MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 16, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, March 16, 1995, Chairman Douglas A. Bache presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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. Pete Ernaut Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson; Ms. Patricia Brown, President, Marble Manor Resident Council, and President, Unified Tenants Association; Mr. David Morton, Executive Director, Reno Housing Authority; Mr. W. F. Cottrell, Executive Director, Clark County Housing Authority; Mr. Robert Sullivan, Director, North Las Vegas Housing Authority; Mr. Douglas Dickerson, City of Las Vegas; Ms. Rusty Nennert (see also Exhibit B attached hereto). SENATE BILL NO. 23 - Revises provisions governing power of eminent domain of City of Henderson. Mr. Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson, testified. He advised the purpose of S.B. 23 was to change the city charter of the city of Henderson (hereinafter referred to as Henderson) to permit Henderson to use the power of eminent domain to acquire land for surface parking and parking structures in its downtown area. He stated the cities of Sparks, Boulder City, Carson City, Elko, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Reno were allowed to use eminent domain to acquire land for parking while the cities of Wells, Yerington, Caliente, Collin, Gabbs and Henderson were specifically prohibited from doing so. He explained Henderson was attempting to redevelop and improve its downtown area. He said Henderson purchased land to use for parking, as it became available, and did not anticipate, at this time, using eminent domain but would like to have that tool available should it become necessary. Mr. Fritsch provided a packet of information and letters from merchants (Exhibit C). He advised merchants in the downtown area of Henderson supported S.B. 23. Assemblyman Bennett asked when Henderson wished to start its downtown parking project. Mr. Fritsch advised Henderson presently had no schedule but wanted the ability to provide parking in the downtown area as that area was redeveloped. He said merchants in Henderson's downtown area needed more parking but explained Henderson did not presently have the money needed to build a parking structure. He indicated Henderson did not anticipate using eminent domain to acquire land for parking "...in the next couple of years..." and advised, if Henderson was able to purchase properties (without use of eminent domain), it would do so. He advised there were six properties in which Henderson was interested and of which it had purchased three, consisting of every other property among the six. Mr. Bennett asked if Henderson was required to offer fair market value for properties it wished to acquire. Mr. Fritsch replied, "We have to take the bids on those properties and then make that offer. That's what we're required to offer." Assemblyman Segerblom commented she agreed Henderson's downtown merchants needed parking and said she was in favor of S.B. 23. Assemblyman Lambert asked what Henderson did to advise its citizens it was requesting a change to its charter prior to bringing that request before the legislature. Mr. Fritsch advised Henderson had not had many changes to its charter. He explained, during the last legislative session, Henderson requested a change to its charter which concerned the length of residency required for an individual to run for office. He advised Henderson's city council gave approval for the city manager to form a committee to review the city charter. He said the committee was comprised of the city attorney, city clerk, city manager, finance director, personnel director and himself. He stated the committee reviewed the charter and made recommendations to the city council after which a public hearing was held. He said the city council approved the proposed changes to the city charter and those proposed changes were then recommended to the legislature. Assemblyman Harrington referred to Mr. Fritsch's testimony that Henderson had purchased three of the six properties in which it was interested. He asked who owned the other properties and whether those owners were notified of this hearing. Mr. Fritsch replied, "They were notified, essentially, as much as any resident in the city of Henderson." He advised Henderson would not necessarily build the contemplated parking structure on those properties but indicated those properties were the most likely area for such a structure. He contended it was not Henderson's intention to obtain the legislature's approval of S.B. 23 and immediately commence condemning properties. He stated Henderson had not targeted any specific properties to be taken through power of eminent domain. He suggested Henderson gave the best notifications of any of the state's local governments. Mr. Harrington commented Mr. Fritsch had testified Henderson had bought "...homes, every other home." Mr. Fritsch advised Henderson purchased those homes as they came on the market for sale. He said Henderson had not approached the owners of those homes directly. He said the owners knew Henderson was interested in their properties and they advised Henderson when those properties were to be sold. Mr. Harrington asked if any of the individuals who resided in the homes which were between the three properties Henderson had purchased were present. Mr. Fritsch replied he had no idea. Mr. Bennett asked, "Was the city council divided on this particular issue?" Mr. Fritsch replied it was not. Assemblyman Nolan suggested S.B. 23 would allow Henderson to use eminent domain to acquire properties in areas other than its downtown area and asked what the boundaries of Henderson's downtown area were. Mr. Fritsch described what he said were essentially the boundaries of the downtown area. He stated Mr. Nolan was correct that eminent domain could be used in areas other than the downtown area but the downtown area was where Henderson envisioned its use. Chairman Bache asked if Henderson had a redevelopment district. Mr. Fritsch indicated the redevelopment district was essentially the downtown area he had described. He indicated redevelopment efforts were not yet in process. Chairman Bache asked if Henderson had power of eminent domain in its redevelopment district. Mr. Fritsch suggested there was a conflict in that regard because the redevelopment agency had power of eminent domain but Henderson's city charter specifically prohibited using eminent domain. Assemblyman Neighbors asked how many square miles Henderson covered. Mr. Fritsch replied approximately 80 square miles. He said, geographically, Henderson was almost the same size as Las Vegas. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 23. SENATE BILL NO. 24 - Revises provisions governing sale of certain bonds by City of Henderson. Mr. Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson, testified. He advised Henderson was the only city in Nevada which had a public improvement trust and said Henderson used the public improvement trust to create funding for various projects. He stated S.B. 24 would permit either public or private sale of industrial development bonds and would also affect single developer bonds. He explained Henderson's city charter required such bonds to be sold by public bid. He said, in the ten years "...that we've used the process...", Henderson had never had a public bid for the bonds. He advised Henderson always offered the bonds for public bid, received no bids and then proceeded to sell the bonds through private sales, which were negotiated with bond underwriters. He indicated Henderson would like to be able to use both public and private sales but suggested, because of past experience with public bids and the complexity of the bonds, it was probable Henderson would proceed directly to private sales. Mr. Fritsch advised the public improvement trust's board consisted of five members, who were chosen by the city council but who could not be removed by the city council. He said the board recommended and structured the issuing of Henderson's industrial development bonds and "...the city council then ratifies those." He explained the public improvement trust had issued a total of seven industrial development bonds but no competitive bids for those bonds were received. He stated the bonds were sold, privately, through an underwriter. He advised, in recent years, the public improvement trust had structured and forwarded to the city council single developer local improvement bonds. He said six such bonds had been issued. He indicated both the industrial development bonds and the local improvement bonds were backed by the projects to which they pertained. He advised Henderson's credit rating was not affected by the bonds and Henderson did not back any of the bonds. Mr. Fritsch reiterated, thus far, all sales of the kinds of bonds being discussed had been privately underwritten and Henderson would like the option of proceeding directly with private sales. He advised, however, the city council would determine whether sales would be public or private. Mrs. Lambert asked whether the public improvement trust issued local improvement bonds. Mr. Fritsch explained the bonds he referred to as local improvement bonds were single developer bonds. He referred to Lake Las Vegas, located in Henderson, as an example and said Lake Las Vegas had used public improvement trust bonds to fund some of its infrastructure and then pledged its property to back those bonds. Mrs. Lambert asked what kind of bonds Lake Las Vegas had used. Mr. Fritsch replied they were single developer bonds which he previously had referred to as local improvement bonds. Mrs. Lambert commented she knew of only one kind of single developer bond. She said such bonds were covered by NRS 271 and were backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing governmental entity. Mr. Fritsch indicated the single developer bonds of which he spoke were not of that kind. Mrs. Lambert asked if Mr. Fritsch would provide her with a citation of the provisions of NRS which dealt with the single developer bonds to which he referred. Mr. Fritsch replied he would. Mrs. Segerblom commented Henderson was not responsible for the bonds. Mr. Fritsch indicated Mrs. Segerblom's statement was correct. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 24. Bill Draft Request No. S-751 - Revises provisions governing sale, lease or exchange of land owned by City of Henderson. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. S-751. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Bill Draft Rrequest No. 23-872 - Authorizes state industrial insurance system to certify qualifications of persons with disabilities for certain state employment. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 23-872. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 204 - Requires one commissioner of each housing authority to be tenant of project of authority. Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, District 6, left his chair in the committee and testified from the witness table. He suggested A.B. 204 represented the meaning of the phrase "we the people." He said he had lived in public housing, and he contended the provisions of A.B. 204 were long overdue. He explained A.B. 204 would allow individuals who lived in public housing to be represented in the governing of their daily lives and activities. He advised A.B. 204 would provide for tenants of public housing to be represented on public housing authorities and would allow those tenants to have input as to who represented them. Mr. Williams provided a memorandum he received from Mr. Paul T. Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (Exhibit D). He pointed out the memorandum (Exhibit D) contained a list of 15 states which currently provided for tenant representation on housing authorities and indicated additional states were contemplating doing so. He advised Montana's law required two tenants be appointed to a seven member board, one to represent elderly and handicapped tenants and one to represent families. Mr. Williams suggested one means of determining who would represent tenants on a housing authority's board would be to have the tenants submit a list of names of persons they would wish to have serve. Mr. Williams stated he believed the provisions of A.B. 204 would enhance Nevada's housing authorities. He said the committee might hear testimony that members of housing authorities were members of the public who had expertise in business and corporate operations. He suggested members with such expertise were needed but contended they lacked understanding of the needs, aspirations and concerns of public housing tenants. He stated allowing tenants of public housing to serve on the boards of housing authorities, together with members of the general public and members of the business community, would create a marriage of expertise in operations and of understanding of the daily lives of public housing tenants. Mr. Bennett asked how a commissioner of a housing authority's board who vacated his position was replaced. Mr. Williams replied, in Las Vegas, commissioners were appointed by either the mayor or the city council. He advised, if A.B. 204 was passed by the legislature and a tenant commissioner vacated his position on a housing authority's board, he would like to see such commissioner replaced by the same means he had suggested the commissioner be selected. He indicated this would be by tenants either choosing another name from the list of names they originally created or submitting a new name. He suggested whatever process was used to select a tenant commissioner would be the same process used to replace such commissioner. Mr. Williams advised, in Las Vegas and throughout the United States, there was a positive movement toward having housing authorities completely run by tenants. He suggested this would assist those tenants to develop skills which would allow them to become more self-sufficient. Assemblyman de Braga asked by what process tenants would develop a list of names of those they wished to have represent them. Mr. Williams said, generally, each public housing development had a resident council. He proposed, if a housing development did not have a resident council, its tenants could form an organization. He stated resident councils had leadership and met from time to time and could develop the selection process. Assemblyman Tripple asked if it was conceivable an organization created to represent tenants could be comprised of individuals who did not live "...on the premises." Mr. Williams responded it was not and said such organizations would be comprised of the tenants themselves. Mr. Harrington asked, if more than one group represented tenants and there was conflict between those groups (as to who should be nominated to represent tenants on the housing authority), who would make the final decision. Mr. Williams responded, the groups which represented tenants would have to agree upon a list of names to be submitted to the city council and the city council would then select the tenant representatives from that list. He contended public housing developments' resident councils presently worked together to accomplish positive things. Ms. Patricia Brown, President, Marble Manor Resident Council, and President, Unified Tenants Association, testified. She advised Marble Manor Resident Council was the council for the housing development in which she lived. She explained the Unified Tenants Association "...will go around to the other developments and bring them together." She indicated, in Las Vegas, there was agreement on the need to have tenant representation on the housing authority's board and contended there would be no problem with electing tenant representatives. She said it was proposed alternates be selected to serve as the tenants' representative in the event the person first selected was unable to serve. Ms. Brown declared (public) housing had deteriorated over the past four years and was no longer a decent, safe place to live. She asked that tenants of public housing be allowed the opportunity to do something for themselves. She suggested being allowed to have public housing tenants represent them on housing authorities' boards would provide tenants of public housing with a tool which they could use to become self-sufficient. Ms. Brown stated she had visited states in which public housing residents were members of housing authorities' boards. She contended such resident members, because they lived in public housing, were able to advise the boards of which they were members whether or not a proposed rule was workable. She suggested members of housing authorities' boards who were not residents of public housing developments believed there was a stigma attached to living in public housing. Ms. Brown pointed out she was raised in public housing but nonetheless had attended college. She suggested A.B. 204 would make it easier for people in public housing to have opportunities for which she had been required to fight. She declared, if people who lived in public housing were not made part of the mainstream of society, "...you're going to have more of a criminal element than you'll have a good element." Mrs. Segerblom asked if Ms. Brown meant by her testimony that the tenants' resident council would select the person who would serve on the board of the housing authority or, rather, meant the council would submit a list of names from which the person would be selected. Ms. Brown indicated resident councils, first, would create a nominating committee to obtain nominations and establish a list of nominees. She said the list of nominees would then be sent to each housing development where residents of those developments could vote on the list. Mr. Bennett asked if Ms. Brown felt some of the money spent on public housing was spent inefficiently. Ms. Brown replied affirmatively. She mentioned, in 1985, a lawsuit was brought against a housing authority "...for stolen refrigerator money..." in which she was a named litigant. Mr. Bennett asked, "You're saying the commissioners are seeing the paperwork but you're not seeing the refrigerator?" Ms. Brown replied affirmatively. Mrs. Tripple said Ms. Brown had testified about how a resident member of a housing authority's board could influence that board and asked if Ms. Brown believed such a resident member also could influence residents of public housing. Ms. Brown replied most members of a housing authority's board had expertise in business, accounting and "professionalism," some of which would be absorbed by the tenant member of the board who then would pass it on to other residents of his public housing development. She contended everyone would benefit. Chairman Bache asked Ms. Brown to explain the problem regarding refrigerators to which she alluded in her testimony. Ms. Brown explained residents of public housing developments had been required to pay $5 per month for the stove and $10 per month for the refrigerator in their units. She advised those stoves and refrigerators were purchased with federal funds and contended, therefore, the payments residents were required to make were "...an added charge. It was a duplication of funds." She said HUD provided the funds with which the refrigerators were purchased yet residents were charged to rent those refrigerators. She indicated that situation resulted in five years of litigation. She said, ultimately, the residents won the case and were given back 50 cents for each dollar they had paid to rent their refrigerators. Mr. David Morton, Executive Director, Reno Housing Authority, testified, in part by reading from prepared text (Exhibit E). He described his experience in working with housing authorities and in establishing resident groups in public housing developments. He stated he believed in resident involvement and said one way to accomplish resident involvement was to have a tenant representative on a housing authority's board of commissioners. Mr. Morton suggested the process A.B. 204 proposed for selecting a resident member of a board of commissioners was unique. He indicated that process was used nowhere else in the United States. He stated the concept of A.B. 204 was in keeping with national trends and was a sound principal, but he expressed concern about the complexity of the selection process proposed by A.B. 204. He said he supported having a resident on the board of commissioners of a public housing authority but did not support the method for selecting and appointing such a resident which was set forth in A.B. 204. He declared he strongly believed a mayor and a city council or similar body should make the actual selection rather than resident groups. He suggested to expect resident groups to agree on one candidate, in every case, was "...wishful thinking..." Mr. Morton submitted a proposed amendment to A.B. 204 (Exhibit F). Mr. Ernaut asked what assurance the legislature had that an appointing body would be any more objective than residents would be. Mr. Morton replied, "I never said objective. What I said is the process." He suggested the wording of A.B. 204 regarding the selection process was vague and did not ensure that process would take place in a manner which would satisfy the legislature. He reiterated his testimony regarding the complexity of the proposed selection process. Mr. Ernaut suggested such complexity was part of the democratic process and said he failed to comprehend the rationale behind Mr. Morton's contention that "...an appointing board, in any way, serves us more objectively than a free and open election from the residents." Mr. Morton responded A.B. 204 did not provide for an election. Discussions were held between Mr. Ernaut and Mr. Morton. Mr. Harrington commented he preferred language of A.B. 204 to remain as it was. He said elections cost money. He contended, if an appointing authority received multiple nominations from multiple resident groups, the appointing authority would nonetheless be able to choose the tenant it felt would best represent the residents and be the most productive as a member of its board of commissioners. Mr. Morton reiterated his comments about the need to clarify the selection process to express the legislature's intent. Mr. Morton pointed out A.B. 204 provided the tenant representative must be a public housing resident and advised, in the case of Nevada's Rural Housing Authority, there were no public housing residents under that authority. He said the wording of A.B. 204 should be changed to provide, at least as to the Rural Housing Authority, the tenant representative be an individual under any of the housing authority's rental assistance programs rather than a resident of public housing. Mr. Morton said the Reno Housing Authority would like A.B. 204 amended to make it clear, if a board of commissioners of a housing authority already had a tenant as a member, it would not have to replace such tenant member with another tenant member. Mrs. de Braga said, as a rancher, she was governed by several organizations, such as the Truckee Carson Irrigation District and soil conservation and FHA boards, which were comprised of representatives of the people they served and which had similar election processes. She advised the election process used by the Truckee Carson Irrigation District "...is simply a matter of a notice in the newspaper, and everyone goes to exactly the same place to vote." She indicated it was a simple and inexpensive process. She advised, with respect to the FHA boards, there were groups, similar to public housing resident groups, which nominated a number of individuals and said provision was made for "...any write-ins..." on the ballots which were mail-in ballots. She suggested the same process could be used to select the tenant member of a board of commissioners. Mr. Nolan said he agreed with Mr. Morton that the selection process provided by A.B. 204, as written, was fraught with potential for conflict but suggested such conflict would be borne by residents and would not affect the boards of commissioners. He said, hopefully, such conflicts would be resolved by the residents. Mr. Harrington commented he believed having the various resident groups nominate a number of individuals was the correct way to proceed. Mrs. Lambert commended the City of Reno for already having a tenant on its housing authority's board of commissioners. Mr. W. F. Cottrell, Executive Director, Clark County Housing Authority, testified. He discussed his experience in working with the Clark County Housing Authority and with organizations which dealt with housing authorities. He advised there were five housing authorities in the state of Nevada and each was different from the others. He said Clark County Housing Authority's board of commissioners had discussed A.B. 204, at length, and had no problem with its concept but did have some concerns about its language. Mr. Cottrell explained public housing was not the only program (administered by housing authorities). He said Clark County Housing Authority had twice as many residents under "Section 8" programs as it had residents in public housing. He said, as written, A.B. 204 would disenfranchise those individuals who lived in private housing, under Section 8, and suggested it should be amended so as not to do so. Mr. Cottrell advised another concern was that A.B. 204 referred to an individual being appointed and it was felt that language would unduly restrict the authority of a board of county commissioners. He explained, in cities, the mayor made appointments while, in counties, the board of county commissioners made appointments. He stated A.B. 204 appeared to require a board of county commissioners to appoint "...that one, single person who is nominated." He suggested residents of public housing developments should not be the only ones allowed to make nominations. Mr. Cottrell said the Clark County Housing Authority did not perceive the selection process provided by A.B. 204 as an election process but rather as a nominating process. He advised, under the law, the appointing authority would still be the mayor or the board of county commissioners. He explained housing developments under the authority of the Clark County Housing Authority were widely scattered and had individual resident councils. He pointed out 600 senior citizens, who resided in mobile home parks, would have no vote if the selection process provided by A.B. 204 was restricted to public housing residents. He indicated he was uncertain what would be accomplished by having nominations submitted by eight or ten resident councils which had no relationship to one another. Mr. Cottrell stated A.B. 204 was written as though it would pertain only to new housing authorities and said he did not believe there would be any new housing authorities. He suggested A.B. 204 should focus on existing housing authorities. Mrs. Lambert asked if Clark County Housing Authority provided service to tenants under Section 8 if such tenants had maintenance problems. Mr. Cottrell replied it did not. He said the Section 8 program provided that, to the extent possible, an individual who received assistance under Section 8 be treated in the same manner as any other resident of the complex in which he resided. He indicated individuals who received assistance under Section 8 paid 30 percent of their rent and the housing authority paid the balance of their rent but provided no other assistance to such individuals except with regard to allegations of discrimination or the failure of an owner to meet his responsibilities under the terms of a lease. Mr. Harrington suggested the provisions of A.B. 204 should not be made to apply to individuals receiving assistance under Section 8 but should be restricted to residents of public housing. Mrs. Braunlin stated, when she was involved with the public housing authority for the County of Los Angeles, California, the problems she saw with respect to residents of public housing developments were quite different from those she saw with respect to individuals who received assistance under Section 8. She asked if Mr. Cottrell could clarify how a person who received assistance under Section 8 could be involved in and be aware of what occurred "...in the different housing units." Mr. Cottrell advised the Clark County Housing Authority administered approximately 12 different housing programs of which public housing was only one. He suggested, if the concept of A.B. 204 was that people who received housing assistance should be represented on the boards of commissioners of housing authorities, it should make no difference which program of housing assistance they were under. Mrs. Freeman said testimony was given that people who received assistance under Section 8 lived in private housing. She stated she knew of instances, in Reno, where people who received such assistance lived in public housing. She asked if Mr. Cottrell could explain "...how that works." Mr. Cottrell replied Reno had a situation similar to one in Clark County. He advised there were 735 public housing units in Reno which were owned and managed by Reno's public housing authority. He said two of those units were for the elderly and five were family complexes. He stated Reno's housing authority had several Section 8 programs. He indicated some were long term programs, some were moderate rehabilitation programs and, in addition, "...we have the other Section 8 program, that most of you know about, which is the voucher and the certificate, and that truly is almost like the private sector..." Mrs. Freeman asked if Reno's housing authority had units where both recipients of Section 8 assistance and recipients of public housing assistance resided. Mr. Morton replied there was no instance in which recipients of both types of assistance would reside in the same building. He advised there were some instances in which, with HUD's permission, the housing authority placed recipients of Section 8 assistance in a building owned by the housing authority but explained such a building was not public housing. Mr. Bennett referred to the language commencing on line 31, on page 2 of A.B. 204, and suggested, following the words "One commissioner who is a," the remainder of the sentence be stricken and be replaced with the words "recipient of housing authority aid nominated by his peers." He suggested a similar change be made to the language of Section 1, subsection 2. He asked Mr. Morton and Mr. Cottrell to comment on his suggestions. Mr. Morton said he believed use of the word "peers," unless clearly defined, would be awkward and contended the issue of nominations would remain complex. Mr. Morton commented, if it was made clear that anyone, including resident groups, could make nominations, there would be no problem because the ultimate selection would still be made by the appointing authority. Mr. Cottrell suggested, if an appointing authority was provided a nomination of only one individual, it would create an uncomfortable situation for the appointing authority because, while the appointing authority would be responsible for the actions of the individual it appointed, it would have no choice as to who that individual was. Mr. Bennett indicated he believed more than one individual would be nominated. Mr. Cottrell again commented on the need to clarify the language of A.B. 204. Before taking further testimony, Chairman Bache assigned A.B. 204 to Mr. Williams for the purpose of clarifying the provisions pertaining to nominations. Mrs. de Braga asked how the remaining commissioners were selected. Mr. Cottrell replied the Rural Housing Authority was governed by different statutory provisions than the other housing authorities but said, with respect to those other housing authorities, either the mayor or the board of county commissioners was responsible for appointing members of the commission and was free to appoint whomever they wished. Mrs. de Braga asked whether there were no suggestions made to a mayor or board of county commissioners regarding who should be appointed. Mr. Morton responded, in Reno, notice of a vacancy on the board of commissioners was published in the newspaper and anyone could nominate himself for the position. Mrs. de Braga asked, if only one person nominated himself, would that person be the one appointed. Mr. Morton replied affirmatively. Mrs. Segerblom asked,"Are there two boards in Clark County, one for the county and one for the city?" Mr. Morton replied there were three boards in Clark County and advised the third board was for North Las Vegas. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether the members of those boards were appointed by either the city council or the county commissioner. Mr. Morton replied, in the case of the city, the mayor made the appointments and, in the case of the county, the board of county commissioners made the appointments. Mr. Robert Sullivan, Director, North Las Vegas Housing Authority, testified. He stated the board of commissioners of the North Las Vegas Housing Authority and the city council of Las Vegas supported A.B. 204. He indicated the board of commissioners of the North Las Vegas Housing Authority had the same concerns about A.B. 204 as those previously expressed by other witnesses. He advised the North Las Vegas Housing Authority provided 1,200 subsidies to residents of the community it served and said, if A.B. 204 was intended to pertain only to residents of public housing, 95 percent of the clients of the North Las Vegas Housing Authority would be disenfranchised because the North Las Vegas Housing Authority operated only 100 units which were identified as public housing. He suggested the provisions of A.B. 204 should pertain to all clients of a housing authority and not to only those clients who resided in public housing. Mr. Douglas Dickerson, city of Las Vegas, testified. He declared the mayor and city council of Las Vegas were very supportive of A.B. 204. He advised, currently, the mayor appointed the members of the board of commissioners of the Las Vegas Housing Authority and wished to continue to do so by utilizing a list of recommendations by tenants. He suggested the issue was how that list should be created and indicated he would like to work with Mr. Williams on that issue. Mr. Thomas Grady, Nevada League of Cities, testified. He advised Ms. Carolyn Stockton of the Rural Housing Authority was not present because she was appearing before the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Grady advised the issue of A.B. 204 would be on the agenda for the meeting to be held by the Rural Housing Authority's board of directors on March 22nd and said, "We will be happy to work with Mr. Williams, through the rural housing, on this matter." Ms. Patricia Brown gave further testimony. She referred to the possibility those individuals who received housing assistance under Section 8 might wish to be involved in selecting nominees for tenant representative. She indicated, when residents of public housing moved out of public housing, they did not wish the stigma of having resided in public housing to follow them and suggested individuals who received assistance under Section 8 might not wish the fact they received such assistance to be pointed out to their neighbors. She proposed such individuals could go to a public housing development to make a nomination or to vote. She contended there was no desire to exclude those individuals from the provisions of A.B. 204 but neither was there a desire to place them in an untenable position. Ms. Brown reiterated her prior testimony regarding the need of residents of public housing to be represented on the board of commissioners of their housing authority. Ms. Rusty Nennert testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit G). She indicated she favored having a tenant member on the board of commissioners of a housing authority. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 204. Mr. Williams invited anyone concerned with the language of A.B. 204 to meet with him and attempt to work out language which would be amenable to everyone yet would retain the purpose of A.B. 204. Chairman Bache reminded the committee a work session would be held during the committee's meeting on March 17th. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 9:58 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs March 16, 1995 Page