MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
March 20, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:11 a.m., on Thursday, March 20, 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. 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:
Mr. Chad Christensen, excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Assemblywoman, District No. 12
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dr. Larry R. Moses, President, Educators Unlimited
Robert Ostrovsky, Chairman, Commission for Cultural Affairs (Board for Museums and History: Governor’s appointee)
Ronald M. James, State Historic Preservation Officer, Historian State of Nevada Department of Museums, Library and Arts
Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Kimberly J. McDonald, MPA, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
Chairman Manendo welcomed all Committee members and visitors to the Committee on Government Affairs and called the meeting to order at 8:11 a.m. The roll was called, and the Chair directed the secretary to mark Assemblyman Christensen excused and Assemblyman Knecht and Vice Chairman Williams present upon their arrivals.
Chairman Manendo reviewed the agenda and stated that bills would be taken in order. He opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 290.
Assembly Bill 290: Increases amount of financial assistance that the Commission for Cultural Affairs may grant from proceeds of general obligation bonds for certain projects. (BDR 18-1181)
Assemblyman Tom Grady, District 38, gave a brief history as the origination of the bill. Mr. Grady explained that he had sponsored the bill, as Mr. Hardy was not able to request a bill draft for it. After talking with Mr. Hardy about the bill, Mr. Grady was pleased and surprised to discover that an old and good friend of his from southern Nevada had asked Mr. Hardy to sponsor the bill. Mr. Grady introduced Dr. Larry Moses, President, Educators Unlimited. Dr. Moses had been involved in Clark County School District for almost 30 years, reported Assemblyman Grady. Yerington had the good fortune to have Dr. Moses there as the principal of Yerington High School for a few years; while there, two of Mr. Grady’s children attended Yerington High School. Dr. Moses set one of the Grady children on his path towards the professional career he now enjoyed. Dr. Moses was the expert in the field and would be testifying at Assemblyman Grady’s invitation.
Assemblyman Joe Hardy, District 20, concurred with Assemblyman Grady’s assessment of Dr. Larry Moses. Mr. Hardy had the opportunity to be in Logandale where Dr. Moses resided and was impressed with the Logandale School and the renovation projects done on that building. He was thrilled, he stated, to have the opportunity to consider submitting A.B. 290 in conjunction with Mr. Grady. He was also glad that Senator Warren Hardy had run out of BDRs so that he and Mr. Grady could claim that they had contributed to projects for the good of the state through the Assembly because they shared that district with him.
Dr. Larry Moses introduced himself as a former project manager on projects for the Commission on Cultural Affairs. He was appearing, however, as a private citizen interested in the preservation of the history of the state of Nevada. The Legislature established the Commission of Cultural Affairs in 1991. The Commission began its grant program in 1993 and pursued its mandate to preserve historic structures and to establish a network of community cultural centers throughout the state. During those years 60 buildings had benefited from the Commission funding, and 44 projects had been opened for public use since 1993. The number of visitors had surprised many; 556,802 people had visited Commission-sponsored facilities in the last year alone. Over $4 million had been spent on construction projects including matching funds. There had been an estimated $103 million of indirect positive impact on Nevada’s economy through that program. The Commission served as an advisory board for the State of Nevada Department of Cultural Affairs and implemented a grant program; it was the grant program that would be the focus for the hearing.
The grant programs relied on state bond sales. The revenues of those bonds were to be used for the rehabilitation of historic buildings for use as cultural centers. When awarding the grants, the Commission considered the following:
Since 1993 the Commission had reviewed 199 applications, examples were listed on page 1 of Exhibit C, requesting over $65 million; the Commission had distributed almost $20 million (Exhibit C, page 2). While the program had made a significant contribution, it only partially met the demonstrated need. While the program would never be able to fully fund the needs, it was Dr. Moses’ hope that the aid available would be increased. A study by Tim Rubald, Director of Business Development, Research Division, Nevada Commission on Economic Development, estimated the economic output of the program’s construction grants had totaled over $62 million. Many of the construction dollars were in small rural communities. Additionally, the Rubald report stated that the effect of creating facilities throughout the state had boosted the state’s economy an additional $41 million.
Over 500,000 visitors a year enjoyed the Commission-supported facilities throughout the state. That had an estimated $19 million effect on the state’s economy each year. The Commission primary goal was the rehabilitation of historic buildings, and he listed several examples:
Dr. Moses continued to list the many, many projects that had been supported by the Commission (Exhibit F). The projects were spread throughout the state, including some in Douglas and Mineral Counties, McGill, Panaca, Las Vegas, Elko, Virginia City, Carson City, Battle Mountain, Lovelock, Tuscarora, and Pioche.
In the past 10 years, the Commission had operated under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 233C.225, which provided for $2 million worth of bonds sold each year to fund the many and diverse projects. While that had been of great benefit in the past, more and more projects were being identified, and the demand for additional grant monies had grown. During 2003 alone, over 30 organizations looked for $8 million of support. Dr. Moses asked the Committee and the Legislature to support an increase from $2 million to $5 million in bonds each year to support the restoration efforts. While even that would not meet the demands, it would allow for help in encouraging more nonprofit organizations to assist in saving the history of the state. Without the funds, the state would continue to lose the old buildings that served to keep the history of Nevada alive. Although the increased funding would increase the debt of the state and would obligate the state to pay off those bonds, it was a small impact on the state’s budget in relation to the return to the state’s economy, concluded Dr. Moses.
Chairman Manendo asked who was currently serving on the Commission for Cultural Affairs and was told by Dr. Moses that Robert Ostrovsky was the Chairman and would provide that information (Exhibit D).
Robert Ostrovsky, Chairman of the Nevada Commission for Cultural Affairs, testified that he, as the Governor’s Appointee, represented the Board of Museums and History. The other five members of the Commission’s Board included Joshua Abbey, designated by the Chair of the Nevada Arts Council; Heather Allen, M.D., Chair of the Nevada Humanities Committee; Kara Kelley, an At-Large Governor’s Appointee representing tourism; Robert Stoldal, Chair of the Board of Museums and History; and Joan Zenon, Chair of the State Council on Library and Literacy.
Assemblyman Goicoechea requested information on the status of the state bonds used to partially fund the projects mentioned, how bonds were retired, and who paid for their retirement.
Assemblyman Grady stated that, under NRS 233C.225, the bonds were designated as general obligation bonds belonging to the state. When the Commission presented information to the Interim Finance Committee of the Legislature to ask for issuance of the bonds, the bonds were then sold and retired as general obligation bonds.
Assemblyman Goicoechea followed up by asking Mr. Grady, with the sale of the bonds, to clarify the fiscal impact on the state.
Assemblyman Grady replied that eventually there would be an impact when the bonds were sold. He drew attention to A.B. 290 stating there was no fiscal impact currently attached to the bill, and there would not be one until the Board requested that the Interim Finance Committee begin the sale of the bonds. The fiscal impact would then fall into the state’s general obligation limits.
Assemblyman Collins referenced earlier testimony concerning one of the many projects tackled by the Commission, the Las Vegas Land and Water Company structure. He wished to remind folks that, for nearly 50 years, the City of Las Vegas was provided water by a private water company, so the assistance from the Commission was very helpful to the economy.
Dr. Moses believed that one of the very important points about receiving financing through the Commission was the leverage it provided to move out into communities and contact organizations for donations to assist in the forward movement of the projects. Communities, sensing that their historic sites were important to those beyond themselves, made many successful efforts to support and supplement projects. They knew, he said, that the Commission would not be able to raise enough money to renovate a whole building, but the partial funding provided incentives for involvement at the local level.
Chairman Manendo requested information about the Commission’s involvement with the preservation of the Goldfield Hotel.
Bob Ostrovsky stated that the hotel had actually made an application to the Commission in the past. The Commission, however, was only able to grant funds to buildings that were owned by either local governments or the state government or by a nonprofit organization. The Goldfield Hotel, at that time, was privately owned, although it was for sale. The Commission had no choice but to reject the grant application and had not received another. There were projects in Goldfield itself; the old Goldfield Courthouse, for example, had just received another grant.
Ronald James, State Historic Preservation Officer, responding to the Chair’s question as to whom the Goldfield Hotel belonged currently, stated that the hotel was in the county’s hands but that an investor was being sought to acquire and develop it. There were many different strategies one could use for different types of buildings. The State Historic Preservation Office would be working with the county and a potential developer to utilize federal tax credits to rehabilitate the structure, for example. Mr. James continued by stating that using federal tax credits combined with Commission grants was an enormously effective device and was critical in the development of the Riverside Hotel in Reno. That same sort of package could be developed for the Goldfield Hotel or, perhaps, the best thing would be purely private development using the tax credits as an incentive. The Commission for Cultural Affairs would not then be the vehicle for that resource.
Chairman Manendo recalled reading many books on the Goldfield Hotel and remembered that one of the large networks had created a historic piece about the old hotel.
Bob Ostrovsky testified that the bill was brought forward at the request of a private citizen who happened to be an applicant to the Commission. The Commission had not, to date, discussed A.B. 290 nor had it discussed increasing its funding cycle. Note also that those increases were not included in the Governor’s budget, he stated.
Mr. Ostrovsky was here, he said, to explain the Commission and its functions to assist the Committee in their decision regarding A.B. 290. As a reminder, the members of the Commission (Exhibit D) were not entitled to receive a salary or receive reimbursement for per diem or travel expenses. All members of the Commission served out of their own pockets. That was in the law, and the Commission members were not complaining about that. Know, though, he continued, that each member was dedicated to attempting to preserve the history of the great state of Nevada and, at the same time, to assume its assigned responsibility, which was to create cultural centers.
The rehabilitated buildings were not limited to rebuilding to their original design specifications just to be viewed. They were to serve a purpose in their various communities as learning and cultural centers. The Commission looked at how the buildings could be rehabilitated through the grant process and, also, for what purposes those buildings would be used in their communities. Most were used as community centers for the arts, the humanities, for museum displays, all to attract an increase in tourism, which was one of the Commission’s assignments, and to provide some historical background for students and others in the community who were interested in the buildings.
Many of the projects were in the rural areas, because the rural areas had a great many old buildings that were still capable of being restored. An example would be Piper’s Opera House and Thompson’s Opera House. Those kinds of structures were almost to the point of loss when the Commission began its projects. Some of those buildings received grant monies in every grant cycle, because there was so much that needed to be done. One-time grants were made at other times to get a project started. Some of those applicants had not returned for additional money.
Some facilities were huge. The facilities in Elko, where we hear “Cowboy Poetry” talked about so often, had been a work-in-progress for ten years and could be a work-in-progress for another ten. The Fourth Ward School in Virginia City recently received another grant to attempt to bring it to completion. It was a huge building that, while serving the interested tourism population and local population, took an enormous amount of time to finish. On the other hand, the Brewery Arts Center in Carson City had finished its grant cycle in the sense that it had finished its work. The Center had recently returned to the Commission with an application to attempt to restore an additional building, which was an old Catholic church, to create a theatre connected to the Brewery Arts Center.
Work had also been done in some of the more populated counties, Clark and Washoe Counties. A number of projects were done in Clark County. For years the Commission had been criticized for not putting more money into Clark County, but that criticism stopped when the press discovered that there were very few applicants from southern Nevada. Once applications began to come in, money had gone into those projects deemed to be appropriate, such as the Boulder City Hotel, the Las Vegas Springs Preserve, the old Mormon Fort structure, the Clark County museum, and others.
To assist the Committee in further understanding some of the concerns of the Commission, Mr. Ostrovsky had asked Mr. James to provide the list of grant requests (Exhibit E). He also asked Mr. James to prepare a list of grants awarded (Exhibit F). The Commission met on March 13, 2003, in Carson City, to receive the grant proposals, which numbered 32 and represented $8.5 million in requests. The $2 million budget did not stretch that far. He urged the Committee members to note that the $2 million budget was increased by a reversion from an earlier grant cycle of $100,000. The increased monies were available for grant awards. Most of the grants were to help people progress in their projects, not to complete the projects.
The Commission had tried over the years, certainly while Mr. Ostrovsky had been Chair through the last four grant cycles, to move projects towards completion. It was the intent of the Commission to assist in many projects and not to focus on just a few. There were buildings in the state that could survive another grant cycle, and there were buildings that would not make another winter. The Thompson’s Opera House had severe damage, for example, during the past winter from a windstorm. As a result, the Commission had to decide whether to put even more money into that opera house to attempt to save the building. If it received no help and had to go through another winter, the fear was that the building would collapse. It was one of the few remaining opera houses west of the Mississippi River. Some excellent work had been done on Piper’s Opera House, which was functional and operating, but there was much more to be done on it, also. If those buildings were not attended to, they would disappear completely, and the history would be lost.
As Chairman of the Board for the Commission, Mr. Ostrovsky stated that they would happily spend the $5 million should A. B. 290 pass. They had lived with the $2 million currently available, but, from the point of view of the applicants, it had become very clear that the funding was inadequate for any given project. Those people who worked to restore and maintain historical buildings were working for years to piecemeal the projects forward. Some monies would come from the Commission, some would hopefully come through federal grant applications, some would be raised via fundraisers in the communities, and that would allow for completion of about 20 percent of the project. Another grant request would follow in the next grant cycle to request assistance in moving toward the completion of another 20 percent of the project. Some projects had taken many years to complete. The Commission would not be able to fund the complete project. Every one of the grant applicants had utilized matched funds, in-kind money, other grants, and other sources of funding.
The people who were committed to those projects were the heart and soul of the state; they scrounged around and found money in places where it was a surprise that any money existed. In Clark County, there were more resources. In Lincoln, Esmeralda, White Pine, and other rural counties, there were few resources. The Commission took the location of the project into consideration. Mr. Ostrovsky testified that it was “tough” to raise $10,000 in White Pine County.
In Ely, one of Nevada’s great treasures existed, which was the railroad system. The Commission was attempting to assist in the protection of the building housing the old locomotives by awarding monies to that project. Some monies had been used to fix windows in historic buildings in Ely. Ely badly needed tourist attractions for those who were going to the new federal park, Great Basin National Park. The intent was to have tourists stop in Ely, spend the night, see the available tourist attractions, and add to the economy of White Pine County. The old Mormon Stake building in Ely also received some funding so there would be some space in the community for meetings, rehearsals, plays, and to practice music. Tourism was important but so was providing opportunities for the community to expand its cultural events center.
The list of grants awarded by year since 1993 was presented to the Committee for its consideration (Exhibit G). The grant applicants came to the Commission on Cultural Affairs, the Commission decided on which grants would receive funding and how much would be allotted, the decision was forwarded to the state, then the state decided whether to issue the bonds under the state’s bonded indebtedness cap. Since 1993, a little over $19 million had been awarded to save historical sites and to provide space devoted to cultural affairs in many communities. Some of this was interest money, and General Fund monies were dispersed to assist in the operation of the Commission. There was no overhead to pay out of the bond money available for grant awards with the exception of a very small amount used to develop a new ten-year plan demanded of the Commission through legislation.
The last grant cycle of the ten-year cycle would begin in 2004. The Commission did have concerns about the wording in NRS 233C.225. The law, as read by Mr. Ostrovsky, stated, “the amount of financial assistance granted from the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to this section must not exceed $20 million in any ten-year period.” If the ten-year cycle ended in 2004, the last year that the Commission would be granted their $2 million, there was a question raised whether or not the Commission had the right to enter into another ten-year cycle beginning in 2005.
If the Committee moved A.B. 290 forward and it was successfully passed, the Commission would award $5 million in the next cycle, but he remained unsure if there would be a cycle after that without coming back to the Legislature for review. There was a difference of opinion currently, and Mr. Ostrovsky did not have an answer. The intent of the law passed in 1991 and modified in 1993 remained unclear. That remained an open issue. A.B. 290 was not drafted at the request of the Governor nor at the request of the Commission on Cultural Affairs. It did, however, present an opportunity to update the Committee on Government Affairs on what the Commission was doing and had done.
Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Ostrovsky to tell the Committee where the oldest schoolhouse in Nevada was.
Mr. James responded that two sites vied for that honored designation. The debate was between the Glendale School, which was a Commission of Cultural Affairs project that stood in Sparks, and an old school in Mottsville, south of Genoa, which was part of a building that probably served as a school. The Fourth Ward School was completed in 1877, while the Glendale School dated to the early 1860s. The people in Sparks would tell you very emphatically that the Glendale School was the oldest. The Commission, in deference to Sparks, gave them that honor.
Assemblyman Collins wanted information from Mr. Ostrovsky about Kiel Ranch and the Floyd Lamb/Tule Springs State Park in Las Vegas.
Mr. Ostrovsky stated his belief that Kiel Ranch did receive some monies during one grant cycle but did not request any funding during the current cycle. The Commission granted money to Kiel Ranch preservation efforts, but they had not returned with another request.
Mr. James clarified that the Kiel Ranch project, in the City of North Las Vegas, applied during a number of cycles and did receive grants but ended up turning back grant monies on occasion. It was largely because of issues dealing with problematic conditions at that location. Briefly, the Bicentennial Commission used federal funding to purchase Kiel Ranch and a sizable amount of acreage for a park in 1976. The City of North Las Vegas then sold off a great deal of that acreage for light warehousing and industrial use. The parcel that remained became increasingly problematic for use as a park. After the first unsuccessful awards in 1991, the Kiel Ranch white house, the core of the ranch, was burned down by vandalism. The adobe structure that remained, probably the oldest structure standing in Nevada, did receive subsequent funding to try to save it, as weather and neglect were taking their toll. Presently there was an interest in having the adobe building moved to the Big Springs complex. Whether that would be successful or not was difficult to predict.
The City of North Las Vegas looked at the issues and returned the last grant offered to it by the Commission on Cultural Affairs, as they felt it would be irresponsible to use it for that particular program. They would look at other programs. The Commission might very well be working with the structure in the future. It was Mr. James’ hope that moving the building would be successful for its preservation.
Assemblyman Collins stated that he was on the “Friends of Kiel Ranch” committee and on the Preservation Committees for Floyd Lamb/Tule Springs State Park Preservation Committee. Local government neglect certainly contributed to the difficulties in that area, but new people had come forward and were making a concerted effort to work toward preservation of the properties.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 290 and stated he would entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 290.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo assigned Mr. Hardy to speak for the bill on the Floor of the Assembly. He then sent the Assembly’s page to bring Ms. Ohrenschall to the Committee hearing room. While waiting, the Chair called a short recess.
With Ms. Ohrenschall’s arrival, Chairman Manendo called the meeting back to order and opened the hearing on A.B. 310.
Assembly Bill 310: Increases number of days of paid leave that must be given to certain public officers and employees serving under military orders. (BDR 23-1195)
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall, Assembly District No. 12, sponsor of A.B. 310, introduced the bill by stating that it increased the number of days of paid leave from 15 days to up to 45 days for employees serving under military orders. She had planned a longer speech to support the concept that those in training to serve our country might need extra days of training to prepare for an actual combat situation should they receive orders to active duty. Because war had already begun, her testimony was decidedly different. Nevada Reserves were being called up, and the extra time needed was a reality. That time was not to support their regular and anticipated service, the two weeks of annual training, for example; the extended time and compensation were needed to cover the unanticipated costs of preparing to make that dramatic transition from a two-parent to a one-parent household. Ms. Ohrenschall stated that the essential nature of the bill had just escalated because we were already at war.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall introduced Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), Local 4041, who spoke in support of A.B. 310. He informed the Committee that in the General Council meeting of SNEA, there was a discussion about the issue of extended days. As SNEA had many members who served in the military reserves, it was pointed out that reservists actually used 36 days per year under the current system, the two weeks of annual mandatory training equaling 14 days plus the one weekend a month for 11 months out of the year equaling 22 days.
When correlated with being called into active service under the current system, employees who had alternative schedules, working weekends or swing/graveyard shifts, were already using their annual leave to cover their absences from their places of employment. Mr. MacKenzie stated, “We were asking for relief from that, because we believed it was not fair to ask those reservists to use their vacation time to serve in the military.” Mr. MacKenzie stated that counties and cities currently had allotted 30 days, compared to the state that allotted 15 days. Counties and cities were also contemplating increasing the number of days of paid leave time for military service.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall encouraged Committee members to consider the current state of the war; she stated her fear that to train the reservists well enough to bring them into war-readiness would take a greater amount of time than anticipated. Because of the advancements in military equipment and weapons, it would be a more complicated process currently to prepare a reservist for active duty.
Assemblyman McCleary informed the Committee that he served for six years in the Nevada National Guard, and, for six years, he did not get a vacation. Those were long years. The two-week summer camp training was definitely not a vacation. Also, he had the added disadvantage of earning a third of what he normally earned during that time. Not only was it time away from his family, it created a financial hardship. He appreciated Ms. Ohrenschall’s efforts to sponsor and support A.B. 310.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall responded that those members of the Reserves were there for patriotic reasons. They were there to help their country. No one made a profit from serving in the Reserves.
Assemblyman Knecht also thanked Assemblywoman Ohrenschall for bringing such a timely issue to the attention of the Committee. He further thanked SNEA for its support of the bill. He also thanked Mr. McCleary and others like him for doing that noble service.
Chairman Manendo asked for clarification as to the source of the 45 days requested in A.B. 310.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated that the 45 days were an estimate made to allow servicemen to master the new forms of weaponry. The original two weeks of annual training were probably used for training on weaponry that had a certain familiarity to all of us. The 45-day limit was an estimate. A limit needed to be in place as Nevada was not in any position to pay for the active duty time frame. Those days were simply to be allotted for required training before shipping out.
Assemblywoman Weber stated that these were times when people were called upon to do the extraordinary, and she was so thankful for all who rose to that challenge. She asked Ms. Ohrenschall about the number of Reservists in Nevada who could be affected by that legislation. She was also concerned about the effective date of July 1, 2003. She believed that date was set prior to the beginning of the war effort and that the window of opportunity was now. Knowing the numbers would bring the reality of need much closer to home.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall did not know the exact number of Reservists in the state. She would, however, get that information and provide it to the Committee. The bill, she affirmed, should be amended to “be effective upon passage.” The intent was to be helpful to those entering active duty at the current time.
Chairman Manendo listed the options available to the Committee. The Committee could create an amendment, and the Committee could place the amendment, as there was still time due to its concurrent referral to Ways and Means. The other option was to send it on to Ways and Means for them to amend and consider.
Assemblywoman Koivisto disclosed that her “paid” job was with the state of Nevada. In her agency, a number of people were called up into active service. There was no time limit, but it was handled by the agency that paid the difference in salary from their military pay to what their salary was with the state. It was her belief that they did not have to use annual leave, either. She wondered how A.B. 310 would have affected that situation.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall replied that many families relied on split work schedules to allow parents to care for their own children. The sudden absence of one of those parents meant that there was an immediate need to find childcare and the money for that care. Childcare costs, in that situation, would not have been part of the family’s budget. It would be very difficult to transition from a two-parent family to a single-parent family. Having raised her own children almost alone, she was personally aware of the difficulties of maintaining a single-parent household and raising one’s children alone. Costs were greater for those raising children alone. When the member of the Reserves was called to active duty, the Reservists were helped by their families to do their duty. It was exceedingly important that the Reservists leave for duty with some assurance that the family would survive.
Scott MacKenzie believed that those who worked weekends or had another kind of alternative schedule had a particularly difficult time. Correctional officers, peace officers, or mental health workers were examples. During the course of a year, using annual leave for training was the only option one had to meet some of the obligations for the Reserves. As each person’s schedule would be different, the bill extended available time for military training up to 45 days. Under current circumstances, many people were grateful for bringing those issues to the attention of the Legislature.
Assemblywoman Koivisto was not concerned about the time. She was concerned about the statement “without loss of his regular compensation.” She wondered if, during those 45 days, the agency would need to keep the Reservists on the payroll while paying them their regular salary. She also wondered if the agency would then be obligated to pay the difference in pay between the military salary and the state’s salary for the entire period of time the reservists were in active service.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated that she thought she and Mrs. Koivisto were speaking about two different issues. The bill itself stated that the extended time would only be allowed once in a calendar year. Once called up, one would apply for the 45 days. In modern warfare, she stated, a Reservist called into active duty then discharged, would not, in all likelihood, be placed on active duty again within a year’s period of time.
Mr. MacKenzie responded to the concern of attempting to compensate state workers with the difference in salary between their regular employment salary and what was earned as a member of the military on active duty. He saw that as separate from the concerns addressed by A.B. 310, which basically dealt with leave with pay for transition and training for up to 45 working days should an employee be called into active duty. A separate bill would need to deal with compensation for the differences in pay.
Chairman Manendo informed the Committee that he had asked Ms. Scholley, the Committee’s Research Analyst, about a male between the ages of 18 and 26 years called into active duty who was serving in the State Legislature. He had wondered if that individual would be required to activate his service immediately or would he be allowed to exempt himself from immediate active service. That answer would require further research should the need arise.
Assemblyman Collins stated that his niece was on active duty and her job was to fire a weapon from a ship that fired 12,000 rounds per minute. It was designed to knock out planes more easily than weapons in the past. The technical training alone was far beyond what one usually considered to be normal training to bring soldiers into readiness for active service.
Assemblyman Hardy asked the Committee members to look at page 2, line 1, as it read “ . . . must be relieved of his duties upon his request.” Mr. Hardy requested clarification as to whether that section applied to mandatory training or was that also applicable to an individual’s request for more training. He believed that a person received orders to report for training. It made no difference, he believed, what the individual’s civilian job was. He suspected that soldiers left when they were called, and that was part of the issue. The language, “on his request,” would seem contradictory to the normal chain of events within the military.
Mr. Hardy also wished to make clear that the 15 days mentioned in earlier testimony was not 2 weeks but 3. The 15 days were 15 working days, and, in a normal practice, one would work 5 days each week. When considering the 45-day extension of time, he reminded his fellow Committee members, those were 45 working days, which was equivalent to 9 weeks. Additionally, one would also have two or three weeks of annual leave that could be taken at the individual’s request. That individual would then be away from his regular place of employment for a quarter of the year. That would have a very significant impact on local governments and on the state. That would be the primary concern for attending to the language on line 1. Should an individual be “gung ho” and volunteer for more training rather than under the request of the government, he wondered where agencies would be in that situation.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated that the language Mr. Hardy questioned, “upon his request,” was intended to give the option to the individual being called into active service to refuse the 45-day leave time allotted under the bill that took advantage of the extra salary that would continue. The service would be mandatory service. Although she felt the language was pretty clear, she stated that she could ask the Committee’s Counsel to look at the language for clarity.
Assemblyman Hardy stated that, having been in the military, there were times when he requested a particular assignment and had orders issued to permit that assignment. He had at one point made application to go somewhere and the orders followed that. There were some orders issued that were upon request of the person serving. That would be different than orders to report for mandatory duty. He suggested that the phrase in question lent itself to ambiguity.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall again suggested consulting with Committee Counsel and asked Mr. Hardy for his suggestions to restate that portion of A.B. 310 so that it became less ambiguous. Mr. Hardy stated that “upon his request” would have to apply to the regular compensation being requested, and “serving under orders” would have to be delineated as mandatory and not voluntary for temporary duty requests.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall accepted Mr. Hardy’s suggestions as clearly stated, and she would have no objection if the Committee chose to amend the bill to include that description of what “upon his request” meant and what “under orders” meant.
Chairman Manendo affirmed that the Committee would look more carefully at the existing language. He did not know if there had been any problems so far. If there had been no problem and the bill was designed primarily to change the number of days for compensation to the employee now on active duty, he was uncertain whether changing existing language would be necessary.
According to Ms. Ohrenschall, the bill was meant to address issues that could arise from a hypothetical war that we all hoped would not occur. At the current time, the bill was addressing issues in a current war; bullets were being shot at our men and women actively defending our country. In that situation, when a young person knew that to enter into the war could mean giving up his life, she did not believe that many would be playing games with their employers as to mandatory or volunteer orders.
Assemblyman McCleary responded to those who questioned the need for a 45-day transition time. Had he gone to war while he was serving in the National Guard, he would have needed every one of those 45 days to downsize his household. He would have gone from earning $4,000-$5,000 per month to making $1,200 per month. He would have needed that time and the income to avoid bankruptcy for himself and his family.
Mr. MacKenzie added a comment to Mr. McCleary’s statement by suggesting that, when the training time was subtracted, which was the two weeks of training annually and the monthly two-day commitment to the service, there were only nine days left which would amount to less that two weeks. If you had already had your two-week training, you did not have 45 days left, as you had already exhausted two weeks or ten working days.
Kimberly J. McDonald, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist for North Las Vegas, spoke in support of A.B. 310. North Las Vegas concurred with the bill and believed that employees called into active military service should not suffer any loss of compensation.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 310. He stated that the effective date of the bill needed to be changed. Mr. Collins suggested sending the bill to Ways and Means asking them to draft the amendment to change the effective date. The Chair concurred. It was his belief that Ways and Means would prefer a clean bill but would accept a letter attached to the bill and would act on it as suggested.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 310.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
During the discussion following the motion and second, Assemblywoman Weber questioned the DO PASS motion as the Committee had noted a need to change the effective date in the bill. The Chair reminded her and all Committee members that the motion was to get the bill moving and out of Committee. When the bill was sent to Ways and Means, a letter would accompany it requesting that the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means amend the bill to make the date effective immediately upon passage.
Assemblyman Hardy believed the bill to be a good bill. Having served in the military, he thought there was still a need to examine and change the language on line 1, page 2, to read “ . . . must be relieved of his duties upon his request to serve under orders that had not been issued at the personal request of the affected employee without loss of his regular compensation for a period of not more than 45 working days in one calendar year.” That would be the kind of language, stated Mr. Hardy, that would clean the bill up.
Hearing no further discussion, the Chair called for the vote.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Christensen was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo noted for the record that Mr. Hardy’s proposed language change would be included in the letter to the Committee on Ways and Means. He thanked Ms. Ohrenschall for bringing A.B. 310 forward.
Assemblywoman Pierce made an announcement to the Committee on behalf of Mr. Christensen. He had called that morning to report on the newest addition to the Christensen family. He was Collin Race Christensen, weighing in at 5 pounds, 10 ounces. Mother and baby were doing great. Dad was slowly recovering from his ordeal. On instructions from the Chair, the announcement became part of the Committee’s record.
Chairman Manendo called a short recess to be followed by a work session.
Chairman Manendo called the Committee hearing back to order. First on the agenda for the work session was a discussion of Assembly Bill 85. Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, presented the bill to the Committee.
Assembly Bill 85: Revises provisions governing revenue bonds for industrial development. (BDR 30-469)
Susan Scholley brought A.B. 85 to the attention of the Committee members and reminded them that the Committee on Government Affairs, on behalf of the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry, had sponsored the bill. (Exhibit H).
A.B. 85 streamlined the procedures for financing certain projects using revenue bonds for industrial development, commonly referred to as mini-bonds. The bill raised the cap on the cost of the projects that may be reviewed under the streamlined procedures from $2.5 million to $3 million. The bill also opened up the procedures to any industrial development project. Previously, it was restricted to those serving particular purposes. It would still be subject to a number of certain findings related to the sale of the bonds and other matters.
With respect to the proposed amendments, concerns were raised during the hearing about the removal of a finding related to the approval of the director’s findings by the local government. The proponent of the bill, Doug Walther, from the Department of Business and Industry, and representatives of local government associations and others proposed an amendment to address that concern. Looking at page 2 of the mockup document, stated Ms. Scholley, the textbox directed attention to the underlined language that reinstated a role for the local government so that the Director would provide notice of a request for the financing of a project. The local government then had 25 days to submit a resolution objecting to the project if it so wished. The amendment addressed the concern that there be some time limit so that the revenue financing process would move forward in a timely manner. Ms. O’Grady pointed out that the 25 days referenced by Ms. Scholley were business days rather than calendar days.
Assemblyman Grady stated that he read the bill and believed it said that after posting the notice, the Director did not have to abide by the resolution that was passed. If there were a zoning discussion, the bonds could still be issued over the protest of the local government.
Ms. Scholley stated that she understood the intent was to allow the objection of the local government to cause the Director to not approve the financing requested. At the Committee’s request, the Legal Division could clarify that. The present language was proposed by the proponents and by the local government associations. In drafting the final amendment, the Legal Division would be able to make that even clearer.
Assemblyman Collins thought, he said, that in its original presentation to the Committee, the amendment included a lever on local bodies. He wondered if that lever or influence had been removed. When discussed, as he remembered it, those with projects to present would come to the local government, and state that financing was not just available but approved, and the project now depended on the local entities to change the zoning so that the project would move forward. Even though local folks did not like the zoning change, it would be hard to turn down a project that had money attached to it.
Ms. Scholley stated that the concern was that the local government had an unlimited period of time to respond to approve or disapprove the project, thus slowing down the financing process. The compromise, as she understood it, was to put a time limit on the local government. If they wished to object, it needed to be done within 25 business days. Should they fail to do so, the Director would be free to go forward without their action or content.
Mr. Collins reflected on his view of the growth that occurred and was occurring in southern Nevada. Many times, if the local government did not act soon enough, the money was there, and the project continued, despite the objections of local government. He was not sure he supported that kind of growth then, and he was not sure that the new language made growth any safer now.
Chairman Manendo directed that no vote be taken at that time. When the Committee received clarification of issues discussed, the Committee would reconsider and would vote at a later time.
Assembly Bill 136: Authorizes creation of general improvement district for establishment of area or zone for preservation of one or more species or subspecies of wildlife threatened with extinction. (BDR 25-398)
The Chair asked Ms. Scholley to address changes made since the Committee first heard the bill (Exhibit I).
Ms. Scholley stated that the Committee on Government Affairs, on behalf of Lincoln County, sponsored A.B. 136. It permitted the creation of a general improvement district (GID) for the purpose of implementing a habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. At the hearing on the bill, the concerns expressed were primarily related to water rights issues in the area and potential impact on grazing permits. The Lincoln County Commission proposed an amendment to address those concerns.
Directing attention to page 1 of the work session document, called a mockup, Committee members would see that the two phrases, water rights and grazing permits, had been deleted from the “authorities” under the proposal. Otherwise, the bill remained the same. There was opposition to the bill heard during the first hearing by the Sierra Club and the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, although they opposed the bill for quite different reasons. Also, there was no fiscal impact noted on the bill.
Assemblyman Knecht asked Ms. Scholley to summarize the oppositions’ statements regarding the bill. Ms. Scholley stated that the Sierra Club opposed the project because of the impact on water and wildlife. At the same time, the Sierra Club opposed the Coyote Springs development for similar reasons. The Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, she stated, appeared to disbelieve in the authority of the federal government or the validity of the Endangered Species Act. For those reasons, that organization would not endorse any bill that implemented the Endangered Species Act in any way.
Mr. Hardy stated that he wrote in his own notes that Joe Johnson opposed the imposition of the $550 one-time assessment fee for developers per disturbed acre. His notes said that Mr. Johnson was concerned about the maintenance of the projects to protect species of wildlife.
Assemblyman Goicoechea wanted to clarify that the Habitat Conservation Plan was not the same as the NRS Chapter 318 GIDs that A.B. 136 created. The focus was on very small pieces of land in Coyote Springs near Mesquite. On the map submitted at the original hearing, that portion of Lincoln County, which extended all the way to Caliente, was part of the Habitat Conservation Plan. The NRS Chapter 318 GIDs were very small pieces of land by comparison. Although the money from the one-time assessments could be used in the at-large portion of the Habitat Conservation Plan, technically the authority was only granted to those NRS Chapter 318 GIDs in Coyote Springs and towards Mesquite. The bill did allow some monies to go into the Habitat Conservation Plan area but that was not the full intent of the bill.
Assemblyman Hardy stated that he was comfortable with the intent of the bill and supported the concept of that species and habitat conservation projects as well as allowing money to be used to a limited extent to support those efforts.
Assemblyman Grady believed, he said, that the bill was crafted narrowly enough so that the NRS Chapter 318 districts would only involve Lincoln County. There would be no other General Improvement District that would fall within the scope of the bill at the current time.
Assemblywoman Pierce stated that her vote would be against passage of the bill as she had many questions that had left her uncomfortable with the bill. She was not convinced that the bill was necessary. It was possible, she believed, that county commissioners were able to do what the bill set out to do already. She also was unsure that the bill did anything to further protect endangered species, and she was still not clear about what the bill would accomplish should it pass. Her real concern was about the Coyote Springs development, the proposed power plants, and the continued availability of water. Aquifers, she stated, did not respect boundaries of GIDs and counties. Coyote Springs was not limited to just Lincoln County; it was also a development that was partially in Clark County. Her concern was that Coyote Springs at its full capacity would dry up the Muddy River. She remained uncomfortable and would vote against the bill.
Assemblyman Knecht expressed concerns about the overreach and the overuse of the Endangered Species Act. On the other hand, that did not mean that he thought it was illegal as suggested by the Committee for Full Statehood. He stated he could separate that concern from a bill such as A.B. 136 that would facilitate its legitimate use. He remained concerned, however, about state sovereignty and federal sovereignty issues and the federal government’s role in owning and dominating too much of Nevada’s land. Again, he could separate that from the bill before the Committee. That would not keep him from voting for it either. Finally, Mr. Collins assured him that it was a good bill; he agreed so he would vote for A.B. 136.
Assemblyman Collins stated he had discussions with several Committee members regarding A.B. 136. While he appreciated the concerns expressed by other Committee members, he stated that allowing the bill to move forward would not affect the water situation at Coyote Springs one way or another. The State Engineer would determine whether or not the development would dry up the Muddy River. What A.B. 136 did and helped Lincoln County to do was to allow the development of Coyote Springs, if it moved forward, and the development of the Lincoln County Land Act near Mesquite, to fund the project in their own territory rather than rely on the financial responsibility to rest on citizens much farther away.
Although the county would remain ultimately responsible financially, the GID would allow those developers to put forward monies to pay most of the costs for the development necessary for Lincoln County. Although Mr. Johnson was not in attendance at that time, he and Mr. Collins had spoken about his discomfort was with the Coyote Springs project; the passage of A.B. 136 would have little impact on that.
Finally, Mr. Collins reported, deleting the water rights and grazing allotments calmed his own fears about the bill. He believed the bill benefited development in Lincoln County and addressed environmental concerns as well. Outside of the bill, the other environmental concerns would be addressed by others such as the State Water Engineer and other agencies regardless of whether the bill passed or not.
Chairman Manendo stated that he would entertain a motion at that time.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 136.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Koivisto stated that she had almost made up her mind but, with mention of a power plant, she realized that she wanted more information.
Assemblyman Collins responded by explaining that the Toquop Power Plant was to use approximately one square mile of land out near the Tule Desert just north/northwest of the Mormon Mountains in Lincoln County. During the Legislative Session of 2001, legislation was passed to expedite permitting processes for power plants because of the alleged energy crisis that was manipulated; the Toquop plant site was one of several identified at that time. With the reversal of energy rates, many of those plants that were planned and in process were stopped even in mid-construction. The Toquop plant was in limbo but was still being pursued by some.
The main topic for current discussions was the choice between a water-cooled or air-cooled system for the plant. Another was a concern that, should the plant be developed, it would be a very beneficial part of water development in southern Lincoln County, would assist in more reliable energy in southern Nevada, and would help the county pay for its own development. The alternative would be having to spread out the cost over greater distances and in other ways.
Assemblywoman Pierce stated that Mr. Collins had alluded to the faux energy crisis that Nevadans experienced a few years ago. When that happened, there were about 12 to 15 power plant proposals for Clark County alone. Almost all were natural gas-powered plants and were air-cooled. Three of them that were proposed were to have been water-cooled. A water-cooled power plant would take 7,000 acre-feet of water a year to cool the plant. One acre-foot of water would be enough water for a family of four for a year. The amount needed to cool a plant, the 7,000 acre-feet of water, would be enough to meet the water needs of 7,000 families per year. An air-cooled power plant would take about 1,200 acre-feet of water a year to cool. The environmental community was never opposed to the power plant per se, just to the method of cooling it. She stated that she personally felt that a water-cooled power plant had no place in a desert. Mr. Goicoechea added that some of eleven proposals received in Clark County were for water-cooled plants.
Chairman Manendo reminded Committee members that there was an AMEND AND DO PASS motion on the table, that it had been seconded, and that the Committee seemed ready for a vote.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MS. PIERCE, MRS. KOIVISTO, AND CHAIRMAN MANENDO VOTING NO. (Mr. Christensen was not present for the vote.
As the motion passed, Chairman Manendo directed Mr. Collins to present the bill and its amendments on the Floor of the Assembly.
Assembly Bill 219: Requires Department of Administration to conduct study concerning feasibility and desirability of relocating certain state agencies to rural communities. (BDR S-1088)
Chairman Manendo stated that A.B. 219 was sponsored by Assemblyman Sherer and would automatically be sent to Ways and Means if it were passed out of the Committee on Government Affairs.
Ms. Scholley reviewed the bill for the Committee. A.B. 219 required that the Department of Administration appoint a committee to study the feasibility of relocating one or more state agencies to rural communities. The bill specified the composition of the committee, and the results were due by September 1, 2004. The Chief of the Budget Division was then to consider the results of the study as he prepared the state’s budget (Exhibit J).
At the hearing on the bill, the sponsor proposed two amendments; one was to create a fund to receive gifts or grants to conduct the study so there would be no impact on the State General Fund, and the second was to make the relocation of a state agency discretionary at the conclusion of the study rather than requiring the relocation of at least one agency.
A rough mock-up of the bill was prepared for the Committee. On page 2, the locations of the proposed amendments were noted adding “if feasible” on line 20 to delete the mandatory requirement of relocation of a state agency in FY2006-2007. Also marked was the addition of a section that would set up the fund that would receive gifts or grants, which fund would be used for the express purpose of funding the study and indicated that the study would not be done if funds were not received. She again warned Committee members that the language of the amendments, when they came to the Floor, would only vaguely resemble the mockup. There was no opposition and, with the amendments, there would be no fiscal impact.
The Chair asked the pleasure of the Committee.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 219.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman McCleary checked his understanding of the bill by stating that A.B. 219 provided for a feasibility study to see if some government facilities could be moved to the rural areas. He asked for confirmation. Policy-wise, he currently was opposed to that movement. The services, he believed, should remain closer to the larger populated areas. He understood the interest of the rural areas in having state agencies moved to them, but he remained opposed to that.
Assemblyman Collins stated that, while driving around rural Nevada, one would see big signs at one or both ends of a small community that stated that the area was designated as an industrial park or industrial plant or economic development or something similar. Funding a private study would benefit those communities as those areas were allowed to be set up and were funded by the state as an incentive for new industries or businesses. No one had come. The study did not hurt anyone, especially since it was to be paid for privately.
Assemblywoman Pierce supported A.B. 219. With the current technology available, it was worth exploring whether everyone actually needed to be close together. If it were feasible to move some state agencies out into rural areas and it would benefit the local economy, it was worth looking at.
Assemblywoman Weber concurred. She lent her support to the study.
Assemblyman Goicoechea stated that there were departments that would clearly benefit from being located in rural Nevada such as the Department of Minerals. There were water quality issues that could also be appropriately moved to rural Nevada that would be beneficial to both the communities and the environment.
Assemblyman Knecht felt that his district had the most to lose with the bill. He did believe, however, that the essence of a feasibility study was to determine whether it would be appropriate to consider moving any department or operation to a particular place. Supporting the bill was not supporting the inappropriate move of an agency or division.
Chairman Manendo reviewed the motion and the second and called for the vote.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH MR. McCLEARY VOTING NO. (Mr. Christensen was not present for the vote.
The Chair reminded Committee members to clear out their folders but to leave the folders themselves behind. He also stated that the Committee would meet on Monday, March 24, 2003, at 8 a.m. rather than the usual 9 a.m. The Committee would consider four bills on that day. The workload was increasing with much to be done before the deadline. Another work session was scheduled for Friday, March 21, 2003. Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 10:28 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________________
Nancy Haywood
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY
_____________________________________________
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: _______________________________________