MINUTES OF THE

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 17, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner, at 8:12 a.m., on Thursday, June 17, 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

      Ms. Kathy M. Augustine

      Mr. Douglas A. Bache

      Ms. Marcia de Braga

      Ms. Vivian L. Freeman

      Ms. Lynn Hettrick

      Ms. Erin Kenny                                  Absent

      Ms. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

      Mr. Roy Neighbors

      Ms. Gene W. Segerblom

      Mr. Wendell P. Williams                   Absent

 

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Senator Matthew Callister, Senatorial District No. 8

      Assemblyman Vonne Chowning, Assembly District No. 28

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Robert Seale, Nevada State Treasurer

      John Pappageorge, Clark County

      Douglas Dickerson, City of Las Vegas

      Anita LaRuy, City of North Las Vegas

      Irene Porter, City of Las Vegas

      Lisa Foster, City of Sparks

      Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities

      Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties

      Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association

      Margaret McMillan, Central Telephone Company

      Marcia Cobian, Nevada Telephone Association

      Mary Henderson, Washoe County

      Gene Williams, State Fire Marshal Division

      Ray Blehm, State Fire Marshal

      Dick Carver, Nye County Commissioner

      Tom Bentz, Private Citizen

      Bill Vaeretti, President, Wisconsin Gift and Novelty Co.

      Irene Porter, Nevada Housing Association

      Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas

      Kurt Fritch, City of Henderson

     

 

 

After making introductory remarks, Chairman Garner indicated he would open the hearing on AB 758.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 758 -     Authorizes issuance of state securities for savings or college savings investment.

 

Chairman Garner called on Bob Seale, Nevada State Treasurer, to explain the intent of AB 758, a bill he and Mr. Seale had developed together.  As background, Mr. Seale told the committee about two years ago he realized Nevada had the ability to issue Compound Interest Bonds -- otherwise known as "zero coupon bonds," most commonly used for saving for the future.  Mr. Seale related his experience with the National Association of State Treasurers, and subsequent involvement with the college savings bond program in Nevada.

 

As part of the requirement, Mr. Seale said they had taken the issue to the Board of Examiners who had indicated they were uncomfortable with the term "college savings."  After discussing this with the Attorney General, the Attorney General's opinion was Nevada could not issue college savings bonds using the words "college savings."  Although Mr. Seale said he disagreed with the Attorney General's opinion, at the same time they had gotten the ability to issue the zero coupon bonds and call it a "zero coupon savings plan."  Thus, $1,000 increment bonds were created.  By putting them in $1,000 increments and by restricting the first sales to those people inside the state of Nevada, they had distributed and enjoyed a very successful program.  This was recognized by Wall Street as well as financial institutions within the state.

 

Drawing on the success of the zero coupon savings plan, Mr. Seale said the Treasurer's Office saw a benefit in making this an ongoing program, but he felt the bonds would be even more popular if they were recognized as a college savings bond.  AB  758 would simply allow the Treasurer's Office to refer to them as "college savings bonds."

 

There was some question about the language, however, Mr. Seale stated.  On page 1, lines 6 and 7, Mr. Seale said he was not sure whether the "resolution" being referred to was a state resolution or a resolution the municipality issued.  Since all the bonds coming out of the municipal bond bank had to go to the Board of Examiners for approval on a contractual basis, Mr. Seale was concerned the language would remove some of the authority and latitude they had from the municipal bond bank.   Other than that question, Mr. Seale said the rest of the bill was just as they wanted it.

 

Chairman Garner assigned the bill to Mr. Bennett to confer with the bill drafter and Mr. Seale to resolve the language question.  Chairman Garner noted his support for the concept and the bill.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 751 -     Requires inclusion of business license number in certain advertising of business.

 

The prime sponsor of the bill, Assemblyman Lou Toomin, Assembly District 15, offered background remarks and submitted Exhibit C.  He told the committee there were problems with the language which he hoped could be resolved with amendments.  He cited personal problems encountered in his pool business with competition with unlicensed and uninsured contractors.  After checking with the business license office, he found 28 out of 81 listed pool contractors did not hold a county business license.  In the city, 33 out of 81 did not hold a city business license.  This presented a great loss of revenue for the counties and cities, as well as creating an unlevel playing field for ethical contractors, Mr. Toomin noted.  He proposed a requirement for any licensed business to use their license in any alphabetically listed advertisements. 

 

Mr. Toomin said AB 751 went somewhat further in that it paralleled existing contractors' law which required the use of a business' contractor's license number in all advertising.  He believed this was overbroad and if the license number appeared in the yellow pages of the phone book or the service directory this would be adequate. 

 

The following individuals indicated support of AB 751.

 

-     Representing Clark County, John Pappageorge, indicated agreement with the concept of AB 751; however, he agreed there were some technical problems with the bill.  Mr. Pappageorge did caution everyone to understand a license did not necessarily guarantee quality.

 

      Mrs. Lambert asked Mr. Pappageorge if Clark County had enforcement officers for business license complaints.  In response, Mr. Pappageorge said there was a Business License Division employee who answered complaints.

 

-     Doug Dickerson, representing the City of Las Vegas, testified in support of the concept of AB 751, and thought it would benefit not only the consumers, but would also assist the City of Las Vegas in enforcement of business licenses.

 

-     The City of North Las Vegas, represented by Anita LaRuy, also indicated support of AB 751.  She said her areas of concern had been discussed with Mr. Toomin who had assured her these would be taken care of.

 

-     Lisa Sparks, from the City of Sparks, explained Sparks did have an enforcement officer, but this was a difficult thing to police.

 

-     Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities. 

 

-     Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties.

 

Mr. Toomin pointed out the Service Directory Listing in Exhibit C, showed a disclaimer in the upper left hand corner which referenced NRS 624 related to conducting business with a business license.  He also drew attention to a letter from the Legislative Counsel Bureau dated June 10, 1993, addressing the issue of conducting business without a business license.

 

The Nevada Press Association, represented by Ande Engleman, stated they opposed AB 751, in particular, those sections which required the media to more or less be enforcers of the statute.  She drew attention to the language on page 1, lines 19-21 and page 2, lines 1-5.  This made the media guilty of a misdemeanor if they did not pull an ad, she said.  She pointed out there were exceptions for having a business license; and exemptions for new companies coming in under economic development auspices.  Ms. Engleman believed there were some constitutional problems with the bill; and suggested there was probably no reference to a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, in which the Supreme Court found new protections for commercial speech.  She believed there would be litigation in the future resulting from that case.

 

Margaret McMillan, representing Centel Telephone Company of Nevada, acknowledged some valid concerns had been voiced, however, the Company saw it as placing the Company in the position of being an enforcer.  This should be done by either the proper licensing boards or the cities and counties issuing the licenses since they had the proper records to aid in checking, she opined.  Ms. McMillan remarked if the sections of the bill referring to enforcement could be deleted she would support the bill.  Ms. McMillan submitted Exhibit D as proposed amendments.

 

Vice Chairman Bennett asked Mr. McGaughey to confer with Mr. Toomin and other interested parties to work out acceptable language.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 754 -     Requires boards of county commissioners to follow certain rules of order.

 

Mary Henderson, representing Washoe County, indicated opposition to AB 754 for two major reasons:  1)  Robert's Rules of Order, as referred to on page 1, line 4, was primarily for a large parliamentary body.  This requirement would be cumbersome, she said, it would delay the process and require a civil attorney with parliamentary experience to be present at all board meetings; and 2) if the Chairman of the Board was not allowed to make or second a motion he/she would be disenfranchised from representing his/her own constituents.

 

With no one else present to testify on the bill, Vice Chairman Bennett closed the hearing on AB 754.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 757 -     Makes various changes relating to regulation of fireworks.

 

Assemblyman Vonne Chowning, Assembly District 28, came forward to speak for AB 757.  Mrs. Chowning submitted her prepared remarks which have been included as Exhibit A of a complete verbatim testimony on AB 757, included herewith as Exhibit E.  Following Mrs. Chowning's testimony there was a question and answer session which is included in Exhibit E.  A set of photographs were also submitted by Mrs. Chowning which have been labelled Exhibit F.  These photographs have not been included in this set of minutes, but may be viewed in the Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Library.

 

SENATE BILL 154 -Revises provisions governing notice of hearing for proposed zoning changes.

 

Senator Matthew Callister, Senatorial District No. 8, pointed out SB 154 was Clark County specific.  He said it had been patterned much as the Clark County version, adopted by county ordinance and implemented there, but not in the balance of the municipalities in Clark County.  Explaining the intent of the bill, Senator Callister said SB 154 would:  1) expand the area of notification; 2) change the format of the written notice to make it clearer; 3) require all southern Nevada jurisdictions to use a sign on the site whenever there was a zone change; 4) specify uniformity of the size of the sign; and 5) provide language dealing with a supplementary notification device. 

 

Senator Callister pointed out Reno and Washoe County had asked to be excluded from the first portion of the bill in which they were initially included in the expansion of the notification by way of mail.  Senator Callister had no objection to this, but rather thought it was an item to be dealt with at the local level.

 

By way of explanation, Senator Callister maintained property values were affected by zone changes and land use items.  He believed people should be apprised of the changes by posting a sign on the property involved.

 

Irene Porter, Executive Director of the Southern Nevada Home Builders' Association, agreed amendments were necessary to the bill.  She also agreed Washoe County and Reno had asked to be removed from any portion of the bill because this was the current process in those areas.  An amendment would have to be made on the first page of the bill, to remove these two entities.  An amendment was also needed on page 3, Ms. Porter observed.  All of the feet designations and sign requirements had been included under "use permit" where it should not have been.  The intent was to indicate if there was a use permit involving a liquor license establishment within a residential area (non-gaming area) then there were sign requirements. 

 

Senator Callister agreed with Ms. Porter's assessment and agreed to work on amendments to clarify the language.

 

Representing the City of Las Vegas, Marvin Leavitt indicated support of SB 154 with the proposed amendments.

 

Kurt Fritch, representing the City of Henderson, also offered support of SB 154, with the exception of language on page 2 which established the requirements as maximum standards.  Mr. Fritsch opined these were actually minimum standards.  Senator Callister countered the maximum standard language was seen at the bottom of section 8.  This language had been requested by the Home Builders' Association and had not been in the original draft of the bill.

 

Ms. Porter responded the intent of the Home Builders' Association was to establish consistency in sign requirements. 

Mr. Fritsch told the committee the City of Henderson had just developed an extensive sign ordinance, but he believed the sign specification of 2 feet by 2 feet as shown in the bill was certainly describing a minimum. 

 

Anita LaRuy, representing the City of North Las Vegas, indicated support of the bill.

 

Ms. Porter pointed out some provision should be made in the bill to deal with the removal of the signs.  Chairman Garner said he had no objection to this addition to the language.  He asked the parties to work it out and get back to him in the very near future.

 

Chairman Garner then asked Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst, to review Exhibit G, regarding Assembly Joint Resolution 24 of the 66th session.  Ms. Bennett reminded the committee the measure had been heard for the second time in committee earlier in the Session, it had been approved by both houses, signed by the Governor, and would now be on the ballot.  Under the provisions of NRS 218.443, the Government Affairs committee was responsible for the ballot language concerning the measure, and the proposed language appeared on the third page of the Exhibit.

 

Ms. Bennett explained to the committee once the language was acceptable to committee members, a bill draft would have to be requested for a one-house resolution.  It would then go to the Assembly for approval, and the approved language would appear on the next general election ballot.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN McGAUGHEY MOVED TO REQUEST A DRAFT RESOLUTION.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

 

The Chairman asked the committee to be prepared to approve the minutes the following day.

 

Following some housekeeping announcements, Chairman Garner adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.

 

 

 

                                          RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                                  

                                          Iris Bellinger

                                          Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

Date:  June 17, 1993

Page:  1