MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 13, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:08 p.m., on Monday, March 13, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas Brian Krolicki, Chief Deputy Treasurer, State of Nevada Glen Trowbridge, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation, Clark County Pamela Drum, Environmental Information Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Terry Lamuraglia, Chief Legislative Representative, Clark County Personnel Department Andrew Rubinsi, City Attorney's Office, Henderson ASSEMBLY BILL (A.B.) 53: Authorizes municipalities to issue refunding bonds for improvement districts under certain circumstances. (BDR 21-407) Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas, stated this bill originated because of two situations that occur with special improvement or special assessment districts. He said the first situation occurs when a district has been originated, assessments have been levied, and bonds have been issued. He explained the bonds which have been issued bear a certain interest rate which corresponds with the market at the time they were issued. He expressed that the market rate of interest may have declined in the several years between the time the bonds were issued and the time the district is now dealing with the bonds. He compared it with a situation where a private citizen wants to refinance his or her house. He stated under current law the bonds for special improvement would allow that situation to happen. He further explained the bonds would be refunded at a low interest rate, and the lower interest rate would be passed on to the property owners paying assessments. Mr. Leavitt explained the second provision in the bill relates to the situation where the city has several small pockets where the citizens want to have an improvement, commonly street lights or curbs and gutters. He said the size of the assessment district is so small the issuance cost for the issuance of bonds is prohibitive. He stated the desire is to group several of these pockets together and save issuance cost on the bonds to create a better financial deal for the property owners. He added the city could combine three or four of these pockets and only have one issuance cost. He testified they have consulted the bond counsel and he poses no objections to the bill. Senator Townsend stated he is surprised that local governments do not have the flexibility in their bonding capacity to adjust to market rates if it is fiscally responsible for doing so when there is a downturn with the rates. Mr. Leavitt explained most types of bonds, under existing law, are allowed to refund the bonds. He said when this allowance was made several sessions ago; someone did not pick up on the special improvement districts. He stated this bill is to add them to the list of all the other bonds which can be refunded. Senator O'Connell asked the difference between refunding and swapping. She asked Mr. Leavitt if doing a bond swap is possible? Mr. Leavitt said local governments sometimes talk about interest rate swaps, which is an entirely different procedure than refunding. He explained the process of refunding more completely to the committee. Senator O'Connell asked what is the set amount for interest rates for bonds? Mr. Leavitt responded that it is 3 percent over the interest index of 20 bonds. He explained it relates to the index of 20 or 25 bonds. He stated it is a market rate to which they compare the bond interest. He added that limitation applies to all bonds. Senator O'Donnell expounded he understands the bonds cannot be paid off before maturity date. Mr. Leavitt responded they might call some bonds to offset what was prepaid, or they might invest the money in an account with interest equal to the bond. Senator O'Donnell questioned what would happen if this legislation is passed? He asked if this would devalue the bonds? Mr. Leavitt responded each bond, as it is sold, provides in the bond issue whether it is callable or not. He said if it provides that the bond is callable, they are callable already, under the provision previously discussed. He explained if the bond provides that it is not callable, then they will not be callable even if they pass the legislation. He conveyed the bond covenants are different under each issue. Senator O'Donnell asked if this legislation affects non-callable bonds? Mr. Leavitt answered if the bonds are non-callable, even if they pass this legislation, those bonds are still non-callable. He said if the bond indenture says the bond is callable, it is callable; if the bond indenture states the bond is non-callable, it is non-callable. He stated the bonds that could be affected are future bond sales. He declared most assessment bonds have been callable simply because if the citizens prepay the assessments, then they have to be recalled because the source of interest to pay the bonds is now gone. Brian Krolicki, Chief Deputy Treasurer, State of Nevada, testified the treasurer's office would like to go on record as supporting this legislation. He stated it is similar to activities conducted by the state bond bank. He explained the concept of pooling things together and knocking down the fees. He asserted it is good fiscal management and urged the committee to pass the legislation. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Krolicki if he knows the exact amount of interest. Mr. Krolicki stated the 3 percent quoted by Mr. Leavitt is right. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 53 and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 16. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION (A.J.R.) 16: Urges Congress to eliminate inequities in payment of social security benefits to "notch babies." (BDR R-36) Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom, Assembly District 22, testified before the committee regarding A.J.R. 16. She stated the Nevada Legislature keeps passing this resolution and the United States Congress does nothing. She asserted this is an inequity which needs to be corrected. She declared this will not cause the entire Social Security System to become bankrupt. Senator O'Connell asked Assemblywoman Segerblom how many people this bill would affect. Assemblywoman Segerblom stated 200,000 nationwide. She said she would check and see exactly how many "notch babies" are in Nevada. Senator Raggio announced to the committee he will abstain on the vote as he is a "notch baby" born between 1917 and 1927. He explained these people were not added to the Social Security benefit roll. Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom agreed, people born before 1917 were added and people born after 1927 were added. She repeated it is an inequity and she would find out exactly how many "notch babies" are left. She explained if 50 percent of the legislators in the United States Congress would sign the resolution, it could be brought to the floor for discussion and vote. She said it would pass because everyone from California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida and other retirement states would vote for it. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 16 and opened the hearing on A.B. 145. ASSEMBLY BILL (A.B.) 145: Makes various changes relating to county and city parks. (BDR 20-364) Glen Trowbridge, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation, Clark County, spoke in favor of A.B. 145 (Exhibit C). The first section he addressed was the definition of a park project. The second section he addressed was the increase in the number of Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission members. The third section he addressed was the refund limit increase. Senator O'Connell asked how necessary it is to broaden the number of advisory commission members. Mr. Trowbridge explained the board currently has nine members. He said expanding the board to 11 members gives additional representation. Senator O'Connell inquired what the advisory commission hopes to gain by adding two more members. She asked if two more interests required representation. Mr. Trowbridge said the county board of commissioners wants to appoint two more people to serve on the board. He explained the statutes say only nine members, which has prevented them from appointing additional members. Senator O'Connell asked whether these are political appointments or favors the county commission is returning. She stated she cannot justify the two additional staff members. Mr. Trowbridge said, "I would be out of place to speculate about what the commission's motivation would have been." He continued with the definition of a park project. He stated this proposal addresses Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 244.039 overlooked as an update in the statute in 1993. He explained it would allow them to add cultural events to the list of amenities that are included in a park project. Senator Raggio asked what is the significance of community centers listed in the bill? Mr. Trowbridge replied: This is a housekeeping project. It is simply because we do offer these types of services. To build community centers....we do build them on park property. In terms of the law, it is silent on that. A lot of different types of facilities; tennis courts, swimming pools, [and] bath houses. We also have community centers. We have 12 of them. It is just to make the list....if we are going to have a list that is interpreted as 'must be all inclusive;' then we need to include these types of things. Senator O'Connell remarked, "I noticed in the next section you also include clubhouses to it besides the community centers. Can you tell us, are these general obligation bonds that would go to a vote of the people to pay for the building of these?" Mr. Trowbridge replied, "Madame Chair, these do not relate to any obligation bonds whatsoever. It just simply expands the definition of what would be an eligible project." Senator O'Connell responded, "I understand that, but something would have to pay for the project." Mr. Trowbridge said, "The funding mechanism is not dictated nor addressed in this particular issue. That would be up to the county commissioners, at the time they elected to build one of these types of features to identify at that time what funding mechanism they would want to utilize." Senator O'Connell stated, "So we do not know how they would be paid for." Mr. Trowbridge rebutted, "No, ma'am." He continued his testimony by addressing the third section of the bill that increases the limit of the board of county commissioners' authority to delegate approval for refund claims from $100 to $1,000. He asserted this will improve customer relations by expediting processing of routine refund claims. He testified currently any refunds more than $100 take 4 to 6 weeks to process. He asserted increasing the refund limit to $1,000 will cut this time in half. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Trowbridge to explain the difference between "other recreational or cultural facilities" and "any other facilities which are used for recreational or cultural activities." Mr. Trowbridge answered, "I can only speculate the bill writer's reason for selecting these particular words is to provide an expanded definition. In any other facilities which are used for recreational or cultural facilities, not to second guess their language choices, it seems to be restating......" Senator Raggio interrupted, "It seems to be repetitious. I do not know why the whole thing could not just say 'any recreational or cultural facility.' Why do we have to go through the laundry list?" Mr. Trowbridge responded, "The laundry list is cumbersome. That is why we are coming forward and changing it." Senator O'Donnell said, "Along the same lines, I think the bill drafter should have taken a walk in the park. On line 12 you have the word 'cultural facilities' as one of the declaratives as to what a park is. Then on line 16 you have the same verbiage, 'cultural facilities.' It is in there twice. I think it needs some correcting." Senator Titus asked, "You said when this passed last session you added cultural activities. I remember that, and this is housekeeping? Does this language come from the other statute that was changed last session? Was it lifted and repeated in this section, or is this a whole new construction here?" Mr. Trowbridge replied, "One section that was amended last year addressed the types of program offerings that could be provided by a county. We did not change the section that addressed the different types of facilities. This addresses the types of facilities that can be built." Senator Titus said "I think there is a difference between a recreational or cultural facility and another type of facility that is used for cultural activity. You can use a gymnasium for a dance recital and that would not be a cultural facility, but would be used for a cultural activity. That's probably why they put those two separate clauses in there. Does that answer the question?" Mr. Trowbridge rejoined, "That would answer the question part. The other portion is Senator Raggio's comment which is probably the one right on target. You do not really need to list each and every type. I might be here before you next year saying 'Well, we want to build a roller skating arena,' and that is not specifically listed, so we have to go get...." Senator O'Donnell interrupted, "Bathhouses?" Mr. Trowbridge explained, "We do have bathhouses. Bathhouses associated with public swimming pools; a little more definitive than that answer." Mr. Trowbridge left the witness table. Senator O'Connell asked Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas, how they normally fund building facilities. "Would it be through general obligation bonds and would the people be able to vote on them?" Mr. Trowbridge returned to the witness table. Senator O'Connell stated, "Oh, I thought I asked that of you before." Mr. Trowbridge responded, "No. Not in that particular fashion. I understood the question before was this particular section of law dictating how the funds would be addressed. I can answer the question of how they are built. They can either be built through a general obligation bond which would require the public vote, or they can be funded through a general fund which is collected through property taxes or other funding sources that come forward to the county." Senator O'Connell inquired, "Would it normally be the park tax that would be used if they did not go to bonding?" Mr. Trowbridge answered, "Not for cultural facilities. The park taxes are restricted by another section of the law which is not addressed here. They are used for building neighborhood parks." Senator O'Connell stated, "I realize that. I know they have used the park tax for facilities. That is one of the major complaints the builders have had over the park tax." Mr. Trowbridge said, "Well, I would hope it is not in Clark County. The neighborhood tax or residential construction tax is restricted for use on neighborhood parks and that's what we use them for. Now, community centers, or a cultural center like this addresses, would be funded through some other mechanism and were it to be general obligation bond, this would have to go to a vote of the public." Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 145 and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 9. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION (A.J.R.) 9: Urges Congress and United States Postal Service to provide for delivery of mail in Lake Tahoe Basin. (BDR R- 320) Pamela Drum, Environmental Information Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), testified in favor of A.J.R. 9, stating it is a recommendation from the interim committee to review the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. She said a goal of TRPA is to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled in the Lake Tahoe region, particularly miles traveled by private automobiles. She stated the TRPA air quality plan identifies regionwide home mail delivery as the single most effective control measure at reducing vehicle miles traveled in the Lake Tahoe region. She asked for committee support for the resolution. Senator O'Connell stated she understands it will save 57,000 miles per day. Ms. Drum agreed this is correct. She added the trips to the post office generate many miles. Senator Raggio asserted TRPA could do all their campaigning at the post office to reach everyone, instead of having to travel from house to house. Ms. Drum explained to the committee that there is home mail service in the city of South Lake Tahoe, in most of the unincorporated area of Eldorado County, and part of Washoe County. She stated TRPA is not aware of any particular problems of getting the mail into the mail boxes, at least not any problems unusual to other mountain communities. Senator O'Donnell asked if this means all of the residents would have to put up mailboxes. Ms. Drum replied that would happen if the post office chooses to close the post offices and no longer make available the post office boxes. She said this would be a decision of the postal service. She explained residents currently have a choice, they can receive mail at curbside if it is available, or retain a post office box. She stated most people with this option choose to have the mail delivered to them at their home. Senator Titus asked Ms. Drum why the TRPA wants to reduce traffic congestion in the Lake Tahoe area. Ms. Drum responded this is to improve air quality. Senator Titus asked if the TRPA supports emission tests. Ms. Drum explained TRPA has taken a neutral stand on that issue since there are so many different jurisdictions (five counties and two states) in the Lake Tahoe region. She added TRPA feels as the vehicle fleet gets newer and newer, that problem will essentially take care of itself. She stated they have noted an improvement in the air quality in the Lake Tahoe region in recent years. She said this resolution addresses congestion at Lake Tahoe on peak summer or winter tourist days. She asserted TRPA would have a problem administering an emissions control policy among all the different jurisdictions. Senator Porter explained all new construction in southern Nevada requires a central postage facility; mail is no longer delivered door-to-door. He said he is sure the post office would have financial considerations. He asked Ms. Drum if they are looking at cluster mail boxes or looking for actual home delivery. She replied both are available now in the area. She said neighbors could choose the cluster mail box approach or install their own mail box. She said most businesses on the Highway 50 corridor use the cluster box mail delivery method. Senator Porter asked Ms. Drum the next step in the process after the Senate passes the bill. Ms. Drum stated the postal service at Lake Tahoe has started the process of home mail delivery. She explained the postal service has reached a plateau in their delivery and the bill will urge them to take further action. She concluded the postal service may lose revenue if people have home delivery instead of postal boxes. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 9 and opened the hearing on S.B. 182. The committee referred to their work session documents (Exhibit D). SENATE BILL (S.B.) 182: Authorizes informal interim leasing of property acquired for public work. Senator Raggio asked if revisions suggested during previous testimony would be appropriate. He stated the bill should include the procedures for handling excess money and procedures for leasing to provide the previous owner, if practicable, first chance at leasing back the property. He added there should be formal procedures on how leases would be approved. He told the committee he had initial concerns about the 5-year period, but after hearing testimony no longer has those concerns. Terry Lamuraglia, Chief Legislative Representative, Clark County Personnel Department, stated there would be three additions to an amendment to the bill. Senator O'Connell asked if Clark County has concerns about the bill? Mr. Lamuraglia testified he has worked with Mr. Howard Bennett of the Nevada Taxpayers Association and has worked out any problems with him regarding the bill. Senator O'Donnell stated Pam Wilcox, Division of State Lands, had testified the state had their own procedures on disposition of land. This bill would affect counties only, it will not affect the state procedure. This bill would be more congruent with state procedures than the current regulations. Senator Raggio suggested that a proposed amendment submitted by the sponsor and associated parties be given to the committee when possible. He asked the committee to hold the bill until the amendment is completed and the committee has a chance to review the amendment. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 182 and opened the hearing on S.B. 152. SENATE BILL (SB) 152: Requires certain state agencies to allow classified employees to select working schedules on basis of seniority. (BDR 23-324) Senator O'Connell stated, during the Senate Committee on Finance and Senate Committee on Taxation tour of the Lovelock prison facilities, she asked the warden how this bill would affect his scheduling of work shifts for employees. She told the committee the warden said it "would be a nightmare." She added the warden was adamant that this bill would hinder his ability to be able to staff the prison during all shifts in all areas of the prison. She reiterated to the committee that this is a management decision. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 152. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. The committee agreed to send a letter to all agencies urging them to put procedures in place to address this issue. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 152 and opened the hearing on S.B. 185. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 185: Revises procedures governing reconveyance, sale or exchange of certain land acquired by county. (BDR 20-528) Senator O'Donnell explained the proposed amendments to the bill. Senator Raggio asked for clarification on the bill. He asked if the purpose of the bill was reconveyance of land that is not used back to the owner or the next interested party. He asked if it was not the original owner, would it be someone who had contiguous interest in the land? Terry Lamuraglia, Chief Legislative Representative, Clark County Personnel Department, stated that is correct. Senator Raggio asked if it was not in the bill to sell the land to someone with contiguous interest, would the county have to advertise the property for sale? Mr. Lamuraglia replied he believes the county has to go through the entire process. Senator O'Donnell told the committee he has a problem with lines 3 through 5 on page 2. He does not want to delete those lines from the bill. He said original owners should be contacted. He said even if it were posted in a conspicuous area, he still has a problem deleting lines 3-5. He added the people who live within 300 feet of the property would be the most interested. Senator Porter explained a policy in Henderson wherein a sign is posted on the property regarding zoning, land usage, etc. He suggested this would be effective in notifying local neighbors. Andrew Rubinsi, City Attorney's Office, Henderson, stated Henderson has been using this method since the last session. He explained they have had good feedback from neighbors. He said they have had problems with some weathering over the 10-day period, other than that, the notification does work. Senator Porter asked if the notification is in the city ordinances? Mr. Rubinsi responded it is by state statute. He explained the high profile color and the size is by local choice, but the changes to the state statute last session dealing with notices instigated this process. Senator Raggio asked what the process would be for allowing a citizen with adjacent land to purchase the property if the previous or current owner does not want the additional land back? Mr. Lamuraglia replied it is his understanding if there is a small piece of land left after the project is completed (a corner, a triangle, a small piece) it would be provided to an adjacent owner. He stated he does not know about larger pieces of land, but the smaller ones are provided to neighbors if they are interested. Senator Shaffer asserted that giving remaining portions back to the contiguous owner or adjacent neighbor to maintain the property is better for the public entity instead of letting it sit untended. Senator Titus asked if it could be a companion process that if the contiguous owner does not want the property that it is open to bid or purchase from neighbors. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 185 and opened the hearing on S.B. 225. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 225: Makes various changes relating to Airport Authority of Washoe County. (BDR 30-517) Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst, stated the committee is waiting on an amendment to S.B. 225 from John Sande, Lobbyist, Airport Authority of Washoe County. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 225 and opened the hearing on S.B. 190. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 190: Requires establishment of program for rental by state agencies of surplus equipment and property. (BDR 27- 1375). Senator Raggio asked if a fiscal note is forthcoming for this bill? Ms. Bennett stated Senator Jacobsen testified that Thomas Tatro was putting together information which would result in a fiscal note. Senator O'Donnell said he thinks the bill requires an inventory and someone to keep track of the inventory in a computer database. Senator O'Connell asked if this was something currently being done? Senator Raggio declared agencies should certainly maintain an inventory of all their equipment and property. He asserted the problem is that it is probably not in a uniform format. He stated the purchasing chief would need to prepare a reporting system and said he believes this is the basis for the fiscal note. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 190 and opened the hearing on AB 21. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 21. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 21 and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 6 of the Sixty-seventh Session. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION (A.J.R.) 6 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to revise requirements for recall of public officer. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 6 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs March 13, 1995 Page