MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 18, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, May 18, 1995, Chairman Joan A. 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 Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Christine R. Giunchigliani, District No. 9 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Kathryn McClain, Clark County; Ms. Kelly Caccamise; Ms. Mary Henderson, Washoe County; Ms. Madelaine Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County (See also Exhibit B attached hereto). SENATE BILL NO. 182 - Authorizes informal interim leasing of certain property acquired for public work. Ms. Kathryn McClain, Clark County, testified. Ms. McClain said the purpose of S.B. 182 was to allow public agencies, such as Clark County's public works department, to manage property acquired for public works projects. She explained, occasionally, public agencies acquired residential properties as much as three years in advance (of the time a public works project was to commence) and those agencies would like the ability to enter into short-term leases with respect to those properties. Ms. McClain advised S.B. 182 had been amended by the Senate to provide that part of the monies obtained from a short-term lease was to be used to maintain the neighborhood in which the leased property was located and the remainder was to be used for the project for which the property was acquired and, also, to provide the procedures for entering into short-term leases were to be discussed at public hearings and adopted by the board of county commissioners. Assemblyman Segerblom asked, "Is this mostly for the beltway?" Ms. McClain replied affirmatively. Ms. McClain proposed S.B. 182 be amended further to change the word "must," found on line 13 of page 1, to the word "may." She indicated public agencies did not wish to be placed in the position of being required to use all monies obtained from a short-term lease to maintain the leased property but wished, instead, to be able to use such monies for the project for which the property was acquired. Assemblyman Bennett asked why it was necessary to change "must" to "may." Ms. McClain replied the present language of S.B. 182 could be construed to mean all monies obtained from a short-term lease must be used to maintain the leased property. She indicated the intent was part of such monies be used for maintenance but the major portion of those monies be used for the project for which the property was acquired. Assemblyman Neighbors inquired how payment of property taxes was dealt with regarding the properties under discussion. Ms. McClain advised properties acquired by a county would be removed from the property tax rolls. Mr. Neighbors asked whether any of the properties being discussed would be commercial properties. Ms. McClain advised, to date, none were. Assemblyman Bache advised he perceived no problem with the language in subsection 3 of Section 1 of S.B. 182. He contended that language was very clear and did not need to be changed. Discussions were held regarding the effect of the language in subsection 3 of Section 1. Chairman Lambert referred to Section 2 of S.B. 182. She advised a lengthy process, involving posting of notice and public hearings, was entailed when a county leased land. She pointed out the short-term leases provided for by S.B. 182 would be exempted from that process and asked why they were exempted. Ms. McClain replied she had no answer to Chairman Lambert's question but said the lengthy process to which Chairman Lambert referred sometimes proved ineffective with regard to properties such as those being discussed. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 182. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 276 - Prohibits Public Utility which furnishes telephone service from terminating access to 911 emergency telephone number or other emergency telephone service after service is terminated for nonpayment. Assemblyman Nolan gave a subcommittee report on A.B. 276. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 276. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 9 - Authorizes governing body of county or city to restrict location of residential facilities for adult care. Assemblywoman Christine R. Giunchigliani, District No. 9, testified. Ms. Giunchigliani submitted a proposed amendment to A.B. 9 (Exhibit C) and advised that amendment would delete the existing language of A.B. 9 in its entirety and replace that language with wholly new language. She suggested the new language would provide a more positive approach to the issue addressed by A.B. 9. She advised A.B. 9, if amended as proposed, would establish a policy which said no restriction could be placed upon residential facilities for adult care by means of ordinances, covenants or restrictions. She stated A.B. 9 would mandate "...they cannot deny. The first home requested must be approved." She indicated, if governing bodies wished to create ordinances, in compliance with the Fair Housing Act, relating to subsequent group care homes, they could do so. She advised the main purpose of A.B. 9 was to prohibit creating ghettoes of group homes and to promote assimilation of group homes into neighborhoods. Mr. Nolan commented the committee heard testimony, at the hearing on A.B. 9 held in Las Vegas, that group homes were some of the most well maintained homes in their neighborhoods and the occupants of those homes were some of the most benign and helpful residents of their neighborhoods. He asked why, then, a limit should be placed on the number of group homes which could be established in a given area. Ms. Giunchigliani responded the intent of A.B. 9 was not to limit group homes but was to open all communities to group homes. She advised, presently, there were "...exclusive areas..." in which covenants and restrictions had been established to exclude group homes. She indicated A.B. 9 would both prohibit such exclusion and would attempt to prevent clustering of group homes. Mr. Nolan suggested one reason group homes tended to cluster within particular areas was because those areas were conveniently located with respect to medical facilities, pharmacies and other facilities essential to senior citizens and others who required the assistance group homes provided. He indicated he gathered from Ms. Giunchigliani's testimony, if one group home was established in a particular area which was convenient to health care facilities and doctors offices, its presence would prevent another group home from being established in the same area. Ms. Giunchigliani responded the presence of one group home in an area would not prevent the establishment of another group home in the same area. Ms. Giunchigliani advised, in Las Vegas, group homes were not necessarily located in proximity to medical facilities. She said testimony was given on behalf of the Division for Aging Services and the Department of Health and Human Services, before the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, which indicated group homes for seniors provided a wonderful alternative to hospital and nursing home care. She said residents of group homes were required to be ambulatory and those who operated group homes did not have to hire nurses because group homes provided no medical care other than the dispensation of medications. Ms. Giunchigliani explained clustering of group care homes had caused a 25 percent increase in complaints about the care provided in such homes. She indicated another problem which resulted from clustering of group homes and from the fact some group homes were required to be licensed while others were only regulated was, in some instances, individuals were being moved from one group home to another, making it difficult to keep track of the location of those individuals. She referred to the desire to preserve neighborhoods and suggested the goal of any group home was to be assimilated into the community. She contended creating enclaves of group homes would destroy the sense of community and neighborhood for the residents of those homes and would provide those who opposed group homes being located in their neighborhoods with a rational argument. She said A.B. 9 attempted to "...give it a balance..." Assemblyman Harrington cited the reference to subsection 2, contained in subsection 3 of Section 1 of the proposed amendment to A.B. 9 (Exhibit C). He pointed out subsection 2 provided no more than six disabled residents together with one or two house parents or guardians could reside in a group care home (defined as a single family residence) while the language in the first line of subsection 3 indicated "...this does not prohibit any number of people from residing in the house." He asked to what the language in subsection 3 referred. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated the purpose of that language was to provide, if a family wished to bring one or two family relatives into its home, its ability to do so would not be affected by A.B. 9. Assemblyman de Braga asked whether there was a significant number of areas in Las Vegas in which the cost of property would preclude equal distribution of group care homes. Ms. Giunchigliani replied there might be two or three such areas but A.B. 9 provided such areas could not exclude group homes. Chairman Lambert said she wished to follow up on Mr. Harrington's question. She said the language at the bottom of page 1 and at the top of page 2 of the proposed amendment to A.B. 9 (Exhibit C) provided a single family residence must be defined to include a residential facility for adult care with six or fewer unrelated persons cared for by one or two persons, while subsection 3 of Section 1 said the provisions of subsection 2 did not prohibit a definition which permitted more persons to reside in the house. She suggested the language she had cited was unclear. She proposed that language might allow the owner of a group care home to provide care for 12 or 15 residents, if he chose to do so, but his group care home could still be defined as a single family residence rather than as "...a commercial activity." Ms. Giunchigliani replied group homes were licensed for two to six residents, however, there were larger group homes for mentally retarded individuals as well as other individuals and she thought the language in subsection 3 was intended to refer to those larger group homes. Discussions ensued between Chairman Lambert and Ms. Giunchigliani in an attempt to clarify the intent of the language being discussed. Chairman Lambert asked whether a group home which provided care for 30 disabled individuals would be required to have a business license or whether the Fair Housing Act would mandate such a home be treated as a single family residence. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated she did not know the answer to Chairman Lambert's question. Chairman Lambert referred to the mandate set forth in subsection 4 of Section 1 of A.B. 9, as it was proposed to be amended, which required a governing body to approve the first request it received to site a group care home in a particular neighborhood. She asked whether there was a need to define "neighborhood" more precisely and whether local governing bodies would have difficulty enforcing that provision. Ms. Giunchigliani responded "...a standard of a thousand feet is what a neighborhood is defined as." Chairman Lambert pointed out that definition was not contained in NRS 278 and suggested a number of criteria could be used to define "neighborhood." Ms. Giunchigliani conceded it might be necessary to include a definition of "neighborhood" in NRS 278. Chairman Lambert again referred to the mandate contained in subsection 4 of Section 1 and asked whether, through A.B. 9, the legislature was enforcing the Fair Housing Act. Ms. Giunchigliani replied in her opinion it was not. She suggested, by establishing a policy of nondiscrimination, through A.B. 9, the legislature would eliminate much of the litigation which resulted from attempts to establish group homes. Mr. Harrington referred to subsection 5 of Section 1 and asked how many group homes were homes for individuals undergoing drug rehabilitation and whether or not consideration was given to the location of those homes with respect to their proximity to children. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she did not have information upon which to base an answer to Mr. Harrington's question but advised the location of such homes was governed by regulations. Mr. Harrington suggested many families might be upset if six individuals, addicted to drugs, were suddenly housed in their neighborhoods. He contended housing a group of six such individuals in a neighborhood could significantly affect that neighborhood. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would attempt to obtain the answers to Mr. Harrington's questions. Ms. Kelly Caccamise testified. She advised she owned Westwinds of Nevada, an adult group care residential facility. She advised, because of county zoning restrictions, it had taken her ten months to obtain a license to open a group care facility. Ms. Caccamise gave further testimony by reading from and expanding upon prepared text (Exhibit D). She stated, with some additional changes, she would support A.B. 9 as it was proposed to be amended. Ms. Caccamise's subsequent references to the provisions of A.B. 9 were references to those provisions as set forth in the proposed amendment (Exhibit C). Ms. Caccamise proposed the last sentence in subsection 1 of Section 1 be deleted. She suggested the issue addressed by that sentence would more properly be addressed in subsection 4. She asserted the proposed amendments to subsection 2 would benefit many people with disabilities who could no longer reside in their own homes. Ms. Caccamise proposed additional amendments be made to subsection 4 of Section 1. She suggested, after the word "approve" in line 1, the words "without permitting process or conditions" be added. She explained this would enable the owner of a group care home to obtain a business license without the necessity of obtaining a special use permit. She indicated, to avoid the necessity to define the word "neighborhood," the words "providing no facility is currently licensed within 1,000 feet of the proposed site" should be added after the word "neighborhood" in line 2. She maintained that language would prevent clustering of group homes. She requested the words "one block" be deleted from line 3 and the words and figures "1,000 feet" be substituted in their place. She proposed everything after the word "ordinances," in line 5, be deleted and the sentence "The provisions of this section do not provide for denial of request for renewal, or revocation of licenses or permits issued before this amendment is enacted." be added. She maintained governmental entities could not enforce private contracts but those who opposed group care home being located in their neighborhoods wished governmental entities to do so; she contended deleting all language after the word "ordinances" in line 5 would provide "...clarification on that." Ms. Caccamise advised individuals addicted either to drugs or alcohol "...are covered...under the Fair Housing Amendments Act. They are considered disabled..." Chairman Lambert asked whether, if a group home had 30 occupants, that home could be considered a commercial activity. Ms. Caccamise replied, pursuant to the Fair Housing Act and under current state law, the owner of a group care home with more than six residents was required to "...go through a special use permit and zoning process." Chairman Lambert asked whether group homes with more than six residents should be considered commercial activities. Ms. Caccamise replied affirmatively. Ms. Caccamise advised the sentence she had suggested be added to subsection 5 of Section 1 would constitute a grandfather clause and would prevent the remaining provisions of A.B. 9 from requiring an existing, properly established, group care home to be closed. She contended many safeguards were in place to ensure such group care homes were properly operated. Mr. Nolan asked whether A.B. 9 would improve or worsen conditions for the group care home industry. Ms. Caccamise replied, in its original form, A.B. 9 would have made conditions worse, however, with both the amendments proposed in Exhibit C and the amendments she had proposed, A.B. 9 would make conditions much better for her industry. Mr. Nolan asked whether "1,000 feet" referred to linear feet or to a circumference. Ms. Caccamise replied it referred to circumference but reiterated that "1,000 feet" did not define a neighborhood. Mr. Bennett asked, "Notwithstanding the fact that it took you ten months to get your license, is the system broke? Does it need fixing?" Ms. Caccamise replied affirmatively. She advised she was very upset when she first reviewed A.B. 9 but indicated A.B. 9 had evolved into something which would be very positive for the group care home industry. She said attempts were made for more than a year to open a group care facility for AIDS patients in the city of Sparks, however, the facility was still not open. She advised the prospective neighbors of the facility were causing the delay and maintained, in essence, because of the county's process for obtaining special use permits and conditions it imposed, those neighbors were being supported in their efforts by the county. Assemblyman Freeman suggested it was Ms. Caccamise's testimony, if A.B. 9 was amended as proposed and was passed by the legislature, it would be possible for the group home proposed to be located in the city of Sparks to be established. She commented, "I'm very happy to see an honest effort to do something about this." She advised there was a group home in her neighborhood, which had been located there for approximately 10 years, and observed the residents of that home were good neighbors and were part of the community. Mrs. de Braga suggested the language which provided a disproportionate number of special residences could not be sited within a single neighborhood should not be included in A.B. 9. She asked whether a problem actually existed with regard to clustering of group care homes. Ms. Caccamise replied she had observed instances in which clustering of group homes was a problem but said it appeared, in those instances, regulations were not being enforced properly. She pointed out deleting the last sentence of subsection 1 of Section 1, as set forth in the proposed amendments submitted by Ms. Giunchigliani (Exhibit C), and addressing the issue discussed in that sentence later in A.B. 9 was likely to prevent clustering of group homes. She indicated, however, it would be possible for group homes to be clustered if doing so was amenable to both the relevant governmental entity and the neighbors of those homes. Ms. de Braga observed clustering of group homes was a good idea in some cases, such as the case of group homes for elderly people who desired to be within walking distance of shopping and other facilities, but suggested, "...you're not going to get these placed in elitist neighborhoods...so, to have them spread equally throughout a community, that's not going to occur." She contended there were also cases where it was not a good idea for group homes to be clustered. Ms. Caccamise reiterated the amendment she proposed should address the issue about which Ms. de Braga expressed concern. Mrs. Segerblom commented clustering of group homes was a problem in some areas of Las Vegas and it was the concerns of the residents of those areas which had given rise to A.B. 9. Ms. Caccamise confirmed Mrs. Segerblom's comment. She reiterated A.B. 9 would not revoke the licenses of existing group homes. Ms. Mary Henderson, Washoe County, testified. She referred to Ms. Caccamise's testimony regarding the proposed group care home for AIDS patients in Sparks and said she thought it would be helpful to clarify the process Washoe County had gone through and the actions its board of county commissioners had taken with respect to that home. She suggested Ms. Madelaine Shipman could provide that clarification. Ms. Madelaine Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, testified. She advised, in November, Washoe County's board of county commissioners approved a permit for the proposed group care home for AIDS patients by a vote of three to one. She said there was much neighborhood opposition to the home and the board approved the permit on condition the home be connected to the community sewer system. She pointed out Washoe County's code provided, if a condition (imposed by the county) was onerous or could not reasonably be complied with, imposition of the condition could be amended upon a showing of reasonable efforts to comply with the condition. Ms. Shipman explained, although it was unknown at the time the county approved the permit, the available sewer system was a private sewer system rather than a public sewer system and it would have been very onerous to establish lines from the group care home to the sewer system which was publicly owned. She described the unsuccessful attempts the applicants for the permit made to connect the group care home to a sewer system and advised, two weeks previously, the board of county commissioners removed the condition the group care home be connected to a sewer system and "...allowed them to go forward with a rebuilt...septic system..." She said she did not believe there was any desire on the part of any of the county's staff, its planning commission or its board of county commissioners to place roadblocks in the path of those attempting to open the group care home. She advised there was no requirement for a special use permit but, rather, there was a requirement for an administrative permit. She maintained the only reason the issue of a permit for the group care home came before the board of county commissioners was because residents of the neighborhood in which the home was to be located had appealed (the decision to grant the group care home an administrative permit). Chairman Lambert asked whether Ms. Shipman had heard the amendments proposed by Ms. Caccamise. Ms. Shipman replied she had heard some of those amendments and she agreed with "...the one where you put a period after ordinances..." because the commission did not enforce declarations of restrictions, deed restrictions, equitable servitudes and like matters. She said she had not heard all of the amendments proposed by Ms. Caccamise and would like an opportunity to review those proposed amendments before Washoe County took any official position on A.B. 9. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 9. A work session was held. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 359 - Makes various changes regarding creation of certain taxing districts. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 359. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 456 - Authorizes creation of groundwater replenishment district. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 456. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 433- Revises certain provisions governing employment of county surveyors. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 433. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 561 - Makes various changes concerning issuance and redemption of certain state obligations. Chairman Lambert provided a written proposed amendment to A.B. 561 (Exhibit E). ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 561. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL NO. 98 - Revises provisions governing approval by state engineer of application for permit to appropriate water. Chairman Lambert provided a written proposed amendment to S.B. 98 (Exhibit F). ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 98. Chairman Lambert declined to accept Mr. Bennett's motion. She explained the proposed amendment (Exhibit F) would require anyone seeking a permit to appropriate water to provide proof of their ability, financial and otherwise, to construct the intended work and to put the water to beneficial use. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 98. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bennett said he wished to explain why he moved to indefinitely postpone S.B. 98. He stated, "The way this is written, I feel that an agricultural interest that, maybe, does not get his AUM's, a rancher (for) example, that gets his AUM's cut by a third to a half, it would seem that, quite often, on our lands, does not need the existing water rights that he needed before but he could lose what water rights he has had in the past through changing business climate and, if the climate ever changes back positive again for him, he would not have the water rights to return to his previous conditions. I feel like this bill is very dangerous in that respect." Chairman Lambert pointed out S.B. 98 amended only a small portion of the existing water law to-wit the portion pertaining to applications for water rights. She suggested Mr. Bennett's comments pertained to statutes governing forfeiture of water rights and advised S.B. 98 did not deal with those statutes and would not affect an individual who already held a permit or a certified water right. Mrs. Freeman advised she appreciated anything done to clarify S.B. 98 and cause it to be more effective. Mr. Neighbors referred to Assembly Bill No. 435, which he said had previously passed out of the committee, and advised A.B. 435 addressed the issue of forfeiture of water rights. He contended S.B. 98 dealt only with new permits for water rights. Mr. Bennett advised, based upon the clarification provided, he would support S.B. 98. Chairman Lambert called for a vote on the motion pending before the committee to amend and do pass S.B. 98. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Harrington provided a report on the status of A.B. 499. Chairman Lambert advised there had been a request that the committee refrain from considering A.B. 499 until after a forthcoming meeting of the Press Association. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 9:10 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 May 18, 1995 Page