MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
May 18, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 1:20 p.m., on Friday, May 18, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, 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 Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William R. O’Donnell (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, Washoe County Assembly District No. 30
Assemblyman David R. Parks, Clark County Assembly District No. 41
Assemblywoman Kathryn A. McClain, Clark County Assembly District No. 15
Assemblyman Donald G. Gustavson, Washoe County Assembly District No. 32
Assemblywoman Sharron E. Angle, Washoe County Assembly District No. 29
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Kathy Burke, Recorder, Washoe County
Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence
Joni A. Kaiser, Lobbyist, Committee to Aid Abused Women
George W. Treat Flint, Lobbyist, Chapel of the Bells
Shameka Neeman, Concerned Citizen
Brad Donohue, Concerned Citizen
Lisa Chayra, Concerned Citizen
Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board, Department of Administration
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Douglas County, Lyon County
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Contractors Association, National Electrical Contractors Association (Southern Nevada Chapter)
Lori Ashton, Representative, Nevada Carpenters
Michael O. Spell, CPA, Audit Supervisor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors of Northern Nevada
Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors
James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County
Jim Foreman, Representative, Clark County
Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Fred J. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Sun Valley General Improvement District
Jim Ainsworth, Chairman, Sun Valley General Improvement District
Ronald M. James, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Museums, Library and Arts
Richard L. Lenz, Cochairman, Friends of the Las Vegas Academy for Performing Arts and International Studies, Las Vegas
Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City
Birgit K. Baker, Administrator, Employment Security Division, Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation
Senator O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 94.
ASSEMBLY BILL 94: Makes various changes regarding fees charged and collected by certain officials of local governments. (BDR 20-419)
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), testified A.B. 94 resulted from a comprehensive review of the fees charged by counties under the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He distributed his written testimony (Exhibit C) to the committee and recited a brief history of county fees, noting the last attempted increase came to the legislature in 1993. At the time, he said, the proposed fee increases were intended to bring the amounts current with costs, but the results were mixed, with some fees removed and others reduced by the legislature. Mr. Hadfield stated A.B. 94 is the first effort since 1993 to raise county fees, and contains many of the same proposals.
A handout titled, “Assembly Bill 94: Summary of Proposed Fees” (Exhibit D) was distributed for the committee’s consideration, and Mr. Hadfield explained the summary would give the committee a sense of the history of county fees. In addition to the traditional fees, he said, this year the Legislature should consider the marriage license fees. He suggested a cost increase for the recording and replication of marriage certificates to help provide more money for the counties and also help raise funds for the Committee to Aid Abused Women. He explained a new technology fee would be introduced, should A.B. 94 pass, which charges a fee for recording documents, then places the revenue into a technology fund used to buy the latest storage tools for those records. It was clear, he said, without such funds, smaller counties would not be able to keep up with the technology.
Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Hadfield if there is a percentage used in determining each fee increase amount. Mr. Hadfield explained NACO had researched several counties, rural and urban, to determine how much money was needed to provide adequate service. He said there is no uniform percentage applied to every fee increase, but efforts were made to provide consistency among like services, and fees are reflective of actual costs.
Senator Neal asked how much revenue would be raised per year with the changes proposed in A.B. 94.
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, replied NACO had tried to assess how much additional revenue this legislation would raise for the counties, but estimating how many marriages would occur, how many documents would be recorded, or how many miles would be traveled by constables, is a difficult task. Based on the previous year, Mr. List said, the proposed increases would bring in approximately $5.8 million, most of which would go to the larger counties because of population and business volume factors.
Mr. Hadfield remarked one of the problems NACO encountered is the tax cap in the smaller, rural counties, which no longer have the ability to subsidize these services through the general fund. He said some of these counties had been confronted with the need to eliminate some services in favor of the services funded through fees. These smaller counties require assistance, he added, noting some were not aware of fee schedules contained in state statutes. He asserted the proposed bill would help to ensure accurate records are kept in all counties, regardless of their location within the state.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. List for clarification on the marriage license fee increases under section 9 and other sections. Mr. List referred to the table (Exhibit D) summarizing the history of marriage license fees, and pointed out the currently proposed fee increase would result in a total $50 fee, which would be split among the clerk, the recorder, the state, and the domestic violence account. Senator Raggio questioned if the fee would increase again in 2003 by another $5. Mr. List affirmed it would, and the additional $5 would go to the domestic violence account.
Senator Raggio explained, traditionally the effort has been to use most of the marriage fees for services to victims of domestic violence. He also expressed concern the increase would reduce the number of marriage services performed. Mr. Hadfield replied NACO had similar concerns with increasing the fees, and the counties would track activity under the new fee structure to make adjustments if necessary. He said the total cost for a marriage license, under the new proposal, would be $100, including the chapel, license, and so on.
Senator Care asked what the distinction is between “per lot” and “additional sheet” in sections 10 and 11. Kathy Burke, Recorder, Washoe County, answered, in recording a subdivision map, if adding up lots, fees are based on counting each lot sitting on one map; however, if recording a parcel map or any other form of map containing more than one map page, then the fee is per page. She explained counties would drop the “per lot” charge and not add up how many lots are on each map; instead, a $10 fee would be charged per additional page. She added this change would simplify matters for the surveyors and people bringing maps in for recording.
Senator Porter asked if the fees would go into the general funds of the different counties. Mr. Hadfield responded, with the exception of set-aside accounts for constables or other county-specific services, the money would go into the county general funds. Another exception is the technology fund which is managed separately by the ordinance of the county with a specific purpose, he said. Senator Porter asked where the counties would assess the $3 for the technology fund. Ms. Burke explained, the $3 recording fee is only per document and does not include a $3 fee in addition to the $1 page fee or any copy fee. Further, she explained the $3 would be charged for the recording of any document, but would not be on the marriage-certified copies. Senator Porter asked what would be generated statewide with the $3 increase. Ms. Burke said she could only estimate for Washoe County, where the increase would generate approximately $200,000 annually.
Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, Washoe County Assembly District No. 30, testified in support of A.B. 94, noting the fee increases would be set for many future years. She emphasized the importance of the domestic violence funding, pointing out these fees are the only source of funding for these programs. She reported, people from the marriage industry, the counties, and the domestic violence program worked together for a significant amount of time to come to compromise language. As a result, she said, one of the dates was extended to keep the fees reasonable and build in funding for the programs into the future.
Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, testified in support of A.B. 94, and stated domestic violence continues to increase. The number one cause of death for pregnant women is domestic violence, she said. The number of contacts to the network has increased 215 percent in the last 10 years, she reported, with an increase in “bed nights” of 199 percent. The last funding increase was 10 years ago, she said, and the additional funds are needed for the network to “keep going.”
Ms. Berkley said there are 18 successful programs in the state, and the funds are unique in providing a base rate to ensure rural programs can maintain operations. Most of the programs provide 24 hour hotline services, emergency food, advocacy, emergency shelter, and peer counseling, she said; and depending on funds, other services may be provided, including, children’s services, professional counseling, legal advocacy, and transitional housing. In response to a question from Senator Neal, Ms. Berkley explained the additional fees from the commissioner of civil marriages would generate base fees of about $900 per year for the rural counties, and the marriage license fee increase would generate $6,500. Although the amounts are not large, she said, they would be consistent and enable grants for matching funds. The total from the civil commissioner would be about $72,000 and the marriage license fee is estimated at about $550,000. She provided her written testimony (Exhibit E) for the committee, which included fiscal charts for the coming years.
Senator O'Connell noted, when she originally became involved with the issue of domestic violence, it was treated as a dog bite, because there were no laws specifically written for domestic violence. At the time, she said, the biggest problem was getting women out of rural areas dominated by the “good old boy” system where law enforcement officials typically would not prosecute such cases. She asked how women in rural areas are currently being helped. Ms. Berkley explained the Domestic Violence Prevention Council had been implemented in the last 5 years, under the Office of the Attorney General, to standardize forms and procedures which identify domestic violence and facilitate the legal services process.
Joni A. Kaiser, Lobbyist, Committee to Aid Abused Women, reported Washoe County received about 122 referrals, last year, of abused women in rural areas, out of a total of 10,000 contacts. She asserted a much better job is being done by law enforcement in rural areas, as well as domestic violence programs. However, she said, it is still a concern, depending on the people involved. She distributed her written testimony (Exhibit F) to the committee.
George W. Treat Flint, Lobbyist, Chapel of the Bells, testified in support of A.B. 94. He noted marriage license fees in surrounding states were lower in some cases, but 80 percent of the marriages performed at the Chapel of the Bells are for people coming from California where fees vary, going as high as $75 to $90 in San Francisco. He asserted the industry was comfortable with accepting and supporting the proposed fee and he said the working relationship with the domestic violence representatives is a good team effort. Mr. Flint claimed the fee increase was necessary for the Washoe County office to comply with the mandate to be open from 8 a.m. to 12 midnight. He said there was a decrease in the sale of marriage licenses in Washoe County from 38,000 to 23,000 over the last few years, and the fee increase would help maintain the level of service.
Shameka Neeman, Concerned Citizen, identified herself as the assistant director of the emergency services for Safe Nest, and testified via videoconference in support of A.B. 94. She reviewed the services provided by her organization, noting its caseload increased by 153 percent while the funding only increased 21.5 percent from 1995 to 2000. She stated the money this increase would raise would be vital to the upgrade and maintenance of domestic violence services.
Brad Donohue, Concerned Citizen, identified himself as an assistant professor at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and a board member of Safe Nest, and testified via videoconference in support of A.B. 94.
Lisa Chayra, Concerned Citizen, identified herself as a survivor of domestic violence, noting increased awareness and demand for services required additional funds. She testified via videoconference in support of A.B. 94.
Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 94 and opened the hearing on A.B. 461.
ASSEMBLY BILL 461: Revises provisions relating to qualification of bidders on certain contracts for public works in this state. (BDR 28-591)
Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board, Department of Administration, testified in support of A.B. 461. He reminded the committee of some previous problems with public works projects, noting there would be testimony about a related audit. He explained questions have always been asked regarding how contractors are chosen or qualified for projects in areas with which they have no specific prior experience. Assembly Bill 461 would provide qualifications for bidders and criteria to facilitate selection of contractors who have the proper experience and abilities, he said. The criteria would also help local government, he added.
Mr. O’Brien reported amendments presented to the Assembly were based on meetings with interested parties where input was received and agreed to. He stated he was in favor of the bill as currently amended, but said he believed additional clarification was required. Between the time the amendments were offered in the Assembly and the reprint of the bill, he claimed, changes were made for clarification, but additional clarification was needed. He submitted a copy of the amendments that had been presented to the Assembly (Exhibit G) which, he said, should be reflected in the current reprint of the bill. He also distributed proposed wording changes (Exhibit H) for clarification, and reviewed them with the committee. The changes were reviewed with Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff, and were determined to be consistent with the intent of the original amendments presented to the Assembly committee, he said.
Senator Raggio asked if performance records were included in the proposed criteria for selecting contractors, and whether the proposed language was broad enough to address concerns of inadequate performance and unqualified contractors. Mr. O’Brien responded he had included strict language to quell the use of unqualified builders, and among the group who worked on the bill, there was agreement to review the language over the next biennium and come back to the next legislative session to revise the provisions on qualifications of bidders. Senator Raggio asserted favoritism could still be a factor when bidders select a contractor, which can sometimes prove to be problematic.
Chairman O’Connell recalled testimony from an earlier hearing on another bill related to public works bidding, wherein a record of performance could not be requested, but only financial records could be reviewed. She asked Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, to research the related section of NRS and get back to the committee.
Assemblyman David R. Parks, Clark County Assembly District No. 41, testified he knew modifications had been proposed to A.B. 461, but he said he would defer to Ms. Walker or Mr. O’Brien’s knowledge on the subject.
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Douglas County, Lyon County, testified the group working on this bill included: Steve Holloway, Southern AGC; Cheryl Blomstrom, Northern AGC; Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Clark County; Warren B. Hardy II, Associated Builders and Contractors; various unions; the Nevada Public Purchasing Commission; other local governments; and the State Public Works Board. Ms. Walker reported there was consensus the prequalification of bidders needed to be tightened up, but there was not enough time to agree on specific language, so they agreed to work on it for the next legislative session. However, she said, there was agreement with regard to the amendments submitted to the Assembly committee and to this committee. The confusion arose from the drafting of the amendments into the current revised version of the bill, she said.
Continuing, Ms. Walker noted local governments have had the same problem with poor quality construction, referred to earlier by Senator Raggio. Under the current language, she said, no one can be excluded, and this has been verified by attorneys. She specifically referenced prequalification language in section 5, claiming contractors could simply “bond around it,” and governments would never “get rid of” any poor contractors. She asserted some key areas were addressed in the amendments, including eliminating the ability of contractors to “bond around” prequalifications, and the State Public Works Board was given the ability to add regulations to get the process started over the interim. Also, she said, everyone at the meetings agreed to work together through NACO and the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, on further defining the prequalification language during the interim.
Mr. O’Brien clarified any additional factors from the State Public Works Board would be adopted through the typical regulation process used in state government. This would allow them to review past performance and other important issues, he said. Senator O'Connell noted the new language would allow each contract to be treated differently, and she stated such subjective language could damage the existing parity. Ms. Walker asserted qualifications would need to be established upfront, and reported the general terms of the language came from Steve Holloway, representing Associated General Contractors (AGC).
Mr. Hadfield testified in support of A.B. 461, noting it was a priority for both NACO and the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities. He reiterated agreement to work with all of the concerned parties on the qualification issues.
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Contractors Association, National Electrical Contractors Association (Southern Nevada Chapter), testified in support of A.B. 461.
Lori Ashton, Representative, Nevada Carpenters, spoke in support of A.B. 461, and stated, although there were some issues the concerned parties had not articulated in the bill, the resulting language is still acceptable to the Nevada Carpenters, and they will also work with the group during the interim to tighten up the language.
Senator Raggio questioned if the proposed amendments were adequate. Ms. Ashton reiterated they were.
Michael O. Spell, CPA, Audit Supervisor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), testified in neutrality to A.B. 461, but said he wanted to voice some concerns about the language. He distributed an audit report (Exhibit I) with a letter from Wm. Gary Crews, CPA, Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, LCB attached. Mr. Spell stated he supervised the audit of the Lied Library project and drew the committee’s attention to the audit report. He explained, despite requirements of a 1997 amendment to chapter 341 of NRS, the State Public Works Board (SPWB) did not establish a process to evaluate contractors’ qualifications. He cited six criteria specified for contractor qualification evaluation, including: financial ability to bond; principal personnel of the applicant; and performance history of the applicant concerning other recent projects completed by the applicant in this state.
Continuing with the audit report, Mr. Spell pointed out the 1997 amendments had not been adopted at the time bids were reviewed for the Lied Library project, and consequently, the SPWB did not evaluate contractor qualifications. The contractor qualification laws were amended in 1999 to include local public works projects, but two of the six evaluation criteria were eliminated, and contractor performance history was no longer required. He stressed the importance of performance history in the evaluation process, noting the audit division made a recommendation for legislation to address the evaluation criteria. According to Mr. Spell, as originally introduced, A.B. 461 did address this recommendation, under section 5 to include performance history as an evaluation criterion. The current amendments eliminated this criterion, he said, and the committee should consider amendments offered by the audit division, as stated in the letter from Mr. Crews (Exhibit I). The language regarding past performance history would be reinstated, he said, and if the current language does not specifically address it in statute, it might not be included in the regulations.
Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors of Northern Nevada (AGC), testified the AGC had concerns regarding the language on page 2, line 16 of A.B. 461. She said it discusses the financial ability of the applicant to perform a contract, and stated the AGC is concerned because some of its members are privately held companies, which might have to submit their financial information as part of a contract. She suggested contractors’ ability to bond could be substituted for the financial disclosure, and reported agreement from the SPWB and local governments to look at this issue during the interim. She stated the amendment, as proposed in item 3 (c) (Exhibit H) concerning additional factors, could vary from project to project and is vaguely worded. She offered to work on specific criteria, rather than have something which could be widely interpreted.
Senator Raggio argued against the assertion that the ability to post bond should eliminate the need for financial disclosure. He said the public should not have to go through the long process of getting recourse on a bond. He asked why a bidder for a substantial public works project should not be required to submit financial information. Ms. Belz responded the AGC did not want unqualified bidders, of course, but she said the concern was for the owners of privately held corporations who would have to submit information regarding their net worth, and so on. Senator Raggio asked for assurance the informal study on this issue would be conducted during the interim. Ms. Belz suggested confirmation through Mr. Hadfield and Ms. Walker, who agreed to facilitate the study.
Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern Nevada, testified he shared the concerns of Ms. Belz and the AGC regarding the broadness of section 3 (c) in the amendments to A.B. 461. He explained it could create circumstances in which contractors could be disqualified for reasons other than their ability to perform the work. He suggested adding language articulating other factors as adopted by regulation after public hearings to guarantee input on those additional factors.
Senator Raggio asked if reinstating the specific qualifications from the original draft, which Mr. Spell had identified, would be acceptable. Mr. Hardy answered he would like to meet with all concerned parties and formulate some new language. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Spell which two criteria had been removed from the original draft. Mr. Spell replied, the phrase, “performance history of the applicant concerning other recent projects completed in this state,” was eliminated, as was “the safety program and safety record of the applicant.”
Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 461 and opened the hearing on A.B. 131.
ASSEMBLY BILL 131: Expands authority of board of county commissioners of county to abate nuisances, dangerous structures and dangerous conditions. (BDR 22-149)
Assemblywoman Kathryn A. McClain, Clark County Assembly District No. 15, testified her district is very diverse from the areas north of Sahara to areas south of Sahara. A variety of housing exists, she stated, and since Las Vegas targets homes over 25 years of age for demolition, many homes in these areas are in danger of being demolished. She expressed concern about older housing becoming rundown, businesses relocating to more affluent areas, and vagrants taking advantage of these abandoned places and making conditions worse. She said some of the homes are becoming dilapidated, and she has concerns about rental housing with absentee landlords becoming crack houses and other unsavory businesses. Finally, she expressed concern about the inability of law enforcement and local government to deal with these issues in a timely fashion.
Assemblywoman McClain described the existence of a crack house in her neighborhood for 2 years. Under NRS, she said, county governments cannot write specific ordinances, but must jump through hoops. The people conducting illegal operations in these houses are aware of the loopholes in the law and are able to circumvent the law, she said. Her attempt with the language in the bill, she said, is to remove some of the unnecessary notices in the present law and put in housing codes. The “meat” of the bill starts on page 3, she said, defining “nuisance activity,” to add violations of building codes, housing codes, and others which regulate health and safety of the occupants of the real property. Further, she said, “chronic nuisance” is defined as these same activities happening three times within 90 days, and an ordinance could be written by the county. The final issue, she said, is when these buildings are shut down, many people are displaced and the county does not have sufficient resources to assist them. She suggested local governments involved in abatement of chronic nuisance and displaced tenants should be able to recoup any costs incurred.
James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, offered to go through the bill in more detail. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Spinello to identify what language he wanted removed from the bill, and to explain why the removal was necessary. Mr. Spinello replied the language on page 2, section 2, subsection 3 requires a court to find a chronic nuisance exists and emergency action is necessary to avoid immediate threat to the public welfare or safety. He stated this standard can mean a crack house may not be defined as an immediate threat, whereas a methamphetamine lab, which contains flammable chemicals and could explode, could be readily accepted as an imminent emergency. This standard would be removed, he said, and the judge would be empowered to take action based on evidence of chronic nuisance. The judge would still be the deciding authority, he said.
Assemblywoman McClain added the language regarding “a lien” would be removed and replaced with “a special assessment.” She explained a lien is not taken care of until the property in question is sold, and special assessments actually go on the tax bill and would have to be attended to in the property owner’s annual taxes.
With regard to language on page 5, section 3, subsection 5, Mr. Spinello stated the section expands the definition of a nuisance, and what ordinances a county commission could adopt. He said in his interpretation, it also gives authorization for the county commission to determine what the minimum levels of health and safety would be. Senator O'Connell asked if a neighboring tenant’s complaint would trigger a court case against an alleged chronic nuisance. Mr. Spinello affirmed this could be one method, but more often, the police have gone time and again to the same location for various disturbances, and are typically the “organizing agents.”
Assemblywoman McClain drew attention to NRS 244.360, which is not amended in the bill, and contains the process for neighbors reporting neighbors. She explained she is more concerned about health and safety issues, and the intent of this bill is to allow local governments to write code to create a level playing field in southern Nevada. She claimed the greatest problems result from absentee landlords.
Senator Care asked whether the term “dangerous structure or condition” could come into effect in case of earthquake damage. Mr. Spinello explained, under the current county authority for imminent danger, a falling-down structure could be remedied by the county, including by demolition, if it could not easily be repaired.
In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Spinello explained special assessments would be based on the cost of abatement.
Senator Neal noted the building code officials would have broad authority to make a determination regarding what is imminent danger, and asked whether they have guidelines for this. Assemblywoman McClain pointed out the language was only being slightly amended to allow the county to write the code to be enacted in the courts. Dangerous structure is already defined in current statute, she said, and “condition” was added due to places such as crack houses. Housing code was added, she said, as a bare minimum livability standard; it must be directly related to unlivable or dangerous conditions. Senator Neal reiterated his concern there should be some guidelines for consistent determinations.
Jim Foreman, Representative, Clark County, said what typically happens is, different police officers, fire inspectors, and building inspectors show up at the site at various times, so the language “imminent danger” was intended to streamline the process. All the qualified engineers and other professionals are involved when serious allegations are made, he said.
Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, testified A.B. 131 had safeguards to prevent the unwarranted closure of buildings which are not an actual threat. Criteria to be used in the determination of a dangerous structure is listed on pages 4 and 5, he said, including, endangerment of the life or safety of the general public or the occupant. He stated support for the bill, noting it would be helpful to the district attorney’s office and the police department, as well as to the county.
Senator Porter asked Mr. Graham what “reasonable written notice” meant in the language of the bill on page 2. Mr. Graham said serving the landowner with a notice of violations is sufficient, but the term “reasonable” could be open to litigation in terms of the time frame in which notice would be given. Senator Porter asked how the bill could be changed to avoid the possibility of litigation. Mr. Spinello explained the 72-hour time frame was removed, because the section deals with imminent danger, and there may only be 5 minutes to take action. In most circumstances, he said, more sufficient notice can be given to the owner to remedy the situation, and the county would not have to act. In the case of an “attractive nuisance,” something should be done right away, he said.
Senator Care suggested using “reasonable written notice under the circumstances,” to allow for some interpretation, depending on the severity of each case. Mr. Graham said this would be acceptable. Mr. Spinello pointed out the word “written” implies there will be some deliberate time taken for notification. He also suggested the county commissioners could more clearly define the time frame by ordinance.
Senator Neal said the language “dangerous structure or condition” was very broad, and could include insignificant things. Mr. Graham explained the language, “the condition that may cause injury or to endanger the health, life, property, or safety of the general public or the occupants . . .” links to specific criteria for a determination and could not be something insignificant.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, testified in support of A.B.131.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified she had expressed opposition to A.B. 131 in its original form in the Assembly, but the current amendments answered many of her concerns. She stated her own experience has led to caution in the area of government control of private property and some issues of concern with the bill still remain. Also, there is a new concern with one of the amendments, she said, which places emphasis on the owner paying to relocate a tenant, even if the tenant is the source of the violations. Ms. Lusk said she agreed with previous testimony questioning the broadness of the term “nuisance“ to include any other codes.
Continuing, Ms. Lusk expressed concern with the removal of the requirement for a finding that emergency action is necessary to avoid an immediate threat, before closing a property. Although the judge would still make a determination, Ms. Lusk pointed out the court may only determine whether or not a chronic nuisance exists, and if so, the court “shall order the property closed and secured,” limiting the court’s discretion. Finally, with regard to “reasonable written notice,” she suggested, unless there is an emergency or imminent danger, there should be notice by certified mail with return receipt. She said she had not prepared any written amendments, because she did not think the bill, in its original form was salvageable. However, she asserted, the subsequent amendments were substantial and merited further consideration, so she would provide the committee with written amendments to address her concerns.
Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 131 and opened the hearing on A.B. 413.
ASSEMBLY BILL 413: Revises provisions regarding cooperative agreements between public agencies. (BDR 22-1305)
Assemblyman Donald G. Gustavson, Washoe County Assembly District No. 32, testified the Sun Valley General Improvement District had brought A.B. 413 to his attention, and he asked his colleague explain the bill to the committee.
Fred J. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Sun Valley General Improvement District (SVGID), testified in support of A.B. 413, and asked another colleague to explain the proposed amendments.
Jim Ainsworth, Chairman, Sun Valley General Improvement District, described services provided to SVGID residents and explained the bill request was due to the operation of the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA). He explained TMWA is a cooperative effort among local governments and is in the process of purchasing the Sierra Pacific Power Company’s water division for about $350 million. He stated the SVGID would be the only large-volume wholesale customer, and would be on the same terms as it was with the Sierra Pacific Power Company before the purchase took place. The concern is a cooperative entity such as TMWA could take over a smaller entity such as SVGID, he said, although TMWA has indicated it would not take this step. He explained chapter 318 of NRS allows the county in which the SVGID operates to take over the SVGID’s operation, by resolution, if not opposed sufficiently by the residents. He said the purpose of A.B. 413 is to ensure no such takeover of operations of small governmental entities, which are not a party to these types of intergovernmental agreements, could occur through the back door. He explained the bill had gone through several revisions, and asked for the committee’s support.
Senator Neal expressed concern regarding the expiration date in the amendment (Exhibit J), and asked whether activity was intended to occur before July 1, 2001. Mr. Hillerby explained a prior amendment had been added to the bill to address concerns from Clark County related to a proposed air quality improvement agency to be created through a cooperative agreement. This prior amendment was not agreed to by the SVGID, he said, but through subsequent discussion, Clark County representatives agreed to the currently proposed amendment (Exhibit J) containing the July 1, 2001 date. This date would serve to apply the language of the bill to the SVGID upon passage and approval, he said, but the proposed air quality improvement agency would not be affected, because it would not be created until after July 1, 2001.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Ainsworth how the proposed metropolitan water authority legislation would affect the SVGID, if it were enacted. Mr. Ainsworth explained the bill is a protective measure to keep the SVGID from being assimilated into TMWA and to preserve its autonomy. As the only fully metered water system in northern Nevada, the SVGID is very progressive and has cheaper rates, Mr. Ainsworth claimed, and would not want to be drawn into a less organized operation in which rates would be higher.
Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 413 and opened the hearing on A.B. 386. She explained this bill was passed out of committee, but has not yet gone to the floor.
ASSEMBLY BILL 386: Makes various changes concerning public employees. (BDR 23-621)
Assemblywoman Sharron E. Angle, Washoe County Assembly District No. 29, suggested an amendment be added to A.B. 386 and submitted a written copy (Exhibit K) to the committee. She explained the bill would affect state employees under federally funded programs in Nevada which can cause a division of loyalties. The bill would clarify, state employees who report to federal authorities must be supervised by other state employees.
Senator Raggio asked Assemblywoman Angle if this amendment is necessary. Assemblywoman Angle explained several of her constituents in the National Guard had come to her and asked for this legislation because of organizational problems between the federal and state government. In some cases, the state pays for work which is federally authorized and supervised, she said. She noted, Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, was also in favor of this amendment due to complaints received from employees in similar situations. Senator Neal said he understood the National Guard is under the direction of the Governor until it is nationalized by the President of the United States. However, he said, in terms of readiness, there are certain regulations to be adhered to, such as summer training. Assemblywoman Angle explained the National Guard has several divisions, and the civilian state employees, such as technicians or maintenance staff, are supposed to be supervised by the supervisory state administrative officer. However, she said, a reorganization has resulted in such staff being supervised by federal officers.
Senator Porter reported the adjutant general had testified adamant opposition to this language because it would interfere with his ability to manage the department. Assemblywoman Angle stated the adjutant general had raised issues about security and environmental employees, who are prohibited by federal law from being supervised by state employees, and would, therefore, be exempt from this language.
Senator Care asserted if the federal government engages in this practice and the state law is changed to address it, the federal government is not going to care and would still engage in this practice. Assemblywoman Angle claimed this is not standard federal practice, and other states do not allow federal management of their state employees. She reported having asked the National Guard for a ruling, and was told it was up to the state.
Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 386 and opened the hearing on A.B. 102.
ASSEMBLY BILL 102: Revises qualifications for membership on Comstock historic district commission. (BDR 33-546)
Ronald M. James, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, testified in favor of amending Assembly Bill 102. In response to questions from Chairman O’Connell regarding commitments made to the committee by the Comstock Historic District Commission (CHDC), Mr. James explained a discussion item was moved to the June meeting agenda due to conflicts with the May agenda, and not because the legislators would be gone by then. He promised Chairman O’Connell the CHDC would address the committee’s concerns, and asserted the issues raised were based on misunderstandings of the government’s role. He noted he was no longer serving on the CHDC, but would do everything he could to ensure the members’ understanding of the issues, and to achieve resolution before the 2003 Legislative Session.
Mr. James explained A.B. 102 would broaden the ability of the CHDC to have local representation. He stated chapter 384 of NRS is currently structured so a majority of the representatives could live outside of the historic district. He said his proposed amendments (Exhibit L) would increase the number of local resident commission members from four to six, or possibly eight, depending on where the county commissioners reside. He asserted this would improve response to local concerns.
Richard L. Lenz, Cochairman, Friends of the Las Vegas Academy for Performing Arts and International Studies, Las Vegas, testified in favor of A.B. 102. He explained his committee is located in an historic building in an historic district, and has been seeking better fund-raising methods, noting this bill would allow nonprofit organizations to utilize methods such as renaming, to raise funds.
Senator Porter asked Mr. Lenz why this was not possible at the Las Vegas school now. Mr. Lenz explained the current school district laws make it very difficult to rename schools, but this legislation would only apply to Las Vegas High School, because it is an historic property.
Senator Titus said she had concerns about replacing building names which were already honoring other people. Mr. Lenz replied the renaming of a building would require the approval of the owners, and this bill would focus mainly on buildings not named after people, like Main Hall and the Las Vegas Auditorium. Senator Titus suggested the language only include new buildings to be renamed. Mr. Lenz suggested any building not named after an individual would be more appropriate wording. Senator Titus agreed.
Senator Porter noted historical buildings in rural areas of Clark County were being refurbished under a state grant, and asked if these buildings would fall under the proposed guidelines. Mr. Lenz said they could, but the bill specifically applies to publicly owned buildings.
Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 102 and opened the hearing on A.B. 568.
ASSEMBLY BILL 568: Makes various changes relating to county recorders. (BDR 20-267)
Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City, explained A.B. 568 is a complete rewrite of the recorders’ portion of chapter 247 of NRS. He said it had been amended in bits and pieces over the years, but this was the first rewrite since 1923. He said the bill would not directly affect the public, but was simply updating old language to be more in keeping with technology changes, both now and in the future. Mr. Glover stated all the county clerks and recorders, including those in Clark County, were in agreement with the proposed changes. He provided a copy of the proposed amendments (Exhibit M) for the committee. The changes include making terms consistent, deleting requirements which technology has made obsolete, improving public accountability, and providing flexibility between automated and nonautomated county offices.
Senator Care asked for clarification on language regarding documents measuring 8 ½ by 11 inches. Specifically, he asked how the clerks would handle a “quick claim” handwritten on a 3 by 5 inch envelope. Mr. Glover explained national standards are supposed to go to 8 ½ by 11 inches, but older documents coming in would be recorded. For something brought in on legal-sized paper, he said, a decision has not yet been made for consistent handling, and the clerks may need to come back to the legislature in 2 years. Mr. Glover said his own interpretation would be to charge an additional $1, and stamp the document in two places. He clarified, no provision was made in the law for nonstandard document fees, but such documents would have to be recorded in accordance with law.
Senator Care asked for clarification regarding documents for real property as opposed to trusts referring to real property outside of the county. Mr. Glover said the trust document could be recorded.
Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 568 and opened the hearing on A.B. 607.
ASSEMBLY BILL 607: Makes various changes relating to unemployment compensation affecting Indian tribes to comply with federal law. (BDR 53-1313)
Birgit K. Baker, Administrator, Employment Security Division, Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation, testified section 7 of the bill would increase the compensation for the nine members of the Employment Security Council and Board of Review from $60 per day to $80 per day consistent with the compensation of other state boards and commissions. Funding for this proposal is in the Governor’s budget, she said, and has been reviewed by the money committees. She submitted her written testimony (Exhibit N) to the committee.
Ms. Baker said the remainder of the bill is devoted to coverage of Indian tribes under state unemployment insurance law. State legislation is required due to amendments to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), she said, which were effective in December 2000. She explained the FUTA amendments exclude Indian tribes from paying federal unemployment taxes and require states to pass legislation covering the tribes under state unemployment insurance (UI) laws. Therefore, she said, NRS must be revised to comply with federal law, or the state could be sanctioned for nonconformance, which could result in denial of offset tax credits of up to $340 million. She noted an additional benefit to Indian tribes would be the option to pay quarterly state UI taxes as self-insurance, an option currently only available to state and local governments and certain nonprofit organizations. She provided a copy of a letter written to her from the regional director of the Office of Workforce Security, U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) (Exhibit O), which states A.B. 607 meets the federal criteria with respect to the Indian tribes under FUTA. She noted the bill has a retroactive effective date for most sections of December 21, 2000, as required by the USDOL. Section 7, regarding increased compensation, has an effective date of July 1, 2001, she said.
Senator O'Connell asked if line 10 of the bill is the federal legislation being referenced under FUTA. Ms. Baker stated all of section 2 defines Indian tribes as required by federal law and the remainder of the bill encompasses all other definitions of employment for Indian tribes.
Senator O'Connell closed the meeting on A.B. 607 and opened the meeting on S.B. 272. She asked for a motion to concur or not concur on Amendment No. 696 of S.B. 272.
SENATE BILL 272: Makes various changes to charter of City of Wells. (BDR S-1225)
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 696 OF S.B. 272.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O’DONNELL AND RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
Senator O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:04 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Laura Hale,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: