MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-second Session

March 17, 2003

 

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:09 p.m., on Monday, March 17, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Warren B. Hardy II

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Joseph Bozsik, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration

Bert Ramos, Northern Nevada Latino Network

Otto Merida, Commission on Economic Development, and Executive Director, Latin Chamber of Commerce

E. Louis Overstreet, Executive Director, Urban Chamber of Commerce

Margarita Rebollal, Executive Director, East Las Vegas Community Development Corporation

Elena Brady, Asian American Republican Club of Nevada

Valerie M. Rosalin, R.N., Director, Bureau for Hospital Patients, The Governor’s Office for Consumer Health Assistance

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County

Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities

Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties

 

Senator O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 173.

 

SENATE BILL 173: Exempts certain licensing boards from State Budget Act and certain provisions governing financial administration. (BDR 31-506)

 

John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, stated, in the 71st Session, the Nevada Legislature approved removing the occupational boards for architects, accountants, and engineers from the requirements of chapter 353 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), which was the State Budget Act, and chapter 353A of NRS which were statutes dealing with administration’s internal audit functions, internal accounting systems, and administrative controls. The Legislature instead required occupational boards under NRS 218.825, “… shall engage the services of a certified public accountant or public accountant, or firm of either of such accountants, to audit all its fiscal records 1 each year for the preceding fiscal year or once every other year for the 2 preceding fiscal years …” When the changes were made in the 71st Session, two boards were left out, which he stated S.B. 173 now included, the Private Investigator’s Licensing Board and the Board for the Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas.

 

Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Comeaux if S.B. 173 mirrored the language in A.B. No. 569 of the 71st Session and added the Private Investigators Licensing Board and the Board for the Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas. Mr. Comeaux said Senator O’Connell was correct.

 

Senator Tiffany questioned if S.B. 173 was good policy. She used the Medical Board of Examiners as an example. Senator Tiffany stated a bill existed which would require a review of the Medical Board of Examiners reserve account and gauge whether the reserve was reasonable. Senator Tiffany mentioned other boards have excess reserve money, but the Legislature had not seen it. Auditing was done in such a way that reserve accounts were hidden, she noted. Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Comeaux if he thought current auditing practices were good policy.

 

Mr. Comeaux said he believed current auditing practices were good policy. He noted a board could be instructed to include an independent audit review of any information the Legislature would want. Mr. Comeaux said it was not a good use of time for his office or the Legislature to review the boards when the Legislature could require the boards to pay for an independent auditor to do it for them.

 

Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Comeaux if he believed the Legislature’s control was its ability to require, through statute, the inclusion of specific information in independent audits. Mr. Comeaux indicated, yes. Every board was a creature of the Legislature, therefore the Legislature could require each board to report any specified information, Mr. Comeaux concluded.

 

Senator Tiffany noted a single audit was different than the performance audits done by the Legislature. She said performance audits had a tendency to provide more information into the internal workings of a budget, which would provide the Legislature with more of the needed details.

 

Mr. Comeaux said he did not believe there was anything in S.B. 173 preventing the Legislature from sending legislative auditors to review a particular board. He noted, S.B. 173 would only eliminate the reporting requirements under the State Budget Act and in the Executive Branch audit.

 

Senator Tiffany added the Legislature would still have to instruct legislative auditors to review a board and Mr. Comeaux agreed.

 

Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 173 and opened the hearing on S.B. 249.

 

SENATE BILL 249: Creates Nevada Commission on Minority Affairs. (BDR 18‑766)

 

Bert Ramos, Northern Nevada Latino Network, stated there are many different organizations throughout the State representing many ethnic groups, but there was no single voice to direct toward the Legislature or Governor. He said
S.B. 249 would promote economic stability through education initiatives. He further noted, many states, including but not limited to Idaho, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, had commissions on minority affairs. Mr. Ramos continued by stating the commission could act as an ombudsman for the minority community, an assistant for the Legislature, and help to inform, educate, and integrate communities.

 

Mr. Ramos stated S.B. 249 was a good bill, but the 1-year term limit for the chairman and vice-chairman was too short. He noted he did not believe the term limits for officers of the commission were feasible, due to the extensive work the officers would need to undertake. Senate Bill 249 would help the State save money because the commission would promote English language programs to increase literacy within the minority communities, Mr. Ramos noted. He concluded, literacy at a young age would help reduce remedial coursework in schools.

 

In response to Senator O’Connell’s question asking Mr. Ramos to expand on how S.B. 249 would save the State money, Mr. Ramos said the commission would work to increase literacy and if everybody were literate from a young age, remedial teaching would stop. The State savings could be seen in the reduction of remedial course work, he noted.

 

Senator O’Connell asked how the commission would increase literacy.

 

Mr. Ramos answered the commission could participate in outreach programs, sponsored by various organizations, for parents. He stated most high-risk schools were schools where parents do not participate in helping their children speak English.

 

Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Ramos if he was aware of the State-provided English classes, and if so, were they adequate.

 

Mr. Ramos responded, it was not the fault of the programs. He noted, it had to be the responsibility of parents. A grassroots approach to English literacy had to be taken for it to be successful, he concluded.

 

Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Ramos how the commission was going to be funded. He suggested the Legislature might consider State financing, but acknowledging the State’s current budget difficulties, said private investors would be sought, if necessary.

 

Senator Tiffany said she was unclear whether Mr. Ramos wanted a fiscal note, and if so, S.B. 249 would have to be rereferred to the committee on finance. Mr. Ramos expressed, he was only responding to an opportunity to approach the committee for money, but stated, if he had to raise the money, he would. Mr. Ramos further noted federal grant money was available to help offset commission costs.

 

Senator Tiffany inquired if Mr. Ramos had a place in mind for office space and related equipment. Responding to Senator Tiffany’s question, he noted he had approached several businesses and organizations. Mr. Ramos said he would like two offices, one in Carson City and another in Las Vegas.

 

Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Ramos what he suggested was an adequate term of office for the commission chairman and vice-chairman. Mr. Ramos answered 3 years, but no more than two consecutive terms would be acceptable.

 

Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, clarified the 1-year term limit only applied to those serving as chairman or vice-chairman, and the term of each member was actually 3 years.

 

Senator O’Connell inquired if Mr. Ramos had anything else he could tell the committee about how the commission would be organized. Mr. Ramos responded different constituencies had to be represented. He noted the Asian, Urban, and Latin chambers of commerce in northern and southern Nevada had strong and capable individuals who would be great resources to assist the commission.

 

Senator O’Connell asked if an 11-member board would cover everybody and Mr. Ramos said it would.

 

E. Louis Overstreet, Executive Director, Urban Chamber of Commerce, Las Vegas, stated a causal relationship existed between how Nevada changes and the future prosperity of the State.

Mr. Overstreet said he envisioned a commission that would look at education, contract and employment issues, social service delivery issues, and the criminal justice system. However, he disagreed with Mr. Ramos’s idea that the commission’s role would be to provide direct assistance. He stated the commission should take testimony and report to the Governor’s office and Legislature. Mr. Overstreet noted, given funding availability and staffing requirements, the commission could not provide direct assistance to various constituencies in both northern and southern Nevada.

 

Otto Merida, Executive Director, Latin Chamber of Commerce, said he and the Latin Chamber of Commerce fully supported S.B. 249 and the creation of the Commission on Minority Affairs. Mr. Merida said he believed the census count of Nevada’s Hispanic population was inaccurate, and the commission, for example, could have provided a forum to address such an issue and many more concerns. He further noted, the commission could help develop programs and legislation to address many problems facing the minority community in Nevada, including one to combat the large school dropout rate within the minority communities.

 

Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Merida if he had had an opportunity to work with any groups and taken concerns to local school boards or the interim studies focused on education issues.

 

Mr. Merida, answering Senator O’Connell’s question, noted there had not been direct involvement at the local school district level, but in the coming year, the Hispanic community was looking to get more involved. He said he saw the Commission on Minority Affairs as one that could bring issues directly to the Legislature and Governor, especially education issues.

 

Senator O’Connell noted the State each year sent a sum of money to each school district and the district would decide how it was spent.

 

Mr. Overstreet said he would encourage the passage of the performance audit for the Clark County School District. He further noted, recently a blue-ribbon commission stated       a correlation existed between the dropout rate and an increased need for social services and increased interaction with the criminal justice system. Mr. Overstreet concluded, if the dropout rate could be
decreased, the State financial burden from social services and the criminal justice system would be reduced.

 

Margarita Rebollal, Executive Director, East Las Vegas Community Development Corporation, acknowledged her support for S.B. 249. She said the Hispanic community was the youngest and fastest-growing community in Nevada; the community possessed an immense buying power in the growth of any business, members were graduating from high school and entering college at a fast rate, and they were graduating many doctors, attorneys, and engineers. She noted in order for the State to fully appreciate the contributions of the Hispanic community, a commission such as the one being introduced in S.B. 249 was imperative. If Nevada’s Hispanic community and other minority groups could be brought together on specific issues, such as education, housing, banking, business development, political awareness, and employment, tremendous strides forward could be made to support the growth of the State of Nevada, Ms. Rebollal concluded.

 

Elena Brady, Asian American Republican Club of Nevada, stated as a former federal government employee, she noticed irregularities in hiring and firing policies. Ms. Brady said she believed a commission on minority affairs would make everyone aware. She concluded, the commission would provide a forum for minorities to talk about minority issues.

 

Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 249 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 137.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 137: Revises reporting requirements of Bureau for Hospital Patients within Office for Consumer Health Assistance. (BDR 18-474)

 

Valerie M. Rosalin, R.N., Director, Bureau for Hospital Patients, Governor’s Office for Consumer Health Assistance, stated A.B. 137 would revise the reporting requirements for the Bureau for Hospital Patients, which was taken over in July of 2000. She noted it had a different reporting system and time limits under the Consumer Affairs Division of the Department of Business and Industry. Assembly Bill 137 would put the Bureau for Hospital Patients in line with the Governor’s Office for Consumer Health Assistance’s annual reporting, on or before February 1, annually, to the office of the Governor and the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB).

Senator O’Connell asked how the report detailing the accuracy or amount of charges billed to patients was progressing, who would receive the report, and if anyone could access it. Ms. Rosalin responded the report could be accessed by anyone, but was specifically given to the stakeholders, hospitals, the Governor’s office, and LCB. The report was going to be revised because the agency had a vague reporting system when it was taken over, she noted. Ms. Rosalin concluded, data was being made more accurate to get the exact savings they were advocating to each hospital.

 

Senator Tiffany asked if the reports were available to the Legislature in a readable format on the Internet and Ms. Rosalin said they were on the Web site as pie and graph charts clearly showing the numbers.

 

Senator Tiffany inquired if the information given to the Legislature was on the Web site. In response, Ms. Rosalin said charts were, but the narrative was not.

 

Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 137 and opened the work session on S.B. 19.

 

SENATE BILL 19: Makes various changes relating to advertising and awarding contracts for certain smaller public works projects. (BDR 28-409)

 

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, stated an amendment had been heard from Lobbyist Mary Walker and the Associated General Contractors (AGC) regarding S.B. 19, which originated from the study on competition between local governments and private enterprises.

 

Senator Hardy asked why the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) had a different set of criteria for bidding issues. Senator Hardy proposed an amendment to the bill to bring NDOT into compliance with what the public works board had to do, in terms of bidding.

 

Senator O’Connell noted Senator Hardy wanted to include NDOT in the amendment presented by Mary Walker and the AGC.

 

SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 19.

 

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Senator O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 143.

 

SENATE BILL 143: Authorizes certain counties to appoint public property trustee to perform duties of public administrator of county. (BDR 20-419)

 

Mr. Stewart said S.B. 143 authorized certain counties to appoint public property trustees to perform the duties of the county public administrator. He noted Clark County offered an amendment to expand the audit authority to monies and properties entrusted to the care of public administrators. A proposed amendment would replace section 2, specifying qualifications for a public administrator in counties of populations with 400,000 or more.

 

Senator Raggio inquired if the requirements were new. In response, Mr. Stewart said the public property trustee references in the old bill had been deleted and references to qualifications were inserted.

 

Senator Tiffany asked what the Clark County public administrator’s salary was and inquired whether the candidates for public administrator met the qualifications. Mr. Stewart responded, the current public administrator salary was $72,000 per year.

 

Senator Tiffany asked how the qualifications were determined.

 

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated the first section of the proposed amendment gave additional audit power for the monies and property entrusted to the care of the public administrator and the fees or compensation received by the public administrator. The second part, Mr. Musgrove stated, was an idea from the state of Arizona. He noted Arizona had an appointed public fiduciary. Mr. Musgrove said he had proposed an amendment to S.B. 143 to keep the public administrator an elected position, but it was his objective to add qualifications to the position to get a qualified individual to maintain the functions of that office.

 

Mr. Musgrove said the proposed amendment’s bachelors degree in accounting, finance, or business qualification, or the 3 years of full-time professional work experience with wills, trusts, probate law, or creditor claims could both be listed, but that the candidate would not have to meet both requirements.

 

Senator Raggio asked who was the current Clark County public administrator. Mr. Musgrove responded, it was former judge and civil attorney Dan Ahlstrom.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the qualifications would prevent the current public administrator from holding the office. In response, Mr. Musgrove said Mr. Ahlstrom would meet or exceed the current qualifications.

 

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, noted the additional audit power in section 1 of the amendment would be appropriate for Washoe County, and further noted she was not prepared to go forward with the qualification section.

 

Senator Townsend inquired why Ms. Shipman was not prepared to go with the qualifications section. Ms. Shipman answered, the Washoe County board did not approve of the public trustee approach for the public administrator and she had not asked anyone at the county about the new amendment. She said she believed the current Washoe County public administrator was opposed to any changes to his position.

 

Senator Townsend asked Ms. Shipman if the current Washoe County public administrator met the proposed qualifications. Ms. Shipman indicated the public administrator had more than 3 years of experience in the public administrator’s office and she believed he was an attorney.

 

Senator Townsend asked if a law degree, which he noted was an advanced degree, would be considered a similar related field. Mr. Wasserman stated the committee could include a law degree in the language, rather than leaving it up to interpretation.

 

Senator Raggio stated he did not believe the Washoe County public administrator had a law degree. Ms. Shipman said she assumed he did, but stood corrected.

 

Senator Raggio commented, the Washoe county public administrator was a competent individual and said he believed Washoe County should be included in S.B. 143. He suggested the bill should apply to those counties above a population of 100,000. He further suggested section 4, subsections a, b, c, and d of the amendment, be included and either a bachelor’s degree in accounting, finance, business, law, or public administration, or at least 3 years of full-time professional work experience also be included.

 

Mr. Musgrove noted his support for Senator Raggio’s statement.

 

Senator Tiffany suggested if a law degree requirement was included, then “similar related fields” should be removed. She questioned whether a law degree was relevant to the public administrator’s position. Senator O’Connell responded it was relevant.

 

Senator Townsend said he agreed with Senator Tiffany’s suggestion to remove “similar related field” from the language.

 

Senator Care asked what “professional work experience” meant, because he stated, arguably, that would include a paralegal with a high school degree. He also asked if any other statutes required a college degree for elective office.

 

Mr. Musgrove answered he was not aware of any other statutes with such requirements, although, he noted, a constable was required to have Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission (P.O.S.T.) certification.

 

Senator Titus said she supported giving the commission the authority for additional auditing, but did not support adding qualifications for the public administrator. She explained, members of the Board of Regents were not required to have a higher education degree and they were making policy for the university system. Legislators and school board members are not required to meet additional qualifications, Senator Titus noted. She said the public administrator should not be singled out. Senator Titus concluded it was the voters’ responsibility to look at qualifications.

 

Mr. Musgrove remarked, the public administrator had direct control over assets, acting as a fiduciary for people’s estates and the other positions Senator Titus noted were policy-making positions. Mr. Musgrove further noted, the other
positions had many checks and balances involved, and reiterated Jared Shafer’s testimony from a previous hearing: any day at any time he could have written himself a check for $15 million and been gone the next day.

 

Senator Titus said Mr. Shafer had also noted he would not have met any of the qualifications now proposed in S.B. 143, but Senator Titus concluded, everyone said he was a good administrator. Senator Titus said she could not see a reason to include the new qualifications unless evidence was shown of a bad public administrator who was both elected by the voters and had not met the proposed qualifications.

 

Mr. Musgrove stated a previous public administrator had been removed from office after absconding with funds. Every now and then, an individual lacking the experience and ability to properly do the job could be elected, he concluded.

 

Senator O’Connell asked Ms. Shipman if she had a problem with the Washoe county public administrator. Ms. Shipman noted, an interim period of 4 years existed when the public administrator did not attend his office on a daily basis, but noted she could not say whether it was due to incompetence. Ms. Shipman did note it was difficult to obtain records and information from him, not as the public administrator, but as the public guardian. She explained, the public administrator had an additional role acting as an ex-officio public guardian.

 

Senator Raggio asked if a degree could be purchased from a catalog overnight and, if so, how would that affect the qualifications language.

 

Mr. Musgrove answered, he was not sure how to address the issue, but suggested adding “fully accredited” to the language might be a way to answer the problem. Senator Raggio asked by whom would the degree be fully accredited.

 

Mr. Wasserman stated a statute existed which referenced a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university in the United States, but he continued, if that was not sufficiently defined, an acceptable definition of accredited could be created. Mr. Wasserman also noted he assumed the insertion of a law degree into the list of qualified degrees meant a juris doctor, not an undergraduate degree in pre-law.

 

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND THE POPULATION CAP TO INCLUDE WASHOE COUNTY, LEAVE IN SECTION 4, SUBSECTIONS A, B, C, AND D OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, AND TO ALLOW EITHER A DEGREE REQUIREMENT FROM AN ACCREDITED COLLEGE, INCLUDING A DOCTORATE IN LAW, AND WITH THE WORDS SIMILAR RELATED FIELD REMOVED, OR 3 YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE AND DO PASS S.B. 143.

 

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)

 

*****

 

Senator O’Connell closed discussion on S.B. 143 and opened discussion on S.B. 145.

 

SENATE BILL 145: Makes various changes concerning counties. (BDR 20-172)

 

Mr. Musgrove proposed an amendment regarding the interpretation of misdemeanors in light of Senator Raggio’s concerns from a previous hearing. The new language said a board of county commissioners might, by ordinance, provide for a civil penalty in lieu of a criminal penalty for a violation of an ordinance enacted by the board, unless a statute provided a criminal penalty for the same act or omission, Mr. Musgrove stated. Answering a concern of Senator Tiffany’s from a previous hearing, Mr. Musgrove noted the current law would allow employees to prepare, sign, and serve written citations relating to solid waste, building, housing, licensing, zoning, parking, animal control, and traffic. The intent would be to allow the issuance of citations by the public response office (PRO), and those dealing with citizen complaints for code violations such as water pollution, air pollution, unlawful advertisements on residential property, and the sale of graffiti tools to minors. He further noted, under current law, PRO code-enforcement specialists were not able to issue citations for those types of violations, but must request criminal prosecution to the district attorney’s office. The proposal would allow for a civil violation rather than criminal prosecution. He added, the only other area would be air quality, and concluded the only intent was to expand the enforcement of ordinances and citations.

 

Senator Care noted the Clark county commission had considered an ordinance prohibiting the use of cellular phones in cars. He asked if Clark Count could enact such an ordinance and attach a civil penalty, so long as it was not addressed in statute. Mr. Musgrove said he believed the county could.

 

Senator Tiffany expressed concerns for the county having the authority to issue citations and expanding authority over those things not expressly prohibited by the State.

 

Senator Raggio stated if a violation occurred, someone had to be able to give a written citation. Senator Tiffany responded, she had experienced unfriendly building inspectors and did not appreciate their attitudes. Some people in the field have a lot of potential to abuse their authority under certain circumstances, she concluded.

 

Senator Raggio said someone had to be given the authority to issue citations, because the alternative would be to issue an arrest warrant and criminally prosecute. Senator Raggio concluded criminal prosecution was not desirable.

 

Senator Tiffany said she did not disagree with allowing for a misdemeanor or civil penalty, but she disagreed with giving county employees the kind of authority that might be abused. She noted the county could broaden its authority and it could be further abused. Senator Tiffany concluded she objected to the expansive nature of the proposal and the abuse of authority by employees that could take place.

 

Mr. Musgrove responded, the bill did not expand a county’s power to regulate or prosecute criminally. He continued, it would not confer additional peace officer powers not already given to counties by the State. Mr. Musgrove noted Clark County wanted to be able to handle violations as misdemeanors because the only enforcement mechanism was prosecution.

 

Senator Tiffany commented she did not want a building inspector, for example, to issue a citation based on a negative exchange with an individual. It would be easy for the inspector to issue a citation, but they would have to go a long way for criminal prosecution, she commented. Mr. Musgrove responded, every individual would have the right to due process of law to question a citation’s merit. He also noted, public hearings would occur before any powers were extended to county employees, like the formerly proposed cellular phone ordinance that, as a result of public forums, was not approved by the county.

 

Ms. Shipman stated current law already authorized a county to serve citations in the specified fields. She further noted, the difference was a county would not need to approach the State with a specialized, functional area. Broad authority had already been granted under chapter 171 of NRS to specialized, designated officers of counties and cities to enforce ordinances, Ms. Shipman concluded.

 

SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 145 WITH THE VERSION 4 AMENDMENT PROVIDED BY CLARK COUNTY.

 

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Senator O’Connell closed the discussion on S.B. 145 and opened discussion on S.B. 170.

 

SENATE BILL 170: Exempts contracts for public works for school facilities in certain counties from prevailing wage. (BDR 28-61)

 

Mr. Stewart said S.B. 170 pertained to the exemption of school facilities of counties with a population less than 50,000 from prevailing wage requirements.

 

Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, stated S.B. 170 would raise the limit from $100,000 to $300,000, thereby allowing a county to possibly increase the number of projects it could do each year. Senate Bill 170 would not affect Clark or Washoe counties, she noted.

 

Senator O’Connell asked if $300,000 was enough money to build a school in one of the smaller counties. Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, answered it would cost close to $1.25 million to build a small school.

 

Senator Tiffany said she understood the intent of the bill was to pay for small maintenance work and similar things. Ms. Henderson replied, S.B. 170 would assist in small park projects, and possibly some street projects, but would not help with any major facilities, like building a new city hall.

 

Senator O’Connell stated the testimony from Elko had stated S.B. 170 was needed because the prevailing wage requirements were costing an additional 30 percent. She asked if the bill would help with the school districts. In response, Mr. Hadfield noted many facilities in rural Nevada have become older and needed work or needed to be rebuilt. The original intent of S.B. 170 was to help with major repair work, but, he noted, the school maintenance and building issues were much larger than the scope of S.B. 170.

 

Senator Hardy suggested S.B. 170 and S.B. 195 be addressed separately.

 

SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 170.

 

SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)

 

*****

 

Senator O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 195.

 

SENATE BILL 195: Expands exemption from requirements concerning payment of prevailing wage for certain contracts for public works. (BDR 28-341)

 

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND BY RAISING THE LIMIT TO $1 MILLION AND DO PASS S.B. 195.

 

SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)

 

*****

 

Senator O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 236.

SENATE BILL 236: Revises provisions relating to location of halfway houses for recovering alcohol and drug abusers. (BDR 22-90)

 

Mr. Stewart noted the city of Henderson proposed an amendment that would change 500 yards to 1500 feet and language allowing a local governing body to determine where children typically congregate. Mr. Stewart said in the existing laws, regarding halfway houses, the distance was measured in feet rather than yards and concluded the amendment was for consistency.

 

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 236.

 

SENATORS TIFFANY AND TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Senator O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 46.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 46 (1st Reprint): Revises requirements for publication of notice of certain meetings of board of county commissioners. (BDR 20‑865)

 

SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 46.

 

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Senator O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:38 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                                           

Joseph Bozsik,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

DATE: