MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
May 26, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:08 a.m., Wednesday, May 26, 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 Richard Perkins, District 23
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dana Bennett, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Anita LaRuy, City of North Las Vegas; Patricia Howard, Director, Department of Economic Development, City of North Las Vegas; John Mendoza, Chairman, Public Service Commission of Nevada; Charlie Silvestri, Manager/Public Affairs, Southwest Gas Corporation; Stan Warren, Sierra Pacific Resources; Margaret McMillan, Sprint Central Telephone, Nevada; Allen Glover, Nevada Power Company; and Karen Kavanau, Director, Department of Data Processing.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 622 -Authorizes special assessments to enhance attractiveness of business districts.
Anita LaRuy, City of North Las Vegas, testified in support of AB 622, saying it would authorize the levy of annual assessments for certain authorized improvements to benefit businesses located and operating within the boundaries of the designated parking and business improvement area.
Patricia Howard, Director, Department of Economic Development, City of North Las Vegas presented Exhibit C in support of AB 622, opining business improvement districts were needed in order to remain competitive.
Mrs. Lambert asked if North Las Vegas (NLV) had a redevelopment district, Mrs. Howard replied yes. The answer again was yes to Mrs. Lambert query if NLV had a tax increment area in the redevelopment district. Mrs. Lambert then wanted to know if the tax increment area was bonded to its full capacity. Mrs. Howard replied it was not bonded at all, NLV did not have enough increments to issue bonds. Mrs. Lambert next said, "So in lieu of the increment district you are going to use this funding mechanism." Mrs. Howard explained AB 622 was not only for redevelopment areas but for older business districts which did not have the administrative capability or the funds to make their competitive posture better. Further discussion followed regarding how the legislation would work. In conclusion, Mrs. Lambert maintained the bill was not written to perform what was envisioned. Mrs. Howard countered the only difference was one word in Page 3, section 16, line 41. She was of the opinion the word "may" should be changed to "shall." More discussion took place pertaining to funding and Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 279.
Mrs. Segerblom questioned if a project would move forward without 50 percent of the businesses consenting. Mrs. Howard replied no, with further discussion.
Mr. Hettrick expressed concern regarding Page 3, section 14, line 2, dealing with a 7 day, published notice. He thought the time frame was too short. Mrs. Howard said she had no problem with extending the time frame. More discussion ensued regarding "pay 50 percent" because Mr. Hettrick feared one big property owner could push a district.
Mr. McGaughey queried concerning Page 2, section 8, pertaining to street lights. Mrs. Howard explained that particular section was enabling legislation for businesses desiring specialized lighting in order to build an identity for themselves. More discussion followed respecting benches, trash receptacles, parks and financing.
Mr. Williams asked if NLV would waive fees to hold events such as parades. Mrs. Howard answered no, with explanation. When asked if someone would have to pay fees to hold a festival, Mrs. Howard replied yes, again with explanation. In closing, Mr. Williams stated his concern was similar to Mr. Hettrick's, that there might be those districts which did not wish to move forward with an event, but they would be locked in because of the legislation.
Mr. Garner directed the committee's attention to Section 19, "two percent per month," and asked if it computed to 24 percent. Mrs. Howard said no, not exceeding....Mr. Garner pointed out "not exceed" meant it could reach 24 percent. Mrs. Howard countered the same language existed for all improvement and assessment districts and was determined by interest rates. Nonetheless, Mr. Garner stated, "Although it may be standard, 24 percent seems like a lot." Thereafter, Mr. Garner asked Mrs. Howard to work with Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Williams and Mrs. Lambert to find language to address the issues raised earlier in sections 14 and 16 of the bill.
The hearing on AB 622 was closed with no action taken.
SENATE BILL NO. 206 - Delays prospective expiration of provision requiring public utilities to pay assessments for certain expenses incurred by public service commission of Nevada.
John Mendoza, Chairman, Public Service Commission of Nevada, introduced C. Kirby Lampley, Deputy Commissioner, Public Service Commission of Nevada, and explained the purpose of SB 206 was to extend the current program for another two years. The program, outlined in NRS 703.145, had been passed in 1989 and extended in 1991. He then proceeded to outline the program to the committee and introduced Exhibit D, a report on assessments charged public utilities for travel expenses related to appearances at federal regulatory agencies.
Charles Silvestri, Manager/Public Affairs, Southwest Gas Corporation, testified he could not add anymore to what had been said by Mr. Mendoza, therefore, he wanted to go on record as strongly supporting SB 206.
Stan Warren, Sierra Pacific Resources, supporting SB 206 said at the inception of the legislation there had been doubt about the purpose and the mission of it, hence, the sunset had been added. But, he continued, it had turned out to be very beneficial to his organization, therefore, it had been supported ever since and he wanted to go on record as supporting it this legislative session.
Margaret McMillan, Sprint Central Telephone, Nevada, supported SB 206, saying, to date, Sprint had not used the legislation but expected to use it in the future.
Allen Glover, Nevada Power Company, supported SB 206.
ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED DO PASS ON SB 206.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (MRS. LAMBERT DECLARED CONFLICT AND ABSTAINED).
SENATE BILL NO. 340 - Specifies procedure for designating data processors in individual agencies.
Karen Kavanau, Director, Department of Data Processing, stated SB 340 provided for input from the Department of Data Processing to the Department of Personnel on determining the qualifications of and need for data processing personnel in most executive branch agencies. She added it was a cleanup bill. NRS 242, the statutes which guided the Department of Data Processing, mandated the function be performed, but there was no complimentary legislation in NRS 284, the statutes governing the Department of Personnel. SB 340 merely completed the picture.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED DO PASS ON SB 340.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 251 -Changes certain procedures for making local improvements.
Dana Bennett, referred the committee to Exhibit E, a proposed amendment. Mr. Garner agreed with Mr. McGaughey it was a lengthy amendment. He then asked Patricia Howard, City of North Las Vegas to review the bill with the committee, which she did.
Mrs. Lambert entered into a discussion with Ms. Howard regarding what the language meant in Page 3, Section 3, of the original bill. It was determined the language was no longer needed and could be stricken.
Mr. McGaughey asked why new language was added in the amendment to precede Section 1. Mrs. Howard answered she had not written the legislation, she had only taken the authorizing language for landscaping and lighting projects from AB 250 and asked that it be put into AB 251.
Continuing, Mr. McGaughey questioned what kind of an emergency would require the exemption as spoken of on Page 2, section f, of the amendment. Mrs. Howard stated she was not sure "emergency" was a good word, suggesting it would apply to a one owner district. More discussion followed on this point.
Chairman Garner asked Mrs. Lambert to get with the bill drafter and Anita LaRuy and review the questions raised by Mr. McGaughey.
The hearing on AB 251 was closed with no action taken.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 623 -Authorizes state emergency response commission to adopt regulations which regulate division of emergency management of department of military.
Chairman Garner assured the committee all the agreements had been reached. All parties had agreed to Exhibit E, a proposed amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON AB 623.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 593 -Revises provisions relating to investigation of alleged misconduct of peace officer.
Mr. Garner explained to the committee the bill drafting department had determined the proposed amendment which had been suggested during the original hearing of AB 593 was not necessary. Mr. Bennett concurred.
Mr. Hettrick recalled an officer could waive the 72 hour requirement if he chose to do so but it was not in the language. Mr. Garner suggested looking into the matter further by asking Mr. Perkins to join the hearing. The committee then adjourned in order to locate Mr. Perkins.
Upon resuming the hearing and prior to calling Assemblyman Perkins to testify, Chairman Garner requested committee introduction of the following Bill Draft Request:
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 48-2008 - Revises membership of Colorado River commission.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 48-2008.
ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (MRS. SEGERBLOM VOTED NO)
MR. WILLIAMS & MR. ERNAUT WERE NOT PRESENT AT TIME OF VOTE.
Returning to AB 593, Assemblyman Perkins, District 23, explained the proposed amendment had dealt with the admonishment of an officer, of his right to have counsel or other representation, and having that admonishment completed. He said when he went to bill draft to get the amendment drafted, it was explained to him NRS 280 took care of those concerns and the amendment was not needed. Continuing, he said by adding the word "hearing" to existing language, the concerns regarding the new administrative hearings due to use of force were taken care of. He admitted AB 593 did not address Mr. Hettrick's concern, which was where did one cross the line into informal and formal and how did a supervisor do his job, but this was addressed in the current peace officers bill of rights. AB 593 merely added the 72 hour opportunity to retain counsel in harmony with two supreme court cases, Garratty and Laudermill.
Chairman Garner recalled there had been a concern regarding the notice and its impact on weekends. Mr. Perkins said he was not sure how to bridge the problem as the whole purpose of the 72 hours was to allow the officer to retain representation prior to a hearing or investigation. Weekends were the most difficult time to acquire representation, therefore, he was not sure how to eliminate the problem if weekends were deleted.
Mrs. Augustine stated she had talked to O.C. Lee and he had told her he did not have a problem with deleting lines 9 - 11, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. Mr. Perkins replied Mr. Lee had mentioned to him he did not have a problem with deleting those lines as long as three-day weekends were addressed in some manner. Further discussion followed.
Mrs. Augustine turned her attention to Page 2, lines 12 - 14, and said she recalled the possibility of deleting those lines and inserting "and shall be advised of their right to have a lawyer." She then asked if that was covered in line 1, Mr. Perkins replied yes. More discussion ensued regarding waiving a right as in the case of the 72 hour regulation.
Mr. McGaughey asked if waiving the 72 hour regulation could be bargained for between the membership and the administration. Mr. Perkins replied he was not sure, adding under Chapter 288 he did not think the investigatory practices of the department were open to bargaining, but rather, it was a management right.
Mr. McGaughey mentioned the need to gather information while it was still fresh in everyone's mind. Mr. Perkins explained all the groundwork could still be done, all evidence and statements from other people could be gathered excepting the officer under investigation. He then said it did not concern him there could be a 3, 4, or 5 day wait in order to question that one individual.
Mrs. de Braga wanted to know if a situation could occur where an officer would be pressured into waiving his right to the 72 hour regulation. Mr. Perkins said it certainly was a concern, but he thought pressure could be applied regardless of whether the regulation was written into the bill or not. He then explained the type of intimidation it was hoped the bill would eliminate.
When asked if he thought there was a need to add specific language to AB 593 which would allow an officer to waive the 72 hour regulation, Mr. Perkins replied bill draft had told him everyone had the right to waive a right, therefore, it was unnecessary.
Mr. Bennett agreed with Mr. Perkin's understanding of waiving a right and said he had no problem with the bill as it was written.
Mr. Perkins added he had spoken to Mr. Hettrick who had shown him language from another agency which read "reasonable time should be allowed." He pointed out the problem with the language was "reasonable" was left open to interpretation.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS ON AB 593.
ASSEMBLYMAN KENNY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (MRS. LAMBERT, MR. ERNAUT AND MRS. AUGUSTINE VOTED NO.)
MR. WILLIAMS WAS NOT PRESENT AT TIME OF VOTE.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BETTY WILLS
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
May 26, 1993
Page: 1