MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
April 6, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Friday, April 6, 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
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Mr. Bob Price
Mrs. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. Wendell Williams
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman David Parks, District 41
Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, District 13
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association
John Gwaltney, Washoe Vista Homeowners Association
Maddy Shipman, Washoe County
Dan Musgrove, City of Las Vegas
Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas
Kimberly McDonald, City of North Las Vegas
Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Mary Walker, Carson City, Douglas and Lyon Counties
Steve Kastens, Carson City and the Nevada Recreation and Park Society
Pat Coward, Nevada Association of Realtors
Stephanie Garcia, City of Henderson
Assembly Bill 458: Authorizes local governments to impose impact fees on new developments to finance fire station projects, park projects and police station projects. (BDR 22-1000)
Assemblyman David Parks, Assembly District 41, testified the bill resulted from a request by the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association. He introduced Irene Porter who would address issues in the bill.
Irene Porter, Executive Director of Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, stated A.B. 458 added three elements of allowable uses to Nevada Revised Statutes on impact fee law. Those elements would be park projects, fire stations and police stations. The legislation would be enabling and not mandatory, with an impact fee enacted by each local government. The only places impact fee laws were used was in Reno and Washoe County on roads, and it was her understanding they had been highly successful. Current impact fee laws could be applied whether it was a street project or a park project. She had distributed a review of the current impact fee laws (Exhibit C). The law required land use assumptions by service area and set forth-public hearing requirements. Fees collected must be deposited in an interest-bearing account, clearly identifying the category of capital improvement. The law set forth standards for maximum fees and those items that were prohibited. It also provided for periodic review of capital improvement plans, public hearings and entitlement to services, use of facilities, established notice and liability to the seller, and set time limitations for judicial review of final action.
Mr. Lee questioned the use of fees for renovations of some of the older parks. Ms. Porter responded over the years there had been many court cases involving impact fee laws, which set up the nexus of people paying the fee and the building of the facility. There was a chance of violating court decisions when trying to use impact fees in older neighborhoods. Those areas developed before the early 1970s did not pay for park development except from property tax dollars. There were no park taxes or impact fees, so it would be unfair to use money from those homeowners to establish parks and services in their neighborhoods. Older neighborhoods could obtain grants or use property tax to improve older parks.
Ms. Porter distributed (Exhibit D) indicating those amendments had been worked out with the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association and local governments. Language regarding “park project” for the purposes of impact fees increased the size of the park to 50 acres and allowed additional types of facilities and equipment to be placed in the parks. She said she had met with Washoe County and they would like to have small meeting facilities up to 3,000 square feet included and she had no problem adding that to the list for which impact fees could be used. Added language was proposed in Section 5, so there could be a crediting process against impact fees and would alleviate problems with communities not wanting to use impact fees, because they would have to suspend using park taxes.
Mr. Mortenson questioned how much could be collected under the law. Ms. Porter replied under impact fee law there could not be a cap on those fees and they were entirely different from a park tax. The park tax was a pure tax and could be capped. Under impact fee law there was a land use assumption, which divided out the cost for each land use within a service area.
Mr. Mortenson stated the residential construction tax was mandatory with fixed sums going to parks, and questioned if the impact fee was optional. Ms. Porter responded residential construction tax was also optional, enabling local governments to impose either mandatory land dedication or residential construction taxes. In southern Nevada all local governments had enacted ordinances to impose park taxes with money funding construction of parks and park facilities. The impact fee law enabled local governments a choice of implementing fees and a laundry list of how fees could be used. If impact fees were used as well as taxes, then the fee had to be applied to the park tax with those funds credited against that park tax, so residents were not charged twice.
Mr. Mortenson asked if impact fees were discretionary per project. Ms. Porter indicated each city or county could enact their own ordinance and develop their own fees, capital improvement programs, and their own land use assumptions. Within a service area that was developed, all single family residential would pay equal amounts, while commercial would pay based on a formula on a sliding scale.
Mrs. Freeman interjected she was pleased to see the proposed legislation and felt it was needed. She wondered what the northern homebuilders thought of the bill. Ms. Porter replied she was not sure, as she had only worked with the southern groups.
Maddy Shipman, representing Washoe County, stated they were in support of the bill as proposed to be amended regarding small meeting places, which would benefit small outlying areas. Reno’s road impact fee was later incorporated into a regional impact fee, so the developer had the final say where the roads were to be installed.
Mrs. Freeman asked if Ms. Shipman had any input from the northern homebuilders. Ms. Shipman replied she had not heard from them. She had heard a rumor that the homebuilders wanted it to apply only to southern Nevada. Because it was enabling legislation she was not sure how much it would be used in the north. There was little likelihood that any impact fee would be imposed up north because there had been a figure established of 125,000 residents in one service area.
Dan Musgrove, representing the City of Las Vegas, indicated they were in support of the bill, especially with the amendments submitted by Ms. Porter. There had been some problems with legislation passed during the Seventieth Session adversely impacting fire stations, so the bill would allow impact fees to be used for them in the future. One question he had was the use of impact fees for start-up costs, and how park district costs could be integrated into eventual impact fees. As General Fund money was tight, the city would hope to be able to use impact fees after implementation to recoup start-up costs.
Mr. Bache asked Ms. O’Grady to address park tax use for the start-up costs. Ms. O’Grady looked at the statutes and reported it only indicated “actual costs of construction, estimated fees for professional services, estimated costs to acquire land, and fees paid for professional services required for preparation or revision of a capital improvement plan in anticipation of the imposition of an impact fee.” She stated she would check into the question further.
Stan Olson, representing Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified they were in full support of the bill. A.B. 458 was written in the exact format already set up within the department in developing substations. He was available to answer any questions or give statistics the committee might need.
Pat Coward, Nevada Association of Realtors, wished to go on record in support of the bill on behalf of realtors statewide, as they were in agreement it would benefit all communities.
Mary Walker, representing Carson City, Douglas and Lyon counties, said they were all in support of the bill. It would be beneficial in rural communities where populations were spread out, and one community could be an hour’s drive from the next. Impact fees would help with the burden of growth placed on developments rather than impacting all residents in a community.
Stephanie Garcia, representing the City of Henderson, stated they appreciated time spent by Ms. Porter in organizing local governments when drafting the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 458.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN.
Chairman Bache clarified the amendment included the proposal submitted on paper and the suggestion by Washoe County to include small meeting facilities in outlying areas with a 3,000 square foot maximum. Ms. Porter indicated language was needed adding zoo facilities and arenas into the exclusionary language.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, MRS. GIBBONS AND MR. WILLIAMS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 458 and opened the hearing on A.B. 444.
Assembly Bill 444: Makes various changes regarding preservation of neighborhoods. (BDR 40-906)
Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24, testified the district she represented was in an older part of town. It was close to downtown Reno and was now called central Reno due to all the growth in the outlying areas. Over the years growth did not pay for itself and older neighborhoods were drained of resources because outlying areas were where all new construction and parks were established. Many homes in her area had become rentals, as older residents sold their places and moved to other areas. The university was almost entirely within her district and due to growth at the university there was a lack of housing, and younger renters found their housing through rental agents. There also had been rentals used for halfway houses, which was upsetting to surrounding neighborhoods. One was “kitty-corner” to an elementary school with a church across the street. That same owner also had six other rentals in her area. One was directly behind a sorority house and as registration began at the university, it was learned parole and probation had placed two sexual offenders at the house. A potential disaster was avoided when an alternative home was found. No one seemed to be listening to complaints and concerns of her constituents and felt the issues had to be addressed through legislation.
Dave Ziegler, Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated he was not advocating for or against the measure; Mrs. Freeman had asked him to assist in drafting language. The decline of neighborhoods and community disinvestments were complex issues and it was difficult to find solutions and remedies that could be implemented. Many different possibilities were considered, such as business licensing and code enforcement, but in conversations with local governments it was felt the authority was in statute but needed enforcing. A.B. 444 created a link between state licenses for state facility and compliance of facilities with local building codes and ordinances. There could be grounds for revocation or suspension of a state license if the licensee was creating a local nuisance or violating local building codes. It was permissive when rendering a suspension or revocation of a license. Section 1 in the bill dealt with health issues at facilities, with emphasis on group homes and related to public nuisance provisions in statute. Certification of a halfway house for alcohol and drug abusers may also be revoked if the house, agent or employee, or a government entity was convicted of violating any provisions of statutes. Section 3 of the bill stated that a rental agreement must contain a summary of provisions of the public nuisance statute. That way both landlord and tenant were put on notice that either one could be charged with a misdemeanor if the nuisance were to continue. Section 4 required the owner to have a local telephone number of a responsible person residing in the county where the property was located available, in case there was an emergency. Section 5 required identical provisions for mobile home rental agreements. Section 6 was parallel language for child-care facilities regarding violation of a building, safety or health code regulations.
Mr. Ziegler wanted to propose an amendment but because of time constraints he apologized for it not being in writing. There were already parallel provisions that included grounds for revocation or suspension of a license for a halfway house, group home, or child-care facility and the amendment would add the same provisions to a real estate broker’s license. It was felt real estate brokers in Mrs. Freeman’s area knowingly rented to people who knowingly did not maintain a facility or created and maintained a public nuisance. If convicted it would be grounds for revocation of their broker’s license.
Mr. Lee questioned the phrase “order by appropriate government agency to correct a violation,” and wondered what constituted a minor violation. Mr. Ziegler answered the statute was permissive and any allegations would only be an allegation until there was a misdemeanor charge and conviction, then the licensing authority could consider action.
Mr. Brown said he had a problem in trying to revoke a broker’s license if they were acting as the landlord it seemed the broker lost any ability to lease out a facility. The language in the bill “ordered to abate a nuisance,” and perhaps it should be amended to read, “is ordered to but fails to abate a nuisance.” He thought current language was too broad.
Mr. Lee asked if a realtor had a separate license for a rental business would that portion of the license be voided, or would the whole license be revoked. Pat Coward, representing the Nevada Real Estate Association, replied there were three designations on how a realtor obtained licensing. There was sales-associate, broker/sales designation, and broker. A broker would have an office and employ broker/sales and sales associates, but the broker was responsible for what transpired within the office. Legislation was passed in 1995 requiring additional training for a property manager or association management. A sales agent must obtain a valid real estate license and pass a test to be able to perform property management. There was a state Real Estate Division in place to address real estate issues and ethics committees that addressed complaints as well as the Real Estate Commission, consisting of five members. There was currently some proposed legislation giving more authority to discipline real estate agents being requested by the Real Estate Division.
Mr. Lee wondered if the bill was directed just at property managers or also directed at the broker. Mrs. Freeman said she was not conversant with real estate law, but wanted someone to be responsible for property that was being leased or rented for profit and addressed neighborhood concerns.
Ms. Parnell stated the bill was strong enough without the amendment and bringing real estate licensees into the mix. Mrs. Freeman stated there had been so many problems in her district and the language seemed to be the only way to solve those problems and the only way to bring attention to older neighborhoods.
Mr. Ziegler wanted to clarify Mrs. Freeman’s concerns. When discussing solutions they had addressed the situation of a landlord acting passively in tolerating problems while continuing to receive rents. Those situations were classic with an absentee landlord abusing an area. A designation in the statutes stated it was considered to be a misdemeanor to misuse any “building, boat or portion thereof knowing that it was intended to be used, or was being used to maintain a nuisance.”
John Gwaltney, representing Washoe Vista Homeowners Association, testified regarding the area north of San Rafael Park, which was in the homeowners association and was located in Mrs. Freeman’s district. The problems were associated with 118 homes located in the association area. Those homes were all less than ten years old and started around $165,000 going up to approximately $260,000. There had been several serious events that happened, the most serious of which he had documented (Exhibit E). The event resulted in the beating of a neighbor so severe it landed him in the hospital. The problem was with the homes that were occupied under rental arrangements, which were not enforceable under current law. In meetings with the Real Estate Commission, he was informed that they could do nothing about the nature of events similar to that described in Exhibit E. The homes were rented to three or four people, and acceptable under law. However, at any given moment, there could be ten to fifteen students living under one roof. The wife of the individual who was beaten refused to continue residing in the neighborhood and because of selling their home so quickly, the gentleman took at least a 20 percent loss. He understood it was a touchy subject when it came to someone’s property and a real estate broker making a living, but a loss of revenue when selling a residence in the neighborhood should also be taken into consideration. He had friends involved in real estate and knew some of them were embarrassed about the conduct of absentee realtors and damages that were being done to a neighborhood and only asked for protection from the irresponsible conduct of owners.
Mr. Lee questioned if there were CC&Rs for the area, and if so, did they find them unenforceable. Mr. Gwaltney replied that they were extremely difficult to enforce because current ordinances in Reno allowed five unrelated people to reside in one residence. One problem area was in dealing with federal laws regarding halfway houses and rehabilitation centers. When the house was leased to four people the law was obeyed, but those four people had perpetual guests in numbers of their choosing. He felt that until problems with either the landlord or leasing agent were addressed, blight in the area would continue to expand.
Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing of A.B. 444 and opened the hearing on A.B. 462.
Assembly Bill 462: Authorizes certain local governments to impose tax on nonresidential construction or require dedication of certain land for neighborhood parks. (BDR 22-72)
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Assembly District 1, testified he had requested legislation because two years ago a similar bill passed the Senate, but was narrowly defeated in the Assembly. During the interim he had met with the city, the county, the homebuilders, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to discuss the needs of parks in southern Nevada. Issues they addressed were a way for growth to pay for improvements to the area. There were two conceptual amendments extending the fees to non-residential construction, as residential construction fees were not consistent. First housing developments were built, then shopping centers, so growth curves overlapped. The intent was nonresidential tax would only be used for regional rather than neighborhood parks. It was enabling legislation for local governments to use as a tool. One amendment would reduce the amount in Section 5, line 46, from $2,000 back to the original $1,000 because there was presently no need to change that amount. The second amendment would put a cap of $20,000 or 1 percent—which ever was less—on nonresidential construction, creating more immediate funding because it would go directly into local budgets.
Dan Musgrove, representing the city of Las Vegas, thought the bill was a good companion bill to Mr. Parks’ bill A.B. 458 giving local governments a better way to solve the park problems. The Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) established a regional standard of 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on that ratio, Las Vegas projected a deficit of 1,550 acres of parkland over the next twenty years because of growth in southern Nevada. Residential construction tax only provided about $2 million to Las Vegas per year, so if the city was to provide parks that met the demographic requirements, $250,000 was needed per acre. Nonresidential construction had a broad impact on a region’s general welfare because every job created by nonresidential development resulted in an increase of 2.1 persons, which meant an additional 109 square feet of parkland was required. To mitigate the impact it was appropriate to place a construction tax on nonresidential development minimizing deficit funding. It was the intent to use the residential tax for neighborhood parks and the nonresidential tax for regional parks.
Mr. Lee wondered if there was a particular park for which the money was targeted. Mr. Musgrove replied funding would go for future utilization of current regional parks such as Lorenzi and Freedom parks, which were developed many years ago. Residential tax did not generate funding needed for regional parks so nonresidential funds would be dedicated for regional park development.
Ms. Von Tobel questioned if the bill would help with land acquired from the state and developed by the city in a land swap creating Floyd Lamb State Park, because the city never had funds to develop it into a regional park. Mr. Musgrove responded he was not sure, but because of growth in the area non-residential tax should provide a funding source. Mr. Collins interjected under the original land swap trails, ballparks, and things of that nature were included in the plans, and with the projected tax revenue it would be possible to pursue those goals.
Mr. Brown asked if the tax was in the development of land or just the actual building. Reading through the bill in section 3, “the sub-divider of land or developer of land and requiring the dedication of land.” He assumed that meant the city and county could mandate a dedication of land. Mr. Musgrove remarked the city would not mandate a dedication of land but give them the ability to proceed with an “in-lieu of” exchange. Currently residential construction tax was set at $0.36 per 100 square feet with a cap of $1,000 while nonresidential was set at 1 percent of the valuation or a cap of $20,000.
Mr. Collins interjected that by removing the increase to $2,000 on the residential tax, Ms. Irene Porter, with the Home Builders Association, indicated to him she was in favor of the bill. The second concern about a residential park tax had been alleviated by inclusion in the bill that the funding remained within the area where taxes were collected.
Mary Walker, representing Carson City, Lyon and Douglas counties, stated they were in support of A.B. 462 with some of the amendments and would like to work with the parties on those concerns. It was enabling legislation that gave cities and counties an option they currently did not have, with only homeowners having the burden of providing parks. Carson City was looking at ways to improve and add to their parks as many people from outside the area used existing parks at lunchtime, before and after work, without contributing to maintenance or development of city parks. She had not been aware that nonresidential tax would only go toward regional parks because the federal definition of a “regional park was 50 acres or more for every 100,000 residents.” For rural communities there was no room for a park of that size, and would eliminate small communities from using any of the funds. She felt perhaps a population definition could be added to the language with a designation of community parks at between 25 and 50 acres, and neighborhood parks 5 to 7 acres per 100,000 residents.
Steve Kastens stated he was Parks and Recreation Director for Carson City and was also appearing for rural counties. He had some concerns if only large parks were identified as regional because only larger communities would have access to the tax. Mills Park in Carson City was a prime example, as it was a 40-acre park with a large complex constructed within walking distance, and those employees used the park at lunchtime. If nonresidential taxes were implemented that money could be used for improvements or added amenities.
Mr. Collins wanted it on record he agreed with rural county proposals in adjusting regional park specifications.
Chairman Bache asked Mr. Musgrove to submit written amendments as soon as possible.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 462 and because there was time left before floor session, the committee would process some bills they had already heard.
Assembly Bill 329: Authorizes advertising in certain public buildings. (BDR 27‑726)
Chairman Bache stated Mr. Nolan had some conceptual amendments because of the designation of “Capitol Complex”; it was too broad a definition. Assemblyman Nolan, Assembly District 13 presented his amendments (Exhibit F) and said based on previous testimony he felt the administrative branch needed to be included. One focal point was establishment of policies and procedures for all of buildings to which statutes would apply. The administrative branch could then decide what mediums could be used, fees and charges associated with various forms of advertisements, and the use of televisions in certain public waiting areas. All money generated by advertisements would be deposited into the General Fund.
Mr. Brown asked if there was any prohibition or reason why a building owned by a government could not put up a television program without having to advertise. Mr. Nolan replied there were specifics in some statutes and those were currently being addressed in the bill. The Attorney General’s Office explained to him there was a prohibition from advertising that currently existed in public buildings because there was commercial advertising on television.
Mr. Brown wondered if a public station would be a different situation. Mr. Nolan responded not under current statutes.
Ms. Berman requested a definition of administrative branch, and exactly how regulations would be established. Chairman Bache interjected to enact regulations they would have to follow the Administrative Procedures Act. He believed “the executive branch” was what was referred to when using “administrative branch.” From input from the committee members, it was suggested limiting advertising to specific departments where the issue could be used on a trial basis. Those could be ones that had the highest volume of people waiting for services, which would be Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the Welfare Division.
Mr. Nolan explained there were two reasons for the bill. Some agencies, DMV in particular, wanted to have some public service type announcements and to be able to put televisions in waiting areas. He had also been contacted by some commercial businesses, asking to be able to do some advertising. As a policy issue, if public service announcements were to be made available, there should be a mechanism to generate revenue from businesses wishing to sponsor those announcements. He had no problem if it was limited to a couple of agencies to see what the reaction might be.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH MR. NOLAN’S AMENDMENT AND LIMITED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND THE WELFARE DIVISION.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL.
Mrs. Smith stated she was philosophically opposed to advertising in public buildings and realized Mr. Nolan was trying to raise revenue, but she believed it was a bad precedent to establish.
Ms. Parnell noted she too would be voting against it. She thought there were a lot of constitutional issues in choosing who could and could not advertise, as well as limiting buildings that could advertise.
Mr. Humke needed a clarification as to “administrative branch.” Chairman Bache asserted that with amendments it would be the “executive branch” adopting regulations. Ms. O’Grady interjected it would be the “executive branch,” but questioned if regulations would be set by each department or one person would make decisions, so regulations would be uniform for both agencies. Mr. Humke stated he would like to see the Department of Administration, or perhaps Buildings and Grounds setting a single rule rather each agency.
Chairman Bache asked if committee members would want it clarified in the bill that regulations would be written by the Department of Administration. Assemblyman Lee and Assemblywoman Von Tobel agreed to make that part of the motion.
Mr. Brown interjected he too had the same reservations as Mrs. Smith and Ms. Parnell, and did not feel state buildings should be involved in advertising.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A MAJORITY WITH ASSEMBLYWOMEN FREEMAN, PARNELL AND SMITH VOTING NO AND ASSEMBLYMEN MORTENSON AND BROWN VOTING NO, ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Mr. Nolan thanked the committee for taking the time to consider the issue.
Chairman Bache stated they would take A.B. 61 under consideration.
Assembly Bill 61: Provides certain restrictions relating to regulation of amateur service communications. (BDR 22-672)
Chairman Bache noted the recommendation from the subcommittee was to amend and do pass with deletion of sections 3 and 5. Homeowners associations were the problem.
Ms. Von Tobel related that in an energy hearing the previous day, she became aware renewable energy sources, such as collectors, were allowable under the law and found it interesting something as critical as emergency information systems were not allowed. She felt there was a double standard in law, allowing one and not the other.
Chairman Bache remembered the issue being brought up, and thought it was just solar panels that were exempted. Ms. O’Grady interjected it was only solar energy as far as she recollected.
Ms. Von Tobel felt it was an important issue and wondered if it was possible to wait a day or two to get clarification on what types of energy equipment were allowed. If passed, the bill would certainly impact ham operators and exchange of information was as important as renewable energy.
Chairman Bache stated Mr. Beers had indicated to the subcommittee he was satisfied with the amendment, and he had reached agreement with people in opposition to the original bill. He did not want to abrogate what the subcommittee had recommended.
Mrs. Smith announced she had been told recently that the Federal Telecommunications Act should be looked at but she had not had a chance to talk with Mr. Ziegler. She had been informed by local governments some things, like satellite dishes, could not be precluded because of the telecommunications act. Input from local operators indicated they were not happy with the outcome of the subcommittee.
Chairman Bache indicated they would hold any further action on the bill until clarification was forthcoming and Mr. Ziegler could research both federal and state regulations. He added they would address A.B. 431 next.
Assembly Bill 431: Requires public employees’ retirement board to conduct study regarding lump-sum optional retirement programs. (BDR S-985)
Chairman Bache stated there was a proposed amendment that any interim retirement committee study would submit the reports to the Legislative Commission. Mr. Ziegler indicated the salient points of the amendment (Exhibit G) were two amendments. One amendment was submitted by Mr. Pine, from the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and the other by Assemblyman Oceguera. The only difference was in section 2, it stated “PERS shall submit the final study to the Retirement and Benefits Committee on or Before August 1, 2002.” Chairman Bache had discussions with all parties and they agreed the Legislative Commission was the appropriate body to deal with the reports.
MS. PARNELL MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO REPORT TO THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION.
MS. SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Brown related he was absent when the bill was originally heard and would abstain from voting until he could review the bill but reserved the right to vote on the floor.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN ABSTAINING, ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
********
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
Virginia Letts
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: