SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

April 16, 2001

The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:36 p.m., on Monday, April 16, 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:

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel

Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst

Laura Hale, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Earlene Forsythe, Concerned Citizen

Pat Lundvall, Concerned Citizen

Drennan A. Clark, Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General

Giles Vanderhoof, Brigadier General, The Adjutant General of Nevada, Office of the Military

Steve Sitton, Major, Command Sergeant, Senior Enlisted Advisor, Nevada Army National Guard

Michael Patterson, Chief Master Sergeant, State Command Chief, Nevada Air National Guard

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County

Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, City of Reno

Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Pat A. Zamora, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

Susan Morandi, Deputy Secretary, Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of State

Kateri Cavin, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Office of the Attorney General

Charles (Chas) L. Horsey III, Administrator, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry

Lon DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry

Robert Barengo, Lobbyist

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 471.

SENATE BILL 471: Makes various changes concerning adjutant general. (BDR 36-1347)

Senator Porter distributed copies of an amendment (Exhibit C) which, he said, was agreed to by the Governor’s office. He said the bill would broaden the qualifications for the adjutant general position, and the amendment includes one change to eliminate the requirement for 3 years’ service in the National Guard immediately prior to appointment.

Earlene Forsythe, Concerned Citizen, testified she is a veteran of the Army Nursing Corps, Army Reserve, and Nevada Army National Guard. She added that she had served as Army Chief Nurse for the state of Nevada and received an honorable discharge from the army. Ms. Forsythe stated she supported the bill for two reasons: 1) It would permit the governor to select an adjutant general from a significantly broader and more qualified pool of candidates that would be inclusive rather than exclusive, improving the infrastructure of the National Guard through effective leadership; and 2) If the selection of the adjutant general were from soldiers retired from the Nevada National Guard and not retained during an appointment, it would encourage the rank and file to achieve and succeed, knowing if they do, they also could be eligible for appointment based upon their merit. She asserted it would bring them back into the system.

Pat Lundvall, Concerned Citizen, provided a printed table showing Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) relating to leadership positions for various state departments (Exhibit D). She stated her support for the bill and suggested a change to subsection 2 that would broaden the available pool of candidates from which the governor may make his selection for appointment to adjutant general. Also, she noted other departments and administrative agencies do not have requirements for appointment from within. The issue, said Ms. Lundvall, is whether or not there is something special or unique about the military that would require its leader to be appointed only from within. She asserted individuals with other military experience might be eligible and available for appointment.

In response to Senator Neal, Ms. Lundvall said what is special about the National Guard is that candidates need to have a military background, but it is not special that it be immediately prior to their appointment. She confirmed for Senator Neal that the National Guard may be called into the military service at any time, and she added the candidates should have experience, as in the 6-year experience requirement under statute.

Ms. Lundvall provided examples of people in the Pentagon who meet the 6-year experience requirement and also have up-to-date experience, but would not be eligible because of the requirement for 3 years’ service in the Nevada National Guard immediately prior to appointment. She explained that the bill came as a request through her husband, who serves in the Nevada National Guard, and others who want to see the “insider requirement” eliminated to broaden the selection pool. She stressed that it does not eliminate anyone from eligibility, but broadens eligibility and permits greater flexibility, allowing the Governor to choose and select the best individual.

Senator Care suggested consideration of restricting appointments to a single 4-year term if this proposal goes into effect. Ms. Lundvall stated she would endorse the proposal as consistent with traditional military training, which typically includes relocation every 4 years.

Drennan A. Clark, Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, testified he had served a little over 14 years as adjutant general in Nevada. He explained to Senator Neal that current statute requires the nominees for adjutant general to have acquired a federally recognized status of lieutenant colonel or above. He explained for a lieutenant colonel to progress, he would have to go through a promotion board in the Pentagon, be recommended to the President for promotion, and then achieve U.S. Senate confirmation to be promoted to colonel. Then, he said, the nominee would have to serve as colonel for at least 1 year before going through another board process to be promoted to brigadier general. He explained the same process is required for eligibility for promotion to major general, and noted one cannot serve as adjutant general in any grade beyond major general, pursuant to federal regulation in the National Guard Bureau.

Mr. Clark asserted the Governor appoints whomever he wants who meets these requirements, and the state can do whatever it wants with regard to eligibility for the position of adjutant general. He noted that 23 states, including Nevada, have the same statute requiring “insider appointment,” another 13 states have similar statutes requiring long-time membership in the National Guard of that state, without the requirement to be currently serving in the National Guard at the time of appointment, and, he said, the rest of the states are “all over the lot.”

Giles Vanderhoof, Brigadier General, The Adjutant General of Nevada, Office of the Military, testified in opposition to the bill. He reported he had discussed the bill with the Governor and his staff, and the Governor’s position was that he could support the provision if the Legislature does. General Vanderhoof expressed concern regarding the broad expansion proposed by the bill, and said he believes it is too wide, because people could be out of the system for a significantly long time and still qualify. He emphasized that people in higher positions in the service need to have a civilian education and professional military education, and they have to serve in increasingly responsible positions to demonstrate leadership and management abilities. He asserted that people qualifying through this amendment might not have that ability.

General Vanderhoof stated a lot of people who retired from the service after 20 years would see this as an opportunity for them, especially if they were in positions to exert political influence, and he said, “the governor would be subjected to more than he realizes.” He reiterated his preference to keep the law the way it is, adding there are over 50 people who would meet the current qualifications. Continuing, General Vanderhoof said:

The Guard doesn’t just help with nonmilitary duties, but every day of the year there is someone in the Nevada [National] Guard overseas and in theatres like Bosnia, due to cutbacks in the military. We are involved in everything the military is doing, and we’re doing it on a daily basis. Our troops believe in civilian leadership of the military, but they have a right to expect that the officers leading them are professional and have proven themselves and are people they can look up to and respect. The proposed bill would enter into a political area. If this body feels this is necessary, the Governor said he would accept this change; if he will accept it, then I will support it, but my preference is to leave the law the way it is.

Senator Raggio asked what was magical about 3 years of service immediately prior to appointment. General Vanderhoof responded, in 1967, the Legislature made some changes so there would be more professionalism in the ranks. He said there were no requirements prior to that time and it was assumed it was becoming more political than it should be. General Vanderhoof asserted the current requirements were minimal. In active duty, he said, it would be unbelievable to move a lieutenant colonel or a colonel up to a two-star general, and he noted there are currently many lieutenant colonels, but not so many colonels, in the Nevada National Guard.

In more direct response to Senator Raggio’s question, General Vanderhoof said he did not know what the cutoff should be. He said, “One month or 6 months might be okay; 1 year might not be; 3 years is a lot of time and there would be tremendous change. If you use 10 or 15 years, that’s terrible.”

Steve Sitton, Major, Command Sergeant, Senior Enlisted Advisor, Nevada Army National Guard, stated two reasons why leadership is important to the armed services and the Nevada National Guard. He said General Douglas MacArthur expressed the first reason in a 1962 speech:

Your mission is to win all wars. You’re the ones who are trained to fight, yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, but if you lose, the nation will be destroyed.

The second reason is to strive to become the very best leaders we can be. Our people deserve nothing less. When we take the oath, when we agree to be a leader, we enter into a pact with our subordinates and our state and nation. Every person serving with us is someone’s son or someone’s daughter, a brother, mother, sister, or father. These individuals are capable of extraordinary feats of courage and sacrifice, as they have proven on General MacArthur’s hundred battlefields and on every battlefield since then. These individuals are also capable of great patience and persistence and tremendous loyalty, as they show every day in our armories, orderly rooms, offices, and tank parks, and on firing ranges around the world. They show up and do the work no matter how frightening, boring, no matter how risky, bloody, or exhausting. What they ask in return is competent leadership. The most precious commodity with which the army deals is the individual soldier, who is the heart and soul of our combat forces.

Major Sitton explained the current promotion system in place for officers and enlisted soldiers. He said it is designed to help fill authorized vacancies with the best-qualified soldier officers who have demonstrated the potential to serve at the next higher grade. He added it provides for career progression and grade in line with each soldier’s or officer’s potential, and each officer or enlisted soldier is evaluated annually by his or her immediate supervisor. Major Sitton said for officers it determines the quality of the officer corps, the selection of future leaders, and the course of each officer’s career. And, the officer’s evaluation report ensures that an officer’s specialties are considered along with the specialty requirements of his or her duty position. He noted it also provides a chain of command evaluation of officers’ performance and potential.

Continuing, Major Sitton said the armed forces of today are not the armed forces of the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s. He said the technologies and missions change quite often, and leaders are needed who are current with today’s technology and military strategy and the training levels of their units and soldiers. Most of all, he said, we need competent leaders.

In conclusion, Major Sitton said:

Good competent leaders are trained from within our current systems. Our soldiers are familiar and comfortable with leaders who are current members of our guard and have made their rank through the system. To be a good leader, you must be visible, competent, caring and knowledgeable on current issues that affect our armed forces. If the 3-year requirement is removed, institutional knowledge is lost. A large qualified population to choose from is in the Nevada National Guard, with lieutenant colonels, colonels, and brigadier generals already on board.

Mr. Clark remarked that Major Sitton is a senior soldier in the Nevada National Guard who “really knows what he is doing,” and for whom he has a “great deal of respect.” Mr. Clark testified his opposition to any change in the statute. He said, “When the President gets ready to appoint a chief of staff for any military branch, he doesn’t look to retirees, but to serving officers, because they are current in tactics and strategy and have proven themselves in the army in which they serve.” He claimed it is as important for the National Guard and for the active services to have actively current leadership appointed to senior positions, because of the requirements now placed on the guard for active services and the downsized positions.

In response to a question from Senator Care, General Vanderhoof explained, currently, the adjutant general serves a 4-year term which can be renewed. He said he is willing to leave it up to the Governor, and if someone is working well, he should qualify for reappointment. He claimed if the Governor wants to remove the adjutant general, it is a very simple process. He noted that there is an age limit of 64, which is 4 years longer than what is authorized for most other people in the service.

Senator Porter said what sparked his interest is that, going back to 1947, the adjutant general has been from northern Nevada. It seems reasonable, he said, if there is a way to broaden the field, even someone from southern Nevada would have an opportunity to serve. Mr. Clark agreed that adjutants general have been from northern Nevada, but, he said, three commanders in chief of the Nevada National Guard whom he served under were all from southern Nevada: former Governors Bryan, and Miller, and present Governor Guinn. Mr. Clark said there are certainly qualified officers from southern Nevada who are coming up the chain, and several of them now are serving in Carson City, where they are detailed full-time, but are natives of Clark County. Certainly, he said, they would “play into the mix for selection“ when General Vanderhoof finishes his term.

Michael Patterson, Chief Master Sergeant, State Command Chief, Nevada Air National Guard, testified he represents many enlisted people in the Nevada Air National Guard, sits on the National Committee for the Enlisted Field Advisory Council, and is a regional chairman for the council. He said leadership is the key to success in the military, and the United States Congress is working on reform in the pay structure and retirement issues for people in the military, through active, current leadership, unrelated to technology changes. He said every day of the week there are Nevada guardsmen serving in foreign countries. He also noted the guard is downsizing and reengineering, some sections are growing much smaller, and others are growing larger to handle military commitments.

Chief Master Sergeant Patterson said he has been a member of the Nevada National Guard since 1959 and has worked for five adjutant generals, and he has found that leadership from within really works. He said he would hate to see someone in charge who is not knowledgeable about current events, and he noted the learning curve is far too steep to catch up, let alone be effective.

In response to Senator Neal, General Vanderhoof explained he was a brigadier general when he was appointed to the adjutant general position and was a colonel for 10 years before that. Prior to that, he said, he had been enlisted for 10 years and achieved the grade of master sergeant before he was commissioned as a second lieutenant.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 471 and opened the hearing on S.B. 355.

SENATE BILL 355: Requires local governments to comply with certain laws and regulations and to pay certain fees and taxes when providing goods or services in competition with private entities. (BDR 31-49)

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, provided proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit E), and reviewed the changes. She said if local government subsidizes competition with private industry, the provisions would apply. She explained if an entity is fee-based, without subsidy, or even receiving a one-quarter cent sales tax as an option, it is not part of the consolidated tax revenue stream and would not be considered to be competing. She pointed out page 2 adds sections for exclusion based on testimony from the previous hearing, although, she said, parking garages are not included for exclusion to the bill’s primary provision.

Continuing, Ms. Vilardo said item 4 includes a date of April 1, 2001, as a cutoff for when the bill would affect government-subsidized competition. She explained that goods and services provided through government-subsidized competition prior to this date would not be affected. Therefore, she said, the University Medical Center (UMC) and the existing Quick Care Centers (QCC) would not be affected, as she understands the amendment.

Senator Neal stated he had visited a Quick Care Center in Southern Nevada over the weekend and found the sign-in process includes identification of a patient’s primary care physician for follow-up referrals. He claimed Sunrise Hospital is concerned that a QCC is being built in their area, but he said the one he visited on Easter Sunday was in an outlying area and had people coming in that day. He said he understands the intention of the testimony from the previous hearing was for UMC to divest itself of the QCC through privatization.

Ms. Vilardo said she cannot address the QCC issue, but, she said, the amendment was intended to freeze everything at a point in time so as not to affect existing government-subsidized competition. She claimed that through government-subsidized competition, access to revenue from healthy private sector business taxes is lost. She agreed there are a number of services in different areas that government has to provide, but, she said, as the state grows and becomes more sophisticated, the public rely more and more on tax revenue. She emphasized the importance of knowing that what is being provided by the government is absolutely necessary, because, when it is not, she said, the revenue source is impacted.

Senator Neal asserted if the committee passed this bill, he would go to the other house to lobby against it. He said, “You’re going after QCC and UMC, and I will not let that happen without raising objections.”

Senator Raggio cited an example of county-owned golf courses in Washoe County that preceded private golf courses, and asked if they would be required to pay taxes. Ms. Vilardo responded that she did not think they would be affected because of the cutoff date and because they probably are not subsidized through property or consolidated taxes. Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, said she believes the county golf courses are supported by user fees, not taxes. She added the county parks department operates the golf courses with hired professional managers, and all concessions are put out for bid. Ms. Shipman said there are two courses operated by the county and two operated by the city, which, she believes are also enterprised.

Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, City of Reno, testified there have been subsidies to the city golf courses when they have had difficulties. She said one of the city golf courses is closing down due to airport fees, and there are currently negotiations with the university farm to put in a first tee for young children, and other activities that many commercial providers would not offer because they are not profitable. She expressed concern about jeopardizing special feature golf courses where seniors and children play, and asserted if the city courses had to pay taxes, they would have to charge higher fees for use.

Continuing, Ms. Henderson said parking garages are also a serious concern for the redevelopment agency. Taxpayer dollars would be used to build a parking structure as part of an incentive to bring in upwards of $100 million in private investment into the downtown area, thereby helping the whole economy and raising assessed value.

In response to a question from Senator Porter, Ms. Vilardo cited an example of a local government providing services or goods through interdepartmental arrangements, such as the City of Las Vegas cable television station offering service to the redevelopment agency. She said a new amendment may be required to address a situation where a private provider goes out of business, the local government steps in to offer that service, and then another private provider comes in. She urged the committee to at least appoint an interim committee to study the issues the bill would address.

Senator Porter expressed concern with possible serious ramifications to UMC, even with the cutoff date from the proposed amendments. He also suggested an interim study due to the broadness of the bill and the need to ensure that services are available to those who can least afford them.

Ms. Vilardo clarified for Senator Titus that in her view, under the proposed amendments, the bill would not affect a government entity which received tax exemptions but did not receive a tax subsidy. Ms. Vilardo said the Colorado River Commission is a state entity and would not be affected by the bill, which would only apply to local government entities, but the Southern Nevada Water Authority is a local government entity that would be affected.

Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, confirmed the Southern Nevada Water Authority was created by a special act of the Legislature and fits the definition of a local government, as defined throughout NRS, and particularly in chapter 354. She also confirmed the Colorado River Commission is a state entity and would not be affected by the bill.

Senator O’Donnell asserted there are five efficiencies of expenditure of money: 1) you spend money on yourself; 2) someone gives you money to spend on yourself; 3) you spend money on someone else; 4) you take money from one person and give it to another person; and 5) you borrow money from one person to give to another person. He said the fifth example is analogous to government expenditure, and the built-in inefficiency costs taxpayers more than competition in the market. He claimed it is a philosophical question of whether government should compete with private industry, and he asserted the government does not care about costs or borrowing.

Continuing, Senator O’Donnell said, “We need government less involved and private business more involved in the competitive cycle to be more efficient. Why would government stand for QCCs using taxpayer money to give away services to entice people to go to UMC? Why would the committee stand for that?” In response, Senator Neal said, “I don’t want my sickness to be a commodity.”

Senator Raggio asked, “If the merits are there for this bill, why would it not apply to hospitals in counties with populations of less than 100,000?” Senator O’Donnell said if there are two competing hospitals in a small community, the price of health care is driven up because there is a limited base of patients supporting the two entities.

Senator Porter inquired what the impact of the bill would be to a hospital in the community of Boulder City. Several people responded that the bill would affect it. Senator Titus disclosed that she is a member of the Board of Trustees for Sunrise Hospital, on a volunteer basis.

Chairman O’Connell informed Senator Porter that all local government representatives who testified at the initial hearing were opposed to the bill, and concluded that no one at the current hearing was able to provide fiscal impact figures in response to Senator Porter’s request, as no one had responded directly to that request. Senators Raggio and Porter reiterated their concerns with the broadness of the bill and possible unintended consequences.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 355.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, PORTER AND NEAL VOTED NO.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 157.

SENATE BILL 157: Revises provisions governing Comstock historic district. (BDR 33-954)

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, testified that he has asked to be placed on the May 14, 2001, agenda for the Comstock Historical District (CHD) meeting to communicate the concerns of the committee regarding equal treatment in various areas of the district. He said he would also raise the issue of adding an advisory question to the ballot for the next local election, to determine whether Dayton residents support their own inclusion in the CHD. Another issue to be discussed, he said, is the visual state of affairs in various portions of the district with regard to zoning and special use permit laws.

Senator Amodei said he had worked in coordination with Chairman O’Connell and Senator Shaffer, and agreed to report back to the committee on an interim basis. He said if the issues remain unresolved by the next legislative session, he would support committee action at that time, but he hopes to work within the existing framework and the existing boundaries of the CHD. He recommended the committee defer taking action at this time, although there is a related bill currently in the Assembly that the committee could also address if needed.

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Clark County District No. 2, testified concurrence with Senator Amodei to try to resolve the issues in an amicable manner, rather than take statutory action at this time.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 157.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO VOTED NO. SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 365.

SENATE BILL 365: Makes various changes relating to Indian affairs. (BDR 18-719)

Chairman O’Connell stated the sponsor of the bill had requested that it be withdrawn.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 365.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 426.

SENATE BILL 426: Establishes requirements and procedures for strategic planning for state agencies. (BDR 31-429)

Chairman O’Connell stated she had not received the written information requested by the committee. Senator Raggio explained Mr. John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, had indicated a fiscal note would be necessary to add a part-time person and two more people in his department, but he was seriously ill and no one had heard from his department that day. Senator Raggio stated if the committee were inclined to pass the bill, the Fiscal Division would need to indicate an exemption because of the fiscal note, and it would have to go to the Senate finance committee.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 426.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman O’Connell provided additional explanation of the bill to Senator O’Donnell. Senator Raggio explained if the committee passed the bill, it would have a fiscal note and would have to go to finance.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN ON S.B. 426.

THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

Senator Raggio explained he wanted to make sure there is not a high fiscal note attached to the bill, and said he believes the finance committee can achieve that.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION, TO RE- REFER S.B. 426 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 466 for discussion.

SENATE BILL 466: Makes various changes regarding ethics in government. (BDR 23-716)

Chairman O’Connell explained that a mission statement was proposed by an amendment from William Flangas, who is a member of the ethics commission, but he made the proposal independently.

Senator Raggio asserted the statute related to the ethics commission has been worked over repeatedly through many sessions, and it may go a little overboard. He reviewed the bill, stating support for sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 11; but he said he had questions on sections 5, 7, 8 and 12. He asserted section 5 is too broad, and the language in section 7 on “personal relationship” is objectionable because it could be easily abused.

Ms. Guinasso reviewed NRS 281.511, which she said would be affected by section 8 of the bill. She confirmed for Senator Raggio the change to section 8 would only apply in cases where a public officer had requested an opinion, effectively narrowing the application to the advisory opinion of the commission. Further, she said, section 12 contains a provision to eliminate the sunset on the position for counsel to the commission, and S.B. 501 does the same thing and was passed out of the committee on April 11, 2001.

SENATE BILL 501: Repeals prospective expiration by limitation of provisions relating to appointment of commission counsel by commission on ethics. (BDR S-1317)

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DELETE SECTIONS 5, 7, 8, AND 12 AND AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 466.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator O’Donnell expressed concern with sections 4 and 10. Under section 4, he said, members of the two-member panel making a determination on sufficient cause could participate in the hearing but not vote, although currently, neither participation nor voting in the full hearing is extended to these members. Senator O’Donnell asserted this would be like having a prosecutor also be your judge, and he said the panel members should not be able to participate, in order that the other members could adjudicate free of bias. Senator Neal asserted section 4 was included to provide needed information to the members adjudicating the hearing.

Senator Raggio explained he was the principal supporter of setting up the ethics commission in the beginning to create an advisory body to give guidance to public officials who were accused of conflicts of interest. But now, he said, he believes it has turned 180 degrees, and it should not be a trap for the unwary. He asserted the guidelines must be recognizable so as not to discourage people from running for public office.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE SECTIONS 4 AND 10 IN THE DELETIONS TO S.B. 466.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND NEAL VOTED NO).

*****

Chairman O’Connell asked for a vote on the previous motion from Senator Neal.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell called for a motion on S.B. 471, heard earlier.

SENATE BILL 471: Makes various changes concerning adjutant general. (BDR 36-1347)

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 471.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O’CONNELL, TITUS AND NEAL VOTED NO.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 489.

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

Chairman O’Connell explained there was a concern with the bill regarding a request by the state treasurer to change a classified position to unclassified.

Senator Raggio explained the Senate Committee on Finance is consistently recommending to constitutional officers that designated positions be dealt with in the unclassified pay bill, therefore, section 1 of the bill should be deleted.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 489.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 530 for discussion.

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

Chairman O’Connell stated two amendments were presented at a previous hearing with a request for separate voting. She reported there was no opposition to the first amendment, but there was opposition to the second amendment which provided zoning home-rule.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS, S.B. 530 WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT (EXHIBIT F).

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Senator Raggio asked for the record to reflect S.B. 530 would only apply in Clark County. Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 553 for discussion.

SENATE BILL 553: Makes various changes concerning finances of local governments. (BDR 30-130)

Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, reviewed his earlier testimony that the bill would update statutory language to conform to the Uniform Commercial Code, enable utilization of medium-term financing, improve definitions, and streamline various sections. He also testified support for the amendment from bond counsel (Exhibit G).

Senator Porter said he chaired an interim committee with Senator Titus on air quality. He said a consistent problem was found with diesel vehicles and the Clark County School District is the largest owner of diesel-burning equipment in southern Nevada. He provided a copy of a proposed amendment (Exhibit H) to subsection 1, section 48, and read it into the record:

(e) Purchasing necessary furniture and equipment for schools, including without limitation, equipment used in educating students, furniture for school building and equipment used for the transportation of students, except that such equipment used for transportation may only include motor vehicles that use diesel fuel meeting the standards of the California Air Resources Control Board, bio-diesel fuel or compressed natural gas, equipment to retrofit motor vehicles to use those fuels for the transportation, storage or dispensing of those fuels.

Mr. Leavitt said he had no problem with the amendment from Senator Porter. Pat A. Zamora, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, also testified that he had no objections to Senator Porter’s amendment. Senator Titus asserted it should be referred to as Senator Porter’s and Senator Titus’ amendment.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 553.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 554.

SENATE BILL 554: Makes various changes concerning land use planning. (BDR 22-322)

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 554.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 555.

SENATE BILL 555: Makes various changes in general laws governing cities. (BDR 21-352)

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 555.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 559.

SENATE BILL 559: Makes various changes to procedures for borrowing by local governments. (BDR 30-417)

Chairman O’Connell explained this bill would do the same thing as S.B. 553, and asked for a motion to indefinitely postpone.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 559.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 561.

SENATE BILL 561: Makes various changes concerning division of internal audits of department of administration. (BDR 31-392)

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 561.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 564.

SENATE BILL 564: Requires competitive bidding for printing of certain state publications and other printed materials. (BDR 29-568)

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 564.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O’CONNELL AND O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 565.

SENATE BILL 565: Makes various changes relating to elections. (BDR 24-608)

Chairman O’Connell reported that a problem was identified regarding Internet voting and confidentiality.

Susan Morandi, Deputy Secretary, Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of State, said the provisions for turning in petitions are governed by section 2, Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution. She said the length of time a petition can be out varies depending on the type of petition. Specifically, she said, if it is an initiative petition to amend the constitution, there are different time frames than if it is to modify or create existing law, or if it is a referendum.

Kateri Cavin, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Office of the Attorney General, explained to Senator Neal that the proposed time frame for petitions would be to start January 1 of the election year, and the cutoff date would depend on whether the measure goes onto the ballot or comes to the Legislature. If the petition goes on the ballot, the cutoff would be August 1; if it comes to the Legislature, the cutoff would be in June or July, she said.

Senator Raggio reiterated concerns from the Nevada Association of County Clerks and Election Officials regarding Internet voting. He also said he would not support sections 34 to 37 which would change the electoral college.

Chairman O’Connell said the amendment from the secretary of state’s office would delete sections 4, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 32 and change the time-frame-related initiative petitions to 45 days, under sections 30 and 33. She said the Nevada Association of County Clerks and Election Officials also asked for language changes in sections 2 and 3 to ensure that only candidates of parties could buy the list of registered voters’ names to ensure counties get some money when they are sold.

Senator Raggio said section 27 would be changed to have candidates who are not elected file with the filing officer instead of the secretary of state. Chairman O’Connell added, sections 19 and 24 would reduce the 10-day time frame to 4 days prior to voting, for the mailing of sample ballots for early voting, or “the earliest practicable date after all information necessary to prepare the sample ballot is available.”

Senator Titus said she was not sure she would support the 4-day time frame, as it may not provide enough time to get the ballot and review it. Senator Raggio said in some counties it would be difficult to comply with the 10-day time frame.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 565, DELETING SECTIONS 4, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, AND 32; INCLUDING CHANGE TO 45 DAYS UNDER SECTIONS 30 AND 33; DELETING CHANGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM SECTIONS 34, 35, 36, AND 37; INCLUDING PROTECTIVE LANGUAGE IN SECTIONS 2 AND 3; AND INSERTING LANGUAGE IN SECTION 27, LINES 41 AND 42, TO FILE WITH FILING OFFICER INSTEAD OF SECRETARY OF STATE.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Titus said she would vote against the amendment because of the electoral college deletion, but should her position not prevail, she would vote for the amended bill on the floor.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS, NEAL AND CARE VOTED NO.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 568.

SENATE BILL 568: Allows risk management division of department of administration and attorney general to assess local governments for certain tort claims. (BDR 27-1447)

Chairman O’Connell called the committee’s attention to an amendment from the attorney general regarding a concern with whether court staff are employees of the state or the county. Senator Raggio noted Washoe County representatives suggested an amendment that provided for a written agreement.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 568.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell suggested S.B. 268, S.B. 384, and S.B. 567 be taken together.

SENATE BILL 268: Requires current public officer to resign before running for different public office under certain circumstances. (BDR 24-13)

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 268.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’CONNELL VOTED NO.)

*****

SENATE BILL 384: Requires conveyance of certain land by Department of Transportation to City of Elko. (BDR S-929)

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 384.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

SENATE BILL 567: Revises provisions regarding programs of annexation. (BDR 21-617)

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 567.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Senator Titus said, in its current form, S.B. 355 would not pass in the Assembly, and she asserted it is an important issue that should be studied.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN ON S.B. 355.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Raggio asked if the motion were to pass, if it was the intention of Senator Titus to amend the bill to request an interim study of this issue. Senator Titus said that would be her next motion.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O’CONNELL AND O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)

*****

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 355 TO REQUIRE AN INTERIM STUDY.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)

*****

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO RE-REFER S.B. 355 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL VOTED NO.)

*****

Chairman O’Connell reopened S.B. 552 for a hearing, although it had already been voted on at a prior meeting.

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

Charles (Chas) L. Horsey III, Administrator, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, testified that after the last hearing, 38 or 39 sections of the bill were deleted to address the concerns expressed. He said the five remaining sections were 3, 5, 13, 16, and 17. Section 3, he said, would give the administrator more flexibility in personnel matters by creating an exemption from chapter 284 of NRS to allow hiring of a loan officer for peak lending periods and add specialized accountants for audit work that is done twice a year.

Lon DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, testified section 5 would allow the division to enter into rate reduction contracts to eliminate or minimize interest rate risks associated with variable rate bonds, subject to State Board of Finance approval. He explained changes to section 13 were recommended by counsel, as shown in the side-by-side from the handout (Exhibit I), and 70 to 80 percent of the language is identical to the language in existing statute.

Mr. Horsey said section 16 would allow the division to assist the City of Las Vegas and other metropolitan areas in financing renovation or rehabilitation of deteriorated areas. In response to questions from Senator Raggio, Mr. Horsey confirmed this would broaden the use of bonds and allow for development, renewal, and redevelopment.

In further response to Senator Raggio, Mr. DeWeese explained the purpose of eliminating the $5 million ceiling for letters of credit is that it has precluded the division from using a valuable tool, because transactions are between $8 million and $13 million, on average. Addressing earlier concerns from Senator Neal regarding elimination of insurer guarantee provisions, he explained it would avoid technical defaults on mortgages due to changes by the Federal Housing Administration eliminating the requirement for certain types of insurance once the loan-to-value ratio has dropped down to 80 percent.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO RESCIND PRIOR ACTION TAKEN ON S.B. 552.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND TO DELETE ALL SECTIONS EXCEPT 3, 5, 13, 16, AND 17 AND DO PASS S.B. 552.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator O’Donnell expressed concern with section 3 which would take the division out of the personnel requirements, and asserted it would make them private to compete against banks. Robert Barengo, Lobbyist, serving as underwriter counsel to the Housing Division, testified the proposed language would not make the division a private entity, as it would still have other state requirements. In response to a question from Senator Raggio, Mr. Horsey asserted the section is essential to the division because they have not been able to find accountants to do sophisticated arbitrage work at the regular state pay scale.

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified salary issues should be addressed specifically through the Senate Committee on Finance, rather than removing people from all the protections of state civil service. He suggested if the division wants to make certain positions unclassified and pay them higher, that is what they should do. Mr. Horsey said he would support deletion of section 3 in that case.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO ADD TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION, ADDITIONAL SECTION DELETIONS, LEAVING ONLY SECTIONS 5, 13, 16, AND 17 AND DO PASS S.B. 552.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Senator O’Donnell requested Mr. Horsey provide Senator Raggio with a list of the positions in question. Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 5:37 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Hale,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: