MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
April 7, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:28 a.m., on Monday, April 7, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Pat Hughey, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, Nevada
Jim Avance, Consultant/Lobbyist
Chairman Manendo:
Good morning, Committee. Madame Secretary, will you please take the roll. [Roll taken.]
Assemblyman Collins:
We recessed this morning’s subcommittee [on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 427] so you could start this meeting, and we will reconvene Wednesday morning at 7:00 a.m. There are approximately five amendments proposed. We’re also [having another subcommittee] meeting [on A.B. 295 and A.B. 540] tomorrow morning.
Assembly Bill 86: Revises provisions concerning purchasing contracts of certain local governments. (BDR 27-338)
Assembly Bill 291: Provides for abolishment of city and county planning commissions in certain larger counties. (BDR 22-728)
Chairman Manendo:
If anyone is waiting on A.B. 86 and A.B. 291, there is still some work that needs to be done, and we cannot move on those two bills. If anybody is waiting on A.B. 86 and A.B. 291, they are off the board for today.
Assembly Bill 56: Amends provisions of Charter of City of Sparks governing boundaries of wards. (BDR S-211)
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst:
Assembly Bill 56 is sponsored by Assemblyman Anderson on behalf of the Sparks Charter Committee. The bill proposes a revision to the City Charter of Sparks that would change the basis of the calculation of ward boundaries from registered voters to population. At the hearing on the bill, the Sparks Charter Committee also proposed additional amendments. One would create a trigger for raising the mayoral and city council members’ salaries and would also delete a provision referencing the mayor voting in case of a tie. In the case of the mayoral vote on the tie, there was a legal opinion that the mayor does not have voting authority in Sparks and, therefore, that provision is now obsolete.
A mock-up for a section that removes the obsolete language relating to the mayoral tie is included in your notebook [Exhibit C]. There was no opposition to the bill, and there is no fiscal impact at the state or local level.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 56.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. [Mrs. Koivisto was absent for the vote.]
********
Assembly Bill 68: Revises definition of “compensation” for purposes of provisions governing Public Employees’ Retirement System. (BDR 23‑725).
Assembly Bill 68, sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, includes extra duty pay within the definition of compensation for purposes of calculating retirement benefits under the Public Employees’ Retirement System. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani presented the bill, and also proposed amendments to the bill at the time of her presentation.
I have included a mock-up of the bill [Exhibit D] with the amendments requested by Ms. Giunchigliani. Opposition to the bill came from George Pyne, Executive Director of PERS [Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada]. The Clark County School District also opposed the bill. The Washoe County School District supported the bill in concept, but asked for additional time before the bill was implemented to provide them time to budget for the fiscal impacts.
There is a fiscal impact at the local government level and that fiscal note is not available; there is also a fiscal impact at the state government level and that fiscal note is attached. [Page 5 of Exhibit D.] On page 2, lines 11 through 16 of the mock-up [Exhibit D], the section relating to the University and Community College System of Nevada was deleted at Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s request. The other two amendments would add new sections, although their precise location is yet to be determined.
The first section would contain a definition of “extra duty assignment” to provide, at a minimum, that items such as teaching evening classes, coaching sports programs, teaching summer school, et cetera, are included within the definition of “extra duty assignment.”
An additional section would permit the employee to choose whether to pay retirement on the extra duty assignment. The intent of the sponsor would be that if the employee does elect to pay retirement on their extra duty compensation, then the compensation would be reduced by the amount of the employee’s contribution. These are presented as conceptual amendments, with actual language to be drafted later.
Assemblyman Grady:
Is PERS still in opposition, even with the amendments?
Chairman Manendo:
They have not contacted me. I don’t know.
Susan Scholley:
Yes, Mr. Grady. They are still in opposition.
Chairman Manendo:
This bill [A.B. 68] will have to go to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.]
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 68.
[Chairman Manendo asked if Mr. Collins motion was with the mock-up amendments [Exhibit D], and Mr. Collins indicated it was.]
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PIERCE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Knecht:
This bill applies to me as a state employee who also teaches at WNCC [Western Nevada Community College], but it does not affect me any differently than any other similarly situated employee, and there are such, so I will be fully participating in it.
THE MOTION CARRIED. MR. GOICOECHEA, MR. GRADY, MR. HARDY AND MS. WEBER VOTED NO. (Mrs. Koivisto was absent for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 174: Requires certain preferences for underutilized businesses with respect to certain purchasing by local governments and certain contracts for public works and requires certain licensees of Nevada Gaming Commission to establish goals regarding hiring of underutilized businesses. (BDR S-1004)
Susan Scholley:
Assembly Bill 174 was sponsored by Assemblyman Arberry and Assemblyman Williams. In its original form, A.B. 174 creates a procedure to promote purchasing contracts between local governments and underutilized businesses and persons. Assemblyman Williams has proposed a replacement of the bill as a whole, with an alternative concept initially suggested by Clark County. The conceptual amendment is attached in your work session document [Exhibit E].
The original bill was opposed by the State of Nevada Public Works Board, the Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors [Nevada Chapter AGC], and the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. At that time, Clark County identified its position as neutral, but leaning toward opposition.
Fiscal impacts were noted for both the local and state government, although the amendment would eliminate most, if not all, of the fiscal impacts. Turning to the conceptual substitute bill for A.B. 174 [Exhibit E], you will see that the “whereases” included in the original bill have been retained, with the addition of the blue “whereas” clauses in the document. The bill would now become a special act, which would provide for the creation of a Regional Business Development Council, for the purpose of broadening the participation of public and private sector entities in addressing the problems of economic disparities in the marketplace, and to reduce those disparities in the procurement and contracting processes within Clark County.
The special act goes on to list the various groups that would be represented on the Regional Business Development Council. There would also be an intent to reach out to private employers of businesses with 500 employees or more to participate in the council. The act would provide for the election or appointment of a chair and vice-chair and for terms of office, and it would also require that the council meet at least every three months.
The purpose of the council would be to propose and implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to encourage and promote utilization of local businesses owned or operated by disadvantaged persons. The public entity members would also be required to publish an annual report for submission to the council. The council would encourage private businesses to publish such reports. The reports would be designed to provide baseline data for future efforts at monitoring and determining the progress being made in this area, and would include the information laid out here, including expenditures of funds, and the proportions of such expenditures that went to disadvantaged or underutilized businesses. It would also disaggregate this information by major ethnic racial categories and gender.
Using the member reports, the council would prepare and publish an annual report that would go to the Legislative Council Bureau and to the Legislature in odd-numbered years.
Assemblyman Knecht:
With the amendment in concept, the reference to requiring certain licensees of the Nevada Gaming Commission to establish goals, et cetera, is that still appropriate in the summary? I didn’t hear that as one of the remaining parts of this bill.
Susan Scholley:
A reference to the Nevada Gaming Commission has not been included in the conceptual document.
Assemblyman Williams:
This language replaces the original bill, which was written more as a directive. This is written more as a working agreement. If passed, this will not go into the Nevada Revised Statutes, but will go into the Statutes of Nevada. This concept was proposed by Clark County, in working conjunction with the Urban Chamber of Commerce, and they both agree that this is more of an agreement to work together, as opposed to a bill that has a directive. All parties are pleased with this concept. We feel it’s enough language to encourage participation for folks to do among themselves. This is what the intent is. It just wipes out the bill.
Assemblyman Hardy:
The participants in this study are listed and it looks as if this is intended to apply to urban Clark County. Was there discussion to include, perhaps in an optional way, Boulder City or Mesquite, if they wanted to be included? Would that be problematic if it’s optional? They’re affected by Clark County and what we do. If they wanted a seat at the table, would the sponsor be amenable to that kind of thing?
Assemblyman Williams:
Absolutely. We could propose language, but actually, I think we could do that without the language. I know Clark County has encouraged other entities to participate. Most of the entities were listed because of their previous participation in the study. I think the language allows the optional participation of anyone who is located in Clark County. It’s not mandatory, but it leaves the door open for other entities to do so, unless Clark County sees it a different way.
I don’t know if we want to change the language. Maybe the Chairman would be open to a letter of intent that would include other entities that are not listed. They would be welcome at their own leisure.
Chairman Manendo:
We could do that.
Assemblywoman Weber:
When the original Business Development Advisory Council went into effect in Clark County, was that the county’s own decision or did that come down from this body? I’m trying to understand if this is necessary or if Clark County can get its own groups together without a resolution or redoing this bill?
Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, Nevada:
[Introduced himself.] This was a program that Clark County instituted on its own. It was based on our own reaction to the survey that was done by the BBC Research and Consulting group back in 1993 through June of 1994. We realized we had an internal problem, and we took it upon ourselves to implement BDAC [Business Development Advisory Council], and we felt it was important. It’s up to the Legislature whether you want to take it further than that. We thought this, as a concept, was something that we ought to take more regional, rather than just affecting those businesses that are in unincorporated Clark County.
We talked to Assemblyman Williams and he liked the idea. He realized that Clark County was doing this, that it was a good program, and that we could take it further and be more inclusive. As Assemblyman Hardy said, maybe we could even go beyond urban Clark County, but that’s the choice of this body. We felt it was a good idea that we help promote this versus putting it into statute. That was what the resolution was originally intended to do, to give us a vehicle to be more inclusive and to bring those folks to the table.
Assemblywoman Weber:
On our write-up, it has Clark County as neutral, leaning toward opposition. Has that been cleared up?
Dan Musgrove:
That is correct. We had some problems with the way the original bill was written and some of the mandates it would put on local government. We believe that with this resolution concept, we would be in support of this idea.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 174.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PIERCE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN VOTED NO. (Assemblywoman Koivisto was absent for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 244: Eliminates prospective expiration of provisions for protection of rural preservation neighborhoods. (BDR S-919)
Susan Scholley:
Assembly Bill 244, sponsored by Assemblyman Collins, eliminates the sunset date on the provisions for the protection of rural preservation neighborhoods. At the hearing, Irene Porter, representing the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, submitted proposed amendments to clarify the original intent of the bill. Since then, Mr. Collins has worked with local government representatives and is proposing further amendments.
If you look at the mock-up in your notebook [Exhibit F], these would be additional sections to the bill, and would be added to what is otherwise a one-page bill. Before I describe the conceptual amendments, there was no opposition to the bill at the hearing and no identified fiscal impact at the state or local level.
Turning to the mock-up [Exhibit F], there would be two new sections added to the original bill. Section 2 would add two more findings to define or describe a rural preservation neighborhood. These were to address concerns raised by Ms. Porter. Also, a new Section 3 would be added. The amendments at the bottom of the page are in conceptual form, so the original language that will be drafted will not look exactly like this.
The first conceptual amendment would add a subsection requiring the governing body to review the status of each rural preservation neighborhood. At the time of review or revision of its master plan, or not less than every five years, this would allow the local governing body to determine if the neighborhood continues to exhibit the characteristics and is appropriate for continued protection.
The second conceptual amendment adds a subsection that will allow a local governing body to determine that a rural preservation neighborhood, although it exhibits the characteristics above, is no longer appropriate for protection if certain criteria are met. The criteria would be that the neighborhood is less than 160 acres in size, and that the 330-foot buffer area is adjacent to existing or proposed roadway right-of-ways of 120 feet or greater in width on at least three sides of the neighborhood. This is to address concerns where a very small area is surrounded by large highways and, although it may meet the technical characteristics described in NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 278.0177, as a practical matter, the governing body would like to undesignate it.
Assemblyman Collins:
This extends a piece of legislation that was brought forward a few years ago. The chief sponsor was then-State Senator Jon Porter. With the tremendous amount of growth in several areas of the state, this was very good legislation. This, with some amendments, proposes to move those features to protect our existing residents in Nevada into the future. By removing the sunset [provision], many other counties and local governments will adopt ordinances to do the same thing. One particular amendment cuts out a future site of a resort casino along Interstate 15, Interstate 215, and Las Vegas Boulevard. That is the legal way to identify a particular piece of property that’s going to become a casino someday. I commend Legal [Legislative Counsel Bureau Legal Division] and Research [Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Division] for the great job they did on presenting.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
Where is that proposed casino?
Assemblyman Collins:
Henderson, Interstate 15, Las Vegas Boulevard, Lake Mead. Down at the south end of town, there’s one pocket, currently a preservation area under law that would be deleted because it’s going to be a casino. We’re going to make four or five homeowners unhappy in this state, but we’re also going to protect thousands of others from the indulgence of growth.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
Las Vegas Boulevard is where casinos should be.
Assemblyman Collins:
I agree. That’s why this body passed Senate Bill (S.B.) 208 in 1997 [S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session].
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PIERCE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 244.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. [Mr. Christensen and Mrs. Koivisto were absent for the vote.]
********
Assembly Bill 245: Makes various changes regarding conversion of manufactured home park into individual manufactured home lots. (BDR 22-1080)
Susan Scholley:
Assembly Bill 245, sponsored by Assemblyman Collins, facilitates the conversion of a manufactured home park into individual manufactured home lots, by restricting the conditions that can be placed on such a conversion by a local government. The bill also extends the time during which a tenant has to accept an offer for the sale of such lot, and extends the period of time during which a landlord cannot sell the lot to a third party for a lower price. Finally, the bill clarifies that a notice of an application for a land use change or of an offer to sell does not constitute a notice of termination of tenancy.
Amendments to the bill were proposed by Dan Musgrove, representing Clark County, proposing to limit the conversion of lots in areas affected by airport accident zones and also to allow conditions based on building and fire codes. The Committee considered amendments to the bill on April 1, 2003, and requested further clarifications of the restrictions on conditions that may be imposed on the conversion.
A mock-up of further amendments to the bill is attached [Exhibit G]. Opposition to the bill at the time it was heard in its original form came from Clark County. There is no identified fiscal impact at the state or local level.
Turning to the mock-up [Exhibit G], changes have been made on page 1, lines 6 through 9 of the bill. The amendments are proposed by the bill’s sponsor to address the concerns of Clark County and Committee members. A local government would not be able to impose conditions relating to existing densities, uses, lot sizes, and setbacks, and also indicates that similar restrictions would not be permitted. Further, it would allow a local government to impose reasonable conditions related to health and safety.
It is the intent of the sponsor that allowing reasonable conditions related to health and safety would not extend to prohibiting a conversion based upon the home park’s location in an airport accident zone.
Assemblyman Collins:
The amendments just described to you allow local governments to have the leeway to make sure that the property is safe. The amendments address that the lot cannot be divided from the park unless it met its own utility standards and so forth, without changing the lot size or the type of home that was placed on it. We did not exclude every possible place an airplane could land outside an airport, nor do we intend to.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 245.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. [Mrs. Koivisto was absent for the vote.]
********
[Chairman Manendo called for a recess at 9:16 a.m. Chairman Manendo reconvened the meeting at 9:51 a.m.]
Chairman Manendo:
I received an e-mail from Irene Porter, who has been known to this Committee and this legislative body for years. She is doing well. Hopefully, she will be back soon. She has been under the weather and in the hospital. If she’s listening in, we’re thinking of you and, hopefully, you’ll be back soon. We appreciate Mr. McCleary’s wife taking care of our good friend.
Assembly Bill 262: Makes various changes to provisions governing manufactured housing and mobile homes. (BDR 40-844)
Susan Scholley:
Assembly Bill 262, sponsored by Assemblyman Manendo, permits the Manufactured Housing Division of the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry to inspect manufactured homes if the local government fails or refuses to do so. The bill permits the conversion of a manufactured home to real property under certain circumstances, and the bill streamlines the involvement of a dealer of manufactured homes in installation activities, subject to certain conditions relating to the use of licensed subcontractors.
Committee members and other persons testifying on the bill requested certain clarifications. Proposed amendments have been worked out and are attached in the mock-up [Exhibit H]. Clark County requested time to review the provisions of the bill related to the conversion of manufactured homes to real property, and, since that time, have withdrawn objections to the bill. There is no fiscal impact to local government. There is a fiscal impact to state government. I have attached the fiscal note in your notebook. [Page 8 of Exhibit H.]
The proposed amendments, as approved by the bill’s sponsor, were worked out by Assemblyman Collins in conjunction with interested parties. They would retain the status quo as to Clark County, which is that the local enforcement agency has the obligation to enforce and inspect the installation of factory-built housing and manufactured buildings. As to the other 16 counties, the provision originally proposed in the bill would be that, if the local government fails or refuses to enforce and inspect, then the division may step in.
In response to some concerns by Committee members, there has been a 10‑business-day period inserted so that the involvement of the division [Manufactured Housing Division of the State of Nevada, Department of Business and Industry] would be limited to situations in which the local government failed or refused to inspect within 10 days, and then the division would be authorized to step in.
There were questions regarding what the division [Manufactured Housing Division of the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry] would be inspecting and to what standard they would be inspecting to. They have clarified that it would be the standards and codes adopted by the division [Manufactured Housing Division of the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry] pursuant to NRS 461.170. No amendment was proposed to the bill.
[Susan Scholley continued.] On page 5, relating to the manufacturer being able to deal directly with licensed subcontractors, that portion of the bill would be amended to clarify that any such agreements with the manufactured home dealers or other arrangements with subcontractors would have to comply with the provisions of NRS Chapter 624. In other words, there would be a requirement that a general contractor be utilized in this process. However, the Nevada State Contractors Board has identified the ability to use a B-1 limited license as a means for a manufacturer to obtain, in effect, a general contractor’s license and to be able to facilitate the installation. Under a B-1 license, they would have to use licensed subcontractors. As an alternative, a manufacturer could obtain a general contractor’s license, so there are a couple of different options.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
In whose name would the property be listed? You’ve got one owner on the real property and one owner on the personal property, and you’ve got the lease. On the tax roll, whose name would that property be in, the real property or the leaser?
Susan Scholley:
I couldn’t answer that question. I would have to defer, if there’s someone who knows.
Assemblyman Collins:
Part of the reason for bringing this bill [A.B. 262] forward is allowing affordable housing in the state of Nevada, and allowing manufactured housing to be a part of that process in a more expeditious manner. It is my understanding that, in order for a manufactured home to be competitive with stick-built homes, and to be able to use the federal financing, part of the provisions of this bill were that they finance the lot and the manufactured house under one designation, and part of that being that the purchaser must convert that manufactured home to real property, so that it’s part of the property. The intent for this legislation is that this would all be under one note. Outside of this legislation, currently you can own the lot, purchase a manufactured home, put it on the lot, and take care of all those issues yourself. The reason for this legislation is to allow manufactured housing dealers to do a turnkey, the same way a stick-built home would be done in a development, but on a single-lot basis. It would depend on the financing. If they used the financing on a lease issue, it would still be under one deed of trust or contract of sale, if that is what you’re looking for. The county assessor would assess it all as only one item.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
That’s correct. That’s the only way you can have a conversion to real property. It all becomes one package, but as I read the bill, it allows you to lease the property for a long period of time and own the personal property that you’re going to convert and attach to the real property, but title to the real property would remain in someone else’s name. I understand what you’re talking about. If you have a lender, and he’s bought the whole package, and it’s going to take 50 years to pay for it—that’s fine, I understand that. In this legislation, it looks like there is the ability to allow the real property—the dirt—to be owned by one party and leased by the manufacturer or the lender of the mobile home. I was just curious on the point, who do you assess those taxes to? Who’s the owner of record?
Assemblyman Collins:
The way I understand the testimony is, the intent of the federal law that allows that financing on a lease would be one and the same. In order to qualify for that federal financing, the manufactured home must be converted to real property and be part of that land, so it must all be leased. That’s why there is a provision, also in the law, that they’re liable if they drag the manufactured home off of that property without permission, while it’s under that lease. In order to qualify for those loans, it has to be one package. That’s the way I understand it, and I believe that was the intent of the testimony that was given.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Very good. As long as it’s under one package, I don’t have a problem with it. I was concerned that you ended up with two technically different interests in the property.
Jim Avance, representing manufactured housing:
[Introduced himself.] The same question that you’re asking was the same problem that the Clark County Assessor had. He has since solved his problems and withdrawn his objections.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Do you feel that, with this language in here where you talk about the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and all these other packages, it is addressed in that lending package and would guarantee that it would be under one owner?
Jim Avance:
That’s my understanding.
Assemblyman Collins:
Moving along on the contractor’s portion of it, a lot of this takes place in rural areas such as Pahrump, Silver Springs, Lyon County, et cetera. It was hard to get a general contractor to come out there and find subcontractors to do the work needed in a timely manner—drilling a well, building a pad, pouring a driveway, installing a pedestal. Manufactured homes don’t have a place for a meter on them; they just have a disconnect. The power is separate from the structure, because of federal law and how they’re manufactured. To alleviate those concerns, the manufactured housing people and the dealers throughout the state were trying to find a way to, in a timely manner, get a lot developed so they could put a manufactured house on it.
In discussions with some of the members of the Nevada State Contractors Board, the manufacturing industry, and others from the building department, the reason it was necessary for us to make sure we addressed NRS Chapter 624, which is contracting in Nevada, is that we should not grant a dealer the ability to just go out there and hire subcontractors, because they’re not a general contractor or a developer; they are a seller of manufactured homes. The Nevada State Contractors Board felt they could find a limited license where they could apply for that license on condition that they would hire subcontractors that were licensed in the state, versus the homeowner being given that responsibility to go out and find whoever they could and getting the neighborhood guys to do the work.
By allowing the dealer some flexibility and getting a contractors license as a general contractor, B-1 licenses address manufactured homes only. They could, if they agreed to hire subcontractors to do this work. By law, they would be bound to hire subcontractors. The belief was that work done on these lots would be at a higher standard because it would be subcontractors versus just the weekend side guy that does those kinds of things. By bringing that in, it benefits both the dealer and the homeowner in the long run, and it makes for a more timely situation for their industry, and a better product when you’re done.
Ms. Renee Diamond [Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Business and Industry, Manufactured Housing Division] said she was allowing the expansion, and we concur with that on page 5, “. . . any other category that may be similarly licensed by the state contractor’s board.” As long as that provision is in there, it means anything covered by a contractor’s license and they must also get the manufacturer’s license. This was good for those who do not convert to real property, so it’s actually very good cleanup legislation.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 262.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assemblyman Collins:
I want to thank you for the opportunity to work on that legislation. I think we accomplished a lot of good things.
********
Assembly Bill 459: Authorizes county recorder to deny recordation of certain documents. (BDR 20-283)
Susan Scholley:
Assembly Bill 459 was sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the Attorney General. Assembly Bill 459 authorizes, but does not require, a county recorder to deny recordation of certain documents under certain circumstances, and provides for judicial review in the event of a disagreement. Currently, there are no proposed amendments. The Nevada Association of Land Surveyors, who testified at the hearing, had proposed an amendment, but after the hearing, withdrew their request for any amendment. There was no opposition to the bill. There would be a fiscal impact to local government: minor costs associated with the addition of a new misdemeanor. There will not be a fiscal impact to state government.
The issue raised by the county recorders was the filing of fraudulent or illegal liens and other documents that purported to be court documents that were, in fact, frivolous. This bill would allow a county recorder to deny the recordation of that document. If the person felt that the denial had been incorrect, they would be able to receive a prompt judicial review of that claim. There would be no liability on the part of the county recorder in the event it was determined that he should or could have recorded the document, other than the refund of filing fees to the person.
Chairman Manendo:
I received a lot of e-mails in regard to receiving frivolous documents. I’m worried about what would happen if the recorder says, “I think this is frivolous; I don’t want to record it,” and someone really needs a document recorded in a timely fashion.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Has anybody talked with Frances Deane in the Clark County Recorder’s Office? She came to the Legislative Building and had some concerns about this particular bill. That was probably a day or two before we heard the bill. [Chairman Manendo indicated that she had not spoken to him.] I could not see what the problem was. Her concern was not having an attorney background when she was making lawyer-like decisions, probably along the lines that you’re talking about.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
As I recall the testimony, there’s nothing in the bill that requires that a recorder not record a document. It’s only enabling legislation. As I listened to the testimony, I was able to agree. You clearly have to think it was fraudulent or know it was fraudulent before you would deny the recordation of that particular document, because there is no penalty if you do record it and it is fraudulent. However, as the Chairman spoke, if it is a valid document and you fail to record it, you could be in trouble and definitely would be open for some penalty.
Assemblyman Grady:
I think page 3, Section 4, subsection 2, would answer your question. It tells what they have to do if they don’t record it, and that the person asking for the recordation can take it to the local judge, and the judge can order them to record it. I think this gives the recorder the protection that they need.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 459.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Collins:
I think the intent is good. My only worry is the accusations that Clark County had over the past few years of higher priorities of recording documents and so forth. You think about buying and selling homes all the time, and if subcontractors didn’t get a lien in time, or somebody didn’t get a lien on something—but I don’t think that two days is going to make the difference if we’re only talking about delaying the actual recording of something like that. I don’t think it’s the most wonderful legislation we might pass this time, but I think we need to allow them to be able to refuse something. More importantly, I think there needs to be a penalty on what they do record. That’s the emphasis that I would stress. I think that’s the important part of the issue here. If that’s addressed here, if that gives them some more power, and we don’t have to refer it to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, then I’d be very happy.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo:
Ms. Weber, do you want to shepherd this? [Ms. Weber indicated she would.]
[There being no further business, Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 10:20 a.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Pat Hughey
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: