MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
May 21, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:13 p.m., on Monday, May 21, 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 Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman David F. Brown, Clark County Assembly District No. 22
Assemblywoman Kathryn (Kathy) A. McClain, Clark County Assembly District No. 15
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 4
Assemblyman David R. Parks, Clark County Assembly District No. 41
Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County Assembly District No. 11
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Laura Hale, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO)
Robert L. Crowell, Lobbyist, Nevada Judges Association
James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, City of Reno
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County
Kent F. Lauer, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Kingsbury General Improvement District (GID)
Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority
Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern Nevada; and Associated General Contractors of Northern Nevada
Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board
Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern Nevada
Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
John P. Sande III, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Helicopter
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, PORAN/Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Michael Jensen, Deputy Attorney General, Transportation/Public Safety Division, Office of the Attorney General
Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 465.
ASSEMBLY BILL 465: Authorizes use of proceeds of certain taxes for certain highway improvement projects located wholly or partially outside boundaries of this state. (BDR 20-831)
Assemblyman David F. Brown, Clark County Assembly District No. 22, testified this bill duplicates the substantive language from Senator Porter’s bill on the Needles Highway, which provided a preamble, whereas A.B. 465 did not.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 465 TO ADD A SENATE SPONSOR ONTO THE BILL.
Senator Porter said the preamble did not need to be added onto the bill. Chairman O’Connell clarified the amendment would be to add Senator Porter’s name as sponsor, and asked for a second to the motion. Senator Porter asked to hold the bill to ask legal counsel about the domain process. Kim Guinasso, Committee Counsel, said she believed it would be permissible to amend the bill to add Senator Porter’s name as sponsor. Chairman O’Connell held action on A.B. 465 and opened the hearing on A.B. 569.
ASSEMBLY BILL 569: Exempts certain professional and occupational boards from provisions concerning state financial administration. (BDR 31-341)
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, Department of Administration, testified A.B. 569 relates to increasing productivity by exempting certain professional and occupational boards from provisions concerning state financial administration. He said the change was being proposed because each of the affected boards has its own enabling legislation and regulates specific professional groups. He added the boards maintain their own payroll and accounting systems, hire their own staffs, and are completely independent from the state systems. The only time the Budget Division is aware of a board’s financial status is when audits are obtained, he said, as mandated in chapter 218 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). There were no proposed changes to chapter 218 and there would still be either annual or biannual audits, with the bigger boards doing annual audits, he said. There is quarterly monitoring by the Budget Division, but the boards operate independently, he explained.
Mr. Hataway said in the 12 years of his involvement with budgeting, there have only been a handful of budget hearings on those boards. If they are not in a financial emergency situation, if they have good cash flow and adequate reserves, they are normally handled routinely, he said, and, therefore, the bill proposes to exempt these boards from chapter 353 of NRS. He said the Budget Division would continue to work with the boards through the audit process in case there are any fiscal issues, but from a productivity point of view, the Budget Division’s time could be better spent on other issues dealing with state agencies.
Chairman O’Connell called for committee action on the bill.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 569.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 94.
ASSEMBLY BILL 94: Makes various changes regarding fees charged and collected by certain officials of local governments. (BDR 20-419)
Chairman O’Connell stated Senator Porter had some amendments (Exhibit C) to introduce on this bill presented by the Nevada Association of Counties to increase fees. Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), testified the last fee bill was in 1993, but everything was cut in half and did not increase. Some of the fees have not been increased since 1979, he said, and he had not seen the amendment proposed by Senator Porter.
Senator Porter explained it was a two-fold amendment, one part was proposed by Mr. Crowell, he said, and the other was related to a request for a $3 fee increase to provide technology for the agencies. Senator Porter explained the latter amendment would add an additional $1 to the $3 fee to help with foster care programs in counties. Currently, he said, there are about 300 young people between 15½ and 18 who are put out on the street with $150 and some clothes when they turn 18. The additional $1 would be used to pay costs associated with job training, housing assistance, and obtaining medical insurance, he said, and he reported a young person who had been in foster care passed away because he could not get insulin. The other amendment is to increase the Justice of the Peace fees, he said.
Robert Crowell, Lobbyist, Nevada Judges Association, testified judges support raising the fee from $35 to $50 for the celebration of a marriage and also adding a new $10 fee for renewing a civil judgment. He said A.B. 103 was a similar bill that was not processed on the Assembly side, and therefore it was requested this committee pass this bill to be taken back to the Assembly side.
ASSEMBLY BILL 103: Makes various changes to fees charged by justice of the peace and municipal court judge. (BDR 1-526)
Mr. Crowell explained to Chairman O’Connell the Assembly did not process the whole bill and he did not know the reason. He explained to Senator Titus under A.B. 94 the $35 to $50 fee would go to the judges for performing civil marriages. There is another provision if a service is performed during unofficial hours, he said, under which the $50 would go to the county and is not earmarked. He said his understanding is that the last time the fees were raised was at least 10 years ago. Mr. Hadfield assured Chairman O’Connell anything he could do to help the committee achieve its goals would be a “friendly amendment.”
Chairman O’Connell explained to Senator Neal her understanding was the amendment would have statewide impact. Senator Porter explained the first part of the amendment would cover the $1 fee for foster care assistance. The other language, which was identical to what was proposed in the Assembly, was to bring the Justice of the Peace up to a similar fee to that of the commissioner of civil marriages proposed in A.B. 94, he said.
Chairman O’Connell asked Senator Porter to review how the money would be disbursed and administered. Senator Porter explained it would go to the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), which handles the foster program. The funds were intended for children who leave foster care at 18 with no transitional assistance, he said, and the amount any individual would receive would be at the discretion of DCFS. In response to Senator Neal, Senator Porter said estimates for how much money could be raised were made at a hearing in Washoe County. The $3 fee would raise about $200,000 there, he said, and about one-third of that, considering the $1 additional fee, would be about $66,000 in Washoe County. In response to Senator Titus, Senator Porter said the intent would be for the funds to go back to the county in which they were raised.
Senator Titus stated it should be clarified in the language where the money would go. She said she had no problem with the money going to the county of origin or increasing the marriage fees, but was not sure why a new fee for renewing a civil judgment was needed if it would go to the court. She said she would feel better if it were being used for something specific.
Mr. Crowell explained this would be a new fee to attempt to cover the cost of doing business because judgments last for 6 years now, and the law allows renewal of a judgment based on a motion to do so for an additional 6-year period. When a judgment is renewed, he said, the flat $10 fee would be the only fee that would be paid, whereas currently no fee is paid for this service. In response to Chairman O’Connell, he said he did not know what the actual cost was, but the $10 was in line with other filing fees, such as notice of appeal, appeal bond, and preparation transcript.
Senator Porter explained to Senator Neal the $1 fee in his amendment would be in addition to the $3 fee to fund technological improvements, bringing the total to $4. Mr. Crowell confirmed for Senator Raggio the raising of the $35 fee would apply to justices of the peace. Raising it to $50 would bring it in line with civil commissioners, he said, but those fees go to the county. The additional $15 for the justices of the peace would be retained, along with the $35 by the justices of the peace, he said. The rural judges asked for this to be done in A.B. 103, which did not pass the first deadline on committee approval and did not come out of the Assembly, he said, and he would have to work the bill on the Assembly side again if the Senate were to pass it. He clarified the $10 fee for renewal of civil judgments would go to the county.
Chairman O’Connell expressed concern about how income from the $1 fee would be distributed. Senator Porter reiterated there were approximately 300 children in the 15 1/2- to 18-year age range, and the $66,000 estimate is for annual income in Washoe County, and would be more in Clark County. He explained DCFS representatives were not at the hearing because he had made the proposal himself. In response to questions from Senator Titus, Senator Raggio said there were proposals in the finance committee, to raise the rate for foster children, which were likely to pass.
James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, said he was not familiar with the amendment Senator Porter proposed, but if the committee were to pass the bill with the amendment, he said, the county would ensure the funds raised were used for the intended purposes. Mr. Spinello said he did not know whether the current $150 allotment to foster children, upon turning 18, was established by NRS, but would find out.
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, said there is currently a gift account in chapter 123 of NRS that is administered by DCFS, and the money in that account is paid upon the request of a foster parent based on need or for extracurricular activities in school. The language for administration of that account was duplicated in Senator Porter’s amendment, page 2, section 14.5, she said, and the money would be allocated based upon a written request and need. She said the DCFS would need to develop policies for the administration of the account and also, pursuant to subsection 2, the money would only be distributed to pay the costs of things associated with job training, housing assistance, and obtaining medical insurance.
Chairman O’Connell said she did not object to the additional $1 fee, but thought there needed to be some tighter language. Specifically, she said, provisions should specify whether set amounts would be distributed for each of the three categories or whether it would depend upon whoever it is that recognizes the need at the time. Senator Porter agreed to create tighter language on the distribution of money. Senator Raggio reiterated the current language would require DCFS to set up some policies before any funds were distributed. Senator Porter explained the current $150 distribution is a blanket amount for everything. He reiterated there was no one at the hearing from DCFS, but the bill would require the department to develop policy, and the fund would be a state fund that would not go to another agency.
Senator Raggio said he did not read the amendment as specifying the funds go to their county of origin and was not sure it should be done that way. As a state fund, he said, the DCFS should have the authority to address the needs of foster children, regardless of where funds come from. Senator Titus suggested the policy could include that some of the funds could be used as fallback for small rural counties that would not have contributed as much but may have a needy case. Also, she said, the amount should be capped to avoid being used on a first-come, first-serve basis, which could wipe out the whole fund.
Senator Porter said he tried to address that issue under “obtaining medical insurance.” He said it would provide for health care insurance, but not specific medical expenses. He suggested the administration could draft the regulations and report to the Legislative Commission with their findings. Senator Raggio said he agreed with Senator Titus that caps to limit the amount to an individual would be helpful. Chairman O’Connell also agreed caps would be helpful and supported provision of medical insurance. She suggested the committee amend and do pass the bill with the amendment coming back to the committee for review.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 94 WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THE AMENDMENT FOR THE $1 FEE COME BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW, AND THE AMENDMENT FOR THE CIVIL JUDGMENT RENEWAL BE REMOVED.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Titus said in reviewing the description of A.B. 94, it read “increases the fee to which the commissioner of civil marriages is entitled for performing from $35 to $45, and directs the commissioner to also collect an additional $5 for the account for aid for victims of domestic violence.” She asked what would happen to the $5 for domestic violence if the fee were increased to $50 for the justices of the peace. Mr. Crowell said the judges would have no problem with either leaving it at $45 or putting it at $50 and having $5 go for domestic violence. Senator Porter said, as the maker of the motion, he would leave it at $50 with $5 going to domestic violence.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on A.B. 9.
ASSEMBLY BILL 9: Authorizes use of arbitration for adjustment of certain grievances of state employees. (BDR 23-439)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 9 WITH THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY MR. GAGNIER AND REPLACING THE WORD “RESIDE” WITH THE WORD “WORK.”
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (CHAIRMAN O’CONNELL AND SENATORS RAGGIO, O’DONNELL AND PORTER VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 102.
ASSEMBLY BILL 102: Revises qualifications for membership on Comstock historic district commission. (BDR 33-546)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 102.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Titus said she would support the motion as long as it was clear the amendment would only apply to buildings that do not currently have names, or had generic names. Senator Raggio agreed to this, but said he did not think there needed to be a special amendment.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion 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)
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified there were four proposed amendments (Exhibit D) for this bill. She reported communication with Jim Foreman from Clark County to work out language on three of the amendments, but, she said, the first amendment would delete all references to costs incurred for relocation of tenants, which Clark County was not in agreement on. However, she said, Nevada Concerned Citizens felt most strongly about this amendment, specifically, owners of property should not be burdened with costs of relocation for tenants.
Ms. Lusk suggested a second option for the committee to consider would be to delete all references to the owner paying for relocation of tenants, but to give the county authority to pay for relocation in those conditions where there was severe economic hardship on the displaced tenant. Payment could come from the fund generated by the $500 per day civil penalty, or from the county general fund, she said, pointing out this recommendation was not agreed to by the sponsor of the bill.
Ms. Lusk explained the second amendment would deal with reasonable written notice when a property must be closed due to imminent danger. There are a number of problems associated with that, she said, and the recommendation was the determination that a property needs to be closed must be made by three persons who sign that determination. The current law provides “three persons appointed by the board,” she said, and the proposed bill would have deleted “three persons” and allowed a single person to make that decision. Ms. Lusk asserted that would be inappropriate, and recommended reversion to approval from three people, but to take out “appointed by the board,” and require the three people to sign the determination.
In addition, Ms. Lusk recommended the owner of the property on which the structure or condition is located must be given reasonable written notice, which must be delivered to the property owner if practicable, or posted on the property before the structure or condition is secured. The reason for that language, since it is potentially an imminent danger, she said, was that it is not always possible to locate the owner. She also recommended a notice clearly state the recourse available to an owner to challenge the action, and where additional information could be obtained.
Continuing, Ms. Lusk said the third amendment would remove the “any other codes” from the definition as being too broad. The final amendment was “cleanup” language, she said, related to the court having discretion to make a decision in these cases. If the court finds a chronic nuisance exists, and action is necessary to avoid serious threat to the public welfare or the safety or health of the occupants of the property, she said, the court “may,” rather than “shall,” order the county to secure or close the property until the nuisance is abated.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST, DEALING WITH THE RELOCATION OF THE TENANTS.
Senator Raggio stated he had a problem with the amendment because the dangerous condition may have been caused by the tenant, in which case the owner should not pay. “If the tenant is operating a crack house and some landlord does not know about it, it is too broad to say that in all cases the landlord would pay for the relocation of the tenant,” he said, but “Ms. Lusk’s suggestion to give the county an option to pay for that if they determine hardship, not caused by the tenant, would be okay.”
Senator Titus suggested when the court decides whether to secure the property, the court could also decide if it was the tenant’s or owner’s fault and who should pay for relocation. Senator Raggio said the problem is these cases are not always in court.
Mr. Spinello testified the reason for Clark County’s disagreement with the first section is that these are not cases that happen often. In case of a “crack house” or “meth lab,” he said, the people would be relocated to jail, for which there would be no relocation costs. Most cases are multi-family rental properties, he said, and relocations do not happen often, but when they have happened they have been cases where landlords maintained unsuitable living conditions for a long time. He said one of the self-limiting aspects of the proposal was the county has to “front” the money. He explained to Chairman O’Connell section 2 of the bill would involve the district attorney going to court, and section 1 would involve immediate action. The county could live with the proposed changes, he said, but very often there are tight deadlines due to extreme living conditions, and people need to be moved as quickly as possible. The changes would allow that process to be expedited, he said. Senator Raggio said he had no problem with the proposed language in the case of “slum lords,” but the language was too broad and could have impact beyond those kinds of cases. He asked who would determine fault.
Assemblywoman Kathryn (Kathy) A. McClain, Clark County Assembly District No. 15, asserted the intention of this legislation was to allow counties to enact and enforce ordinances the same as a city can. The city ordinance could be a model for what would be considered a chronic nuisance, dangerous structure or condition in the county, and something compatible could be written, she suggested. She stressed the key to the bill would be to allow guidelines and give counties flexibility for ordinances similar to those of the city.
Senator Raggio said he had no problem with that, but was concerned with relocation of tenants, for which the proposed language was too broad because it would require landlords to pay for relocation in all cases, and the landlord is not to blame in all cases.
Mr. Spinello said he would be at the disposal of the committee to help draft language to that effect. Although it would be most expeditious for the county to have the landlord pay, there would be recourse, he said, and anything expended for the relocation would not be immediate, and a landlord could challenge the county.
Senator O’Donnell suggested a middle ground of utilizing security deposits for relocation costs. Senator Care said he thought that would be a matter of contract between the landlord and the tenant. The contract for the lease itself includes terms for use of the security deposit, he said, so the state may not be able to impose some other use. Senator Titus agreed with Senator Care’s comments and asked if language regarding building or housing codes would include health regulations.
Assemblywoman McClain said she shared Senator Titus’ concern, and also asked about fire codes, preferring the relevant language in Ms. Lusk’s amendment not be included. With regard to relocation and landlord payment, in cases of a substandard or dangerous structure or condition, she said, the law already provides for recovery of abatement costs, and the bill would add a provision to allow recovery of relocation costs as well.
Mr. Spinello said the county understands it must pay up front costs, but there could be a requirement for the county commission to make a determination, based on a hearing, as to whether or not the costs of relocation should be assessed to the owner. Those decisions would also be open to challenge, he said. Chairman O’Connell suggested the language be changed to “responsible party” rather than “owner,” so there would have to be a determination as to who the responsible party was. Ms. Guinasso noted the body to determine responsibility would have to be identified. Senator Raggio suggested the language read “the person primarily responsible for the dangerous condition would pay the costs, if any, of relocation.” It might be the tenants that are responsible, he said, and a mechanism could be provided for appeal to the county commissioners. With regard to the language on codes, Senator Raggio said he thought “or any other codes” should be struck because he would not want this to be used by some overzealous official who sees a way to “get a code violation.”
Senator Neal pointed out the bill dealt with three subjects: 1) abatement of nuisance; 2) dangerous structures; and 3) dangerous conditions. He said the language Senator Raggio proposed would not cover the nuisance part of the statute because the occupants could have a situation where they would not be responsible for a nuisance. Senator Raggio asserted occupants could be the direct cause of the nuisance. Senator Neal responded the occupants would not be the cause in all cases. Chairman O’Connell reiterated the county commission could determine whether the assessment were to be made.
Senator Raggio reiterated the suggestion for an amendment to provide for someone to determine who is primarily responsible for the dangerous condition, and if it were determined to be the landlord, the landlord should be able to appeal to the county commission. He also reiterated he did not agree with keeping language of “any other code,” because it was too broad. Assemblywoman McClain explained her intention was to include codes that deal with health and safety of the occupants. Senator Raggio said he realized the phrase was modified to read “any other code regulating health and safety,” and said this was perhaps not too broad.
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 4, provided a copy of a proposed “Attractive Nuisance Abatement Statute” (Exhibit E), which he said dealt with many of the issues in A.B. 131. He said he worked with the City of Reno and legal counsel to address issues that are in the bill and have already been addressed by the committee. He explained the abatement statute would deal specifically with counties with populations larger than 100,000 or less than 400,000. He said he had started this effort last session and worked on it during the interim. The statute would define “attractive nuisance,” and cities would be able to adopt abatement procedures on how to identify, define, rule, and go to court in such cases, he said. The process would protect the rights of the property owner and the civil rights of individuals while correcting the nuisance, he said, by tearing a building down or providing a plan for resolution. Further, he said, it would provide the ability for counsel to “lien” the property, if the owner decided not to tear down or abate the attractive nuisance, to get the city’s money back.
Senator Townsend explained the abatement statute would deal with a commercial building that had become an attractive nuisance. Page 2 of the bill proposed language that would allow the court to order the owner to pay reasonable expenses for the relocation of any legally occupying tenants who were affected by the attractive nuisance, he said, which would not be a political or public decision. He said the efforts were focused on areas of Reno where landlords had allowed properties to deteriorate.
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, City of Reno, explained to Chairman O’Connell the bill was not presented earlier in the session because it was just recently returned by the city attorneys. There are some issues in downtown Reno, she said, but it could also be applied to homes being used for methamphetamine production, or if environmental hazards exist, or for vacant homes that are broken into. Senator Townsend said when he proposed the bill last session it was “rather draconian,” and a broader base of support needed to be built. The city was not able to handle it through ordinance during the interim and needed specific statutory authority, he said, and legal consensus was built to protect everyone’s rights, so it took a long time.
Senator Neal said he was told in law school “attractive nuisance” was defined as a “potential harmful object so inviting or interesting to a child that it would lure the child onto the property to investigate.” If attractive nuisance were added along with dangerous structure and dangerous condition, he said, there would be two separate subjects. If a child is compelled onto property to investigate something, it is an attractive nuisance; otherwise it is not, he said. Senator Townsend asserted Senator Neal’s example was under a specific category, and what the proposal dealt with was something that would attract danger or activity that is illegal.
In response to Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Guinasso said it would appear there might be some overlap of the definition of “attractive nuisance activity” and the term “nuisance activity” as on page 3 of the bill. However, she said, because the proposed amendment from Senator Townsend would apply only in specific counties, it could be resolved in an appropriate manner by the legal division.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 131 TO ALLOW THE COSTS INCURRED FROM RELOCATION OF TENANTS, IF APPLICABLE, TO BE PAID BY THE PARTY PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND TO ALLOW AN APPEAL TO BE MADE TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; AND TO FURTHER AMEND THE BILL WITH THE PROPOSAL TO DEAL WITH ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND ABATEMENT THEREOF IN COUNTIES WITH POPULATIONS OF 100,000 OR MORE BUT LESS THAN 400,000.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator O’Donnell asserted, in the system of law and governance in this country, anybody who is aggrieved financially can file a lawsuit to be remunerated for conduct. He said he would rather determinations of responsibility be addressed in court, and objected to “watering down landlord-tenant laws” to allow county commissioners to make such determinations. Senator Raggio said his motion would provide for appeal to the board of county commissioners as an elected body because it would not necessarily include a lot of expense, but he would not mind if there were the right of appeal to a court on any decision.
Ms. Guinasso said her understanding of the amendments proposed by Ms. Lusk was that changes, in addition to those enumerated by Senator Raggio, include the middle section of her proposed amendment, and the final section would be the change to “or any codes remaining.” Senator Raggio agreed the proposed language regarding codes that regulate health and safety seemed appropriate, and the notice provision would be appropriate, but he suggested there should be some language to address Senator O’Donnell’s point. If the decision of the board of county commissioners were arbitrary, he said, there should be provision for appeal to the court.
Senator Care said ordinances are frequently enacted to affect certain counties, but with the amendment pertaining to Washoe County alone, he wondered if legislation could be enacted for a court to impose a penalty for conduct in one county and yet not impose a penalty for the identical conduct in another county. Ms. Guinasso said the use of population parameters for legislation has been a tool for the Legislature with the understanding that other areas would be included if they reached that population. She said she was not aware of any problem with this kind of population break, but the Legislative Counsel Bureau Legal Division is always careful to review amendments for constitutionality.
Senator Care said in that case he would be more comfortable with the Washoe County amendment providing for “civil penalties” as opposed to “criminal penalties,” because the same conduct should not be criminal in one county but not in another. He clarified the change would be under paragraph (c), subsection 1 of the proposed statute, beginning with “seek penalties against the owner of the property.” Senator Townsend stated he had no problem with Senator Care’s proposal.
SENATOR RAGGIO ADDED AN AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR COURT APPEAL IF A DECISION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION WERE ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS.
Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Guinasso for a reprint of the bill with amended language in color for the committee’s review.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 182.
ASSEMBLY BILL 182: Makes various changes to process of land use planning in certain counties and revises provisions regarding members of town advisory boards in certain counties. (BDR 22-57)
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County, said the amendment proposed would bring time frames in line with current cycles and it was reviewed by Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, who had no problem with it.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 182.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 219.
ASSEMBLY BILL 219: Designates mustang as official state animal. (BDR 19-1119)
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 219.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 225.
ASSEMBLY BILL 225: Makes various changes to provisions regarding meetings of public bodies. (BDR 19-82)
Chairman O’Connell stated there was an amendment offered by the Nevada Press Association which Senator Raggio had worked on as well. Senator Raggio said he was just informed Washoe County had an additional amendment. Chairman O’Connell said she believed the amendment from the Nevada Press Association would also address Assemblywoman Vivian L. Freeman’s (Washoe County Assembly District No. 24) concerns.
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Health Department, said a proposed amendment from Washoe County (Exhibit F) would not stop public officials from seeking opinions or discussing matters with people, but would require they state the basis for their decisions when a matter comes before them and the issue is controversial or significant. The amendment would also preserve the attorney-client privilege, she said, and is broader than the amendment offered by the Nevada Press Association in that it makes clear it would apply to both retained and employed counsel.
Senator Raggio asked whether Ms. Shipman had looked at the amendment proposed by the Nevada Press Association, which would cover the same areas. Ms. Shipman asserted the implication in that amendment was that any communications would still have to be discussed at public meetings, including privileged matters discussed with an attorney, such as settlement agreements. Kent F. Lauer, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, confirmed for Senator Raggio the proposed amendment would not require privileged attorney-client matters to be subject to open meeting laws. Ms. Shipman asked for a statement for the record to make clear the intent of the amendment. Mr. Lauer stated “the amendment would provide that members of a public body can discuss litigation with its attorney.”
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Lauer whether the intent was to allow members to discuss litigation and settlement parameters, then at the public meeting a motion could be made to accept the settlement, without having to go into a lot of discussion. Mr. Lauer affirmed for Senator Raggio, and for the record, that “this was the way he understood the amendment proposed by the [Nevada] Press Association.”
Senator O’Donnell asked if this would hamper the ability of local governments to do business. Ms. Shipman said, in her opinion, she thought this would hamper the ability to do business because everyone would be wondering about communications among members and staff of any public body. She said the allegations are easy to make but hard to erase. However, she said, it is very hard to prove specific intent to avoid the requirements of the statute. She suggested some members of public bodies would just refuse to be called into a question of violation by not talking to people who could provide them with information to make informed decisions, which could create a chilling effect. She clarified for Senator Titus this would apply to every public body, including all state and local agencies, boards, and commissions.
Senator Titus said, “Just because Mr. Lauer said that is what he intended, I wouldn’t count on the RJ [Las Vegas Review Journal] saying that is how they read the law. So I think you better make it very specific, because the RJ doesn’t care what Mr. Lauer says, they’re going to interpret it the way they want to.”
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 225 WITH THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE NEVADA PRESS ASSOCIATION.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Neal expressed concern that the term “gathering” was used to define what “gathering” was in the proposed amendment. He said he interpreted the language to mean that any gathering would have to be reported.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL ABSTAINED.)
*****
Senator Raggio said in prior discussions of the bill, he commented:
. . . the law should not be so restrictive that two or three members, even though they might constitute a quorum of a public body, could not be at a public reception or go to lunch, or something of that kind, and have somebody construe that as a violation of the open meeting law that became a series of meetings of some kind . . . or that they had lunch with somebody from staff. I want that clearly on the record, and that’s the reason I discussed this with the representative from the Press Association, and that’s the reason for the language here that . . . calls it a social gathering . . . whether it’s a lunch or a reception, or something of that kind. Unless they have the specific intent to avoid the open meeting law requirements, that it is not a violation, and that’s the purpose of this language.
Senator Neal asked whether the full body of a commission meeting at a “social gathering” would not be a violation of the open meeting law. Senator Raggio said if it was not with the intent to avoid the law or with the intent to discuss a matter over which the members had supervision it would not be a violation. Senator Neal asserted the language was deliberately vague. Senator Titus said it was interesting the legislature does not come under the open meeting law, because if it did, every time there was a caucus of the majority, there would be a violation of the open meeting restrictions that are imposed on all other government bodies.
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 227.
ASSEMBLY BILL 227: Revises definition of committee for political action. (BDR 24-917)
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 227.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio asked what changes would be made in the political action committee (PAC) law, and what precipitated them. Senator Titus explained the bill would pertain to PACs that give money to individual campaigns and do not include issue advocacy, so groups for issue advocacy would not have to meet the same reporting requirements as those who support candidates. Senator O’Donnell added, under the new language, money would have to be received for a candidate or an issue to fall under reporting guidelines. He asserted the bill would make it easier for “soft money people” to put signs out, noting that people who donate in-kind do not currently have to report those contributions.
Ms. Lusk said the bill came from an interpretation by the attorney general’s office that the current definition of a PAC covers hardly anybody, so it was rewritten to cover what was perceived to be the right group of people.
Senator Raggio said the bill provided language for what is not the definition of a PAC, such as a party caucus, labor union, or personal campaign committee. He asked whether the bill addressed reporting on personal campaigns, similar to a congressional bill. Chairman O’Connell said her notes referenced a federal issue and a similar law in Utah, and she determined to hold the bill until more information could be obtained. She then opened discussion on A.B. 282.
ASSEMBLY BILL 282: Revises provisions governing use of polygraphic examinations for peace officers and as part of investigation of peace officers. (BDR 23-1271)
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 282.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio said, although he was impressed with the testimony in support of the bill, law enforcement managers all opposed changing the present law. The law enforcement chiefs need to contend with situations where there is an appearance of misconduct, he said, and the present law was crafted to give them some procedure to deal with these situations and address public concerns.
Senator O’Donnell said, as a former Metro police officer, “there is a time and place for polygraph, but to use it on personnel issues is not the time or place.” He asserted it is “akin to flogging, is not a reliable tool, cannot be used in courts of law, and is very offensive when dealing with personnel matters.” Senator Neal agreed with Senator O’Donnell the test is not reliable, and if it were, he said, Agent Ames of the Central Intelligence Agency would have been caught sooner because he was given a polygraph test every year. Individuals can drink wine to relax and then “lie through their teeth” without it registering on the polygraph machine, he said, and a lot depends on the interpreter, and if it is interpreted wrongly, a person’s career could be ruined.
Senator Raggio said the present law already provides that the administration cannot take disciplinary action against an officer who refuses to submit to a polygraph test and cannot make a notation of that refusal. He asserted to go further than the current law would tie the administrators’ hands. He said the polygraph measures what it is supposed to measure, but the value of the exam is directly related to the capabilities of the examiner. He asserted the exams are not admissible without mutual stipulation, but do have psychological usage and are used extensively to determine whether somebody is deceptive. Senator O’Donnell said he believed it was not the case that disciplinary action could not be taken if an officer refused to take the test, and that administrators would find a reason to take disciplinary action.
Senator Neal pointed out language on page 2 of the bill states what would happen if an officer refused to submit to a polygraph exam required by the section, “a law enforcement agency may take disciplinary action against that officer.” He asserted the polygraph is an instrument of fear, and if someone feared it, there would be all kinds of reaction, whereas, if it were not feared, there would be no reaction.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell held discussion on A.B. 295 for more information, and then opened discussion on A.B. 314.
ASSEMBLY BILL 295: Revises provisions governing participation in elections by elderly and disabled persons. (BDR 24-839)
ASSEMBLY BILL 314: Makes various changes concerning collection of debts owed to state. (BDR 31-642)
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 314.
Chairman O’Connell noted there was a non-substantive conflict amendment; number 939.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Guinasso explained the conflict was with provision 481.079 of S.B. 503.
SENATE BILL 503: Revises provisions relating to service charge assessed by department of motor vehicles and public safety for dishonored payment of certain fees. (BDR 43-1312)
Dennis Colling, Chief of Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, explained the conflict was related to an increase of the bad check fee from $10 to $25.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 365.
ASSEMBLY BILL 365: Requires that certain local governmental employers and employees submit certain disputed issues to arbitrator for binding arbitration in certain circumstances. (BDR 23-1057)
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 365.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (CHAIRMAN O’CONNELL AND SENATORS RAGGIO, O’DONNELL, AND PORTER VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 365.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS, NEAL AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 381.
ASSEMBLY BILL 381: Makes various changes regarding cities and towns. (BDR 21-67)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO RE-REFER A.B. 381 WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Guinasso explained the conflict amendment was not available to the committee because it would not be prepared until the committee determined to move the bill “out of the house.” Even if the committee has not moved to resolve a conflict, she said, if a conflict is identified after an amendment is moved, it is then sent to the committee. But, she said, conflict amendments are not prepared in advance in case the committee does not decide to move the bill.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 386.
ASSEMBLY BILL 386: Makes various changes concerning public employees. (BDR 23-621)
Chairman O’Connell explained the bill had already been acted upon, but Assemblywoman Sharon B. Angle, Washoe County Assembly District No. 29, had asked for an amendment. Senator Porter clarified the bill would need to be reconsidered to add an amendment. There was no motion to reconsider. Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 413.
ASSEMBLY BILL 413: Revises provisions regarding cooperative agreements between public agencies. (BDR 22-1305)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 413.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 414.
ASSEMBLY BILL 414: Authorizes removal of manager of state public works board under certain circumstances. (BDR 28-670)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 414.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 430.
ASSEMBLY BILL 430: Authorizes general improvement districts in certain counties to charge owners of dwelling units which receive services provided by district for which owners are not being charged. (BDR 25-1275)
Chairman O’Connell explained there were two amendments, and the one she proposed would address concerns from Senators Care and Titus regarding an assumption of violation on the part of the tenants. Owners would not be allowed access to a unit based on such an assumption, she said. It would allow those who presented a challenge to go ahead with their challenge, she said, but then the board would bill the tenants to let them know a challenge had been made, giving them the opportunity to come in and explain the situation or pay the difference.
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Kingsbury General Improvement District (GID), said the amendment he proposed would take out references to on-site inspections by the GID. Notice would be given to tenants that an affidavit was received from staff regarding the appearance of an “additional unit.” The tenant would be given 30-days’ notice and a public hearing and, based on evidence, there could be a charge for an additional unit unless it could be shown not to exist.
Mr. Hillerby confirmed to Senator Care this would mean the district would have to demonstrate by means other than inspection that the rules were broken. Senator O’Donnell said his understanding was it would shift responsibility by allowing a charge for additional units unless the tenant could prove otherwise. Mr. Hillerby said the only distinction would be that charging for the service would not start until 30-days’ notice was given and a public hearing was held, and, he said, there would be no penalties.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 430 WITH THE AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. HILLERBY.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Neal asked for clarification on what was intended by the reference to property changes. Specifically, he asked whether a separate room or living space would be considered to exist if a couch that could fold into a bed were in the kitchen with a sliding partition. Mr. Hillerby said that would not meet the definition of a separate unit because the one kitchen would be serving the whole house. There would have to be an additional bathroom and kitchen to meet the definition of an additional unit, he said.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 451.
ASSEMBLY BILL 451: Authorizes certain local governments to donate real property to certain nonprofit organizations in certain circumstances. (BDR 20-369)
Ms. Wilson-Pappa confirmed for Chairman O’Connell land would revert back to the county if it were used for any purpose other than nonprofit. She said the bill included three provisions: 1) In order for the county to donate land, it must not be able to be used for any other public purpose; 2) if it is no longer needed for any other public purpose, the property would revert back to the county; and 3) the terms and conditions would be negotiated with the board of county commissioners.
Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA), said he requested an amendment at the first hearing for fair and recreation boards to be exempted because there were continuous expansion projects for their facilities and no provisions for retrieving land, once it is given. He said the LVCVA has its own board, but some of the land it sits on is owned by the county, so the board of county commissioners could grant authority for that land. Senator Titus said she did not understand the concern because the language provides an entity “may” enter into an agreement. Mr. Skancke said the board of county commissioners could make a decision to relinquish property that was being used by the LCVCA.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 451.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion 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)
Chairman O’Connell noted there was a conflict amendment plus three other amendments (Exhibit G). Jeanette Belz, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) South; and Associated General Contractors (AGC) North, said one amendment would provide more definitive pre-qualifying language dealing with disqualification of a bidder who failed to perform on previous public works projects. Chairman O’Connell said Assemblyman Parks indicated he had similar language that was more specific. Assemblyman David R. Parks, Clark County Assembly District No. 41, said he had no problem with tightening the language.
Ms. Belz confirmed to Senator Raggio the proposal would add back, as an issue for disqualification, a company that has failed to perform on previous public works projects. Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board, requested clarifying language to distinguish a bidders’ preference from qualification of bidders on the second line of the proposed amendment. Ms. Belz said she believed the language in the amendment must have been a misrepresentation because Mr. Hardy had wanted to add language on whether an applicant was qualified to bid. Mr. O’Brien said the language “Failed to perform” was also an open-ended area, and another amendment would change language from “shall” to “may” on section 5, page 3, line 43. Yet another amendment proposed was to allow the public works board to include additional factors, such as past performance, he said, which would amend subsection 3, section 2, on page 2, lines 10-21, and add subsection (c).
Senator Raggio said he thought the language was too broad, and if “failure to perform” was added in, it would open the door for an abusive situation. Mr. O’Brien said if the wording from ABC South was more preferential he would agree to it, as long as the bidders’ preference issue was clarified. Assemblyman Parks said he had no objection to the amendments.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 461 TO INCLUDE, UNDER SUBSECTION 3, SECTION 2, THE ADDITIONAL FACTOR OF “FAILURE TO PERFORM ON A PREVIOUS PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT,” AND ALSO TO CHANGE THE “SHALL” TO “MAY” UNDER SECTION 5, PAGE 3, LINE 43, AND ALSO TO AMEND THE CONFLICT.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. O’Brien clarified the amendment from ABC South would just be changing subsection (c). Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) South, said his understanding of the motion was to accept the amendment from Mr. O’Brien, removing his section (c) and adding section (c) as presented by ABC, with the correction. Senator Raggio said it would not be adding subsection (c), but adding item 5 to subsection (b), so that “Failure to perform on a previous public project” would be item 3(b)(5) in section 2.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 462.
ASSEMBLY BILL 462: Authorizes certain local governments to impose tax on nonresidential construction projects or require dedication of certain land for regional parks. (BDR 22-72)
Ms. Belz, testifying for AGC North, said the proposed amendment contained a clearer definition of the term “non-residential construction project.” She said she worked with Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, and determined the best place to do that would be section 1, page 1. The provisions would apply to construction of a building, as opposed to just generic construction, which would also be reflected on page 3, lines 10-16 regarding the cap of $20,000 per non-residential construction project, which would, therefore, mean the construction of a building. She explained the earlier reference to a building permit would be the valuation of the building permit issued, which would be consistent with Mr. Musgrove’s desire for it to be “under one roof.” She said the language regarding a tax formula would be removed since it caused confusion.
Senator Porter clarified the bill proposed funding of regional parks around the boundaries of the City of Las Vegas and Clark County, and said his understanding was that maintenance of parks is a bigger challenge than building the park. He asked how that would be funded. Mr. Musgrove said there were cooperative agreements with the county on other parks in the area, and they would try to work out cooperative agreements for these proposed parks as well. The intent is for those to be City of Las Vegas regional parks, he said, and the proposed locations were coincidental and would serve the region. He confirmed for Senator Porter the city already receives residential construction taxes for residential parks in those areas, and added that those are for neighborhood parks only. He said there were neighborhood parks near the regional parks, but the intent of building the regional parks was to serve areas that are currently underserved, whereas neighborhood parks serve a smaller area and often have limited facilities.
Senator Porter asserted neighborhood parks are very nice, and he questioned why two regional parks were being planned right across from each other. Mr. Musgrove explained the land in question was currently available in an inventory of Bureau of Land Management acquisitions, but most likely only one of those sites would be selected. Once the funding was put together, he said, the city would typically go to the region and ask what was wanted in that area. The property that best meets the requirements would be selected for building the park, he said. Mr. Musgrove explained neighborhood parks are defined as containing up to 25 acres, and confirmed for Senator Porter the revenues generated from residential construction were insufficient to build regional parks. He said the intent of the residential construction tax was just for neighborhood parks because the homes were designed for those areas. Now, he said, the city wants to bring in commercial construction representatives to sit at the table and be part of planning the regional parks, and to determine methods of funding. He described it as the “live, work, and play” concept. The key, he said, is to bring in both residential and commercial construction firms and build something that suits both their needs. He clarified the Las Vegas Sports Park is not considered a regional park.
Senator Titus said she thought it was a good idea to build more parks, and if the people doing the non-residential construction were agreeable to the tax, she could not imagine wanting to turn it away. Also, she pointed out that Las Vegas Valley ranks below the national average for park acreage per population. Mr. Musgrove said the regional standard set by the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) is at 2.5 acres per thousand, and he believed Las Vegas had less than 1.9 acres per thousand. Senator Titus said she believed the 2.5-acre figure was much lower than the national figure. Mr. Musgrove confirmed the national figure was much higher.
In response to Senator Porter, Ms. Wilson-Pappa said the county has a master parks plan and is in the process of planning regional and neighborhood parks. Through the SNRPC and county planning processes, she said, parks have been determined to be critical to the community. She said there was certainly competition between parks and public services, and funding for these parks would be primarily done through general fund revenues.
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, explained to Chairman O’Connell the $20,000 figure was arrived at as 1 percent of $2 million, which would be the top of the range for a large regional park. He said a lot of projects would be under $2 million, but it would be a plateau with some relationship to value received from parks. By capping it off at $20,000 it never becomes a huge dollar amount for any project, he said, and it would not make a project feasible or infeasible.
Ms. Guinasso said the effective date of implementation of A.B. 462 would be July 1, 2001. Mr. Leavitt said it would not apply to projects that already have building permits, and an ordinance would be needed to implement the provisions, in addition to the bill that would just permit the ordinance. He said he did not know the balance of funds remaining on the residential construction tax. He explained as commercial construction comes in and brings assessed valuation and associated taxes, and the money comes into the city for those parks, that is an indication of growth that would help provide money for construction. This indication of growth creates a recognition of additional tax money to come in, for planning purposes, that could be used for the operation and maintenance of the parks. He asserted parks would not be built if the city could not project the funding of maintenance for them, and the city would not ask for tax overrides or any adjustment for maintenance purposes.
Mr. Musgrove said he originally worked with the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks on the Assembly side on certain language protections, which were added. He said once AGC North’s concerns were addressed, there was no other opposition.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 462.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (CHAIRMAN O’CONNELL AND SENATORS RAGGIO, O’DONNELL, AND PORTER VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 465.
ASSEMBLY BILL 465: Authorizes use of proceeds of certain taxes for certain highway improvement projects located wholly or partially outside boundaries of this state. (BDR 20-831)
Senator Porter submitted letters of support for the bill (Exhibit H).
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 465.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS, NEAL, AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 490.
ASSEMBLY BILL 490: Requires certain counties to establish committee on abatement of noise attributable to flight of certain helicopters and certain other aircraft and to enact ordinances concerning certain helicopters. (BDR 20-154)
John P. Sande III, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Helicopter, testified he had talked with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani who agreed to the proposed amendment included in the committee’s work session packet. If the county determined to have an airport noise advisory committee, he said, it would have 11 members, a majority of whom would be people affected by aircraft noise. He said the amendment would delete objectionable provisions from the standpoint of McCarran Airport, and would also delete mandate language in the first reprint that was preempted by federal law and is in the province of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The bill is balanced now and seeks ways to address the noise issue, he said, involving various entities, including the FAA. He confirmed for Chairman O’Connell the proposed amendment would replace the bill. Senator Raggio noted he would abstain from voting as he is a partner in the same law firm with Mr. Sande.
Senator Titus said she hated to see the bill watered down, and she thought the county could do much more than it claimed. She said she did not appreciate Mr. Walker’s (Randall Walker, Director of Aviation, McCarran International Airport) attitude during testimony, and she did not receive letters she had requested that would confirm his position of having his hands tied by the federal government. She said, “If this is the best we can do, at least it acknowledges there is a problem, but I don’t think this problem is going to go away, and the county will have to address it a little more aggressively. There are about 100 helicopters flying over private residences daily, and they could do more about it than we’re doing.” She said she was given copies of existing letters, but not the two additional letters Mr. Walker had referenced, although she said she was no longer interested in continued pursuit of those letters.
Mr. Sande said the intent was not to water down the bill, but to take out mandatory language that could subject it to a challenge “right off the bat.” He said the intent of the bill was to have committee members review all approaches, and have an FAA member on the committee to advise them as to what is legal and what is not, as this was a developing area.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 490.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 557.
ASSEMBLY BILL 557: Authorizes constables, upon request of sheriff, to execute certain process, writs and warrants. (BDR 20-246)
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 557.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, indicated to Senator Raggio this did not affect bringing the constables into the early retirement program.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 560.
ASSEMBLY BILL 560: Revises certain provisions regarding peace officers. (BDR 23-1461)
Senator Porter confirmed for Senator Titus an interim committee would review peace officer issues. Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN), clarified to Senator Neal the change to category II peace officers would not bring them into the early retirement program.
Paul Iverson, Director, Department of Agriculture, testified ground inspectors would not be brought into the early retirement clause. He said a new agricultural enforcement team was being formed, and four brand inspectors would be doing agricultural inspection of various vehicles, not just livestock and carcass trucks, but others such as nursery trucks that bring in agricultural commodities. He said there is a threat from invasive species of disease transmission, and A.B. 560 would give the ability to put more enforcement on the highway. “It is not a save all, or like having border stations,” he said, but he does not know whether Nevada will ever have border stations. Chairman O’Connell pointed out Mr. Iverson added this piece onto an existing, related bill.
Mr. Dreher said section 3 of the bill would allow Indian tribal police to participate in peace officer standards training through the state’s Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission program (P.O.S.T.), and section 4 would address agencies that should be P.O.S.T.-certified and have not been because the current law lacks “teeth.” He said the proposed language would allow them a number of months to certify, to address concerns expressed by Senators O’Donnell and Neal. He explained to Senator Raggio that, after a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 18 months, if an applicant fails to certify, he or she could not exercise peace officer powers. The other part of the bill addressed concerns from Senators O’Donnell and Neal, he said, allowing incumbent employees in the state who are currently not P.O.S.T.-certified an additional year, until July 1, 2002, to start training.
Michael Jensen, Deputy Attorney General, Transportation/Public Safety Division, Office of the Attorney General, said the attempt was to address concerns expressed by Senators O’Donnell and Neal. The first part of the proposed amendment was in the original bill and states essentially that the person who fails to become certified under the provisions of the act would not be able to exercise the powers of a peace officer. The second part of the amendment was an attempt to allow individuals who are currently employed as peace officers, prior to the effective date of the bill, to come into compliance with the bill, he said. He stressed the requirement that individuals be certified by P.O.S.T. is not a new requirement but has been there for many years. The only addition to that section of statute was attachment of a consequence or penalty, he said, and to make it fair to individuals currently employed to give them a period of time to come into compliance before the consequence would take effect. Senators Neal and O’Donnell said they were comfortable with the amendment.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 560.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio explained to Assemblyman Bache A.B. 381, which was re-referred to Legislative Affairs, and was the result of an interim study, which is exempt from the deadline date for committees to act on bills. Assemblyman Bache said he wanted to make sure this bill would not die because it was not acted on by the second policy committee. He said it was indicated to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani it had to be processed by the deadline because it was a bill rather than a resolution. Ms. Guinasso reported that, in communication with the chief deputy legislative counsel, she verified the bill was not dead and was properly re-referred to Legislative Affairs.
Chairman O’Connell opened the discussion on A.B. 568.
ASSEMBLY BILL 568: Makes various changes relating to county recorders. (BDR 20-267)
Chairman O’Connell noted there was no opposition to the bill. Senator Care said his questions were answered satisfactorily.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 568.
SENATORS CARE AND O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion 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)
Chairman O’Connell said the bill was necessary to comply with federal law.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 607.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 638.
ASSEMBLY BILL 638: Makes various changes regarding elections, ethics and financial disclosures. (BDR 24-873)
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics passed A.B. 638 with similar provisions to S.B. 297, and the committee would have to choose between the two bills.
SENATE BILL 297: Makes various changes to provisions governing elections. (BDR 24-841)
Mr. Wasserman said both bills started with what was in regulations, and this committee worked on S.B. 297 with a subcommittee and county clerks on how to count ballots. The Assembly committee on elections had processed that bill, he said, and those are the provisions the committee had considered and would want to go forth with.
Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City, testified on the standards for punchcard and optic scan. He explained A.B. 638 covers what the duplicating board does, and S.B. 297 sets the standard on what is actually counted.
Mr. Wasserman said a chart was prepared for the elections committee that set forth the provisions in the different bills. He suggested if the committee wanted to process A.B. 638, part of the motion might be to remove the provisions in this bill that set forth what ballots would be counted and under what circumstances, because that was already addressed in S.B. 297.
Senator Titus said, as chair of the S.B. 297 subcommittee, a lot of work was put into it and there were consensus amendments with clerks, the secretary of state’s office, Lucille Lusk, and Janine Hansen. She suggested the committee keep the S.B. 297 provisions passed by this committee and delete the provisions in A.B. 638 that were in conflict.
Mr. Wasserman explained to Senator Raggio page 14, section 21 of S.B. 297 contained language allowing a trial de novo resulting from Assembly testimony regarding an appeal for a new trial. A trial de novo on appeal from an administrative ruling would be an exception to the rule. He reported Janine Hansen testified there should be a right to a trial de novo in reviewing a Commission on Ethics ruling. Mr. Wasserman said he explained to the Assembly committee the constitutional provision that sets forth the right to a jury trial is only to the extent there was a right to a jury trial in common law at that time. He said there is not a right to a jury trial for an appeal from an administrative decision, but the Assembly committee decided to add an amendment, in this instance, to provide the right to a trial de novo. Senator Raggio stressed the Commission on Ethics was created to provide a fair procedure, and the process would be “never ending” with the right to a trial de novo.
Mr. Wasserman said the amendment under section 22, subsection 5 of S.B. 297 was a result of some litigation between the courts and the Commission on Ethics. In a settlement agreement resulting from that lawsuit, the courts agreed to continue to file their financial disclosure statements pursuant to Canon 4I of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, which, he said, the court agreed would contain all of the requirements for filing financial disclosure statements under chapter 281 of NRS. He said the amendment would codify the terms of the settlement agreement.
Senator Raggio suggested deletion of section 21 of A.B. 638. Chairman O’Connell reiterated Senator Titus’ suggestion that anything duplicating issues covered by this committee under S.B. 297 be taken out of A.B. 638, and the language from S.B. 297 be replaced in the bill or allowed to stand, as opposed to the language in A.B. 638.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 638 WITH CHANGES FROM S.B. 297 TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL, AND TO DELETE SECTION 21.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION
.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 227.
ASSEMBLY BILL 227: Revises definition of committee for political action. (BDR 24-917)
Mr. Wasserman reported the attorney general was asked for an opinion on the existing NRS section and found the statute defining political action committees (PACs) was too broad, creating an “absurd result.” Mr. Wasserman read from the opinion, “Reading these statutes as requiring every entity that makes a campaign contribution to register as a PAC would lead to the absurd result of requiring a corporation that makes one campaign contribution to register as a PAC.” Mr. Wasserman reported the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics looked at various statutes from other states, and the second reprint of A.B. 227 was based on a Utah statute defining PACs. It also had exemptions that could be found in current Nevada law and administrative regulations. He explained to Senator Raggio it would exempt any natural person or individual corporation whose officers may be identified from the documents they file with the secretary of state.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 227.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Guinasso if there were any more conflict amendments. Ms. Guinasso said a conflict amendment between A.B. 568 and A.B. 126 had been missed.
ASSEMBLY BILL 126: Revises provision regarding recording of certain documents relating to real property. (BDR 10-842)
Chairman O’Connell said the committee would need to go back and rescind actions on A.B. 568 and then amend and do pass A.B. 568. Ms. Guinasso confirmed to Senator Raggio a conflict amendment could be added on the floor. Chairman O’Connell agreed and opened discussion on A.B. 295.
ASSEMBLY BILL 295: Revises provisions governing participation in elections by elderly and disabled persons. (BDR 24-839)
Mr. Wasserman explained the bill would set forth requirements for providing materials to elderly and disabled voters, and would encourage county and city clerks to provide access to polls. He said it would also encourage the elections title be liberally construed to the end that all electors, including electors who are elderly or disabled, would be able to cast votes privately.
Mr. Wasserman assured Chairman O’Connell and Senator Neal this bill would not conflict with Senator Valerie Wiener’s bill regarding font size for print on sample ballots. In response to Senator Raggio, he said there was no problem with having at least one voting booth accessible to wheelchairs because that would already be required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. With regard to other provisions clerks identified as being costly, Mr. Wasserman said the language would be changed to “encourage” rather than “require.” Chairman O’Connell stated testimony from clerks was that they were currently following those provisions, and the smaller counties would be encouraged to provide the same amenities.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 295.
SENATORS RAGGIO AND CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell asked for a motion to request a bill draft for redistricting
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT FOR REDISTRICTING.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 17-1558: Revises districts for state legislators and representatives in congress. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 575.)
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 5:56 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Laura Hale,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: