MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
March 26, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:17 a.m., on Wednesday, March 26, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Peggy Pierce, excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. John C. Carpenter, Assemblyman, District No. 33
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Assemblyman, District No. 31
Ms. Kathy McClain, Assemblywoman, District No. 15
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Rosemary Zienter, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
George Pyne, Executive Director, Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada
Tom Schwartz, private citizen
Ron James, State Historical Preservation Officer, State of Nevada Cultural Affairs
Ted Olivas, Assistant Director of Finance, Clark County
Steve Holloway, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter
Lori Ashton, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Jack Jeffrey, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council
Danny Thompson, Executive Secretary/Treasurer, Nevada State AFL/CIO
Justine Chambers, Carson City Development Services, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission
Randy Robison, Associated Builders and Contractors
Jeanette Belz, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter
Santana Garcia, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Legislative Team
Chairman Manendo welcomed all Committee members and guests to the Committee on Government Affairs and called the meeting to order at 8:17 a.m. The roll was called, and he directed the secretary to mark members present upon their arrival. Assemblywoman Pierce was excused. The Chair explained to the public that this was a time when Committee members would need to be in other Committee hearings, because they testified on other bills. He asked for the patience of the public as the Committee members left and returned.
A letter had been received, Chairman Manendo reported, from Moshe Bialac, on Assembly Bill 332, a bill heard in the Committee on March 21. Mr. Bialac had requested that his letter be placed into the minutes of that meeting. A copy of that letter had been given to the Committee Secretary recording on that day. For the Committee’s information, Assembly Bill 400 was officially withdrawn, Assembly Bill 211 was withdrawn, and Assembly Bill 455 had been placed on hold. A Senate version of A.B. 455 was still alive in the Senate, but the bill designation was not known. The Committee on Government Affairs had 108 bills referred to it thus far in this legislative session.
The first bill on the agenda was Assembly Bill 360 sponsored by Assemblyman Carpenter. The hearing on A.B. 360 was opened by Chairman Manendo.
Assembly Bill 360: Revises provisions governing retirement of Legislators. (BDR 17-1100)
Assemblyman John Carpenter, District No. 33, was pleased, he reported, to present Assembly Bill 360. The bill would allow a legislator to draw retirement, if one had 10 years of service in the Legislature, had attained the age of 60, and was still serving.
As most knew, legislators contributed 15 percent of their “generous” salaries to their retirement, he reported. The state added to that account. His belief, he stated, was that the bill would have little fiscal impact, if any. People who had served in the Legislature for that long, and who continued to do so, would be helped by being able to draw a little money to serve a little longer.
When a person attained the age of 60 years and was still serving, having already served 10 years or more, one could draw retirement income. If one continued to serve, perhaps another five years, one would not be able to draw the full retirement benefit until one had actually retired from the Legislature. The retirement draw would not add a fiscal note, he explained, as many legislators had served for many years and actually did not draw retirement until they were retired from it.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked Assemblyman Carpenter if he anticipated that a balance of years of service would be tied up, if, for example, a legislator began to draw retirement at age 60 and was then elected for another term.
Assemblyman Carpenter stated his understanding of the bill and concurred with Mr. Goicoechea. If one had ten years of service to the state as a legislator, had turned 60 years of age, and remained in the Legislature, one would be able to draw $250 each month, or $25 for each year of service. Additional years served would not be calculated until that legislator retired. On a side note, Mr. Carpenter reported that the press was in attendance at the hearing, as they really like his “double-dipping” bill, because it sold papers for them.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if Mr. Carpenter would consider amending the bill. He suggested that the retirement draw be calculated on a yearly basis and that the $25 per year be added each year.
Assemblyman Carpenter was hesitant to accept an amendment before thoroughly investigating what a fiscal note would look like should there be one. At the present time, Mr. Carpenter hoped to see the process begin. If it proved viable, he saw no reason why, in another legislative session, the law could not be amended. He reported that he would like to see the bill remain as it was at the present time.
Chairman Manendo questioned Mr. Carpenter to ascertain if a fiscal note had been requested.
Assemblyman Carpenter reported that he had requested a fiscal note, but that it was not available at the time of the hearing. He had talked with a representative from the retirement system, and he understood that the Legislative Counsel Bureau was continuing to work on that; he was certain it would be available soon. The bill drafters had originally told Mr. Carpenter that a fiscal note would not be likely, but he urged the Committee to wait for a final decision on that.
Assemblyman Collins gave additional information. Other states had begun a process such as Mr. Carpenter was suggesting. Retirement draws did not preclude a legislator from running for reelection. Seniority was not affected. It was Mr. Collins’ belief that there would be no fiscal note if the retirement funds were solid.
Assemblyman Carpenter thanked Mr. Collins, stating he hoped Mr. Collins was correct. He also noted that term limits were to become effective in 2008. After that year, the time a person would be able to serve in the Legislature would be reduced substantially. “It would be unlikely that we would have legislators like Joe Dini and Lawrence Jacobsen in the future,” he said.
George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), opened his remarks to the Committee by stating that PERS was taking a neutral position on Assembly Bill 360. As Assemblyman Carpenter had said, the bill did allow a legislator who was fully eligible to retire, both as to age and service, to begin receiving retirement benefits during the period he or she served in the Legislature. That person would continue to contribute into the retirement system and would then receive a recalculated benefit based on any additional legislative service at the time of actual retirement.
The applicable Internal Revenue Code regulations had been reviewed, along with the PERS actuary, to determine if there was any federal prohibition to receiving a retirement allowance at the same time a member accrued service in the retirement system. As long as the individual member was fully eligible to retire, as to age and service, PERS had been told that there would be no violation of the Internal Revenue Code in “service distribution” rules. That would not be a concern.
There was a concern, he noted, with respect to the fiscal impact that the benefit might have. That information was not available yet. Mr. Pyne stated that the bill was drafted originally in a different form and was returned for a redraft. It just recently came to the attention of PERS, where it was being worked on as quickly as possible. PERS did foresee a fiscal cost; the magnitude was not known at the current time.
Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Pyne how soon that information would be ready. Mr. Pyne stated that next week would be the soonest the information would be released.
Mr. Pyne affirmed that, regardless of the cost impact, the Board had, in recent years, taken a neutral position on matters pertaining to the Legislators’ Retirement System benefits. He stated, “Quite frankly, we have looked to the Interim Retirements Benefits Committee, and Interim Oversight Committee of the Legislature, that overviews both PERS and the Legislators’ and Judicial Retirement Plans, for any input or direction with respect to the Legislators’ Retirement System.” At their most recent meeting held in November 2002, that matter was not considered by the Committee.
When no one else came forward to speak in favor of or in opposition to Assembly Bill 360, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on the bill.
Chairman Manendo then opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 318 and welcomed Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chair of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. He also welcomed Mr. Tom Schwartz.
Assembly Bill 318: Directs installation of historical marker at gravesite of former Nevada Governor, Emmet D. Boyle. (BDR S-872)
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, District No. 31 within the City of Sparks and parts of Reno, introduced Mr. Tom Schwartz, one of his constituents. It was Mr. Schwartz who had brought to Mr. Anderson’s attention the issue relative to the gravesite of former Governor Emmet D. Boyle, the first Nevada-born Governor of Nevada and the youngest man to ever hold the position of Governor, reported Mr. Anderson. Former Governor Boyle’s grave remained unmarked. Assemblyman Anderson presented the following information to the Committee:
Former Governor Boyle was born in Gold Hill, Nevada in 1879. His father, Edward Boyle, was an Irish immigrant who became a State Senator from Storey County, and who supported the women’s suffrage movement. It was no wonder that Emmet Boyle became so involved in his community. Emmet was an engineering student at the University of Nevada and, after graduating, eventually became the State Engineer.
Later, he served as Nevada’s Tax Commissioner and was instrumental in establishing and formulizing the state’s budgeting process. In 1915, at the age of 35, Emmet Boyle became the youngest person and the first native Nevadan ever elected to Nevada’s highest office. During his tenure as the thirteenth Governor of our great state, Governor Boyle restructured the state’s water law and tax structures.
In his two terms, he was known for his support of progressive policies for benefit of women, children, and workers. Boyle, in his father’s footsteps, was a strong supporter of the women’s suffrage movement. He called a special session of the Nevada Legislature, which met for a single day, and on February 7, 1920, he signed Nevada’s Assembly Joint and Concurrent Resolution No. 1 in favor of the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, granting suffrage to women.
After a bout with an unexpected illness, Governor Boyle died in January 1926. He is buried in Reno, in the Mountain View Cemetery, with only a simple marker, one that makes no mention of his accomplishments or his service to our state.
The purpose of Assembly Bill 318 was, affirmed Assemblyman Anderson, to allow for the placement of a marker at the Governor’s gravesite. Mr. Schwartz brought to Mr. Anderson’s attention both the information he had just given to the Committee and the fact that we would be able to ask the state to collect the funds that would be donated for the marker. There would be no cost to the state of Nevada, confirmed Mr. Anderson. The donations had already been secured and promised for the placement of a marker, and his only relative, his daughter, who lived in the eastern part of the United States, had given her permission for such placement.
Mr. Schwartz referenced the testimony of Assemblyman Anderson by reminding the Committee that Governor Boyle was the first in many things. He was the first native Nevadan to become Governor, he was the first Governor to have graduated from the University of Nevada, and he was Governor during a particularly trying time when the country was involved in World War I, 1915 to 1922.
Mr. Schwartz stated that, as Mr. Anderson said, “I would see the gravesite of Mr. Emmet Boyle, and it always bugged me.” Mr. Schwartz explained that, seeing the grave, he thought it must have been a different Boyle. Everyone else who had seen it said, according to Mr. Schwartz, that there would be some recognition if it were Governor Boyle’s gravesite. He had done so many things for Nevada that Mr. Schwartz believed that someone should give him some credit and recognition. Assembly Bill 318, sponsored by Assemblyman Anderson, would correct a mistake of years past and would accomplish what Mr. Schwartz had hoped for. He appreciated Mr. Anderson for bringing the bill forward. If anyone wanted additional information, stated Mr. Schwartz, Christopher Driggs of Carson City would be able to provide it. Mr. Driggs had done his thesis on Governor Emmet Boyle. What wording would be appropriate on the marker would be in the area of expertise for Mr. Driggs. Again, he thanked the Committee, as well as Assemblyman Anderson for considering the matter and declared it would be a happy day when he saw a plaque on Emmet D. Boyle’s grave.
Mr. Schwartz then told a personal story about Assemblyman Anderson and ended by stating that he had just celebrated his 90th birthday and had been born in Sparks.
Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Schwartz for his testimony and stated it was an honor to have him attend the hearing. He was fortunate to have such a strong person as Assemblyman Anderson representing him.
Ron James, State Historical Preservation Officer, stated that it was his office that administered the state’s Historical Marker program. He offered to provide the marker for the gravesite should the Legislature pass Assembly Bill 318. He agreed that Governor Boyle was extremely important to Nevada state history, and, if people had not visited the exhibit in the old Senate Chambers of the State Capitol, he urged people to go. There was a reconstruction of a historic Governor’s Office. The featured Governor was Governor Boyle, the Governor during World War I, the Governor who shepherded the state through the Progressive Era, and the Governor who did sign the legislation giving women the right to vote. For many different reasons, Nevadans should be acknowledging and honoring Governor Boyle. Mr. James strongly supported Assembly Bill 318.
Chairman Manendo, hearing no further testimony, closed the hearing on Assembly Bill 318. The Chair indicated his willingness to accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 318.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Williams stated that he believed the Committee would be making one of the best votes possible by supporting A.B. 318. The vote would be doing the “right thing” for the people of Nevada.
THE MOTION TO DO PASS CARRIED. (Assemblywoman Pierce was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo assigned A.B. 318 to Mr. Anderson to shepherd to the Floor of the Assembly. After opening the hearing on Assembly Bill 295, the Chair called a brief recess, because the bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman McClain, was not able to be at the hearing yet.
Assembly Bill 295: Revises provisions governing criteria for determining qualification of bidders on public works of local governments. (BDR 28-747)
Chairman Manendo reopened the Committee meeting with the arrival of Assemblywoman McClain. He asked Ms. McClain to introduce A.B. 295, a bill she had sponsored.
Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, District No. 15, opened her remarks by stating that A.B. 295 dealt with the qualifications of bidders on public works projects. She introduced Steve Holloway and Ted Olivas who would also speak in support of Assembly Bill 295. They would actually explain the bill for the Committee. She stated her belief that there was industry support for the establishment of some kinds of criteria for determining the qualifications of construction bidders on different public works projects.
The bill would allow governmental entities the ability to screen contractors to be certain that they would be able to do the job they had bid on in a safe and efficient manner. That, in turn, would provide for tax-dollar savings.
Ted Olivas, Assistant Director of Finance, Clark County, began by addressing the direction that would be taken, should A.B. 295 pass. It would expand and clarify the criteria to be used by local governments to prequalify contractors who wished to bid on projects. Prequalification was an alternate method for bidding the projects, and the bill was related to the process. The proposed criteria were objective measures of whether a contractor would successfully complete a public works project if the contractor were found to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
Mr. Olivas summarized the need for expanding the number of criteria in the law (Exhibit C). A.B. 295 would expand that number to ten. In Section 1, page 1, lines 1 through 11, local governments would be required to adopt criteria set forth in NRS 338.1377, if the jurisdiction elected to prequalify contractors and chose to use that proposed method of bidding. It also included a provision that required entities to adopt the criteria by ordinance, but Mr. Olivas stated that the bill’s supporters did not believe that local governments would need to do that. An amendment (Exhibit D) was being introduced that would eliminate the two words “by ordinance.”
According to Mr. Olivas, Clark County prequalified contractors. Basically, county officials would go before the Board of Commission, they would list the criteria that were provided for in the law, and the Board adopted them. “By ordinance” was a redundancy and would be taken out as unnecessary, according to the proposed amendment.
In Section 1, page 2, lines 1 through 20, subsections 2 and 3 were the current statutes. They had proven to be subjective, and there had been varying interpretations and disputes. That section would, hopefully, be expanded. There was a need to look at contractors objectively and to look at additional criteria as it related to the performance of the work that they did.
In Section 1, page 2, lines 21 through 45, and page 3, lines 1 through 10, the new subsections were listed. They consisted of the new criteria that local governments, particularly Clark County, because it used those, and the construction industry, had agreed would provide an objective measure of whether a contractor would be able to successfully complete a public works project if of course that contractor was found to be the responsive and responsible bidder.
Assemblywoman McClain stated that she had received an e-mail from the Clark County School District that was also concerned about the words “by ordinance” as they did not pass ordinances. That would be another reason to support the amendment, which would remove those two words. Ms. McClain then asked for and received permission from the Chair to return to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.
Steve Holloway, Associated General Contractors (AGC), spoke to the Committee about the background leading up to the proposed Assembly Bill 295. The construction industry and the public works agencies had spent two years working on the language to reach a compromise to promote more objective and measurable criteria for the prequalifying of contractors, criteria not subject to interpretation and abuse. The AGC supported the criteria and the efforts of Ted Olivas and the public works agencies.
Assemblyman Goicoechea expressed concern about the requirement that the contractor had done a similar project as the one he chose to bid on in the preceding five years. In some of the rural areas, one of those kinds of projects would not happen more than once every ten years. While there might be a qualified contractor that the local government would be comfortable with, that contractor would not have done a project of a particular size or description in those past five years. He expressed some apprehension about that criterion. The time frame was a definite concern.
Ted Olivas responded to Mr. Goicoechea and others when he stated that Assembly Bill 295 was enabling legislation, an optional approach to be taken by the various jurisdictions if they chose to do so. The beauty of the legislation, he explained, was that the jurisdiction, on a project-by-project basis, would be able to decide to use prequalification as a selection process of a contractor. The law also allowed an entity to do that prequalifying for a one-year period or a two-year period. The proponents of the bill hoped that the jurisdiction, on the more difficult projects, would make certain that the contractor had previous experience with a project of similar size and complexity.
The concern was to avoid becoming the testing ground or proving ground for the contractors. Public entities could not afford to have those kinds of issues. The bill provided another tool for the smaller jurisdictions, but only if they chose to use it, Mr. Olivas repeated.
Assemblyman Goicoechea again responded with his concern that the legislation would not be truly enabling. The language of the proposed bill stated that “the governing body of each local government that sponsors or finances a public work shall adopt the following criteria.” While he had heard Mr. Olivas state that it was not necessary to adopt the following criteria, the bill seemed to conflict with that statement.
Mr. Olivas again affirmed that the bill was enabling legislation. NRS 338.1373 identified the multiple ways in which a local government was able to select bids for public works projects. Currently, there were three ways to do so. One was “prequalification,” with the set of rules included in the bill but expanded upon. There was an alternate method, one that most jurisdictions used, that allowed entities to advertise and receive bids. The third was called “design/build.” The bill addressed only the “prequalification” process, should that be the process a local jurisdiction chose to follow.
Mr. Holloway also responded to Mr. Goicoechea’s concerns. The bill stated that, should prequalification be the selected process, the entity shall adopt those criteria for use in the process of selection of contractors, pursuant to NRS 338.1379.
Assemblyman Knecht spoke of having been on both sides of contracting with public agencies, both as the contracting officer for an agency and as the contractor. He had some concern with the five-year provision in Section 1, subsection 3, page 2. Among other things, new firms were often formed with less than a five-year history, but the principals had the experience while the firm itself did not.
Although he understood that prequalification was just one option for use in selecting a contractor, he would be satisfied with that if he had further information as to how often local public entities chose to use the “no prequalifying” option, what Mr. Knecht considered the primary option, of advertising and receiving bids.
Steve Holloway explained that there were only three jurisdictions or agencies that were currently using prequalification for the selection of contractors. All were located in Clark County, he stated. Those agencies were the Clark County School District, Clark County General Services (Public Works), and the City of Las Vegas.
Assemblyman Knecht asked about the percentage for each of the three choices in terms of their use.
Mr. Holloway informed the Committee that, to his knowledge, all of the other agencies were using the traditional method of competitive bidding throughout the state. He knew of no other agencies that had adopted prequalification criteria and were prequalifying contractors. The ratio would be 80 percent of the jobs were contracted through the use of competitive bidding.
Mr. Knecht asked again if, within those three agencies, prequalification was the exclusive process in use. If not, he asked, what percentage of the time was the more traditional competitive bidding the process of choice.
Mr. Olivas replied that the jurisdictions of Clark County and the City of Las Vegas only used those for the vertical construction such as buildings and parks. It was not used for road projects, only for projects over $100,000. Both methodologies were used. The City of Las Vegas did exactly the same. The school district, he believed, used prequalification for most of its projects.
Chairman Manendo asked for an explanation as to how the bill draft was requested. He also was curious as to why Assemblywoman McClain had been asked to sponsor it.
Ted Olivas explained that Clark County had been working with the Associated General Contractors as well as the Associated Builders and Contractors on the issue. It was the AGC’s decision to move for the bill draft request. Although Clark County officers had been asked by the Board of Commissioners to consider additional criteria, it was an industry and local government cooperative effort.
Lori Ashton, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, provided some history of prequalification. In 1999, the basic language for prequalification was adopted by the Legislature and placed into statute. In 2001, there were questions and concerns from public bodies about whether they were able to use the prequalification process annually, biennially, or project by project. That clarification was addressed in the last session.
The reason there were originally only four criteria listed in prequalification was to allow the most latitude for the widest array of public bodies to adopt criteria that fit their needs within those categories. It seemed, however, over the development of those categories, public bodies had concerns or questions of whether or not certain issues were addressed within those four categorical criteria. Questions were asked about the meanings of “financial ability” and “principal personnel” and what those encompassed. Also, the issue of subcontractors was left undecided but would be addressed in a different bill that was assigned to the Committee, Assembly Bill 540.
Ms. Ashton explained that, through the interim, those who were concerned worked to more specifically spell out exactly what the criteria would be. However, during the interim, one issue was omitted from the final decision given to her by Clark County and the AGC.
Clark County and the AGC had omitted from the bill what was included in the proposed amendment as subsection 11. Ms. Ashton presented the proposed amendment (Exhibit E) regarding failure to perform due to causes within the control of the applicant. It would allow a public body to address failed projects. The state, she declared, was certainly aware of the magnitude of failed projects, such as the Veterans’ Home in southern Nevada. Knowing that most of the failed projects did not come before the district court and that contractors were seldom charged with “breach of contract,” those failed projects were dealt with through arbitrations and bond forfeitures. By eliminating the ability of public bodies or the state to examine failed projects in whole, not just those found in “breach” by a court, it diluted that criteria for prequalification immensely, she added. Entities needed that ability to examine failed projects and the reasons behind those failed projects, whether settled in court or through various negotiations.
Jack Jeffrey, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, testified that the Legislative Building in Carson City was the genesis of the original legislation. There was a contractor who received the bid for the building who was not qualified; basically, Mr. Jeffrey stated, he was a pipeline contractor who was put off the job with the building only 50 percent completed. A qualified contractor was then hired to finish the project. The Committee was informed by Mr. Jeffrey that he had long wanted to see prequalification in the law, but the concept had few supporters prior to the experience with the Legislative Building.
As happens many times in the legislative process, the original bill, according to Mr. Jeffrey, was not as complete as he had hoped it would be. At least, qualified contractors had managed to get their “foot in the door.” With the changes noted by Ms. Ashton, Assembly Bill 295 would move the construction industry even closer to where they hoped to be, by taking care of problems within the industry.
Mr. Jeffrey commended those people who put the bill together, the county and the industry people in general. He expressed appreciation by noting that they had come up with a good piece of legislation. “We are in strong support,” he stated.
Danny Thompson, Nevada AFL/CIO, stated his union’s wholehearted support. There had been a great deal of work done on prequalification on the local level. There were projects in Las Vegas, one in particular, that he thought were a nightmare. The legislation was, from his point of view, very important and timely, especially with the amendment offered by Lori Ashton.
Mr. Jeffrey also spoke to support the amendment offered by Ms. Ashton.
Justine Chambers, Carson City Development Services, also representing Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission, wished to go on record as in agreement with the testimony heard so far on Assembly Bill 295. Although only three members of the group she represented were prequalifying bidders, if the law passed, each would have more choices. She distributed a copy of her testimonial brief along with a membership list of the organizations she represented (Exhibit F).
Randy Robison, Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), explained to the Committee that ABC had participated in the discussions throughout the process of bill draft development, and the group remained 95 percent in favor of the bill, along with the two amendments that were proposed. One of the concerns they had throughout the process remained. It was with subsection 10, on page 3, lines 6 through 10. Specifically, according to Mr. Robison, the provision, “have been filed with and substantiated by the State Contractors’ Board,” remained a slippery standard. His group viewed that language as not nearly as objective as they would like to see. Mr. Robison stated that they would continue to work through the process to see what influence they might bring to bear on that. He simply wanted to log those concerns for the record.
Jeanette Belz, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter, wanted to add that she had taken a look at Ms. Ashton’s amendment. Although, conceptually, she agreed, it was her belief that the amendment itself was awkwardly drafted. She stated she would appreciate the opportunity to work with bill drafters to make certain that, in the end, it stated what Ms. Belz thought Ms. Ashton meant to say.
Santana Garcia, Southern Nevada Water Authority, stated, for the record, that the Water Authority was in support of Assembly Bill 295.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 295.
Assemblyman Collins added to previous testimony concerning the Legislative Building. He informed the Committee and guests that the building was not ready for occupancy in 1997, and the legislative session was difficult in the midst of that construction. Two wonderful things happened. A senator discovered, according to Mr. Collins, that union and nonunion contractors could work in harmony, and that, with the right contractor the first time around, projects get could get done on time. He believed that A.B. 295 was definitely necessary.
Hearing no further comments and having no witnesses step forward, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:28 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Nancy Haywood
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: