The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Monday, February 22, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 3142 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Chairman

Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.

Mr. Bob Beers

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Mrs. Jan Evans

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, Assembly District 12

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Assembly District 18

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Buckley informed the audience A.B. 156 had been withdrawn at the request of the sponsor. After input from park owners and tenants, the sponsor felt it was unnecessary to proceed with the bill. Chairman Buckley then opened the hearing on A.B. 107.

Renee Diamond, Administrator, Manufactured Housing Division, offered written testimony in favor of A.B. 107 (Exhibit C). Ms. Diamond introduced Doug Walther, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office and noted the division requested A.B. 107 be drafted to place in statute clear requirements for sale or exchange of manufactured homes. A.B. 107 clarified requirements for transactions regarding brokerage agreements and forms for purchase contracts. The statutory change would provide consumers additional protections against misunderstandings when making an important financial decision.

Ms. Diamond stated manufactured homes were originally licensed as motor vehicles and the transactions were relatively simple. With added complexity in new and used homes, as well as the additional complexity of deals made, clarity was necessary for dealers and consumers as to how transactions were conducted. She noted a portion of the language from A.B. 107 was taken from the real estate statutes.

Ms. Diamond briefly explained each section of A.B. 107 (Exhibit C) and noted a language error in section 4, subsection 3. She submitted an amendment to delete incorrect language (Exhibit D) and noted money should remain in the trust fund and not be distributed to any party until they complied with the items in (a), (b), and (c), and the sale was complete. She further asked to delete incorrect language in subsection (a) that placed responsibility to complete an application for a certificate of ownership on the new owner. The dealer should submit to the division a certificate of ownership for a new home.

Ms. Diamond referenced section 5, which set forth requirements that an agreement be in writing, had an expiration date, did not require the client perform any act concerning the agreement after it expired, and was signed by the client or his representative and the dealer.

Section 6 of A.B. 107 stated there were occasions when a dealer and a willing buyer made a deal, the buyer moved into the home, and for some reason, the buyer was unable to obtain title to the home. She noted a title search would have solved the problem, and A.B. 107 would force a dealer to deliver good title before the deal was finalized.

Section 7 would end "as is" deals, unless specifically signed off by the buyer.

Section 8 required the administrator to prescribe by regulation the form of contracts used for sales. Ms. Diamond noted she spoke with individuals in the Nevada Manufacturers Association and asked for help in development of contracts that were suitable for dealers and provided consumer protection.

Section 9 required dealers have all spaces on a contract completely filled in except for identifying marks and the date of the first installment payment when a contract was signed.

Section 11 added language to the definition of "dealer," and exempted a person who rented or leased his/her own manufactured home, mobile home, or commercial coach. The section was aimed at professionals who daily dealt with the issue, not the homeowner.

Section 13 was a separate part of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), chapter 489. Currently service people who worked with air-conditioning had a full license, and the division desired they be moved to the list of those with a limited license. Air-conditioning service people were certified nationally, and the division believed they should have a break on the cost of their licensing and examination.

Ms. Diamond noted the repealed section would remove the current requirement stating the administrator be notified upon commencement of an action against a licensee.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the definition of commercial coach included any motor home or only a motor home used as a residence. Ms. Diamond explained the Division of Motor Vehicles licensed a motor home, and a commercial coach was a construction office or a simple structure with no kitchen. A commercial coach

was not a permanent placement. She further noted a manufactured home used to be called a mobile home.

Chairman Buckley asked Ms. Diamond to describe the number of complaints the division had in areas addressed by A.B. 107 and why she thought the bill was necessary.

Ms. Diamond said the division did not delineate complaints by number; all consumer complaints were combined. The number of complaints had not grown, but they were more complex. The main complaints used to deal with issues such as paint, carpet, windows, or doors. Current complaints dealt with issues such as inflation of down payment, a dealer’s check bounced, or title to a home was not received for a year to a year and a half after a buyer moved into their home. The complexity of deals called for greater structure for all concerned parties.

Chairman Buckley noted constituent complaints about net listings. The process began with the inflation of the sales price of a home, the price of the home was reduced, the seller was asked to sign a net listing, which then resulted in the buyer paying an inflated price for an older mobile home. Chairman Buckley asked Ms. Diamond if she ever heard of such a situation and if A.B. 107 addressed it. She further asked if the situation was peculiar to mobile home sales.

Ms. Diamond pointed out a requirement in section 5 of A.B. 107, which stated an agreement be in writing. She further noted section 6 and stated the dealer set forth in the agreement the price and terms of the sale, which were approved by the client. Most of such issues were handled verbally, and the division was aware of such events. She stated net listing was not a major complaint, but to those who encountered such a problem, it was serious. Section 6, subsection 1 and 2 required all offers be submitted to the client.

Ms. Diamond pointed out the problem with a straight percentage was the value of older homes, which might not be worth more than $4,000 or $5,000. A seller would never get a professional person to take the necessary time to sell such a home for 7 percent commission. She did not want to rob the smallest homeowner of their ability to sell their home and have a professional do the job.

Ms. Berman noted the bill attempted to designate a manufactured home dealer as a realtor. She asked what sort of rules regulated dealers.

Ms. Diamond said an obligation to license was provided in NRS 489. She noted licensed dealers were required to present their financial background to establish an ability to cover inventory costs. Dealers then requested a license and the division conducted a background check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). If applicable, a license was issued for a fee. Dealers were also required to take an examination. For dealers who hired salespeople, the law stated the dealer was responsible for their salespeople whose applications the division reviewed. In addition, trust accounts could be examined at any time, even without notice. Trust accounts had to be maintained just as title companies maintained their trust accounts. There were also federal consumer and warranty laws dealers were required to follow. Ms. Diamond recognized dealers as professionals and noted the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association supported A.B. 107.

Charles W. Joerg, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, explained the association was comprised of dealers, salespeople, service people, and manufacturers of manufactured homes. The association was in support of A.B. 107 as amended.

Mr. Joerg noted Ms. Diamond and those in the division worked with the association on A.B. 107 since the summer of 1998. The association had substantial input on the bill, made revisions as a result of such input, and agreed with the rest of the bill. Mr. Joerg emphasized the majority of those involved in the industry were upstanding individuals, but there were those that caused problems for the industry. The association believed A.B. 107 went a long way to correct problems.

Mr. Joerg pointed out Ms. Diamond committed to the association they would have substantial input on the standardized forms the division proposed to adopt by regulation at a later time. With the commitment, the association was in total support of the bill.

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Joerg if members of the association practiced net listing.

Mr. Joerg affirmed some members practiced net listing and the practice was generally carried out by those who sold older mobile homes in older parks. It was difficult to get someone to sell a unit for 6 or 7 percent when the unit was worth less than $10,000. For that reason, the association would not support making it illegal to have a net listing, but the association did support full disclosure.

There being no further testimony or questions on A.B. 107, Chairman Buckley closed the hearing. The Chair began the work session with A.B. 58.

Mr. Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, explained Exhibit E and noted A.B. 58 was designed to remove gender differentiation with respect to "real estate salesman." The proposed amendment removed sections 1 through 61 and replaced the provisions with a new section to amend NRS chapter 645, which was designed as an efficient way of changing every word in the statute from salesman to a gender neutral term. A new provision to the bill amended chapter 645 of NRS by adding the following wording: "A licensee shall do business under the brokerage names as licensed with the Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry."

Assemblyman Parks disclosed he was a licensed real estate salesperson, but the effect of the bill on him was no different from others.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Buckley assigned A.B. 58 to Mr. Beers to read on the floor of the Assembly.

Mr. Hughey explained A.B. 108 clarified the attorney general could bring civil action for unfair trade practices on behalf of a person who was damaged either directly or indirectly as a result of a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. The bill also clarified a person who was damaged either directly or indirectly, could bring civil action. A.B. 108 increased from 10 percent to 50 percent the portion of money collected under unfair trade practices that must be credited to the attorney general’s special fund. There were no amendments proposed for A.B. 108.

Mr. Goldwater asked if A.B. 108 fixed the "brick problem." Mr. Hughey explained the bill remedied the Illinois brick problem, which was the result of a 1977 United States Supreme Court case holding persons or entities who did not deal directly with defendants generally lacked standing to sue for treble damages in antitrust actions.

Assemblyman Beers asked if A.B. 108 had an impact on the general fund because the attorney general’s special fund percentage went from 10 to 50 percent. He asked if the percentage for the general fund would go 90 to 50 percent.

Chairman Buckley said the committee was concerned with policy only, and if Assemblyman Arberry, Chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee thought there was a budget problem, he would deal with it when the bill was reported to the floor.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Buckley assigned A.B. 105 to Ms. Berman and A.B. 108 was assigned to Mr. Nolan to be read on the floor.

Mr. Hughey explained A.B. 109 authorized the Director of the Department of Business and Industry and the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs to make public the name of any person alleged to have committed a deceptive trade practice. The bill required the commissioner make public, upon request, any assurance of discontinuance of a deceptive trade practice accepted by the commissioner or the director. A.B. 109 removed a provision allowing a credit service organization, exempt from taxation under section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, to be exempt from registration and bonding requirements of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Mr. Hughey explained a licensed real estate broker, who rendered services in the course and scope of employment by or in affiliation with a credit service organization, was no longer exempt from the requirements to register with the Consumer Affairs Division and post a bond. There were no amendments proposed for A.B. 109.

Mr. Beers sought clarification as to whether A.B. 109 allowed for the publication of an allegation of an unfair trade practice, whether the allegation was either substantiated or unsubstantiated.

Mr. Hughey noted he understood Mr. Beer’s concern to be the case, but he would further check on the issue.

Chairman Buckley referenced page 2, line 9 of A.B. 109 understanding any assurance and any stipulation filed with the court was confidential. She said the bill would not allow publication of unsubstantiated information but noted the issue needed further clarification.

Marilyn Skibinski, Regulatory Analyst, Bureau of Consumer Protection, explained the bill addressed assurances of discontinuance and persons alleged to have committed a deceptive trade practice, which dealt with confidentiality. An assurance of discontinuance was a signed agreement with a company promising not to use a particular practice in their business. She noted an assurance of discontinuance would be public information under A.B. 109. For those alleged to have committed a deceptive trade practice, A.B. 109 allowed the commissioner to make public the name of the person or business alleged to have committed a deceptive trade practice, and the information would be based on valid written complaints received. If a person called to inquire of complaints against a business, it would be verified complaints were received.

Chairman Buckley asked if the measure allowed for consumers to inquire as to the number of complaints against a business. Ms. Skibinski said the measure was to issue public warnings and statements regarding deceptive trade practices. Chairman Buckley asked if the bureau would also inform callers that not all complaints were valid. She asked how the situation would be administered and if the bureau investigated every claim to know whether complaints were valid.

Ms. Skibinski said the Consumer Affairs Division was the intake for such complaints. If a consumer called the division and asked for information about a business or filed a complaint, the consumer would be better informed about allegations of deceptive trade practices against a business. The consumer would be told the number of complaints against the business.

Ms. Giunchigliani referenced section 2, subsection 3 (b) and (c) of A.B. 109, which said, "Make public any order to cease and desist issued pursuant to subsection 5 of NRS 598.0971" and "Make public any assurance of discontinuance accepted by the commissioner or director pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 598.0979. That subsection did not authorize the commissioner to disclose or make public contents of any complaint described in paragraph (a)." Ms. Giunchigliani then pointed out section 2, subsection 3 (a), which said, "disclose the number of written complaints concerning a person received by the commissioner during the current or immediately preceding fiscal year." Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification between subsection 2 and 3.

Chairman Buckley referenced page 3, lines 7 and 8 of A.B. 109, which said, "this subsection does not authorize the commissioner to disclose or make public the contents of any complaint described in paragraph (a)." She asked if such language conflicted with new language, which said the name could be made public. Ms. Buckley asked if information could be made public as to the number of complaints received against a company, but the contents of the complaint could not be revealed. She noted the commissioner or director would not be able to tell a consumer whether the complaints were genuine or not.

Ms. Skibinski explained under current law no information could be disclosed.

Mr. Beers noted page 2, lines 30 through 34 of A.B. 109. He said as amended, the language appeared to say the commissioner or director may make public the name of any person alleged to have committed a deceptive trade practice. He took the word alleged to mean cases that would eventually be substantiated and unsubstantiated. Accordingly, the language led him to believe the law gave the commissioner or director the ability to make public the names of persons alleged to have committed unsubstantiated deceptive trade practices.

Chairman Buckley affirmed Mr. Beers’ statement was correct.

Mr. Beers noted because of such an issue, he would vote no on A.B. 109.

Chairman Buckley asked what the Better Business Bureau did in terms of advising consumers as to complaints that might not be true. She asked how advising aided the consumer and how the Better Business Bureau differed from the Consumer Affairs Division in terms of how they handled the issue.

Ms. Skibinski said the only experience she had with the Better Business Bureau was when she personally contacted them about a company. She was told when she contacted them if there were complaints, if the complaints had been resolved, if the company was registered with the bureau, or if no complaints against a company were registered. The information was general in nature.

Chairman Buckley said she would hold A.B. 109 and allow the sponsor of the bill to address the issue brought forth by Mr. Beers, as it was a valid concern. She asked if information should be withheld from consumers about a company with a large number of complaints against it, or if there was an untrue allegation, was it right to have such a blemish on the record of a business. Chairman Buckley asked Ms. Skibinski to provide further information on the issue to herself and Mr. Beers.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated she did not have a personal problem with the main issue of the bill but was concerned about the issuance of public statements. She would like to cross-reference with other bureaus to determine how they handled complaints.

Mr. Hettrick said he had the same concerns as Mr. Beers and asked if it could be included within the language that corrective action was taken by a company or language stating a complaint had been satisfied. He noted it was unfair for the bureau to tell a consumer a company had numerous complaints against it but failed to note the company satisfied the complaints. Mr. Hettrick said the bureau should report what a company had done to remediate claims.

No action was taken on A.B. 109, and Chairman Buckley moved on to A.B. 115.

Mr. Hughey said A.B. 115 extended the date of expiration of permit to operate as a locksmith or safe mechanic from 1 year to 5 years. According to testimony, permits issued by a county sheriff for other types of jobs such as private security personnel or childcare workers expired five years after they were issued, and consistency was sought. There were no amendments proposed on A.B. 115.

Chairman Buckley assigned A.B. 115 to Mrs. Segerblom to read on the Assembly floor.

Mr. Hughey explained A.B. 202 authorized a professional land surveyor to remove certain monuments and provided that survey monuments could not be set or reset because of steep terrain, water, marsh, existing structures. If the monument would be obliterated as a result of construction or maintenance, it must be replaced by one or more reference monuments. Mr. Hughey noted the original bill did not include the language of steep terrain, water, marsh or existing structures, which was included in the amendment.

Chairman Buckley asked Ms. Giunchigliani to read A.B. 202 on the floor.

Chairman Buckley noted A.B. 156 was withdrawn and opened the hearing on A.B. 104.

Joan G. Buchanan, Administrator, Department of Business and Industry, Real Estate Division, explained A.B. 104 was a housekeeping bill. She noted the bill clarified campground membership fees and how the fees were assessed on the registration. The bill had no fiscal impact but was strictly clarification. Ms. Buchanan introduced Shirley M. Penzel, Projects Chief, Nevada Real Estate Division, who offered written testimony in favor of (Exhibit F). Ms. Penzel said A.B. 104 clarified fees for membership campgrounds. She noted there was an error that was made at the time the law was enacted, which was never corrected. Sites were assessed as opposed to memberships, which was like assessing time shares as units as opposed to time-share interests. A.B. 104 would bring about consistency within the time-share law.

Chairman Buckley asked if a developer would pay additional money because of the change. Ms. Penzel said the developer all along paid the correct amount. The developer was paying the same type of rate as time shares, which was paying based on membership as opposed to site.

Mr. Hettrick said he had no problem with the bill and noted if the law had to be changed, a two thirds vote would be required because the fee was legally being raised.

Chairman Buckley agreed with Mr. Hettrick and closed the hearing on A.B. 104 as there was no further testimony.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall, Assembly District 12 introduced A.B. 195 and noted the bill would increase allowable income levels for qualification in the Lot Rent Trust Fund subsidy payment program according to NRS 118B.213. Mobile home lot rents in many parks had increased more than the cost of living and the social security cost of living allowance. She said the fund often prevented individuals from losing their mobile home entirely. Ms. Ohrenschall noted Ms. Renee Diamond of the Manufactured Housing Division said the eligibility figures presented to the committee were too high and might cause the fund to be depleted of money within 3 years if all eligible individuals entered the program. She personally did not believe such would be the case but was willing, if the committee so desired, to meet with Ms. Diamond and members representing park owners to scale down the figures.

Ms. Ohrenschall referenced A.B. 195, section 1, subsection (c) and noted the amount would be changed to read "an amount equal to $50 more than." She

noted lines 9, 13, and 18 and said the amounts listed would change to

$800, $1,175, and $11,000 respectively.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked the committee to amend section 1, subsection 3 (e)(3) of A.B. 195 where food stamps were excluded from measurement in the income of an individual. She noted she would like to add the option of either food stamps or the sum necessary to subscribe to Medicare part B. Ms. Ohrenschall believed the sum to be $48.

Ms. Ohrenschall referenced section 2 and 3 noting the reason for the section was because different municipalities in the state had different ordinances. In Reno, police regularly patrolled within mobile home parks. In Las Vegas, the police did not regularly patrol in mobile home parks; they waited until someone within a park called them. In order to not increase rents and save money, many parks cut back on their own night security personnel and hired a security service who randomly drove through the park. Most of the seniors who lived in the parks did not feel the services provided adequate security. She noted the declining quality of areas where many of the mobile home parks were located. The areas were becoming known for higher crime, and citizens would have feelings of greater security knowing metro police regularly patrolled through their park, as it did on other residential streets.

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Assembly District 18, testified on behalf of A.B. 195. He noted the rent subsidy program initially was in lieu of the rent justification bill and said A.B. 195 was an attempt to help as many individuals as possible. Mr. Manendo would like to see the figures noted by Ms. Ohrenschall at the original level and desired to know how many people the lower figures would help. He said there was money available to help a greater number of people, and it should be made available.

Mr. Manendo told of being at a meeting at a mobile home park in his district, which was attended by 100 residents. The residents mentioned their rent increasing between $85 to $125 in the past 2 years. He said there were residents who had been in the park for 29 years who, without assistance, would have to sell their mobile homes due to an inability to cover rent cost. Not only elderly individuals who lived in the parks needed assistance but also young families with school children.

Mr. Manendo noted section 3, subsection 1 and said a representative of the metropolitan police department was at the meeting he attended in a gated community. A question was asked as to how the police entered a locked park. The representative said the police had a device, which enabled them to enter a

park automatically, but at some parks, they did not have such a device. He thought the section of the bill was very important.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Manendo if he envisioned mandating park owners to make such accommodation, which would allow police to enter a park that did not have such devices.

Mr. Manendo said there were some locked parks where the police could not enter without a device. The police might have to call the resident who called 911 in order to be let into the park, and the resident might not be able to get to the telephone to let police into the park.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted section 1, subsection 3 (e)(3), which said, "any food stamps the person was eligible to receive," and asked Ms. Ohrenschall why it would be offset if a person was simply eligible to receive food stamps versus actually receiving the food stamps. Ms. Ohrenschall said there was a grammatical error; the language should be changed to read "receiving."

Ms. Ohrenschall wanted to stress that many parks had no security. In her inquiries, the police noted they could regularly drive through parks on their rounds. Most older parks did not have gates that closed and had abandoned security by park owners, which left many senior citizens unprotected from crime.

Chairman Buckley noted there was an emergency code that worked with security gates, and the police knew the code. If the code did not work, the police went through the gate anyway.

Mr. Beers offered a technical amendment and referred to section 1, subsection 3(e)(3). He said the section appeared to be a measure of income rather than assets. Mr. Beers said on page 2, line 7 of A.B. 195, a monthly income requirement was described and on line 18 of page 2 assets were described. He thought it made sense to restate lines 22 to 25 into a monthly term and then move the section up and insert it between lines 14 and 15 on page 2.

Chairman Buckley asked Ms. Diamond to address whether food stamps were considered as income, and if they were, the idea of Mr. Beers could be a technical amendment.

Renee Diamond said the Lot Rent Trust Fund subsidy program was a separate budget item under the Manufactured Housing Division. Ms. Diamond offered written testimony in opposition to A.B. 195 (Exhibit G) saying the bill would severely impact the fund’s subsidy payments. She noted the program currently served 350 persons per month with an average subsidy of $82 per month, which fluctuated because people moved out of the state, dropped out of the program, received an increase in income, or passed on.

A.B. 195 increased the allowable income levels for qualification in the program. The history of the program showed 150 were denied because their income at the time of application was over the qualifying amount, and 111 recipients lost their subsidy because income levels exceeded allowable limits at the time of annual requalification.

Ms. Diamond noted if 50 percent of the 261 individuals who were denied and/or lost their subsidy were able to qualify based on the higher income levels in A.B. 195, it could increase the monthly subsidy payments by over $10,600 or annually $128,000. The change in eligibility income levels, along with increased benefit of exempting food stamps from being considered as income, could deplete the reserve within 2 or 3 years. Ms. Diamond noted the combination of all increases was the problem. Some of the increases could be included without damaging the fiscal integrity of the trust fund.

Ms. Diamond said the program served the truly needy and allowed many individuals to remain in their homes. The division thought the increasing numbers of people could be served through outreach. They would be willing to work with Ms. Ohrenschall and did not want to see the program, which had a finite amount of funds go bankrupt.

Chairman Buckley asked how much the division expended on the program compared to the revenue of $361,000.

Ms. Diamond said about $90,000 per year was expended on personnel, travel, and operating expenses. The expenditure for the lot rent subsidy program, which included 350 people, amounted to $310,700. The rest of the money went into a reserve account.

Chairman Buckley clarified the revenue amounted to $361,000, the lot rent subsidy was about $310,000 and administrative fees were $90,000. She asked if the administrative fees were paid from the fund. Ms. Diamond noted administrative fees were paid from the fund. She explained the money was paid in advance the first year the fund was authorized by the legislature. The program started 1 year later, and the first year’s funding still remained in existence. Administrative fees were drawn from the reserve, and individuals were paid from the current year funding that was paid in July.

Chairman Buckley said the amount used to administer the fund was very high, and some of the $90,000 could be used to help people.

Ms. Diamond said the funding was for a program officer at state salary rates and one administrative aide. The two individuals worked full-time, and while recipients were requalifying for the program, employees had to work overtime. Ms. Diamond said the program had been through the budget division a number of times, and the salaries were as set forth through the process.

Chairman Buckley explained she had a constituent who worked for the first 6 months of the year and then developed cancer. The woman was a long-term resident who the manager desired be on the lot rent subsidy program, but the woman had earned more than the qualifying amount in the beginning of the year. Chairman Buckley discussed a widow whose income was $5 over the qualifying amount. She noted the division having flexibility to deal with such situations when they arose and asked how much could be done to help such individuals without harming the integrity of the fund.

Ms. Diamond said A.B. 195 would not address the issue of when people were qualified. They were qualified based on their previous year’s earnings. The division had no discretion over situations such as the woman with cancer or individuals who had a high-income 1 year and nothing the next. She said if the division worked with Ms. Ohrenschall, they could suggest ways to adopt regulations that would allow for flexibility under extraordinary circumstances. The division could take the current income as opposed to the income of the previous year. Ms. Diamond said during the past year, there were about 6 individuals who were within $9 to $25 over the qualifying amount, and exempting of food stamps and the Medicare payment would take care of the majority of those individuals.

The division had the option of using the poverty level in the contiguous United States and the poverty level for Hawaii and Alaska. The level for a single person was $839 and a couple was $1140. The majority of those who were denied or had to leave the program did so because of a small differential. The problem with changing all the amounts was within 2 or 3 years the program would be bankrupt, even if no one administered it.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about additional lots coming into the program. The number of lots seemed consistent over the years, and with state growth, she thought there should be additional growth and revenue.

Ms. Diamond said lot numbers had been consistent over the years. Mobile home parks were taken out of communities, and the number of new parks built over the past 4 years was small. She pointed out manufactured home communities had been replaced by commercial establishments.

Chairman Buckley noted there was a bias against additional mobile home parks being developed.

Speaker Dini sought clarification as to whether the amount collected for the lot rent program was collected in all counties or just the larger counties. New parks were being developed in the rural areas.

Ms. Diamond said the amount collected for the lot rent program was collected for spaces let out for rent in every park in the state. There were multiple recipients in 72 parks statewide. Ms. Diamond further noted a small number of additional parks were built in Clark County.

Mr. Beers explained inserting the word "current" into section 1, subsection 3(c) would change the text to read "have a current monthly household income . . ." and would take care of situations such as described by Chairman Buckley regarding her constituent with cancer.

Chairman Buckley noted Mr. Beers’ previous concern as to income versus assets. She said the food stamp exemption was placed under resources as opposed to income and asked if food stamps were currently calculated as income or resources.

Ms. Diamond said the division considered resources as assets. Assets were fixed, such as a bank account or property. Food stamps were considered income just as a veteran’s pension, social security, child support, or any other income. In terms of senior citizens, the Medicare payment was considered income, as other individuals would have to pay money for a health insurance policy.

Mr. Beers noted in A.B. 195 food stamps were listed as an asset not in the calculation of income. Ms. Diamond noted they would look into the issue.

Chairman Buckley said it was her intent to allow Ms. Ohrenschall to work with Ms. Diamond and other interested parties to see if there was a way to bring about expansion of the guidelines in hardship cases without hurting the integrity of the fund. She asked all interested parties to work together toward such an end.

Joe Guild, Attorney at Law, represented the Manufactured Home Community Owners and noted the history of the lot rent subsidy program. He said it was the park owner’s association bill that created the program. Mr. Guild noted a problem with rent control legislation was certain individuals within the affected community received a windfall. Those who needed help would receive it and others would be more than helped. The legislation creating the program was proposed because the organization he represented had a genuine concern for people who needed help. He noted the program was successful.

Park owners volunteered to have themselves assessed $12 per space per year and agreed to have written into law the provision that they could not increase the rent to make up for the $12 assessment. The program worked and helped individuals, and Mr. Guild did not want to see it affected in such a way that would ultimately harm people. Mr. Guild understood Ms. Ohrenschall was desirous of helping, and he was willing to work with her on A.B. 195.

Mr. Guild said the administrator of the division needed additional discretion in order to help individuals who, due to extraordinary circumstances, needed help but did not qualify for the program.

He had no comment on section 2 of A.B. 195. If the committee chose to pass the section, he thought it was fine.

Mr. Guild noted there were several mobile home parks built in the rural counties during the past 8 or 9 years but only a couple in Clark County. There was a notion that manufactured housing was not as desirable as other forms of housing. He said the industry provided an affordable product for a minimum of 40,000 people who occupied mobile home parks. There were 150 people turned down for the program since 1991, and out of 40,000 mobile home park dwellers, the assistance record was commendable.

There being no further questions or testimony, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________

Jane Baughman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: