MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      April 7, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:05 a.m. Wednesday, April 7, 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:

 

      Assemblyman Dean Heller, District No. 40.

      Assemblyman Tom Collins, District No. 1.

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Dana Bennett

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Glenn Rock, Director, Nevada Department of Personnel; Mr. Dick Gleed, Collective Bargaining Coalition; Mr. Dan Thompson, Political Action Director for Nevada State AFL -CIO; Mr. Will Keating, Executive Officer of Public Employees Retirement System; Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association; Ms. Linda Johnson, So. Nevada representative for State of Nevada Employees Association: Mr. James A. Edmundson, President of Retired Public Employees of Nevada; Ms. Anita LaRuy, City of North Las Vegas; Ms. Patricia Howard, Economic Development Director for City of North Las Vegas; Mr. John Swendseid, City of North Las Vegas; Mr. Manny Gomez, Professional Consulting Group, City of North Las Vegas; Mr. Kirby Burgess, Clark County; Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association; Mr. Howard Barrett, Nevada Taxpayers Association;

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 376 - Makes various changes to statutory provisions governing public employment of persons with disabilities and prohibits expressly discrimination against certain persons.

 

Mr. Glenn Rock, Director, Nevada Department of Personnel, testified AB 376 was a bill which would bring NRS statutes into conformity with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.  He explained Sections 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 and 10 of AB 376 would change the wording of "handicapped" to "disability," which was the language used by the Code of Federal Regulations; Section 3 would add disability and age, indicating "age" had previously been left out of the statutes; Section 5 would remove language for refusing to examine for reasons of physical disability; and Sections 6 and 8 would add federal language for reasonable accommodation.

 

Chairman Garner asked for clarification that the change in language was just clean-up language to make the statutes more consistent with the American Disabilities Act requirement.  Mr. Rock indicated that was correct.

 

Chairman Garner queried if Mr. Rock was aware there was a group suggesting an amendment to AB 376.  Mr. Rock indicated he was aware of the amendment.

 

Mr. Dick Gleed, Collective Bargaining Coalition, presented the proposed amendment to AB 376 (Exhibit C).  He indicated the amendment was attempting to increase the options for state employees who wished to avail themselves of the formal appeal process in the event they were given disciplinary action.  Mr. Gleed clarified AB 376 would allow employees to be represented by non-attorneys if they so wished, and emphasized this was not a discrimination against the law profession but would give employees an additional option in their defense.

 

Chairman Garner asked if Mr. Gleed was suggesting this amendment be added as an additional section to the bill.  Mr. Gleed agreed.

 

Mr. Dan Thompson, Political Action Director for Nevada State AFL-CIO, indicated support of Mr. Gleed's testimony.

 

Mr. Hettrick asked Mr. Gleed if the language in the amendment currently existed with the exception of number 3.  Mr. Gleed indicated agreement.

 

Mr. Hettrick then questioned if an employee had no representation, could he bring someone if he chose to.  Mr. Gleed answered the employee currently had the option to either represent himself or acquire an attorney.

 

Mr. Hettrick indicated he found nothing in the existing language which stated an employee could acquire an attorney and asked why the bill had to be changed to indicate he could acquire a representative other than an attorney.  Mr. Gleed replied there was currently no specific reference in the statute in regard to the matter of representation, but it was incorporated in the Nevada Administrative Code.

 

Chairman Garner asked Mr. Rock to respond to the proposed amendment.

 

Mr. Rock indicated he had no problem with the amendment as it would not hold up the revisions regarding the disabilities act.

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 376 indicating action would be taken at the next scheduled committee meeting.

 

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 19 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to prescribe additional restrictions on public employees' retirement system.

 

Assemblyman Dean Heller, District 40, testified AJR 19 was basically a clause which would protect the Public Employees Retirement System from raids orchestrated by the administration or any legislative body.  He gave a review of the bill (Exhibit D).

 

Mr. McGaughey questioned, "Let's go down the road a few years and this resolution passed and it became in the constitution that they are sole authority for that system, and for whatever reason that the board was not doing its job and was causing damage to the system, and the legislature or no one could have any impact on the direction of that PERS, how would you address that?"

 

Mr. Heller replied that was not necessarily true of this bill, the legislature would still have the authority to make changes such as change benefits or increase premiums, it would not touch those particular aspects.

 

Further discussion ensued between Mr. McGaughey and Mr. Heller.

 

Mr. Will Keating, Executive Officer of Public Employees Retirement System, indicated the Retirement Board had considered AJR 19 and was in full support of the concept of the bill.  He answered some of Mr. McGaughey's concerns, indicating NRS 286.113 provided for the interim retirement committee of the legislature to receive status reports on the actions of the retirement system and NRS 286.120 required the governor to appoint or remove the seven members of the Public Employees Retirement Board.  Mr. Keating felt these statutes would allow both the legislature and administration to have oversight of PERS and said the bill would only allow the board the latitude to make certain decisions to preclude any raids on the system.

 

Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, testified the members were very interested and in full support of AJR 19.  She indicated there was a high level of confidence in the PERS and members of its board.  Ms. Cahill commented over the past several years the members had expressed concerns about possible future problems with borrowing from PERS. 

 

Mr. Ernaut asked Mr. Heller if he had given any thought to allowing political subdivisions from deferring payment to the system.  Mr. Heller replied it had been discussed but felt it was an obligation and responsibility of the PERS board to make those decisions.

 

Mr. Heller pointed out the public pension funds were the obligations of the taxpayers, and the continual meddling and involvement of government entities was a cause of continual consternation to taxpayers.  He stated it would be those outside the system who would have to pay for problems which occurred within the system.

 

Ms. Linda Johnson, So. Nevada representative for State of Nevada Employees Association, testified she concurred with previous testimony and fully supported passage of AJR 19.

 

Mr. James A. Edmundson, President of Retired Public Employees of Nevada, stated the 14 chapters across the state wholeheartedly endorsed AJR 19 and urged passage by the committee.

 

Chairman Garner asked for a motion to do pass AJR 19.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 19.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Garner assigned the bill to Mrs. de Braga.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 250 - Authorizes landscaping and public lighting as local improvements.

 

Ms. Anita LaRuy, City of North Las Vegas, testified AB 250 would authorize landscaping and public lighting as local improvements.  She indicated this bill would provide a mechanism for new growth areas to construct the necessary amenities and infrastructure.  Ms. LaRuy introduced Patricia Howard, John Swendseid and Mr. Manny Gomez.

 

Ms. Patricia Howard, Economic Development Director for City of North Las Vegas, testified in favor of AB 250 (Exhibit E).

 

Mr. John Swendseid, City of North Las Vegas, gave a brief review of AB 250.  He explained Sections 2, 3 and 4 would add definitions to NRS 271, Special Assessment Districts; Section 5 would provide a procedure for assessing for maintenance, which was not included in NRS 271; and Section 6 and 7 would add the defined projects to the list permitted to cities under NRS 271.

 

Mrs. Lambert asked Mr. Swendseid to review the process to make assessment for operation and questioned the duration of the assessments.

 

Mr. Swendseid answered the assessments for construction of landscaping or public lighting project would be like the assessment for any other project.  He indicated one assessment would be made at the time the cost of the capital project was determined, and that assessment was payable by the property owner over a period of up to 20 years, depending on what the governing body would provide.  He stated the statute would also contemplate levying an assessment for maintaining the landscaping or lighting and would require that assessment be made annually.

 

Mrs. Lambert questioned why the provisions for NRS 271.380 were excluded from the process.

 

Mr. Swendseid explained NRS 271.380 provided for a notice procedure used for assessment hearings in regular assessment districts and generally provided notification be given by publication, posting and mail.  He indicated the statute in Section 5 provided for notification by mail to all affected property owners so the effect would be to waive posting and publication of the notice.

 

Further discussion ensued.

 

Chairman Garner asked if this was the first time the cost of landscaping and lighting maintenance would be included in an improvement district.  Mr. Swendseid replied there was a very limited statute which would allow for assessment of extraordinary maintenance in a city between 200,000 and 400,000 population and in the redevelopment area.

 

Mr. McGaughey expanded on Chairman Garner's question, asking, "Is there any assessment district now doing maintenance, you said the statutes can provide for it, but is it being done?"

 

Mr. Swendseid answered he believed Reno was doing the extraordinary maintenance assessment district in the redevelopment area, but he was not positive.

 

Mr. McGaughey asked how the geographic area of a district would be determined regarding street lighting. 

 

Ms. Howard explained the city would go to a consultant who would make the determination as to what properties were benefitted by the proposed project.  She deferred to Mr. Manny Gomez.

 

Mr. McGaughey also questioned if the lighting in question was for the regular street lights found on both sides of the street throughout the city.

 

Ms. Howard replied it could be for the regular street lighting found in some places on both sides of the street, or it could be for specialized street lighting in a master-planned community.

 

Mr. Manny Gomez, Professional Consulting Group, City of North Las Vegas, testified the methodology used would depend on how the assessment was laid, but typically the infrastructure would be evaluated and how the properties would benefit from the infrastructure.

 

Further discussion ensued among committee members, Mr. Gomez, Ms. Howard and Mr. Swendseid.

 

Mr. McGaughey asked what was the source of revenue to pay for operation of street lights in existing housing tracts in the City of North Las Vegas.

 

Ms. Howard answered the only source was the general fund.

 

Mr. McGaughey then inquired if there was a property tax assessed which went into the general fund to pay for street lights.

 

Ms. Howard replied, "A $100,000 house, for example, would pay to the City of North Las Vegas general fund $70 a year for all government services."

 

Assemblyman Tom Collins, District No. 1, testified in support of AB 250.

 

Mrs. Lambert asked, "How do you think your constituents would feel if the project was built and two years later the city sent you a notice in the mail saying 'come to a hearing, we are going to levy an assessment on your property tax bill for maintenance,' and when you get there there's no guarantee that all of your constituents would be able to prevent that from happening?"

 

Mr. Collins replied, "I discussed with some members about some of the concerns on the language there and maybe there is a possibility that you could work something out clarifying the protest."

 

Mr. Kirby Burgess, Clark County, indicating he was testifying on behalf of the Public Works Department, requested an amendment be made to AB 250 (Exhibit F).

 

Chairman Garner asked if North Las Vegas had reviewed the amendments and concurred with them.

 

Mr. Burgess indicated it was his understanding North Las Vegas would accept the amendments as written.

 

Assemblyman Gene Segerblom, District No. 22, testified in favor of AB 250 on behalf of Boulder City.

 

Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified in vehement opposition to AB 250.  She referenced Mr. Swendseid's testimony regarding the capital improvements for assessment districts possibly lasting 20 years, stating that was a long time to pay for something that might not last more than five years. 

 

Ms. Vilardo commented on the cost of maintenance, "The cost of operation is maintenance.  Now it was testified that we need to do that and I respectfully submit to the committee that we do not need to do that.  What has happened, and in particular through the 80's, with creating a number of these districts and the infrastructure financing the impact fees, and the exactions that have been used, had been to allow a piece of infrastructure that was integral to the development, whether it was commercial or private property, to be built and be on-line by the time people moved in or businesses were ready to conduct their business in these areas.  The assumption of maintenance was to be a function of those property owners or businesses that then moved in, because from vacant land and putting up whatever you did within curbs, gutters, sidewalks, any of the impacts allowed, that was being put up against what was vacant land, a house being built, a development being built, that would then go on your tax rolls for property, that property then goes into your general fund.  Now there was a reference made about $70 paid in property tax on a $100,000 home, and that is probably very valid, but again, I would call the committee's attention to a legislative decision made in 1981 that we were shifting from property tax base, general fund operations to sales tax.  Now, more people move into the community, a business comes up, and in effect what you have is a new economic base created through your property tax and the increase of sales tax that will be generated.  It is that combination that goes into your general fund.  It is not just property tax that pays for general fund in any local government area.  So you have this coming on and this is what would normally be used to pay for normal maintenance.  Not only are we expanding in this particular bill to allow these annual assessments for operation, we have no definition for operation within any of our statutes dealing with the special taxing districts or impact fees.  We have no definition of maintenance...  In addition, I would call your attention, it was not specifically referenced, to lines 1 and 2 on page 2, and that is the governing body may provide a penalty for a late payment for an annual assessment not greater than two percent a month.  That is usury."

 

Mr. Howard Barrett, Nevada Taxpayers Association, reiterated this would be the first time an improvement district was used for maintenance or operation of the district.  He indicated the district would be formed only if 51 percent of the property owners did not vote against it, and after it was formed maintenance would be added and assessments made against property to pay for the maintenance which had not been discussed at the time it was formed.

 

As there was no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 250.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 251 - Changes certain procedures for making local improvements.

 

Ms. Anita LaRuy, City of North Las Vegas, testified in support of AB 251, indicating it would amend the general assessment law to allow assessments for maintenance of any project that could have been constructed under the special assessment district procedure in Nevada, such as street and sidewalk projects, storm sewer projects, water, park and other project.

 

Ms. Patricia Howard, Economic Development Director of North Las Vegas, testified in favor of AB 251 (Exhibit G).

 

Mr. John Swendseid, City of North Las Vegas, distributed Exhibit H which pointed out the problems with paying for maintenance.  He gave a brief review of AB 251 explaining the amendment to NRS 271.320 would require the plans and specifications prepared before the first hearing be sufficiently detailed for a property owner to determine what was going on; the amendment to NRS 271.325 would merely conform to the previous amendment; the amendment to NRS 271.3695 would permit maintenance and assessment for maintenance.  Mr. Swendseid indicated if an assessment was made for maintenance under AB 251, a hearing would have to be held at which, if half the property owners protested, the governing body could not levy the maintenance assessment, that would be done under NRS 271.305.  Mr. Swendseid continued, stating the amendment to NRS 271.425 would allow an assessment on combined tracts, and the amendment to NRS 271.710 would correct a technical problem to existing law which would require development districts to get the consent of all owners of property which would be assessed in the district rather than owners of everything.

 

Mr. Manny Gomez, City of North Las Vegas, commented from the assessment district engineer's perspective on AB 251.  He indicated modifying the first item as it dealt with plans and specifications would make the process less cumbersome.  Regarding maintenance, Mr. Gomez felt homeowners were asking for more from developers, such as landscaping, lighting and other special features.  He stated all those features required more maintenance than the normal level of infrastructure and the operation cost of that maintenance would continue in perpetuity. Mr. Gomez pointed out even if trees died in a landscaping site, the landscaping area would still be there and still need to be maintained.  He said, "That additional level of maintenance that provides an extra benefit to that property really only benefits that property and not the balance of the city, and that's why we feel it needs to be a special maintenance assessment and dedicated to that one specific area."

 

Assemblyman C. W. Tom Collins, Assembly District 1, stating he was testifying as a citizen, said people in the older section of North Las Vegas had indicated to him the desire to have the same improvements the newer section of town was receiving.  He commented the problem was once the city made improvements, it did not have the money to maintain it.  Mr. Collins felt AB 251 was good legislation and should be passed.

 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Collins and committee members.

 

Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, referencing page 3, section 3 said, "we have no problems with shortening the time frame to make it easier and some of the technical provisions in combining the parcels, but we would ask that you strike all of the changes in page 3, same reason, extraordinary maintenance going down to normal maintenance, no definition of maintenance.  This sets up a totally different mechanism, further, it is removing the population limitations on here, and I am not saying that this should not be done for the others.  I was in error in not mentioning to the committee on the previous bill that the assembly taxation committee, because of the park tax district, because of special district bills that are coming through them has voted to request an interim study to look at all these laws.  Yes, there is a problem.  But piece-mealing it like this is going to give us close to some 60 different variations with no consistency, and so I would ask that in this bill you strike any of the changes, please, in Section 3 on page 3."

 

Chairman Garner asked, "I wanted your reaction to Mrs. Howard's response on the distribution of sales tax, that in fact this is not another source of revenue that's available to them.  Is that, in your opinion, true or false?"

 

Ms. Vilardo replied no, it was not the purpose of the shift.  She indicated Mrs. Lambert was more familiar with what had gone on with that from having served on the tax committee and subcommittees.

 

Extensive discussion ensued among committee members, Ms. Vilardo and Ms. Howard.

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 251.

 

Mr. Ernaut asked for committee introduction of a separate visitor and commission authority in Incline Village.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO ACCEPT COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF A SEPARATE VISITOR AND COMMISSION AUTHORITY IN INCLINE VILLAGE.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 253 - Enacts interstate compact for certain operations by Nevada National Guard.

 

Chairman Garner indicated he had received a number of calls on AB 253.  He felt there was no real problem with the bill, the testimony in committee allayed most of the concerns.  Chairman Garner gave copies of additional testimony to Mr. Ernaut in case there were questions.

 

Mrs. Augustine stated she had also received several calls on AB 253, and the feeling by those calling was it was "brought in the back door" through committee introduction, and there was not enough time for testimony in opposition to the bill.  Mrs. Augustine said she suggested to those people to attend the Senate hearings if it passed out of the Assembly.

 

Mr. Ernaut questioned what the concerns were regarding AB 253.

 

Mrs. Augustine indicated the callers were concerned the federal government would come in and supersede the state's authority over the National Guard, because once the National Guard had left the state, which is what they would be doing with the drug activities, the governor would no longer have jurisdiction over the National Guard.

 

Chairman Garner said it seemed to him one of the concerns expressed from that particular group was there was a conspiracy in place to take away people's rights and confiscation of property, and he agreed with Mrs. Augustine's suggestion that those with concerns should testify in the Senate.  He did not feel AB 253 had been rushed through, as it had been about a month since the bill had been heard, "and we waited for the parties to get together to resolve their differences with the Nevada Department of Investigations.  Those problems were resolved and we went forward with the bill, so I don't concur at all that this has come through the back door... or that there has been any rush to pass this bill."

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:52 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      LINDA FEATHERINGILL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

April 7, 1993

Page: 1