem for us in a time frame to get challenges moved along and handled. With the amendments, the Assembly added time frames which all work for us, and it really does help. As Assemblywoman Chowning pointed out, there was really never a formal process on how challenges should be handled and who did them; this clears it up. Locally we take it directly to the district attorney; the secretary of state would take them to the attorney general. We are waiting to get the ballots printed. We want to know whose name is going to be on the ballot and if there is going to be a challenge. We want to know as soon as possible and have it resolved as soon as possible, which this bill does.
On the previous point about residency, I think you need to make a distinction between the two situations, one, with Assemblywoman Chowning, when that person never lived at that location, and a person that lives and truly does own more than one home or apartment or whatever. They do need to pick one or the other. We do run into those cases, this occurs statewide; this is not exclusive to Clark County. This happens in every jurisdiction in the state.
You also need to remember there are other qualifications such as, in some instances you must be an attorney. We had a challenge on this a number of years ago with a lady running for attorney general; it does occur. We had a candidate at one time who was a disbarred attorney, but did not recognize the authority of the Supreme Court to disbar him, so they argued over it.
We get the frivolous ones. They are just being nasty and they come in and file. Then we can dismiss those and they should pay any costs. We are very pleased about this bill; it would go a long way to help us.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are there any other comments or questions?
Senator Neal:
I have a comment. I had a guy who filed in my race, and of course it turned out he helped me because it allowed only three candidates to go into the general election. The guy was indicted after the election.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else here on A.B. 487? Okay, we will close the hearing on A.B. 487 and open the hearing on A.B. 59.
ASSEMBLY BILL 59: Amends charter of City of Las Vegas to provide that office of additional councilman created as result of increase in number of wards must be filled initially by election. (BDR S-71)
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1:
I have worked to try to make local government an election process instead of an appointment process. I was able to get a bill passed in 1997 to fill new positions in local government by election. A senator on your committee got a bill passed to get around this intention, because his bill specifically said “by appointment,” which caused a lot of issues recently.
I requested the proposed legislation because the issue was originally broader than this and it was amended by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. Assembly Bill 59 just addresses the City of Las Vegas’ charter, but it is to be a model for the rest of the state. Because of the timeliness of the issue and our 120-day session, we were not able to draft in every city charter. Basically, the bottom line of the bill is if a council expands, whether determined by legislation or the voters, the seat will be filled at an election rather than by an appointment.
Senator Neal:
I have a comment. The reason we went our direction with the appointment of the city council is because the city council was trying to get around dealing with the issue and they set an advisory election after the legislature had adjourned. We said, okay, if the advisory vote says to expand the wards, and then appoint these individuals, it is what we will do. It was a one-time deal, and I do not think it would ever occur again.
Assemblyman Collins:
Senator Neal, only if we give them a chance. I understand your issue. We both had the same intention. I think there would have been a different group of players involved in it had it been an election process to begin with versus an appointment process.
Senator Neal:
That brings up a question then. You are speaking in terms of an election. Are you talking about a “Special Election?”
Assemblyman Collins:
The wording in the bill is, should the city council create an additional councilman “as a result of an increase in number of wards pursuant to subsection 1, [the position] must be filled initially at the general city election immediately following: (a) the date on which the city council determined that an increase in the number of wards was necessary . . . or (b) the general election at which the question proposing an increase in wards is approved by the voters.” So, whether the council chooses on its own to expand, or whether they have an initiative by the voters to expand their council seats, either way, such an office must not be filled initially by an appointment, is how the law will state it.
Senator Neal:
Okay, so if you have an election in June 2001, and the people voted to expand the wards, do they wait until the next June 2003 election to fill the slots?
Assemblyman Collins:
I believe it is intended they would wait until the next election.
Senator Neal:
So, we could have a situation where the voters would determine the wards would be expanded, and we would have upwards of 18 or 19 months before the election would occur?
Assemblyman Collins:
Correct. It is less than the 4 years it took you to get them to expand.
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, are there any other questions on A.B. 59? Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this?
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City Of Las Vegas:
It is fine.
Chairman O’Connell:
Assemblyman Goldwater (David E. Goldwater, Assembly District No. 10) has asked that we reschedule his bill, A.B. 326. Now, we will go to the work session. We also have a committee introduction. This is a request from the Legislative Commission. It is Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-1486.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1486: Provides that certain regulations objected to by legislative commission must not become effective. (Later introduced as Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 40.)
Chairman O’Connell:
It says when the Legislative Commission rejects any regulations turned in, we are serious about the rejection of those regulations. Those of you who sit on the commission will remember the discussion on this and the reason we are asking for it. We have had two specific instances where we have had some problems with people totally circumventing the law. We have turned down the regulations, and the regulations have come back. So, we want to be sure everybody understands the commission does have the authority to do this, and when they do it the intent is for them to rewrite the regulation.
Senator Neal:
I have a question for Ms. Guinasso. Are we restricted in terms of what we do as far as rejecting regulations due to a constitutional amendment passed to allow us to advise regulations should be congruent with the statutes?
Ms. Guinasso:
Senator Neal, if I understand your question, I believe the necessity for this resolution is to provide a legislative measure by which the Legislative Commission’s action is ratified.
Senator Neal:
First of all, does the Legislative Commission have the authority or power to do that?
Ms. Guinasso:
I believe the purpose of this resolution is to ensure legislative action is taken to ratify the action of the Legislative Commission.
Senator Neal:
I am a little confused. When I look at a regulation, I look at rules being developed based on a law passed by the executive branch to carry out the particular law.
Ms. Guinasso:
Yes, a regulation to carry out the law.
Senator Neal:
It is developed by the executive branch, so do we get involved in the separation of powers when we say we reject it, or tell them they cannot institute those rules?
Ms. Guinasso:
That argument could have been made before the constitutional amendment was enacted, which does authorize the legislature to review the regulations of the executive branch.
Senator Neal:
But, does review carry with it the power to reject?
Ms. Guinasso:
Yes, it does. If a regulation was adopted by an executive agency and the legislature came into session and decided the particular regulation was not appropriate or proper, the legislature could enact a law with the effect of nullifying the regulation.
Senator Neal:
I understand. It is within our realm of authority to do that.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR R-1486.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
The first matter we need to take care of, since it is a senate bill and it is on a time line, is S.B. 569. Committee, what is your pleasure on this bill?
SENATE BILL 569: Makes various changes relating to enhancements of telephone systems for reporting emergencies in counties. (BDR 20-1527)
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 569.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO. SENATOR NEAL ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Eight bills could possibly be considered for the consent calendar. I have A.B. 11, A.B. 98, A.B. 100, A.B. 155, A.B. 181, A.B. 427, A.B. 538, and A.B. 542. As we are going through these, I need you to think about that.
ASSEMBLY BILL 11: Revises charter of City of Elko. (BDR S-805)
ASSEMBLY BILL 98: Requires board of county commissioners to fix terms of office of chairman and vice chairman of board. (BDR 20-414)
ASSEMBLY BILL 100: Authorizes board of county commissioners to provide by ordinance for payment of travel expenses of members of advisory board. (BDR 20-412)
ASSEMBLY BILL 155: Revises provisions governing substitution of subcontractor who is named in bid for public work or improvement. (BDR 28-366)
ASSEMBLY BILL 181: Revises membership of county fair and recreation board in certain less populous counties. (BDR 20-336)
ASSEMBLY BILL 427: Revises provisions relating to contracts for state purchasing. (BDR 27-694)
ASSEMBLY BILL 538: Authorizes sheriff to adopt certain policies, procedures, rules and regulations for administration of metropolitan police department. (BDR 22-186)
Senator Neal:
I would object to that one being on the consent calendar.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, Senator Neal would like A.B. 538 pulled out.
ASSEMBLY BILL 542: Makes various changes relating to personal property of state. (BDR 27-528)
Senator Neal:
Does A.B. 570 have any amendments to it?
ASSEMBLY BILL 570: Makes various changes relating to charter of Carson City. (BDR S-385)
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst:
No.
Senator Neal:
I think A.B. 570 could be added to the consent calendar.
Senator O’Donnell:
Me, too.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS, AND PLACE ON CONSENT CALENDAR THE FOLLOWING BILLS: A.B.11, A.B. 98, A.B. 100, A.B. 155, A.B. 181, A.B. 427, A.B. 542 AND A.B. 570.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 538.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Neal:
This way, it does not go on the consent calendar.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will now consider A.B. 56.
ASSEMBLY BILL 56: Authorizes counties to transfer or sell certain real property to certain persons without offering property to public under certain circumstances. (BDR 20-96)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 56.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Now we will move to A.B. 61.
ASSEMBLY BILL 61: Provides certain restrictions relating to regulation of amateur service communications. (BDR 22-672)
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 61.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will now consider A.B. 96.
ASSEMBLY BILL 96: Revises certain provisions governing financial administration of local governments. (BDR 31-338)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 96.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman O’Connell:
I need to clarify something. Mr. Leavitt wanted it understood this was more of a risk. We have had several bills in the Senate to invest money in a little more risky investments. He wanted to make sure the committee understood. . .
Senator O’Donnell:
But the return would be higher, and he thought it was prudent.
Chairman O’Connell:
Yes, he thought everything we needed for protection had been built into the bill. He just wanted it on the record.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, we will move on to A.B. 99.
ASSEMBLY BILL 99: Makes various changes regarding elections held by local governments. (BDR 31-418)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 99.
Senator Care:
There is a proposed amendment.
Chairman O’Connell:
Oh, yes, this is Senator Care’s proposal requiring a majority to be present upon voting.
Senator Care:
Madam Chairman, it would require a unanimous vote. You must have at least a quorum present, and if you do, then all members must vote in the affirmative.
Senator Titus:
The term “Unanimous” is already part of the law; you are just adding the quorum part, correct?
Senator Care:
Well, maybe we should not amend, because the problem, I guess, is if you have a body of five members, a unanimous quorum theoretically could be three out of five, with two voting no. So, maybe we are better off without it, Madam Chairman.
Chairman O’Connell:
We will withdraw your amendment. Senator Neal, do you want to go ahead with your motion to do pass this one?
Senator Neal:
No, I am a little troubled now with this one. If I understand, what he is saying is if you have a seven-member commission and a quorum of four, it would take a unanimous vote of all four to pass any action.
Chairman O’Connell:
He has withdrawn his amendment.
Senator Titus:
Madam Chairman, if you look at the bottom of page 1, the current law already requires the governing body vote by unanimous vote that an emergency exists. The unanimous part is already there; you are not strengthening anything, it is already unanimous, except through the presence of people who have to be there.
Chairman O’Connell:
You would just be increasing the number of people who had to be there. They could not take a vote on it unless a quorum was present. Do you still wish to withdraw your . . . ?
Senator Care:
That would require an amendment then, would it not?
Senator Titus:
I would support that.
Senator Care:
A unanimous vote at a meeting at which a quorum is present.
Senator Titus:
Right.
Senator Care:
Okay, that would be my motion then.
Senator Porter:
So, if the quorum were three, you would need the majority of the three, or all three?
Chairman O’Connell:
You could not vote unless every member was there, is the way I understand what you just said, Senator Care. Is that what your thinking is as well?
Senator Care:
No, I meant you would have to have a quorum present, but, at any rate, whether you had a quorum or a quorum plus one or plus two, it would still need to be unanimous.
Chairman O’Connell:
Did you have anything to add, Ms. Guinasso?
Ms. Guinasso:
It is certainly not a problem to amend it, Senator. I think the argument could be made, the language, as it exists now, requires a unanimous vote of the entire board. If you were to say a unanimous vote of a quorum present, it would then lessen the number of members of the board who would have to vote on it. However, if you want to make it a unanimous vote of just the quorum present, it is certainly something we can do. So, if there is a board of five and three members are present, all three must vote together. However, if what you are going for is requiring a unanimous vote of all of the members, we could amend it to clarify that as well.
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Care, what is your pleasure on this?
Senator Care:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I understand what Ms. Guinasso has just said, and in light of the reception S.B. 329 had in the Assembly, I think we could go ahead and leave this bill alone. Just go ahead and pass it as it is.
Senate Bill 329: Prohibits certain public bodies from taking action by vote without affirmative vote of majority of entire public body. (BDR 19-640)
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 99.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, we will now take A.B. 101.
ASSEMBLY BILL 101: Requires inclusion of certain portions of county roads, state highways and railroads in territory annexed by cities in larger counties. (BDR 21-362)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 101.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Let us move on to A.B. 180.
ASSEMBLY BILL 180: Amends charter of City of Henderson to make various changes concerning municipal judges. (BDR S-489)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 180.
Senator Neal:
What is the amendment?
Senator Porter:
Madam Chairman, I think we wanted to clarify the incumbents must devote full time to the position.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will now consider A.B. 266.
ASSEMBLY BILL 266: Makes various changes regarding notaries public. (BDR 19-648)
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 266.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED THAT A.B. 266 ALSO BE PLACED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
SENATOR O’DONNELL AMENDED HIS MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 266 AND PLACE IT ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
Ms. Jenson:
It needs a two-thirds majority vote.
Chairman O’Connell:
Oh, because there is a fee in it.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We can now go to A.B. 406.
ASSEMBLY BILL 406: Makes various changes to provisions governing Elko Convention and Visitors Authority. (BDR S-656)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS AND PUT ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR A.B. 406.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We do not have this on our agenda; how about if we do A.B. 299, Assemblyman Mortenson’s bill, which we heard today. There was no opposition to it; it is a pretty simple bill. Do you want to go ahead and vote on this?
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 299.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Neal, how do you feel about Assemblywoman Chowning’s bill, A.B. 487? It is the one you were not comfortable with, barring somebody from being able to run for the next 5 years. Do you want us to hold it and think about it?
Senator Neal:
I think you could fine the person, but to bar the person is a little drastic.
Chairman O’Connell:
Ms. Guinasso, did you have anything to add to this?
Ms. Guinasso:
Madam Chairman, I just wanted to clarify, for Senator Neal’s concern, the bill provides for making your declaration under penalty of perjury. Then it provides for the court proceedings to establish whether there was a violation. If you go through the process, you are basically being found as having committed perjury, which is a felony offense. I wanted to make sure I addressed your question with regard to whether it was constitutional or not. Please do not misinterpret my remarks as advocacy.
Senator Titus:
What is the Nevada law about ex-felons running for office?
Ms. Guinasso:
Because they are not eligible to be an elector, they are not eligible to be a candidate.
Senator Titus:
Well, if you were found guilty of perjury, would it not take care of the 5-year problem?
Ms. Guinasso:
That is exactly right.
Senator Titus:
Okay, so we could eliminate the 5-year penalty, because if you are found guilty of perjury you cannot run for office. So why would you need to say 5 years? Is it until you get your rights restored?
Senator O’Donnell:
The only way I could see that happening is if it were plea-bargained down to something else. We will get you for tampering with a coke bottle top or something.
Senator Titus:
But, then you would not be found guilty of “knowingly and willingly” . . . then it would not apply anyway.
Senator O’Donnell:
Correct. You would not be found guilty, but you could plea bargain with “nolo contendere” or something similar.
Senator Titus:
Well, okay, but I do not think you need it in there.
Senator O’Donnell:
I do because it happened to me; the guy was in Florida.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 487.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Care:
In section 2, subsection 4, line 16, “the district attorney shall not later than 5 days after receiving the challenge,” that is a pretty short period for a district attorney to prepare something. Line 22, “the court shall give priority to such proceedings over all other matters pending with the court except for criminal proceedings.” I have a problem with that, Madam Chairman. The court can schedule it at its convenience, and I feel uncomfortable saying it should take priority over all other civil matters.
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Care, how do you feel about the rest of the bill? Would you rather amend the bill, or do you have a problem with any other part of the bill?
Mr. Glover:
Madam Chairman, Senator Care, we are looking for a very short period of time to get it settled so we can get the ballots printed and start early voting overseas. The district attorney’s staff thought they could live with it. On the state side, those are filed in the first judicial district here in Carson City. Our judges are really good about hearing this kind of stuff. Most of them are going to be pretty straightforward.
Senator Care:
Come to think of it, under the rules of civil procedure and the computation of time, 5 days is not going to include the weekends or holidays.
Senator Titus:
Madam Chairman, maybe we need to say 5 working days and eliminate section 3.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 487 WITH THE DELETION OF SUBSECTION 3 OF SECTION 3 OF THE FIRST REPRINT, AND TO ADD IN SECTION 2, SUBSECTION 4, LINE 16 THAT THE PERSON BE ORDERED TO COURT WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, committee is there any further discussion?
Ms. Guinasso:
Madam Chairman, I just want to confirm I heard Senator Titus’ motion correctly. It is to eliminate entirely section 3, or subsection 3 of section 3?
Senator Titus:
Subsection 3.
Senator Neal:
Add five working days and take out the 5 years.
Chairman O’Connell:
So, we are now voting on the amendment to the motion. Is there any opposition to the amendment?
Senator O’Donnell:
Yes, I do not think we should take out the 5 years.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, now we will vote on the prior motion to do pass A.B. 487.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, the last one is A.B. 59.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 59.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell closed the committee hearing at 5:59 p.m.
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: