MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
March 4, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:20 a.m., on Tuesday, March 4, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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
Pat Hughey, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
E. Louis Overstreet, P.E., Executive Director, Urban Chamber of Commerce
Horatio Lopez, Chairman, Hispanic Business Round Table
Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Manager, Clark County
James E. Keenan, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission
Evan Dale, Deputy Manager, State Public Works Board
John Madole, Executive Director, Nevada Chapter, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.
Christina Dugan, Director, Government Affairs, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Kami Dempsey, Government Relations Manager, Office of Administrative Services, City of Las Vegas
Christopher Knight, Deputy Director, Development Services Center, Planning and Development Department, City of Las Vegas
John J. Slaughter, AICP, Legislative Affairs Program Manager, Washoe County
Scott Morgan, Director, Community Services/Parks and Recreation Department, Douglas County
Kimberly J. McDonald, MPA, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
Nicole Lamboley, Legislative Relations Program Manager, Office of the City Manager, City of Reno
Nancy E. MacCartney, CPRP, Director, Parks, Recreation and Community Services, City of Reno
Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club
Terry K. Graves, representing the Landwell Company and BMI Industries, Henderson, Nevada
Rick DeMar, Executive Officer, Builders Association of Western Nevada
Gary Milliken, Government Relations—Public Affairs, GEM Consulting, representing the Las Vegas Chapter of The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.
Thomas H. Gallagher, P.E., P.L.S., President and Chief Executive Officer, Summit Engineering Corporation
Michael S. Lynch, Government Affairs Director, The Builders Association of Northern Nevada
K. Neena Laxalt, Government Relations Consultant
Chairman Manendo called the meeting to order at 8:20 a.m.
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 174.
Assembly Bill 174: Requires certain preferences for underutilized businesses with respect to certain purchasing by local governments and certain contracts for public works and requires certain licensees of Nevada Gaming Commission to establish goals regarding hiring of underutilized businesses. (BDR 27-1004)
Assemblyman Williams stated that he was a cosponsor of A.B. 174 and would give the Committee a brief overview of the bill before turning the microphone over to Louis Overstreet. Mr. Williams said that this bill had resulted from a study that had been commissioned by the Clark County Department of General Services to look at economic disparities within the county. He said the firm that conducted the study had been recognized as an expert on the subjects of local governments and discrimination in government contracting. He said the study had concluded that there was substantial evidence of significant disparities in the number of contracts between the county and minority businesses and/or businesses owned by women. He said that A.B. 174 would provide a statutory framework that would be designed to correct those existing disparities and to put minority businesses and businesses owned by women on a more even footing. He said the provisions of the bill would apply to Clark County only. Assemblyman Williams then reviewed proposed amendments to A.B. 174 as follows:
Mr. Williams finalized his comments by saying that communications with Clark County during the past several days had indicated a willingness by the county to look at various ways of addressing the issue, including from a non-legislative standpoint. He said that in his view, those comments by Clark County were very encouraging.
Chairman Manendo asked if Clark County had provided anything in writing that the Committee could review. Mr. Williams said the county had not, but that Dan Musgrove was present and would be able to inform the Committee about where he thought Clark County could move in order to find an amiable position on this issue.
E. Louis Overstreet, P.E., Executive Director, Urban Chamber of Commerce, introduced himself and Horatio Lopez, President of the Hispanic Business Round Table. A copy of Mr. Overstreet’s testimony was attached as Exhibit C. Mr. Overstreet said he wanted to express his organization’s support of A.B. 174. He said that for the past several years, his organization had been gathering data on the issue of the equitable participation of minority, female, and disadvantaged business utilization on publicly funded capital projects in Nevada and more particularly in Clark County.
Mr. Overstreet stated that during a time when Nevada was experiencing unparalleled growth and was becoming more diverse each year, and with a record number of women entering into professional employment as well as starting their own businesses, Nevada had not experienced a corresponding increase in employment and contracting opportunities for those previously mentioned groups.
Mr. Overstreet said that his group’s research had shown that conditions had worsened since the release of a report commissioned by the Clark County Department of General Services in July 1994 entitled, “Regional Economic Disparity Study.” He said that the study had been commissioned to evaluate whether the county met the Supreme Court of the United States decision standards of strict judicial scrutiny and narrowly tailored remedies for programs to assist minority and women-owned businesses in county procurement as detailed in the case of Croson v. City of Richmond. Mr. Overstreet said the study had concluded that:
The combined quantitative and qualitative evidence of marketplace discrimination against minority and women-owned firms in the local construction, goods, professional services, and other service sectors forms a sufficient factual predicate for remedial action by the county. Race and gender-neutral remedies should be considered, but the study team concluded that this alone might not be sufficient to fully remedy the effects of past and present marketplace discrimination. Therefore, a legal basis exists for the county to consider narrowly tailored race and gender-based remedies.
Mr. Overstreet said that the study data from the period covering the fiscal years of 1988 through 1992 had indicated that the average participation for minority businesses had been slightly above 4 percent. He said that in a report released the previous week by the Urban Chamber of Commerce’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Race, the data had revealed that in fiscal year 2000-2001, the average participation of those groups in county projects was 3.2 percent. He said that this 20 percent decrease in participation was both amazing and alarming in light of past and present-day demographics. He said that the 1990 Census had reported 180,000 persons of color living in Clark County and that the 2000 Census had counted 506,000 minorities. Mr. Overstreet said that this had represented a 280 percent increase, yet during a time when the county’s combined population had tripled, it had received considerably less economic benefit from tax dollars than it had a decade ago.
Mr. Overstreet said that in support of the legality of A.B. 174 he wanted to refer the Committee to the recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth [sic] Circuit in the case of Concrete Works of Colorado v. City and County of Denver.
Mr. Overstreet said that even if data documenting historic patterns, discrimination practices, and judicial precedent were sufficient to convince the Legislature to pass A.B. 174, his organization would not be naïve to the fact that it would take a corresponding change in the attitudes of persons who would be charged with carrying out the law to make it work. Mr. Overstreet said he could not provide a more graphic illustration of that fact than to point to a program that was under the management of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). He said that under federally mandated requirements to have participation goals established on federal aid to highway projects, NDOT’s performance was highly suspect.
He said that the state’s participation on those projects had been so dismal that it did not even qualify as a matter of race but rather as a matter of simple fairness. He said that in the fiscal years of 2001 and 2002, the state of Nevada had received slightly more than $493 million and that, from this amount, one Nevada African-American business had received two contracts totaling only $327,000. He said that as a percentage, this was less than one-tenth of 1 percent. Mr. Overstreet said he would proffer to the Committee that it was the height of arrogance to suggest that “those people need to get off welfare and find a job” when persons from those people’s cultural groups were working and paying taxes, but were not receiving a fair and equitable opportunity to benefit from their tax dollars being spent in ways that were supposed to be for the public good.
Mr. Overstreet concluded his remarks with a statement issued in 1940 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
We are a nation of many nationalities, many races, many religions—bound together by a single unity, the unity of freedom and equality. Whoever seeks to set one nationality against another, seeks to degrade all nationalities. Whoever seeks to set one race against another, seeks to enslave all races. Whoever seeks to set one religion against another, seeks to destroy all religion.
Mr. Overstreet said that with the work of the Committee on Government Affairs and its colleagues, he hoped that in Nevada it would not take another 63 years for everyone to understand and accept the wisdom of the words that were spoken in the first half of the 20th century.
Mr. Overstreet said he had sincerely appreciated the opportunity to address the Committee and would be available to answer any questions the Committee might have.
Assemblyman Collins asked Mr. Overstreet if the $500 million figure he had mentioned earlier was for the entire state of Nevada or just Clark County. Mr. Overstate indicated that the figure was statewide. He said it was for two fiscal years running and that Clark County had received only $327,000 of the $500 million. Mr. Overstreet also said he thought there had been one African American female firm in California that had received a small amount of funds, but that the $327,000 was all that Clark County had received.
Mr. Collins then asked Mr. Overstreet if he felt that project labor agreements had any effect on this problem, either positive or negative. Mr. Overstreet answered that, in general, he felt that the group he represented would be hurt by project labor agreements.
Mr. Lopez, Chairman, Hispanic Business Round Table, then indicated that he was a 40-year resident of southern Nevada, the former vice president of the Las Vegas Latin Chamber of Commerce and the former chairperson of the Business Development Advisory Council. He also said he had been involved in the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and that he had been a business owner for the past 30 years. He said “good faith efforts had not worked in the past and that they would not work because of attitudes and comfort levels in relation to associating with people and doing business with people.” He said that the only programs that have ever worked in minority and women-owned business enterprises were set-aside programs under a U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) program, where there were certain goals set for the expenditures of public monies, and also programs under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) where certain goals had been set and where prime contractors had made sure that those goals were met. Mr. Lopez said that because of this, he supported what Mr. Overstreet had stipulated to the Committee. He said that everything that Mr. Overstreet had said was correct in relation to his experience with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. Mr. Lopez said he was sure that the Nevada Business Round Table, the Las Vegas Latin Chamber of Commerce, and others would support and concur with these statements and he urged the Committee to pass A.B 174.
Chairman Manendo asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of A.B. 174. There were none. He then asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in opposition to A.B. 174.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, said he wanted to give the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs some background information regarding the disparity study that had been commissioned by Clark County in 1994. He indicated that multiple jurisdictions had been involved in the study. He also indicated that Clark County’s actions since the study had been completed were unique and that Clark County was very proud of what it had done in trying to become more inclusive in its purchasing procedures by bringing in those businesses that the county felt ought to have an opportunity at getting those contracts and getting the business. He said that the county had established a Business Development Office and Business Development Advisory Council that consisted of various Chambers of Commerce that represented small, minority, and women-owned business interests. He said that the council met on a monthly basis to discuss ways to increase the utilization of those targeted businesses and that the council had developed a system for reporting the utilization of local small, minority, and women-owned businesses within Clark County. Mr. Musgrove also stated that the council provided training for those targeted firms, had increased the distribution of bid opportunity information to local small, minority, and women-owned organizations, and had developed its own directory of firms, including minority and local-owned businesses, for use by the county and other organizations. Mr. Musgrove said that the latest study done had shown that the percent of discretionary dollars awarded to those firms had risen from 31 percent in fiscal year 1997-1998 to over 58 percent in fiscal year 2001‑2002. Mr. Musgrove then stated that he did not want to discredit or say anything negative about the Urban Chamber of Commerce’s Blue Ribbon Committee, but it had been his understanding that many organizations had not provided information to that committee. He stated that, when looking at Clark County as a whole, along with the model that had been set up, he thought this idea could be taken further by bringing in businesses and other entities to make sure that those numbers were increased to a more applicable percentage. Mr. Musgrove said that the trouble with A.B. 174, as it had been written, was that it was obviously an unfunded mandate to local governments and that it could be unconstitutional because the program might fail the strict scrutiny test that had been based on recent Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Musgrove said that A.B. 174 had been based on a 9-year-old study whose findings had not been adopted by the Clark County Board of County Commissioners. He said that the county had used the findings as a model, but that the county had not adopted the findings, and he indicated that this had caused a slight problem for them. Mr. Musgrove also questioned whether the definition of “underutilized business” was based on race and gender, and indicated that programs based on race and gender had been found to be unconstitutional if the findings of discrimination were not particularized. He said that the development and implementation of this type of program could be very costly, subjective, and inconsistent among the various entities. He said that because of the significant progress Clark County had made with its business development program, he would like to suggest that the Legislature might want to require that the bill be taken one step further. He indicated that A.B. 174 did not guarantee that the contracting dollars would flow down to the targeted firms. Mr. Musgrove said that all the bill required was that bidders follow certain steps to justify a good faith effort. He also indicated that the determination of low and responsive bidding would be difficult to make and could result in numerous bid protests and increased litigation because of the way A.B. 174 was written. He said that the bill added cycle time and administrative burdens to both the entities and the business community. He said he wanted to respectfully ask that the sponsors of the bill consider a resolution that would request the formation of a regional business development advisory council modeled after what Clark County had done. He said that this would bring all of the local governments together to discuss issues that were faced by local small, minority, and women-owned businesses, and then they could report back to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs next session regarding the results. He said he had spoken to Assemblyman Williams regarding this, but that he had not spoken to Assemblyman Arberry or Mr. Overstreet. Mr. Musgrove indicated he thought a bill containing this would be more inclusive and would go much further than A.B. 174, that it would create more of a “give-and-take” process between the targeted businesses, and that it would help make the targeted businesses more inclusive, but would also help to move away from the unfunded mandates and strict constructural problems that A.B. 174, as written, might present, both from a constitutional standpoint and from the ability to put the bill into action. He also said that Clark County believed that it had been looking inward since 1994, and that the county had gone “above and beyond” in trying to reach out and be inclusive. He indicated that Clark County thought it was important that other local governments consider using this as a model and that they begin to use the same processes. Mr. Musgrove said he had been working over the past few days to get commitments from the other entities, who were checking with their governing bodies. Mr. Musgrove asked for Chairman Manendo’s consent to his having a meeting with Mr. Overstreet and perhaps with Ted Olivas also. He said he thought a council could be set up that could help both the Latin Chamber of Commerce and the Urban Chamber of Commerce accomplish what they wanted to and said he hoped the Committee would allow them to do that.
Assemblyman McCleary stated that earlier in the meeting, Mr. Musgrove had said that this would be an unfunded mandate. Mr. McCleary stated that he was typically against unfunded mandates. He said he did not appreciate the burdens the federal government put on the states and did not want to pass them on to the local government. He asked Mr. Musgrove to explain how these contracts would be unfunded mandates just because they would be given to minority or female-owned businesses.
Mr. Musgrove answered that it would not be the awarding of a contract that would result in an unfunded mandate. He said that the processes set up in the bill would increase staff time and would increase the procedural and bureaucratic maze that would have to be set up to meet the requirements of the bill. He said it was the mechanism of the bill that would be the unfunded mandate, and that was why he wanted to use a more inclusive process. This would include forming advisory councils, bringing staff together with the Urban Chamber of Commerce and others, teaching people how to qualify for the program, and more importantly, identifying those people in the community who might need help qualifying for those contracts, to put them on a level playing field with other businesses. Mr. Musgrove indicated that Mr. Keenan might be able to explain how the mechanics of this bill could create an unfunded mandate.
Assemblyman McCleary said he would be interested to hear an explanation because it seemed to him that rules changed all the time, and he could not see how changing the rules of how contracts were bid on would make that big of a difference.
James E. Keenan, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission, said he echoed Mr. Musgrove’s comments and indicated that one of his favorite clichés was “the devil is in the details.” Mr. Keenan indicated that within A.B. 174 were requirements to conduct studies, to maintain records, to maintain information, and to make determinations. He said that to the best of his knowledge those staffs and this expertise do not exist in the smaller local governments and that those things would not be a matter of purchasing expertise. Mr. Keenan said the cost to conduct studies, maintain information, make determinations, and make evaluations before, during, and possibly after bid openings, with regard to underutilized businesses, would be where they would consider this to be an unfunded mandate or, as Mr. Musgrove had said, a sort of bureaucratic arrangement that does not exist currently.
Assemblyman Knecht referred to the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the case of Concrete Works of Colorado v. City and County of Denver that Mr. Overstreet had spoken about, and asked Mr. Keenan and others if they were familiar with the disposition of that case and whether it was good law.
Mr. Musgrove said he did not have knowledge of the case, but would research and provide the information to the Committee. Mr. Keenan that he also had no knowledge of that ruling.
Mr. Knecht said he would request that the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs accept Mr. Musgrove’s offer to report back to them on the status of the case, and whether there had been any conflicting law from the same Circuit or from other Circuit Courts.
Assemblywoman Weber stated that she had previously sat on the Business Development Advisory Council and indicated that a county commissioner also sits on that council. She said she was curious to find out the effectiveness of that council before elevating this issue to the Legislature, and asked if any evaluations had been done pertaining to the council and its ability to meet the needs of disadvantaged businesses.
Mr. Musgrove said the only information he had available was that by using the Business Development Advisory Council, the percentage of discretionary dollars that had been distributed to targeted businesses had gone up in the last three years from 31 percent to 58 percent. He said he thought that was the best kind of benchmark that could be seen. He said it showed that more dollars were going to more of those firms and the only thing that could be done was to continue and to hope that, as the word got out, more of those businesses could be included in the process, and as more and more entities became aware, “things would steamroll.” Mr. Musgrove said that Clark County’s position was that those recommendations did not need to be done through legislation at this point. He said that Clark County had looked inward, had decided it needed to do a better job in this area, had set about doing a better job, and now it needed to bring other jurisdictions in and show them the model that the county had created. He said the numbers would increase exponentially.
Assemblywoman Weber asked what the difference would be between the regional proposal for a new committee versus what was already available.
Mr. Musgrove said that the current council was for Clark County only and covered only those contracts and purchasing agreements that Clark County had responsibility over. He said it did not include any local jurisdictions such as the Las Vegas, Henderson, or the Clark County School District. Mr. Musgrove said the county’s goal would be to bring together all of the local jurisdictions within the region and to include other urban Chambers of Commerce. He said they hoped others would review Clark County’s model and begin following the same type of process.
Assemblyman Atkinson asked Mr. Musgrove which document he had been referring to that Clark County had been using for the past nine years. Mr. Musgrove said it was the 1994 Regional Economic Disparity Study. Assemblyman Atkinson asked Mr. Musgrove to clarify whether the Clark County Board of Commissioners had approved the document. Mr. Musgrove answered that the Board had never actually ratified the findings, but they had used it as a kind of benchmark to realize that the Clark County had some internal challenges to overcome. He said he thought the county had accomplished that, but that the key would be to take things one step further by bringing more governments in and being more inclusive.
Assemblyman Atkinson indicated he worked for Clark County and was on the Business Development Advisory Council. He said that he was familiar with the document that Mr. Musgrove had referred to, and he said he believed that Clark County had been doing a good job of trying to do more for minority businesses. He said he agreed with Assemblywoman Weber that there was already a mechanism in place, which was the council. He said he was not sure that the issue was at the legislative level yet because more could be done with the council. Assemblyman Atkinson said he had been the appointed representative on the council for a few years for former Clark County Commissioner Dario Herrera. He said that a county commissioner did not necessarily attend the meetings, and that he did not know if this was an issue, but Mr. Atkinson said he knew that the Business Development Advisory Council had sometimes complained that a commissioner or representative needed to be attending the meetings. Mr. Atkinson indicated he thought there were many obstacles that needed to be discussed with the council, but it was his opinion that Clark County was doing a good job of trying to help the council increase their numbers. It appeared to him that it was the county being criticized the most, but they were the ones that were giving the most. Mr. Musgrove said he appreciated Assemblyman Atkinson’s comments.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked Mr. Musgrove to elaborate on the statistics of 31 percent and 58 percent that he had mentioned earlier in the meeting. Mr. Musgrove explained that those numbers had been derived from the value of all purchase orders issued that had not required a formal bid. He said that when going through the normal bidding process, an entity usually would have to accept the bid of the lowest responsible bidder and that there would not be a lot of flexibility, but that an entity would have a lot of flexibility with what was referred to as “discretionary purchasing dollars” and that those were the funds that would normally be targeting minority businesses. He said that the competitive and formal bidding processes had very strict purchasing laws that he thought Mr. Keenan could explain.
Mr. Keenan said that what Mr. Musgrove had explained was essentially correct. He said that under state law, there were dollar amounts above which an entity must engage in a formal, sealed bidding process whereby the entity was required by statute to award a contract to the lowest responsible bidder. He said that in the process, there were certain criteria that had to be met, and that those criteria were spelled out in the bid and could not be negotiated or discussed. Mr. Keenan said in the case of purchase orders, which were unilateral contracts and would not require the sealed bidding process, the local government would have much more flexibility in determining to whom to award the purchase order. He also said that if there was a need to purchase five cases of copy paper, a purchase order could be issued to vendor X without any requirements for sealed bids, public advertising, and so on. Mr. Keenan said he believed that this was what was meant by the word “discretionary.”
Ms. Pierce asked if what Mr. Musgrove had been saying was that when referring to those discretionary bids, 31 percent of them had once gone to minority and women-owned businesses, and now that figure had risen to 58 percent.
Mr. Musgrove said Ms. Pierce was absolutely correct. He said that his figures had shown that in fiscal year 1997-1998, it had been determined that approximately 31 percent of those discretionary dollars had gone to local small, minority, and women’s organizations and that the figure had risen to 58 percent. Mr. Musgrove said that, as more people got involved in the advisory council and as more people qualified for the program, the county would be able to continue to work to get those discretionary dollars to those businesses, and he expected that the numbers would keep rising.
Ms. Pierce asked Mr. Musgrove if he knew what percentage of bids that went through the formal, sealed process had gone to minority-owned or women‑owned businesses, and Mr. Musgrove said he did not, but that he would find out if the county tracked that information, and if it did, he would provide that information to the Committee. Ms. Pierce then asked Mr. Musgrove if he knew what percentage of the county’s business was discretionary and if he knew what the ratio was between the two processes, and Mr. Musgrove said he did not know.
Chairman Manendo asked if there were any other questions from the Committee. There were none. Chairman Manendo then thanked Mr. Keenan and Mr. Musgrove for their testimony.
Gary Milliken, GEM Consulting, representing the Las Vegas Associated General Contractors, said he wanted the Committee to know that they had urged all of their minority members to join the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. He said that the program had been certified by Clark County. Mr. Milliken said as far as he knew, Clark County was the only entity that used the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and that someone might want to investigate why other entities were not using the program.
Chairman Manendo asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak in opposition.
Evan Dale, Deputy Manager, State Public Works Board (SPWB), stated that the SPWB supported the spirit of A.B. 174, but that it did not see itself staffed or equipped with the necessary skills and expertise to carry out the provisions of the bill as it was currently written. He said that the SPWB had seen within the bill the requirements to gather the ownership records of contractors and subcontractors, and to review the details of how contractors and subcontractors managed their firms. He said that the SPWB would also need to know the history of how contractors and subcontractors obtained capital and their history with previous public bids. Mr. Dale said that the SPWB saw those provisions as a substantial burden on the agency. He also said he wanted to echo previous comments that this would be an unfunded mandate and that the SPWB would not be able to carry out the provisions of this bill in its current form.
Mr. Madole said he realized that A.B. 174 would not apply to northern Nevada, but that his experience had been that anything that started in Clark County eventually would make its way to the rest of the state. He said he wanted to express some concern that, at a time when there was a lot of pressure for public works construction projects to be properly funded, a process would be added that would ultimately increase the cost of construction, and for that reason, they would not support the bill.
Christina Dugan, Director, Government Affairs, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, said that the Chamber agreed that there were some very laudable principles being put forth as a part of A.B. 174 in terms of promoting minority involvement in the contract process, but that, as a principle of its own policy, the chamber believed in the free-market system and wanted to see competition prevail in terms of creating the most efficient situation possible in terms of the bidding process. She said that the Chamber’s concerns also dealt with costs and that they did not want to see higher costs passed on to the taxpayer. She asked that the Committee weigh the potential additional costs when evaluating the bill.
Chairman Manendo asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in opposition to A.B. 174. Mr. Overstreet asked if could respond to a some points in terms of the resolution and to some of the data that Assemblywoman Pierce had asked about, and Chairman Manendo said he would give Mr. Overstreet a couple of minutes to respond.
Mr. Overstreet said that the percentage of discretionary money versus non‑discretionary money was about 3 percent of the total 100 percent, which would mean that 97 percent of it was non-discretionary money. He went on to say that if you got half of 3 percent, you would be getting just 1½ percent of the total dollars, so the dollars would not be in the discretionary accounts. Mr. Overstreet also said that the Urban Chamber of Commerce would not be opposed to meeting with Mr. Musgrove to look at ways of resolving the issues. He said that the only caveats the Chamber would have would be that the provisions also be applied to state agencies. He also said that it should be people who were at management level and who could make policy decisions that were sent to those meetings. He said that on many occasions staff people had been sent to those meetings just to hold space, and nothing productive came out of the meeting. He said he would also agree that the Clark County General Services Department was the best of the worst, so to speak. He said that they were trying to do what was right, but that the other 12 or 13 county entities were not “on board,” and that the 3 percent number was correct.
Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Overstreet for making his comments brief. He also indicated that Assemblywoman Pierce had left the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs meeting to testify on a bill in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, but that he would let her know of Mr. Overstreet’s comments.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 174.
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 196.
Assembly Bill 196: Authorizes certain local governments to require dedication of certain land or impose tax on nonresidential construction projects for regional parks. (BDR 22-653)
Assemblyman Collins asked Chairman Manendo if Kami Dempsey and her colleagues could join him at the witness table. Chairman Manendo answered that they could. Kami Dempsey, Government Relations Manager, Office of Administrative Services, City of Las Vegas, introduced herself and Christopher Knight, Deputy Director, Development Services Center, Planning and Development Department, City of Las Vegas. Mr. Knight referenced the map, “Existing and Proposed Parks 50 Acres or More” (Exhibit D), that had been distributed to Committee members. He said one of the reasons they supported A.B. 196 was that it would bring the non-residential development community into the quality-of-life issues that existed in southern Nevada and would help pay for growth. He pointed out that there were no existing parks of 50 acres or more in the area north of Cheyenne Avenue and west of Decatur Boulevard even though that was where growth is taking place. He said there was considerable non-residential development planned for several areas in Las Vegas and that, as planned community developments were built throughout the community, there would be other non-residential construction areas as well. He pointed out that the tan areas on the map (Exhibit D) showed the planned county parks that were 50 acres or more in size within unincorporated areas shared with Clark County. The light green areas were proposed parks of 50 acres or more in size and total approximately 719 acres of parkland. Those proposed parks were:
He said that the city had a responsibility to begin some of the regional parks existing on the map (Exhibit D). He said the neighborhood parks and the Buckskin Basin Park had all been partially funded through the residential construction tax, but that there was a burden that was not being borne by the entire community. He said A.B. 196 was being proposed to distribute the responsibility for quality-of-life projects and parks equitably throughout the entire community and into the non-residential construction area. Mr. Knight pointed out that many businesses in Las Vegas had many employees with families and children. He said those employees and their families had needs for adult recreation, recreation for the families and children, and recreation for the businesses themselves such as for company picnics and softball leagues. He added that the city desired to provide the necessary facilities to meet those needs and to have the non-residential construction community be a partner with the city on developing the facilities. He said he thought the reason this bill was being proposed was to equitably distribute the responsibility for parks development throughout the entire development community rather than having just households carrying the burden.
Assemblyman Collins noted that A.B. 462 of the 71st Legislative Session had passed the Assembly, but not the Senate, and had been similar to A.B. 196. Mr. Collins related to the other Committee members how he had grown up in southern Nevada and not much had been provided for kids on those days. He also told the Committee about the town of Columbus, Indiana, and how the people of that town had decided they wanted their community to have the best, and how they were not worried about spending money to acquire the best. He said he hoped that the same thing could happen in Nevada. He said it was his opinion that Nevada was a long way from providing adequate facilities for the children in the state, and that the children should have the best. Assemblyman Collins said he was supporting A.B. 196 and that this legislation was needed in order to allow people throughout the state to have the vision to provide more for their community.
Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Collins and commented that the Las Vegas area was below the national average as far as parks were concerned. He said he believed that the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition had set the standard at 2.5 acres per thousand people and asked Mr. Knight if he knew what the Las Vegas area standard was. Mr. Knight said he thought it was at approximately 1.89 acres per thousand people.
Assemblyman McCleary said he was leaning toward supporting A.B. 196, but that he had not made up his mind for certain, because he was confused about some of the details. Chairman Manendo said there was still a lot of testimony to be heard. Mr. McCleary noted that he lived in an older community in North Las Vegas and said it appeared to him that the parks in older communities seemed to get run down and practically abandoned by the city, but that the newer areas of the city had beautiful parks. He asked if there would be equality in the distribution of funds so that all parks would be addressed, not just those in newer neighborhoods. Mr. Knight said that one of the provisions in the bill would make it possible to improve or add facilities to existing parks and that they would like to see some of the funds go towards maintaining and upgrading the older parks that were shown on the distributed map (Exhibit D). He then said the answer to Assemblyman Cleary’s question would be yes.
Assemblyman Knecht said he would have no problem voting for A.B. 196 because he believed in home rule. He said he was curious about some technical aspects of the bill. He noted that throughout the bill were references to regions and regional parks in addition to neighborhoods, communities of interest, and other areas, but when he looked at the map (Exhibit D), he did not see the designation of regional parks on the map, and asked if there was a reason why that language had been added to the bill. He said he was not put off by the language, but was curious why the previous language was not adequate.
Ms. Dempsey answered:
We’re happy to elaborate on that. How the bill is written currently, it would be based on what each local government, if they opted to implement this in as local government, how they would allocate those dollars. In the city of Las Vegas for example, we have perceived it as where the regional funds would be the ward that already exist. So, in those districts, those dollars that are collected there could go towards regional parks and larger parks, along with neighborhood parks, as long as it exists in the parameters of that “region.” Does that better answer your question?
Assemblyman Knecht said:
I think so. I guess what you’re saying, if I may follow up Mr. Chairman, is that regional, neighborhood, communities of interest and such terms are kind of local usage terms from one city to the other and so you thought it was appropriate to expand to add that term since at least Las Vegas relies on it. Thank you, Mr. Collins, and the other witnesses, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins said he had spent a lot of time trying to get improvements done at Horseman’s Park and that A.B. 196 would make that possible. Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Collins if the effective date of the bill would be July 1, 2003, and whether it would affect any current building permits. Mr. Collins answered he believed it would be addressed so that it would affect only those permits that were purchased after July 1. Chairman Manendo indicated he wanted to make sure that got on the record.
Assemblyman Koivisto said this was a question that she had asked a number of times over the years since she had served in the Legislature and been active with the folks in her neighborhood. She said on page 5, Section 11, of A.B. 196, it appeared to her that the funds collected for neighborhood and regional parks would go to areas where new construction was taking place. She said she did not see where the bill would help existing areas that currently did not have parks and asked for some reassurance regarding this concern.
Assemblyman Collins it was his belief and understanding that the intention of the bill was that areas would be purchased, expanded, and developed as a regional park system that would work in existing neighborhoods. He said this would go back to Assemblyman Knecht’s question on “regional” versus “community neighborhood.” He said that this bill would reach a broader area than impact fees, which had to be used in a more confined residential.
Chairman Manendo asked those who wished to testify in favor of A.B. 196 to approach the witness table in groups of three. Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, distributed a “friendly” amendment (Exhibit E) to the Committee. He indicated he had spoken with Mr. Knight, and that Mr. Knight thought the proposed amendment was an improvement to the language in the bill. He also stated that Clark County was in favor of the bill. He said they appreciated anything that would help acquire increased acreage for parks in the community. He also stated they thought it was important for both residents and the business community to participate in this endeavor. He said they believed that regional parks were important to the area and supported Las Vegas’ and Assemblyman Collins’ attempts at providing funding for regional parks. Regarding the amendment (Exhibit E), he said that Clark County was requesting that the language in Section 3, page 2, lines 7 and 8, be deleted and replaced with “neighborhoods, regions or communities of interest within the city or county.” He said they thought that this verbiage better defined those who would be using regional parks.
John J. Slaughter, AICP, Legislative Affairs Program Manager, Washoe County, indicated that Washoe County supported A.B. 196. He also said he understood there had been some discussion regarding whether Washoe County should be excluded from the bill due to the recent approval of a county bond for regional parks, trails, open space, and libraries. He said that as good as the bond approval was, it would not cover all of the regional park facilities that had been identified by Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County. He said that Washoe County’s position would be that because A.B. 196 was enabling legislature, it would allow discussions of the merits of whether the three entities wanted to include non-residential construction in their programs and that these discussions could take place before the two city councils and before the Washoe County Commission.
Scott Morgan, Director, Community Services/Parks and Recreation Department, Douglas County, stated that Douglas County supported A.B. 196. He also stated that it was very important for rural Nevada to have both types of funding mechanisms in order to improve their regional facilities. He said that regional facilities were critical for residents, businesses, and tourism. He said that Douglas County’s neighborhood and community parks were very well-maintained, but that the county’s regional facilities were not because the county’s General Fund had been the only funding mechanism for those facilities; therefore, those facilities were unimproved or not given the attention they needed. He said that this bill would give them the needed funding mechanisms to make needed additions to those facilities.
Kimberly J. McDonald, MPA, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, said that the city of North Las Vegas wanted to go on record as supporting A.B. 196, because they felt it would expand local government’s ability to receive land and generate extra revenue for regional and neighborhood parks.
Nicole Lamboley, Legislative Relations Program Manager, Office of the City Manager, City of Reno, introduced herself and Nancy E. MacCartney, CPRP, Director, Parks, Recreation and Community Services, City of Reno, and stated that the City of Reno supports A.B. 196 and that they shared Washoe County’s concerns regarding their possible exemption from the bill. Ms. Lamboley said the City of Reno was concerned and offered to work with the Committee regarding Reno’s concerns with parks that ranged from 25.1 to 49.9 acres in size. She said that was where Reno’s needs for parks existed but that they had difficulty finding parcels of that size.
Ms. MacCartney stated that the City of Reno needed to provide facilities such as Little League fields, Pop Warner fields, large picnic areas, and multi-purpose parks, but that it was impossible for them to find undeveloped areas large enough to provide those needed facilities. She said Reno supported the bill because they felt it would be beneficial to the entire community, but that it limited Reno by having the 25.1-to-49.9-acre gap, and she asked for the Committee’s consideration of the matter.
Assemblyman Collins asked if an amendment had been presented. Ms. Lamboley indicated that one had not. She said they first wanted to see if the Committee had an interest in further discussing the issue. She reiterated that the City of Reno supported A.B. 196. She also again indicated that they would be happy to work with the Committee to resolve this issue. She also said that they did not want Reno or Washoe County exempted from this legislation as some had indicated they might be considering.
Assemblyman Collins said that 25-to-50-acre issue had been brought up before and that it could be addressed. Chairman Manendo asked Assemblyman Collins if he recalled how Reno and Sparks had dealt with this issue during the last legislative session. Assemblyman Collins said he thought he recalled that they had been in support of it. Chairman Manendo said that could be checked on. Mr. Collins said the issue had been a kind of balancing act because some of the rural areas had 50 acres to develop whereas some of the urban areas did not have 50 acres to develop, but they had money. He said he thought something could be worked out that would be satisfactory to everyone.
Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, said that they wanted to go on record as supporting A.B. 196.
Chairman Manendo asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of A.B. 196. There were none. He then asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition of A.B. 196. Terry K. Graves, representing the LandWell Company and BMI Industries in Henderson, Nevada, provided written copies of his testimony to Committee members (Exhibit F) and said that he first wanted to point out that his clients were not opposed to parks and green belts. He said that his clients were opposed to A.B. 196, not in opposition to parks, but in opposition to the mechanism the bill proposed to use to fund those parks. He said that a similar bill had been proposed during the last legislative session, but that it had become a very controversial bill during the last portion of the session, because several questions arose as to how the fees would be implemented and used.
Mr. Graves stated that not everyone shared the view that more parks were needed. He then asked if funds would be available for the maintenance of those parks. He stated that this funding mechanism would be one-shot funding which would provide capital only for providing new parks and none for the operation and maintenance of those parks. He said that varying testimony during the last session had pointed out that many of the lands purchased for regional parks had been purchased from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a nominal fee of $1 an acre, rather than from private entities. He asked that, if that were true, what the money really would be used for. Other questions Mr. Graves asked the Committee to consider included the amount of money this funding mechanism would raise, and in a year dominated by tax discussions, how this tax would fix in. He noted that there were other bills already before the Legislature regarding pay increases for local and state government employees and asked how a park fund would fit into the picture. Mr. Graves said his clients had asked if the proposal would include commercial and industrial properties. He indicated that his clients were also very concerned about whether this fee was structured fairly. The fee of 1 percent up to a cap of $20,000 could provide an unfair competitive advantage for very large developers. As an example, he said that a large power generation plant could be constructed at a cost ranging from a $500 million to $1 billion but the fee for this fund would be $20,000, where a small developer developing five $2 million projects would pay $100,000 in fees. Mr. Graves said his clients were not comfortable with that inequity in the formula. He said that they realized that this was a funding bill, but that they were not sure there was a real nexus between business development and park usage. He indicated that, as had been noted earlier in this hearing, when a similar bill had been proposed during the last legislative session, a concern had surfaced about whether funding would be available for older parks. Mr. Graves also asked if water conservation issues had been looked at in regard to this bill. Mr. Graves again stated that his clients stood in opposition to A.B. 196. He then stated he would be available to answer questions. Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Graves and told him that he appreciated the insight on what happened during the last legislative session.
John Madole, Executive Director, Nevada Chapter, he Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. (AGC), prefaced his remarks by saying that the AGC was not against parks. He asked if it was the intent of the Legislature to include such things as private water treatment plants, private sewer plans, and radio towers under the definition of “non-residential” in A. B. 196. He said he thought that this probably was not the intent of the bill. He also said in looking at page 2, Section 4, of the bill, the term “non-residential” did not always fit with some of the other items mentioned in the bill. He also asked what the terms “communities of interest” and “service areas” on page 4 meant when referring to regional parks. He also referred to the term “build out” on page 5 and said that commercial building projects do not build out like residential projects do. He said he thought some of the terms used in the bill were awkward.
Another concern Mr. Madole said he had was that the contractors seemed to be the first ones that were approached to volunteer such things as dirt work, steel, and signs for projects, which were all things that the contractors paid for. He also said that as taxpayers, they were already paying for bonds and that 1 percent in fees was now being proposed to be added to some projects. He pointed out that contractors do compete for jobs in other areas of the United States and that there could be instances where an additional $20,000 in fees would mean that a contractor would decide to build his project in another area of the country and said that the Committee should be very cautious about this. He said he thought the state was currently in an environment where a 1 percent fee could be a lot more important than anyone realized.
Assemblyman Collins asked for some clarification. He said he understood the “build out thing.” He said when a project was built out, whether it was residential, industrial, or commercial, it was done. He then asked what Mr. Madole’s other question had been.
Mr. Madole said he was referring to the term “communities of interest” on page 4, subsection 4(b). He said he would like to know how that related to a commercial project that would be assessed the 1 percent fee. He indicated he felt that some of the terms used in A.B. 196 were confusing.
Rick DeMar, Executive Officer, Builders Association of Western Nevada, stated that A.B. 196 was a proposal that would deter commercial development in Nevada. He said whereas a park tax on residential development was accepted and agreed with, the same tax on commercial development would not be serving the same purpose. He said that the Builders Association of Western Nevada adamantly opposed this increase of burden on its industry. He said that this was an issue for individual businesses to consider and should not be a mandated business tax issue. He made reference to Assemblyman Collins’ earlier remarks about the ballpark in Henderson and how local businesses had built the ballpark, and the city did not have to take that responsibility.
Assemblyman Collins said he was hoping that businesses would continue doing things like that. He said that what he was asking for today was that businesses continue to be just as wise and concerned about their communities and their citizens, and that this was the reason he was bringing the bill forward. Mr. Collins said it was a matter of fairness, just as when impact fees were expanded two years ago to consistently treat all residential communities. He said he was trying to make this consistent and fair with enabling legislation, and he said he thought that for the homebuilding community to not want assistance with their parks or for their areas to be supported by the commercial and industrial developers next door to their communities was ironic.
Mr. DeMar answered that originally businesses had come forward because they were involved in the community and that he was much more in favor of that same attitude, rather than another mandated tax on business. Mr. DeMar said there was no reason to build a commercial building in Nevada if you are taxed for it or if you are “persecuted” for trying to grow a community.
Assemblyman Grady said his main concern with this legislation was the effect on local governments, and he said that Assemblyman McCleary had brought up a very important consideration. He said he thought that everyone would like to see parks everywhere but asked how they would be maintained. He said he had not heard any of the local governments say they had the money to maintain those parks. He said this was a real concern for him. Chairman Manendo also said he wondered how the parks that were currently built would be maintained.
Assemblyman Hardy said he was curious as to what the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition’s views were on this subject and asked if the Committee was scheduled to hear from that organization. Chairman Manendo remarked that he had not seen or heard from them.
Mr. Musgrove said he was registered as the point person and lobbyist for the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition and indicated that, while this issue had not been brought forward to the coalition for official ratification, most of the member entities with the exception of Boulder City and the Clark County School District (CCSD) had testified in favor of A.B. 196.
Gary Milliken, Government Relations—Public Affairs, GEM Consulting, representing the Las Vegas Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. (AGC), said he was speaking in opposition to A.B. 196. He said he agreed with Mr. Graves’ comments that, depending on the size of projects and the difference in taxes paid, there would be a great disparity. He said his main concern was taxes. He indicated that there were several other tax proposals being considered during this legislative session in addition to this proposal, and he did not think it was a good year to add another tax to the record. In response to Assemblyman Collins’ earlier remarks about contributing to the community, Mr. Milliken noted that the AGC took part in the desert cleanup every year and explained some of the things that they had done to participate. He said that there were many ways to contribute to a community in addition to providing money for building parks.
Chairman Manendo noted that the AGC’s participation in the desert cleanup was very much appreciated. Assemblyman Collins noted that there was now a park near one of the cleanups the AGC had participated in a few years ago, east of the Kenny Guinn Junior High School.
Mr. Milliken said he would also like to speak on behalf of the National Association for Industrial and Office Properties. He said that they had met with Assemblyman Collins and that Ms. Dempsey had made a presentation to them regarding this issue. He indicated that some of the association’s concerns had been resolved, although they still had some questions, but that they would like to continue working with Assemblyman Collins and Ms. Dempsey.
Assemblyman Knecht said he shared Mr. Milliken’s concern and the concerns of other witnesses about tax levels. He said that taxes were important, that they were good if kept at the proper levels, and that he was also worried that they were getting too high. He then asked Mr. Milliken if he understood that A.B. 196 would simply devolve the authority for making decisions down to the government that was closest to the people and that it would not in itself mandate any tax increases or cause any tax increases, but that those would be decided by the local authority.
Mr. Milliken said he understood and agreed with that, but that it was his organization’s perspective that this would be an additional fee that would be passed on, the same as if a real estate transfer tax would be passed on. He said that the vacancy rate in some commercial areas of Clark County was very high, and if additional fees were imposed, companies would begin looking at other areas to build offices rather than in Clark County.
Assemblyman Knecht said he understood and sympathized with that problem and that he was generally on Mr. Milliken’s side regarding that issue. Mr. Knecht asked Mr. Milliken if his concerns would be eliminated if the $20,000 cap were removed. Mr. Milliken said that they would not be eliminated. He indicated that he thought that, when this bill was originally written, there was going to be a fee of $20,000 per permit, so if someone had 5 different permits, they would pay $100,000. He said that some of the issues had been resolved, but that there were still some issues left.
Assemblyman Knecht thanked Mr. Milliken for his comments and said that, in the interest of equity, he would support a modification to this bill that would keep smaller projects from paying a higher percentage of fees than larger projects. He said he still wanted to give the local governments the freedom to do their jobs and to be accountable to their citizens, but that it would be helpful if there were a modification.
Thomas H. Gallagher, P.E., P.L.S., President and Chief Executive Officer, Summit Engineering Corporation, said he was not here to speak in opposition to A.B. 196. He said he wanted to caution the Committee about attempting to legislate good citizenship. He said that his corporation personally donated thousands of dollars to communities. He also said that there were numerous things that businesses do for parks and other projects and that he would hate to see the Legislature mandate away the good citizenship that already existed. He asked for clarification because it appeared to him that that there could be instances where a contractor could pay this tax twice. As an example, he said that there could be a project that had $25 million worth of infrastructure completed on the front end of it, and the project could have 10-15 permits associated with it, and it could be a project that was designed for the residential development of an area, and then houses were built, requiring additional permits. He indicated he wondered how such a situation would be handled. He also indicated he had concerns about what would be accomplished with this bill if there were no funds for maintenance. Chairman Manendo said he understood Mr. Gallagher’s concerns.
Michael S. Lynch, Government Affairs Director, the Builders Association of Northern Nevada, said he wanted speak neutrally to A.B. 196, and offered an amendment (Exhibit G). He said that the proposed amendment was contained on page 3 of Exhibit G. He said that during the last legislative session, there had been two bills dealing with the construction and funding of parks. He indicated that one of them was to expand the impact fee process to allow for the collection of impact fees that would go towards the construction of parks. He said the intent at that time was that local governments who wanted to use both funding mechanisms would have the ability to do so, but that some local governments had expressed a concern that if they charged a residential construction tax, they would not be able to implement the impact fee. He said that a compromise was reached that was basically a crediting process, which meant that if a new homebuyer were required to pay a residence or construction tax as well as an impact fee for parks, they would be credited the amount of their residential construction tax towards the impact fee. He said that there was only one entity in the state of Nevada that was currently doing this and that there was simply a difference of opinion. They felt that there was no need for a credit if the residential construction tax were used for neighborhood parks and the impact fee used for regional parks. Mr. Lynch said he thought it was the intent of the 2001 Legislature that if the homebuyer had to pay $1,000 for a neighborhood park, and that park was in the same area where an impact fee was being charged for a regional park, the homeowner would be credited at least that $1,000. He said they were seeking an amendment to A.B. 196 that would clarify this. He then referred the Committee to the map in Exhibit G that showed that, within a city, there were park districts that outlined where construction taxes were collected and distributed. He explained that a park tax collected in Park District 1 would have to be spent on a park in Park District 1 and that it could not be transferred to another park district. He said that by the same token, there could be an overlay of a service area which related to an impact fee for parks which might cover components of each of those park districts, or it might encompass all or just one, but he thought that the intent during the last legislative session had been that if a house happened to be in that impact fee service area and in a park district that was collecting residential construction tax, it would at least be credited the residential construction tax towards the impact.
Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Lynch if he had shared the proposed amendment with the bill sponsor, and Mr. Lynch answered that he had. Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Lynch for having done that.
K. Neena Laxalt, Government Relations Consultant, indicated she had just received Mr. Lynch’s proposed amendment this morning and asked to reserve the right to comment on the amendment at a later time.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 196. Chairman Manendo then appointed an official subcommittee consisting of Assemblyman McCleary as Chairman, Assemblyman Collins, and Assemblyman Grady. He requested the subcommittee to meet within the next week and to bring their findings back to the full Committee. Assemblyman McCleary asked about a meeting date, and Chairman Manendo asked that the subcommittee meet as soon as possible.
There being no further business, Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Pat Hughey
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: