MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
March 5, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:05 a.m., on Monday, March 5, 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
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
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Kathy McClain
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Utt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
James Spinello, Legislative Team, Clark County, Nevada
James Foreman, Manager, Public Response Office, Clark County, Nevada
Steven Sweikert, Clark County District Attorney Office
Toni Weeks, Las Vegas Metro Police Department
Rory Tuggle, Las Vegas Metro Police Department
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Assembly Bill 131: Authorizes governing body of city or county to adopt ordinances for preservation of neighborhoods. (BDR 22-149)
Assemblywoman McClain, District 15, Clark County, explained her district was located entirely in the unincorporated portion of Clark County. She described her district as having a few very expensive homes, several mobile home parks, many apartment complexes in varying degrees of livability, and several condos, town homes, and many single-family residences. She noted there were long-time residents, new families with a mix of neighborhood conditions. They had a good share of neighborhood businesses that were still trying to be successful. Ms. McClain gave a brief history of her district and explained the land was developed during the 1960s and 1970s and was a spectacular part of Las Vegas with trees and grass. She also said they had affordable housing for new families and retired people. They loved living on the eastside and did not have to drive 45 minutes to get within sight of the heart of Las Vegas. Unlike the city of Las Vegas, where normal building age was 25 years, most of her district would be in jeopardy of demolition. Her concerns were not with replacing the old with the new, but with the old becoming run down and unsafe. She further explained they were worried about businesses and neighborhood stores closing and moving to affluent areas. Many criminals and vagrants took advantage of those rundown conditions and made them even worse. Some neighborhoods were beginning to see scattered houses in need of serious repair. They worried about rental homes becoming crack houses. Also, they had a concern for unsafe and unsavory businesses that targeted abandoned “mini” malls. Many rundown apartment buildings offered cheap rents but their living conditions were substandard. Law enforcement and local governments did not have the authority to deal with these issues. She stated Assembly District 15 began to see the edges of decay. Environmental circumstances contributed to the decay of neighborhoods; therefore, it was important to make sure the laws, health and safety codes were in place and enforceable. Ms. McClain said the local authorities needed to be able to respond to the health and safety issues in a timely manner.
In summarization, A.B. 131 was formed to cover the issues she mentioned. Also, the goal of A.B. 131 was neighborhood preservation. This bill provided clear and concise language for local governments to enact and enforce local ordinances. She wanted to preserve her neighborhoods and minimize or eliminate substandard living conditions, criminal activities, and slumlords. A.B. 131 as it was written was not what was needed. She felt amended language should be considered and requested a subcommittee be appointed to review the new language and report back to the full committee.
Ms. McClain announced there were several people both in the committee room and teleconferenced from Las Vegas who wished to testify and who had first-hand knowledge of the conditions in their district.
Chairman Bache asked Ms. McClain if she would be going through her proposed amendments at that time. Ms. McClain requested the people in Las Vegas testify on the videoconference line first and then she would review the amendments and they would make more sense.
Assemblyman Lee mentioned another bill, A.B. 92, and wondered if she had a chance to read that bill. He stated the bill was on behalf of the Nevada Association of Counties and had some of the same issues. Ms. McClain replied she was slightly familiar with that bill, but explained that her bill was in NRS 244.355through 244.369 under the Health and Safety portion, and it dealt strictly with substandard living conditions, out of state out of mind landlords, and their bill was more comprehensive (Exhibit C). Mr. Lee said he thought it was in Chapter 244 and had broad powers which allowed them to do similar things without coming up to the legislature.
Mr. Lee questioned if the county had met with her regarding A.B. 131. Ms. McClain explained in her “other life” she was a county employee and saw first- hand issues that were brought to their attention and this was a primary reason for moving forward on the bill. She said it affected her district and was very important in their part of town. Also, if rundown conditions continued the way they were without more local control, they would get worse and they were now on the verge of becoming the “89109s” of the Las Vegas area.
Mr. James Spinello, Legislative Team, representing Clark County, said they appreciated Ms. McClain’s introduction of A.B. 131 and recognized some of the issues raised by Assemblyman Lee. Mr. Spinello stated the bill stood on its own and would not want to have some of the concerns of A.B. 92 affect the county’s ability to address some of the urban issues in this bill. He introduced Mr. Foreman who would present the issues.
Mr. James Foreman, Manager, Clark County Public Response Office, testified he had 20 years of experience in local government of which the last 10 were spent working with Clark County in their unincorporated areas. He worked on zoning enforcement, building code enforcement and nuisance abatement enforcement. Some of the highlights of the bill, especially for the enforcement crew, would be the ability to call more things “nuisances.” He said other cities had that ability but he was limited to “dry weeds, junk, and dangerous buildings.” He felt it important they add things they encountered on a daily basis. Just recently he dealt with people living in a “big large plane” parked in a vacant lot. There were empty pools as well as half full pools with no secure fencing. He said every day the Metro police encountered apartment complexes that were substandard in nature although not considered dangerous. Since they were not dangerous under the old codes they could not address them accurately; he hoped in the future they could go to the landlords and work on the substandard conditions they found.
Mr. Foreman said the city of Las Vegas’ “nuisance abatement” enforcement program included things like graffiti, substandard conditions in housing, zoning violations, polluted water and holes in the ground. The city claimed all of these under their terms of “nuisance” but the unincorporated areas did not fall under the same NRS statute. For that reason they have requested A.B. 131 to stipulate more situations to be called “nuisances.”
Other items which were important dealt with substandard housing conditions. Mr. Foreman said they often needed to move tenants and there was no provision he was aware of where the county assisted with their relocation. They had no way to recoup money spent on relocation to use in future projects. The bill included language that dealt with relocation costs but he explained it was not a way to make money but a way to retrieve their money so they could help move other tenants. There were cases where conditions were intolerable, such as electrical problems, and they had to move tenants who had nowhere to go. Many had no money to find other affordable housing.
Mr. Foreman said there was language about reinspection fees and when he looked at other ordinances in other counties they had reinspection fees and bond appeals. Spending time to deal with substandard housing should also include a way to re-coop their cost for inspection time. He gave an example of the city of Milwaukee, and he said he could name thousands of cities across the country that asked for reinspection fees. The process was abused when people appealed each time they were cited in order to delay the inevitable. Mr. Foreman felt that if a $100 refundable bond was required each time they appealed, they would be less likely to appeal as frequently, and if they won their appeal they would then be reimbursed their $100. This was a common procedure throughout the United States. The director in the city of Milwaukee had confirmed it was crucial to their ordinance and it worked very well. He stated it reduced the amount of time taken to handle the ”nuisance abatement” cases.
Assemblyman Price was curious how they found folks living in a large airplane. Mr. Foreman said the airplane was originally going to be made into a restaurant but the zoning plans fell through and vagrants decided to live in it. Mr. Price was thinking of the one barely off the strip at the northwest end of the airport and wondered if that was the plane they referred to in their testimony. Mr. Foreman confirmed that was the plane.
Assemblyman Brown wanted to confirm the three things classified as nuisances were weeds, driveways and junk. Mr. Foreman replied he said weeds, junk and dangerous buildings. Mr. Foreman said they wanted to put “dangerous buildings” with a comma and add “dangerous conditions.” It would include all the things he was unable to predict. Mr. Brown asked under the current scheme what took place if they found someone in violation. Mr. Foreman replied currently they gave a notice to the property owner and to the tenant. If it was vacant property they would mail them notices and “post” the property. The violators would be asked to rectify the nuisance either by securing, altering, or abating to stop the nuisance. He said most commonly it would be buildings with broken windows or open doors that were used as crack houses. After the expiration of the first notice, a final notice was given stating if they did not comply a crew would come in, abate the condition and a lien would be placed on the property. Mr. Brown asked for an average lien amount. Mr. Foreman said it could be as simple as $300 for cleaning up dry weeds, or as extensive as $25,000 for demolishing a building. Mr. Brown asked if once the property had a lien did they ever have to use the foreclosure process. Mr. Foreman said no, but what they wanted in the bill was to call everything a “special assessment” under eminent and chronic nuisances. By putting the special assessment on the tax roles they would be allowed to collect the fees in a “timely fashion.” He said the “timely fashion” might be over a year but it was better than what they were currently getting.
Mr. Brown asked about the mechanism he used to foreclose under the liens. Mr. Steven Sweikert from the District Attorney’s office stated they could foreclose on the liens. Mr. Brown was concerned and felt it was extreme and felt it would become somewhat of an eviction statute. Mr. Foreman said under their abatement procedures currently they were authorized to put the lien on the property under the statute. He said the difference would be the mechanism to collect. There could be foreclosure after a long period of time, but going after an owner for assets took more time. The mechanism would be put on the tax roles and quicken the process.
Assemblyman Mortenson missed Mr. Foreman’s comments on fees and requested further explanation. Mr. Foreman stated he did not have the new language in front of him. Although he did not have the exact fees, an earlier draft stated if they had to spend many hours getting the property owners to comply with their request, the fees recovered would be used to pay for repairs. Mr. Mortenson asked if they were charged an inspection fee the first time. Mr. Foreman said they did not charge fees and they patterned their ordinance after the ones they saw across the country. Basically the first one was free and if they cleaned up or repaired there was no reinspection fee. The fees only applied to the property owners who failed to do their requirements.
Assemblywoman McClain asked to make additional comments. In her final draft, which would go to a subcommittee, she left that language out. Hopefully they could pass legislation that allowed local governments the capability of setting the parameters themselves regarding fees. The reinspection and the bond appeal were not in the final language she presented for that reason.
Assemblyman Lee asked about the maintenance of the interior. He understood they had rental units that people complained about because they did not feel the apartment managers or the homeowners took care of their properties. Under primary ownership, how would they take care of the “maintenance of the interior” as drafted in the bill currently? Mr. Foreman replied that, understandably, people never called on themselves for not taking care of their interior and very rarely would the situation come up. He stated he worked for a city for 20 years and that had never happened. Also he worked for ten years with another city that had the same authority and it was never used. He said if it did come up it could apply. Any provisions in the bill would apply to either a single family home or someone’s multi-unit dwelling. The only time that happened was when a relative called and would be concerned about their father, mother or cousin who lived in substandard conditions. He stated people who were mentally handicapped and not capable of taking care of their home properly were also reported.
Mr. Lee referred to page 2, and asked what they determined to be “relevant to the preservation.” He saw how they standardized most things in the bill and he wondered if it was referring to something they might have forgotten. Mr. Sweikert from the District Attorney’s office asked if he looked at the language in A.B. 131 that modified Chapter 278. Mr. Lee replied he was looking on page 2, line 1 of the bill, and read the portion “determines to be relevant to the preservation of the character of the neighborhood.” He was concerned if they were talking architecturally or how they could use this portion of the bill. Ms. McClain stated this portion and the entire language would be removed from the bill and would be replaced by the amendment that she offered.
Assemblyman Williams looked at Section 1 of A.B. 131, Subsection 2, which dealt with the maintenance of the interior and exterior of buildings and wanted more specification on the portion that read “dangerous and unsafe.” He said he understood the intent of the bill but saw there were situations where the public questioned why the county or city could or could not do certain things and used the Legislature as their excuse. There should be a more precise draft and he wanted to be able to review the ordinance before action would be taken. He did not want to damage the livelihood of people in the county with such a broad wording on the bill. He also asked what in the law allowed the city to do certain things and the county not be able to do the same. Ms. McClain stated because cities were formed under charters and counties were an “arm” of the state government there was more control over county authority than city. The city had a little more self-determination and had ordinances in place that were more defined on things such as nuisances or dangerous conditions. An example was when Metro police reported a dangerous situation on the north side of Sahara that they were able take care of, but had it been on the south side they could not. Mr. Williams said it appeared the county had for many years understood what prevented them from moving forward to help people the way they wanted, and asked why they could not write the proper language to address the situation. Ms. McClain said the amendment would address a lot of those issues such as housing codes, which dealt with the minimal safety, and life preserving issues. They also should be able to recoup costs. If they had an apartment building filled with poor people and it was condemned they should be able to have a plan in place to help them find housing elsewhere. She knew social services handled cases but the only time they could cover costs was in the case of an emergency. Chronic conditions were not an emergency, but an earthquake or fire would be covered. Mr. Williams felt they should make a list of things that would be covered in the bill and take care of existing problems but not leave the wording in the bill so broad.
Assemblyman Lee advised he was trying to make a better bill for Ms. McClain. In the amendment, which stated “violation of housing, building and other codes,” if someone built a storage shed or awning on their property without the proper permit would they become a “nuisance.” Ms. McClain said as health and safety issues they would apply and fall under the “nuisance” issue but a regular shed or patio cover would not. Mr. Lee said he read that an unlicensed contractor who installed an awning without proper inspection would fall under the safety issue.
Detective Toni Weeks, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, stated she was in support of A.B. 131. She introduced Sergeant Tuggle who dealt with the issues they were discussing on a daily basis.
Rory Tuggle, a Sergeant with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for over 20 years, said his last year was spent in the community policing office located in the southeast area. They worked closely with local governments and their job was to look for long-term solutions to chronic problems. He said their law enforcement issues related back to the general quality of life. He said in prior testimony reference was made to the north and south side of Sahara and confirmed they dealt with those issues on a daily basis. He described situations they repeatedly ran into, which led back to the quality of life being directly related to crime. They took issue with junk in the yards, building decay, health and safety issues on the properties and directly traced all those conditions back to crime.
In prior testimony an airplane was mentioned, and that plane had been with them for five years or possibly longer and had been continuously “cleaned out” because it attracted the transient population. Some of the transients were homeless but others chose to maintain their anonymity to avoid detection by law enforcement, thus creating more crime in the area. Mr. Tuggle said one house, currently occupied, had 70 percent of the windows covered in plywood. Garbage in their front yard had spilled onto the sidewalk and his officers had been to the residence three times in the last two months and had recovered stolen vehicles, stolen property and narcotics. The home was located in a tract home subdivision with neighbors living between 10 and 15 feet away from each other. He felt this lowered the property value of the adjoining neighbors. The cycle of decay was partially continued because of absentee landlords who rented because they were unable to sell their property. If a large portion of a populated area rented, the majority had no “roots” and did not take pride in their community. More and more of these types of houses are found in the older neighborhoods. Mr. Tuggle’s office would support a more expeditious result or resolution to those types of conditions.
Mr. James Spinello said he had some pictures to show of properties in the district (Exhibit D).
Mr. Tuggle explained the pictures. The first was a multi-family dwelling. Daily or weekly property might have been converted for use from other facilities in the past or ones that were old and run down.
When he was a young officer, 20 years ago, they had one apartment complex not far from the strip in which he found someone breaking the law on any given night. Nearly 20 years later he returned to the district and the same conditions existed. Many people were taken into custody for various violations but the problems were deeper. The people lived in dilapidated buildings with squalid conditions with an unconcerned landlord that continued to disregard the problems. A resolution was finally reached when the health department found the conditions so deplorable they shut down the operations. People were not allowed to reside in the complex under those conditions. One team member, after the inspection, commented on the carpet being a very ugly color of green shag, relating to the 1970s shag carpets. The health inspector said that was not the carpet, it was mold. If that had been addressed with the authorities 20 years prior they might have prevented the unhealthful condition.
Mr. Tuggle said they talked about the inside of residences and showed a picture of what happened a few months ago. There was an elderly lady who had an affinity for cats. The picture showed one of the cats and in the corner of the picture there was cat feces piled nearly 4 to 5 inches deep. There was also mold growing on the wall, which resulted from cat urine. Mr. Tuggle pointed out more cat feces in another picture. The woman was feeding the cats and caring for them. There were approximately 34 cats living and 6 dead cats in various stages of decomposition. They received the complaint because the single-family residence was a condominium and attached to other units. The odor caused the neighbors to contact them. They experienced great frustration because the entities that were there to provide relief “scratched their heads” and said there was little they could do to help because the problem was located inside the dwelling. The outside was only affected by the odor. He pointed out the yellowing and mold that was a urine stain that was soaking into the lower condominium and bleeding through the side walls laterally to the next-door condominium. They had no authority to address the issue but were fortunate the occupant of the condominium voluntarily complied with their suggestions and moved into a senior living apartment complex. They were able to find a buyer who completely gutted the unit. If she had struggled and fought, they would still be dealing with the problem and the neighbors would still be complaining.
Mr. Tuggle said they were currently working on a revitalization project in the Parkdale community area. He described a tract of homes that were single-family residences and built approximately 40 years ago. This area was one of the very first master-plan communities, which contained a park and a school in the center. The area continuously tried to hold onto its community pride while fighting encroaching urban decay. Most of the residents were now elderly and had lived in their homes for 25 to 30 years or longer. Many residents now, because of the age of the owners, were renters. Absentee landlords were widespread and he knew two officers who grew up in the neighborhood but whose parents had moved because of the decay and run-down conditions.
Mr. Tuggle showed a picture of a front yard in the Parkdale community. He described the yard as having three decayed vehicles, wheelbarrows full of paint cans and other noxious elements, and the overall condition the neighbors viewed daily. This example in the Parkdale community was similar to most cases they dealt with on a regular basis.
Mr. Tuggle expressed concern and acknowledged it was hard to live in that environment and not become uncaring about your own property. They had one property, a single-story apartment building, that had open doorways and walkways, which increased criminal activity and narcotics traffic. Eventually the owner closed the property and the structures were condemned. What occurred was graffiti on the walls and much of the graffiti was gang-related. Although the building was condemned it was left unsecured; there was nothing covering the doorways. This complex not only became a refuge for the area’s homeless people, but the gangs constantly used it for their illegal activities. Another thing he pointed out were the single-family homes that backed up to this condemned complex where the quality of life of the residents was directly affected. After being condemned for a period of time there was an issue for them to reconstruct the buildings and remodel the location. Over the last 18 months the property had not changed and still had the same problems.
Assemblyman Mortensen asked why the county did not move against junk if they had the authority to do so. James Foreman replied, giving an example of someone storing logs, wood and plastic in their front yard. Should those items be considered a “nuisance,” or were they allowed because they were usable material? Violations occurred all the time and even if they wrote citations for each one they could be in the court system for seven months. He agreed it was definitely a “nuisance” and they wanted the authority to address it like the city of Las Vegas. There might be hundreds of issues on the same property but the conditions remained for long periods of time. There may be junk cars and citations could be issued but what about the material that was stored next to it? There might be stucco falling from the house, or the pool in the backyard with four feet of yellow water that has not been used for ten years. He stressed all of those were separate issues and took a long time to resolve.
Mr. Foreman stated the “nuisance abatement” program was more efficient, but two unused vehicles or ten bundles of old newspapers could not be included in their abatement program. The city of Las Vegas could take care of all of those problems very quickly, but the county could only use citations for control. He stated they simply wanted a “nuisance abatement “ program like the city of Las Vegas.
Mr. Mortenson also had a question regarding the “cat lady.” If the person living underneath had cat feces and urine penetrating their wall, would not that be a reason for the health department to act? Was the health department helpless under current laws in that situation? Mr. Tuggle stated, he did know the health department was frustrated that day and was not familiar with their specific ordinances and authorities. They voiced their concern and said they could move her out and declare the dwelling uninhabitable but the issue was not resolved. He called attention to the multi-dwelling units in prior testimony with their shag carpeting that was actually mold. They closed the structures to human occupancy but they did it room by room. If the room next door was habitable people were allowed to stay. With the owner’s cooperation, they completely closed all the units and worked with them to relocate the tenants of the rooms that were not condemned by the health department. There were statutes that prohibited junk cars being stored on the streets. After the cars were tagged, people placed them in their front yards where they could sit for very long periods of time. Minimal health code standards did not solve long-term problems and conditions.
Assemblyman Humke asked if graffiti was treated in the amended bill. Mr. Spinello replied graffiti could fall under “dangerous conditions,” and gave an example of officers going to an apartment complex and on the door of the unit was gang graffiti. The officers, under current law, could not order that the graffiti or foul language be removed. The individual property owner with his graffiti-covered concrete and front door cannot be asked to have it removed. The city of Las Vegas does take care of this type of problem in their ordinance.
Ms. McClain advised Mr. Humke she did not change anything because she was under the assumption there was another bill regarding graffiti. Mr. Humke said he needed to understand existing laws. He thought Mr. Foreman testified that public entities must paint over the graffiti and wanted to confirm that as a requirement under existing laws for private property owners. Also, as a follow-up, Mr. Humke said the city of Reno had a group that went out to locations when called and carried 89 different shades of paint to cover the graffiti. He wondered if they had that in Clark County. Mr. Tuggle said graffiti removal was not the reason for the ordinance. The reason for the ordinance was for those who did not want to remove the graffiti.
Assemblywoman Parnell wanted to thank Assemblywoman McClain for bringing forward A.B. 131. She received calls from constituents regarding conditions in their neighborhoods. She went on a drive with Parole and Probation in December to some apartment complexes with very poor conditions. Some of the people were fearful of making “waves” if they called city officials about unsafe conditions, because they were threatened with eviction.
Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, said she had not seen the amendment to A.B. 131 but wanted to look at the bill as written. She stated she was an average homeowner and had lived for 26 years in the same Las Vegas neighborhood. The bill, as written, was an excessive grant of power over their homes and lives.
Ms. Lusk said the prior testimony showed only one side of the issue and was a valid issue. She said there were some very real concerns and problems. She felt she should give the other extreme and how the powers were used to cause citizen anger and frustration. Some mention had been made of cases ending up in court, but the implication was that were never any valid reasons. Sometimes when there was a complaint, the enforcer would take a drive through the neighborhood to find other violations. One example occurred several years ago in her neighborhood. While processing a valid complaint, other neighbors received citations that had not received complaints, for such things as children’s toys in their own front yard. One person received a citation for disorder inside their garage when they opened their garage door during the “swing through the neighborhood.” She expressed her concern when a very beautiful and well-kept home was cited for having firewood in their driveway. They were building a planter and had just had sections of telephone poles delivered; the wood was treated with material and was inflammable. She emphasized there was simply an overuse of power that existed. They were told a warning was given but that was not always the case. She had a visitor with a new car parked in front of her house for an hour and they had forgotten to put the sticker on their plate. When her visitor left her house there was a citation stating they had been there 72 hours and were subject to being towed. She stated the citation was not valid because no one could have complained about a car parked on the street for one hour. Those were reasons why she had concerns when they looked at language that provided an extreme grant of power.
Ms. Lusk said the statement “an ordinance may be adopted without limitation, prohibition, requirements, restrictions and even so far as the maintenance of the interior” was far too excessive. In addition it said “any other matter that is relevant” which could mean anything. Because of prior experiences with the misuse of ordinances as they existed in other jurisdictions she was not thrilled with legislation that had power over their lives and private homes. The bill also contained duplication because it said “the powers conferred are in addition and supplemental to and is the intent of this section to provide a separate method for enforcement.”
Ms. Lusk concluded her remarks by saying local government should have the authority to carry out their valid mission. The authority should be tempered with recognition that there are limits and citizens have rights as well. Toys inside her front yard without a specific complaint are not within that jurisdiction. Also, whether they chose to maintain the interior of their home the way the city approved was not proper jurisdiction. If you talked about health and safety and there was balance, then she felt that would be valid authority and they would offer their support. She looked to the committee, as their representatives, to avoid giving grants of power that would cause them to worry about their normal way of living. Some of their older neighborhoods were watched for those kinds of things and they did not find them to be handled in a fair, unbiased fashion.
Assemblywoman Smith asked Mrs. Lusk if she knew the outcome of any citations she mentioned. Mrs. Smith wanted to know what the residents needed to go through after the citations were issued. Ms. Lusk replied she knew the individual who was cited for the firewood had a major and very long battle, which was ultimately dismissed. She was not sure what happened in the case of the toys or the garage. The visitor to her home caused her to have a battle with the individuals responsible for the enforcement. Her city councilman looked into the matter and discovered the error on the citation.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 131. He stated he would appoint a subcommittee sometime tomorrow. After counting, he said they had enough members to present bill draft introductions.
· BDR 24-1126 - Converts offices of mayor and city councilman to partisan offices. (A.B. 276)
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 24-1126.
ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Bache informed the committee the bill was requested by the Paradise Democratic Club. He stated the bill would be assigned to the Committee on Election and Procedures.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
At 10:17 a.m. Chairman Bache took a quick 5-minute recess to locate Mr. Neighbors and Mr. Williams in order to clear some of the bills from the committee. He asked to have everyone return by no later than 10:30 a.m.
Chairman Bache resumed the meeting at 10:27 a.m. He decided to skip A.B. 87 for now because he received an amendment from Mr. Walther this morning and was going to review the bill further and place it on the bottom of the list.
Assembly Bill 91: Authorizes imposition of fee for certain complaints filed with public utilities commission of Nevada. (BDR 58-449)
Chairman Bache asked for a motion for an indefinite postponement the bill.
MS. PARNELL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 91.
MS. SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 93: Revises provisions of charter of City of North Las Vegas concerning appointment of city attorney. (BDR S-431)
Chairman Bache requested the secretary pass out an amendment to A.B. 93.
MR. LEE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 93.
MR. BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Brown did not have concern with the bill, but with the amendment of “an attorney or attorneys of a professional corporation.” His primary concern was the city being able to appoint a corporation to serve as the city attorney. It would need to be someone who was licensed, and now with the amendment he felt it did not pose any problems.
Assemblyman Williams said initially they were concerned about the bill in North Las Vegas, but with the present form everyone was satisfied.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 96: Revises certain provisions governing financial administration of local governments. (BDR 31-338)
Chairman Bache explained the bill was the treasurer’s bill or fiscal officer’s bill and that Mr. Seale testified and indicated his support.
MS. PARNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 96.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 165: Declares “Silver State Fanfare” as official state march. (BDR 19-579)
MS. GIBBONS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 165.
MS. SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Bache introduced his other bill draft, which would go to the Judiciary Committee.
· BDR 10-410 Revises provisions relating to settlement of certain claims or actions against governmental agency and officer’s employees. (A.B. 77)
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 10-410.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTIONED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 180: Amends charter of City of Henderson to make various changes concerning municipal judges. (BDR S-489)
MS. VON TOBEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 180.
MR. BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 181: Revises membership of county fair and recreation board in certain less populous counties. (BDR 20-336)
MR. HUMKE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 181.
MR. NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 197: Requires disclosure to customers of certain information concerning electric services by electric utilities and alternative sellers. (BDR 58-910)
MR. HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 197.
MS. PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Neighbors supported the bill although he felt this could be done administratively rather than making a law.
Assemblyman Brown stated they never heard any testimony from small utility companies. There was testimony that Nevada Power was a small player in California as Idaho Power was in the state of Nevada. He felt it might be more appropriate to hear that information.
Chairman Bache responded the small companies had chances to testify at the hearing and they tried to pass out the broadest range of notice.
Assemblyman Neighbors stated when they went before the Public Utility Commission (PUC) for rate increases they were done administratively within the budget they had.
Assemblywoman Gibbons stated she had in her notes on page 1, line 4 a request being made to leave out the word “and” between “perspective” and “existing.”
Chairman Bache replied he had the amendments from Ms. Reeder and Mr. Nielson and wondered if the changes were grammatical.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel had a concern and Don Soderberg said this would cause additional work for them and they would figure one-quarter percent per employee yet they did not ask for the increase in their budget because all budgets had been limited. The reason she could not support the bill at that time was because they should have the right to go before Ways and Means when additional regulations would be needed to fulfill the position. She felt strongly they would be affected and also would affect the small utilities and Overton Power would pay more money if they had to supply this information two times a year. She said she was concerned about the cost to the smaller co-ops and the PUC that was stated in the record.
MS. VON TOBEL MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REREFER AND AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 197 AND REREFER TO WAYS AND MEANS.
MR. NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Parnell stated she made note when Mr. Soderberg testified they could easily take care of the issue within existing manpower currently and was not concerned with fiscal notes on the bill.
Chairman Bache stated Mr. Arberry might want to pick up the bill when he sees the information.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 202: Revises provisions governing metropolitan police departments. (BDR 22-47)
Chairman Bache said he had spoken with Ms. Vilardo about concerns over the monetary aspect of dividing the language. He stated after she reviewed the bill she felt it was correct and the one possible amendment clarified that the election would be in the November even-year election and clarified the deconsolidation would take place on July 1.
MR. NEIGHBORS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 202.
MR. WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Brown said there was discussion about who would be required to vote and whether it would be countywide if a city were to secede. He questioned if there was any further discussion regarding that portion of the bill. As he understood currently, if a city were to secede or break away from the main unit they required a countywide election. Chairman Bache said the language stated if there were three or more entities and one wished to withdraw, there would be a vote of only the people in the entities. If there were two entities in a metro or there were three or more and they all wished to dissolve the metropolitan unit, then it would go to a vote of all the affected people in the area. The city of Las Vegas contended only the people in the city should vote was his interpretation. This interpretation was the city of Las Vegas contended only the people in the city should vote. The bill, written, as stated the city council or the county commission in Las Vegas, having the current composition of only those two entities, would pass a resolution placing it on the ballot for the next election which would take place in November of 2002. The people in the entire district would then vote which would include the unincorporated, Clark County and the city of Las Vegas, and whatever resulted from that combined district would be the final decision. Mr. Brown stated that clarified the meaning for him.
Assemblyman Mortenson stated the city was very concerned about the requirement of both entities voting if one entity wanted to secede. He wasn’t sure how important that was and thought it might need some consideration. Chairman Bache stated he was a resident of the city of Las Vegas and he didn’t want to see taxes affected negatively for the city of Las Vegas but if they said they were dissolving only the people in the city should have the right to vote; the county was then taken away from being able to have an affect on the issue since it was a combined entity. If it were the other way around he would not think if the county wanted to dissolve and the city did not it would not be fair that only the people in the county would be able to vote. It worked both ways.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:53 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda Utt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: