MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 26, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, May 26, 1995, Chairman 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. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Peter G. Ernaut Mrs. Vivian Freeman GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denise Miller; Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Ande Engleman, Jim Sanford; Mason Valley News-Mayor, Bill Kavanaugh; LVMPD, Patricia Justice; Clark County, Jennifer Stern; Elko Convention Authority. WORK SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 117- Incorporates City of Pahrump by charter. (BDR S- 65) Mr. Neighbors stated the issue was not whether or not they should incorporate, but rather do they have a good enough charter to take to the voters. He felt the charter group has done a great deal of work in reducing the size of the town and it will come down to the vote of the people. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 117. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. There was a discussion. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the charter had been reviewed by someone in authority. Bache stated Denice Miller had reviewed. Denice Miller replied the attorney in the legal division worked very closely with the town board and their city attorney. Chairman Bache stated he had a problem with section three, "...special election of November 7, 1995..." He thought the committee had looked at the September of 1996 primary and if the charter passed they could have the primary for the elective offices in November. Denice Miller stated she had discussed it with the current town board and there was no way to avoid a "single" special election. They have to have one. They opted to have the first one on the incorporation, after, it would follow the general procedures. Mrs. Lambert asked if there was the argument that more people would vote in a general election. Would it be better to have the one "special" election when the officers are elected and the general election be when the city charter is voted on. Mr. Neighbors assured Mrs. Lambert there will be a turnout for the election. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. BENNETT AND MR. HARRINGTON VOTING NO. ******* ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 120- Creates trust fund for extraordinary maintenance, repair or improvement of capital projects of state. (BDR 31-386) Chairman Bache asked the committee to review the amendments. He said the changes proposed by the Treasurer are technical in nature. He stated they will be deleting subsection six, "...requirement for every five years the legislative auditor would audit the funds on a random basis..." He mentioned the legislative auditor does an annual audit of the financial statement anyway so it was unnecessary. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 120. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. There was a discussion held. Mr. Harrington stated this is a permissive bill and he has concerns because it leaves funds lying around in different accounts. It will not accomplish what we want it to do and creates more accounting costs and costs to the administration. He stated he would be voting against it. Ms. Tripple stated her major concern is that money is only good for what it does, and that is it "buys." Now they will have money lying dormant and she does not think it is very fiscally sound. Chairman Bache stated part of the reason for the bill was to establish, in case there was some extraordinary circumstances, similar to the bill passed for local governments, that there would be accounts within the fund to take care of emergency and extraordinary maintenance on state buildings. This is only from bonded indebtedness, this did not address any "one shot" money that would be used to build various buildings. There was no testimony against this issue when it was first heard. See (Exhibit D). THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. HARRINGTON AND MR. NOLAN VOTING NO. ********* ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 198- Creates alternative method of providing, and increases fees for, services of constable. (BDR 20-201) ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 198. See (Exhibit E) Mrs. Lambert questioned the population of 25,000 or more. She spoke with Mr. Carpenter and he stated there are no constables in Elko and Elko County has forty thousand people. She asked if they had given Elko a constable with the 25,000 population quote. Chairman Bache replied if that is a problem, they could increase it to 30,000. He had a list of all the townships and the large ones wanted to be protected. Mrs. Lambert asked they make sure they are not giving both Elko and Carson City a constable if they do not already have one. She asked if they could take action pending the moving of population. Mr. Bache stated they could use 50,000 because it was an arbitrary number decided and the 50,000 would take care of that matter. ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. There was a discussion. Mrs. Segerblom asked for assurance that this would not eliminate constables in Clark County. Mr. Bache recognized Patricia Justice. Patricia Justice, of Clark County, testified that the constables will not be eliminated. Mr. Harrington said as he reads the amendment, subsection four "....In any county whose population is 400,000 or more, [if] the board of county commissioners may, in the alternative...." It sounds as if they can get rid of the constables if they want to. He believe the constable position should remain, and be an elected position. Mr. Bache testified this would make it an elective in Las Vegas. Mrs. Lambert stated what was just read was an amendment and the affect of this amendment would be to insure that in a township of over 50,000, the county commission would not have the power to abolish them. This goes in the opposite direction of the current law. Mr. Nolan asked if this still provides the metropolitan police or the county commissioner the opportunity to incorporate the office of constable within their organization. Mr. Bache stated the new section would give them the ability to merge the sheriff civilian division in with the constable. This was the main concern and Clark County is satisfied with the amendment as it is. Mr. Bennett stated he would prefer to Indefinitely postpone A.B. 198 rather than A.B. 314 because it contains fee increases. Mr. Bache replied that everything in A.B. 198 will be going, the fee increases will be gone. Mr. Neighbors asked if they were still going to change the population of townships to 50,000 or more. Mr. Bache replied "yes." THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. BENNETT VOTING NO. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 314- Requires constables to be elected in all townships. (BDR 20-1562) ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 314. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO.287- Removes prohibitions against individual water meters in mobile home parks. (BDR 58-804) Chairman Bache asked the committee to review the amendments before them. See (Exhibit F ). The concepts of the proposed amendments would be the individual water meters must be read and billed by the water purveyor and that new mobile home parks must be constructed with individual meters. He stated in addition to section two page three line 43 adding "rent increase." He stated the mobile home owners association was comfortable with these amendments. Julie Wilcox, Las Vegas Valley Water District stated the amendments proposed were discussed at a meeting with the Silver State Mobile Home Association as well as the park owners. Essentially there were concerns on the mobile home tenants part, of who would be reading the meters and that they would be done accurately. The language inserted was done at their request that the purveyor would be reading the meters. She said they would like to see any new mobile home parks be individually metered. There are some in their service area that are individually metered. There is a substantial decrease in water usage if they are individually metered. This is attributed to conservation. This new language strengthens the provision of the bill that does not pass along the cost of conversion to the tenants themselves. In addition to this they have told the home owners they would be looking at three "sample" parks and assess the types of engineering costs that would arise from conversion so they have an idea what to expect when conversion happens if they so choose. Mrs. Segerblom asked if this would lower the rate to each individual home owner. Ms. Wilcox replied the bill does not address the water bill, however, when looking at individually metered versus mastered metered, generally you will see a reduction in the water usage. This will cause a reduction in the amount being paid. Currently the master metered mobile homes have a special rate. This was installed by the board because they could not convert and because of this legislation. When they look at the next rate increase that will be looked at as well. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 287 ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ******* ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 499- Revises requirements for publication of certain information by counties. (BDR 20-813) Mr. Harrington went over the proposed amendment which is attachment "E" to the work session document. (Exhibit C). He stated there is no absolute agreement among the parties, the amendment is the compromise they agreed upon. He then went through each section. He stated S.B. 309 deals with notifications of delinquency also. Mrs. Krenzer testified these are "radical" changes to the bill. She asked Mr. Harrington who he worked with on the amendments. Mr. Harrington replied he worked with Ande Engleman, and Bob Hadfield. Ande Engleman, stated the amendment Mr. Harrington has crafted is a good compromise. It insures the public's right to know. They were particularly concerned about the claims or bills being published. They have seen with White Pine County what can happen when information is not made available to the public. This insures the public's right to know the checks and balances that are needed in the financial aspect of local government. The voter registration list is undergoing some "radical" changes because of federal law. The only thing that was not addressed adequately, is access to the claims and bills of counties such as Clark and Washoe County. Those are presently not published. It is usually left to the local press. There have not been any complaints. That would be the only suggested change to the amendments proposed. Mrs. Lambert stated she was concerned about the mailing of the voter registration list of Clark County. This entails four hundred pages. Mr. Harrington stated the only agreement that could be reached about not publishing it, which is even more expensive, was to offer it available by mail. Mrs. Lambert suggested in counties under one hundred thousand it is available by mail, and then in the larger counties, they have to pick it up. Last session it was to be published, and the larger counties did not want to publish it. She stated someone might think they are getting more than they're getting for free when they ask to have it mailed, which they then will be disappointed, and it will cost twenty dollars to mail. Ms. Engleman testified in the last election it was the first time Clark and Washoe County had published the list in many years. The cost, although set by statute, and was a loss to the newspapers, is a great deal less than individual mailings. Every time a publication is deleted from the newspaper, local government starts charging the public for access to that information which was previously received free of charge. They want to make sure free access to this information is still maintained. Mrs. Lambert suggested that it is made clear in an advertisement that it is available, and it is only the name and precinct number. Many people want the voter lists to solicit people. This is against the law. Ms. Engleman replied she agreed with that, and believes in non-deceptive advertising. It would be good that people understand what it is they are getting. Mr. Neighbors stated mailings to the rural counties would be a great expense. He said he could not understand why it could not be on file in various county buildings. This is a fiscal impact when mandated on the counties. Mrs. Segerblom stated her question was answered. Mrs. Krenzer stated she has concerns about the costs of mailing. Ms. Engleman mentioned this is a great deal less that the county is going to have to spend in the next election. We are saving the county money by doing away with the publication. Mrs. Krenzer stated she does not agree with doing away with the publication. Ms. Engleman testified publishing the voter registration list in the past made a lot of sense, because it prevented voter fraud. Currently there is a federal law that says you can no longer purge a list or delete names from it. It would be quite extensive, very long and burdensome to the counties. The newspapers could not afford to publish it at the price set in statute, which was set thirty years ago and has never been changed. There is a new type of list called the "inactive list" which hopefully would be short. This is presently in the discussion stage. They feel to continue the publication would be burdensome to the counties. They have addressed both sides of this issue. Mr. Bennett stated he has been looking at the suggestions and has a problem with the words "...without cost.." This could be a financial burden to both Clark and Washoe County. As a candidate he asked for the voter registration on floppy disk. He was charged a penny a name. He felt this was quite reasonable, and he could put this in a data base and do his own mailings. He said this "without cost" would affect all the taxpayers. He would like to see that amended out. Ms. Engleman pointed out she is a taxpayer, and is also concerned about the burdens to government and taxes rising. She reiterated they are saving the counties money because they are not going to have to publish this list, and when you take information out of the newspaper, the public ends up having to pay for it and the county starts making money off of it. Mr. Jim Sanford, Mayor and Co-publisher of the Mason Valley News in Yerington stated he has been in the newspaper business for fifty years, and elected Mayor to fill an unexpired term. He is also parliamentarian for the Nevada State Press Association which had a board meeting last Friday and voted unanimously to oppose A.B. 499, and he is representing them on this issue. He commended Mr. Harrington and the amendments proposed. He commented on Section 4, which deals with the county bills allowed, they have found in their rural county is the most read legal notice in their newspaper. It is read by business people who want to know where the county published in competition to them, it is read by voters all over the county. He cited many examples of violations of law through publication of these bills. The option of posting in a County such as Nye is ludicrous. If you posted any legal notice on the courthouse bulletin board, he doubts people from Dayton are going to drive fifty miles in order to look at it. He stated the delinquent tax list is published without any cost to the taxpayer. The reason is, it is charged to the person who did not pay his/her taxes. It is added to their tax burden and after three years they pay the total, or a lien will be imposed. In Lyon County they added a dollar to every name on the tax list for administration and preparation charges. The requirement to publish the delinquent tax list is over one hundred years old. It is still there today for a reason. He stated taxpayers are notified in January as to what the property taxes are. If they are not paid by a certain date, they are considered delinquent and your name goes into print. This is obviously an embarrassment factor. He has seen this work. If this helps you collect the money owed how could it be wrong. He believes if the law requiring the "notice" was strengthened, there would not be any complaints. Mortgage companies are usually the first to be blamed for the delinquencies. He stated the amendments are a nice compromise. Mr. Sanford testified in regard to the voter registration, their major concern is they do not want it to end up where the public ends up having to pay for information. The reason Clark County published voter lists was to prevent voter fraud. Apparently there had been a great deal of voter fraud occurring there. Those newspapers quickly found out that they lost money. What is charged for the list of registered voters is set by law, ten cents a name. This is the maximum a paper can charge to print that list. He realizes there are conflicts with federal stipulations. His suggestion would be an inactive list. Rural areas tend to have a higher percentage of voter registration than do the municipalities. They generally average sixty five to seventy percent voter turnout for most of the elections. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, thanked the committee and Mr. Harrington in seeking resolutions raised in A.B. 499. They are in agreement with the amendments proposed. They would like to use the Senate Bill 309 language to amend section 5. They have a problem with "restrictive" language in section 6, "....through the mail...", they would like to put "provide voter registration" which would enable entities to do it the best way possible. This way they could publish, or mail. It has been pointed out they are dealing with various sized documents depending on county to county. What works in one county does not always work in another. If they could have the flexibility by replacing this language it would allow all options. The intent is not to limit availability of information. In regard to the delinquent tax list, there is an Attorney General opinion that you cannot remove the name off that list. If a title company makes an error, the name still will be published. If you are looking to embarrass someone, it certainly works. This is to insure collection. Mrs. de Braga asked if the voter list includes political parties, along with name and precinct. Mr. Hadfield stated he was not sure. Mrs. Segerblom asked the same question about political party listing. Mary Henderson, of Washoe County clarified that neither Clark or Washoe County came forward last session to request the voter registration list be published. This request came from the Secretary of State's office. This was a last minute compromise reached. The fiscal note at that time was approximately fifty to sixty thousand for Washoe County. The cost to Washoe County this time was seventeen thousand. They could not get a newspaper to publish this list as of today. She commented it would be better if they could just provide the list, instead of mailing them. In Washoe County and Clark County it would be like mailing a ream of paper. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT OF INSERTING PROVIDE IN SECTION SIX AND ELIMINATING THE WORD MAIL. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Lambert asked if they would also add to the amendment on the notice of the availability of the voter list, that it lets people know that what is available is only the name and precinct number of the voter. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 521- Authorizes Elko Convention and Visitors Authority to submit voters question of whether additional bonds may be issued and sold. (BDR S-99) Jennifer Stern of Swendside and Stern, bond counsel for Elko Convention and Visitors Authority testified they were brought in after A.B. 521 was originally requested and printed. In reviewing this, they have realized there are a number of problems with the Elko Convention Authority Visitors Act. This was originally created in 1975, and in that act it specifically dealt with their ability to issue 2.5 million in general obligation bonds without an election and that is why it came to the Legislature in order for them to do that. There were subsequent amendments to issue general obligation bonds and general obligation bonds additionally secured by pledge revenues and revenue bonds. However other portions of the Act were not amended to eliminate references to the 2.5 million in the 1977 bonds and for the Convention Authority project. The amendments she proposes are "clean-up" and would allow the Convention and Visitors Authority clearly to issue bonds without having to come to the Legislature each particular time and to do so in accordance with Chapter 350 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, which would require that if there is an impact in the ad valorem tax levy then it has to go to a vote of the people. If they are securing the bonds with pledged revenues that are sufficient to cover debt service, then they have to comply with the provisions of Chapter 350 in doing so and in each case going to the general obligation bond commission. She then went through the amendments. See (Exhibit G). She stated bond proceeds should not be used for the purposes of operation and maintenance of facilities as well as the advertising and promotion of those facilities. Mr. Harrington stated the amendments improve the bill. He stated a problem could be created if someone got overenthusiastic and a burden would fall on the tax- payers. He asked if the general bond committee was the only safeguard. Ms. Stern replied there is bond counsel and a financial advisor. Debt affordability would play a roll in limiting it beyond the limitation of ten percent. They would have to look at whether pledge revenues are sufficient to be able to cover debt service. Bonds issued over a long period of time, does take a projection. Those projections are usually conservative if dealing with qualified people. Currently Elko Convention and Visitors Authority's financial advisor stated they do not have sufficient revenues to be able to pledge to bonds. They are not looking for that kind of issue in the near future. They are looking forward to either the primary or general election in 1996 and request authorization from the voters. Mrs. Lambert asked if this is the same type of bonding authority that the other convention and visitor authorities in this state have. Ms. Stern replied "yes." She stated the amendments do not expand the authorities, they currently have it. They would like to see a clarification in the legislation. Mrs. de Braga stated she was confused about Section two "...the authority is hereby authorized and empowered to... " was the order just changed and not the meaning. Ms. Stern replied by changing the order it also changes the meaning. What had occurred was in the current language "... Management and operate such facilities, advertise, publicize and promote such facilities..." each appears proceeding the authority to issue bonds therefor. By reading this they have the authority to issue bonds for the management, operation, publicizing and promotion of the facilities by placing those powers after the language "...issue bonds therefor.." Mrs. de Braga interrupted saying if they were sub to that particular section it would change. In number "h" there are subcategories, but in "e" those are not sub- categories, so they still have the authority to manage, operate, and advertise and it is not voted directly to the bonds. Ms. Stern replied it is not to issue bonds for those purposes but they still would have the authority to do those functions. Mrs. de Braga responded that nothing changed. Ms. Stern replied "no," what would change would be the authority to issue bonds would not include management, operation, advertising, publicizing and promotion. "Therefor" in section "e" would refer to all of those powers that preceded which would be "a", "b", "c" and the new "d." Mrs. de Braga interrupted to say she could now understand, but it is still very confusing. The statement is to say they are issuing bonds for any of the foregoing. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 521 WITH THE AMENDMENTS PROVIDED BY MS. STERN. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 518- Prohibits state agency from taking certain adverse action against employee for testimony before legislative house or committee on his own behalf. (BDR 17-1629) Chairman Bache stated they had various amendments discussed. Mrs. Lambert stated she had a note this does not include any of the various boards and commissions of state government. Are they technically state agencies? Denice Miller stated lines 14-16 does say board and commission. State agency means any agency, bureau, board, commission, department, division, officer, employee or agent or any other unit of the executive branch of state government. Chairman Bache said the only amendment would be to make it permanent employees as opposed to temporary. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 518 ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Harrington asked if this amended out the LCB people. Chairman Bache replied the LCB was not in it because of the definition on page two which Ms. Miller had read. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL NO. 248- Revises provisions regarding approval by general obligation bond commission of certain types of municipal funding. (BDR 30-109) Chairman Bache stated the amendments to S.B. 248 were attachment "G" to the work session document. See (Exhibit C). Mrs. Lambert stated she had problems with page 4 section 5 line 18, currently when the general obligation bond commission meets, it takes a two thirds vote to put a bond issue or tax measure on the ballot. There was testimony stating it was difficult to get the two thirds vote. She feels a lot more duties are being given to the general obligation bond commission and as entities approach the 364 cap, it is going to be easier to find people to show up because it will be important to show up. She has problems with taking away the two thirds, because you have a group of districts fighting over the ad valorem rate, and there should be a consensus of all those groups. She stated she would like to keep the two thirds in the bill in addition to the amendments proposed. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS S. B. 248 WITH THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED AND KEEPING THE TWO THIRDS MEMBER VOTE. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bennett stated the Carson City amendment entails stacking the commission by having part of the commission choose to represent the representatives from the public at large and it looks like stacking the commission. Mrs. Lambert replied Mary Walker from Carson City brought forth the amendment. It is evidently something their general obligation commission and board of supervisors have worked out at some length. The reason for it is when you have appointed boards, you do not know who is accountable for them. What they are intending to do in Carson City, is those two elected representatives are going to be responsible for the three people they appoint and their actions. If there is any anger toward the general obligation bond commission they know exactly which elected official to point to for accountability. Mrs. Segerblom asked if it is two thirds present or of the commission. Mrs. Lambert replied a favorable vote of two thirds of the members of the general obligation bond commission. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. BENNETT VOTING NO. SENATE BILL NO 275- Requires state personnel system to provide that state employee is entitled to copy of findings or recommendations made by appointing authority or his representative regarding proposed disciplinary action. (BDR 23-159) Chairman Bache testified there were no proposed amendments to the bill. Denice Miller commented that Bob Bayer of the Department of Prisons testified they were concerned this might be construed as a copy of the "case file" and for security reasons, they did not want to release the entire case file because at times there were confidential informants. Bob Gagnier favored the bill as written. Mr. Bache asked if Senator Neal had any specific comments. Denice Miller replied the Senator had noted the "findings" actually relate to any proposed disciplinary action. "Findings" and "recommendations" were both modifying the proposed disciplinary action. He is definitely grammatically correct and would be appropriate as written. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 275 ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL NO. 290- Revises provisions governing certification of applicants for appointment to classified service of state. (BDR 23-918) ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED DO PASS S.B. 290. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. FLOOR INTRODUCTIONS A.B. 117 to be introduced on the floor by Mr. Neighbors. A.B. 120 to be introduced on the floor by Mr. Bache. A.B. 198 to be introduced on the floor by Mr. Bache. A.B. 287 to be introduced on the floor by Mr. Bennett. A.B. 499 to be introduced on the floor by Mr. Harrington. A.B. 518 to be introduced on the floor by Mr. Price. S.B. 248 to be introduced on the floor by Mrs. Lambert. S.B. 275 to be introduced on the floor by Mr. Williams. S.B 290 to be introduced on the floor by Ms. Tripple. A.B. 521 to be introduced on the floor by Mr. Carpenter. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 532- Requires governmental bodies to replace or provide monetary payments for dwellings and business establishments destroyed by governmental acquisition of real property. (BDR 28- 1223) Chairman Bache stated attachment "F" lists the proposed amendments to A.B. 532. See (Exhibit C). Ms. Buckley stated for the record these were the amendments presented at the original committee hearing. There were none added since the hearing. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 532. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Bache asked Ms. Buckley to introduce it on the floor. Subcommittee Reports A.B. 444 and A.B. 506 - Ms. Krenzer stated the subcommittee had met and reached compromises with Ms. Buckley, the home owners, and the banking industry in Clark county. These compromises have caused changes in the bill, but Ms. Buckley believes the integrity of the bill is maintained. The subcommittee recommends Amend and Do Pass. The proposals are set forth in (Exhibit H). They are clarifications of questions raised. Mr. Bennett asked how the one hundred ten percent medium income level was arrived at. Ms. Krenzer replied this was believed to accomplish the goal which was to keep the housing projects around one hundred thousand to one hundred ten thousand. It was determined that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development standards at one hundred and ten percent of medium income sets a criteria which everyone can be agreed upon. Ms. Buckley went through the amendments of A.B. 444. Mr. Bennett stated there still needs to be some fine tuning. He stated there was a conflicting definition on page two lines 31-33. Ms. Buckley stated it should read "deletes line 31-33". ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 444 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. There was a discussion held. Mr. Harrington stated he was concerned about the mandates and restrictions of local governments and their freedom of action. He stated he liked parts of the bill, but is also concerned about the zoning changes and having zoning costs waived. He sees this as a potential problem for existing neighborhoods, so he would be voting against the bill. Ms. Krenzer reiterated having heard the testimony, there are some complexities in the bill, however, local government had no objection, and so did the homebuilders. As far as the waivers, she sees it as a step forward and will be happy to see it implemented. The offset of the waivers enables them to produce housing that is attractive and in compliance at an affordable price. She feels it is a positive step forward and a well crafted compromise. Mr. Nolan asked by including manufactured and modular homes are we talking about mobile homes. Ms. Buckley stated they were modular in style instead of trailer like. Mr. Nolan stated between the two bills, within the master plan to designate this site for low income housing, does this permit for the county or city to zone it off the master plan. Ms. Buckley replied under her bills, it prevents that from happening. The master plan must designate characteristics of land that would be good for affordable housing and zoning to insure affordable housing is built. A.B. 444 says you cannot discriminate just because it is affordable housing. Mrs. Lambert stated she thought A.B. 444 is a good bill if it did not have section 4. It takes too much discretion off the local government hands to respond to their constituents. Ms. Segerblom testified she agreed with Mrs. Krenzer, they sat through a great deal of testimony and this was in agreement with everyone. She said she would like to see this body be a little more sympathetic to people less fortunate. Mrs. Braunlin asked who the local governments were that supported section 4. Mrs. Krenzer said the "supports" came in the fact that there was no opposition. There seemed to be some disagreement as to clarification in section 4. She then referred them to subsection 4 of section 4. "... nothing in this section prohibits a governing body from; requiring a residential development to comply and posting fees and other payments..." It was thought that this section clarified the intent of section 4 and it really is not prohibitive. She commented the City of Reno and Sparks had some concerns of section 4 and the clarification of the language. Renny Ashleman, Southern Nevada Homebuilders, met with some of the local bodies of government and during these discussions some had overlooked subsection 4 of section 4, particularly "a". One of the local government representatives from the planning and zoning sector, proposed that we put that language in, and he stated the opposition then diminished. They asked for any further amendments from local government and to his knowledge none were submitted. Mrs. Lambert stated she feels the language in section 4 is unclear, she does not feel that every local government that makes planning decisions in this state is made up of "racists". She said she is unsure what this language would do, it would appear to tie their hands and she is not sure of the ramifications. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. LAMBERT, MRS. BRAUNLIN AND MR. HARRINGTON VOTING NO. Mrs. Krenzer went through the amendments for A.B. 506. See (Exhibit I). Ms. Buckley stated there were some additions to the original bill, on page three. They moved that section from page three and inserted it under the housing element on page two, section five, lines 43-45 to combine them. This was so a local governing body could consider all housing, not only affordable housing. She stated the governments and private sector supported this. Mrs. Krenzer concluded going through the amendments. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 506 ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Harrington asked Ms. Buckley to explain why she feels this will allow for planning and not require zoning changes throughout the areas and interrupting neighborhoods. Ms. Buckley replied the reason is the zoning regulations still have to be in place in the master plan scheme. The master plan scheme requires a plan for affordable housing and that zoning regulations be adopted to provide for affordable housing being built. Once this is in place the neighborhood has two chances to give their input instead of just one, because the master plan process tends to be a little vague and removed and people do not get involved until they really find out what is happening. This will help the planning process by giving them two opportunities. The protections are still there, and if a governing body does not want to approve a project because it is affordable housing, they will not be permitted to unless they have a stated reason in writing. She reiterated there is no opposition from the governing bodies to the private sector. Mr. Harrington inquired to make sure there is no intent to take existing neighborhoods and force on them things they would not want. Ms. Buckley replied "absolutely not," that would not work. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Bache asked Ms. Buckley to introduce A.B. 444 and A.B. 506 on the floor. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 483- Broadens purposes and alternatives for expending public money. (BDR 20-1638) Ms. Buckley asked the committee to reconsider its Indefinite Postpone motion on A.B. 483. She brought forth much "tighter" language to reflect the original intent of the bill. She then asked for reconsideration of A.B. 483. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO RESCIND ACTION ON THE INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF A.B. 483. ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Bache asked Ms. Buckley to address the committee with the new amendments to A.B. 483. Ms. Buckley stated this would say a board of county commissioners may loan money, received from the federal government, to a private organization to be extended for the specified purpose and the applicable federal legislation. Clark County asked her originally to bring this bill forward. Clark County recently received "enterprise" designation from the federal government which allows them to lend some "micro enterprise" business loans and other loans. They can also loan money under different programs. The names change every year, which is why it is listed as " federal government" and "applicable federal legislation." They are a facilitator only, they are not liable for any failure to repay the debt. This new amendment clearly defines what the intent was. See (Exhibit J). Mr. Nolan stated even though the counties are not responsible for the debt, are they responsible in any way for assuring, approving or qualifying the individuals to whom they loan the money on behalf of the federal government. Ms. Buckley stated it is different under each program. It is all governed by federal regulations, so they have to meet certain criteria under federal law, and there is no discretion on the county as long as those guidelines are met. Mr. Bennett asked about the use of the word "loan" as a verb in the paragraph. Since this is federal monies going to or through the county commission to a private organization should the private organizations be tightened up to 501 C organizations. Ms. Buckley responded the way she understands the Enterprise Federal Legislation they do not have to be non-profit, they can be a group of public house tenants. This is to try and stimulate free enterprise and entrepreneurship in distressed neighborhoods. Mr. Bennett asked for clarification of the "loan." Ms. Buckely stated as far as she understands it, the federal government gives the money to the county, and the county then gives it to the appropriate agency. The county does need the ability to loan it. It is all prescribed by the specified purpose and the applicable federal legislation. Mr. Bennett questioned Ms. Buckley as to who was the receiver of the "pay back." Ms. Buckley responded it goes back to the county and then back to the federal government. The county is only the facilitator, they do not keep anything. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B.438 ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Bache asked Mrs. Freeman to give her subcommittee report on A.B. 401, 402 and 408. Ms. Freeman stated they recommend to the committee that A.B. 401 and A.B. 402 be indefinitely postponed. There was simply not enough support to proceed with those. In regard to A.B. 408 they would amend the bill and remove all the current language, and would ask for an interim study of the public records laws. They will work with Ande Engleman on these. This bill will have to compete with others before Elections and Procedures before it will be allowed to go to an interim study. She then went through the handout. See (Exhibit K). Ms. Freeman asked that it be included in the bill draft, that when the Legislative Commission makes the appointments to the studies, that it be the same members who will hopefully be there the next session so there will be continuity. Chairman Bache asked if that would mean there would be members from both Assembly Government Affairs and Senate Government Affairs. Ms. Freeman replied "not necessarily," the point is when the Legislative Commission makes the appointments, they make the best effort to appoint people who have been on the study committee. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 401 ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Freeman stated Guy Rocha was the principal person who spoke on this bill, and they met with Joan Kerschner who felt there is a bill before Ways and Means for funding for archives which would be helpful. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 402 ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Freeman stated it was impossible to pass one bill without the others. In regard to A.B. 408, all the recommendations included in A.B. 402 will be included to that bill. Ms. Denice Miller stated if all those things are included to A.B. 408 there will be a fiscal impact. She is prohibited by law to speak in favor or in opposition to the bill and her remarks should not be construed as such. She stated there are hundreds of statutory exemptions, there are some exemptions in regulations. If it is the intent to review each individually, there will have to be many meetings, which would entail legislative salaries, per diem, full time staff person, and additional clerical help assigned to the study. She stated it could be crafted as such, to say the study should attempt to set some guidelines for what areas of the study the committee should focus on. If you include all of these, there would be a significant fiscal impact. Ms. Krenzer stated there is a need to keep this, but consider the parameters of cost. Ms. Freeman agreed, certainly the study had the first priority. Once again they are faced with an issue and not sure how to face it. She asked for direction from the committee. Mrs. Lambert spoke stating it was her understanding state agencies do not have a written policy on what records are open and what are not, which allows them to appear to be arbitrary in their decisions. She asked if they looked into the fiscal cost or ramifications of a Resolution to urge all state agencies to put their policy in writing. Ms. Freeman replied it was a good idea and might be a good place to start. Mrs. Krenzer recalled it was suggested they have written procedures from all the agencies. Some have them but have developed them on their own. She said it could be simplified if they just said "a study of statutory exemptions." This purpose is to find what the existing laws are, and they have to know this before moving forward. While there is a cost involved she does not see any way around it and feels they need to stick with finding what the exemptions are and why. Mrs. Braunlin stated during the last subcommittee meeting she did make the suggestion and recommendation to see all state agencies, boards and commissions and all local governments put in writing what they are currently doing. She feels very strongly as to this being put in writing what the public has the right to see and what not to see. She would like to encourage A.B. 408 as a vehicle to require all of these entities put, submit and post what their current policy is for public records and access to those records. Mr. Bennett stated there has been controversy as to whether or not there should be a master procedure for all state agencies to follow for access to public records versus each individual agency having a written procedure that would best fit the workings of its department. There needs to be a specific outline for the public and employees to follow to get this information. He prefers each agency having its own procedure and have it approved by the State Department of Administration. Mr. Nolan commented there are so many aspects to the bill, it was wise to ask it be sent to study. He supports the recommendation to the interim study. Chairman Bache suggested they discuss this bill in further detail at a later time. Chairman Bache asked the committee to consider A.B. 586. Assemblyman Braunlin and Freeman asked the committee to wait so they would have more time to review this. ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 586. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bache stated the bill provides equal representation to the various groups who serve on the committee on benefits. Mrs. Krenzer disclosed she works for Sierra Health Services, and she will be abstaining from the vote. Ms. Freeman will abstain vote. Mrs. Braunlin will abstain vote. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLY KRENZER, FREEMAN AND BRAUNLIN ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. Seeing no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Kelly Liston, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs May 26, 1995 Page