MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      January 29, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:33 a.m. Friday, January 29, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman

      Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman

      Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine

      Mr. Douglas A. Bache

      Mrs. Marcia de Braga

      Mr. Lynn Hettrick

      Mrs. Erin Kenny

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

      Mr. Roy Neighbors

      Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom

      Mr. Wendell P. Williams

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman - Excused

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Dana Bennett

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. G. P. Etcheverry, Executive Director of Nevada League of Cities; Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards; Mr. Greg Betts, for Small School Districts of Nevada; Mr. Jim Foster, Douglas Co. School District; Mr. Rick Kester, Douglas County School District; Mr. Scott Doyle, District Attorney, Douglas County; Mr. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office; Mr. David G. Pumphrey, Chairman, Douglas County Board of County Commissioners; Mr. Bob Scott, Carson City School District; Mr. Dwight Millard, Millard Construction/Stanton Park; Mr. Larry Osborne, Carson City Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Charles Joerg, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association; Mr. Paul McGrath, Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association; Ms. Paula Berkley, Walker River Paiute Tribe; Mr. Dick Heikka, So. Nevada Home Builders.

 

Chairman Garner introduced Mr. Etcheverry to the committee, stating this was his last day as a lobbyist after many years, and invited him to make a statement.  Mr. Etcheverry said this was his last day as Executive Director of Nevada League of Cities, beginning Monday Mayor Tom Greive of Yerington would replace him.  After a brief summary of his service, he was given a round of applause thanking him for all the work he had done before the committee.  Various members of the committee made statements thanking him for his many years of service.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 11 - Authorizes certain additional boards of trustees to request tax on residential construction and increases maximum amount of tax that may be imposed by certain boards of county commissioners.

 

Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director for Nevada Association of School Boards, indicated AB 11 was drafted at the School Board's request and gave a brief review of the impact of the Bill (Exhibit C).

 

Mr. Greg Betts, representing Small School Districts of Nevada and fifteen rural counties for the Nevada Rural Alliance, submitted testimony in support of AB 11 (Exhibit D).

 

Mr. Jim Foster, Past President of Douglas County School Board of Trustees, gave testimony regarding previous bond issues and growth rate, indicating support of AB 11 (Exhibit E).

 

Mrs. Segerblom asked Mr. Foster the population of Douglas County. 

 

Mr. Foster replied it was approximately 32,000 - 35,000 at this time.

 

Mr. Betts stated these funds would not be used for anything other than land and buildings, there was no way a district would be able to collect money under this provision and use it for any aspect of operational costs.

 

Mrs. Augustine said this seemed to penalize the new homeowner coming into the county, because it would be the new homeowner and not the builder who would absorb the costs.

 

Mr. Rick Kester, Director of Business Services of Douglas County School District, introduced a report "Fair Share Facilities Costs, Douglas County School District," (Exhibit F).  Mr. Kester gave a brief overview of the contents of the report.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the report.

 

Mr. Bob Scott, Carson City Superintendent of Schools, indicated Carson City, under the present language, was not eligible for benefits under this statute.  He stated current population of Carson City was approximately 40,000, so Carson City would be unable to partake of benefits of revenues.  Mr. Scott indicated there were a significant number of older schools in the area, the revenue pattern had not allowed the schools to be kept in a proper state of maintenance.  Mr. Scott felt this district would benefit by passage of AB 11 because it would allow replacement of old roofs, worn-out carpets, alarm systems and other areas of repair to the schools.  It would also allow the school district to bring in portable classrooms or build additional classrooms.

 

Mr. McGaughey questioned the use of the money to be used for operating costs as opposed to building new facilities. 

 

Mr. Scott stated he felt the repairs to the schools did not constitute operating costs, but remodel and upgrade of buildings.

 

Mr. McGaughey and Mr. Kester held a brief discussion regarding the report and costs of building new schools.

 

Mr. Hettrick stated he felt it was important for Mr. Kester to explain the difference between the two figures on the report which excluded Lake Tahoe.  Mr. Hettrick felt the committee should better understand who was paying the taxes and why the report was done on a split basis.

 

Mr. Kester said the data in the report excluded Lake Tahoe because of abnormally low student yields and no growth whatsoever in that area.

 

Further discussion was held regarding Lake Tahoe growth and the tax structure basis.

 

Chairman Garner appointed Mr. McGaughey to meet with Mr. Kester regarding further discussion of the report.

 

Ms. Paula Berkley, representing Walker River Paiute Tribe, gave an overview of conditions at Walker River and indicated while this bill would not positively affect the situation at Walker River, she felt the committee should consider giving counties options on how to address their needs.

 

Mrs. Augustine questioned whether the Indian Colony at Walker River was covered by Federal funds.

 

Ms. Berkley stated the tribe had the option to choose either Federal funding or to stay within the county school system.  The Colony had chosen to stay within the school system so they could have the integration of students.

 

Mr. David G. Pumphrey, Chairman, Board of Douglas County Commissioners and First Vice President of Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), gave testimony in favor of AB 11.  Mr. Pumphrey stated NACO had reached a strong consensus of all 17 counties that a liberalization of abilities to deal with impacts of growth as it affected the individual counties was needed.  He felt the counties did not believe they should be mandated to deal with particular issues but should have the right to make decisions as individual counties.  Mr. Pumphrey said other legislation which allowed counties some ability to deal with impacts of sewer, water and roads had been passed on a growth basis.  Mr. Pumphrey also indicated the next census would show Douglas County in excess of 35,000 people, so current legislation would not be available to them.

 

Mr. Scott Doyle, District Attorney for Douglas County, stated the Douglas County Commission had formed a special study group comprised of school board representatives, county government representatives, and members of the building and development communities, to look at capital finance needs in Douglas County.  Several recommendations came out of the study, one of which was this legislative proposal.  Mr. Doyle said this legislation was the result of careful and cooperative study conducted by two separate political subdivisions in an effort to find a flexible way which would allow Douglas County to address its school finance needs, and provide flexibility for other counties to structure programs which would meet their needs as well.

 

Mr. Doyle gave supplemental answers to questions which had been posed earlier, in order to give additional information which he felt would be useful to the committee.  He spoke at length regarding the tax representing a penalty to the new homeowner coming into the community.  He indicated new people coming into the community would be the cause of an additional burden on the school system, and the primary capital needs would be for replacement due to age and renovation of classroom capacity which would be handled through bond issues.

 

Mr. Doyle went on to address questions previously asked by Mrs. Lambert and Mr. McGaughey.

 

Mrs. Segerblom questioned whether the report had input from developers. 

 

Mr. Doyle indicated developers had sat as members of the special study committee, and in addition, a representative of the Contractor's Association was a member of the committee.

 

Mr. Dwight Millard, Millard Construction/Stanton Park Development, testified against AB 11.  Mr. Millard indicated this law had been on the books since 1979, and only two of thirteen eligible counties were using the law, only one of which had been using it to the maximum.  He stated if a $3,000 per unit cost was imposed, it would effectively raise basic entry level rental charged by seven percent, or almost $27 per unit, based on $425 unit.  Mr. Millard spoke at length regarding the effects of this bill on construction and the far-reaching ramifications of this tax on property values.

 

Mr. Millard asked Douglas County to show what real benefits would be gained from the tax.

 

Mrs. Kenny held discussion with Mr. Millard regarding older property owners paying taxes for new homeowners moving in.

 

Mrs. de Braga questioned whether Mr. Millard was mainly opposed to the $3,000 tax increase or to the whole concept of the bill.

 

Mr. Millard indicated he was opposed to all the proposed changes.

 

Mr. Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President of Carson City Chamber of Commerce, gave testimony opposing AB 11 as presented.  He indicated this would be a double taxation on new development.  Mr. Osborne said this would place a disproportionate burden upon renters in lower income households and would create a greater scarcity of affordable housing.  He felt implementing this legislation would be an inequity to the counties throughout the state as only two counties had used this, and only one county had a concern its growth would not allow taking advantage of the bill as it stood.  Mr. Osborne said impact fees were supposed to be placed upon the people who created the greatest need for the schools, and who also would be the ones to benefit from the activity.

 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Osborne and Mr. Millard regarding impact of other types of taxes and fees collected.

 

Mr. Dick Heikka, Northern Nevada Home Builders Association, testified in opposition to AB 11.  He said the only county that used impact fees was Washoe County.  Mr. Heikka felt imposing the $3,000 fee would keep the lower income families out of the area.

 

Mr. Charles Joerg, representing Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, endorsed the three previous speakers, stating the discrimination issue was one to be concerned about.

 

Mrs. Kenny asked Mr. Joerg if he would consider a gradation of the fee if it was proportional to the size and cost of the home.

 

Mr. Joerg answered the Association was basically opposed to all levels of funding.

 

Chairman Garner stated there would be no action taken today and indicated he might appoint Mrs. Kenny to a subcommittee to look into this further.  He said he would speak to her and everyone would be notified if a subcommittee was appointed.  The hearing on AB 11 was closed.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 17 - Changes composition of committee on benefits for programs for public employees.

 

Chairman Garner rescheduled this bill due to time constraints.

 

Chairman Garner asked for committee introduction on the following BDR's:

 

BDR 22-335:  Establishes procedure to consolidate certain lots of land.

 

BDR 22-336:  Revises provisions governing division of land into four lots or less and revises provisions governing division of land into certain large parcels.

 

BDR 22-337:  Revises provisions relating to tentative and final subdivisions of land.

 

BDR 22-338:  Makes various changes relating to subdivision of land.

 

BDR 22-339:  Makes various changes to requirements for division of land.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 22-335, BDR 22-336, BDR 22-337, BDR 22-338 AND BDR 22-339.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

The meeting was turned over to Vice Chairman Bennett as Chairman Garner had to leave.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 28 - Authorizes certain local governments to collect fees for expenses incurred in responding to certain emergencies.

 

Mr. G.P. Etcheverry, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, stated AB 28 was permissive legislation to allow local governments in DUI cases to recoup costs for responding to emergencies.  Mr. Etcheverry said this was more prevalent than in the past because of budget constraints.  He asked this bill be put into subcommittee as there were several people who wished to testify.

 

Mr. Hettrick agreed, stating this was asking the people who caused the problem to pay the bill and legislation such as this should be supported.

 

Several members of the committee had questions regarding this bill.  Extensive discussion was held between the committee members and Mr. Etcheverry regarding AB 28.

 

Mr. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, spoke in favor of AB 28.  Mr. Nadeau felt due to ever-increasing calls for services and because a DUI usually would call for additional services than normally provided, there should be some type of remuneration to the county for the cost of the extraordinary circumstances.

 

Mr. Williams stated he felt since the services of police, fire and emergency medical were already paid for, this bill would be asking someone to pay twice for the same services.  He recommended the committee obtain a copy of the minutes of the meeting when the bill was presented to the Judiciary committee last session, in order to obtain more insight.

 

Mrs. Augustine agreed with Mr. Williams, stating this would probably  be a "double jeopardy" bill.

 

Mr. Nadeau responded this legislation was meant for someone convicted of intoxication who had caused injury to people or damage to property, since his choice to drink and drive would cause hardship to other people and require additional services from the emergency forces.  He stated an amendment which would change the wording to include "convicted" would be acceptable.

 

Mrs. Kenny asked about burglarizing of homes, if reimbursement would be made in that instance.

 

Mr. Nadeau replied there was a bill before Judiciary relating to this matter.

 

Further discussion was held.

 

Vice Chairman Bennett stated further questions would be held and assigned the bill to Mr. Williams to review and report back to the committee as he had the background information from previous sessions.

 

Mr. Paul McGrath, Sheriff of Carson City, representing Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's, asked to testify in support of AB 28.  He gave a brief statement regarding reimbursement.  Mr. McGrath said current policies within the system dictated when an accident occurred, there was a mechanism in place to bill that person charges associated with the accident, for instance for hitting a traffic sign.

 

No further testimony was heard, the hearing on AB 28 was closed.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      LINDA FEATHERINGILL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

January 29, 1993

Page: 1