MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session April 19, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:08 a.m., on Wednesday, April 19, 1995, Chairman Lambert 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 Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Pete Ernaut Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Mike McGinness STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: I.R. Ashleman, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association; Irene Porter, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association; Clark Danny Lee, Nevada Library Association; Sylvia Bartak, Rural Libraries; Jeanne Munk, Pershing County Library; Carroll Gardner, Nevada Library Association; Linda Deacy, Douglas County Public Library; Rob Joiner, Carson City; Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties; Mary Henderson, Washoe County; Randy Walter, Nevada APA SENATE BILL 232 - Authorizes certification of personnel of public libraries by state librarian. (BDR 33-1428) Senator Mike McGinness stated Joan Kerschner, Director of the State Library and Archives, requested the bill for the benefit of rural librarians. This bill addresses the certification of rural library personnel. When the bill was brought to the Senate Committee on Human Resources, they found out Clark County has more rural libraries than the rest of the rural area combined. This bill would add some professionalism to rural librarians. Clark Danny Lee, Chairman of the Nevada Library Association, was in attendance as well as two rural librarians, Jeanne Munk from Pershing County and Sylvia Bartak from Silver Peak. Ms. Munk drove two hours to be at the meeting and drives two hours to her certification classes each time they are held. Ms. Bartak does not drive; she hitchhikes from Silver Peak to Coledale to catch the bus to Carson City for training. This certainly shows the dedication of these rural librarians. He introduced Clark Danny Lee to handle the technical aspects of the bill. Mr. Lee representing the Nevada Library Association, contrasted urban libraries with rural libraries, emphasizing the certification process. Most people who earn an MLS degree do not take employment at rural libraries due to lower salaries and distant locations. In many cases, the people who are hired are not formally educated. This bill addresses those folks who are extremely dedicated and do participate in many educational process and training for their library positions. Often the classes they take are not for credit or certification. This bill will enable these people to be monitored and certified for all the effort put into their education. It will also instill a sense of professionalism in these individuals. In another manner, it will make them more valuable to the county governments, especially in situations where librarians do not stay in rural areas due to the lack of advancement opportunity. The bill has already been through the Senate with three dissenting votes. The fingerprinting requirement has been objected to, however, it is necessary. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if this had been discussed with administrators in Boulder City and Laughlin. Mr. Lee indicated he spoke with two top people in Clark County and had their full support. Assemblyman de Braga referred to section four on page two and said it was not a sentence and therefore did not convey the proper meaning. She queried if an application was required for certification. Mr. Lee said yes. Mrs. de Braga reiterated the sentence was not complete and needs to be corrected. She was curious why health records were required. Mr. Lee mentioned it was standard procedure for employees dealing with the general public and children, especially. Assemblyman Bennett objected to a person's health records being public. Mr. Lee said these records were not available to the public. Mr. Bennett wanted a confirmation that all records listed in section 4, subsection one were to remain confidential. Mr. Lee understood the records would not be available to the general public, but would be on file with the provision for inspection under certain circumstances. Assemblyman Tripple stated usually a professional organization has a national association. Mr. Lee indicated theirs was the American Library Association. She questioned if they engaged in setting standards for certification of individuals or accreditation of programs to prepare librarians. Mr. Lee answered it was done on a statewide basis and was highly recommended. They did have guidelines, but the training varied from state to state. Ms. Tripple remarked if a librarian was trained in one state, if they moved, they would have to be recertified in another state. Mr. Lee said that was possible. Assemblyman Freeman informed Mr. Lee of three bills, A.B. 401, 402 and 408 involving confidentiality of public records and that these should be looked at with regard to this bill. Mrs. Freeman questioned how the health records requirement fit into the concerns of those bills. Mr. Lee was not sure. Mrs. Freeman asked if it was current practice to require health records. No, Mr. Lee replied. The program is new and so there are no set standards to follow at this time. People come in for training but it is not set up in an orderly manner and that is the attempt with this bill. Mrs. Freeman suggested holding the bill until an evaluation could be made of this issue as it related to the public records bills. Chairman Lambert told Mrs. Freeman there were statutes in place to ensure the confidentiality of certain types of records such as teacher licensure statutes. Assemblyman Bache was concerned about section five and suggested adding some language to coordinate with the State Department of Education as there are a number of professional growth courses for school librarians that could be taken by rural librarians as well for accreditation. Mr. Lee noted the Department of Education would be interested in such a program and indicated the method of distribution and type of materials differ greatly between an academic or school librarian and a public librarian. The training, process and qualifications would be different as well. However, some of the qualifications for school librarians would be used as a basis for certification of the rural librarians. Ms. Tripple said apparently the national association does not certify librarians, but did the state association certify them? The state association has wanted a certification process for some time, Mr. Lee answered. They are backing this bill and feel it is necessary. Ms. Tripple pointed out instead of placing it in the state association's prerogative they were placing it in the state librarian's hands. Mr. Lee responded the state librarian has served as a monitoring basis and a coordinator for the state libraries for years; that is the main purpose of the state library. It is a central clearing house and central information center. Ms. Tripple mentioned state associations can organize themselves to give in-service training and credits but they have not done that. Mr. Lee said no, they wanted to make it more uniform, comprehensive and have the state librarian monitor the process. Ms. Tripple assumed the state librarian wanted this responsibility. Yes, Mr. Lee affirmed. Assemblyman Harrington remarked that people who are currently certified would be able to continue working but if they were not certified, could they still be hired. Mr. Lee stated there is a process and a time period where someone could be hired but would be required to complete a certification program within a specified amount of time. Mr. Harrington wondered what that would include in the future. Mr. Lee said it would include some recertification over periods of time to keep the librarian current. Mr. Harrington mentioned large libraries hire all sorts of people to help and would this only refer to librarians themselves. Mr. Lee indicated it would refer to administrators and directors of libraries. Jeanne Munk, Library Director of Pershing County Library, stressed the adoption of S.B. 232. She read from prepared testimony, emphasizing the need for all public library personnel to continue to broaden their educational scope in order to serve the public's needs as successfully as possible (Exhibit C). Sylvia Bartak from Silver Peak, Nevada, travels 225 miles one way to participate in programs and classes. Her main concern is for the children who need to be taught to use libraries as resources for their school assignments. The educational benefits to be derived from this proposed program will help the rural children to enrich their learning skills. Mr. Harrington commended Ms. Bartak for her dedication and asked if there were others who were not as dedicated and was this measure designed to encourage a more enthusiastic attitude in her compatriots. Ms. Munk said everyone was dedicated but some people simply lived too far away and it was difficult to get to the certification classes which are not held in the remote areas of the state. Others feel they already have their MLS degree and that should be sufficient; but it is not. Mr. Harrington wanted to know if this bill went through, would those people who are far away be required to attend the classes anyway. Ms. Munk said hopefully there will be the possibility that the Nevada Community College will be able to schedule classes in Elko, for example, to enable the rural librarians to attend classes without having to travel so far. Ms. Tripple indicated the bill was asking for certain behavior to be demonstrated among librarians and also that the State Librarian provide education. This places an obligation on the State Librarian to go to the community colleges. Ms. Munk replied there has been an indication they would do that. Ms. Tripple wondered if this bill would perpetuate more willingness. Ms. Munk believed it was up to each library district's governing board to adopt the measure and then that facility would have to conform to the requirements. Ms. Munk indicated she would take the classes no matter what because she wanted to. Library Directors, reference librarians and children's librarians would all have to conform to the new law. Ms. Tripple felt this would make librarians professional and make the state recognize that fact. It would also entail certification, accreditation and require certain behavior of the librarians. Ms. Munk said the state librarian does realize they are professionals, but they need to make the governing bodies, county commissioners and city councilmen aware of that fact and that they serve a function. Mr. Harrington noticed a fiscal note and wondered how much that would be and questioned if it included new courses. Mrs. Lambert mentioned it was $2,500 and there was a copy in the book. Linda Deacy, Automation Librarian for the Douglas County Public Library, spoke in favor of the bill. She had particular concerns regarding the necessary educational programs and classes for librarians as she was a student in a distance education program out of Arizona, working on her MLS degree. She read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D), emphasizing the availability of information and public access would be extremely beneficial not only for library staff but for all of Nevada's citizens as well. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, spoke on the bill. He did not disagree with what the librarians are trying to do. He vehemently disagreed a state law was needed to force county commissioners to recognize librarians as professionals. Although the cause is noble, forcing the counties to do something is not good legislation. It means the dialogue at the local level has not been pursued or that communication has broken down. As a private citizen, he agreed with the comments of Ms. Tripple. Mrs. Lambert indicated the bill was not mandatory. Mr. Hadfield reiterated that was why he agreed with Ms. Tripple. He said a realistic goal was being sought. Librarians were looking to have a piece of paper to say they have standards for library personnel in the state. He has belonged to organizations in the past which brought recognition for him as a professional and can understand why the librarians want what they do. It is a confusing dichotomy; people who want that recognition and are unable to achieve it through traditional channels contrasted with people coming into the state who are qualified by the merits of their educational background. Mr. Hadfield said he cringed at the word voluntary because if everything was voluntary, the legislature would not be in existence. Mr. Bennett questioned Clark Danny Lee about section six, subsection two where the applicant bears the cost of fingerprinting; what was the cost? Mr. Lee said it was $25. Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 232. ASSEMBLY BILL 489 - Revises provisions governing actions against certain planning and zoning agencies. (BDR 22-1794) Irene Porter and Renny Ashleman, both of Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, spoke in favor of A.B. 489. Mr. Ashleman said this bill would take the statutes that allow owners of real property to sue for what they believe to be abuses in licensing and zoning matters and adds a number of sections. The first section added would be line 16, indicating any monies lost in a lawsuit could be recovered. Until now, that was not the case. Page two, lines 6 and 7, modifies the deal-making process. Currently, an applicant has to agree in order to obtain approval for his project. This new section would allow a person to protest at the time of writing instead of later, perhaps avoiding litigation. The next change was in lines 11 and 12. Currently, when an illegal condition is imposed upon a land holder, he cannot sue for the damage to the value of his property. Restrictions can be put upon the property that are illegal that lower its value. The elimination of lines 11 and 12 would rectify this. Line 19 would add court costs and interests to the prevailing party. The justification for this bill was a highly accelerated development of earlier trends, partially caused by the home builders themselves. In recent years they have been faced with statutes and exactions that the attorneys themselves will admit are blatantly illegal. If the city council wants them, there is no penalty for them, nothing adverse happens and costs are not retrieved. There is no level playing field as a result to negotiate conditions and costs. That is undesirable for several reasons. One thing it does is to defy the legislature. This legislature has set the bounds on fees in many cases. The legislature has set up appropriate impact fees after costly and lengthy studies. This might as well not be done if there are no ways to effectively enforce the laws that govern those matters. Another problem is the whim of favoritism. One developer has to comply with everything and when the moods of the planners change, the next developer does not have to comply. This was highly unfair. Mrs. Lambert asked for clarification on the time frames on page one, lines 6 and 7. She questioned when an action could be brought forth and was there a time frame to limit when a lawsuit could be filed. Mr. Ashleman said he did not believe so and he did not see that problem in there. Irene Porter spoke next in favor of A.B. 489. She said everyone thinks of home builders as people from out-of-state. Mrs. Porter indicated she represented a lot of residents and citizens; business people both small and large. She said they work with various local governments and have been very successful over the years; they contribute a lot to the community. There are times, however, when people go beyond the boundaries of what is expressly authorized by the statutes. People seem to want more and more. In most of these cases, part of that money may be paid by that builder, but a whole lot of that money is being paid by those who simply cannot afford it; seniors, young families and lower income households. People are demanding more than they used to. This affects the cost of housing. Many are concerned this would limit the ability to impose fees or put conditions on developments to actually do some things that are really necessary. She researched statutes that authorize local governments to impose fees on developers. Chapter 278 of NRS covers some very broad authorities. Mrs. Porter said they were helping people by trying to get their developments going and attempting to get the cities and counties to do some things on an even playing field. Hopefully, that will bring to light in their local governments that it is necessary for them to use the authority already in place, generate good zoning ordinances and development standards and then everyone would be on the same level, eliminating a lot of the negotiating done now on every development. There is development agreement law which was specifically written with the concept of having trade-offs. It is only when the parameters of state law are breeched on development agreements that this law would come into play. The main attempt is to prevent this type of thing and provide some standardization in the field. Rob Joiner, representing the American Planning Association and the city of Carson, spoke in opposition to A.B. 489. He indicated the bill was recently introduced and they had not had time to meet with members of the planning profession throughout the state to review the bill. Mr. Joiner was concerned about some of the provisions of the language. He had spoken with Mrs. Porter and Mr. Ashleman to get their understanding of what was intended with the bill. They do need time to respond to the intent of the bill and would like to examine the wording. The language speaks of everything being referred to statute. If that is NRS statute, that is one thing, but there are local ordinances also that refer to development standards. It is difficult, however, to put everything in development standards that a local community might feel is appropriate to a good development. Those are done through community actions, special easements, zoning ordinances, master plan documents and policy statements that are adopted by the board. They feel this is a local issue and the state law already provides for that. There has been litigation at times, there have been supreme court decisions on various issues that are adjudicated. If there are provisions requiring monetary refunds after illegal actions have been taken, that might be something that would certainly be agreeable to the profession. Again, they need time to respond and look at the language in more detail. Mr. Joiner said the bill was vague and broad and did not tie down specific sections of codes. Although NRS 278 does cover planning and zoning, it does so in a general sense. He asked that the bill be put into a subcommittee for further examination. Mr. Neighbors mentioned Mr. Joiner lived in Carson City and the meeting had been posted five days in advance so he did not understand why he was not able to review the bill. He referred to lines 16 and 17 on page one and asked what was not clear about it. Mr. Joiner answered NRS statutes do not cover all the things local governments require. He questioned whether everything done at a local level had to be covered by state statute. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, has worked closely with the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association to facilitate the development laws they think will work in practical application. He requested an opportunity to sit down and make sure the ramifications of the bill are understood. He has been contacted by several people indicating some of the same questions Mr. Joiner alluded to. There is some confusion about the meaning of the legislation. Randy Walter, representing the American Planning Association and himself, spoke against the measure. He echoed Mr. Joiner's concerns about what this bill is intended to do. He spoke on behalf of Michael Harper, Director of the Washoe County Department of Development Review and said one of his concerns involved the definition of statute (Exhibit E). It was not clear if the statutes referred to were local, state or federal. The monetary charge clause was broad and could be misinterpreted. Under current law, there are exactions made under NRS through the provisions of development review that may be subject to debate given this piece of legislation and the broadness it entails. He is concerned about all of these things and would like the opportunity to work with the committee and others to clarify issues. Projections on future issues such as lawsuits and actions being brought about as a result of this legislation were another concern, especially with regard to project approval both from the development side and the local government position. If this is passed and if local government interprets it the way certain others have, many lawsuits could arise. Given that, local planners and local government would probably be required to build or add on a lot of extras to their projects because that project cannot be supported by the current infrastructure that is available. Clarification was definitely needed. Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director for Washoe County, also spoke against the bill. She also represented Michael Harper of Washoe County. She requested time to review the bill and to sit down with subcommittee members to address the same concerns Mr. Walter and Mr. Joiner had (Exhibit F). The measure needed clarification. Kurt Fritsch of the city of Henderson was fairly neutral but echoed the comments of Ms. Henderson and Mr. Hadfield. Local government has made mistakes in the past on some of these issues and he was concerned the current language of the bill could eliminate some of the negotiating process and some of the trade-off abilities with the developers. He, too, wanted clarification and the time to sit down and discuss the bill with a subcommittee, the home builders and all others concerned. Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities, would welcome the opportunity to work on this piece of legislation. He wanted the opportunity to go to the cities to ask what the fiscal impact would be. They needed more time. Stephanie Tyler, city of Sparks, also indicated the need for a subcommittee to work on language and more specific definitions. Val Garner, city of Reno, echoed the sentiments of all previous testimony opposed to the bill for basically the same reasons. Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 489. She requested Mr. Neighbors to work on the bill. He said he would arrange another hearing on the measure in about 10 days. ASSEMBLY BILL 433 - Revises certain provisions governing employment of county surveyors. (BDR 20-1388) Mr. Neighbors testified on the bill and stated he had met with the Nye County Manager, Brett Lane, the surveyor representing Clark County, and Mr. Jack Holmes, the Washoe County Surveyor. They wanted to resolve the issue and were not sure the bill was needed. Mr. Neighbors requested a hold on the measure for one week until a resolution could be reached. Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 433. Three BDR's were introduced. BDR 20-813 - Revises requirement for publication of certain information by counties. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 20-813. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 23-839 - Makes various changes regarding public employees' retirement. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 23-839. ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 31-1747 - Authorizes temporary advance from the state general fund for authorized expenses of state land registrar and division of state lands, state department of conservation and natural resources. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 31-1747. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Lambert had received a memo from the speakers on the fine job the committee has been doing and she commended everyone to keep up the good work. The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Denise Sins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs April 19, 1995 Page