MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
March 23, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:40 a.m., on Friday, March 23, 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
Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Assemblyman John Marvel, Assembly District 34
OTHERS PRESENT:
Kent Lauer, Executive Director, Nevada Press Association, Inc.
Dennis Myers, Reporter
Norman Azevedo, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Office of Attorney General
Michael Pennington, Executive Assistant to the Attorney General
Robert Barengo, Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority
Richard Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson
Fred Hillerby, Hillerby & Associates
Dan Musgrove, City of Las Vegas
Kimberly McDonald, City of North Las Vegas
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Clark County Legislative Team
John Lawton, Sierra Memorial Gardens, Reno, Nevada
Ken Knauss, Nevada Cemetery Association
Ned Phillips, State Funeral Board
Wayne Reynolds, President, Nevada Cemetery Association
Sharon Shaffer, Chairman, State Funeral Board
Marty Manning, Public Works Director, Clark County
Thomas Grady, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Carol Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Chairman Bache stated before hearing testimony on the bills there was a Bill Draft Request (BDR) that needed to be introduced.
· BDR 30-1328 Increases amount of general obligation bonds that state board of finance may issue to provide grants to certain water systems. (A.B. 549).
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 30‑1328.
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 225: Makes various changes to provisions regarding meetings of public bodies. (BDR 19-82)
Chairman Bache stated this bill was a carryover from the previous day’s hearing and he had kept the sign-in sheet, which would be added to the present sign-in sheet.
Kent Lauer, Executive Director, Nevada Press Association, stated the Press Association represented about 40 newspapers. He acknowledged Mrs. Freeman’s insight into the open meeting law as she had recognized the problem. Before beginning his testimony he handed out some information relating to the bill. The first handout was an editorial that appeared in the Reno Gazette-Journal (Exhibit C), which he felt stated what the thrust of the bill was in a very concise manner. The second handout was an Attorney General’s opinion that addressed the issue of serial meetings (Exhibit D). The last handout was an article regarding an Ohio Supreme Court decision on serial meetings (Exhibit E). He wanted to focus on two provisions in the bill dealing with serial meetings and the definition of “deliberate.” In open meeting law language, Nevada was known as a “quorum state,” meaning the law applied whenever a quorum or majority of a public body was present to deliberate or take action. The quorum requirement could be circumvented by having board members meet in small secret groups to discuss the same issue. The bill was aimed at prohibiting a public body or its staff from intentionally avoiding the open meeting law. The intent was not to prohibit citizens from initiating individual discussions with the members of the public body, because citizens had a constitutional right to petition their government. As language in the bill was not clear on that point, he had an amendment he hoped would be considered making it clear that any meeting between a private citizen and a member of the public body would not be considered a serial meeting. If a city manager wanted to brief the city council on a controversial topic in private, he might brief city council members in small group sessions with no decision made, but Mr. Lauer felt that was still a violation of the open meeting law because there was a lack of citizen input. In many instances there was an intentional scheme by public officials to circumvent the open meeting law, and language in the bill would make it clear exactly what a serial meeting entailed. He agreed with the Ohio law in determining the serial meeting problem, as Ohio was also a quorum state. The Ohio Supreme Court called the problem a “game of musical chairs,” and said ignoring the issue circumvented the intent of the open meeting law. He thought it was more efficient to have staff brief the council as a whole at one meeting, instead of having all these small groups being briefed at individual meetings. The Legislature had already designated meetings of political bodies and their deliberations must be conducted in an open forum.
Mr. Neighbors remarked, he was offended by Mr. Lauer’s testimony, as he was a county manager for many years and if Reno had a problem there was always the Attorney General’s Office who could look into any charges that a group was circumventing the open meeting law. Some of the issues coming before a city were technical and county commissioners were briefed individually on those matters. County managers did not make policy and if there were abuses he felt the Attorney General was the one that should pursue any problem. Pointing fingers at all county and city managers accomplished nothing.
Dennis Myers, private citizen and free-lance reporter, said the issue of “hallway conversations” had been brought up previously. A.B. 225 was designed to remedy a real problem. He had been involved with open meeting issues since the 1975 session, and in all that time he was not aware of an open meeting complaint ever being filed over hallway conversations. He was aware of complaints filed over genuine serial meetings, as he had personally filed one and felt serial meetings were a problem in the northern area even if they did not occur in Clark County or rural areas. They were very rare in the Reno area for a long time, but they eventually became a routine way of doing business. On September 3, 1997, the mayor of Reno and members of the city council met secretly in serial meetings with a representative of the development firm, Oliver McMillan, which was bidding on a downtown redevelopment contract. None of the other bidders were given that kind of access and five days later Oliver McMillan was awarded a multimillion-dollar redevelopment contract. After he had reported in the Sparks Tribune that those secret meetings had occurred, one of the competing bidders filed an open meeting complaint against the city charging favoritism. The Attorney General’s response to that complaint was they found nothing wrong with the process, which showed the need for the kind of legislation under consideration. Public officials held these meetings out of the public eye and suddenly started voting in unison and the public never knew why. Another episode occurred in March of 1996 when three members of the Washoe County Airport Authority met at Lilly’s Restaurant in Reno. Arrangements for that meeting were made by airport staff members, which made it clear it was not a social occasion. At that meeting was a lobbyist for Southwest Airlines, the Nevada Adjutant General of the military, and the airport director. Under discussion was acquisition of private homes for airport expansion. That same week two other members of the airport governing board met at Harrah’s Steak House, again the lunch was arranged by airport staff members and again included the airport manager, Adjutant General, and airline lobbyist. These were not casual meetings in the hallway. Some of the airport governing board members refused to participate in those meetings because of a belief those meetings were held in private to conduct public business. He once again reported those meetings in his column and then filed a complaint. Casual conversations in hallways clearly lack intent and were different than actual serial meetings and the public had a right to all information for any action a public body took in enacting public policy.
Mr. Lee asked if language in lines 10 though 13 was removed, regarding the interpretation of the word “deliberate,” would that satisfy Mr. Myers’ concerns. He understood there was an expression in journalism “off the record” and it seemed there was a little uncertainty in defining the word “deliberate.” Mr. Myers responded he was not wedded to the language, as there was some of it he did not understand. The point about “acquisition or exchange of facts” was already an established principal of the Nevada Open Meeting Law. When staff provided documents to people testifying, those documents were already accessible to the public.
Ms. Smith related she was in support of the bill. There was usually very limited preparation time to place facts before a public body, so many times information received before actual hearings played a large part in making decisions. She wanted to get away from the scenario of having complaints filed with the Attorney General and then having them dismissed, because there had been no intent there to circumvent the system. She also was concerned about the impact on public figures running for office. Mr. Myers replied there was no intent to try to circumvent a candidate’s interrelationship with their constituents.
Ms. Smith felt the intent was subjective in trying to avoid charges and complaints filed against public servants and advocates. Mr. Myers thought there were very few instances of frivolous complaints filed over the years regarding open meeting laws. It was important to keep focused on the rules because complaints happened so infrequently.
Mr. Mortenson disagreed that accepting information at a meeting was against the open meeting law. In Clark County staff briefed the full committee on matters that would be presented at public meetings and to his knowledge that was legal. Mr. Myers stated he was addressing “the acquisition or exchange of facts” and felt those issues were redundant.
Mr. Mortenson continued, stating he would like to see the language changed so commissioners could meet only as a quorum when receiving information from staff. He knew it was frustrating to the public when a commission met and started voting when they were not privy to any detailed information.
Mr. Brown questioned if there was any informational briefing to a council or board member that was appropriate under some circumstances. Mr. Myers answered he was not saying briefings were inappropriate. If a mayor sat down with council members to fill them in on technical negotiations he felt that was outside the scope of what the bill intended.
Mr. Brown felt the language was too broad in addressing intent. It sounded to him as if the bill was trying to apply a strict liability standard. When getting into the meaning of the word “intent” it was subjective. Mr. Myers replied intent showed very clearly the difference between a real serial meeting and a hallway conversation. Because of concern previously voiced, he wanted to stress there was no intent to break into casual conversations.
Mr. Humke asked about the presence of staff in meetings with less than a quorum. His constituents seemed more concerned with the activities of staff than with the elected or appointed officials. He questioned placing a reference to staff in the section describing “deliberate” and/or the section describing “meeting.” Mr. Myers related he was not a bill drafter, but in conversations with some of the Clark County members there were concerns with appropriate staffers’ roles. His point was when staff was used to set up serial meetings it was a clear indicator it was not a hallway conversation.
Mr. Humke thought some guidelines from the Attorney General and judicial branch would be in order so the committee could work their way through some of the difficulties with the bill. If one member of a body was talking to or reading a letter from a constituent, under the bill could that be considered precluded behavior? Mr. Myers stated that if “acquisition or exchange of facts” seemed redundant, perhaps language could be drafted similar to airport authority bylaws. That language stated governing board members could not gather facts on their own, but only receive information supplied to them by the airport authority staff.
Ms. Gibbons asked Mr. Myers to address the attorney/client privilege and how it would affect the issue. She wondered if a public body retreating outside the jurisdiction of the local government circumvented the open meeting law. Mr. Myers replied it was important for language to be specific, because once a law was enacted other people sometimes interpreted it differently than what the Legislature intended. There had been practices in the past where once the bill was enacted and left the building, other people interpreted it differently than the intent of the Legislature. There had been attempts in the past to place matters outside the open meeting law so some public bodies could talk about legal matters in private. The Supreme Court had ruled public bodies could get around the law by holding meetings in private with attorneys present, or where there were less than a quorum. He felt the issue of the attorney/client privilege was separate and could not be resolved with a statute. He had seen a bill of Senator O’Connell’s pass into law and then be nibbled away by interpretation. The law stated an agenda had to be specific so people knew what was being discussed at a meeting. The Attorney General’s office interpreted that to mean items could be listed by statute chapter number, and had issued an opinion to that effect. In a separate opinion involving a retreat at Donner Lake by a public body, if it was called something other than a meeting, it did not require a specific agenda and because it was called a retreat it did not fall under the open meeting law.
Mrs. Freeman requested one of the Deputy Attorney Generals to explain the briefly how the bill affected the open meeting law, a copy of which had been handed out to the committee (Exhibit F).
Norman Azevedo, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Office of Attorney General, apologized for only submitting the Open Meeting Law Manual to the committee but as he was in court the previous day he was not able to bring more detailed information. The Attorney General’s (AG) office had the jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute open meeting law violations. In calendar year 2000 his office investigated and prosecuted 60 alleged violations in approximately 50 cases. He had read the bill and if the committee had any questions he would respond.
Mr. Lee questioned the penalty phase of the bill regarding the $5,000 figure. Mr. Azevedo commented there was no authority in law for the AG to require monetary restitution. Currently there were three alternatives:
· Institute some type of criminal action,
· Appear in court seeking a request for a declaratory relief,
· A statement from the court that a violation had occurred and then the office would either void or enjoin the action.
Ms. Parnell wondered how other states handled the “less than a quorum situation.” Mr. Azevedo replied it varied from state to state. The language appearing in the bill seemed to be similar to that in Kentucky, but he was not sure and could research the issue, returning to the committee with the information. Under the existing state open meeting law two Supreme Court decisions were delineated and that was what was guiding his office.
Ms. Parnell asked if the U.S. Supreme Court ever had to make a ruling on what to do in the case of a “less than a quorum” open meeting issue. Mr. Azevedo did not recall, but would send her the information.
Mr. Brown questioned if there were any problems for the AG in prosecuting cases under current statutes. Mr. Azevedo said the investigation and prosecution of open meeting law complaints were challenging. The previous day he had been involved in a case about agenda topics, which fell under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 241.020, which required a clear and complete statement for agenda topics to be discussed at public meetings. They had been faced with first amendment challenges because interpreting the intent from tapes was difficult.
Mr. Neighbors asked if the AG was aware of a school board meeting in Las Vegas where two members of the seven member board were briefed on one day, three the next, and two the next, but because there was no polling it was determined not to be a violation of the open meeting law. Mr. Azevedo replied as far as changing the open meeting law it has been the AG’s policy to defer to the Legislature to determine the breadth and scope of the law. Under current statutes, Nevada was a quorum state and in order to find any violation it must be shown there was a quorum and polling took place, before a finding of a clear violation could be made.
Mrs. Freeman wondered how intent could be proven when it came to the serial meetings. Mr. Azevedo responded intent was the most difficult thing facing an attorney. Generally the proof came from obtaining facts subsequent to the event and then establishing who was the offending party. Usually when the office did investigations into open meeting law violations, trained investigators were used to obtain facts from all the effected parties.
Mrs. Freeman asked what members of the Legislature needed to do in order to make the language clearer and make it easier for the Supreme Court. Mr. Azevedo replied as far as changing the language to avoid cases going to the Supreme Court it was about as clear and complete as it could be made, it was the interpretation that became a problem. However, the more stringent a statute was the more helpful it would be to the AG’s office.
Mrs. Freeman felt it all depended on intent and perhaps there should be further clarification on that matter as it was difficult for the average citizen to try and determine what was meant when only an NRS was referenced on an agenda. Mr. Azevedo said his office would not approve an agenda topic only specifying an NRS statute without further commentary. He thought anything in statute that clarified any perceived abuses and defects would help in defining exact intent.
Mr. Neighbors queried the scenario where he was a city manager and needed to meet with the board on a very technical matter and met with one or two of them because of time constraints but no polling was done. He wondered if that was a violation under current law. Mr. Azevedo replied not under current law.
Ms. Parnell said perhaps it was more a question of laws already in effect not being enforced. Mr. Azevedo felt actions taken by a public body without going through the noticing requirements would be a viable violation. There was a definite difference between having a briefing and having a body take action.
Mr. Price interjected he would like to have the airport authority board appear before the committee and provide members with their bylaws, as it seemed there could be some contradiction between their bylaws and open meeting law requirements.
Chairman Bache indicated Mr. Sande with the Airport Authority of Washoe County was in the audience and perhaps he could provide the committee with the bylaws. Mr. Sande replied although his firm did not represent the airport authority when the bylaws were written, he would provide them to the committee. He had not seen any contradiction between the two documents.
Ms. Berman addressed the issue in the Nevada Open Meeting Law where the word “deliberate” was found and it seemed to have the same definition as in A.B. 225. It stated “the collective acquisition or exchange of facts,” and wondered if that was what was currently enforced. Mr. Sande replied that was the position of the Airport Authority and recently the AG forwarded an opinion incorporating a similar position.
Ms. Berman questioned the meaning of “collective acquisition of facts.” Mr. Sande responded the language came from a Sacramento, California, decision interpreting the California open meeting law.
Mike Pennington, Office of Attorney General, stated his office would assist with any future dialogue and the staff would be available to help.
Ms. Berman said she was still unclear on the “collective acquisition” portion of the bill and questioned if it was staff and lobbyists, lobbyists or legislators, and would like a precise answer. Mr. Sande replied in context of the bill it would be staff. His office represented public bodies dealing with incidents where staff presented facts to those respective boards and representatives and taxpayers presented facts to those board members.
Robert Barengo, Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority, stated as an attorney he represented many bodies that were subject to the open meeting law. He had also challenged bodies meeting outside the open meeting law. He was the chairman of the Nevada Dairy Commission, which was also subject to the open meeting law. Any group involved with the open meeting law was trying to do the right thing. He felt it was very difficult to prove intent, and when it was coupled with the right of any person to file a complaint it would subject a member of a board to a $5,000 fine. That would have a chilling effect on those citizens who wanted to serve on commissions and boards. He thought intent needed to be clarified so specific standards were set.
Mr. Humke asked if the fine for individual members represented a departure from current open meeting laws. If the bill passed was it possible that an individual member of a body could be fined? Mr. Barengo replied that was what it said, “a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 on a member of a public body.”
Mr. Humke wondered if this was the first time a penalty was levied against an individual member of a body. Mr. Barengo understood currently a member could be removed, but no monetary penalty could be levied.
Mr. Humke questioned if staff were at a meeting involving a member of a body and it was less than a quorum, perhaps staff should be subject to the penalty law as well. Mr. Barengo felt the penalty was severe for what may or may not be major violations. Mr. Humke agreed and felt for a civil penalty to be that severe was ludicrous.
Mr. Humke asked in Mr. Barengo’s open meeting law experience, would he venture an estimate of legal costs, both for public entities and private individuals when defending challenges to the open meeting laws. Mr. Barengo replied it was difficult to estimate, but as a rule of thumb, when attorneys walked through the courthouse door the cost was a minimum of $10,000.
Mrs. Freeman thanked Mr. Barengo for his input. What she had gleaned from testimony was too often elected people depended on staff. When a person was elected she wondered how training could be made available so they understood their responsibilities and liabilities when serving in public office.
Mr. Barengo responded he knew Madelyn Shipman, representing Washoe County, did all training for county boards and commissions, but there were other smaller jurisdictions that may not be able to do that. A lot of entities had their own attorneys but some of the smaller jurisdictions did not. In his own experience on the Dairy Commission, many times he consulted their lawyers to see if everything was properly noticed and if procedures were in compliance with the open meeting law.
Mrs. Freeman related she was not asking that an attorney be at every meeting, but somehow people in elected office needed to know what they were doing, so they were not at the mercy of their staff. Perhaps it could be addressed in language that each local government with boards and commissions could provide the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs in two years.
Richard Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson, told the committee most of his concerns had been addressed in previous testimony. One issue was the briefing of the city council at a public meeting. That could stretch meetings out for days. Sometimes there were reams of paper dealing with just one item. City staff was very conscientious about not violating the open meeting law, and with the offered amendments most of the city’s concerns were eliminated.
Mrs. Freeman stressed it was not the intent of the bill to cripple local governments in any way.
Mr. Mortenson wondered why briefings could not be held in open meetings, as there was a right to reserve all public comment to the end of the meetings. Many times a public body was advised of issues in a closed session as a quorum, and as long as there was no deliberation there was no open meeting law violation. The body then had a public meeting and immediately took action on the item with the public wondering how that conclusion was reached. He felt that led to an occlusive form of government. Mr. Wilkie said the city was concerned about the open meeting law and believed the intent of the bill was good. There were decisions made on information provided by others, but it was not only staff, it could be developers, concerned citizens, and so forth. In the city of Henderson the mayor and city council were concerned there be input from citizens and they took input during meetings rather than waiting until the end. If any information was requested on any item on the agenda, it was provided to any citizen requesting it.
Mrs. Freeman added she had just received a note from the AG’s office stating they did provide training to all elected officers, and there were also annual training seminars after legislative sessions.
Fred Hillerby, representing the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, thought Mr. Barengo’s amendments addressed his concerns. There were a lot of neighborhood meetings with advisory groups appointed to serve. When there was long-range planning for the transportation needs of Washoe County, staff usually attended those meetings. The $5,000 fine on those members who were appointed to serve on advisory groups would provide a very chilling effect.
Dan Musgrove, City of Las Vegas, testified most of the city’s concerns were covered in previous testimony. The bill focused on deliberation, and was meant to insure it took place in an open forum. Proposed amendments seemed to clarify the definition of deliberation. In the state of Nevada many part-time officials served in thankless jobs, and because of varied and complicated issues in government, no one individual could be expected to be an expert. Those members had to rely on others and the bill as previously written would have outlawed any ability to acquire information needed to reach conclusions.
Kimberly McDonald, City of North Las Vegas, voiced her support of the bill. Based on the proposed amendments by Mr. Barengo and comments by Assemblyman Brown, the amendments would not hamper local government.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified they were interested in open meeting law issues and were in support of the intent of the bill. There had to be guidelines differentiating between real serial meetings and other kinds of communications that were necessary. She would like to see requirements for specificity on agenda items “tightened up.” Their biggest concern was the wording of “acquisition of facts,” so if the committee saw fit they would like to have that changed. The concern was the ability of local officials to research and fully comprehend complicated matters. When she served on the Clark County school board it took her six months of serious research into their budget before she felt comfortable in acting on that budget and in the best interest of the citizens. She had worked with staff and other members of the board at the time investigating budget matters. Someone had mentioned staff could provide material in writing, but written material would never replace the interaction necessary to gain a full comprehension of the issues. Citizens meeting with elected officials could also fall under the law. If there was an organization, such as the PTA, meeting with an elected official it might make those meetings serial as well. In the matter of the $5,000 fine, she felt the chilling effect on elected and appointed officials was intense, especially on less wealthy candidates and there needed to be a cross section of citizen involvement in public service.
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Clark County Legislative Team, thanked Mrs. Freeman for identifying a problem and trying to find a solution. Her concern was how the bill might be interpreted by others, and could lead to unintended consequences. There were staff meetings sometimes with only one or two board members, but they were informational with no polling or deliberation. She added there was a total of 69 public bodies in Clark County and all provided training.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 225 and opened the meeting on A.B. 402.
Assembly Bill 402: Provides for family cemeteries and authorizes cemetery authorities to order disinterment and removal of human remains. (BDR 40-1192)
Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24, testified the bill was the result of an owner in her district who owned a small cemetery and she wanted Mr. Lawton to explain about the bill.
John Lawton, Sierra Memorial Gardens, Reno, Nevada, said there was a little cemetery called Hillside behind the University of Nevada. About thirty-one years ago an issue arose on how to clean and beautify the grounds. Nothing ever happened with the property. In 1985 a gentleman affiliated with the city, along with the mayor, drafted a bill that passed allowing the disinterment of Hillside Cemetery. After everything was settled Mr. Bill Thornton, an attorney, brought a lawsuit against the city and the city backed away from any disinterment. Mr. Thornton subsequently took possession of the cemetery from his clients, paid the taxes and then donated the cemetery to the University of Nevada. The University took possession of the cemetery but then decided they did not want to get involved. After negotiations, Mr. Lawton became involved in the project and cleaned up the area. He felt there needed to be language in the bill stating that it only pertained to Hillside Cemetery, as there was concern from other mortuaries in the state.
Mrs. Freeman asked Ms. O’Grady to define the meaning of “cemetery authority” as used in the bill. Ms. O’Grady replied Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 451.069 defined “cemetery authority” as “any natural person, partnership, association, corporation, or public entity including the University and Community College System, or any cemetery district owning or leasing the land or other property of a cemetery or operating a cemetery as a business in the state.”
Mrs. Freeman questioned if it was possible to name a specific cemetery in statute. Ms. O’Grady stated the original legislation was a special act and not part of NRS.
Mr. Lawton interjected he wanted the bill tied only to Hillside Cemetery, as he did not want to cause any confusion with other cemeteries in the state.
Ken Knauss, Secretary/Treasurer of the Nevada Cemetery Association, and President of Palm Mortuaries, assumed the bill was directed at rural burials in small communities and had no problem with that stipulation. However, the way the law was presently written anyone could bury someone in a front yard. He felt the intent should be clarified
Ned Phillips, Vice President of Palm Mortuaries, presently serving on the State Board of Funeral Directors, concurred with Mr. Knauss. As written, the interpretation was open ended and unintended consequences could occur. The state board had jurisdiction over cemetery licensing and annual inspections, and he was not sure if it affected the state board’s authority in their purview over cemeteries. There were cases where family members were buried on ranches with the approval of the health department and he wanted that included if the bill were passed. The health department should be involved because of possible contamination to ground water, communicable diseases, and depths of graves. Another concern was if a family member was buried on their private property and when the property was sold or abandoned, who was responsible for maintaining or disinterring that plot.
Wayne Reynolds, President of the Nevada Cemetery Association and President of Mountain View Cemetery Corporation, asked that the bill be redefined because the family cemetery could be a problem. He requested it be clearly defined the bill only applied to the Hillside Cemetery.
Chairman Bache recessed the meeting at 10:30 a.m., until adjournment of the floor session at which time they would finish testimony on A.B. 402 and take the other bills.
Chairman Bache called the meeting back to order at 11:30 a.m. and announced they would continue with testimony on A.B. 402.
Assemblyman John Marvel, Assembly District 34, stated he was sponsoring the bill on behalf of a family named Stewart in Paradise Valley, north of Winnemucca, who wanted to have a family cemetery on their ranch. The ranch had been in the family since the 1860s and they had brought in a registered engineer who surveyed the proposed site, which amounted to 1.28 acres. The only portion of the bill he was concerned with was the first and perhaps a legal description of the Stewart property could be amended into the bill. He felt it would be a tribute to the family, because they were a pioneer family that helped settle the area.
Sharon Shaffer, Chairman, State Funeral Board, testified the problem was not with the content of the bill for a family, but there were no parameters. If the bill designated that it only applied to rural counties, she suggested a stipulation be made where they had to apply to the local governments for permits. She realized the bill was brought forth for the Stewart family, but it was written in such a way it opened the door to anyone, and there was no designation of plot size.
Mr. Lee questioned Mr. Marvel regarding the meaning of immediate family. Mr. Marvel responded if there were a “consanguinity relationship,” it would be called a family.
Chairman Bache interrupted the testimony for introduction of a Bill Draft Request (BDR).
· BDR R-1502 – Urges certain governmental agencies to post agendas of their public meetings on Internet (A.C.R. 16).
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR R-1502.
MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Brown asked Ms. Schaffer if she knew the average cost of a burial plot. Ms. Schaffer replied every funeral establishment must supply a price list, but that varied. Fees ranged from $375 to whatever a person wanted to spend.
Mr. Brown told Mr. Marvel he did not have a problem with the Stewart’s request, but he did not want to see a situation where every legislative session someone came forward requesting a family member be buried on their property. He felt the way the bill was written, it was too vague and could conceivably become a problem where small lots were involved. Ms. Schaffer remarked perhaps some parameters could be placed in the bill and added that cremation was becoming more widely used because it saved costs involved in burials.
Mr. Marvel stated the Stewart family wanted their cemetery for sentimental reasons and cost was not a factor. He had no problem if the committee members wanted to put a legal description in the bill tying it directly to the Stewart family.
Mr. Bache questioned in which county the ranch was located. Mr. Marvel replied Humboldt County. Mr. Bache thought perhaps a population clause could be placed in the bill so only rural counties could be considered, and also language stating application for a permit must be made to the county. Mr. Marvel said he would have no problem with that provision, as he did not want sporadic building of family cemeteries.
Mr. Bache remarked he would be happy to meet with Ms. Schaffer, Mr. Marvel and the mortuary people to try and resolve those concerns coming up with a workable solution for all those involved.
Mr. Mortenson felt the bill was a good idea. Ranching family burials were carried out all the time and wondered why the Stewart family was having a problem. Ms. Shaffer responded there was no problem in the rural areas. One board member, who had a mortuary in Elko as well as a cemetery, was often asked to bury family members on ranches. The mortuary owner tried to talk people out of doing that because if the property were ever sold, there would be no one to take care of the loved one’s grave. She felt if a population cap were specified in the language, it would solve the problem.
Mrs. Freeman asked if there were problems with the second part of the bill as that was the part of the bill she and Mr. Lawton had worked on. Ms. Schaffer understood Mr. Reynolds had a problem with that part of the bill, but she personally did not know about his specific concerns.
Mr. Marvel stated he would leave the document regarding the Stewart Family Cemetery and it could be made part of the record (Exhibit G).
Mr. Bache interjected Ms. O’Grady had indicated there was an act regarding the second part of the bill, so perhaps language could address that issue so the bill was not amending the NRS generally.
Ms. Schaffer asked to be notified when meetings were held on any language changes so she could be in attendance and help with requested changes.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on AB 402 and opened the hearing on AB 385.
Assembly Bill 385: Revises provisions governing county property and local improvements. (BDR 20-175)
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Clark County, introduced Marty Manning, Clark County Public Works Director, and testified that if the bill were to pass it would allow counties to efficiently use public right-of-ways, particularly in areas of surplus property and maintenance of under- and overpass projects. She asked Mr. Manning to explain elements of the bill.
Marty Manning, Public Works Director, stated they were trying to make some corrections in the existing statute limiting a county’s ability to manage public right-of-ways, address disposal and exchange of surplus property, and maintenance of under- and overpass projects. In Clark County pedestrian overpasses had become a big issue. Language in section 1 would give the ability to add new roads and public facilities. Currently NRS authorized the purchase, exchange, or sale of surplus property for existing streets. They were requesting the ability to expand the ability to exchange existing roads, new roads, and the expansion of arterial roadways. The second part of the bill dealt with surplus property. Under current statutes any surplus property that was acquired for public purposes had to be offered first to the original owner. With proposed changes, reasonable response periods would be established for the owner to advise the county if they wanted to acquire the property. The last part of the bill governed maintenance and security of over- and underpasses. On the Las Vegas strip there were several overpass projects, which were generally transportation projects. They provided safe passage for pedestrians out of traffic, which also improved traffic flow, as no pedestrian lighting cycle was required at intersections. If they were designated as a transportation project then they could be included under a special improvement district for maintenance and operation purposes. There could be an impact at a later date to the county as Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) was considering turning all urban state roads back to the county for maintenance purposes.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the bill was specifically designed only for Clark County or if it might impact Washoe County. Mr. Manning felt it could be a tool for other counties, as it focused on all right-of-way acquisitions occasionally done by the county.
Ms. Parnell requested a definition of a “public facility.” Mr. Manning replied it included not only road and road type facilities, but also community centers and features along those lines.
Ms. Parnell questioned the definition because current language referred to “realigning or changing” something previously established. She thought the new language in “establish and realign” was a dramatic change. She added the 30-day period seemed a little limiting for notification.
Mr. Neighbors wondered if county commissioners had held public meetings, and if so, the public’s response. Mr. Manning responded commission meetings were held on all proposed legislation. Ms. Wilson-Pappa interjected their bill draft package went before the Board of County Commissioners and was an agenda item and the proposed bill did not receive any negative public comment.
Chairman Bache asked for clarification in the first section on “establish and align.” Mr. Manning said Clark County was building a beltway 53 miles long and extending the arterial systems connecting that beltway. The beltway was situated in an area of expansive growth, so not all proposed infrastructure was in place. There were constant challenges in road system development and language in the bill would help achieve that objective.
Chairman Bache pointed out he had a problem with a 30-day notice, especially in a case where someone acquired property through eminent domain. He felt the language needed clarification, and a 90-day notice would be preferable. Mr. Manning stated that would be acceptable.
Chairman Bache said he did not want a situation in the county such as the one experienced with the Freemont Street experience. If the county acquired property by eminent domain and there was a dispute in court and then the decision was not to use the property, that type of a situation could become very complex. Ms. O’Grady did not know the exact procedure but she would check into the issue.
Mrs. Freeman noted there were comments the Governor was planning to transfer some state roads to the county. Chairman Bache said he had a bill in a subcommittee in Assembly Transportation transferring a number of urban state roads to the county. The city of Las Vegas also had a bill to transfer urban city roads to the city. Much of the language in AB 385 dealt with underpasses in areas NDOT did not maintain. The state did not install sidewalks or various pedestrian walkways along state roads.
Mr. Brown asked in Section 3, paragraph 2, regarding the provision “re-conveying land” pursuant to “first right of refusal,” what constituted a grant. He also wondered about incorporating overpass language, “provide security for.” Mr. Manning replied a grant was essentially notice by contact through official mail or other means. One feature of overpass design was a concern for pedestrian security and safety. Many strip overpasses had security cameras as well as arrangements with Metro Bicycle Patrol enabling them to assist anyone on those bridges needing help.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 385 and opened the hearing on A.B. 381.
Assembly Bill 381: Makes various changes regarding cities and towns. (BDR 21-67)
Chairman Bache handed the gavel to Vice Chairman Lee, so he could testify on the bill.
Assemblyman Bache, Assembly District 11, testified the original intent was to create a new entity called an Incorporated Town. It would fall somewhere between the definition of a city and an unincorporated town. After numerous meetings with the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) it became apparent it would turn into a 6-inch thick bill because of all the changes that would have to be made in NRS. Due to the time constraints of the 120-day session, he had requested an interim committee study, with the resulting legislation going to a subcommittee on Elections and Procedures. The subcommittee would consist of six legislators, two members appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate from the membership of the Senate Standing Committee on Government Affairs, one member appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate from the membership of the Senate Standing Committee on Taxation, two members appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly from the membership of the Assembly Standing Committee on Government Affairs, and one member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly from the membership of the Assembly Standing Committee on Taxation. The committee would “study issues and determine appropriate procedures for the incorporation of, and governmental structure of incorporated towns, identify and analyze the appropriate mandatory and optional powers that the governing body of an incorporated town may exercise; and consider the consolidation of any taxing district that may overlap with the boundaries of an incorporated town.” It would be a different type of interim subcommittee, because testimony would be taken and a bill would be proposed. The first part of the bill was under the jurisdiction of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and there would be some amendments offered by Ms. O’Grady because there was a state annual census, while language in Section 1 indicated it was determined by the “last federal decennial census.” It would designate cities of 50,000 or more inhabitants as first class, eliminating any third-class references.
Thomas Grady, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, stated the interim committee was something his group had planned on doing because NRS 266, the general law for incorporation, needed revision. He felt language based on population and assessed valuation was a better way of designating cities and towns. An example was incorporation of Fernley as a city. They were right at a 9,000 population level, having one of the highest assessed valuation of any small city and higher than nine counties. There had to be a look at intent when incorporating an area. At the present time he did not know of any other city contemplating incorporation so there was plenty of time during the interim to fix a lot of issues. Another issue was “ward election designation” as many cities and counties had elections “at large” rather than by ward. He would like to be a part of any technical committee established during the interim and act as an advisor.
Carol Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke in support of the majority of the bill and felt an interim committee study was a good way to bring the state into the twenty-second century. The state had grown so much that an intermediary form of government was needed. One thing needed was a residential assessed valuation for each city rather than a designation of inhabitants. There might be a situation where a city met citizen requirements but there was no equitable tax base. She felt there could be situations where cities had 2,000 people but 60 percent of the assessed valuation was commercial who needed less services. There was a present situation with the city of Gabbs. They were looking at dis-incorporation because they could no longer afford to be a city. In the town’s heyday there were over 1,100 residents with mining making up its tax base, the recent census put the residents at 311 with literally no commercial assessed valuation, but there was such pride residents did not want to dis-incorporate. If there was another form of government Gabbs could be dropped down a few levels while still remaining a city. She felt it was time for an intermediate vehicle for towns and all services would be provided. Another example was Pahrump where they wanted to become a city, but perhaps because of the area an incorporated town would be a better solution.
Chairman Bache thought another subsection needing attention was descriptions of cities in a more general way and he would work with Mr. Grady on proposed amendments. He had considered some sort of sliding scale formula when dealing with the assessed valuation rather than population. A good example was the Gardnerville Ranchos, where ten to twelve thousand people resided. Outside the assessed valuation of homes, business communities were almost nonexistent. Although they did not have the necessary criteria to become a city it would be appropriate for them to become an incorporated town, as would others including Incline Village and Pahrump.
Mr. Neighbors stated Gabbs was a good example because they not only lost population but also lost their valuation. They were turned over to the Department of Taxation because they could not meet their bills and that might be another amendment to be considered under the bill, because it had occurred more than once. Two years ago the county commissioners came to him and talked about dis-incorporating because of a drop in population. In the case of Pahrump it was a “town board” form of government and had turned down becoming a city on two or three different occasions, but they might be interested in becoming an incorporated town.
Chairman Bache replied the interim study committee included two members from the Taxation committees from each house and two from Government Affairs to assure money issues were handled appropriately when creating incorporated and unincorporated towns.
Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing on A.B. 381 and returned the gavel to Chairman Bache.
Chairman Bache added he would work with Mr. Grady and Ms. Vilardo on proposed amendments, then the bill would be sent to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures, which was the committee that decided what items became interim studies.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:44 p.m.
____________________________
Virginia Letts
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: