MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
May 5, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, May 5, 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
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Dean A. Heller, Assembly District No. 40
Assemblywoman Kathy M. Augustine, Assembly District No. 12
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Ricka Benum, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens
Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
C. Joseph Guild, III, Lobbyist, Nevada Mobilehome Park
Owners Association
Frank Dayken, Esq., former Nevada Legislative Counsel
Mike Cirillo, Pleasant Valley Mobile Home Park, Las Vegas
Paul Keif, Mobilehome Park Owner, Wadsworth
Lois Lazor, Comstock Mobilehome Park
Tom Davis, Rental Home Owner
Kirby Burgess, Lobbyist, Clark County,
Irene Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association
Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Kurt Fritch, Lobbyist, City of Henderson
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State
Dale A.R. Erquiaga, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Office of
the Secretary of State
Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors (AGC)
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing by introducing Assemblyman Dean A. Heller, Assembly District No. 40 to speak on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 23.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 23:Urges Congress to establish uniform hours for polls across nation in election for national officers. (BDR R-1158)
Mr. Heller testified A.J.R. 23 is an attempt to address complaints from voters in the west about hearing winners of national elections announced oftentimes before they have even voted. Mr. Heller indicated that having the election polls open and close at the same time across the country would assure voters in the west, that their vote still counts. He said many people vote after work between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. and possibly are discouraged from doing so, when the national election results are announced on news broadcasts.
Mr. Heller noted results of studies conducted by major television networks, that claim the system used (national staggered voting reporting system) only impacts the national vote by 1 percent.
According to Mr. Heller the resolution would also open the possibility of weekend voting. He indicated many persons are of the opinion that a system with fewer restrictions and more options would encourage more people to get involved in the process.
There was no further testimony on A.J.R. 23. Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing to the next order of business A.J.R. 16.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 16:Urges Congress to pass legislation prohibiting states from imposing income tax on income from pension of nonresidents. (BDR R-1495)
Assemblywoman Kathy M. Augustine, Assembly District No. 12, explained A.J.R. 16 if passed, would directly affect the many retirees that now reside in Nevada. Ms. Augustine submitted for the record a letter of support from Representative Barbara Vucanovich, dated April 1, 1993, referenced as Exhibit C.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 23 AND A.J.R. 16.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing to testimony on SENATE BILL (S.B.) 217.
SENATE BILL 217: Prohibits local governments from adopting ordinances limiting rental rates for private residential property. (BDR 20-814)
C. Joseph Guild, III, Lobbyist, Nevada Mobilehome Park Owners Association, testified in support of S.B. 217. Mr. Guild explained the basis of the measure would prohibit city and county governments from establishing rent control ordinances. He pointed out the measure would not prohibit contracts between landlord and tenant, which would limit the amount of rent or the way in which rent would be imposed.
According to Mr. Guild, the passage of S.B. 217 is necessary because local governments have been misled by Opinion 92-1, dated February 3, 1992, issued by the Office of the Attorney General (AG) (Exhibit D). The opinion concluded that Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 244.335 and NRS 244.357 grants local governments the authority to enact so-called "police ordinances," the AG determined this to include rent control measures. As a result of the opinion, Clark County attempted to approve an ordinance that would have controlled the amount of rent a mobilehome owner could have charged tenants. After much expense to the business and housing industry to oppose the ordinance, it was defeated in July 1992.
Mr. Guild stated that in his opinion, there was a "fallacious basis" whereby the county commissioners perceived there was justification in proposing the ordinance. Mr. Guild submitted an article he authored, Are Nevada's Counties Entering a Danger Zone?, Inter Alia, October, 1992, (Exhibit E), that sharply criticized the opinion issued by the AG.
Frank Dayken, Esq., former Nevada Legislative Counsel and prime author of NRS 244.357, was introduced by Mr. Guild. He indicated Mr. Dayken would recount his role in drafting much of the language in the subject statutes.
Mr. Guild listed the 21 states that have preempted local governments from passing rent control ordinances. He commented further:
...now that we have this opinion on the subject, though I believe it is incorrect, I think the legislature needs to act affirmatively to clear up any confusion which might exist...other local governments might conclude from the opinion, that they have the power to do this...I think a huge burden will be added to local government if an attempt is made to do this...
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Dayken if minutes were available from the year Mr. Dayken wrote the statute, that would indicate legislative intent.
Mr. Dayken replied that he wrote the section in question in 1965, and no minutes were taken. He offered to recount, from memory, his instructions from the legislature at that time.
Chairman O'Connell requested Mr. Dayken to proceed with his comments, so there will now be a record of what the legislative intend was originally.
Mr. Dayken continued:
In that same statute the words "police" and "sanitary" are both used, the purpose was, "sanitary" was to basically...ordinances for mosquito control, local control of unsanitary conditions and the like...and "police" were such matters as local speed limits... which then could be enforced by the sheriff and the money would go into the county general fund, instead of going as it otherwise would...under the state statute, into the state permanent school fund. Similar things such as not discharging firearms in this area, but you can over here...that is the reason that it, permits...specifies maybe, and enacted to apply throughout an entire county or where the subject matter makes it appropriate and reasonable to govern only a limited area. [For instance] there might be only a limited area where you could not dump garbage on the open sagebrush...and thousand of square miles where you could...a limited area where you had better not be shooting off firearms, hundreds, in Washoe County, hundreds of square miles where you could.. and so on...
That was the intent, it was by no means intended to confer, what a constitutional lawyer would call, "the police power," upon boards of county commissioners...or if it had been so intended there would have been a great many other detailed statutes, giving them particular powers, which would have been wholly unnecessary...but that is for the record...that is what they were after...
There was, by the way, a comparable statute...the cities already had it, but with respect to towns, as the board of county commissioner sat as the governing board...
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Dayken if there was an attempt on behalf of the AG's office to contact him and question what legislative intent was, before the Opinion No. 92-1 was issued.
Mr. Dayken stated no one has ever asked him that question, from that office.
Mr. Guild pointed out the AG concluded that the broader police ordinance power grant in NRS 444.357 was not the statute upon which carried the weight for the opinion. Instead, it was concluded by the AG's office and stated in the opinion, that the police power grant to regulate business, subsection 1 of NRS 444.335, was the basis for that conclusion. He deferred to Mr. Dayken to explain the distinction between the two statutes.
Chairman O'Connell asked if there been any mention in the annotations, a situation or example where this particular statute had been used or construed to mean, or have anything that has to do with regulating business.
Mr. Dayken replied to his knowledge the Nevada Supreme Court has not, as a general grant of police power.
Mr. Dayken explained NRS 444.335 historically has been the source of two powers, one to impose and charge for business license and secondly, to impose regulations on particular occupations.
It was noted by Mr. Dayken, that although this section of law provides for the administration of the sale of alcohol and regulation of gaming at the local level, it has not typically been applied as a regulatory statute. According to Mr. Dayken, the statute was not meant as a means of controlling rents or prices.
Senator Raggio clarified what position Mr. Dayken and Mr. Guild are indicating is that the grant of powers is preempted if the state has enacted its own regulatory scheme, regarding a particular area.
Mr. Guild stated that is correct. Mr. Dayken stated that the power to control rents does not need to be preempted unless it exits in the local government.
Discussion ensued with Mr. Guild citing the specific areas the legislature has addressed as a body, in regard to building codes, landlord-tenant relations, safety standards for building safety standards. He further stated:
In 1987 this legislature repealed NRS 118B.250, the section of the statute that created a local grievance board to mediate disputes between landlords and tenants...when you repealed that statute...it can not be denied...you took back the only local control that had ever been granted by this body to local government, to deal in the area of landlord/tenant relations...you took it back by repealing that statute...
Mr. Guild made the point that the legislature has considered giving rent control to local governing bodies on at least three occasions in the last 10 years. According to Mr. Guild, the legislative body has made a statement that preempts local governments from dealing with rent controls.
Mr. Dayken stated if S.B. 217 is passed, it will say positively the that local governments do not have the power to enact rent controls.
Mike Cirillo, Pleasant Valley Mobile Home Park, Las Vegas, testified in favor of the bill. Mr. Cirillo stated he is not an advocate of rent control, however, he did think this issue should be addressed at the state level, rather than locally.
Paul Keif, Mobilehome Park Owner, Wadsworth, told the committee he sees S.B. 217 as a measure that would serve to protect landlords. Mr. Keif said lawmakers hurt everyone by passing legislation that protects people from a small minority. He pointed out that after a threat of rent control legislation, rents usually rise. According to Mr. Keif, property owners should be able to protect their rights and get the current true value out of their investments.
Continuing, Mr. Keif indicated the average age at his mobilehome park is 68.8 years old. The majority of the people complaining about rent increases, are living on an income that was sufficient 20 years ago. He empathizes with their situation, but it is not his problem, and he views rent controls as a means to try and make it his problem.
According to Mr. Keif, free enterprise will take care of the price of mobile home rents. There is a limit to how much can be charged for mobile home lots, when the cost of the land plus the expense of buying a mobile home, makes it unpopular, the price will come down.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NCCC), stated there are certain basic rights in the Nevada Constitution.
Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Realtors, voiced support for the measure and stated the association's outlook is one against rent control.
Lois Lazor, Comstock Mobilehome Park, spoke in opposition to the S.B. 217 from prepared text (Exhibit F). Ms. Lazor told the committee when mobilehomes are placed on site, they are no longer considered mobile, but permanent structures. Since most of these homes are double or triple wide, it is impossible to move them, without loss of investment since the process is an expensive and involved one.
Tom Davis, Rental Home Owner, voiced support for passage of
S.B. 217. He pointed out our country is one in which people are free to move from one place to another. No one is forced to stay in property that they cannot afford. In his opinion, rent controls only serve to degrade property values.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 217 and opened the hearing on S.B. 409.
SENATE BILL 409: Revises circumstances under which board of county commissioners may authorize use of certain county equipment on private roads. (BDR 20-167)
Senator Rhoads requested the hearing on S.B. 409 be rescheduled. He explained he received a facsimile from the Humboldt County representatives who originally requested the bill. They were called to a special commission meeting and are unable to attend today's hearing.
The chairman moved on to the next order of business Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 23.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 23: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to authorize specifically legislative review of administrative regulations. (C-39)
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition For Concerned Citizens, spoke in favor of S.J.R. 23. Ms. Lusk testified the measure would serve to strengthen the separation of powers and help avoid what she termed as "legislation by regulation," that occurs outside the review of the legislature.
Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, also voiced support for S.J.R. 23. The resolution would aid in attaining legislative oversight of administrative regulations. Ms. Vilardo explained:
...if a regulation superseded what the legislative intent was, to allow the legislature the authority through the Legislative Commission to strike the regulation out. We are totally in support of this measure...it is the legislature that provides agencies with policy directives...in the form of the bills...in effect...into rules...what we have found is your intent being circumvented...in between sessions...
I do not think this defies separation of powers, I think it gives you the authority...when not in session, to go back and ensure what your intent was, in the bills you passed, and is in fact being carried forward accurately..
Bonnie James, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, supported the resolution by indicating her agreement with the comments made by Ms. Vilardo. Ms. James urged the committee to pass S.J.R. 23 and added the measure would also make the legislative process more productive.
Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, voiced the association's approval and support of S.J.R. 23. Ms. Engleman commented this is an issue that protects the public, and is consistent with procedures in other states that have enacted to have an oversight ability. She also stated when this issue was previously addressed by the legislature, it failed due to a lack of understanding by the press and the public.
Chairman O'Connell commented:
...this is a bill that I am sponsoring, I think it is very important...that people understand that this is to extend the law...in attending the hearings and finding out that the people who are ready to promulgate the regulation, totally were circumventing the intent of the committee's action who passed the bill...I could not believe that we did not have any oversight over this issue...
Senator Nevin expressed agreement with Ms. Engleman's comments. He also noted that regulations are brought into effect when the legislature is not in session and after agencies have been unsuccessful in getting legislation passed.
It was further pointed out by Ms. Engleman, that with the unsettled form of the reorganization plan that has been introduced, it will become all the more important to have a method for oversight. It was her belief that S.J.R. 23 would provide that method.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 23.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS HICKEY AND CALLISTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell indicated there would be about a 20 minute recess before the committee began the work session portion of the hearing.
The meeting was reconvened at 4:03 p.m. by Chairman O'Connell.
Kirby Burgess, Lobbyist, Clark County, introduced Irene Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, to speak to the amendments on S.B. 154.
SENATE BILL 154: Revises provisions governing notice of hearing for proposed zoning changes. (BDR 22-1133)
Mr. Burgess read the county's proposed amendments (Exhibit G) for the record.
General discussion followed on the proposed amendments, the largest portion of the amendments were explained by Senator Callister. Ms. Porter submitted background information and amendments taken for the same source as those submitted by Mr. Burgess. Ms. Porter's testimony is referenced as Exhibit H.
Senator Callister applauded the notion of adopting uniformity regarding notification.
Ms. Porter indicated these amendments would set standards for zone change signs. She indicated without this legislation to set the maximum standard throughout Clark County, each entity will devise a different shape and size.
Senator Callister stated he would prefer not to have a maximum standard. However, he said in his opinion, the problem will be resolved on a home-rule basis. It was also his preference to vote rather than wait until the next work session.
Kurt Fritch, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, also opposed the maximum standard suggested by Ms. Porter. He said the city has in place, ordinances that conflict with the proposed maximum standards.
SENATOR CALLISTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 154 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MAXIMUM STANDARD.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Hickey referred to page 10 of Exhibit H, and questioned if item 1 was included in his motion. Senator Callister clarified his motion incorporates all the amendments proposed in Exhibit H, except the maximum standard.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR NEVIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell requested Senator Callister to take charge of requesting the appropriate amendments for S.B. 154.
The chairman stated the next order of business would be S.B. 250.
SENATE BILL 250: Makes various changes to provisions governing elections. (BDR 24-542)
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, indicated full agreement with the recommendations made by the subcommittee on election reform. Continuing, Ms. Lau offered her sincere thanks to the committee for their taking the time they have on the election bill. She commented that S.B. 250 is responsive to the problems that have occurred, particularly in Clark County.
Senator Hickey expressed concern with language addressing the issue of absentee ballots. He brought attention to the fact that originally absentee ballots were designed to accommodate people who were unable to get to the polls. Senator Hickey stated he wanted assurance that citizens would not be disenfranchised by the language in S.B. 250. Senator Hickey asked if the workers at the Nevada test site had been considered in the recommendations to the bill from the subcommittee.
Ms. Lau indicated that the language states any person may be absent from their place of employment for up to 3 hours in order to vote.
Senator Hickey indicated that in his opinion the bill is too restrictive regarding the absentee ballot and the design of
S.B. 250 does appear to disenfranchise some voters. He wanted assurance from Ms. Lau that, even if there was a nominal charge for transportation, voters will be accommodated.
Ms. Lau gave Senator Hickey assurance that the absentee voters will be attended to in each county. She reminded him that the county clerks and registrars were in attendance at the hearings, when this topic was addressed.
Senator Callister questioned whether or not the younger voter, the 18 year old voters, were considered. He mentioned young persons that may be going out-of-state to college, or those that may be entering the military or those fulfilling a missionary obligation to their church.
Ms. Lau answered Senator Callister's concerns by saying that every-one has a responsibility that they must uphold on the right to vote.
Dale A.R. Erquiaga, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Office of the Secretary of State, explained that voting rights of military personnel or citizens residing overseas are assured by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, Title 42, Unites States (U.S.) Code 1973. This act specifically defines the guidelines to be followed that will guarantee the rights of these absentee voters. Mr. Erquiaga indicated they are allowed to register with the Federal Postcard Application for Registration and Absent Ballot Request.
Mr. Erquiaga stated section 42 refers only to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 293.5235, which is the Nevada mail-in registration program. He indicated students attending out-of-state schools are protected under this Nevada statute. This allows for a person age 17 years old, who will be 18 years of age in time for the next election, to register at any time at the age of 17 years. Mr. Erquiaga said the law presumes that the students will take responsibility and affirmative duty to register.
Chairman O'Connell stated:
If we generated a letter from the committee to the teachers' union or perhaps to the...State Department of Education, asking that in government classes...students are aware...of this opportunity of registering prior to being 18 [years old]...and we have a letter of encouragement that everyone is aware...
Senator Callister commented:
I appreciate that, I think we should do this...there is a lot...in this bill that is long overdue and worthy of our support...I am still quite troubled...in these two instances, for the senior [citizen] and the student, you are making it tougher, not easier to vote...what we ought to be doing...we really ought to be making it easier for everyone to participate...we ought to be making it more convenient and not less so...
Ms. Lau told Senator Callister that actually the voting process has been made easier for senior citizens. She indicated that a deputy registrar will go to the home of senior citizens, all they need to do is call the county registrar's office if they are unable to get out.
Mr. Erquiaga clarified that anyone who is unable to get out and vote must actively take the initiative to phone the registrar's office and request a mail-in application in order to register. Mail-in applications are not just mailed to every home, the person has to make the first phone call. Mr. Erquiaga also pointed out that S.B. 250 does not outlaw field deputy registrars, they will still be available. He also noted there are over 800 in Clark County and 600 in Washoe County.
Chairman O'Connell asked Ms. Lau if she is comfortable with the removal of the petition section from S.B. 250.
Ms. Lau told Chairman O'Connell since the petition portion is a complicated issue in itself, and she feels it is better addressed by itself.
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 250.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio clarified the amendment to be the adopted Election Subcommittee Report.
Chairman O'Connell indicated yes and asked if there was any further discussion.
THE MOTION THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER VOTED NO. SENATOR NEVIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The chairman indicated the next order of business would be S.B. 51.
SENATE BILL 51: Provides for incorporation of City of Moapa Valley by charter upon approval of qualified electors. (BDR S-161)
Chairman O'Connell reminded the committee the measure that would incorporate the City of Moapa was originally heard in February in Las Vegas. She had requested information from the residents on any progress and has not heard from either the proponents or the opposition.
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 51.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEVIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell requested Senator Hickey to give a report on S.B. 281.
SENATE BILL 281: Authorizes administrator of division of state parks of state department of conservation and natural resources to collect fees from senior citizens for special services. (BDR 35-270)
Senator Hickey indicated the measure was under study and requested to discuss it at a later date.
Senator Rhoads requested S.B. 256 be brought up for discussion.
SENATE BILL 256: Provides that contract with independent contractor representing state in court must require independent contractor to identify agency he represents in pleadings.
(BDR 23-1111)
It was explained by Senator Rhoads that the measure originated from the interim study on public lands. He informed the committee that a situation occurred where the AG's office was represented in a lawsuit by the National Wildlife Federation, however the motion was filed on behalf of the State of Nevada, instead of just the Nevada Department of Wildlife. The Legislative Committee on Public Lands was concerned that the statute designation was too broad and may imply that all state agencies are involved in legal proceedings, when in fact it may be only one agency responsible for the motion.
Senator Rhoads stated that since it appeared more than one agency was involved, a conflict could have arisen between state agencies. Senator Rhoads indicated S.B. 256 was drafted to avoid such situations by clarifying that the contractor for the AG's office must state the agency they are representing.
Continuing Senator Rhoads pointed out the assistant chief deputy
of the AG's office had indicated they did not foresee any problems with passage of S.B. 256.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 256.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEVIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 340: Specifies procedure for designating data processors in individual agencies.
(BDR 23-810)
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 340.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEVIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 342: Requires certain appointments by governor to be confirmed by senate. (BDR 18-71)
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 342.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEVIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 350: Provides that various provisions governing construction of public work apply to construction of certain projects that are not public work. (BDR 28-724)
Senators Lowden and Hickey recapped the testimony on S.B. 350 for Senators Raggio and Rhoads, who were attending a conference at the time the bill was originally heard.
Chairman O'Connell indicated she had requested that the Fiscal Division review S.B. 350 for any effect it may have on the state's industrial insurance. She said she would withhold action on the bill, since she had not yet received a reply.
Chairman O'Connell continued the work session and brought up the next order of business S.B. 351.
SENATE BILL 351: Consolidates or eliminates various funds. (BDR 30-808)
Chairman O'Connell informed the bill was drafted at the request of the controller's office. It is an effort to consolidate nine small accounts, as a housekeeping measure.
Senator Callister explained there is concern over accounts which hold significant balances that generate interest which is not returned to those accounts, but rather goes into the General Fund. He indicated the interest comes to a very significant amount. Senator Callister continued that the information provided him by the controller's office indicates the accounts are funded by donations or user fees. It is his belief that those contributors are assuming the interest if any, is staying in that account.
Chairman O'Connell said questions were raised as to why whoever was funding those accounts was not receiving the interest.
Senator Raggio requested S.B. 351 be held and that the controller's office be asked to come back to the committee with further information on the bill and the proposed amendments.
Chairman O'Connell agreed and moved on to the next bill of the work session. The chairman explained that S.B. 351 and S.B. 370 were first heard on April 26, 1993. However, they met as a sub-committee since four of the committee members were absent.
SENATE BILL 370: Makes various changes relating to Administrative Procedure Act. (BDR 18-262)
Chairman O'Connell recalled that at the April 26th hearing, there was no real opposition to S.B. 370, however, there were several amendments suggested. She indicated the university system requested they be specifically excluded from the measure.
Carole J. Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, recounted the university system felt they were under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents and should not be subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Ms. Vilardo emphasized her disagreement with this theory and pointed out there are a number of regulations the university is able to promulgate. She listed per-sonnel rules, student rules and use of student union facilities as examples.
Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, brought to the committee's attention that the previous year, the press association filed suit against the board of regents for open meeting law violations. The attorney for the board attempted to have the case dismissed on the basis that the board of regents did not fall under the open meeting law, since they are a separate branch of government. The district judge, hearing the case ruled they are not a separate branch and do need to comply with the open meeting law.
Senator Raggio questioned why the bill specifically includes the Nevada State Board of Accountancy.
Chairman O'Connell explained that due to an oversight, that board was not covered by statute previously. The bill drafters asked to include the accountancy board in S.B. 370, since it was appropriate.
Ms. Vilardo suggested the committee amend the bill with the suggested language submitted by the welfare division (Exhibit I). She also urged the committee not to exempt out the university system. Ms. Vilardo offered her own amendment to S.B. 370, which she read into the record:
In the case of a federal regulation or law enacted when the legislature is not in session and which is lacking in specificity and the legislature has not addressed by statutory policy, either general or specific, the agency may adopt an emergency regulation pursuant to NRS 233B.0613 and apply to the legislative commission to waive the requirements of NRS 233B.040.
She explained this would provide some oversight to ensure that agencies cannot put in place regulations that are not the intention of the legislature.
Chairman O'Connell listed who spoke in favor of S.B. 370 for those who were absent for the initial testimony. She indicated the list included Assemblywomen Lambert and Spriggs, various representatives of the business community and those speaking on behalf of the chamber of commerce.
Ms. Vilardo said the need for definitive regulatory and rule making authority is widely recognized. However, once laws are passed, state agencies should not be able to adopt in by regulation, language that was amended out by legislation. Continuing, Ms. Vilardo stated there are instances where bills that were indefinitely postponed have been adopted as agency regulations.
Chairman O'Connell thanked those testifying and stated she saw the measure as an important overview of the legislative process.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 370, WITH THE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE WELFARE DIVISION AND LANGUAGE OFFERED BY THE NEVADA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The chairman summarized the background of five public works bills consolidated into one Bill Draft Request (BDR), to be considered for committee introduction.
SENATE BILL 160: Clarifies authority of public bodies to advertise for bids on certain public works. (BDR 28-646)
SENATE BILL 188: Revises provisions governing preference given to local contractors on public works projects. (BDR 28-131)
SENATE BILL 349: Restricts preference given to certain contractors on public works. (BDR 28-723)
SENATE BILL 376: Makes various changes to statutory provisions government public employment of persons with disabilities and prohibits expressly discrimination against certain persons. (BDR 23-687)
ASSEMBLY BILL 162: Revises provisions for establishing eligibility for preference given to local contractors for public works projects. (BDR 28-239)
Chairman O'Connell explained that S.B. 160 had been amended and passed out of the committee. During the hearing on S.B. 349 it was suggested it be amended and made a part of S.B. 376, since both bills address the issue of bid preference. A.B. 162 had recently been received by Chairman O'Connell's office and had not yet been scheduled for hearing. Continuing, she said S.B. 188 was introduced by Senator Adler and he also has been working with the contractor's representatives on amended language.
Chairman O'Connell requested Pam Miller, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors (AGC), to outline the amended language to be consolidated from the five public works bills. The chairman also asked Ms. Miller to explain the resulting BDR 28-1401, section by section for the committee.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 28-1401: Makes various changes to relating to public works projects.
Chairman O'Connell wanted assurance that BDR 28-1401 included each area of the five bills it would be replacing.
Ms. Miller indicated the only topic not addressed in the new bill draft is that of joint ventures, as they pertain to public works projects. She said there was a request that portion be handled separately from the building and construction trade council. In response to questions from Senator Raggio, Ms. Miller said the public works bills were originally requested without the concurrence of the northern and southern chapters of the AGC. The final bill draft is an attempt to work out the concerns of all interested parties involved with public works projects.
Ms. Miller continued with her explanation by saying section 1 serves to declare the intent of the legislature regarding bid shopping. According to Ms. Miller, the language is meant to imply that bid shopping is not a practice the state wants as a part of public works projects. She explained bid shopping as the opportunity for contractors to share their intended bid prices for a project with other contractors, before a bid opening, so they may be awarded the project, for example, as the subcontractor. According to Ms. Miller the construction industry believes bid shopping gives an unfair advantage to those involved, is unethical and is adamantly opposed to the practice. She remarked the language in section 2 requires a listing of subcontractors on public works projects and section 3 includes convention facilities as public projects.
Ms. Miller said the measure would also allow public bodies to maintain contractor lists from which to accept informal bids, on projects between $25,000 and $100,000. Currently, projects with these dollar amounts have been done by public agencies. The theory for using informal bids would save the expense of advertising and give minority or small business contractors the opportunity to establish a bonding capacity they have not had previously.
Continuing Ms. Miller explained that section 5 states that subcontractors not properly licensed, be removed from public works project jobs. She stated this language is repetitive but, AGC's counsel suggested this language be set out specifically in each section of the public works statutes.
The final portion of the BDR explained by Ms. Miller addressed the changes in the requirements to qualify a contractor for the bidders preference.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 28-1401.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
The chairman moved to the next order of business S.B. 196.
SENATE BILL 196: Requires state agency receiving appropriation from state general fund to submit report to certain legislative committees and appropriates portion of any money that state agency does not expend to increase salaries of its employees. (BDR 31-134)
Senator Nevin explained the proposed amendments, if added to the measure, would remove the fiscal note from S.B. 196. He pointed out the amended language was worked out with the Nevada Taxpayers Association representative, and says that the money a state agency saves in appropriated funds, would be paid as a one-time bonus rather than an increase of salary.
Senator Lowden asked if an agency's budget would be cut the next time it needed approval by the finance committees. She indicated this would deter agencies from admitting they did not need all the money appropriated.
It was clarified by Senator Nevin, the bill would not allow that to come about. He indicated it specifically states any returned money to the General Fund, cannot be used as a penalty for the next budget. Senator Nevin pointed out that in any budget process, there are good years and bad years.
Senator Raggio indicated the concept was a worthwhile one but, he failed to see how the budget could be reduced. He said this was especially true if the finance committees were locked in, and not able to adjust the budget accordingly with the next review.
Carole J. Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, explained the language was meant not as a salary incentive, but as a bonus. She said the amendment was crafted this way because there was no guarantee there would be the same savings for an agency in the next budget years. However, Ms. Vilardo pointed out, reversions and deferments were spelled out very specifically in the amended language and are not eligible for the bonus.
Directing her comments to Senator Raggio, Ms. Vilardo indicated the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) would prepare a form to be completed by the agency, identifying what the savings plan was, how it was accomplished, how long it took to implement and would reflect the money amount that was saved. She said this would be accompanied to IFC by a cash flow report, to insure no reversions were included and there was a legitimate savings being reported. Ms. Vilardo noted this would indicate if the savings were applicable to more than one agency, and also would create a paper trail, to monitor the savings effectiveness in the next budget. To illustrate her point, Ms. Vilardo used programs created in Florida, called a productivity savings incentive award and Rhode Island, as examples.
Senator Raggio commented he was under the impression these bonus' were only to be an awarded when unseen or extreme savings were found. He requested the fiscal division review the bill and make sure all concerns have been investigated.
Chairman O'Connell asked that Senator Nevin accommodate Senator Raggio's request to have the amendment reviewed by the auditors of the fiscal division.
Chairman O'Connell requested a motion on S.B. 217, the bill heard earlier in the meeting regarding rent control.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 217
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Callister stated:
...I do not think they can artfully craft any kind of meaningful distinction about when...and under what circumstances we should eliminate the rights of the communities within the state to participate in crafting their own future. I understand the real motivations... from the promoters of this measure...they pose an interesting question. I am just not convinced that in this instance we ought to...prohibit this measure from being at a community level...I do not think it is the best interest...of the state.
Senator Raggio noted:
...the issue here is not...a position on mobile home rent control...the issue here is first, should this be addressed only at the state level, or do we want local governments to be able to individually deal with this issue...I am persuaded by what I heard here that the state has in place...procedures...and we have dealt with the issue...although we have not imposed rent control, we have dealt with the issue. I think we have already preempted...this issue. I think this issue is of such a nature that it ought to be uniform, and I do not think it ought to be in one area of the state, one city has one provision on rent control and another [area] has another [provision]...it should be dealt with uniformly...
Senator Hickey commented he did not see a compelling need for state government to interfere in the ordinances of local governments.
Chairman O'Connell pointed out rent control defeats the very problem it was designed to cure. People have a tendency to let property run down, then rents go down, and naturally there is less competition.
Senator Callister stated:
I can not imagine...disagreeing more...the local community...does not want any more mobile home parks... so they make it extraordinarily difficult in a community that is starved for land...and growing rapidly...to get adequate zoning for enough land to justify the construction of stick built housing...that is why I suggest to you the problem exists...it is just capitalism, it is using land at it highest and best use...the difficulty is, it occurs because the local government is not responsive...they are the ones who need most to deal with this issue...they are the ones who need to see the demand and respond by saying, we will make more land available for more parks to be built...so you can quit...with stopgap measures...they create the problem and as we do repetitively in this state, we allow the local governments to create our agenda...this is a classic example of how for years they have fostered the problem through restrictive zoning, zone changes and development practices that they govern that they do not...and happy to have us become the exclusive place to resolve the dilemma they occasion... and that is why we need not pass this...they created the problem...they should resolve the problem...
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS LOWDEN, HICKEY, NEVIN AND CALLISTER VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 217.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'CONNELL, RAGGIO AND RHOADS VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell moved to the next order of business on the work session A.B. 26.
ASSEMBLY BILL 26:Makes various changes relating to notaries public. (BDR 19-547)
The committee was reminded by the chairman the measure would require notaries to keep a journal and states that notaries cannot be felons.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 26.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell referred the committee members to the information included in their packets on the remainder of the bills for the work session.
ASSEMBLY BILL 38:Increases fees charged by county recorder for copies and abstracts of certificates of marriage. (BDR 20-215)
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 38.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HICKEY VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 41:Clarifies provisions relating to claim for reimbursement of constable for executing writ. (BDR 20-451)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 41.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 105: Revises definition of "candidate" in statutes relating to ethics in government.
(BDR 23-544)
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 105.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 249: Allows private sale of bonds issued by redevelopment agency. (BDR 22-858)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 249.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 254: Clarifies and expands authority of local government concerning street improvement projects. (BDR 21-860)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 254.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Nevin questioned property owners being assessed for road work done in front of their property. According to Senator Nevin this is what property tax and gas tax are already paid to cover, he termed this a "tax upon tax."
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEVIN AND O'CONNELL VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 24
OF THE 66TH SESSION: Proposes amendment to Nevada constitution to authorize state to enter into certain agreements notwithstanding limitations on state indebtedness. (BDR C-1834)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 24 OF THE 66TH SESSION.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ricka Benum,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
May 5, 1993
Page 1