MINUTES OF THE

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      April 7, 1993

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, April 7, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio

Senator Dean A. Rhoads

Senator Thomas J. Hickey

Senator Leonard V. Nevin

Senator Matthew Q. Callister

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Caren Jenkins, Principal Research Analyst

Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Anita Laruy, City of North Las Vegas

Patricia L. Howard, Director, Economic Development, City of North Las    Vegas

John Swendseid, Swendseid & Stern, North Las Vegas

Manny Gomez, President, Professional Consulting Group, Inc.

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Dale Erquiaga, Elections Deputy, Nevada Secretary of State's Office

Marjorie Grode, Notary Public, Nevada Secretary of State's Office

Mark Aston, Treasurer, Clark County

Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Nancy Payan, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

 

 

Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 233.

 

SENATE BILL 233:  Authorizes special assessments for cost of operating certain public improvements.

 

 

 

Anita Laruy, City of North Las Vegas, spoke to the committee in support of S.B. 233.  She explained this bill authorizes special assessments for the cost of operating certain public improvements such as park projects, street projects or flood control projects.

 

Patricia L.  Howard, Director, Economic Development, City of North Las Vegas, spoke to the committee in favor of S.B. 233, see Exhibit C. 

 

John Swendseid, Swendseid & Stern, North Las Vegas, spoke in favor of S.B. 233.  He explained the bill section by section to the committee.  He stated section 2 defines the cost of operation, which is important, because later in the bill it allows cities and counties to assess the cost of operation.  He explained section 3 allows municipalities to create districts to maintain parks, streets or flood control projects.  He pointed out the districts are created the same way the assessment districts are created under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), Chapter 271.

 

Chairman O'Connell asked why they need to create more funds since there are already funds dedicated to the maintenance of parks, streets or flood control projects.

 

Mr. Swendseid stated this bill is to allocate enough money to pay to maintain the improvement once it is built. 

 

Ms. Howard told the committee this would not be impact fees, but rather improvements which are required in the form of exactions concurrent with the developer wishing to develop a tract of homes.  She explained the developer is required to put in certain public improvements and he may choose to put in additional improvements which would enhance the marketability of his product.  She told the committee the developer can utilize NRS, Chapter 271 to finance the improvements or he can finance them out of his pocket which is just for the installation or construction of the improvement, not for the ongoing maintenance.

 

Mr. Swendseid told the committee this statute requires a district being created under the provisional margin which means if one-half the people protest the fee, it will not be enacted unless the governing body pays more than one-half the cost.

 

Mr. Swendseid told the committee section 4 specifies the method by which the assessments will be made.  He explained for flooding it would be the amount of runoff and for parks it would be either on a per tract or the acreage or another reasonable basis determined by the governing body.  

 

Senator Rhoads asked about the sentence on 16 and 17 where it states, "the amount of the assessment upon each tract must be proportionate to the benefit derived from the service." 

 

Mr. Swendseid explained this means how much would the tract be worth without the maintenance and how much would it be worth with the maintenance.  He stated the value of how much the tract goes up by having a well-maintained park or well-maintained road in front. 

 

Senator Nevin pointed out section 3, line 11 and asked if this means if the developer builds a park, the individuals in that neighborhood will be assessed that tax and then this bill will tax them additionally for maintenance of the park. 

 

Ms. Howard stated this was true.  This bill deals only with maintenance money, not construction money.  She told the committee if an improvement actually benefits certain specific property owners, then it is realistic to ask those property owners to maintain the improvements which add value to their property.

 

Senator Nevin stated his concern is he reads this bill as a tax and he stated the taxpayers are already paying taxes for the roads and everything else through gas purchases and through property tax. 

 

Chairman O'Connell asked if additional value is added to the property the value of the property will increase and therefore the property taxes will be assessed differently which should be paying for any improvements in their neighborhoods. 

 

Ms. Howard stated the increase in property taxes will not be equal to the maintenance of the project.

 

Senator Callister asked why the growth plus appreciation do not pay for the cost of the services delivered to these homeowners.  He stated he understands these individuals are trying to find different devices to keep up with the growth, but he stated he was reluctant to utilize this method.  He stated he was empathetic, but he is looking at the broad and enabling language as in section 3 and he is particularly troubled.

 

Mr. Swendseid stated section 5 requires a hearing before this is assessed on anyone and it also requires they hold a new hearing every 5 years. 

 

Senator Raggio asked who would get the notice of the hearings.  Mr. Swendseid stated the homeowners would get the notice of the hearings.

 

Manny Gomez, President, Professional Consulting Group, Inc., spoke to the committee on S.B. 233.  He explained they are talking about local improvements in this bill and from local improvements comes, in his opinion, a proximity benefit.  He pointed out sometimes these improvements are requested by the electorate and sometimes they are installed by a developer and when a buyer purchases the property, it is part of the motivation for them buying in that area.  He explained the sad fact is once the improvement is installed, there are very few resources available to maintain those improvements.  He iterated when the improvements deteriorate, the benefit from their proximity deteriorates as well.  Mr. Gomez stated there is an increase in homeowners who are looking for these types of amenities such as neighborhood parks, landscape strips and innovative design features.  He explained all of these improvements create a special benefit to a localized area and all of the special benefits that come from those improvements whether financed with improvement district funds or not in the beginning, they simply do not get the level of maintenance they should get to maintain the benefit to those properties because there are no other instruments to provide those maintenance dollars.

 

Senator Lowden asked why whoever gives the authority to build the improvements allows this to go on knowing there is no money to maintain the improvements.

 

Ms. Howard stated they are in a race for their lives due to the tax structure.  She explained the only hope for governments to improve the ability for municipalities to deliver services to their constituents is to provide adequate stable revenues.  She pointed out the shift from sales tax, visitor based income for government added instability to the tax structure.   She further explained the distribution formula where it pits city against city to capture growth in order to share in a greater amount of the revenue means the city must grow or die.  She stated it takes more money to maintain the improvements which especially benefit those neighborhoods than the amount of maintenance they are spending on the older neighborhoods where there are none of those improvements. 

 

Senator Lowden stated North Las Vegas has made a lot of improvements, but she would feel more comfortable if this bill were left to a vote of the people. 

 

Senator Nevin stated he is concerned with section 5 where it states, "subsequent annual assessments not greater than the assessment for the first year may be imposed without further notice or hearing for 5 years."  He asked if this means they do a 5 percent assessment every year for 4 years and they can do it without a hearing or notice.

 

Mr. Swendseid stated if they did $100 assessment for each house, the district could keep the $100 for 5 years and each year they would have to pay the money and after 5 years there would be another hearing.

 

Senator Nevin stated that is not the way it is worded in this bill and he understands it to say the district can impose another assessment not exceeding the original assessment for up to 5 years without even having a hearing. 

 

 

Mr. Swendseid suggested the language in this section of the bill be clarified.  He explained they would tell the homeowners they would impose, for example, $100 over the next 5 years and if they needed to increase the amount they would have to call a special hearing, but after the 5 years they would have to have another hearing. 

 

Senator Nevin stated that is not what the bill states and it could be interpreted that each year there would be an additional assessment without a notice of hearing.

 

Mr. Swendseid stated they could get the language clarified.

 

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke in opposition to S.B. 233.  She pointed out the problems with the bill beginning with section 2 where it states, "cost of operation."  She explained the cost of operation means the cost of providing the service.  She stated there is no definition which defines what maintenance entails and the cost of operation would include the maintenance.  The second thing she objects to is on line 9, section 3 where it talks about street projects created pursuant to the chapter or district of control of floods created pursuant to flood control statutes.  She explained in order to free up some of the money for local governments, particularly in Clark County, the voters have approved 1/4 percent increase on the sales tax to be used for regional flood control plan.  She further explained each entity set the 10 year scheme for the first phase of those plans which are in 2 phases.  She explained they are bonding against 50 percent of the revenue received, 50 percent of it is pay as you go.  She stated these projects were needed by every entity and if this had not been approved by the voters it would have had to come from the money received by the entity through sales tax and property tax.  She said the 1/4 percent dedicated to that freed up that amount of money and the money was also to be used for maintenance and there is a maintenance schedule within these flood control projects.  Ms. Vilardo stated she is concerned with the language on page 2, line 2 where it states, "another reasonable basis" and it is also on line 6, section 3.  She explained there is no clarification on what is reasonable.  She urged the committee to look at this bill very carefully. 

 

Chairman O'Connell told the committee and the public she had scheduled on April 19 a presentation of the bond issues and how they fit into the overall picture for the committee's sake because she stated they do have about 12 bills which address these similar areas.

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 233 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 26.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 26:       Makes various changes relating to notaries public.

 

Dale Erquiaga, Election Deputy, Nevada Secretary of State's Office, spoke to the committee on A.B. 26.  He stated this bill was requested by the Secretary of State's Office and he explained it does three things.  In the first section it adds a requirement a notary public not be a convicted felon.  He added in section 2 the bill raises the caps on fees which a notary may charge even though some notaries do not charge a fee. 

 

Chairman O'Connell asked if the same thing is done on each sheet that the notary public notarizes.

 

Marjorie Grode, Notary Public, Nevada Secretary of State's Office, answered Chairman O'Connell's question.  She told the committee they may give an oath, but in general a notary does about the same thing which is certifying to an individual's signature and that is what they are notarizing.

 

Chairman O'Connell asked why there is a difference in price when it costs $2.00 for the first signature and any additional signature will be $1.00 and why there is the difference.

 

Mr. Erquiaga stated he believed this was because most documents are a single signature so they are given the initial $2.00 charge, but if a document contained 20 signatures the notary is, in effect, doing the same thing, but he or she does not have to go through quite as many steps if they are notarizing subsequent signatures. 

 

Mr. Erquiaga continued explaining the changes to the laws.  He stated in section 3 they changed the language from fee book to journal.  He explained the fee book implies a notary need only record those transactions for which he or she charges a fee and as stated earlier, not all of them charge fees.  He told the committee the journal needs to contain every transaction a notary takes part in, because the journals are used in court proceedings. 

 

Senator Nevin pointed out this bill shows a fiscal note for local and state government, but there was no fiscal note attached and he asked what would be the amount.

 

Mr. Erquiaga stated he thought it was about $3,000 and what that covers is the cost of mailing to the notaries to inform them of the change in the law. 

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 26 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 40.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 40:       Abolishes certain duties of county treasurer.

 

 

 

Mark Aston, Treasurer, Clark County, spoke to the committee on A.B. 40.  He told the committee he is here in support of this bill and asked the committee to make the necessary changes.  He stated when his office is audited by state auditors to see if they are complying with statute and there are statutes on the books they are unable to comply with then changes need to be made. 

 

Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Aston if they needed this bill because the county does not deal in cash.  He stated this bill will update the current law which was enacted in 1909 and is not applicable to the counties at this time.

 

Mr. Aston explained the way the county does business now is through a system of zero balance accounts and a controlled disbursement system with the account structures.  He stated the revenue Clark County takes in is invested nearly 100 percent of the time and is not available to be exhibited in cash.  Mr. Aston told the committee many of the smaller counties are involved in investing their county funds.

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 40 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 41.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 41:       Clarifies provision relating to claims for reimbursement of constable for executing writ.

Senator Raggio told the committee the existing law allows a constable to receive a fee when he or she serves the writ and presently it is limited to the justice of the peace court.  He pointed out the constables do serve writs for courts other than justice of the peace and all this bill does is state the constable is entitled to the fee by serving it from whichever court it was issued.  He stated he does not have a problem with this change.

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 41 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 254.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 254:      Clarifies and expands authority of local government concerning street improvement projects.

 

Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, spoke in favor of A.B. 254.  He told the committee this bill was introduced at the request of the City of Las Vegas.

 

Nancy Payan, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, spoke to the committee on A.B. 254.  She cited Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 271 which provides property owners a tool which they can use when they are in the majority so they can install road improvements adjacent to their properties and to finance them via a special improvement district.  She explained when the governing entities see the necessity for road improvements due to automobile and pedestrian safety, they can require property owners to participate in an assessment district for those improvements.  Ms. Payan stated the City of Las Vegas has found quite a number of cases throughout its jurisdiction whereby patchwork pavement exists.  She explained as the statute is written now the district can ask the property owners to participate when the areas between the existing improvements is less than 1320 feet, but if it is over the 1320 feet they would not be able to ask for the property owners help.  Ms. Payan gave the committee some examples of the street damage in the Las Vegas area using a large diagram. 

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                              RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                      

                              Tanya Morrison,

                              Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

 

                                

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                           

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Government Affairs

April 7, 1993

Page 1