MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
April 16, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:20 a.m., on Monday, April 16, 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
Ms. Merle Berman
Mr. David Brown
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Mr. Bob Price
Mrs. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Wendell Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mr. John J. Lee, Vice Chairman
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, Assembly District 15
Assemblyman John Oceguera, Assembly District 16
Assemblyman Donald Gustavson, Assembly District 32
Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Keith Lee Southwest Airlines
Richard Daly, Laborers Union
Janelle Kraft, City of Las Vegas
Fred Hillerby, Sun Valley General Improvement District
Noel Manoukian, General Counsel, Kingsbury General Improvement District
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Clark County
Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities
Pam Sutton, Government Program Manager, Information Systems, Planning and Research Unit, Department of Information Technology
Kent Lauer Nevada Press Association
Paul Iverson, Director, Department of Agriculture
Dick Clark, Executive Director, Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training
Andy Anderson, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs
Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Danny Thompson, Nevada State AFL-CIO
Jim Wadhams, Representing Nevada Independent Insurance Agents
Chairman Bache stated the first bill they would consider was one heard in Las Vegas regarding helicopters. There were proposed amendments by Keith Lee of Southwest Airlines (Exhibit C). In conversation with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, she had agreed with that amendment and proposed some additional language (Exhibit D). There were also amendments from Mr. John Sande of the Airport Authority of Washoe County (Exhibit E).
Assembly Bill 490: Requires certain counties to establish advisory committees and enact ordinances concerning abatement of noise attributable to flight of helicopters and certain other aircraft.
Keith Lee, representing Southwest Airlines, testified their intent was to exclude fixed-wing aircraft from application of the bill. It would encompass all certificated carriers including package express and charter carriers. The reason for exclusion was because those aircraft were already covered by federal regulations under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1991, which included noise abatement, control procedures, and approach routes. If there were noise issues involving certificated carriers at McCarran Airport, there were procedures already in place. At the Reno airport, because of federal regulations, a departure route was in the process of being tested through voluntary compliance. If changes were shown to be viable, the departure route would become permanent and parallel Highway 395, rather than exiting over residential areas. With the proposed exclusion in place, he felt it addressed concerns of airlines while still allowing residents of Clark County to address the helicopter problem.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 490 WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI AND MR. LEE’S AMENDMENTS.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN WILLIAMS, LEE AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Ms. Von Tobel stated she had checked with the Legal Division and the committee did have the authority to ask for an Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) which would take the responsibility of increasing county salaries out of the Legislature and place it in the hands of the counties and was a resolution she wanted to request. Legal staff pointed out if it was a matter discussed by the committee, the committee in which the discussion took place could request a resolution.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO REQUEST A BDR DEALING WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT DELETING THE LEGISLATURE’S AUTHORITY TO APPROVE COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS’ SALARIES AND PLACE AUTHORITY WITH COUNTIES.
ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN WILLIAMS, LEE AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache indicated they would take A.B. 407 out of order as the person appearing to testify on the bill had to leave.
Assembly Bill 407: Revises provisions governing development projects on which prevailing wage must be paid. (BDR 22-1196)
Richard Daly, Laborers Union, explained the amendments he had passed out (Exhibit F) were the same as previously submitted, except for a change on page 2. In section 6, regarding hazardous materials it was agreed that section could be deleted, which addressed Ms. Carol Vilardo’s concerns. The language did not expand or diminish prevailing wage laws, but tried to give guidance to redevelopment agencies on what established financial incentives. By removing that provision there would still be a prevailing wage if the redevelopment agency let the contract, and met requirements in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) Chapter 338.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 407.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Brown stated he had concerns with the impact on redevelopment agencies and would be voting no on the bill.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN VOTING NO AND ASSEMBLYMEN WILLIAMS, LEE AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache said A.B. 95 would be considered next.
Assembly Bill 95: Revises provision regarding filing of annual report on performance of permanent employee. (BDR 23-343)
Chairman Bache indicated he had concerns with section 1 of the bill but with proposed changes from Ms. Greene of State Personnel (Exhibit G), he was satisfied his concerns had been addressed.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 95 AS PROPOSED IN THE LETTER.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMEN WILLIAMS, LEE AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
The next bill Chairman Bache wanted to pursue was Mrs. Freeman’s bill.
Assembly Bill 444: Makes various changes regarding preservation of neighborhoods. (BDR 40-906)
Mrs. Freeman indicated there was an amendment she wished to present to the committee (Exhibit H) which allowed the Real Estate Commission to take disciplinary action against agents acting as landlords, and was presented with their approval.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 444.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Brown questioned if additional language only allowed disciplinary action or if it was a deletion of other things in the bill. Mrs. Freeman replied it was an addition that was not in the original draft.
Mr. Ziegler interjected the amendment would be added at the end of the bill before the effective date.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN WILLIAMS, NEIGHBORS, LEE AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache indicated A.B. 179 dealing with Las Vegas and annexation would be considered.
Assembly Bill 179: Revises provisions governing annexation of territory by certain incorporated cities. (BDR 21-475)
Janelle Kraft, representing the city of Las Vegas, said currently in the northwest portion of Las Vegas there were a number of areas that were county islands but adjacent to city properties. They were in areas where sewer service was provided, and those people had agreed to annex into the city when the area became contiguous. There were still a number of undeveloped areas in the northwest but, with growth, eventually they would be annexed because the city was the only one providing sewer service. The city was being adversely affected by county zoning decisions, and the county by city decisions. The only land affected would be those areas surrounded by 75 percent of city land jurisdiction.
Ms. Von Tobel recalled a large portion of the area lay within her district, and she objected to the bill. Quite often vacant land was two-and-one-half acre parcels, and many times not close enough to sewer or water, so well and septic systems were installed. They would be charged a higher assessment for residing in the city and yet it would be years before they could actually hook into city-provided services. She felt it took away due process in requiring annexation. BLM land could be annexed, but if the BLM auctioned it off it was usually by large parcels. Those would be developed with water and sewer and would become city-annexed land anyway. She felt the bill would create even more islands and she would be voting against the bill.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 179.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Bache interjected there was a problem that should be addressed but felt the southern Nevada committee members seemed to be in a quandary over how to resolve the issue.
Ms. Kraft stated there had been negotiations with Clark County over several years in trying to reach inter-local agreements that would address the issues. It was an ongoing process and there was a new commissioner that represented the area who seemed to be responsive to some of the zoning problems. Nothing had appeared on a county commission agenda indicating any type of solution; therefore, they would like to have the bill passed and continue working with Clark County.
Chairman Bache indicated there was a motion on the floor to indefinitely postpone and asked for a vote.
THE MOTION FAILED WITH SEVEN MEMBERS VOTING YES AND ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, BROWN AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMEN NEIGHBORS AND LEE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Assembly Bill 430: Authorizes general improvement districts in certain counties to charge owners of dwelling units which receive services provided by district for which owners are not being charged. (BDR 25-1275)
Chairman Bache related there were proposed amendments, indicated in the handout (Exhibit I).
Noel Manoukian, General Counsel to the Kingsbury General Improvement District (GID), stated Fred Hillerby would explain the amendments to the committee.
Fred Hillerby, representing Sun Valley General Improvement District and assisting Mr. Manoukian with Kingsbury General Improvement District, testified some problems brought up in the first hearing had been addressed with the amendment. There would be a notice sent to homeowners indicating they would be charged for utility services when it was established there were renters on the premises. Previously legislation was passed making it a felony to steal cable; the only difference was theft of water and sewer had no penalty attached. The intent of the bill was a way for the GID to charge those who were stealing services. In changing “suspected” to “referenced” it would specify in notice to the owner there was a dwelling on the property that was not paying for provided services. Language had been added specifying two-thirds majority of the full board must vote that a dwelling unit did exist and would consequently be billed for services.
Noel Manoukian stated they had tried to make the language less intrusive, giving owners the opportunity to consent for an inspection or concede there was a rental dwelling unit on the property. If the property owner did not want to cooperate, the matter could be litigated and under rules of civil procedure there was an opportunity to request an inspection. It had been estimated there were in excess of 200 such units within the boundaries of the Kingsbury GID and there were probably other GIDs throughout the state with similar problems
Mr. Mortenson said he was uncomfortable with the initial bill because he felt it was very intrusive, but with the amendments felt it was a reasonable bill.
Mr. Williams wondered if there would be a penalty if a person conceded there was another unit. Mr. Hillerby replied if they conceded there was an additional unit, billing for services started from that point forward.
Chairman Bache stated he was still uncomfortable with the bill. In southern Nevada, residences had water meters and thought with the installation of water meters the problem would be taken care of because water usage could be measured.
Ms. Von Tobel related she agreed with the chairman and although things were handled differently in the north, she felt meters would solve the problems. One difficulty she had was language stating, “in a referenced dwelling the owner must pay the fees assessed,” and it was not designated if fees referred only to water and if there were no meters how could there be an estimate of how much water was being used. Mr. Manoukian explained owners were avoiding connection fees for additional units where an owner of an illegal premise was deriving income without paying for services received. Once hooked up, charges would be somewhere between $30 and $50 a month without any retroactive charge.
Ms. Von Tobel indicated the amended language did not specify fees would not be retroactive, it only said the owner “must pay the fees assessed.” Mr. Hillerby indicated subsection 3 on page 1, “the notice must advise the owner that the GID would begin charging for the use of services.” Included also was a noticing requirement of 30 days. Ms. Von Tobel continued that without a meter there was no way to accurately determine usage and people’s property rights were being violated. She had recommended during the first hearing on the bill perhaps there could be a population cap and Clark County could be excluded.
Mrs. Freeman stated she was in support of the bill but with the proliferation of GIDs there were problems in some communities. She thought the issue of water meters was valid but at some point their usage should be addressed.
Mr. Humke said he did not see water meters as an issue with the bill. If the GID had a contractual relationship with the user, the bill worked whether the GID used water meters or not. He felt the amendment provided for due process, as it required approval by a majority of a GID, which was an elected board.
Ms. Von Tobel pointed out in Las Vegas it cost about $20,000 per unit to hook up to water, and questioned the cost in the north. Mr. Manoukian replied the hook-ups in the north were approximately $2,000 to $4,000 depending on whether just water was being hooked up or both water and sewer.
Mr. Hillerby related there was no hook up fee as residents in the GID were already hooked up, they just were not paying for services they were already using.
Mr. Brown indicated he had no problem with charges for a second dwelling that was using services. It was an issue of due process laws based on a reasonable belief there was a second dwelling and if confirmed then a charge could be implemented. If the owner denied the request for an inspection, there was legal recourse. He agreed with the intent of the bill but without due process he could not support it.
Mr. Hillerby related there was a 30-day noticing before charging the owner, and at that point charges could be appealed. In subsection 4 an inspection must be done and if fault was found, the board had to determine that there was fault by a two-thirds majority.
Mr. Brown thought confirmation of a dwelling unit, or at least denial to an inspection must come before noticing of intent to charge. Mr. Hillerby noted if it gave the committee more comfort, there was no problem changing the order of procedures to be followed. Perhaps an amendment could be offered reflecting Mr. Brown’s concerns. Mr. Bache interjected he would feel better if a suspicion was brought to the GID’s attention, they could request a search warrant from the county sheriff and if it was found there was an attempt to avoid the system, then perhaps there should be some criminal prosecution.
Mr. Manoukian stated the “reasonable belief standard” was in the bill and equated with the United States Supreme Court “probable cause” clause.
Ms. Von Tobel asked if there were the same charges to owners of a 1,000 square foot house as one owning a 5,000 square foot house. Mr. Manoukian responded charges were the same for any size house. Ms. Von Tobel felt there was an inequity as someone with a larger home could have teenagers who used a considerable amount of water even if they did not pay rent and wondered how that would be differentiated from the rental unit. That was why she thought the only way to track water usage was by meters.
Mr. Hillerby conceded it was an imperfect system and unfortunately one Reno residents had lived with for years. The city was gradually moving toward meters but those older flat rate residents were grand-fathered-in until the property was sold and were then moved to meters. Section 6 defined dwelling unit as a separate unit including a kitchen and bathroom and was clearly being rented. When it became fiscally viable, water meters would eventually be installed.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 430 WITH THE WRITTEN AMENDMENTS, A POPULATION CAP OF UNDER 400,000 AND MR. BROWN’S VERBAL AMENDMENT.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED WITH CHAIRMAN BACHE AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL VOTING NO, AND ASSEMBLYMEN NEIGHBORS AND LEE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
********
Chairman Bache indicated Ms. McClain’s bill with submitted amendments would be considered next.
Assembly Bill 131: Expands authority of board of county commissioners of county to abate nuisances, dangerous structures and dangerous conditions. (BDR 22-149)
Mrs. Freeman asserted she had chaired the subcommittee hearing and no action was recommended. Mr. Mortenson had some concerns so she would like to make sure he and Mrs. Gibbons agreed on the amendments before making a recommendation. Chairman Bache informed Mrs. Freeman that the bill would be returned to the full committee without recommendation.
Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, Assembly District 15, testified NRS Chapter 244 had several sections that were affected by the bill. She pointed out the amendment was now the entire bill. It clarified the county commission had authority to write and enforce ordinances specific to an area.
Mr. Mortenson said he was still troubled with the written notice clause because he felt it could be a Post-it note slapped on the front door. He had asked for written notification by certified mail with return receipt requested within a reasonable time frame. Ms. McClain responded “reasonable written notice” was included in the bill because the commission should be enforcing building codes and zoning ordinances. She did not think it was appropriate to have Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department writing return receipts if they wanted to close down a crack house. With proposed language it was left up to local governments who would be cognizant of different types of infractions that might occur.
Mr. Mortenson felt the bill erred on the side of enforcement, but was bad for quality of life and security for residents. Someone could have a residence they were trying to rent while living in Caliente; he wondered how that owner would get written notice before action was taken against that rental property. Ms. McClain said the point was well taken; however, the intent of the bill only allowed local government to set parameters.
Mr. Brown asked if NRS 244.360 dealt with rental properties or homes, and wondered about definition of lien relative to special assessments on property. Ms. McClain replied that NRS 244.360 was current language and covered nuisances in all types of buildings. Special assessments went on tax rolls and dealt with taxes, while liens were placed on property and remained until the property was sold or the lien was satisfied.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 131.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Mortenson wanted to offer an additional amendment. Instead of “reasonable written notice” which was vague an undefined, he suggested “the notice given must be by certified mail with return receipt requested” with a time period of 72 hours before the structure was secured. Ms. McClain felt that should be in ordinance rather than statute. Notification included law enforcement and fire departments, and if there was a serious danger she thought 72 hours was too long a period of time. There should be an immediate response.
ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON MOVED TO AMEND BY REPLACING “REASONABLE WRITTEN NOTICE” WITH “WRITTEN NOTICE MUST BE BY CERTIFIED MAIL WITH RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED” AND A TIME PERIOD OF 72 HOURS BEFORE THE STRUCTURE WAS SECURED. ALSO, LEAVE THE EMERGENCY ACTION CLAUSE THAT HAD BEEN STRICKEN.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Brown stated if there was an illegal activity in a house there was already probable cause and the residence could be entered by law enforcement. He felt it was a delicate issue affecting property rights and some changes also caused him concern.
Ms. McClain indicated in NRS 244.3601 addressed dangerous structures or conditions posing imminent danger. Abatement of chronic nuisances was addressed in NRS 244.3603 but dangerous situations needed immediate attention so she did not feel it was appropriate to have a 72‑hour noticing law.
Mrs. Freeman said she was under the impression that Mr. Mortenson’s amendment addressed NRS 244.3603, dealing with emergency actions and yet it also seemed to deal with NRS 244.3601.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN WITHDREW HER SECOND TO MR. MORTENSON’S MOTION AND THE MOTION DIED FOR A LACK OF A SECOND.
Chairman Bache asked for a vote on the main motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL VOTING NO, AND ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN ABSTAINING. ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND LEE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache stated the committee would take A.B. 356 under consideration.
Assembly Bill 356: Makes various changes regarding public employees’ retirement system. (BDR 23-1249)
Assemblyman John Oceguera, Assembly District 16, testified that during the last several months he had been working on increasing benefits for over 80,000 public employees in the state of Nevada. There had been some disagreements on certain issues, but they had been worked out and A.B. 356 was the outcome of those efforts. Although some disagreed, he felt the bill should be withdrawn because it would have made members in the system chose between organizations should the bill survive. If any of the committee members felt he should not withdraw the bill and believed benefits should be increased, there would still be an opportunity when a compromise Senate Bill was passed to the Assembly. He felt withdrawing the bill was in the best interest of the citizens of Nevada, members of the Committee on Government Affairs, and public employees working in the system.
Chairman Bache pointed out he was probably the reason members had received large amounts of e-mail. He indicated at a Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) meeting he had voiced opposition to “25 and out” for police and fire members. The reason being only 30 percent of members would benefit, yet the cost would be applied to 100 percent of members. Currently police and fire had “30 and out, 60 and 10, and 50 and 20” and, as they had to be 21 years of age to be hired, at “25 and out” the only ones benefiting were those who started working in those positions at 21, 22, 23, or 24. They already could retire at 50 with 20 years experience and it was not appropriate for people to pay for a benefit they could never access.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MADE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A.B. 356.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE, LEE AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache indicated they would take Mr. Gustavson’s bill, which had some proposed amendments.
Assembly Bill 456: Provides for issuance of gaming tokens by State of Nevada. (BDR 19-506)
Assemblyman Donald Gustavson, Assembly District 32, testified there were two amendments being submitted. The first one was from the Gaming Control Board (Exhibit J), and dealt with issuance of gaming tokens and oversight by nonrestricted gaming licensees. The state museum could contract with anyone experienced in minting gaming tokens to produce those tokens. The second amendment (Exhibit K) allowed coins to be minted in different denominations other than $25. Those coins would have to comply with all rules and regulations of the Gaming Control Board regarding size, denomination, and printing on both sides of each coin.
ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH BOTH MR. GUSTAVSON’S AND GAMING CONTROL BOARD AMENDMENTS.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 385: Revises provisions governing county property and local improvements. (BDR 20-175)
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, representing Clark County, testified, based on previous hearings, there were parts of the bill needing amendments and those were included in her handout (Exhibit L). The first amendment defined “public facility” with language coming from current Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 278.0157. The second amendment changed the time frame for right of reconveyance from 30 to 90 days. The next change clarified proceedings that were still in litigation, as property could not be conveyed or sold until there was clear title. Questions arose on the meaning of “provide security for” so that language was changed to “provide public safety” as the over- and under-pass projects were more of a public safety issue.
Mrs. Gibbons questioned if there had been previous discussions on alignment issues. Ms. Parnell interjected that during previous meetings she had raised the question of new language that added “establish and align” compared to current language, which was just “realign, change or vacate.” Ms. Wilson-Pappa recalled responses from the Director of Public Works dealt with the beltway that was currently under construction in southern Nevada. There was one property owner willing to exchange property but that could not be done because there was no road in the area, so an alignment of the beltway was required.
Mr. Brown stated he originally had problems with the term “security” and now it was a matter of providing “public safety” and wondered how the term would apply to building entity. He thought it was a given when a structure was built it would most certainly be done with safety concerns in mind. Ms. Wilson-Pappa replied during construction, OSHA rules must be followed. In the case of the over- and under-pass projects, pedestrian bridges not only needed maintenance but safety measures as well for people using those bridges.
Mr. Brown asked if the section relative to reconveyance contained a right of first refusal to the person from whom land was taken and if it was sold at current market appraised value. Ms. Wilson-Pappa stated property values changed within areas as far as what parcels surrounding a particular piece of property were priced at.
Mr. Brown thought the language indicated land could be purchased at an amount equal to the appraised value with the remainder not used for a project apportioned. So if it involved four or five acres it would be 80 percent plus interest accrued over the period of time the land was held. He felt badly when he heard people lost an investment they had for 20 years when someone else acquired it and was able to develop it commercially, while the original owner only received “fair market price” which was usually far less.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE WRITTEN AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY CLARK COUNTY.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS.
MR. BROWN PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO THE WRITTEN AMENDMENT ON PURCHASE OF LAND IN AN AMOUNT OF A FAIR PURCHASE PRICE BASICALLY PRO-RATA FOR THE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT WAS NOT USED WITH AN ADDITION OF INTEREST AT A LEGAL RATE.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON.
Chairman Bache clarified the motion would not affect a willing buyer-seller agreement before enacting eminent domain.
Ms. Von Tobel asked about a previous land deal affecting an older mobile home park on Tropicana. That land was condemned and many mobile home residents moved into her area, and wondered if the law would have affected that transaction. Ms. Wilson-Pappa replied she did not have specifics but if that case had Mr. Brown’s amendment in place and the county acquired the property by eminent domain proceedings and only a part of the parcel was used, the remaining property would be sold under the “right of first refusal.” They would not have to pay the appraised value, should the “right of first refusal” be declined anyone else wishing to purchase the property would have to pay appraised value.
THE MOTION TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDED MOTION PASSED.
Chairman Bache stated he would now take a vote on the original motion of amend and do pass.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH MR. LEE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache indicated he would take a vote on A.B. 179, as all members were present except Mr. Lee who had been excused.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 179.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN.
Ms. Von Tobel reiterated that most of the land being discussed was in her district so she must oppose the legislation. It took away an individual’s right to due process and annexed land without any recourse. Many residents in her area had small one-and-a-half acre parcels with wells and septic tanks and would not be accessing any city services, but would still be charged at a higher rate. When BLM land was auctioned off it was in larger parcels that would be subdivided, requiring sewer service and would be automatically annexed.
Mr. Williams stated two years ago the Committee on Government Affairs passed legislation that from a city’s standpoint was a compromising point of view. That legislation said there were county islands located within city boundaries and both entities worked together to develop plans eliminating any confusion. The county was not amenable to that legislation when it reached the Senate. He felt it was a courtesy to at least allow a city some input as to what was done with those islands. He felt proposed legislation would certainly help and not hurt the situation.
Chairman Bache indicated he was one of the members that held a radical position during last session so county islands could not change zoning unless there was approval by the city, since they were surrounded by city property.
Janelle Kraft, city of Las Vegas, apologized for not having proposed amendments in writing from the city. Those amendments would clarify that only undeveloped lands would be affected by legislation and believed there was also a specification of minimum acreage exempting those parcels Ms. Von Tobel was concerned about. She believed Mr. Ziegler with the Legislative Counsel Bureau had amendments proposed by Mr. Leavitt. Mr. Ziegler stated he had made changes in the bill during Mr. Leavitt’s testimony. On page 3, line 15, it was suggested the situation be qualified by indicating it only applied to undeveloped land. On page 3, lines 21-25, there would be additional criteria stating 75 percent of aggregate external boundaries was needed and there be no improvements on the property.
Mr. Williams explained his main thrust was only undeveloped land could be annexed into the city. The main focus was the property, although in an island, it was still surrounded by city land.
Chairman Bache thought the main motion should be altered to include Mr. Leavitt’s proposed amendments clarifying the type of land to be annexed.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS ADDED HE WOULD CHANGE HIS MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS INCLUDING THOSE AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. LEAVITT.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN CONCURRED WITH THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED, WITH ASSEMBLYWOMEN VON TOBEL AND GIBBONS AND ASSEMBLYMEN HUMKE AND MORTENSON VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE ABSTAINED AND ASSEMBLYMAN LEE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache indicated they would address A.B. 537 next.
Assembly Bill 537: Authorizes construction and maintenance of benches and shelters for passengers of public mass transportation on exclusive basis by governing body or by franchise within unincorporated towns. (BDR 21-829)
Chairman Bache said there were proposed amendments from Ms. Vilardo and the county had agreed to delete subsection 11, lines 9 through 11.
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Clark County, testified it was a bill Mr. Spinello had dealt with in the original hearing, but it was her understanding search and rescue issues could be deleted. She was not aware what Ms. Vilardo’s proposed amendments addressed.
Ms. O’Grady interjected because specifications were already in county law Ms. Vilardo wanted to make sure only town laws were being affected. Chairman Bache queried if all the proposed amendments were in county law, to which Ms. O’Grady replied yes.
Mr. Ziegler stated when Mr. Spinello testified he indicated sections of NRS were involved which “for which counties may limit or displace competition:” he suggested removal by amendment of “search and rescue” from the laundry list. In Clark County search and rescue operations were handled by Metropolitan Police Department (Metro). Ms. Vilardo had indicated she was opposed to the bill as drafted. Her concern was item 11 in the list on page 2, which said, “any other service demanded by the inhabitants of the town, which the town board or county commissioners was otherwise authorized by law to provide.” She thought item 11 on that list should be deleted. She had felt the word “displace” needed to be deleted because it was not appropriate language as used in “displacement of competition throughout the powers of cities, counties, or towns.”
Ms. O’Grady indicated the term “displace” was not defined for any of the sections so it would have an ordinary meaning of “take the place of.” She clarified there were provisions in existing statutes indicating the county had no authority for any search or rescue operations. Their only responsibility was for construction and maintenance of benches and shelters. If the committee wanted to amend the county’s provision for any of those items, there would need to be additional amendments.
Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities, testified they had no objection to the bill and did not want to see anything changed in current statutes, which addressed cities. County laws should not change city laws so sections addressing cities in the bill should be left alone.
Chairman Bache indicated he would take a motion to amend the bill, deleting subsection 8, “search and rescue,” and subsection 11, “any other services.” Also subsection 9 “inspection required” in to the county.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH AMENDMENTS AS STATED.
ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Von Tobel reiterated she had brought up the point that current statutes limited competition in licensing of concession stands at the airport. There was some suggestion members of a county commission had allowed associates to bid on development. It was an open bid process so she did not understand why it was in statute as a limited competition. She would propose amending the amendment to take “licensing of concession stands” out of the “limited competition” language.
Chairman Bache questioned where the language was in the bill. Ms. Von Tobel replied it was on page 1, line 19.
IT WAS MOVED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL TO DELETE “AND LICENSING OF CONCESSION STANDS” ON LINE 19.
ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMAN LEE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache questioned Ms. O’Grady if there were other sections in statute dealing with the same language as was in A.B. 537.
Mr. Grady indicated there were no other airports besides Elko that might have concessionaires. He objected adding the language anywhere else in statute because gas concessionaires at smaller airports could be considered an issue rather than just food concessionaires that were being targeted at the Las Vegas airport.
Mr. Mortenson questioned why Mr. Grady would object to open competition for any concessionaire. Mr. Grady replied he did not object; he felt that all areas should be addressed because in some rural areas there was only one source supplying gas. He did not feel comfortable in agreeing to something that might be too limiting.
Chairman Bache thought Ms. Von Tobel was thinking of the concessions at McCarran Airport, as it would be difficult to find someone to open a hot dog stand at some of the smaller airports and wondered if she would like to have her amendment apply only to McCarran Airport. Ms. Von Tobel was amenable to have it only apply to an airport situated in a community of over 400,000. If there were objections by cities it could be amended on the Senate side. She pointed out there was a small airport in Henderson which might be affected, but as the language stated “concession stand” she felt “gas station” would not fall under that language.
Chairman Bache said because cities and counties had not really had an opportunity to address the committee, he felt it was not fair to take action without testimony. If it only addressed the largest metropolitan airport in a county of 400,000 or more, the language might be more palatable.
Mr. Grady testified he and Ms. Wilson-Pappa had been discussing the issue and felt the idea was getting away from the original intent. They would rather see the bill disappear which would save a lot of further discussion.
Chairman Bache thought other than the airport part there was important language such as bus shelters and other issues the bill dealt with, and the committee seemed to be getting “tied up” on the amendment to the original amendment dealing with airports, which was not part of the original bill. He recommended just going with the original “amend and do pass” and when it was heard in the Senate Ms. Von Tobel could testify on the bill.
Ms. Von Tobel indicated she would accept that recommendation, as she did not realize different sections of statutes would require inclusion of both unincorporated cities and counties. To save the bill she would move to reconsider and work with the Senate over her concerns.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MADE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE REMOVING HER AMENDMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN LEE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache indicated they needed to reconsider A.B. 537 with the original proposed amendment deleting subsections 8 and 11 in Section 2 and amending the county section, adding subsection 9 dealing with inspections required by any ordinance. That would align language for the county and unincorporated towns but not give them the authority a city had.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS, DELETING THE PROPOSED CHANGE ON PAGE 1, JUST WITH THE ORIGINAL CHANGES BEFORE HER PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS VOTING NO. ASSEMBLYMEN NEIGHBORS, LEE AND HUMKE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache indicated they would consider A.B. 649, regarding governmental purchasing with amendments submitted by several individuals.
Assembly Bill 649: Revises certain provisions regarding governmental purchasing. (BDR 27-1127)
Dave Ziegler, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated Ted Alevus, Purchasing and Contracts Manager with Clark County, had provided testimony at the previous hearing on the bill. Mr. Moell from State Purchasing had submitted an amendment regarding reverse auctioning (Exhibit M). There was an additional amendment handed out (Exhibit N) from the Nevada Purchasing Study Commission that was different from Mr. Moell’s.
Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21, stated she would have Pam Sutton explain the proposed amendment (Exhibit O) that she and Mr. Savage had worked out.
Pam Sutton, Government Program Manager, Information Systems, Planning and Research Unit, Department of Information Technology, stated she was speaking for director Terry Savage. The intent of the amendment would allow state agencies to pass on actual costs of credit card transactions to consumers. It would make it easier for people to do business with the state by offering usage of credit cards for payment of goods and services from the state through the Internet rather than having to appear in person.
Mrs. Gibbons asked if Ms. Sutton was comfortable with the other proposed amendments. Ms. Sutton replied that she was not aware of Mr. Moell’s submission, but she felt all the other amendments did not take away from the intent of the bill.
Mr. Brown questioned if there was a cap on fees that could be charged. Ms. Sutton stated no cap had been established. Mr. Moell and the treasurer were negotiating a credit card fee that would be acceptable. There would also be a small additional fee for technical implementation but the figure could not be set until a cost analysis was completed.
Chairman Bache stated because none of the other people who had submitted amendments were in attendance he would suggest an “amend and do pass” with the three amendments. The bill could be brought back at a later date if it needed further review, but historically state purchasing did a good job proposing workable amendments.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 649 WITH THE SUBMITTED AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Bache indicated there had also been an amendment submitted by Ms. Vilardo, which had not been included in the original amendments.
Ms. Von Tobel pointed out there was a deletion of the fees charged by the issuer of the credit or debit cards in Ms. Vilardo’s amendment (Exhibit P), and affected language on page 8, line 42 through 45.
Chairman Bache said that amendment placed Ms. Tiffany’s in conflict. He added Ms. O’Grady indicated Ms. Vilardo’s amendment dealt with local government but there should be the same policy for both local and state government.
ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON MADE A MOTION TO FURTHER AMEND A.B. 649 BY DELETING THE SECTION ALLOWING A CHARGE AGAINST THE CUSTOMER FOR USE OF HIS CREDIT CARD.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Chairman Bache indicated he would take a motion on accepting only the first amendment proposed by Ms. Vilardo, as there did not seem to be a conflict.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS CHANGED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE AMENDING SECTION 12, PAGE 7, LINES 4 THROUGH 11, IN THE BILL.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE CONCURRED WITH THE MOTION.
Mr. Brown questioned if there would be any on-line mechanism informing the user there was a fee attached and in what amount. Ms. Tiffany said before the credit card could even be used, there would be a line appearing indicating the amount of the fee and would be determined by the credit card issuer.
It seemed to Mr. Mortenson to be a conflict, as the state was urging use of on-line services and then penalizing the user.
Chairman Bache indicated fees to the state were charged by the credit card company and there had been a policy decision made previously on how those fees were handled. It had been determined by both state and county entities that consumers would be picking up those charges, especially when dealing with fines assessed by agencies.
Ms. Tiffany stated fees were already set by statute. There could be no reduction in the amount of credit card charges and the proposed language was only permissive.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN AND ASSEMBLYMEN WILLIAMS AND LEE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache recessed until 12:10 p.m. as many members had to appear in other committees.
Chairman Bache reconvened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. and stated A.B. 402 would be considered.
Assembly Bill 402: Authorizes adoption of ordinances in certain counties for designation of family cemeteries and authorizes cemetery authorities to order disinterment and removal of human remains. (BDR 40-1192)
Mrs. Freeman testified she and Mr. Marvel had introduced the original bill. Section one addressed a family living in Humboldt County who wanted to establish a family cemetery. Section three addressed a small cemetery in her district located near the university and had historic significance. She submitted some amendments (Exhibit Q) addressing issues of relatives removing remains from cemeteries, and changing noticing requirements to four consecutive weeks.
Chairman Bache recalled there was a problem with Section 1 and he suggested instead of proposed language the bill be amended so in counties or unincorporated areas of less than 20,000 the county commissioners could adopt ordinances establishing family cemeteries. The Stewart family request put forth by Mr. Marvel would be grandfathered in.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE WRITTEN AMENDMENTS AND CHAIRMAN BACHE’S SUGGESTED LANGUAGE.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS ABSTAINING. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS AND LEE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache stated the next bill they would address would be A.B. 479, which had been introduced by Mr. Price.
Assembly Bill 479: Revises provisions regarding open meeting law. (BDR 19-1026)
Chairman Bache indicated the proposed amendment eliminated the laundry list in subsection 5 of section 1, limiting the meaning of “public office.” People affected would be those who, when hired, reported directly to an elected body, board or commission, including presidents of community college and university systems. Mr. Price had given him an article appearing in the Las Vegas Review Journal, which each committee member had received (Exhibit R).
Kent Lauer, Nevada Press Association, testified any person hired by a public body and directly responsible to that public body must be interviewed in an open meeting. In addition, he believed the law should include college presidents and thought subsection 5(e) should be kept in the bill, as it addressed that situation. Sometimes public bodies were called upon to appoint elected representatives due to a vacancy in an office, and he thought those should also be included.
Mrs. Smith thought the main opposition during testimony was references could become public information. Mr. Lauer indicated that during public interviews with candidates, if the issue of references came up they would become public record because the interview was done in an open meeting.
Ms. Parnell questioned the term “in a high level administrative or executive capacity” as it seemed very broad. She wondered about amending section 5 to use language such as, “as used in this section, the term public office includes without limitation” and then list (a) through (h) so the definition was specific as to which positions were included. Mr. Lauer felt a lot of important positions could be left out of the bill if definitions were specified in statute. If the exact language was a problem it could be “high level administrative or executive capacity” so anyone directly responsible to a public board would be specified.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION
Chairman Bache stated he thought there had been a technical problem with the bill but if they processed the bill any problems could still be addressed at a future meeting.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN LEE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
The next bill under consideration was A.B. 560.
Assembly Bill 560: Revises certain provisions regarding peace officers. (BDR 23-1461)
Paul Iverson, Director of the Department of Agriculture, testified when the bill was originally presented there were no major issues with amendments submitted to the committee. It primarily gave the department the authority to add “Agricultural Inspectors” to the program. They would have the ability to inspect all agricultural-type products being transported on the highways, rather than just livestock trucks.
Dick Clark, Executive Director, Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), stated the only amendments they had offered were for tribal officers to receive POST certification and would fall under the responsibilities listed for training in statute. It allowed inter-local agreements with tribes for the purposes of certification and regulation. There was also an addition in NRS 289.550 requiring tribal officers to be certified as peace officers by the state of Nevada within one year of the date the officer was employed as a peace officer. There could be exceptions from the commission in writing for just cause, but could only be extended for six months.
Mr. Ziegler indicated testimony from Mr. Clark was consistent with his records from the meeting when the bill was first heard. He stated the language regarding training and certification of tribal officers was replacement for language presently in statute.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 560 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN LEE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache stated they would next consider action on A.B. 282.
Assembly Bill 282: Revises provisions governing use of polygraphic examinations for peace officers and as part of investigation of peace officers. (BDR 23-1271)
Andy Anderson, representing Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs (NCOPS), indicated they had only submitted one amendment, which eliminated section 4 because it was in conflict with another section. It referenced the refusal of the polygraph. It had been his position that if a person waived the right to take a polygraph, then he should be subjected to whatever standards each different department wanted to impose. He felt Mr. Dreher’s amendments were not necessary. By making the language permissive there would be no requirement for either the officer or citizen to submit to a polygraph. He did not feel it should be mandated, as polygraphs were not accepted in a court of law because they were not 100 percent accurate.
Mr. Williams questioned if the complainant chose not to take the test would that hinder a citizen’s ability to have their complaint taken seriously. Mr. Anderson responded he believed the department was very conscientious in taking complaints and if they opted not to take the test it would not hinder the enthusiasm to investigate. Complaints against officers were not predicated upon a witness passing a polygraph.
Mr. Williams thought section 2 made it clear in the amendment that had been passed out (Exhibit S) from Mr. Dreher. He wondered if Mr. Anderson would have a problem if the language was left in the bill. Mr. Anderson replied he had no problem with that stipulation.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 282 WITH AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY MR. DREHER.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN BROWN AND NEIGHBORS VOTED NO, ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL ABSTAINED, AND ASSEMBLYMAN LEE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache stated the next bill was Ms. Chowning’s, addressing rights of peace officers, with additional information submitted by both the Washoe County Sheriff (Exhibit T) and the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (Exhibit U).
Assembly Bill 323: Revises provisions regarding rights of peace officers. (BDR 23-1277)
Chairman Bache indicated the Nevada Trial Lawyers were in opposition to the bill and because they were unable to attend, they had submitted a letter (Exhibit U).
Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and representing the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, indicated by their legal counsel, they felt the bill was not necessary and probably not on legal standing.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 323.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLYMAN LEE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Bache stated the last bill they would consider would be Mr. Humke’s bill.
Assembly Bill 493: Requires contracts for services concerning certain insurance of this state to be awarded through qualification-based bidding process. (BDR 27-1013)
Danny Thompson, representing the Nevada State AFL-CIO, stated they were opposed to the bill and it was his understanding it would be withdrawn and be addressed by regulation. Mr. Humke related he wanted to hear the request from one of the proponents of the bill.
Jim Wadhams, representing the Nevada Independent Insurance Agents, stated since the last hearing on the bill, there had been productive interaction between the parties involved. He felt most concerns could be solved administratively and wanted that on the record. He recommended no action be taken on the bill.
Mr. Humke read the e-mail from Susan Dunst, “Contact with Mr. Wadhams has been made and there is an agreement that the issue can be resolved through purchasing regulations in lieu of the bill.” Mr. Humke questioned if Mr. Wadhams agreed with that statement. Mr. Wadhams responded he did.
Chairman Bache indicated they would take no further action on the bill.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
Virginia Letts
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: