MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      April 29, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:37 p.m., Thursday, April 29, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mrs. Myrna T. Williams, Chairman

      Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

      Mrs. Jan Evans

      Mr. Val Z. Garner

      Mr. David E. Humke

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. Gene T. Porter     

      Mr. Scott Scherer

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Robert E. Price     (excused)

      Mr. Robert M. Sader (excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman Chris Giunchigliani, District No. 9

      Assemblyman Larry Spitler, District No. 41

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Carole Vilardo/Nevada Taxpayers Association

      Mr. Pat Coward/Nevada Association of Realtors

      Ms. Irene Porter/Executive Director, Nevada Home Builders

 

 

 

 

 

 

AB 150:     Requires synopsis of each bill drafted for legislature.

 

Assemblyman Chris Giunchigliani, District No. 9, prime sponsor of AB 150, began her testimony by reminding the committee AB 150 was heard previously and the committee had discussed reworking the language.  Ms. Giunchigliani provided suggested amendments to the committee (Exhibit C).  She explained Assemblyman Porter had contacted several other states for background information which had been considered in addition to testimony in the previous meeting.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani noted she had submitted the amendments to Mr. Porter, who was on the subcommittee. 

 

Mr. Dini pointed out many times amendments to bills came off of the floor, and he suggested inserting a method for including in the Daily Journal a synopsis of intent when a floor amendment was made.  Mr. Dini suggested considering this in the final version.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani agreed and said this would not impact staff time, an issue which was raised in the original hearing.  Something could be written and submitted to the secretary.

 

Mr. Humke asked the fiscal note effect.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani did not know the fiscal effect of the amendment.  Mr. Crossley had concerns on the original bill and had assisted Mr. Porter with research, she advised.

 

Mr. Humke asked Ms. Giunchigliani if AB 150 passed the committee, would she mind if it was re-referred to Ways and Means.  She would not mind, she declared.

 

Mr. Erickson conveyed his agreement with Legislative Counsel providing a synopsis at the time the bill was drafted.  He suggested committee staff could provide the synopsis which would come out of the committee or the synopsis which would be given on the floor.  Research Division would do this normally so it would not impact Research.

 

Mr. Garner referred to Exhibit C, Insertion, line 6, and asked if a definition was needed for substantive.  He asked for the meaning.

 

Mrs. Williams recalled past dialogue on substantive would be anything which would in any way change the original intent. 

 

Mr. Erickson explained Research Division would revise the synopsis even for minor changes if Research felt the synopsis would be affected.  He did not think the word substantive was needed.  If an amendment was adopted which would change the synopsis, it would be changed by Research staff.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Humke for his thoughts on rereferring AB 150 to Ways and Means based on Mr. Erickson's explanation.  Mr. Humke was not certain of the validity of the original fiscal note since Mr. Crossley had questions on the original.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said she would obtain a revised fiscal note.

 

Mr. Erickson suggested the synopsis should be brief, done by Fiscal Division in some cases and by Research Division in some cases.  He explained the committee might wish to change "Legislative Counsel" to "Legislative Counsel Bureau" to allow more flexibility on who would write synopses which also might lower the fiscal impact.

 

Mrs. Williams asked for further testimony on AB 150.  No one came forward.

 

Mrs. Williams opened the hearing on ACR 33.

 

ACR 33:     Amends joint rules to establish tax policy for State of Nevada.

 

Assemblyman Chris Giunchigliani, District No. 9, prime sponsor of ACR 33, stated the bill was a result of several meetings with various business people in Nevada during the past few years.  She referred to discussions last session that Nevada did not have established tax policy.  She believed policy should drive the budget and not budget drive the policy.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani explained she had worked with the taxpayers association and reviewed language which would codify principles of a tax policy.  ACR 33 attempted to do this, she commented.  She felt ACR 33 was a good government bill and one which laid out criteria a tax should meet in order to be considered.  The policy dealt with neutrality, equity, simplicity, and limited exemptions which were seen over the years.

 

In working with the counsel bureau to determine the appropriate place to deal with tax policy, two possibilities were suggested, she pronounced.  One was in the form of amending the joint rules so legislature would consider it as a body.  The second possibility was AB 423 which was in taxation and which would codify it through the Tax Commission as the other policy making body which dealt with taxes.  The foregoing was the intent of ACR 33 which would be criteria to measure all taxes against and would become the policy of the state.

 

She referenced four Price Waterhouse studies done during the past 30 years regarding taxation in Nevada, where it was noted Nevada did not have a policy to drive the program.

 

She felt a policy should be in place which would allow the budget to be crafted based on tax and social policy and which would drive the system.

 

Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified in favor of ACR 33.  She believed Assemblyman Giunchigliani identified the reasons Nevada Taxpayers Association felt ACR 33 was such an important bill.  Principles and lack of policy were frequently discussed.  By including it in the standing rules, she declared, future legislative bodies would have consistency of points to look at which would be a constant reminder.  One of the important things, she felt, was to be able to look at these principles and make sure when a tax was proposed, legislature had addressed issues raised by the principles suggested within ACR 33.

 

Ms. Vilardo urged committee to accept the bill as written and felt no amendments were needed.  She felt it should become part of the standing rules of the Senate and the Assembly committees for taxation.

 

AB 159:     Establishes legislative committee to conduct interim study relating to disclosure of information in real estate transactions.

 

For the benefit of the committee, Mrs. Williams explained AB 159 proposed an interim study and all interim studies would be held until all had been discussed.  The studies would be prioritized  and depending on how many studies were allowed, the committee would determine which studies would pass.

 

Assemblyman Larry Spitler, District No. 41, addressed the committee on behalf of AB 159, and spoke from prepared text (Exhibit D). 

 

Mr. Garner expressed he was pleased additional disclosure would be required on information in real estate transactions.  He asked that flood zone/insurance disclosure and displacement of homes be included in AB 159.

 

Mr. Pat Coward, Nevada Association of Realtors, told the committee Nevada Association of Realtors endorsed AB 159 and the interim study and would like to be fully and actively involved in the interim study in developing and reviewing the laws on disclosure.

 

Ms. Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Home Builders Association, spoke on behalf of AB 159.  She stated people had the right to information regarding roads and flood insurance which would affect property they would be buying.  This information could be obtained from public records, she added, and Nevada Home Builders would be happy to work on the study and find methods in which proper disclosures could be made to future home owners.

 

Mr. Humke declared he was not familiar with that area of the law and queried if there was a higher duty to disclose by a developer of real estate than there would be a consumer who might be later in the chain of title. 

 

Ms. Porter replied to her knowledge only when there was a new home was anything disclosed.  Absolutely no disclosure requirements existed on resale housing nor was there any disclosure in a situation where someone could be buying one of four homes in a parcel mapping situation or contracts for owner/builder houses for sale.  She did not believe disclosure laws existed for owner/builders which would be one of the purposes of the interim study.   

 

Mr. Humke asked if this was a problem in other parts of the state other than in the path of the beltway project in Las Vegas.  Mr. Coward did not know, but he said the issue was discussed in the interim transportation study where Senator O'Connell and Assemblyman Spitler were in attendance.  He stated realtors felt open disclosure was worthwhile and the laws should be examined.

 

He added Barbara Mckenzie, who represented the city of Reno, had indicated Reno had proposed legislation which dealt with subdivisions, and Reno would support the interim study to look at residential and the larger developments.

 

Mrs. Williams concluded the focus was probably on southern Nevada at present since it had grown so fast, but as other parts of the state started to realize growth and an influx of people, they too would face the same kind of situations as the transportation beltways, displacement of people, and flood zones.

 

Mr. Erickson, responding to Mr. Humke's earlier question, noted he thought it was Chapter 119 B which required the developer of a subdivision of 35 or more lots to make a number of disclosures to the buyer.

 

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on AB 159. 

 

Mrs. Williams stated she would entertain a motion on AB 150 if the committee cared to move the bill.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN EVANS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 150.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mrs. Lambert questioned how the synopsis would be distributed to the general public.  She asked if the synopsis would be on the bill, and, when a synopsis on an amendment occurred in the minutes of the committee, how would that help the general public understand the bill.  Her understanding was AB 150 was supposed to make the bills in process more understandable.  Mrs. Lambert added there had been a proposal to expand the title of the bill to be a more complete synopsis.  She asked if the synopsis would be a separate piece of paper which would be mailed to the mailing distribution of the bills.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Erickson to respond, and Mr. Erickson's thought was the synopsis would be a separate document and would not be on the bill itself.  The process would be slowed if one had to wait until the synopsis was done to reprint a bill.  He had no answer regarding distribution of the synopsis, but thought it would possibly have to be a policy decision of the Houses.  It would have to be addressed in the law, however.  "Either that or be available through the Counsel Bureau," Mrs. Williams added.

 

At this time, Mrs. Evans withdrew her motion to amend and do pass AB 150 as she understood she was making a motion to amend and do pass another bill number.  Mr. Dini withdrew his motion to second AB 150 at Mrs. Williams' request.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Porter to work with Ms. Giunchigliani to answer the questions from Exhibit C amendments to AB 150 presented by Ms. Giunchigliani.

 

Mr. Porter stated he and Mrs. Lambert had been assigned to the subcommittee, and he advised Chairman Williams he would continue to work with Ms. Giunchigliani to find a solution to AB 150.

 

Mrs. Williams notified the committee she would hold AB 150 until Mr. Porter and Mrs. Lambert could clarify the language and come up with a method of distribution.

 

Mr. Humke expressed his concern about the fiscal note on AB 150, and from Mr. Erickson's discussion, Mr. Humke was not persuaded that less staff time would be needed for the amended AB 150 than in the original version.  He advised he remained concerned about the fiscal note.

 

Mrs. Williams noted if AB 150 passed, probably the committee would have to rerefer it to Ways and Means Committee.  However, subcommittee would work on the language.

 

Mrs. Williams stated she would entertain a motion on ACR 33.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO ADOPT ACR 33.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMEN PRICE AND SADER WERE ABSENT.

 

Mrs. Williams told the committee a work session on ACR 23 would be held May 4.  She understood Ms. Giunchigliani and Mrs. Lusk had worked out an amendment agreeable to both of them.

 

Mrs. Lambert, a member of ACR 23 subcommittee, added Mrs. Lusk and Mrs. Gang worked out an amendment agreeable to both.

 

Mrs. Williams added ACR 23 would be held for May 4.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:07 p.m.

 

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                              

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

April 29, 1993

Page: 1