MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
May 7, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:16 a.m., on Wednesday, May 7, 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. 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 P. Williams (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Clark County District No. 5
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
JoAnn Aldrich, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Greg Smith, Deputy Administrator, State Purchasing Division
Alvin P. Kramer, Treasurer, Carson City Treasurer’s Office
Steve K. Walker, Walker and Associates, representing Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA)
Andrew Alan List, Policy and Research Coordinator, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO)
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County
Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant, Elko County
Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County
Senate Bill 280 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing awarding of state purchasing contracts. (BDR 27-846)
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Clark County District No. 5, said she would explain the genesis of the bill, and Greg Smith, State Purchasing Division, would fill in the details.
Senator Tiffany reported that the idea for S.B. 280 started with a billion dollar contract for advertising and marketing that the State Department of Transportation let to a California company. The Senator said she received many calls from advertising company executives who were outraged that a billion‑dollar contract would go to California when capable companies in Nevada could have provided the service. She said that it was not the first time that kind of thing had happened, although, with public works contracts, a bidders’ preference was traditionally allowed for Nevada businesses. Senator Tiffany said that the State Purchasing Department had developed and proposed a solution in the form of S.B. 280 that would support an instate preference for Nevada businesses. She said, if Nevadans were capable of providing the service, she would like to see the money stay in Nevada.
Greg Smith, Deputy Administrator, State Purchasing Division, said that the Purchasing Division wholeheartedly supported S.B. 280. The reciprocity language included in the bill attempted to address the fact that 22 states now had instate preference laws, and 34 states had reciprocity laws. Reciprocity language meant that, if a vendor from another state had a 5 percent instate vendor preference, and if that vendor proposed to do business with the state of Nevada, Nevada would impose a reciprocal penalty on their score. In this case, Nevada would add 5 percent to the cost of their score. He said that New York had taken it a step further: they would no longer accept proposals from states with instate preferences. These conditions were essentially an attempt to keep the playing field level, and to recognize that the value of a dollar with a Nevada business had slightly more value politically and economically within the state.
Chairman Manendo asked if Mr. Smith would review the fiscal note for the Committee.
Mr. Smith said that the fiscal note had been removed because the relevant language had been deleted during the amendment process.
Assemblyman Grady asked for clarification as to the meaning of the “insofar as practical” language on page 1, line 12.
Mr. Smith mentioned the term “weasel language,” and offered the opinion that this language would allow some flexibility when addressing reciprocal penalties. He said that purchasing services were not always as quantifiable as buying staplers. He said services were normally evaluated based on at least 5 or 6 criteria. Mr. Smith said that the “insofar as practical” language, which had been crafted by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), would allow flexibility in deciding how to impose penalties.
Assemblyman Collins asked if this was a two-way street, or, in other words, did states adjacent to Nevada have less stringent requirements, or would this bill mainly benefit Nevada contractors. Mr. Smith said that it was “just to services and just to the benefit side.”
Mr. Collins asked, since Nevada had instate preference laws, if an adjacent state had less stringent preference laws, if they would be able to bid. Mr. Smith said that Nevada did not have preference laws, except for public works construction projects, which his office did not handle. The language in this bill referred to purchase of services.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked Senator Tiffany if the bidder preferences were 5 percent on public works projects. He wondered why there would not be a fixed percentage on this issue. He was “a little concerned about the weasel route.”
Senator Tiffany said that a fixed percent was originally part of the bill, and that had created the fiscal note. Since Nevada had an instate preference, it often prevented Nevada companies from getting out-of-state contracts in the other 35 states with reciprocity laws. She said that a fixed percent did not provide the equal playing field that they had envisioned, and that had motivated the State Purchasing Division to develop the idea of reciprocity. She said they started with a bill that proposed an instate preference law, but they discovered that states with reciprocity laws could and would use our instate preference to impose a penalty on Nevada, when Nevada bid on projects in those states. The fixed percentage approach had created an $18 million fiscal note, so they eliminated that provision.
Mr. Smith said, “The sword cuts both ways.” He was concerned that, in their zeal to mandate a bidding preference to Nevada vendors, since there was more business available outside Nevada than inside Nevada, if the proposed legislation only addressed instate preference, it would actually penalize Nevada vendors’ bidding on projects in Arizona, California, Utah, and other states. The reciprocity language that was added to this bill was an attempt to “relevel” the playing field.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked what would be gained by passing this bill if, by implementing instate preferences, Nevada had to readjust again to level out the playing field.
Senator Tiffany explained the concept, using California as an example. She said that California’s instate preferences were the worst she had seen. In order to bid on a California contract, a Nevada business had to have an office in California, do a minimum amount of business in California, and more. She said that California would not have qualified for the billion-dollar contract if the reciprocity language proposed in this bill had been in effect at that time. This bill would have given Nevada companies the edge. That was why it made sense: States like California, which made it prohibitive for Nevadan companies to qualify and bid on California jobs, would no longer be able to do business with us, using their own rules.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked how it would impact a Nevada vendor trying to bid on California contracts, if they had to comply with those guidelines.
Senator Tiffany explained that was exactly why it was so difficult for Nevadans to bid services in California. It was extremely restrictive. Nevadans did not win many bids in California, for that reason.
Assemblyman Knecht said he respected the innovative approach, but he could not support it. He said it was another free trade/fair trade innovation. Nevada would remove California bidders from the list in order to level the playing field. It would only work if removing California from the list caused that state to remove the instate preference.
If that strategy did not cause California to remove their instate preference law – and Mr. Knecht said he did not think it would because Nevada was not big enough in comparison – the net effect would be that Nevada taxpayers would be deprived of the benefit of potentially lower bids from California firms. Therefore, in the end, Nevada would pay more for services. He said that if Nevada had the leverage, it would be a great idea because, if enough states imposed that kind of “negative reverse preference,” states with instate preference laws would realize that those laws were bad for business and would eventually eliminate them. However, Mr. Knecht did not think that would happen. He said, “Insisting on the myth of fair trade means we could end up harming our own people.”
Chairman Manendo asked if there were some way that he might support it.
Assemblyman Knecht said if there were a trigger for the proposed legislation, such that when the other surrounding states, or 3 or 4 of them, had similar legislation, then this bill would go into effect in Nevada.
Senator Tiffany said she did not believe she would change Mr. Knecht’s mind or his vote. She said that this legislation did not preclude Nevada from taking the lowest bid, but, all other things being equal, the business should stay in Nevada. She said it was the best of all worlds. She said instate preferences and reciprocity laws were the trend. That trend would not mean lower quality nor would it prevent Nevada from accepting low bids.
Although he had articulated a position, Assemblyman Knecht said his mind was open. For example, if his understanding of Section 1, page 1, were correct, if Oregon had a 5 percent preference for instate firms and an Oregon firm bid in Nevada, a 5 percent penalty would be added to the Oregon bid. If Oregon’s bid were 3 percent lower prior to the penalty, then their overall bid would be 2 percent higher in the end. Oregon would not get the contract, and the second-place firm whose bid had actually been 3 percent higher than Oregon’s bid would get the contract. As a result, Nevada taxpayers would pay 3 percent more for the service.
Mr. Smith said he was correct in that observation. He offered the Committee a list of the 50 states and the kinds of preference laws they had, if any. He said that all the states surrounding Nevada imposed penalties on Nevada businesses. The only exception, Arizona, was currently considering imposing penalties in various forms. Arizona currently placed restrictions on out-of-state firms doing business in Arizona, which resulted in a local businesses preference. Oregon had a law that there would be no out-of-state printing, so Nevada printing firms could not do business with Oregon.
Assemblyman Knecht said that these instate preference provisions still hurt their own residents and hurt taxpayers. He called it “special interest legislation and treatment,” and was not persuaded that it would work. Although, he recognized that part of the problem was that Nevada was the “little guy.”
There were no questions and no additional testimony, so Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on S.B. 280.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 280.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED AND MR. KNECHT AND MR. McCLEARY VOTED NO. (Mr. Williams was absent.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Assemblyman Goicoechea to present on the Floor.
Senate Bill 54: Revises provisions relating to collection of delinquent charges for certain services provided by certain counties. (BDR 20-979)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on S.B. 54.
Alvin P. Kramer, Treasurer, Carson City Treasurer’s Office, said that he appreciated Senator Mark E. Amodei sponsoring S.B. 54 on behalf of the Carson City Treasurer’s Office. Mr. Kramer said that the bill would allow Carson City, or any county other than Clark County, to attach delinquent water, sewer and storm drainage bills to the property owner’s tax bill. He said this would mean he did not have to turn people’s water off for nonpayment. Turning the water off was “too big of a hammer” for the task. Moving collection to the tax bill would mean they would always get their money, late penalties would be assessed, and they would be relieved of the hassle, on both sides, of turning the water off and on.
Mr. Kramer stated that, last year, about half of the water shutoffs in Carson City were to owner-occupied dwellings. He said that homeowners had equity in their property and were motivated not to lose the property to delinquent taxes. Most of the unpaid water bills were due to short-term cash flow problems, or to people being away on vacation. Hence, the water shutoff period was brief and costly, both to the occupant and to the city. Although, reconnect fees were charged, it was not enough to cover the cost of labor involved. He said there were persuasive economic and humanitarian reasons for not using such a heavy hammer if a better collection method could be used. One complication was, when they turned off the water to a house with young children, they had to call Child Protective Services to take custody, which caused other problems. He said this legislation would not preclude turning off the water, but they would at least have a less disruptive and less expensive strategy, which would be effective in most situations.
Chairman Manendo asked about the effect on tenants in mobile home parks, where the owner was responsible for water service. He said he had heard that property owners could collect money for water service from their tenants, but if the property owner then defaulted on paying the water bills, tenants would suffer by having their water turned off, even though nonpayment was not their fault.
Mr. Kramer said that was a two-part problem.
Chairman Manendo wondered aloud if property owners would then turn around and charge their tenants for penalties and fines.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said he believed that S.B. 54 specifically addressed mobile home parks because it was already in county ordinance that a city could collect a water bill and attach it to real property.
Mr. Kramer said that was not correct. He said Nevada law currently stated that a utility company could attach a sewer bill to the tax bill, but the law did not allow storm drainage or water bills to be attached. He was trying to add these options to that section of the law.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said that apparently the statutes were not thoroughly researched because legislative intent had been to create an ordinance that would allow water, storm drainage, and sewer bills to be attached to tax bills. He said that property owners who managed rentals had opposed that measure. Property owners did not want to be forced to pay tenants’ water bills that were in default for nonpayment. He asked how Mr. Kramer would address the problem.
Mr. Kramer said that the only opposition to this bill was from a property manager. He clarified that the bill would only apply if there were already a local ordinance in place designating property owners as being responsible for their tenants’ utility bills. If local law made tenants responsible for utility bills, as in Clark County, then this legislation would not apply there. The opposition they encountered came from a property manager who opposed making him responsible for the utility bills.
Mr. Kramer said he was willing to add a provision to the bill that would allow a property owner to opt out of the local ordinance and pass responsibility for utility bills to their tenants. In that situation, it would still be a benefit because the landlord, not the “mean old city,” would be turning off the water. It would allow the landlords who opted out more leverage to pressure tenants to pay their water bills. He said it was also true that landlords could use that leverage as a tool to evict a tenant. He said he was willing to work with landlords and property management companies to create an exemption list, if necessary. Instead of spending 80 percent of his time on 20 percent of the properties, Mr. Kramer concluded that, with a few exceptions, passing S.B. 54 would definitely streamline the processing of delinquent water bills.
In rural communities, Assemblyman Goicoechea reported that property management companies and property owners with tenants were upset because public works had not been notifying property owners that their tenants were delinquent in paying water bills. In his community, the main issue was timely notification, so that property owners were not suddenly responsible for payment, with no prior knowledge of the problem.
Mr. Kramer said that these were good issues and real issues. The way S.B. 54 was written, it was enabling legislation. In Carson City, delinquency notices were sent to both property owners and tenants. He said that the outreach efforts were very important to making any process work well, and especially if the responsibility for payment was being shifted to another party. He said that the issue was not about extra work for his office to accommodate special interests, but about the greater good of accommodating the needs of decent people.
Mr. Kramer explained that many of the customers who suffered without water were women struggling to care for young children at home. He said that turning off the water was too disruptive and too harsh in most cases. He said that the spectacle of a woman with her children in tow crying at the front counter because she could not afford $100 to turn her water back on was not productive and not good business. He said there was no need for that because attaching utility bills to the property tax bill was a less invasive and more effective collection strategy. He reiterated that at least half of the houses where they shut off the water were owner-occupied. Homeowners would not normally sacrifice their homes to nonpayment of taxes because of a short-term cash flow problem. He felt that the proposed legislation would provide for a more reasonable and more humane alternative for collection of nonpayment of utility bills.
Chairman Manendo asked what the cost was to reconnect, once the water was turned off.
Mr. Kramer said it was $25, and if someone had tampered with the meter the fee went up another $32. By the time he sent a meter reader out to turn off the water, and then out again to turn the water back on, $25 did not cover the cost of time and materials.
Chairman Manendo asked again, what would Mr. Kramer do if the property owner of a 200-space mobile home park were delinquent in paying his water bill, even though tenants had already paid for water service. He asked Mr. Kramer if he would shut off the water to 200 residents, under those conditions.
Mr. Kramer said his understanding was that nowhere in the state would a utility company shut off water to 200 residents. He replied, “Legally, it could be done, but it just would not happen.”
Chairman Manendo asked to see that in writing from every county to which this legislation would apply.
Mr. Kramer said he was trying to get away from turning off the water. This legislation did not point anyone towards turning the water off.
Assemblyman Grady asked if the Carson City Supervisors endorsed this legislation. Mr. Kramer replied yes: 5-0.
Chairman Manendo said he had been reading Mr. Kramer’s past testimony in the Senate, which stated they would turn off the water and charge a reconnect fee before turning the water back on. Mr. Kramer said that was correct, and it did not cover his costs.
Assemblyman Knecht wanted to confirm that Mr. Kramer could legally turn off the water to 200 units in a mobile home park, and that, in that situation, tenants would be at the mercy of negotiations between the landlord and the utility company before the water would be turned back on. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Kramer said that was correct.
Mr. Knecht asked if it was also correct that the landlord could then collect penalties and/or reconnection fees from the tenants, depending on the terms of the lease contracts. He asked if that was also true.
Mr. Kramer said he would not know what happened beyond that point.
Assemblyman Knecht asked if, under those circumstances, S.B. 54 were the law and Carson City had made full use of the provisions of S.B. 54, then Mr. Kramer would not turn off the water because he could roll the utility bill into the property owner’s next tax bill as a special assessment. Mr. Knecht asked if that process would allow the water service to be uninterrupted for tenants.
Mr. Kramer replied that was correct.
Assemblyman Knecht said he thought this was a very creative and considerate approach and thanked Mr. Kramer for bringing it to the Committee’s attention. He said he would be happy to support the bill.
Assemblyman Hardy summarized that S.B. 54 would cause fewer water turnoffs, and would use the tax bill as leverage. He extended Mr. Kramer’s analogy of using water turnoff as a “hammer” to include using the property, via the tax bill, as the “anvil.” He asked what were the objections to the bill in the Senate.
Mr. Kramer said he did not know what they were. It passed the Senate Committee on a 5-2 vote.
Chairman Manendo asked if Section 2, line 6, on page 2, was the language Mr. Kramer referred to when he said he could not do both.
Mr. Kramer clarified that the bill language meant he could choose either option. He could either turn the water off, or could move the debt to the tax rolls. He said there were situations, as noted in the handout packet (Exhibit C), in the letter from Monte C. Fast, Executive Director of Friends in Service Helping (FISH), in Carson City, where it was absolutely right to turn off the water. He said Mr. Fast’s opinion was that some people took advantage of the system and spent their money on entertainment, rather than pay their utility bills. For those people, sometimes turning off the water was a better choice. Mr. Kramer said he did not plan to do that, but many people had urged him to use his judgment on a case-by-case basis, in making that choice. Moving the debt to the tax rolls was an alternative strategy to the current method of dealing with delinquent utility bills.
Assemblyman Knecht said he thought Mr. Goicoechea made a good point that this was a rather complex issue, and there was no universal option that would fit every problem. He said that this bill would give local agencies more options and more humane options for dealing with the problems. He felt this bill would significantly improve collection efforts.
Steve K. Walker, Walker and Associates, representing Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA), said they supported this legislation, although they could not use it. Their water connections to users in rental situations were in the renters’ names, so they would need to change the county ordinance before they could effectively utilize the bill. However, as they evolved as a water company, they faced problems similar to Mr. Kramer’s. He said turning the water off and on again was not working. He anticipated they would be able to make use of the bill eventually, once the county ordinance was changed. He said TMWA supported the bill and supported that it was enabling legislation.
There were no further questions and no further testimony, so Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on S.B. 54 and opened the hearing on S.B. 145.
Senate Bill 145 (1st Reprint): Revises uses of and interests in federal land that board of county commissioners may apply for and accept. (BDR 20-172)
Andrew Alan List, Policy and Research Coordinator, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), gave some background on the evolution of the bill (Exhibit D). He said that Nevada operated on what was called “Dillon’s Rule.” Dillon’s Rule was named after John Dillon, Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court in the late 1800s. In 1868, he offered an opinion in the case of Merriam v. Moody’s Executors, in which it was stated:
It must be taken for settled law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers and no others:
1. Those granted in express words.
2. Those necessarily implied or necessarily incident to the powers expressly granted.
3. Those absolutely essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation, not simply convenient, but indispensable.
4. Any fair doubt as to the existence of the power as resolved by the courts against the corporation, against the existence of the power.
Mr. List said that was known as Dillon’s Rule, and only a few states still operated under Dillon’s Rule. Of the 48 states with viable county governments, 37 had granted some measure of self-governance to the counties, normally in the form of enabling home rule or charter county legislation. Nevada is one of the 11 states that did not have that sort of flexibility.
S.B. 145 sought county authority in an area that was vital to the expansion of recreational opportunities in Clark County. The bill would allow counties to accept land grants, leases, and patents from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and from the United States Forest Service (USFS), pursuant to certain federal laws. Under the current Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) provisions, read strictly by the various district attorneys and by the counties, counties were not allowed to comply with certain terms in federal land use or conveyance contracts. To illustrate exactly how this law had functioned in Clark County, he referred the Committee to Dan Musgrove.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, said that the Clark County District Attorney was of the opinion NRS 244.277 only allowed the county to grant indemnification to the federal government for rights-of-way, hence the county had a problem utilizing Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) land, which was handled by the BLM.
For example, although the lease with the BLM had expired for Camp Lee Canyon, usage had been granted under a special use permit. The problem, said Mr. Musgrove, was that the BLM required indemnification of lessees, such as Clark County. In other words, Clark County would need to indemnify BLM against any liability for things that might happen to the property, such as fire. He said Clark County was very willing to do that, but the Clark County District Attorney held to a strict interpretation of the law and did not believe that Clark County had the right to grant an indemnification for a lease, although indemnifications for road rights-of-way were common.
Because of these laws, Clark County was in danger of losing Camp Lee Canyon, or any other property they might wish to lease under the R&PP Act, such as new parklands or lands that might become available under the Southern Nevada Lands Act for recreational uses. Clark County stood to lose the opportunity to lease those lands because they did not have the ability to indemnify the federal government. S.B. 145 would add language to NRS 244.277 that would authorize counties to indemnify the federal government for leases, patents, and special use permits for parks, forests, and public properties.
Assemblyman Knecht said he had an observation. He said Dillon’s Rule was the correct legal starting point, but as good public policy, the bill reflected what Nevada ought to do to empower local governments. Being a proponent of home rule, Mr. Knecht said he would support this bill.
Holly P. Gordon, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, faxed her testimony to Carson City as the hearing was not videoconferenced in Las Vegas. She had hoped to testify from Las Vegas in support of S.B. 145 (Exhibit E). Legislative Counsel Bureau representative, Melisa Aguon, requested that it be added to the record. Ms. Gordon’s written testimony follows:
Justification for Request:
Currently, NRS 244.277 (enacted in 1977) allows counties to agree to federal requirements for grants of right-of-way pursuant to Title V of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Such federal requirements provide that grantees of rights-of-way (such as counties) must indemnify the United States against certain claims and liabilities arising from such grants. By enacting NRS 244.277, the Nevada Legislature granted counties the authority to agree to federal requirements in right-of-way grants, including indemnification of the United States.
The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP Act) authorizes the BLM to lease federal land at virtually no cost to political subdivisions, and Clark County has found it fiscally desirable to lease BLM land for parks projects. The federal regulations promulgated in connection with the R&PP Act do not require indemnification from the lessee (unless the land will be used for a landfill, in which case indemnification of the United States by the lessee is required); nevertheless, the regional BLM office has included language in its leases requiring the lessee (the County) to provide the United States with a blanket indemnification for claims or liabilities arising from dust pollution and soil contamination on the proposed leasehold.
The Nevada Legislature has granted the counties no statutory authority to indemnify the United States in connection with R&PP leases, so entering into such leases has posed a legal problem. A series of meetings in 2001 and 2002 between the Clark County District Attorney’s office and local BLM officials and the BLM solicitor finally resulted in the BLM modifying its indemnification language in park leases in such a manner that was deemed legally acceptable by both parties, enabling Clark County to legally enter into such leases. However, there is no guarantee that the BLM will not revert to the old language that was unacceptable to the County. Therefore, it is necessary to add some language to NRS 244.277, which will allow counties to agree to federal requirements in R&PP leases for parks. Additionally, the new language will authorize counties to agree to the federal regulation requiring indemnification for leases or patents of BLM land for use as landfills.
Additionally, a problem has arisen in connection with a U.S. Forest Service special use permit. Camp Lee Canyon in the Spring Mountains is a part of the Clark County park system. For many years, the County has occupied that land pursuant to a Forest Service special use permit. That permit has expired and the Forest Service is requiring that the County sign a new permit. A federal regulation, 36 CFR 251.56, requires the Forest Service to require permit holders to indemnify the United States against losses that the United States may suffer as a result of claims arising from the holder’s use or occupancy of the land. The Nevada Legislature has granted the counties no statutory authority to indemnify the United States, and the Forest Service has no authority, because of the regulation, to modify its indemnification requirement and has no interest in revising or rescinding the regulation. With the regulation in its present form, in order for the County to be legally able to sign the new special use permit, it must have the legal authority to comply with that regulation requiring it to indemnify the United States. Therefore, it is necessary to add some language to NRS 244.277, which will allow counties to agree to federal requirements contained in Forest Service special use permits.
Chairman Manendo asked if there were questions; hearing none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 145.
After a short break, Chairman Manendo called the Committee back to order at 9:46 a.m. The Chairman noted that Saturday’s meeting in Las Vegas would begin at 9:00 a.m., and he expected it would adjourn around 1:00 p.m., at the latest. Tentatively, Assemblypersons Pierce, Hardy, Atkinson, Knecht, Weber, Collins, and Koivisto would attend in Las Vegas. Assemblypersons McCleary, Grady, and Goicoechea would attend via teleconference from Carson City.
Chairman Manendo said he would entertain a motion on S.B. 145, which was heard earlier today.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 145.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Williams was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo assigned Assemblywoman Pierce to present the bill on the Floor. He said the bill-hearing portion of the meeting had ended, and the rest of the meeting would be a work session.
Senate Bill 146: Revises provisions governing purchasing contracts of local governments. (BDR 27-321)
Chairman Manendo turned the Committee’s attention to the work session documents (Exhibit F) and asked Ms. Scholley to summarize.
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said that S.B. 146 was sponsored by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of NACO (Nevada Association of Counties), and heard by this Committee on May 1, 2003. This bill would exempt local governments from the requirements of competitive bidding contracts if the vendor had entered into an agreement with the General Services Administration or another governmental agency located within or outside the State of Nevada. In addition, the measure authorized local governments to join or use contracts of another state or its subdivisions. An amendment was proposed by Tom Skancke, representing the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors’ Authority, which would exempt commercial advertising within recreational facilities operated by a county fair and recreation board. According to his testimony, the proposed amendment would affect only Clark County and Washoe County convention authorities. A mock-up of the proposed amendments was attached to the work session document. There was no opposition to the bill and no fiscal impact at the state or local level.
In the mock-up, the amendments on page 2 would add commercial advertising within a recreational facility to the list of other activities that would be exempt from local purchasing requirements. Lines 12 through 13, on page 3 of the bill, proposed the repeal of six sections of NRS, which were attached to the mock-up. Those sections would no longer be necessary because of the amendments.
Assemblyman Collins asked if this bill conflicted with the bill they heard earlier, which was presented by Senator Tiffany. Ms. Scholley said that they were not aware of any conflict.
Chairman Manendo asked if Mr. Collins wanted to take time to research that potential conflict. Mr. Collins responded that he did not.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said he had the same concern, but the subject of discussion in S.B. 146 was local government, and the subject of S.B. 280 was state government. There would not be a conflict unless S.B. 280 was extended to local governments.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 146.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Williams was absent.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Mr. Hardy to present on the Floor.
Senate Bill 176 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes regarding planning and zoning. (BDR 22-583)
Chairman Manendo turned to S.B. 176 and asked Ms. Scholley to summarize the status of the bill.
Ms. Scholley stated that S.B. 176, in its first reprint, was sponsored by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of Washoe County and was heard by the Committee on April 25, 2003. S.B. 176 required a local governing body to designate an individual to be responsible for preparing a certificate stating that notice had been given for particular matters as listed in the bill. Further, the bill included counties whose populations were greater than 100,000, which would be Carson, Douglas, and Elko Counties. Within the notice requirements for zoning boundary amendments, the notice requirements were expanded to include persons within 750 feet, up from 500 feet, and to include tenants in mobile home parks. S.B. 176 also changed the dates that would trigger certain deadlines for subdivision maps, from the date of presentation for recordation to the actual date of recordation.
Ms. Scholley said that Dan Musgrove, representing Clark County, had proposed an amendment to clarify the scope of the certificate and the extent of its assurances. The Chairman had asked that the parties work with Assemblyman Atkinson on a resolution of the issue. The parties, with the concurrence of Mr. Atkinson, had prepared a shortened version of the notice certification, which was attached to the work session documents (Exhibit F). A mock-up was provided, which included the amendment on the first page. There was no opposition to the bill. There was a fiscal impact to local government, but no impact to state government.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said he did not believe that the three counties listed by Ms. Scholley would be affected because they were all under 100,000 in population.
Ms. Scholley apologized for the error and said that Mr. Goicoechea was correct. Washoe County and Clark County would be the only two counties affected.
Assemblyman Hardy asked for a clarification regarding page 2 of the mock-up, lines 30-31. He said that some of the language addressed populations of less than 100,000 and some language addressed populations of more than 100,000. He said that might have caused some of the confusion.
Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant, Elko County, clarified for the record that, at last count, the population of Elko was 44,000.
Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, said that those issues, which determined populations of greater than or less than 100,000, were fixed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau for actions taken by this Committee and by the Legislature last session. She said they had forgotten to include certain counties in the original legislation, and these population limits were intended to clarify the existing legislation that was passed last session.
Assemblyman Atkinson said he was satisfied with the amendments.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 176.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Williams was absent.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Mr. Goicoechea to present on the Floor.
Senate Bill 451 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding format of certain documents filed in office of county recorder. (BDR 20-293)
Chairman Manendo turned his attention to S.B. 451 and asked Ms. Scholley to summarize the status of the bill.
Ms. Scholley said that S.B. 451, in its first reprint, was sponsored by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the County Fiscal Officers Association and was heard by the Committee on May 2, 2003.
S.B. 451 would revise the format of certain documents that were filed with the Office of the County Recorder and authorized a $25 fee for recording a document that did not meet those standards. Maps, certificates, affidavits of death, military discharges, or documents issued by the IRS regarding taxes were not included within these formatting requirements.
Representatives of Clark County and Washoe County had requested an amendment to delete Section 3 of the bill, which related to the expenditures from the technology fund, on the basis that they did not wish to require that the county commissioners must approve whatever a county recorder deemed appropriate.
Section 3 of the bill would essentially require county commissioners to approve any and all technology purchases proposed by a county recorder, as long as the items were to be used in the recorders’ offices and would be financed by the technology fund. Section 3 of the bill would add language that those purchases could be made “in any manner deemed appropriate by the county recorder.”
Ms. Scholley explained that deleting Section 3 from the proposed bill would not delete the existing Section 3 in the current statute, NRS 247.306. A copy of NRS 247.306 was attached to the work session documents (Exhibit F) in order to demonstrate how the statute would read if the amendment passed and Section 3 was deleted from the bill.
Ms. Scholley said there was opposition to the bill from Clark County and from Washoe County because of Section 3 of the bill, but there was no opposition to Section 1 or Section 2 of the bill. There was no fiscal impact at the local or state government level.
Ms. Scholley said that her understanding was that agreement had not been reached whether to keep or to delete Section 3, but the parties were willing to put the matter to a vote at this time. She reminded the Committee that county recorders did need approval of the language in Sections 1 and 2 to complete the revision of their statutes, which were scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2003.
Assemblyman Grady said, for the record, that he had received an e-mail from Kathryn L. Burke, Washoe County Recorder, urging the Committee not to include the Clark County amendment.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked him to clarify that. Mr. Grady said that the Clark County amendment would delete Section 3, and Ms. Burke would like to revert to existing language.
Ms. Scholley clarified that the proposed Section 3 in the bill would allow county recorders to spend technology fund monies as they wished, and the county commissioners would have to approve.
The Clark County amendment proposed to delete Section 3 of the bill, which meant that Section 3 would revert to the current statutory language that would require county recorders to submit their proposed expenditures to the county commissioners, who would have the discretion of whether to approve or not. County recorders liked the way the bill was written now, being able to spend the money as they wished, and not subject to veto by the county commissioners. Clark County would delete Section 3 of the bill and revert to existing statutory language, and retain county commissioners’ authority to approve or disapprove expenditures from the technology account.
Kathryn L. Burke, Washoe County Recorder, and Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk Recorder, would like a do pass action. Clark County would like an amend and do pass action to delete Section 3 of the bill.
Assemblyman Goicoechea clarified that the amendment was to delete Section 3 from the bill. He asked if Mr. Grady did not want to allow that amendment. Mr. Grady said he was just relaying an e-mail message from Ms. Burke. Personally, he would rather see the bill pass than argue about Section 3.
Assemblyman Hardy said they needed to pass Sections 1 and 2, no matter what else happened. Mr. Hardy asked Mr. Atkinson why Clark County Commissioners wanted the recorders’ issues in their budget.
Assemblyman Atkinson said he was not Clark County’s lobbyist, and, perhaps, Mr. Musgrove should answer that question.
Mr. Musgrove explained that there were provisions in the law that specified that the technology fund belonged to the recorders and had to be used for their purposes and projects, as they saw fit. What Clark County wanted was that they continue to use the current process, whereby county commissioners would review and approve the requested expenditures through the normal budget process. If Section 3 of the bill passed, it would give the recorders the authority to spend the funds however they wished, with no approval and with no review for compatibility with existing computer and other systems. He said a $5 million technology upgrade was about $3 million completed, and that upgrade was requested by a previous recorder. The new recorder wanted to scrap that system and do something else.
Assemblyman Atkinson explained to Mr. Hardy that the recorders were elected every four years, and that newly elected officials could change the systems arbitrarily, which would be a waste of taxpayers’ money. He said the existing language was necessary and recommended deleting Section 3 of the bill.
Mr. Musgrove said Clark County’s intent was to leave the existing Section 3 and not to replace it with Section 3 in the proposed bill.
Assemblyman Grady said they needed to move this bill. He asked if, as a compromise, Clark County would agree to have the report to the commissioners prior to the expenditure rather than afterwards.
Mr. Musgrove pointed out that the commissioners would still have no say as to how the funds were spent. “Informing” was not the same as having checks and balances in place that all recorders had agreed on. He said there was no rationale behind replacing the existing Section 3, and the system was working because of existing checks and balances.
Assemblyman Atkinson said everyone, including recorders, had to submit a budget. He said he continued to support Sections 1 and 2.
Assemblyman Goicoechea agreed that commissioners should approve all purchases, the budget process should be followed, and checks and balances should remain.
Assemblyman Christensen asked, “You like the bill and the amendment?”
Assemblyman Goicoechea agreed that he did.
Mr. Christensen said he also supported the bill and the amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 451, KEEPING SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE BILL, AND DELETING SECTION 3 OF THE BILL.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Williams was absent.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Assemblyman Atkinson to present on the Floor.
Senate Bill 452 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing enterprise funds for building permit fees. (BDR 31-838)
Chairman Manendo called the meeting back to order at 10:56 a.m. He noted that, for the record, Mr. McCleary wished to have his vote on S.B. 451 recorded as a “Yes” vote.
The Chairman then turned to S.B. 452 and asked Ms. Scholley to summarize the status of the bill (Exhibit F).
Ms. Scholley stated that S.B. 452, in its first reprint, was sponsored by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs and was heard in this Committee on May 2, 2003.
S.B. 452 would redefine a barricade permit to mean the official document issued by the building official of a local government, which authorized the placement of barricades or structures within a right-of-way. The bill also added a definition of “encroachment permit” to NRS Chapter 354. In addition, the measure would replace the reference in NRS Chapter 354 to the Consumer Price Index with the “Western Urban Nonseasonally Adjusted” Consumer Price Index. There were no amendments, no opposition, and no fiscal impacts.
Mr. McCleary said he thought this was a good bill because it would take the proceeds and revenues generated from fees deposited by the industry, and earmark that revenue to help fund services that those departments provided. He urged his colleagues to vote for the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 452.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Williams was absent.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the bill to Assemblyman McCleary to present on the Floor.
Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 11:04 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JoAnn Aldrich
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: