MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
May 5, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:16 a.m., on Monday, May 5, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Wendell Williams, excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O’Connell, Senatorial District No. 5
Senator Dina Titus, Senatorial District No. 7
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Denell Hahn, Private citizen
Kent Lauer, Executive Director, Nevada Press Association
Nicole Lamboley, Legislative Relations Program Manager, City of Reno
Patricia Lynch, Reno City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney
Randall K. Edwards, Chief Deputy, Reno City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney
Debbie Cahill, Director of Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the Clark County Manager, Las Vegas
Kami Dempsey, Government Relations Manager, City of Las Vegas
Kimberly J. McDonald, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
Rose McKinney-James, Clark County School District
Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator of State Lands, Division of Conservation Districts
R. Michael Turnipseed, P.E., Director, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City
Tina Leiss, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Attorney General’s Office
Carole A. Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Dino DiCianno, Deputy Executive Director, State of Nevada Department of Taxation
Dorla M. Salling, Chairman, Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners
Dorothy Nash Holmes, Director, Mental Health and Program Services, Nevada Department of Corrections
Joe Ward, Senior Litigation Attorney General, Nevada Attorney General’s Office
Jeanette Belz, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter, Universal Health Services
Richard Ziser, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City
Chris Knight, Director of Administrative Services, City of Las Vegas
Chairman Manendo welcomed all Committee members and guests to the Committee on Government Affairs and called the meeting to order at 9:16 a.m. The roll was called, and he directed the secretary to mark Mr. Christensen and Ms. Weber present upon their arrivals. Both were in other committees. The Chair opened the hearing on Senate Bill 229.
Senate Bill 229 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes regarding public bodies. (BDR 19-16)
Senator Ann O’Connell, Senatorial District No. 5, introduced the bill to the Committee by stating that its intent was to give members of the public better access to the political process. That would occur through the passage of Senate Bill 229, which called for nine different changes in the current law.
The amendments proposed for the bill were not returned until late in the afternoon on the day when the bills were to leave one house and go to another. Those amendments were not currently part of the bill, and the Committee on Government Affairs would receive them, according to Senator O’Connell.
The Senator continued her testimony by explaining there was a part of the bill that was not intended to include the very small boards that did not even have staff; Pamela Wilcox would be testifying about that. The Senator thought, she said, that had been taken care of with the language in the bill that stated “governing boards.” She had been made aware, however, that there were some small counties with some very small boards that did not have staff. It was not the intent of the bill to be onerous; it was to remind them of their responsibility to receive public input prior to taking a vote on an issue.
Senator O’Connell asked the Chair how he would prefer that she proceed. She wondered if she needed to review each of the nine sections of the bill addressing better access by the general public to have input. The Chair assured her that explaining the nine sections of the bill would be very helpful. Senator O’Connell continued her testimony on Senate Bill 229.
[Senator O’Connell continued.]
Senator O’Connell concluded her testimony by reminding members that there were nine major points to the bill. She appreciated the attention of the Committee.
Assemblyman Grady stated that he had waited for her legislation proposal for years. Regarding public comments, he asked if Senate Bill 229 would change when public comment was to be taken during a meeting. He wondered if the bill mandated that public comment be taken at the beginning of a meeting. He had heard comments that the Senator would likely request that each item have its own period of time for public comment.
Senator O’Connell responded by quoting the language that stated “before final vote can be taken on each item.” It had been suggested that, if a body allowed public testimony at the beginning of the meeting, that would satisfy the concerns brought by her constituents. She also stated that Washoe County had an amendment to offer regarding that portion of the bill.
Assemblyman Goicoechea was concerned about postings on a Web site. It was his belief that Esmeralda County did not have Internet capability or a Web site in place currently. He wondered if they would be excluded from such a requirement. Some of the rural counties were just barely set up for electronic communications.
Senator O’Connell, referring to current language in the bill, stated that it did not allow that exclusion. The Committee on Government Affairs would need to ascertain the need for the exclusion and amend the bill to accommodate that. The information she had received was primarily from the governments within the Senatorial district that she represented, and each had such capability. S.B. 229 was a bill that had been considered for at least two sessions. During the last session of the Legislature, the Senator had received assurance that every county would have that capability prior to the next session. If that was not true and there were still counties without that capability, it was not the intent of the bill to cause financial grief over that portion of the bill.
Assemblyman Goicoechea believed, he said, that the bill would really need to define what public bodies the bill impacted. Clearly, some county boards would not have the technology to place notices on a Web site. Having chaired a board of county commissioners for a number of years, he remarked that it would really tear up an agenda if a board had to open each item for public comment as it came up on the agenda. In most of the rural counties, the agendas for the commission meetings included public comments at the beginning of the meeting on any of the agenda items and at the close of the meetings. Any other structure would be extremely disruptive and time-consuming.
Senator O’Connell spoke again about the intent of the bill. By having the language state that a body could place a time limit on public comments, the difficulty of people testifying on and on and using up time without really addressing an issue would be dealt with by the Chairman. There were always people who wished to speak at public meetings whose comments were not always germane to the issues. The bill’s supporters felt it was necessary to give some discriminatory power to the Chairman to limit public testimony.
Assemblyman Goicoechea was also concerned about the quality of the audio device used to record each meeting. He was clearly concerned about the release of audiotapes recorded on very inexpensive machines. As the bill moved ahead, it should be remembered that adequate recording technology cost a great deal; some of the rural counties would not necessarily have the money to buy adequate technology at the present time.
Senator O’Connell spoke to the concern of the cosponsors that there were many times when copies of the minutes were discovered to be incomplete. Things important in the public testimony had not been identified in the minutes. An audio recording would make it possible to get all of the information on a meeting, not just some.
Although Mr. Goicoechea agreed, his concern was that a request for an audio version of the meeting would be received, and, if it were also of poor quality, it would not be of much help. Many times, there was just a small recorder in the middle of a table when rural commissions met. Eureka County spent close to $18,000 about four years ago for more adequate recording equipment for that purpose.
Senator O’Connell shared a thought she had just had while Mr. Goicoechea was speaking. Perhaps, she said, recording by the public would be permissible until the county or other entity was able to afford its own recording system.
Chairman Manendo wondered how many jurisdictions did not have adequate equipment to tape meetings. That would be a concern for everyone.
Assemblyman Goicoechea believed, he stated, that most boards of commissioners would have recording devices that would suffice. As one began, however, to look at smaller boards and commissions, such as town advisory boards or a county game board, unless those groups had access to the chambers of the county board of commissioners or the chambers of the city councils, they probably would not have the ability to come up with something that was truly state-of-the-art for audio recording.
Chairman Manendo agreed that each such board should have the capability to record each meeting so that anyone listening would be able to distinguish what was said. Some jurisdictions would possibly need monies to buy the needed technology.
Assemblyman Hardy hoped to revisit the issue of consent calendars. Consent calendars were done differently depending on where one was and what kind of a meeting one attended. In Boulder City, public comment was taken at the end of each meeting, which did not address items on the agenda always. From what he understood the Senator to say, if a consent calendar existed, public comment could occur at the beginning of a meeting pertaining to any issue including the consent calendar.
The Community Education Advisory Board, a function of Clark County School District working with the Boulder City schools, held open meetings, continued Mr. Hardy. Those meetings drew 40 to 50 people. The audio would be problematic. The subcommittees were also public meetings. One of the problems with the Open Meeting Law, as he saw it, was that no one had been taught all of the nuances of the Open Meeting Law. Those kinds of things were problematic with the concept of recording as well as the hearing of public comment. Public comment was never difficult to get, stated Mr. Hardy. It was fairly disorganized and strayed from the agenda quite often. Sometimes, one wondered where, in the agenda, the person was focused. Enforcement of “stick to the agenda” by the Chair would have its own problems.
Assemblyman Hardy was also concerned about identifying the four public places where notices of the meetings were to be posted prior to a meeting. His concern was that, in some of the very small rural towns, there would not be four public places for posting said notices.
Senator O’Connell testified to reassure Mr. Hardy that advisory boards were not included in the bill. It was simply directed at governing bodies.
Assemblyman Hardy asked again about the time constraints. The individual jurisdictions would be allowed to set a standard, perhaps three minutes per speaker that could be waived by the Chair, or extended or shortened at the discretion of the Chair. Additionally, the length of time for saving an audio recording remained unclear to him.
Senator O’Connell stated that the entity was to maintain that audio recording for one year.
Assemblyman Hardy understood that, under the Open Meeting Law, members of the public were free to record meetings currently.
Senator O’Connell corrected her previous statement regarding how long the audio version of a meeting would need to be kept. On page 7, line 11, entities were directed to keep audio minutes of each meeting for three years, rather than one year as previously stated.
Senator O’Connell requested permission to return to the Senate and her own committee hearing. The Chair granted her permission to leave.
Denell Hahn, speaking as a private citizen, encouraged the Committee’s support of Senate Bill 229. The public would be much better served, she stated. She reported having attended many meetings only to find, as did others in attendance, that the item she wished to comment on had already been voted on. People who were inexperienced, sometimes even those who were experienced, occasionally found their opportunity to comment had flown by too quickly.
About two years ago, Ms. Hahn was attending a meeting of a local body regularly. That body had a multi-million dollar budget. Out of curiosity, she had written down the length of time the group met over a six-month period. Their meetings averaged eight minutes. The meetings flew by without the opportunity for people to really comment adequately. She stated that the bill was a very worthwhile effort; it was critical that the public understand that they had the right to comment on items before they were voted on. “It was the fair thing to do,” she insisted. She urged the Committee to support the bill.
Kent Lauer, Executive Director, Nevada Press Association, stated his association’s support of S.B. 229, because it would enhance the public’s ability to participate in government affairs and to monitor government activities. The bill was clearly in the best interest of the constituents of those on the Committee. He understood, he stated, that there were concerns over the provision requiring public comment on an item before the board would be able to vote on that item. He could not understand, he declared, why allowing for public input on all items should not be encouraged. Public boards should be encouraging public participation on every item on that agenda. The job of elected boards was not supposed to be efficient, it was not supposed to be easy, it was not supposed to be convenient, and it was not supposed to be expedient. He urged the Committee to maintain Section 1 in the bill that allowed public comment on any item.
Chairman Manendo clarified that the section would remain.
Assemblyman Goicoechea again declared that taking public comment was not the issue; the concern was with the “when.” Public comment could be taken at the beginning of the meeting, or it could be taken item by item. A meeting could also close with a general public comment. That would not, however, replace the comment section that must be opened prior to any vote taken on an item. Mr. Goicoechea stated if there was an issue raised during the public comment period that the Chair could set up a time when comment on the specific issue would be taken. That would be a board action. While public comment was very much needed, when the public used that time as an opportunity for disruption, they needed to be dealt with, also.
Chairman Manendo stated that disruptions such as Mr. Goicoechea described should not happen. If people needed to vent at the end of a meeting about something that happened during the meeting, they needed to be allowed to do so. In committee meetings such as the one currently in progress, people were encouraged to give testimony on every topic. The Committee members always wanted to hear from the public and strongly supported open government. If an item was on the table but witnesses wanted to talk about anything except that, the rest of the public’s business still needed to be done.
Assemblyman Grady testified that he had had the privilege of visiting every city council in the state of Nevada in his previous occupation. For the most part, they were run very well. Whenever people needed to speak, they were allowed to speak. He had also sat in city council meetings when public participation was invited and a person would come forward to play a guitar just to have his three minutes of time. When people used time unwisely, he saw it as abusive to the council and to the remainder of the public. He agreed with Assemblyman Goicoechea that there needed to be some method for control of a meeting held by the Chair before it did get out of hand.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asserted his support for Senate Bill 229. He believed, he said, that everyone present had had difficulty with alleged violations of the Open Meeting Law. Most criticisms had been brought up already at one time or another. The clearer it was, the better.
Kent Lauer spoke about public comment. The Open Meeting Law, as it stood currently, just required a general public comment section. It did not require boards to take comments on all items on the agenda. He thought that it was very important for boards to be required to allow public comment, should there be any, on any item. To limit public comment to times at the beginning and at the end of meetings only was not adequate, in his opinion. He affirmed his belief that members of the public ought to have the opportunity to speak on any item as it came up and before a vote was taken. He had attended meetings where a vote was taken and public comments were not allowed. If a member of the public was interested enough to come to the meeting and speak to a specific agenda item, whether on a consent calendar or not, he should have the right to speak on that item when it was discussed.
Assemblyman Knecht asked Mr. Lauer if Senate Bill 229, as written, required comment to be after a discussion by the public body but before the vote, or was the public comment to come before discussion by the public body prior to the vote. Mr. Knecht stated that it would be more efficient if the public comments were taken prior to the public body’s discussion.
Mr. Lauer responded that the bill simply stated that, before the board would be able to vote on an item, it would need to take public comment on that item. There was some concern voiced by public officials that this would somehow cause those meetings to go on and on. Those people wanted to have a public comment section at the beginning of a meeting to cover the entire meeting. Mr. Lauer reaffirmed his opinion that it would be best to allow comments item by item.
Assemblyman Knecht agreed that public bodies should take public comment before voting. He hoped that each body had some flexibility in the scheduling of the comments section. He referenced comments by Mr. Goicoechea and Mr. Grady and felt comfortable with the answers they had received. He would be supporting S.B. 229. He would dissent, however, from Mr. Lauer’s comments in only one way: Mr. Knecht thought it very important that public bodies acted efficiently. The key issue was always a balance between concerns like efficiency and timely substantial public input. “We should not enshrine one side or the other as the only thing,” he said.
The City Attorney of Reno, Patricia Lynch, and the Chief Deputy Attorney, City of Reno, Randall Edwards, joined Nicole Lamboley, Legislative Relations Program Manager, City of Reno, at the table. They were proposing amendments to Senate Bill 229 (Exhibit C).
As currently written, Section 1 concerned the City of Reno, and they, therefore, opposed the bill. The amendments would allow the City to support the bill. The intent of the amendments was to address the issue of assuring that public comment was heard before a vote was taken. As Senator O’Connell indicated, she would be amenable to accepting the amendment on Section 1. The amendment would allow a set of minimum standards for defining a public comment. It referenced back to the period of public comment defined currently in NRS 241.020(2)(c)(3). It would allow, generally, for public comment to occur before a public body took any vote. That would keep it consistent with current law, and it would not preclude any public body from going further. It would set a minimum standard. For example, if there was an issue that the city council wanted to accept public comment cards for, one could continue with that practice. One could also have an additional public comment period on an agenda item that appeared to hold significant public interest. The amendment would keep the bill consistent with current law and would provide for assurance to the public that there would be a public comment period.
The second amendment offered by the City of Reno was to delete Section 1, subsection 2, because it was not necessary. As the bill was currently written, there were exceptions to the rule. There were no exceptions as “contested case” was defined in NRS 233B.032, and the subsection would no longer be necessary.
The final proposed amendment made changes to Section 3, subsection 2 (b) by adding language at the end of that paragraph. The City of Reno wanted it clear in the law how the exhibits and/or written remarks of members of the public were to be treated in the posting of the minutes on the Internet. If someone were to bring a bound book, a map, or something such as that to the meeting as an exhibit, and it would be impossible to copy and place on the Internet, notice of its receipt would need to be placed in the original official minutes, and the availability of those exhibits through the clerk of the body noted.
Chairman Manendo requested additional information on the second proposed amendment to delete Section 1, subsection 3.
Patricia Lynch, Reno City Attorney, responded to Chairman Manendo’s request for additional information. The reason the City of Reno had proposed deleting that subsection was that the amendment to Section 1, if accepted, would take the law back to where it was currently, except that public comment would then be required to be heard prior to a vote on any action item. That being the case, there would be no need for Section 1, subsection 3, as it was meant to be an exception. The bill before the Committee members would require the exceptions, because it would not be in the best interest of all involved to have comments on an adverse action when that individual had no interest or knowledge of that adverse action. The way the law currently read, public comment was not required to be taken regarding contested cases. Under the proposed bill, public comment would be required unless excepted; but, if the proposed amendment were adopted, there would be a return to the current law, and one would not need that subsection.
Assemblyman Hardy questioned Ms. Lynch about the proposed amendments. If the Committee accepted the proposed amendment to Section 1, then it was necessary to delete Section 1, subsection 3. If the Committee accepted the whole bill intact, S.B. 229, First Reprint, then Section 1, subsection 3, would not need to be deleted. Ms. Lynch agreed.
Randall Edwards explained that the amendments were based on the experiences in Reno. If one were to visit a Reno City Council meeting, one would see an atmosphere of “free for all.” There was time allotted for public comment at the beginning of the meeting, which was often accompanied by guitars, or by personal attacks on members of the Council. Then, if the Reno City Council was required to have public comment on every single item, it would mean that there would be extraordinary displays of behavior as often as there were items. “Not all public comment, in our view, was created equal,” stated Mr. Edwards. Some public comment was pertinent; some definitely was not. Every time the Reno City Council had tried to limit public comment, the Council was sued and had had various outcomes as a result.
What they would hope to see was to have the ability to have public comment that was germane to the entire agenda but not be required, if there were 20 agenda items, to take public comment 20 times during the meeting simply because there was the hope of being more efficient. Understanding that not all public bodies were meant to be as efficient as a private business, for example, nonetheless, the Council needed to get through the public’s business.
As the city attorneys understood the bill as currently drafted, the Council would not be able to be efficient. Mr. Edwards stated that the city attorneys had talked with the Attorney General about their dilemma. The understanding of the Attorney General’s Office, at least the person who dealt with the Open Meeting Law, was, as drafted, the bill would require 20 public comments on 20 agenda items. It was too much, in his opinion. The intent of the bill would be met with the amendments proposed by the City of Reno.
Chairman Manendo confirmed that he was now confused. He restated his understanding. “You are saying public comment is fine, but not on every single agenda item.”
Randall Edwards responded. The issue was that there needed to be, at every meeting, a chance for the public to be heard. The public comment needed to be made on an agenda item before it was considered for any action. The issue was that, as the law stood currently, there were two types of public comment. One was public comment that was required under the Open Meeting Law that every public body must allow. Many of those bodies allowed the comment to be at the end of a meeting. Thus, if one took public comment in a meeting, one was not necessarily going to be hearing public comment on a matter that would receive some action during that meeting. The proposal was that the public comment, that 3 or 4 minutes per person or whatever the body allowed, be heard at the beginning of the meeting so that there would be public comment on any agenda item.
The City of Reno was troubled by the idea, however, that there must be separate public comment on every single agenda item. At the beginning of each meeting, there would be an announcement stating that the meeting was open for public comment, and anyone who wanted to be heard on any agenda item was invited to speak at that time. The concern was that, as the meeting progressed and agenda item 2 was brought to the Floor, it would possibly be required of them to take public comment again at that time specific to item 2. On agenda item 3, more public comment specific to that issue would take even more time from the meeting and doing the business of the public. The intent of the amendments was to allow public comment to be handled in one “fell swoop” at the beginning of each meeting, rather than item-by-item.
Nicole Lamboley declared that the amendments did not preclude a public governing body continuing its practice of comment cards or scheduling an additional public comment period for an issue that they knew had significant interest for the community or for the public.
Chairman Manendo asked what happened to those public comment cards.
Nicole Lamboley replied that, when one chose to speak on an item, the individual submitted a public comment card to the clerk. You were then recognized by the body, and, it was her understanding under the law, that if the agenda item was number 10 and public comment cards were accepted, the chair would need to open a period of time for that person plus others to speak to item 10.
Chairman Manendo asked for clarification. A governing body would be able to have public comment cards if it wished. If an item appeared to be one that would generate a great deal of interest, the body would be able to state that no cards would be accepted on that issue.
Patricia Lynch stated that, if there were a practice of accepting public comment cards, the body would need to be consistent with the practice. In the City of Reno, the council used blue comment cards and made them consistently available. They would not be picked up just because a controversial topic was on the agenda. Those cards were there, that was the practice, and to change the practice would result in difficulties with the Attorney General’s Office.
It was not the concept of public comment per se that the city attorneys from Reno were concerned about; it was the mandating of the public comment. She stated that, just as the Committee on Government Affairs had discretion to take comment, the local governing board would also need to have some discretion in how their meetings were run and how they were able to handle their affairs. If a required public comment section were placed at the very beginning of a meeting, then those present would be assured that no action was taken on anything before the public had been able to be heard. The body would be allowed, then, to look at its agenda for the day and to run the meeting as was seen fit. Most bodies, as much as possible, allowed that public comment. If there were an instance, however, when the agenda was so full that public comment would cause the meeting to far exceed its usual time frame, they would not have to. The bill currently mandated public comment on every single item.
Assemblyman Knecht stated that the City of Reno’s example gave further substance to his previous comment. What was needed, he said, was timely and reasonable opportunity for public comment before a matter was heard and acted upon. The need was also to give the public body some discretion to arrange that public comment in the most efficient and reasonable way possible. Bodies needed the flexibility to place public comment when it would best suit the body. There must, however, always be full and timely opportunity for the people to make substantive comments.
There was another aspect of the matter that he wondered about. Mr. Knecht wanted to ask the city attorneys from Reno about the possibility of crafting some “germaneness” language that would keep the comment substantive. It seemed to him that the discretion ought to extend to allow the termination of repetitive guitar solos and riffs; it ought to allow the public body to stop simple ad hominem attacks that were pointless and not really related to the substance of a matter. Mr. Knecht believed the public body was accountable to its constituents and needed that discretion. He would appreciate knowing about any vehicle or provision currently in place that would allow a body to work around the purely wasteful and malicious. He would additionally appreciate a description of a provision that could be crafted that would still preserve the public’s timely and reasonable opportunity to comment.
Randall Edwards noted that, under current law, for general public comment, there were two types to be considered. There was the kind where anyone was able to come forward to talk about anything he or she wanted to comment on. The other was the type of public comment made specific to a particular issue. On the open general public comment, anyone could get up and say anything he or she wished to say. The Reno City Council had heard everything one could possibly imagine during the public comment periods. Regarding the second type of public comment, the type that was germane to one particular issue, there was a requirement, under the Reno City Council rules, that it be germane. The question, of course, was who made the determination as to what was germane and was the rule a violation of the First Amendment, because there was an attempt to cut someone off on the basis of the content of what that individual was saying. “It was a very delicate thing to attempt to do, a difficult tightrope to walk,” stated Mr. Edwards.
Under the current law, a body had the ability to say, “Mr. Smith, you are not anywhere near the subject here. Please get back on the subject.” The Reno City Council’s experience had been that there would be another ten seconds on the subject, and then there would be a guitar solo. The Council was able to do that kind of confrontation. The concern, however, was that the abuse would occur on every single item regardless of whether an item was controversial or not. The attempts to get people back on the subject would simply mean an invitation to a lawsuit.
Patricia Lynch stated that the general public comment had to be content-neutral. The governing body would not, in any way, limit that. They could limit time, place, and manner, but not the content. When a noticed public hearing was convened and a person spoke, then speaking to the subject would need to be, according to case law, germane.
Assemblyman Knecht spoke to the example. If items one through eight had no substantive public comment, he wondered if it would be possible to take comment at the beginning on items one through eight, reserving comment for item nine until item nine came up for consideration. Process items one through eight after the general public comment, or none as the case may be, then move forward to item nine.
Randall Edwards stated that the process described by Mr. Knecht would not be possible under the current bill as proposed. One would have to have separate public comment on each item as it arose. Under the amendment proposed by the City of Reno, one would be able to do as Mr. Knecht suggested.
Assemblyman Collins wished to clarify his understanding of the bill and the proposed amendments. He wondered if the proposed bill changed a body’s public and nonpublic portions of a council meeting, for example, consent agendas.
Mr. Edwards responded. As currently proposed, it completely changed the Reno City Council’s public input on every item. As he understood the Attorney General’s interpretation, when there was a 20-item consent agenda, the Council would need to take public comment on all 20 items on the consent agenda as their turn came up. Currently, the Council was not required to do that.
Assemblyman Collins stated that the items on the consent agenda were public items. Whoever was conducting the meeting had a gavel. There was a light that turned from green to yellow to red that gave each individual three to five minutes to speak, and the Reno City Council would be concerned about court cases because of a guitar solo. He reported that he had been to many planning commission and City Council meetings, as well as many county commission meetings. The only time he recalled an instrument being played in those rooms was when the Council or commission invited the players. Mr. Collins affirmed that every governing body had the right to set up its own rules and boundaries for the meeting room, dress code included. He had seen 50 or 60 consent agenda items passed in one motion in 2 minutes. Whenever there was an issue regarding one of them, there were a couple of processes that would be put into action. One would be that the cards turned in would request that this item be removed from the consent agenda. If the comment period was after the vote was taken, another option was that the person could ask for reconsideration. That would certainly allow public comment.
Randall Edwards responded by stating that under Section 1 of the proposed law, “a governing board may not take action by vote on an item on the agenda of a meeting on which action may otherwise be taken until public comment on the item has been allowed.” The question remained: was each individual item under a consent agenda an item on the agenda of a meeting? It was the city attorneys’ understanding that the Attorney General believed that it was. Thus, every single item would require individual separate public comment.
Assemblyman Collins asked if one could open items 1 through 60 all at once.
Mr. Edwards stated, “Not as the law is written.”
Assemblyman Hardy restated Senator O’Connell’s testimony as to the legislative intent of the bill. One would be able to have public comment at the first of a meeting that would address any particular item on a consent agenda. Thereby, the bill would address the issue of public comment. The way in which the Attorney General was interpreting Section 1, subsection 1, was that every item would require a separate discussion or public comment opened on every one of them. That was quite different from what Senator O’Connell’s legislative intent was. The amendment, as he perceived it, to Section 1, subsection 1, would be to allow the legislative intent to happen so that one would be able to have a public comment at the beginning of the meeting that would include all items on the consent agenda without opening each and every one of them. He asked Mr. Edwards if that was a fair statement.
Nicole Lamboley replied that it was a fair statement. That was correct, and it was what the city attorneys had brought to Senator O’Connell to further clarify the intent that she was attempting to legislate.
Assemblyman Hardy commented that, in his opinion, both wanted the same thing. The amendment proposed to clarify that so there were fewer opportunities to take those matters to a jurisdictional level. In addition to keeping the city council out of court, it would make the flow of the consent calendar smoother.
Nicole Lamboley added another comment. It was also to make sure that the public knew when there was an opportunity for them to provide input on the governing board’s agenda.
Assemblyman Hardy stated that one of the things he suspected the attorneys did, that many jurisdictions did, was to have a printout for the public on how to testify, what a consent agenda was, and what the public comment was. That would be available at the chamber, he supposed, where the person from the public would pick it up for directions on how and when to say something. Regarding public comment at the beginning of a meeting, the rules of the jurisdiction needed to say that the public comment, before the consent agenda and before the meeting began to deal with agendized items, needed to be pertinent, germane, and to adhere to something on the agenda. Public comment at the end of the meeting would be that open-ended comment portion or the “play-your-guitar” portion, if your jurisdiction allowed it, a kind of public comment that did not have to pertain to a thing on the agenda.
Patricia Lynch read the amendment as meaning that a body would not be able to vote on an item until public comment, as currently set forth in the law, was held. That current public comment was totally content-neutral. It had no germaneness issue. If someone wanted to talk about a certain item, they would be able to. If they wanted to talk about the “man on the moon,” they would be able to. They would be allowed to talk about anything. One would not be allowed to hold a vote on an action item until the body had had that public comment section. It would be up to the speaker to determine what he or she wanted to talk about.
Assemblyman Hardy wondered if there was something currently in statute that precluded a jurisdiction from stating that there were two kinds of public comment, one that pertains, and one that was open. The pertinent public comment must pertain to an item on the agenda and would be held early and before any action was taken. The public comment at the end of the meeting would be open for all comment. The body’s rules of engagement were that the public comment at the first of the meeting had to pertain to something on the agenda of the day; public comment at the end of the meeting would pertain to what was on the agenda or what someone would like to see on an agenda.
Patricia Lynch commented that the bill and the proposed amendment before the Committee would not allow for that. It sounded to her as if Assemblyman Hardy was proposing another alternative, which would be a restricted public comment at the beginning of a body’s meeting, and at the end, there would be a general public comment section. One would be allowed under the law. What would need to be done would be to allow the one general public comment section to be a content-neutral time period. The other public comment period would need to be germane. A proposal could be crafted to require the first public comment to be germane, but the content-neutral public comment would need to be included also.
Assemblyman Hardy again asked if there existed anything in current statute that would preclude or prevent the germane, limited public comment to be directed to items on the agenda. Would there be, he wondered, anything in statute that would preclude a public body from adopting those rules now or after either one of the proposals was adopted.
Randall Edwards restated what he had heard Mr. Hardy say. He was unclear as to what Mr. Hardy had asked, he stated. What he had heard was Mr. Hardy’s question as to whether there was anything under current statutes that would preclude a body from adopting operating rules that required the initial public comment to be germane and the ending public comment to be content-neutral. He had also heard Mr. Hardy question the possible adoption of those same rules if Senate Bill 229 were to pass.
Assemblyman Hardy responded with, “Yes, Yes, and Yes.” His ideal picture, he continued, for the press, the public, and for all public entities, would be the following:
I would come into a public meeting, have an understanding with a brochure telling me what to do as a person from the general public, and, as I read through, I would note to myself that there was something on the agenda that I needed to address. It’s under the consent agenda; I would still like to say something about it. Or, it is on the other agenda, and I would like to say something about it. I would like to be able to get up, and I want to be able to say what I would like to say before the consent agenda. The hope was that it would trigger something in the heads of the elected members as to what they heard so that they would consider pulling it from the consent agenda and placing it on the regular agenda. Then a full discussion could take place with public input. Then, I would like to have the ability to address anything that is pertinent on the agenda. I would listen through the meeting, and, at the end of the meeting, I could say what I would like to say, even though it had nothing to do with what was on the agenda.
Again, he asked if anything in the current statutes, or in future statutes that were currently being proposed, would preclude the jurisdiction from allowing what he had described to happen.
Mr. Edwards replied that the answers were “No” and “Yes.” Under current statute, there was nothing that would preclude such a scenario. Under the bill as proposed, there would not be that ability. Under the bill as proposed, there would have to be public comment on every single item as it arose. Under the amendment proposed by the City of Reno, there would be a preservation of that ability as stated in Mr. Hardy’s scenario.
Assemblyman Hardy stated that he would concur with the amendment as the amendment protected the legislative intent that Senator O’Connell spoke of.
Assemblyman Goicoechea commented that it was important to understand that the bill would extend down to other public bodies, as would the audio requirements. He hoped that the bill would not get so restrictive that the result would be many Open Meeting Law violations in front of the Ethics Commission. The bill would go far beyond the local boards and had the potential for becoming really cumbersome.
Assemblyman Hardy reflected on Assemblyman Goicoechea’s comments. The Committee had heard that Senate Bill 229 would not affect advisory boards or the subcommittees, but he had not found that information in the proposed bill. He did not know where it was in statutes, either. He was hoping the staff would clarify whether the bill would apply just to the jurisdiction itself and not the subcommittees thereof, not the park and recreation departments, not the department of whatever services there were. He did not see that in the bill.
Eileen O’Grady, Legal Analyst for the Committee, directed the Committee members’ attention to page 3, subsection 4. A public body that was a governing board was defined as “a legislative body that has authority to adopt an order, ordinance, or rule or an executive or administrative body that has the authority to adopt a regulation or make a decision that constitutes a final decision.” Subcommittees were not allowed to make final decisions. The definition would have to be applied on a case-by-case basis to see if it would apply to a certain entity.
Assemblyman Goicoechea, responding to Ms. O’Grady, stated that, technically, a planning board, although it did not have the ultimate say as it could be appealed to a county board of commissioners, would be a legislative body.
Assemblyman Hardy used Clark County School District as an example. The Community Education Advisory Board, for instance, which was fairly powerless and could not mandate anything, using that definition would be precluded from being under the jurisdiction of the Open Meeting Law, the audiotapes, and everything else. He thought that the definition changed what entities were doing in practice currently. He asked for clarification of that understanding.
Ms. O’Grady stated that the bill would exclude certain bodies and certain circumstances, not from the entire Open Meeting Law, just from the requirements about audiotapes, posting certain notices on the Internet, and other things.
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, had consulted with both Senator O’Connell and Senator Titus, both of whom had agreed that the amendment would be appropriate. On page 7 of the bill, section 3, subsection 4, the amendment would make changes to the bill beginning at line 17. A closed session tape recording would become public under the current language. That would happen only if the public body determined that the matter discussed no longer required confidentiality and that the person whose character, conduct, and competence was being discussed had consented to its disclosure. The amendment would be to simply state that the consent from the individual must be in writing. It was essential, as it would protect the employee or the person being discussed so that he/she was proactively giving consent to make that recording public. It also protected the public body, because, if such a recording was released and the individual came back at some later time and claimed that no consent was given, the public body would be in court over that issue. She encouraged the addition of “in writing” or “with written consent” to that section to provide that protection for both parties.
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. Cahill to consider, on the bottom of page 6, where the bill speaks of the minutes of the meeting, if she would concur that “in writing” needed to be added there as well.
Ms. Cahill considered his suggestion and stated that she did concur with adding “in writing” on page 6 as well.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the Clark County Manager, presented the amendment from Clark County, which was to clean up the problem that would occur if the Internet were to go down (Exhibit D). Again, Senator O’Connell agreed to it just minutes before she went on the Floor of the Senate. The intent of the amendment was to coincide with language in Assemblyman Sherer’s bill. The amendment was specific to Section 2, page 5, and proposed deleting lines 28 through 30 and inserting language in subsection 7. “The inability of the public body to post notice of a meeting pursuant to ‘this section’ as a result of technical problems with its Web site shall not be deemed to be a violation of the provisions of this Chapter.”
As long as one did the correct postings and the Internet then went down, that would not preclude the meeting from taking place. That was standard language placed in other bills. Clark County wanted to be certain it was a part of Senate Bill 229 as well. Mr. Musgrove also stated that Clark County supported the intent of the amendments put forth by the City of Reno and appreciated the discussion by Mr. Knecht, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Hardy relating to the ability of the chairman to control the meeting to make it open but also efficient. The intent of the Reno amendment reached that through its language, but the actual First Reprint of S.B. 229 did not, as the Attorney General had indicated to the City of Reno. Clark County supported both of those amendments as well as the amendment brought forward by Ms. Cahill.
Kami Dempsey, Government Relations Manager, City of Las Vegas, echoed the closing comments made by Dan Musgrove. The City of Las Vegas enjoyed the discussion and supported the amendments brought forward.
In terms of the City of Las Vegas, all or most of the important decisions that were made were guaranteed to be subject to full public debate. Public testimony was part of the city’s ordinances, land sold or acquired by the city, zone variances, and special use permits. During the Planning Commission’s meetings and in alternative committees’ meetings and recommending committees that existed, public comment was allowed, as was citizen participation. The purpose was to get the public’s concerns and comments on the record ahead of time so that the actual city council meetings were not bogged down with discussions that could have been held ahead of time.
Earlier, there was testimony that there were only 20 or 30 agenda items for some meetings. On an average, the City of Las Vegas had 150 agenda items, according to Ms. Dempsey. Some Planning Commission meetings had lasted until 4 a.m. When one talked about having a more efficient and effective government, Ms. Dempsey affirmed her conviction that the way in which the meetings were agendized currently, with the ability to pull items off a consent agenda as a result of discussion and leaving the discretion to the chairman, expedited the process, making the council more accountable as well as efficient.
Kimberly McDonald, representing the City of North Las Vegas, stated the City’s support of Senate Bill 229 and the amendments as presented by the City of Reno and Clark County.
Rose McKinney-James, Clark County School District, wanted to indicate her appreciation for the proponents of Senate Bill 229 for accommodating the testimony that was offered in the Senate. There was initial concern regarding the Clark County School District’s ability to have adequate time. She had just received a copy of the amendments from the City of Reno in the morning and had had the opportunity to hear the discussion. Clark County School District supported the intent of the bill and the amendments.
As many people knew, Clark County School District had a process in place where structured comments were invited from the public. They had a variety of structures, whether it was a subcommittee or the actual meeting of the trustees. Having public comment was very important, but it was also important, in balance, to be able to move the meetings along efficiently. The intent of Senate Bill 229 was certainly supportable, as was the amendment proposed by Mr. Musgrove. That would allow the Clark County School District to comply with the law without running into technical issues.
Assemblyman Hardy restated his question about earlier testimony. He had asked about the applicability of S.B. 229 to the Clark County School District’s Community Education Advisory Board and the subcommittees thereof. He had wondered if the bill would change the Open Meeting Law as it applied to those committees. As clarified by staff, it applied to both as far as postings, agendas, and other things. It would, however, preclude them from having audiotapes of the meetings and those portions that were addressed in the bill currently under discussion.
Ms. McKinney-James stated that she had nothing to add. Those examples used by Mr. Hardy certainly recognized some of the challenges of some of the smaller subcommittees.
Pamela Wilcox, Administrator of the Division of State Lands, and Acting Administrator of the Division of Conservation Districts, testified as being both in favor of and opposed to the bill unless it was amended. She stood in favor of maximum public input and good public notice. In her agencies, there were three boards: the State Land Use Planning Advisory Council, the State Conservation Commission, and the Nevada-Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. In all cases, full notice was given the public, and they would be very pleased to act as indicated by the bill as it related to those agencies and boards. However, her agencies also provided technical assistance to 28 locally elected conservation districts scattered around the state. Examples included the Ruby Valley Conservation District, the Lamoille Conservation District, the Eureka Conservation District, and 25 others. Most of those districts had no staff, no office, no computer, and no tape recorder. Complying with the provisions of the act would be beyond their technical capability. She was requesting that the bill be amended to provide that, when boards did not have the technical capacity to do either the Web posting or audiotape the minutes, they be excused from those requirements. She did not have language with her but volunteered to work with the staff to develop such an amendment.
R. Michael Turnipseed, Director, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, expanded on what Ms. Wilcox and Assemblyman Goicoechea had said. He did not see, in Section 3, any exemptions for posting minutes on a Web site. While he was seated in the audience, he was thinking of some of the smaller boards and commissions; Ms. Wilcox mentioned the conservation districts, Genoa had a cemetery board, and those did not have Web sites. Minden [in Douglas County] had a library board, Lincoln County, Eureka County, and Lander County, for instance, had fair and recreation boards, probably without Web sites. Mr. Goicoechea mentioned county game boards. There were also grazing boards. The people on those boards often met out on the fence line, in the fair grounds, or in the cemeteries. There would not be electronic capability, and there would not be electricity. Again, somehow, one needed to exempt out those boards that simply did not have the capability to comply.
Assemblyman Goicoechea stated that the issue he had with the bill was the language on page 3, subsection 4(b) that stated “constitutes a final decision for the purposes of judicial review.” That was very narrow. Technically, it would be the city councils and county boards of commissioners that would have the ultimate say. As he read that subsection, he believed that everyone else was excluded. He hoped for clarification before moving ahead.
Assemblyman Knecht stated his appreciation of both Mr. Turnipseed’s and Ms. Wilcox’s testimony for attending to the concerns of the Committee members regarding the applicability of the bill to certain entities. While the Committee wanted to do the best it could, it needed to do so within the constraints of what had been discussed by Mr. Turnipseed.
Tina Leiss, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Attorney General’s Office, confirmed that the proposal made by the City of Reno, the proposal to remove the exemption for contested cases, was not appropriate. When a board was considering the rights of a sale licensee who was not particularly popular in a community, it would not want every person with a gripe against that individual to testify to the board prior to their disciplinary case. If it were an environmental case, the board would not want to be tainted prior to hearing the evidence in the contested case. Ms. Leiss had spoken with Patricia Lynch, who was agreeable with taking that portion of her amendment out. The exemption for contested cases would then stand in the bill.
Assemblyman Goicoechea referred to page 3, lines 17 through 19. He read “an executive or administrative body that has the authority to adopt a regulation or to make a decision that constitutes a final decision for the purposes of judicial review.” To Mr. Goicoechea, that referenced a city council or a board of county commissioners, because, in most cases, they had the ability to turn over the decisions of state planning boards or other jurisdictions. The way he read that language, it would actually only pertain to the ultimate authority and in those jurisdictions that had the final say. Everyone else would be excluded.
Ms. Leiss stated, under NRS 233B, that each of the state licensing boards had the ability to make a final decision for purposes of judicial review. In fact, that statute was what provided for judicial review of those decisions. Her interpretation of the language would mean that it would reach to each of the licensing boards that did discipline and each state agency that made some sort of final administrative order.
Assemblyman Goicoechea specifically requested of Ms. Leiss that she address planning boards under the local government jurisdictions or a fair and recreation board that could be overturned by a board of county commissioners. He wanted specific information about their inclusion in the bill.
Ms. Leiss stated that she was not sure who held the final decision for purposes of judicial review within the series of local jurisdictions. Judicial review was somewhat “a term of art” in NRS 233B, which did not apply to local agencies. As that part applied to local agencies, she was not sure which boards that would reach. It was much clearer for state agencies, because they were all subject to NRS 233B.
Assemblyman Goicoechea accepted Ms. Leiss’s response but queried where he would go to find out how local government agencies were impacted.
Ms. Leiss replied that he would need to look at the statutory authority for each of those agencies and whether or not they had the authority to make a final decision. One would find that information in whatever statutes created those bodies.
Assemblyman Goicoechea reaffirmed that, in most cases, the board of county commissioners had the final say. He continued, “You concur, in that instance, if the Board of County commissioners had the ultimate say, they would be the only group to fall under this jurisdiction, of this language.”
Ms. Leiss replied, “That seems reasonable, but, without looking at the statutes that govern the particular local agencies, I could not tell you for sure.”
Chairman Manendo stated that the department Ms. Leiss represented was brought up by the City of Reno and that a proposed amendment would be needed in Section 1 of the bill. He asked Ms. Leiss to address that need.
Ms. Leiss stated that in her office, when complaints were received about the Open Meeting Law, she was the first person to review the complaints. She wrote an opinion on those. There was, then, a chain of review. Between herself and the deputy attorney general who was the next link in the chain of review, they had had some discussion about what the original language meant as far as whether or not public comment must be taken on each individual item or whether a public comment section up front would suffice. There was disagreement on that issue. Because of that disagreement, Ms. Leiss thought having the legislative intent clarified by Senator O’Connell, when she indicated that public comment up front of a meeting would suffice, would take care of that. She hoped that she was answering the Chair’s question by stating that at least one person in her office thought that the bill meant that public comment was to be taken item by item but another believed that a public comment section up front would suffice.
Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, had had a chance to review the amendments and supported the bill. She understood the problem of consent agendas; her concern was, when dealing with ordinances and regulations, that there would be comment prior to the ordinance or regulation being adopted by the governing body so they would have the benefit of input from the public. Her concerns had been addressed. She had witnessed members of the public at meetings, who did not quite understand what the issue was that they were addressing, who would ramble on. The amendments offered by the City of Reno were acceptable to her and her constituents as long as public comment was taken before the adoption of an ordinance or a regulation.
Assemblyman Grady asked Ms. Vilardo about the public input being limited to the beginning of the public meeting for agenda items, then, in his opinion, that would force people to sit through meetings that would often go on for hours and hours, to get to the public comment at the end of a meeting. He was very uncomfortable, he stated, with having public comment at the end of a meeting, because that would discourage the public from participating at the end.
Ms. Vilardo agreed with him. She had had to sign a card that stated that she wanted to comment before a public entity that had to be submitted by 3 p.m. That meant two trips for her, as it was a board that met at night. She thought that public comment should be allowed, and, if one wanted to take people who submitted cards first, that was fine. It would then be opened up for anyone to speak. She had a particular concern with those who wanted testimony only at the beginning of a meeting and who wanted to vote on a regulation or ordinance later in the meeting; that was why she preferred that comment be taken at the time the agenda item was being heard.
She agreed with Mr. Grady. Having the public comment at the end of a meeting could, possibly, discourage public input. She had also been at meetings where the comment was taken after the vote. That was an extremely frustrating situation, particularly when one wanted to support something and knew there was a technical amendment or something that would make a possible alternative better. Or, perhaps, there would be a question that needed to be asked, because there was an issue in the regulation or ordinance by which you or someone else would be regulated or governed, that had not been addressed. There would be nothing on the record about the concern. She would prefer to have comment first. She believed that would better serve the public.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if Ms. Vilardo would agree that the chairman was able to, in fact, recognize public comment at any point during a meeting. As a former chairman of a board of county commissioners, when there was a controversial issue, the chair would invite the public forward to offer testimony. There was nothing in the language of the bill that stated that a chairman would not be allowed to do that. All ordinances, before their adoption, required a public hearing before the formal body.
Ms. Vilardo did not disagree. She stated, however, that one of the problems that he had was that he was looking at the Open Meeting Law. While he would probably agree that the 17 counties had done their meetings efficiently, one would have, additionally, 238 general governmental entities that did need some guidelines, in addition to which, the bill would apply to state agencies. While she would like the flexibility to be there, she also knew, having sat through a variety of meetings, that parameters were needed at times.
Assemblyman Goicoechea followed up by asking, as Ms Vilardo looked at the many kinds of meetings and entities, if she would agree with him that most of the groups would not fall under this statute. Even the Boards of Equalizations was subject to review by the State Board of Equalization, so they would not have the final decision.
Dino DiCianno, Deputy Executive Director, Nevada Department of Taxation, responded to Mr. Goicoechea that the State Board did have final review. On a contested case, that Board made the decision subject to judicial review.
Assemblyman Goicoechea questioned whether the local Boards of Equalization would have to comply with the S.B. 229 as proposed.
Mr. DiCianno stated, as he read the bill, they would.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked for his assistance to understand how he was misinterpreting the bill. Mr. DiCianno did not respond.
Assemblyman Grady believed that there were some committees who made decisions that were able to be appealed to another board. Mr. Grady believed that was the difference; it was final unless appealed. “At that point, the next layer of bureaucracy fell into place.”
Ms. Vilardo spoke from actual experience on the topic. She served on the Winchester Town Board, which, in Clark County, was an advisory committee. The Winchester Town Board was the first step before going to the Planning Commission. There were numerous town boards in southern Nevada. One would come before the board, the board would comply with the Open Meeting Law, they would vote on a recommendation, and they would send it off to the Planning Commission. The recommendation was not a final decision. The Planning Commission would then consider the forwarded recommendation, make up its own recommendation, and would, in turn, forward it to the County Commission of Clark County. It was not until the issue moved to the County Commission of Clark County that a final decision was made.
In reverse, one would need to look at a general improvement district (GID), which was an independent body, formed by the county commission; the GID had the final authority for the action it took. Its decisions would be subject to judicial review. The Winchester Town Board did not make decisions that were final. Those decisions were really just recommendations and were nonbinding. It might be included in a judicial filing to explain how the group arrived at where they were, but it was the county commission that held the responsibility for the final decision.
Mr. Goicoechea thanked both Ms. Vilardo and Assemblyman Grady. He really had questions about the language. If people were exempted out but were not intended to be out, then there were problems. Judicial review was pretty specific, according to Mr. Goicoechea, and meant the last decision prior to going to court. He would then argue whether the Clark County Planning Commission had to function under the language contained in Senate Bill 229.
Mr. DiCianno stated that the department was in support of the bill as it read in the First Reprint. Because they served as staff to the State Board of Equalization and to the Nevada Tax Commission, their only concern was the amending out of Section 1, paragraph 3, unless that had already been addressed. The State Board of Equalization and the Nevada Tax Commission dealt with contested cases. There was no such thing as public comment on contested cases unless one was an intervener. He was not sure that the removal of Section 1 would still work for the board and the commission when it came to contested cases.
Dorla Salling, Chairman, Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, introduced Dorothy Nash Holmes, Director, Mental Health and Program Services, Nevada Department of Corrections. She also introduced Senior Deputy Attorney General Joe Ward, Counsel to the Board. The Legislature had traditionally recognized the judicial nature of the Parole and Pardons Board proceedings. When the Board read the bill, it was assumed it did not apply to them. When she spoke to Senator O’Connell earlier in the day about the bill, the Senator indicated to Ms. Salling that she was correct; it was not the intent of the bill to apply to the Parole and Pardons Board. They were testifying to ask for an amendment to the bill to add Section 44 that would amend NRS 213 to provide “except as provided in this Chapter, the provisions of NRS 241 do not apply to a body making a parole-related or clemency decision affecting the confinement of any offender” (Exhibit E).
Dorothy Nash Holmes very briefly explained that the reason that had come up was that both the parole hearings and the psychological review panel for the sex offender or child abusing inmate were now videoconferenced; they were not videotaped and not audiotaped, but they were videoconferenced so that the people on those panels did not have to travel. Federally funded equipment was placed in several of the prisons so that the panel members were able to meet with the offenders from their various locations. Since that began with the psychological panel, which was in January 2003, there were at least five “appeals” from offenders under the Open Meeting Law for violations of that law related to their psychological panel hearings.
The problem apparently arose in 1983, as there was one amendment placed in NRS 213 that provided that parole board hearings were open to the public. There was no other connection between NRS 241, the Open Meeting Law, and the parole hearings, but defense attorneys and inmates had taken that to mean that all the provisions of the Open Meeting Law applied. There was a very delicate situation when posting the agendas; they were posted on the Web site and in the public places but, to each offender, only a copy of his agenda was given with everyone else’s names blacked out. One did not want to identify one offender to another, especially a sex offender, in the prison system. It was a delicate, life-endangering situation.
The meetings were made open to the public, the victim was allowed to attend, but all of the videotaping and other provisions were not part of the process. There needed to be a way to ensure that inmates were not able to use parole hearings as a post-conviction proceeding. Mr. Ward had been to court several times on specifically those situations.
Joe Ward, Senior Litigation Attorney with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office, stated that there were more and more ingenious inmates with access to the law libraries coming at the Parole Board and the Psychological Review Panel. They were trying to invalidate the decisions by saying, without any chance at all of prevailing on a proper petition for habeas corpus, that the decision or the outcome of a psychological review panel hearing or a parole board hearing must be invalidated. They were using the Open Meeting Law as the tool. Again, the board and the panel had prevailed to date, but amending Senate Bill 229 was a wonderful opportunity to make it abundantly clear that the meetings would continue to be open to the public as indicated in NRS 213, but not “open AND public” as spelled out in NRS 241. The amendment was a very good one that would allow for consistency in terms of how hearings were held. It would also slow down some of the inmate litigation that was occurring with the new tool that they had come up with.
Chairman Manendo requested that Mr. Ward and Ms. Salling present their proposed amendment in writing very soon to the staff. They agreed to do so.
Jeanette Belz, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter, Universal Health Services, strongly urged the Committee to support Senate Bill 229. She had e-mailed the Committee over the weekend about her constituents’ use of the Internet and the minutes and the agendas. She wanted to add a comment about the audio recording of meetings. From her own experience, she was unable to attend one of those small regulatory body’s meetings earlier in the year but sent a young man to attend on her behalf. She had asked him to keep track of one agenda item for her. He did not know what the agenda item was going to be about. He wrote an e-mail to her and told her exactly what had happened at the meeting. Subsequent to that, Ms. Belz received the minutes of the meeting and found that the agenda item was not addressed in the minutes at all. It was not even noted that it had been brought up or that there was any discussion, although it had been minor, about that item.
By audiotaping the meetings it would hold some of those smaller boards a little more accountable for what they do. It would certainly have allowed her groups to pull something out and to declare that those boards also had to follow the rules. She would appreciate the support of the Committee.
Richard Ziser, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, opened his testimony by stating that he and his group supported Senate Bill 229. They strongly believed that it would improve the quality of citizen participation in government. It was very important that the bodies hear testimony from the public prior to taking any kind of vote. The bill would ensure better access to information through the posting of minutes, and the audio recording was also important.
Because of the conversations and the prior testimonies, especially of the group from the City of Reno and their amendments, the concerns they would have had were with having public comment at the beginning of the meetings, rather than on individual items, and that people would be limited in the time they had to express their concerns. Nevada Concerned Citizens hoped to make certain, if there was more than one agenda item of concern, that the boards not limit a speaker to just three minutes for everything that a person wanted to discuss. For example, on the agenda for today’s Committee hearing, there were two Senate bills listed. If Mr. Ziser only had three minutes to speak in total, it would not be enough time to allow that all of his concerns would be shared. That should probably be handled at the local level within their own requirements as to how the meetings were handled. He did not see that it was necessary to put that into state law. That was something that was important to him and to his group. They needed time to address more than one issue, and they did not want to be limited up front.
Mr. Ziser thanked Senator O’Connell and Senator Titus for bringing the bill forward and thought it would be very helpful to the public. He closed by also complimenting Chairman Manendo for doing a great job.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on Senate Bill 229 and called a recess of the Committee.
The Committee meeting was called back to order, following the recess, and Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on Senate Bill 444.
Senate Bill 444 (1st Reprint): Authorizes transfer of certain real property owned by State of Nevada to City of Las Vegas. (BDR S-517)
Wayne Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, spoke on behalf of Senate Bill 444, which would allow the state to negotiate a transfer of Floyd Lamb State Park to the City of Las Vegas. His prepared testimony, Exhibit F, was presented to the Committee.
Governor Kenny Guinn desired to return Floyd Lamb State Park to the City of Las Vegas. He had requested the legislation to authorize the state to transfer to the City of Las Vegas all of the state’s interest in that property, including the land being leased from the Bureau of Land Management. The state intended to keep only the plant nursery currently being managed by the Division of Forestry that was contained within the boundaries of Floyd Lamb State Park.
The park was owned by the City of Las Vegas until 1977 when the state agreed to manage the property as a state park. At the time, the property was located on the outskirts of Las Vegas. However, continued Mr. Perock, the unprecedented growth of Las Vegas had resulted in the park being enveloped by the city.
Floyd Lamb State Park remained very popular with local residents whose enthusiasm for the park had made it one of the most visited state park facilities in Clark County. Over 90 percent of the park’s annual visitors resided in the City of Las Vegas, further attesting to its popularity among citizens.
During its ownership, the state had made significant capital improvements at the park. Several improvement projects were currently underway. Mr. Perock explained that the Southern Nevada Regional Trail Partnership was sponsoring a multi-user trailhead project provided by the Federal Recreation Trails Program administered by the Division of State Parks. The irrigation system had been upgraded recently, and the state was continuing with a project to repair or replace roof structures.
According to Mr. Perock, the state was grateful for the interest and support of the many friends of Floyd Lamb State Park. If the property was transferred to the City of Las Vegas, the state hoped that everyone would continue to work to protect and improve the park. The state would encourage the city to consult with the Tule Springs Preservation Committee and other citizen groups. The existing lease to the Las Vegas Gun Club would transfer with the property for administration by the City of Las Vegas.
The Nevada Division of State Parks noted that the property was protected by recreational requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Act. Whether owned by the state or by the city, all use, disposition, and development would be required to be in full compliance with the Land and Water Conservation Act, Section 6, paragraph 3) requirements.
The state expected the city to continue to manage the property as a public park and to protect its historic and recreational values. The legislation would require continued public use as a park and would prevent any future transfer of the property to any other party without state consent.
Mr. Perock had included, for the Committee’s consideration, a map of the park’s area. The area outlined in yellow represented state-owned land and included the Floyd Lamb State Park and the Tule Springs Archeological Site (Exhibit G). It should be noted that the Tule Springs Archeological Site was not included as a part of Senate Bill 444. Additionally, in the center of the park, there was an area outlined in red. That section was the state nursery and would continue to belong to the state under the management of the Nevada Division of Forestry.
When the bill came out of the Senate after the Senate amended it, it passed unanimously. The Division of State Parks, however, had found a problem with one of the amendments regarding the name of the park. Mr. Perock provided the Committee with a letter of concern (Exhibit H) written by Pamela Wilcox and him.
As stated in the amendment’s language, it required the City of Las Vegas to maintain the name, Floyd Lamb State Park, unless it received approval to change the name from the State Legislature. Mr. Perock and Ms. Wilcox presented an amendment to strike the word “State,” because it would not be logical for the city to be operating a city park that was called a state park.
Pamela Wilcox, Administrator of the Division of State Lands, noted that the Floyd Lamb State Park was received as a gift from the City of Las Vegas in 1977. At the present time, the state owned 680 acres and was leasing just over 1000 additional acres from the Bureau of Land Management under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Senate Bill 444 would authorize her to enter into an agreement with the City of Las Vegas that would return all of that land to the city to be managed as a city park at city expense.
Ms. Wilcox then led the Committee members through S.B. 444. Section 1 authorized the Division of State Lands to enter into an agreement with the city. Subsection 2 of Section 1 was added in the Senate and listed a few restrictions. Subsection 2, paragraph (a)(1) provided that the state was not liable for any expense after the transfer. There was some concern in the Senate that the state, once the transfer was made, would be clearly free of any further responsibility for the park. Paragraph (a)(2) required that the city would not be allowed to change the name of the park from Floyd Lamb State Park unless the Legislature approved.
Ms. Wilcox continued by reminding the Committee that the Division of State Lands was proposing an amendment to strike the word “State” so that the name of the park would become Floyd Lamb Park. The Senate also added a provision that the final transfer of land would not become effective unless approved by the Legislature or the Interim Finance Committee, if the Legislature was not in session.
Section 2 provided that, if real property was transferred, there must be deed restrictions on the property. Those deed restrictions would protect historic and recreational value, would guarantee public access, and would prevent the city or any successor in title from transferring the property without the consent of the state. It would also provide for the reversion of title to the state if any of the restrictions were breached.
Section 3 was the legal description of the lands, which the state owned, that would be transferred to the city.
On page 4, she directed the Committee’s attention to Section 3, subsection 2, line 35. That subsection provided that the land used by the Division of Forestry was preserved to the state as a plant nursery.
Section 4 described the lands that were being leased from the Bureau of Land Management, which would also be relinquished to the city under the act.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked if language had been included in S.B. 444 that allowed for the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to come back also, if the City of Las Vegas did, in fact, relinquish it or revert it back to the state.
Ms. Wilcox stated that the reversion applied only to the land to which the state was transferring title, should it be returned. She did state that, should the city not be able to sustain the park, the state would not successfully complete the negotiations.
Assemblyman Goicoechea referenced the Recreation and Public Purposes Act; there was language that required the state to do certain things.
Ms. Wilcox agreed with Mr. Goicoechea, stating that it did require specific things, but, if the city took over that act’s lease, the Bureau of Land Management would also require the city to do certain specific things. Ms. Wilcox assured Mr. Goicoechea that the Bureau of Land Management realized that the state was discussing the transfer with the City of Las Vegas, and there was a simple procedure that allowed the state to relinquish a public lease to another public entity.
Assemblyman Collins referenced the map the members received from Mr. Perock (Exhibit G). Tule Springs Archeological Site was actually in North Las Vegas and would not be part of the transfer of land to the City of Las Vegas. Mr. Collins also disclosed that he was a member of the Floyd Lamb-Tule Springs Preservation Committee.
While the Committee was considering the amendment proposed by Mr. Perock and Ms. Wilcox, he also wished to ask the Committee to amend Section 1, subsection 2(b)(1), lines 5 and 6, “unless the Legislature approves the change by statute or concurrent resolution” by adding that legislative approval would require a two-thirds majority vote and to delete the “concurrent resolution.” The “concurrent resolution” would allow the proposal to go to a voice vote and that would not allow for fair determination of a name change. Mr. Collins read his proposed amendment to the Committee beginning on line 5. “If the Legislature is in session, the Legislature approves the agreement, by two-thirds majority vote, by statute.”
In conclusion, Mr. Collins asked for language to guarantee that all of the parkland was to remain rural and passive as it was at the present time. The rural nature of the park currently allowed for recreational activities such as fishing, playing, bird-watching, kicking balls, barbequing, and relaxing on a blanket versus ball fields and soccer nets, and other things. On the state land, it seemed extremely important to work towards preservation of the current nature of the park.
Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Collins, as he interpreted the bill, if the city took over the park, he saw any way that the city would be able to sell the park to a developer to build homes or condominiums.
Mr. Collins responded by stating that he believed the language in the bill was strong enough to prevent that. He supposed that the bill could be amended further to declare that no housing, other than that of the park employees, was to be allowed on that land.
The Chair had e-mailed him with constituent concerns over the preceding weekend about that possibility. Those constituents spent considerable time in the park, and they were very concerned.
Mr. Collins commented that the lease agreement with the Bureau of Land Management land was for park use only. Any change or nonconformance to that use would cause the land to revert back to the state.
Mr. Perock also responded. With regards to selling the land or changing its use, the state-owned property was encumbered by federal land and water conservation funds. Because the state had funded it with those federal funds, it had restrictions. It could only be used for outdoor recreation. If the city wanted to place a school or a library on the grounds, they would not be allowed to do that, as it was prohibited. Not only would Senate Bill 444 add strength to it, the land already had the weight of the federal government mandating its use and prohibiting changes, unless it were replaced with properties of like value and like recreational opportunity. In dealing with the land and water conservation fund for many years, it was a “big stick in my toolbox” to protect state park properties. The Tule-Springs site was also protected and, early on, when it was discovered that the state owned it, encumbrances were placed on it to ensure against that very thing that the Chair expressed concern about.
Assemblywoman Pierce referred to the map (Exhibit G) and asked for confirmation as to what portion of the map that was outlined was owned by the state. She had assumed that the outlined portion of the map did not include the leased land but was unclear about that.
Wayne Perock stated that the yellow outlined portion of the map included all of the properties that would be transferred. The leased property that Ms. Pierce had asked about was included.
Assemblyman Goicoechea addressed the Chair’s concerns, also. At the point where the Recreation and Public Purpose (RPP) rolled over, it was a fairly simple process for the City of Las Vegas to acquire title to the RPP. At that point, they would be able to go in any direction they wished. That particular portion affected by the RPP was not part of what would revert back to the state should the situation change. Mr. Goicoechea stated that an entity was able to buy an RPP out.
Pamela Wilcox stated that land acquired under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act was restricted to be used for certain public uses only. The only way in which the city could ever use it for any other purpose would be to acquire, from the Bureau of Land Management, the land for fair market value, rather than through the RPP Act. That would be the same as if they were to go out and acquire land for fair market value from anyone. As long as the land remained under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, it was restricted in perpetuity for public purposes only.
Chairman Manendo asked for clarification of “public purposes.” He wondered what would happen, if, as years passed, the city decided to change the park into a golf course for public use.
Ms. Wilcox affirmed that Assemblyman Goicoechea had correctly stated the law that would apply. The state was able to restrict the future use of the land that the state transferred to the city that was owned, currently, by the state. But, she declared, the state was not able to restrict the city’s future use of the land that the state transferred to them that was actually owned by the Bureau of Land Management. That would have to be worked out between the city and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). If the Committee wished, the state would restrict the portion that they actually owned to only passive recreation, but the state would not be able to restrict that portion of land coming to the city from the Bureau. It would have to be a public purpose that was recognized by the RPP Act that was considered a legitimate use.
The Recreation and Public Purposes Act allowed public entities to take land from the BLM, under lease, for a nominal cost. It had to be leased for a specific public purpose, and the entity had to submit a plan of development before one would be allowed to enter into the lease. Then, the land had to be developed according to that plan of development. At the conclusion of the development, the entity would go to “patent,” and one would actually get a patent or title to the land. That land would remain restricted in perpetuity to only that specific use that the entity already built on it. One would not get title until the development was completed, and, once title was issued, the entity was restricted as that would be the only development that would exist in the future. One would need to go through a fairly long and laborious process to change it, and one would still be restricted to public purposes allowed under the act.
The future of the land that was in the RPP lease would be between the city and the BLM. The state would relinquish its lease to the city, and then it would be a lease between the city and the BLM. The future of the site that was currently owned by the state, but previously owned by the city, that was now being transferred back to them was between the city and the state.
Assemblyman Goicoechea had noticed a couple of wells on the property of Floyd Lamb Park. He asked if they were municipal wells or state-owned wells.
Ms. Wilcox stated that the wells were used to provide water for the property. One would be retained, as it supplied the state nursery, which was not being transferred to the city; the other wells would return to the city to keep the park green.
Assemblyman Goicoechea explained that he was not testifying one way or another as to the exchange. He simply wanted the Committee members to be aware, under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, that there was a great deal of flexibility, and, normally, in the end, it was patented in the name of the holder, and then adjustments would be made at that point. He cautioned Committee members about believing that the RPP ground would not be able to be divided. He remained convinced that it could be divided at some future time in his lifetime.
Assemblyman Christensen had received questions from constituents regarding developments in the north Las Vegas Valley area. A question he had heard was what would be the city’s interest in taking back Floyd Lamb State Park. Another question was for Mr. Collins. When the Mr. Collins had spoken with Mr. Christensen in the past on a bill in Natural Resources, there was mention of forming a citizen’s advisory committee. He asked if there was any plan to develop such a group for the purpose of overseeing the park after its return to the city.
Assemblyman Collins stated that there were several bills, Senate Bill 144, Senate Bill 201, and others that included advising the city. Some that he recalled included the Audubon group, the Floyd Lamb-Tule Springs group, and others. The city would expand on those options later in the current meeting. Mr. Collins reassured Mr. Christensen that the bill could be amended to include advisory groups that would hold a position of oversight.
Assemblyman Christensen brought that up, he stated, as he knew that groups, such as Mr. Collins had mentioned, had a huge interest in assuring that the property maintained its value to the area, to the state, and to the citizens. It was important that there be a vehicle by which those groups would have input as well.
Chris Knight, Director of Administrative Services, City of Las Vegas, stated that the city supported the bill without hesitation. There were no objections. The city would ask, however, for a clarification on Section 1, subsection 2(a)(1), where it stated that the state was “not liable for any expense incurred to operate or maintain that real property or any appurtenances or facilities which are located on that real property.” The city had no objection but would like a clarification from the Legislative Counsel Bureau that that would not prohibit the city from applying for any state grants such as Nevada State Recreational Trails' grants or lock-on funds or others in the future. If that was the understanding, then there was no issue with that section of the bill.
Mr. Knight responded to Mr. Christensen’s question as to the city’s interest in the bill. The city had reviewed the financial aspects of the bill. The City of Las Vegas was currently hiring a consultant to look at a planning effort called the Northwest Regional Open Space Plan. In that Northwest Regional Open Space Plan, the city was not only looking at Floyd Lamb State Park but was also looking at the Clark County Shooting Park and the 360-acre equestrian park that the city had designated immediately east of Floyd Lamb State Park. Both were potential recreational and open space opportunities on other BLM properties.
The city was attempting to take a holistic look at how open space and recreation would fit into the northwest area, according to Mr. Knight. It had always been a contentious issue in the northwest with the urban versus rural issues. The city was trying to set a vision for the next 20 years as to what that open space would be. In that planning effort, the city held a community meeting in November 2002. The planning effort was to include a citizens’ advisory committee. The city was making certain that the process included representatives from the user groups that had an interest in Floyd Lamb State Park and in other uses of that area for recreation. It included the federal agencies, the state agencies, and state parks in the capacity of advising on the process as well. There needed to be considerable public input in the process.
The city thought that the time had come, and, quite honestly, Mr. Knight stated, the state approaching the city about Floyd Lamb State Park was the catalyst that brought the city to the point where a full-blown study became a reality. The city was not able to express its level of interest at the present time, other than to state that it was interested in the park. Whether or not it would actually go through with any acquisition would not be certain until that bigger picture was created to address all issues in the northwest area of the Las Vegas Valley.
Assemblywoman Koivisto expressed concern as to the use of the BLM leased property. Again, the concern was that the land not be turned into soccer fields, tennis courts, and baseball fields.
Mr. Knight believed, he said, that was part of the answer that the city wanted to have come out of the Northwest Regional Open Space Planning effort. The needs of the northwest needed to be defined and whether Floyd Lamb State Park fit into those needs. The city also needed to know where the other opportunities were. There were 1500 acres of BLM land on the west and east side of US 95 that the city was also interested in as well. The 360 acres were a consideration. Some had also suggested that the equestrian park be built into Floyd Lamb Park, instead of building it separate from the park. The answer would really not be available until after the Northwest Regional Open Space Planning group had concluded its study.
The Las Vegas City Council had been very sensitive about the rural nature of and around Floyd Lamb State Park. If one examined the zoning and the development history of the city, the City Council had been very protective of that part by requiring lower density developments, rather than higher density developments. The city allowed many higher densities in most other areas, but it had not allowed it around Floyd Lamb State Park. The city remained extremely sensitive to the rural nature of that area, he repeated.
Assemblywoman Koivisto stated that she needed to point out that, as a representative of a kind of inner city area, there might be an uprising if a number of ball fields were placed out in the northwest when the people she represented needed them but did not receive them.
Assemblyman Christensen asked if, from information that Mr. Knight had available to him currently, the city had the funds to maintain the park in the manner the people who frequented the park would expect it to be maintained. He was also curious as to how the city would do that. Mr. Christensen wondered if entry fees would be a possibility.
Mr. Knight said that he wished he had the final decision on the city’s budget and could answer Mr. Christensen directly. He did not, and he believed, in terms of having money to maintain the park, that would depend on whether it became an issue and a priority for the Las Vegas City Council. The city would set it, then, into the budgeting of funds. The City Council had not addressed that yet. Currently, the city’s budget was in the process of development and was developed with the current constraints in mind. The northwest development plan did not exist currently and was not a priority at present. That would be part of the consideration for and the negotiations on acquisition of the parkland.
The city’s commitment to the acquisition of the park would be made clearer at some point in the future, Mr. Christensen stated. Additionally, he would look forward to the planning group’s decisions and recommendations for the near future, within five years, and further in the future than that. Again, he affirmed that his questions came from his constituents, as they were really excited to have the great park, Floyd Lamb State Park, so close for them to use.
Mr. Knight chose to make another point. Speaking to Mr. Christensen, he stated that the questions were very important and valid. The city was hoping that, in the scope of services for the Northwest Regional Open Space Plan, the city had also asked for implementation plans including funding. The planning effort would be asked to address Floyd Lamb State Park, as well as many of the other open space opportunities in the northwest.
Assemblywoman Pierce wondered if, currently, a fee was required to enter Floyd Lamb State Park. Mr. Knight nodded in the affirmative.
Assemblyman Collins could not recall how many acres were developed close to Floyd Lamb State Park currently. He thought, perhaps, it was 60 to 80 acres. The state owned 640 acres, roughly. If that state land were doubled in size, it needed to be maintained in its passive rural nature with the trees and ponds. That would be true even if it were expanded to 5000 acres. North Las Vegas Airport was owned by Clark County but still titled with the city’s name. Floyd Lamb State Park would not be a problem in terms of its name, he believed. One of the things that should be considered was, when changed to a city or a county park, it would disappear off the map, which would reduce tourism opportunities. The park could also include camping possibilities and other more long-term use opportunities on that large facility, especially with a shooting range and tournaments that might also happen there. He did not know if it could still be called a state park and allow it to be run by the city.
Regarding the budget, it was obvious that the state of Nevada had not been able to do what would have satisfied the people who used the park. His first reaction for quite some time was opposition for the transfer to the city for fear of development of the BLM property. At the present time, however, he had decided that it would be in the greater interest to the people in the area to improve that facility than what would be seen from Carson City and the main offices of State Lands. Although Carson City generated the dollars for that park, they could not see that park, so it looked like it did currently. He thought the people in Las Vegas, who were much closer and more often visiting the park, would do a better job of making the park more user-friendly, more accessible, and more usable. He appreciated that there was an investment being made for the Northwest Regional Open Space Planning group to meet and act, stated Mr. Collins.
Moving the equestrian park acreage into the park might go along with the trails system better. The trails system was already planned for the park. If S.B. 444 were passed, he wondered how long it would take the state and the city to work out a transfer. He asked Mr. Knight to specify again when the consultant would be chosen.
Mr. Knight stated that the consultant would be selected on the following Wednesday. To develop a plan would require just about 12 months. The city had chosen not to be in a hurry, to gather as much public input as possible, and to be very diligent that all bases were covered in the planning process. It was the city’s hope that it would be able to set a 20-year vision for the open space in the northwest. Additionally, when the plan was adopted, the city hoped that most of the people in the area would agree with the plan. It would take anywhere from 12 to 15 months for development of a plan, and, after that, the city and the state would begin the negotiating process.
Chairman Manendo had no further witnesses signed in to testify either for or against Senate Bill 444. He closed the hearing on S.B. 444.
The Chair asked Mr. Collins, for his own clarification, about his proposed amendment on page 2, regarding the “name change by statute.” If the statute part were left in the bill, Mr. Collins was asking to add that it would require a two-thirds majority vote.
Mr. Collins affirmed that was correct. He explained that a bill had already been passed out of the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources that required a two-thirds vote as was stated in the same NRS Chapter. By amending S.B. 444 to require a two-thirds vote, it would not conflict with the other bill passed out of committee. The name change issue was being addressed in another bill as well. He hoped to make voting for name changes parallel.
The Chair wondered what the reasoning had been in Natural Resources for proposing a two-thirds vote. He noted that a two-thirds vote in the Assembly was reserved for tax issues.
Assemblyman Collins replied that, on several occasions in the past years, there had been efforts to attempt to change names of state parks and other facilities. Some people, as time passed, forgot how important it was and how much was accomplished for the state by the namesakes of those facilities. Mr. Lamb had just passed away last summer, and Mr. Collins had attended his funeral. Many people with positions in the state and in southern Nevada also attended. In a few years, those people would also be gone, and so few would remember. He wanted to keep the legacy alive and as firmly implanted as he could.
The Chair asked if the other bill Mr. Collins had referred to earlier was still in the Committee on Natural Resources.
Assemblyman Collins believed it had been amended and passed out of Committee and was headed for the Floor. Mr. Collins also wanted to emphasize the importance of keeping the state lands rural and passive. Asking that roughly ten percent of the northwest land remain passive and rural did not seem too much to ask. Floyd Lamb State Park included only 640 acres of the approximate 5000 acres available for open space. It seemed extremely important to him that the area maintain the passive state of trees, ponds, grass, fishing, bird-watching, camping, shooting, and picnicking for a fast-growing community. That would be excellent in an area that would gain another million people in the near future.
Chairman Manendo, having no further business for the Committee, adjourned the meeting at 12:16 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Nancy Haywood
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: