MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 24, 1993

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 10:07 a.m. Thursday, June 24, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. 

 

 

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:

 

      None.

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mrs. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst.

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Irene Porter, Nevada Homeowner's Association; Mr. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director of State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA); Mr. Jim Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance and University and Community College System; Mr. Marty Bibb, Retired Public Employees of Nevada (RPEN).

 

 

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

 

Chairman Garner indicated there was a proposed amendment for SB 154 which had apparently met with everyone's approval (Exhibit B).  He asked Ms. Irene Porter to comment on the amendment.

 

Ms. Irene Porter, Nevada Homeowner's Association, testified she had discussed the amendment with Senator Callister, she had reviewed the bill and it appeared to be satisfactory.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 154.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  Assemblyman Freeman was not present for the vote.

 

Chairman Garner requested Mrs. Lambert handle the bill on the floor.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 461 - Provides for protection of domestic wells from impairment.

 

Chairman Garner noted there had been an amendment proposed to AB 461 (Exhibit C) which the committee members should have.  He requested Mrs. Lambert review the amendment.

 

Mrs. Lambert indicated the bill had been streamlined and made some fairly substantive changes.  She pointed out the first change would put a physical description in the legal notices published in the newspaper so a person would have some idea where the property was actually located.  Mrs. Lambert stated the rest of the amendment would apply to every county except Clark County.  It dealt with wells which were only for municipal and industrial use and had an expected diversion rate of one-half cubic foot per second or more.  She continued with a description of the changes involved in the amendment.  Mrs. Lambert felt the amendment was a workable solution and recommended the committee support a motion to amend and do pass.

 

Chairman Garner asked if this would affect the state engineer's budget.

 

Mrs. Lambert replied he (the state engineer) had said it would not, one of the reasons the bill was limited to municipal and industrial use was to cut down the effect on his budget.

 

Mrs. Kenny asked why Clark County had been omitted.

 

Chairman Garner answered the Las Vegas Valley Water District did not want to be included and had asked to be excluded from the bill.

 

Mrs. Kenny wondered if there were other people in Clark County who might not agree with them.

 

Chairman Garner replied the people responsible for administering the bill in Clark County had indicated it would be tremendously cumbersome and costly and they were not in support of doing that at this time.

 

Mr. Bennett said it was his understanding the Las Vegas Valley Water District was particularly concerned about the section Mrs. Lambert had reviewed relating to liability of replacing or deepening an existing well and had hoped there could be language worked out which would allow for some smaller percentage of liability as opposed to being 100 percent liable for the cost.  Mr. Bennett indicated he appreciated their concern on that issue, but he had concerns on using population clauses and felt it was a statewide issue.  He stated although he appreciated Mrs. Lambert's concern related to her district, he would be voting no on the amendment.

 

Mrs. de Braga asked if the bill placed such a burden on whoever would be enforcing this, how would it be different in any other county than in Clark County.  She said if that kind of impact would occur by passing the bill, perhaps it should not be passed.

 

Mrs. Lambert responded, "When you are dealing with wells that probably cost a half million dollars to put in, and you already have existing homeowners that are depending on a domestic well for their only source of water, and these wells come in and pull the water out from under their domestic well, I think there has to be some responsibility.  It can be in placement of the well, you can be a little more careful and try to avoid existing domestic wells, or you can acknowledge the fact that maybe with a half million dollar well, you are going to have to deepen a few wells, and it might cost you $25 or $50,000.  Given the size of the rate base on most of these companies and the cost of the well to begin with, I think just doing the right thing by your neighbors is not that much of a burden."

 

Chairman Garner commented the Southern Nevada Water Authority was obviously not a party to requesting the legislation, it had come from Assemblyman Gibbons to address the particular problem of the number of people in his district who were on wells. Chairman Garner indicated he did not  have a problem with AB 461.

 

Mr. McGaughey commented he had a problem of continuing population requirements on laws across the state.  He said he knew in Clark County and Las Vegas there were thousands of wells in the south part of town and the northwest, and the Las Vegas Valley Water District had many pumping facilities which they used to pump groundwater.  He did not feel it would be right to help the well owners in Washoe County with their problems of deepening or replacing wells and not help the citizens of Clark County if those wells were impacted.  He indicated he would also oppose the amendment.

 

Mr. Neighbors stated he would be voting for the amendment as he felt to include Clark County at this time would only serve to kill the bill. 

 

Chairman Garner asked for a motion on AB 461.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 461.

 

      THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS.

 

      THE MOTION FAILED.  Assemblymen Augustine, Bache, Bennett, de Braga, Kenny, McGaughey and Segerblom voted in opposition.

 

Mrs. Lambert indicated if the opponents voted against the bill because Clark County was excluded, she would propose amending the bill to remove the population limits and retain the other portions of the amendment.

 

Chairman Garner stated he would not want to pursue those changes without first receiving an explanation of the ramifications and potential liabilities from those involved.

 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 27 - Proposes to amend ordinance of Nevada constitution to repeal disclaimer of interest of state in unappropriated public lands.

 

Chairman Garner referenced the proposed amendment to AJR 27 (Exhibit D) indicating it addressed the concerns expressed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 27.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 17 - Changes composition of committee on benefits for programs for public employees.

 

Chairman Garner indicated AB 17 had been in subcommittee with Mr. Williams, Mrs. Segerblom and Mr. Hettrick.  He commented it was not easy to make changes at this point in the session and he believed this bill was in the best public interest.  He asked Mr. Williams for his report and recommendations.

 

Mr. Williams reviewed the proposed amendment to AB 17 (Exhibit E) and said there had been conversations regarding parity and the distribution of the membership of the board to handle the entire membership, which was inclusive of several groups.

 

Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Williams what percentage of the members were employees of the classified service and did he feel they had fair representation.

 

Mr. Williams replied from the information submitted the amendment should come close to equal representation of the groups involved.

 

Mrs. Freeman indicated she felt the retired employees, university system and non-state agencies should all have equal representation, and apparently that was addressed by the amendment.

 

Chairman Garner stated there were those present in the audience who could give more accurate information regarding the numbers involved.  He asked Mr. Gagnier to testify as to how many people the State of Nevada Employees Association represented.

 

Mr. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director of State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), reviewed the numbers involved in the plan:  local government had 1,683 employees in the plan; 3,032 retirees; university system, including classified had 5,093, and the rest of state government had 12,048 employees.  He said, "I don't see that you can say local government has anywhere near equal to us."

 

Chairman Garner stated his question was, "How many people did SNEA represent who are participating in the system?"

 

Mr. Gagnier replied dues-paying SNEA members consisted of 4,600.

 

Further discussion ensued regarding the number of employees represented by the different groups participating in the plan.

 

Mr. Bennett reiterated his statements from previous meetings that he could not support the proposed amendment.

 

Extensive discussion ensued among committee members regarding numbers of participating groups and how many representatives each group should or should not have. 

 

Chairman Garner requested Mr. Jim Richardson to testify regarding who was represented in the non-state agency group.

 

Mr. Jim Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance and University and Community College System, testified the non-state agency group was made up of small counties, cities, water districts and others which had difficulty in obtaining health insurance because of their small size.  He named some of those entities and indicated he felt they should have recognition on the committee.

 

Extensive discussion between committee members and Mr. Richardson ensued regarding, among other things, committee representation of non-state agency groups, and possibly increasing membership of the committee to allow other groups to be represented.

 

Mr. Marty Bibb, Retired Public Employees of Nevada (RPEN), stated there did not appear to be an argument with the number of participants in the system, there were 12,513 retired public employees in the state which included people from cities, counties, municipalities, state, etc.  He said RPEN liked to think they represented that entire number as Mr. Gagnier felt SNEA represented his total number of state employees.  RPEN had 6,300 dues paying members in the state.

 

Chairman Garner indicated he was not going to take action on this bill, but he would obtain the proper numbers involved and discuss the issue at the next meeting.

 

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

 

Chairman Garner commented there had been a considerable amount of information received on AB 757 and out of fairness to Mrs. Chowning, he wanted to review the bill.  He commented he had received confirmed information which indicated states had no jurisdiction over Indian reservations as they were considered sovereign nations.  Chairman Garner pointed out if this law was passed, the business would just transfer from the current locations to the Indian reservations.  He asked what the committee's feelings were on taking action on the bill.

 

Mr. Neighbors felt the sale of fireworks should be a local option and not mandated by the state.  He said there were ordinances which more than covered the safety factor involved and thought the bill should be indefinitely postponed.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 757.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Bennett stated he had discussed the bill at some length with Mrs. Chowning and came to the opinion there should be a statewide policy stating only safe and sane fireworks could be sold, purchased or used in any way in the state of Nevada, and local governments could make the decision as to whether they chose to have that policy for their own county.  He said that would still allow individuals in Nye County to sell fireworks not defined as safe and sane for use outside of the state.  Mr. Bennett commented this did not entirely deal with the situation of sales on the Indian reservations but would cover individuals who bought fireworks there and took them off the reservation.  He did not support the motion to indefinitely postpone but did not support the bill as currently written either.

 

A roll call vote was taken.

 

      THE MOTION FAILED.  Assemblymen Bache, Bennett, de Braga, Freeman, Kenny, McGaughey, Segerblom and Williams voted in opposition.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      LINDA FEATHERINGILL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

June 24, 1993

Page: 1