MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
March 25, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:16 a.m., on Tuesday, March 25, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. Rod Sherer
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Pat Hughey, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, Nevada
Tina M. Leiss, Senior Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General
Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District
Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Washoe County District Attorney
Andrew List, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO)
Jim Avance, Consultant/Lobbyist, representing the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association
Gub Mix, Executive Director, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association
Renee Diamond, Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Business and Industry, Manufactured Housing Division
John J. Slaughter, AICP, Strategic Planning Manager, Legislative Affairs, Office of the County Manager, Washoe County
Chairman Manendo:
Good morning, Committee. Madame Secretary, will you please call the roll? (Roll call was taken.) Let’s turn right to the agenda. Assembly Bill (A.B.) 409.
Assembly Bill 409: Authorizes public bodies to provide certain notice and information by electronic mail. (BDR 19-1084)
Assemblyman Rod Sherer, Assembly District No. 36 (Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, and Nye Counties and portions of Churchill County):
[Introduced himself.] I bring to you today something a little different. Most of us bring things that cost money; I’m on the other end of the stick. I’m looking at reducing and saving some money, so we can spend it on something else, and also bring us to the twenty-first century by not using mail all the time.
For A.B. 409, the costs for envelopes and paper were provided by the General Services Division. The paper was estimated at $26 for a case of 5,000 sheets. Overall, 100 notices cost about $40, or $.40 per notice. In other words, 100 notices, twice a month, would cost an estimated $960 a year. The City of Henderson mails about 579 notices a month, at a cost of approximately $5,500. I was talking to a colleague from the north, and he thought we already had this fixed, but we don’t. Representatives from the [Nevada Office of the] Attorney General, as well as some other people, will be here to also testify on this.
In conclusion, counties and cities are required to provide notices of meetings of their subsidiary entities such as planning commissions, city advisory boards, convention and visitors’ authorities, redevelopment boards—all sorts of different people. This goes all the way across the board in not only government, but also other public bodies. Therefore, the estimated costs rise quite a bit. I would also like you to look at being able to do electronic mail or posting first, and then if people do not have e-mail access, they can still get it through the mail. This will not only save time and money, but will also bring up the efficiency of some offices so they can have time to do other things. Thank you. It’s a pretty straightforward bill.
Chairman Manendo:
You handed me a copy of an amendment. Are you in agreement with it?
Assemblyman Sherer:
I’m in agreement with it, but I’m going to have Mr. Musgrove pass it out.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Mr. Chairman, I’d like to commend this bill and the “perpetrator” for bringing it forward. Because of my prior electoral experience, I get many notices of different meetings and, many times, I would get the notice in the mail the day of the meeting. If this can be done via e-mail, that will give people truly a three‑day window to arrange their schedule, instead of one day or, “Whoops, I missed that meeting.” This is an excellent bill. Thank you, Assemblyman Sherer.
Chairman Manendo:
Any other questions? [There were none.] Do you have folks that you wish to have testify in any particular order, Mr. Sherer?
Assemblyman Sherer:
No. I know there is a person representing the [Nevada Office of the] Attorney General. I’d like to have that person and then Mr. Musgrove.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, Nevada:
Mr. Chairman, thank you. [Introduced himself.] There’s another bill [S.B. 229] on the other side that [Senator] Ann O’Connell [Senate District No. 5] is bringing over regarding information. Our amendment [Exhibit C] simply allows for, if there is a technical problem such as the e-mail system going down, it allows that the governmental entity has not violated the provisions of the Open Meeting Law. It’s a very friendly amendment, just to make sure that, if for some reason someone doesn’t receive his or her e-mail, the meeting would be allowed to continue, but the problem would have to be through a technical glitch that could be verified. We appreciate what Mr. Sherer is doing in bringing this forward. It gives us an opportunity to save the taxpayers money, and to provide the information and notices in the best way we can, whether it’s electronic or whatever newer technology comes along. We appreciate it, and stand in support with the amendment.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
Mr. Musgrove, the county did something similar to this with the Sandstone where you’ve chosen to go electronic with that. Have you seen any problems with that, such as people not getting it, or any other problems with it being sent electronically?
Dan Musgrove:
No, absolutely not. We used to send out the Sandstone as you referenced, and the mailing costs were extensive. We decided to go electronic only for those people who want it. I don’t know the savings yet, but I think it’s going to be substantial, and obviously, folks appreciate getting it electronically. It’s been a very good thing for the county to do, and we’re beginning to do it more and more as we move to electronic means.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
Thank you very much. So, this is just another cost-saving benefit that the county is doing? [Mr. Musgrove indicated that it was.]
Chairman Manendo:
What other publications is Clark County sending out electronically besides the Sandstone?
Dan Musgrove:
We do press releases, but I don’t think we’ve gone much further than the Sandstone at this point. Obviously, without this in statute, we cannot do any of our agendas. We cannot do any of our notifications for zoning hearings or anything else of that sort. If people ask for it, we can begin to transition to using this as a public meeting notice.
Chairman Manendo:
Just as a side note, are they stopping the Sandstone? They’re continuing that, aren’t they? [Mr. Musgrove indicated it was continuing.]
Chairman Manendo:
There was some controversy over that.
Dan Musgrove:
I believe the only controversy was based on the cost of it, but because we’re electronic now, obviously we’ve removed that as a consideration. One consideration which is covered by a bill [S.B. 229] that Senator [Ann] O’Connell [Senate District No. 5] and [Senator Dina] Titus [Senate District No. 7] are doing, involves when elected officials are included in those publications. It is good legislation that deals with once they’ve filed—we already do that internally as a public policy—but that may have been what you were thinking of in terms of the publication looking like a campaign mailer, and we stopped that a few years ago.
Tina M. Leiss, Senior Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Tina Leiss for the [Nevada Office of the] Attorney General. The Attorney General is in support of this bill, and I’m just here to answer any questions that you might have.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I think this bill [A.B. 409] is a great idea, and I think my colleague from southern Nye County should be commended, but I’m concerned. It would seem to me we would have to have something like a paper trail in place that could reinforce that the e-mail had been sent to a particular person. Otherwise, I can see challenges, especially in the rural areas—“I didn’t get that e-mail; I didn’t know it was posted.” So, is there some way that you are going to be able to print that out and document the fact that the e-mail did go to a particular person?
Tina Leiss:
I would assume that the public body would have some sort of confirmation system to make sure that an e-mail was sent.
Assemblyman Hardy:
My attaché has figured out how, when I send an e-mail, when the recipient opens it up, I know it, and so, that’s an electronic record.
Assemblyman Christensen:
I have a question for my colleague from Boulder City.
Assemblyman Hardy:
For his attaché?
Assemblyman Christensen:
Yes. I will check with her. Thank you.
Assemblyman Hardy:
My attaché is Celeste Gunther at 4-8857. It’s on your e-mail address file.
Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District:
[Introduced herself.] I’m here also speaking in support of Assembly Bill 409, and we support the amendment. We see this as a cost savings to the Clark County School District. We’re always looking for ways to save money, and we see this as a means to do that. Thank you.
Chairman Manendo:
How much money do you think this will save the school district in Clark County?
Karyn Wright:
Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure. I could get some numbers for you. This will help with sending out notices for our school board [Clark County Board of School Trustees] meetings, and other such notifications, so we do see this as a cost savings.
Chairman Manendo:
I think that’s wonderful that the Clark County School District is interested in looking at ways of saving money. I wish they would look at ways to raise money, which they’ve failed to do on many instances, but that’s another bill and another time. It’s called the pleasure of the Chair to speak. Thank you.
Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Washoe County District Attorney:
Maddy Shipman, Washoe County, and we are in support of the bill [A.B. 409] as amended. We like the Clark County amendment [Exhibit C]. We believe it is necessary. E-mail is utilized now in our planning law section, so we use e-mail, and it’s been very handy for those that prefer to use that process.
Andrew List, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO):
Chairman Manendo, I did not actually check the “speaking” box, but for the record, we do support A.B. 409 with the amendment.
Chairman Manendo:
Is there anyone else speaking on Assembly Bill 409? Las Vegas? For or against Assembly Bill 409? Seeing none, I will close the hearing on A.B. 409. I will entertain a motion. What would that motion be?
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 409.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Williams was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo:
We will make sure Mr. Sherer is assigned his own bill. We will give him the floor statement when it comes up.
Assembly Bill 262: Makes various changes to provisions governing manufactured housing and mobile homes. (BDR 40-844)
Chairman Manendo:
Next is Assembly Bill 262. Gub Mix and Mr. Avance, “shepherding” the Chairman’s bill. Good morning.
Jim Avance, Consultant/Lobbyist, representing the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Introduced himself.] With me at the table is Gub Mix, the Executive Director of that organization, and in Las Vegas is Ms. [Renee] Diamond, the czar of manufactured housing.
I’m only here to diffuse some arrows, if sent. Mr. Mix is going to carry the ball, and Ms. Diamond has some comments.
Gub Mix, Executive Director, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. [Introduced himself.] Assembly Bill 262 actually deals with three separate issues which the industry has identified where changes are needed, and I’d like to go through those very quickly and give you a reason for each.
The first, which occurs on page 2 [of A.B. 262], allows for the Division of Manufactured Housing [Manufactured Housing Division], if a local jurisdiction does not or will not do the inspection and issuance of a certificate of occupancy on a modular or factory-built building, to step in and handle that particular action. If the local jurisdiction chooses to do it, great; that’s the way it’s always been. During the past two years, we had one local jurisdiction which refused to do it, and it caused some grief for homeowners who were trying to buy modular homes and could not get a certificate of occupancy in order to move into the home. This is just a fail-safe, fallback situation if that problem arises again. I don’t anticipate that it will, but on the other hand, we don’t like to be put in that position. That’s the first element of change.
The second change starts at the bottom of page 2 [of A.B. 262], and then goes into page 3. The principal government-created mortgage entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have developed a new financing instrument as part of their overall portfolio that offers regular mortgage rate financing to people who purchase a manufactured home in a rental community, if that community offers a lease that is at least five years longer than the term of the contract. For a regular 30-year mortgage, that would be a 35-year lease.
Part of the requirement of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae programs is that the home itself be converted to real property, because “home-only” loans cannot be purchased. They must purchase real estate loans. A long-term lease becomes real estate when it’s converted to real property. Current law in Nevada stipulates that, if a home is owned by the same person who owns the land, it can be converted. This would add the language:
Leased by the owner of the mobile or manufactured home . . . financed in accordance with the guidelines of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture], or any other entity that requires as part of its financing program restrictions on ownership and actions affecting title and possession similar to those groups [required by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the United States Department of Agriculture.]
This is a brand new financing opportunity for people living in manufactured housing communities. The difference in rate right now would be approximately 7 percent—which is huge—if they are able to do this. A community owner would have to opt into the program. They would have to agree to issue 35-year leases, and some will and some won’t. Once again, it’s an opportunity, and we’re just asking for this change. The industry is going around the country changing those states that don’t currently allow leaseholds to be converted to real property. Utah just did it in their session that ended a couple of weeks ago. Idaho did it last year. California has always done it. Oregon is doing it right now. All in the process of making this change so that we can use this financing program. So, that is the second.
Language was added by the drafters on page 5 [of A.B. 262] to offer a stronger penalty if a person chooses to reconvert that property to personal property for whatever reason. That has always been in the law. They’re adding language that would offer some penalties, and they would have to pay any costs associated to local governments to be sure that this was done properly.
At the bottom of page 5 [of A.B. 262] is an issue, which we find causing some problems for our consumers. Currently under Nevada law, a person buying a home, or any individual, or a general contractor, can contract with subcontractors, but one of our manufactured housing dealers licensed by the Division of Manufactured Housing [Manufactured Housing Division], may not. Currently, we sell 90 percent of our homes in the land/home-type sale where we are including in the sale, for financing purposes, the construction of a garage, septic system, maybe a well, concrete driveways—all the things that you would normally find with a site-built home. Our dealer is contracting with a sales agreement with the purchaser to be sure that all of these items are included in the transaction, but that dealer is not allowed to then hire a subcontractor. He has to hire a general contractor, who then hires a subcontractor. It’s a cost burden on the consumer to pay that added cost.
We are suggesting that, if a purchase agreement to buy a home includes whatever work is needed, the dealer can then hire a person already properly licensed by the [Nevada State] Contractors Board to perform that work as part of the sale of that home. This is pretty much the pattern in every state in the union; it’s just not the pattern here in Nevada. We think that this will do a great service to the consumers. They are already protected because of the requirements of the Division of Manufactured Housing [Nevada Manufactured Housing Division]. You will notice it says that a dealer of new manufactured homes may not require a buyer of the manufactured home to obtain services to be performed pertinent to the sale from any specific provider, and a statement to that fact has to be given to the consumer. Therefore, the consumer has the opportunity to choose from providers of that service who are properly licensed. It is just that our person—who is ultimately responsible by Nevada law to have some control over the subcontractors, but right now doesn’t—is responsible under the Division of Manufactured Housing [Manufactured Housing Division] program, if they’ve put in on the sales agreement.
Those are the three issues. The other item is toward the middle of page 6 and was placed by the division [Manufactured Housing Division]. I’m sure that Mrs. Diamond can comment on that, and I certainly would stand for any questions that anyone may have.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Thank you to the witness for the presentation. I have just one problem with this. Obviously, by signing on to it, I think the concept is good. However, in looking at page 2 [of A.B. 262], especially at lines 4 through 7 and also on down the page a little bit later, you use the term, “If any city or county fails to enforce and inspect the installation of factory-built, et cetera,” and later on, you use that term with regard to the state. Here’s what troubles me just a little bit from a drafting viewpoint. It doesn’t say enforce what. It doesn’t say, for example, that a city would be enforcing regulations promulgated under section whatever, or that the state would be enforcing regulations promulgated under either that section or another section. Can you or staff give me some comfort that there is enough clarity in those words?
Gub Mix:
Mr. Chairman, there are specific requirements for installation, and it was our feeling that, by identifying what the enforce and inspection would be for the installation of factory-built housing and manufactured buildings, that this would be clear enough to understand that we were talking about that one issue. The HUD [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development] Code [Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards] product which we primarily deal with in our industry, the manufactured home, the state already has the authority to do all of these elements of that. They just don’t have it for modulars and, modulars are becoming more popular. We’re seeing more modulars being sold. This is a change in the marketplace, and these problems have come up, and we just want to be sure that there’s a seamless effort made, by local governments—and that’s always our hope—but if for some reason local government doesn’t want the responsibility, then the state can step in and be sure that that sale may continue.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Mr. Chairman, if I may follow up, and perhaps Committee Counsel can be helpful here, but both instances I’m thinking of appear in lines 4 through 7 of page 2 [of A.B. 262], and my only question is, when there is no direct object of “enforce,” and it’s possible that we could be talking about enforcing different provisions, that is, local provisions versus state-adopted provisions, is this, in Committee Counsel’s mind, sufficiently definite that no court would have a problem determining what it is we mean here, what’s covered by the enforcement provision?
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel:
I believe it would be whatever the applicable requirements relating to installation of those types of housing, but if you want to clarify it, we would try to do that. That’s just the existing language. I don’t know how long that’s been that way and if there has been any problems with the enforcement of it so far.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Thank you, Ms. O’Grady, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be guided by the opinion of Committee Counsel here, but if the opinion is that we could quite reasonably make this a bit more definite and specific, I think that would be a good idea. I wouldn’t want a court to have to guess as to what enforcement is properly covered under this, and I wouldn’t want to see people doing a lot of litigation to say, “Well, this is, or that isn’t,” when we could solve the problem by making it very definite and specific here. Thank you.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I know that local jurisdictions have a lot of rules they follow, and I’m curious if those rules have a time frame when they are supposed to enforce and inspect. I’m not familiar with NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] [Chapter] 461 enough to say. Is there a time that you are suggesting that the division [Manufactured Housing Division] enforce and inspect, so do we give the city or the municipality or the county, two days, three days, two hours, seven days, three months? What are you looking at with time frames? Is that covered in a different statute that isn’t before us?
Gub Mix:
Mr. Chairman, in the one case that has occurred which prompted this legislation, the county refused to issue the certificate of occupancy and said they would not issue it. It wasn’t a time frame. They made the statement, and that is what has prompted this. It hasn’t been an issue anywhere else in the state, and I would hope it never would be, and I would hope that we never have that problem again. It is just where a local government, for whatever reason, says they will not do it. That’s when we want the state to be able to step in. But the county is going to have to say, “Well, we’re really busy, and we can’t get to it for a week or two”—we understand those things. It’s just when they say no. That’s what has prompted this.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I guess I didn’t get a comfortable answer, Mr. Chair. It seems to me that we could say, “The county isn’t going to do it after a day, and we’d be in the same situation.”
Assemblyman Collins:
I’m not sure if what I’m going to say is correct, or answer what you’re thinking or your concerns, but last [legislative] session, we changed the law to allow manufactured housing on residential lots. It allowed local governments to change to conform to that. I’ve had local elected officials display their concerns and issues, and some local governments are more reluctant to approve these, even though, by law, they are required to. In [NRS Chapter] 461, there is 10‑day notification of manufactured—there are some other provisions in there, so it’s your normal timely manner process if you’re permitting and doing inspections. Where they’ve delayed that or ignored that is the representer of the bill’s issue, if that alleviates some of your concern for some of the folks that were here when we did that.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I was on the receiving end of that bill, and we went through the appropriate zoning and requirements, and we did our due diligence, and have a policy in Boulder City. It would be nice for me to see what the notification is, because I would be a little reluctant to say “enforce and inspect” because a city or county fails, without some kind of guideline near or close to this section that says what the time is. Maybe I should ask [Committee] Counsel if that is in there, as well as my esteemed colleague from my neighboring city across the mountains.
Renee Diamond, Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Business and Industry, Manufactured Housing Division:
Although Mr. Avance called me the “czar” of manufactured housing, I would like to be called the “czarina.” [A written copy of Ms. Diamond’s testimony is attached as Exhibit D.]
I am here in support of A.B. 262, but I will only speak to the last section on page 6. Section 5, NRS [subsection] 489.325.1(e) would add to the list of categories that are required to be licensed by the division under its subclass of limited servicemen, which limited their work to a specific scope of installation and/or repair.
Consumer complaints have increased to the division about those [Nevada] State Contractors Board licensees listed under their Class C license who have worked on manufactured homes and, in some cases, have placed inappropriate material in the homes. The [Nevada State] Contractors Board statutes require all licensed contractors to have our license before they work on a manufactured home or commercial coach. Currently, we offer a limited number of categories, placing the homeowner and contractor in a “Catch 22” situation when we do not offer a license for a specific category, such as painting, floor covering.
[Renee Diamond continued.] The HUD [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development] Code [Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards] manufactured home is produced to an engineered, performance-based code, and additions to the home require knowledge of the engineering and capacity of the home. The newer home designs will need more categories than were previously contemplated in licensing, such as solar powered systems and tile setters. Thus, the installer who places heavy ceramic tile throughout a manufactured home without understanding its ability to carry the additional weight may do permanent damage to the home that a knowledgeable and division-educated licensee would not do. This list is for a very specific but limited area of work that will not affect many servicemen, but could help consumers protect their life investments in their home.
Approval of this bill [A.B. 262] will increase the number of licensees and create a larger pool of knowledgeable persons for a homeowner to choose from, and possibly create more competitive pricing. It will also permit the consumer to use the division’s authority for complaint resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I had your staff fax up my testimony [Exhibit D], and attached to it is the primary “C” list of licensees that we are looking at. Of course, the portion that we would be interested in would be limited. It might be painters and carpentry and cabinet people doing major structural work. It wouldn’t be the elevator people and so on. Thank you. That ends my testimony.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. We did receive the fax and the attachment, five pages [Exhibit D]. Thank you, staff in Las Vegas.
Assemblyman Collins:
Hi, Renee. My question on page 6 [of A.B. 262] in regard to Section 5 is, these other categories, and I appreciate this language, would be restricted to the structure of the manufactured home, or would it go beyond the structure to the land the home would be placed on? What is your intent there?
Renee Diamond:
It really will kind of depend. On this list [Exhibit D], if we’re talking about concrete pouring or concrete cutting in relationship to the foundation of a manufactured home, on page 2, of the contractor board list [Exhibit D] near the top, we might concern ourselves with that, but the majority of people that we look to license would have to do with those who might affect the structure or the installation on the underpinning of a home.
Assemblyman Collins:
You’ve given us a full list of all “C” licenses for construction [Exhibit D]. Are you limiting it to just the “C” sub classifications? [Ms. Diamond answered, “Yes, sir.”] Okay, so there’s no well drilling or excavation being included in that? [Ms. Diamond answered, “No, sir.”] That’s what I wanted to clarify, just where you were going, because I think you hit the nail on the head here, I believe. You did a good job, as usual.
Renee Diamond:
Thank you. Maybe I can just clarify. We are not interested in enlarging our scope of authority. We are only interested in preserving consumers’ life investment in their homes. Under certain circumstances, floor covering and things like that can affect the home, as I mentioned about tile. We won’t get into issues that we have no authority over now, which is drilling a well, or the infrastructure of the land. That appropriately lies with local government.
The division supports the rest of the bill. We often see, in terms of financing, that the high cost of consumer financing stops people from buying these fine manufactured homes, and we think that this is a way to provide affordable housing through their ability to get long-term loans. In addition, to give a comfort level to the Committee, currently there are standards for the installation of homes that are supplied by manufacturers. These factory-built buildings all have their own standards. We are not interested in usurping any local governments, and I want to put that on the record. But, if a local government notifies a seller of one of these homes that they will not inspect the home or the building, we would certainly be ready and able to do the inspection, so that folks could get in. Thank you.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. We do have questions. Mr. Knecht had a question earlier. Do you want to restate your question, Mr. Knecht, and see if Ms. Diamond can help us out?
Assemblyman Knecht:
Thank you for that opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Ms. Diamond. At page 2, lines 4 through 7 of the bill [A.B. 262], where it references a city or county failing to enforce and inspect the installation of factory-built housing, and it says that if the local government fails to do so, then the division shall enforce and inspect such installation, et cetera. My concern is that the direction “shall enforce” or “if a city or county fails to enforce” without a direct object specifying what sections or regulations promulgated under what section we’re talking about, might leave some ambiguity that could lead to unnecessary litigation, and I was just wondering if it would be possible to specify in each case what regulations we are talking about enforcing. I’m not sure they would be the same for the state as for a local government. Would the state be put in the position of enforcing some regulations developed by a local government or would there be others? If you were a court looking at this, would you be able to tell, amid the cross claims of both parties, exactly what it is that the state would be enforcing here, and what it is authorized to enforce?
Renee Diamond:
It’s my opinion that the local jurisdiction requirements, which would be for the land and the utilities and so on, would have to be acknowledged by the state, but that this is an “opt out procedure,” and the division would adopt regulations that would specifically say that, after a certain period of time, or with a notice from a local jurisdiction, the division shall go and inspect. The reason there is no fiscal note on this is because we don’t really feel that the majority of local governments will opt out. We think that the majority of local entities really do inspect these. This is only for the time, as happened in the one instance, where a local government says it will not inspect a unit. The division will, of course, adopt regulations as to what that inspection will include. In the case of homes, it will be very similar to a manufactured home. We already inspect manufactured homes and commercial coaches. This would just permit us to do the other homes where a local jurisdiction opts out.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Mr. Chairman, if I may follow up just briefly. I certainly understand that, and appreciate that, and I don’t want to see, and I don’t expect to see, local governments opting out, and I don’t want to see the division have to spend a lot of time on this. My only question is, can we make the language more precise since we’re using the same term to refer, in the first instance, to local requirements and, in the second instance, to division requirements that have yet to be promulgated. Can we put a direct object in there in each case, so that parties and a court would know exactly what is covered here in terms of enforcement provisions?
Renee Diamond:
I have no objection to your making it as direct as you would like. I think the makers of the bill [A.B. 262] would have to be the ones to speak to that. When I think to the other statutes that we enforce, NRS Chapter 489, we generally find a mandate in legislation. The detail is in the regulation that we promulgate through the [Manufactured Housing] Division. I don’t find that this language is unclear in terms of what I read in [NRS Chapter] 489, which is about HUD‑produced homes. This mirrors that language, and I think that’s why the drafters at LCB [Legislative Counsel Bureau] used it. It mirrors [NRS Chapter] 489 language that tells us what we may and may not do, whatever your pleasure and the maker’s is. I want to assure you that it is not our intention to usurp anybody’s authority and, of course, we will have to adopt regulations to impose this.
Assemblyman Grady:
Ms. Diamond, looking at the list that you sent up here [Exhibit D]—and maybe you can do it in your regulations—could you limit what “C” licenses you are addressing, because I thought I heard you say you weren’t going to get into well drilling, installing pumps, and so forth, and after C21, when you get into C23 and forward, it does get into many of the areas I don’t know that you wanted to get into, such as bowling alleys. So maybe—and I’m not sure how you would do it—either through an amendment or through your regulations, maybe address licenses 1 through 21. I’d like your response on that, please.
Renee Diamond:
The reason that the language was left specifically vague in the new section (e), “any other category that may be similarly licensed by the State Contractors’ Board,” was because of our current situation. When I first started in 1995, I would never have thought that a factory-built home or building would have a solar panel. I would not have thought of 12 x 12 ceramic tile going into a factory-built home. So, we leave it vague specifically because we think that, as the occasion arises, we might want to go to other Class C licensees. I mean, elevators are an interesting concept. In other jurisdictions, there are two-story and higher buildings. UNLV had a factory-built building that’s a few stories high, and the elevators that are installed in it were installed by [Nevada State] Contractors Board contractors, but had no relationship to anything we do. We think that licensing in [NRS Chapter] 489 needs to be flexible. I don’t think it will be invoked often. I think there will be some flooring companies who will be interested in our limited license. But I hate to limit it, and then have to keep coming back to the Legislature session after session to enlarge it. This does not keep them from also having their [Nevada State] Contractors Board license. Indeed, that would be one of their requirements for our limited license.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Looking at NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] as Assemblyman Collins was pointing out to me, I did not see a time where the local government needed to perform before the [Manufactured Housing] Division stepped in, and I would feel more comfortable if we gave local government the opportunity of a time frame before the [Manufactured Housing] Division says you haven’t done it, you’re not going to do it, and we’re going to do it for you. So, to avoid the appearance of usurping, to use Ms. Diamond’s term, and when I look at paragraph 2 of Section 1—and maybe I’m a little more liberal in reading into this—but that seems to address some of Assemblyman Knecht’s questions as to what the local jurisdictions would require when it talks about architectural or esthetic requirements. When we, as a local jurisdiction, address this, that was the kind of the language that we had to look at, so I’m wondering if some of that couldn’t be applied to address those concerns, and maybe Ms. Diamond can address that if paragraph 2 doesn’t carry through some of those concerns and alleviate them.
Renee Diamond:
The present language, which is the subsection 2 that you mentioned, does give parameters for local jurisdictions for everything such as zoning requirements, fire zones, building setbacks, et cetera, that I spoke about. That is in current language. As you see there, it doesn’t say to local government how long they have to do those things. Generally, in statute, we don’t set a standard of time. In many cases, if there is a standard of statute, it is difficult for those of us who are agencies when we have overwhelming amounts of work to do. In Boulder City, there’s not as much development, but in places such as Henderson, or North Las Vegas, or Clark County, where there is huge development, you don’t set a time frame for those things that are in zoning requirements.
Generally, the way the local government works is that they post it, they hear it, and on zoning requirements, they post it in as timely a fashion as they can be organized to do. They might have an internal standard that, in the case of state agencies, would be our regulation. If we say that an inspection has to occur in five days, that might be a performance standard for our inspectors, but it wouldn’t necessarily be in statute. In our case, the [Manufactured Housing] Division, because it’s small, has few inspectors. Sometimes it takes us three days to inspect a home under [NRS Chapter] 489, sometimes it’s the next day, and sometimes you can call, and if our inspectors are in the office, we’ll come right out and do it. But that is not generally in statute. That is usually an internal performance measure or in regulation. But, again, we would, as subsection 2 requires, defer to local governments for the things that they want to enforce within their jurisdiction.
Assemblyman Collins:
Renee, just for some clarification. As you noticed on the screen, we’re all discussing back and forth amongst ourselves up here while this hearing has been going on. Under Section 5, those repairmen—and I believe this is correct and I just want you to confirm—before these limited licenses and other people could come and work on a manufactured home, in most cases, they must be a licensed contractor and take your eight-hour course. Is that generally correct?
Renee Diamond:
They would have to go through our process for a limited serviceman. What we require is—we have a study guide—an examination. You have to pass the examination and, in the case of limited service people, they have to prove to us that their [Nevada State] Contractors Board license is in good standing. In the case of air conditioning and heating, we require that before we give our limited license. [Assemblyman Collins thanked Ms. Diamond for the clarification.]
Jim Avance:
Mr. Chairman, you were kind enough to give us a memo from Clark County. [The document being referred to was not distributed during this hearing.] Would you care for us to respond to that while we’re at the table, or would you want to wait until after Clark County comes up?
Chairman Manendo:
I’d like to see them come up, because the Committee may have questions, and then you certainly can talk about those.
Is there anybody else speaking on Assembly Bill 262 here in Carson City? Las Vegas? [There was none.] Is that Gary with you, Renee? [Ms. Diamond answered that Gary Childers was with her.]
Chairman Manendo:
We stand in recess. [9:14 a.m.]
Chairman Manendo:
[Meeting reconvened at 9:27 a.m.] Mr. Musgrove? Good morning.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, Nevada:
I have had a chance, thanks to your help in transmitting my e-mail to the sponsor of the bill, to talk to him before the hearing. Granted, I don’t have the expertise that Mr. Schofield, our assessor [M. W. Schofield, Clark County Assessor] has, and he was the one that raised the question. He alluded to me that there should be no problem, but I’ll go ahead and put that on the record and then with your indulgence, you can allow him to clear that up, and we can go from there. What Mr. Schofield was concerned about was what the effect of the failure of the real property owner to pay his property taxes would have on the owner of the manufactured home. For example, what happens to the home if the property is sold for back taxes, and what happens to the manufactured home if the real property owner wants to evict a homeowner for failure to comply with lease payment requirements? For example, does the real property owner now own the manufactured home that sits on his land? These are some scenarios that our assessor thought needed to be addressed, and I appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to put that on the record and hope that he can answer those questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manendo:
Do you know when he’ll be able to answer those questions? [Mr. Musgrove answered, “No.”] Do you know if Mr. Schofield wants to send a letter with his official concerns? I just want to be accommodating to our assessor if he has anything that he wants to put on the record.
Dan Musgrove:
We appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the sponsor of the bill [A.B. 262] has made a commitment to talk to Mr. Schofield and make sure they have worked things out and, if for some reason that does not occur, then I will bring it back to the Committee, but I don’t believe that there should be a problem.
Gub Mix:
In response to Mark Schofield’s concerns, once the home is converted to real property—and what we’re talking about here is a long-term lease, the 35-year lease—for all practical purposes, it becomes real property in every sense. So, the same problems for the county in collecting taxes would occur here as would occur in any site-built home that there was a default on a loan. The lender becomes responsible. The Freddie Mac lease requires that the lender and Freddie Mac both be notified in the event of any form of default, so that they have an opportunity to cure either a tax default or rent payment, and then to ensure that the home will remain in that space and be sold to someone else. They would treat it almost the same as they would any site-built default that might occur, because at that point, it’s on the tax rolls in the same manner.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
But, clearly, on a site-built home, the home is attached to the real property underneath it, the building site. I can see the issue that the lobbyist from Las Vegas raises—you have two separate owners here. One would have the home financed and could very well, by default, encumber the real property that is being leased. Isn’t that correct?
Gub Mix:
I do not believe so. I think there are two separate instruments for real property taxation here. There’s the underlying ground, and that ground is being taxed as a large parcel, not individually to that particular lot which that person may be renting. We’re talking about converting the home itself to real property because it is sited under the terms of a long-term lease. There would be a separate taxing instrument for the home from the land. They would not be combined in this case. This is not an unusual occurrence. As an example, it is done in Hawaii all the time, where many homes are built on long-term lased land. It is unusual, but New York has done it for years, California has done it, and Hawaii has done it. You have a different taxing instrument for what you own, and there are two different conversions. The land is one, the home is another. The taxes don’t follow the same.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Just a follow up, if I may, Mr. Chairman. But, again, the conversion to real property incorporates them?
Gub Mix:
Only in the sense that it legally is described on that parcel, but the underlying tax responsibility for the land belongs to the landowner.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I don’t know if I really agree with that because, again, in the local jurisdictions, the inspector would check it, come back with the certificate that it had been converted to real property and was attached by a foundation or whatever they have to do, but at that point, the assessor at the local jurisdiction would, in fact, assess those as combined. I don’t think there’s ever any separation.
Gub Mix:
I think the problem has been that there’s never been an instance where this has come up before, because the law doesn’t allow it. Now that the law would allow the change, I assume there would have to be a regulation established for the process to declare just the home itself. The home would be one parcel; the land would be another parcel. Up until now, this hasn’t been necessary, but that will become necessary when this occurs.
Assemblyman Goicoechea
Until you get it worked out with Assessor Mark Schofield. Thank you.
Assemblyman Collins:
I’m okay with all these provisions in the proposed bill [A.B. 262], with the exception of Section 4. I think from pulling out the statutes on [NRS Chapters] 461, 489, and 624, I think the only question might be in the first part on page 5, “A dealer of new manufactured homes may enter into written agreements [pursuant] to which appropriately licensed providers of service agree to perform work pertinent to the sale . . .” So, this language does not relieve you from having a contractor’s license. If that needs to be addressed, then we need to address this language differently.
Gub Mix:
That was not our attorney’s opinion. Our attorney’s opinion was that this would allow them to go ahead and negotiate those contracts with the licensed subcontractors. Right now, the [Nevada State] Contractors Board requires that a person have a general contractor’s license in order to hire these people. This allows a manufactured housing dealer licensed by the state of Nevada to have the same right to hire a subcontractor.
We have always had the responsibility that the work done was performed to the customer’s expectations because it’s on the sales agreement that the dealer has initiated with the customer. Unfortunately, we’ve had no control over how that was done. This would at least offer some control. If a customer had a problem and had to file a complaint, he would file the complaint with the Manufactured Housing Division. He would never have to go to the [Nevada State] Contractors Board. That would be responsibility of the dealer who had contracted with him and then not gotten the service that he thought he’d paid for.
Assemblyman Collins:
NRS [section] 489.343 says compliance with all other requirements of law, and any other additional requirements the [Manufactured Housing] Division may, from time to time, prescribe by regulation. So the other requirements, by law, are that these subcontractors and servicemen, as well as limited servicemen, are all licensed. So, all those subcontractors are licensed. I don’t see this language currently, as it’s written, exempting you. Maybe the [Nevada State] Contractors Board is not here and maybe they should have been here to sign up to talk about this. Ms. Diamond has already said that those subcontractors must all be licensed, in addition to passing the test for the manufacturer’s portion of that licensing. I think the only unresolved thing is how to deal with allowing you as a dealer, or allowing the manufactured home dealer, to hire subcontractors without a general contractor’s license. I think that still needs to be resolved in this bill [A.B. 262]. Outside of that, I don’t see any other issues with the bill.
Gub Mix:
We took that concern to the drafter at LCB [Legislative Counsel Bureau], and they assured us that this was the language that we had to have. So, we’ve taken their recommendation. We did not draft this language. It was done by the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Assemblyman Collins:
Mr. Chairman, if we could ask Eileen [O’Grady, Committee Counsel], because there is no mention of [NRS Chapter] 624 or changes there. [Chairman Manendo indicated that Ms. O’Grady would look into the matter and report back to the Committee.] I think there should be a way to find out and resolve it.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. Again, is there anybody else testifying for or against or neutral on Assembly Bill 262? I’ll close the hearing on Assembly Bill 262, and bring it back to Committee. We’re going to wait and see a response from Mr. Schofield, and we have a question out for Legal [Division]. Mr. Collins, do you want to check with the contracting board [Nevada State Contractors Board]? [Assemblyman Collins indicated that he would.] Alleviate some of your concerns.
Assemblyman Collins:
Maybe when we’re researching, we could find if there are other examples. A homeowner can be an owner/builder and hire people or do the work themselves. I think where we get into a conflict in our Nevada law is where, even though this is a residential development, single-site development—a commercial business must hire licensed contractors, including a general [contractor], and maybe we need to find a way to address that in these cases because of the way that it’s promoting affordable housing, and alternatives for housing, at the same time protecting the integrity of the construction issues.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I would suggest we look at a time line, put in either legislative intent or regulation, that allows local government in Nevada to have a time where they can be safe so that if their inspector is on a two-week vacation, they don’t have to have pay the state over $1,000 to do an inspection that would be free to them if their inspector happened to be in town. I think it does potentially put a burden on a local government, as well as allow the local government to feel more comfort with that lack of “usurpation,” if that’s a word.
Assembly Bill 334: Revises provisions regarding issuance of certain permits to appropriate or change point of diversion of water for wells to prevent adverse effects on existing domestic wells. (BDR 48-738)
Chairman Manendo:
One of our [Committee] members expressed an interest in spending a little time on Assembly Bill 334, which was Ms. Gibbons’ [Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, District No. 25] bill on wells. Mr. Collins, do you want to check into Assembly Bill 334, Ms. Gibbons’ bill on water wells?
Assemblyman Collins:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, if you’d like me to take care of that, I’ll meet with the water folks and get back to you. Thank you.
Assembly Bill 363: Provides for creation of Silver Springs Water and Sewer District. (BDR S-864)
Chairman Manendo:
Committee, turn to Assembly Bill 363. This is our colleague, Mr. Grady’s bill. The Committee has posted a hearing on this bill, but we did not hold a hearing.
Assemblyman Grady:
Assembly Bill 363 was a bill that would provide the creation of the Silver Springs Water and Sewer District. I met with the folks yesterday. They are not ready to proceed with this. They have not settled all their problems, so Mr. Chairman, if it’s appropriate, I would make a motion that we “IP” [indefinitely postpone] this bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 363.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Williams and Assemblywoman Pierce were absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo:
By the way, this Committee introduced 17 bills yesterday, which is about a week and a half worth of work on top of what we already have. Guess what that means, Committee? It means possibly weekends and possibly evenings very soon.
Assembly Bill 152: Authorizes certain counties to adopt ordinance providing, under certain circumstances, for interchangeable filling of certain county offices by way of ex officio service of certain other county officers. (BDR 23-396)
Chairman Manendo:
Committee, turn to Assembly Bill 152. Assembly Bill 152 was a bill that there was an attempt to “amend and do pass” yesterday. There was a little confusion on exactly what happened. What happened was, there was a motion and a second to “amend and do pass” Assembly Bill 152. The motion failed on a 3 to 10 vote; the motion lost. Apparently, there was some confusion somewhere out there, so I wanted to clarify that for the record. The Chair will entertain an “Indefinitely Postpone” motion on Assembly Bill 152.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 152.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA VOTED NO. (Assemblyman Williams and Assemblywoman Pierce were absent for the vote.)
********
Assembly Bill 85: Revised provisions governing revenue bonds for industrial development. (BDR 30-469)
Chairman Manendo:
Committee, turn to Assembly Bill 85. Ms. Scholley, whenever you’re ready.
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We went through this [A.B. 85] several days ago. Assembly Bill 85 was sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the Department of Business and Industry. The bill streamlines the procedures for financing certain projects using revenue bonds for industrial development by raising the cap on the cost of the projects that may be reviewed under the streamlined procedures from $2.5 million to $3 million, and it also opens up the streamlined procedure to any industrial project, subject to certain findings relating to the sale of the bonds and other matters.
Concerns were raised during the hearing about the removal of the finding relating to local government approval as a condition of the financing. A proposed amendment was submitted by the Department of Business and Industry, and the amendment’s intent is to insure that a local government may voice its objection to the financing. The amendment would set a 25-day limit, so the local government would have to adopt a resolution within 25 days after being notified of the financing application in order to stop the financing.
I did speak with Doug Walther from the Department of Business and Industry, and he is here today to confirm this, but he did confirm that it was his intent that the local government would be able to stop the financing. Further, I should clarify that, if the local government had a concern that there was zoning or other issues that it needed more time for, that this could also be the basis for a resolution objecting to the financing and, again, that would also halt the financing at that time.
The mock-up [Exhibit E] is the same as it was previously with the amendment on page 2 of the mock-up, lines 39 through 43. There was no opposition and there is no fiscal note.
Assemblyman Collins:
In general, I don’t support this bill [A.B. 85]. I would make these comments, however. I do not have a problem with raising the money from $2.5 million to $3 million. In looking at our notebook on page 2 of Exhibit E where it says, “In which the project is to be located,” on line 41 versus being proposed, already indicates that it’s a slam dunk, done deal. I don’t approve of the deleting of the language where the local government has that approval. That’s my concern. I probably won’t support the bill unless it just goes back to giving the increase in the dollar amount.
Assemblyman Grady:
I was concerned, also, with page 2, line 39, of Exhibit E. I have talked to Mr. Hadfield [Nevada Association of Counties], and he assured me that they were in agreement that it is 25 business days, so it gives them plenty of time to respond. With that, I’m fine with the bill as written.
Assemblywoman Weber:
I was just going back through my notes, and there was testimony given by Mary Walker that comments had not been received from Washoe County. Do we have those?
Susan Scholley:
I can’t speak to Washoe County specifically, but I do understand that the Nevada League of Cities and the Nevada Association of Counties are comfortable with this amendment.
Chairman Manendo:
Is anybody here to say that? Mr. List? For Ms. Weber’s comfort level.
Andrew List:
For the record, Andrew List with the Nevada Association of Counties. We are comfortable with A.B. 85 as amended. Thank you.
John J. Slaughter, AICP, Strategic Planning Manager, Legislative Affairs, Office of the County Manager, Washoe County:
John Slaughter of Washoe County, and we, too, are comfortable with the amendments.
Assemblyman Hardy:
If I may ask a question, Mr. Chair? The amendment on [pages] 39 through 43 of Exhibit E, line 40, “governing body of the county or city in which the project is to be located.” Can both the county and the city in that phraseology have objections, so it would have to go before both potentially, or could either one have an objection that would slow it down? So, could the county have an objection that would go against the rule of the city or vice versa? Could there be, in essence, a conflict between the city and county, and this language would require one to get the approval of the other in order to go forward?
Chairman Manendo:
Do we have anybody who wants to take a shot at that?
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I would think, typically, if it was in the jurisdiction of the city, that they would have jurisdiction, and if it was unincorporated or in the county, they would have the jurisdiction. I don’t think there is a mechanism that would allow that conflict, again, depending where the project was, unless it straddled the lines, and then I guess half would have half, and half would have the other half. That would be the only case I could see, if the bonding actually did spread outside of the city’s jurisdiction into the county, in which there could be an issue, but then I guess you’d just separate them and each one would be responsible for its own portion.
Chairman Manendo:
The Chair will entertain an amend and do pass on Assembly Bill 85.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 85.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS VOTED NO. (Assemblyman Williams and Assemblywoman Pierce were absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo:
Who would like to handle this bill on the floor? Mr. Knecht?
********
Assembly Bill 87: Makes various changes concerning notarial officers. (BDR 19‑230)
Chairman Manendo:
Assembly Bill 87. Ms. Scholley, whenever you’re ready.
Susan Scholley:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assembly Bill 87 was sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the Secretary of State. Assembly Bill 87 makes numerous revisions to the statutes regarding notaries public. The major provisions of the bill:
At the hearing, concerns were raised by members of the Committee about the removal of the fee limitation for travel to a designated location at the request of a customer. Current statutes restrict the compensation for such traveling notarial services to mileage costs. In response to those concerns, the Secretary of State’s Office proposes an amendment with new limits on the fees that may be charged for travel. The mock-up of the bill [Exhibit F] has the new language on pages 3 and 4, starting at line 42 on page 3, and sets up a two-tiered system. A $10 per hour fee with a 2-hour minimum charge would be charged for travel between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., with a $25 per hour charge, again with a 2-hour minimum, calculated on a prorated basis as before, for travel between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The amendment also requires the notary public to record in his or her journal the fees charged and the time of day. It also makes clear that the fees may be charged once the notary has begun the travel, even though the documents are ultimately not signed or the person attempts to cancel once the travel has begun.
There was no opposition to the bill, no fiscal impacts, and if there are any questions, I know that there are representatives of the Secretary of State’s Office here to answer them.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I need to disclose my wife is a notary. However, I don’t think that this bill will affect her any differently than any other notary in the state, and I will vote on it.
Chairman Manendo:
Committee, we’re just standing at ease a second. One of our members of this Committee has had a loss in her family, and she needs to get home. Our condolences, Ms. Pierce.
Questions, Committee, on Assembly Bill 87? Amendments? Mr. Collins? We do have Ms. Parker here if we have any questions. She’s worked very hard on putting this together and we appreciate that.
The Chair will entertain an amend and do pass motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 87.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Williams and Assemblywoman Pierce were absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo:
Ms. Weber, would you like to handle this on the floor? [Assemblywoman Weber indicated she would.]
********
Assembly Bill 217 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes regarding State Personnel System. (BDR 23-495)
Assembly Bill 217, Committee. Ms. Scholley?
Susan Scholley:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assembly Bill 217 is sponsored by the Assembly Government Affairs Committee on behalf of the Department of Personnel. Assembly Bill 217 makes a number of changes. It allows a state agency to deviate from the traditional workweek schedule for the convenience of those that it serves. It amends provisions relating to drug screening for prospective employees. It allows certain employees to satisfy their obligation related to the overlapping week from 1999 using annual leave, and it permits the clerk of the State Board of Examiners to write off certain overpayments of less than $50 as bad debts. The bill also makes a number of housekeeping amendments to the personnel chapter.
As the direction of the chair, Assembly Bill 217 was referred to a Subcommittee chaired by Ms. Pierce, and you have been provided with a copy of the Subcommittee report approved by Ms. Pierce. The Subcommittee did recommend some minor changes to the bill. A mock-up is attached [Exhibit G], and I would direct your attention to pages 7 and 19. The final recommendation of the Subcommittee was to delete the phrase “or any other drug” in the three locations where it appears on page 7, line 44; and on page 19, lines 11 and 16. There was no opposition to the bill at the hearing. Local government fiscal impact was none. There was a fiscal note at the state government level, and I have attached a copy of the fiscal note at the very end of the bill. There are three pages of fiscal note.
Although Ms. Pierce is not here, there are two members of the Subcommittee and, if there are any questions regarding Subcommittee deliberations, I’m sure they’d be happy to answer them. With that, I’d also be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
Chairman Manendo:
I want to thank Ms. Pierce, Mr. Goicoechea, and Mr. Hardy for their work on this bill. Does this have an automatic referral to Ways and Means? It looks like this bill is going to head to Ways and Means then.
Chairman Manendo:
Mr. Goicoechea and Mr. Hardy, would you like to talk about anything as far as the Subcommittee to let the whole Committee know?
Assemblyman Hardy:
The [Sub]committee passed it out unanimously. There was one of us who had an issue with deleting the [phrase] “any other drug.” Those concerns still exist, but the [Sub]committee did pass it out unanimously.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I think the big issue with the bill [A.B. 217] as far as the [Sub]committee was concerned was the overpayment language that was initially in there and the week’s worth of pay that was being carried on the pay stubs. That was clearly a computer paper trail and had nothing to do with any kind of payment. I think if you look at the fiscal note, you’ll see by amending and changing this, what are we talking—$500 in fiscal notes—so it was strictly in how they were accounting it. It didn’t make any sense at all, and I think the Subcommittee definitely supported passing the bill.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you, and I appreciate your making that clear to the Committee, because I know that was one of the hot-button issues. We wanted to make sure we got that ironed out and make sure that this Committee was comfortable with the outcome.
The Chair will entertain an amend and do pass motion on Assembly Bill 217.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 217.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Williams and Assemblywoman Pierce were absent for the vote.)
I will assign this bill to Ms. Pierce. Mr. Goicoechea, will you do backup just in case? [Mr. Goicoechea indicated he would.]
This bill will probably be rereferred to [Assembly] Ways and Means. I’ll make that referral. I’ll talk with the Chair of [Assembly] Ways and Means once we place the amendment. If he sees that it needs to go there, then I’ll make that motion.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
If the bill goes to [Assembly] Ways and Means, is this Committee still responsible to defend it on the floor? [Chairman Manendo answered in the negative.]
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you, Committee. Is there anything else to come before the Committee? I know the Majority Leader mentioned it yesterday on the Floor, but on behalf of the Committee, I want to thank all our staff for their hard work over the end of last week and the weekend. There was a lot of work to be done for us to get those bills introduced. Ms. O’Grady, I’m sure, slept about an hour and a half in the last week, and she’s always here with a smile on her face, and we appreciate that. The Committee wants to thank you for your hard work. [Applause.]
Anything else to come before the Committee? We are adjourned. [10:23 a.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Pat Hughey
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: