MINUTES OF THE

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 3, 1993

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, May 3, 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:

 

Dale Erquiaga, Elections Deputy, Nevada State Treasurer's Office

John Sherman, Management Analyst, Washoe County

Mike Harper, Director, Department of Development Review, Washoe County

Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities

Irene Porter, Lobbyist, Nevada Home Builder's Association

Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks

Stewart Peters, Lobbyist, City of Reno

Stan Warren, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Resources and Subsidiaries

James Dan, Northern Regional Representative, Libertarian Party of      Nevada

Lois Avery, Member, Natural Law Party

Barbara Reed, Clerk/Treasurer, Douglas County

Marlene Henderson, Registrar, Washoe County

 

 

 

Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 105.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 105:      Revises definition of "candidate" in statutes relating to ethics in government. 

 

Dale Erquiaga, Elections Deputy, Nevada State Treasurer's Office, spoke to the committee on A.B. 105.  He explained this bill was requested by the secretary of state to clarify two existing definitions.  He stated the definition of candidate in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 294 which deals with campaign practices and the other was a definition in NRS Chapter 281 which deals with the state ethics commission.  He explained these were different definitions and they found it confusing for their office as well as the constituents.  Mr. Erquiaga stated the amendment would take the language from NRS 294 and insert it into NRS 281 so it would explain a candidate thoroughly.  He explained this would preserve the intent that this definition be extended to judicial candidates which was a strong concern in the assembly.  He pointed out there is still feeling in the legislature that the Ethics Commission should apply to the members of the judiciary even though the members of judiciary may disagree.

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 105 and opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 23.

 

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 23:Urges Congress to establish uniform hours for polls across nation in elections for national officer.

 

There being nobody to testify on A.J.R. 23 Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on this bill and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 154.

 

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

 

John Sherman, Management Analyst, Washoe County, spoke on S.B. 154.  He stated he briefly spoke at the hearing in Las Vegas on this particular piece of legislation.  He pointed out the concepts outlined in this bill do not necessarily apply to Washoe County. He stated in the last session some regional planning legislation was passed which is basically moving, zoning and planning off in a different direction for Washoe County and this bill would not necessarily apply to them.  He requested the committee exclude Washoe County from this bill.

 

Mike Harper, Director, Department of Development Review, Washoe County, spoke on S.B. 154.  He pointed out Washoe County is moving in a new direction regarding planning. He explained one of the things which has occurred is the county has eliminated the zoning requirements and has gone to land use designations within the master plan.  He remarked, in a sense, they no longer have zoning in Washoe County, they have a one-map process which allows that the master plan becomes regulatory districts.  He concluded this raises a question of whether the requirements under the zoning increases the distance noticing would in fact apply to Washoe County and he asked that they clarify this.  Mr. Harper stated Washoe County has dealt with the issue of posting property.  He explained their county ordinance requires the property be posted for things such as variances, special use permits and zoning or other types of matters.  He feels it would not be a requirement in Washoe County, because they already placed this in their ordinance and it has been adopted.  He explained it will go into effect at the end of this month.  Mr. Harper told the committee his department is very concerned about the cost to the public regarding the increase in noticing from 300 to 600 feet.  He explained this is a cost increase of between 200 and 300 percent.  He further explained this is a difference of 30 to 35 property owners being noticed to over 120 property owners being noticed.  He pointed out the costs which are involved with the county is they cover so many miles when they are required to notify 30 different property owners.  He stated his department feels this is adequate and it deals with a large area, but it is very costly.  He recognized there is no way of reducing the cost because it would take a lot of paper in order to notice all of the individuals involved.  He stated variances and special use permits are clearly localized as in fence heights, reducing a setback from 30 feet to 20 feet and they questioned whether 120 individuals really needed to be notified of this.  Mr. Harper told the committee most of their special use permits deal with such things as a convenience store being located in a particular area or someone operating a child care center, which is a very costly process going through our review and then having to pay for 120 individuals to be notified.  He pointed out this puts the burden back on the applicant and unfortunately noticing is a very intensive process and there is no way to computerize it, even though Washoe County has tried.  He called attention to the fact Washoe County has been able to convince the newspapers to start publishing the agendas of the Board of County Commissioner's meetings and some of the Planning Commission meetings.  Mr. Harper stated he feels this is a much more effective way of noticing property owners in the area than sending a mail notice.  He reiterated to the committee Washoe County has already instituted a number of changes which are in this bill.  He stated they do understand many of the concerns brought up emanate in Clark County and he stated they are not suggesting how to handle Clark County, but they do believe Washoe County has already seen the concerns the legislature has brought forward.  He added the committee may want to consider exempting Washoe County from this bill. 

 

Chairman O'Connell stated she would like to hear from Assemblyman Joan Lambert, of Washoe County, before the committee makes a move to exempt Washoe County just to make sure Mrs. Lambert is in agreement with this.

 

Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, spoke on S.B. 154.  He stated they are not prepared at this time with testimony, but would like to ask a question.  He asked if this bill has been amended.

 

 

Chairman O'Connell stated the committee had not seen any amendments and unfortunately Senator Callister, who is the maker of the bill, had to step out to testify at another committee hearing.  She told Mr. Grady the committee would reserve him the right to come back and testify after the amendments have been given to the committee.

 

Irene Porter, Lobbyist, Nevada Home Builder's Association, told the committee she is in much the same position as Mr. Grady.  She explained she understands Senator Callister has two sets of amendments, one set is amendments proposed at the Clark County hearing and the second set is proposed amendments by her, on behalf of the Nevada Home Builder's Association, worked out with Senator Callister.  She pointed out she has not seen either set of amendments at this stage and would like to reserve the right to comment and go forth with some of the amendments that she has suggested.

 

Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, testified on S.B. 154.  She told the committee she would like to comment on some of the amendments proposed by Clark County in Las Vegas.  She told the committee, in Sparks, they currently notice an average of about 60 property owners whenever they apply this law with the 300 feet requirement.  She insisted the bill as written would approximately quadruple this and the Clark County amendments said they would either notice 600 feet or 100 property owners, whichever is less and she stated she would be opposed to this because it would approximately double the cost.  She pointed out in section 1 their only concern with this section is the increase in cost and the noticing.  She stated in section 2 Clark County has added variants to special use permits.  Ms. Foster stated if they were to add to the variants it would extend the noticing to 600 feet for variance and they feel that is too far.  She explained they are noticing right now for 300 feet and she added Clark County has suggested everybody notices for 300 feet and not for 600 feet with the amendment.  She mentioned the special use permit is also in the bill as written, extending noticing to 600 feet and she stated she feels that is too extensive also, but Clark County has suggested that also go down to 300 feet or the closest 30 parcels, which is where it is at now. 

 

Stewart Peters, Lobbyist, City of Reno, spoke on S.B. 154.  He stated he supports the comments of both Ms. Foster and Mr. Harper.  He stated he feels all of the entities in Northern Nevada have been acting responsibly for some period-of-time.  He pointed out the City of Reno has made their changes as far back as 1989 with respect to putting up notices.

 

 

 

Stan Warren, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Resources and Subsidiaries, told the committee he supports the testimony given previously by Washoe, Reno and Sparks in regard to S.B. 154.

 

Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 154, until Senator Callister returns to the meeting.  She opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 250.

 

SENATE BILL 250:  Makes various changes to provisions governing elections. 

 

Senator Lowden chaired the subcommittee on election reform and presented the committee with proposed amendments from that subcommittee (Exhibit C).  She stated the subcommittee met for a total of 10 hours on this subject for a total of 40 hours with committee meetings.  She explained each section of Exhibit C to the committee. 

 

Senator Hickey had a question on section 62.  He pointed out during public testimony on S.B. 250, some individuals in law enforcement stated they could not use their address and they therefore used post office boxes.  He asked how section 62 will affect these people.

 

Mr. Erquiaga stated any voter registration document would require a residence address, but unless the voter gives a physical address they cannot be precincted.  He pointed out this is a problem for law enforcement personnel and members of judiciary, but unless they have a physical address they cannot be placed in a precinct.

 

Senator Hickey asked if there was a way to set up a voter box in each of the counties for these individuals.

 

Mr. Erquiaga stated that would be possible, but he added they would have to vote in person in the clerk's office which can be done at any time, as provided by law.

 

Senator Hickey suggested looking at this by regulation for special circumstances.  Mr. Erquiaga stated he would look into this and report back to Senator Hickey.

 

Senator Lowden continued explaining the proposed amendments to S.B. 250 (Exhibit C).

 

James Dan, Northern Regional Representative, Libertarian Party of Nevada, congratulated the subcommittee on the work done on S.B. 250 which he feels overall is a very good bill. 

 

 

 

 

Lois Avery, Member, Natural Law Party, spoke in favor of S.B. 250.  She told the committee they did a great job and took a lot of testimony.  She added she is very pleased with the results of this bill.

 

Barbara Reed, Clerk/Treasurer, Douglas County, spoke to the committee in favor of S.B. 250.  She stated she does have a little bit of concern with section 42 which requires if a person uses a mail-in registration form, the person has to vote in person.  She explained her primary concern is the administration of that provision and also concern with students using mail-in forms.  She requested the committee consider treating students as they do the military.

 

Senator Hickey stated the workers at the Nevada Test Site also have a hard time getting to the polls to vote.  He iterated the first-time registered voters would not be able to vote because of their job.  He concluded he has a real problem with the provision in section 42 due to the previously stated problems which can affect registered voters.

 

Chairman O'Connell asked Mrs. Reed to share with the committee some of the problems she sees as far as the mechanics she expressed concern over.

 

Mrs. Reed stated they will have to change their computer program so they can indicate if it was a mail-in affidavit.  She noted in turn that information has to be generated to the election polls where trained individuals would know how to check to see if the voter had mailed in their registration. 

 

Marlene Henderson, Registrar, Washoe County, spoke on S.B. 250.  She stated she still has a few problems with it.  She explained, in section 42, line 41 and 42 it states the people vote in person unless they have previously voted in the county.  She told the committee her office personnel do not have the time for that kind of research on election day.  She stated she agreed with Senator Hickey in regard to people who work out-of-town and cannot get back into town to the polls to vote.  She explained they need to be able to vote an absentee ballot in these special cases. 

 

Senator Lowden stated if the individuals are first-time voters and they have a mail-in registration form it states on the form if people think they are not going to be able to show up in person to call a deputy of registrar to register them at home or at their place of business.  She declared she feels this will enable those individuals to be able to register and vote.

 

Mrs. Henderson stated in section 43, line 19 it states an identification card will be issued by the Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety (DMV).  She pointed out the registrars would not

 

know if the affidavit is correct.  She explained the identification cards should not come out of any office except the clerks' or registrars' office.

 

 

Senator Hickey stated he felt Mrs. Henderson's complaint was valid due to the fact when he has written checks in the past and the checker asks for his driver's license.  He explained the checker will ask him if his address is correct on the license and therefore this seems to be a problem with the DMV having the correct address for each individual.  He concluded the identification should come from the registrars' office. 

 

Senator Rhoads asked how this bill will affect absentee ballots.  He explained in his county they vote at the school house except for all of the little precincts located way out in the country when people vote by absentee ballots.  He inquired as to how the first-time voters in these precincts would vote in person, because they do not have any precincts where they can vote.

 

Mr. Erquiaga stated the mail-in precincts are at the call of the clerk, based on certain statutory requirements.  He explained Senator Rhoads' constituents would have to be exempted due to the lack of having a precinct election poll. 

 

There being no further business Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m.

 

 

 

 

                        RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                

                        Tanya Morrison,

                        Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

 

                                

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                           

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Government Affairs

May 3, 1993

Page 1