MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 30, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, June 30, 1995, Chairman Lambert presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Marvin Leavitt; City of Las Vegas, Kathy McClain; Clark County, Brian Herr; Nevada Bell, Mary Walker; Carson City, Stan Olsen; Las Vegas Metro Police Department. SENATE BILL NO. 568- Makes various changes concerning fees charged by cities and counties to public utilities. (BDR 31-2044) Chairman Lambert turned the gavel over to Mrs. Braunlin due to a conflict. Brian Herr, Nevada Bell, testified S.B. 568 addresses business license fees, franchise fees, and right of way fees, assessed by local governments on gas, electric, and telecommunications industries. S.B. 568 does not deal with water providers, it does not impact a two percent net that is paid by utilities to schools, and it does not affect the cable industry unless they become a certificated provider of telecommunications services. S.B. 568 is needed to bring equity to these fee assessments as competition increases in both power and telecommunications industries. This legislation will replace today's fee structures, which were established over 30 years ago when these industries were monopolies. S.B. 568 does three basic things. It insures that the providers of gas, electric, and telephone service, pay the same fees as their competitors. It brings stability and predictability to the revenues generated by the fees. It also establishes numerous safeguards. It limits the revenues subject to the fees, it establishes an overall fee cap of five percent. It limits the increases in the fees to one percent in twenty four months and maintains the requirement that local ordinances are required to establish or increase any of these fees. He pointed out this legislation is a product of over a year's worth of work between the utility industry and local governments. The legislation is supported by the following groups: Nevada Bell, Sprint Central Telephone, AT&T, MCI, Cellular One, Air Touch, Sprint Cellular, Nevada Power, Southwest Gas, Sierra Pacific Resources, The Nevada Telephone Association, Carson City, Reno, Sparks, Washoe County, Las Vegas, Clark County, The Nevada Association of Counties, The Nevada League of Cities, as well as Prime Cable and the State Cable Association. He stated they presented the same testimony to the Senate and there was no opposition. Mary Walker, Director of Finance and Redevelopment for Carson City, testified that this is a true public/private partnership. They have worked together over a year with the utilities to come out with this bill. They feel it is very model legislation. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 568. ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. LAMBERT ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. SENATE BILL NO. 542- Provides for collecting delinquent charges for sewerage on general tax roll. (BDR 21-684) Marvin Leavitt, City of Las Vegas, testified this bill extends to cities and counties a mechanism that allows districts under the provisions of NRS Chapter 318. It essentially allows delinquent sewer charges to be billed through the property tax system. He then gave the Clark County Sanitation District as an example. The bill was originally prepared to extend this provision to cities. The Washoe County Treasurer asked it be extended to counties. This caused an amendment to be put out on the Senate side extending the provision to counties. Sewer charges are now liened against the property. He stated at times these will not get paid for many years until finally the property is sold or changes hands. When there are high delinquencies, cash is not available, and the rates go higher. This bill would provide a system wherein they go through the property tax system. The treasurer in Clark County is already set up for it. Mr. Neighbors asked if the company penalties are different from tax penalty liens. Mr. Leavitt replied there is a penalty that attaches to the sewer charge as it becomes delinquent. This is then attached at the time it enters on to the tax roll. Mr. Neighbors asked if it would compound as time goes on. Mr. Leavitt replied it compounds if it is unpaid in relation to the normal tax mechanism. The county would receive that penalty the same as they do for any other penalties that relate to property taxes. Mr. Bennett asked about section two, permissive population. Was this done, instead of removing the population cap on current law. Mr. Leavitt replied the language put in there is because in Clark County, the sanitation district is organized under NRS Chapter 318. They use those provisions in Chapter 318 and they do not need legislation that applies to them as a county, because they do not operate under "a county" under the provisions of NRS Chapter 244. Ms. Tripple asked why we need this bill. Mr. Leavitt replied the Clark County Sanitation District, which is the organization that handles the sewage outside of the cities, is organized under Chapter 318 as a special district. They do not operate under the provisions of county law. Other counties operate directly as a county and the provision is not available to them or any of the cities. Ms. Tripple stated they provided a pilot study to show it works, and now other people want to join. Mr. Leavitt responded he did not think anyone realized until recently, that the provision was being used in NRS Chapter 318. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 542. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATE BILL NO. 388- Authorizes adoption of ordinance to provide expedient means to secure dangerous condition on private property under certain circumstances. (BDR 20-723) Kathy McClain, Clark County, testified S.B. 388 is an attempt to abate dangerous conditions of property. NRS Chapter 244 has provisions in it when property is abandoned, that the county is allowed to go in and take care of the nuisance. There are several public hearings, and notification processes which become very lengthy. On occasion there are dangerous structures that need to be taken care of in a matter of hours for the safety of the public. This would allow them to establish an ordinance that will basically say that a minimum of three people need to assess the property and then can make the determination as to whether it is a dangerous condition and be allowed to secure it within 24 hours and then go through the rest of the process. Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department gave numerous examples of how dangerous conditions can become for abandoned buildings. Mrs. Lambert stated she was confused, it was not the structure's fault. Kathy McClain, stated this was true. They are trying to change the process by which they can abate the nuisances. They need to be able to do it in a shorter period of time. On occasions, it is out of state mortgage companies that own property, and there are hearings and notifications that must be made and until those are done, the property cannot be touched. This would allow the property to be abated immediately and then notify everyone involved. Mrs. Freeman asked for an example of the structures and are they prevalent to certain areas of town. Ms. McClain replied it is usually residences, such as rentals with an out of state owner. Usually the way they find out about the properties are complaints from neighbors. Stan Olsen, LVMP, interrupted to say they have incidents where half of an apartment complex is not rented and goes into complete disrepair. It is then used as a safe haven for criminal activity. Mrs. Freeman asked if these were by and large out of state owners. Stan Olsen replied the majority of them are out of state owners. Mr. Neighbors commented on a situation wherein there was a subdivision that had no building codes and he gave an example of properties going bad. Mrs. Segerblom asked if the bill would mean they would remove the structure or just board it up. Ms. McClain replied this is an attempt to immediately abate the nuisance. This would mean boarding it up, or fencing it off so that no one would be in danger. Ms. Tripple asked if they are destroying the structure because of the activity going on within it. Ms. McClain responded they have to have three people to go in and assess the property. They have a very strict criteria which they must follow. It must be an imminent danger to the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Tripple asked if "abate" meant tearing down. Ms. McClain replied no, it would be either boarding it up or fencing it off. Stan Olsen interrupted to give an example. San Diego city has a program called "Smart Teams." It is made up of police, fire, code inspectors, health inspectors. They go into areas to assess the damage to buildings. To abate, they immediately board it up and automatically charge back to the owner of the property the action taken. They will fence it in order to reduce the danger. Ms. Tripple asked if the owner still has their property. Mr. Olsen replied "correct." This allows them to put barriers up to stop dangers and criminal activity until the rest of the process can be handled. Mr. Harrington gave an example of property in his district with this problem. He thought this would be a very good bill. Mrs. Braunlin testified that twenty four hours was not a very long time. What would happen if the owners of the property were not contacted within the twenty four hour period. Ms. McClain replied after the twenty four hour period they could go in and abate the property. This is basically a courtesy notice. Chairman Lambert stated that if the problem has existed for at least thirty days and not more than forty action can be taken upon notification. Stan Olsen reiterated their goal is to do as quickly as possible stop or reduce the danger that exists because of it. The thirty day court process it takes before action can be taken allows endangerment to individuals. Chairman Lambert asked if this is a companion to the other law. Stan Olsen stated "yes" and this would also allow an individual to bring the property up to code. Mr. Bache said if there are criminal activities going on, that under those circumstances the place could be secured under a crime scene. Stan Olsen replied the police can declare an area a crime scene for as long as they need to process that crime scene. Once the need for the gathering and preservation of evidence is done, it is then released. Mr. Bache stated he thought under the "Rico" statutes, if it is a drug dealing situation, it could be secured for an indefinite period of time. Stan Olsen said the problem with the "Rico" statutes is the time it takes to put a case together and the courts to issue the proper warrants. This is not a fast moving process. If the people are using the property as a criminal haven, and do not own the property, they do not have the authority to seize the property because the owners may not be aware of it. Mrs. Freeman commented this goes far beyond the crime issue, it is a matter for public safety. The owners do have a responsibility to their neighbors and the community as a whole to keep their property at a level where it does not endanger other people who live in the area. Mr. Bennett stated more often than not, when going on to these properties you will not catch someone in the scene of a crime. There is mostly health hazards, and this would allow within twenty four hours the property to be secured and keep the criminal activity out. Stan Olsen pointed out there is an effort by police, community government, and residents to work together to address specific issues that are affecting the community. He said many neighborhoods start deteriorating just because a building has broken windows and is abandoned. This type of law would allow the city and county governments to address the issue before it drags the whole neighborhood down. Kathy McClain stated this would allow rentals with pools that have been abandoned to be fenced and locked up so that children cannot get in and become endangered. Mrs. Braunlin commented she was concerned about the twenty four hour notice, and asked if there was a procedure they were planning on using to contact the individual owners. Ms. McClain stated it would be the same way it is done now. This is either by mail, or phone. They do whatever they can do to reach them within twenty four hours. Originally they had planned to have no notice. This was a compromise. They do not intend on tearing down anything, this is only to secure it so there will no longer be any danger. Chairman Lambert then closed the hearing on S.B. 388. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 388. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. There was a discussion held. Mrs. Braunlin stated she would not support this bill due to the twenty four hour notice. She is concerned about the public safety, but she feels the bill is not outlined tightly enough under what circumstances a building would be boarded up. Mr. Bache stated he had the same concerns as Mrs. Braunlin. He stated it should be a seventy two hour period. Mr. Neighbors stated he would also be more comfortable with a seventy two hour period. This way someone could be notified and have a chance to do something about the problem. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION OF DO PASS TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 388 TO CHANGE IT TO SEVENTY TWO HOURS. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. There was a discussion. Mrs. Segerblom cannot see any damage being done in twenty four hours, she feels this is helping the owner. Mr. Neighbors stated there is still a problem with twenty four hours. There is always a possibility the owner had already made previous arrangements to have the property taken care of. Mrs. Braunlin stated she would support seventy two hours. Mr. Bennett stated he did not want to see this bill killed due to an amendment. He said these properties have been sitting for lengthy periods of time, and the owners have had plenty of time to assess the situation. He feels the twenty four hours is adequate. Mr. Bache stated the one part in S.B. 388 is in line 3 "....notwithstanding the abatement procedure set forth in NRS 244.360..." 360 outlines how the procedure is done before the property is demolished. The way he reads it, they could do this within this bill and if this was a procedure for an imminent danger before they got the 360, they could circumvent it. Mr. Harrington stated this is a reasonable compromise. There are old structures and newly discovered dangers. These are both problems. This bill would allow security to happen. Chairman Lambert stated an amendment this small should not take long and could be done easily. THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN SEGERBLOM AND TRIPPLE VOTING NO. THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Neighbors stated this committee set a legislative record on handling bills. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Kelly Liston, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Government Affairs June 30, 1995 Page