MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 21, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 9:10 a.m., Monday, June 21, 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
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dana Bennett, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Collins, Chief Sanitary Engineer, Washoe County; Mike Turnipseed, State Engineer; Bill Brush, Member, Washoe Water Protection Association; Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties; Michelle Bero, Nevada Association of Counties; Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens; and Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 696 -Creates Tricounty Railway Commission.
Senator Adler, Capital Senatorial District, stated he had reviewed the amendments (Exhibit C) and they appeared to be in order. The only portion he was not familiar with was the portion amended by bond counsel.
Chairman Garner asked the committee to review the amendments, if they were all in order he intended to drop the bill that morning.
The discussion on AB 696 was closed.
SENATE BILL NO. 230 - Directs state engineer to establish program allowing certain public water systems to provide water to new customers under certain circumstances.
John Collins, Chief Sanitary Engineer, Washoe County, testified he was responsible for the provision of water and sewer service in the unincorporated areas of the county which operated several water systems. He said the water systems had reached the limitation as to the number of customers the water rights allowed the system to serve. In addition, the water systems provided service in areas which were interspersed with domestic wells and vacant lots. In the past, domestic well owners had approached the county requesting water service from the community systems and the requests had to be denied because of the limitation upon the water rights. SB 230 provided the domestic well owner with an alternative to water supply and made the provision voluntary. Also, the bill did not create the need for more water, it just allowed a domestic well to be moved over to a community water system. The costs associated with the connection to the community system would be the driving force motivating the decision to either hook up to the community system or to deepen an existing well.
Mrs. Lambert alluded to the publicity the Honey Lake project had received, and asked if SB 230 would, in some way, provide the market for that water by having more people hooked up onto the system. Mr. Collins said he saw no connection between the Truckee Meadows project and the Honey Lake project in SB 230, the county was merely responding to the needs of the customers living in the valley.
Mrs. de Braga asked if the customers would be metered if they hooked up to the system. Mr. Collins responded the county did have a requirement all new customers be metered for water service.
Mike Turnipseed, State Engineer, verified Mr. Collins testimony, saying he was unable to add anything other than to answer questions.
Mrs. Lambert asked Mr. Turnipseed to explain how he would adopt the regulations required in the bill, a request Mr. Turnipseed was happy to accommodate.
Mrs. Lambert then asked Mr. Turnipseed if he foresaw designating an entire hydrologic basin. Mr. Turnipseed replied, "No, I don't think it would be wise to designate all of Washoe Valley when, in fact, the county is only going to be serving water in Washoe City. It makes no sense to have a domestic well owner in the south end of the valley under these rules and regulations when the municipal water system is five, six, seven miles away and on the other side of Washoe Lake. So, I think we would have to meet with the municipal water purveyor, whoever that is, and based on some kind of growth management plan, we would designate an area within a reasonable distance and reasonable expectation of being able to serve that domestic well, assuming the lines could be extended to serve that particular parcel." Further discussion ensued pertaining to hearings and rescinding the rules.
Mrs. Segerblom said the bill did not indicate the language applied only to Washoe County. Mr. Turnipseed agreed and said it was a statewide bill but the majority of the problem was in Washoe County. Further discussion followed.
Mrs. Freeman questioned if SB 230 resolved many of the problems in the north valley. Mr. Turnipseed said the legislation did not solve all the problems, it merely provided an alternative.
Bill Brush, Member, Washoe Water Protection Association, spoke in favor of SB 230, saying in the bill's present form, language was included to prevent developers from subdividing property and hooking on to an existing system.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS ON SB 230.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SENATE BILL NO. 256 - Provides that contract with independent contractor representing state in court must require independent contractor to identify agency he represents in pleadings.
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, explained SB 256 required the state of Nevada to identify the agency being represented in a lawsuit. He added, the Attorney General's office had indicated, in the hearing on the Senate side, they had no problem with SB 256.
When asked if there had been any opposition to SB 256, Senator Rhoads said no.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED DO PASS ON SB 256.
ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
After asking for a vote, Chairman Garner stopped the proceeding, saying a conflict notice had been received. He asked Mr. Neighbors and Mrs. de Braga to withdraw their motions, explaining it was necessary to amend and do pass SB 256 to remove the conflict.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED AMEND & DO PASS ON SB 256.
ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (MRS. FREEMAN WAS NOT PRESENT AT TIME OF VOTE)
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 592 -Adjusts fees charged by local governments for certain services.
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), introduced Michelle Bero, NACO, and utilizing Exhibit D, reviewed AB 592 with the committee and gave reasons why fee increases were necessary.
Michelle Bero reviewed the fee schedule (contained in Exhibit D) with the committee.
Mrs. de Braga asked if the county fees had been increased with the passage of AB 368. Ms. Bero replied the $1 fees had changed but not the other fees.
Mrs. Augustine referenced AB 26, pertaining to fee increases for notary publics, and said she thought some of the fees in AB 592, like those in AB 26, were exorbitant.
Mr. Hadfield replied he was glad Mrs. Augustine had brought the issue up because the failure to address the fees in a timely fashion was one of the problems which existed. His feeling was fees should be addressed each session rather than waiting years to review and increase them. More discussion followed on the public's perception of the fee increases as revenue generators.
Mr. McGaughey asked what had been the criteria for developing the fee schedule. Mr. Hadfield answered several different processes had been used. Upon realizing a hit-or-miss approach had been used over the years, NACO approached the Fiscal Officers Association and asked for a comprehensive fee bill. The results were less than satisfactory, therefore, the bill drafter, Mr. Daykin, reviewed the fees and developed a realistic approach. The counties then reviewed the proposed fees, made recommendations and a consensus was reached. More discussion followed regarding the fee schedule and its impact on the public.
Mr. Bennett told Mr. Hadfield his responses indicated increased costs, but Mr. Bennett added he was not inclined to accept the explanation the increases were determined by the consumer price index, he wanted strong supporting evidence to indicate what the costs were for services.
Mr. Hadfield replied he did not know how to solve the problem, other than to leave it in the hands of the legislature. He said, "If it is, in your judgment, the way we have done this does not represent a way you can support, we welcome any help we can get. I can only say, if we leave these alone two more years, our mutual problem only gets worse and we get farther and farther away from a comprehensive explanation, line by line, fee by fee, that you would like to see."
Mr. Bennett then stated, "While you are the one asking for it, I'll be the one that approves it and it will my constituent that is told that the legislature made us do it. I would like to have a better explanation when that constituent comes to me, all hot and upset about this, than 'Well, it's consumer price index.'"
Mr. Hadfield offered to intervene in those instances but added, "We wouldn't be that busy because most of the people we deal with understand the problem, they don't like waiting in the lines and they don't like all the problems we have either."
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, speaking in opposition to AB 592, referenced the County Clerk's fee of $1 in Clark County. She said the fee created a chilling effect on the right of the citizens to be involved in the political process to receive backup material for agenda items the County Commission was dealing with. She said AB 592 would have a significant impact on the lives of the citizens of Clark County. She illustrated how it was possible to get the information for free but said she found it offensive there was that type of differentiation between people. She concluded by saying, "I hope you will take that into serious consideration and not allow the continuing unreasonable charge for the material necessary for citizens to participate in the political process."
Mrs. Kenny questioned Mrs. Lusk by asking, "Do you think the problem is actually deeper than that and it's a philosophical difference whether we should be telling the counties what they can or can't do, or we should let the counties go to their particular voters and if they decide to make fee increases let the voters....Do you see what I'm saying?"
Mrs. Lusk responded the commission used the excuse the legislature had forced them to do so, yet she added other counties did not use the same process. She then said, "In Clark County, I don't know if there is a philosophical desire to keep the citizens out of the process, whether there is simply a desire to earn more money....but never at any time have I seen the commissioners come forth and say to the legislature we want you to change this fee and we will determine, with our citizens, what the fee should be. It appears the desire is simply to place the blame on the legislature, while having the ability to get that money."
Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified her comments were not in pure opposition. She explained what had occurred in the previous hearing of AB 592 in the Committee on Taxation, adding, "I think what you have before you is another case of competing revenue sources." Ms. Vilardo took the time to answer Mrs. Kenny's question, explaining there was constitutional provision giving the legislature the authority to set the level of fees and salaries at a county level. She pointed out the state had been using fees to fund areas but local governments, legitimately, had not reaped the same benefit. Relief for the state had been acquired in the 1983 and 1985 sessions but was not passed on to local governments. The objection Ms. Vilardo had to the fee schedule was it was compounded from the date of last change on the consumer price index (CPI). Continuing, she said, "What has happened, in the 70s, our CPI was double digit, 16 percent, 17 percent, etc." Because Ms. Vilardo believed the local governments needed a level of relief, she recommended, "Arbitrarily go back just ten years and take that CPI increase for the ten years, or arbitrarily halve the CPI that was used to compute [the schedule] to come down with a different level of fee." She stated she would like to "fully oppose the bill" but in all good conscience she could not because she said, "We are sitting there in the same situation, in the tax committees, where the state is taking certain revenue sources and further impacting the local governments. Somewhere we have to come to an agreement that we can't do this and know where our revenue sources are. Obviously, you have already then presented the information of the amount of fee bills where the state is usurping authority and using fees to operate on." The one bone of contention Ms. Vilardo then brought out was the $1 a copy charge, suggesting this was easily solved. She said, "If we provided, free to the public, one copy of an agenda to backup information or the minutes which relate to the agenda item, you will have satisfied me."
Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Hadfield if the local governments would support a resolution to amend the constitution to allow salaries and fees to be determined by local government. Mr. Hadfield replied, "I believe anything we can do to enhance home rule for local government is the right way to go. However, as a solution to our immediate problem and the length of such a process, we need both."
Mr. Bennett then asked what the feeling was about halving the fees and trying to get a resolution through to amend the constitution. Mr. Hadfield responded, "If it is the committee's wisdom that these fee increases need to be adjusted, clearly our priority is to leave this session with relief in this area and we would support any measure that would give us relief because these fees have not been increased, they are not relative to the cost of providing service and we would support any increase in that regard. I would also like to add, I think the legislature can see the benefits of reviewing fees collectively rather than piecemeal, as typically happens....You talk about competition for fees, there is not competition to lower fees at the state level, there is competition to increase fees. Those fee increases, for the most part, were voted on unanimously and they did not bear any relationship to the cost of providing the service." He then suggested reviewing all the state and local fees so as to provide all members of the legislature with an understanding of the situation. Further discussion followed regarding home rule.
Mrs. Freeman asked what the impact would be for acquiring a lengthy document free. Mr. Hadfield said many counties were already providing the document free, therefore, there would be no impact. The biggest impact would be in large counties.
Mrs. Freeman's next question centered on the request of studies: the infrastructure of local government; and city charters. She asked if the questions dealt with in AB 592 would be addressed in either one or both of the studies, and what needed to be done during the interim to study the same type of issues. Mr. Hadfield said the questions regarding counties was different from cities. Counties were subunits of state government and did not enjoy the benefits cities enjoyed. He stated he did not believe either one of the studies would address the issues. Ms. Vilardo suggested AB 153, processed earlier in the session and identifying all federal, state and local fees paid by businesses, would go into effect July 1, 1994, and would produce documentation which would help determine where efforts could be consolidated and fees distributed accordingly, saving money in the process. In addition, she said the Senate had proposed a study, if approved, to identify competing taxes and fees and their distribution between state and local government.
Chairman Garner agreed it was easy to speak against raising fees, as no one supported increased costs. But recognizing there was a very serious problem involved, Mr. Garner asked the committee how many of them, by a show of hands, would support increases of any kind respecting the fee schedule. After the committee indicated support, Mr. Garner next asked them how much of an increase were they willing to support. He, thereafter, appointed Mr. Hadfield, Mr. Ernaut and Mr. Bennett to work with him to review the fees and, hopefully, develop a new fee schedule which the committee would support.
In closing, when asked if the fees had been extensively reviewed in the hearing held in the Committee on Taxation, the reply was, "They passed the buck." Mrs. Lambert added there had been extensive testimony and much discussion similar to what had taken place in the current hearing, but there had been a lot more fees which had, since, been pruned down. It had also been decided AB 592 really pertained to Government Affairs rather than to Taxation and the question had been asked why it had been routed to Taxation in the first place.
The hearing on AB 592 was closed with no action taken.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 27 - Makes various changes to charter of City of Reno.
Chairman Garner introduced the amendments (Exhibit E) to the committee.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED AMEND & DO PASS ON AB 27.
ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION.
In further discussion on the motion, Mrs. de Braga asked who had proposed the amendment, Mr. Ernaut replied the City of Reno.
Mr. Bennett pointed out without more time to read the amendment he would be voting no on AB 27.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (MRS. AUGUSTINE, MR. BACHE, MR. BENNETT, MRS. KENNY, MR. McGAUGHEY AND MR. NEIGHBORS VOTED NO)
SENATE BILL NO. 174 - Makes various changes to provisions governing meetings of public bodies.
Mr. Garner asked the committee if they had received the amendment to SB 174, they had not. He then reviewed the proposed amendments with the committee.
Dana Bennett then explained there were additional recommendations to change other sections which Mr. Garner had not covered. Chairman Garner scheduled a work session to review the recommendations, closing the discussion on SB 174.
SENATE BILL NO. 23 - Establishes two-tiered system of forecasting future state revenues to assist in providing balanced state budget.
Chairman Garner explained agreement had been reached and presented Exhibit F, the amendment.
Mrs. Kenny asked if there had been a change to Page 5, lines 9 - 12. The answer was no. Mrs. Kenny then expressed concern over having the legislature and the budget office side-stepped. Chairman Garner indicated there was no attempt to side step the procedure. He pointed out the only concern the Governor had with SB 23 was the makeup of the board and who would do the choosing, the amendment eliminated those concerns.
Mrs. Kenny then stated she would not be supporting the bill as long as the lines she questioned remained in the bill.
In further discussion, Mr. McGaughey said he believed the bill allowed the Governor to appoint anyone of his choosing to the economic forum and he would, therefore, in all likelihood, appoint someone from his budget office with great input into what the forum produced.
Mrs. Kenny pointed out if the legislature did not agree with the Governor or the Budget Director, there would be a direct conflict to the process. Mr. Garner did not believe the Legislature would be bypassed and Mr. Ernaut added, from the start, the budget came to the legislature from the budget office without any legislative input. The only thing SB 23 changed was what the projections were based on.
Mrs. Kenny then asked for 24 hours to review and clear up the confusion she said she still had in her mind. Mr. Garner agreed to the request.
The discussion of SB 23 was closed.
As the last order of business, Chairman Garner asked for a motion to approve the committee minutes.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE COMMITTEE MINUTES.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BETTY WILLS
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
June 21, 1993
Page: 1