MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-First Session
April 9, 2001
The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:45 p.m. on Monday, April 9, 2001. Chairman Joseph Dini, Jr. presided in Room 4100 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:
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr., Chairman
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. David Humke
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. David Parks
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning
Assemblyman Mark Manendo
Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst
Crystal McGee, Committee Policy Analyst
Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jon Sasser, Washoe Legal Services
Gerald Welt, Southern Nevada SSI Claimants
Richard Donaldson, Attorney
Jan Gilbert, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN)
Karl Braun, Nevada Association of Manufactured Homeowners
Dee Burdell, Nevada Association of Manufactured Homeowners
Don Barker, Nevada Association of Manufactured Homeowners, Mountain View Homeowners Association
George Flint, Private Citizen
Marolyn Mann, Executive Director, Park Owners Association, Mobile Home Community Owners
Charlie George, Nevada Association of Manufactured Homeowners
David Howard, Silverstate Apartment Association, Las Vegas, Nevada Apartment Association, Reno
Pat Coward, Nevada Association of Realtors
Marshall Schultz, Operator of Nevada Renters Hot Line
Thelma Clark, Private Citizen
Joe Guild, Mobile Home Community Owners
Teresa Maloney, Mobile Home Park Owner
Renee Diamond, State Manufactured Housing Division
Louis Test, Sani-Hut
Mike Lindell, Jones-Vargas Attorneys At Law
Ernie Nielsen, Washoe County Senior Law Project
Alex Haartz, Health Division, Department of Human Resources
Marie Manendo, Paradise Democratic Club, Nevada Association of Manufactured Homeowners
Danny Thompson, Nevada AFL-CIO
Tom Brady, Nevada League of Cities
Samuel McMullen, AT&T and Retailers
Kimberly Rushton, Attorney General’s Office
Melody Luetkehans, General Counsel, Nevada Association of Realtors
Chairman Dini opened the meeting as a regularly scheduled meeting of the Committee on Commerce and Labor with a quorum present. He opened the hearing on A.B. 363.
Assembly Bill 363: Allows patient to obtain his health care records without charge under certain circumstances. (BDR 54-1098)
Jon Sasser, representing Washoe Legal Services, presented A.B. 363 on behalf of Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Clark County District 9. The bill required that medical providers give one copy of a person’s medical records to them without charge if the records are needed to support a claim or appeal seeking benefits under the Social Security Act or other need-based program. Exhibit C was verbatim narrative of Mr. Sasser’s testimony.
Assemblyman Humke asked about an indigency test. Mr. Sasser indicated there was no indigent test. To apply for benefits under the Social Security Act, an individual needed medical records to show an inability to work. Assemblyman Humke realized the bill was being drafted narrowly to avoid opposition from the medical records industry and asked about indigent individuals who were not contemplating an SSI claim but had other needs for their records. Mr. Sasser answered the bill did not address the indigent population. Assemblyman Humke asked how many SSI claims were processed statewide. Mr. Sasser had no concrete number at hand, but offered to get it.
Gerald Welt, representing 95 percent of SSI claimants in Southern Nevada, voiced support of the bill. He reemphasized that individuals, to qualify for SSI, had to be out of work for at least 12 months or a period expected to last 12 months, though frequently they were out of work much longer. When it came time to obtain their medical records to apply for services, the cost came between a choice of purchasing groceries or the medical records. Mr. Welt stated he received a medical bill for copies of medical records in the amount of $300. The individual’s monthly benefits were not much more than that. The expense for medical records was prohibitive, which in turn left an individual no choice but to forfeit applying for benefits versus feeding his or her family.
Social Security would not provide benefits without the objective evidence of a medical disability. He emphasized that the records belonged to the patient, not the doctor, and patients were denied these records when unable to pay sometimes as much as 60 cents per page. Another option afforded by the bill was a 30-day time limit. Once requested, the records were, at times, delayed from two to five months, and the records frequently arrived after the hearing. If not for the generosity of the judges in southern Nevada who allowed extended periods of time within which to submit the benefit request, many of the cases would be lost. Thus, the individual would lose benefits he or she had fully earned after paying into the system for the 20, 30, or 40 years they had spent working. Exhibit D provided in-depth narrative regarding his support of the bill.
Richard Donaldson, an attorney who had been practicing Social Security law since 1973, voiced support of the bill. The people being discussed were those who fell between the cracks. He stated many of those they spoke about frequented the University Medical Center and applied for disability but were not qualified by Social Security. The standard set by Social Security was very high with the same level of proof requirement as SSI. Unfortunately, the ability of the people to supply the records required eliminated them from meeting the standards. Without paying the exorbitant prices, the people failed and were tossed back into the routine of filing multiple claims. According to the Social Security System, they were then presumed not disabled, which made it even more difficult to obtain a Medicare or Medicaid card. At that point the local, county, and state governments picked up the tab for treating people who should be covered through the federal government program.
Many who applied had no records, and the records they could get were inaccessible to them unless someone paid. Social Security provided a doctor who spent three to four minutes assessing each case, and the patient was denied services once again. What the bill did was allow people who applied to provide the evidence necessary to allow the Social Security disability process to work. Social Security paid a maximum of $10 for all records, and at 60 cents a page, not many records were obtained. Basically, the Social Security file was very thin as the people did not have records unless the attorney or representative paid. Mr. Donaldson stated his last bill for a client’s medical records was $1,200. Usually an attorney or representative was not going to advance that type of money unless they were pretty sure the case was open and shut for the client. Exhibit E provided references plus more in-depth data regarding the subject addressed in A.B. 363.
Jan Gilbert, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), voiced support of A.B. 363. She was unaware of the expense incurred to receive copies of medical records. She stated for the indigent it was a catch 22 as the funds were not there to expend on records. She urged passage of the bill.
Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 363 and opened the hearing on A.B. 341.
Assembly Bill 341: Creates state board to review certain increases in rent relating to mobile home parks. (BDR 10-1087)
Assemblywoman Buckley, Clark County District 8, presented A.B. 341. She welcomed Assemblyman Manendo, Assemblywoman Ohrenschall, and Karl Braun, President of the Nevada Manufactured Homeowners Association (NAMH). They jointly sponsored the bill.
She stated that in politics throughout the country there were caucuses that formed for various reasons, thus the bill was brought about through work of members of the mobile home caucus for the state of Nevada. Others involved were Assemblyman Bache, Senator Care, and Senator Titus, as well as many of the bill’s sponsors who represented individuals residing in mobile home parks. Assemblywoman Buckley’s first introduction to mobile home park living was when she started campaigning in 1994, where within her district there were seven mobile home parks. It was during that time she became very familiar with the issues of mobile home park residents because the number one question asked while walking door to door was, “Can’t you do something about our escalating rents?”
Most of the residents were single, their spouses having died, had worked hard all of their lives and were told that manufactured home living was a good investment. They bought the homes and had them placed in parks where the lot rents ranged from $150 to $180 per month. Many had house payments that ranged from $300 to $700 a month, thus the combined expense made it affordable for their social security stipend.
Suddenly, the lot rents started to escalate. Assemblywoman Buckley felt the problem was more prevalent in the urban areas. Within the rural areas, park owners were native Nevadans and were very fair in all their rent rates, and pointed out one of the state assemblymen was a landlord and dealt fairly with their renters. The problem in the urban areas was quite different. The rents did not stop at $180 per month, but increased almost $75 yearly to the point where in one park the rents were presently over $500 a month. She emphasized the renters were only renting the space on which the mobile home was parked. The question arose why the renter did not move when the rent escalated to an unreasonable amount. Assemblywoman Buckley pointed out that mobile homes were not truly mobile. It cost from $5,000 to $8,000 to move a mobile home, if it could be moved at all. Many times they could not be moved because they would break apart during the moving process. Therefore, she was pleased to present A.B. 341, which attempted to address a very critical problem facing many individuals on fixed incomes.
The bill itself was different than other rent justifications previously presented. It attempted to leave the parks operating under good business principals out of the umbrella. The bill created a mobile home park rent review board. The Nevada Manufactured Homeowners Association thought of the concept and approach, which created a five-person board:
1. Two members being appointed by the manufactured home community owners, which was the association of the park owners;
2. The Nevada Association of Manufactured Home Owners, i.e., those who leased the spaces, appointed two members; and
3. The Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, the organization that sold manufactured homes within the state, appointed one member.
The board was charged with review of rent increases when the landlord wished to increase the rent by more than 5 percent within one year, or to an amount, which exceeded $400 per month. In essence, for the park owners charging $200 per month who wanted to pass along a $10 per month increase, there was no need for that request to go before the board. The bill was drawn in a way to address some of the criticisms presented against it last session.
In reviewing applications, page 3, line 6, it talked about the factors the board needed to consider including:
If the park could prove they had extraordinary operating expenses to justify the increase, the increase could then be passed on to the renters.
The legislature had considered this type of bill during past sessions when the tenants or the residents’ association provided many hours’ worth of testimony to describe the hardships incurred.
Chairman Dini asked if new mobile home parks were still being developed. Assemblywoman Buckley stated that process had slowed due to possible zoning restrictions as well as financing. Clark County relocated two mobile home parks on Tropicana and actually built a new park for relocation. That was about the only new park within the Las Vegas area.
Assemblyman Manendo, Clark County District 18, went on record in support of A.B. 341, a bill that was different from those heard in the past and crafted that way purposely. Obviously, when you had a manufactured home community in your district where the homes were owned and spaces rented, space rent was the number one issue. In order to bring these people forward to discuss the issues of the high rent increases, A.B. 341 afforded the opportunity without enlisting a large fiscal note, if any, because of the membership of the board. With that, Assemblyman Manendo felt the bill a good first step for dialogue outside of the legislative process. He commended the parties interested that brought forth the rent justification bill during the 2001 Legislative Session.
Assemblyman Humke asked why the Manufactured Housing Association, and the sellers of mobile homes, had a seat on the board since they were not involved in the rental of the land. Assemblywoman Buckley stated though it was a difficult choice, the residents/homeowners wanted to be fair and show the park owners that the bill was not a way to say, “We’re going to have a rubberstamp board who’s going to deny every application that you send in.” Therefore, the first choices for membership were easy; two park owners and two residents. It was the thinking of the association and Mr. Braun that they had a stake in assuring the economy was vibrant, that homes were sold, and that manufactured-homeowner living was considered a viable option in Nevada. She was not sure they wanted the responsibility but it was felt also they did not owe anything to one side or the other, and would be a good tie-breaking choice.
Assemblyman Goldwater asked about the board’s expenses. Assemblywoman Buckley stated the residents’ association would require all members to bear their own costs. Assemblyman Goldwater asked how challenges of the board would be handled. Assemblywoman Buckley stated the board would have no Attorney General representation.
Chairman Dini asked if there was a provision regarding the size of the mobile home park or was it all-inclusive. Assemblywoman Buckley stated there was no prohibition on size. They wanted to make sure that, regardless of the size, there would be no more than a 5 percent a year increase. The association saw problems within the larger parks only, which were owned by out-of-state landlords. They foresaw no problems with the “mom and pop” Nevada-run parks, the reason for the change in the bill from previous years.
Assemblyman Hettrick referenced page 3, subsection (b), where it addressed the requirement of written notice be mailed certified with return receipt requested to the landlord. Would there be no mailings to the proposed tenants affected since a list was requested of all tenants plus addresses of those affected by a price increase? If no mailing, why request all names and addresses. Assemblywoman Buckley deferred that question to Mr. Braun.
Karl Braun, President, Nevada Association of Manufactured Home Owners, Inc., stated there was a law requiring the landlord to notify the tenant in writing about an increase of rent. Assemblyman Hettrick stated there would be no notification on a proposed application and did not understand why the board needed a list of names and addresses when applications were filed. Assemblywoman Buckley asked for restatement of the question and referenced page 3, line 1. Assemblyman Hettrick stated that section provided for mailing a certified letter of changes to the landlord, but the request in the bill on page 2, line 42, “Name and mailing address of each tenant whose rent the landlord proposes to increase.” Why did that need to be done if no mailing was to be done at time of application? Assemblywoman Buckley stated that provision was to make sure the board knew how many people were truly going to be affected. In some parks there were vacancies, which affected the park income, and that was deemed as relevant when considering all factors. They also wanted to make sure that sufficient notice was provided.
Mr. Braun provided a copy of his verbatim testimony, Exhibit F. He continued saying that 90 percent of the membership of the Nevada Association of Manufactured Homeowners were registered voters, 85 percent were retired individuals, and 75 percent lived in a doublewide or larger (1,400 square feet or larger) manufactured/mobile home. The tenant who rented the land on which they sat paid for these homes. In Nevada there were 170 parks, accounting for 35,000 spaces. Forty-two parks, inclusive of approximately 9,500 spaces (25 percent of available spaces) had rents of $400 or more per month. Of those 42 parks, out-of-state owners owned 29; the remainder were owned by corporations in Nevada.
In a survey of Las Vegas apartment rentals, Mr. Braun, stated that during the past ten years the average apartment rentals increased from $507 (1989) to $704 in 2000, going up not quite $200 per month over a ten-year period. Ninety thousand new apartment units were built during the past ten years as well within Las Vegas. The 42 parks mentioned had rent increases from 38 percent to 218 percent during the same period. What amazed him was Tropicana Palms, the largest park in the state with 532 spaces, grossed $1,200,000 in 1989 and last year they grossed $2,800,000. The only thing that changed within the park was it had aged ten years and earned an additional $1,500,000 per year for the owners.
Prior to the meeting, Mr. Braun stated he had a conversation with Mr. Jim Thorpe, owner of a 38-space park in Carson City. He stated he had been attending the hearings on mobile home park rent problems since the early 1980s to speak against rent legislation. Mr. Braun brought up the question of “leaving the lawmakers alone” and either move the house to a lot or to one of the over 400 parks that charged reasonable rent. Assemblywoman Buckley addressed the major reason mobile home residents hesitated to move, was the cost of moving a mobile/modular home. The association vice president called Richards Mobile Home Service and asked for a quote to move a doublewide from Las Vegas to Pahrump, Nevada. The cost quoted was $6,500 to $7,500 to dismantle, move and reassemble the home. Most parks in the state had age restrictions on the homes themselves of 5 years or less, thus eliminating a choice of approximately 20,000 spaces to choose from.
We have heard park owners say, “Profit is not my business, that is their business.” They also told him the reason for rent increases was because of the market value and when the property increased in value, the rent had to be raised. In the typical mobile home/manufactured home community, the residents had twice as much money invested in their homes than the park owner had invested in the park. He stated he lived in Bolder Cascade in Las Vegas, a 300-space park, where there was about $10,000,000 worth of manufactured homes in that park. The park was sold in 1996 for approximately $6,000,000. When the rent increased the first of July yearly by 4 percent or more, the value of the home decreased.
Through a private survey on the Boulder Cascade Mobile Home Park it was discovered that in 1995 they had 297 spaces filled. Today they had 279 spaces filled, having lost 17 residents due to high space rent. Within a 5-year period, after losing 17 customers, they grossed $200,000 more. He understood businesses had to make a profit and he would not want to live in one that was not making a profit, as the area would not be properly maintained. However, if Exhibit F was carefully reviewed, it showed that Tropicana Pines increased its gross revenue by over $1.5 million in ten years with no improvements.
The reason the committee was being proposed was because no two parks were alike and must be evaluated separately. Therefore, one single law could not apply uniformly to all mobile home parks. One new park was built in 1999 and one in 1998, both in Las Vegas, and contained 200 spaces. Move-in requirements included a new manufactured home. Flamingo West added 50 spaces in 2000 and only allowed new homes. In 1994 there were two parks established that only allowed new homes. Though not a growing business in terms of new parks, there was one being developed near the stadium that included 350 spaces, where lots and homes were to be sold as a package deal, but that plan was not approved.
Assemblyman Hettrick voiced appreciation for Mr. Braun’s comments and asked about the rate of taxes, insurance, labor, and other expenses for the Tropicana park. He was interested in the net profit, not the gross income of the park. Mr. Braun said he would agree except when using reasonable logic and a park was grossing $1.2 million ten years ago and turning a profit, and in 2000 grossed $2.8 million, yet did not have expenses to qualify such an extensive increase in rental rates, it raised objections. Assemblyman Hettrick stated at $1.2 million it may have been a 1 percent profit ten years ago, and $2.8 million today with increased costs, it might be a 5 to 8 percent return on investment. It was a lot more gross income, but was that an unreasonable amount of return on the investment versus the cost. Without the numbers it was not worth it to the legislature to change the law on what might be. Mr. Braun stated the numbers would be presented to the committee, affording them the opportunity to make a sound judgment on whether or not a rent increase was applicable. As it stood, the renters had no choice but to do as the owner demanded, or spend $6,000 to $7,000 to move the home. Most people who could not handle the rent increases walked away or gave away their homes. Assemblyman Hettrick stated no one was proposing going to that extreme, and he said the comment was made earlier that 90 percent of the park owners were fair and reasonable. What was to be proposed was legislation against all for the 10 percent who were unreasonable? Mr. Braun stated the bill as written defined parks with rents over $400 per month, or over a 5 percent increase if the rent was under $400 per month. Those owners would have to address the committee for proposed increases, which totaled 42 parks in the state. The bill would not affect over 350 of the 470 parks in Nevada. Mr. Braun closed by pointing out information in Exhibit D regarding J.C. Park in Las Vegas a low-income park where the rent was $180 per month. However, there was no subsidizing and it supported itself at that rental rate. The two other low-income parks charged $160 per month without outside help as well.
Assemblywoman Buckley thanked the committee and recognized Bob Bravo, Vice President of a mobile home owners association in Las Vegas, as well as members and volunteers in the association who were there to support but not testify.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall commended the majority leader for her bill and to express her wholehearted support.
Chairman Dini asked about her bills to be heard and asked if she was going to withdraw one of the two. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated it had been her intention to withdraw A.B. 388 because Assemblywoman Buckley’s bill handled the same problem excellently, and there was no reason for splitting forces. After making that decision, a constituent, Mrs. Thelma Clark, informed her there was a loophole in NRS 118B.150, Section 12, where it said, “A landlord shall not prohibit a public officer or candidate from walking through the park or talking with the tenants.” It appeared there were a couple of gated parks in Southern Nevada that had read the law literally as meaning only the candidate could walk the district. Therefore, an amendment was being presented to say, “ . . . the candidate or his or her representative . . .” If the committee wished, Assemblywoman Ohrenschall was willing to cancel all of A.B. 388 but retain it as a “shell” and add the new provision unless Assemblywoman Buckley wanted to include the new narrative in her bill.
Marie Manendo, resident of Clark County, Assembly District 18, a board member of the Nevada Association of Manufactured Homeowners, and was the Paradise Democratic Club of Las Vegas representative, of which she was an officer, submitted into the record the Paradise Democratic Club’s resolution (Exhibit G) in support of A.B. 341.
Exhibit H was presented in support of the bill to the committee from the Southeast Valley Coalition of Concerned Citizens as written by President, Gerry Petuya.
Dee Burdell, Private Citizen, presented her verbatim testimony, which can be found in Exhibit I.
Don Barker, a member of the state board of NAM and the Mountain View Homeowners Associations and President of the NAM Chapter at the Mountain View community. Mountain View was a very upscale-gated community located in Green Valley in Henderson. The park was 100 percent occupied and had been for several years. There were 360 spaces within the community. The park itself was owned by an out-of-state realty trust with offices in El Paso, Texas, Laguna, California, and as far away as Florida. Even though Mountain View was one of the most beautiful parks in the state, they were still not without problems. It was an age-restricted community, 55 years and older, and consequently the residents were primarily senior citizens. During his eight years of residency, he had watched countless numbers of seniors in the park lose their homes because of rent increases, and increases in tax pass-through over and over again.
Financial difficulties with the seniors began once the rent increases spiraled and social security incomes did not keep pace. They were on fixed incomes with minimal pension income, especially when one of the spouses passed on. As an example, an owner put the home on the market to sell, and at the time the space rent was $350 per month. The potential buyer arrived and the deal was being sealed when the park manager arrived and informed the prospective tenant the average space rental in Clark County had gone up to $496 per month. The buyer immediately backed away because retired individuals could not afford the house payment as well as an exorbitant space rental. In addition to the $496 space rental at Mountain View, they had to pay their own water, trash, and utilities. By the time all was added in, the space rental was well over $500 providing the home was completely paid for. When Mr. Barker moved into Mountain View seven and one half years ago, the rent was $350 per month. The rent today exceeded $600 per month. He also stated the tax bill for Mountain View for 1998-99 was $127,000 total. The homeowners took that as a challenge and through negotiations with the tax department, had that amount reduced to $109,000 per year. The assessed value on the park was $12.5 million. The current lease included a provision that the landlord could pass the taxes onto the homeowner. Therefore, the $109,000 was split equally among the 360 renters in the park. The park owner was virtually doing business in Las Vegas, Nevada, tax-free. There were three full-time employees who were salaried at $30,000 per year. Therefore, the only thing the owners were contributing to the Nevada economy was approximately $90,000 in payroll with the profits going to California, Texas and Florida. Mr. Barker had no problem contributing to the economy of the community he lived in, but he resented supporting out-of-state businesses that held no concern for the people who provided them with a living.
Mr. Barker said it was not only a Clark County problem, referencing a fax received prior to the meeting that described the Northgate Mobile Village in Sparks, Nevada, where three-quarter sized lots rented in excess of $500 per month. The park presently experienced a large number of vacancies due to the excessive space rental fees.
Seniors, when looking at the history of rent increases over the past five to ten years have not had equal increases in their Social Security compensation. The increase in utilities far exceeded the increases in Social Security benefits. Thus, there was a serious reality check for senior citizens throughout Nevada. Mr. Barker stated the landlords had increased rents up to three times per year without any justification whatsoever. In a California article it was read that senior citizens there had to make a choice of either paying their electric bill or buying groceries. Nevada senior citizens had been making that decision regarding space rent and purchasing groceries for many years. He asked for the establishment of a fair program, not only for the citizens of Nevada, but the landlords as well. Many park managers were very sympathetic to the bill because they did not like watching the “drowning” of the senior citizens in our communities.
Mr. Barker did not see the bill as rent control, though it had been branded as that. It was simple, basic, rent justification. He stated having lived in the Mountain View park for the past eight years, during the past five, there were no capital improvements except for installation of a 40-gallon water heater. The yearly gross revenue had increased to the tune of $290,000 per year, and over a five-year period that amounted to well over $1 million. The wages had not increased because the work crew was cut from seven to three, as well as all other corners cut to increase the profit margin. According to the leases they received a 3.5 percent minimum increase including the $109,000 in property taxes. There was a provision in the lease for which they were notified they were contemplating passing the insurance costs onto the renters. This would then leave the owners with no overhead.
George Flint appeared before the committee as a private citizen, and stated the program had been sold more than once to the committee and the house only to fail in the Senate. He had been the official lobbyist for the group heard from today. Both times a similar bill had been heard in the Senate, and had missed by one vote. Therefore, he was back again.
Twenty-four years ago Mr. Flint decided that living in Verdi seemed like a good idea. Selling his home in southwest Reno, he purchased a mobile home and moved into a park and paid $118 per month lot rent. Six years later he paid $496 per month lot space rent. Deciding that was too much, he decided to move into Reno; especially after hearing it would only cost approximately $2,000 to move the home. At the time he had forgotten he had 2,200 feet of redwood decking and other improvements. The bill to move from Verdi to Reno was $10,650.
Mr. Flint stated he had lived in the Reno Cascade Park for 14 years and had recently asked his wife how much the rent had increased over the past ten years. It had increased from $250 per month to $548 per month as of May 1, 2001. Addressing Chairman Dini he reminded him of previous talks on the issue with a constituent in Yerington who had no appetite for the concept of rental increases. The constituent was not the culprit, nor the focus of the bill, yet he understood the philosophy of the minority leader, as it mirrored Mr. Flint’s. Mr. Flint emphasized you did not tell someone what their property or product was worth, but something had to be done for the people. Mr. Flint then related three cases.
Helen lived across the street from Mr. Flint, was 82 years of age and on oxygen, lived by herself and had an income of $728 from Social Security. Out of that, $497.23 went to rent plus utilities, leaving her with $128 per month for medication, groceries and other necessities. She decided to take in sewing to supplement her income. Recently she went blind, therefore her small home business ended.
Mr. Flint also told of a couple in Assembly District 18, who, when they finished paying rent and utilities, had $35 for food for the month. Assemblyman Manendo’s predecessor Assemblyman Petrak was as concerned about the situation as the current Assemblyman. The couple in question found the cheapest place in town to purchase $35 worth of macaroni, spaghetti, and cheese and that was what they survived on every month. Mr. Flint emphasized again we needed to seriously consider taking care of these people.
Within the bill there was an area where tenants could ask the owners to sit down and talk. It took 25 percent of resident signatures on a petition, to require the owner, by law, to meet with his renters, no matter where the owner lived. Mr. Flint’s park obtained signatures from 50 percent of the park residents. The park owner came from his home in Olympia, Washington, and met with the committee. He told the committee that he had parks in California that were subject to rent control, and because of that he had to get even somewhere, so he exploited and abused the parks in Nevada to make up for it. The committee had heard that the bulk of the abusers were out-of-state owners, of which there was no question. Ms. Renee Diamond told him earlier that out of the parks in Nevada there were 400 or so that did not charge over $400 per month, and there were only 39 true abusers. Mr. Flint stated something had to be done about the abusers.
After the owner met with the committee and listened to everything the committee wanted to address, he thanked everyone for their time, went home and raised Mr. Flint’s rent $600 per year. The park manager informed Mr. Flint at a later date he should not call a meeting again or the owner would again raise the rent. Mr. Flint appreciated Assemblyman Hettrick’s philosophy of business, which was not that much different from his. He appreciated Chairman Dini’s constituent who was not an abuser, but where there was abuse it had to be addressed. A leading lobbyist was overheard saying he was adamantly opposed to the bill and Mr. Flint asked whom he represented. After the lobbyist revealed the individual’s name, he went on to say that there were horrible concerns that if both houses ever passed the concept of A.B. 341 it would flow to the apartment houses and other rentals. Thus, the entire state would soon look like Queens, New York, an area where there was strict rent control.
Mr. Flint stated a $20 per month rent increase in his park created $50,000 per year more for the owner. Some had asked about taxes, labor, and upkeep. His park grossed for the owner approximately $2 million per year and had two and one half employees who were paid barely above minimum wage. He knew the salary offered because one of the jobs was offered to his wife and he told her she did not have to work for $6 per hour. It all boiled down to the fact that out-of-state owners had found a wonderful “cash cow” in the mobile home park business. Mr. Flint urged the committee to do something to help the people. He had told the short version of the George Flint epic on the issue. In a hearing in Las Vegas, when Senator Porter was then a judge, 400 people attended voicing their frustrations and fears. They wanted the park owners to make a profit because that was what they were in business for. His park owner was receiving a 38 percent return per year. Everyone should be so lucky. He was concerned what would happen with the bill even if it did pass, because he had dealt with the Senate on the issue. There was little appetite on that side of the house to do much for the “little people.” Mr. Flint stated he had to give up lobbying in this arena because he was abusing his other clients due to being so emotional on the issue at hand. He stated it was easier not to address the problem than fix it.
Before Mr. Flint purchased a mobile home and he was ensconced in a 30-year mortgage on a house, it never occurred to him that people were subjected to such mistreatment. One day he and his wife looked at a manufactured home they thought it would be nice to live in and then, after moving, the roof caved in and they learned you cannot really plan on anything. That was why the committee was hearing from the people in Las Vegas and the north because they had no place to turn but to their representatives. He stated the Assembly had always provided positive support, sent many bills to the other house on this issue only to be voted down. He wondered how the majority leader planned it to end any differently this time. He committed to Assemblywoman Buckley that he would help her in any way possible and would work for nothing to be on the proposed board.
Mr. Flint closed by sharing he had told the lobbyist against the bill that they should sit down as friends and address the abuses because there was some way to assist these people. When Secretary of State Dean Heller was a member of the Assembly, a staunch member of the minority, he never supported Mr. Flint’s efforts to get legislation like this passed until one year he decided to go out and knock on doors in the mobile home parks. Before the session even started Mr. Heller approached him and said, “George, you’ve got my vote.”
Joe Guild, Attorney and representative for the Manufactured Home Community Owners (MHCO) opposed A.B. 341 and stated he highly disagreed with the bill and the rationale for it as well. He stated Mr. Manendo had said the increase in rents was the number one issue in mobile home parks when he campaigned. Mr. Guild asked if that was the case, why did the bill single out a very small number of parks. If rent control was good for one, it was good for everyone. He emphasized it was “rent control” because whenever a governmental agency acted under the auspices of the government to control a private enterprise situation, there was a control. Since the situation talked about in the bill was rent, then they were talking about rent control.
Mr. Guild felt there was confusion regarding procedures in the bill. He pointed to pages 2 and 3, Section 7, listed the time periods to be dealt with. The board had ten days after receipt of an application to set a date, which was limited to 40 days after the date that the application was received. That afforded 20 days after a public hearing for a decision, giving 70 days in which to make a determination on an application for a rent increase. But, the time limit in the bill was in addition to the present requirement in the law that a 90-day notice precede any rent increase. If the board approved the rent increase under NRS 118B, there was still a 90-day tenant notice requirement; roughly that amounted to a 160-day time period for a renter to receive a rent increase notice. He thought that excessive.
Mr. Guild disagreed with Mr. Braun where he quoted the gross without knowing the cost basis; it was irrelevant to understanding where an individual park’s financial situation lay. Gross did not equal earnings. Regarding moving costs, the largest percentage of mobile homes never left a space in a park where they were originally placed. When sold, they sold in place. Therefore, if a person wanted to move, there was an excellent market in mobile home parks for purchasing a home in another park without moving the home they were vacating.
Mr. Flint had testified something needed to be done for the people. Mr. Guild stated the organization he represented created, of its own volition, the Rental Assistance Program, which now existed in Nevada. People utilized the program, and the lady Mr. Flint related to would have been a prime candidate for this program as funded by the park owners who were not allowed to pass-through the cost of the program to the renters. The program had served hundreds of people since its inception in early 1992.
On the bill itself, Mr. Guild stated he would not want to serve on such a board if he were a park owner in Nevada, thus the question arose as to who would want to serve, especially for no pay and in a situation where you were judging your peers. In Section 6 it said the administrator would provide the board with administrative and clerical support, but there was no fiscal note to cover the expense of those duties. In Section 7, there was no limitation in the law on the number of applications the landlord may submit during a given year. In rental housing situations, many people were given rental increase notices on the anniversary of their entry into a park. Therefore, the potential for hundreds of applications existed if a park was going to try and keep itself ahead of the game regarding incurred costs. In Section 7 on page 3, the criteria for review of applications, line (a), addressed the operating expenses of the park to include debt service. It seemed to Mr. Guild a park would refinance to increase debt service for higher operating expenses. What was a reasonable rate of return as addressed on line 12? He asked what standard was used by which a reasonable rate of return was determined? Was it obtained from documentation over the past ten years within the state of Nevada, i.e., doublewide mobile home parks over the last 11 years in the state of Nevada showed $101 as the change in rent increases in the entire state? He stated that was a 4.83 percent increase. He asked how many parks in the state had rent at $389 per month right now and asked if in five years the cap was too low because they might go over $400 per month.
Section 8 addressed the administrator adopting regulations as determined necessary to carry out the provisions of the act. His professional estimate based on going through regulation promulgations and other areas that were much less complicated than this situation was it would take a minimum of two years for the administrator of the manufactured housing division to come up with a plan to even implement the situation. In the meantime, were the residents of parks going to be up in arms because rent control was not yet in place?
Mr. Guild introduced Marolyn Mann, the Executive Director of the Manufactured Home Community Owners. Before Ms. Mann spoke, Mr. Guild referenced Exhibit J; a booklet entitled Facts You Should Know About Rent Control, a copy of which was provided each committee member.
In closing, Mr. Guild referred to the comments regarding the bill not needing Attorney General representation. He strongly disagreed because with the California mobile home and rent control experiences, the highest costs associated with the board administering the programs was legal expenses, some of which were documented in Exhibit J.
Ms. Mann voiced her concerns, the main one being rent control in any form was a bad idea. She stated it could not be justified and was not a solution to affordable housing. Exhibit K was verbatim narrative of Ms. Mann’s testimony.
Charlie George, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association (NMHA) representative commended the majority leader and Assemblyman Manendo, as well as Mr. Braun, on a novel approach to the problem. However, they felt the bill’s solution would actually make the problem worse and hamper the building of new parks. With the testimony regarding fewer parks being built in Clark County in the last few years, he noted local government, especially in Clark County, had put up many roadblocks possibly to prevent new parks from being built. NMHA had a bill in the Senate that he hoped this committee would be able to review and vote on. But, even as he testified before this committee, local governments were lobbying the Senate Commerce Committee to kill the bill that afforded relief on water fees.
Mr. George stated he would not say there were no problems to be addressed, but he felt there was a need to come up with more appropriate solutions. With respect to the association he represented, they felt they were being put in a position of being the judge and jury on the bill due to being the tie-breaking vote on the committee the bill addressed. He represented the association whose goal was to sell more homes, and the dealer assigned to the committee would be put in a position to try and please everyone. Another area of concern was the overwhelming number of meetings per year. If a manufactured home dealer was put in the position of being on the board, her/she would not want to spend the majority of their free time at board meetings for no fee. He stated also the association said that if the bill passed, he/she would be made an honorary member of the committee. Also, he voiced concern about committee member personal liability with no Attorney General support, and stated it was almost impossible to get anyone to serve on a committee under those circumstances.
Silver State Apartment Association, Las Vegas, and the Nevada Apartment Association, Reno, representative David Howard voiced opposition to A.B. 341. Their concern centered on the fact the bill affected NRS 118B. He pointed out that NRS 118A was the tenant and landlord bill. Rent control was too close to their area of concern. It had not worked wherever it was mandated, and that it would turn Nevada into a Queens, New York. Mr. Howard had been to Queens, Harlem, and South Central Los Angeles where rent control was in effect and stated those areas were a true picture of places where rent control just did not work.
Mr. Howard referenced page 3, line 12, where it mentioned a reasonable rate of return would be discussed. It had been said that one park had a 38 percent in return. If that were the case, there would be no stopping the building of mobile home parks. His experience as a licensed industrial real estate broker was an 11 to 12 percent return on any investment of that type. To his knowledge, the newest park built in Northern Nevada was many years ago within the Reno/Sparks area, and for that reason on behalf of those he represented, they opposed the bill.
The Nevada Association of Realtors representative Pat Coward voiced opposition to the bill. He introduced Melody Luetkehans, General Counsel for the association who had comments on the bill.
Ms. Luetkehans stated they were there in opposition to A.B. 341 because their constituency believed very strongly in a philosophy of no rent control or no rent justification. They were private property advocates and believed in the sanctity of contract, especially the individual contract. In respect to the individual articles of the bill, the membership was not directly affected at the time by any provisions of NRS 118B; however, as the apartment association lobbyist mentioned, they were always concerned about the spillover factor. The descriptions within the bill showed that such types of justification and the creation of the bureaucracy occurred on the private property rights. They believed they were the number one advocates for consumers in the private property industry. Their concerns were that it created a level of bureaucracy, restricted an individual’s right of return, and right of ability to create an investment.
As an attorney, Ms. Luetkehans voiced a question about lines 3 through 23 on page 3, where the absence of Attorney General support was stated. She was curious that without such support, and there was a dispute regarding the board’s determination. If a landlord chose to sue the board, whom would the landlord be suing? Also, if a landlord was given a “green light” to go ahead and increase rents, the question arose about tenant suits. There was no administrative hearing procedure other than judicial review after the fact. She felt that was a consideration the committee members should address.
Assemblyman Humke voiced interest in the fact that Ms. Luetkehans considered proceeding under the bill with a five-member commission not an administrative procedure. Ms. Luetkehans believed it was an administrative procedure. Assemblyman Humke asked if that constituted state action. Ms. Luetkehans answered in the affirmative. Assemblyman Humke then asked how the commission could function without an advising attorney. Ms. Luetkehans referenced Assemblywoman Buckley’s testimony earlier that there was no fiscal note, as Attorney General intervention was not anticipated. Assemblyman Humke asked if in Ms. Luetkehans opinion that was good policy. Ms. Luetkehans answered no, and felt it would be very foolish not to have assigned deputy representation for mandated legislation.
Renee Diamond, Administrator of Manufactured Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, was not present at the time A.B. 341 was heard. She forwarded a memo (Exhibit L) that addressed the agency’s actions should the bill be passed and offered an amendment to Section 12, line 43.
Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 341 and opened the hearing on A.B. 389. When referencing A.B. 388, Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated that was the one she had withdrawn in favor of the Majority Leader unless the committee had use for the bill as a shell.
Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, Clark County District 12, presented A.B. 389, a bill that provided sunshine and disclosure relating to mobile home parks. Exhibit M was verbatim narrative of her testimony. She closed her opening statements indicating that with disclosure a situation was reviewed with greater accuracy and opened the eyes of the trusting who often did not look carefully enough when moving into the situation that the message revealed in the business and profit enterprise reports. This would alert them to the risks prior to moving into a mobile home park and knowingly accepting such.
Assemblyman Hettrick questioned the change in line 5 from net profit to gross, since net profit provided the true picture of earnings. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated net profit could be shifted around, such as juggling a business expense that perhaps was not absolutely necessary, i.e., the park requirement of a new car for the owner or manager to perform duties within the park, only the vehicle turned out to be a Mercedes. She felt a gross statement offered a more accurate picture of operating expenses, as they were not quite as easy with which to play creative accounting. Assemblyman Hettrick was adamant about gross profits offering meaningless numbers that were inflated and would make anyone in the park unhappy, because no expenses were listed against the profit. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall was open to removing “gross” and inserting “actual operating costs.” Chairman Dini interjected the IRS laws worked with net profits. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall was willing to accept the changes recommended by the committee.
Marshall Schultz, operator of Nevada Renter’s Hot Line and editor of a newsletter regarding the same subject, stated he had been involved in mobile home park and residential rentals for many years. He expressed emphasis two areas of A.B. 389:
He felt something needed to be done in this area very soon. Nevada was the fastest growing state in the country that had to deal with an affordable housing problem due to the lower income levels of our residents.
Chairman Dini asked if disclosing a person’s net profit would show there were discrepancies or over-profitizing in the mobile home park business. Mr. Schultz stated they needed to get to a point where A.B. 389, or something close to it, required the disclosure of private net profits to show rental rate justification. Also, it would provide a way to show that the rents were truly not outrageous when it came to increases in the areas of 40 through 60 percent. He knew of a park in Reno where the rents were being increased $75 per month where most of the residents were senior citizens on fixed incomes. This bill underscored the need for some solid attention to the problem.
George Flint, Private Citizen, felt the bill was terribly well intentioned on the part of an Assemblyperson that had gone door to door and confronted the problems discussed. Should this bill be passed into law and held constitutionally firm, he felt much shrinkage in rent would be seen. After 25 years of watching this issue, there were profit areas on the rents that were huge. He stated he used a figure of 38 percent in his earlier testimony, but his colleague stated it was closer to 50 percent in many of the parks. He felt people should make a good return on their investments, but not at the expense of others less fortunate than themselves. He would not like to open his profit and loss statement on his wedding chapel in Reno to the public but, candidly, he felt the bill showed another member of the Assembly was confronted with major problems and was reaching for an answer for her constituents. Should it become law, there was no question that some of the parks would be hesitant to go forth with additional rent increases.
Thelma Clark, a mobile home park resident, offered suggested amendments to A.B. 389.
Ms. Clark stated Assemblywoman Ohrenschall was doing her best to do something for her constituents. She stated she lived in a Las Vegas housing authority park where the rent was set at $160 per month. She liked Assemblywoman Buckley’s bill and that both bills could help the people. She did not need these types of legislation at present but would have if she had remained living in the Riviera Mobile Home Park.
In closing, Ms. Clark referenced NRS 118B.150, Section 12 where it said, “ . . . prohibit of public officer or candidate for public office from walking through parks to tenant.” She wanted to see wording added, “ . . .so park owner would not refuse entrance.” Two owners told them they were solicitors and were not allowed. One park housed 98 percent registered voters. Chairman Dini stated the amendment would be a sentence in NRS 118B.150, Section 12 that read, “ . . .or someone working for a candidate with shirt or badge identification.” Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated the suggested changes were the only reason she had requested the shell of A.B. 388 be retained if the concept shared by Ms. Clark did not fit in with the rent justification or disclosure bill. Chairman Dini stated the committee would take it under consideration.
Mr. Guild voiced opposition to A.B. 389 on behalf of the Mobile Home Community Owners. He stated they would support the amendment suggested by Ms. Clark for A.B. 388 to include the provisions shared, but without any other provisions of A.B. 388 because they did not condone the type of activity that gave rise to that idea.
Regarding A.B. 389, Mr. Guild commended Assemblywoman Ohrenschall’s good intentions but stated the idea was bad. There was no precedent in his mind for private disclosure unless being involved with a publicly traded corporation where there was public policy that was furthered by such a disclosure. He did not understand the change from gross to net, but understood the colloquy that reversed the wording back to net profits. He pointed out that was one other area that would increase the operating costs related to a mobile home park when it came to compiling the information required. Those costs would be passed onto the residents and with the urge to help residents he did not see how the bill would allow for that. He appreciated the removal of Section 3 and would have testified against the provisions in Section 4, which, as he understood it, lines 18 through 21 were being deleted. He pointed out that in Section 2, lines 10 through 12, in his mind, created a rent control situation again. The Manufactured Housing Division administrator would create regulations to include an economically, reasonable method for calculating periodic increases in rent. He stated that was government control. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked for permission to interrupt and explained the section just quoted was eliminated by amendment. Mr. Guild said that explanation cleared up his questions about possible rent control aspects within the bill.
Mobile Home park owner Teresa Maloney spoke on the disclosure and sunshine parameters of A.B. 389. For years she was in the convenience store business and hated that customers might think her milk prices were too high and she could be required to post her profit and loss statement on the wall in advance of a decision being made if the profit margin on a gallon of milk was acceptable. In terms of Assemblywoman Ohrenschall’s suggestion to provide that type of information to tenants and prospective tenants meant they knew the risk and willingly accepted it. Ms. Maloney stated she currently provided tenants and prospective tenants with copies of the rules and regulations, copies of rental agreements, and copies of NRS 118B. She could not say if the tenants read them, but she was not sure that one more piece of paper would add to their ability to know a risk and willingly accept it. She felt when a prospective tenant came in the door, they knew the mobile home park was a for-profit business. She stated the cost of such disclosure was one that would be passed through to the tenants. She stated certified mailings to all of her tenants was $800 on an annual basis and was a pass through expense to the tenants.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall added that several of the parks in Southern Nevada were publicly traded corporations and as such, they were required to disclose financial information through other sources as well. Chairman Dini affirmed that with public traded corporations the information was available to the general public.
Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 389 and opened the hearing on A.B. 552.
Assembly Bill 552: Revises provisions relating to manufactured buildings. (BDR 40-561)
Renee Diamond, Director, Manufactured Housing Division, presented testimony on A.B. 552. Ms. Diamond stated the bill was general housekeeping legislation for the Manufactured Housing Division. Exhibit N was verbatim of Ms. Diamond’s testimony.
Louis Test, of the Sani-Hut Company, posed no opposition to the legislation, explaining his company not only produced Sani-Huts but temporary office buildings used on construction sites, often referred to as construction shacks. When the bill was drafted, concern centered on the definition of commercial coaches. The company had run into a problem with the Manufactured Homes Division in regard to placement of custom coaches. The definition read, “A structure without mobile power, which is designed for human occupancy for industrial, professional, and commercial purposes.” Based upon that broad definition, it was theoretically assumed a Sani-Hut could fall under that definition because it was used for commercial purposes in some sense.
After discussing the bill with Ms. Diamond and Mr. Childers, the company had come to the conclusion that the Sani-Hut concerns regarding temporary use of the coaches could be adjusted through amendments to the regulations rather than redefining the bill itself. Testimony regarding the amendments proposed was made available as Exhibit O.
Mike Lindell, attorney with the law firm of Jones Vargas, stated his firm represented Quick Space, which included approximately 300 construction shacks (coaches) as well as other sorts of commercial coaches. He echoed Mr. Test’s testimony and appreciated the opportunity to work out the problems with the division.
Ms. Diamond clarified that the bill before them today was only clarification for A.B 461. The commercial coaches that the gentlemen spoke about were under NRS 489, which were general manufactured housing statutes. That was the reason they were subject to all of the regulations of the division. She made an assurance to Mr. Test and Mr. Lindell that they would discuss the voiced concerns during the interim. She was not sure she could resolve everything because as long as the units fell under the auspices of NRS 489, statutory changes were required.
Chairman Dini asked what was needed to make NRS 489 clean. Ms. Diamond stated the bill was clean because all they were asking was to delineate that factory-built buildings were attached and fixed to land. She did not feel that concerned the commercial coaches. The only reference to commercial coaches was it did not include a commercial coach as referenced in NRS 489. She stated some local jurisdictions in the state were trying to assume authority in some of the instances; therefore, the companies had to deal with both local and state mandates. In reality, the bill was clarification that told local authorities they had no authority over the commercial coaches, but did have on factory housing and the modular buildings. There was no area in NRS 489 where she could magically wave a wand and tell them all their troubles would go away, nor, would she want to do that. There were serious philosophical issues on whether a commercial coach, subject to workers entering or used as showrooms for senior citizen complexes, at times should be regulated for installation for those purposes. The Legislature had a long history on such.
Many of the issues voiced by the industry were extraneous issues regarding when they should be inspected, if they were moved from one end of a commercial construction lot to another, should they be reinspected, and so on. The division had cases where commercial coaches were blown over, had rolled over and erupted into flames because of improper electrical connections. That was the division’s reasoning for regulation of those coaches. The bill only mentioned that the coaches were specifically mentioned in NRS 489.
Assemblyman Humke understood that A.B. 552 was developed to rectify a situation where local entities were regulating in a manner, which was perhaps not consistent within the laws of the Legislature. Ms. Diamond stated no, going on to explain that, in an earlier discussion with a lobbyist for Washoe County, the bill was brought because there were at times confusion in the local jurisdictions as to whether the buildings were Uniform Building Code constructed (UBC) factory-built housing, which was not the same as federally preempted manufactured homes. Local jurisdictions received all of the site jurisdictions on a factory built house as they did on a factory built building. They wanted to clarify between types and which should be designed to be affixed to foundation footings and be real property (a factory-built house), and a modular building.
Assemblyman Humke’s question was why could they not do an amendment that would satisfy the clients of Mr. Test and Mr. Lindell. Ms. Diamond stated the statutory authority for their unit was covered under NRS 489, and there was nothing in A.B. 384 that referenced legislation in NRS 489. To change what was asking to be changed, they wanted to be exempted from NRS 489 because the Manufactured Housing Division regulated the way the unit came into Nevada, regulated the way they were sold in Nevada; and regulated the safety through the installation seal put on the unit.
Ms. Diamond felt it a philosophical discussion that had nothing to do with A.B. 384. This bill did not deal with commercial coaches except to say they were not factory-built houses or a factory modular building. If they had a bill draft regarding commercial coaches, she would then be able to comment logically.
Mr. Test offered an amendment to the bill that defined temporary commercial use, alleviating them of the licensing requirements projected for what was typically described a commercial coach. Along with that, they included regulation they felt dealt with the health/safety issues to keep them applicable to any type of manufactured commercial coaches required here in the state of Nevada. They were not asking that safety requirements be eliminated. He spoke of situations such as auctions, where a temporary facility was needed for one day, or on a construction site where the temporary facility was often relocated to accommodate the continuation of the construction. Under the current law and enforcement by the division, the moving was disallowed without a reinspection. Though Ms. Diamond agreed some of the issues could be addressed in regulation, Mr. Test felt it seemed over-burdensome since the building was previously announced safe and they were not allowed to move it to another area on the same building site without division intervention. He also referenced the balloon races and the ticket booths having to be subjected to the same scrutiny when it met the construction safety standards at the onset.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked if the moveable signs on the large, wheeled platforms also had to be inspected each time they were moved. Mr. Lindell stated those were not defined as a commercial coach under the present definition. The gentleman in question owned about 300 commercial coaches that were used for very temporary real estate offices or additional space in a manufacturing context. What was proposed included all of the safety and construction issues that currently applied under the law. Therefore, they had not sought to exempt the industry from any of those provisions. He emphasized much of NRS 489 did not apply to their services.
Ms. Diamond interjected that a commercial coach still had the general public entering the facility, and it seemed to her that if a factory-built building was going to serve coffee to people or be a daycare center, it was built to a certain standard, and the division was responsible in those areas. It did not make any difference to her in a commercial coach used as a construction office whether two workers entered or the general public. But, if not installed properly, it tipped and the worker or visitor was hurt (this had actually happened), or because it was not anchored properly and was tipped over by high winds, or when the inspectors went out to inspect and found the wiring incorrectly affixed, those issues were a matter of the division’s regulation. It seemed to her that was why commercial coaches were part of NRS 489, to provide safety for the workers and the general public who might enter. In Southern Nevada a commercial coach was being used to sell assisted living for seniors while the main building was being constructed. Therefore, the general public entered the commercial coach to peruse plans and close their sales, whereby, all were not used solely for commercial reasons. As far as someone using it as a ticket taking booth, if not connected to electricity, there was no reason for the division to inspect. If it was set in place and connected to utilities, the division had to make sure the facilities were safe. She indicated she had not read the offered amendment and she was not at liberty to comment. She felt the legislative intent was serious when referencing commercial coaches and their use. She had met with the industry in Southern Nevada more than once but she believed commercial coaches needed to be regulated in a fashion that provided safety for the workers and other people that entered them. She did not see how the facilities could be exempt solely on the fact that they were called commercial coaches.
Chairman Dini asked Ms. Diamond to review the amendment and call him with her comments. She agreed.
Assemblyman Beers asked if there was an issue of oversight regarding the electrical connection when the commercial coach was placed on-site. Mr. Test stated they had been perusing the issue for approximately a year, and the conflicts arising for the industry and the division were shown with the building departments in the different jurisdictions. In their position, under the provisions of the NRS, the county-building inspectors, if they held a contract with the division, could go ahead and inspect the installation. He appreciated Ms. Diamond’s concern regarding the safety issues. They were not asking those issues be ignored but rather enforced. The concern they had was it made more sense to have someone from the local building department inspect versus the Manufactured Housing Division. He felt there was room to deal with the division to make it more cost effective for everyone by allowing the local jurisdictions to provide the inspections, insuring the safety of the employees as well as the general public. Mr. Lindell cited NRS 489.287, a section from which the industry had not requested exemption. Under that section, the city and county had the first layer of inspection authority. If they were unable to provide the inspection, the responsibility fell to the state.
Ms. Diamond stated the division faxed inspection requests to Clark County because most of the state inspectors were assigned in that area. But, just like manufactured homes in other counties or local jurisdictions, there were local government agreements with the State Division of Manufactured Housing so that when they inspected a manufactured home for installation standards and signed for occupancy, they inspected the homes through contract inspectors in the outlying areas such as Winnemucca, Sparks, County of Washoe, etc. The inspections commercial coaches received were by the state through contract inspectors who followed state standards during the inspection process, not local standards.
Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 522 and opened the hearing on A.B. 619.
Assembly Bill 619: Revises certain provisions relating to mobile home parks. (BDR 10-1090)
Mr. Guild returned to the witness table urging committee support of A.B. 619. He stated the bill was a collaborative effort between Mobile Home Community Owners, the administrator of the Division of Manufactured Housing, the Majority Leader of the Assembly Barbara Buckley, Assemblyman Manendo, and Assemblywoman Ohrenschall. He shared that in 1997, Assemblywoman Buckley and he were sitting in her office with three or four days remaining in the legislative session reviewing mobile home park landlord/tenant bills, trying to negotiate a bill in the last days of the session, which easily could have been handled in the interim. To that end, Speaker Perkins, who was then Majority Leader of the House, wrote a letter to all parties concerned requesting attendance during the interim at a meeting to discuss the listed issues prior to the 1999 Legislative Session. That effort in 1999 produced a good consensus bill that was agreed upon, and provided good relations with the tenants group and others concerned. During the past interim, Assemblywoman Buckley shepherded the narrative and Ms. Diamond created the facilitator role and the bill before the committee was a result of that effort.
In the bill, Mr. Guild continued, were areas that met with total agreement that would better facilitate the landlord/tenant law NRS 118B. There were changes and errors to be pointed out as the bill was addressed.
Mr. Braun stated the areas were discussed and were now very understandable.
Ms. Mann stated it was a learning process for both landlords and tenants and the end product of the negotiated compromise was A.B. 619.
Mr. Guild addressed Section 2 where it defined “unlawful occupant.” The problem was a person who had moved in without permission, coming in late at night or a transaction occurred without knowledge or permission of the park owner. Yet, if going to court to explain to the judge that the eviction provisions of NRS 118B were applicable, the person did not really fit the definition of a “tenant,” therefore, Section 3, pages 1 through 3, was an attempt to explain the situations that an illegal occupant of a mobile home park could be subject to in court proceedings. He believed it would help the judges define that person in such a way that they were able to be removed from the park because certain conditions had not been followed.
Vice Chairwoman Buckley was somewhat concerned about the language though understood the intent, with which she agreed. She felt it was not drafted as tightly as it should have been. It seemed to apply also to someone who had properly moved into a mobile home park and wanted to have her sister come stay with her and occupy the mobile home for three weeks. It seemed to envision that person had to have preapproval by the park owner. The section applied to midnight move-ins and the need for expediting eviction. She offered to work on tightening the language with the promoters of the bill. Mr. Guild agreed with Assemblywoman Buckley’s comments. He stated on page 2, line 34, subsection (e), there was a situation pointed out addressed in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that required a landlord to give certain deference the person’s handicap. That seemed to take an ADA individual out of that situation and was an area that needed clarifying as well. Mr. Guild offered to work with a subcommittee or in work session to tighten the language.
Continuing with the bill, Sections 1 through 3 were on the “wish list” of the park owners. The tenants’ group, who thought it would be an excellent addition to NRS 118B, brought Section 4 forth. Basically it addressed the water well situation for some parks that the well driller’s and health division reports must be provided to the tenants of the mobile home park. He felt that was a reasonable request.
Chairman Dini confirmed that Section 4 said, “ . . . report on the quality of the water.” Mr. Guild answered in the affirmative. Chairman Dini asked about those parks hooked up to a city water supply line. Mr. Guild stated the law addressed only those situations when a park was on a well not connected to the city water system.
Page 4 of the bill, beginning at line 28 talked about a standard for allowing a mobile home park relative to occupancy limits. Lines 33 through 35 were considered illegal under the federal Fair Housing Act requirements. Mr. Guild stated that section either needed to be deleted or have the federal requirements clarified. Section 8, line 49 and continuing to line 1 on page 5, clarified long-term leases as referenced in NRS 118B.150, because on page 6, Section 14, lines 30 and 31, a long-term lease had been defined as an agreement that exceeded 12 months in duration. Page 7 in Section 10, lines 32 and 33, again referred to the statute 118B defined unlawful occupant, clarifying the situation as described above.
Ms. Mann spoke about the narrative on page 8, Section 12, when a mobile home park held a lien and suddenly owned the home in question, the transfer had to pass through a dealer to allow the mobile home park owner to sell it. The section in question carved out a limited dealer’s license for homes acquired through liens.
Mr. Guild stated the amendment that Mrs. Thelma Clark offered to A.B. 388 could best be taken care of in this bill via Section 8, pages 4, 5, and 6, where an amendment to NRS 118B.150 was addressed. The section Mrs. Clark wanted amended was part of the bill on page 6 at lines 25 and 26, which was subsection 12 of NRS 118B.150. That appeared the most convenient way to handle the proposal by Mrs. Clark and Assemblywoman Ohrenschall.
Mr. George returned to the witness table to address Section 12. His organization, NMHA, supported a provision for a manager and/or landlord to sell a home appropriated by a lien. The example used was a Minnesota provision that addressed the number of homes that could be sold. The other alternative was to create some sort of a limited license. He did not feel Section 12 created such a license, so that in a case where a manager and/or landlord may not comply with the laws under NRS 489, the provision gave no authority to act.
Mr. Schultz also returned to the witness table on A.B. 619. He provided the committee with Exhibit P, and announced he was only speaking on the water well testing provision in the bill. It was the consensus of all concerned that the water-testing proposal be added to NRS 118B. Over the years he had received numerous calls regarding the water quality in mobile home parks. Attached to the exhibit was documentation regarding water testing done by the health department because of resident complaints. Attached as well was a spreadsheet listing mobile home parks statewide with under 15 spaces. The problem in that area had to be addressed because the Federal Safe Water Act specified, “Water systems of less than 15 connections or less than 25 regular persons served, did not have to be tested.” Mr. Schultz was interested in seeing that the health and welfare of the tenants in the smaller parks had wells that were maintained as well as possible. There were several potential problems, though he had no specific solution. Though necessary, the test for the pesticide dioxin cost upwards of $2,000, which made it almost impossible to pass that expense onto the tenants, nor could the landlord afford such an expense. He presented the information only to expose the issue. He said they had not known about NRS 445A and the Federal Safe Water Act when the discussions of these subjects began during the Consensus Committee meetings.
Chairman Dini stated the committee would work through that one section.
Ernie Nielsen, Washoe County Senior Law Project, stated he was working with a mobile home park in Lockwood. The residents there had formed a co-op and were attempting to purchase the mobile home park from the current owners, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He offered an amendment that would exempt certain provisions of NRS 118B from applying to the relationship between a co-op and its members. Exhibit Q outlined the four sections addressed, two of which he did not feel needed to be exempted if there was clarifying language indicating that membership fees were not deposits and membership fees were not entrance fees. The other sections were more or less self-explanatory. He requested those areas be exempted from NRS 118B to mobile home parks that were co-op membership owned.
Chairman Dini asked if they had included a definition of a co-op. Mr. Nielsen stated he would make that more specific than the definition already offered through Chapter 81. There were two different types of co-ops listed in Chapter 81, and they were forming as a Chapter 81.400 co-op, which was a non-stock co-op.
Mr. Nielsen continued with comments on the bill as drafted.
Chairman Dini stated Lockwood was within his legislative district and offered to work with Mr. Nielsen regarding the amendments offered.
Deputy Administrator of the Health Division, Alex Haartz, stated more work needed to be done with the Consensus Committee on the subject of water wells. Exhibit R was verbatim of his testimony to the committee.
Vice Chairwoman Buckley thanked Mr. Haartz for contacting her prior to the drafting of the bill and reaching out to speak with members of the sponsors of the bill.
Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 619 and opened the hearing on A.B. 384.
Assembly Bill 384: Changes terms used in provisions relating to mobile home parks to refer to manufactured home parks. (BDR 10-1010)
Assemblyman Manendo, Clark County District 18, presented A.B. 384, indicating the intent was basically to change the language from “mobile” to “manufactured.” Many times people referred to the homes as “trailers” and after a while it became “mobile homes,” and at present the media mistakenly called these homes “trailers.” They wanted to clearly identify the homes as “manufactured.” Ms. Diamond was introduced to present cleanup language to restore any problems within the bill.
Ms. Diamond returned to the witness table and presented the amendments verbatim as listed in Exhibit S.
Mr. Guild returned to the witness table and offered support of A.B. 384.
VICE CHAIRWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 384.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY, ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Vice Chairwoman Buckley requested a double check on the bill by the Legal Division to assure there were no changes to substantive law through the complexity of the amendments before presentation and passing on the assembly floor.
Chairman Dini began the work session on several items, beginning with A.B. 363.
Assembly Bill 363: Allows patient to obtain his health care records without charge under certain circumstances. (BDR 54-1098)
VICE CHAIRWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 363.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY, ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini announced that Vice Chairwoman Buckley would work on A.B. 341 and suggested amendments for consideration at a later meeting.
Continuing, Chairman Dini requested comment on A.B. 347 from Assemblyman Parks.
Assembly Bill 347: Clarifies authority of captive insurer to provide industrial insurance and authorizes participation in Nevada insurance guaranty association. (BDR 53-999)
After conferring with Crystal McGee, Committee Policy Analyst, the requestor of the bill determined it was impossible to compromise with requested changes recommended by the Legal Division. Therefore, he requested the bill be indefinitely postponed.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 347.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY, ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini reintroduced A.B. 392, stating the bill had been indefinitely postponed in error.
Assembly Bill 392: Revises certain fees for licensing contractor. (BDR 54-373)
Chairman Dini asked for interest in reconsidering A. B. 392. He did not feel it would pass both houses, but was interested in having a hearing on the subject.
VICE CHAIRWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO RECONSIDER A.B. 392.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT (TWO-THIRDS). ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY, ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini called on Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, to address issues listed in the Work Session Document (Exhibit T).
Assembly Bill 155: Revises provisions governing substitution of subcontractor who is named in bid for public work or improvement. (BDR 28-366)
Mr. Hughey opened with A.B. 155, quoting verbatim from Exhibit T. He referenced an additional handout (Exhibit U) from the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, and mentioned it was in essence identical to that under tab C of Exhibit T.
Vice Chairwoman Buckley, upon recalling testimony from the hearing on the bill, stated there were concerns voiced by Danny Thompson, Nevada AFL-CIO, and asked if those had been rectified. Chairman Dini called for comments.
Mr. Thompson stated a constituent Mr. Dailey, presented A.B. 155 to him. He further understood there was an agreement addressed in the amendment presently before the committee.
Tom Brady, Nevada League of Cities, provided the copy Mr. Hughey referenced (Exhibit U) to show what actually happened with the amendment. For the record, Mr. Brady stated the late Mr. Dailey and Local 169 members had all agreed to the amendments and urged passage of the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 155.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY, ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini brought up A.B. 156.
Assembly Bill 156: Increases monetary limitation on cost of public works projects used to determine application of requirements concerning payment of prevailing rate of wages. (BDR 28-365)
Chairman Dini stated there was much testimony presented both for and against the bill, and he did not see that there was much appetite for the bill and called for a motion of the committee.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 156.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED WITH FIVE IN FAVOR AND FIVE OPPOSED. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY, ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini called for a motion to indefinitely postpone.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 156.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY, ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Opening the work session on A.B. 279, Chairman Dini called for comments.
Assembly Bill 279: Provides for availability of industrial insurance benefits to employees for exposure to certain contagious diseases. (BDR 53-123)
Crystal McGee, Committee Policy Analyst, addressed issues and amendments verbatim with tab F in the Work Session Document (Exhibit T). Please note the error in the title “Report of Subcommittee on Assembly Bill 160 . . .” was changed by the committee secretary to reflect A.B. 279, per request of Ms. McGee.
Chairman Dini called for comments. Assemblyman Nolan stated that though not a part of the subcommittee, it was a subject addressed at several past sessions in which there were efforts to include “just one more class.” In the meantime, many more were exposed to blood borne pathogens and body fluids and contracted the diseases for which the bill would provide coverage. The bill now sounded like a reasonable way to address the problems of someone legitimately exposed those types of biohazards on the job.
Assemblyman Hettrick echoed Assemblyman Nolan’s remarks and commented that Assemblywoman Leslie worked very hard on the bill as well. He stated a worker’s injury on the job should be covered under any circumstances. The only other comment addressed was defining a certainty of disease contact, was in the case of a garbage worker or park ranger who might reach into something and get stabbed by a needle in a bag, it left them in a situation of having to obtain all five tests to take care of the five covered diseases. He felt that was not a negative issue and urged going forward with the legislation. The only way the coverage in those instances would be limited was if the individual refused any one of the five tests in question.
Assemblywoman Leslie thanked Ms. McGee for her expertise and assistance, indicating she had learned a great deal about workmen’s compensation while working on the bill.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 279.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY, ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini continued the work session with A.B. 337.
Assembly Bill 337: Revises provisions relating to deceptive trade practices. (BDR 52-484)
Mr. Hughey summarized verbatim the amendments proposed by Assemblyman Brower in conjunction with Kimberly Rushton from the Office of the Attorney General, listed on page 3 of Exhibit T.
Assemblyman Beers did not recall the amendment that changed the hours of allowable phone solicitation from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Hughey stated during the original hearing on April 4, 2001, there was a blue amendment form presented that covered the times mentioned and offered to share his copy with the committee for confirmation of the request.
Though he did not speak, Kevin Ross of Rolling Thunder Communications had presented to the committee information regarding voicing complaints through the Bureau of Consumer Protection as received from the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General’s Web site.
Chairman Dini called for a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 337.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY, ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini called for review of A.B. 439.
Assembly Bill 439: Revises provisions relating to deceptive trade practices. (BDR 52-1263)
Mr. Hughey read verbatim from Exhibit T, pages 3 and 4.
Samuel McMullen, representative for AT&T and the Retailers, stated it was their understanding the bill did not make unsolicited telephone calls a violation of a deceptive trade practice even though it was established under NRS 598. He felt it appropriate to ask the question of what would be appropriate enforcement under NRS 598 for a potential violation. Section 6 of the original bill stripped out the penalties listed under NRS 599B, and it was felt there was a general enforcement area in NRS 598 that would comfortably attach to the bill.
Kimberly Rushton, Attorney General’s Office, understood that by moving enforcement out of NRS 599 and into NRS 598, that the provisions provided as to NRS 598.0999 would be applicable to the section in question.
Mr. McMullen felt by deleting “enforcement” from NRS 599, it did impact raised concerns on NRS 598.0999, and stated the only way for enforcement would be through a court-ordered injunction with a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation. It appeared to him that was a heavy enforcement tactic for something that required “show cause.” He felt administrative settlements made more sense. If someone was found to be egregiously soliciting, he did not want to remove the remedies proposed by the Legislature. He also felt the enforcement tactics were even more than the Attorney General’s Office would want to undertake to stop such conduct in the early stages.
Ms. Rushton stated that particular statute had a civil penalty as well as a criminal penalty, the latter actually being less than what was described in NRS 599. For a first offense it was considered a misdemeanor with graduated levels if the offense continued. Although it provided the opportunity to provide a civil penalty, should the Bureau of Consumer Affairs and the Bureau of Consumer Protection feel it was warranted, within certain situations the Attorney General’s Office would consider such. What was anticipated was going into it with respect to the criminal penalty with the graduated level. What they looked for were patterns in the behavior. Once a call from a consumer was received it was investigated. With repeated calls regarding the same telemarketer or solicitor, they sent notice that the situation was in violation of the chapter and invited responses that the solicitor or telemarketer felt might redeem or excuse the behavior, showing the act was intentional. If the behavior continued, that was when the graduated criminal penalties were affixed.
Mr. McMullen understood the process but was not sure all remedies mentioned were available, stating some were set forth in statutes that applied only to deceptive trade practices. He did not feel that definition met with the subject of the bill. For the record he cited NRS 598.0971, “If there is reasonable cause to believe that there is deceptive trade practice, then an order to cease and desist was released.” After that there was a range of steps to follow before approaching the enforcement level on a civil or criminal level. Many businesses were frightened of what might somehow be a very technical information exchange through which they might cause themselves a problem and not mean to. The definition of “intentional” in some practices meant, “Did you purposely decide to do that, and did you actually go down the list and not check thoroughly?” Was that negligence or intention? They were not against anything that provided consumer protection.
Seeing that there were serious concerns about the bill and the amendments proposed, Chairman Dini appointed a subcommittee, consisting of Assemblyman Humke and Chairman Dini, to report back to the committee on the morning of April 16, 2001.
Exhibit V also addressed areas regarding A.B. 439 and was in the record per the request of Rolling Thunder Communications.
Upon Assemblywoman Chowning’s arrival, Chairman Dini opened the work session on A.B. 245.
Assembly Bill 245: Makes various changes relating to advertising and charges by certain tour brokers and tour operators and requires certain tour brokers and tour operators to deposit security. (BDR 52-1021)
Mr. Hughey referenced Exhibit T, page 3, and read verbatim the information presented. He also referenced tab D, a report presented by the subcommittee appointed to consider all points and amendments regarding the bill.
Vice Chairwoman Buckley addressed a question to Assemblywoman Chowning regarding other tour operators in Clark County that were authorizing motorized transportation as part of a tour other than the airline industry.
Assemblywoman Chowning, Clark County District 28, clarified the question asking if she meant any other operators causing the problems that forced the bill to be brought forward. Vice Chairwoman Buckley wanted to know who the bill would affect and how. She want to know, before a bond was required of everyone, who else would be required to post a bond over and above the air operators. Assemblywoman Chowning stated those most affected, and those tour owners supporting the bill, were primarily providing air tours, though they also provided bus tours. Those with a sizeable investment in motorized tour transportation were to be bonded. She presented an amendment (Exhibit W): “This provision applies only when motorized transportation is a part of the tour.”
Assemblyman Humke asked if this bill would cover tour brokers as well as that was a decision of the subcommittee if they were engaged in that type of activity. Also, if advertising such activity, the bill would cover them as well.
Assemblyman Beers stated he had seen commercial land rovers conducting desert tours. Would they be subjected to the bill as well?
Vice Chairwoman Buckley felt a mountain was being made from a molehill. They did not want to force people to obtain a $10,000 bond if not necessary. Did it mean that every tour broker, such as a travel agency, had to post the bond because they were helping to promote or put together a tour either within the United States or overseas as well? She was in favor of the bill if regulation meant specifically for the airline.
Assemblyman Humke stated there was a duration limit posted on page 2, lines 26 and 27, of 24 hours or less. He stated that ruled out travel agencies that arranged for tours.
Assemblywoman Chowning agreed that the tour broker conducting business in Nevada advertising a tour that originated in a county with a population of 500,000 or more, as long as the tour advertised was motorized transportation tour of 24 hours or less, would be held to the bond requirement.
Chairman Dini called for a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 245.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY, ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
The work session continued with Ms. McGee reading the amendments as recommended on the addendum to the Work Session Document (Exhibit X), as entered verbatim into the record by Ms. McGee.
Assembly Bill 338: Makes various changes concerning workers’ compensation. (BDR 53-711)
Chairman Dini did not feel the last amendment was workable and struck the Munnings amendment, after which he called for a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 338.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF TWO-THIRDS VOTE. BY A SHOW OF HANDS, THERE WERE SIX VOTES TO PASS, FOUR VOTES AGAINST. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS, ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY, ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini canceled the scheduled work session for April 10, 2001, to be rescheduled at a later date.
Assembly Bill 388: Makes various changes relating to mobile home parks. (BDR 10-251)
Withdrawn
Assembly Bill 389: Makes various changes relating to mobile home parks. (BDR 10-7)
Assembly Bill 439: Revises provisions relating to deceptive trade practices. (BDR 52-1263)
No Action
Chairman Dini adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ann M. VanNostrand
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Joe Dini, Jr., Chairman
DATE: