MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
February 12, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:07 a.m., on Wednesday, February 12, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Rosemary Zienter, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
LeRoy Goodman, Commissioner, Lyon County
Mickey Yarbro, Commissioner, Lander County
Doug Bierman, Senior Research Associate, Intertech Services Corporation
Mary Walker, President, Walker and Associates
Mr. Robert Hadfield, Executive Director of the Nevada Association of Counties
Rocky Finseth, Government Affairs, Carrara Nevada
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the Clark County Manager
Daniel K. O’Brien, P.E., Manager, State of Nevada Public Works Board
Terry Crawforth, Administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife
R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Assembly Bill 46: Revises manner of providing notice of certain meetings of board of county commissioners. (BDR 20-865)
Chairman Manendo opened the meeting and asked Assemblyman Grady to introduce A.B. 46.
Assemblyman Grady introduced LeRoy Goodman, Commissioner, Lyon County, and stated that Mr. Goodman had requested the bill. Mr. Grady explained that he considered A.B. 46 a good government bill because it would take the government to the people. He noted that all Committee members had a copy of the amendment (Exhibit C). The proposed amendment would take away in its entirety subsections 4 and 5 and insert a new subsection 4 that would read: “The regularly scheduled meeting and any additional meetings may be held at a place outside the county seat if notice is published at least once a week for two consecutive weeks.” Mr. Grady added that the other sections would be renumbered accordingly and requested that Mr. Goodman continue with the presentation.
Mr. Goodman introduced Mickey Yarbro, Commissioner, Lander County, and Mr. Goodman commented that A.B. 46 represented good commonsense government. The problem in Lyon County pertained to growth in the western part of the county including Dayton, Silver Springs, and Stagecoach. Matters arose where commissioners would have liked to be able to meet in two weeks at a certain location to discuss important matters concerning the residents of the area. Currently, that could not be done because of the three-week notice of meeting law. Mr. Goodman explained that they are still bound by the first meeting of the month to consider planning and zoning matters. Those meetings would have to be held at the county seat. The amendment (Exhibit C) would allow county governments to meet two weeks later in a place of their choice, within the county. The bill took a three-week provision and made it a two-week provision.
Mr. Yarbro, offered background about Lander County and expressed the full support of the Lander County Commissioners for A.B. 46 for the following reasons:
1. In Lander County the official newspaper of record is the Battle Mountain Bugle. The newspaper is published only once a week.
2. Because the paper is printed outside of the county, submission of official notice to the paper is advanced several days compared to a local printed paper. As a consequence, a decision to meet at a local location other than the county seat, Battle Mountain, would have to be made at least four weeks prior to the date of the meeting.
3. Certain issues require the ability to determine the need to schedule and hold a commission meeting at a location other than the county seat over a much shorter time frame. For example, a decision to hold a commission meeting and to obtain public input on a state or federal document, having a 30-day review period, would require the ability to decide, schedule, and hold the public meeting with less than four-weeks’ notice.
4. In the case of Lander County, public input hearings are sometimes scheduled in Austin, which is 90 miles from Battle Mountain, and Kingston Canyon, which is 120 miles from Battle Mountain. The distance compounds the problem.
Mr. Yarbro stated in conclusion that the Lander County Commissioners would respectfully request the Committee’s support and approval of A.B. 46 which would give the rural counties some discretionary privileges in scheduling public hearings outside of the county seat.
Chairman Manendo asked for clarification on the amendment.
Assemblyman Grady explained that subsections 4 and 5 would be deleted entirely because they would be picked up in the amendment (Exhibit C) which stated, “The regularly scheduled and any additional meetings may be held . . .” Therefore, subsections 4 and 5 would be incorporated into one. He further stated that this would not affect the notification under the Open Meeting Law. Under the Open Meeting Law the publishing of agendas would still be done in the same manner addressed in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).
Chairman Manendo asked, for the record, if the amendment would insure that the meetings would be held in that county.
Mr. Grady responded that it would.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked if notice would be able to be made for the meetings, since the newspaper was only printed once a week.
Mr. Yarbro stated that they received the newspaper on Wednesdays. Under the three-week notice requirement, it was sometimes another three to four weeks before they were able to hold a meeting.
Ms. Pierce asked if the two-week notice would allow them to fulfill the requirements.
Mr. Yarbro responded that it would.
Assemblywoman Weber asked if the intent was the same in the amendment “…a place outside the county seat…“ compared to the language in existing subsection 5 “…any place within the boundaries of the county.”
Assemblyman Grady stated that the intent was the same.
Ms. Weber asked if there was a reason “outside the county seat” had been chosen as opposed to the current language.
Mr. Grady stated that was the way it was drafted and he did not believe that had even been considered when the amendment was written.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if subsection 5 were taken out of the bill completely, would it be found any place else in the bill that the meeting would have to be held within the county. Technically, with the amendment, the bill would indicate that advertisement could take place for two weeks and the meeting could be held in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Grady indicated that he heard his colleague, Mr. Collins, answering “no” and if he had the answer he could respond.
Chairman Manendo asked if wording such as “the regular scheduled meeting, and any, within the county,” would tighten up the intent and ease concerns of the Committee.
Mr. Goicoechea indicated that it would and felt that if subsection 5 were removed, there would be no restriction for the meeting to be held within the boundaries of the county.
Mr. Yarbro indicated that subsection 1 would alleviate the concerns because it stated “ . . . held at the county seats of their respective counties, or at a place not more than 10 miles from the county seat . . .”
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. O’Grady, Committee Counsel, if the language could be changed for clarification.
Ms. O’Grady stated that there should be additional language regarding “within the boundaries of the county”; otherwise, that requirement would be lost with the elimination of subsection 5. Because subsection 7 allowed the commissioners to meet outside of the county boundaries, language needed to be added to ensure the meetings were held within the county boundaries.
Mr. Goodman indicated that the first sentence in the current language of section 5 could be left as is.
Assemblyman Collins stated that his opinion was that the commissioners had no jurisdiction outside their county. If they met outside the county at a retreat, they were not able to take action. Any items discussed outside of their county would have to be readdressed at a posted meeting. They were limited to taking action only within their jurisdiction.
Assemblyman Knecht said regarding the question of jurisdiction and meeting within the county, his understanding would be that jurisdiction did not address where the commissioners met, but it addressed what could be controlled and reached.
Ms. O’Grady commented that the county commissioners were allowed to meet in other places, but official action could not be taken because they were outside their jurisdiction.
Assemblyman Knecht stated that as he read the bill, regarding the two consecutive weeks, a meeting could be scheduled for Thursday and advertised on the two previous Wednesdays, one day before and eight days before. He asked for clarification if that would be possible or if any part of the Nevada Open Meeting Law would require it to be as much as 14 days in advance on the first advertisement, instead of 8 days.
Mr. Grady indicated that he understood that this bill would have nothing to do with the Nevada Open Meeting Law, which addressed posting an agenda but not notification. Any county would still have to abide by all of the Open Meeting Law requirements. A.B. 46 would be in addition to what was required in the Open Meeting Law.
Mr. Knecht indicated that he understood that the bill would be separate from the Open Meeting Law. The question was if it would allow an advertisement to appear on Wednesday the 4th and Wednesday the 11th, for a meeting on Thursday the 12th. Mr. Knecht asked if his interpretation was accurate and if there was any other provision of law, such as the Nevada Open Meeting Law, that required more advance notice than eight days.
Mr. Grady responded that he believed Mr. Knecht’s time frame would be possible, especially with weekly newspapers. In response to Mr. Knecht’s second question, Mr. Grady replied that he did not know of any such provision.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if Mr. Grady would consider incorporating in the new subsection 4 “may be held outside the county seat, within the boundaries of the county seat, if notice is published at least once a week or two consecutive weeks.”
Assemblyman Grady stated they would have no problem with Mr. Goicoechea’s recommendation.
Assemblyman Williams asked Mr. Grady if he would have a problem inserting a population clause into the amendment.
Mr. Grady responded that he would be very interested in entertaining the proposal by Mr. Williams. However, he would be concerned if it precluded the rural counties, but if the intent were to opt out counties over 100,000, he would have no problem with that recommendation.
Mr. Williams commented that he would feel more comfortable if a population clause were inserted to assure that the new proposed language addressed the rural counties who depended on weekly newspapers.
Mr. Grady stated that to clarify his opinion he would agree to opt out the large counties, but he would keep it for the rural counties. Mr. Grady reminded the Committee members that last year a bill was introduced, sponsored by Assemblyman Beers, to provide postings and notices on the Internet. All local governments were trying to comply with that requirement.
Mr. Williams apologized for the miscommunication. He indicated that he and Mr. Grady were in agreement because his intent was to opt out the larger counties also.
Doug Bierman, Senior Research Associate, Intertech Services Corporation, stated that he represented Eureka and Lincoln Counties and supported the original language of the bill, but would not oppose the amendment (Exhibit C) as discussed. Mr. Bierman concurred with Mr. Grady that the bill would be a good government bill for the rural counties. People in the rural areas such as Eureka County and Lincoln County did not have the opportunity for public input under the current tight restrictions and limitations, since they both had only a weekly newspaper. The bill and amendment (Exhibit C) would allow the governments in both Lincoln and Eureka to have more interaction with the people.
Mary Walker, President, Walker and Associates, representing Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County, stated that the three counties supported the measure and believed it brought the border county commissioners closer to the people.
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), stated that they sought from the bill the ability to get government closer to the people in a timely manner. When issues arose outside of the county seat, the individuals in that area wanted their county commissioners present and listening to their concerns as soon as possible. He felt changing the requirement from two weeks to three weeks would assist in that. He stated that NACO would want to keep the existing flexibility in the law for those counties that had more than one newspaper in general circulation in their county. The language was put in to allow those counties that have that ability to respond even more quickly to their citizens’ needs. That language would be found in lines 7, 8, and 9 of the deleted Section 5. He indicated that he would not want to see the bill amended to make it more restrictive than it currently was. Mr. Hadfield offered to work on the amendment with the members of the Committee, with the goal to allow county commissioners to respond to issues outside the county seat in a timely manner. The goal was not to hold a “secret” meeting; the goal was to advise the public of the meeting in order to help solve a problem. A decision could not be made in the rural areas, but information could be obtained and decisions made at the county seat. He stated that problems needed to be addressed prior to them becoming stale, or the public became enraged and convinced that their county government was not responsive. He felt this bill would help them be a little more responsive.
Rocky Finseth, Government Affairs, Carrara Nevada, representing Washoe County, indicated that they supported the bill, Assemblyman Grady’s original amendment, and the population cap.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Clark County Manager’s Office, indicated, with all due respect to Assemblyman Williams, he believed it was important to be consistent and tended to agree with Mr. Hadfield in the way he described the need for flexibility. He explained that Clark County had newspapers published every day, and a large county such as Clark County, outside of a very small classified ad on the back of a newspaper, used other means of notification of meetings such as the Internet, posting notices around the entire county, and advertisements on television channels. They believed the use of those options provided better information for the public, rather than just the use of a small notification in the newspaper. He asked the Committee to give them the flexibility to be consistent across the state and also to leave the bill with a one-week notification.
Chairman Manendo asked if anyone present wanted to speak in opposition to A.B. 46. Upon hearing no response, the Chairman stated the hearing would be closed. He asked Assemblyman Grady to take into consideration the remarks by Assemblyman Williams and Mr. Hadfield and bring back proposals to the Committee.
Assembly Bill 69: Expands exemption from requirement that State Public Works Board furnish engineering and architectural services for buildings constructed on state property or with legislative appropriation to certain improvements made by Division of Wildlife of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 28-521)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B. 69.
Terry Crawforth, Administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife, thanked the Committee for bringing the bill forward. He stated that the Nevada Division of Wildlife operated 13 wildlife management areas throughout the state encompassing over 200,000 acres. They operated four fish hatcheries, a number of office facilities around the state, dams, bridges, and campgrounds. They also maintained current facilities and constructed new small facilities. A registered engineer and an engineering intern were employed in the agency to assist with guiding the various projects. A.B. 69 would exempt the Nevada Division of Wildlife along with the Nevada Division of State Parks from some of the services of the Nevada State Public Works Board. He explained that they would continue to use Public Works for larger projects. Mr. Crawforth indicated that he believed the Public Works Board would concur. The bill would make the operation of the Nevada Division of Wildlife more efficient and effective in the construction of small projects on state facilities.
Assemblyman Knecht asked Mr. Crawforth if he had questioned other departments to determine if they would benefit from the exemption.
Terry Crawforth replied that the Nevada Department of Transportation and the Nevada Division of State Parks were exempt. He was not aware of any other agencies that had the need, services, employees, and the property that the Nevada Division of Wildlife had.
R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, Nevada State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, assured the Committee that the State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors policed their ranks very well. The bill would allow small building projects such as dikes, levies, water control structures, and small buildings to be designed and the construction supervised by the professional engineer in the Division of Wildlife staff.
Daniel K. O’Brien, P.E., Manager, State of Nevada Public Works Board, stated that he was present in support of A.B. 69. He explained that currently the Nevada Division of State Parks had the exemption and that it applied to residential structures and commercial-industrial type structures that were smaller than 1,000 square feet. The Public Works Board had been working with State Parks and it had worked very well. The bill would not exempt the Nevada Division of Wildlife from coming to them and to the State Fire Marshall for review if the project were a structure. Public Works would also continue to provide inspections per their building official role. The bill would exempt the Nevada Division of Wildlife from coming to the State Public Works Board and asking for delegation of authority. Currently, they were required to come to Public Works regularly and it was not an efficient process. By allowing for the exemption, it would offer them the ability to go forward with their projects, plan them, and do the project management, as long as they had engineers on staff to oversee the project. Mr. O’Brien stated that he had no problem with the request.
Assemblyman Knecht stated that he appreciated the attitude of procedural efficiency displayed. He asked if other state agencies would benefit from the exclusion offered in the bill.
Mr. O’Brien responded that there were probably other state agencies that would benefit from the exemption as long as they had qualified staff to perform the functions required. Mr. O’Brien said that the inclusion of other state agencies to provide a global approval would not create any problems for Public Works.
Mr. Knecht asked if Mr. O’Brien felt it would be practical to draft language globally for the exemption.
Mr. O’Brien responded that he believed additional wording could be added to the bill covering protections needed by the Public Works Board.
Mr. Knecht requested that the proponents be directed by the Chairman to work with Mr. O’Brien to affect the more global exemption as discussed.
Chairman Manendo indicated that it was the intention of the Chair to move the bill today, but perhaps they might want to bring another bill back next session or amend it in the Senate.
Mr. Knecht thanked the Chairman for the advice and urged Mr. O’Brien and the proponents to take it to the Senate.
Chairman Manendo asked why the 1,000 foot requirement, on page 2, line 5, was determined.
Mr. O’Brien stated that he did not have the history on that determination.
Assemblyman Collins concurred with the Chairman’s comments about letting the bill pass through in the next session. He suggested that there might be departments who would not want to waive their right to use the State Public Works Board.
Mr. O’Brien commented that the Public Works Board would be more than willing to enter into a delegation of authority with any agency that would come before them. The “blanket” delegation could be accomplished on a yearly basis. He believed the same thing could occur by doing it administratively with the agencies which would not tie the matter up any longer. If a state agency was looking for a delegation of authority, they could approach the Public Works Board.
Chairman Manendo agreed that those agencies should come forth with their request.
Mr. Knecht added that it was not his intention to compel anybody to enter into those arrangements, but it was intended to be permissive and allow them the opportunity to request exemption.
Chairman Manendo asked if anyone else was present to speak in favor of or opposition to A.B. 69. Seeing no response, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 69.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 69.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE BILL PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Christensen was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo entertained motions to vote on committee introductions for the following Bill Draft Requests (BDRs):
· BDR 19-230—Makes various changes concerning notarial officers (A.B. 87).
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 19-230.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION. (Mr. Christensen was absent for the vote.)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
********
· BDR 21-119—Revises provisions concerning certain town advisory boards (A.B. 84).
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 21-119.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen was absent for the vote.)
********
· BDR 30-469—Revises provisions governing revenue bonds for industrial development (A.B. 85).
ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 30-469.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen was absent for the vote.)
********
· BDR 27-338—Revises provisions concerning purchasing contracts of certain local governments (A.B. 86).
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 27-338.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen was absent for the vote.)
********
· BDR 19-535—Revises provisions relating to Department of Information Technology (A.B. 88).
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 19-535.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 8:53 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________
Rosemary Zienter
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: