The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:20 p.m., on Friday, April 2, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator William R. O’Donnell

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Raymond (Ray) D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Angela Culbert, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Lisa A. Gianoli, Lobbyist, Washoe County, explained S.B. 410 would clarify language in the existing statutes governing the public administrator and the public guardian. She said the bill intends to clarify the provision specifying the person who will be appointed as public guardian. Under the law, she noted, the board of county commissioners may establish the Office of Public Guardian, appointing the public administrator or any other elected or appointed department head as the public guardian. The two statutes governing the public administrator and the public guardian function, she stated, are in conflict as there is specific reference to the public administrator’s appointment as public guardian if an individual is under the age of 60. She explained if Washoe County were to choose to split that function and appoint someone other than the public administrator in the role of public guardian, it would force people under 60 to fall within the purview of the public-administrator function and those over the age of 60 would be under the public-guardian function.

Chairman O’Connell asked for further explanation. Ms. Gianoli said upon drafting the original law, the public-guardian position was included with the public administrator. She requested removing the "under 60" age provision because public guardians are currently appointed for people under the age of 60 by the courts. She pointed out language had been added to section 1 of the bill to clarify the confusing language.

Referencing a proposed amendment submitted by Washoe County (Exhibit C), Ms. Gianoli indicated the reference to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 253.0425 would be added to section 1 of the bill. She suggested the language in section 1 of S.B. 410 stating, "and the estate does not exceed $25,000 in gross value" be deleted to comply with changes made in the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session.

Senator Neal questioned the problem involved that has made the proposed changes necessary. Ms. Gianoli explained the previous public administrator had looked into splitting the office and discovered the language in section 1, subsection 2 of the bill that would have confused this process in regards to people under 60.

Senator Neal stated Clark County has a public administrator, noting this office seems to be working in its present structure. Ms. Gianoli said there are currently no plans to split the office, but it may be a future possibility due to case loads involved with the aging population. She indicated the Clark County Public Administrator supports the changes.

Ernest Nielsen, representing Washoe County Senior Law Project, testified in support of S.B. 410. He said the senior law project works with the public guardian’s office and views the bill as a flexibility issue for the counties to maximize efficiency. If the county were to put the case-management function with another department, the inefficiency would remain as the under 60 population is assigned to the public administrator. He pointed out many reasons exist that the county might want to move the office around to maximize the administrative efficiency of the operation. He reiterated his endorsement of the legislation.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 410 and requested testimony on S.B. 472.

Don Cavallo, Public Administrator, Washoe County, submitted a proposed amendment to the committee (Exhibit D). He said S.B. 472 was a cleanup and efficiency bill, noting it would allow for more effective administration of small estates. He pointed out section 2 of the bill would increase the cost of an affidavit that a public administrator may manage from $2,500 to $5,000. He indicated the public administrator currently files an affidavit for small estates primarily taking care of the funeral arrangements and the debts of the deceased. He said in the bill, the administrator would not have to retain an attorney and go to court when administering estates up to $5,000. He stressed the bill would streamline the process.

Mr. Cavallo pointed out additional statutory cleanup language to conform with the changed probate codes from the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session. He noted section 4, subsection 2 of the bill would give the public administrator the authorization to dispose of hazardous material or personal property that has been contaminated by hazardous material. He stressed the necessity of disposal of body fluids from the deceased. He said if the material is problematic, the public administrator’s office will enlist the assistance of a third agency to confirm the contamination and the necessity of disposal for public health concerns.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the issue is frequently encountered. Mr. Cavallo confirmed this to be true.

Mr. Cavallo pointed out language removed from section 5, subsection 2 of the bill, and explained the proposed amendment (Exhibit D) would retain this language as it is appropriate to conform with the probate codes. He said changes made to section 8 of S.B. 472 would allow the administrator to obtain information from public utilities in resolving estate issues while guaranteeing the confidentiality of the utility companies.

Senator Neal questioned the reason the language in section 5, subsection 2 had been removed. Mr. Cavallo clarified this language would be reinstated. Senator Neal questioned the removal of language in section 7, subsection 2 of S.B. 472. Mr. Cavallo indicated this language was redundant.

Prompted by further questioning on this subject from Senator Raggio, Laura Duffrin, Probate Case Manager, Office of the Public Administrator, Washoe County, stated the language was redundant and suggested it was covered in section 5, subsection 1, paragraph (c) of the bill. Senator Raggio said this language indicated the public administrator shall investigate whether there is any qualified person to serve and shall determine the eligibility. He stressed the language does not indicate the public administrator has to investigate and pointed out the necessity of investigation in cases involving assets. Ms. Duffrin said the office did not object to leaving in the language in section 7, subsection 2 of the bill.

Senator Raggio requested Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, look into the possible redundancy of the language, stating he did not want to leave a void in a case involving assets in which even the public administrator would not be willing to handle. Ms. Duffrin reconfirmed their compliance with the proposal.

Mr. Cavallo requested the insertion of language in section 7, subsection 3 of S.B. 472 reading, "except as otherwise provided in NRS 253.0425" as set forth in the proposed amendment (Exhibit D). He said this language would clarify the provision.

Chairman O’Connell noted the proposed amendment to section 5, subsection 2 of the bill would avoid a conflict with S.B. 410. Mr. Cavallo agreed.

Senator Care questioned whether Jared E. Shafer, Public Administrator, Clark County, was in agreement with S.B. 472. He questioned whether the public utilities had been consulted on the language in section 8 of the bill.

Mr. Cavallo stated he was in communication with Mr. Shafer on a weekly basis and indicated Mr. Shafer was in support of the proposed legislation. He noted the bill would affect Clark County because it would allow them to administer the affidavits up of $5,000 rather than the $2,500 limit. He said he was not aware of the public utilities being informed of the proposal.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether obtaining information from the public utilities was a problem or whether the request had to be accompanied by a letter from the court. Mr. Cavallo indicated he had not had a problem obtaining the necessary information from the public utilities because by providing the necessary information, the creditors claim for service remittance could be increased. He said the proposal would make the language clear in statute.

With no further questions on S.B. 472, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing. Next, the committee addressed S.B. 429.

Raymond (Ray) D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6, submitted a copy of NRS 271.450 and NRS 271.455 (Exhibit E) to the committee, explaining the NRS allows, if there is a track within the improvement district that has been omitted from the assessment process, there can be a hearing and an assessment on that track. He said any value that would accrue to the track left out of the assessment process would be considered at the time of the hearing not at the time the assessment was made. He pointed out there may be a special improvement district (SID) and improvements assessed for the property upon that understanding. As development takes place, he explained, the new development may derive significant benefits from those assessments. Property would normally be caught in the assessment district, but because there was no development at the time, there was no assessment. He stressed the issue was a matter of fairness as the people deriving the benefit should be involved in the assessment district. Senator Rawson said there would be no fairness if property was given the value made at the time of the original assessment. The new assessment should be made and the value of the land based on the new assessment.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the assessments have been voted on by the public involved at the time the assessments were levied. She suggested this may be a problem to be worked out. Senator Rawson said if people have voted on an issue, they know what the costs will be, but, he noted, development can change a situation with great impact on residents by new people moving to the area. He suggested it may be reasonable in some cases for the new people and the new development to assume their burden even if there has been a vote.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, explained the proposed legislation may compromise what had already been purchased in the way of bonds. She pointed out reevaluation of property may adversely impact the bonds in the marketplace, noting some people already have ownership. She said there would be a need for clarification and this issue would need to be accommodated. Ms. Fretwell said in establishing a local improvement district (LID) it is important to assess because all of the properties follow a formula and an equitable share should be contributed based on that property. Sometimes, she noted, those formulas vary and the districts are set out on "street frontage" or on another valuation. Whatever is done in these districts, she stressed, it has to be equal otherwise there can be property tax constitutional equity problems. She clarified there are two issues which would need to be balanced to address Senator Rawson’s concern and suggested they work together on this issue.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the area of concern was Summerlin. Senator Rawson indicated this to be true.

Chairman O’Connell suggested they might find out from the county how Summerlin was assessed and whether it had to go to a vote of the people or whether it was assessed through the contractor. Ms. Fretwell said as a former employee of Clark County, she worked with the commissioners on neighborhood concerns where the assessment districts were established and noted there is a very strong procedure in place with at least three public hearings available. She said oftentimes the boundary maps are adjusted to address those concerns depending on whether the SID was established "prior to occupancy" or "after occupancy." She stated most likely Summerlin would have been established "prior to occupancy." She suggested there be a disclosure by the realtor when the properties are sold or by the development companies that broker the property, noting disclosure is not currently required in statute.

Chairman O’Connell said in the NRS provided by Senator Rawson (Exhibit E) it appears the matter of reassessment must go back before the county commission or city council in order to conduct the reassessment.

Senator Rawson explained the intent of the legislation by stating if some special benefit has been accrued that was previously overlooked, or if something has not been assessed properly, then it is appropriate to reassess to create an equitable situation.

Senator Neal noticed the bill anticipates property not assessed. Chairman O’Connell agreed, noting Senator Rawson proposes to broaden the assessment to the new people impacting the area as the assessment was made at the time the first development occurred. Senator Rawson furthered there may have been property tracks not gained by the time of the original assessment to be developable and therefore were not assessed. The new people moving in, he noted, accrue all of the benefits of the assessment but have not paid for it.

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, said a great deal of Summerlin is in the city of Las Vegas. He supported the concerns voiced by Ms. Fretwell regarding bonding. He said Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, would like to work with Senator Rawson and try to address his concerns.

Senator Neal questioned the reason there would be a problem with the bonding if the people moving in were not assessed. He noted if the bill was passed, as written, the people now paying for the bond would have to pay less. Senator Rawson said the bond should be able to stay the same but the participants may be changed.

Ms. Fretwell said the bond market gets scared when an assessment district is opened up as someone has purchased the bonds based on what they know and they are left "holding the bag" depending on what might or might not be added. She suggested a provision be included in the bill to ensure the bondholders are not at risk.

Chairman O’Connell clarified Mr. Leavitt and Senator Rawson would work together to gather more information on the proposal.

With no further testimony before the committee, the chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 429 and adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Angela Culbert,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: