MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
May 25, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:33 p.m., on Friday, May 25, 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 Jon C. Porter
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William R. O’Donnell (Excused)
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko (part) County Assembly District No. 33
Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, Washoe County Assembly District No. 25
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Alice Nevin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors, and City of Mesquite
Janelle L. Kraft, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Independent American Party of Nevada
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open discussion on Amendment No. 941 to Assembly Bill 131.
ASSEMBLY BILL 131: Expands authority of board of county commissioners of county to abate nuisances, dangerous structures and dangerous conditions. (BDR 22-149)
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel:
Amendment No. 941 to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 131 has two components. The first part was originally suggested by Lucille Lusk (Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens) and was then tailored to the committee’s liking. Senator Townsend brought the second amendment. The original language used was “attractive nuisance.” This was changed to “abandoned nuisance” in order to avoid confusion with the more traditional notion of attractive nuisance such as a swimming pool or something of that nature.
Amendment No. 941, section 1, would be a new section amending chapter 244 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). The amendment was created to provide for recovering the cost to relocate tenants if those conditions described in NRS 244.3601, 244.3603, or 244.3605, were present; basically the nuisance sections in the county chapter. The new section would provide that the board may arrange for the relocation of tenants, and may recover the cost of the relocation from the person determined to be primarily responsible for creating the nuisance. It also provides that the board of county commissioners must allow the person a hearing before they recover the cost of relocating tenants from that person. Also, if the person appeals the decision, they may go directly to court to appeal the decision; but only if the lower decision were arbitrary or capricious.
Amendment No. 941, subsection 2, (formerly section 1 of the first reprint of A.B. 131), provides a notice must be delivered to the owner of the property before the property is secured; provides the notice must state clearly the owner may challenge the action to secure the structure or condition; and the owner must provide a telephone number where the person may obtain additional information.
There were also some deletions and changes to the existing language. The reference in the original bill, which provided for the owner of the property to pay costs associated with the relocation of tenants, was deleted. Rather than making those changes, the original language was returned.
Ms. Guinasso:
On page 3 of the amendment, subsection 3, we incorporated the language suggested by Ms. Lusk to change shall to may, which provides the court with more discretion. Also removed was the reference to the owner paying the cost of relocation. The only other change to Ms. Lusk’s amendment, as revised by the committee, was to eliminate the reference to the owner paying the cost of relocating tenants.
The remainder of the proposed Amendment No. 941 is the new section 6. As Ms. Henderson (Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, City of Reno) told the committee, the proposed amendment was modeled after existing language in chapter 268 of NRS with regard to chronic nuisances. This would have the effect of creating a similar remedy for what we named abandoned nuisance. This would require a property be found to be an abandoned nuisance. This would apply to cities located in counties of 100,000 or more; also, the property has to have been vacant or substantially vacant for 2 years or more, with three or more abandoned nuisance activities occurring on the property during any 12-month period.
Amendment No. 941, section 6, subsection 5, paragraph (b), explains what constitutes an abandoned nuisance activity such as unlawful breaking and entering, graffiti, debris, litter, unsanitary conditions, lack of adequate lighting, gang activity, environmental hazards, violations of codes, or any other activity the governing body of the city determines to be a threat. If these conditions exist, the city attorney may file an action to seek abatement, to repair, to safeguard, or to demolish the abandoned nuisance. In addition, they may also ask for civil penalties or any other appropriate relief. This portion is the same language used for chronic nuisance. It provides notice to the owner of the property and provides for going to court to seek the abatement of the abandoned nuisance.
Chairman O’Connell:
We had already voted to amend and do pass so I will now take A.B. 131 with Amendment No. 941 to the floor. I will open discussion on Amendment No. 994 to A.B. 94.
ASSEMBLY BILL 94: Makes various changes regarding fees charged and collected by certain officials of local governments.
Chairman O’Connell:
This amendment deals with the amendment Senator Porter requested to put in additional dollars. We wanted to be sure the language was clarified as to how the funds were to be used.
Senator Porter:
Yes, this would clarify where the dollars would go. We discussed this and we clarified where the funds would go and how they would be spent. This is identical to what I had approved earlier and just clarifies the issue.
Chairman O’Connell:
I will now take Amendment No. 994 to A.B. 94 to the floor.
I will open the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 4 of the Seventieth Session.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 4 OF SEVENTIETH SESSION: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to repeal constitutional rule against perpetuities. (BDR C-914)
Senator Care:
Essentially the bill, as amended, said the rule of perpetuities does not apply. There were several provisions where this would apply, but it is contingent on changing the Constitution. The dates do not take effect until December 1, 2002, on the assumption this resolution is approved by the voters.
Chairman O’Connell:
What if someone has the language in their estate or trust?
Senator Care:
During the testimony, we learned about four or five states, to some degree, have relaxed the ruling against perpetuities. We also discussed whether it would apply to a trust executed in another state. You could spend a week discussing the rule of perpetuities.
Chairman O’Connell:
We need to find out if any of the trusts already filed with the courts in Nevada would be affected by this.
Ms. Guinasso:
I believe the terms of those documents executed before this goes into effect, would control . . . . For example, if the person who is devolving his estate upon his heirs chose to change the terms of the documentation establishing the trust after the rule against perpetuities is repealed, he would be able to do so. Because the rule against perpetuities is currently in effect, it is likely all trust documents comply with it right now.
Chairman O’Connell:
Would that be true of a living trust?
Senator Care:
No. We are talking about a trust where the future interest may not vest in a period longer than a life, plus 21 years, plus the period of gestation . . . .
Chairman O’Connell:
I will close the hearing on A.J.R. 4 of the Seventieth Session and return to it later. We have quorum now and I will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 27.
SENATE BILL 27: Makes various changes relating to voting. (BDR 24-504)
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst:
Amendment No. 861 to S.B. 27 changes the font size from 20 to 14. This is Senator Weiner’s bill and she agrees with the amendment.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 861 TO S.B. 27.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on S.B. 38.
SENATE BILL 38: Revises provisions governing Airport Authority of Washoe County. (BDR S-775)
Ms. Jenson:
Amendment No. 825 to Senate Bill 38 establishes a cooling off provision for former members of the Airport Authority of Washoe County who have an interest in a contract with the airport authority or who are employed with the airport authority.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 825 TO S.B. 38.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on S.B. 61.
SENATE BILL 61: Makes various changes to provisions relating to use of design-build teams on public works projects. (BDR 28-99)
Ms. Jenson:
Amendment No. 729 to S.B. 61 provides that a public body, including the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), need not assign a specified, relative weight to preference in bidding on public works, if a federal statute or regulation precludes federal assistance or reduces the amount of assistance of the bidders preference. This was requested by the Associated General Contractors.
Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, Associated Builders and Contractors:
I am representing the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern Nevada. This was an amendment proposed by NDOT, because they are not permitted to apply the cost as a relative factor on certain federal jobs. I am unaware of any opposition to this amendment.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 729 TO S.B. 61.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on S.B. 202.
SENATE BILL 202: Makes various changes concerning state financial administration. (BDR 18-1270)
Ms. Jenson:
Amendment No. 824 to S.B. 202 makes some minor corrections regarding how the state controller delivers or mails deposits for state employees. Janine Coward (Assistant State Controller) has a technical amendment to add to this.
Ms. Guinasso:
If this is merely a conflict because it is making an amendment to a section that has already been repealed, we would take care of the conflict in our office.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 824 TO S.B. 202.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on S.B. 297.
SENATE BILL 297: Makes various changes to provisions governing elections. (BDR 24-841)
Ms. Jenson:
Amendment No. 860 to S.B. 297 contains minor changes to the elections bill.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 860 TO S.B. 297.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on S.B. 317.
Ms. Jenson:
We have Amendment No. 807 to S.B. 317.
Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, City of Mesquite:
There was a large discrepancy in population numbers for the City of Mesquite. The Governor indicated there were 16,000 residents in Mesquite and the U.S. Bureau of the Census tally indicated there were approximately 9000 residents.
After discussion with the U.S. Bureau of the Census it appeared entire neighborhoods were left out of their population count. We believe there are about 16,000 residents in the City of Mesquite. We plan to appeal this; however, it came to our attention that under Nevada law, the Department of Taxation, in the census year, is required to use the census numbers for distribution purposes. This amendment provides a process whereby the Department of Taxation can use the Governor’s numbers until such time as an appeal is adjudicated.
State taxes are the problem. I met with Carole Vilardo (Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association) and David Pursell, (Executive Director, Department of Taxation) who helped draft this amendment. They stated this is a workable formula to resolve this matter. The state treasurer will be required to hold the difference between the two population figures in an interest-bearing trust account until such time as the appeal is adjudicated. Once the appeal is adjudicated, disposition of the money would occur; however, without this amendment there would be no way to recover the money.
This is a new issue, because previously there has not been a 50 percent discrepancy in population numbers. Annually, the Governor’s numbers are used, but this is a special issue because of the large discrepancy.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 807 TO S.B. 317.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on S.B. 530.
SENATE BILL 530: Makes various changes concerning regional planning in certain counties. (BDR 22-1115)
Ms. Jenson:
Amendment No. 827 to S.B. 530 is from the Southern Nevada Planning Coalition. They asked for three legislative measures and the amendment changes it to one.
Senator Titus:
Is the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency able to request bill drafts individually?
Ms. Guinasso:
It is done through their local governments or legislator.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 827 TO S.B. 530.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on A.B. 60.
ASSEMBLY BILL 60: Requires public body to post additional notice of its meetings on its Internet website, if any. (BDR 18-674)
Chairman O’Connell:
The Assembly has refused to concur with our amendment to A.B. 60.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO NOT RECEDE FROM AMENDMENT NO. 658 TO A.B. 60.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on S.B. 552.
SENATE BILL 552: Makes various changes relating to assistance to finance housing. (BDR 25-1448)
Ms. Jenson:
Amendment No. 828 to S.B. 552 adds a sunset provision to the bill which would be effective July 1, 2003.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 828 TO S.B. 552.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on S.B. 556.
SENATE BILL 556: Prohibits reprisal or retaliatory action against officer or employee of local government who discloses improper governmental action. (BDR 23-793)
Ms. Jenson:
Amendment No. 798 to S.B. 556 is a whistle-blower bill. The amendment adds a definition of disclose and disclosure, which implements a reasonable belief standard for persons who report improper governmental action.
Senator Porter:
I was contacted by NDOT and I believe this is the amendment Mr. Fronapfel (Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director, Planning Division, NDOT), discussed with me. Apparently there is a lawsuit pending and he was trying to change an outcome.
Senator Titus:
I also know about this. This person was involved with NDOT and was proposing a number of things including making it retroactive. Only this definition of disclosure, that mirrors the federal whistle-blower law, is remaining in the amendment.
Senator Porter:
If we take action, could we set it aside until we can contact NDOT?
Senator Titus:
I am comfortable with the amendment.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 798 TO S.B. 556.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Porter, per your request, I will hold this for an hour before I report it to the floor.
Chairman O’Connell:
I will reopen the hearing on A.J.R. 4 of the Seventieth Session.
Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10:
We are repealing the constitutional prohibition and putting in statutory protections. It is a very broadly interpreted constitutional prohibition and there are some creative methods of estate planning we can use to attract larger estates. Other states, Delaware, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Alaska are repealing their constitutional prohibitions against perpetuities in an effort to attract these more sophisticated estate planning techniques. I feel we have enacted the uniform statutory prohibition against perpetuities which should be sufficient.
I have brought an exhibit entitled, “Repealing the Constitutional Rule Against Perpetuities” (Exhibit C).
The support for this is not only some advantages on estate planning, but as we rely more and more on a state tax to fund both our higher education budget and our K through 12 budget, the more of these, the better. With the passage of this by the voters, this will be the best state in the union in which to do estate planning.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 4 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on S.B. 563.
SENATE BILL 563: Makes various changes relating to telecommunications. (BDR 20-1334)
Ms. Jenson:
Amendment No. 698 and Amendment No. 786 to S.B. 563 make changes to telecommunications. Amendment No. 698 amends the bill to recognize the federal mobile telecommunications sourcing act, mentioned several times in the bill, and changes the effective date to August 2002.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 698 AND AMENDMENT NO. 786 TO S.B. 563.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on S.B. 568.
SENATE BILL 568: Allows risk management division of department of administration and attorney general to assess counties for certain tort claims under certain circumstances. (BDR 27-1447)
Ms. Jenson:
Amendment No. 749 to S.B. 568 proposes new language to say the assessment on the county is for employees of the district court and would give the counties the option of including those employees under the county’s insurance coverage.
Chairman O’Connell:
Ms. Kraft, did you hear any testimony on this? Were the counties going to be prepared to establish a fund for this? Was it in their budget?
Janelle L. Kraft, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas:
I do not recall any testimony regarding budgets or setting aside any additional funding.
Chairman O’Connell:
This is a request on behalf of the Department of Administration. Is this an unfunded mandate? This bill allows the risk management division of the Department of Administration and the Office of the Attorney General to assess local governments for certain tort claims. It has been changed from each local government to each county shall deposit . . . .
Senator Care:
I recall testimony on this bill. I believe someone testified about a state supreme court case. The idea here was to create a fund whereby, however the court rules on a particular case, there would be funds available to pay the judgment. Previously there was no policy to cover it. In one case, it was unclear whether the clerk was an employee of the county or an employee of the court.
Mr. Carpenter, do you recall any discussion in Elko regarding this case?
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33 (part of Elko County):
I do not remember it.
Senator Care:
I think it was a Washoe County case where the state, after it had paid the judgment, went to the county for reimbursement; the county was not prepared to pay, which led to this amendment creating a fund.
Chairman O’Connell:
I will look at my notes and we will discuss this later.
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on A.J.R. 10.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 10: Urges Congress to amend Social Security Act to modify certain reductions in social security benefits that are required for spouses and surviving spouses who are also receiving certain federal, state or local government pensions. (BDR R-1484)
Assemblyman Carpenter:
This resolution asks the federal government to correct an inequity. In 1983, a bill was passed that took a large part of the pension away from people who were eligible for social security and then went to work for the state or county government. Several people in Elko contacted me because they had attempted to amend this bill in Congress a number of times and had not been able to do so. This year there is a greater push to do something because this situation affects widows particularly and cuts down on the retirement amount they can receive. This resolution asks Congress to correct the inequity by passing this legislation.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is this issue being addressed nationally?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Yes, there is a bill. I have copies of it in my office. There are several sponsors and hopefully the legislation will be passed by Congress during this session.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 10.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on A.J.R. 5.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 5: Urges Congress to allow states to extend Daylight Saving Time to conserve energy and to promote public safety. (BDR R-982)
Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, Washoe County Assembly District No. 25:
This resolution was presented to give Nevada the ability to ask Congress, if we are in a situation during the winter months, to extend daylight saving time 1 or 2 months. Because of energy issues, the Governor may make the decision as to how long daylight saving time might be extended; however, it would probably not be extended more than 1 month on either side of the current period.
Chairman O’Connell:
Have other states had to go to Congress to extend daylight savings?
Assemblywoman Gibbons:
As you may know, President Reagan extended daylight saving time, permanently, in 1974 (Public Law 99-359). Some states are on year-round standard time, for example, Arizona. Currently, daylight saving time can only be used from October to April. California asked for the ability to extend daylight saving time because of the possibility of energy blackouts this winter. Statistics show it would save quite a bit of fuel. I have some reference material (Exhibit D) which gives the background of daylight saving time and the pros and cons. This would help northern Nevada, primarily during the winter months.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Independent American Party of Nevada:
I want to add, this is an issue of seasonal effective disorder which affects women who become depressed in the long, winter months. Suicides increase in the winter months, and it is thought there is a health benefit to increased daylight hours. It also saves energy and is beneficial for safety reasons.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 5.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on S.B. 569.
SENATE BILL 569: Makes various changes relating to enhancements of telephone systems for reporting emergencies in counties. (BDR 20-1527)
Ms. Jenson:
Amendment No. 773 to S.B. 569 is an emergency measure introduced by Senator Amodei to aid Lyon County in their request to enhance their 911 services. When they presented it, there was a recent ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and this is the language which needed to be added to the bill.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 773 TO S.B. 569.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on A.J.R. 3.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 3: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to revise provisions governing right to vote and to repeal certain obsolete provisions. (BDR C-1009)
Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9:
I was doing research for redistricting, and I came across the word idiot as a reference point. It is an arcane word and has been removed from every constitution I researched in other states. It is understood the right of voting can be removed for that purpose; but I request the language be changed to “for a person that is adjudicated mentally incompetent” which is a kinder, gentler phrase. The terminology was also more reflective of what our courts recognize these days. The courts can always restore legal capacity and allow the return of the right to vote.
There is a hearing to determine if a person should be declared mentally incompetent. The judge makes a ruling and the person is notified through the election department they are not allowed to be registered to vote. If that person, either through medication or some other way, regains their capacity to function within society, they can appeal to have their rights restored. This is not done in depression situations; it is for extreme mental capacity deficiencies.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 3.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, NEAL, AND O’DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
I will adjourn the meeting at 3:37 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Alice Nevin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: _____________________________