MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
April 10, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:47 a.m., on Thursday, April 10, 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.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Tom Grady, excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Former Assemblyman David Humke
Kimberly J. McDonald, MPA, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
James A. Bell, PE, Director, City of North Las Vegas Public Works
Terri Barber, City of Henderson
Chris Knight, Deputy Director, Development Services Center, City of Las Vegas
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the Clark County Manager, Las Vegas
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Director of Government Relations, Southern Nevada Home Builders’ Association
Stephanie Garcia-Vause, Lobbyist, City of Henderson
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association
Chairman Manendo welcomed all Committee members and visitors to the Committee on Government Affairs and called the meeting to order at 8:47 a.m. The roll was called, and the Chair directed the secretary to mark Assemblyman Grady absent and excused. He also directed that Assemblyman Williams be marked present upon arrival.
Assemblyman Knecht made a personal announcement. His wife, Kathy, was celebrating a birthday, and he wished her a happy one.
Assembly Bill 84: Revises provisions concerning certain town advisory boards. (BDR 21-119)
Chairman Manendo opened the work session on Assembly Bill 84. Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, would walk the Committee through the amended bill (Exhibit C).
Assembly Bill 84 related to town advisory boards and was sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.
The original bill set limits on terms of members; the amendments took out the term limits. The mock-up was virtually identical to the version discussed the previous day with a few exceptions. The language that specifically stated that members would be able to decline to serve as Chair had been deleted. The concept of a revolving chairmanship had been changed to read “ineligible to serve after one term as Chair.” Ms. Scholley had also included the “letter of intent” concept with regard to asking the Clark County Commission to provide to legislative representatives notice of vacancies on town boards.
Assemblyman McCleary questioned Ms. Scholley regarding the filling of the position of Chair. He wondered if he had heard her say that the bill required that a person take a turn as Chair even if that individual did not want to do so.
Chairman Manendo stated that the issue was “silent.”
Mr. McCleary persisted by asking if a person would be able to decline if desired. He was unclear as to how one would be able to force an individual to take that position.
Ms. Scholley stated that there were no criminal penalties associated with declining to serve.
Assemblyman Collins presented his personal experience of having served on a volunteer board for several years. In Clark County, where he resided, any legislation that made it harder to get a person to serve for a length of time made it easier for those who wished to change things. An example would be a board that was new or inexperienced or had a turnover because some of the provisions in statute made it easier for things to change in a community. He believed that those who served on town boards were doing a great job as they were. Those people who had the ability to spend the time chairing those boards as well as serving on them for a length of time were needed for their experience and background. He believed that term limits were wrong, and insisting that there be rules as to who must serve as Chair was wrong. Those who had the time, energy, and knowledge to serve the community in a voluntary capacity were to be commended. In his opinion, when the Legislature started rotating chair positions around, they just weakened that local neighborhood group. He did not believe that the Legislature needed to do that.
Assemblyman Hardy had struggled over A.B. 84, he reported, and found that he recognized the wisdom of his colleague from District 1, Assemblyman Collins, and he reported that the concept of “township” was one of the closest ways to have “home rule.” He wanted to address the conceptual amendment noted at the bottom of the page. He stated that it was wise to let those people in the townships and on the town boards decide for themselves what to do. He had not had any real input from other town boards, and he was leery of doing something that would place them in a difficult position without their input. He had no problem with the rest of A.B. 84, but he would prefer not to see the legislators impose a literal term limit on the chair of the town board.
Assemblyman Atkinson first had a question to pose. He thought that what people were missing was that there were changes made during the Seventy-first Legislative Session. Currently, if nothing happened with A.B. 84, then the statute that was in place now, with the term limits, would be in effect. He asked for confirmation of his understanding and received it. If the Legislature did nothing about the bill, those people would be saddled with “term limits.” The best compromise available to change that, in his opinion, was to do what the Committee was doing currently. He hoped people would recognize that, as he believed that some had missed the point. If nothing was done, the statute in effect would set limits, and the result would be the loss of some of the institutional knowledge due to term limits. The bill needed to be heard and passed to avoid the loss of experience, as they would step down after two or four years depending on their terms. The bill was an effort to retain people on the boards.
Assemblywoman Pierce liked the idea of rotating the chairmanship, because sometimes new people did not feel welcome and believed that they would never have input if there was a very strong person who could dominate the group for a very long time. She thought it was a good compromise.
Chairman Manendo stated that he did not see anyone in Las Vegas. Many knew the issue would be discussed during the work session and were probably fairly comfortable with the Committee’s plans.
Assemblywoman Weber questioned why the Committee was suggesting limiting the one term that the chair would serve to two years, rather than one complete four-year cycle.
Chairman Manendo responded with the thought that members of the Committee were thinking that four years was a long time to be chair. Two years sounded fairly reasonable. More than likely, one would not go on a board for the first time and serve as the chair. A member would be on the board for a year or two and then would have a two-year shot. It would then be someone else’s turn. If four years was established as the length of service as chair, it was possible that a person would wait for 20 years before getting an opportunity to serve in that position.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 84.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman McCleary declared that he did not believe in micro-management. He agreed, he said, with Mr. Atkinson’s comments and would vote for A.B. 84 because of the compromise.
Assemblyman Goicoechea recognized that the bill was primarily directed at difficulties in Clark County, he stated. He firmly supported the position that the town board would make its own decisions regarding positions and term limits. He would vote against passage of A.B. 84.
Assemblyman Knecht affirmed that he was a proponent of home rule, but the balance of considerations favored the bill. Mr. Knecht would vote in favor of passage.
Chairman Manendo placed the question for A.B. 84.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA OPPOSED. (Assemblyman Williams and Assemblyman Grady were absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo assigned the introduction of A.B. 84 on the Floor of the Assembly to Mr. Atkinson.
Assembly Bill 114: Requires sheriffs and constables to be qualified electors and to be at least 21 years of age on date of taking office.(BDR 20-1020)
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, walked the Committee through the bill and its amendments (Exhibit D).
Assembly Bill 114 was sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the Nevada Association of County Clerks. A.B. 114 required that sheriffs and constables be at least 21 years of age and to be a qualified elector.
Amendments were proposed by Clark County to add the requirement that constables in certain counties be trained by the Peace Officers’ Standards and Training (POST) Commission as described in Chapter 289 of NRS. Another amendment, proposed by the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, would add a requirement for sheriff candidates in certain counties to have a four-year degree in a related field. Based on comments from members of the Committee, a compromise proposal had been brought forward and set up in the mock-up document, Exhibit D.
There was no testimony in opposition to the bill, although some Committee members had received an e-mail in opposition from a candidate who was disqualified due to his age; he was 20 years old.
The compromise amendment would add to the “sheriff” provision only. She clarified that it was extremely important to keep the sheriff/constable categories separate. Speaking only to the category of “sheriff,” the conceptual amendment would add a provision requiring a candidate for sheriff in a county whose population was greater than 100,000, which would be Clark and Washoe Counties, to be certified by the Nevada Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission (POST) as a Category I or Category II peace officer at the time of filing for office.
Further, there would be a conceptual amendment that would make clear that the new requirement for POST certification applied after January 1, 2006, and would not apply to any person elected or appointed prior to that date.
Assemblyman Hardy noted that the mock-up document said nothing about the 4-year degree in a related field. He wondered if it had been deliberately removed.
Ms. Scholley stated that it had been deliberately removed, as it was not part of the compromise amendment being proposed.
The 100,000-population cap puzzled Assemblyman Goicoechea. He believed that every sheriff should be POST-certified. If one were not POST-certified, that individual would not be allowed to carry a gun. Mr. Goicoechea stated his belief that not having a gun on your person might limit one’s ability to fulfill the full range of duties of a sheriff.
Ms. Scholley noted that the requirement to be 21 years of age applied in all counties. It was only the POST certification that was limited in the proposal to the larger counties. There would be no reason why POST certification would not be able to be expanded to apply to every county. It was a decision of the Committee.
Assemblyman Collins assumed, he said, that part of the compromise was to require POST certification in the two counties. In Clark County, a former district attorney ran for sheriff. He was definitely educated in law. A sheriff was as much an administrator as a law enforcement officer. He had deputies as well as under-sheriffs to act on his behalf out in the street. In most counties, the sheriff would still be able to go out and write a ticket. Obviously, whether a sheriff were POST-certified or not, a sheriff would have a weapon. The POST training, as a compromise, could be applied to the large counties, although Mr. Collins stated that it truly was not necessary.
Assemblyman Goicoechea stated his belief that, in the smaller counties, it was even more important to be POST-certified because, in those cases, the departments were quite small and personnel at every level were out on the streets and more likely to be involved in some sort of altercation. It was his belief that counties with populations from zero to 100,000 would expect their sheriffs to be POST-certified. When sheriffs were primarily administrators, as in the two largest counties, POST certification would be less important, in his opinion. He would offer an Amend and Do Pass motion but would ask that the population cap be removed altogether.
Assemblywoman Weber was attempting to determine if POST certification was necessary at all. She stated that her lack of knowledge attributed to her confusion. She wondered if POST certification was the highest certification available in the field and if it was necessary for law enforcement officers, whether sheriffs or constables, to have that.
Assemblyman Collins stated that constables served papers, eviction notices, liens, and other public documents. They were not usually in a position to intervene in situations where a crime was taking place.
Assemblyman Atkinson also wondered about POST certification. He said, with humor, that he would feel safer with an adult in charge of the sheriff’s office. He asked how old one must be to participate in and become certified through the POST training experience.
Assemblyman Goicoechea stated that a trainee had to be at least 21 years of age.
Assemblyman Atkinson affirmed that the requirement for POST certification would take care of the age requirement.
Assemblyman Knecht had sat more than once on a police hiring and ranking board for a local police department. He was familiar with the value of POST certification. That said, he also reported that he recognized the Second Amendment and its value. He personally would oppose POST certification as a requirement for an elected position, even for sheriff. He would vote against any amendment that included the POST certification but was not opposed to the bill itself.
Assemblyman Christensen suggested that, without the POST certification to affirm the age requirement, it be left up to the voters whether or not a candidate, hat and no gun or hat and a gun, was a viable candidate. The voters would then be the ones to decide the importance of having a sheriff who was able to “pack a side arm.”
Assemblywoman Koivisto wanted to point out that the sheriff was the chief law enforcement officer in the county. As such, he/she certainly should have qualifications above and beyond simply having reached the age of 21 and falling under the Second Amendment guidelines like everyone else in the country.
Assemblyman Goicoechea stated that in his district, District No. 35, at least two men had been elected sheriff who were not POST-certified. One was in Pershing County, where most deputies under him left, because they believed he was not familiar enough with their jobs. In another case, a person promised to become POST-certified upon his election but chose not to do so after being elected.
Assemblyman McCleary reminded Committee members that the current law stipulated that a candidate needed to be 18 years of age, not 21 years of age. Left as it was, an 18-year-old could be elected sheriff, but he would not be able to walk into a bar and arrest anyone. That was a good reason for making the age-limit change.
Assemblyman Goicoechea commented that, when originally discussed in the first hearing, POST certification was made part of the amendment because POST required that trainees be at least 21 years old. With that requirement in place, one would take “age” out of the bill and the law, and it would lessen confusion. The Committee’s Legal Counsel, Eileen O’Grady, had stated to him that the age requirement was only a regulation at the present time and was not in statute. If age were important, it would be better if it became statute.
Chairman Manendo confirmed his belief that the Committee seemed comfortable with the POST certification requirement. What he wanted was for the Committee to discuss the population cap more thoroughly.
Assemblyman Collins stated that the problem would be solved if the age of 21 years was inserted into the bill. At the beginning of the presentation, the concern was purely about age. A person under the age of 21 years and, therefore, unable to fulfill the full scope of his duties, was the issue. He would be restricted from accessing many locations that required proof of having attained the age of 21 such as bars and casinos. Shooting a gun did not require a person to be 21 years old. It was only a concern in terms of the scope of the job. All of the discussion about POST certification would just be “cream in the coffee”; it was not necessary, stated Mr. Collins.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked the members of the Committee if they believed that leaving the 100,000 population cap in place meant that, in counties under that population level, candidates did not have to be 21 years of age.
Assemblyman McCleary agreed with the position of Mr. Collins. He suggested that the age for candidacy be changed and to leave it at that.
Assemblyman Collins stated that he believed that the whole issue was with the election officials in various counties. He reported that Mr. Harvard Lomax, Clark County's Registrar of Voters, had an issue. If the Committee addressed that issue by changing the age, the rest of the bill would be resolved. It would be up to the voters to decide if they wanted someone who was gun-toting or not.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 114. THE AMENDMENT WAS TO REMOVE THE POPULATION CAP BUT TO LEAVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR POST CERTIFICATION IN PLACE FOR SHERIFF CANDIDATES.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED.
Assemblyman Goicoechea restated that the language referencing the effective date of the bill would be January 1, 2006.
Chairman Manendo placed the question of amend and do pass of A. B. 114.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT, ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN, AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS VOTING NAY. (Assemblyman Grady was absent for the vote.)
Assemblyman Goicoechea was assigned responsibility for carriage of A. B. 114 to the Floor of the Assembly.
Chairman Manendo took the opportunity to thank both people, Mr. Goicoechea and Mary Henderson for providing the Committee with donuts over the last several days. He confirmed the Committee’s gratitude for their thoughtfulness.
Assembly Bill 355: Provides for exemption from personal property taxation for certain commercial helicopters that use preferred facility for takeoff and landing in certain larger counties. (BDR 44-877)
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, walked the Committee through the mock-up of the bill (Exhibit E).
Assembly Bill 355, sponsored by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, would require the Clark County Board of Commission to provide an exemption from personal property taxation for certain commercial helicopters if they used designated facilities for takeoff and landing. The intent of the bill was to reduce noise impacts caused by helicopters operating out of facilities in or near residential or urban areas.
Amendments were proposed by the bill’s sponsor and by other persons testifying at the hearing. A conglomerate of the proposed amendments made up the document called the mock-up. There was no opposition to the bill, and there was an identified local government fiscal impact, but no state fiscal impact.
The first conceptual amendment would add some additional exclusionary language to insure that helicopters used for fire, health, and safety reasons were included with air ambulances and other exemptions in Section 1, subsection 2.
Beginning in Section 3, Clark County recommended that the term “nonurban” be inserted in “preferred airport.” That change was carried throughout the bill. On page 2, a note had been included in the mock-up to point out that the use of the term “nonurban” would remain the decision of the Legal Division of LCB. The intent would remain the same regardless of the term used.
Ms. Scholley directed attention to the top of page 2. Additional language had been proposed by Clark County to clarify the goals of the designations.
The next conceptual amendment would be in Section 4. It would insert the provision to allow a commercial helicopter company that voluntarily relocated to a nonurban or nonresidential area, prior to the establishment of the preferred designated nonurban airports or other facilities, to also be eligible for the tax exemption.
The second conceptual amendment would be to add a provision to require that the Clark County Board of Commissioners also create a program for granting tax exemptions for helicopters outside of the preferred nonurban airports or other preferred facilities if they met certain noise standards. The intent would be to set up a program that would provide an incentive for helicopter companies to invest in quieter technology. The bill would set a deadline for the Commission of July 1, 2004, for implementing such a program.
Lines 31 through the end of page 2 and continuing on page 3, line 11, would add another provision to the bill suggested by the bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani. That section would be transitory language, although it was shown on the mock-up as a section. That section would not be codified in Chapter 495 and, as proposed by Ms. Giunchigliani, that would constitute a moratorium on new helicopter facilities commencing on July 1, 2003, and ending on June 30, 2005.
On page 3 of the mock-up was the suggestion made by several people that created a sunset provision for the tax exemption. The sunset provision would have a four-year time frame on it. Therefore, stated Ms. Scholley, a final conceptual amendment would be to add a sunset on the exemption of December 31, 2007, which would create a four-year window for the tax exemption.
The bill’s sponsor had reviewed the mock-up. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had indicated that she concurred with the amendments as presented.
Assemblywoman Pierce was pleased, she stated, by the sunset condition, and she liked the idea of the tax exemption existing as an incentive to buy new equipment. She believed, however, that there needed to be a sunset on that as well.
Assemblyman Collins commented to the Committee that helicopters lasted a very long time. He and a colleague flew in one built when Mr. Collins was seven years old, and the other lineman with him was younger than the helicopter. It was still in use in construction, hauling people and materials.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked what happened when the helicopter companies moved, and who decided their new routes. The decision of the group was that the FAA made that decision.
Assemblyman Goicoechea remained concerned, he stated, that, with the tax exemption in Clark County, other helicopter companies from other parts of the state would move to base their operations in Clark County.
Chairman Manendo referred to Section 2 and called on Mr. Collins.
Assemblyman Collins speculated that there would probably be some requirements in Clark County for the receipt of a business license that would offset the advantage of the tax exemption. He suggested that the cost of the license might be high enough that it would discourage businesses from making that move. He also noted to the Chair that the fiscal note indicated that some helicopters in Clark County were valued by the state as centrally assessed property, and the Clark County Assessor valued some. Mr. Collins did not know, he said, what would drive that determination.
Ms. Scholley spoke on the issue of what a commercial helicopter was. In Section 2, she referenced the definition given. A helicopter was “a rotary-wing aircraft operated by a person in the course of conducting a business for which a business license is required pursuant to NRS 364A.130.”
In reference to what constituted a “centrally assessed aircraft,” the bill would require Clark County, in Section 4, to develop a program pursuant to which those details would be determined by the administration at the commission-level. Those kinds of questions would not be answerable at the current time.
Chairman Manendo stated he was prepared to entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 355.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Knecht questioned whether there was any way to make the bill permissive rather than mandatory. Again, he stated, his home-rule leanings would be to tell Clark County that they “may” do what was proposed, but that they would not have to if they did not want to.
Chairman Manendo stated that, in his opinion, there was such a need that the sponsor and several members representing districts that were impacted by the issue would rather not make the bill permissive. The Chair stated he did understand Mr. Knecht’s point, however.
Assemblywoman Pierce remained concerned about where the helicopters would be based once they moved. Again, she advocated for those who set the routes to be cognizant of the environment and not interfere with those who chose to hike in the rural areas of Clark County such as Red Rock, Lake Mead, and other locations.
Chairman Manendo stated that he wished the helicopters would fly higher. The Chair called for the vote on A.B. 355.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Grady was absent for the vote.)
Assembly Bill 390: Revises provisions relating to duties and liability of owner of property whose property includes or abuts public right-of-way. (BDR 22‑965)
Ms. Scholley stated that A.B. 390 was now just a “sidewalk” bill. Assemblyman Parks sponsored it. In its original form, it would have added a new section to NRS Chapter 278 that prohibited a local government from requiring a property owner to maintain or repair improvements in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalks. The bill also added a provision to NRS Chapter 41 (Actions Concerning Persons) limiting the civil liability of property owners whose land abutted the public right-of-way.
During the original hearing, amendments were proposed by Carson City and Clark County. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Chair directed the opponents of the bill to work with the sponsor on proposed amendments. Opposition to the bill came from Carson City, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Las Vegas, and Sparks.
A mock-up of the proposed amendments was now available after much hard work and compromise on the part of both sides (Exhibit F).
There would be a local government fiscal note but none for the state government.
The amendment was simply to narrow the focus of the bill to sidewalks and to avoid the complications that were caused by other issues. It was also to address the maintenance issue in response to questions raised by those city governments.
In lines 5 through 8 of the mock-up, the term “maintain” had been stricken several times, and the final result was that subsection 1 simply stated that “a governing body shall not require an owner of property that abuts a public right-of-way to reconstruct or repair an existing sidewalk in the public right-of-way.”
In subsection 2, language had been added to clarify in what instances a local governing body could require reconstruction of a sidewalk as a condition of approval for a change of use. It further clarified the governing body to enter into a license or maintenance agreement for those sidewalks that deviated from general standards. It also retained the existing exemption for imposing assessments.
On page 2, new language was placed into the bill from line 1 through line 10. The provision clarified the responsibility of the abutting owner to maintain the sidewalk as per an ordinance that would be adopted by the local governments, which would spell out the duties of the owner with respect to maintenance. It also clarified that the owner would be responsible for general maintenance of the sidewalk including snow removal, ice removal, weed removal, sweeping, and maintenance of trees, grass, or shrubs encroaching on the sidewalk.
Finally, in Section 3, the section that addressed civil liability, the language narrowed the scope to sidewalks only, although it provided an exclusion if the abutting owner had failed to maintain the sidewalk as required in the adopted ordinance.
All parties who worked on the compromise language were present and invited to come forward by the Chair.
Assemblyman Hardy requested an updated fiscal note from the group present.
Kimberly McDonald, representing the City of North Las Vegas, stated that she and those she represented wholeheartedly supported the amended compromise version of Assembly Bill 390. She stated that the group had worked very hard and had invited the public works director to be present.
Jim Bell, Public Works Director of the City of North Las Vegas, stated that he really appreciated the opportunity to work with the group. With the compromise amendment, he believed the group had created excellent public policy that protected the public interest, and that it outlined proper responsibilities. Citizens were protected, and their responsibilities were clarified. The City of North Las Vegas was very supportive of the bill in its proposed amended form and thanked all who worked to create the compromises including the Home Builders’ Association for their support.
Terri Barber, representing the City of Henderson, supported the amendments as proposed.
Chris Knight, City of Las Vegas Planning and Development Department, supported the bill with the amendments as proposed. In terms of the fiscal impact, an update would be forwarded to the Committee.
Dan Musgrove, representing Clark County, stated that he was in agreement with the amendment as proposed.
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, representing the Southern Nevada Home Builders’ Association, thanked the Committee for its patience in the matter of waiting for the compromise amendment. She also thanked local governments for working on the compromise with them. The Southern Nevada Home Builders’ Association was fully supportive of the amended bill. She did point out that there was a provision in the bill that allowed for an assessment to be done for reconstruction. Since the bill was limited to the reconstruction of sidewalks, she suspected, she said, that the fiscal notes would be minimal.
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. Wilson-Pappa if she had the authority to speak for Assemblyman Parks, the sponsor of the bill, and if he had seen the amendments and concurred with the changes.
Ms. Wilson-Pappa stated that she had visited with him several times and had spoken to him the day before. He was well aware of and comfortable with the amendments based on the conversations she had had with him.
Assemblyman Collins questioned requiring reconstruction of sidewalks for the approval for change in the use of the land. How would that relate, he wondered, to other legislation such as the Douglas County land use proposal.
Ms. Scholley stated that it was difficult to predict with certainty the effect A.B. 390 might have on a piece of legislation that was not in final form. The bill would not require a dedication of land as the public right-of-way had already been established. One would simply be reconstructing an additional sidewalk. It would be unlikely to conflict.
On lines 16, 17, and 18, entering into a license or maintenance agreement with a private entity, Mr. Collins asked if it would change any current practice by the local government of using its own employees or hiring a job out.
Ms. Wilson-Pappa responded by stating that it was not the intent of the proposed amendments to change any agreements as far as staff was concerned. Nor would it likely impact any existing agreements. It was intended to cover those situations noted by Mr. Musgrove, such as in Summerlin, where some extra amenities had been requested, as well as some special sidewalks that did not meet or exceeded the standards of the local government. In that case, it did not seem appropriate to hold the local government responsible to maintain something that deviated from their general standards.
Mr. Collins had thought that not holding local governments responsible for maintenance of a sidewalk was limited to those sidewalks upgraded beyond a local government’s general standards. His final question was on language found on page 2. He asked what the local government’s process would be to determine whether the damage done or the need for repair was caused by the homeowner or the abutting owner.
Ms. Wilson-Pappa again responded. She was very pleased that the language stated “the owner of the property abutting a public right-of-way may be made responsible by ordinance.” The local governments would need to develop their own ordinances that would go to their own elected body, have a full public hearing, and they would need to outline their process for that determination. It would show up on an agenda, and the ordinance would outline those specific procedures. It would be an issue that would be closely watched during the interim, as would the ordinances, to be sure there was due process and that, just because a sidewalk was broken, the abutting property owner was not determined to be responsible simply because they were there.
Chairman Manendo called for a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 390.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA.
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. Wilson-Pappa if the Carson City representative had agreed with the proposed changes to the bill and was assured by her that Mary Walker had agreed to them.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Grady was not present for the vote.)
Assembly Bill 464: Establishes Commission to Review the Compensation of Legislators. (BDR 23-1319)
Ms. Scholley described Assembly Bill 464. It had been sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. It established a nine-member commission to review the compensation for legislators. The commission would make a determination on legislators’ salaries and submit the determination to the Chief of the Budget Division of the Department of Administration for inclusion in the budget.
Jim Richardson, representing himself in memory of Marvin Sedway, suggested an amendment to add a consideration for the commission to define legislators as state workers for purposes of health insurance (Exhibit G).
Several people opposed the creation of the commission but supported an increase in legislators’ salaries. There would be no fiscal impact at the local government level; at the state level, it would require an appropriation not included in the Executive Budget.
Of special note, Ms. Scholley pointed out that the bill was concurrently referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and had been granted a notice of exemption, so that it was exempt from the April 11 deadline.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO REFER A.B. 464 TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman McCleary stated that he would vote against the bill as he thought it was the responsibility of the legislators, under the Nevada Constitution, to set their own salaries. He did not support a commission to make that determination.
Assemblyman Knecht agreed with Mr. McCleary and would also vote against the bill.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY, ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT, ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY, AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS VOTING NAY. (Assemblyman Grady was not present for the vote.)
Assembly Bill 499: Authorizes governing body of local government to create maintenance districts to pay cost of maintaining and improving local improvement projects and other undertakings. (BDR 21-274)
Susan Scholley presented Assembly Bill 499 to the Committee (Exhibit H). The bill was sponsored by the Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of Clark County. A.B. 499 authorized the governing body of local government to create maintenance districts to pay the cost of maintaining and improving projects and other undertakings.
Amendments were proposed by Clark County through its bond counsel, John Swendseid. A mock-up of the amended pages of the bill was currently available. The entire bill was not printed. The only amendments to the bill were in the first two pages of the mock-up and were “clean-up” amendments, as explained by Mr. Swendseid.
There was no fiscal impact noted, nor was there opposition to the bill.
Assemblywoman Weber asked for an explanation of the addition at the end of Section 3 that said “the district shall remain in existence until the governing body in the acts and ordinances dissolving the district” . . . She asked about the amount of time assumed for that dissolution to occur.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the Clark County Manager, explained that it was language that allowed for placement in the statutes. Counties found the language ambiguous. The change in language was to inform people that the maintenance district remained in place until the governing body dissolved it. With A.B. 499, the maintenance districts would be in effect for increments of three years. When the budget was redone after those three years, public notice would be given to clarify the new assessment and the district’s continued existence until dissolved.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 499.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Grady and Assemblyman Williams were not present for the vote.)
Assemblyman Christensen was asked by the Chair to carry A.B. 499 to the Floor. Mr. Christensen agreed, “with honor.”
Chairman Manendo also welcomed David Humke to the Committee‘s work session, introducing him as his former colleague. Mr. Humke had been an Assemblyman in the Nevada Legislature in the past. The Chair also recessed the work session.
Following the recess, the Chair called the meeting back to order and brought Assembly Bill 390 forward for discussion. For the record, the Chair had received an e-mail message from Brian Herr who represented the Nevada Association of Realtors. The Association also wanted to go on record as supporting A.B. 390.
Chairman Manendo encouraged the Committee and the general public visiting the hearing room to recycle.
Assembly Bill 249: Makes various changes concerning Public Employees’ Benefits Program. (BDR 23-549)
Chairman Manendo introduced the work session on Assembly Bill 249. He asked Ms. Scholley to walk the Committee through the amendments.
Susan Scholley stated that the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the Public Employees’ Benefits Program sponsored the bill.
Ms. Scholley further stated that Assembly Bill 249 proposed a change to Chapter 281 (General Provisions – Public Officers and Employees) related to pay centers. The bill proposed revisions to Chapter 286 (Public Employees’ Retirement System, PERS) related to notice of changes in payment status that affect eligibility, and certain definitions. A.B. 249 also proposed several programmatic changes to Chapter 287 related to the Public Employees’ Benefits Program (PEBP).
Two amendments were requested. The first was at the request of PERS for the sections of the bill that revised provisions in the PERS chapter. The State of Nevada Employees’ Association submitted the second set of amendments. They requested the creation of an advisory committee to the PEBP board (Exhibit I).
Opposition for the original bill came from PERS. From that opposition came the amendments. Doug Bierman, representing several rural local governments, had also opposed the bill to the extent that it perpetuated existing language segregating nonstate retiree groups. There was also some testimony in opposition to the proposed amendment related to the advisory committee.
There was no fiscal impact of the bill at either the state or local government levels. Of special note, the bill was concurrently referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.
The PERS amendments were self-explanatory and were explained in the previous day’s testimony. Ms. Scholley stated that the “advisory committee” proposal was also self-explanatory (Exhibit I).
Assemblyman Collins asked Ms. Scholley to give the Committee members some background information about PEBP. He withdrew the question, as he was not sure of the information he wanted after all.
Assemblyman Hardy asked how it was possible to have no fiscal note attached to A.B. 249 and still have it concurrently referred to Ways and Means.
Assemblyman Collins referenced similar bills and noted that, when there was not claim of a fiscal note, bills were still referred to Ways and Means, because a representative of that agency had to state, on the record, that there was no cost. That was to prevent an agency from coming before the Interim Finance Committee to request funds.
Assemblyman Hardy, asking a follow-up question, wondered why PERS was opposed to the bill.
Ms. Scholley confirmed that PERS opposed the bill unless their amendments were included and adopted. They took issue with the terminology used in the bill and asked for the corrections they felt were necessary for the definitions to apply more clearly to their program and to cover their particular administrative concerns. It would be fair to say, as Mr. “Woody” Thorne, Executive Officer, State of Nevada Public Employees’ Benefits Program, had indicated to her, that the Section 1 amendment was one he did not oppose. As for the others, he refused to accept them, which was an administrative concern rather than substantive concerns. PERS’ focus was only on the amendments to the PERS chapter, not to the remaining amendments to Chapter 287 that PEBP was asking for that affected their program only.
Chairman Manendo reminded the Committee that, with all of the bills concurrently referred, Ways and Means was assembling them into a group. It was his intention to move A.B. 249 forward to Ways and Means so that they would be able to concern themselves with the total group of bills as they continued to hammer out financial concerns. He was inclined to take a motion on A.B. 249 as amended by the PERS group to send on to Ways and Means so that they would be able to continue their work.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 249 WITH THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM’S AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Hardy confirmed with Chairman Manendo that the proposed amendment about the Public Employees’ Benefits Program submitted by the State of Nevada Employees’ Association was not included in the motion at that time.
Assemblywoman Pierce stated that she believed that the idea of an advisory board was a good one, even though the amendment specific to that was not part of the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Grady was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo brought to the Committee’s attention Assembly Bill 291. Although it was not in the work session document originally, the bill would be discussed with the assistance of Eileen O’Grady, Legal Counsel to the Committee.
Assembly Bill 291: Provides for abolishment of city and county planning commissions in certain larger counties (BDR 22-728)
Eileen O’Grady remarked that Assembly Bill 291, in its initial form, abolished city and county planning commissions in certain larger counties, those with a population of 400,000 or more.
The proposed amendment from Assemblywoman Giunchigliani (Exhibit J) prior to drafting was given to Committee members. The drafted form of the amendment (Exhibit K) was also available. The drafted amendment would replace A.B. 291 in its entirety.
The first issue was, applicable to counties with a population of 400,000 or more, that planning commissioners would only serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. On the draft copy of the amendments to A.B. 291, it would be in Section 1, subsection 5.
A second issue was to change the standards regarding conflicts of interest for planning commissioners. Those changes were in Section 4, page 3, of the draft. Instead of the normal pecuniary interests that were the normal standard, it would now be a direct pecuniary interest, and, in the commitment to a private capacity, the employer relationship was excluded. Ms. Giunchigliani’s testimony was that, sometimes, people would hire the firm of a member of the family of a planning commissioner, and that would cause the commissioner to exclude himself from voting on specific matters.
A third issue was that appeals, brought by other interested parties besides just the applicant, would be allowed. It would allow persons who appeared, either in person, through an authorized representative, or in writing, before a planning commission, a board of adjustment, a hearing examiner, or some other person appointed or employed by the governing body, to hear the matter. Those changes were in Section 3, subsection 1(d).
A fourth matter in the amendment was to limit applicants to no more than two continuances before the planning commission and no more than two continuances before the governing body. Those changes were in Section 2 for the planning commission, and, with respect to the governing body, the changes were in Section 3, subsection 3.
Assemblyman Knecht had a technical question. The Committee and others had used the population cap of 400,000 as the cutoff. One county was approaching that cap due to its rate of growth. He wondered if the bill were specific to Clark County, if it would be wise to change that cap to 500,000 instead.
Ms. O’Grady responded that, until the next decennial census in 2010, the population cap would remain valid. Not until then would there be an adjustment to the official population figures for each county.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked if “written communication” referenced in A.B. 291 included e-mail communications.
Chairman Manendo responded by noting that there was pending legislation dealing with that issue.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, made a point of clarification to the Committee’s Legal Counsel, Ms. O’Grady. On the bottom of page 1, just above Section 3, the amendment stated that there would be no more than two continuances granted by the commission in the county. Mr. Musgrove thought that was in conflict with language on page 2, Section 3, subsection 3(b), which stated that a governing body was prohibited in the granting by that body of more than two continuances to an aggrieved person on the same matter. His concern was that the language seemed inconsistent to him. He remembered, he stated, that the intent of Ms. Giunchigliani was that people who were a part of the process, an aggrieved person with standing within the matter discussed, could ask for a continuance.
Ms. O’Grady stated that the intent of the bill needed clarification. In Section 3, the “standing to appeal” was expanded to include other persons. She did not know if that would be true at the planning commission level. She said that she needed clarification on that as well.
In response to Ms. Pierce, Ms. O’Grady stated that she did not think that e‑mails would be included as a form of communication unless printed out and submitted.
Stephanie Garcia-Vause, City of Henderson, did not speak for Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, but it was her understanding, she stated, that the intent was that, in order to keep the applicants from continuing to wear down the community, they would be the ones who would be limited to the two-continuances request. If the planning commission was to find that the applicants and the neighborhood groups were working toward consensus, they could request additional continuances beyond the two.
Assemblyman Hardy questioned whether Section 2 dealt with the planning commission and Section 3 with the governing body. If true, he wondered if the bill would allow for a total of four continuances, two from each of the two groups. Also, one did not have to be an aggrieved party to request a continuance; being a concerned party would be enough. In Section 2, subsection 3, on page 1, in the last bold sentence was the language about two continuances to a person on the same matter. That applied to the planning commission. It could be it was not the aggrieved person, only a concerned person with an issue, who would be given a continuance if the time were not convenient.
Ms. O’Grady stated that, according to Ms. Giunchigliani’s amendment in its original form, she wanted the application of the aggrieved person to apply to appeals brought forward, not to the initial hearing. That was the reason for the language appearing in Section 3 only. Section 2 just dealt with continuances granted to the applicant. It was in Section 3, regarding the appeal of a decision, where the expanded definition of an aggrieved person was addressed.
Stephanie Garcia-Vause complimented Ms. O’Grady for her responses to Assemblyman Hardy’s questions. Regarding appeals, Ms. Garcia-Vause added that the reason why the “aggrieved party” was brought forward was because one of the local jurisdictions was making the determination that the only person “with standing” and the ability to appeal a decision was actually the applicant. That discussion came up and that was the reason for that change in A.B. 291.
Assemblywoman Pierce wanted to speak again about e-mails. When one was communicating with constituents who were excited about an issue, there appeared to be no consistency as to how e-mails were handled. Some individuals in like positions, such as county commissioners, accounted for e‑mails differently than did their member commissioners. If one had a “hot” issue, a county commissioner who did count e-mails would be able to say, “I heard from 50 constituents,” while one who did not count them would say, in all probability, “I did not hear from anybody.” At some point that issue needed to be addressed, and a clear decision needed to be made regarding communicating with elected officials.
Assemblyman Collins stated that, if local governments were able to electronically send publications and documents to the State Library and through them to the State Distribution Center, electronic mail would certainly appear to be an acceptable way to communicate.
Assemblywoman Pierce stated that she could foresee getting an appeal through e-mail, but the entity receiving it would find it unsatisfactory, because it was not a “hard copy” appeal on paper.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 291.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. O’Grady restated the Amend and Do Pass motion to accept the proposed amendment with the clarification, in Section 2, subsection 3, that “person” would be changed to “applicant.” Additionally, it would make clear that an exception to the “two continuances” would be possible if the commission found that parties were moving toward a resolution of differences.
Chairman Manendo called for the question.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Grady and Assemblyman Williams were not present for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo called for a brief recess. Following the recess, the Chair called the meeting back to order and declared that the next order of business would be a work session on Assembly Bill 23, first heard by the Committee on February 10, 2003.
Assembly Bill 23: Increases compensation of district attorneys and sheriffs. (BDR 20-163)
The proposed amendment to Assembly Bill 23, stated Chairman Manendo, would allow for the salary increases for district attorneys and sheriffs to be split into two increments. The first increase, half of what would be agreed to, would be paid on July 1, 2003, and the other half of the increase would become effective on July 1, 2004. Section 3, subsections 1 and 2, of the original bill would be changed by the amendment.
Chairman Manendo asked Ben Graham to speak to the Committee for the purpose of clarification.
Ben Graham, representing the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, introduced himself and made himself available to the Chair.
The Chair asked him if he had stated the amendment clearly when he had said that one half of the salary increase would be paid in July 2003, while the other half would not be paid until July 2004. The county commissioners would still require a review.
Ben Graham confirmed the Chair’s understanding of the amendment and reaffirmed that there was a provision for review in the event there would be an emergency that would make those amounts impossible to pay.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked Mr. Graham to explain Humboldt County’s position as a Class 3 county (Exhibit L).
Ben Graham explained that Humboldt County was moved from a Class 4 county to a Class 3 county based on a population increase as noted on the 2000 Census and other economic index increases.
Assemblyman Goicoechea referenced the salary of the district attorney in Humboldt County at $83,524; other counties listed salaries for their district attorneys at $85,534 or higher. He remained puzzled by that discrepancy, he stated (Exhibit L, page 1).
Ben Graham reexamined Exhibit L, page 1, and stated his belief that the information contained thereon for Humboldt County was incorrect, possibly across the columns, as the salaries listed for sheriffs, county clerks, county assessors, county recorders, and county treasurers were not in line with other Class 3 county salaries. Mr. Graham noted that, on page 2 of Exhibit L, the salaries for the district attorneys and the sheriffs were the same, while the remaining salaries remained compatible with Class 4 counties, again an apparent discrepancy.
Chairman Manendo commented that there appeared to be a split review. If there were a financial problem in the counties, the counties would be able to pay half and then would be reviewed again to determine whether it was feasible to pay the second half of the salary as increased.
Ben Graham reaffirmed the Chair’s understanding of the review procedure. In the event the economic situation in the respective counties was such that payment of the increased amount was not possible, the review would determine the legitimacy of the claim, and they would be exempted from those payments.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 23.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Hardy asked if the motion to amend and do pass included the corrections needed in Exhibit L to bring salary figures in line.
Assemblyman Goicoechea believed Humboldt County had moved up during the last legislative session in 2001. He stated his belief that the numbers, based on a percentage increase, were correct as printed.
Chairman Manendo informed the Committee that a clarification was needed. He continued to consult with the Committee Counsel, Eileen O’Grady, and the Committee Policy Analyst, Susan Scholley.
Assemblyman Knecht asked the Chair if he would accept another amendment to the motion on A.B. 23. He wished to amend the motion already on the table.
Chairman Manendo asked if it was a clarification on the numbers within the amendment proposed for A.B. 23.
Assemblyman Hardy, looking at the original document prior to amendments, noted that the salaries listed for district attorney and sheriff in Humboldt County prior to the change of class designation matched the salaries of all other Class 4 counties.
Assemblyman Goicoechea responded to Mr. Hardy’s comments. In the salary structure of the amendment, he stated his belief that the reduced amount was appropriate. Someone decided it was not appropriate to give the pay raise and the step at the same time. When Mr. Hardy asked who would have made that decision, Mr. Goicoechea stated that he assumed it was the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO). Storey County was also moved to a new class, from Class 6 to a Class 5. Rather than giving those two counties an extremely large increase at once, it was broken out further, he suggested.
Chairman Manendo called for the vote.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Grady was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo complimented Kyle Wentz, Assembly Page, for his hard work on the Committee’s behalf then adjourned the work session at 12:39 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Nancy Haywood
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: