ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

March 30, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Friday, March 30, 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman John Oceguera, Assembly District No. 16

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Dario Herrera, Commissioner, Clark County

Jim Bandy, Citizen, Las Vegas

John Barniske, Citizen, Las Vegas

Keen Stacy, Citizen, Las Vegas

Jack Wallace, Citizen, Las Vegas

Linda Thiriot, Citizen, Las Vegas

Harriett Evans, Citizen, Las Vegas

Melody Reinhardt, Citizen, Las Vegas

Susan Poole, Citizen, Las Vegas

Roland Lachance, Citizen, Las Vegas

Rayola Strong, Citizen, Las Vegas

Kevin Sully, Citizen, Las Vegas

Jean Nicholetch, Citizen, Las Vegas

Stephanie Garcia, Lobbyist, city of Henderson

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, city of Las Vegas

Ben Blinn, Citizen, Washoe County

Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada’s Employee Association

Assembly Bill 395: Revises provisions governing authority of city or county to control location of certain residential facilities. (BDR 22-1118)

Assemblyman John Oceguera, Assembly District 16, introduced A.B. 395. S.B. 161 of the Seventieth Session and S.B. 391 of the Seventieth Session required Nevada to certify halfway houses and required local review of residential establishments within 660 feet of each other in Clark and Washoe County. “Residential establishment” meant “a home for individual residential care or residential facility or group.” S.B. 191 of the Seventieth Session authorized spacing requirements for group homes but did not apply to halfway houses. Certain Clark County neighborhoods had experienced problems with halfway houses that included noise, traffic, parking, maintenance, impacts on property values and safety concerns. The Clark County Hazelcrest neighborhood had several halfway houses and more were planned.

A.B. 395 incorporated the definition of halfway houses into NRS 278.021, Section 1, subsection 2. City or county ordinances would include halfway homes for alcohol or drug abusers and would provide the halfway home shall not be deemed a home that is operated on a commercial basis for any purpose that related to building codes or zoning and required the health division to include halfway houses in the registry information. Clark and Washoe Counties, and cities in those counties, would approve any application submitted on or after July 1, 2000, to operate group homes or halfway houses within a particular neighborhood. All homes were required to be 1500 feet apart and would be reviewed by city or county applicable zoning ordinances. The city or county would issue special use permits to group or halfway homes that met local, public health and safety standards. The bill was a balance between the needs of people living in a group home setting and the neighborhoods where the facilities were located.

Mrs. Freeman questioned if the major focus of the bill was the distance between the group homes or the concept of them going into existing neighborhoods.

Mr. Oceguera replied the bill had two major focuses. The first incorporated the definition of halfway houses into the statute and the second increased the distance between homes to avoid clustering within the neighborhood.

Mrs. Freeman supported the bill because of similar problems in her district around the University of Nevada at Reno (UNR).

Mr. Mortenson wondered what registering the homes entailed. Mr. Oceguera responded S. B.161 of the Seventieth Session required the local governments to inspect the homes and A.B. 395 allowed the state to monitor distances between them.

Clark County Commissioner Dario Herrera felt the regulations of the 1999 legislative session did not reflect the strength of the measures themselves. There were no penalties to halfway homes for failing to become state certified and the county was frustrated because they were limited by NRS and the Federal Fair Housing Act. Halfway homes provided a necessary service to the community, but problems arose when there was clustering of those homes. Advocates of group homes suggested they go into residential areas because of the need to reintegrate people into a setting that was similar to the community. Too many group homes in a residential area affected the character of the area. Group homes were commercial enterprises with a higher density than the average home. They caused specific traffic, nuisance and safety concerns. Some halfway homes in the Hazelcrest neighborhood were less than one-quarter mile away from Woodbury Middle School. The counties required a special use permit for halfway homes and had increased penalties for group homes without business licenses. He supported A.B. 395 and hoped the legislation would give the county the discretion they needed to deal with the issues locally.

Mrs. Freeman questioned whether the bill addressed cities or counties. Commissioner Herrera replied the county had enacted an ordinance that required a special use permit for group homes located within 650 feet of one another. The ordinance did not regulate halfway homes.

Ms. Smith questioned why group homes congregated in certain areas. Mr. Oceguera responded the Hazelcrest neighborhood was a mature neighborhood and homes were easy to buy.

Commissioner Herrera said it was an issue of convenience. Owners of group homes wanted their homes in close proximity of one another to limit costs. The Federal Fair Housing Act addressed the need to integrate residents of those homes into residential communities, but too many homes threatened the neighborhood.

Chairman Bache commented the 1995, 1997 and 1999 legislative sessions had strong opposition to group home spacing. He was looking forward to passing A.B. 395 because clustered group homes had caused problems in his Assembly District.

Commissioner Herrera asked Chairman Bache to have the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) outline the regulatory process and address what regulations had been adopted. The lack of adopted regulations had caused the counties problems. He would appreciate a report from LCB that outlined what the county could and could not do.

Chairman Bache said he would find out why those regulations had not been adopted.

Mrs. Freeman stated UNR had a potential problem in September 2000 because a nearby group home housed paroled sexual offenders. She asked Mr. Herrera if there had been problems with inappropriate use of group homes in Clark County.

Commission Herrera responded they did not. Their problems consisted of clustering of homes in the heart of residential areas that were in close proximity to schools. He felt the county needed to have the authority to regulate those homes more closely before problems arose.

Jim Bandy, citizen, Las Vegas, stated he supported the bill. He favored halfway homes that were not clustered together. His neighborhood had three group homes and the owner had petitioned for more. Auto and foot traffic had increased in the neighborhood. One group home was 1500 feet from Woodbury Middle School. He wanted to preserve the integrity of his neighborhood and wanted to halt the clustering of group homes.

Chairman Bache said the 650-foot standard had been initiated in the 1999 legislative session.

Ms. Von Tobel remarked federal housing had precedent over state and county legislation. She would like to have clarification on what federal laws were in place concerning the issue.

John Barniske, citizen, Las Vegas, stated his subdivision had four Alzheimer’s group homes and one county licensed home for the elderly. In November 2000 the county licensed three halfway homes that were 650 feet from existing group homes. Two more alcohol and drug abuse program homes were trying to come into the neighborhood. Five other states separated their group homes by 2500 feet. Owners of halfway homes in other states said clustering was not beneficial to clients who needed to be integrated back into the community. A concentration of group homes in one area allowed the inhabitants to congregate together. His subdivision had 525 homes and additional halfway homes would institutionalize the neighborhood.

Ms. Smith questioned how far apart 2500 feet was in relation to the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Barniske responded 2500 feet was approximately the length of the neighborhood or from Flamingo Road to Harmon area.

Ms. Smith asked if they had a homeowner association. Mr. Barniske replied, “No.” The homeowners had banded together to address neighborhood problems. They currently had Covenant, Condition and Restrictions (CC&Rs), that limited businesses in the neighborhood, but no one enforced it.

Ms. Smith commented clustering was happening because neighborhoods with a homeowner association would not allow group homes.

Chairman Bache questioned whether the other states’ distance requirement was specific to halfway houses or group homes. Mr. Barniske responded it affected both types of homes in the states of Michigan, Florida, North Dakota, Georgia, and Maine.

Keen Stacy, citizen, Las Vegas, stated their neighborhood had experienced problems for the last 18 months. He felt the owner of the homes did not abide by licensing regulations.

Jack Wallace, citizen, Las Vegas, had owned his home for 16 years and had renovated his home and property. Recently, beer bottles had been found on his and his next-door neighbor’s lawn.

Linda Thiriot, citizen, Las Vegas, would like to see the home distance increased to 2500 feet. She was concerned about safety in the neighborhood and the increased presence of strangers in her neighborhood. She wanted to help others, but felt her neighborhood should not solve the community’s problems.

Harriett Evans, citizen, Las Vegas, stated she had no problem with the people who lived in the halfway homes but with the owner who had imposed on the neighborhood. She hoped A.B. 395 provided the community with necessary licensing regulations and distances between homes. She felt the homes should be shared in many communities. Their neighborhood was fast becoming a rent district. Home ownership was the mortar and glue that held their neighborhood together and they opposed the clustering of group homes. Licensing would monitor the homes without discrimination.

Mrs. Freeman questioned if the homes in the neighborhood were owned or rented. Ms. Evans replied nine of the group homes were owned by a family of three individuals. The owners were not philanthropic and were in business for profit.

Ms. Von Tobel commented the population in Las Vegas had a high turnover and her neighborhood had many new homeowners she did not know. She became offended when neighbors objected to her selling her home to a Hispanic family. Federal laws allowed people to move wherever they wanted.

Ms. Evans explained she had no “evaluation” against the people in the group homes. She was concerned over the clustering of group homes. She was a real estate broker and had to disclose those homes to any one purchasing a home in her neighborhood.

Ms. Von Tobel said she would check the statutes but felt homeowners only had to disclose what was relevant to their own property. She felt cars parked in accordance with neighborhood codes would not pose a problem.

Ms. Evans responded the major issue was having a business atmosphere in the neighborhood. The present laws did not give the homeowners any recourse.

Mr. Williams stated he could not follow what the real issues of the bill were. The group home in his neighborhood had the best looking landscape and far fewer alcohol parties and fights than the previous owner had. He felt the bill was a good one but was a little unsure as to what the issues were. He felt it would help the committee if they could focus on the real issues of the bill.

Ms. Evans felt group homes were transient because the residents were required to be there a minimum of ninety days. She felt home ownership was a key factor in the character of the neighborhood.

Melody Reinhardt, citizen, Las Vegas, questioned subsection 4, line 28 where residential facilities did not have to relocate until after the bill was in effect. Federal law stated inhabitants of a group home needed to be placed elsewhere until the home was licensed. She had been involved with the issue for the past three years and did not discriminate against the inhabitants. She was concerned about clustering of two or three homes on one block.

Susan Poole, citizen, Las Vegas, lived in the neighborhood for ten years and felt the neighborhood was becoming institutionalized. Four Alzheimer’s homes in the neighborhood were enough. She questioned the statistics on the effectiveness of integrating group home residents because recovery rates were dismal. Currently eight to ten people lived in 1200 to 1800 square foot homes and she felt there was no dignity for the residents. The residents of the homes paid $100 per week and were being exploited. The influx of group homes exploited people in need.

Mr. Brown responded his childhood home was small and housed ten people and they never felt like they did not have dignity. He felt dignity was a matter of the heart and how you approached things. Residents of group homes needed help and were probably appreciative of having a place to stay. Not everyone would succeed in recovery, but it was important to try.

Ms. Poole stated her issue was the group homeowner who exploited the residents. The clustering problem was compounded by the amount of adults in each home.

Mr. Oceguera reiterated A.B. 395 did three things. It added “halfway house” to the statute definition to prohibit clustering. It required the health division to include “halfway house” in their registry of information and it increased the distance between homes to 1500 feet. The Legislative Counsel Bureau had stated 1500 feet was in compliance with federal regulations.

Roland Lachance, citizen, Las Vegas, stated his concern was the clustering and wanted 1500 to 2500 feet between group homes.

Rayola Strong, citizen, Las Vegas, had lived in her home for 30 years and was unable to walk the neighborhood because of safety issues. The quality of life had gone down and bottles were on her lawn many mornings. She did not have street parking anymore because of increased traffic. She felt 1500 feet between homes was better than 650 feet.

Kevin Sully, citizen, Las Vegas, stated in 1998 the real estate board passed a disclosure statement that required a resident to disclose any problems or halfway homes that existed in the neighborhood, pending lawsuit from the new owner. Some residents of group homes did not own vehicles and needed transportation to and from work. Most residents transferred out of the neighborhood after nine to ten weeks and that concerned him.

Jean Nicholetch, citizen, Las Vegas, stated elderly residents in the neighborhood were having their freedoms taken away from them because they did not feel safe in their own neighborhood. The neighborhood was a single-family residence and group home businesses had been overlooked by regulations. One person was taking advantage of the system and homeowners because she had found a loophole in the law.

Mr. Humke commented to the witnesses in Las Vegas their testimony was heart felt and every committee member believed in property rights and felt a person’s home was his castle. He cautioned them that although the situation seemed personal to them, the Legislature was not allowed to do personal legislation. A.B. 395 referred to existing statute that stated homes must be 650 feet apart in counties with a population over 100,000. Mr. Oceguera had cited case law and the bill had been drafted in compliance with federal laws and The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Legislature would try and pass laws that were constitutional and he advised the witnesses to make their comments accordingly.

Mr. Stacy stated the audience in Las Vegas supported A.B. 395 and would help in anyway they could.

Ms. Smith reminded the Las Vegas audience that Mr. Oceguera had brought the bill forward and was their representative.

Stephanie Garcia, lobbyist, city of Henderson, supported A.B. 395 and wanted clarification so the local level would have authority to enforce regulations. The bill did not specify how the halfway house was evaluated. She proposed an amendment (Exhibit C) that allowed local zoning and land use regulations to be applied to halfway houses for alcohol and drug abusers. The amendment added “recovering” to alcohol and drug abusers. The change clarified halfway house residents as “recovering” addicts and not abusers.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned how Henderson dealt with halfway homes and how the proposed language affected them.

Ms. Garcia responded Henderson treated them as single-family residences pursuant to federal regulations. Current state law required nonprofit homes to register with the state and for-profit homes were supposed to be licensed. The proposed amendment would require all homes to be licensed and adhere to local zoning and land use requirements.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned what type of license would be issued. Ms. Garcia replied the license would be a combination of special use and business license. A.B. 395 worked in concert with S.B. 319, which required the licensing of group homes. The proposed amendment gave the city regulatory authority to license halfway houses and enforce distance requirements. Any home that exceeded occupancy of eight people would need a special use permit that monitored parking and other local requirements.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned if a special use permit was needed if the occupancy did not exceed eight people. Ms. Garcia replied affirmatively.

Mr. Brown questioned if the proposed amendments had been discussed with Mr. Oceguera. Ms. Garcia replied Mr. Oceguera had approved them.

Dan Musgrove, lobbyist, city of Las Vegas, supported A.B. 395 and the proposed amendments.

Ben Blinn, citizen, Washoe County, had helped with a seven-bedroom house conversion for mothers and children in recovery and appreciated the committee’s attitude toward calling the residents “recovering” versus “abusers” and supported the bill.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 395 and commented the 1999 legislative session was the first time spacing requirement was allowed in statute and they would process the bill as soon as they could. Chairman Bache opened the hearing A.B. 475.

Assembly Bill 475: Establishes account for payment of certain benefits to state employees. (BDR 23-1202)

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, stated A.B. 475 would create a state employee benefit account that reimbursed employees for parking or licenses that were required to perform employment duties. The bill created an account of $250 annually for each employee. The employee could use the account for job-site parking, required licenses or optional insurance and could not be withdrawn in cash. If the employee used the account and quit the state before the end of the year, a pro-rated payback was in the bill. The bill had been requested by the State of Nevada’s Employee Association.

Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada’s Employee Association, stated all previous legislation to reimburse employees had not passed. The Fundamental Review of State Government Personnel Subcommittee had recommended the employee benefit account. The proposed amendment (Exhibit D) would limit eligibility to full-time employees. The employee could not take the benefit in cash because of income tax consequences. Many state employees had licensing requirements imposed on them after they started state employment. Some groups affected were social workers, psychologists and those with commercial drivers licenses. A.B. 475 would set up direct payments for parking, licenses or types of optional insurance that was covered under NRS 287. The payback provision covered employees who left state service in the middle of the year. The state universities and the parole and probation office in Las Vegas required employees to pay for parking. The Personnel Department report reflected a $5 million fiscal impact. He explained the $250 figure was an arbitrary figure. University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) parking ranged from $120 to $265 and University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) was $120 to $250 annually. Employees were required to fund parking garage construction. Any unused money would revert back to the General Fund.

Mrs. Freeman was concerned the fees were funding parking garages and wanted to hear from a UNR representative. Mr. Gagnier said the Universities should respond to Mrs. Freeman’s question.

Ms. Von Tobel stated she would like to hear from the University and felt it was ridiculous for university employees to pay for parking. The University should ask for additional budget funding to cover costs. She felt it was appropriate to reimburse employees in Las Vegas for their parking fees.

Mr. Humke disclosed he worked for UNR part time and would be affected by the bill if passed. He questioned equitable treatment for state employees because some professional license costs were already covered.

Mr. Gagnier replied he did not know if the Attorney General’s Office paid for any bar fees or not.

Mr. Humke remembered a previous session that approved the payment of bar dues to the State Bar or a set amount for continuing legal education. If this had happened the fairness issue would need to be resolved before the bill moved forward. Mr. Gagnier responded the bill treated everyone fairly regarding parking or licensure.

Mr. Neighbors said he would check with the Attorney General’s Office. Attorneys, social workers, psychologist, and psychiatrist had to pay license and certification fees.

Mr. Mortenson questioned if university students and employees paid the same parking fees. Mr. Gagnier responded he was unsure whether it was the same rate. Mr. Mortenson felt the bill should be expanded to cover the students.

Mr. Gagnier explained previous legislation had tried to do away with university parking but the University Board of Regents felt no one should tell them what to do.

Ms. Von Tobel stated student parking fees that went towards additional parking structures were not a problem. University buildings had taken away parking areas. She felt employees paid the largest amount of parking fees. The Legislature had budgetary power over the Universities and could demand the parking fees be included in their budget.

Mr. Neighbors reminded the committee the bill would be referred to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.

Ms. Smith commented the bill was a fair way to address an issue that concerned her constituents.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 475 and opened the hearing on A.B. 650.

Assembly Bill 650: Makes changes to population basis for exercise of certain powers by local governments. (BDR 20-1074)

Scott Wasserman, Chief Deputy, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), stated A.B. 650 was requested by the Legislative Commission as a vehicle to consider various population classifications in NRS for the exercise of certain powers of local government. Many statutes limited local government’s powers to certain counties or cities based upon their population. The bills July 1, 2001, date referenced the 2000 census population figures. Charts number 1 and 2 (Exhibit E) reflected population figures for counties. Because Clark and Washoe County did not change population breaks their sections of NRS were not included in A.B. 650. The new population breaks included the same counties from the 1990 census.

Charts number 3 and 4 (Exhibit E) reflected changes to Nevada cities. Henderson was now grouped with Reno. Mesquite, which had been the fifteenth largest city in the 1990 census, was now ninth. The new city of West Wendover was grouped with Ely. A.B. 650 maintained the status quo from 1990 to 2000.

Ms. Smith questioned why the “population cap” for county engineer appointments decreased. Mr. Wasserman explained it was adjusted to maintain the exclusion of Lincoln, Storey, Eureka and Esmeralda Counties. Pershing County had moved out of the category because of increased population.

Ms. Von Tobel stated residents of Mesquite were disputing census figures and she questioned how changed figures would affect the bill.

Mr. Wasserman said the bill would reflect any change in official census bureau data. Previous court proceedings reflected the Census Bureau rarely changed their data.

Mr. Humke questioned if there were constitutional prohibitions with using population cut-offs in the bill.

Mr. Wasserman said there could not be special legislation prohibiting counties from moving into another category. The categories in the bill had grouped cities by size and had determined what cities could exercise certain powers. Those categories allowed counties or cities to grow into other categories.

Chairman Bache explained other bills that addressed a specific population clause would supercede A.B. 650. Mr. Wasserman said existing languages that used population figures were not changed because the bill would take care of them. Any new bill drafted would use the 2000 census population figures.

Mr. Mortenson asked if population guidelines could be “less than” and “more than.”

Mr. Wasserman stated it would be legal because it allowed counties to increase or decrease in size and become part of different categories. The language could not specifically exclude any county from growing into a population category.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing A.B. 650 and opened the hearing on A.C.R. 16.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 16: Urges certain governmental agencies to post agendas of their public meetings on Internet. (BDR R-1502)

Assemblyman Lee offered A.C.R. 16 from subcommittee and explained it was important to have cities, towns and counties realize the Legislature was serious about them moving into the technology age. A change was proposed to line 26 changing the December 1, 2002, date to “the first day of the 2003 session.”

Mr. Humke felt the original date was okay because it had the report to the Legislative Counsel Bureau approximately two months before session.

Mr. Lee explained testimony in the previous committee hearing wanted to have the report ready on the first day of the next session.

Mr. Humke stated the speed of rapid technology was apparent and he withdrew his concern.

Ms. Parnell stated that she had complete confidence that the counties would go on line as soon as they were able. She felt this did not need to be dictated to local governments.

Ms. Smith agreed the counties would do what was necessary when they could and did not want to be creating bills just to be creating them.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.C.R. 16. He read Assemblyman Goldwater’s memo regarding A.B. 326:

I have been informed that Government Affairs Committee has amended A.B. 326 with an amendment that includes disclosure of state officials that lobby the Legislature. I have attached a copy of NRS 218.912 that excludes state officials from the definition of lobbyist. Because of this exclusion I believe the amendment is unnecessary. Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Respectfully,

David Goldwater

Chairman Bache said there were not enough people in committee to deal with the reconsideration of the amendment. The key part of NRS 218.912 subsection 2 stated:

“Lobbyist” does not include:

(a) Persons who confine their activities to formal appearances before legislative committees and who clearly identify themselves in the interest or interests for whom they are testifying.

(b) Employees of a bona fide news medium who meet the definition of “lobbyists” only in the course of their professional duties and who contact members of the legislature for the sole purpose of carrying out their news gathering functions.

(c) Employees of departments, divisions, or agencies of the state government who appear before the legislative committee only to explain the effect of legislation related to their departments, divisions, or agencies.

(d) Employees of the legislature, legislators, legislative agencies or legislative commissions.

(e) Elected officers of this state and its political subdivisions who confine their lobbying activity to issues directly related to the scope of the office to which they were elected.

(f) Persons who contact the members of the legislature who are elected from the district in which they reside.

He felt Assemblyman Goldwater was correct and lobbyist reporting was already clearly defined in statute.

Mr. Humke stated the intent of the amendment did not affect elected officials that were listed in NRS 218.912. Two classes of lobbyists were being set up; those who lobbied for local government and those who lobbied for state government and it was not fair. He felt the definition could be amended as part of the committee’s amendment.

Ms. Von Tobel felt if the statutes were followed, the university system should not pay people separately to testify on budgets and bills. They obviously lobbied for certain areas of concern. The school district lobbyists should not be treated differently than hired lobbyists.

Chairman Bache said he would bring the issue before the full committee and have Assemblyman Goldwater address the issue.

Seeing no further discussion the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: