MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session February 10, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:00 a.m., on Friday, February 10, 1995, Chairman Bache presiding in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Pete Ernaut, Excused Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Excused GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Christine R. Giunchigliani, District 9 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Howard Lieburn; Ms. Suzzan Denton Pratt; Ms. Barbara Bernabei; Ms. Norma Childers; Mr. William E. Adams; Ms. Annie Caple; Ms. Gail Anderson; Mr. Ron Fillingham; Ms. Gerri Killough; Ms. Theresa Brushfield; Ms. Sheila de Castroverde; Ms. Celeste Post; Ms. Kelly Caccamise, Nevada Adult Care Association; Ms. Diana Higgs, Executive Director, M. Marian Miller Alzheimers Centers; Ms. Renee Abordo; Ms. Aysha De Festa, Director- Owner, Adastra; Ms. Linda Smith, Opportunity Village; Ms. Yasmine Robinson; Mr. John Vornsand, Zoning Coordinator, Clark County Planning Division; Ms. Genelle Worden; Ms. Karen Larson, Administrative Services Director, Clark County;Commissioner Erin Kenny, Clark County; Jim Ley, Assistant County Manager, Clark County; Betsy Fretwell, Strategic Issues Manager, Clark County; Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association; Mr. Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities; Mr. Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas; Ms. Juanita Clark (See also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 9 - Authorizes governing body of county or city to restrict location of residential facilities for adult care. Assemblyman Christine R. Giunchigliani, District 9, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit C) and provided the committee with a packet of written information (Exhibit D). Assemblyman de Braga asked why A.B. 9 was needed and whether local governments did not already have the ability to enact the kinds of ordinances set forth in A.B. 9. Ms. Giunchigliani replied local governments did not have such ability. She stated local governments had committed abuses by attempting to restrict locations of group homes. She contended A.B. 9 would provide for an equitable and reasonable application of spacing requirements regarding locations of group homes. Mrs. De Braga asked if Chapter 278 of NRS applied exclusively to adult care centers. Ms. Giunchigliani responded she believed Chapter 278 of NRS applied to "group homes," which could include foster care homes. Assemblyman Nolan asked if the concerns of neighbors of group homes were limited to concerns about the effect of group homes on property values and on traffic. Ms. Giunchigliani replied concern was about the number of group homes on a given block. A colloquy was held between Mr. Nolan and Ms. Giunchigliani. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated the purpose of A.B. 9 was to establish legal spacing requirements with respect to group homes. She declared, "If this bill begins to get used as means to exclude, I would prefer that it be killed." Assemblyman Krenzer commented the Fair Housing Act of the State of Nevada was amended in 1991 to include mentally and physically disabled individuals under its provisions. Mrs. Krenzer stated she supported equal rights and fair housing but suggested group care homes were businesses. She indicated she agreed group care homes should be located throughout residential areas and not be clustered in sections. She suggested proliferation of group care homes, which were run as businesses, within a specific area, created difficulty for residents of such an area. Ms. Giunchigliani observed there were individuals opposed to group care homes for child care, foster care, aids victims or the elderly being located anywhere. She contended all such group care homes served a public purpose by allowing people to live in dignity. She suggested a balance could be achieved between providing group care homes and preserving neighborhoods. Mrs. Giunchigliani said she agreed group care homes were businesses which were conducted in residences but believed, under the Fair Housing Act, such group care homes could not be required to obtain business licenses. She indicated some cities required group care homes to obtain business licenses, and she questioned the legality of such requirement. Mrs. Krenzer asked if there was a limit to the number of elderly people who could live in a group home which, if exceeded, would then require the home to obtain a permit. Ms. Giunchigliani responded if only one or two elderly people resided in a home, only registration was required, because many people brought family members into their homes. She said if a group care home had six or fewer residents, it was required to be licensed by the state health department. Assemblyman Segerblom inquired if group care home owners were asked whether they objected to clustering of group care homes. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated owners of group care homes would testify before the committee in opposition to A.B. 9. Ms. Giunchigliani said the intent of A.B. 9 was to make group care homes part of local communities, but she suggested when five or six such homes were located in close proximity to one another, it defeated the purpose of the Fair Housing Act, which was to assimilate the kinds of people who resided in group care homes into the community. Mr. Nolan said group care homes imposed restrictions on themselves, with respect to their locations, in that they must find affordable housing, must be near medical facilities, and must attempt to be close to services needed by their residents, such as pharmacies. He indicated he knew there was a tendency to cluster group care homes in some neighborhoods because of the conveniences available in those neighborhoods to the homes' residents. Ms. Giunchigliani stated group care homes in her neighborhood were well run. She said she had visited three such homes and suggested for the residents of those homes it was nearly like living in their own homes. She stated with respect to group homes for the elderly, in order for an elderly person to reside in such a home, he must be in good health and be ambulatory. Mrs. de Braga asked if Ms. Giunchigliani foresaw A.B. 9 as having any affect on existing group care homes. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she did not, but said if there was any concern about such a possible affect, "grand fathering" language could be added to A.B. 9. Mr. Howard Lieburn testified. He said a home was purchased, directly behind his own home, in which elderly individuals with Alzheimers Disease were being housed. He stated the same individual who purchased that home then purchased another home, which second home was located only one home away from the first, making two out of three consecutive residences in which elderly patients were being cared for. He suggested having two out of three homes providing care for the elderly should not be permitted. Mr. Lieburn said he did not know who could substantiate the fact such a situation did not "...run down the neighborhood..." or cause property values to decrease. Mrs. Krenzer asked Mr. Lieburn the condition the group care homes in his neighborhood. Mr. Lieburn replied those homes were in very good condition. Mrs. Krenzer asked if the group care homes in Mr. Lieburn's neighborhood created any traffic problems. Mr. Lieburn said the situation he described had just occurred within the past two months and he was unaware if traffic had increased but he knew residents of the group care homes had to be taken to and from those homes by means of automobiles. Mrs. Krenzer asked why Mr. Lieburn objected to the group care homes in his neighborhood if those group care homes were well cared for. Mr. Lieburn indicated his objection was to grouping of those homes within a neighborhood. Mrs. Krenzer asked if group homes in Mr. Lieburn's neighborhood were well maintained and created no traffic flow problems and the residents of those homes were well behaved and well supervised and property values were maintained did Mr. Lieburn have some other basis for objecting to those homes. Mr. Lieburn replied he did not but again expressed his concern about the grouping of such homes. Assemblyman Bennett commented, "I'd just like to say I had a gang shooting across my back fence last year, and I'll trade these folks for that anytime." Ms. Suzzan Denton Pratt testified. She advised she was a licensed clinical social worker. She indicated she had been contacted by six other social workers. She stated she was neither representing the social worker's organization nor was she taking an official position on A.B. 9. She said she was voicing the concern of several individuals who had spoken to her that permitting zoning for group housing could result in the elimination of group housing in a given county. Ms. Pratt advised her brother had a "half way house" in a predominately metropolitan county in another state. She said when her brother attempted to open a second such house he had to do so in a neighboring county because he could not find another place to locate a second half way house in the metropolitan county in which he had his first half way house. Ms. Pratt contended when there was a 20 to 25 percent change in a neighborhood, the change had an emotional impact on the residents of the neighborhood. She suggested people did not want group homes in their neighborhoods because it caused those neighborhoods to have a different appearance. Ms. Pratt said if the legislature was to pass A.B. 9, the legislature would need to "...mandate that they have group homes or you're going to find some counties which find a way to zone them out entirely." Ms. Pratt declared group homes worked well for those who resided in them but worked better yet if they were located in a community neighborhood. She contended not only group homes for the elderly and for individuals with Alzheimers Disease were being discussed but other types of group homes for adults and half way houses as well. She stated such homes helped rehabilitate people and place those people back in the mainstream of society. Ms. Barbara Bernabei testified. Ms. Bernabei addressed the issue of clustering of group homes. She said she knew "...MH and MR..." attempted to disperse individuals with disabilities throughout the community. She indicated group homes had to consider money. She contended (group home owners) had very little money to spend in purchasing and maintaining homes but suggested most group homes were well maintained. Ms. Bernabei stated the success of group homes should be considered. She indicated 15 years previously, when she first approached the city to obtain permission to open a group home "...it was a bitter fight." She indicated since that time approximately 60 homes for people with disabilities had been placed in the community and those homes were working well. She declared more and more frequently individuals who resided in group homes were moving from those homes into supported or independent living situations and were doing well in those situations. Ms. Bernabei pointed out the cost of a group home was less than $35 per day per person while the cost of institutional care exceeded $200 per day per person. She suggested the fiscal impact of having group homes in the community should be considered. Ms. Bernabei suggested fear played a part in people's reactions to group homes. She suggested individuals who were concerned about the effect of people who were different from themselves moving into their neighborhoods should be aware of the resources available to them for dealing with any problem such people might cause. Ms. Bernabei said she had spoken with Ms. Giunchigliani and Ms. Giunchigliani was proposing changes to the language of A.B. 9. She stated those changes were needed. She declared A.B. 9 in its present form was unacceptable to her as well as to many others. Ms. Bernabei expressed her willingness to assist the committee in efforts to improve the language of A.B. 9. Ms. Bernabei stated support should be given to those individuals who were successfully living in group homes in community neighborhoods and legislation which would defeat a very progressive movement should not be created. Mrs. Krenzer asked to whom one could petition if a group care home was not well maintained or its residents created too much noise. Ms. Bernabei responded one could complain to the city council or in some circumstances could call the police. Ms. Norma Childers, Nevada Care Home for Seniors, testified. She stated six years previously, when attempting to open her group care home, she received a great deal of opposition from neighbors who asked why she could not locate the home elsewhere. She said she wanted her group care home to be located in a neighborhood which would provide a home environment for the elderly residents of the home. She advised those elderly residents liked to take walks and be out of doors. Ms. Childers said her group care home initially had 15 elderly residents. She indicated she found a great need for group care in Carson City and determined "...it was time for us to grow." She stated it took two years to be able to open her first group care home and it also took two years to open her second one. Ms. Childers declared if she were to bring all her neighbors to testify before the committee, they would tell the committee they wished they could have a group care home on every corner. Ms. Childers advised her two group care homes would be side by side with a courtyard between them. She stated Carson City was very helpful in assisting her to make her group homes fit into the neighborhood. She said her group care home looked just like other homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Childers urged the committee members to visit group care homes. She suggested group care homes were better maintained than some private homes because group care homes were regulated. She said representatives of the Department of Human Resources regularly inspected group homes to ascertain the residents of those homes were being cared for and the environments of those homes were nice. Mrs. Segerblom asked if there was a difference between the facility Ms. Childers ran and a group care home. Ms. Childers replied there was no difference. She contended her facility was a group care home. She advised she had 16 residents in each of her homes and her homes had both semiprivate rooms and private rooms. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the residents of Ms. Childers' group care homes required any type of nursing care. Ms. Childers responded they did not. She said her residents required assistance, such as having someone to prepare their meals and do their laundry, and required supervision. She stated the reason she had 16 residents in each of her group care homes was because the home(s) tended to have more activities (as a result of having a larger number of residents). Mr. Nolan asked if Ms. Childers' group care homes were subject to additional fire codes because of the number of residents in those homes. Ms. Childers responded affirmatively. Mr. Nolan asked if Ms. Childers had to modify the houses because of those additional fire code requirements. Ms. Childers replied the houses were built to code specifications. Mr. Nolan asked if a group care home was established not in a house not built specifically for that purpose but rather in an existing facility, did the existing facility have to be modified by adding sprinkler systems, alarm systems and additional exits. Ms. Childers said such modifications need not be made if the facility consisted of one story but if the facility consisted of two stories, then sprinkler systems were required. Mr. William E. Adams testified. He spoke of "...fighting with the Fire Marshal group.." in the 1960's because that group wanted to destroy what he believed to be the essence of group care homes for seniors by requiring those homes have ceramic tile floors, be entirely whitewashed, have sprinkler systems and have bars on windows and doors. Mr. Adams said he was later involved with a church which wished to build homes for the mentally retarded. He stated it became apparent, in order to have such homes, each home would have to have at least six residents in order to cover costs. He advised in the late 1970's the legislature made changes in the law which required cities and counties to allow homes to have six unrelated individuals as residents. Mr. Adams advised he was treasurer of the governing board of Desert View Services, Incorporated, which dealt with mentally retarded and mentally handicapped people. He said Desert View Services had 11 group care homes, with a total of 66 residents, and dealt with an additional 50 individuals who lived in apartments. He contended the mentally retarded and mentally handicapped people with whom Desert View Services dealt were all happy individuals. Mr. Adams said he disliked the idea of placing limits on the locations of group care homes. He suggested finding locations for such homes was already difficult because of the necessity of placing them near bus facilities, shopping centers and medical facilities. Ms. Annie Caple testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit E). Ms. Gail Anderson testified by reading a letter addressed to the Government Affairs Committee from Margaret McConnell, Administrator of The Charleston Residential Care Hotel (Exhibit F). Mr. Ron Fillingham testified. He advised he owned the group care home "...the second gentleman talked about that he didn't like." He stated he was opposed to A.B. 9. He indicated another group care home had been established next door to his home. He said he believed there was a need for that additional group care home and the home would improve the neighborhood. Mr. Fillingham encouraged the committee members to visit his group care home. He indicated his residents loved his home and felt comfortable and safe living in it. He advised his home was attractive and said he would do his best to make it the best home in his neighborhood. Ms. Gerri Killough declined to testify but provided the committee with a written document (Exhibits G). Ms. Theresa Brushfield testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit H). She then gave additional testimony. Ms. Brushfield said, in 1992, she saw a television advertisement by the United States government concerning fair housing. She stated at that time Las Vegas had a restriction on group care homes requiring those homes to be at least 1,000 feet from one another. She advised she called the 800 number (given in the television advertisement) to say she believed the city of Las Vegas discriminated (against group care homes) and later received a telephone call from an attorney for HUD who indicated he agreed with her. She said HUD filed suit against the city of Las Vegas on her behalf and the city revised its zoning laws. She contended, according to the federal government and the attorney for the City of Las Vegas, placing a restriction on how close together group care homes could be placed was in violation of the Fair Housing Act. She advised the city of Las Vegas no longer had such a restriction. Ms. Brushfield indicated she had photographs of the five group care homes located in Assemblywoman Giunchigliani's neighborhood. She expressed surprise about the fact all five group care homes were present in the neighborhood for a year before neighbors became aware the homes were there. Ms. Brushfield indicated she knew her neighbors were aware of her home because, at the time she rented her home, her neighbors had representatives of every city and state agency come to her home because those neighbors were upset by the fact there had been no zoning hearing. Ms. Brushfield displayed photographs of the group care homes in Ms. Giunchigliani's neighborhood, including her own group care home, and also displayed photographs of houses in the neighborhood which were not group care homes and were not well maintained. Ms. Brushfield said she was surprised her neighbors held a meeting in August at Ms. Giunchigliani's home and did not invite the group care home owners to participate in the meeting. Ms. Brushfield advised one of her neighbors, who had initially complained about the presence of her group care home in the neighborhood, told her at a recent meeting "Well, you've turned out to be an O.K. neighbor. I really don't have any complaints against you." She said she asked him what then was the problem and he replied, "We just don't want any more." Ms. Brushfield suggested only four or five of her neighbors were unhappy because there were group care homes in the neighborhood. She contended group care homes in her neighborhood had improved the neighborhood. Ms. Sheila de Castroverde testified on behalf of H. Carroll Sheehy Jr., who was unable to attend the meeting, by reading an article from the Las Vegas Sun written by Mr. Sheehy Jr. (Exhibit I). Mr. Bennett asked Ms. Denice Miller to research the Supreme Court decision cited in the article read by Ms. de Castroverde. Ms. Celeste Post testified. She advised she was a group care home owner and was Program Chairman and Education Chairman of the southern division of Nevada Adult Care Association. She provided a packet of information (Exhibit J). Ms. Post stated assisted living and care homes were increasing due to the need for them. She suggested the elderly segment of the population was growing. She said Nevada was one of the key states to which the entire nation looked because Nevada had a larger percentage of seniors in its population (than other states had). Ms. Post said adult care homes saved taxpayers money. She advised it cost the state $702 to maintain a state patient in an adult care home as opposed to thousands of dollars to maintain a state patient in a nursing home. Ms. Post addressed the issue of clustering of adult care homes. She stated the state regulated the size of bedrooms in adult care homes. She contended homes of sufficient size to be amenable to being made adult care homes were located in the better, older neighborhoods in which larger, grander residences had been built. She advised it was difficult to find homes which could accommodate six adults comfortably. She said the government now wished to increase the size of bedrooms occupied by two people to 10 feet by 20 feet. She suggested such a requirement would not permit group care homes to accomodate more than two or three residents and contended a group care home could not operate on that basis. Ms. Post maintained adult care homes were not commercial businesses but were "...in a family business of caring and making a comfortable environment for our people." Ms. Post discussed the pictures of various homes contained in the packet of information she provided (Exhibit J). Mr. Bennett asked what residents of adult care homes, themselves, did with respect to landscaping and caring for the home in which they resided. Ms. Post pointed out one picture, in her packet of information (Exhibit J), was of a 92 year old resident of her adult care home engaged in gardening activities. She said when she visited the nursery to obtain flowers, she took residents of her home with her to select new plants for the home's yard. Mr. Bennett asked what residents of Ms. Post's adult care home did with respect to caring for the home itself. Ms. Post replied, for as long as they were able to do so, her residents did their own laundry and cared for the yard. She advised the residents also planned group activities, played card games and went on trips. Ms. Kelly Caccamise, Nevada Adult Care Association, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit K). Mr. Harrington asked how much it cost Ms. Caccamise both in time and in money to prepare to oppose A.B. 9. Ms. Caccamise replied she had spent probably less than $200 but had devoted more than 70 hours of her time. Chairman Bache declared a brief recess. Chairman Bache reconvened the meeting and testimony on A.B. 9 resumed. A letter from Mr. Larry Fry, Nevada Adult Care Association, who was not present to testify, was presented to the committee (Exhibit L). Ms. Diana Higgs, Executive Director, M. Marian Miller Alzheimers Centers (hereinafter referred to as the Centers), testified. She advised five years earlier, when the Centers formed a nonprofit corporation to care for Alzheimers patients, it purchased a house in Las Vegas. She said nine days after the house was purchased, the house burned and it was later discovered arson was probably involved. She indicated, while the home was being rebuilt, neighbors decided they did not want a nursing home in their neighborhood because they did not want "...these old people there." She suggested that attitude was ironic because the home had previously been a residential care facility for 11 emotionally disturbed teenage boys. Ms. Higgs stated a license was obtained for the home and six residents suffering from Alzheimers disease and related disorders were moved into the home. She declared a second attempt was made to burn the home prior to completion of its rebuilding. Ms. Higgs advised the Centers now owned four adult care homes. She explained the fourth home was sold to the Centers by a couple who were neighbors of the first home the Centers opened and who had not wanted that first adult care home in their neighborhood. She indicated she asked the wife why she and her husband had changed their minds about having adult care homes in their neighborhood. She stated the wife replied, "I fell in love with your residents over the back fence, and I know that you're doing a good job, and we wanted to know if you could be...if we could sell our house to you so that you could have another home." Ms. Post pointed out the Centers' fourth home was next door to its first home and declared if A.B. 9 was passed by the legislature, there was a good possibility the Centers would have to close that fourth home and relocate it. She contended those neighbors who had originally petitioned to prevent the Centers from opening its first adult care home no longer minded the home being in their neighborhood. Ms. Higgs declared the homes the Centers purchased were in better condition now than they were when purchased. She indicated adult care homes for Alzheimers patients were regulated and were required to: have (fire) sprinkler systems; provide 24 hour "awake care"; and have training for their staff. Ms. Higgs stated if A.B. 9 were passed, it would be very detrimental to the 24 residents of her adult care homes as well as to potential future residents. She contended adult care homes for Alzheimers patients kept victims of a devastating, terminal illness out of nursing homes and provided care for those patients at far less cost and in a far more humane manner. Ms. Renee Abordo testified. She explained she was a group home operator. She contended if A.B. 9 was passed by the legislature, it would remove the only chance elderly adults had to return to community living. She spoke of how her neighbors learned of her group care home by interacting with its residents. She read aloud a letter written to her by one of her neighbors praising her and her group care home. Ms. Aysha De Festa, Director-Owner, Adastra, testified. She provided a letter to the committee (Exhibit M) and said she would make only one comment. She declared, "When you restrict someone, it really is, basically, another word for discrimination." Ms. Linda Smith, Opportunity Village, testified. She advised Opportunity Village was the largest community training center in Nevada and served over 270 mentally retarded people daily. She suggested those people were some of the most severely disabled people in Clark County. She said those individuals and their families relied on Opportunity Village to provide those individuals with vocational training and employment opportunities. She contended Opportunity Village had met those needs for over 40 years. Ms. Smith said she opposed A.B. 9 on behalf of Opportunity Village. She declared A.B. 9 would authorize the governing body of a county or city to restrict the location of residential facilities for adult care and restrict residential placements for people with mental retardation. Ms. Smith explained "...we..." were told A.B. 9's intent was to prevent an over saturation of residential care facilities in any neighborhood. She stated, "We also wish to prevent the de facto development of many institutions within our communities." She suggested it was desirable for group care homes and other residential facilities to be spread throughout the community in order to allow people with mental retardation to be accepted as normal members of the community. She said, as it was written, A.B. 9 could be used to deny placement to groups of adults because of a community's whim and could become an obstacle to the kinds of community placements which had been very successful in allowing mentally retarded adults to become part of their communities. Ms. Smith spoke of a home she owned as a private residence and which she had used as a rental and told of how that home was virtually destroyed by tenants. She said she was approached by providers of group care for mentally retarded individuals and asked if she would consider renting her home to them. She replied she did rent the home to them and the home was now the nicest home in its neighborhood. Ms. Smith spoke of her son, who had Down's Syndrome, and of the attitudes which she and he had encountered. She suggested it was interesting how people viewed those with disabilities and failed to recognize their value to communities. She advised her son was now 23 years old and was beginning to demonstrate behavior indicating he would like to live away from his family. She said she was having to face the fact her son needed to live in the community. She declared she did not want her son to live in an institution and he was unable to live by himself. She contended group homes had tremendous value for those who were mentally retarded. Ms. Smith said Opportunity Village strongly suggested A.B. 9 be either withdrawn or substantially rewritten. She advised Opportunity Village had 45 board members, 25 foundation board members, 2,000 volunteers, 1,000 dues-paying members and stood ready to do battle if A.B. 9 was not altered. Ms. Yasmine Robinson testified. She advised she was a registered nurse and ran a 19 bed facility for the elderly. She provided a packet of information to the committee (Exhibit N) in support of the reputation of adult care homes. Ms. Robinson reiterated prior testimony regarding the manner in which adult care home owners maintained their property and their neighborhoods in general. Ms. Robinson described group care homes as a form of preventative medicine. She suggested keeping people healthy saved taxpayers' money. Ms. Robinson contended A.B. 9 was discriminatory and unconstitutional and would severely cripple health care and care of those who were unable to care for themselves. Mr. John Vornsand, Zoning Coordinator, Clark County Planning Division, testified. He advised Clark County's ability to regulate land use, with respect to group care homes, was governed by an opinion issued by the District Attorney of Clark County on January 9, 1991. He said the question submitted to the District Attorney which resulted in that opinion was whether Clark County could impose a condition requiring a special use permit and variance on a group care home which provided care to five patients with Alzheimers Disease. He quoted a portion of the opinion as saying, "The Petitioner's licensing requires compliance with both NAC's `Facilities Providing Care for Alzheimers Disease' and `Residential Facilities for Groups, Facilities With Less Than Seven Residents.' Residential facilities in this classification of less than seven residents are according to the Chief of the Bureau of Regulatory Health Services typically licensed and located pursuant to State Regulation in single family residences located throughout the community. The State Regulations provide for health and safety standards, minimum square footage per resident, common areas and other factors to encourage an environment similar to that of a home." He quoted an additional portion of the opinion as saying, "While the language of the Fair Housing Act does not mention zoning by name, the following legislative history of the amendments make it clear that Congress intended to prohibit local zoning action which discriminates against persons with handicaps: `The committee intends that the prohibition against discrimination against those with handicaps apply to zoning decisions and practices. The Act is intended to prohibit the application of special requirements through land-use regulations, restrictive covenants and conditional or special use permits that have the effect of limiting the ability of such individuals to live in the residence of their choice in the community.'" He said, "They also indicate `two federal courts that have reviewed these provisions in regard to local zoning use permit requirements in relationship to group care facilities for AIDS patients have applied the amendments to overturn the local zoning authorities denial of the permit. In both of these cases, the Federal Courts held that the denial of a special use permit to operate an AIDS hospice or an AIDS group home violated the Amended Fair Housing Act and therefore, an injunction against the local entity was issued mandating issuance of the permit. Further, the State Attorney General's Offices in both Kansas and Maryland have issued published legal opinions to the same affect. The Kansas Attorney General's office specifically concluded: In regard to the validity of Kansas State Act, it is apparent that the requirement of a special use permit "may otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling" to a handicapped person. Thus, where a special use permit is not required for a single family dwelling of similar size, it is our opinion that a city ordinance which requires the issuance of a special use permit as a condition precedent to locating a "group home" in a residential district violates the Fair Housing Act of 1988. Accordingly, such an ordinance, and the provisions of the Kansas State Act which authorize such municipal legislation, are invalid.'" Mr. Vornsand advised the District Attorney's office concluded, in 1991, (quoting again from the opinion), "This office concurs with the opinion of the Kansas Attorney General and likewise believes that the requirement of a use permit and variance, in this case, for a facility that meets the state requirements for a residential facility for groups with less than seven residents, is invalid under the Amended Fair Housing Act of 1988." He said therefore, if a group care home met all state regulations and was to house six or fewer residents, in addition to the care givers, Clark County did not regulate land use with respect to such a home other than to require it have a business license. He pointed out the Clark County District Attorney indicated (in his written opinion) the definition of the term "handicapped" did ",,,not include current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance as defined in Section 802 of Title 21." He said Clark County did govern land use regulations for substance abuse facilities. Ms. Genelle Worden testified. She suggested her group care home, Azalea Gardens, Inc., might have been the initial factor which resulted in A.B. 9. She indicated her home was located in Ms. Giunchigliani's neighborhood and she had requested a zone variance to build another house directly behind the house in which her group care home was located. She said her neighbors opposed her building the second house and indicated she felt she had caused the problem (A.B. 9) for everyone in her industry. Ms. Worden provided the committee with a copy of a letter she had received (Exhibit O). Mr. Nolan commented he believed, based on some of the testimony given, there was a misconception about the purpose of the hearing on A.B. 9. He stated one citizen in a community contacted his representative concerning what he perceived as a problem in his community. He said Ms. Giunchigliani presented, on behalf of her constituents, a bill (A.B. 9), about which she, herself, had some reservations. He declared no one on the Committee on Government Affairs had anything to do with the writing of A.B. 9. He suggested the committee take immediate action on A.B. 9. Ms. Giunchigliani said she wished to assure Genelle (Worden) and "Sue" they had nothing to do with the inception of A.B. 9. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she totally supported group care homes but had an obligation (to her constituents). She suggested those individuals who initiated the creation of A.B. 9 did not wish to restrict group homes but, rather, wished to ensure group care homes would be located throughout the community. Ms. Giunchigliani proposed A.B. 9 might be amended and used to clarify the intent that group care homes must be located throughout communities and not be discriminated against. She suggested clustering was the only issue those opposed to group care homes could legitimately use as an argument in contending group care homes affected their property values. She offered to work with the committee and with any groups affected by A.B. 9 in an effort to clarify the intent of A.B. 9 and to endeavor to stop communities from discriminating against group care homes. Chairman Bache reminded the committee it was constitutionally questionable whether the committee could take action on any legislation before it when the committee was not in Carson City and said another hearing on A.B. 9 would be held in Carson City. Chairman Lambert indicated it was possible the hearing on A.B. 9 which was to be held in Carson City might be teleconferenced in order to accommodate citizens of southern Nevada. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 9. Chairman Bache indicated testimony would now be taken on the issue of "home rule." Ms. Karen Larson, Administrative Services Director, Clark County, testified. She introduced Commissioner Erin Kenny, Commissioner, Clark County, Jim Ley, Assistant County Manager, Clark County, and Betsy Fretwell, Strategic Issues Manager, Clark County and indicated each would testify concerning portions of a document entitled "Repealing Dillon's Rules" (Exhibit P). Ms. Larson stated she wished to enumerate Clark County's objectives in coming before the committee and recited those objectives set forth under the heading "Presentation Objectives" in Exhibit P. She indicated Clark County's need for flexibility would be discussed. She contended demands on the county changed daily and the county needed the ability to respond to those demands. She indicated the role of Clark County was that set forth in Exhibit P. Commissioner Kenny testified by explaining the basis for the move to open doors of communication regarding home rule. Mr. Jim Ley testified. He discussed strategic issues affecting Clark County. He said the county operated on two principles: customer satisfaction; and accomplishing things correctly in the first instance and in the most efficient and cost effective way possible. He indicated, in management circles, those principles were known simply as "total quality management." He said one tenant of total quality management was strategic planning, which he explained was attempting to understand "...the forces affecting you as an organization." He advised Clark County Commissioners had recently gone on a retreat and had done some strategic planning. He said they attempted to understand influences which affected the manner in which they had to govern. Mr. Ley spoke of the growing demand by the public for government to respond to its needs immediately. Mr. Ley read the list of strategic issues set forth in Exhibit P. He discussed the fact Clark County's population was becoming increasingly diverse and was placing increasing demands on the county. He indicated a migration from urban to suburban settings was taking place and causing a lot of growth in Clark County. He indicated two major concerns in the county were crime and traffic. Commissioner Kenny stated Clark County was unique, not only in the state of Nevada and in the nation but in the world. She said in order to meet demands of people who visited Clark County, as well as the county's residents, Clark County government needed flexibility. Ms. Kenny reiterated crime was a very important issue in Clark County. She declared traffic and road construction were important issues because "...without the infrastructure..." Clark County could not continue to grow. She contended Clark County needed to grow responsibly. Mr. Ley said, with respect to finances and revenues, Clark County's expenditures were capped and managed, to a great degree, by the legislature. He stated the Board of County Commissioner's had passed a taxpayer bill of rights which capped growth in the county's budget based on population and growth in the CPI (Consumer Price Index). He suggested county government had imposed limits on itself in order to force itself to deal diligently with its financial resources. He declared crime and the criminal justice system were placing an increasing financial burden on local government. He said, currently, 55 percent of Clark County's budget was applied to community services having to do with the criminal justice system. Mr. Ley pointed out there was a continuing inequity in local government funding sources. He spoke of certain taxes which were raised in unincorporated sections of the Las Vegas valley but which were used by Clark County's cities, with the county receiving no portion of those taxes. Mr. Ley advised the county must deal with numerous unfunded mandates of both state and federal governments. He indicated because of this fact, Clark County must lobby more effectively and pay greater attention to what occurred in the state legislature and the federal government. He suggested the necessity for paying greater attention to and being more involved in what occurred at state and federal government levels increased Clark County's costs. He indicated bill drafts for Clark County had increased each session of the past several legislative sessions. He indicated as government mandates increased, representatives of Clark County's government were continually required to go before the legislature and request its assistance in remedying problems which Clark County's government, itself, might be able to remedy if given some relief from Dillon's Rule. Ms. Kenny observed there was a real cost associated with drafting, presenting and dealing with each bill brought before the legislature. She suggested the cost to taxpayers for bills concerning Clark County was enormous. Mr. Ley stated Clark County's lobbying costs increased by 14 percent each year. He said if the county received relief from Dillon's Rule, approximately 18 bills, or 20 percent of the bills Clark County presently had in its bill packet, would become unnecessary because the county, itself, would be able to resolve the issues covered by those bills. Mr. Ley advised the number of visitors to southern Nevada was increasing dramatically and many new companies were moving into the community, causing county government to diversify its activities. He stated tourism had increased by 30 percent, the development industry was booming and the average monthly migration to Clark County continued to be in the several thousands, making Clark County the fastest growing county in the United States. Ms. Kenny said county government strongly believed in increasing growth in the non-gaming sector, thereby increasing professional and technical jobs. She said, "We've got 10,000 rooms that have been added in the first nine months in 1994." She advised the number of airline passengers had increased by 18 percent in 1994 and suggested as Clark County's airport grew, the county became more prosperous. She declared the county's population was expected to double in eight and one-half years. She contended the county would not be able to accommodate the needs of its growing population if it had to come before the legislature every other year. Mr. Ley interjected technology was most likely the largest influence on not only local government as a business but on business in general. He said in the previous year, Clark County alone invested $6 million dollars in automation, and he suggested that sum was probably one-half the sum the county needed to invest in order "...to keep up." He advised the county invested in automation in order to improve its efficiency. He said the greatest technological influence on Clark County was the growth rate of information. He suggested the more information people acquired, the more demands they placed on government and the more they expected instant resolutions to their problems. Ms. Kenny said Clark County's government was striving to coordinate its services in order to eliminate duplication of effort. Ms. Kenny contended one of the most important things Clark County's government could do, in addition to supporting the growing gaming industry, was to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit. She said in order to do so, the county had taken great strides in rewriting business license codes to make those codes more consistent. She indicated a subcommittee on government efficiency had been created and was addressing service and coordination issues. She stated the county was looking toward combining cable industry regulations and toward coordinating emergency management services. She indicated the county was examining everything which affected people on a daily and regular basis in order to streamline its work and get that work done in the shortest amount of time and using the least amount of taxpayers' monies, while using those monies in the most efficient way possible. Mr. Ley pointed out by the year 2010, Clark County's population might be as large as 1.5 million people. He declared, "Probably the most staggering thing to us is that we are getting older and younger at the same time." He suggested that fact would have a tremendous impact on social services and on the way the county provided those services and said the question was whether the county was capable of being responsive to that impact. Ms. Betsy Fretwell testified. She discussed the differences between Dillon's Rule and "home rule." She defined "home rule" as meaning local government would be allowed to take action in response to the needs of the community it governed. She said the manner in which cities functioned was demonstrative of home rule. She indicated it was necessary to remember that counties in Nevada did not have charters and, therefore, had no framework approved by the legislature within which to operate. She indicated the only framework within which Clark County worked was the framework created by state statutes and said the county could not go beyond the letter of the law in its actions nor could it address issues which were not addressed by statute. She said home rule would allow counties to address issues which were not addressed by state statutes. Ms. Fretwell explained there were three types of home rule. She indicated "structural home rule" was the most common type of home rule and allowed adoption of alternative forms of government. She stated "functional home rule" allowed government to expand into new service areas or to change service areas to meet its population's demands. She advised the least common form of home rule was "fiscal home rule", which she explained allowed flexibility to adjust revenues and expenditures. She suggested "fiscal home rule" arose because of the creation of many unfunded mandates and because of decreasing revenues in counties. She pointed out decreasing revenues had not been a problem in Clark County in recent years. Ms. Fretwell further discussed "structural home rule." She said local governments, through their citizenry, could select the form of government desired and rather than having a commission, could perhaps have a paid administrator or elected executive. She said structural home rule would affect the number of people who were members of advisory commissions. She contended the nice thing about having structural home rule was it did not require elimination of any administrative, elective offices. Ms. Fretwell spoke further regarding "functional home rule." She explained "functional home rule" was, basically, a means by which to improve provision of urban services and improve organization of governmental services. She suggested this type of home rule arose when county governments became more regional in nature, which was what was occurring in Clark County. She pointed out some of the things Clark County would be forced to deal with and would be able to respond to quickly, under functional home rule, were: affordable housing, solid waste management, air and water quality, hazardous materials, juvenile justice, cable television, energy alternatives, managing natural disasters and urbanizing park districts. Ms. Fretwell discussed "fiscal home rule", which she said "...basically outlines a variety of different things, taxing authority, new service districts better linked to a tax base, bond issuance and debt limits." She described an instance in which representatives of Clark County government had to go before the legislature regarding a matter with which Clark County's government would have been able to deal had Clark County had fiscal home rule. Ms. Fretwell advised 35 of the 48 states which had counties allowed home rule by their counties. She said there were approximately 20 large counties in the western United States which had home rule and cited King County, Los Angeles County and Multnomah County as examples. She suggested for a county to obtain home rule was a very long process. Ms. Fretwell explained "Dillon's Rule" which she advised was different than "home rule." She stated Dillon's Rule basically provided that the Board of County Commissioners possessed only such powers as were expressly granted to it by the legislature and was precluded from taking any actions which were outside those expressly granted powers. She gave some history of the evolution of Dillon's Rule. She contended since the creation of Dillon's Rule, many counties and cities had been precluded from taking any actions not expressly outlined by state government, regardless of the need for those actions. Ms. Fretwell explained repealing Dillon's Rule would require less complex legislation than the legislation required to establish home rule. She said, "It allows us a testing period. It opens the door so that you can see how well we use that discretion, basically." She suggested repealing Dillon's Rule would provide time in which to study whether home rule was needed in Nevada and would, in the meantime, allow Clark County's government to be responsive to its customers and to "...reinvent itself." Ms. Kenny commented Clark County's most immediate need was relief from Dillon's Rule. She suggested it might be appropriate to conduct an interim study regarding home rule for Clark County. Chairman Bache referred to Mr. Ley's previous testimony regarding 18 bills which would not need to come before the legislature if Dillon's Rule was repealed and asked if Mr. Ley could provide a list of those bills to the committee's secretary. Mr. Ley responded affirmatively and provided the list of bills to the committee's secretary (Exhibit Q). Ms. Larson cited, as an example of one of those bills, a bill requesting Clark County's government be allowed to pay moving expenses to individuals whose property was condemned in connection with Clark County transportation projects. She explained the county could not, of its own accord, pay such moving expenses and must advise individuals who wished such payments that those individuals must sue the county to obtain those payments. She suggested if Clark County were able to decide for itself to pay such moving expenses, a great deal of money, expended for court costs, might be saved. Mr. Ley interjected state law did not say Clark County could not pay moving expenses but because neither did state law say Clark County could pay moving expenses, Clark County did not have the flexibility to do so. Ms. Kenny stated people did not differentiate between state issues and local issues. She suggested county government was often approached by people asking for help with matters over which county government had no control. Mr. Neighbors commented he had been involved in county government for many years and accepted the concept of home rule. He asked for clarification of Mr. Ley's prior testimony that Clark County lost approximately $15 million dollars in taxes. Mr. Neighbors asked if it was not true Clark County did not actually lose those taxes because any time there were more than two cities in a county, there were certain taxes which the county did not get but, at the same time, the county was not required to provide services related to those taxes because the cities provided those services. Mr. Ley responded Mr. Neighbor's contention was not entirely accurate. He advised that Clark County provided exactly the same level of services as those provided by the cities of Las Vegas, Henderson and North Las Vegas. Mr. Neighbors asked if the county provided road services for those cities. Mr. Ley answered it did not. Mr. Ley said, however, the county provided police services for those cities. He suggested the point of his testimony was 70 to 80 percent of sin tax revenues, as an example, were generated in unincorporated areas of Clark County but 100 percent of those revenues were distributed to incorporated areas. A colloquy was held between Mr. Ley and Mr. Neighbors. Discussions were held among committee members. Mr. Harrington asked if repealing Dillon's Rule would provide Clark County with any additional authority to impose taxes. Mr. Ley replied it would not. Ms. Larson clarified (repealing Dillon's Rule) would allow the county to assume it could take action in a given situation if state law was silent as to whether the county could or could not act. Mr. Ley referred to the list of bills which would be eliminated if Dillon's Rule was repealed (Exhibit Q) and explained the list was divided into three sections, one of which was headed "Conditional." He explained bills under the heading "Conditional" might or might not be affected by Dillon's Rule. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association), testified. She said the Association's board opposed home rule. She indicated the Association was approached by officials of a number of cities and counties who expressed their need for home rule. She indicated the reason the Association did not support home rule, at this time, was because there was no consistency in what various cities and counties desired to have in the way of home rule. Ms. Vilardo stated the Association recommended serious consideration be given to conducting an interim study on the issue of home rule. She suggested not only did government entities need to agree on what changes would be made to provide home rule, but taxpayers needed to have an understanding of "...what these parameters are going to be." Ms. Vilardo said, "To the issue of Dillon's Rule, I must absolutely oppose that." She stated at present local government did only those things which the law allowed. She contended if Dillon's Rule was repealed, local government would be allowed to do anything which it was not prohibited from doing. She indicated although the difference (in what local government could do under Dillon's Rule and in the absence of Dillon's Rule) was subtle, it was a major difference. Ms. Vilardo stated although the repeal of Dillon's Rule might not affect what local government could do with respect to taxes, it would affect what local government could do with respect to fees. Mr. Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities, testified. He stated the Nevada League of Cities also would endorse an interim study regarding home rule. He suggested the issue could not be resolved in one legislative session. Mrs. Segerblom asked why counties and cities could not be responsible for whether they did or did not raise taxes rather than the state having to bear that responsibility. Mr. Grady replied, "I think this is what home rule is all about." Mr. Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas, testified. He advised the City Council of the City of Las Vegas (hereinafter referred to as the Council) had requested a bill concerning home rule. He contended the entire subject of home rule was extremely complex and home rule was difficult to define. He advised although the Council requested a bill regarding home rule, because of the difficulty of arriving at a cohesive plan for home rule, the Council had not yet supplied the Legislative Counsel Bureau with details of what the Council ultimately wished to be included in the bill. Mr. Leavitt referred to prior testimony of representatives of Clark County regarding tax distribution. He advised, in the 1960's, the cities and counties of Nevada had continually battled with one another over the issue of property taxes and "...since the county was a wider assessed valuation pool...", the counties generally prevailed. He contended the cities were unhappy about the situation and therefore, in the 1960's, the cities, as a group, and without any objection being made by the counties, proposed new taxes, to be distributed based on population, to offset losses cities believed they had experienced when counties were allocated an additional property tax rate while cities were not. He indicated, as a result, certain taxes were collected throughout the State of Nevada which taxes were distributed to counties, based upon population, and were then distributed only to the cities within those counties. Mr. Leavitt suggested much work needed to be done in defining home rule. Ms. Juanita Clark testified. She advised she opposed home rule. She expressed the belief any confusion on the part of state, county and city governments was caused by those governmental entities, themselves. She cited as an example, a situation concerning land being purchased by HUD. She explained the land was presently owned by the City of Las Vegas, however for many years a sign was present on the land indicating the land was owned by the State of Nevada. She suggested passersby would assume the land was owned by the State of Nevada. She cited another example of confusion regarding what governmental entity owned a certain portion of land. She declared, as a citizen, it caused her great concern to be unable to determine, without expending a great deal of time, just which governmental entity was responsible to her. She contended different governmental entities used different terms to describe the same thing and suggested the fact they did so made things more complicated for the public. Ms. Clark said she was concerned about government becoming too efficient. She remarked, "A very efficient government would simply be a king." Chairman Bache closed the hearing on the issue of home rule. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 12:35 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs February 10, 1995 Page