MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-First Session
April 20, 2001
The Senate Committee on Commerce and Laborwas called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 8:10 a.m., on Friday, April 20, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4406, 555 East Washington Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
Senator Ann O’Connell, Vice Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Michael A. (Mike) Schneider
Senator Maggie Carlton
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Scott Young, Committee Policy Analyst
Laura Adler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Eldon Hardy, Ombudsman, Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry
David R. Walker, Deputy Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry
William A. S. Magrath II, Director, Caughlin Ranch Homeowners Association
Michael E. Buckley, Commissioner, Planning Commission, City of Las Vegas
Joan Buchanan, Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry
Tami DeVries, Legal Administrative Officer, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist
Karen J. Brigg, Resident Agent, Regional Vice President, Eugene Burger Management Corporation
Pamela J. Scott, Lobbyist, Senior Property Manager, The Howard Hughes Corporation
Renny Ashleman, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association
Robert C. Maddox, Lobbyist, Citizens for Justice
Clark (Danny) Lee, Lobbyist, Realty Management Incorporated
Maddie L. Fischer, Lobbyist, American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada
Senator Townsend opened the hearing on the second reading of Senate Bill (S.B.) 2, with amendment 420. He stated Senator Amodei would handle the bill on the Senate Floor, along with S.B. 28.
SENATE BILL 2: Requires provider of insurance coverage for prescription drugs to disclose certain information regarding use of formulary and to continue coverage for prescribed drug under certain circumstances. (BDR 57-597)
SENATE BILL 28: Authorizes formation of associations of self-insured private employers to provide health coverage. (BDR 57-590)
Senator Townsend stated he would address any questions to do with Senate Bill 362.
SENATE BILL 362: Consolidates and revises process for reviewing applications for permits, licenses and other approvals required to construct certain utility facilities. (BDR 58-689)
Senator Townsend said Senator Carlton would handle S.B. 378 on the Senate Floor.
SENATE BILL 378: Revises provisions relating to dentistry and dental hygiene. (BDR 54-1230)
Senator Townsend reopened the hearing on S.B. 421.
SENATE BILL 421: Makes various changes to provisions governing common-interest communities. (BDR 10-446)
Senator Townsend welcomed Eldon Hardy to the committee, and told him he does not need to get into a lot of detail about the ombudsman’s budget. He explained since this committee created Mr. Hardy’s position, they know all they need to know regarding its history. He emphasized what everyone needs to know is the dollars. He said they want to how much is there, does it need to be enhanced, what the committee needs to do, and where everyone is now.
Eldon Hardy, Ombudsman, Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry, stated he has been on the job just 3 weeks. He stated in projecting the expenses the ombudsman’s office will incur this year versus its reserves, enough funds would be generated not only to take care of the ombudsman’s office expenses, but also a commission for owners in special-interest communities, when and if it is put in place. He explained the budget is approximately $250,000 for each entity, and projected income is estimated at $575,000 for the year. He articulated the numbers for the associations that are registered change dramatically. He conveyed there are 140 associations registered in the Las Vegas area, representing173,000 “doors” (voting homeowners), and added the number is up from projections. He stated prior to leaving Las Vegas yesterday, an analysis was done on the number of associations in the state. He noted the number of associations not registered with his office will exceed 1000 in addition to the 1500 plus already registered.
Senator Townsend expressed he did not pick up the amounts Mr. Hardy mentioned, and asked where he would find it. Mr. Hardy stated the actual figures are not in the rough draft (Exhibit C) he put together before leaving Las Vegas to attend the committee meeting. Senator Townsend asked for clarification, if nothing happens, the estimate is to collect $500,000 a year. Mr. Hardy affirmed the senator was correct, and added there is the potential for a larger amount to be collected, with some of the changes being made in new registration forms and procedures in contacting delinquent associations.
Senator Townsend stated, according to the documents they are required to use at the legislature from the budget office, the reserve balance for this account is very high. He said for fiscal year (FY) 2001-02, the Governor-recommended reserve balance is $633,000, and recommended for FY 2002-03 is $897,307. He said the total operating cost is recommended to be $273,000 in FY 2001-02, and the next year $281,000. He said during the upcoming biennium, lowering the per unit fee of $3 would be considered, and the committee would be working with the attorney general on the issue. He contended, we now know there is money to try to help all kinds of consumers get their issues resolved. He continued, there are recommendations on some of the issues the ombudsman might consider, such as suggested programs, board training, a quarterly newsletter, a reference library, start-up kits, subsidized mediation, law review program quarterly publication, an ombudsman as a guest speaker service, educational forums, legislative updates, Web page, guide booklets, et cetera. Senator Townsend commented, having reviewed all this, he would like to offer some suggestions. He elucidated the committee is hearing about mediation, and plays a major role in what is important. He expounded the object is to try to keep people from becoming hostile by improving the line of communication and giving them better information, which is crucial. He expounded on educational forums as a way to open a line of communication. He said he encourages the ombudsman to have regular conversations with Senators Schneider, O’Connell, Shaffer, and Carlton, because Las Vegas seems to generate most of these needs. He reiterated he encouraged Mr. Hardy to provide opportunities for discussion forums by going into the common-interest communities and appearing in front of their boards and reminding them, when their property managers tell them something is the law, they need to follow it, whether they like the law or not, and remind them if they have a problem with the law, they can come to the legislature in 2 years to change it, but until it is changed, the law must be followed, whatever it is. He continued, board-training courses are extremely important, and the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor is supportive of the concept.
Senator Townsend expounded the issue is to make an effort to get a handle on the telephone calls. He noted approximately 4500 telephone calls known as Information Assist Phone Requests are being projected. He noted he is not referring to a person that just facilitates a telephone call. He stressed the person or persons handling those telephone calls must be knowledgeable, know the law, know chapter 116 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS); they must stay abreast of pending legislation relating to special-interest communities, understand people’s litigation rights, and be able to provide information quickly and efficiently. He explained the ombudsman is not the person to answer telephone queries, but would be the expert in the “real complex, sort-it-out kinds of things.” Senator Townsend said simple telephone calls deserve appropriate, informed, warm, consumer-driven answers, and asked Mr. Hardy what it would take to provide them.
Mr. Hardy responded he could not agree with the Senator more. He averred the number would be over 1000 telephone calls a month, over 15,000 a year. He noted much of his background is in mediation and arbitration, and agreed the people who call need someone to talk to. He said half the battle would be to give them someone to talk to who can give them some direction. Mr. Hardy said because his office is severely understaffed, it will take more staff. He contended the logistics of him going out to the various association board meetings, are simply overwhelming, because he would have to do about 10 a day. He asserted there needs to be seminars and training opportunities and his office is currently working on setting those up.
Senator Townsend commented, obviously, between Mr. Hardy and the division, and what has occurred in the last 2 years, and what has been provided to him now, he should be getting a sense of what the committee would like him to bring back to them. He said the committee would like to resolve today’s portion from a NRS point of view and noted the ombudsman was independent from the process. In other words, if they could process S.B. 421 today, the ombudsman’s issues could still be dealt with, because they are primarily budget issues. Senator Townsend asked Mr. Hardy to have his proposal by next Tuesday. He noted the good news is the ombudsman’s office has money, and added it should have a reasonable amount, but not too much, because consumers pay for it. He suggested Mr. Hardy include the current staffing pattern, identifying individual responsibilities assigned in order to accomplish the public policy established by this Legislature, and also include projected costs for instituting the suggested programs. Senator Townsend clarified, if a representative from the ombudsman’s office can only attend one meeting per association a year, the best one to attend is the annual meeting, which usually is attended by most of the home owner association’s (HOA’s) voting members. He cautioned Mr. Hardy to not spend a lot of time on pennies, but to provide the committee with what he thinks the ombudsman’s office would need, so the committee has something to sink its teeth into and resolve any areas in question.
Commenting further, Senator Townsend stated there was an interesting debate before the committee, about 2 weeks ago. He said the discussion was about the City of Las Vegas using a consultant from Georgia, through the university, to attempt to find out how to provide better service to the citizens of Las Vegas. The consultants asked the people who were part of the government mechanism how it could be better, what was it doing wrong, and how they could become more consumer-oriented. He remarked it helps to ask your own questions about how best to answer the telephone calls intelligently and be well-informed, how best to direct people to the information they need, and what does the ombudsman’s office need to do, relative to seminars and to attending annual board meetings. He concluded looking at these things would give Mr. Hardy an idea of what his budget should look like. Senator Townsend stressed not to get into too much detail, such as employee grade levels, since those types of details can be addressed later. He conveyed, when Mr. and Mrs. Southern Nevada HOA make a telephone call because they are confused, even though they have read the book, and now they need some help, if the person they talk to cannot answer the question, then he or she needs to know where to direct them to get the answer. Hopefully, it would resolve a lot of the tension among all parties of an issue, Senator Townsend said.
Senator Shaffer articulated, a well-informed manager could solve many of the complaints he has received. He commented he did not know how to make it mandatory managers attend these training sessions, explaining many association managers have other real estate businesses they run out of the same offices, and the sooner they can get rid of homeowner calls, the better they like it, because those calls can be time-consuming and interfere with their real estate businesses. He emphasized discipline is needed, because in most cases, representing a home owners association is like a political appointment, who is going to fire them, especially if they are volunteers.
Senator Townsend said he agreed with Senator Shaffer’s point, adding the committee could provide the ombudsman’s office with an opportunity to meet someone who might prove useful for making presentations and conducting seminars. He expounded Senators O’Connell, Rhoads, Shaffer, and he all served with a man who is a most likely candidate to contract with, who has an incredible reputation with exceptional interpersonal skills, who is knowledgeable about the law, who understands how politics evolve, and could be very helpful.
Mr. Hardy agreed there are some very knowledgeable people with excellent skills, and the ombudsman’s office definitely wants to use those people.
Senator Townsend commented there are opportunities if everyone works together so Mr. Hardy receives the information to add to his resources.
Mr. Hardy emphasized the work would have to be on a larger scale than a one-on-one.
David R. Walker, Deputy Administrator, Real Estate Division (RED), Department of Business and Industry, stated he would like to respond to Senator Shaffer’s comments. He said the RED would like to see every HOA have a licensed person to represent it. He said, in most cases it would be the manager, but even in the self-managed associations, there should be one licensed person who has had or will take the training, which would be provided, and who has signed his or her name affirming they know what they are doing. He posited many associations disagree with the RED very much, especially the self-managed associations. But this is one point the RED would like to emphasize it hopes will come out of this arrangement, through education, one manager could be held responsible.
Senator Townsend responded associations do one of two things: they have a volunteer on the board who happens to be an attorney, and that person is always held to a higher standard of knowledge because of his or her position; or, if there happens to be someone on the board who is a licensee of the RED, he or she will always be held to a higher standard of knowledge, because it is what they are licensed to do. He remarked a hired property manager who is licensed is also held to higher standard. He expounded problems arise when one of the three situations does not exist. He inquired if there were an opportunity for the associations to require, either the manager of the property or the head of the association to attend a certification seminar which would greatly reduce the number of complaints and provide an on-premises resource, especially for the smaller associations. He qualified his statement, he said he was not talking about requiring a real estate license for a volunteer manager of an association.
Mr. Walker agreed with the senator. He explained the RED was not looking at a real estate license, but at a “community interest license.” He said it would not go through a broker or real estate school. He said it is envisioned to be a much simpler process. He insisted this “lay manager” would be able and qualified to perform the property manager duties. He maintained they do not want to make it a cumbersome responsibility for the people, but to make it an informed education for understanding.
Senator Townsend said, as an example, he would use the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN), where there are three commissioners and certain criteria they must meet. He said a commissioner must be either a lawyer, an engineer, a certified public accountant (CPA), or have a degree in finance, and all should have utilities experience. He contended those were pretty high standards. He continued, after the commissioners are chosen, they must go to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), and spend at least 7 days in a training session. He expounded, these people are then required to attend yearly continuing education classes, even though these people are already held to a higher standard. He surmised it was not unreasonable to ask someone to give up half a day or a day to be brought up to speed as to their responsibilities to the people who are their neighbors in an association.
Mr. Walker said he concurred 100 percent with Senator Townsend’s assessment. He added, it is what the RED would like to see.
Mr. Hardy commented the homeowners and board members are the same people, the job is to find people who are willing to serve in a volunteer capacity, and then educate these people, but not run them off by making it too difficult and too cumbersome. He encouraged, however, if someone could be found in each association who is trained and has a sense of responsibility and obligation to do the job, it would make the process much easier and assures it would work better. He stressed members of HOAs need to remember why they moved into associations and sacrifice a little, so the association continues to be as nice a place as when they first went there. He asserted the real thrust of the ombudsman’s office is to facilitate this comradery and foster mutual cooperation.
Senator O'Connell stated a major point has been missed, many people move into an association because of the location. She stressed if it is not a gated community, then often they are not aware they have taken on additional responsibilities with their homes. She maintained it does sound strange and kind of dumb, but it is the reality she has found when trying to assist these people, especially if they are the second or third owners of the homes. She said it is assumed the people bought the home because they want the amenities offered by associations, but it is not what happens. She contended the approach should be to the lowest level of understanding when making considerations. She expounded she still does not have the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) from the first association she moved into 25 years ago, and did not know at the time they were moving into an association when they purchased the house. She concluded, even when it is stated homeowners are taking on extra responsibilities, it really is not what is on the minds of most homeowners. Therefore, she stated we have to gear ourselves to understanding and assuming, unless it is a gated area, a little more education is needed in the associations.
Mr. Hardy elucidated, one of the focuses in the education process is to utilize the Web sites to help inform HOA members. He contended he did not know how big a job it would be, but he envisions putting all the CC&Rs and bylaws on the Internet for these people to access, information they should have gotten in the beginning. He said he would like to encourage all the associations to put their CC&Rs and bylaws on CDs (compact discs) so they may be more easily updated whenever necessary. He stated it is a big dream, but it could be done because it is being done in other areas. He explained this would be a much easier way for homeowners to find out what they should have known when they first moved in.
Senator Townsend reiterated Senator O'Connell’s point about some associations having no clear identification of area, unless it is a gated community. He stated as someone goes through an ungated common community and sees well-maintained common areas, it would not necessarily register it has anything to do with an HOA and dues. He surmised the point is it needs to be openly disclosed the home is in an HOA, even though it is not a gated community.
Mr. Walker confirmed Senator O'Connell’s remarks. He commented this is one of the issues the division is attempting to emphasize. He stated one of the RED’s primary concerns is to obtain copies of CC&Rs and bylaws. He pointed out the realtor, agent or buyer is currently paying fees of $25 to $225 for a copy of the CC&Rs. He stressed the cost is one reason they are emphasizing the ombudsman’s office get the CC&Rs on the computer for low-cost, instant access. He said the RED is stressing even more for the agent or realtor, way prior to escrow, to go over the CC&Rs and bylaws with the home buyer. He stated, from personal experience, many times the CC&Rs are handed over only at the close of escrow, and the RED is working hard to turn the practice around.
Mr. Walker remarked the other concern is for the sale by owner. He noted without the professional realtor to perform all the functions associated with a sale, the buyer is usually unaware of a community association, and seldom receives the CC&Rs. He told the committee they have attempted to have the escrow company or title company certify or verify the disclosures have been met, and it is difficult to convince them to do this, but they are persevering. Continuing, Mr. Walker noted chapter 113 of NRS states there has to be a real property seller’s disclosure, yet the RED cannot get the escrow companies to verify the real property seller’s disclosure is part of the package of documents. He pointed out within the disclosure would be the information on whether the property is part of an HOA.
William A. S. Magrath II, Director, Caughlin Ranch Homeowners Association, clarified there are two sections to chapter 116 of NRS dealing with sales of units. He said the public offerings are under NRS 116.4103, and resale of units under NRS 116.4109. He articulated both of the provisions precede NRS 116.41095, which is the four-page disclosure statement required to be signed by a buyer. He expounded the disclosure statement starts out with, “Before you purchase . . . do you know . . .” He said it contains all the disclosures a buyer should know before the sale is final. He explained, legally, in a resale or original sale of a unit, there is the four-page disclosure statement. He stated NRS 116.4109, which enumerates the seller’s obligations, requires the seller must provide certain information, including the declaration, the bylaws, et cetera. He asserted the seller must provide the information, but it does not guarantee the seller will. He averred the statute does not say the purchaser must acknowledge receipt, and from a HOA’s point of view, such a law would be encouraged, because it is to the association’s advantage to have an informed buyer, not a surprised buyer. He expounded NRS 116.4109, states the seller shall provide, and further, the statute says, the association, at the request of the seller, shall furnish certain documents.
Mr. Magrath emphasized, nowhere in the statute does it say anything about the purchaser getting the documents. He elucidated an association hands the documents to a seller, not to a title company. He added there is no way of knowing if the seller has peeled off a few pages containing notices of violations, then handed over the remaining documents. He explained the buyer is then surprised when the HOA notifies him, the new owner to take care of existing violations acquired by the seller. He contended there is a missing link in NRS 116.4109. Mr. Magrath surmised all associations want to have informed buyers, so there are no surprises for anyone. He commented the group expressed concern in regard to advertising. He remarked it may not appear in private advertising, but it might be easier in a large public group; but the problem is, there is so much already required in these ads, it may look like a surgeon general’s warning on a cigarette pack. He commented the disclosure statement does say the person is being informed they are moving in, but it does not say anything about what is attached or what copies of documents are in it.
Senator Townsend commentated it was a crucial level of understanding to help people with. He pointed out those who have the hardest time understanding are the ones who buy in a non-gated community where it is not obvious there is an association, and it becomes very hard.
Michael E. Buckley, Commissioner, Planning Commission, City of Las Vegas, explained the City of Las Vegas had to deal with the issue of non-gated associations. He said public works wanted every private street to be gated, so people would know. He said the big problem was people did not want the gates. He explained what was decided was to have a notice in the subdivision ordinance, for identification on a street sign or at the area where people would enter, which would say these are private streets.
Senator O'Connell commented the practice is not adopted in any other city around the Las Vegas area. Mr. Buckley explained this addition to the City of Las Vegas’ ordinances was adopted a year ago to help address the problem of people not knowing what they were getting into.
Joan Buchanan, Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry, commented on Senator Shaffer’s interest in the education of property managers. She elucidated, anyone who has a property management permit under a real estate license has to have some continuing education in the property management area; and community managers needed to have 9 hours on their renewal, which is every 2 years. She insisted she would like to see at least one association board member attend a state law session within 6 months of commencing service, noting the division would provide the classes. She mentioned in many self-managed associations, they directly employ their managers, and there is no way the RED can get cooperation because there is no way to regulate them. She opined, it would be possible to make a requirement of the declarant who is developing the property in order to get the needed cooperation and communication. She remarked purchasers of property within a HOA could be required, by statute, to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of declaration, because right now, it is not mandatory. She clarified the
declarations are recorded and the title and escrow companies do pick them up and have to call the HOA for the settlement agreement, settlement amount, and transfer fees, so they do know about the declarations. She suggested the time a property is listed is when the documents should be produced, so the potential buyer can be informed up front.
Ms. Buchanan stressed putting the CC&Rs on a Website would provide a valuable service to the public, as well as to licensees. She estimated with a qualified person dedicated to the task of putting the CC&Rs on a Website, it might take a year, including time required for contacting the various HOAs. She added it would also take a little time to research and identify those HOAs the RED does not have in its data system. As an aside, Ms. Buchanan mentioned while attending a conference in Orlando, Florida, she noticed some of the street signs stated, “Deed Restricted Community.”
Senator Townsend acknowledged such signage could have value for non-gated communities.
Mr. Buckley offered two documents which he explained are the results of yesterday’s workshop. The “S.B. 421 Working Group” document (Exhibit D) is intended to incorporate all the changes, together with attachment A (Exhibit E).
Mr. Magrath commented a third document to be submitted is a proposed amendment to S.B. 421 suggested by Senator Rhoads (Exhibit F).
Mr. Buckley pointed out contributions from yesterday’s working group included suggestions from Karen J. Brigg, Resident Agent, Regional Vice President, Eugene Burger Management Corporation, from Senator Townsend, and representatives of the Caughlin Ranch HOA. He noted those suggestions have been incorporated into these documents.
A discussion ensued regarding getting copies of the documents to the people in hearing Room 4406 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Arrangements were made for a fax, plus hand delivery by tonight.
Mr. Buckley suggested he would review new points in the documents. Referring to attachment A (Exhibit E), he said section 6 creates the commission for common-interest communities; section 7 provides for immunity from civil liability with regard to good-faith decisions made at commission meetings; section 7.3 provides for instruction in rules of procedure and substantive law appropriate for the new commissioners; section 7.5 lists the powers and responsibilities of the commission. He noted, yesterday, the ombudsman would have been required to report to the commission, and today, the ombudsman reports to the administrator, so the office of the ombudsman is separate and apart. He expounded one of the changes in the commission was to make it less disciplinary and more about education. He noted originally an interim study committee was proposed, but suggested those funds might be set aside, instead, for data gathering on all the associations, and perhaps, to conduct an opinion poll of members of associations. He explained one of the areas added to the commission in the new section 7.95 requires the commission to submit a report of the results of their findings and any recommendations for legislation to the 2003 Legislature.
Senator Townsend queried how the information would be gathered, whether by a staff member from the ombudsman’s office, or if it would be strictly a commission function.
Mr. Buckley surmised the process should be a function of the Real Estate Division and the commission staff, rather than the ombudsman or the commission itself.
Tami DeVries, Legal Administrative Officer, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry, answered the commission staff would be collecting the data. By next week, Ms. DeVries surmised she would have a proposal for an information person in the ombudsman’s office who would also assist in data collection. She explained the point was to keep the commission and the ombudsman’s office separate, in order to maintain the neutral position of the ombudsman and facilitate his function to assist as opposed to regulate.
Continuing, Mr. Buckley stated all agreed on a 1-year statute of limitations for bringing actions before the commission, as referenced in section 8 of S.B. 421. He noted section 9 is dedicated to getting parties to work things out before having to go before the commission. He expounded, an affidavit would have to be filed first, and the ombudsman would try to resolve the issue. If the issue could not be resolved, then an investigator would look into it. He clarified, before anything happened, the complainant would have to produce evidence to the division the offender had twice been given formal notice of the offense and warning a complaint would be filed. He conveyed, evidence would have to be submitted to the division that reasonable efforts at mediation have failed. He noted the emphasis was on getting the parties to work things out before they escalate to the point of being brought before the commission.
Mr. Magrath asserted another provision added to the section regarding the written notices from a complaining person to an offender would be, in addition to specifying, in reasonable detail, the alleged violation and any harm, the aggrieved are also asked to specify any proposed corrective action. If the complainer has a simple solution, he said, then it would be easier to fix the problem by communicating the solution, than by imposing what the board or the offender might think is the solution.
Mr. Buckley stated section 10 addresses the procedures for filing, serving, responding to the complaint, and the hearing process. He said section 13 requires the commission to issue a cease and desist order or orders of affirmative relief, and if somebody does not comply, then there would be the possibility of a fine. Additionally, he said they changed an existing section of the law to refer to the common-interest communities commission regulation of community managers, assigning the commission the power to discipline licensed community managers. The new section 14.5, Mr. Buckley said, points out these additional rights or remedies are not intended to change any other rights or remedies a person may have under existing statute.
Ms. DeVries pointed out the intent was to incorporate as much as possible into one document, therefore, Senator Rhoads’ amendment, as it read yesterday, was incorporated into attachment A (Exhibit E) under the new section 33.3, since is where NRS 116.1201, is being changed. She concluded it would be easy to incorporate Senator Rhoads’ new proposals into the section, as opposed to what is there now.
Responding to a question, Mr. Buckley stated the new page with paragraph (d), would be in place of the language in subsection 5, paragraph (b).
Mr. Magrath stated the new language better defines the particular exception being sought. He noted the language the group agreed on yesterday might technically amend the definition of those residential, rural common-interest associations, and adding Senator Rhoads’ new amendment (Exhibit F) would more articulately establish the exception the group is trying to delineate without redefining other rural organizations.
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, representing the Humboldt River Ranch Property Owners Association, stated the new correcting amendment would add a new paragraph (d) to subsection 2 of NRS 116.1201, which is the bolded, underlined language in Senator Rhoads’ amendment (Exhibit F). He added, it would have been another section, but after hearing the response from the working group, and their interest in having it much cleaner and not affecting the current definition of rural agricultural residential common-interest community, he drafted paragraph (d), and it is acceptable to everyone.
Mr. Magrath explained the current working group document refers to the same statute, and what they were doing was relocating the revised definition in a different section of the statute.
Senator Townsend reiterated they were putting in a new subsection 2, in paragraph (d), and removing subsection 5, paragraph (b). Senator Rhoads commented the change meets with his approval.
Referencing the population figures based on the 2000 Census (Exhibit G), Mr. McMullen stated the amendment would not affect Carson City, Clark County, Douglas County, Elko County, and Washoe County. He said it does affect the other 12 counties. He added there is no magic to the number 35, if they choose to move it.
Mr. Magrath remarked the amendment only affects associations created before 1992. It will not affect any newer associations that have not already been in existence for 8 years.
Mr. McMullen elucidated he does not represent title companies, but per request, he contacted Pat Coward, Lobbyist, to indicate what was the issue. He said Mr. Coward referred to NRS 116.4109 and NRS 116.41095. Mr. McMullen stated he tried to alert Mr. Coward there would be some responsibility on the title company or the realtor to ensure those documents were, in fact, transferred and published to the property purchaser. Mr. McMullen said he was called back into the room before he heard Mr. Coward’s response, but he indicated he would contact Mr. Coward later for more guidance to help resolve the placement of the amendment.
Senator Rhoads commented, so long as it does not affect Spring Creek, then he is okay with the amendment.
Mr. Buckley averred they were done with attachment A of Exhibit E, and to return to the working group document (Exhibit D).
Senator Townsend asked Ms. Brigg, if she represented any ungated HOAs that are not gated. Ms. Brigg responded she represented a number of them. Commenting further, Senator Townsend said he surmised some non-gated associations have very large common areas while others do not have a lot of common areas, but are part of an association. Ms. Brigg acknowledged that she also represents those types of associations, as well. Senator Townsend remarked non-gated associations have been a concern of association members in Clark County. He said people have complained they are not sure where they are.
Senator O'Connell interjected Whitney Ranch is such a non-gated community off of Sunset Road, with Russell Road on the north, and Stephanie Street on the east.
Ms. Brigg said perhaps one reason people have problems is when areas are being developed, the developers put in entries with names of their subdivisions, but the development is not necessarily an association community, and this adds to the confusion.
Mr. Buckley stated in section 15 of the bill, there are some technical corrections regarding the issuance of licenses to community managing agents. He noted a proposal to add a new paragraph (f) for the commission to provide, by regulation, for the licensing of community managing agents, a broker-type person. He stated it is being proposed the commission be given the authority to provide for exemptions for certain people. He added there were no changes to section 23. He noted the proposed changes to section 25 have been deleted, and the original language about conflicts of interest is retained. Continuing, Mr. Buckley said section 27 was a suggestion regarding litigation, put together by Senator Townsend, the group incorporated into the provision.
Senator O'Connell stated there is an area in Las Vegas that has nothing to do with un-gated HOAs, but they have allowed halfway houses into the area. She said one neighborhood has a real problem with 15 halfway houses among 600 to 700 homes. She explained it was discovered the people operating these halfway houses are not licensed and have as many as 15 people living in one house. She elaborated neither the state nor the county had any tracking of the operators or the people.
Pamela Scott, Lobbyist, Senior Property Manager, The Howard Hughes Corporation, commented there are a few group homes in Summerlin protected by the federal Fair Housing Act (Title 42-The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 45-Fair Housing). She said the communities she manages do not have as many as the neighborhood mentioned in the newspapers. Ms. Scott emphasized she knew of no provision in Nevada or in federal law preventing them from being grouped together. She explained there is nothing she can do in a HOA for the neighbors who complain, except to work with the operator of the home to see the grounds are maintained and parking does not become an issue. She expounded the issues are the same, just magnified, when there are extra people living in a house.
Mr. Buckley stated section 32 just changes the reference from the real estate commission to the common-interest communities commission. He said section 34 of S.B. 421 only had slight modifications. He noted section 38 of the bill, has a new paragraph (h) regarding procedural rules for conducting elections.
Mr. Magrath said Senator Townsend suggested language be added to section 41, subsection 9, “to protect the health, safety and welfare,” allowing the hiring of contractors to remedy problems. He noted the language of, “within 90 days, that some governing documents and some governing boards already have the power to take emergency action.” He suggested, to clarify for boards already empowered to act within 90 days, be referenced with the language, “if board action is required by the governing documents.”
Senator O'Connell asked if there was a problem over the use of health, safety and welfare.
Senator Townsend directed attention to NRS 116.3115, subsection 9, paragraph (e), which states, “To protect the health, safety and welfare of the members of the association,” noting the board may, on an emergency basis, file civil litigation. He stressed he has thought about that section over the past sessions and within the last 48 hours, and can not determine the public purpose served. He said he reasoned if the health, safety and welfare of the members were threatened, then what purpose would litigation serve in fixing or addressing the health, safety and welfare issues. He explained he thought it was appropriate to remove the section, and replace it with, “To protect the health, safety and welfare of the members of the association, the board may act on an emergency basis to hire an appropriate, licensed Nevada contractor to repair or correct the condition in any unit or common element.” He added the board could then ratify the hiring action afterwards. He emphasized this language allows a more immediate solution to an emergency than any civil litigation would. Further, he stated this language does not mean a civil litigation action can be taken by a board without first getting a vote from the membership.
Senator O'Connell stated she wanted to be sure this is specified in the minutes, because this section will be a key point for the ombudsman when he encounters this situation, and it may be key to fall back on the minutes for reference.
Mr. Buckley suggested language be added to make it clear the board meeting could be the next regularly scheduled meeting; it would not have to be a special board meeting.
Senator Townsend commented if an association board votes to enter civil litigation, without going to their members, how would it relate to the notice provided not allowing anybody on the property to fix anything. He questioned where the prohibition would work into “the health, safety and welfare.” He emphasized the point is to get someone to fix the problem before it becomes a crisis. He explained so long as the right to file a class action lawsuit is still protected with the appropriate mechanism of the vote, then the problem could get fixed.
Senator O'Connell inquired if it would always apply to a contractor, since it is specifically mentioned in the law. She posited there might be an instance when somebody else would be involved.
Mr. Magrath interjected, the language could be modified to say, “or take other appropriate action.” He explained sometimes it is a matter of having the association’s own staff make the repair, such as, fixing a fallen fence next to a schoolyard. He clarified it could say, “hire an appropriately licensed contractor or take other appropriate action.” He contended Senator Townsend’s intent is to keep the lines of dialogue open to get the offending party to take the desired action. He pointed out if a person is sued, you can be pretty sure you will never see him until court, which could be a very long time.
Senator Townsend agreed with Senator O'Connell’s point. He said he was not sure at the moment what the correct language should be, but the point is to correct the problem, and not hiring just anybody to fix it. He emphasized that the when a repair is made to something considered by some to be a defect, it should be repaired to a standard the purchaser would expect had it been done right the first time.
Mr. Buckley suggested caution when saying, “other appropriate party,” because it might be the lawyer. He offered to work with others on the language to ensure the desired effect. Referring to section 42, subsection 1, paragraph (b) of the bill, he said deals with executive session meetings of the board. He stated it was pointed out it may be employees of the property manager who are being discussed, not just employees of the association. He suggested the wording should be, “discuss matters relating to employees of the association or employees of a person engaged by the association.” Moving on to section 46, subsection 4, paragraph (e), Mr. Buckley said they updated the language to read, “an employee of the association is not exempt.” He noted language added to subsection 4, paragraph (h), was ”a board member or an officer.” He explained it was not being suggested a board member or officer who is acting as a board member or officer has to be certificated or licensed.
Mr. Magrath clarified for associations with community managers, the definition in the first part says, “a community manager means a person who holds a certificate or holds a permit and who manages.” He noted the group did not intend to suggest the intent was the manager to become a licensed individual, just that the person has to have a permit or a certificate if he or she works for an association and manages it facilities. Which he asserted, should clear up the administrator’s concern.
Referencing tabs E and G in the “Work Session Document” binder (Exhibit H. (Original submitted as Exhibit C in the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor minutes dated April 19, 2001. Original is on file in the Research Library.), Mr. Magrath said in large properties covered by associations, sometimes the original declarant will sell off chunks of land to subsequent developers, such as happened in Caughlin Ranch. He asserted the subsequent developer does everything a normal declarant would do: building roads, designating lots, selling to the ultimate purchasers, and then tells the purchaser he or she is not the original declarant, has turned this property over to the association so they must turn over all the new common areas to the old, existing association, but without a reserve study, and not funding any applicable reserves. He averred the intent of last session’s bill (S.B. 451 of the Seventieth Session) was to make sure subsequent developers do reserve studies and fund reserves.
SENATE BILL 451 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Makes various changes to provisions governing common-interest communities. (BDR 10-924)
For example, Mr. Magrath said Caughlin Ranch has an area with deteriorating private roads which will need to be replaced in time, and the developer has stated that he was not required by law to maintain the streets. Mr. Magrath maintained it is situations like this which prompted inclusion of language to guarantee subsequent developers do reserve studies, and set aside reserves if the study shows there is a deficiency.
Mr. Magrath mentioned a proposed new subsection 14 to NRS 116.31038 was inadvertently left out of the documents. He noted everyone in the group agrees the new subsection should be included indicating item 14, on page 4, under tab G (Exhibit H). He expounded the subsection would cover the issue where subsequent developers, who are acting like declarants, cannot avoid the responsibility of reserve studies, so homeowners do not have to make up shortfalls. He added the term, “common areas and improvement,” should more accurately say, “common elements,” which is the better definition.
Answering a question, Mr. Magrath stated similar language is in section 47 of S.B. 421, but it is important the language be in two locations, so they are proposing an entirely new section be created just for this new language because funding issues have arisen regarding how property is turned over to an association.
Ms. Brigg commented one other issue is a problem for HOAs with regard to construction defects. She elucidated when a HOA enters into a construction defect lawsuit, money is sometimes taken from the association reserves to pay for legal fees during interim periods, depending on how the association has entered into a contract with the particular construction defect attorney. She mentioned she had attended a board meeting at a Las Vegas association and questioned the practice.
Mr. Magrath expressed amazement to hear Ms. Brigg’s comments, because he said he understands it would be illegal under existing law, to tap a reserve set-aside for a specific purpose, for attorney’s fees. He maintained the intent of the original reserve law was to retain those funds for a specific purpose and not as a resource to pay for litigation.
Senator Townsend directed staff to contact the Legislative Counsel Bureau for a legal opinion as soon as possible.
Mr. Buckley articulated the reserve reference is in NRS 116.3115, subsection 2, paragraph (b), which says, “The association shall establish an adequate reserve . . . The reserve may be used only for those purposes . . .” which are repair, replacement, and restoration.
Senator Townsend interjected it also says, “including, without limitation,” which, he noted, could leave it open.
Mr. Buckley responded, “including, without limitation,” does not expand on the original language. He said he surmised he could argue repair, replacement and restoration might include a lawsuit to get repairs done.
Mr. Magrath recommended adding a sentence to eliminate the issue by saying; a reserve fund may not be used to fund litigation, or shall not.
Mr. Buckley suggested leaving the section alone, because there may be a situation where a lawsuit might be appropriate, and perhaps, the commission could address this issue.
Senator Townsend commented it might be wise to first get the legal opinion from the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and then everyone can debate on what to do.
Referring to section 47 of S.B. 421, Mr. Buckley said this is the section dealing with lawsuits. He voiced NRS 116.3115 should be left just to deal with capital improvement assessments. He said the bulk of subsection 9, regarding lawsuits, would be completely eliminated and put in a separate section, leaving only the words, “The association shall provide written notice to the owner of each unit of a meeting at which an assessment for capital improvement . . . is to be considered at least 21 calendar days before the meeting.” He articulated they are proposing removing all the language dealing with lawsuits, and putting it in chapter 116 of NRS as a new section 47.5 of S.B. 421. He elucidated what is being said in subsection 1 is the association may commence a civil action only upon the vote or written agreement of a majority of the unit owners, with 21 days’ advance meeting notice. He said NRS 116.3115, subsection 9, paragraph (a), matters relating to time-shares, has been excluded, along with paragraph (b) enforcing assessments, paragraph (c) enforcing the declaration, and paragraph (d) proceeding with a counter claim. He pointed out a new paragraph (e) has been added to rescind or enforce a contract to which the association is a party, such as, a contract with a landscape contractor.
Senator Schneider commented the time-share bill was heard in judiciary, and they took everything to do with time-shares out of chapter 116 of NRS and moved it to chapter 119 of NRS.
Senator Townsend commented the time-share business is an evolving and mushrooming area of real estate, particularly in the warmer climate states.
Renny Ashleman, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, referred to the proposed amendment to S.B. 421, tab H in the “Work Session Document” binder (Exhibit H). He asserted the removal of subsection 11 of section 47 would resolve a lot of problems created by the wording, “no person other than a units owner may request a dismissal of a civil action commenced by the association on the grounds that the association failed to comply with any provision of this section.” He expounded, it seemed reasonable at the time, but in actuality, it has stopped the enforcement of protection because it pits the individual unit owner against his own association, which is an unequal contest as far as financial resources are concerned.
Mr. Buckley interjected all the language in section 47 has been deleted.
Mr. Ashleman referred to another proposed amendment regarding destructive testing (Exhibit H). He mentioned detailed testimony was provided by Shari O’Donnell, Lobbyist, (representing Plaster Development Company Incorporated), during the April 5, 2001, meeting of the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor. He elaborated on the brief, proposed wording, a board or its counsel, if it hires a contractor that performs destructive testing, should make sure the contractor is licensed with the State Contractors’ Board, should make sure to obtain prior written approval from each unit owner involved, make sure to provide a repair schedule, to perform the repair to the standard to which any other contractor would be held, and obtain all the required permits. Concluding his remarks, Mr. Ashleman stated this proposed amendment should alleviate the problems associated with the destructive testing issue brought before the committee in earlier testimony.
Robert C. Maddox, Lobbyist, Citizens for Justice, expressed opposition to Mr. Ashleman’s proposed amendment. He stated the committee has not had any homeowners who have had destructive testing or complained about anything having to do with the destructive testing of their homes, and it is inappropriate to include anything like this proposed amendment in chapter 113 of NRS. He said if there were an issue, it should be dealt with in chapter 40 of NRS, where the claim is brought. He agreed the proposal was reasonable, but it did not belong in this area, because there is not an issue to justify its inclusion.
Ms. Brigg clarified the reason for the proposed, destructive testing amendment in chapter 116 of NRS, is the board is involved with making the decisions as far as who is hired to perform the destructive testing. She contended the board should be aware this person should be licensed.
Mr. Maddox responded the board should know, and obviously, the person doing contractor-type work should be licensed. He insisted it is already required, any person doing any work for an association must be licensed.
Ms. Brigg countered when homeowners are looking for answers regarding association issues, they are more likely to turn to chapter 116 of NRS, where it is easier to see their rights. She said chapter 116 spells out the board has to obtain the written permission before the testing is done. She claimed it would solve the problems expressed in previous testimony.
Mr. Maddox claimed the proposed amendment to chapter 116 of NRS is duplication, and the issue of destructive testing should be left to chapter 40 of NRS.
Ms. Brigg stated it was important not to skip over the issues in section 49, because there are problems and complaints regarding foreclosure, and how quickly the foreclosure process is gone through. She explained most associations will establish a period of 30, 60, or 90 days before it goes to lien. She said the property is then being turned over to collection agencies, and somewhere in the process, they are going so fast, homeowners are not aware of how fast the process can be. For example, she said, for a homeowner who owes $500, it is turning around and assessing him $1000 through the quick-moving foreclosure process, and by that point there is a real problem.
Senator Carlton declared the foreclosure issue is the main issue for her in the whole of the bill. She acknowledged the efforts of everyone involved in trying to iron out all the wrinkles in chapter 116 of NRS. She stated the question is, are the associations going to be allowed to foreclose on someone’s home?
Mr. Buckley stated the answer is yes. He pointed out two sessions ago, this committee approved the information sheet, and one of the things in capital letters states, “You may lose your home if you do not pay your assessments.”
Senator Carlton interjected that, with all due respect, she was not a legislator 2 years ago. She asserted she strongly disagrees. She insisted no one has the right to take anyone’s home away, unless it is the bank. She emphasized she is adamantly opposed to that section. She expounded she has heard some terrible stories associated with foreclosures resulting from assessments, and said she does not agree taking away someone’s home solves any of the problems.
Responding to the comments, Mr. Buckley stated the law, as originally enacted, which may go back to chapter 117 of NRS, the original condominium law, allowed for foreclosures for non-payment of assessments because if assessments are not paid, then the association has no money to pay for insurance and other costs for the homes. He continued when chapter 116 of NRS was originally adopted, it allowed for foreclosure of homes. He said two sessions ago, this committee provided for better notice to homeowners of what can happen when living in an association, that payment of assessments is required, and the property can be foreclosed upon for nonpayment of assessments. He stated he understood the senator’s concern, but an association needs a means by which it can enforce assessments in order to keep the process working. He noted banks would not loan money to these communities if associations cannot enforce assessments. He commented the Veterans Administration (VA) or Federal National Mortgage Association, (FNMA) (Fannie Mae) requires an association to certify its assessment capability.
Ms. Brigg said she surmised some of it might wrap around the 6 months’ priority. She said the associations want to move quickly on these foreclosures, because if they do not, and it goes into bankruptcy, they lose those assessments. She suggested looking at the 6 months’ priority may encourage the boards to extend the process and to make sure the homeowners do have ample time to find a cure.
Mr. Buckley clarified Nevada has a good statute allowing associations to get at least 6 months ahead of the bank before they foreclose. He voiced he wondered how many people are actually foreclosed out of their homes because of non-payment of assessments.
Mr. Magrath stated one issue in a common-interest community a person voluntarily moves into, and is warned of in advance because of the statute requiring the 4-page warning, is the homeowner is going to obtain benefits from the association. He said the benefits range from paid insurance to maintenance of common areas. The homeowners who are not paying their assessments or their dues are getting those benefits free every month. He said, in fact, if there is no risk to the homeowner from not paying, then every homeowner would stop paying. He noted the ability of the HOA to pay the common insurance, the ability to fix roofs, the ability of the association to operate and accomplish its regular duties preserves the property values for everyone in the association, including the one nonpaying homeowner, is lost if there is not some sort of penalty. He acknowledged there is due process regarding assessments, but, he insisted, there has to be some ability for the association to, in effect, have the homeowner, who voluntarily accepted those benefits, pay for those benefits. Mr. Magrath maintained if the banks and lenders who mortgage these homes and associations cannot be assured those amenities would be maintained, and thus the value of those homes, then lenders are not going to want to finance the mortgages. He averred it is a difficult process and everything balances on the other, but the foreclosure notice requirement currently in the law does inform the homeowner. He pointed out the statute they are amending, requires, before any foreclosure occurs, the association must provide written certification to the ombudsman or the division, on a form prescribed by the administrator, that those notices have been given properly. He asserted there is one more confirmation that the notices, which are currently required by law, are given. He empathized it is distasteful to think someone can lose his or her house, but as pointed out, there is a pressing need because of bankruptcy for an association to be able to act quickly. Mr. Magrath claimed it is a complex web, but the only way to make it work is to have the ability to make a person who receives the benefits, pay for the benefits.
Senator Carlton stated she did not want to belabor it, but Senator O'Connell had made a good point about people not understanding they were in an association, or what an association is all about.
Senator Townsend acknowledged foreclosure because of nonpayment of assessments is a very important threshold issue. He explained the committee is sensitive to the issue, because of testimony, especially involving some very questionable foreclosures over small amounts of money, involving people who were not able to defend their position because of infirmity, age, illness or whatever. Senator Townsend expounded the sensitivity also comes from 5 days of testimony on swimming pools. He said, according to testimony, when the homeowner did not see the contractor for 3 or 4 months, and so stopped making payments, the home was seized. He recalled one pool company had 113 complaints against it, of which there were 50-plus foreclosures. He concluded this issue would be addressed, again, next week.
Continuing, Mr. Buckley said the only thing changed was dealing with construction fines. He recalled it had been decided construction fines could be located in any governing document. He explained “governing documents” has been changed to “declaration or any recorded document or by contract,” to be more certain.
Senator Townsend pointed out legislative staff would compile all the changes and amendments into the proposed S.B. 421. He said the bill would then look like a first reprint. This all-in-one document could then be gone over to see if all the information is what everyone agreed to, and if it was a bill the committee would accept.
Clark (Danny) Lee, Lobbyist, Realty Management Incorporated, referencing S.B. 516, asked if the same language was found in the Nevada Administrative Codes (NAC) regarding accepting anything for referral of construction defects.
SENATE BILL 516: Makes various changes concerning contractors and constructional defects. (BDR 54-1452)
Mr. Buckley claimed Mr. Lee was correct. He said Senator Schneider’s bill did propose such language. He pointed out it is also dealt with under tab H in (Exhibit H). He noted there is language in the NAC dealing with property managers. He said there is no existing language dealing with board members or officers. He claimed the working group did not have a problem with Senator Schneider’s proposal other than the language, “anything of value,” could mean a breakfast or lunch, and maybe there should be a designated value of, perhaps, $50.
Senator Schneider stated the comments from the Las Vegas area regarding the pressure and hustle on these property management companies is so heavy, and has been for the last couple of years, some companies have locked their doors to these attorneys. He said he has received requests for relief in the law because the owners of these companies cannot watch their managers all the time.
Ms. Brigg commented the working group addressed the issue. She stated the subject is contained in the NAC, but she recommended the need for clarification to, again, be put into chapter 116 of NRS, where property managers and boards would understand the importance. She explained her association gets hit heavily on so many different things, such as “free seminars, join them for golf, or doughnuts every morning.” She stated it is those types of things for a property manager to know, especially somebody who is fairly new to the business, they should not be accepting those types of things, because they are gifts.
Senator Townsend polled the committee on the monetary limit of a gift. The committee was unanimous on $2. He commented the language should include the new term, “association manager or agent or representative.”
Senator Schneider stated he was very familiar with the situation that was the cause for this amendment to the bill. He mentioned the Assembly was struggling with developing acceptable language to address the same types of situation. He suggested this committee put language into this bill to address the case of someone buying a house with existing violations against the previous owner, the existence of which the new buyer was ignorant, but now becomes responsible for addressing those violations.
Mr. Magrath commented he typed the amendment (Exhibit I). He stated Assembly Bill (A.B.) 484, being considered by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, is addressing a similar concern.
ASSEMBLY BILL 484: Revises provisions governing disclosure statement required upon sale of unit in common-interest community. (BDR 10-584)
Mr. Magrath stated there was a concern on the part of some members of the work group this particular bill, as amended and approved with a do pass by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, would have required inspections of homes; but as amended, it did not, and we are still working to fine tune the language.
Ms. Scott insisted this is exactly the bill Mr. Magrath saw originally submitted to the Assembly; she noted she has not seen how it was amended. She added this goes back to an earlier discussion on NRS 116.4109 and the association-provided disclosures the seller has to give to the buyer. She explained this is an additional level of disclosure to, hopefully, help the buyers understand more of what they bought. She said it is an amendment to chapter 116 of NRS. She pointed out last session a lot of bills floating around were combined into one bill, which is what they are attempting to do here.
Senator Townsend congratulated everyone who participated in the working group, and offered to send letters on their behalf to employers, partners, associates or anyone else, explaining their time and devotion.
Senator Schneider acknowledged Tami DeVries for her extraordinary service in making sense of all the amendments, and incorporating them into a workable document.
Maddie L. Fischer, Lobbyist, American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada, stated she had one more amendment for the bill. She said it was an issue first taken up during the S.B. 516 hearing.
Senator Townsend offered to take up the amendment next week, since he and the rest of the committee had to go the Senate Floor.
Mr. Buckley expressed hope S.B. 421 does not get enmeshed in the S.B. 516 issues, since there is consensus on S.B. 421.
There being no further testimony, the hearing was adjourned at 10:27 a.m.
Laura Adler,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
DATE: