MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 16, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:15 a.m., Wednesday, June 16, 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:

 

      Senator Ernie Adler, Capital Senatorial District

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Dana Bennett, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Anita LaRuy, City of North Las Vegas; Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Homebuilders Association; and Marty Bibb, Public Relations.

 

 

 

 

Chairman Garner explained to the committee they would be addressing the bills listed in Exhibit C, the work session document, as well as other bills which might be ready to be acted upon.

 

Mr. Garner said he had received additional information in opposition to AB 177 which he would turn over to Mr. McGaughey.

 

Mr. Garner then assigned AB 17 to a subcommittee composed of Mr. Williams as the chairman, Mr. Hettrick and Mrs. Segerblom.  He added he would also be working with the subcommittee.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 251 -Changes certain procedures for making local improvements.

 

Anita LaRuy, City of North Las Vegas explained what had occurred in the meeting with Mrs. Lambert, Ms. Howard and Brenda Erdoes, adding Ms. Howard was to send proposed amendments to Mrs. Lambert.

 

Mrs. Lambert explained the proposed amendments combined AB 250 and AB 251, adding a landscaping and lighting project to Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 271, the local improvement district law.  AB 251 was to be the vehicle, with portions deleted, and proposed amendments from the Clark County bond counsel to clarify language and other technical information.

 

When asked by the chairman if the amendments had been requested from bill drafting, Mrs. Lambert replied she had not received direction to proceed.  Mr. Garner then asked Dana Bennett to work with Anita LaRuy to develop the amendments and, hopefully, move the bill.

 

The hearing on AB 251 was closed with no action taken.

 

Mr. Garner asked Mr. McGaughey to contact the City of Fernley regarding AB 352 in order to move the bill.  Mr. McGaughey replied the city could not use impact fees to do what they wanted and were, therefore, looking for another alternative.

 

When asked about AB 397, Mr. Hettrick explained the two AGC's had approached him and asked him to look at SB 474 before taking any action on AB 397.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 622 -Authorizes special assessments to enhance attractiveness of business districts.

 

Mr. Hettrick said he had received amendments the day before but needed to get the subcommittee together to look at the them, adding the amendments helped but did not solve all the problems.  Mr. Garner added he too had received information alerting him the Nevada Taxpayers Association had become involved and had called the City of North Las Vegas.  He then asked Anita LaRuy if she could enlighten the committee.

 

Mrs. LaRuy testified she had spoken to Carole Vilardo, who said she did not like the bill.  Her reason for disliking the bill was for the same reasons she did not like any of the assessment bills, there was no uniformity.  Mrs. LaRuy concluded by saying, "I've gotten no other opposition to the bill other than the Taxpayers."

 

Mr. Garner asked Mrs. LaRuy if she had received any calls from businesses or other people to indicate opposition.  Mrs. LaRuy replied, "Absolutely not.  They were in favor of the bill because it would help their businesses.  This is the only information I've gotten so far."

 

Mrs. Augustine stated the primary opposition was to Section 19, the percentage assessment for failure to pay could be up to 24 percent per year.

 

Mr. Hettrick countered the amendments addressed the percentage assessment to make it prime rate plus 2 percent; the seven day notice had been changed to 15 days; language to address "50 percent or more of the business owners" was included; and the word "may" was changed to "shall."  He added there were still a few questions remaining and he asked to work with Mrs. LaRuy to resolve them.

 

When asked by the Chairman how soon he could come back with recommendations, Mr. Hettrick replied Friday morning. 

 

The hearing on AB 622 was closed with no action taken.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 652 -Makes various changes relating to Carson City.

 

Mr. Ernaut interpreted the proposed amendment (Exhibit D), explaining, after a brief meeting, the gender neutralization had been abandoned.

 

Mrs. Augustine questioned the three new sections which had been requested.  Mr. Ernaut explained there had been some confusion when the bill was first heard, therefore, the Legislative Counsel Bureau threw the request out because of being addressed in statute or not necessary.

 

Mr. Bache stated his only concern was in Section 2, increasing the residency requirements from six months to one year.  Mr. Garner explained the time frames were different across the state but a year was not unreasonable.  He then told the committee Elections and Procedures had recommended an interim study to look at standardizing residency requirements throughout the state.

 

Mr. Ernaut said he shared the same concern but there was a lot of good in the bill to open the process up, so he was willing to let the one year provision pass because of the proposed interim study.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED AMEND & DO PASS ON AB 652.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.           (MRS. SEGERBLOM WAS NOT PRESENT AT TIME OF VOTE)

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 696 -Creates Tricounty Railway Commission.

 

Senator Ernie Adler, Capital Senatorial District, stated he could not find the proposed amendment but said he was willing to walk the committee through the proposed changes, which he did.

 

Mrs. Lambert questioned Page 2, adding a new subsection 6, regarding the use of a District Attorney.  Senator Adler replied the amendment allowed the use of any District Attorney from one of the counties as counsel.

 

Mrs. Lambert then questioned the taxes.  She wanted to know if it was going to be done the same as rapid transit.  Senator Adler explained the taxing process which would be used at the suggestion of Kim Morgan but he said he had not seen the amendment yet.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED AMEND & DO PASS ON AB 696.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.           (MRS. SEGERBLOM AND MRS. KENNY WERE NOT PRESENT AT TIME OF VOTE)

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 707 -Makes various changes concerning the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act.

 

Chairman Garner told the committee, in addition to AB 707, there was another bill coming from the Senate, SB 370, which also changed the Administrative Procedure Act. He then asked Dana Bennett to tell the committee about the amendments.

 

Dana Bennett explained all substantive changes to AB 707 had been incorporated into Exhibit E, proposed amendments condensed from the earlier 3 pages submitted to the committee and Lorne Malkiewich.

 

Mr. Ernaut added the only substantive change was in Section 8, making it easier for the Public Service Commission to notify people.  The other changes were merely to clean up language.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED AMEND & DO PASS ON AB 707.

 

In further discussion of the motion, Mr. Hettrick asked about SB 370 and asked if there was going to be a potential conflict.  Mr. Garner replied he had not received a conflict notice and a change to the Administrative Procedure Act did not necessarily mean there would be a conflict.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Prior to voting, Mrs. Augustine asked Dana Bennett for further clarification on the amendments.  Dana pointed out the language was existing language, the amendments merely moved the language around.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

SENATE BILL NO. 163 -   Establishes general requirements for determining state agency's cost of furnishing service for purpose of awarding contract or provision of that service.

 

Dana Bennett refreshed the committee's memory as to what had occurred at the original hearing.  Mr. Garner added he had not heard from anyone opposing the legislation.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE MOVED DO PASS ON SB 163.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.           (MR. NEIGHBORS AND MR. HETTRICK VOTED NO)

 

Chairman Garner said he had asked the counties for input regarding changing the noticing time period from three to five days in SB 174.  The responses indicated there was a substantial number of problems in requiring a five day notice and no appetite to compromise to a four day notice, therefore, Mr. Garner said he would talk to Senator Coffin before coming back to the committee with a recommendation on SB 174.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 153 -Directs coordination of governmental collection of money and information from business.

 

Mrs. Segerblom presented an amendment (Exhibit F) to the committee, explaining the changes.

 

Mrs. Lambert suggested the legislation was an excellent idea.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED AMEND & DO PASS ON AB 153.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 177 -Makes various changes to requirements for subdivision of land.

 

Chairman Garner said AB 177 was sitting on the Chief Clerk's desk but was an item for discussion.

 

Mr. McGaughey said a language problem had been encountered and he asked Irene Porter to discuss it with the committee.

 

Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Homebuilders Association, pointed out one section of the bill had been written incorrectly by the bill drafters.  She referenced Page 10, Section 32, line 33, and said it had not been written as intended.  She clarified what the original intent of the technical committee had been for dealing with final maps but, as currently written, it appeared the bill said there could be no additional conditions imposed on any final map after the first one.  She felt, as written, the legislation would cause a great deal of problems to the local governments and she added, "We would not even concur that it should be done that way."

 

Mr. McGaughey asked if Mrs. Porter could help assist in correcting the language.

 

Mr. Garner then asked Mrs. Lambert if it had been her intention to delete Section 32.  Mrs. Lambert said yes, but she did not have a problem with correcting what Mrs. Porter brought out.  She only disagreed with two years versus one year.

 

The discussion on AB 177 was concluded.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 378 -Imposes temporary moratorium on adoption of state regulations and creates advisory committee to study such regulations.

 

Chairman Garner presented the committee with Exhibit G, an amendment which deleted the whole bill, leaving in only the interim study.  The bill would then be rereferred to the Committee on Elections and Procedures.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED AMEND & DO PASS ON AB 378.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO AMEND & REREFER AB 378 TO ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

Chairman Garner asked Mrs. Lambert and Mr. Walker to meet with him after the committee hearing to work out the amendment to AB 461.  He was hopeful he could bring back something to the committee for recommendation.

 

SENATE BILL NO. 278 -   Requires committee on benefits to provide group insurance to certain retired public employees.

 

Mr. Garner said there had been amendments proposed and attached to the bill on the Senate side concerning insurability, the concern raised in this committee's hearing of the bill.  He referred the committee to Section 2, subsection 5, and said the language, which had been agreed to in the Senate, addressed the issue.

 

Marty Bibb, Retired Public Employees of Nevada, testified, "The retirees would be, for the first year, presumed to have the same exact rate as the other retirees in the state program.  At the end of the first year they would be actuarially analyzed, the rate would be set based on their exact precise experience.  They would have that rate set for them, the new group of retirees separate from any other group.  That rate would take into account any issues of condition of anybody who came into that pool.  The market would dictate the success of that program.  If it were burdened with people whose condition, for example, increased that rate, they would be the only persons paying for that insurance.  This is not mandatory, this is optional.  They may join if they wish.  In the Senate, we heard the actuary indicate he did not expect the group experience of the new people coming in to be significantly different than the experience of those retirees in the same group, as presently comprised.  It's also interesting to note there are about 2,500 people currently retired under the group insurance program in the retired category.  We expect, from a survey we did of our members late last year, there would be about 3,000 people who would be interested in such a program as they are not currently covered under the state retired program; and another 1,500 who, based on the rates, might well be interested in participating.  We think that pool size could be as big or larger, perhaps even in the current retiree pool.  We think, therefore, the powers that come into play in terms of pooling and group insurance purchasing would make that an extremely attractive option.  Again, it is important to note that the retirees, the new retirees, coming on would pay 100 percent of any costs associated with their group insurance.  Granted, for the first year they would be rated at the same level but, again, that is based on the actuary's assessment that their experience should not differ significantly from anybody else.  It is an extremely important bill for retired public employees, many of whom had no continuation of health care option at the time they retired.  It's important to them and, indeed, as the chair has pointed out, the only opposition on the Senate side came from the very person whose amendment was adopted in the first reprint.  We support SB 278 as proposed, don't believe it needs any amendments and believe there is protection in there for all groups."

 

Mrs. Freeman wanted clarification, citing herself as an example of a retired public employee, as an individual, not a member of a group, who bought into the system.  She asked if she could end up paying less if she seldom used the health system.  Mr. Bibb replied the rate setting was based on all the experience of the entire pool, therefore, the rate would be set equally.

 

When asked if there was one or more pools, Mr. Bibb answered there currently were four pools.  One, for active state employees; two, for public employees other than state employees, with 99 or fewer in the group; three, non-state employees, other public employees--100 or more; and the fourth pool was all retirees.  SB 278 would establish a new pool of retirees who would be rated as stated earlier.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED DO PASS ON SB 278.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.           (MRS. KENNY WAS NOT PRESENT AT TIME OF VOTE)

 

Mrs. de Braga asked the chairman if AB 633 could be considered.  Chairman Garner explained he needed to meet with her to discuss information he wanted to make her aware of.  In addition, he told the committee a major concern had been expressed by Public Lands and Willie Molini indicating there had been a substantial bond issue approved to use state dollars to purchase water rights in the Fallon area, and there was a real concern regarding what that might do to the costs involved in the purchase of water rights and the cost of establishing revegetation.  He maintained he was not comfortable in moving forward with a bill which might have a fiscal impact on one or two of the state agencies.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 a.m.

 

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      BETTY WILLS

      Committee Secretary

 

 

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

June 16, 1993

Page: 1