MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 1, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:15 p.m., on Monday, May 1, 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Herr, Lobbyist, External Affairs, Nevada Bell Kathyrn Adele McClain, Lobbyist, Legislative Analyst, Clark County Dan Newman, Police Officer, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Jim Foreman, Code Compliance Manager, Clark County Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Realtors Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association Brian K. Krolicki, Chief Deputy Treasurer, State of Nevada Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel Gayle Sherman, Benefit Services Chief, State Industrial Insurance System Susan Dunt, Management Analyst III, Safety and Workers' Compensation, Risk Management Division Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties Senator O'Connell opened the hearing with a bill draft request. Brian Herr, Lobbyist, External Affairs, Nevada Bell, testified: The bill we are requesting today deals with business license fees, franchise fees and right-of-way fees assessed by local governments to customers of electric, gas and telecommunications companies. The issue we are dealing with surfaced as both the utilities and the local governments recognized that there were problems with the existing fee structures. Primarily, it is a product of more competition both in the telecommunication industry as well as competition in the power industry that is emerging. New players are coming into the markets and the way the ordinances are structured today, some of the companies are paying the fees and some are not. What we are attempting to do with the legislation is three basic things;. . . establish a fee structure, which applies fairly to all the providers; . . . maintain flexibility for the local governments to adjust the fees; . . .[and] establish some limits or boundaries for both the fee increases, as well as the overall fees. The bill we are requesting is a product of nearly a year's worth of work, with representatives of local governments, as well as representatives from the utilities. We apologize for bringing the bill to you at this late date. We were not sure whether we would reach consensus on this issue before this legislative session adjourned, but we feel we have that today and would ask for committee introduction of the legislation. Senator O'Connell asked the committee if there were any concerns with the request. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF A BILL DRAFT REQUEST. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator O'Connell stated, "It has been moved and seconded that we introduce . . . an addition to [Nevada Revised Statutes] NRS [chapter] 354." Senator Townsend stated, "I should make note for the record, Nevada Bell is a client of our firm, but since this deals with all utilities I will vote on the bill." THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 388. SENATE BILL 388: Authorizes adoption of ordinance to provide expedient means to remedy dangerous condition on private property without notice to owner under certain circumstances. (BDR 20-723) Kathyrn Adele McClain, Lobbyist, Legislative Analyst, Clark County, introduced Dan Newman, Police Officer, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Jim Foreman, Code Compliance Manager, Clark County. Mr. Newman was first to testify in favor of (S.B.) 388. Mr. Newman testified: . . . I am still involved in a community oriented police project called Project 5100. This is a satellite police station located in what was a high- crime area. Some of the problems the police saw, [were] the deterioration of the area and the state in which many of the properties existed. Many homes are vacant and being destroyed by vandals. Part of Project 5100 was to instill pride back into the neighborhoods. Approximately 2 years ago, I met with Clark County Public Response Manager, Jim Foreman. We formed a special committee comprised of the health department, [the] Clark County Fire Department, [the] building department, [and] his office in [the] Las Vegas Metropolitan Police [Department]. This committee is on a 24-hour call out so that the red tape of notifying these agencies could immediately respond [to hazardous areas or buildings and] take notice collectively. I can tell the committee, from my experience as a police officer, I have seen the most grotesque conditions existing in neighborhoods. From many vacant buildings to inhabited dwellings, most of these buildings are open and accessible to the area children, as well as the criminal offenders. When we formed the committee we found there was no provision to make a property safe from what we call dangerous conditions. That is why this bill is so important. Mr. Newman discussed and presented Exhibit C, a picture of conditions they have encountered. Senator O'Connell asked what the next step Mr. Newman took was after he found people still occupying the house with the water turned off? Mr. Newman gave the history of the property and the fact that it had been condemned 2 1/2 years earlier. Mr. Newman told the committee that the police informed the health department, the building department, Jim Foreman, the county commission and the property owner after discovering this dangerous property. Eventually, the woman who owned the house sold it; consequently, the house was cleaned up. Senator O'Connell asked if it took 4 1/2 years for the house to get in that condition, because the county had not followed through on the first complaints? Mr. Newman said the agencies had followed through, but every time they talked to the property owner she would not comply with their requests. Mr. Newman continued with his presentation with examples of houses and conditions they have encountered. Mr. Newman presented Exhibit D, E, and F. Mr. Newman said there is no provision in the law to make a property safe. He thinks the unsafe properties are endangering the public health and safety. Senator Porter questioned if there is an attempt made to contact the mortgage holder, as well as the owner of the property? Mr. Foreman responded, the mortgage company sometimes has very little interest in the property, so they contact the owner. Senator Porter inquired if language had been proposed that would insure proper steps be taken before the property is condemned or demolished? Mr. Foreman said the county would construct an ordinance that would dictate the steps to take in securing an unsafe property, but at the present time the county does not have the authority to construct an ordinance under the Nevada Revised Statutes. Senator Shaffer asked if there are other ways to secure a property's safety without demolishing the structure? Mr. Foreman replied that there definitely is a better way to secure a property's safety and that is to work with the property owner. Senator Shaffer continued, "But this [bill] says you can demolish [a structure]." Mr. Foreman said, "We need to have that [proviso in the bill]. . . [in case] you have that one out of the 3000 that you have to do that on. Every year my office . . . gets about 5000 complaints. A great majority of them are these type of complaints, but they never go to the extreme. We only . . . took down two houses last year out of . . . 150 that could have been taken down, but we worked with the owner and worked out another solution." Senator Raggio asked, what is the current authority? Mr. Foreman responded, "The existing authority is Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 244-360. It is very cumbersome and it is the only authority that I could find in the NRS . . . That provision says it must go before the board of county commissioners, as a complaint through the clerk's office. It must be noticed, heard, noticed again; there can be numerous delays. The county ordinance that we work from right now is built through that statute and it is very cumbersome. Right now, the average problem that a policeman . . . would run into, would probably take the county 120 days to get a real problem solved. . . " Senator Raggio expressed concern that this bill would infringe upon the property rights of the property owners. Senator Raggio asked, "Who would make the decision . . . that the situation was such that it may endanger the safety or health of [certain] . . . persons?" Mr. Foreman replied, ". . . We would like to build into the ordinance that we design, a provision that it takes four people to trigger an actual notice of any severity. . ." Senator Raggio continued, "Why should this be without notice?" Mr. Foreman said, ". . . There is not a provision anywhere that I can find. . . where somebody in my capacity. . . can take care of . . . a life safety issue." Senator Raggio thought the wording of the bill was troublesome and too broad. Senator Raggio suggested a court notice be involved in the process. Mr. Newman stated he did not think it would be very difficult to obtain a court notice. Senator O'Donnell stated he is sympathetic to the health and safety issue, but he reiterated Senator Raggio's testimony regarding the broad language of the bill. Senator O'Donnell asked if the police try to notify the owner of the property. Mr. Newman responded he notifies Mr. Foreman's office and the code compliance people. It is then built into their codes to notify the owner of the property. Mr. Foreman said there has never been an instance where he has not notified a property owner and has no problem putting that language in the bill. Senator O'Donnell inquired if the county puts a lien on a house, is the county in first position to get that property? Mr. Foreman responded that they are in first position. Senator O'Donnell argued that the cost of repairing the dangerous areas could be less if the owner had a chance to hire the repairs out himself. Mr. Foreman agreed and stated they would much rather have the owners take care of the problem, but this bill is for those owners who will not. Senator Shaffer asked if the county was going to demolish a property, would they have public works do it or would they go out for bids? Mr. Foreman said currently, in Clark County bids from contractors are accepted and then they determine what the cost would be for the county workers to do the work. Senator Shaffer said he is not clear on the reasons why the county cannot go in and make the ordinances now. Mr. Foreman responded that according to county counsel, the only direction in this case is in [Nevada Revised Statutes] NRS 244.3605. The way this statute is structured is too cumbersome. Senator Porter agreed that the language is too broad, but supports the concept of the bill. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in opposition to S.B. 388. Ms. Lusk stated she is not entirely in disagreement with the intentions of the bill, but she also thinks the language is too broad. Ms. Lusk suggested to amend the bill and replace the language on line 6, "may injure or endanger" with "poses imminent danger of serious injury to." Next to testify in opposition to S.B. 388 was Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association. Ms. Vilardo said she opposes the bill as it is currently written. Ms. Vilardo suggested she would prefer if they clean up Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 244.360 instead of creating a brand new section. Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Realtors, stated his opposition to S.B. 388. Mr. Coward reiterated prior testimony and concerns. Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association, testified he agrees with the prior concerns. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 388 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 295. ASSEMBLY BILL 295: Revises certain limitations on investment of state money. (BDR 31-824) Brian K. Krolicki, Chief Deputy Treasurer, State of Nevada, stated: I know it always makes an eyebrow raise when you say this is truly just a housekeeping matter, but I assure you this is truly a housekeeping matter. There are several points in the treasurer's investment guidelines that [are] just unclear when we say certain percentages. It could be a book value, market value, par value and we have just decided to take the greyness out of our statutes and just say par value in several different places and that is it. So we know when we are close to a borderline, how the value is truly [calculated]. Senator Shaffer asked what Mr. Krolicki's definition of par value is. Mr. Krolicki stated it is in the statutes, but the par value is the cost of the security. Senator Raggio questioned, "Is this limited in the bill . . . to just certain types of securities?" Mr. Krolicki answered, "Yes." Mr. Krolicki and Senator Raggio discussed definitions of different investments. Senator Raggio asked if it would be possible for an investment to have a lower actual value then its par value. Mr. Krolicki responded it is possible. Mr. Krolicki and Senator Raggio discussed investments and the limits of the bill. Senator O'Connell asked if anyone else wanted to address A.B. 295. Since no one responded, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 295 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 346. ASSEMBLY BILL 346: Authorizes state industrial insurance system to certify qualifications of persons with disabilities for certain state employment. (BDR 23-872) Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel, stated her support for A.B. 346. Ms. Willis introduced Gayle Sherman, Benefit Services Chief, State Industrial Insurance System. Ms. Willis said this bill would amend what is commonly known as the 700-hour law. The law allows for disabled persons to be appointed to classified state jobs without having to take a competitive state exam. It would be used when an individuals' disability acts as a barrier to their competing equally with other applicants. The appointments are for a temporary period, not to exceed 700 hours. If the person performs the job successfully, the 700 hours counts towards the provisionary period and that person can attain permanent status. Ms. Willis proposes to have the State Industrial Insurance System certify and refer people to personnel. Senator O'Connell asked if there was any circumstance that brought this bill to her attention. Ms. Willis responded it has been discussed and they realized the extra burden put on the State Industrial Insurance System to go through another state agency instead of just going directly to personnel. Senator O'Connell and Ms. Willis discussed the 700-hour law and who would administer this law. Susan Dunt, Management Analyst III, Safety and Workers' Compensation, Risk Management Division, testified in support of A.B. 346. Ms. Dunt thinks this bill would assist them in returning people back to work. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 346 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 357. ASSEMBLY BILL 357: Defines "veteran" for purposes of provisions governing preference points for veterans in competitive examinations for state employment. (BDR 23-876) Ms. Willis testified in favor of A.B. 357. Ms. Willis said this bill would define what a veteran is and limit those who qualify for veteran points. Ms. Willis stated they would use federal language to define the term "veteran." Senator O'Connell asked if Ms. Willis was aware that the United States Congress is proposing a bill that would eliminate all preferences for veterans, etc. Ms. Willis responded she is just trying to work with the current laws that affect employment. Senator Raggio requested Ms. Willis to go over the definition of veteran again and explain what the existing law provides and what the change will be in respect to veterans. Ms. Willis stated that the current law does not provide a definition of veteran. The change, if the bill passes, would be the use of the federal government's standards for defining a veteran. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 357 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 84. SENATE BILL 84: Increases compensation of various public officers. (BDR 17- 1078) Senator O'Connell discussed a prior hearing on S.B. 84 and gave the details to the committee. Senator O'Connell stated: We did hold about a 2 1/2 hour hearing on the pay situation. As you are probably already aware, there was a meeting of NACO [Nevada Association of Counties] that went on the same day. . . Unfortunately, we didn't have any member of the public here. . . The people . . . seemed to agree on . . . [the] California Commission. They all liked that idea. [The decision of salary increases] would be taken totally out of the hands of the Legislature, as well as the hands of the county commission. . . Also, Senator Shaffer had a personal experience with somebody coming to him and sharing a concern. . . In all fairness to the elected people, . . . I do think we need to take some action on this issue and get it over to the other side. . . Senator Raggio said he had already stated that the Legislature has historically set the salaries of the county officials. Senator Raggio thinks that until the Legislature is relieved of the responsibility by constitutional amendment, the Legislature has to make the decision. Senator Raggio stated his concern about giving a recommendation for a proposed increase in salary because the public sector employees' salary increases have not been figured for the budget. Senator Raggio stated he does not think that this bill has to be decided upon until after they make a decision on other public sector employees. Senator O'Connell asked the committee if they have a good idea of a reasonable percentage increase. Senator Raggio suggested they also consider the longevity percentage. Senator Porter suggested that the individual counties give the committee a resolution stating a percentage each county would consider acceptable. Senator Porter stated he is not comfortable with a flat percentage for all the counties across the board. Senator O'Connell asked Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, to respond to Senator Porter's suggestion. Mr. Hadfield said at the first meeting on this bill, he represented to the committee what the counties had communicated to him. Mr. Hadfield stated that the counties agreed to 24 plus 2 percent, which each of the counties had already budgeted. Since that time, the counties agreed to a 20 percent, 2 percent concept and compromise. Mr. Hadfield thinks this represents all of the counties involved. Senator Porter stated he did not understand that the counties had open meetings on the issue. Senator O'Connell asked Senator Raggio when he thinks the salary increases will be decided for the budget. Senator Raggio responded, "It is one of the last items we deal with, that is the problem." Senator O'Connell said, "My concern is [for] the hearing on the other side, for the issue, if we wait much longer." Senator Raggio replied, "Well the hearing on the other side is going to be probably one that could be done rapidly once we sent the bill over. They are either going to agree with it or they are not. They are going to substitute a number." Senator O'Connell continued, "If they start from scratch it could cause a lot of problems. Do you wish me to talk with the leadership over there about this issue?" Senator Raggio said, "Well we can both do it. As I understand the testimony here all of the counties represented here have now said they would accept and would budget for a 20 percent increase with a 2 percent longevity factor." Mr. Hadfield confirmed that the counties have budgeted for and approved the increase. Senator Raggio reiterated that the county would accept the responsibility for the increases and there would be no more increases during the terms. Mr. Hadfield said that was correct. Senator Raggio and Mr. Hadfield discussed Churchill County and their request to change classes. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 84. Senator Shaffer said, "I move that we accept the 20 plus 2 and the class change to 3A in the one county and whatever else they need." Senator Raggio argued, "Well, I think there are other things in this bill. If we are going to deal with the bill . . . the motion should be limited to the county elected official salaries." Senator Shaffer agreed with Senator Raggio. Senator O'Connell repeated the motion stating, "the motion is that for the county elected officials, the salary increase be 20 percent across the board with the additional 2 percent for longevity. Is there a second?" Senator Raggio interrupted, "I think the motion . . . should be that the 20 percent applies to the respective classes that are indicated in the bill. . . So your motion would be a 20 percent increase from actual salaries to within the respective classes. You are also recommending that Churchill County be retained in class 3." Senator O'Connell reminded the committee that there is substantial increase when a county decides to move up in class. Senator Raggio suggested Mr. Hadfield clarify this issue for the committee. Mr. Hadfield stated: If a county is recommended for a class change, they would go up to the next class. That class . . . would be up by 20 percent. So they would get the new class salary, . . . 20 percent is the base and they would also receive the benefit from going from one class to another. This is the only way we have of recognizing different workload indicators and a change in economic conditions from one county to another. It is correct to say that those counties that would move in class, would receive the benefit of moving from the class and the new class salary both. It would exceed 20 percent. Senator Porter reiterated that he wanted a letter of support from the Clark County Commission. Senator Raggio agreed with Senator Porter, except Senator Raggio wants a letter of support from each county. Senator O'Connell asked that the county that is moving up in class indicate that they understand they will be paying more then a 20 percent increase. Mr. Hadfield agreed to the request. There was no second to the motion. Senator O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 1, 1995 Page