MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-second Session

April 4, 2003

 

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 12:07 p.m., on Friday, April 4, 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 J. Tiffany, Vice Chairman

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Warren B. Hardy II

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator William J. Raggio

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Joseph Bozsik, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Eagle Forum

Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board

Ivan R. Ashleman, Member, State Public Works Board

Lori T. Ashton, Lobbyist, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters

James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission, Northern Nevada Consortium for Cooperative Purchasing

John Simmons, Construction Manager, City of Henderson

Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City

Kathy Burke, Recorder, Washoe County

Mary Milligan, Recorder, Lyon County

Terry McHenry, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Land Surveyors

Michael R. Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County

Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Nevada Land Title Association

Brian G. Herr, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Realtors/Reno

Phil Rosenquist, Director, Department of Development Services, Clark County

Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association

Dean Heller, Secretary of State

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State

 

Senator O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 449.

 

SENATE BILL 449: Makes various changes to provisions governing questions appearing on ballot for general election. (BDR 24-250)

 

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, said there was a total of nine ballot advisory questions with tax implications throughout Nevada in the last election. They ranged from the transportation questions in Clark and Washoe Counties, which were well detailed, to the 1-cent property tax in Clark County on the homeless, and the ½-cent sales tax in White Pine County for maintenance and operation of a swimming pool. She commented every time an advisory question with a fiscal impact passes, it was fait accompli, a thing accomplished and presumably irreversible. Ms. Vilardo further noted statutes had not required the inclusion of fiscal information related to the advisory question, but S.B. 449 would require fiscal notes be attached to advisory questions. The language outlining the fiscal note for property tax questions was well defined as it followed the existing statutes on fiscal notes for bond questions, however, lobbyist Dan Musgrove, Ms. Vilardo noted, was concerned the fiscal notes in other advisory questions were not identified.

 

Senator Tiffany asked what would be done if the impacted government agency disagreed with the fiscal impact. Ms. Vilardo said the intent of the fiscal note was to establish where a tax or revenue was being levied. She noted a clarification might be needed to ensure subjective areas were not entered.

 

Senator Tiffany asked if a property tax increase to build additional schools would require a fiscal note. Ms. Vilardo said that was the goal. She noted in Clark County, Question 11 asked:

 

Shall the board of county commissioners urge the 2003 Nevada Legislature to enact legislation establishing a homeless services and affordable housing trust fund and authorize the board of county commissioners to impose an annual property tax of $.01 per $100 of assessed valuation?

 

Ms. Vilardo indicated if the question had been a ballot question, rather than an advisory question, a note of fiscal impact would have been required. Ms. Vilardo concluded the phrase “fiscal information” on all questions may be too broad and might need to be narrowed.

 

Senator Townsend mentioned Washoe County had built a regional jail with an outpouring of support from the community to raise taxes to pay for it. Although, Senator Townsend noted, the public was deceived, because they were not informed of the ongoing operating expenses required after the jail was built. He concluded the more information the public had about tax questions, the better.

 

Senator Care reasoned in some instances a government agency would prepare a fiscal note impacting their department and the credibility of the fiscal note could be called into question on the premise that those preparing the note might show favor for or against the advisory question. Senator Care asked Ms. Vilardo how the question of credibility could be handled. Ms. Vilardo responded that specific financial information was needed and since 1993 or 1995, Nevada has had specific information without dispute. Information was factual, Ms. Vilardo noted, because more detail was required. However, she noted an amendment might be needed to make sure the information was absolutely factual. Ms. Vilardo explained an illustration of cost could be made, because tangible things like property taxes or sales taxes could be subjectively evaluated.

 

Public officials were elected Senator Care noted, to vote on issues based on political philosophy, public input, or constituent responses. He asked why advisory questions were needed. Ms. Vilardo said she agreed with Senator Care, because they were not advisory; if passed by the voters, they were certainly approved by the public body. She said she would not have a problem with eliminating advisory questions.

 

Senator Tiffany indicated some advisory questions were done through a petition of the people, not by a governmental entity. Senator Tiffany asked what would happen if a small group of people who sponsored an advisory question did not have the technical support to create a fiscal note. Ms. Vilardo answered the fiscal information and explanation on statewide ballot questions were prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff and approved, after public input, by the Legislative Commission.

 

Senator Tiffany asked if the public could approach the LCB to create a fiscal note. Ms. Vilardo said the public would not ask the LCB to write the fiscal note. She stated, initiative petition pros and cons were written, as required by statute, by LCB staff.

 

Senator Tiffany asked if a small group pushing an initiative were unable to create a sufficient fiscal note, would the initiative be jeopardized. Ms. Vilardo indicated in almost every case, the origin of the fiscal note would come from the impacted government.

 

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, noted he had concerns of how fiscal notes were determined and especially with the wording “financial effects.” He said “financial effects” were hard to quantify and recommended “financial cost or savings” might be better language. He concluded there needed to be an objective measure in determining fiscal notes, and bias toward one side or the other had to be avoided.

 

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, said she had served on a Washoe County advisory question committee and it was difficult to gather related fiscal information because of a lack of cooperation from the government entity supporting the advisory question. Ms. Hansen added she was concerned she would not receive an unbiased point of view on issues unrelated to taxes. If there were tax implications on a ballot question, she concluded, the people should have access to all relevant information.

 

Ms. Hansen further added statewide ballot arguments were also prepared by the Secretary of State’s office. She indicated Assembly Bill (A.B.) 436 would allow for citizen question committees, rather than exclusively having government agencies writing ballot positions. She said the Secretary of State was sued because both the pro and con sections of a ballot question were seen as pro and in 1990 the Nevada Supreme Court forced the language to be changed.

 

Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, pointed out section 3 indicated the governing body prepared the fiscal note and in sections 7 and 8, the bill noted committees were appointed to prepare arguments for and against an initiative and a fiscal note.

 

Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 449 and opened the hearing on S.B. 491.

 

SENATE BILL 491: Makes various changes regarding bidding on contracts for public works of this state. (BDR 28-487)

 

Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board, said S.B. 491 would provide a more efficient use of the qualification of bidders process, Exhibit C. He added the intent would be to help the state facilitate successful construction projects. Mr. O’Brien indicated the qualification of bidders process was an important tool implemented in the 71st Session of the Nevada Legislature. The new program, Mr. O’Brien noted, required qualified contractors be prime bidders on a project. He said some contractors had been disqualified through the process and the appeals board heard each case. He remarked in some instances denials had been upheld and in other instances withdrawn. Mr. O’Brien added, qualification of bidders did not have provisions to qualify subcontractors, because the qualification of bidders process for prime contractors had been untested before the 71st Session of the Nevada Legislature. Mr. O’Brien explained, the State Public Works Board had originally proposed to include subcontractors in the qualification of bidders process, but upon reevaluation found it would be too burdensome. Instead, he noted, the State Public Works Board recommended subcontractors be presumptively prequalified, unless there was an objection to a subcontractor. If a complaint was received or performance problems existed, the board could require the subcontractor to go through the qualification of bidders process, which could be appealed.

 

Senator O’Connell asked if Mr. O’Brien’s proposed amendment mirrored the counties’ bill in the Assembly on the bidders preference. In response, Mr. O’Brien said he could not speak to the counties’ bill. He noted his proposed criteria were strictly for the State Public Works Board and did not address local government.

 

Senator Hardy addressed the counties’ bill. He noted the law had specific criteria in regard to what could be considered for prequalification. Local governments, he noted, had created different prequalification ordinances and a hodgepodge of ordinances now exist throughout the State. The counties’ bill would take the best ordinances and create a standardized format; it did not address the issue of prequalified subcontractors.

 

Ivan R. Ashleman, Member, State Public Works Board, stated the counties’ bill was dissimilar from the intent of S.B. 491. The counties’ bill regarded the consideration of qualifications. Senate Bill 491, Mr. Ashleman said, spoke to a process and adding, under limited circumstances, subcontractors. He stressed the original S.B. 491 inadvertently swept in local governments, which was not its intent. Mr. Ashleman concluded the rewrite of S.B. 491 made the intent clear.

 

Mr. O’Brien said the proposed section 1, subsection 6 would allow the State Public Works Board to establish criteria, consistent with subsection 5, to object to a subcontractor pursuant to subsection 2. He said if the proposal were passed, the State Public Works Board would develop the criteria and process for including subcontractors, similar to the process for general contractors.

 

Senator Hardy indicated he wanted language in S.B. 491 requiring the same criteria used to determine the qualifications of a general contractor be used to determine the qualifications of a subcontractor, rather than leaving it wide open to regulation.

 

Mr. O’Brien said section 1, subsection 6 would add a truthfulness and completeness criteria. He noted situations had occurred where applications did not have all of the needed information. Mr. O’Brien added, if the application was incomplete, it was returned. Mr. O’Brien said the proposed section 2 would change the time period to review the application from 30 days to 45 days because 30 days was not enough time. Mr. O’Brien further noted proposed changes allowing 45 days rather than 20 days to set a hearing and 15 days rather than 5 days to prepare a written decision from the appeals board.

 

Senator Hardy advised the committee to be careful. He commented it was disturbing that Nevada’s best contractors were not bidding public works jobs because of the kinds of regulations and challenges they faced.

 

Senator O’Connell added it was important to hire qualified contractors, as evident in the construction problems with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Lied Library and the Nevada Legislative Building. However, she agreed with Senator Hardy; the State should not discourage, through excessive regulation, qualified contractors from bidding on public works projects.

 

Mr. O’Brien said the State Public Works Board had qualified a significant number of contractors willing to get prequalified, noting to date only two contractors had been disqualified. The proposed changes, Mr. O’Brien indicated, were a result of the restrictive time frames in which the board must work and affected only a small number of contractors.

 

Mr. O’Brien continued, section 3, subsection 3, would require “The applicant has the burden at the hearing of proving by substantial evidence that the applicant is entitled to be qualified to bid on or be a subcontractor on, as applicable, a contract for a public work.” He explained the board felt the burden of proof should be on the contractor and the proposed change would clarify the position. Additionally, Mr. O’Brien noted the appeals board needed subpoena power to require attendance or the production of documents at hearings. He said the board found without subpoena power, the appeals board could not get the proper information to make a determination of contractor qualification. He concluded the appeals board needed the tools to access the information necessary to determine qualification.

 

Senator O’Connell asked if a contractor was not willing to release requested information why not remove them from the list of qualified contractors. Mr. Ashleman responded the problem was a specific government entity had disqualified a contractor and the government entity would not come forward to testify.

 

Senator Care asked what substantial evidence meant and why the burden of proof should be on the contractor. Additionally, Senator Care asked if the truthfulness and completeness of an application, excluding rumor and innuendo surrounding a contractor, would be grounds to deny an application.

 

Mr. Ashleman assured Senator Care it only referred to the accuracy and completeness of the application. In response to Senator Care’s other concerns, Mr. Ashleman said substantial evidence was Nevada case law or covered in the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act. Mr. Ashleman also indicated it should be the contractor’s burden to prove he or she was qualified, which was also consistent with case law. He used a law license as an example; the burden of proof rested on the person seeking the license to prove he or she was qualified in character and ability to practice law.

 

Senator Care asked if substantial evidence was higher than preponderance of the evidence. Mr. Ashleman indicated substantial evidence addressed quality of evidence, rather than quantity.

 

Mr. O’Brien noted section 8, subsection 6, clarified the prime contractor had to be prequalified with the State Public Works Board when a design-build team was used. He further indicated section 9, subsection 2, clarified the prime contractor had to be prequalified prior to submitting a preliminary proposal. Mr. O’Brien said section 10, subsection 2, stated:

 

If one or more of the finalists selected pursuant to NRS [Nevada Revised Statute] 338.1725 is disqualified or withdraws, the public body may select a design-build team from the remaining finalists if at least two finalists remain.

 

He explained if one finalist was disqualified, the process would continue and said the problem occurred with the Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor Project.

 

Mr. Ashleman noted there were a substantial number of highly qualified contractors currently on the list. He added a review had taken place to make sure the process remained competitive. Mr. Ashleman further noted the board was always seeking input on how to make the qualifying process better.

 

Lori T. Ashton, Lobbyist, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, said she would like to see harmony between the State Public Works Board and local governing bodies, so a contractor applying for prequalification would not have to continually submit additional information.

 

Mr. Ashleman concluded the board anticipated having the same criteria for subcontractors as exists for prime contractors, except for size.

 

James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission, Northern Nevada Consortium for Cooperative Purchasing, said he was reassured to know Mr. Ashleman did not intend to include local governments in the proposal, but was still opposed to S.B. 491. He noted the purchasing consortium, 70 public employees employed by about 50 municipalities, opposed any form of prequalification. Mr. Keenan said he did not feel prequalification was good procurement practice. He further commented the purchasing consortium and the three local governments prequalifying general contractors in southern Nevada were adamant prequalification not be extended to subcontractors.

 

John Simmons, Construction Manager, City of Henderson, said he opposed S.B. 491 and did not believe public agencies should be qualifying subcontractors; it was the general contractors’ responsibility to use adequate subcontractors. He asked if the legislation passes, that the criteria not be required of local agencies. Mr. Simmons concluded if local agencies wanted to prequalify general contractors, it should be left to them.

 

Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 491 and opened the hearing on S.B. 451.

 

SENATE BILL 451: Revises provisions governing account established for acquisition and improvement of technology in office of county recorder and certain provisions regarding format of certain documents filed in office of county recorder. (BDR 20-293)

 

Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City, noted last session the NRS was changed requiring recorded documents be on 8½-inch by 11-inch paper with margins of 1 inch on the left and right. He indicated S.B. 451 would allow for the recordation of documents not having met the size and margin specifications. Without the change, Mr. Glover stated, several documents could not be recorded, such as an affidavit of a death of a joint tenant. Mr. Glover asked that section 1, subsection 4, be amended to include as exemptions: death certificates, military discharges, and tax documents issued by the United States Department of the Treasury. Mr. Glover further asked that section 1, subsection 4, be amended to make white 20-pound paper an additional specification. The National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks, he noted, had developed national standards, because documents were being scanned to indefinitely preserve for future generations to access. Mr. Glover commented he would like S.B. 451 to include the old language by keeping a 3‑ by 3-inch space in the upper right-hand corner of documents. He explained the suggested national standard of 3 inches across the top caused problems in Nevada. He indicated additional national standards were listed in subsection 4 of section 1. Mr. Glover noted the language stating “Not contain ¼ A stamp or seal that overlaps with text or a signature on the document” was an attempt to make sure notaries did not sign over their name, however there was a problem with land surveyors and professional engineers. He noted his suggested amendment would accommodate the professional engineers, who by statute must sign over their seal. Mr. Glover asked to include additional language in section 1, subsection 4, stating “The provisions of subsection 4 do not apply to a document issued by a local, state or federal governmental entity that is submitted for recording.” The new language, he said, would provide uniformity in the format requirements established by court rules. Mr. Glover concluded section 2, subsection 4, was the heart of the bill. The provision stated if the appropriate document specifications had not been met, a document could still be recorded for a fee of $25.

 

Senator Tiffany asked if standardization was done to make scanning requirements easier. Mr. Glover indicated she was correct. He noted all of the states were standardizing recording documents. As an example of another national standard, he said S.B. 451 would require documents neither contain text smaller than a 10-point Times New Roman font nor more than 9 lines of text per vertical inch, which was done so the documents could be read.

 

Mr. Glover concluded by noting the language in section 3, subsection 4, of S.B. 451 was an attempt on behalf of the recorders to clarify how technology fees could be spent.

 

Senator O’Connell indicated it appeared to her the county commissioners were taken out of the decision-making process, but the county commission was still responsible to do the purchasing contracts. Mr. Glover said Senator O’Connell was correct.

 

Senator O’Connell stated the legislation would remove accountability and she asked Mr. Glover to address her concern. In response, Mr. Glover said the recorders and county commissions had a turf battle in several counties to determine who had the authority to purchase equipment. In two instances, the county commission and county recorder could not agree on which equipment to purchase, he explained. He further noted it was an attempt by the county recorders to make it clear the authority was the county recorder. Mr. Glover admitted Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, found the originally proposed language objectionable because it violated several provisions of state purchasing.

 

Kathy Burke, Recorder, Washoe County, said S.B. 451 would help streamline the process without losing what needed to be done. She noted, ultimately, it was still the board of county commissioners’ decision. Lastly, Ms. Burke indicated the Internal Revenue Service planned to comply with the format set forth in the bill.

 

Mary Milligan, Recorder, Lyon County, said she supported S.B. 451.

 

Terry McHenry, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Land Surveyors, referred to section 3. He said the fee collected for technology improvement impacted members of his profession in terms of indexing, access, and copy quality. Mr. McHenry noted land surveyors often work with the recorders’ offices. He concluded current technologies were needed; the funding sources for technology should not be diverted.

 

Michael R. Alastuey, Lobbyist, Clark County, said he supported S.B. 451 with an amendment, Exhibit D. He indicated S.B. 451 addressed important issues, including the fee for technology funding. He noted his concern was the acquisition of technologies often took several years to implement and the accumulation of fees was not sufficient to fund the cost of financing, leaving the county in the position of financing. Mr. Alastuey said the words “may” or “recorder’s discretion” was at issue. Mr. Alastuey explained, the fee for technology funding could be imposed or rescinded at the will of the recorder.

 

Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Alastuey where the word “may” was located.

 

Mr. Alastuey responded, “may” was found in section 2, subsection 2 and noted it was existing language. He proposed the fee, once imposed, not be discretionary. He said the county commission was the purchasing body authorized to sign purchasing contracts. Mr. Alastuey noted, if a new county recorder rescinded the fee for technology funding, the county could be left without a source of revenue to pay for the purchasing contracts made on behalf of the recorder’s office. He also noted technologies needed to be continually updated, making the fee for technology funding consistently needed.

 

Mr. Alastuey added there were additional real estate-based business processes conducted by the county’s assessor and treasurer. Therefore, he proposed the revenue created from the fee be available for application to county offices providing county services related to development, land-use regulation, and valuation assessment of real property, recordation, or transfer interest in and encumbrance upon real property transfers.

 

Mr. Alastuey acknowledged hearing recorders would have an issue with an imposition by ordinance or governance of a fee by the county commission, because there might be an inclination or temptation by the county commission to simply use the fee to supplant appropriations otherwise used for the recording function. He said he was amenable to working with the recorders to achieve non‑supplantation language to make sure the fee was always used exclusively for its intended purposes.

 

Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Alastuey if he was concerned the fee would not compound quickly enough to pay for equipment, then why would he want to share the fee among several departments. Mr. Alastuey recommended the county only impose the fee by ordinance, and he noted the county commission was the entity charged with fulfilling purchase contracts. Mr. Alastuey stated an issue existed in Clark County when the recorder’s office committed the public purse for the acquisition of a specific system. He explained subsequent actions were taken by the county manager’s office to ascertain if the specific system was compatible and complimentary to systems and uses in the office of the treasurer and assessor.

 

Senator Tiffany again asked why the fee had to be shared among several departments. Mr. Alastuey indicated he wanted the involvement of the county commission when creating ordinances for such fees and specifying fees be used for systems complimenting all business functions related to the recordation function.

 

Senator Tiffany said the recordation function was inherent in equipment standards created by data processing, not in the sharing of a revenue or system. She concluded she did not see a need to share the revenue between departments.

 

Mr. Alastuey said he primarily wanted S.B. 451 amended to allow for the imposition of the fee by ordinance, which would prevent the fee from being rescinded or selectively applied. The secondary issue was who had the jurisdiction or partial discretion to make commitments to vendors. Perhaps, he suggested, one issue could be resolved if the other could not.

 

Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Alastuey if the county imposed the fee by ordinance, would it give the county the right to raid the fund to balance the General Fund. Mr. Alastuey said, never. The intent was always to supplement the money available for related purposes and not to supplant it, he concluded.

 

Senator Tiffany said she wanted to make sure the county could not raid the fund. Mr. Alastuey said absolutely. He indicated he would work with both the recorders and the industry to resolve the two issues.

 

Senator Care asked Mr. Alastuey if his amendments would still be necessary if the county recorder were made an ex-officio member of the county commission. Mr. Alastuey responded if the recorder were an ex-officio member of the county commission, the amendments would be far less of an issue.

 

Mr. Glover said county recorders and the land title industry came to the Legislature for a technology fee to improve the county recorder offices, which had not been done in 100 years. He noted a backlog of work existed and the revenues from the technology fee were still needed. He indicated he was afraid the county would appropriate the revenue and use it elsewhere.

 

Ms. Burke concurred with Mr. Glover.

 

Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Nevada Land Title Association, indicated the association spent a great deal of time supporting the technology fee because of the need for new technology.

 

Senator O’Connell said she understood how quickly technology changed and the need for a constant source of funding for technology upgrades.

 

Mr. Coward said he believed the ability to integrate with other systems, as mentioned, was a valid issue.

 

Brian G. Herr, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Realtors/Reno, said the association did not take a position on the bill, however they were in opposition to the amendment by the county as written.

 

Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 451 and opened the hearing on S.B. 452.

 

SENATE BILL 452: Revises provisions governing enterprise funds for building permit fees. (BDR 31-838)

 

Phil Rosenquist, Director, Department of Development Services, Clark County, indicated the proposed amendment, Exhibit E, was a replacement bill. Mr. Rosenquist described the building and development approval process as two components. First, he said, was on-site development. Mr. Rosenquist explained on-site development involved the review and approval of structural, architectural, plumbing, and mechanical plans. The second component, he noted, was the off-site improvements. Off-site improvements meant the installation of public infrastructure to support development like streets, curbs, gutters, and street lighting by the development community. Mr. Rosenquist
added, a building permit could not be issued until all off-site plans were reviewed and approved, and a certificate of occupancy could not be issued until the off-site improvements were inspected.

 

Mr. Rosenquist said the intent of the legislation was to move the civil division, used by engineers and staff to review off-site plans and technical studies, to building-enterprise funding. Senate Bill 452, if amended, would include language moving encroachment and barricade permits toward enterprise funding. He wanted to ensure application fees submitted to the county were used to provide needed services. Mr. Rosenquist indicated fees for encroachment and barricade permits were not charged and fees were needed. Mr. Rosenquist noted reasonably expected customer service was not supplied and enterprise funding would assist the civil division in providing the adequate services. Hobbs, Ong and Associates, Incorporated, who have worked jointly with the Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association and Clark County Department of Development Services, developed the replacement bill, he said. Mr. Rosenquist concluded it was his intention to still subject the enterprise fund to the same caps.

 

Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, noted Hobbs, Ong and Associates, Incorporated, saw some holes in the language of the bill and as a result, offered the amendment. Ms. Wilson-Pappa indicated the intent was not to undo anything the Legislature had previously done.

 

Mr. Simmons offered an amendment to S.B. 452. The amendment, he said, would include “or subdivision” after “development” in section 1, line 19, and add “Western Urban Nonseasonally Adjusted” to section 1, line 27.

 

Senator O’Connell asked Ms. Wilson-Pappa if she had seen and accepted the amendment. Ms. Wilson-Pappa said the first line of the amendment was not relevant due to the rewrite of S.B. 452 and after an explanation of “Western Urban Nonseasonally Adjusted,” she noted she could support the amendment.

Senator O’Connell asked for an explanation of “Western Urban Nonseasonally Adjusted Consumer Price Index.” Mr. Simmons indicated he did not know the definition, but would get it to the committee.

 

Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 452 and opened the hearing on S.B. 453.

 

SENATE BILL 453: Authorizes electors to register to vote and cast ballots on election day under certain circumstances. (BDR 24-560)

 

Dean Heller, Secretary of State, requested the deletion of sections 1 through 30 from S.B. 453 and the insertion of an amendment containing new sections 1 through 42, Exhibit F. The amendment would delete the “Election Day Registration” sections and would put the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) into the bill.

 

One provision Secretary of State Heller addressed was extending the close of registration by 10 days with the requirement to register to vote in person in the registrar’s office. He explained the change would allow voters to receive a sample ballot and start early voting in the same fashion as in the past.

 

Senator Titus asked Secretary of State Heller about moving registration to within 15 days of the election and limiting early voting to 1 week. Secretary of State Heller said a bill in the Assembly would keep registration at 10 days, but it would move early voting, so sample ballots could be mailed. He also noted changing early voting could create some consternation for the clerks and registrars in the State.

 

Senator Titus said she did not support eliminating early voting, only limiting it to a week. She noted many things could happen over the time period currently allowed for early voting. Senator Titus asked for a comparison between federal requirements and the Secretary of State amendment. Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, said except
for provisional balloting, the minimum HAVA requirements were in the bill, which would extend to all races, not just federal elections.

 

Senator O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 2:02 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Joseph Bozsik,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

 

DATE: