MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
May 11, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 12:43 p.m., on Friday, May 11, 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 Greg Brower, Parts of Carson City and Washoe County Assembly District No. 37
Assemblyman David Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Douglas County and part of Carson City Assembly District No. 39
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Gerald Willis, Composer and Music Teacher
Carol Bell, Hug High School Booster Club
Benjamin Blinn, Concerned Citizen
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Board of Commissioners
Tracy Duarte, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
James Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County
Douglas Bell, Manager, Clark County Community Resources
Jim Foreman, Manager Public Response, Clark County Administrative Services
Barbara Hunt, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Health Department, Washoe County
Helen Foley, Lobbyist, Clark County Health District, Clark County
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration
John Madole, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter Associated General Contractors
Candice Rohr, General Manager, Kingsbury General Improvement District
Carolyn Trainer, Board of Trustees, Kingsbury General Improvement District; General Manager, Tahoe Village Homeowners Association
Nita Summers, Concerned Citizen
Fred Hillerby, Lobbyist, Sun Valley General Improvement District
John Balentine, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission
Bill Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing and begin with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 165.
ASSEMBLY BILL 165: Declares “Silver State Fanfare” as official state march. (BDR 19-579)
Assemblyman Greg Brower, Parts of Carson City and Washoe County, Assembly District No. 37:
It is my pleasure to introduce A.B. 165 to this committee. Mr. Willis (Gerald Willis, Composer and Music Teacher) is the author and composer of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) fight song.
In 1996, the Hug High School marching band was invited to participate in the 1997 presidential inaugural parade in Washington, D.C. Mr. Willis, as director of the band at the time, and his students thought it might be nice to compose and perform an original piece as the representative band from Nevada. That is where “Silver State Fanfare” came from. Mr. Willis and his students composed the piece, which has been passed out to the committee members. (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.) It was quite an exciting event for the band and for the kids, especially since they were able to perform a march symbolic of Nevada which was an original piece.
You may remember this bill was introduced by a former colleague of ours a couple of sessions ago, right after the 1997 presidential inaugural. It made it through the Assembly, but did not make it through the Senate. We are hoping to have better luck this time around. I was asked to introduce A.B. 165 on behalf of the kids and parents and everyone else who was involved from Hug High School, and it is my pleasure to do so.
This is not the most important piece of legislation introduced this session. Nevertheless, as you all know, we have two official state trees, two gems, and two mottos. We may have two animals here shortly, and we are about to have an official state tartan. I believe we are about to have an official state soil. I say this to bring the committee’s attention to the fact we do have an official state song, “Home means Nevada,” which we all know. This is an official state march being proposed. It is in no way intended to replace the song, but to complement the song. So, I would certainly recommend this committee favorably consider this bill.
Chairman O’Connell:
I think the committee would like to hear from the author.
Gerald Willis, Composer and Music Teacher:
We put Silver State together to represent the state at the inaugural parade, and to play something never done before. Since then, some of the other high schools in Nevada have also used this same march when they have performed in their various areas. My intention in requesting this become the state march is really one of perpetuity. I am not interested in selling this to anybody; I would just like to have this be the state march and make it available to all the schools in Nevada as something to include in their libraries having to do with our state. In addition, I must also add, just last week I wrote a march for Pershing County which had its premier last Tuesday. So, this has caught on and people have asked me if I could write one for Clark County. What a novel idea: all the counties having separate marches as well. We thought this march would stand alone as being representative of all we do here.
Chairman O’Connell:
We are very honored to have you here, sir, and thank you for your interest, especially in schools.
Carol Bell, Hug High School Booster Club:
(Exhibit D was handed to the committee for review.)
We thought this march represented our children and everything they stand for. I do not know what else I could add at this point, but it is something very special to a whole lot of people.
Chairman O’Connell:
We appreciate your being here.
Assemblyman Brower:
Madam Chairman, thank you very much, and let me just mention, the compact disc (Exhibit C) has been distributed and can be played on your laptops. You can also access it on the Reno Gazette Journal Website.
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, are there any questions? Thank you, again. We will close the hearing on A.B. 165 and open the hearing on A.B. 326.
ASSEMBLY BILL 326: Requires local governments to disclose certain expenses relating to lobbying. (BDR 31-496)
Assemblyman David Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10:
Assembly Bill 326 was originally presented to the legislature by Senator Ann O’Connell in 1985. It was amended to represent logistical ease for local governments to show what they spend lobbying the legislature, but the original bill was better. It will compile a report showing what local governments are spending lobbying the legislature. Since these are taxpayer dollars spent to lobby, it might be very critical information for our constituents to know what is being spent up here. I think they would be surprised. It was testified to on the Assembly side, currently, local governments are spending over $250,000 every month lobbying the legislature.
Chairman O’Connell:
Questions, committee? Is anyone else here to testify?
Benjamin Blinn, Concerned Citizen:
I am not a contract lobbyist; I come up here because I still believe in ideals. Where does the money come from to pay these guys? When I started looking at this bill, I wanted to know where is the public money going and why is there no accountability?
I have some questions, as a citizen. This is a serious matter, because people like me who vote for people like you want to know. I think the people should be able to come in here and say, “This is what I think.” The church people did not even get to testify on the death penalty; the Catholic people were there; the Methodist guy wrote something for the newspaper. We are hanging up on the moratorium bill Senator Neal has, and we are worrying about paying more money to state people who are down here saying they need it.
There is no disclosure on how lobbying funds are spent; I find names which are not even listed in the book but are listed in “The Alliance,” the university newspaper. Why is it hidden if it is an okay deal? Why are we afraid of the truth and integrity, are those words lost in government?
I plead for the little guy who pays the taxes. We have Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie (Washoe County Assembly District No. 27) who has a bill to help people with hearing disabilities. It costs a million dollars for the babies to get tested, and as a schoolteacher, I know the window of time when the kids chatter and learning is so important. We cannot find a million dollars for her bill, but how many dollars a day are spent for lobbyists, money which guys kick out in budgets when the money could really help children? I am for positive government which Senator Raggio and Senator Neal have stood for. I think we ought to bring your bill back.
Senator Titus:
Does the university have to report any of their expenses and their lobbyist? How does it work?
Assemblyman Goldwater:
We went through this on the Assembly side. State employees are specifically excluded from this, but we do their budgets. We have direct control over almost all of their budgets, particularly the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), and the individual institutions over which the regents have. Those line items should be available from the regents and from the UCCSN finance system.
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Titus, would you like to have them amended into the bill?
Senator Titus:
Well, you know they are always talking about operating independently; the Board of Regents makes a lot of decisions independently. I am not sure it would not be a good idea for this to be spelled out in a more specific way rather than hidden throughout the legend.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
As a sponsor of the bill I would be amenable to any amendments to increase disclosure. This is about public disclosure.
Chairman O’Connell:
If it is all right, we might consider it friendly amendment.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
Absolutely.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
I will simply say, “Amen.”
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else who would like to testify?
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association:
“Ditto,” and we would support the inclusion of the university.
Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Board of Commissioners:
We are neutral on the bill; but for your information, last session I cost the taxpayers in my county 60 cents per person. If we go by the 2000 census, I now cost them 66 cents per person. As part of Elko County’s annual budget, it is .09334 percent of the county’s budget. We are just a little concerned, maybe the amount spent compiling the information of the salaries and employees of people who come down either as opponents of changes we need through the legislature or to defend ourselves as expert witnesses, might be more than what it costs to just have me lobby. This is an opportunity to think maybe the amount spent compiling the information required in this bill is more than they are paying for their lobbying services as contract lobbyists.
Section 5 asks for a separate statement of the anticipated expenses. You have a budget cycle and the county starts figuring out the budget from January to May. All of the bill draft requests (BDRs) are submitted in December. It is a little difficult to figure out which bills you are going to have to come and talk about. It might be tough to know what is coming your way.
Chairman O’Connell:
Anyone else? Okay, we will close the hearing on A.B. 326 and open the hearing on A.B. 92.
ASSEMBLY BILL 92: Authorizes county to exercise additional powers under certain circumstances. (BDR 20-428)
Tracy Duarte, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties:
I have provided you with my written testimony (Exhibit E). Currently, counties only have the powers granted to them by statute. The basic issue before you is to grant limited flexibility to counties to address issues of local concern in a timely manner as long as such authority does not conflict with the provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), other laws, or regulations of the State of Nevada.
Assembly Bill 92 seeks limited authority to enable an individual county to respond to local needs. We have narrowly defined the areas in which we seek flexibility: affordable housing, animal control and protection, property rehabilitation, and public health and sanitation. County representatives are present to provide examples of how A.B. 92 can be of benefit.
James Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County:
Counties under “Dillon’s Rule” generally are only allowed the authority specifically granted to them in areas where the statute is silent. Our district attorneys most often tell us we do not have the authority to do certain things in the case of a county like Clark, which, in its unincorporated areas, constitutes, in effect, the largest city in the State of Nevada. Unincorporated Clark County has the largest population, by about 100,000 people, of any of the cities. In the unincorporated area, we exercise all of the municipal responsibilities any other city has, in addition to providing, regionally, all of the traditional county responsibilities. However, we are offering these municipal services under the limitation statutorily which counties have.
If you look at the history of sessions going back a very long time, look at the kind of bills brought to the legislature by counties, particularly Clark County, you will see there has been, over time, a steady series of maintenance bills and bills designed to wedge a little more here and there. What we attempted to do was secure a little more authority in certain specific areas. When we first looked at this as a concept almost 2 years ago, we looked at a bill about one paragraph in length, to look at non-fiscal home rule. It was very broad, with just a couple of sentences. We thought it probably would incur difficulties here for a variety of reasons, and we respect the legislature wants to maintain the kind of control which traditionally has been exercised. However, we felt if we looked at some specific areas and said, “Can we have an opportunity in these specific areas to get a broader grant of authority,” we could prove we can use the expanded authority wisely and well over the interim. And, if we have not, you can always rein us in, in 2 years. However, maybe we could look at some additional expansion, based on us we can do it right. We came up with this specific list. It covers some areas over which we have had some specific issues during the past several years.
I would like to speak to a couple of issues which have arisen to make sure there is clarification in what we intend and how we interpret the language of the proposed law.
First, in definition (e), of section 1, subsection 1, public health and sanitation, we do not imply counties would have any authority which would conflict with authorities already granted to our respective health districts. The language in lines 6 and 7 refers to such ordinances not in conflict with the provisions of NRS or other laws or regulations of this state. This implies we would comply with those regulations promulgated now by our respective health districts.
Section 1, subsection 2, the prohibition against taxes, again for the record, is to be a non-fiscal expansion of authority including fees. This is our interpretation of the language.
Senator Care:
Two bills from this session come to mind regarding this debate. One is from Assemblyman Collins (Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No.1) dealing with control of animals. Then we had the one earlier this session requested by the health district regarding regulating smoking. My question is, could those bills be rewritten in such a manner they could legally be redrafted as ordinances to still comply with this bill, if this bill were to become law?
Mr. Spinello:
I think those bills offer an example of how this would fit in. For instance, we have some greater authority in the area of the protection and control of animals, yet you have statutory language which somehow restricts or channels it. This would have to flow into conformance. This grant is very limited; our authority always remains under the control of the legislature and the NRS.
So, in terms of whether those bills could be rewritten in a way to do some of this, yes. Every time we need to address some change, we have to wait until the session starts and then ask for a specific change. Here, we are looking for a little broader ability.
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, any other questions? Is there anyone else wishing to testify of A.B. 92?
Douglas Bell, Manager, Clark County Community Resources:
I am here to speak for A.B. 92. My office is responsible for overseeing the county’s federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants for which we receive approximately $13 million each year in block grants. My office also administers the county’s grants to outside nonprofit agencies, and grants from the counties under local governments. We would ask your enactment of A.B. 92. This would give us increased flexibility to better serve the citizens of Clark County. There are a number of categories in this bill I would like to talk about over which I am concerned.
One is the issue of affordable housing. Currently, the Clark County Board of Commissioners is authorized by Chapter 279A of the NRS to operate a housing rehabilitation program. Pursuant to this legislation, the program can only consist of making housing rehabilitation loans for eligible program activities. Clark County also makes grants to nonprofit agencies, pursuant to NRS 244.1505, carrying out activities in support of helping families with their affordable housing needs at less than 80 percent of family income with their affordable housing needs. This can include down-payment assistance for income-eligible home owners to purchase homes, housing rehabilitation assistance, and the construction of affordable housing developments.
Pursuant to NRS 244.287, the county commission can donate land to a nonprofit agency for the creation of affordable housing. Such land must be received by donation or must be purchased by the county. Those are the operative clauses for the donation process.
Regarding the rehabilitation of rental property in residential neighborhoods, this is done pursuant to chapter 279A of NRS. Clark County receives grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Nevada Housing Division. These monies have been used to finance housing rehabilitation work directly within the unincorporated town of Whitney, which is serving as our initial pilot project.
What is it we desire to do, but we cannot presently do under law? The current law does not allow county governments to use their federal funds to make housing rehabilitation grants, even though other jurisdictions across the country have had this power for years. Authorizing the use of housing rehabilitation grants is an important tool to help low income seniors upgrade their homes, for such things as fixing a leaking roof, or replacing expensive air-conditioning units. Current law, which limits us to making only loans, is a problem as senior citizens may be hesitant about encumbering their properties through a deferred loan program, which must then be repaid on the sale of their property. We want to eliminate this barrier to the senior citizens and the special needs groups. At present, the counties can only loan money to certain income-eligible individuals for the purpose of rehabilitating their principal residences.
Mr. Bell:
The county cannot loan money to nonprofit agencies or “for profit” organizations for the purpose of developing affordable housing. By loaning federal money to developers at below market interest rates, or with other favorable terms, we have another financing tool to create incentives for the development of affordable housing. Loans also have the additional benefit of providing an ongoing source of revenue for future projects. For example, in conjunction with private activity bonds, the county can loan its federal home funds to “for profit” developers at favorable terms to encourage them to increase the number of low income units or to provide units serving lower income families.
The City of Las Vegas is currently undertaking several mixed-income and “mixed-use” projects where they will loan their home funds to “for profit” developers. This is something we as a county cannot do. We also need additional flexibility regarding the donating of property for the creation of affordable housing. The Southern Nevada Land Act of 1998 included a provision to allow the Bureau of Land Management to sell federal land at less than fair market value to the State of Nevada, local housing authorities, and local governments for the creation of affordable housing. We need flexibility in NRS 244.287 to allow counties to sell this priorly federal land to other nonprofit developers for the creation of affordable housing, subject to deed restrictions requiring the units to be used for a fixed period as affordable housing units. Fundamentally, we need flexibility under Nevada law to take advantage of the new flexibility existing in federal grant programs. The federal home program is the largest federal block grant to states and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households. Each year it allocates more than $1 billion among the states and hundreds of localities nationwide.
Home funds are awarded annually as formula grants to participating jurisdictions; HUD establishes the home investment trust funds for each grantee, providing a line of credit for its jurisdiction to draw upon as needed. The program’s flexibility allows states and local governments to use home funds for grants, direct loans, loan guarantees, or other forms of credit enhancement, or rental assistance, or security deposits. Unfortunately, in Nevada, state law precludes counties from taking full advantage of the home program’s designed flexibility.
Mr. Bell:
We would ask you to enact A.B. 92, as this will provide us with flexibility unless such exercise of powers are in direct conflict with the provisions of NRS or other laws or regulations. Counties, unlike cities, must have specific legislative authority to undertake an activity, even if such an activity is permissible under the federal program providing the funding. So, there is a two-tiered test we have to go through.
Counties also do not have similar legislation authorized to cities providing the designated powers pursuant to the Nevada Community Development of Program Law, which is NRS 268.745, and NRS 268.761. Approving this bill would grant such authority to counties without having to take the legislature’s valuable time in having to adopt individual bills as we have done in years past. Urban counties provide many of the same services as incorporated cities. We need increased flexibility to serve our citizens.
Jim Foreman, Manager, Public Response, Clark County Administrative Services:
I think A.B. 92 could help the counties. In the area of citation authority, currently our co-enforcement officers cannot write citations for all the codes listed in our book of codes. One example would be, the state gives the county a permit which we must enforce for discharging of liquids, waters, and chemicals, which end up in our storm drain system. The state mandates we enforce it. Unfortunately, when I went to find out if we could issue citations, I learned you have to be a peace officer to do it under the NRS. Our attorneys say we do not have the authority; so on one hand, the state mandated we enforce it rigorously, and on the other hand, I cannot. However, the City of Las Vegas just passed a local ordinance to have its fire department inspectors take care of this responsibility, and it works quite well. We would just like to have the same type of authority.
One of the big issues is we cannot go in and make repairs to substandard housing and then recoup our costs. We do not have the provisions for special assessments through the NRS; the county is not authorized to do it. We cannot impose such things as re-inspection fees, which are very common across the United Sates. We cannot enter into our ordinances and other things such as bonds for appeals in those types of matters, which are pretty standard operations, and have our enforcement people utilize them, according to our attorneys.
One more note on special assessments. We use revolving money at the county. If we go out and do repairs on a structure or tear a building down, we recoup the money through liens. We would like the ability to do special assessments, which the cities do, where they recoup the money with a lien for 10 years, with special assessments. It is a lot quicker and it is still fair and honest. It is just the money comes back quicker so we can use it for another project.
Touching on animal control issues, the animal control folks are in a different situation. They would like some flexibility to be able to write civil liabilities instead of criminal citations to help ease the burden in our court system. It makes more sense for matters such as barking dogs and those types of things. I think Senator Care stated they have another ordinance related to civil liabilities. Another area in animal control is exotic animals. Cities can require bonds or liability insurance policies up to $1 million. The City of Las Vegas currently requires insurance for keeping exotic animals, so if someone gets hurt the money can be used for doctors. Unfortunately, the county cannot do this; it would be something to protect us, as humans, around the animals. I have also found it strange the county cannot order tests on animals such as primates to make sure they do not have certain diseases which could be passed onto humans, but cities can do this.
That is just a quick list of small things, but each day in law enforcement I run into a new problem where I have to figure out if the lawyers are going to let us do it or not. Most times we are limited in our authority, and then I have to come back to this committee to get more authority.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Neal:
What is the difference between the flexibility in this bill and home rule?
Mr. Spinello:
Not much. You could call this a narrow and specific version of non-fiscal home rule, again, limited to a specific list of areas.
Senator Neal:
I know once we put it in the statute, it gives you the opportunity to come back session after session to accomplish whatever. Would this also mean you could deal with the fiscal aspects of these in terms of raising taxes?
Mr. Spinello:
No, lines 13 and 14, subsection 2, specifically prohibit raising taxes in this bill. It could only be done if the legislature granted the authority.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else on A.B. 92?
Ms. Vilardo:
Understanding the concern of the counties, it probably is time they got some limited, functional home rule. For the record, Mr. Spinello made a statement there would be no tax authority, under lines 13 and 14. If the Chairman would agree, I would like to see it transcribed into the record to be sure his comments are very clearly identified to include no fees with regard to fiscal home rule.
(A.B. 92, First Reprint, lines 13 and 14 read: The board of county commissioners shall not impose or increase a tax unless the tax or increase is otherwise authorized by specific statute.)
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, any questions? Is there anyone else wishing to testify on A.B. 92?
Barbara Hunt, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Health Department:
As the bill has been clarified by Mr. Spinello in regard to local health districts and the authorities we have, we can support this bill. We are in agreement, should there be problems with this bill over the next couple of years, we would certainly come back to address them.
Senator Neal:
Would you not have many of the powers listed here under the police powers of the county? It seems to me the state allows you to pass ordinances for animal control and things; am I not correct ? It seems to me you already have the power to do this.
Mr. Spinello:
The reality we are reminded of very often by our district attorneys, flows from the judicial precedent commonly referred to as “Dillon’s Rule,” which says counties are unlike cities, because a county is a pure creature of the state. A county is created by statute from the state, whereas as a city, in political theory, is an area to be incorporated into the political jurisdiction by agreement of the people.
Senator Neal:
Counties are also constitutional bodies and, in my judgment, would have more power than the city. I tend to see it the other way; the cities become the creatures of the state because we can wipe out a city anytime we are seated here. The city cannot do a thing about it. We cannot do the same to a county.
Mr. Spinello:
Madam Chairman, I wish Senator Neal could become our district attorney, because with his interpretation we could solve many of these problems.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify?
Helen Foley, Lobbyist, Clark County Health District:
We support this legislation. We think it is important the county be afforded the opportunities to get the job done locally. On a personal note, when I am at home during the interim, I work with a lot of companies helping them get home funds and bond-cap financing for affordable housing projects. We find the federal government gives a lot of authority and opportunities to local governments, and yet, because of the restrictions the NRS has placed on the county, they are not able to take full advantage of the dollars available, as well as the BLM land which might be donated for affordable housing projects and similar things. We think A.B. 92 will be very helpful in allowing them to maximize their opportunities.
Senator Neal:
I find it odd this type of request is coming from a health agency in which, I presume, the health department of any county has the authority to act in areas where health and safety are involved and do something about it. Why would we have to now, after so many years of being a state, find these counties need these types of powers, or do not have these types of powers?
Ms. Foley:
Many times the health district works cooperatively with the county. With sanitation issues, such as a place out in the county where there is a rodent-infested home and we need to come in and do some work, there are other opportunities for the county to also participate in those things. They feel, through Dillon’s Rule they are restricted.
Right now, we do public health and sanitation, and so do they. Certainly the sanitation district is a perfect example, including wastewater treatment plants, but when we have major floods, we end up with a lot of debris in the flood channels. Their district attorney has told them they do not have the authority statutorily to do these things; not because they are not trying to, but they have been told by their district attorney they cannot.
Senator Neal:
Let me ask Ms. Guinasso, under general powers established in county governments in terms of health and welfare issues, do they not have the powers to act in those particular areas where the general welfare of the citizens, such as public safety and health issues, is concerned?
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel:
The basic rule is any political subdivision does not have authority to do anything unless specifically granted by the legislature, by the state, to do those types of things. This language is broad, but it is also limited if there is a prohibition by specific statute. Otherwise, if there were a specific statute to prohibit them from doing what is contemplated in this bill, they would not be able to do it. In terms of their broad authority, they are limited, at least in our opinion. For example, if they did not have specific authority to develop affordable housing, they would not be able to do it. In statute, they currently have authority concerning affordable housing which is rather specific.
For the sake of argument, if there were no statutes regarding affordable housing, I do not believe they would have the authority to develop affordable housing without the specific language and NRS granting them the authority, even though, generally speaking, one might be able to argue their general authority would allow it. I do not think this is the case.
Senator Neal:
I know Clark County has a housing authority, so where do those powers come from?
Ms. Guinasso:
There is a specific statute which gives them the authority.
Senator Neal:
So, why would they need this?
Ms. Guinasso:
I believe the purpose of this would be to give them a general authority, to which you are referring, in terms of taking care of issues which might come up and might be outside of the specific authority the current statute contemplates.
Mr. Bell:
Senator Neal, there are provisions which allow some things regarding affordable housing, but anytime we do anything not specifically mentioned by statute, our district attorney’s office says, “Dillon’s Rule,” and we are cut off, right off the bat. We can have a federal law which says we can make grants to senior citizens, for example, but because the NRS do not say we can do it, the district attorney’s office rules we cannot do it.
Senator Neal:
What you are speaking of, I guess, is a doctrine of our law which provides you cannot do what is not stated. I understand. I thought as far as county authority was concerned, and meeting the objective needs of citizens in terms of health and safety, and public welfare type issues, you have broad authority to move into those particular areas.
Mr. Bell:
“When the rubber meets the road, the answer is, Dillon’s Rule.”
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else on A.B. 92? We will close the hearing on A.B. 92 and open the hearing on A.B. 556.
ASSEMBLY BILL 556: Revises certain provisions governing authority of state board of examiners and requirements for certain agreements for interlocal cooperation between public agencies. (BDR 31-565)
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration:
The proposal you have before you today is an issue which came out of the fundamental review process. Its twofold purpose is to improve the administrative procedures of the State Board of Examiners and the enhancement of productivity within the Department of Administration.
Secondly, it provides the ability to get payments into the hands of vendors we deal with much more rapidly than we have in the past. Many of these are small business owners and they really do not care about the bureaucratic processes we have to go through, they want to get paid in a timely fashion. This is an attempt to do it.
There are three recurring themes going through many of these sections. The first is the ability of the board of examiners to delegate, under certain conditions, the authority to process certain activities within their jurisdiction. Under those conditions, the second thing is to establish an appellate procedure which, if decisions we make under delegated authority do not meet with the approval of either the agency we are dealing with, or a vendor, it allows them to appeal to the board of examiners. Thirdly, there is a quarterly reporting system, or at least a periodic reporting system, set up for any decisions we make, to be made a part of the record of the board of examiners for their review and discussion.
With the general comment in mind, I would like to briefly walk you through the sections to show you what is here. I have also passed out one amendment (Exhibit F) which I would like to bring forth for your consideration at the end of the process and go from there.
Mr. Hataway:
Section 1 deals with stale claims brought to the state. Section 4 begins the first instance of some common language you will see in the bill, requiring the claims must be approved by the State Board of Examiners. However, they can, under certain circumstances they deem appropriate, delegate this responsibility. Under the stale claims process right now, the agency has to certify to the budget division, it is a legitimate claim and it has not been paid. We have to verify this, plus the fact the agency had the funds or the reverted funds from the particular fiscal year in which the claim was incurred, and had they known about it and received it in a timely manner, it could have been paid.
Section 2 is related to refunds dealing with overpayments of license fees, taxes, and other charges which, again, have been determined to be legitimate. The board of examiners has the responsibility to approve refunds, but the proposal would, under certain circumstances, allow them to delegate the responsibility.
Section 3 deals with stale warrants. If the state issues a check through the controller and treasurer to an individual, after a certain prescribed period of time it becomes void due to lack of processing or loss or whatever the case. A person can, under certain circumstances, file a claim for reissuance of the document. Right now the statutes say, “any claim” has to be approved by the board. For example, last Tuesday there was a refund request for $325. It probably cost more to prepare the agenda item and put in on the agenda and process it than the claim was worth. So, again, under certain circumstances, the board of examiners would have the ability to delegate responsibility.
Section 4 is the general statue dealing with administrative procedures. You will notice subsection (d) is added to require the department to report to the board of examiners on a quarterly basis. We do this now, with statutory contingency. Basically, it deals with any issue handled administratively under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Examiners.
Section 5 deals with the emergency fund. The current act, as you see, is limited to allocations at $50,000 or below. The $50,000 has been eliminated and authorization is controlled by the expenditure as approved by the board of examiners. The legislature controls the amount of money put into the emergency fund. Obviously, if a claim is legitimate under the emergency provisions, and it is worth $60,000, or the value of the claim is $60,000, we can only approve $50,000 at this point, and then go through the interim finance contingency account to get the other $10,000. It just slows down the process. Again, if the funds are not in the emergency fund, we still have to go through the Interim Finance Committee to get the funds. We feel this is a much more appropriate process.
Section 6 deals with the reserve for the statutory contingency account. There are a couple of dozen specific statutory reasons or authorities for access to the reserve for the statutory contingency account. The board of examiners would have the ability to delegate the payment of claims to the staff for extradition payments, post-conviction relief payments, and a number of fire-fighting activities, if they are determined legitimate and appropriate.
Mr. Hataway:
Sections 8 and 10 deal with both interlocal agreements and cooperative agreements. Right now, all of those documents have to be reduced to writing and be approved by the appropriate authorities. We are proposing, in this section, any agreements less than $2000 would not have to be reduced to formal writing. If the Health Division wants to agree to provide a service to Washoe County health department, less than $2000, a memorandum of understanding could be developed and they would be able to do it. This is very similar to the contract limitations we have with the state at the present time.
Section 9 was added by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) Legal Division to tie to section 8 and make the wording more appropriate.
Section 11 deals with contracts with independent contractors. At the present time, the statutes say any contractual arrangement less than $750 does not have to have the formal dot of the i’s and cross of the t’s. We are proposing the limit be increased to $2000. For a number of years, $750 has been in the statutes, and we think $2000 is a more appropriate level. We are proposing the limit of authority be raised from $5000 to $10,000 for any contracts dealing with the preservation of life and property as prescribed by the statutes.
Finally, section 12 is merely a cleanup of language where it refers to the secretary of the State Board of Examiners. There is no secretary of the state board, it is the clerk of the board of examiners.
The amendment we are proposing (Exhibit F) deals with the establishment of petty cash accounts. The statute says an agency can have petty cash accounts for handling cash up to $250. We are proposing the board would authorize us, under the conditions outlined, to approve the establishment of those accounts. Again, I would emphasize, in addition to the delegation of authority, there is the appellate decision or sections added in which the board is still involved, if it does not believe, or if a claimant does not believe, we acted in an appropriate manner; and there is also the reporting process.
Chairman O’Connell:
I have two questions. Where exactly are you asking us to put the amendment?
Mr. Hataway:
It would be a new section added onto the bill. Section 13 would become section 14, and there would be a new section 13.
Chairman O’Connell:
Does the clerk still make the reports?
Mr. Hataway:
Yes.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here on A.B. 556? We will close the hearing on A.B. 556 and open the hearing on A.B. 428.
ASSEMBLY BILL 428: Revises provisions governing state public works board. (BDR 28-229)
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Douglas County and part of Carson City, Assembly District No. 39:
Assembly Bill 428 attempts to clean up some concerns within the public works board. The bill essentially begins with section 2 to allow the board to enter into a contract with a contractor to assist the board, “(a) In the development of designs, plans, specifications . . . or (b) In the review of designs, plans, specifications . . .” The idea is to eliminate the issue we see too many times, where we get in the middle of a project, and then it turns out the project was not well-reviewed and developed, and we end up having to do a lot of modifications which end up being very costly for the State of Nevada.
Chairman O’Connell:
Does a lot of the information we have included in the bill address many of the issues identified in the audit?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Not in a direct way, but for instance, Madam Chairman, one comment I would make specifically is in regard to section 5, subsection 9. It says, “Shall specify in any contract with a design professional the period within which the design professional must prepare and submit to the board a change order. . . .” This has been one of the major problems coming out of this situation. We get a change order approved, but the design professional does not approve it, construction is underway, the change is done anyway, and by the time we get it back from the design professional it is not right. Something needed to be amended, we have to fix it, and we are trying to speed up the process. We want to say it has to be in the contract, what the time frame is, and it must be followed by the design professional.
Chairman O’Connell:
Did you have any testimony from the Assembly side regarding the penalties being enforced which deal with contracts?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
The State Public Works Board testified on this bill in total. I was not at the hearing. It was done with the agreement of the chairman of government affairs on the Assembly side because we were running out of time to get the bills heard and we wanted to pass this bill. So, I cannot tell you what was testified to on the Assembly side.
Chairman O’Connell:
We need to contact Mr. O’Brien on this. It was one of the major problems, and as far as we can find out, there has never been a penalty enforced by the State Public Works Board when all of these change orders and problems have occurred.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I have heard testimony from the State Public Works Board at the Interim Finance Committee saying they have imposed penalties on contracts. I do not know whether they have ever imposed a penalty, but I do not think there is a requirement such as section 9 has for a time frame in which orders must be submitted. I do not believe such a time frame exists, so I do not know how they could penalize an architect or design engineer right now, because there is no limit allowed in the law or in their contract.
Chairman O’Connell:
It is something we felt was very important.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Page 1, line 15, simply says if they decide to use the contractor to review development and design of plans, they are not required to advertise, but they are required to solicit bids from more than one and then choose the responsible and responsive bidder.
Page 2, line 3 indicates they can adopt regulations to determine the qualifications of contractors and for the bidding and awarding of contracts.
I am not sure what the intent was in section 2, subsection 4. This language was added by the Public Works Board.
Section 3 says if an appointed member fails to attend three successive meetings, the board shall notify the Governor and the Governor may appoint another person. We have had some problems with the board meetings when they do not have a full board. They cannot do work because people do not attend, and for the board to do its work, we need to have people attend the meetings, not make it just a title on somebody’s resume. We want, at least, “the Governor may appoint.” At least it gives us the hammer to try to get people to attend meetings and help get the board’s work done.
Then we added some qualifications on page 2, lines 22 through 25, and asked for at least one member to have a comprehensive knowledge of the principles of administration, and one have a working knowledge of the principles of engineering or architecture, so we have some expertise on the board to evaluate some of what they are being asked to approve.
Section 5 begins with some cleanup language since we have added other ways for the board to get its approvals. In other language, we have taken out the consulting with interim finance, because we put it in other places within the bill. When I sent the information over to the committee members earlier, Senator Care responded to me and asked about the word “responsible.” I had told him I would have the public works board respond to him, but in reviewing the bill before I came over here, I see the word “responsible” exists in current statute at line 38. They just moved it up and put it in other places in the bill as well. So, I presume it has been defined in the past and is an accepted term of how they determine responsible contractors.
Section 5, subsection 7 is where the language appears, they must obtain from interim finance, or the legislature if in session, any ability to change the scope of design. This has been one of the other issues constantly coming before the ways and means committee. We have the board come in, and because of something occurring, they have changed the scope of the design, and we end up with a bid which says 115,000 feet in the original drawings, but we changed the scope of design and ended up with 87,000 square feet. I do not think the legislature thinks we improved the change, so it was one of the things we wanted to get into the bill to require any change in scope be approved by the legislature. We have discussed section 9, and essentially the rest of the bill is cleanup language.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are there any questions from the committee?
John Madole, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter Associated General Contractors:
We have an amendment (Exhibit G). This amendment would address itself specifically to the fact that presently the director of the Department of Administration serves as chairman of the State Public Works Board. This would make a change to allow the chairman to be a public member, and it would also allow the chairman and vice chairman to be appointed from the public members, and it would require the board to meet quarterly.
My concern is, we have given the chairmanship, by statute, to one of the busiest people in the state. I think with several hundred million dollars’ worth of public works being done, a person who has the energy and enthusiasm and the passion for chairing might better serve the taxpayers of the State of Nevada.
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, do you have any questions? We will close the hearing on A.B. 428 and open the hearing on A.B. 430.
ASSEMBLY BILL 430: Authorizes general improvement districts in certain counties to charge owners of dwelling units which receive services provided by district for which owners are not being charged. (BDR 25-1275)
Assemblyman Hettrick:
This came about because we have a general improvement district (GID) at the lake providing services such as water to homes in which the fees being charged are based on a dwelling unit. It turns out some people are converting their garages and so on into additional dwelling units and putting additional families into parts of the unit which were not dwelling units to begin with. Essential we are serving two families for the price of one. This is costing upwards of $200,000 a year in service costs being lost to the other people who have to pay the fees because they are paying by dwelling unit, and then someone else has two units but is only paying for one.
In section 1, if an employee or person has a reasonable belief a dwelling unit exists which is not currently being charged for services, this would be an illegally placed unit and the person may submit an affidavit. The first section says you have to provide an affidavit; you cannot just walk in the door and accuse somebody.
Line 11 says if the board of trustees receives an affidavit, it must set a hearing to determine if the unit is actually being used as a dwelling. When the hearing is set, the board must provide a notice as indicated on line 18. The “guts” of the notice says, “Advise the owner that denial of the request for inspection shall be deemed an admission.” The board may then adopt a resolution, and by two-thirds vote of the total membership of the board, it can impose a charge for the services provided. So, you have to go through a lot of processes to do this; we are not trying to skip processes.
Finally, on line 13, if the owner denies the request for inspection, and after a hearing, then it will be deemed to be a dwelling unit.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is the problem only with the water? Do you not have the problem with electricity or the sewer?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Water is the major issue, but there may be more. What we added in the Assembly was a lot of due process for the "would be" dwelling unit which will be charged. The original title of the bill included the word, “suspected.” As soon as we put “suspected,” everybody thought we would be able to charge people because we suspect something. We went through all kinds of grief over this one word. We put a lot of due process in here to protect anyone who might have an affidavit filed which said we thought they were doing this. So, they have every opportunity to prove they are not guilty and it still takes a two-thirds vote to charge them for the services.
Senator Neal:
If someone has attached something illegally in an improvement district, why would you want to have two-thirds of the board vote to take care of the particular action?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Senator Neal, I would tend to agree with you, but I think the Assembly committee members, after seeing the word “suspected,” felt this was going to be so misleading, they wanted to make it difficult so no one could just walk in and make this a nuisance type of a complaint. They wanted to make sure everybody agreed the person was receiving services illegally or inappropriately, and they needed to be charged for the services rendered.
Senator Neal:
Could you not have an articulable suspicion of the person, so even though you have the suspicion, you must be able to articulate what you saw?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
It is the very reason, Senator Neal, for the affidavit and the right to inspect. We do not want somebody to be charged just because somebody suspects illegal usage. The GID must be able to inspect. The only thing we did say is, if you do not let us inspect, then it is going to be deemed you have a second unit. If they do not have a second unit, they should have no concern whatsoever with allowing an inspection. Then, the situation would be totally mitigated.
Candice Rohr, General Manager, Kingsbury General Improvement District:
For more than 10 years, Kingsbury General Improvement District (KGID) has wrestled with what we call illegal dwelling units. These are unauthorized residential units created by the owners of existing legal houses, condominiums, or townhouses as additional rentable dwellings on their property. They are using district water, sewer, and snow removal services without paying the per-dwelling unit fees for these services.
I might note, we are not metered for water, so it is a flat fee per residential dwelling. The added demand for service increases KGID’s costs, which must be passed onto the owners of legal dwelling units. We are here seeking the approval of A.B. 430 because numerous attempts to abate these units on a large-scale basis have failed. We believe it is a matter of equity for KGID and other GIDs to be able to charge for such units until they are abated by the appropriate legal authority, in our case, Douglas County, or the property owner demonstrates clear evidence the unit has been eliminated.
Between 1991 and 1993, our administrator, Debbie Burkett, identified approximately 200 suspected illegal dwellings within the boundaries of KGID. These units are receiving but are not paying for services which equate to over $200,000 in lost revenue to our district. A typical illegal unit is an additional dwelling added to a townhouse or condominium by enclosing the substructure area of the building where it is less likely to be seen.
Another example is a large townhouse or condominium split into two or even three separate living units with kitchens or kitchenettes added for each new unit. The outside of the building will still have only one front door, so it appears to be a single dwelling, but inside the front door a stairway has been constructed leading to each individual unit. This is a typical illegal unit.
Some examples of houses with illegal dwelling units include a storage shed, playhouse, or a garage which has been converted into a studio or a one bedroom apartment, or a separate smaller dwelling unit commonly referred to as a “mother-in-law” unit, which is created in an existing house, often times with a separate entrance and rented separately from the main house.
Chairman O’Connell:
They are charged a flat fee, is what you are telling us, so you have no idea how much power, water, or sewer they are using or should be billed for?
Ms. Rohr:
Correct. For us, as a GID, our issues are water, sewer, and we also charge a flat rate per dwelling unit for snow removal.
Senator Titus:
Do these places have to get building permits to do additions and similar things? Could you track it through the building permits instead of this?
Ms. Rohr:
Because they are illegal units, they do not obtain any sort of permit for this work. It is simply a “boot-legged” extra unit.
Senator Titus:
What if it is really for a mother-in-law, a separate section, and you really are using it for your own family?
Ms. Rohr:
Actually, one of the provisions of the bill requires a separate kitchen. In addition, we did contact Douglas County to find out what their provisions were regarding actual “mother-in-law” units. They indicated, if the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency accepted it as an ancillary use to the existing house, then they would as well.
Senator Titus:
Do different kinds of houses have to pay different rates, if you have a house with two bathrooms as opposed to a house with one bathroom? Do they all pay the same rate?
Ms. Rohr:
We are not able to police those things with our very small staff, and we really do not want to enter private property unless there is really the necessity to do so.
Senator Titus:
What would be the difference between the house with a “mother-in-law” unit adding one bathroom, versus the house originally built with two bathrooms?
Ms. Rohr:
The definition hinges on the additional kitchen unit or additional cooking area, which makes it a rentable space. This is what we are really fighting here. We are fighting people trying to bring in more revenue for their property; often these are second home owner units. They want a little space they can use for themselves, but they want to rent out the rest of the unit and have two units, effectively.
Senator Neal:
Does the improvement district include the timeshare properties up there?
Ms. Rohr:
Yes, it does. We have over 300 timeshare units within our district.
Carolyn Trainer, Board of Trustees, Kingsbury General Improvement District; General Manager, Tahoe Village Homeowners Association:
Of the approximate 200 illegally created dwelling units, over 20 of these are in Tahoe Village itself. I have many concerns regarding this issue, including health and safety. One of my main concerns is the loss of revenue to the GIDs. Services are being provided with no monies being received.
As an example of a safety issue, when they were talking about enclosing the lower structure of these buildings and putting in apartments, the owners do not get building permits, so they do not have to go by building codes or safety codes. We are in snow country. As an example, someone built a unit down below their building and put a wall heater it so it is vented to the outside at ground level. We can receive 25 to 40 feet of snow in our area, and when we plow snow it goes over the sides of the road. In one incident, as the snow was plowed, and we had no idea there was an illegal unit or any one living underneath this building, the snow blocked the heater vent and we had a potentially very large problem. We did dig it out and take care of it, but this is the kind of thing we are not aware of because they did not go through the proper procedures. So, the loss of revenue and the health and safety issues are major concerns to the district. I urge you to support this bill for passage.
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, any other questions?
Senator Care:
The hearing itself, is it an open meeting?
Ms. Rohr:
Yes, all of our board of trustee meetings are open and publicly noticed.
Senator Care:
Would the person who submitted the affidavit be compelled to appear to explain the good faith basis for the affidavit?
Ms. Rohr:
The bill does not specifically call for it, but we would certainly make it our practice. I think it is only appropriate the person who is being accused of having an illegal unit should be able to confront the person who is accusing him or her.
Senator Care:
Regarding the language deeming refusal of inspection to be an admission: do you have to go inside the premises to make the determination? Is there no other way to do it?
Ms. Rohr:
Because the definition hinges on there being a kitchen, we do need to determine the kitchen facility or cooking area is, in fact, in place. If someone is simply renting out a room in their home, it would not make it a separate dwelling unit. It would have to be a separate rentable unit with cooking facilities.
Chairman O’Connell:
I assume you will be sending notices to your customers regarding this new law, if indeed it does pass and is signed, so everybody will be aware of it and they better ante up?
Ms. Rohr:
Madam Chairman, we certainly would give notice through our newsletter. We have concern about the fact these units were built illegally. This bill will not abate those units. However, we hope it will serve as a deterrent from the creation of additional units, and also, it may provide for some owners to voluntarily remove the units.
Senator Titus:
It says a request to allow inspection within 5 days after receipt of the notice must be included. Do some people own them and yet live some other place? Would the 5 days be too short a time and put a burden on these people who live elsewhere?
Ms. Rohr:
The reason for the short time period is we have experienced in the past, in our inspections, efforts by owners to actually cover up the fact these are illegal units. In one case, we had a home divided into five separate rentable units. The owner, upon notice of a Douglas County official building inspection, actually moved all of the tenants out of the building for a few days, and then moved them back in right after the inspection. We had another case where a property owner removed the stove out of a unit and stacked a lot of empty boxes in the space. We noticed all the boxes were empty, and he said it was a storage area, when in fact it was another rentable space he was camouflaging. We do believe the short time period is necessary for this reason.
Senator Titus:
What if they are out-of-state residents and you need to mail this letter to, say, Las Vegas, regarding their condominium in Tahoe, or if they live in Florida? How are you going to make it work?
Ms. Rohr:
I believe they would have the responsibility to contact us immediately, and, if necessary, we could work with them. They could have another representative in the area give us access to the unit. Often they have property managers in the area who could do it.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Madam Chairman, I would like to elaborate. If you look at page 1, subsection 2, line 11, it says they must give notice at least 30 days before a hearing, and then there would still have to be a vote afterward, because it would be 30 days before a hearing. The owners would have time to go to the hearing and be able to offer proof, after the fact, even if they could not respond within 5 days. I understand your concerns, Senator Titus. The owners could be out of town or out of the country and not even get the notice. But, in fact, the hearing would be at least 30 days later and they would have some time.
The worst thing which could happen, in any case, might be if they were out of the country for 6 months and they came back and received this bill. The people have the option of coming to us and saying they were charged inappropriately, because they did not get the notice in time, and therefore could not come to the hearing. They could ask for another hearing and have us inspect their property. There might be an argument in getting back 6 months worth of fees.
I believe people are doing these things illegally. They do try to hide it, and try to get away with it without being caught. If you give them very much time, they are going to try to hide the fact. It just will not work; we would not be able to catch them.
Senator Neal:
Would you not have these kinds of problems with timeshares?
Ms. Rohr:
No, timeshares are professionally managed. Timeshares do have “lock-off” units, but Douglas County recognizes those as single units, so we would recognize them as single units as well. I do not anticipate any problems with timeshares.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is there anyone else with testimony we have not already heard?
Nita Summers, Concerned Citizen:
I am a customer of KGID. We have a short, very small street. We have been fighting for years to get illegals off of it. Out of 23 homes we have 7 illegals, 4 existing and 3 possibilities. They added two units to one of them. When they were approached, they said, “Nobody is going to tell me what to do with my property.” They are all aware they are illegal; this puts a cost burden on the legal homeowners. We are facing another raise right now for the sewer and water because of the cost of our district. I am in strong support of this bill.
Fred Hillerby, Lobbyist, Sun Valley General Improvement District:
I would just like to say the Sun Valley GID supports this, and this would apply to any general improvement district in counties under 400,000. It is not just for Kingsbury, it is one we support as well, because we encounter some of the same problems in our improvement district.
Chairman O’Connell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 430 and open the hearing on A.B. 649.
ASSEMBLY BILL 649: Revises certain provisions regarding governmental purchasing. (BDR 27-1127)
John Balentine, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission:
Briefly, and for the record, a copy of my remarks are being distributed for you (Exhibit H). Assembly Bill 649 will add enabling provisions for “e-commerce” procedures to allow us, as local governments, to receive online bids over the Internet for supplies and services. This allows local governments to begin to modernize, become more efficient and effective to ensure equitable bidding. This bill also clarifies and standardizes the term “authorized representative” as the designated representative of the governing body. Some local governments have, in the past, had different interpretations of what purchasing functions can and cannot delegate.
This bill adds, defines, and standardizes the term “evaluator” as one who performs critical purchasing tasks of bid evaluation, negotiation, review, approval, and modifications of contracts. This is also a step toward increasing the professionalism of public purchasing managers throughout the state. It also strengthens the criteria for proprietary information for the protection of all parties to a bid. And, for negotiated procurements only, not sealed bids, it holds all bidding information confidential until after the individual negotiations are completed and there is a recommendation for an award of contract. At this point, all information on all offers, excluding the proprietary data, becomes public knowledge. Without this provision negotiations with individual bidders are compromised by their competitors and by the request for public information.
Assembly Bill 649 strengthens the definition of the responsibility of contractors by allowing appropriate information to be considered in the award of public contracts. It provides an exception for the competitive bidding process for the purchase of supplies and services from organizations which train and employ persons with disabilities. It also clarifies surplus personal property disposal procedures.
Chairman O’Connell:
This is just part of your general housekeeping bill for the session.
Mr. Balentine:
Exactly, with the exception of the added “e-commerce” provisions.
Bill Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration:
This bill is primarily a local purchasing bill, but there are sections which impact state purchasing. Section 15 makes it possible to do online bidding consistent with local purchasing. Section 16, point 3 allows us to enter into certain general services administration contracts if we feel it is in the best interest of the state.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you, Mr. Moell. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay, we will close the hearing on A.B. 649.
Chairman O’Connell closed the committee hearing at 2:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: