MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
February 15, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:09 a.m., on Thursday, February 15, 2001. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 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. Douglas Bache, Chairman
Mr. John J. Lee, Vice Chairman
Ms. Merle Berman
Mr. David Brown
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Mr. Bob Price
Ms. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Wendell Williams
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Andrew M. Belanger, Southern Nevada Water Authority
Doug Bennett, Southern Nevada Water Authority
Kimberly J. McDonald, City of North Las Vegas
Pat Coward, Nevada Association of Realtors
Robert S. Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties
Mary Walker, Douglas County, Carson County, Lyon County
Bernard W. Curtis, Board of County Commissioners, Douglas County
Carole Vilardo, Nevada Tax Payer’s Association
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, NACO, Clark County, Nevada
Chairman Bache called the meeting to order at 8:09 a.m. and called for discussion on A.B. 97.
Assembly Bill No. 97: Revises provisions governing waste of water. (BDR 20-183)
Andrew Belanger, Southern Nevada Water Authority, stated A.B. 97 would aid local authorities in addressing the issue of water waste. The bill would allow the governing bodies of incorporated cities and counties to make water waste a condition of service. Monetary penalties would be assessed and collected from those who waste water.
Doug Bennett, Conservation Manager for the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), supported A.B. 97. SNWA and its partner agencies have been aggressively promoting water conservation for the past decade. Educational outreach and incentive programs have encouraged customers to modify their water usage. Outside water runoff has been the largest problem. By prohibiting water waste and making it a condition of service, local agencies would be able to address this issue effectively. A.B. 97 allowed for a contractual relationship between the water agency and its customers. It tied the financial impact of wasting water to the customer’s water bill. It would decrease the burden of the judicial system by eliminating the need to issue citations to individuals. The local agencies would be allowed to establish administrative procedures to implement corrective action. This would allow the agency to build a partnership of co-operation with their customers.
Mr. Bennett stated studies have indicated as much as half of the water used for landscaping in southern Nevada may be unnecessary. The SNWA had worked diligently to educate customers on how to water their landscaping effectively.
Water waste as a condition of service was highly effective in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and served as a model to the effectiveness of the program. Customer groups receiving violation notices modified their water usage and saved up to 500,000 gallons of water annually.
Mr. Bennett stated citizens were in favor of such measures. The last SNWA poll showed 70 percent of consumers were neutral, supportive or strongly supportive on the issue of wastewater violation. The SNWA and its member agencies were required by federal and state laws to ensure the efficient use of water. The effectiveness of water conservation plans was vital to southern Nevada’s long-range resource plan. Southern Nevada shared usage of the Colorado River water with neighboring states and water conservation must be a priority. This legislation would help the SNWA accomplish those goals.
Mr. Lee stated that the residents of Clark County owned the water. When they used water they were making a withdrawal from their own account. This bill would give the SNWA the power to shut off a homeowner’s water or fine them without due process. It was ridiculous to think the SNWA would be able to lien a piece of property because of water waste. Mr. Lee commented the power company could be next in levying fines for having too many lights outside. The SNWA did not own the water and citizens would not want the SNWA to have the power to lien their property because of water usage. Mr. Lee questioned the due process of receiving a ticket or a fine from the SNWA.
Mr. Bennett explained the bill was designed to modify people’s water usage. A.B. 97 addressed water that ran down the street, not specific water usage. The legislation was not intended to impound people’s private property but create an incentive for people to eliminate water runoff.
Ms. Gibbons agreed with the concept of conserving water. She was concerned there was no specific criteria about what constituted water waste. She thought maybe these measures should be inclusive for all of Nevada.
Mr. Belanger explained A.B. 97 was strictly a tool that would allow local government agencies the ability to address water conservation. The intent of the bill was not to create punitive damages by any water agency. This bill would provide another avenue in the curtailment of water usage. Water was a natural resource that belonged to the people of Nevada and every effort should be made to protect it.
Ms. Gibbons wanted to know how accidental water waste would be handled.
Mr. Bennett stated that the water usage policies would be defined by each municipality or county government enacting this legislation. Water agencies had the desire to serve their customers in a fair manner with due process. Several partner agencies of SNWA had programs in place that allowed their customers to take corrective action voluntarily. Each agency understood the need for water conservation to be a realistic approach. Relationships built through reasonable and practical measures would help protect the water availability for the whole community.
Ms. Gibbons expressed concern over the cost of repairing water pipes for people on fixed incomes.
Because of the concerns of the committee, Chairman Bache suggested the bill should be amended to address the specific criteria that agencies would use to enforce this legislation.
Ms. Smith stated that she was concerned about passing the bill without knowing what the standards would be. She also wanted to know how this legislation would relate to the utility company when the water and power were on the same bill.
Mr. Bennett explained this legislation would be developed at the local level according to each community’s needs. If an agency received a complaint about a violation the situation would be investigated. The infraction could be chronic or accidental. The customer would be officially notified of the circumstances and findings. Through an administrative hearing the customer would have the right to challenge those findings. The findings of the hearing would be binding for the customer and the water agency. According to the findings a fee could be assessed to the customer’s water agency bill.
In Albuquerque, N.M., the first violation resulted in a $20 fine. This fee encouraged people to investigate possible problems in their landscaping. By changing watering procedures people saved money in their landscaping water costs. One business was able to reduce its water usage annually from 75 million gallons to 40 million gallons. This resulted in an annual net savings of $40,000 while maintaining the appearance of the landscape. This program helped people understand the importance of conservation issues.
Mr. Mortensen stated he believed the SNWA had moved into the area of deprivation verses conservation. The existing population of southern Nevada had cut down their water usage because the volume of people per capita had risen. When the SNWA cleaned a well prior to use, a tremendous amount of water was wasted. Mr. Mortensen questioned how many gallons were wasted down the street.
Mr. Belanger answered they did not have those figures with them but they would get them.
Ms. Von Tobel stated in her Assembly District No. 20 passions ran high concerning the subject of water issues. Water issues were controversial because they lived in a desert and conservation was necessary. Ms. Von Tobel wanted to know if A.B. 97 covered well owners.
Mr. Belanger answered this bill would not address water waste by well owners. Conservation of ground water was monitored by the State Division of Water Resources. SNWA had no authority in that area.
Mr. Humke suggested that the SNWA should work on amendments to clarify the bill. Sierra Pacific Power Company’s water division preceded their water waste regulations with advertising that encouraged consumers to follow the laws. The Nevada Department of Environmental Protection wanted greater compliance in regulation of hazardous waste from small quantity generators. Laws existed on the books to assess fines and penalties, but greater compliance was achieved by increased educational programs. Amendments needed to be drafted, which would show education as a tool to increase compliance. Fines and liens should be considered as a last resort.
Mr. Belanger replied they would be happy to work on developing amendments to A.B. 97 to satisfy the needs and concerns of the committee. A folder was given to each assemblyperson that depicted the various conservation measures SNWA had promoted over the last ten years (Exhibit C).
Mr. Bennett stated the SNWA had a strong record of advertising campaigns, outreach and educational programs. Reaching out to people concerning water waste would be a strong component of 2001’s marketing campaign. The SNWA’s goal was to protect water resources of the community without punitive damages or liens. The SNWA received over 5,000 calls last year concerning water running down the street. The 1991 legislature granted authority to Las Vegas Valley Water District to issue citations to customers who violated water waste laws. The authority was used reasonably, judiciously and not as a hammer to “beat up” people regarding water waste. The individuals who received citations for chronic water waste were required to appear in court and paid fines. Those types of actions created barriers with customers. The SNWA did not want to build walls within the community. A.B 97 would help modify consumer behavior through their water bills. Due process would be available on any agency action. Water issues and conservation were integral parts of the community.
Ms. Parnell inquired whether the legislation included residential and commercial customers. Mr. Bennett replied it would depend on the policies developed by each water agency. Typically this type of legislation applied to both.
Ms. Parnell suggested the bill should state that it included both commercial and residential customers. She suggested the deletion of the phrase on page two “… according to reasonable standard…” be inserted back in the bill.
Mr. Belanger explained the Legislative Counsel Bureau had removed the phrase and they would have no opposition in reinserting it.
Mr. Lee stated the bill’s loose definition of water waste could be interpreted as a swimming pool or Jacuzzi or even a garden. Wastewater needed to be clearly defined.
Mr. Brown commented that he also felt the bill was loosely written. He did appreciate their effort in addressing the critical issue of water use in the desert. Water would constantly be a concern in southern Nevada because of growth and development. Mr. Brown inquired whether the main source of notification of water waste was through phone-in complaints or water police patrols.
Mr. Bennett replied that typically highly trained people would investigate complaints generated from citizens. While they investigated complaints they could also note violations. Most agencies were complaint-driven and had the highest concentration of investigation focused on those complaints.
Mr. Brown wanted to know if roving patrols accomplished this and how many personnel were needed to provide effective service.
Mr. Bennett stated the SNWA did not provide the service. Local governments would determine how investigations would be handled. The number of personnel involved would be determined by local water agencies. Typically, early morning monitoring provided the most effective enforcement. Many customers did not realize they were wasting water. Most watering was done outside of normal business hours. Agencies would give notice of violations and ample time to voluntarily correct infractions before penalties would be assessed.
Mr. Brown questioned the effectiveness of the SNWA’s current advertising programs on water conservation. Mr. Bennett explained the SNWA constantly monitored the impact of its advertising campaigns. Approximately 90 percent of the population agreed, or agreed strongly, that water conservation was an important issue for their community. The SNWA had worked to increase conservation efforts by providing information on issues.
Mr. Brown inquired if there was information available to show the percentage of people that had actively conserved water through advertising campaigns. Mr. Bennett responded there was a percentage that responded to advertising. Last year 27,000 calls were received by the help line.
Mr. Brown commented the language of A.B. 97 needed to be more concrete in order to help agencies address specific water conservation issues.
Ms. Berman questioned whether there would be a campaign to introduce the legislation and what would the cost be. Mr. Belanger explained that typically an advertising campaign was done before any conservation program was implemented. He could not say what the cost would be.
Ms. Berman inquired how many citations were issued last year and what was done with the money that had been collected. Mr. Bennett explained approximately 55 citations had been issued by the Las Vegas Valley Water District. The court had issued findings on each case ranging from dismissal to heavy fines. Any money collected went directly to the court and Mr. Bennett did not know what those figures were.
Mrs. Freeman inquired as to why water conservation had become such an issue over the last few years.
Mr. Bennett explained the SNWA and its partner agencies had been fairly successful in keeping water conservation levels consistent with water resource plans. Conservation efforts had peaked at about 15 percent. The goal of A.B. 97 was to effectively monitor outside water without decreasing the quality of life. No one benefited by water that ran down the street.
Mrs. Freeman wanted to know if schools would come under this legislation. Mr. Bennett answered this would be under the jurisdiction of local water agencies. Typically, schools would fall under this agreement.
Mr. Mortensen wanted to know how much SNWA had spent on advertising campaigns and how much was estimated on this future campaign. Mr. Bennett explained the SNWA budgeted advertising costs. He did not know the amount of money spent on advertising last year. He would get those figures for Mr. Mortensen.
Chairman Bache stated the goal of A.B. 97 was noble. The method used to accomplish the goal needed to be looked at closely. The legislation should address residential, commercial and government agency customers.
Pat Coward, Nevada Association of Realtors, proposed an amendment to A.B. 97, Section 1, Subsection d (Exhibit D). The amendment would assign the penalty against the actual user of the water and not the property owner.
Mrs. Freeman felt the amendment could cause problems for neighborhoods containing a high volume of rental properties. Previous legislation holds property owners responsible for their renters’ actions. The amendment would remove the responsibility from property owners.
Mr. Coward stated that if water penalties were imposed upon the water user it would be more equitable than placing liens on the property.
Ms. Von Tobel agreed the amendment addressed the initial contract between the water user and the water company.
Ms. Berman wanted notice sent to property owners before liens were initiated. Sometimes, property owners had no knowledge when tenants had been delinquent on bills. Mr. Coward replied the amendment wanted to be fair. The filing of liens was serious and should not be done over water fines.
Mr. Brown questioned whether putting liens on a person’s property was the appropriate action for water conservation offenses.
Mr. Mortensen wondered if the amendment could go further by stating liens could not be placed against property.
Kimberly McDonald, City of North Las Vegas, stated they were in support of water waste reduction and looked forward to A.B. 97 as a tool for the future.
The Hearing on A.B. 97 was closed and the hearing on A.B. 98 was opened.
Assembly Bill No. 98: Requires board of county commissioners to fix terms of office of chairman and vice chairman of board. (BDR 20-414)
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director of Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), stated the bill would allow the county commission of each county to set the terms of the chair and vice chair.
Mr. Williams wanted to know how the chair and vice chair had been chosen in previous years. Mr. Hadfield stated it could vary from county to county. In some counties the district attorney set the terms.
Mr. Williams questioned the rules concerning rotation of these duties. Mr. Hadfield clarified that typically a vice chair would follow the chair. Sometimes the positions of chair and vice chair would serve longer than two terms because of staggered elections and inexperienced commissioners. The law would allow each county to decide what would work for them.
Mr. Williams wanted to know whether in an experienced board rotation would go full cycle. Mr. Hadfield replied he could not answer because there was such a high turnover in county commissioners.
Mr. Williams stated he was in favor of the bill but sought clarification on what current standards concerning the process were. A county commissioner in his district had served on the board since the 1950s and had never served as chairman.
Mr. Price inquired what the term limits were for county commissioners. Mr. Hadfield explained that term limits pertained to public policy boards and he did not know what they were.
Chairman Bache stated he remembered 12 years being the common term limit for legislature and county commissioners.
Mary Walker, Carson City, Douglas County and Lyon County, stated all three counties supported A.B. 98. Giving counties the flexibility to decide their terms of the chair and vice chair would create more rotation.
Bernie Curtis, Douglas County Commissioner from District No. 3, agreed each county commission should determine the terms of the chair and vice chair.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 98 and called for the vote.
MR. HUMKE MOVED A.B. 98 FOR A DO PASS.
MR. WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Bache opened the hearing on A.B. 99.
Assembly Bill No. 99: Revises dates on which certain special elections may be held by local governments. (BDR 31-418)
Mr. Hadfield stated there existed a dual law concerning an override election throughout the state. NACO requested the language on page 2 of A.B. 99, Section b, be deleted and replaced with “… first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of an odd-numbered year.” The current language did not allow unincorporated counties the same opportunity for override elections as incorporated counties. The change of language would not change the law but simply allowed counties without unincorporated cities to hold elections with an override election.
Chairman Bache inquired whether this would apply to Washoe County if Sparks and Reno changed their election dates to September and November. Mr. Hadfield answered that was correct.
Ms. Gibbons was concerned over the cost and efficiency of this change. Mr. Hadfield responded that having an override election with a city election would save money. The bill simply stated that a county without an incorporated city would be able to have an override election on the same date. Any override election costs would be covered by the entity requesting the election. Counties would have the opportunity to solve issues when they arose and not have to wait until a general election.
Mr. Humke questioned whether municipalities in counties would be affected. Mr. Hadfield stated this would affect school district and county issues in counties without an incorporated city. Mr. Humke wanted to know if the override issue would be for tax or school pay-as-you-go issues. Mr. Hadfield answered that yes it would be.
Mr. Humke expressed concern over the additional cost and politics that could be involved with those elections. The historically low voter turn out could be an issue.
Mr. Hadfield stated the law already allowed for those types of elections in counties containing incorporated cities. The ability to have an override election had been deprived in counties not containing incorporated cities. The legislation would make the current law available to all counties.
Ms. Gibbons wanted clarification of the taxes the law addressed. Mr. Hadfield responded the law was related to override elections and the school pay-as-you-go option.
Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayer’s Association (NTA), referred to Exhibit E, page 3, where suggested language clarified the provisions in statute did not apply when it involved a submission of an initiative.
Ms. Gibbons inquired whether NTA had taken an official position on A.B. 99. Ms. Vilardo responded no official position had been taken, but NTA had worked closely with Mr. Hadfield on the language of the bill to provide consistency.
Ms. Gibbons questioned what constituted an emergency. Ms. Vilardo answered an emergency was defined in statute as something that would impact the health and safety of the citizens. Qualifications of the emergency must be declared at a public meeting for the record. Past emergencies have included water chemical levels and arsenic issues.
Ms. Von Tobel questioned why the bill was being heard in Government Affairs and not the Elections, Procedures and Ethics Committee. Ms. Vilardo clarified because the bill was connected to NRS Chapter 354, the lead statute. It had always been processed through Government Affairs where the impacts were.
Ms. McDonald stated the city of North Las Vegas supported A.B. 99 because it was congruent with regular election cycles.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 99 and opened the hearing on A.B. 100.
Assembly Bill No. 100: Authorizes board of county commissioners to provide by ordinance for compensation of members of advisory board. (BDR 20-412
Mr. Hadfield stated A.B. 100 addressed the growing issue of volunteer citizen advisory boards. The measure would allow counties the opportunity to pass ordinances to reimburse citizen advisory boards for travel to and from meetings.
Ms. Gibbons stated the huge counties in Nevada and the increasing gas prices put a large burden on the travel costs of volunteer boards. She questioned what the reimbursement cost would be and should the statute specifically state travel costs.
Mr. Hadfield responded the bill specifically used the term compensation so counties could have flexibility when paying costs. By rigidly defining what compensation would cover, the counties would have to return to the legislature each session for additional clarification. Because the powers of the counties are strictly regulated by the legislature this process could become burdensome.
Ms. Parnell suggested maybe the words “per diem compensation” could be used to cover travel expenses.
Mr. Brown liked the words “reimbursement of costs” or “approved costs.” The term compensation could lead to commissioners awarding salary positions to friends or relatives.
Mr. Mortensen stated citizens who were worthy to serve on town boards should be compensated for their expenses.
Ms. Von Tobel wanted clarification from legal counsel about provisions that existed in statute that provided salary compensation for town advisory boards.
Mr. Hadfield answered that in Douglas County there were current provisions for salary compensation. A.B. 100 concerned compensation other than salary.
Ms. Von Tobel read from NRS Chapter 269 “… a board of county commissioners may provide by ordinance for compensation for the members of the town advisory board,” and inquired whom the legislation would affect.
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Clark County, clarified by statute town advisory board members could be compensated for travel but citizen advisory council members could not. In Clark County there were 14 town advisory boards and 4 citizen advisory councils. A.B. 100 would seek equity for all.
Ms. Von Tobel agreed with Ms. Wilson-Pappa that all groups should be covered under this reimbursement umbrella.
Mr. Humke agreed the citizen advisory boards in his district work very hard. He felt an amendment could be drafted to A.B.100 to satisfy everyone.
Ms. Smith questioned whether this ordinance would be consistent with all advisory boards. Each board should be recognized and treated equally.
Mr. Hadfield responded this was the intent of the bill and they would strive to clarify that in an amendment.
Ms. Gibbons stated maybe the Legal Division had used the term “compensation” for tax reasons and possibly the language should stay the same. Because compensation was already in the statute this bill would only add citizen advisory boards.
Chairman Bache questioned if the committee had an objection to stipulating a set dollar amount for advisory board members to receive for each meeting they attended. This would be similar to what the legislature had already provided for state boards, commissions, or local governing boards.
Ms. Von Tobel wanted to have yearly increases tied to the cost of living so the counties would not have to return each session for amendments.
Chairman Bache stated the current legislature’s per diem was tied to the federal government’s standards. Appropriate language in the bill would clarify any increases.
Mr. Neighbors did not want to limit the money to a specific amount. Different boards travel a variety of distances. Overnight stay could also be an issue.
Chairman Bache replied they would not vote on A.B.100 today and he would work with Mr. Hadfield on drafting amendments to the bill.
Mr. Hadfield thanked the committee for their concern on the issue. The intent of the bill was to provide compensation to board members for travel to and from meetings. A.B.100 did not want to change the nature of citizen’s advisory boards by providing salary compensation.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 100.
Having no other business Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:17 a.m.
Glenda Jacques
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: