MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
April 25, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:18 a.m., on Friday, April 25, 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:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Charles L. Horsey, III, Administrator, State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry, Housing Division
Lon A. DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer, State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry, Housing Division
Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office
Michael A. Harper, AICP, Planning Manager, Advanced Planning, Washoe County Department of Community Development
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the Clark County Manager
Chairman Manendo welcomed Committee members and guests and opened the hearing at 8:18 a.m. Roll was called, and the Chair directed the secretary to mark Committee members present upon their arrivals.
An announcement was made that Assemblyman William C. Horne and his wife had given birth to a new baby boy, Assemblyman Horne’s first child, who was named after Mr. Horne’s father, William Henry Horne. Committee members were pleased to hear the announcement and wished the Horne family well.
Chairman Manendo reviewed the agenda and, following that, opened the hearing on Senate Bill 78, a bill proposed by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the Division of Housing.
Senate Bill 78 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to assistance to finance housing. (BDR 25-467)
Charles L Horsey, Administrator, State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry, Housing Division, explained that the Housing Division was the state’s version of its very own large and very healthy financial institution without the savings and checking accounts. Because they did not have savings or checking accounts, the source of the lendable proceeds came from the sale of millions of dollars of tax-exempt bonds on Wall Street. The proceeds of those bond sales were used to make first mortgages for the state’s first-time homebuyers or to finance apartment projects dedicated to low-income or moderate-income tenants.
The Housing Division was created by the 1975 Session of the Nevada Legislature. The intent was to augment or supplement the lending activities of the private sector. People would get into home ownership earlier than normal economic circumstances would allow, or the Division would find ways to finance apartment projects that enabled low-income to moderate-income families to live in a decent, safe, and affordable unit earlier than the normal circumstances would permit.
The program had been a monumental success. Today, over 38,000 Nevada families live in a home or an apartment that the Division had financed. It was fairly evenly divided; about 19,000 Nevada families had purchased their first home with the program, and another 19,000 tenants reside in an apartment that the Division had financed.
The cost to the taxpayers of the state had been zero. The Division received no General Fund appropriations whatsoever. During its first year in existence the Division did receive approximately $3,600 of seed money for printing costs and paid that money back the following year. The programs were designed in such a fashion that they paid for themselves.
Senate Bill 78 had three sections, actually four but two were very closely tied together. Mr. Horsey introduced Lon DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer for the Housing Division, who would walk the Committee through Section 1 of the bill that dealt with the fact that the Division was a billion dollar financial institution and had unique data processing needs.
Mr. DeWeese focused the Committee’s attention on Section 1. He also asked the Committee to turn to page 2 of Exhibit C. Exhibit C really dealt with giving the Housing Division specific language in its enabling statute that allowed it to address the data processing needs that were currently being addressed through contracts. Those contracts required constant updating and change.
The problem the administrators had run into in the past, which the language was aimed at solving, was to quickly update the mainframe systems and to allow for the incorporation of the rule changes of the Securities Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service that were required for the kinds of securities that were vended on Wall Street as well as were used to handle the mortgage loans. The Division had mainframe systems for loan origination, loan servicing, bond cash flow management, and tax credit regulatory compliance. Those systems required changes throughout the year, and, the way the bureaucratic system worked now, the Division was unable to make those changes as quickly as was necessary. It placed the Division in a vague situation with regards to contract compliance with the software vendors. The language would allow the Division to do that quickly and efficiently.
Mr. Horsey added that S.B. 78 was not a reflection on the capabilities of the Department of Information and Technology (DoIT). DoIT had done a fine job for the Division, he stated, in the day-to-day activities of the Division. But, because they had over 120 general ledgers and were a huge financial institution, they had unique needs, more like the Treasurer’s Office or the Controller’s Office.
Mr. Horsey then moved to Section 2. One of the things, he declared, that the Division had attempted to do, since Nevada had, historically, been a capital-poor state, was to use the letter-of-credit authority found in Section 2, hoping to be able to partner with the Federal Home Loan Bank for financing.
Mr. DeWeese stated that Section 2 related to the ability of the Housing Division to specifically insist that all future letters of credit issued by the Housing Agency be investment grade. There were two benefits for that. One was the meaningfulness of an investment grade, which insured that the quality, the reserve level, and the financial viability of the Housing Division were in place. The second benefit was that the language would institutionalize the ability of the Housing Division to meet the qualifications of the Federal Home Loan Bank, through its housing finance agency affiliates program, which would enable the Housing Division, like several other state housing finance agencies, to have the right to call on the Federal Home Loan Bank letter-of-credit mechanism, which allowed for triple-A rating on the credit enhancement itself. As people know, when one had the triple-A rating, it lowered the cost of capital, which meant that the borrower saved money on the mortgage payments.
For the first-time homebuyers, that triple-A rating could mean as much as $40 or $60 per month less on their mortgage payments. If you were someone in the 80 percent of a median income position who was borrowing on that first home, $40 to $60 dollars a month made a great deal of difference, as it did for the renters who had the opportunity to save anywhere from $20 to $50 on their monthly rent.
Mr. Horsey focused the Committee on Section 3 of Senate Bill 78. He stated that Section 3 had two facets. One facet was that, during his tenure with the Division, he had had to come back to the Legislature every other session to have the debt limit increased. In the last 36 months, the Division had issued approximately half a billion dollars in tax-exempt bonds. The Division requested that the Legislature approve moving from a debt limit of $2 billion to $5 billion in debt limit.
At that point in his testimony, Mr. Horsey stated that he wished to digress. Although the Housing Division was indeed a state agency, its debt was entirely separate from the state’s debt. The Division’s ratings were also entirely separate from the state’s ratings. When the Division sold bonds on Wall Street, it was made very clear that the state’s taxing authority and the state’s coffers were not pledged to make repayment of the bonds. The Division’s bond issues were structured so that the bond issue itself stood on its own, and it was only the financial condition of the Housing Division, not the state, that mattered.
As mentioned before, the Division had had to come back to the Legislature every other session to have the debt limit increased. With the abbreviated sessions, it was getting very difficult to get bills into the legislative process. The Division’s request was, Mr. Horsey stated, to extend the debt limit from $2 billion to $5 billion in authority. It seemed like a large amount of money, and it was, but, in just the last three years, a half-billion dollars in debt had been released.
There was a very important subtlety to Section 3 as well. In the housing business, the “500 pound gorillas” were the rating agencies, Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Ratings. The reasons were very simple; the higher the ratings that could be attained, the lower the cost of borrowing capital. The higher the ratings were, the lower the mortgage rate for first-time homebuyers or the lower the rents that an apartment dweller would pay. The Housing Division passed the savings from the sale of the tax-exempt bonds on to those two entities. The Nevada Housing Division had one of the highest ratings in the entire country.
Regardless of who the administrator was, regardless of who the Chief Financial Officer was, Section 3 discouraged whoever runs that division from the issuance of junk bonds. The Division would not access the public markets without the bonds issued holding a double-A or triple-A rating. Most projects were triple-A rated. Section 3 made sure that whoever was in charge would not be able to issue junk bonds. It was very prudent public policy to include that in the bill, stated Mr. Horsey.
Mr. DeWeese noted that Section 4 was placed into Senate Bill 78, at the advice of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, to harmonize the language as to how exceptions were dealt with in the data processing arena. It added the Housing Division to the list of other agencies that had highly sophisticated and unique data processing operations.
Mr. DeWeese stated that Section 4 was consistent with the debt management policy of the Division that they look ahead ten years as to what the debt limits needed to be. Given the level of debt issuance alluded to, the request to move to a $5 billion debt limit would meet the test of the debt limit policy as well as the policy of the Division’s strategic plan, which required that the Division have adequate debt capacity to meet surges in demand for both single family financing and apartment-type financing. The Board of Finance had already signed off on that policy.
Mr. Horsey stated that the other point he wished to make was, in the last legislative session, many of the components were passed giving expanded authority. There was, however, a sunset provision that was included. Some of the authority that the Division currently had would expire if Senate Bill 78 were not passed. He reminded the Committee that the Housing Division was self-sustaining. The bond issues were structured in such a fashion that there would be, hopefully, a positive rate of return.
A year ago, when Governor Guinn began addressing the budget shortfalls, he and Mr. DeWeese were attending a meeting of Interim Finance. It became very apparent at that time that the state had its budget woes. Both gentlemen went to New York shortly thereafter to meet with Standard & Poor’s and with Fitch Ratings and assured those companies that the Division was under no pressure nor were they in New York at anyone’s direction. “We gave to the State Welfare Division $2.75 million from profits built up over the years that were not immediately needed,” stated Mr. Horsey. The money was donated or granted to the State Welfare Division. That would not have been possible without some of the expanded authority that would be lost if S.B. 78 were not to pass.
Mr. Horsey and Mr. DeWeese were very much supportive of Senate Bill 78 and hoped that the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs would pass it out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, Mr. Horsey stated.
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked Mr. Horsey what the interest rate was for a mortgage on a house for the first-time homeowner.
Mr. Horsey stated that it depended on the market at the time. Generally, when tax-exempt bonds were sold on Wall Street, it was the goal of the Division to be about a half point below conventional rates. Historically, the Division had had periods when the bonds had been sold for a full point below the market. They had also developed a down payment assistance program to assist low-income and moderate-income homeowners who did not have the needed down payment. In round figures, said Mr. Horsey, the effort was to sell at least a half point below the market.
Assemblyman Williams referenced comments by Mr. Horsey about abbreviated sessions. He was especially curious about the concern regarding the sunset clause in relation to the brief legislative sessions. Mr. Williams asked for an explanation of the sunset concerns. He explained that, when there were significant changes being requested, legislators usually placed a sunset clause in the legislation so that there would be a sense of security for the voters and the citizens. A Committee considering significant changes hoped that, should the changes not bring about the desired changes, there would be time to assess and adjust. If there were successes noted in that time, they could be duplicated; if not, the nonsuccesses could be eliminated. A sunset allowed Committees the opportunity to return to the issues, to debate, and to correct or make better what was happening. If a sunset time frame actually sets, the Committees move on or reset a new time frame. He wondered if just having a sunset clause somehow hindered the Division’s operations.
Mr. DeWeese stated that the issue of the sunset was somewhat tantamount to an urgent issue with the Division. To meet the test of having a competitive rate, a low interest rate, the Division had to use financial mechanisms such as “interest rate caps,” or “interest rate swaps.” In a situation where you had legislation that expired, the lawyers who passed on the tax-exempt opinion for those bonds would get very nervous worrying that the bonds would not be renewable. It was extremely important that the Division have the ongoing right, provided by the Legislature, to continue to renew those mechanisms in order to ensure that the bondholders’ integrity in receiving their bond payments would be in place. They were quite nervous about the expiration of those rights to issue bonds that had those financial security mechanisms.
Assemblyman Williams was clear about his understanding of the nervousness of the lawyers, but the legislators had a sense of nervousness as well. Lawyers act on the laws that the legislators made; they practice what the legislators put into place. He asked how much time would be comfortable for the Division if a different sunset were considered. Maybe the sunset was not long enough. A sunset clause was a “time out” to evaluate where a division, agency, or committee was in terms of the intent of the law. Mr. Williams asked that the Division consider and suggest a time frame they would be more comfortable with.
Mr. Horsey stated that the Division was also attempting to eliminate the possibility of “being pests” by having to return to the Legislature every other session. One of the Division’s goals was to find a way to satisfy their needs for the next five to ten years.
Assemblyman Williams stated they definitely were not pests to the Committee. The legislators were there to learn and to monitor progress. The Committee members were interested in improving the situation in Nevada and looked forward to the various agencies returning, particularly with their success stories. Again, he asked if the Division could live with a sunset.
Mr. Horsey stated that the Division could indeed live with a sunset clause if that was the desire of the Committee. The Division would continue to operate as it had and believed it had the mechanisms in place to be successful.
Assemblyman Grady clarified with Mr. Horsey that he had been appointed by the Governor and served at his pleasure. As an appointee, Mr. Grady reiterated that Mr. Horsey did have oversight provided by the Governor. Even though the request in Senate Bill 78 was to become a stand-alone agency, there would still be considerable oversight. Mr. Grady then asked Mr. Horsey to elaborate on the kinds of audits that the Division received.
Mr. Horsey responded by stating that his division was probably one of the more regulated entities in state government. Not only were they subject, as all state agencies were, to audit by the Legislative Counsel Bureau, but the Division had its independent auditors as well. The officers had to provide updated financial statements to Wall Street twice a year, so they had a fine accounting staff themselves; they also had excellent LCB auditors as well as their own auditors. Additionally, Mr. Horsey continued, the Housing Division also reported to the State Board of Finance, the Director of the Department of Business and Industry, and to an advisory committee that was in place.
Mr. DeWeese added that every action taken by the Housing Division was still subject, 100 percent, to the budget that the Legislature voted on each and every biennium.
Assemblywoman Pierce inquired of Mr. Horsey and Mr. DeWeese what the apartment mortgage loans were.
Mr. DeWeese responded that an apartment mortgage loan was a loan made by the Division to the development entity that built or contracted to build an apartment building. In return for the low interest rate the Division delivered to the development organization, that organization must agree to restrict the level of their rents to no greater than one-third of the income of people at 60 percent of median income.
Mr. Horsey further explained that, because the Division had its tax-exempt authority from Congress, the tax code stated, in essence, that the real beneficiary of those financings must be the average person. The Division must make sure, in doing its due diligence, that the beneficiaries of those tax-exempt financings either be the first-time low-income to moderate-income homebuyers or the tenants who would reside in those units of the apartment structure.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked how many low-income apartment units were built each year.
Mr. Horsey referred to his opening remarks. He had used rounded figures to estimate that 19,000 families had purchased their first home, and another 19,000 families lived in an apartment unit that the Housing Division had financed over the years.
Assemblyman Knecht directed attention to Senate Bill 78, page 4, line 16. The Division was requesting a raise in the debt issuance limit from $2 billion to $5 billion. The notes stated that the Division had issued over $500,000 in the past 3.5 years, and this was the fifth time the limit would be raised in 25 years. He wondered when the last raise in the debt issuance limit had been approved.
Mr. Horsey stated that the debt issuance limit had last been raised during the 1999 Legislative Session.
Assemblyman Knecht continued that a raise of $3 billion, from $2 billion to $5 billion, at the Division’s current level of new issuances, would place the Division and the Legislature in the ten-year time frame before that limit would even be approached. He wondered if that 10-year cushion was actually necessary, or if a 5-year cushion would be more appropriate.
Mr. DeWeese responded that the Division’s debt management policy required a 10-year horizon when considering the debt capacity. In the last three years, the Division had had a great diminution in single-family home issuance. Normally, the Division would run in excess of $200 million per year. If the growth factors were calculated and added to the normal issuance in excess of $200 million, the $5 billion limit would be a close estimate for the ten-year horizon required by policy.
Assemblyman Hardy stated that Mr. Horsey and Mr. DeWeese were making their report to the Legislature. He applauded their efforts. As he thought about the sunset clause, he stated that the report sounded like a good report, and the Division was doing the kinds of things the Legislators wanted and expected.
In looking at the growth in Clark County, Mr. Hardy recognized that, as the population continued to increase, the county needed housing for them. He liked the concept of the apartment mortgages that allowed people to live in affordable housing and then to transition into a private home, condominium, or other housing where they had ownership. Mr. Hardy stated, “I am impressed with your numbers as well as impressed with the bond rating at the same time.” Obviously, he continued, if it were to remain separated from the General Fund, the Division’s triple-A rating would continue to exist.
Assemblyman Hardy questioned Section 4(g) on the handout (Exhibit C). He wondered what a “highly specialized DP system” was.
Mr. DeWeese explained the acronym as a highly specialized “data processing” system. He stated that the systems in place were almost artificial intelligence in their basic design. The Division required extreme computing powers as it was dealing with 30-year to 35-year forward projections.
Seeing no further requests to give testimony, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on Senate Bill 78 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 176.
Senate Bill 176 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes regarding planning and zoning. (BDR 22-583)
Madelyn Shipman, representing Washoe County, opened her testimony with the statement that S.B. 176 was intended to be a simple bill. The bill was submitted by Washoe County as a bill draft request to do some clean-up language and then to add a provision, which was found in Section 1.
Clark County had some proposed amendments to the bill that Washoe County actually proposed orally in the Senate that attempted to get it cleaned up. The reprint of the bill, however, did not include the language changes. Both Washoe and Clark Counties were asking the Committee to consider the language changes in the current hearing.
Mike Harper, Planning Manager with Washoe County Community Development Department, explained each section of the bill. Sections 1 and 2 essentially were intended to create a statewide process by which there would be a uniform method of certifying that the noticing for planning applications had been complied with by the cities and counties that existed in the state. As was indicated, a slight change to further clarify that would be offered later.
Changes to Sections 3 and 4 were requested by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB). During the last session of the Legislature, the noticing requirement for zone changes for Washoe County and Clark County were adjusted to give notice to property owners of land 750 feet from the boundaries of the affected properties. Those changes were not located in a section of the statutes where zoning issues were dealt with, NRS 278 (Nevada Revised Statutes). Rather, they were located in a section that dealt with special exceptions. Although he believed that all of the cities and counties in Nevada had been complying with that noticing requirement, he stated, it would be somewhat confusing, as it appeared to be located in an unrelated section of the statutes. LCB asked to amend into Senate Bill 176 to eliminate that possible confusion and to connect the zoning change to the section that dealt with such issues. That was the essence of Sections 3 and 4.
In S.B. 554 of the 71st Session, the legislators addressed an issue that had been very vexing to local government for many years. When a subsequent final subdivision map was submitted after the recordation of the first subdivision map, there was always a “floating date” that remained confusing to those people who were doing development. They were never sure of when they had to record or request an extension of time for subsequent final subdivision maps. Last session, the Legislature established a single anniversary date to respond to that issue of confusion (S.B. 554 of the 71st Session). The single anniversary date, however, was the date when the map was presented for recordation. Although it appeared clear two years ago, a number of cities and counties had begun interpreting differently what the date of presentation actually was. Therefore, to address that particular glitch, Washoe County suggested to the Legislative Counsel Bureau that the statute needed to be changed to the date of the recordation of the first map. Everyone knew what that was. It was actually on the first map that was recorded, and it would be an easily referenced date. The concept of an “anniversary date” would be maintained, but it would be a date that all could reference on a document.
Dan Musgrove, representing Clark County, referenced Section 1, subsection 1, of Senate Bill 176, which contained the language that was of concern. The implication in Section 1 was that a person designated by the governing body was the person actually giving notice, and that one individual would prepare and sign a certificate of verification. The concern was that the individual noted above would be required to have some accountability for those notices being delivered in actuality. In Clark County, for example, approximately 174,000 notices were sent last year alone. In some cases, when there was an airport environs notification, 45,000 notices were let for that single issue. For an individual to be required to certify that the notices had been received was a huge concern. The effort was made to amend on the Senate side, but the language that was attempted on that side did not get to where Washoe and Clark Counties wanted to go, according to Scott Wasserman of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. After speaking with Susan Scholley, the Committee’s Research Analyst, and with the assistance of Maddy Shipman, the language was, hopefully, better representative of what actually happened with noticing.
Mr. Musgrove explained that, currently, the person simply would enter information into a computer program. Protections already existed in Section 2, subsection 2, that stated that the certificate would include the date on which the notice was provided, a copy of the notice, and a list of the persons and/or governmental entities to which the notice was provided. The assumption was that the newspapers or postal system would follow through with the notifications. The suggested language (Exhibit D) would state that the person causing notice of a hearing to be given, pursuant to those sections of NRS that applied, “shall, within twenty-four hours after the notice has been initiated, prepare and sign a certificate which states that the notice has been provided in the manner required by the applicable statute.” The hope was that the language would adequately provide structure to S.B. 176, but Mr. Musgrove would defer to Legal Counsel to determine if it met their intent as well.
Assemblywoman Pierce stated that the amendments seemed to be wise, as there were many people who would say they never received notice. She wondered if there was any effort in Clark County to notice by e-mail, not in addition to but in place of the other efforts made. She asked, because she was looking for ways to eliminate the many complaints by people who claimed they had not received notice.
Mr. Harper responded that the law actually allowed that currently. Basically, what the law stated was that any person who requested to be notified by e-mail notified the local government of that desire. The local government would then be obliged to provide that notice by e-mail. Approximately 25 percent of the notices sent out in Washoe County were done by e-mail. It would be helpful to increase that, as Ms. Pierce indicated, as it would be a much more simple way of noticing, and the local government could then place links to Web pages that would bring up the actual items for review. That was in current law as a voluntary approach. As e-mails became a more and more comfortable way of communicating, agencies would continue to increase their volume with their constituents.
Assemblyman Knecht requested clarification on the impact the proposed amendment would have on Section 1, subsection 1. He asked Mr. Musgrove to use an example to explain the effect of the amendment on that section should it pass. Looking at the language, he was not sure of what operational difference the amendment would make.
Mr. Musgrove referenced the size of Clark County. The County’s fear was, with the language on line 5 of Section 1 that talked about a person designated by a governing body to give the notice on behalf of the governing body, that someone who did not receive a notice would go to that clerical person signing a certificate that stated that notice was indeed sent to that individual, and say it was untrue. What actually happened was that a computer list was generated as to who would be affected by a zoning change, those who owned land within 750 feet of that zone, the list went into the computer, and notices were sent. The person in the mailroom took the notices and sent them off. He asked, “Who was the actual person responsible for noticing?”
If someone came back to the governmental agency to say that it did not happen, the staff person was not to be held responsible. Therefore, the language that was being proposed would clarify the input of information and the initiation of the process. It would also require that the computer list be kept for reference. It was hoped that the amendment more accurately reflected the process in place currently.
Assemblyman Knecht restated the intent. He suggested that each administrative person who was responsible for initiating the action would not be swearing to more than they could actually claim personal knowledge of.
Chairman Manendo deviated from the discussion of Senate Bill 176 to acknowledge and introduce two young guests in the audience who were just visiting the Committee.
Assemblyman Atkinson stated that he had become a little lost in the explanation given to Assemblyman Knecht. When notice was given for hearings on zone changes, the number of feet away from the affected property would determine the persons who were to be noticed. The County Assessor’s Office would be the source of information as to whom the notices should be sent.
Mr. Musgrove concurred and added that, in Clark County, the decision was to move beyond the legal number of feet determining those to be noticed. Clark County chose to consider noticing landowners from 750 feet to 1,500 feet from the affected property. As that perimeter expanded, so did the number of people who would be noticed.
Assemblyman Atkinson stated that, ultimately, after the notice left the County Manager’s Office or the Office of the County Commission, the “office” would no longer be responsible.
Mr. Musgrove said, using the information that the office had, whether it came from the assessor or from a list available on the Internet, that was placed in the computer and generated the notices, the notices would leave the office to go to the mailroom or the post office. At that point, county officials would have to assume that the notices would be delivered as intended. The original form of Senate Bill 176 was written so that the person who input the information would be the person held responsible for certifying that the notice had been let as well as actually received by the intended person. The intent of the amendment was to relieve the responsibility somewhat by limiting the scope of the responsibility to the correct computer listing and to the generation of a notice sent on its way.
Mr. Musgrove addressed the Chair by giving information that the Chair had requested at a previous hearing on Senate Bill 110. He gave the Chair the requested information stating that the advertising changes would cost roughly $1,000 per ad. Clark County placed about 100 notifications as ads last year alone; that would meet the $100,000 cost previously quoted.
After thanking Mr. Musgrove for the information, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on Senate Bill 176. Mr. Atkinson would shepherd the bill on the Floor after the Committee’s Legal Counsel checked the language included in the proposed amendment.
Chairman Manendo discussed with the Committee the hearing to be held in southern Nevada on Saturday, May 10. The meeting would be simultaneously broadcast in Carson City as well. He encouraged as many members as possible to participate in Las Vegas, as a large crowd was expected to attend who would be able to see their Committee on Government Affairs in action. If any of the Committee members were unable to attend, they were to notify the Chair or the Committee Manager, Mr. Anderlohr, as soon as possible. Those who said they would be staying in Carson City included Mr. Knecht, Mr. Goicoechea, Mr. Grady, and Mr. McCleary.
Again, the Chair welcomed students from Fallon who were attending the Committee hearings during their spring break. With no further business to come before the Committee, the hearing was adjourned at 9:17 a.m.
Nancy Haywood
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: