MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 17, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:09 a.m., on Wednesday, May 17, 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 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley Assemblyman Mike Schneider Assemblyman Mark Manendo STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Seale, State Treasurer; Conway Barlow, Federal Highway Administration; Michael Pitlock, Department of Taxation; Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association; Mary Brody, Citizen; Janet Rogers, Colorado River Commission; Doug Beatty, Colorado River Commission; Doug Dickerson, City of Las Vegas; Robert Schell, Clark County; Steven Horsford, NFIB/Smith Group; and others as listed on the Attendance Roster (Exhibit B). Chairman Lambert told the committee matters continued from a previous meeting would be considered first. Mr. Michael Pitlock, Executive Director of the Department of Taxation, reported on the financial condition of White Pine County School District, as today was the deadline for that information to reach the Legislature. Mr. Pitlock passed out a copy of the tentative budget the Department and the committee had been working on since the advent of the crisis in White Pine County (Exhibit C). He advised the committee on the magnitude of the problem and the possible range of solutions to that problem. It was going to require additional action by the Legislature, he stated, to solve the problems in the school district. In reviewing what had occurred in the last year or so in the school district, through leases and the 2.8 million dollar loan, they have generated a situation where their debt service has increased about a million dollars a year. Obviously, for a school district that size to absorb a million dollar debt, the magnitude of the cuts that would be required to meet the expense would dramatically affect the quality and availability of educational services. Looking at the potential taxing capacity in the county, if it were pushed to its absolute maximum, an additional million dollars could be generated. Legislation would then be required for the school district to buy down some of the other entities. A million dollar tax increase for the citizens of White Pine County would be a tremendous burden, Mr. Pitlock declared. On the other hand, there have been bills introduced that would deal with the 2.8 million dollar debt in a different manner. It would relieve at least $722,000 of that million in debt service. There could be any number of other alternatives as well. Mr. Pitlock wanted to return in the next few weeks with more news and budget information. Mrs. Lambert commended the Department of Taxation for meeting the statutory deadline with the financial report. Assemblyman de Braga said the bill she had introduced asked for 2.8 million dollars, the same amount as the loan the county arranged with the state's help. She indicated the 2.8 million dollar allocation from the state, if the bill goes through, would be strictly for operating expenses. The 2.8 million loan would go to retire some debt. Mrs. de Braga wondered if the bill went through, would White Pine County be held to using those funds for operating only? Mr. Pitlock said his understanding of the bill as drafted was to simply provide funds to repay the 2.8 million that was borrowed under a previous piece of legislation. That would relieve the county of approximately $722,000 annually of the million dollar debt service. The problem would then be manageable and the remaining debt service would have to be repaid through tax increases. Mr. Pitlock did not feel an appropriation from the state was necessary to cover ongoing operating costs in the future, but a one-shot would be needed at this time to level the playing field. Mr. Pitlock mentioned an additional matter of debt. About $950,000 of additional commitments in the form of two school buses and an unfinished high school remain to be resolved. They have been working very hard to reduce the balance due for these projects, but there has been no significant progress in reaching a definite balance. Assemblyman Bache questioned whether the school district had any real property assets that could be sold to take care of some of the debt. Mr. Pitlock mentioned he had discussed that issue with the Department of Taxation and they would try to come up with a list of all the unutilized property the school district currently has. There are several school sites that have abandoned buildings on them and there are approximately 50 acres of undeveloped real property that may have a value of $200,000. Mr. Pitlock has asked the Department to come up with a list of those properties to explore the possibility of marketing some of those sites if they are not going to be used for future school buildings. Mrs. Lambert recalled when one of the school board members came out to testify and was grateful the government advisory committee was going to help, they had mentioned they needed funding for new school buildings. Mrs. Lambert asked whether they would fund new school projects. Mr. Pitlock indicated not at this time. That was comforting, Mrs. Lambert replied. She thanked him for his presentation and told him they would schedule something in depth after a chance to review all of his supporting materials. ASSEMBLY BILL 561 - Makes various changes concerning issuance and redemption of certain state obligations. (BDR 18-821) Bob Seale, Nevada State Treasurer, said A.B. 561 consolidates the issuance of debt around the state in the State Treasurers Office. He indicated a number of reasons this would be practical and reasonable. He offered a package of material with some of those reasons and some financial information from the reorganization of state government that Peat Marwick had prepared a couple of years ago (Exhibits D, E, & F). There were also some amendments from the Colorado River Commission (CRC) that the Department of Administration urged to be included in the bill. Mr. Seale mentioned several agencies were issuing general obligation debt around the state; the Department of Administration and Budgets, the Municipal Bond Bank, and the Colorado River Commission. By consolidating the issuance of this debt, there would be a significant savings for the state in interest costs. He noted many other states were going in the same direction for efficiency reasons. Nevada has, Mr. Seale said, as a debt management policy, a statement that says the state shall not issue more than 2% of the net assessed value. If this bill were passed, a debt management policy would be established for the state of Nevada. As the State Treasurer is already responsible for debt service of all the debt that is issued, it would make sense for them to be on the front end of the situation as well and for them to participate wholly with all the agencies in the issuance of that debt. The bill also moves the approval process from the Board of Examiners to the State Board of Finance, which Mr. Seale felt was the strength of A.B. 561. The State Board of Finance consists of the Governor as the Chair, the State Treasurer, State Controller and two outside members appointed by the Governor, one of whom must be in the banking business. They felt this would be the strongest entity to oversee the activity in the bonding environment. Mr. Seale referred to the Peat Marwick document (Exhibit D) and read the paragraph on debt issuance. The material contained in the report was used as a basis for some of the amendment construction. Mr. Seale indicated he spent a great deal of time in the marketplace and with the rating agencies on Wall Street. He has had a lot of conversations with these people about the consolidation of the issuance of debt in the state and what impact that might have. It was well- received, Mr. Seale said, and hoped once the debt was consolidated, he would go to the rating agencies in an attempt to get an upgrade in the state's rating. He said one needs to speak with a common voice. This does not mean the other agencies do not have a role in debt issuance; strong partnerships must be developed. There has been a good working relationship developed between the Department of Administration and the Colorado River Commission; their role is key. The State Treasurer does not take a role prior to the issuance of debt. Assemblyman Freeman wondered if Mr. Seale would explain why the Board of Finance was stronger than the Board of Examiners. Mr. Seale indicated the Board of Finance had the Governor, Treasurer, Controller and two outside members, one a banker. The Board of Examiners had the Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State. The expertise that the Board of Finance had in terms of finance and fiscal issues relative to issuing bonds was much greater than the other board. The Board of Finance already approves a number of different issues in the Department of Commerce and various programs. It simply makes sense to consolidate those in one place and use the expertise of those knowledgeable in the financial arena. Mrs. Freeman questioned if there was any opposition to the bill. Mr. Seale indicated he had not heard any objections and had spoken with the Governor, Perry Comeaux and Janet Rogers. The Department of Administration had wanted some changes which Mr. Seale mentioned he had completed and this included some of the requested amendments from the Colorado River Commission as well. Assemblyman Segerblom queried whether the final approval would rest with Colorado River Commission. Mr. Seale said the CRC would still have the approval to determine what type of project will be done and the timing of it. Once the issuing of debt begins, then the partnership between the CRC and the State Treasurer comes into play for a shared responsibility. The partnership had been done recently with great success and this just codifies that relationship. Janet Rogers, Chairman of the Colorado River Commission, supported the measure and the amendments as they pertained to the CRC. Their position was based on their experience and history in the bond market. Currently, they have over 200 million dollars in outstanding general obligation bond debt, issued relating to their water functions, 84 million relating to power functions and 184 million in federal contract debt. They anticipate issuing 23 million dollars in additional non-general obligation bonds. All of their debt was issued pursuant to special legislation that is passed by the Legislature. The latest experience in bonding occurred in November of 1994. They issued $170,380,000 which included a 15 million dollar refund and two new money issues. At that time, Mrs. Rogers explained, the money market was volatile and changing day-to-day which necessitated quick and decisive response. To do that, they enlisted the aid of the State Treasurer who became not only a member of their financing team, but one of the point men. Ultimately, one of the most successful deals for the CRC was negotiated. Mrs. Rogers said the bill was in the best interest of the state and wholeheartedly supported it. Assemblyman Bennett questioned why the bonds mentioned in the last amendment were not subject to approval by the State Board of Finance. Mrs. Rogers declared that since the Legislature had to approve every bond issuance before it is done by the CRC, and because the Treasurer will now be more involved, they thought it might be exempt because of the legislative pre-approval process. Doug Beatty, Chief Financial Officer of the Colorado River Commission, said under current law they do not go to the Board of Examiners. He stated they come straight to the Legislature for approval and then at issuance time, the Governor is required to review the bonds. Mr. Seale added it was important to note the Attorney General represented the State Board of Finance. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 561. ASSEMBLY BILL 532 - Requires governmental bodies to replace or provide monetary payments for dwellings and business establishments destroyed by government acquisition of real property. (BDR 28-1223) Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District 8, testified in favor of A.B. 532, as she was the bill's prime sponsor. She said the bill concerned the very important issue of eminent domain, a governmental power that can allow progress to continue but at the same time, forces people out of their homes and businesses. At the federal level, the Uniform Relocation Act applies. It provides moving expenses and benefits to the person to be displaced by the federal government. The state, as well as other local governments, also follows this Uniform Relocation Act, as long as federal funds are involved. If no federal money is involved, local governing bodies can choose to do what they want. In Clark County, the result was small businesses being closed and home owners being forced out of their homes with no reimbursement for moving expenses at all. In Mrs. Buckley's mind, that simply was not fair. A.B. 532 would require a local governing body to compensate a small business owner, home owner, mobile home owner or a renter and to pay their moving expenses if that property is to be acquired by eminent domain. That was the entire purpose of the bill. Mrs. Buckley passed out some amendments to the bill (Exhibit G). Since the introduction of the bill, Mrs. Buckley had met with the cities, counties and other individuals to be affected (Exhibit H). She also met with representatives of the state of Nevada who were concerned about the bill because the bill would provide fewer benefits than the state is currently paying. Mrs. Buckley explained to them this bill would not affect the state of Nevada but only the political subdivisions that are currently not paying benefits at all. Mrs. Lambert interjected the amendments do eliminate the state and did not know if that would reduce the size of the audience or not. Mrs. Buckley indicated she had spoken with state representatives who were greatly relieved and would not bring opposition to the bill for this reason. That was the first amendment Mrs. Buckley brought forth. It clarified the bill only applied to local governing bodies which would include counties, cities, redevelopment agencies and any political subdivision or the instrumentality it takes. Section three, Mrs. Buckley pointed out, requires that the governmental body establish a process to inform individuals about to be relocated concerning the benefits they might be eligible for. Section four requires that cases where a large number of individuals are being displaced, the process is to be given to them in writing and a public meeting is to be held to explain the benefits that may be available. It would also require 60 days notice of the proposed displacement from the building. Mrs. Buckley assisted 100 households in Las Vegas when they were displaced from their homes when a casino in the area decided to expand. Mrs. Buckley said the city of Las Vegas did an excellent job helping those people with written materials and held public meetings for informational purposes. Sections five and six were deleted which would have called for replacement housing for dislocated individuals. This was vehemently opposed to by the local governing bodies and so monetary compensation was agreed to in lieu of replacement of residences. Sections seven, eight and nine discuss the actual moving expense provisions, Mrs. Buckley stated. It provides that a governmental body shall pay to a displaced person based on their status. The first type would be a home owner or renter. It sets up a two-tier compensation system. The actual cost of the moving or a flat payment would be paid. Section eight in particular governs mobile homes, as there is more involved in that relocation process. Mrs. Buckley said this type of moving expense also had the option of a two-tier method of payment; actual moving expenses or a flat payment of $7,500 as provided for on lines 21 and 22 on page three. Section nine applied to businesses. Again, the actual costs or a flat payment of $7,500 would be the available options. Mrs. Buckley referred to her amendments, page three, lines 39-41, and deleted the section allowing business owners to claim the $7,500 if they were not going to open up another business. Mrs. Buckley went through sections 10-12 concerning the concept of replacement housing. Basically, in addition to the moving expenses, for a limited amount of time, a tenant would be permitted to receive a replacement housing rent differential if they were unable to find comparable quarters for business or living in the allotted sixty day time frame. Mrs. Buckley indicated this provision was a godsend during the relocation of the Vegas World tenants. Section 14 of the bill governs the administration of the proceedings. It provides payment benefits must be made within sixty days after notice of displacement and there should be an appeals process for the governing of these claims. Section 15 dictates that this section does not apply to real property acquired with bond proceeds. Willing buyers and sellers would be excluded as well. Mrs. Buckley had been asked why the Uniform Relocation Act (URA) was simply not required to be followed by cities and counties as well as the federal government, as it is already on the books. Her response was that she would love to, but this approach would be cheaper for cities and counties and easier to understand all around. If the committee would rather go with the URA, Mrs. Buckley would be agreeable. Her goal was to see fairness accomplished and that was to ensure when the power of eminent domain was used, it was accompanied by fairness. Mrs. Freeman asked if most of the problems were related to the redevelopment agency in the city of Las Vegas. Mrs. Buckley answered no, they were not. This certainly would apply to redevelopment agencies, however. In Las Vegas' redevelopment agency plan, they have moving expenses in their plan. Those plans say they will do whatever is fair and just under the circumstances or compensate a renter for up to $300. It is not a comprehensive plan. Mrs. Buckley explained during relocation processes, Las Vegas has been very fair. They negotiated benefits similar to what was in the bill. Mrs. Buckley had doubts on what benefits would have been allocated if a lawyer had not been present at those negotiations. Therefore, she wanted this to become a matter of state policy to ensure the rights of displaced persons. Mrs. Buckley mentioned Assemblyman Schneider was present to testify as he had been the victim of eminent domain and did not receive any compensation for moving expenses at that time. That occurred in an eminent domain issue outside of the redevelopment sphere, so it can apply on a county or city level as well. Mrs. Freeman questioned the costs and the fiscal note. Mrs. Buckley replied the fiscal note came as a result of the understanding that this would apply to the state and it will not; it was erroneous. The fiscal note to the local governing bodies will depend on the number of businesses or home owners affected by eminent domain. Mrs. Freeman asked if there were not a way to estimate the cost. Mrs. Buckley said you would have to take the number of displaced apartment dwellers and multiply by the amount of compensation each one received to find an approximate total cost. Mrs. Segerblom remarked there were many mobile home parks that would not take older mobile homes and was there a provision to address that issue. Mrs. Buckley said section 12 of the bill provides that if there is no replacement site that will accept the home, the governing body would pay at least $10,000 to the mobile home owner. Mrs. Segerblom pointed out that would hardly replace it. Mrs. Buckley also indicated fair market value would be paid if $10,000 was not adequate. Mrs. Segerblom reiterated a sixty day notice would be required, but how long did the tenants have to actually move out? Mrs. Buckley said it all had to be done in the sixty day period. Assemblyman Nolan questioned section 10 on page four and wondered why there was a 180 day limit on the time a person must dwell in their residence before they were eligible for compensation upon displacement. Mrs. Buckley indicated it was to prevent people from moving in only to receive benefits. This was more than likely to happen in a rental situation rather than in a business or home owner situation. She had no problem reducing the time frame to a more reasonable one. Mr. Nolan thought that was a good idea. He suggested a government discount in the event of having to move a large group of people out of an apartment complex or large business unit in order to save money all around. Mrs. Buckley would consider it. Mrs. Lambert queried who determines whether the actual moving costs or $2,500 would be allocated for compensation. Mrs. Buckley responded it would be the tenant's decision. This was described on page three, line seven of the bill. Assemblyman Mike Schneider, District 42 in Las Vegas, related his experience as a so-called victim of eminent domain. Last session, he had been given a 30 day notice of eviction on his business location. This was for the expansion of Desert Inn Road and the overpass in Las Vegas over the freeway. They took out the section of the road his office complex was located on. Mr. Schneider said he was also a landlord as well as a tenant. Although landlords do have more rights than tenants, tenants have rights too. Roads and redevelopment are for the good of society, but landlords are not obligated to take care of the displaced tenants. All taxpayers as a whole have an obligation to take care of and relocate those people. It could cost thousands of dollars to relocate a business due to all the auxiliary expenses. Mr. Schneider also pointed out the problems older citizens would have trying to relocate after living somewhere for many years on a limited income. Society has to help these people too. Mary Brody, concerned citizen, stated she lived in the Stratosphere Community which was being relocated. If it had not been for the help of Mrs. Buckley and Nevada Legal Services, a lot of people there would not be able to move; they would be out on the street. Many of the residents are elderly, on fixed incomes and/or are one-parent families. The neighbors all look out for each other. The residents cannot afford to move and this bill would be extremely beneficial for these people and relieve much of the burden associated with relocation. Conway Barlow, Federal Highway Administration, was opposed to the bill. He said the amendments do help but he cautioned the way it was currently written, the provisions of the bill conflict with the Uniform Relocation Act. He understood some of the state agencies had been taken out. He requested clarification that the provisions of this bill would not apply to those projects where federal funds are involved. Mr. Nolan wanted to know what portions of the URA and the bill were in conflict. Mr. Barlow replied he could do that at a later date and put it in writing, but it was too extensive to go into at the time. The main caution, he warned, was if federal funds were involved and there was a conflict, all federal funds for that project would be jeopardized. Local projects are not that sizeable, but state projects could run into millions of dollars. If the intent was to make the bill applicable to those projects where federal funds were not involved, the language needs to be clarified to convey that message. Mr. Nolan wanted the areas of conflict in writing. Mr. Bennett asked whether an airport expansion would be included in Mr. Barlow's list of exceptions. It depends, Mr. Barlow replied. Airport expansion can utilize funds from sources that are federal or not federal. If they have private bonding funds or other sources, the URA would not necessarily apply. Steven Horsford, representing the National Federation of Independent Business, was in support of the bill. He said there was a real concern about the possibility of government entities taking over property by eminent domain, thereby displacing business owners. He read from prepared testimony (Exhibit I), highlighting their reasons for support of the measure. His main concerns were the development of a plan or process for displaced residents, monetary compensation for such displacement, time necessary for the adjustment and fair appeal and grievance rights guaranteed. Robert Schell, Senior Right-of-Way Agent for Clark County, said he was one of those who displaced people. He did want to be able to provide a safety net under the law for displaced persons. He mentioned he had a bill in the Senate which would compensate people for moving expenses. He had initiated a relocation program to be adopted by the county but was struck down by the District Attorney's Office who claimed there was no statutory authority for making those payments unless there was federal money involved. Other agencies within Clark County who operate with federal funds arrange all their relocations under the URA. The most recent case, Mr. Schell related, was the construction of the airport connector. Local funds were used for that but the FAA approved the project, regardless of the source of funds, provided the URA was followed in the acquisition process. Other than that, in the Department of Public Works where Mr. Schell worked, in order to get some benefits to a home owner under current legal constraints, he has to treat it as a litigation. In each and every case, he goes before the board of county commissioners, works out a package for the home owner and figures out what reasonable and necessary expenses will be needed to establish themselves in a similar home. All that is presented to the county commissioners as an administrative settlement in lieu of litigation. There is no program in place to expedite matters. Mr. Schell said two years ago he sat before this committee and spoke against A.B. 595 which would have had all public agencies within the state adopt the Uniform Act wholesale. He did not want it then and does not want it now. He was opposed to the federal government dictating the actions of the state. He said some of the provisions of the URA could be selected and used to generate a policy by Nevadans for Nevadans. He agreed, though, that there does need to be a blanket exemption in A.B. 532 that says what follows does not apply if you are subject to the provisions of the URA. He supported the bill with the proposed amendments. Doug Dickerson, city of Las Vegas, said the redevelopment agency had worked extensively with Mrs. Buckley on the new relocation plan. He believed the concept was good, but it would establish guidelines from the state level and he desired to have more control at the local level of government. He did not think anyone should be exempt from the program. He said the city would support a bill that provided for a public entity's relocation, but it would have to be approved by local elected officials to meet their needs and guidelines. Mr. Dickerson indicated the amount of reimbursement expense to move was not satisfactory because it could fluctuate too much and need adjustment later. He reiterated local control was needed. Assemblyman Krenzer asked if the city can do this, why haven't they. Mr. Dickerson said they do. He added that Mrs. Buckley had been instrumental in assisting the city with their relocation plan. Mrs. Krenzer questioned whether a monetary reimbursement was provided. Yes, replied Mr. Dickerson. She wondered if people were given a 30 or 60 day notice to vacate. Mr. Dickerson thought it was 30. Mrs. Krenzer iterated other agencies in the state do not do this. No, they did not, Mr. Dickerson confirmed. Mrs. Krenzer questioned his objection to the language of the bill. Mr. Dickerson told her they could support a bill that would require all other entities to have a relocation plan, but it should be designed for each local entity, not come directly from the state. He said they did not have a problem with the concept, but with some people being exempt and the overall application of the standards. Mr. Dickerson felt they probably surpassed the set standards. Mrs. Lambert pointed out those who were exempted were subject to the URA and were under more severe requirements. Mrs. Krenzer said the whole Desert Inn project was under the auspices of the city's Convention and Visitors Authority and the purpose of the bill was to avoid situations like that. Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities, had many of the same concerns as Mr. Dickerson. He said they supported the bill in concept, but felt this would be an unfunded mandate where the person could come before the local government and obtain money without proof of expenses. He wanted to see what the conflicts were between the federal URA and the bill. Barbara McKenzie, city of Reno, echoed Mr. Grady's comments on behalf of the city. She, too, said those entities who cannot now formulate a relocation plan need to have enabling legislation to allow them to do so. She did want to go on record for the Mayor and the City Council as being opposed to the unfunded mandate. Mrs. Lambert asked Mrs. McKenzie if eminent domain was generally used for a project paid for through bonding. Mrs. McKenzie could not answer that question. Mrs. Lambert wanted to find out if funding for relocation could be paid for the same way as property, through bonds. Mrs. McKenzie would find out. She said it would certainly increase the taxpayer's bill, to pay for the bond. By increasing the size of the bond, there would be a tax increase on the taxpayer and that was where the unfunded mandate came into focus. They were against that. Mr. Bache queried whether eminent domain was an unfunded mandate to the property owner, small businessman or renter whose property that is being taken; it could be looked at that way. Mrs. de Braga did not see how this could be an unfunded mandate. She said the governmental agencies who have chosen eminent domain make a conscious decision to do that; it is their choice. They make that decision and it is part of the cost of the project. If they did not want the unfunded mandate, they should find another way to obtain the property, Mrs. de Braga emphasized. Mrs. Lambert interjected section 16 of the bill does ignore current unfunded mandate legislation, so the bill drafters must have recognized this was an unfunded mandate, in all fairness. Assemblyman Harrington asked Mrs. Buckley about mobile home relocation and wondered if they were compensated for the actual cost of the mobile home that would be destroyed if it could not be moved or was that the total. Was there no mobile home in that situation that would be worth more than $10,000? Mrs. Buckley understood that mobile home owners would be compensated at fair market value and if it could not be moved it would be the $10,000. Mr. Harrington questioned section 16, subsection 2, lines 13-15, were they contemplating procedures where the government uses its eminent domain power for a private entity and then gets reimbursed. Mrs. Buckley replied that was exactly what this section was about. She said the moving expenses could be retrieved from a third party that caused the eminent domain to start in the first place. Mr. Harrington had a real problem with those private entities being able to tie into eminent domain. Finally, he was in favor of compensating the displaced persons, but as for voluntary purchases where no one was forced to move, he wanted to exclude those people from the compensation provision. Mrs. Buckley indicated she would add that provision to section 16 which says that this bill does not apply to willing buyer or seller. Mr. Nolan asked if the proposed amendments would be taken up in the work session or would Mrs. Buckley amend the bill and bring it back to the committee. Mrs. Lambert informed him only the committee could amend the bill so it would be dealt with during a work session. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 532. ASSEMBLY BILL 559 - Prohibits certain deed restrictions which prohibit displaying flags or political signs. (BDR 22-1385) Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District 18, brought the bill before the committee on behalf of one of his constituents. He remarked on the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, concerning freedom of speech. Mr. Manendo told the committee during his campaign, one of his constituents showed him a letter from the homeowners association telling him he would be fined $50 a day for having political campaign signs in his yard. He wanted to challenge them in court, but as a senior citizen, he had no monetary recourse to do so. He felt his freedom of speech was being infringed upon. Other constituents had American flags up on holidays and these were requested to be removed as well. Mr. Manendo referred to ranking of our laws in the Constitution. First and foremost, the U.S. Constitution is at the head of the list, the highest ranking law of the land. Mr. Manendo felt it was difficult to tell people you have the right to campaign according to the U.S. Constitution when they were being denied constitutional rights on the local level. Mr. Manendo said there was an article in the newspaper recently on a sign ban that was unanimously rejected resulting in the limitation of powers in communities to ban signs on private property. The Supreme Court has already voted for residents' rights, but Mr. Manendo felt something was needed at the state level as well. Mr. Harrington thought this was a great bill. He felt there should be a limitation on the size of the signs, however. A reasonable size limit would make the bill more palatable and easier to pass. Mr. Manendo had no objection to a size restriction as long as they could display their signs. Mrs. Freeman asked if there was anything in writing to give the homeowners association the legal authority to say people should take down their signs and if so, has anyone gone to court on this issue. Mr. Manendo said the occupant he had spoken to did not have a copy of the homeowners' by-laws. Apparently there is some language in there that does call for some restrictions. Mr. Manendo did not think anyone had gone to court over the issue. Most people who have been affected do not have the resources to go to court. Mr. Manendo stated many homeowners associations looked at tenants' signage as devaluing their property, which is truly not the case. He felt some amendments with guidelines for size would ease their fears. Mr. Nolan also liked the concept of the bill. He related some similar experiences and proposed time frames for the display of election signs and flags, along with size restriction as Mr. Harrington suggested. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 559. ASSEMBLY BILL 555 - Revises amount of transportation allowance for public employees. (BDR 23-1802) Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association, said this bill was actually Speaker Dini's bill developed on behalf of his constituents. He said every session sees their return to ask for an increase in the transportation allowance for public employees. Rather than having to continually return, the concept of the bill was to set the rate at whatever the IRS allowable rate was. Other bills have set floating amounts for things that are tied to federal funds. It was brought to Mr. Gagnier's attention that there was no time frame included, so he provided an amendment stating "The state board of examiners shall annually adopt the amount for mileage reimbursement required by this section" (Exhibit J). So the board of examiners, who has other control functions over mileage and per diem, would simply adopt it on an annual basis. Currently it is twenty-nine cents but will soon be raised to thirty cents per mile. Mrs. Lambert was curious why the fiscal note would have an effect on local government. Mr. Gagnier said the only ones in local government that would be affected would be judges. The fiscal note for the state had not been prepared because historically, whenever per diem and mileage have been raised, money committees do not adjust the budgets, the agencies simply have to eat the higher amounts. Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 555. The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 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 May 17, 1995 Page