MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
April 23, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:23 p.m., on Monday, April 23, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Jon C. Porter (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman P. M. “Roy” Neighbors, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, and Nye Counties Assembly District No. 36
Assemblyman David Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10
Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County Assembly District No. 11
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Laura Hale, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Rachel H. Nicholson, Nye County
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, National Federation of Independent Businesses
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Kami L. Dempsey, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Andy (Eldon) Anderson, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 56.
ASSEMBLY BILL 56: Authorizes counties to transfer or sell certain real property to certain persons without offering property to public under certain circumstances. (BDR 20-96)
Assemblyman P. M. “Roy” Neighbors, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, and Nye Counties Assembly District No. 36, provided supplemental information (Exhibit C) and stated this bill was introduced in response to a request from Nye and Esmeralda counties, which have formed an historic town-site task force, with support from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). He said the task force has been working with U.S. Senator Harry Reid’s office on federal legislation that would patent much of the land within historic mining districts in Nevada. The Assembly’s unanimous approval of the bill is the first step to empower Nevada counties to take advantage of this groundbreaking teamwork between two Nevada counties and the BLM, he said.
Continuing, Assemblyman Neighbors explained Nye and Esmeralda counties were selected because they are in the same management district and have frequent activity with their management plans. He said he is pleased with local BLM officials who have worked with counties to provide necessary information and documentation to support legislation and conveyance of properties to counties. The problem, he said, is that many of the historic mining towns in Nevada include properties claimed by the federal government, usually either the BLM or the U.S. Forest Service, while at the same time, people have maintained their homes on these properties through “infirm” transactions that are not recognized as having passed valid title. He noted many of these residents have consistently paid taxes on the property.
Assemblyman Neighbors asserted that administration of these properties has been a burden to federal agencies and all of the properties in Esmeralda and Nye counties were listed as appropriate for disposal through a 1997 revision of the BLM management plan. Once the task force has completed its work, the whole state would be affected, he said, and the BLM would document its determination that the administrative burden outweighs the value of the property to the agency and the public, and conveyance of the land can be made without cost to the county. Assemblyman Neighbors said it is hoped the special federal legislation will result in a transfer of the properties and put them on the tax roles within a year.
Under current Nevada law, explained Assemblyman Neighbors, the counties can only dispose of the properties by public auction or competitive process, without recognition of the claim of long-time residents on these properties. If the federal legislation passes, he said, A.B. 56 would allow the counties to convey these properties to people who have occupied them for at least 25 years.
Rachel H. Nicholson, Nye County, testified this is a prospective bill and the federal legislation is anticipated to allow counties to take patent to these lands by the end of this year, which is why it was raised in this session. She explained to Senator Raggio the trespass notice procedure resulted from BLM and U.S. Forest Service regulations, as well as federal law, that require notification of trespass to people living on these properties.
Assemblyman Neighbors clarified for Senator Raggio that the bill is contingent upon federal law, and although Nye and Esmeralda counties representatives have been working with U.S. Senator Reid on this, there are properties throughout the state with similar circumstances that have caused difficulty for the BLM.
Ms. Nicholson clarified for Senator Care that there are homes or other structures, such as fences or developments, on some of the properties. In the case of trespass issues, she said, there has to be some use of the land, and if the land is left bare for 25, 50, or 100 years, any right to title is lost. She reported some of the people living on these properties have paid taxes. Assemblyman Neighbors stated there are maps of all of the town sites and under current law, the county could advertise those properties and put them on the tax roles.
In response to another question from Senator Care, Ms. Nicholson said the bill would allow for two types of disposal, other than the public competitive process already available. If a property resident meets all four of the criteria listed, they would be able to get land for whatever cost the county incurred in getting the patent, she said; but, if they only met the first two criteria, they would pay the appraisal cost plus $100 or the taxes for the last 5 years. Because many of the properties are scattered throughout the original town site, Ms. Nicholson claimed there most likely would be a significant amount of land that would come along with a conveyance to the county to avoid “picking out little pieces.” She confirmed for Senator Neal if a property was part of an original mining town site, but was not occupied, it would fall under the current law.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 56 and opened the hearing on A.B. 117.
ASSEMBLY BILL 117: Revises provisions regarding rules adopted by local governments that affect businesses. (BDR 19-495)
Assemblyman David Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10, testified this bill would clarify elements of 1999 legislation on small business regulatory reform which required local and state governments to provide assessment and impact statements for any rules or regulations passed. He claimed the bill was fairly successful, but he said administrators need better definitions of the rules and regulations. Assemblyman Goldwater stated at the direction of lobbyists James Spinello and Mary Walker respectively from Clark and Carson City Counties, a compromise was reached with members of the business community to come up with a bill that would satisfy local governments as well as private industry, erring on the side of protecting small businesses from unintended consequences of rules and regulations. In response to Senator Neal, Assemblyman Goldwater said the bill would create no liability for the Nevada Tax Commission through interpretation of the rules.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified support for A.B. 117 and explained the first part of the bill gives authority to the Committee on Local Government Finance to make recommendations on regulations going to the Nevada Tax Commission, which would have final authority. Originally, she said, the bill could have been broadly construed to allow a business to oppose a bond that was approved by the voters, but the updated language narrows it down to avoid impacting budgets or voter-approved bond rates. She stated her support for the bill, noting the legislation has been used and it has worked, but just needed fine-tuning.
Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, National Federation of Independent Businesses, testified support of the bill for the record. He said Assemblyman Goldwater’s efforts were appreciated and he congratulated local governments on their “extremely good-faith efforts” to try to live up to the requirements of the legislation. He asserted the new language more accurately reflects the original intent of the legislation.
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, asserted the bill does a good job of addressing the issues that have been raised as a result of implementing the 1999 legislation, and is fair to both the local governments and the businesses involved. In response to questions from Senator Care, Mr. Leavitt said increasing business license fees would be an example of a rule created by a local government that would be included under this bill. The broad language from the 1999 legislation caused problems in implementation, he said, and things like bonds which affect businesses similarly to private citizens, were never intended to be included. He added the bill provides for notification to businesses that would be directly affected by the creation of rules, and the local government must explain what that impact would be.
Kami L. Dempsey, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified support for the bill and thanked Assemblyman Goldwater for his efforts. In response to Senator Neal, she said there is not a need for analysis of all local government actions, but only those that have significant impact for businesses. Assemblyman Goldwater provided further clarification for Senator Neal, saying the Committee on Local Government Finance would be adopting regulations to suggest to the Nevada Tax Commission, which would facilitate the process. He said the Nevada Tax Commission is paid per diem when they meet and do the business of the people, and asserted this work would not be a significant additional burden to them, or an “unfunded mandate” as suggested by Senator Neal. The Nevada Tax Commission would be responsive to the Committee on Local Government Finance to provide a form for processing impact statements, Assemblyman Goldwater said.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 117 and opened the hearing on A.B. 202.
ASSEMBLY BILL 202: Revises provisions governing metropolitan police departments. (BDR 22-47)
Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County District No. 11, testified the bill resulted from action the Las Vegas City Council was considering last year, but did not implement. Because of the longstanding history of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO), he said, the community was concerned about local government withdrawal and the resulting dissolution. Assemblyman Bache stated the bill sets up a structured method that would require a vote by the people. Further, he explained the METRO is not a static entity, and although it currently contains only the City of Las Vegas and Clark County, the cities of Henderson, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, and Mesquite could all possibly join it in the future, so the legislation looks forward to encompass that possibility.
Continuing, Assemblyman Bache said if there were three or more participating entities, and one wished to withdraw, it would become a ballot question for voters and the decision would be effective the next fiscal year. For a November election, that would give 6 months until July 1 to facilitate the withdrawal. He explained if two or more participating entities wish to dissolve the METRO entirely, all participating entities would vote on the question. Assemblyman Bache reported during Assembly hearings on the bill, Marvin Leavitt indicated opposition to this section of the bill, asserting if the City of Las Vegas wanted to withdraw, they should be the only people to vote, but Assemblyman Bache argued that with only two entities participating, the impact would be dissolution and Clark County residents would be equally affected, and should therefore have a vote. The remaining sections of the bill provide “clean-up” on division of assets, he said.
In response to questions from Senator Neal, Assemblyman Bache explained the situation with the City of Las Vegas raised the concern that by four votes of either the city council or the county commission, the METRO could be dissolved without serious consideration of the public’s wishes. He noted many areas of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that deal with dissolution require a vote of the people and that format was used for this bill. He said the current language in subsection 1, section 6 of the bill does not preclude entities from joining the METRO, and the rules governing merger were not affected by this bill.
In response to questions from Senator Care, Assemblyman Bache explained although there are currently only two entities participating in the METRO, the bill included language about three or more subdivisions to provide for future possibilities in both the Clark County and the Washoe County regions.
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, explained to Chairman O’Connell county ordinances are enforced in the county, and city ordinances are enforced in the city. If North Las Vegas decided to join the METRO, he said, their ordinances would be enforced in North Las Vegas. If ordinances conflict significantly, efforts are made to rework the wording to more closely relate to each other, but that does not often happen, Mr. Olsen said.
Andy (Eldon) Anderson, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, testified support for the bill and reported support from “civilian counterparts” in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Mr. Olsen also reported support from Sheriff Jerry Keller of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
Mr. Olsen explained to Senator Care if the METRO were dissolved, cases would probably be split up according to crime categories, although there has been no specific discussion of this. He said felonies would go to the district attorney’s office, misdemeanors that occurred in the city would stay with the city attorney’s office, and civil litigation would likely stay with the current retainer. He said contracts have been discussed because a breakup could result in tens of millions of dollars of indebtedness because the contracts would be null and void. He explained the METRO is far more complex today with nearly 3000 officers, than 28 years ago when it was first created with about 600 officers.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, thanked Assemblyman Bache for the record and stated Washoe County has also discussed consolidation of police services and supports the bill. Mr. Leavitt testified objection to the bill’s requirement for each participating entity to vote if only one of two participating entities wishes to withdraw from the METRO. He said there are no objections to the rest of the bill. In response to an earlier question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Leavitt said the bill had not been presented to the county board of commissioners.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified support for the bill and explained to Senator Raggio that the bill creates a process for dissolving assets under subsection 4, section 11 with the language, “Each participating political subdivision at the time of dissolution is entitled to receive on the effective date of dissolution its share of the value of property.”
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 202 and opened the hearing on A.B. 538.
ASSEMBLY BILL 538: Authorizes sheriff to adopt certain policies, procedures, rules and regulations for administration of metropolitan police department. (BDR 22-186)
Mr. Olsen testified the bill is needed to clarify the sheriff’s authority to create policies and procedures within the organization. He claimed it resulted in response to challenges from an employee who has been disciplined on several occasions, who stated she did not believe the sheriff has authority to create policies without going through the fiscal affairs committee and civil service board. He said the bill clarifies the sheriff does have such authority, and is designed to not interfere with the authority of the civil service board to set down their rules and regulations. He reported Mr. Elgin Simpson of the civil service board understands the need for the bill. Mr. Anderson testified that since the civil service board is excluded, he has no other concerns with the bill.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 538 and opened A.B. 650.
ASSEMBLY BILL 650: Makes changes to population basis for exercise of certain powers by local governments. (BDR 20-1074)
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained the Legislative Commission requested the bill as a vehicle to consider the various population classifications found in NRS for the exercise of certain powers by local government. Until July 1, 2001, he said, the population is defined in NRS 0.050 to mean the population as reported in the 1990 census, and then it will be based on the 2000 census. The bill attempts to maintain the status quo to the extent possible for cities and counties and the power they exercise through NRS, he said.
Mr. Wasserman provided a handout with population breaks (Exhibit D) for counties and cities, comparing existing figures to those based on the 2000 census. On charts 1 and 2, he pointed out the first two population breaks for counties, at 400,000 and 100,000, would not change because they would still only contain Clark and Washoe Counties, respectively. He explained the break at 35,000 was changed to 50,000 to maintain the status quo to include Carson City, but not Douglas County or Elko County. The next break at 30,000 was changed to 45,000 to include Elko County and above; 25,000 was changed to 40,000 to contain Douglas County and above; and 10,000 was changed to 15,000 to include Humboldt County and above, he said. The last change was for cosmetic purposes so if White Pine County were to reach 10,000 in population within the decade, people would not be confused by NRS specifications that are based on the population at the time of the census count, but are in effect for the 10-year period, he explained.
Section 3 of the bill, said Mr. Wasserman, provides for a board of county commissioners of any county in the state whose population is 6000 or more to appoint a county engineer and fix his or her compensation. The 1990 census included Lander and Mineral counties in this category, he said, but both of these counties have lost population, dropping below 6000 in the 2000 census. Therefore, he explained, the category has been changed to 5000 so those counties will retain the power to appoint a county engineer, and Pershing County, which grew to a population of 6693 is now included in the category.
Mr. Wasserman drew the committee’s attention to charts 3 and 4 which show city population breaks, and he said the first change is cosmetic, going from 200,000 to 300,000 to retain Las Vegas as the only city in the first category and avoid future confusion, should Reno or Henderson grow to 200,000 in the 10-year period. In response to a question from Senator Raggio, Mr. Wasserman explained the decision to set the first break at 300,000 was based on population projections for the next 10 years, although he said, it could be set to 400,000 with no substantive effect.
Mr. Wasserman pointed out the next break for cities is now at 150,000 to include Henderson, as well as Reno, because their populations are too close to justify maintaining a break between them. He said the break at 100,000 now includes North Las Vegas, and the break at 60,000 maintains the categorical distinction between Sparks and Carson City. He noted Mesquite has grown significantly in population and is now at the top of the 7000-category break, leading Fernley, Fallon, and Winnemucca. He commented that West Wendover is a newly added city, and is in the 4000-category break with Ely. With regard to Mesquite’s appeal of the census bureau count, he said there is a concern that several thousand people were missed in the count, but unless the census bureau actually revises their official census numbers, it will not affect the classifications on the chart or in NRS. Typically, Mr. Wasserman said, when the census bureau makes an adjustment to a city or county, it is for purposes other than official numbers, which drive redistricting, such as federal funding allocation. Mr. Wasserman said he would be surprised if they actually change official numbers, but cannot predict what will happen.
In response to questions from Senator Titus, Mr. Wasserman explained the population breaks listed in the charts are tools for bill drafting and may or may not appear in NRS. He said the population breaks he highlighted are included in the bill, as well as in NRS. He explained the reports regarding improvements in Nevada’s census counts are specifically about improvement in accuracy over the 1990 census count for Nevada. However, he said, there is still a high undercount for Nevada, in comparison to the rest of the country.
In response to questions from Senator Care regarding the purpose of maintaining the status quo through redefining population breaks, Mr. Wasserman said the Nevada Supreme Court has reviewed this method and upheld the use of population classifications, so long as they apply prospectively, allow for counties or cities to grow into categories, and are rationally related to the subject matter of statute. He said the bill provides an opportunity to reconsider classifications based on whether the population size justifies the exercise of certain powers, as provided in NRS.
Senator Raggio explained further the classification system allows differential application of rules to accommodate the needs of local governments, and typically, local governments support those classifications. However, he said, if a local government representative were to make a case for changing their classification, that would be considered. Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, testified no city has objected to this bill. Senator Titus added the key issue considered is whether the small counties want to pay for additional functions that come with higher population categorizations.
Chairman O’Connell asked if anyone knew why Pershing County had grown significantly. Senator Raggio explained the new state prison was probably the reason because the inmates are counted. Senator Titus noted the benefit to the district of being able to count people for census purposes, but not having to worry about them politically since they cannot vote. Mr. Grady explained the growth in Lyon County is due to economic development in Fernley that has brought jobs and housing development.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:48 p.m.
Laura Hale,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: