MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 4, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:33 a.m. Thursday, March 4, 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. Pete Ernaut
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
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:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Dana Bennett
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. David Pennington, Nevada National Guard; Mr. John Drew, Nevada Division of Investigation; Mr. Doug Dickerson, City of Las Vegas; Mr. Richard Goecke, City of Las Vegas Public Works; Mr. Richard Welch, City of Las Vegas Redevelopment.
Chairman Garner reminded the committee to review the previous minutes and they would be approved at the March 9 meeting.
Chairman Garner requested committee introduction of the following bill draft requests:
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 20-293 - Requires governing bodies and boards of county commissioners to obtain approval of regional transportation commission of their services relating to benches and shelters for passengers of system of public transportation.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 20-293.
ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 48-1721 - Makes various changes to application process for permit for appropriation of public waters and to fees assessed by state engineer.
ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 48-1721.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 19 - Makes various changes regarding public employees.
Chairman Garner appointed a subcommittee for AB 19 consisting of Mr. Neighbors, Mrs. Lambert and Mrs. Debraga. He stated it was the intent to not do anything with the portion of the bill which related to paying license or other fees associated with a person's employment.
Chairman Garner stated he had received a request for a BDR which would amend NRS 281.145 and NRS 412.124 (Exhibit C). He indicated he would leave it to a vote of the committee whether a BDR would be drafted.
ASSEMBLY BILL 253 - Enacts interstate compact for certain operations by Nevada National Guard.
Mr. David Pennington, Attorney for Nevada National Guard, testified in behalf of Major General Clark, Commander of the National Guard and Director of Nevada Military Department. He expressed unqualified support for AB 253 (Exhibit D).
Mr. Williams asked how long Arizona had the statute on the books. Mr. Pennington replied it was passed in 1992.
Mr. John Drew, Acting Chief for Nevada Division of Investigations, stated there were some concerns about AB 253. He stated the division had not had a chance to review it and was not sure what authority this would give the National Guard. Mr. Drew indicated the major concern was trying to keep a coordinated effort within the state as to the National Guard's activities and ensure it was in support of law enforcement agencies.
Mr. Drew pointed out the Division of Investigations had an agreement with the National Guard that law enforcement agencies requesting assistance of the National Guard coordinate through the Division. He interpreted AB 253 would allow law enforcement agencies throughout the state to deal directly with the National Guard. Mr. Drew asked for an opportunity to further study AB 253 and to contact other states and law enforcement agencies in Nevada and other states as to what their impression of the impact would be.
Chairman Garner asked Mr. Drew if he was familiar with the activities of the National Guard with respect to this legislation in other states.
Mr. Drew stated he had contacted Arizona on the previous day but was unable to obtain the information he needed and hoped to acquire the necessary details in the next few days.
Chairman Garner indicated he would delay taking action on AB 253 until Mr. Drew had an opportunity to research it. He requested Mr. Drew meet with Mr. Pennington to obtain further information.
Mrs. Segerblom asked if there was a National Guard compact with any other state.
Mr. Pennington replied to his knowledge there was no compact as would be provided by AB 253. He stated there were executive agreements between the governors and memorandums of understanding between the Nevada National Guard and National Guards from some other states.
Mrs. Segerblom inquired if this concerned just Arizona. Mr. Pennington stated at the current time that was correct, but he was anticipating this would become law in several other states in the southwestern United States.
Mr. McGaughey asked if the people involved in the program were selected from a special group which had law enforcement training.
Mr. Pennington explained they were trained in their military specialties. He stressed the National Guard had no desire to become a law enforcement agency but wished to strictly maintain a supportive role, such as reconnaissance pilots taking aerial photographs of suspected drug area activities, which would be turned over to a law enforcement agency.
Mr. McGaughey asked if Mr. Pennington felt the primary involvement would be planes taking photographs and not seeing man to man type combat or dealing with people.
Mr. Pennington replied the guard did everything possible to avoid any personal contact.
Chairman Garner questioned, "It is not the intent that the military would be performing any kind of law enforcement activities, is that correct?" Mr. Pennington agreed.
Chairman Garner asked of Mr. Drew what his basis of concern was if the guard would not be involved in any law enforcement activity.
Mr. Drew replied part of his concern was the wording of Article III, Section A, subsection 1a. He felt it could be interpreted to give the National Guard the authority to perform an intelligence operation as it did not specifically state it was in support of law enforcement.
Mr. McGaughey discussed with Mr. Drew and Mr. Pennington possible interpretations of the referenced section.
Mr. Pennington pointed out the current system was all requests to the guard for assistance were routed through the Division of Investigation's office and the guard would not take requests from any agency other than from that office.
Mr. Williams asked Mr. Pennington about uniformity and agreement between two states, what if a governor of one state requested assistance from the National Guard of another state, and the governor of that state did not want to commit the National Guard to the first state.
Mr. Pennington replied AB 253 provided any request for assistance would come only from the governor of one state to the governor of the other state which would then be routed to the National Guard. He referred to Article III, section C which stated any governor may withhold National Guard forces.
Mr. Pennington indicated the National Guard had the ability to participate with other states but AB 253 would serve to give the guard greater protection during that participation.
Mr. Williams indicated he would like to see further information from other states when it was obtained.
Mr. Pennington stated he had requested a packet Arizona had developed which had the pros and cons of this legislation and when he received it he would make it available to the committee.
Chairman Garner stated the committee would wait for the information before final action was taken.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 253.
ASSEMBLY BILL 254 - Clarifies and expands authority of local government concerning street improvement projects.
Mr. Doug Dickerson, representing City of Las Vegas, testified changes were being requested to NRS 271 for safety reasons. He introduced Mr. Dick Goecke.
Mr. Richard Goecke, Director of Public Works for City of Las Vegas, showed a display to the committee as an example of his testimony on "sawtooth streets." He explained sawtooth streets were streets where segments were developed in certain locations and undeveloped in other locations. He indicated there was an ability for cities/governmental agencies to fill in the unimproved areas with government SID financing if the distance was less than 1,320 feet. AB 254 would expand that to 2,640 feet, making it possible for cities to improve larger areas of the sawtooth streets.
Mrs. Augustine asked if this also applied to residential neighborhoods, or just to main boulevards and streets.
Mr. Goecke replied it would apply to any public street in the City of Las Vegas, residential or otherwise. He indicated while there were some instances of sawtooth streets in residential neighborhoods, rarely would there be a need to apply the 2,640 feet to those areas.
Mrs. Kenny questioned how streets would be prioritized as being in need of improvement and how did the number 1,320 feet come into effect.
Mr. Goecke answered the 1,320 feet was a quarter mile and the City felt there was a good percentage of sawtooth streets which fell in that category. He stated the difference between a quarter mile and a half mile happened to fall within some of the more treacherous areas. Mr. Goecke indicated selection for improvement was made primarily on the accident history of the roadway.
Mrs. Kenny reiterated the priority would be based on the accident or nuisance level of a particular stretch of street. Mr. Goecke replied yes, and many times the nuisance value would come from citizen complaint.
Mrs. Kenny asked if the time difference between a quarter mile and half mile for the repair was based on location, and what kind of time frame was being looked at for the work.
Mr. Goecke indicated the special improvement process was the same no matter where it would be located or if the segment of roadway to be repaired was a 100 feet or a half mile. He said the plans would have to be prepared and public hearings held, which would take approximately a year. Mr. Goecke pointed out the only difference would be the longer the roadway, the longer the construction time.
Mr. Bennett inquired if a majority approval of property owners was required for a project to go forward.
Mr. Goecke said there were two different processes. If a special improvement district was created and over half of the property owners objected, the special improvement district would not proceed unless the governmental agency put in 50 percent of the money. If less than half the people objected to the project, the project could proceed without the agency putting in 50 percent of the money.
Further discussion ensued between Mr. Bennett and Mr. Goecke regarding property owners.
Mr. Bache referred to section 1, subsections 6 and 7, stating it seemed to reduce the amount of notice required and questioned the intent of that language.
Mr. Goecke answered it was his understanding this meant the notices did not have to include details the property owner would not need or want as incorporating detailed engineering plans into the notices would drag out the special improvement district process.
Mr. Hettrick questioned the wording "either side of" the street and asked if this would cause a problem if an assessment district would only run down one side of the street; would a property owner have to pay for improvement on the opposite side of a street if he perhaps had already paid for improvement to his side of the street.
Mr. Goecke answered that would not happen, the special assessment district legislation was written so the primary premise of special improvement districts was benefit to a property owner had to be proven.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 254.
ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 254.
ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED - ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT VOTED NO.
ASSEMBLY BILL 255 - Revises requirements for notice of certain proposed changes to redevelopment plan.
Mr. Doug Dickerson, representing City of Las Vegas, distributed a map of City of Las Vegas Downtown Development Plan and revision of AB 255 (Exhibit E - original map on file in Research Library). Mr. Dickerson stated after reviewing the bill an amendment was recommended for clarification purposes. He indicated the only change from the original bill was in section 1, subsection 3. Mr. Dickerson introduced Mr. Richard Welch to give testimony.
Mr. Richard Welch, Director of Economic and Urban Development of City of Las Vegas, gave a brief background on the redevelopment agency plan and requirements under NRS 279, citing NRS 279.564 and NRS 279.568. He stated, "Under the laws currently written, we are required to notify every property owner in the redevelopment area by certified letter of that proposed amendment. In the most recent amendment that we went through, because our area is large, we have 2,600 acres in the redevelopment area, we notified 4,500 property owners by certified letter of our proposed amendment. The cost in postage alone for this notification was $12,000. We believe in the future as it becomes appropriate and necessary to consider future amendments to our plan that we can still fulfill the requirements of notification by using, instead of a certified letter to every property owner, the statutory requirements for notification under the zoning or special use permit requirements. Let me further clarify this would only be for amendments related to the land use designations in our plan. So what we are offering up then is the amendment written in subsection 3, that would be for proposed amendments that are other than adding areas to the district, that the notification requirement become a letter mailed to all impacted areas within 300 feet of the proposed amendment area."
Mrs. Lambert questioned in the redevelopment district if there was also a tax increment district which matched the boundaries. Mr. Welch replied yes, there was.
Extensive discussion ensued between committee members and Mr. Welch as there were many questions raised.
Chairman Garner interrupted the exchange and assigned Mr. McGaughey to meet with the interested parties directly after the committee meeting to try to develop an amendment to address all the problems raised during the discussion and then return a recommendation to the committee regarding AB 255. Mr. Hettrick and Mr. Williams also asked to be included in the meeting.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 255.
ASSEMBLY BILL 90 - Restricts employment of certain former public officers and employees of executive branch of government.
Chairman Garner referred to the proposed amendment for AB 90 (Exhibit F) which had been handed out, and asked the committee to review it, stating action would be taken at the meeting to be held Tuesday, March 9.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:58 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
LINDA FEATHERINGILL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
March 4, 1993
Page: 1