MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
February 7, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 11:11 a.m., on Friday, February 7, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William J. Raggio (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Tara DeWeese, Committee Secretary
Joseph Bozsik, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association - South
Linda Shepard, Lieutenant, Reno Police Department
Shawn McMenomy, Police Officer, Reno Police Department
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Michael Cleveland, Lobbyist, Police Officers Research Association of Nevada and Reno Police Protective Association
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas and Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Kimberly J. McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
Kami Dempsey, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Les Bower, Concerned Citizen
Al Kramer, Treasurer, Carson City
Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Chairman O’Connell announced the committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 53-402.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 53-402: Authorizes contractor to withhold money or require surety bond to guarantee payment of certain indebtedness of subcontractors and other contractors. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 71.)
Senator Warren B. Hardy II, Senate District No. 12, stated general contractors were responsible for workers compensation and related responsibilities on behalf of subcontractors. Bill Draft Request 53-402 would allow contractors the opportunity to bond for obligations rather than having to withhold cash payments.
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 53-402.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 29.
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, noted the request for S.B. 29 was initiated by law enforcement personnel and arose from a concern over incidents that occurred in Elko County and Laughlin. Senator Amodei acknowledged he did not have a position on S.B. 29 in the context of gun control. He said he believed it was fair for the Nevada Legislature to consider the issues raised by instances where people were lawfully carrying unconcealed weapons creating law enforcement issues.
SENATE BILL 29: Authorizes certain governing bodies to regulate carrying of unconcealed firearms upon public property at special events. (BDR 20‑697)
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, testified in support of S.B. 29. Mr. Olsen suggested an amendment to allow an exception for entertainers who may require firearms as props for special events. He said Senate Bill 29 was introduced as a result of a motorcycle event in Laughlin. Mr. Olsen explained how the City of Elko, following the incident in Laughlin, passed an emergency ordinance governing firearms within the Elko city limits for a similar motorcycle event. After the event, the City of Elko realized they may have overstepped their authority and that it was an issue only the Nevada Legislature could address. Mr. Olsen said the City of Elko has since repealed the ordinance.
Senator O’Connell asked if Mr. Olsen brought suggested language for an amendment to S.B. 29, allowing an exception for firearm-carrying entertainers.
Mr. Olsen indicated he did not, but would.
Linda Shepard, Lieutenant, Reno Police Department, said she agreed with Stan Olsen. Ms. Shepard reiterated a need for an amendment to allow for entertainers to carry firearms for demonstrations, Western reenactments, and other occasions when a need exists to carry guns for the event itself. Ms. Shepard said she was most concerned with gun-carrying individuals walking into event venues and creating potentially unsafe environments.
Shawn McMenomy, Police Officer, Reno Police Department, said he supported S.B. 29. The bill would assist police officers throughout the state, allowing for gun control within special event venues, he said.
Senator Tiffany inquired what kind of ordinances Ms. Shepard foresaw.
Ms. Shepard responded local governments would have ordinances allowing chiefs of police or county sheriffs the ability to restrict unconcealed weapons in an event venue and to issue permits to those people who needed to use unconcealed weapons, such as participants in Western reenactments.
Senator Tiffany asked if police officers at special events would take firearms away from individuals, if seen.
Ms. Shepard answered an attempt would be made to inform and educate event attendees of any firearm prohibitions. Placards could be posted and individual police officers could verbally inform attendees of the local ordinance. “We would get the information out and encourage voluntary compliance. If someone unknowingly violated the ordinance, a police officer could inform the individual or group of the ordinance and ask them to take their firearms back to their vehicles. A police officer would take enforcement action if the individual or group was not compliant,” she said.
Senator Hardy asked Mr. Olsen if a compelling reason existed for the Nevada Legislature to allow local governments to regulate firearms at special events, rather than addressing the issue itself.
Mr. Olsen indicated uniformity across the State would allow for uniform enforcement. Without uniformity, one local government may be very restrictive and another local government may not have any restrictions.
Senator Hardy indicated he understood the need for uniformity and was uncomfortable carving out exceptions for local governments.
Senator O’Connell noted the Nevada Legislature did not allow local governments to have ordinances stricter than State law in regard to the possession of firearms.
Senator Care referenced Section 1, subsection 4, paragraph (c) of S.B. 29, which discussed events attended or observed by more than 500 people. Senator Care inquired if the threshold pertained to an anticipated attendance of 500 or an actual count of 500 people.
Mr. Olsen answered it would be based on an anticipated number of people. Mr. Olsen further noted the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department had a special events unit and the unit would enforce county or city ordinances depending on where the event occurred. When an individual or group applied for a special events permit, they would indicate the number of people anticipated at the event.
Mr. McMenomy stated large numbers of people, including children, attend special events throughout the State. He said he wanted to make it safe for people attending special events. Mr. McMenomy further stated, gun-free special events would allow attendees to feel like they were in a safe environment. Uniformed police officers providing event security should be the only people allowed to possess firearms at special events.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, urged support for S.B. 29. He said S.B. 29 is needed in response to the events that recently transpired in Nevada.
Michael Cleveland, Lobbyist, Police Officers Research Association of Nevada and Reno Police Protective Association, announced his support for S.B. 29. He said the job would be difficult and unmanageable if officers had to approach everyone carrying an unconcealed firearm, determine the status of the firearm, and the intent of the owner. Mr. Cleveland said he would like all special events to be safe for all participants and officers.
Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Cleveland if firearms could be taken into events where security was provided.
Mr. Cleveland responded a normal check for weapons could be done at closed venues, but his concern would be with open-air venues.
Senator Tiffany asked if an individual carrying an unconcealed weapon into a closed event could be stopped from doing so.
Mr. Cleveland answered the events have to be placarded stating a firearms or weapons prohibition. Firearms are prohibited in some locations, like the Nevada Legislature.
Senator Hardy reiterated his previous question, asking Mr. Cleveland if there was a compelling reason to allow local governments to regulate firearms at special events or if he believed the State should address the issue through statutes.
Mr. Cleveland stated a preference for local governments to have jurisdiction. He said he was concerned a State law regulating unconcealed weapons at special events could create unintended effects for local governments. He further noted State jurisdiction would be acceptable as long as the issue was addressed.
Senator Care asked if weapons were allowed at the Burning Man event and if the event were on federal land, would a State statute have any application for such events.
Mr. Cleveland said the Burning Man event is contained within one or two counties in northern Nevada. It could have an effect on special events held on federal land. The sheriff of that jurisdiction would have to issue or be part of the special event permit process.
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas and Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, stated her preference for local control over regulating special events. Local governments are the entities providing special event permits, and she further noted, local officials had a better sense of local special events and their potential problems. She said local governments provided event security, not the State. Ms. Henderson concluded saying local governments needed flexibility to make recommendations on their special events.
Kimberly J. McDonald, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated her support for S.B. 29. She said the bill would help with the regulation of background checks and the qualifications pertaining to hiring of part-time security personnel.
Kami Dempsey, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated downtown Las Vegas events, like those held in the Fremont Street Experience, would benefit from S.B. 29. Ms. Dempsey noted the city of Las Vegas has shut down areas for public concerts and similar events. Having the control to regulate special event policies at the city level would be important, she said.
Les Bower, Concerned Citizen, addressed his opposition to S.B. 29. Mr. Bower noted previous testifiers used examples of situations where the problem activities were already against the law. He said there were several counties currently in violation of State law, and S.B. 29 was an attempt to rewrite State law to bring the State into compliance with local government ordinances. Senate Bill 29 would create a hodgepodge of gun control regulations that would make it impossible for citizens to know where and when they were in violation of the law, Mr. Bower said. He added, Senate Bill 29 would rewrite the entire statute and allow Nevada towns, cities, and counties to regulate all aspects of gun control, including registration. Mr. Bower commented that Colorado recently centralized its gun control laws because of the confusion created by a hodgepodge of local municipality gun regulations. He said he felt Senate Bill 29 regulates law-abiding citizens in an effort to control lawbreakers, who are already in violation of current laws. In conclusion, Mr. Bower stated S.B. 29 was unnecessary.
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill 30.
SENATE BILL 30: Revises provisions concerning notice of certain zoning hearings and concerning parcel maps. (BDR 22-456)
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 30.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Amodei suggested the committee reconsider its action. He explained, after further review, S.B. 30 was not necessary and the needs of the Carson City planning department are met under current statutes.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO RECONSIDER S.B. 30.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill 54.
Senator Amodei stated S.B. 54 was a request from Al Kramer, Treasurer, Carson City, to allow for a technical tune-up in terms of collecting utility bills and related matters.
SENATE BILL 54: Revises provisions relating to collection of delinquent charges for certain services provided by certain counties. (BDR 20-979)
Al Kramer, Treasurer, Carson City, stated his office collected water and sewer utility bills with one payment-enforcement mechanism, which was turning off water. He said a reconnect fee must be assessed before the water could be turned on again. Mr. Kramer said Nevada Revised Statute 244.36605 already allowed local government to move delinquent sewer bills to the tax roll in counties with populations under 400,000. He added Senate Bill 54 would allow other delinquent utility bills to be moved to the property tax bill, and once a year, utility bills delinquent for more than 2 or 3 months would be shifted to the property tax bill. Delinquent bills could be paid in four installments the following year, he said. The method for perfecting a tax lien took at least 3 full years, allowing enough time for a delinquent bill to be paid, he added. Mr. Kramer then summarized a letter from Monte Fast, Executive Director for Friends In Service Helping (FISH) in Carson City, stating money raised for charitable purposes had been used to pay delinquent bills, but if local governments could wait for payment of delinquent utility bills, they would receive payment. Mr. Kramer said it would alleviate the financial burden on charities and allow money to be spent on other worthy causes. Mr. Kramer stated on behalf of Kathy WoIfe, Human Services Manager, Carson City Social Services, that the Carson City budget for welfare was not big and could be better spent elsewhere.
Mr. Kramer stated he had contacted several county treasurers and they supported S.B. 54. Clark County would not be affected, he said.
Senator O’Connell asked how many people S.B. 54 would affect.
Mr. Kramer responded maybe 100 people would benefit from the shift to the tax bill in any given year. He explained excess funds from the penalty account are invested in the financial market. A delay in utility bill payments would not significantly affect Carson City’s investment opportunities.
Mr. Kramer noted, a complicated process occurs when a home’s water is turned off. If the process could be avoided, he said, it would lift a burden and provide stress relief for the Carson City Treasurer’s office.
Senator O’Connell asked if S.B. 54 would encourage people not to pay their bills.
Mr. Kramer answered in his 8 years as Treasurer, not one piece of property had been sold for nonpayment of taxes. Senate Bill 54 could have an adverse effect on landlords, if their tenants did not pay, he added.
Senator O’Connell asked if a problem for landlords would be created. She said she was concerned with landlords discovering liens on their properties without ever knowing the water bills had not been paid.
Mr. Kramer stated he would initiate a public campaign to inform the public of the change. He said it would be easy to send a direct letter outlining the new delinquent bill collection process to every landlord.
Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Kramer to provide a sample notification letter and said the letter would be used as a reference for questions concerning landlord notification.
Mr. Kramer agreed, but stated other local governments might want different language in their own letters.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 54.
Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, approached the committee to answer a question from a previous meeting concerning Senate Bill 16.
SENATE BILL 16: Clarifies effect of abstention from voting by member of certain public bodies on necessary quorum and number of votes necessary to take action on matters. (BDR 19-377)
Mr. Musgrove shared the Clark County commission’s legal counsel’s interpretation of conflicts of interest. He stated the Nevada Legislature deals with issues of general applicability. He then said the Clark County Board of Commissioners also dealt mostly with ordinances of general applicability. Mr. Musgrove noted, when the commissioners met as a zoning and planning board, they dealt with specific items of interest involving specific individuals or projects. Abstentions were made when the Clark County commission met as the zoning and planning board because of personal relationships, he said.
Senator Care said he maintained his prior position that some commissioners had abstained from votes when a true conflict did not exist.
Senator O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 11:53 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Joseph Bozsik,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: _______________________________________