MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 24, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 1:35 p.m., on Saturday, June 24, 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 Jon C. Porter Senator William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Maddox, Attorney, Maddox and Saint-Aubin Don Schlesinger, Attorney, Land M. Inc. Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 532. She stated the committee has convened to accommodate Assemblywoman Buckley, who has amendments proposed for the bill. She explained during a work session the committee discusses the bill and they will not take further testimony on the bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 532: Requires governmental bodies to provide monetary payments for dwellings and business establishments destroyed by governmental acquisition of real property. Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8, provided copies of the proposed amendments to the bill, (Exhibit C). She provided a history of the bill and the meetings that they have held regarding the bill. She stated the counties and cities have requested that the guidelines of the Federal Relocation Act when compensating home owners, renters and mobile home owners who have been displaced be used if federal monies are involved. However, she stated her review of the federal act is that there are gaps in the coverage for small business owners. She stated her amendments will cover the gaps left by using the Federal Relocation Act. She reviewed the amendments with the committee. Senator O'Connell asked how proper taking is different from public purpose. Ms. Buckley stated that proper taking is only supposed to be for public use. She stated that they can take from the owner and give private, blighted property to a redevelopment project. Senator O'Connell asked if this bill prohibits the small business owner from due process if their property is taken without their consent. Ms. Buckley stressed that this bill and the amendments only deal with moving expenses and making the small business owner whole if his or her business has been taken away. She emphasized the bill does not deal with whether taking is proper, what type of notice is given, the issues of eminent domain, etc. Senator O'Connell asked if the business takes the funds offered, would that prohibit them from due process and court action. Ms. Buckley stated, "Absolutely not. If a business owner thought that their property was not being taken properly, they could file a court action." Bob Maddox, Attorney, Maddox and Saint-Aubin, stated he reads the law that if a property owner accepts the offer from the redevelopment, the property owner probably cannot challenge the taking. Don Schlesinger, Attorney, Land M. Inc., stated the Legislature has deemed that any redevelopment project is "a public purpose." He said this bill only deals with the property owner after the taking of the property. He said the bill deals with making the property owner "whole." He said it is the law that the owner cannot contest the nature of the taking because they have assumed that it was for "public purpose." He said that "public purpose" ought to be more narrowly defined so that a business owner who wants to expand upon the site of another business owner could not claim "public purpose." Discussion of public purpose ensued. Senator O'Connell stated five states have narrowly defined "public purpose." She stated the committee was told if they put that definition in law, it would generate many law cases in Nevada. She stated the committee opines that it would cause less law cases because everyone would know what the law is. Mr. Maddox explained the City of Boulder, Colorado, has this definition in their city charter. He said it is a judicial determination for their city. He said the city planner from Boulder told him that they have an effective redevelopment program and they do not use eminent domain. They negotiate everything and Boulder is proud of their redevelopment program. They do not get into litigation. He stressed that this definition does not encourage litigation. Senator O'Connell cited the states that currently have this in their constitution are Colorado, Arizona, Washington, Missouri and Mississippi. She stated since Ms. Buckley will be conducting more negotiations on the bill, the committee will follow up on these guidelines by contacting these states. Mr. Maddox stated the current state of the law does not prohibit a property owner from challenging public purpose. He said it is an extremely difficult challenge to make. He said there is not a lot in current state statutes that protect property owners and businesses. He suggested they are at the mercy of the entity seeking to take their business. Ms. Buckley reminded the committee and the audience: There are two very separate but very important issues as you have defined them already. The first is with regard to the taking issue. The second is with regard to making the person whole if this is to happen. I think it is very important, if someone feels that their property should not be taken, they can always file an action in court. But we have heard from at least two individuals about that burden. No matter what happens with regard to the taking issue, I think it is essential in this legislative session to deal with the issue of making sure that the small business owner, the home owner, the renter gets their moving expenses paid for and is assisted in the relocation process. No matter what happens with this bill, I would urge all of the committee and the Legislature to take this action at a minimum this session and not to allow individuals to be removed from their home or business without any compensation whatsoever. I would be happy to continue to work with the interested parties and to work with this committee to ensure that this legislation is processed and I thank you very much for your time. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Buckley when she expects to return to the committee. Ms. Buckley responded that she could return on the following Monday. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 532 and opened the hearing on S.B. 568. SENATE BILL 568: Makes various changes concerning fees charged by cities and counties to public utilities. Senator O'Connell stated when a motion was made on S.B. 568, there was a misunderstanding and the motion did not receive a second. She told the committee that Brian Herr, Representative, Nevada Bell, brought an amendment to the committee (Exhibit D). Mr. Herr addressed the amendment and explained the need and request for it. Discussion of the amendment ensued. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 568. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Hearing no further testimony forthcoming on any of the bills, Senator O'Connell adjourned the committee meeting at 2:05 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs June 24, 1995 Page