MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 19, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:08 a.m., on Monday, June 19, 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 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 COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mrs. Marcia de Braga GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Morse Arberry Assemblyman Mark Manendo STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Seale, State Treasurer; David Frazza, Nevada Apartment Owners Association; Joseph Guild, Nevada Mobile Home Park Owners Association; Marshall Schultz, Nevada Manufactured Home Owners; Irene Porter, Nevada Home Builders Association; Toni Thomas, Nevada Association of Manufactured Home Owners; Kris Jensen, Nevada Concerned Citizens; Rita Hambleton, AARP While waiting for Assemblyman Arberry, Chairman Bache indicated the committee would look at a proposed amendment to A.B. 559 (Exhibit C). ASSEMBLY BILL 559 - Prohibits certain deed restrictions which prohibit displaying flags or political signs. (BDR 22-1385) Chairman Bache said section one, line three would add the word "unreasonably" before restrict and a new paragraph would be added to section one after line nine stating "Any deed restriction that does not comply with the requirements of this section is void." ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 559. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 725- Revises limitations on other employment for certain unclassified employees of department of business and industry. (BDR 18-1732) Assemblyman Morse Arberry, sponsor of the bill, spoke in support of the measure. He said the law allows temporary and part-time teaching duties on the University of Nevada, Reno campus only. There are many other part-time jobs that are generally less stressful than teaching that employees wish to pursue. This measure would enable unclassified employees to work in those positions and work in the private sector if financially necessary. This bill is not intended to allow unclassified employees more flexibility with respect to outside employment. Their primary duties are to the department and to the state. The bill does not change that responsibility. Mr. Arberry claimed the reason this bill was introduced was to allow Patricia Jarman of the boxing commission to retain her seat on the commission and be allowed the time to judge fights. As the only female on the boxing/judging circuit, this would be a way to keep her on the commission and yet allow her to pursue other related interests. Assemblyman Ernaut questioned why this specific piece of legislation was needed, dealing only with the Department of Business and Industry and allowing a large loophole for minor interest groups. He did not understand why this was necessary. Mr. Arberry told him the bill drafters and Mrs. Jarman worked on the language of the bill. He had no problems with opening up the scope of the bill to include the whole sector of unclassified employees. The main thing Mr. Arberry asked was the limitation of the provision to division chiefs or department heads only, not everyone. Assemblyman Harrington related his experience in holding down more than one job and was concerned about the diminished energy levels and productivity of such individuals. He was also concerned about the potential for conflict of interest issues to arise in view of the fact that they may be involved with other industries they have some influence over. Mr. Arberry agreed with Mr. Harrington's concerns. He had no objections to the committee tidying up the bill. He wanted to maintain certain parameters within the measure but at the same time wanted to ensure the Director would have the authority to regulate and define those parameters. He did not think the law enacted in 1972 was fair and this would resolve some of the problems caused by that legislation. Assemblyman Lambert mentioned Mr. Arberry's bill applied to division chiefs, now it seems to be applicable to assistant chiefs and assistant administrators. Mrs. Lambert assumed Mrs. Jarman was a division chief. Yes, Mr. Arberry answered. This applies to employees as they are currently classified. Mr. Arberry assumed the bill drafter had taken all of these factors into account. Mrs. Lambert remarked those who work in the Governor's Office cannot even hold a teaching job. She assumed unclassified employees in state service could not hold another job of any sort. Mr. Arberry was under the impression it was a broad spectrum bill. Currently, unclassified employees cannot hold any other jobs besides teaching positions. This would help the division chiefs who are being singled out. Mrs. Lambert reiterated the bill also mentions assistant chiefs and assistant administrators. Mr. Arberry said if the bill outlines them also then they should be included. Assemblyman Tripple indicated she was associated with the University as a former Dean. She related some professors were not able to obtain outside employment while others, for example medical students, had to hold down two jobs to survive and pay for their education. Ms. Tripple queried if this bill would affect the University employees, especially the professors. No, it would not affect the University employees unless they were specifically written into the bill. This would only affect the Department of Business and Industry employees as it is currently written, Mr. Arberry stated, but he wanted to see it expanded to include other departments as well. Ms. Tripple asked if it were extended to all other departments, would it include the University? Mr. Arberry said he thought the bill would have to specifically name the University in order for them to be included under the measure's provisions. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 725. ASSEMBLY BILL 726 - Directs state treasurer to use inactive deposits to promote loans to certain enterprises. (BDR 31-394) Assemblyman Arberry spoke on behalf of A.B. 726. The bill would require half of the state inactive deposits made to financial institutions to be used for qualifying loans on favorable terms to businesses owned by women or persons of African American or American Indian or Hispanic origin. As it stands right now, the state does maintain a certain amount of funds in an inactive deposit and the funds that are not used for immediate cash flow needs are deposited in banks, savings and loan institutions and credit unions. The instruments obtained are certificates of deposit. The bill would require the State Treasurer to make at least half of the money in these inactive deposits available for the purchase of the certificates of deposit from those institutions which make qualifying loans to women and minorities. While the state would continue to earn interest on this money, it would also promote favorable lending to women and minority-owned businesses. Mr. Arberry said the bill was brought to them by a gentleman from Washington State where this bill had been enacted and was achieving success. Mrs. Lambert said there were a lot of Asians and Pacific Islanders in her district and she wondered if there was any reason they were left off the bill. Mr. Arberry indicated they could be amended into the measure. Assemblyman Segerblom questioned if this would be state money deposited in the banking institutions to be used for these loans. Mr. Arberry answered it would be state money. The Treasurer is already doing this, but the bill is a mechanism for the State Treasurer to obtain assistance. Mr. Arberry noted there were monies put into the fund by the Veteran's Home and the bill would have to be cleaned up so it would not affect groups such as the Veteran's Home. Ms. Tripple queried whether the State Treasurer would administer this program to ensure repayments and so forth. Mr. Arberry informed her the State Treasurer's Office would have to address that issue; he did not think the bill did. It is also a lot of work, interjected Ms. Tripple. Mr. Arberry said it depends on how many people in small businesses apply. He thought it would be a joint venture between the State Treasurer and the lending institutions, depending on how their finances and how their computer systems were networked. Mr. Arberry said if it was working in another state, he was pretty sure it would work here. Mr. Ernaut drew Ms. Tripple's attention to subsection two, section one where it discussed her concern with the Treasurer. Mr. Neighbors asked how long Washington State had been involved in this plan and was there any record of their losses. Mr. Arberry understood the program to be working for about eight years. He could not relate the pros and cons of the program. He would attempt to gather some more information for Mr. Neighbors. Bob Seale, Nevada State Treasurer, provided information on A.B. 726. His job is to invest the state's money as prudently and safely as possible, with adequate liquidity and the highest yield possible. Mr. Seale said it was the committee's prerogative to write legislation that further directs the policy for Nevada's investments. This particular legislation is worthy of consideration. The program that this is actually known as is called "linked deposits". Linked deposits is a mechanism for utilizing money in the state in such a way that it benefits minorities or other disadvantaged groups. The basic concept is the State Treasurer would take "X" number amount of dollars, put it in an institution and tell them what to do with that money. To give them an incentive to do that, they shave off some part of the interest the state is willing to pay. The bill suggests 2% or 200 basis points on a certain sum of money. There would be less interest earned on behalf of the state on those monies. The decision that has to be made is whether the benefit is worth the cost. Linked deposits are done in 15-20 states and have been done successfully. The risk of loss of principle is minimal because the lending institution would be responsible to issue the loan and to collect the principle and return it to the state. As of this morning, Mr. Seale stated, of the kinds of deposits listed in this bill, there is approximately $13,600,000 in this fund. If the calculation is made between today's interest rate and what would be received after 200 basis points were shaved off, the cost of the program would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 a year. Mr. Seale said the linked deposit program, while it is not specifically addressed here, is the core of the program and there is a whole body of language used in other states to address that. Mr. Seale told the committee it was up to them to decide whether or not that $200,000 is worth having the program. One of the problems, however, is that the money would be tied up in certificates of deposits (CD's) that are six months long. If Mr. Seale deposited $7,000,000, for example, and the certificate matures and he is uncomfortable with the bank or savings and loan, can he pull that CD? He did not think so. What if the rates go down on the CD while the loan is in place? Mr. Seale indicated he would have to take more loss. The bill does not address these two issues. Mr. Seale did say the bill gave him the authority to write regulations so perhaps these problems could be addressed in that manner. Mr. Ernaut agreed with the policy decision as to whether the risk would be worth the return. He felt banks would line up for this program to reap the beneficial interest rates. Mr. Seale replied to the extent the banks participate in this program, the state would be clearly forcing them to pass the savings along. The 200 basis points pass to the borrower of the money, not to the bank. Surely, it would be beneficial to the bank, but it would also be quite limited because of the amount of available funding. He did not think the banks would line up for such a small program. Mr. Ernaut questioned what limited the funds to 13.6 million dollars. Mr. Seale indicated therein lies the problem; he invests in local CD's as he can, but unfortunately, Nevada does not have a lot of banks and he can only purchase a limited amount of that type of instrument. The number is a volatile number because of the short length of investment time. Mr. Ernaut asked what qualifies as an inactive deposit. Mr. Seale responded generally, it would be a certificate of deposit (CD). Mr. Ernaut said what about bonds and annuities? Mr. Seale told him they did not have any annuities and the bonds were looked at as active investments which turn over on a frequent basis. When a CD was invested in, Mr. Seale remarked, it usually stays there for a rather significant amount of time. He puts it there without the intent of pulling it. That has to be collateralized to insure, so in many banks the limit is $100,000 because that is the FBI insurance limit. In other banks, Mr. Seale explained, he could go greater, but that would come due in two months. He wanted to see a more definitive number, rather than a flexible number because he would be afraid he could step on it if that number were to change rapidly. Mr. Bennett questioned if the 2% shaving of interest was a normal procedure for this type of deposit. Mr. Seale replied the linked deposit program will not work if the shaving was 1%. It has gone as high as 3% in some states which is a significant amount of money. A cost benefit analysis has yet to be done to determine the ultimate value of the program. Mrs. Lambert did not see anything in the bill to limit it to Nevada banks or Nevada businesses. Mr. Seale indicated as a matter of policy, the vast majority of the CD's he purchased were in Nevada. The reason for this is because in almost all circumstances, he did not get as good a rate on a CD as on other types of investments. Again, he stated, it was a matter of policy. Mr. Neighbors asked if Mr. Seale knew of any states where this program had not worked. Mr. Seale replied he did not know of any where it did not work. He had checked and found several states where the program is very successful. It was more difficult to make a linked deposit program work in a small state due to less critical mass; that is not to say it could not or would not work. He thought the concept was great, but implementation was another story. He has been conferring with the Departments of Commerce and Business and Industry on the linked deposit program. As Mr. Seale previously stated, although most other programs have more language and thorough definitions, this one would work. Mr. Neighbors questioned whether there was a time limit on Mr. Seale's investments. Mr. Seale responded the statutes limit his investments to ten years, maximum. He would argue on the stability of interest rates. They have been incredibly volatile, and have moved the maturity of his portfolio from five hundred days to three hundred days due to the volatility in the interest rate environment. Mr. Neighbors stated it sounds as if it were heading back down. Chairman Bache commented he liked the concept of this, but has a problem with the way it was worded. To give more flexibility, rewording number one, deleting from"....shall utilize.." to "the state treasurer "may utilize" and have the amount allocated by the State Board of Finance for inactive deposits by depositing in banks, credit unions, etc..." He asked Mr. Seale if this would give him the necessary flexibility to do what is needed and would it be possible for him to adopt regulations or does he have the power to do this. Mr. Seale remarked he was being put in an awkward position. The goals of this program are diametrically opposed to what it is he does as treasurer. This program suggests that it is good for the citizens of the state of Nevada to have such a program. The other side of this is he is invested with the responsibility of making the safest investments with an adequate amount of liquidity at the highest rate he can. The program suggests that the treasurer be given some definitive parameters, and flexibility. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 726. SENATE BILL NO. 545- Prohibits local governments from adopting ordinances limiting rental rates for private residential property. (BDR 20-1819) Joe Guild, representing the Nevada Mobile Home Park Owners Association, spoke in support of S.B. 545. He listed a number of organizations that support the bill. There was no opposition to this bill when heard in the Senate Government Affairs hearing. S.B. 545 would prohibit local government from passing residential rent control ordinances. The bill is very simple. Each section refers to a chapter of the Nevada Revised Statutes dealing with particular local government. Each section prohibits a board of county commissioners, a city, a governing body of a town, from passing rent control ordinances. Section four of the bill puts forth the effective date and other provisions. He expressed what he thought the opposition to this bill was. This was rent control being supported. If mobil home and apartment rents are too high, local government should have the power to pass rent control ordinances, or the Attorney General Opinion is correct. (Exhibit D). Everyone of the points stated in opposition is completely off the mark. These have no relevance to the point of this bill. The point of the bill is to correct a problem which exists in the state of Nevada as a result of the Attorney General Opinion, 92- 1. He pointed out on page two of the opinion there was reference made to two sections of the NRS statutes. The first is to NRS 244.335, sub. 1. This is the section in the NRS which says that a board of county commissioners can regulate business, trades, callings, industries, professions, etc. The second reference to the statute is at the bottom of the page, NRS 244.357 which says that the board of county commissioners can enact and enforce local police and sanitary ordinances not in conflict with the general laws and regulations of the state of Nevada. This is the basis upon which these statutory references are upon which the attorney general concludes in his opinion that Clark County has the authority to enact a rental control ordinance for mobile home parks. In 1992, based upon this opinion, the Clark County commission considered such an ordinance. The ordinance was defeated. No city or county has rent control. He maintained this opinion is wrong. It is based upon an erroneous interpretation of these two statutes, it relies heavily upon an interpretation of California's constitutional scheme, which grants local government "home rule", and thereby enables local governments in California to pass rent control ordinances and the fact is, many have passed these ordinances. In concluding thus, relying upon the California constitutional scheme, and the cases interpreting that scheme, the attorney general opinion in Nevada "clouds" the atmosphere. He stated there is an untidiness in the law which is very significant as a result of this opinion. He gave the committee a copy of the Law Review article written in 1992, (Exhibit E), which rebuts and disagrees with the attorney general's opinion. He felt is was very important to have a rebuttal to the conclusion of the attorney general opinion, because there could be a county or city which would be misled by the opinion. He stated he had phone calls from people telling him they were glad this article was published, because it clarified the atmosphere. They agreed with his conclusion that the attorney general was wrong and that Nevada counties do not have the authority to pass rent control ordinances. He believes that S.B. 545 will solve this problem. He commented at the Senate hearing, Frank Dacon, former legislative counsel, testified in favor of S.B. 545. He testified that NRS 244.357 refers to ordinances such as sanitary ordinances. The attorney general makes a conclusion that this is a broad grant of "police power" in the statutes and therefore the counties can pass rent control ordinances based on NRS 244.357 and NRS 244.335 which allows county commissions to regulate all character of businesses, etc. NRS 244.357 is not a broad grant of police power as the attorney general opinion would have everyone believe. It is simply referring to traffic and sanitary ordinances and the like. His conclusion of NRS 244.335 is that since in Nevada, not a "home rule" state, and the relevant case Lamb vs. Mirin, the attorney general opinion is wrong again. After his opinion was published, the Reno City Council asked their lawyer Madelyn Shipman, whether or not this opinion granted them the "home rule" authority to pass rent control ordinances. Her response to the council and the Senate, was that "no" the city did not have that authority and the attorney general opinion was wrong. Mr. Guild stated there was a statute in 1989 that was repealed. This was NRS 118B.250. That statute created a local board of grievances to hear mobile home park complaints. At a request of the tenants, this was repealed. It was the only time the legislature had given local government local control over this issue of mobile home park regulation, grievances and landlord/tenant relations. The legislative intent has always been to keep the control of these issues at the legislative level and not locally. He stated the precedent has been set by other states where they have pre-empted local governments from passing rent control ordinances. (Exhibit F). He pointed out the committee now has the opportunity by passing S.B. 545 to clean up this issue. Mr. Bennett asked if S.B. 545 would pose a conflict with A.B. 287; which specified the cost of converting from a master water meter to individual water systems could not be passed on in the form of a fee or rent increase to the mobile home owners. Mr. Guild replied it would not conflict with the bill relating to water meters. The only thing it entails is prohibiting local government from passing rent control ordinances. This bill would not provide a conflict with the water laws. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the attorney general's opinion had been challenged. Mr. Guild replied it was challenged in the testimony he gave to the Clark County Commission when it considered its rent control ordinance. He mentioned it has never been challenged in court because the issue has never arisen. David Frazza, Executive Director of the Nevada Apartment Association, testified in favor of S.B. 545. He gave the committee a handout, (Exhibit G). He talked about the economics of providing affordable housing. He explained approximately seventy percent of residents who move into Clark County seek an apartment first. Because of the attractiveness of Nevada, there is a decrease within the last four months in occupancies of apartments. He pointed out on page three the market adjusts and rents decrease on an average of seven dollars and seven cents. There are twenty areas in Clark County. One area did not increase in rents at all. The rest increased one dollar and eighty cents. He commented there is a de-fluctuation. Because of numerous areas, there is a wide discrepancy in what happens in each area. There is also the fact that there is not rent control, or the fear of rent control. He commented as apartments get older, investors will go in and remodel. There will be at that time an adjustment in rents. This allows them to get a great deal of return on the property. He mentioned in the past three years there has been an enormous fluctuation of out of state developers and investors from Texas, Florida, the Midwest and California. Up until five years ago, all the development was strictly from Nevada. Projections of twenty-five thousand to fifty thousand new employees are foreseen by 1997. There will be needed a great deal of housing and apartments to take of this. It will only be built to insure the affordable housing if it remains an attractive state to develop and invest in. Mr. Williams asked what is the advantage of putting this bill in place opposed to rent justification. Part of testimony was rent increases due to certain factors. Rent justification sponsors have indicated that they do not oppose increases if there is justification as to why the increases occur. They have indicated they are somewhat opposed to this type of avenue because they are being "locked in" to a situation. Mr. Frazza replied the main point of S.B. 545 is to insure that there is not an enormous cost to all the local levels across the state in trying to prevent rent control. Several hundreds of thousands were spent when this was brought up in Clark County. The battle that takes place over the argument is to whether the county or city can impose the rent control. The other problem is varied rent control. This creates a deterioration in one area and then not in another. The justification issue is very complicated. It is very confusing to justify per apartment or per complex depending upon what happened. Mr. Williams stated the proponents of justification want rent increases to be justified publicly to those who it would affect before the increases take place. It is his understanding there has been opposition in the past in reference to this. Mr. Guild replied if this bill passes, he believes it will deal with rent justification proposals. If rent has to be justified by statute or ordinance in what is being done on residential property, someone is controlling what is being done with rents. Simply using the words "rent justification" does not make what is being done become something other than rent control proposals. He insisted that "rent justification" is a euphemism for hiding what really is happening. Irene Porter, Executive Director of Nevada Home Builders Association testified in support of S.B. 545. They started this back in 1979 when this issue was brought to the legislature in regard to apartments. They "echo" the sentiments of Joe Guild. She stated many attorneys challenged the attorney general's opinion as did Mr. Guild. They believe the opinion has clouded this issue for the entire state of Nevada. This legislation is about clearing up the law of who should be handling the rent control, justification, or mediation issues. They have seen what has happened in other states where local governments had the right or not the right to impose rent control and it has created chaos in housing markets. This also affects the tenants. She stated the issue and the merits of the issue of rent control is best debated in a forum where you are looking at whole areas of the state at one time and how that issue affects those total areas, rather than an individual basis. Kris Jensen, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated this is a simple bill, it protects property rights, it represents a fair market concept. Issues with rent control place an unfunded mandate upon the property owner. They feel rent control would destroy the concept of fair market value, limit the ability to recoup losses, repair, and resale values. Fair market should be the governing principal. Joe Cain, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified they support S.B. 545. Rita Hambleton, AARP, testified their primary goal this session is to establish affordable housing. She has received numerous phone calls from citizens interpreting this bill as an open invitation to unlimited rent increases. She mentioned it is not an issue, based upon previous testimony, since no local entity has passed any rent control ordinance. The issue has been discussed in this legislature a number of times, both for mobile home owners and apartment tenants. Currently these individuals are asking for justification when rent increases are anticipated. It is for this reason she is testifying in opposition. She stated she had not testified at the Senate hearing, because she did not realize there was this much concern amongst their members. Marshall Schultz, Nevada Association Manufactured Home Owners, spoke and submitted a document to the committee, (Exhibit H). He stated he represents the Skyline Residents Association also. He commented on Mr. Guild's testimony of the statement made that there was no opposition to this bill. He wanted to make clear that he did testify in opposition to this bill. He pointed out the legislative switchboard had tallied four votes in favor and 92 votes against it on June 7, 1995. He remarked fundamentally the people in mobile home parks are not seeking rent control. He suggested that rent justification is an interesting concept but not the issue being addressed with this bill. He feels if this is a legal issue that needs to be cleared, there are other ways it could be handled besides S.B. 545. Rent control is not the issue they are addressing. Ordinances do not exist in the state for rent control. He mentioned for the fact that manufactured homes are not mobile, it is clear that tenants of these parks are captive customers. Captive customers is a term that cannot be applied to any other class of customers in the nation. If a tenant wished to move, it would be a great cost to the tenant. Proponents of S.B. 545 claim the bill supports and encourages "free enterprise" and that market forces are regulating rental rates nicely. He feels this is pure nonsense. There is no absolutely "free enterprise" any more than there is "free speech." He emphasized there are limitations to all freedoms. All enterprises are limited by some kind of requirements such as licensing or other requirements of law supporting a complex society. He insisted both of these freedoms "free enterprise" and "free speech" are critical to this state and the nation. He stated manufactured home parks enjoy a monopoly in that they are virtually full all over the state, especially in the metropolitan areas. Very few new parks are being built. If an individual wanted to move their manufactured home it would be very difficult. He stated S.B. 545 benefits only a handful of rental property owners and developers. He noted fifty percent of manufactured park owners come from out of state. That means that more than fifty percent of the profits generated go out of state. This shows no benefit to the state of Nevada. He stated the owners of these parks do not pay the taxes, the tenants do. This is just another expense built into the rental rate. He asked the committee why is this bill being proposed and so much legislative time and money being spent. He answered his own question saying .."could it be rental property owners are seeking to ensure their unique privilege, power and profit. He pointed out this bill is also going to cause problems with ACR 38. He clarified the manufactured home owners are not asking for a handout, what they ask costs the government nothing, and does not further burden taxpayers. They ask that laws preserving special privilege not be passed. They ask that laws prohibiting limitations on profits and non competitive industries not be passed. All they ask for is a level playing field. Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District 18, testified before the committee and felt compelled to speak about this legislation. He stated there are times when the states should mind their own business and let the counties do what they are supposed to do. That may include adopting ordinances. If they want to make this a rent control and rent justification issue, then he must have read the wrong bill. He sees that no board of county commissioners may adopt an ordinance, resolution, etc. He stated a few of the members who testified before the committee in favor of this bill, are the same who testified before the commerce committee that had to do with the state telling the counties what to do with certain placement of mobile home parks and homes. Their argument was it was up to the counties and the state should not be involved. He stated he is confused and is seeing a conflict on who should get involved and with what. He wonders if this bill is not an abuse of power, because it is controlling someone else's jurisdiction. Toni Thomas, on behalf of Jeannie Deeg, President of the Nevada Association of Manufactured Homeowners, testified. She then read her testimony. (Exhibit I) Ms. Thomas is the Treasurer and office Manager of Nevada Association of Manufactured Homeowners. She then read her testimony to the committee. (Exhibit J). Mr. Williams stated there was testimony today that there was no differentiating factors with rent control/justification. Ms. Thomas replied she disagreed. Justification says "we understand and accept the fact the property owner has cost increases, expenses and accordingly needs to raise those lot rents." All those renters want to know are what the increases are for. If it is a justified increase, they will pay it. The people want explanation and not just a notice. They want a board to hear it. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 545. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:56 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Kelly L. Liston, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Government Affairs June 19, 1995 Page