MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
February 12, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:02 p.m., on Wednesday, February 12, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas 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 William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael J. Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Alice Nevin, Committee Secretary
Olivia Lodato, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and Nevada Sheriff’s & Chief’s Association North
Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City
Blanca Vazquez, Lobbyist, Clark County
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State
Art Dixon, Concerned Citizen
Charles Musser, Concerned Citizen
Paul A. Grace, Lobbyist, Nevada State Rifle & Pistol Association
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association Of Counties
Michael L. Montandon, Mayor, City of North Las Vegas
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police and Nevada Sheriff’s & Chief’s Association South
Dan Joseph, Concerned Citizen
Nannette Moffett, Concerned Citizen
George Soetje, Concerned Citizen
Al Kramer, Treasurer, Carson City
Chairman O’Connell opened the work session with bill draft requests (BDRs) that were introduced quickly in order to have the bills presented on the Senate floor the next day.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 24-324: Requires only name of candidate receiving majority of votes in primary of certain nonpartisan elections to be placed on ballot for general election. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 109.)
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and Nevada Sheriff’s & Chief’s Association North, stated the bill draft request was requested on behalf of the sheriffs of Nevada. The BDR followed the same language as a statute in effect in Carson City. The BDR addressed nonpartisan county offices and implemented election procedures for those offices in which the person who received the majority of the votes in the primary then had his or her name placed on the general ballot.
Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City, stated Carson City had a similar bill in their charter since 1969. The bill provided a way to eliminate frivolous candidates. Mr. Glover stated it had worked well and was worth the Committee’s consideration.
Chairman O’Connell asked if the committee had any further questions concerning BDR 24-324. A decision was made to introduce all the bill draft requests in the same motion. Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on BDR 22‑263.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 22-263: Revises manner of valuing certain property that becomes exempt from taxation for purposes of allocating certain tax revenue among taxing agencies and redevelopment agency. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 113.)
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, stated the BDR corrected a technical error that was made in S.B. No. 197 of the 65th Session. The bill only affected the Carson City redevelopment district, as it was the only district that had State property in the district. She said the bill intent in 1989 was to protect Carson City’s redevelopment tax increment when the State purchased property in the redevelopment district. She said Carson City was the poorest redevelopment district in the State, as it had an approximate $19 million assessed value. If the State purchased property in the district, it would have an enormous impact on the redevelopment district. The bill would provide by law that any assessed value taken off the tax roll would be taken off the base tax number, she said, and not from the redevelopment tax increment.
Ms. Walker stated the concern was if the State purchased several million dollars’ worth of property in the district, Carson City could have problems making its bond payments.
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on BDR 20-273.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 20-273: Revises provisions relating to purchase, sale or exchange by county of certain real property and provisions relating to notice that county must provide before selling or exchanging certain real property. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 110.)
Blanca Vazquez, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated BDR 20-273 would permit counties to exchange property with owners of abutting public facilities. There had been instances where it would have been to the advantage of the county to exchange right-of-way with the abutting property owners rather than purchasing the property. She stated the current statutory authority to exchange for new facilities was not clear, and the language was limited to roadways. The proposed revisions would permit exchanges for any public facilities, she said.
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on BDR 28-401.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 28-401: Revises provisions governing manner of determining prevailing rate of wages to be paid on public works. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 114.)
Senator Hardy discussed BDR 28-401 stating the bill dealt with the determination of prevailing wage. The prevailing wage issue had been dealt with several years ago, in regulation, with the labor commissioner’s office, he said. The current law stated if 50 percent of the wage on the survey was identical, that wage was deemed to prevail. The law also stated if 50 percent was not identical, then 30 percent could be used as the prevailing wage. Senator Hardy said in regulation the percentage was changed to a 40 percent standard. He said he had spoken to the Labor Commissioner about changing to the 50 percent standard in order to be in line with national law.
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on BDR 24-617.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 24-617: Changes dates for filing of declaration of candidacy for certain judicial offices. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 111.)
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court, said he wanted to comment on BDR 24-617. The purpose of the bill draft request was to change the filing date for judicial candidates in the general election from May to January, and from the second to the fourth Monday. Justice Gibbons said the membership of the Supreme Court had discussed changing the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct to prohibit candidates for judicial office from soliciting any campaign contributions before February 1. He said if the candidates did not have any opposition, they would be prohibited from soliciting any campaign contributions. Justice Gibbons said candidates in most district court races ran unopposed. He said Clark County has had 27 races, of which only 13 were contested. Washoe County has had 4 of 10 races contested, and Carson City and Douglas County each had 2 seats, and in which none of the races were contested. Justice Gibbons stated the bill would take financial issues out of the majority of judicial races and campaigns.
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on BDR 18-577.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 18-557: Makes various changes to provisions relating to Secretary of State. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 112.)
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, said BDR 18-557 was intended to modify fees contained in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Section225.140 to bring the fees into conformance with other similar fees in the office. She stated S.B. No. 577 of the 71st Session increased all the business entity filing fees covered in Title 7 of NRS, including the cost of certifying copies, from $10 to $20. The notary fees covered in Section 240 of NRSand certifying fees were also increased to $20. Ms. Parker said the bill was intended to make the fees consistent. She said the bill would also clarify a document was deemed filed with the Office of the Secretary of State when it was in the office’s care, custody, and control, and all applicable requirements of the statutes have been met. Ms. Parker stated the bill would make it necessary to have the filing fee paid in order to be deemed filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. She said a fee for returned checks would also be raised to a maximum of $50. The fee would cover increased costs between two legislative sessions, if necessary. The Office of the Secretary of State would like to have the ability to be in line with other agencies, she said, and the current charge of $10 did not cover the cost to the office. The other provision in BDR 18-557 deleted several fees. Section 239.052 of NRS provided that the office could not exceed the actual cost of providing a copy. Ms. Parker said the office wanted to have the ability to waive a fee if it was less expensive to make a copy of a statute without having done the paperwork involved for documenting the $1-fee charge.
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on BDR 42-850.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 42-850: Revises provisions governing ability of State Fire Marshal to regulate construction, maintenance and safety of buildings and structures in certain counties. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 118.)
Chairman O’Connell stated the bill was requested by Clark County. She said the bill would eliminate the regulation requiring Clark County, or any county with a population over 100,000, to go through the process of having the State fire marshal approve their building plans because building plans had been delayed too long while waiting for approval from the State fire marshal’s office.
Chairman O’Connell asked Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, if he had further information concerning the BDR. Mr. Musgrove said he had no further information and thanked Chairman O’Connell for introducing the bill.
Chairman O’Connell asked for a motion from the committee for the introduction of the bill draft requests.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 24-234, BDR 22‑263, BDR 20-273, BDR 28-401, BDR24-617, BDR18-557, ANDBDR42-850.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Care stated when he voted for committee introductions it did not bind him in any way to a future vote for or against the legislation.
Chairman O’Connell stated there had been some problems with people being unable to testify on Senate Bill (S.B.) 29 at the previous meeting on February 7, 2003: the building in Las Vegas had been in the midst of a fire drill, and some of the people who had wanted to testify via videoconference thought the hearing was being held at the federal building, which was shut down due to an orange alert issued by the federal homeland security department. Chairman O’Connell asked for further testimony on S.B. 29 from Las Vegas, via videoconferencing.
SENATE BILL 29: Authorizes certain governing bodies to regulate carrying of unconcealed firearms upon public property at special events. (BDR 20‑697)
Art Dixon, Concerned Citizen, stated the bill had changed significantly from the earlier version the Nevada State Rifle & Pistol Association had been involved in writing. He said the bill would override the State law by giving local jurisdictions the ability to make their own rules for any special events that would attract 500 or more people. He said the bill could kill all gun shows and many Old West recreation events, and could also work as a speed trap for passing motorists with guns displayed in the vehicles. Mr. Dixon said he did not think the law should be enacted. He said it was not the way the laws had been in the past and there was no reason to change the law now.
Charles Musser, Concerned Citizen, stated the portability of firearms from homes to firing ranges and other places where large numbers of people often group together for events made it necessary to have uniform statewide law throughout all counties. He said local law should not supercede state law.
Paul A. Grace, Lobbyist, Nevada State Rifle & Pistol Association, said he was opposed to all aspects of the bill. He stated the bill was unworkable.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said she was concerned about the scope of the bill encompassing more than just special events. She made a brief reference to an amendment to the bill saying the State had the authority to establish such regulations. She wondered who in the State would have the authority to make or change the regulations. Ms. Lusk said if it were intended to be the Legislature, it already had the authority to create or change regulations.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 29, and opened the work session portion of the meeting. She began with Senate Bill 6, a bill that had been introduced by Senator Rawson.
SENATE BILL 6: Makes various changes relating to emergency management. (BDR 18-233)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 6.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
The next bill introduced by Chairman O’Connell was 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).
Senator Care discussed the bill. He stated he had been approached by people from Clark County who said in some matters where there were specific private entities who might have a conflict, an amendment needed to be introduced that would allow them to receive a written opinion which would be made public confirming there was a conflict with NRS 281. He wanted it on the record that he would discuss and consider any amendments that might arrive after the bill was on the Assembly side. He said he did not want to delay the bill in committee.
Senator Titus inquired why quasi-legislative bodies could not go by the rules under which the Legislature operated, where a constitutional majority could pass items being discussed.
Senator Care stated the bill he and Assemblyman David R. Parks, Assembly District No. 41, introduced did say a constitutional majority would be sufficient. A problem occurred when State boards had various elected and unelected members. The bill had been confined to elected bodies only. Senator Titus inquired why it would not be possible to just have a majority to pass anything. Senator Care stated there were people who had been abstaining when there was no real conflict.
Senator Raggio expressed concerns about the bill. He said there were a large number of elected bodies in various jurisdictions that would be affected by the bill. Many of the people on the boards would have an actual conflict and it could cause a situation where it would be impossible to pass anything. He stated he was unable to support the measure as presented.
Senator Care said conflicts were being declared where there were actually no conflicts. He said it was possible an ordinance could be enacted with only one member of a county commission voting, because six members had claimed they had an abstention. Senator Care said he did not believe that was an example of democracy at work.
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, had concerns with the bill as it was introduced, but said to his knowledge there had not been any problems as described by Senator Care.
Michael L. Montandon, Mayor, City of North Las Vegas, said there were no current policies or situations in North Las Vegas that required a supermajority. The city required a simple majority for all issues. He said they had not had any issues where conflicts or abstaining from votes caused a problem.
Senator Hardy stated he agreed with Senator Care about his concerns in regard to abstention but, he stated, this was probably not the correct vehicle to accomplish the stated aims. He said he would not be able to support the bill in its current form.
Senator Raggio said the boards had been taking undue license with what constituted a conflict. He said they should define what a conflict was, rather than accepting what someone else said was a conflict. He said he did not believe the law should be changed for all elected bodies.
Senator Care stated he was disappointed because the measure had passed both Houses unanimously last session. He requested the discussion be continued in a future work session, and he would continue to address the concerns mentioned.
Chairman O’Connell opened a discussion on Senator Neal’s bill, S.B. 20. She noted James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and Nevada Sheriff’s & Chief’s Association North, had supplied information, Exhibit C, concerning the number of agencies receiving money from the U.S. Department of Justice in response to some questions that were brought up at the last meeting.
SENATE BILL 20: Provides that peace officer who engages in racial profiling is guilty of misdemeanor. (BDR 23-42)
Senator Tiffany said she had difficulty with the bill. She stated the bill might create more problems than it would solve. She noted she did not approve or agree with any form of racial profiling, but said she thought the bill appeared as though it were profiling the officer and not the person being stopped. She stated the questions concerning this bill had not been answered to her satisfaction.
Senator Titus agreed the bill caused some problems and she agreed with Senator Tiffany to “Indefinitely Postpone” the bill. She said Senator Neal made a very good point when he said racial profiling was a problem and if the committee did not like the current vehicle, perhaps something else could be proposed that would address the problem. She requested staff look to the National Conference of State Legislatures for other racial profiling statutes that could be looked at as alternatives before session adjourns. She suggested the committee not pass this particular bill, but look at other options. Michael J. Stewart, Committee Policy Analysts, stated he would accommodate the request for further information.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 20.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell moved next to Senator Amodei’s bill, SenateBill 29.
SENATE BILL 29: Authorizes certain governing bodies to regulate carrying of unconcealed firearms upon public property at special events.
(BDR 20-697)
Senator Raggio opened the discussion with a question concerning the bill. He stated he was very partial to the National Rifle Association and had been a member for many years. He wanted to know why a city or governing body could not be allowed to enact laws regarding the carrying of unconcealed firearms.
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police and Nevada Sheriff’s & Chief’s Association South, responded to Senator Raggio’s question by stating there were federal laws and statutes that covered the carrying of unconcealed weapons at large meetings or gatherings and the Secret Service was very strict about such laws. Mr. Stewart had prepared and submitted a brief memorandum, Exhibit D, in answer to earlier questions from committee members dealing with enforcing local ordinances on public land.
Senator Care asked Mr. Olsen under what circumstances would a police officer might do something about someone carrying an unconcealed weapon.
Mr. Olsen responded the metropolitan police department was unable to do a great deal unless a specific law had been broken. In the past, the police had taken a gun for safekeeping, but the police had been advised they needed to have a charge before they took a weapon. Senator Care commented the issue appeared to go to public versus private property.
Mr. Olsen responded to Senator Care by stating if an officer saw someone wearing a set of guns on his hip on a public sidewalk, that person would be stopped and questioned. The police might take the guns, but the main recourse they had was to tell the individual to remove the guns and go someplace else. The police had no legal recourse to arrest anyone carrying an unconcealed weapon, he said.
Senator Hardy asked if there were already laws dealing with carrying concealed or unconcealed weapons in a public building. Mr. Olsen said the bill dealt with special events in any public arena, an event inside a hotel would not be covered under this bill, as it was private property.
Mr. Dan Joseph, Concerned Citizen, testified that he wanted to convince the committee to reject the bill. He advised the committee to leave the current laws alone.
Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Joseph if he had identified himself before he spoke. She explained to him that testimony had already been taken on this bill and it was not generally taken at a later time in a committee work session. She said if there were a question other members of the committee could not answer, she would occasionally call on someone in the audience who might be able to answer questions raised by the Senators.
Senator Tiffany stated the bill brought up more questions than it answered. She mentioned the conflict between city, county, and town, jurisdictional questions, the number of people at a rally, notification, and schedules. She said she could not support the bill in any way.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 29.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Titus asked about public property owned by the government, whether local, state, or federal, and if there were provisions for posting signs such as “No Guns Allowed.” Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel, verified entities could prohibit the carrying of concealed or unconcealed weapons in public buildings when it was posted at the entrance to the building.
Senator Care commented he viewed the bill as a question of jurisdiction, and not as a gunbill as such. Senator Hardy said he was compelled to make a comment regarding the possible amendment he had recommended. He stated any changes to the gun laws as they currently existed in the State should be dealt with in the NRS. He said he did not want to see the work done earlier to put the jurisdiction at the legislative level undone by a new bill. He stated the proponents of the bill did not make a compelling argument that this bill needed to be done at all, which, he said, was the reason he supported the motion and seconded it.
Chairman O’Connell asked if there was further discussion concerning the bill, and there was none. She then opened discussion on Senate Bill 30.
SENATE BILL 30: Revises provisions concerning notice of certain zoning hearings and concerning parcel maps. (BDR 22-456)
Senator Amodei requested this measure be withdrawn.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 30.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 54.
SENATE BILL 54: Revises provisions relating to collection of delinquent charges for certain services provided by certain counties.(BDR 20‑979)
Nannette Moffett, Concerned Citizen, said S.B. 54 would impose an additional penalty and burden on property owners. She also stated it would require a lot of paper work and staff to ensure notices were given to all property owners when a water bill had not been paid. She said the treasurer had the capability of filing liens on the property if the water bill was not paid.
George Soetje, Concerned Citizen, stated the bill was redundant and overkill. If the water bill was not paid, a notice was sent to both the tenant and the landlord. The notice always contained a turnoff date. The water company also had the option of filing a lien against the property. He said he could see no merit in adding another situation that would cause extra expense in sending out water bills attached to the property tax bills.
Ms. Moffett inquired how the water bill would be separated from the regular tax statement received each year. Chairman O’Connell stated Ms. Moffett’s concern was one she had also raised. A letter, Exhibit E, from Al Kramer, Treasurer, Carson City, outlined eight different ways the county had of notifying landlords.
Senator Care had an additional question concerning mobile homes. He asked if a mobile home was removed from a property, would the delinquency follow the mobile home or would it stay with the real property. Mr. Kramer responded the lien would be on the real property, as the mobile home was often unattainable.
Senator Townsend asked if it would be possible to give the property owner a choice about where the water bill would be attached. Mr. Kramer stated Carson City had no way of knowing if a property was a rental property.
Mr. Hadfield said Las Vegas also had no way of knowing the status of the property. Mr. Kramer asked if the discussion could be postponed in order to allow him to research the answers to the questions that had been asked.
Chairman O’Connell agreed to postpone action on the measure until further information could be obtained. Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:13 pm.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Olivia Lodato,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: