MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 9, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:30 p.m., on Friday, June 9, 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: Senator Mark A. James Senator Raymond D. Rawson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Leo Connolly, Lobbyist, Northwest Citizens Association, Las Vegas Julie A. Wilcox, Assistant to the General Manager, Las Vegas Valley Water District Mary Henderson, Director of Government Affairs, Washoe County Tony Armstrong, Council Member, City of Sparks, and Member, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Board Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno George Harris, President, Harris Group International Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Sue Marr, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association Michael R. Alastuey, Assistant Superintendent, Business Division, Clark County School District Jennifer Stern, Bond Counsel, Clark County School District Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association Kathryn McClain, Legislative Analyst, Clark County Karen Larsen, Director of Administrative Services, Public Response Office, Clark County Thelma Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Seniors Coalition Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Mobile Home Park Owners Association Michelle Gamble, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties Stephanie D. Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Board of Commissioners Mark Scofield, Assessor, Clark County Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 294. SENATE BILL 294: Creates Las Vegas Valley Ground Water Replenishment District. Leo Connolly, Lobbyist, Northwest Citizens Association, Las Vegas, prefaced his testimony with, "More government and rules are not always the solution to problems. S.B. 294 is the exception." He described the boundaries of the association and the membership. He said for the past 2 years they have seen the increasing rate of depletion of the aquifer that serves the community. The current rate of 3-5 feet yearly points out the need for management. He stressed without management, nearly 5000 home owners can be without water in the future. He urged passage of S.B. 294 because of the management outline proposed in the bill. He explained well permits can be revoked depending upon municipal availability of water. However, he told the committee there is no definition of what makes up availability, the costs, and the distance involved. He provided a copy of his testimony and a copy of a letter from Bill Starkey, Concerned Citizen (Exhibit C). Senator O'Connell told Mr. Connolly that she is concerned about the bill and its proposed amendment because they list no ceiling or amount of fees in either document. Mr. Connolly stated well owners should be assessed a "small" fee to afford them municipal service. He had previously testified for the eight users on his municipal well, it would cost each user $7,000 to tie into the city municipal water lines. He stressed the home owners cannot meet this kind of fee. Senator Mark A. James testified next on S.B. 294. He gave the committee handouts (Exhibit D), which included a proposed amendment. He explained the amendment to the committee. He said the amendment would provide for a study and an advisory group to the study, instead of a management feature listed in the bill. He stressed the use of the groundwater in Las Vegas is at a critical juncture. Management of the annual recharge in the basin must occur to provide for future use in the valley. He said the basin is used at twice the amount of the recharge and the groundwater is dropping at a level of 5 to 7 feet per year. Julie A. Wilcox, Assistant to the General Manager, Las Vegas Valley Water District, provided information on the amendment. She explained the handout and the amendment to the committee. She explained the structure and duties of the advisory committee. She answered questions from the committee on the representatives of the advisory committee. She stated they have not developed a specific number of representatives for the advisory committee. Senator James stated they tried to list affected groups and potential representatives. Senator O'Donnell stated when they addressed this topic 2 years ago, he had calls from people who wanted to install community wells. Senator James explained quasi-municipal or community wells cannot be put on subdivided property or on property consisting of less than 5 acres. He stated the state engineer has ruled wells cannot be developed on any property smaller than 5 acres. Senator O'Donnell asked if a developer must have municipal water because they cannot obtain a well permit on 2.5 acre cul-de- sacs. Senator James responded this is correct. He said they could purchase an existing water right, but they could not purchase new water rights. He stressed the hope is to retire old water rights, replenish the groundwater and then they could issue new water rights. Senator O'Donnell stated assurance must be provided that property owners could install a well on vacant 5-acre parcels in the basin before anyone would consider buying those properties. Senator O'Connell asked about the meetings. Ms. Wilcox explained about the meeting schedule. She explained the meetings would be open and that they would notify all the well- owner associations. She stated they would provide the initial findings of the study to the Legislature during the next session. Senator O'Connell asked questions about section 6. She stated she is concerned there is no ceiling on the fees. She stressed she would like to see a proposed budget based on the fees that they plan to charge. Senator James explained he has no problem with the ceiling. He said the water authority would have to provide the numbers. He said there has to be revenue to address the problem. He stated: When the water gets to a certain level, all of those wells will start to have to be deepened or will be damaged. Ultimately, it will be infeasible in certain parts of the valley to even reach the groundwater table through drilling and other means. Somewhere down the road, for our children and for their children, there won't be any artesian basin at all. We would have gone from a situation where the water literally bubbled out of the ground in Las Vegas...to where we used to live on a formerly wet sponge that has dried out completely. He said everyone who draws from the artesian basin should be charged for their water usage and for recharging the groundwater levels in the basin. Ms. Wilcox stated the original bill stated $30 per acre-foot a year. She said in discussions with well owners and well-owner associations, they suggested deleting this figure. She said $30 per acre-foot per year would provide an adequate budget to complete the inventory, increase monitoring, and increase injection into the groundwater level. She stated the cost of the replenishment will be borne by the ratepayers. She estimated this as 25 cents per month on each of the Las Vegas Valley Water District's customer bills for home owners. She stated this is an appropriate level. Senator O'Connell asked how much the $30 annually would raise. Ms. Wilcox testified it would be approximately $1.5 million. Senator James stated he has no problems with the $30 per acre- foot ceiling. He said the Legislature will always have control over the program as they come back every session for recommendations for the replenishment. He suggested they could adjust the fees in the next session if necessary. He stated it would be about $1 per month for industrial users of water. He explained there would be no fee on existing domestic wells for family use. He said each domestic well uses about an acre-foot per year for a family of four. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Wilcox to clean up some language in the amendment. She requested more thorough information on the advisory committee (the number and the representatives). She asked for a more specific list of the meetings, and for a ceiling on the fees. She asked Ms. Wilcox to bring this information back to the committee so they can further discuss the bill. Senator Porter stated this bill will organize well owners and give them a say in the water replenishment plans. He suggested it will solve problems in the future through an organized effort. He said he was concerned about creating a new entity, but feels the amendment will address that problem. Ms. Wilcox explained domestic well owners currently have no one to turn to if they have problems. The state engineer or the state health department cannot help them. She said this plan will provide that necessary help for potential problems that well owners face. Senator Raggio asked for the justification for charging fees for new wells. Ms. Wilcox explained when the current domestic well owners put in their wells, they were not notified there might be a fee. She stated if it is a new domestic well, they will be notified of the rules and fees before the drilling. She explained it is equitable because the entire valley depends on groundwater. Senator Raggio stated the owners with existing wells receive the same benefit from the groundwater as new owners. He said that charging the new owners and not the old ones does not seem equitable. Senator James explained this is a good point. He said the domestic wells are a small part of the groundwater pumping in the valley. Most of the domestic wells in the valley have ancient water rights and do not use as much water as consumers on city water lines. He explained about land subsidence and the relocation of wells to balance the pumping. He stated the domestic well owners have the perception that the new city pumps are interfering with the draw on the groundwater. He said that the study will prove what is happening in the valley. He said they will be able to prove use, prove the reasons for the drop in the groundwater levels, and prove who is receiving benefits from pumping. He said once the study is completed, they can be more equitable across the board with an adjustment in the fees. He stated: Until we initiate a comprehensive groundwater management study in the valley, which has never been done; the state engineer does not have the ability to do it; we'll never be able to answer those questions. That is why we are trying to get beyond this point. Let those people sit on the sidelines for the time being. Then, when we can show, with undisputed facts what is happening, then everyone can participate according to their burden and their benefit. Senator O'Donnell asked if the Las Vegas Valley Water District pumped water from their wells. Senator James responded 45 percent of the water used in Las Vegas in the summer months comes from wells operated by the Las Vegas Valley Water District. Senator O'Donnell asked if the Las Vegas Valley Water District has to pay $30 per acre-foot. Senator James responded, "Absolutely. That's the ratepayer part of it." Senator O'Donnell asked if this is a measure of equity between those who are on municipal water service and those with domestic wells. He said those on municipal services are going to be paying anyway, and the people who have the wells will be paying also. Ms. Wilcox agreed with Senator O'Donnell's statement. She explained they reverse the pumps in the winter months to treat and inject the Colorado River Water into the artesian basin. Senator O'Connell reminded Ms. Wilcox of the additional information needed by the committee and closed the hearing on S.B. 294. She opened the hearing on S.B. 473. SENATE BILL 473: Authorizes imposition of surcharge on telephone service in certain counties for enhancement of telephone system for reporting emergencies. Mary Henderson, Director of Government Affairs, Washoe County, provided a proposed amendment to section 7 (Exhibit E). She said all of the local governments have agreed to add section 7 to provide a 4-year sunset for the surcharge. She stated they need a stable source of revenue for the next 4 years to install this public safety function, which is why they chose the surcharge. She said they can do the up-front costs for the project and operating revenue needed for the next 4 years through the surcharge and have agreed to the sunset clause. Senator O'Connell asked if everyone has agreed to the amendment? Tony Armstrong, Council Member, City of Sparks, and Member, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Board, voiced his concurrence with the bill and the amendment. He urged the committee to pass the bill. He stressed it is a "life safety issue as far as we are concerned with our constituents." Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno, stated Reno City Manager, Clay Holsteine, and Council Member, Tom Hernden are in the audience and they all support the amendment. Letters of support were submitted as Exhibit F. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 473. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 473 and opened the hearing on S.B. 540. SENATE BILL 540: Prohibits sale of goods on sidewalks adjacent to highway without local business license. George Harris, President, Harris Group International, testified bill is a request to license street vendors. He testified: You know of the street vendors that are on the strip that have the tables that open and sell the T-shirts in front of the hotels, adjacent to competitor stores. We feel there is a big problem with this because these folks are not licensed under business activities. They are out there, allegedly under their 1st Amendment rights, for charities. They have no accountability for what they do. We contend to you that these folks are not there for charitable reasons. They are engaged in business activities for profit. We have done research on what these folks have done. We know that on the average, they make between $50,000 and $60,000 per week. We know they do not pay sales tax. We know that they do not pay SIIS [State Industrial Insurance System] for their employees. We know that a majority of them that we have been able to track are not from the State of Nevada; they are from California. Mr. Harris provided examples of the shirts to the committee. He showed one shirt with a Las Vegas design that can be bought in a hotel or gift shop for a retail price of $17.99. He showed an identical shirt sold by a street vendor. This vendor stole the design, put a charity logo in tiny letters at the bottom of the shirt, and sold the shirt at a price of two for $10.00. He further testified: We feel that the state is probably losing $4 million a year in sales tax revenue. When a person has a store, whether inside or outside of a hotel, it is a major investment. The average street store in Las Vegas is about $5.25 per square foot, plus key money, plus cam (sic) charges, plus a percentage of profit. This is before the lease is signed. After the lease is signed, they turn a storefront over to you that is a shell. It has nothing in it. The average investment for a 4,000 square foot store in furniture, fixtures and equipment is about $300,000. Then to fill the store with souvenirs and gifts could be upward of $125,000 to $250,000. It is amazing to me that these people have been able to stay out on the strip or anywhere, based on the fact that they are doing this for charitable reasons. We have sent cease and desist letters to these folks. Mr. Harris explained the shirts sold by the street vendors are not made in the U.S.A. despite what the clothing tag states. He said the shirts are made in Mexico or Pakistan. He said the shirts are brought into East Los Angeles, and relabeled with U.S.A. tags. He described the quality of the shirts to the committee. He continued his testimony: I'll give you some examples of where some of these street vendors are set up; out in front of the Fashion Show Mall. How much investment is there in the Fashion Show Mall? Probably literally hundreds of millions of dollars. They [the street vendors] are set up out in front of the major hotels on the strip. Tourists walk by these folks and they [the cheap t- shirts] are hawked by these folks [the street vendors]. The tourists think they are getting a deal. These shirts are really inexpensive. This shirt, basic cost from the mill is about $2.41. It is a four-color job so the printing is about another $1.05. It is wholesaled for about $5.00 to $7.00. It is retailed for about $17.95. This shirt here, from Pakistan, being relabeled and brought into the country is probably $1.17. As you can see, the difference in the quality of printing, because they use washed-out inks, which are watered inks, so they can print more, probably costs them...the total in that shirt is probably $1.57. They take those shirts and they put them out and sell them two for $10.00 and they make a large profit. The bill would make these folks be licensed as street vendors. If they have to have a license and if they have to back and apply for a license and we can show the business license department that these guys are not in the charitable business...I am perplexed why the design of their shirts isn't something that says, `Help feed Americans. We're trying to feed starving Americans.' Why? Because that design would not sell. But for them to steal designs of legitimate businessmen that are paying rents up-front, these costs, providing jobs in our state, paying sales tax, paying SIIS payments, is why do we continually allow these folks to vend on the streets? They have been taken off the streets and there was a question that their 1st Amendment rights have been violated. I think that I have brought stuff here to show you that they are not. Here is another design that they took from another company... All these gift shops are very small business owners. They are one and two family owners, husband and wife. They have one or two shops. Some people have 10 shops, but they are all small businessmen. They are employing Nevadans. He explained about the company to whom they sent the cease and desist order. He stated they were located in California. He said the shirts were printed in California. They do not purchase or print the shirts in Nevada; all the production of the shirts is out-of-state. He testified the shirts are brought into the state once a week. He described the rotation of employees so that tourists and the business community thinks that several different charitable groups are vending on the street, but it is a few companies. He continued, "We feel that we have a valid reason to stop this. This is not a 1st Amendment question. This is a question of folks that are in business to make money." Senator Porter asked how this bill would affect the garage or rummage sales of smaller counties. He cited examples like rotary clubs. Mr. Harris stated he is not concerned about genuine charitable groups, but the street vendors who set up a business enterprise in front of malls, hotels or strip stores are the ones to which they intend the bill to apply. Senator Porter stressed he would not like the small charitable groups to interpret this bill to say that they have to have a license to conduct a community function. Mr. Harris agreed they might interpret it this way, that all of the groups have to go pay the $50 charge to street vend; however, he stressed he felt it was specific about street vending. He continued: You know another thing, within Las Vegas proper, is that the City of Las Vegas and the downtown redevelopment folks have invested almost $75 million into the Fremont Street Experience. It is going to be saddened to everybody's heart here if you go down to see the new Fremont Street Experience and you see a guy there with a foldout table stacked with t-shirts based on the fact that he says that he is doing this for charitable reasons. Senator Porter stated he does not disagree with Mr. Harris's contentions, but language has to address the small community charitable organizations. Discussion of potential language ensued. Mr. Harris stated these regulations would provide a chance for them to prove stolen designs or business infringement. Senator Shaffer asked about the safety factor? Mr. Harris stated they tried to address safety concerns: I'll give you an example. In front of the MGM there is a store called `The Island Plaza.' These folks [the street vendors] are set up right in front of the store on the sidewalk. They put the table up and the table is this size [gesture of the size] which leaves the sidewalk of about 24- or 26-inches. As you all know, on the weekends, if you walk down in that area, it causes a problem. How they [the street vendors] have been able to survive on the strip is beyond me. Every time we have dealt with this in the past, we have been told, `This is a 1st Amendment rights issue.' Maybe it is, because we didn't come forward as a group of folks who are in the retail business to show, `No, it doesn't look like a 1st Amendment rights issue to us.' Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce testified next. He said he would be very careful crafting language to address service clubs. He said there are many organizations who would hold themselves up to be charitable organizations. He said if the committee tries to use that kind of language, street vendors will claim they are a charitable organization and will fall through the filter and continue to sell their wares. He said the chamber is in support of the bill and is concerned about the proliferation of the street vendors. He said reasonable regulation would go with the authorization of the business license for street vendors. He continued his testimony: George [Harris] mentioned the problems that could potentially exist downtown in the Fremont Street Experience. Virtually anyone with a card table and anything to sell, whether it be old carburetors or T- shirts could come down there to set up right in the middle of that beautiful downtown area and start selling. We are in favor of this [bill] because of the fact that there will be some regulation and [will] cut out those sleazy vendors who show up and set up their card tables. I would caution you very carefully about making an exclusion for charitable organizations. If language could be crafted fine enough to filter out the bad guys and yet, the good guys remain in, that's what we should do. Senator Porter stated this bill affects the whole state. Mr. Cooper responded this is correct. Senator Porter reminded the committee of the Genoa festival in the park. He said he would hate to see them have to buy a license from the county for rural areas. Mr. Harris responded this could be answered with a time period. He said in most of those cases, it is a 2- or 3-day event. He said: We've had these folks [the street vendors] now for a couple years who have just set up shop out in front of businesses. I want to point out that these people [street vendors] have actually hurt some of the local gift shops businesses; these mom and pop shops who have a large investment. These folks come out and set up in front of their [the local business] store and they are selling shirts two for $10, or four for $20 and there is no recourse. These folks [the local businessmen] have gone to the attorneys and the attorneys say, `There's nothing we can do because the state says that we would be in violation of their 1st Amendment rights because they are doing this for a charitable group.' We have shown, and shown again that this is not charity. A, they are stealing designs that cost a lot of money to make; and B, they are just adding their name to the design on the bottom. Senator Titus stated her sympathy with the problem. She said she had put in a bill draft request to do something similar. She said instead of a license, she wondered if they could bond these street vendors. She suggested if they had to put up a bond, it might discourage them. She said they could make a 1st Amendment case that they are taking up collections, and that the tourist gets a T-shirt for their donation. She said she bets that is what the street vendors would say. Mr. Harris responded that was a risk the business community would have to take, but they have nothing to regulate these street vendors. He said they are there on a charitable license. He stated there will be $10,000 kiosks in the Fremont Street Experience where the city regulates those vendors. He stressed, "We cannot afford to let these people [street vendors] proliferate up and down the strip, downtown..." Senator Titus interjected, "Those people do not have any kind of license?" Mr. Harris responded: They are not licensed, they have no license at all. They go down and fill out [paperwork] to be a charitable organization. We know they collect a majority of their money in cash. We know they set up early in the morning. We know that they are making between $50,000 and $60,000 per week. We know that they go home with this money in a box. They are not paying sales tax. Here's the other thing that hurts the retail guy. These guys go in; they set this table up. They tell you they are selling this shirt for charitable reasons. If you can show me where this Las Vegas design is for charitable reasons...They are selling these two for $10, or two for $5.00; they're not paying sales tax. Any tourist in the world that is here is going to say, `Oh, I'm going to get a deal for all of my friends. I don't have to pay sales tax and I don't have to contribute to the community at all.' Senator Titus asked what kind of license the vendors in malls have to obtain. She said there are little stands within the malls. Mr. Harris responded they have regular business licenses. He explained about the Forum Shops at Caesar's Hotel and Casino. He said within the Forum Shops, there are retail stores and then there are kiosks. He said it is all regulated by the manager of the mall. The kiosk is not going to compete with anything inside any of the bigger retail stores. He said the kiosks usually sell crafty items; paying a high rent; and have to pay sales tax. He stated they have to report to the mall. Senator Titus asked if the street vendors are licensed, can sales tax be gathered from them? Mr. Harris responded if the street vendors are licensed, the city officials can go to the business license department and show that designs are stolen, and that profit is made from stolen designs, the vendors will have to pay taxes, SIIS payments, and pay the business activity tax. Mr. Cooper explained Las Vegas was able to eliminate the "bums that were soliciting money in the medians by crafting an ordinance to exclude them, but allow the firefighters to do the "Boot Drag" every year. He said by ordinance they established an organization may solicit on the street or in the medians for a 3-day period annually. He suggested the local entities could craft an ordinance that would do that for the service clubs, creating a 3-day license once a year for things like the Carson Valley Days, or the Genoa Candy Dance, or the Boulder City Art Festival. Senator Titus asked if there are provisions in the sales tax statutes for people who have yard sales. She expressed she thought they could only have one yard sale every 6 months without having to turn in sales tax. Mr. Cooper suggested each city could craft an ordinance to meet their needs and it would not have to be addressed in the bill. He said the cities and counties would be able to control their destiny. Senator Shaffer suggested there should be a substantial amount of liability insurance for these street vendors. Mr. Harris stated: We have to have insurance in our stores. In most cases, most of us carry $5 million in liability insurance. That's another thing they [the street vendors] don't have; they don't have insurance out on the street. As a matter of fact, let me give you a scenario: I go to a street vendor. We buy the junk shirt from the street vendor. The street vendor's shirts fall off [the table] as I am picking a shirt. I walk, I trip, I fall, I break my leg. Who do you think I sue? I sue the State of Nevada because they own the sidewalk and the business owner who owns the place. It's lunacy. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Cooper if the Nevada Revised Statutes that discuss licensing city business is policed or enforced. Mr. Cooper responded the city business license organization enforces licensing. He said the police department will assist, but the city or county business license organization is the primary enforcer. Senator Raggio asked how this bill would affect businesses that exist, like sidewalk cafes? Mr. Harris responded sidewalk cafes have to have a variance for their business license to serve on the sidewalk in front of their business. Senator Raggio stated they do not intend to restrict business for the small business person. Senator Porter suggested Mr. Cooper, Mr. Harris and he could work on language. Mr. Cooper suggested a letter of legislative intent would work, and then the cities could craft their own ordinances. Senator Raggio asked if Las Vegas has the power to enforce this under current ordinances. Mr. Harris stated when they have tried to do this with local ordinances, the ordinances have been found unconstitutional. Senator Raggio stated if it is unconstitutional for the city to pass the ordinance, passing the bill will be unconstitutional for the Legislature. Mr. Harris stated they addressed the constitutionality when they drafted the bill. Mr. Cooper suggested he and Mr. Harris would do more research and would come back to the committee. Sue Marr, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, asked to be exempted from the bill so that they could sell newspapers on the street. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 540 and opened the hearing on S.B. 508. SENATE BILL 508: Makes various changes concerning elections relating to local government finance. (BDR 30-182) Michael R. Alastuey, Assistant Superintendent, Business Division, Clark County School District, told the committee there is no amendment to the bill. He stated they are satisfied with the bill. He said bond counsel has addressed the questions of the taxpayers' association. A discussion of the unincorporated areas and cost of elections followed. He told the committee the difference between the cost of the primary election and the general election was a more true accounting. He stated both elections are the same except that one has the bond issue and the other one does not. He suggested this is a better method of prorations. He said the bill was presented as not having a discernable cost. He said in reality, the bill would provide legislative encouragement for municipalities to consolidate their ballots. He stressed the passage of S.B. 508 would serve the intent of the 1993 Legislature. Senator O'Connell asked if the committee required bond issues to be held during a municipal general election. Mr. Alastuey stated this was an improvement over the current situation that they have. Jennifer Stern, Bond Counsel, Clark County School District, testified this suggestion is a departure from past experiences with bond elections. She said they have had bond elections held during primary elections. She explained cities would be affected. She suggested city entities be allowed to testify. Marvin Leavitt, Legislative Coordinator, City of Las Vegas, stated concern about restricting the bond issues to primary elections. He said the situation could occur where there is not a citywide election during the general election other than a bond issue. He provided examples. He said it would cost more for the election to be held on a citywide basis if it were a bond issue for one ward. Discussion of the intent and need for the bill ensued. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 508. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. SENATOR O'DONNELL AND SHAFFER VOTED NO. SENATOR O'CONNELL ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Alastuey to work on the language of the bill and to bring back a proposed amendment for the committee to discuss. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 508 and opened the hearing on S.B. 450. SENATE BILL 450: Revises provisions governing distribution of lists of registered voters in precinct, district or county. Senator O'Connell told the committee that the Assembly addressed the contents of this bill in another election bill. She stated she would take a motion to postpone the bill indefinitely. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 450. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion of the contents of the bill and the need for the bill ensued. Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City, told the committee that they will address the contents of the bill in Assembly Bill (A.B.) 618. He told the committee that A.B. 618 will be more comprehensive than the original intent. He urged the committee to review the bill. Senator Raggio asked the committee to hold the bill until he received assurance from the proponents of the bill that they were satisfied with the inclusion and language in A.B. 618. SENATOR TITUS WITHDREW HER MOTION. ASSEMBLY BILL 618: Makes various changes in provisions governing elections. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 450 and opened the hearing on S.B. 511. SENATE BILL 511: Authorizes certain cities to form independent school districts. Senator Raymond D. Rawson gave the committee a proposed amendment (Exhibit G) for S.B. 511. He explained the amendment allows the legislative commission to set up an interim study. He discussed the amendment with the committee. Senator O'Connell asked Senator Rawson if they could combine his bill with Senator Porter's bill. She explained Senator Porter had a bill in the works to provide for an interim study for this situation. Senator Rawson stated he would be willing to combine the two bills, but he stressed a study must occur. Discussion of the two bills ensued. Senator Rawson stated a budget of $3,500 was not enough to conduct an adequate study. He opined there was enough time to get an opinion on how large a budget was required to conduct an adequate study. Senator Raggio stated if they require an appropriation, the bill will need to be reviewed by the Senate Committee on Finance. He asked Senator Rawson if he had considered combining some districts. He said there are a couple of the districts in the state that if it were constitutionally permissible, they should be combined. He opined it should be added to the study. Senator Rawson agreed. Discussion ensued on how to conduct the study and what issues to include. Senator Rawson stressed this is $2.8 billion of the state's budget, and they should not take it lightly. Senator Rawson asked Senator O'Connell if she could direct the Legislative Counsel Bureau to try to develop a budget figure for the study. Senator Raggio stated the committee should work on combining Senator Rawson's bill and Senator Porter's bill and then get the Legislative Counsel Bureau to provide a budget number for appropriation. Senator Raggio also suggested they should conduct research to see if other states have conducted similar studies, to obtain the results of the studies, and to obtain copies of their study budgets. Everyone agreed the legislative commission should contract with a qualified, independent, nationally recognized consulting firm to conduct an interim study regarding feasibility of reconfiguring the structure of school districts in Nevada. Senator Rawson explained there will be three legislators on a committee of 12 so that legislators do not overpower the committee. He said those three representatives will provide the legislative participation. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 511 and opened the hearing on S.B. 504. SENATE BILL 504: Prohibits restriction of use of system for obtaining solar energy by owner of real property. (BDR 22-1665) Senator Titus provided a copy of the proposed amendments (Exhibit H) to the committee. She explained the proposed amendments. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 504. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, testified they support the bill with the proposed amendments. While Senator O'Donnell was looking at the proposed amendment, Ms. Mary Henderson testified on S.B. 450. Senator Raggio asked if Ms. Mary Henderson knew that Ms. Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County, approved the inclusion of S.B. 450 into A.B. 618. He stated he did not want to indefinitely postpone S.B. 450 in case A.B. 618 did not get passed. Ms. Mary Henderson stated: Senator, I do not believe that she [Marlene Henderson] did understand that was included in A.B. 618. I understand there are extensive amendments to it as well. I know that we have not even had a chance to review the amendments. I do not know the status of the bill. I appreciate your guardian angelship for us, but if we could hold this bill, instead of indefinitely postponing it, until we have a better feeling for what will happen with that Assembly bill. The committee agreed to hold the bill. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 450 and the committee turned their attention, again, to S.B. 504. As there was no further discussion on the bill, they took the vote. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 504 and opened the hearing on S.B. 388. SENATE BILL 388: Authorizes adoption of ordinances to provide expedient means to remedy dangerous condition on private property without notice to owner under certain circumstances. Kathryn McClain, Legislative Analyst, Clark County, provided the committee with proposed amendments (Exhibit I). She explained the amendments to the committee. Senator O'Connell asked who would decide. Ms. McClain explained the procedure is that someone from the health district, the fire department, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, or the public response office would decide together to go review the premises. Senator O'Connell asked if they already formed the committee. Ms. McClain explained it was an "unofficial committee." Karen Larsen, Director of Administrative Services, Public Response Office, testified these entities conduct their investigations separately and certify that the property or building provide a dangerous condition to the general public . She said: What we are trying to address is . . . the news stories about several incidences. One in particular was in the southern part of the valley where we had a house that had been abandoned. It had been occupied by vagrants. We had METRO in, saying that there were hypodermic needles. We had the health district saying it was a health hazard because there was raw sewage on the floors. The pool in the back yard was filling up with water. We had the neighborhood in our commission meetings. Our hands were tied. We could do nothing because the building, itself, could be repaired. That was not the issue. It needed to be boarded or fenced because children were entering it as an attractive nuisance. They [the neighborhood] were afraid that something awful was going to happen. Those are the instances that we are talking about. The health district had gone out and certified it as a health hazard. They have specific criteria, which means there has to be raw sewage. There have to be things that are dangerous. The fire department had gone out. There was so much paper and debris inside the structure that it was a fire hazard because of that as well as the dried brush that had been allowed to grow up against the house. They are separate certifications by those agencies. Senator O'Connell asked if the county was opening themselves up for a lawsuit if the owner comes back. Ms. Larsen stated it was the opinion of their district attorney that these actions will save that owner from potential lawsuits. She explained in this case, the owner lived out-of-state and could not be found. She noted the structure had been abandoned for several years. Although the building department verified the structure was intact, the condition of the building was a danger. She said METRO verified there were arrests at the house night after night. She said the property had to be fenced or boarded up to keep the neighborhood kids out. She explained they get separate certifications from all the agencies, and bring them together. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 388. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 388 and opened the hearing on S.B. 420. SENATE BILL 420: Makes various changes relating to elections. Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst, provided the committee with a copy of the proposed amendment (Exhibit J). Proposed amendments came from Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County. Upon request from the committee, she explained the amendments to the committee. Ms. Bennett summarized sections of the bills with the amendments that affected those bills. It includes the number of voters for recall petitions. She explained the bill will be amended to include the opportunity for people to request an absentee ballot by fax. The final amendment will be the removal of the requirement for the county clerk to publish the list of registered voters in the public newspapers. Discussion ensued of the sections of the bills with the amendments. Written testimony from Ms. Ferguson was distributed to the committee (Exhibit K). This testimony addresses following poll workers and filming poll workers and voters. Thelma Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Seniors Coalition, stated the election workers agreed their permission must be obtained before pictures could be taken. She said, "We have two or three diehards that want you to have cameras in every polling place. But that's only two or three people out of the 150 members we have. They are a little radical about other things too, so . . . I guess that's a matter of opinion too, who is radical and who is not." Senator O'Connell asked if the language was acceptable. Ms. Clark stressed the workers must be contacted and permission obtained before pictures are taken. Senator O'Connell reminded this does not apply to counting ballots, only to the polling place. Everyone understood this. Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, testified in the amendment proposed for section 7 of the bill to amend Nevada Revised Statutes 293.1277, verification of signatures by county clerks posed a problem for the Office of the Secretary of State. He stated, based on a federal lawsuit, they shortened the time frames in 1993. He said the time allowed before 1993 was 65 days for the verification to take place. He said they halved all of the numbers to meet the federal ruling. He stressed they verified all of the signatures in 2 days in 1992. He opined use of the staggering procedures that the clerks want, it messes with the time frames and violates 1st and 14th Amendment protection for minor political parties, independent candidates, etc. He stated some other amendments they are looking at are being discussed and included in bills in the Assembly, requiring concurrence. Senator O'Connell suggested they should take the proposed amendments from Ms. Ferguson to the Assembly Committee on Elections. She said they could review it and see what parts they include in Assembly bills. Mr. Erquiaga agreed this was a good suggestion. He said they have moved four or five bills out of the Assembly Committee on Elections this week. He said the proposed amendments to those bills are awaiting the work of the bill drafter and then the bills will go to the floor. Mr. Erquiaga stated if S.B. 420 moves out of committee today, after it reaches the Assembly, they could rework the bill based on the work they have already completed. Senator O'Connell temporarily closed the hearing on S.B. 420 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 450. She asked Mr. Erquiaga if Ms. Marlene Henderson was aware of the bill. Mr. Erquiaga stated Ms. Marlene Henderson was not at the hearing. He said S.B. 450 contained an additional provision that they had questioned. He stated the committee needs to hold the bill and discuss it with Ms. Marlene Henderson. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 450 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 420. Senator O'Connell told the committee she wanted to amend S.B. 420 with the amendments they had heard on May 25 (Exhibit L). She said she wanted to take Ms. Ferguson's amendments to the Assembly to determine what they had addressed in Assembly bills. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 420. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio asked if anyone present could discuss the cost of obtaining the new boxes. He said he had no problem with passing the bill, but he did not want to mandate expenses for the counties. He requested language to be included in the bill that the committee is not mandating the purchase of new voting boxes. He suggested the motion to amend and do pass, with Amendment Number (No.) 679, included his proposed language. Ms. Bennett explained his proposal was included in the bill. Senator Titus told the committee, "I have some serious problems with some of these restrictions on what a poll watcher can and cannot do. I do not want to send this down there in any way like it is, something that we are supportive of, because some of it is not practical at all. It goes against what a poll watcher is there to do, I think." Senator O'Connell assured the committee that she would meet with the chairpersons of the Assembly Committee on Elections regarding Exhibit J. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 420 and opened the hearing on S.B. 545. SENATE BILL 545: Prohibits local governments from adopting ordinances limiting rental rates for private residential property. Joe Guild, Lobbyist, Nevada Mobile Home Park Owners Association, was present to answer questions for the committee regarding the bill. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 545. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Titus announced she is voting against the bill. She stated she is against rent control and feels that they aim the bill at mobile home parks. She opined there is a problem with rent in mobile home parks in southern Nevada. She stated she would not support the bill and stressed she is not in favor of rent control in apartments either. Senator Raggio stated he does not support rent control either, but they should apply the issue uniformly throughout the state. He stated this bill assures that any law enacted concerning rent control would be uniform across the state and therefore the state would preempt local governments from acting differently. Senator O'Connell recognized this is an important bill to have statewide because of investors. She stated the investment should be encouraged. Senator Raggio regaled the committee with a story of renting a rent-controlled apartment in San Francisco in postwar 1940. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND SHAFFER VOTED NO.) ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 545 and opened the hearing on S.B. 542. SENATE BILL 542: Provides for collecting delinquent charges for municipal sewerage on general tax roll. Mr. Leavitt provided a copy of the proposed amendment to the committee (Exhibit M). He stated they addressed all of the concerns of the proponents, opponents and committee in the amendment. Discussion of the amendment ensued. Michelle Gamble, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, stated the amendments addressed the concerns of the rural county entities. She said the portion of the amendment where the list has to be in a form acceptable to the county treasurer addressed the counties' concern that it would not be in a format with which they could work. She said they have agreed to the 4 percent that will allow them to recover their costs. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 542. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 542 and opened the hearing on S.B. 544. SENATE BILL 544: Provides for use of catastrophic leave by state employee for death in his immediate family. Senator O'Connell reminded the committee this was Senator Washington's bill. There was no discussion of the bill. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 544. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 544 and opened the hearing on S.B. 543. SENATE BILL 543: Exempts certain public works projects from provisions governing local government purchasing and public works. The committee discussed Amendment Number (No.) 859. This amendment allows the competitive bid to be added to the language. Ms. Porter testified the amendment applies only to water and sewer projects where the developer pays for all of the oversizing of the project. She said under these conditions, it is exempt from competitive bid and prevailing wage. She stressed if the builder is paying for everything up-front, then they are not required to comply with competitive bids or prevailing wages. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND, WITH AMENDMENT NO. 859, AND DO PASS S.B. 543. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 543 and opened the hearing on S.B. 84. SENATE BILL 84: Increases compensation of various public officers. Senator Raggio opined this entire bill was the recommendation that came out of the compensation commission. He said the intent was to focus on the portion of the county elected officials' salaries. Senator O'Connell stated there was a motion to separate the legislative pay out of the bill. She said that is as far as the committee got with the bill. Senator Raggio asked county representatives if they were all in agreement with the action proposed by the committee, a 20 percent increase in pay and a 2 percent increase in longevity pay. Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, told the committee they have received letters from all of the counties regarding the proposal. He stated the proposal is a "spirit of compromise . . . We had requested Churchill County be placed in the class 3, in addition to the other changes made by the salary commission in the classes of the county." Senator Raggio asked if the change in classification was concurred to by the affected counties. Mr. Hadfield responded that the affected counties concurred. Senator Raggio asked when the salaries would become effective. Mr. Hadfield responded the salaries would become effective in July. Senator O'Connell asked if the letter she received from Elko County did not represent the Elko County Commissioners' feelings on S.B. 84. Stephanie D. Licht, Lobbyist, Elko County Board of Commissioners, stated they do not support the proposal. She stressed these commissioners disagree with their county managers. The commissioners want to maintain a local control. Senator O'Connell asked if this meant that the Elko County Board of Commissioners want to handle the decision of the pay raises at Elko County, not at the Legislature. Ms. Licht responded if a commission could be set up to do that, the commissioners would like to do that. Senator Raggio stated that is what the legislators would like to do, but they have a constitutional requirement that the legislators set the salaries for the county officials. He further stated: We have been fooling around with this now since January. We have, over the years that I have been here, met the responsibility and set the salaries. We do not have the luxury, if you want to call it that, of setting up some commission for each county to do that on its own at this time without a constitutional change. When were the salaries of these officials last changed, Mr. Hadfield? Mr. Hadfield responded the salaries for the district attorneys and sheriffs were increased in July, 1989. The remaining county elected officials salaries were held off until January of 1990. Senator Raggio stated it had been at least 5 years since there has been a salary adjustment. He opined it will probably be another 4 years before they are changed again. Mr. Hadfield remarked a constitutional amendment would go beyond the 4-year term. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 84 BY PROVIDING A 20 PERCENT RAISE IN PAY, AND A 2 PERCENT RAISE IN LONGEVITY, AND INCLUDING CHURCHILL COUNTY IN CLASS 3, AND THE OTHER CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION STUDY. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion of the classification system and each county's classification ensued. Mr. Hadfield stated, "I can say that all of the counties have indicated they have budgeted for these increases . . . originally they budgeted for the 24 percent increase and they were advised of the 20 percent." Senator O'Connell asked, "Now, the motion is a 20 percent across the board?" Senator Shaffer responded, "Yes." Senator Porter read a letter from Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, regarding pay raises (Exhibit N). Senator Raggio explained state employees also receive merit increases and longevity pay. A debate over this statement and how it applies to university professors ensued between Senator Raggio and Senator Titus. Senator Raggio opined it does apply to university professional staff. Senator Titus declared it did not. Discussion of longevity pay, structure and requirements, for the county elected officials followed. Longevity pay only applies to elected officials, not to appointed officials. Any official who is appointed because of a vacancy is not paid longevity pay; nor is the time spent as an appointed official counted in the years served for longevity pay. They discussed a longevity cap of 20 percent. Mark Scofield, Assessor, Clark County, answered questions that the committee had regarding how the longevity is paid. He said: Under this proposal, if an individual has served 10 years, it would be 20 percent on top of their salary cap by the state Legislature. I am glad Mr. Hadfield broached the subject of being appointed because I fall into that loop. I was appointed to fill a 2-year unexpired term of my predecessor . . . I lost the longevity I previously received. I will have to serve 6 years, and I was treated as an elected official, but because of the way the statute is crafted, I will not enjoy those 2 years that I served in the appointed capacity. I lost all rights to some insurance benefits, previous longevity that was paid, in addition to the fact that I had to pay Medicare, which is something I did not have to pay previously. As far as I was concerned, I was treated like a new employee, and I am currently elected to the position, but I am treated no differently now than when I was appointed 2 years prior. I was the chief deputy, the assistant. Senator Porter asked if current office holders will receive this raise in pay and longevity, or if they have to be reelected to receive the raise? Mr. Hadfield stated all the elected officials will receive the pay and longevity raise on July 1, 1995 if the proposal is passed. Senator O'Connell announced the motion failed. The committee requested clarification. Senator O'Connell stated she thought Senator Porter had voted no on the bill, in addition to Senators Titus, Townsend and O'Connell who had voted no. Senator Porter added for the record, "Based upon the memo received from Bob Erickson in research on the consumer-price index and a letter of support from the Clark County commissioners dated May 8, I give my support." THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS, TOWNSEND AND O'CONNELL VOTED NO.) ***** After the vote, the debate on the merit pool surfaced again. Senator Titus testified the merit pool is not parallel to the merit pool for state employees. She stated the merit pool for professional university staff competes for that pool. She said the staff may receive merit; it might only be $500, it is not the automatic 5 percent merit raise that state workers receive. Senator Raggio contended this is not so. He said the Senate Committee on Finance looks at the merit pool every session. He said the college shares across-the-board in the 2 percent merit pool. He said only a very small percentage of professional university staff does not share in the merit pool. He said the merit pool is provided for those professional staff below the position of dean. He stressed there is a separate merit pool for staff who have the position of dean or above. He expounded the merit pool is an across-the-board merit pool. He told Senator Titus to take a look at it and she would receive that same information which he provided to her. Senator O'Connell told the committee they will postpone discussion of legislators' pay raises until the next committee hearing due to the work schedules of committee members. Hearing no further testimony forthcoming on any of the bills, Senator O'Connell adjourned the committee meeting at 5:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs June 9, 1995 Page