MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
February 19, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, February 19, 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 E. Washington Ave., 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 Terry Care
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Olivia Lodato, Committee Secretary
Tara DeWeese, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration
Robert E. Shriver, Executive Director, Division of Economic Development
Terry Savage, Director, Chief Information Officer, Department of Information Technology
John Slaughter, Lobbyist, Washoe County
R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, and Nevada District Attoneys’ Association/Las Vegas
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association North, and Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association South
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Lawrence Jacobsen, Lobbyist, Douglas County, Lyon County, and Carson City
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, and Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition/SNRPC
Martin J. Manning, Director, Public Works, Clark County
Denis Cederburg, Manager, Design Engineering, Public Works, Clark County
Bonnie Parnell, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, and Douglas County
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on introductions of bill draft requests (BDRs).
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration was called upon to introduce BDR 31-506.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 31-506: Exempts certain licensing boards from State Budget Act and certain provisions governing financial administration. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 173.)
Mr. Comeaux stated BDR 31-506 was designed to finish something started earlier, which was to remove independent boards from State budget oversight, particularly, the Private Investigator’s Licensing Board and the Board for the Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gas.
Robert E. Shriver, Executive Director, Division of Economic Development, was called upon to introduce BDR 18-529.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 18-529: Makes various changes concerning powers and duties of Commission on Economic Development. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 174.)
Mr. Shriver noted BDR 18-529 would update and describe more accurately the duties and responsibilities of the Commission on Economic Development to bring it into the twenty-first century, and add language relating to the retention of existing Nevada businesses.
Terry Savage, Director, Chief Information Officer, Department of Information Technology, was called upon to introduce BDR 18-536.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 18-536: Makes certain documents relating to information technology of state agencies confidential and authorizes appointment of advisory committee on security issues. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 175.)
Mr. Savage testified BDR 18-536 was needed to enhance information technology security systems within the State to improve security by keeping certain technical documents and information confidential.
John Slaughter, Lobbyist, Washoe County, was called upon to introduce BDR 22-583.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 22-583: Makes various changes regarding planning and zoning. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 176.)
Mr. Slaughter stated BDR 22-583 was requested by the planning staff of Washoe County in order to establish processes of notification and affidavits of when, how, and who had been notified with regard to planning and zoning requests and changes.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 31-506, BDR 18-529, BDR 18-536, AND BDR 22-583.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 53.
SENATE BILL 53: Increases compensation of district attorneys and sheriffs. (BDR 20-21)
R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, and Nevada District Attoneys’ Association/Las Vegas, was the first to testify in support of this measure. He mentioned S.B. 53 sought an independent body to allocate raises to give elected sheriffs and district attorneys independence. He pointed out this bill was essentially the same as a bill in the 71st Session, which was not passed. Mr. Graham illustrated there has been a 7.41 percent increase in salaries. He explained this increase looks at comparable attorneys or law enforcement officers within the various districts. Clark and Washoe Counties have grown significantly in the last 30 to 40 years, outstripping the growth in the rest of the State. Mr. Graham pointed out these matters were addressed in S.B. 53. In addition, he mentioned an escape clause within the bill which allowed the counties to bail out in case of financial emergency. He claimed the bill would be amended to become effective July 1, 2003 to avoid any budgetary problems. He said local county officials have had one pay raise since 1995 and it would probably be another 5 or 6 years before they would see another. He submitted a letter from Michael Gillins, Exhibit C, supporting S.B. 53.
Senator Care asked Mr. Graham to explain the rationale for the 7.41 percent increase. He also noted the percent of increase was not the same for each county. Senator Care asked if there were other factors besides inflation accounting for the percentages of the pay increase requests.
In direct response to Senator Care’s questions, Mr. Graham explained one of the reasons for the 7.41 percent pay increase came about by comparing private attorneys’ salaries with those of county district attorneys, noting only Esmeralda County’s district attorney could supplement his income in private practice.
Senator Raggio, for the record, said:
Let me make clear what happened and why we are here today. In the last session, this House didn’t get the bill to raise county officers’ salaries until 3 o’clock the afternoon of the last day of the session. We had to adjourn by midnight. I am not trying to point fingers, but this House had requested that bill for months because I think all of us were aware of the need to address county officers’ salaries, which is what we have to do because in the constitution the Legislature has to do that. The bill got over here at 3 o’clock the last day; it had to go to the Senate Finance committee. The other House was told not to send the bill over, which had automatic salary increases in it, because that is something we couldn’t justify if we didn’t do it for State workers, we didn’t do it for teachers. It would have been inappropriate to pass a bill that had that kind of escalation clause in it. As a result, we had to have a hearing on it, we had to attempt to amend it, amend that out even though it was sent over here with the instructions not to put that in it. It was complicated with judges’ salaries in it. As a result, it just could not be processed.
This Chairman even asked the Governor, since it was one that the Legislature wanted to pass, to put it on the special session, to make sure this wasn’t overlooked and we weren’t able to do that because of the pressing business of what had to be on the agenda for the special session. So, it is appropriate that we address all of the county officers’ salaries, including the sheriffs’ and the district attorneys’. For what advice I can offer, I suggested that, the numbers, the salaries that were listed in the bill during the last session had been looked at. They were appropriate, they addressed the appropriate cost of living increase from the time they had been adjusted previously and it is my understanding, that is why I am making it for the record here, this bill takes those base salaries that were in effect approved, but not passed formally in the last session. You have added 7.5 percent cost of living over the next 4‑year period. So, I just wanted to make sure that is the basis on which these salaries were computed and, Madam Chairman, as one member of the committee, I am going to suggest that if we process this bill, we amend it to include the other county officers, elected officers, because I don’t want to see us run into the problem again, where we are only doing part of it here and get hung up on the last day. These elected county officers deserve a pay raise, this comes out of the counties and I understand the counties have all agreed to this. It is something we have to do, but they certainly have to endorse. So I am prepared, at the proper time, to suggest an amendment that will include the other county elected officers as well. Thank you.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association North, and Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, testified in support of S.B. 53, and the proposed amendment to include the other county elected officials.
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association South, testified saying he echoed Mr. Nadeau’s, Mr. Graham’s and Senator Raggio’s statements and had no issue with bringing other county elected officials into the bill. He claimed it was time to do something for the elected officials and if the counties were to attract qualified people, then the salaries need to reflect quality.
Chairman O’Connell asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of S.B. 53.
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, opened his statements with gratitude directed at Senator Raggio for summarizing the situation last session. He wanted to provide more information on how they came to the 7.41 percent increase and why they arrived at their figures. Mr. Hadfield stated the Governor appointed a task force to review local official salaries as well as legislative and judicial salaries. In that review, there were several public hearings with public and private sector input. He mentioned the results and recommendations were included in A.B. No. 256 of the 71st Session and changed into A.B. No. 606 of the 71st Session, the bill which Senator Raggio referred to.
Mr. Hadfield reiterated, salaries were taken from private sector wage gains in the State of Nevada over the period of years up to the last salary bill. As recommended by a private citizen in Clark County in testimony to the Governor’s salary task force, he made the point, public officials’ salaries should relate in some way to how well the private sector employees were doing. Mr. Hadfield stated they adopted that particular methodology at the recommendation of the Governor’s task force. It was put in their bill and prepared by the then Department of Employment Security, State of Nevada, which became the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR). He mentioned the other point he wanted to make was the same salary commission recommended some of the changes discussed already in previous testimony. Storey County had a full-time district attorney, so they needed to change their class level. Also the commission recommended Humboldt County be increased to another class level because of its workload. The other salaries, for Washoe and Clark Counties, were reviewed separately by the salary commission and it was clear to them the class 1 counties’ salaries simply did not reflect the situation going back all the years. The bill before the committee, amended to include all the counties’ salaries, would maintain the current classification system, which was a way to balance the differences between the various counties, their workloads, and their responsibilities. Mr. Hadfield said it also provided for the methodology of relating the salaries to how well the private sector employees were doing in the State of Nevada. The provision allowing the counties to call for a waiver due to economic hardship needed some change from the language that was included in both bills last session because of some ambiguity, he said. Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, was aware of this and had been working with Eileen O’Grady on this and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 66. There should be no confusion about the waiver after that. Mr. Hadfield noted S.B. 53 did include a provision that a county could seek a waiver if financial hardship should occur. It addressed the whole notion of what happened if a county did not seek one immediately, but down the road sought one, and what would happen to the elected officials’ salaries. They would remain enforced, he said, but under the current language, that was questionable. That amendment was finished in one form and was almost ready in another.
ASSEMBLY BILL 66: Increases compensation of certain elected county officers. (BDR 20-170)
Senator Tiffany questioned Mr. Hadfield about the economic circumstances of the rural counties in Nevada and if they were in support of this bill. She mentioned the percentage of the increase looked high.
Mr. Hadfield responded by saying except for Nye County, which planned to consider the issue at an upcoming meeting, all counties supported S.B. 53. He said he did not know if any of the counties would seek relief, but he wanted to make sure the ability existed because of the very nature of the changing conditions in Nevada. Last session, the counties had all budgeted for the increases. Prior to changing the date to July 1, the bill was written to be retroactive to January 6. Most of the counties have budgeted their accounts for this year, he said.
Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Hadfield what percentage of these smaller counties’ budgets were salaries.
Mr. Hadfield admitted he would have to speculate, but he would be happy to get a report to the committee with that information. However, he noted, the general funds of these counties were nearly all salaries because of law enforcement, courts, and other functions.
Senator Hardy asked if the counties chose not to implement the salary increases, would they then have to take some action to avoid implementing them.
Mr. Hadfield clarified, the provision they were asking to be amended would require that they still apply for a waiver. The waiver would go to the committee on local government finance, so there would be an independent body that knew the condition of counties, to review it to ensure, in fact, they were unable to make those adjustments in salary and they would be waived. The task force was allowing for a consecutive waiver to be applied for.
Senator Hardy asked if there was a compelling reason why that part of the bill was so confusing. He asked if there were reasons for the bill not to allow flexibility.
Mr. Hadfield reviewed task force information and the recommendation that came back from legal counsel, which was the constitutional requirement to set those salaries and which was why they had the table. There was no flexibility, constitutionally, referring to the table, as Mr. Hadfield said he understood it. He said he believed one must put a relief provision in the bill and yes, one must have a table with specific salaries and there would be no flexibility, whether someone might wish to pay more than that or less than that.
Senator Hardy agreed the constitution was a compelling reason.
Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Hadfield if the counties ran into any problems with any other area, would salaries decrease and could Legislators depend on that happening instead of having the counties come to the State for additional funding.
Mr. Hadfield clarified, once set, these salaries would remain in force. If a county chose to seek a waiver from it, it must be done immediately. For example, if 5 years from now, a county wished to do that, then no, the salaries would not go down in 5 years. This was based on the collective bargaining agreements the counties have with all of their employees. The counties were trying to avoid having salaries go up and down. Once set and implemented, that is the salary until adjusted again in another salary bill before another legislative session.
Chairman O’Connell asked where A.B. 66 was in the process on the Assembly side.
Mr. Hadfield answered A.B. 66 was scheduled for a hearing on February 24.
Chairman O’Connell wanted clarification of the amended language that would be put into A.B. 66.
Mr. Hadfield affirmed the language would be amended on the relief provision. He stated he wanted to eliminate all ambiguity.
Chairman O’Connell asked if it would be ready by the time they scheduled a work session on A.B. 66.
Mr. Hadfield responded he would work with the legislative counsel to make sure the language fit to have this bill passed.
Senator Titus stated, in order to hire the most qualified people, the salaries needed to be adjusted to pay for the quality.
Mr. Hadfield concurred with Senator Titus.
Chairman O’Connell claimed one of the problems that bothered her, was the fact the people running for office knew the salaries.
Mr. Hadfield responded to the Chairman’s concerns by saying, the salaries would become effective at the beginning of the elective term for most of the county officers, except for those few commissioners who ran on the odd election year, and that was why they used the particular date of July 1, because they wanted to put an end to that continuing concern. He said he thinks it would be appropriate for the new salaries to line up with the elections, which would be this year.
Chairman O’Connell asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of S.B. 53.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke on S.B. 53. Ms. Vilardo mentioned the discrepancy between the counties’ claim of budgetary problems, but somehow budgeted pay increases for their county officials. She said she agreed with the amendment to change it from the January 6 date to the July 1 date, pushing it into the new fiscal year, which would allow the counties to properly budget in a manner that would be reflective of this, if in fact they were going to take the raises. She said she did take a position on the level of the raises, but because of the politics of the issue, it had been a considerable amount of time since the county officials have had raises and she said she supported the salary increases.
Lawrence Jacobsen, Lobbyist, Douglas and Lyon Counties, and Carson City, testified in support of S.B. 53. Mr. Jacobsen commented on the quality of service county officials provided and the lack of salary for their hard work. He commented it was about time for a pay increase for county officials.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 53 and opened the hearing on S.B. 79.
SENATE BILL 79: Reduces number of required meetings of Board of Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition. (BDR S-455)
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, and Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition/SNRPC, testified in support of S.B. 79. He claimed it was a very simple bill adjusting the meeting times of the planning coalition from once a month to bimonthly.
Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Musgrove how they came to choose bimonthly meetings.
Mr. Musgrove answered that based on the workload, they did not have enough work to meet every month. Members of the planning coalition felt twice a month meetings would be sufficient and give them the flexibility they needed.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 79.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 79 and opened the hearing on S.B. 110.
SENATE BILL 110: 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. (BDR 20-273)
Mr. Musgrove introduced Martin Manning to explain S.B. 110, and a proposed amendment, Exhibit D, to clarify some technical changes within the bill.
Martin Manning, Director, Public Works, Clark County, via live feed from Las Vegas, said for the record:
We are very glad you have given us the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 110. With respect to the amendment of NRS 244.276 and respect to section 1 of the bill, it will expand the authority of the county to exchange real property, not only to realign, change, vacate or otherwise adjust any of the streets, alleys or thoroughfares or portions thereof within its limits, but it will also allow the exchange of real property to establish, align, realign change, vacate or adjust flood-control facilities as well. The counties you know have some extensive transportation and flood-control programs. In these programs, we’ve had experiences, instances, where it would have been more advantageous to the property owners and to the county to exchange remnant parcels the county owns for rights of way needed from the property of the abutting property owners. This would produce a win-win situation for the county and the abutting property owners. The county would reduce the number of undeveloped parcel remnants along its rights of way and the associated costs of them being maintained, and also, that maintenance includes things like fencing, clean up, and certainly dust control on site. It would get those parcels back on the tax rolls. The abutting property owners would gain additional property to offset the loss of property that they had to give for right of way. With respect to the amendment of NRS 244.281 and NRS 244.282, sections 2 and 3 of the bill, respectively, the proposed revisions pertained to the notice of intent to sell or exchange property and the publication of the resolution to sell or exchange property. The revisions would provide that the resolutions be posted in three public places in the county and then a notice for the description of the property, minimum price, and location of the posting be published in the newspaper, instead of publishing the entire resolution in the newspaper. This would provide a cost savings to the county for each public property auction or exchange of property that it undertakes.
We estimate the cost savings at about $1000 per transaction. We support this bill and we recommend it for your favorable consideration with the following minor language changes. In section 1 of the bill we recommend the word “change” not be deleted from the statute. There are likely situations where a street is being altered or affected, but isn’t specifically being established, aligned, realigned, or vacated. And the statute should apply in those instances. The word “change” appears once in paragraph 1 and four times in paragraph 3. In paragraph four of section 1 of the bill, the following language in lines 35 and 36 should be deleted from the definition of flood control facility, “bucket machines, inlet and outlet cleaners, backhoes, draglines, raiders and other equipment.” This language refers to mobile, vehicular-mounted construction and maintenance equipment that may be used at a flood control facility, but is not a part of the facility itself. We want to thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on Senate Bill 110 and again, would like to recommend it to you for your favorable consideration.
Senator Hardy asked Mr. Manning about the noticing requirements in the resolution. The Senator inquired about the minimum price included in the notice. He asked if most exchanges were bidding processes and if it made sense to put the counties at a disadvantage to publicly announce what the minimum price for the property was.
Mr. Manning responded by clarifying that it applied to all transactions that might be competitive in nature. The opportunity there was to be able to simplify the process of getting the message out to the public.
Senator Hardy asked if exchanges were a competitive process as well.
Mr. Manning responded that exchanges were not competitive in nature and more of an arm’s-length transaction with an adjacent property owner that simplified the process of acquiring right of way, as well as an arm’s-length transaction between the county and the abutting property owner.
Senator Hardy commented advertising the minimum price the county was willing to accept would put the county at a competitive disadvantage in getting the best price possible for the properties.
Senator Tiffany inquired why they wanted to reduce the notification from 3 weeks to 2 weeks.
Mr. Musgrove responded, section 4, line 34, would make it consistent with what was already in statute for auctions. The reduction of time in notification was to clean it up and make it consistent with the auction process.
Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Musgrove why they did not change the auctions to be 3 weeks instead.
Mr. Musgrove answered, some of the smaller counties had problems because of their once-a-week newspapers, and they wanted to keep it at 2 weeks to be consistent within the statute. He noted more notification was better, however, sometimes there was no frequency or ability to get the notice because a county would have to wait a whole other cycle to get the 3 weeks in with some of these smaller counties, which have once-a-week newspapers. He mentioned the notification time was not of real concern as long as it was consistent within the bill, as suggested.
Senator Tiffany commented the more public notice with eminent domain the better. She mentioned she had a problem with the public notification section of the bill.
Chairman O’Connell asked for more explanation on “established alignment” and if it had any particular significance as far as the notification went.
Mr. Manning responded he did not think it had any particular significance. He explained established alignments as being general knowledge of what the project intended. He did not think it would have any real impact with respect to notification.
Senator Care asked if the legislation would have any impact on any pending litigation.
Mr. Manning responded, as far as he was aware there was no pending litigation this bill would impact in one way or another.
Chairman O’Connell asked where the notices were generally posted.
Mr. Manning answered the notices were located at public buildings. As for posted notices, particularly in this notice procedure, it was posted completely in the newspaper.
Chairman O’Connell asked in what section of the newspapers the notification would be.
Mr. Manning said the public notice would be put in with the legal notices.
Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Manning if he knew how well read the legal notices were with property owners who might not be aware of what was about to happen.
Mr. Manning replied he suspected people who were in the business of looking for property would be well aware of them, but he could not guarantee everyone would read the legal notices. In many instances where the planning coalition had public meeting notices in general, they made those advertisements in the body of the newspapers. Mr. Manning commented the method of notification appeared to work well and there was no reason why something similar could not be done in these instances.
Chairman O’Connell addressed the committee saying they should look at the notification process since they would be amending the bill anyway.
Senator Tiffany wanted more clarification on why there was a need to add flood control to this section of the law. She asked, why this, why now.
Mr. Manning clarified, this was not eminent domain as much as it was an opportunity to advantage the county as well as property owners. He used the Las Vegas Beltway as an example of acquiring right of way. It was easier to acquire property through right of way. It eliminated problems and was a money saver and provided opportunities for property owners to come out feeling better about the process.
Senator Tiffany asked if it has been a previous problem.
Mr. Manning, for the record, said:
If you look at some of the major flood control facilities, as you know, we presently have a corps of engineers project for which the flood control district is responsible to acquire right of way through Clark County. There are a number of different alignments that we have been obligated to acquire and I think there are a number of instances where we’ve ended up with parcels that are unable to be developed, or leftovers from that type of right of way. There is more than $250 million worth of flood control facilities going in and certainly anything that accommodates those, as well as to make the property owners a little happier throughout the process, is well worth the effort.
Chairman O’Connell asked how long it took before an area in a flood zone would see a reduction in home owners’ insurance because of the completion of a flood project. She pointed out, in many instances, the homeowners have not seen any reduction in their homeowners insurance at all.
Mr. Manning explained it was now done by FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) as part of the overall flood management system. He said:
In what is really required is initially during the design of a project, there are applications made to FEMA that cover the reductions in flood hazards that will result from an improvement. After the project is completed and the improvements are in place, again FEMA is noticed and they will make notice and amendments to the flood maps that govern the area.
Chairman O’Connell asked how long it took for the flood maps to be updated.
Mr. Manning speculated it was a matter of a few months.
Chairman O’Connell asked if this was done for Duck Creek.
Denis Cederburg, Manager, Design Engineering, Public Works, Clark County, stated they have done it for portions of Duck Creek along where they constructed the lower Duck Creek detention basin and the central Duck Creek detention basin which affected areas around Duck Creek, Windmill Lane, and Bermuda Road. Those letters of map revisions, which revised the flood hazard areas, were done by some of the private developers, as a result of the construction of the detention facilities, they placed them upstream. He said it took a matter of 6 months if everything was in order and submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the flood insurance studies they do, could be 6 months. He mentioned the homeowners downstream at Duck Creek and within the immediate vicinity of the detention basin have seen reductions in their homeowners’ insurance premiums. He mentioned other areas that have seen reduction in homeowners’ insurance are the Southern Highlands, with the construction of their central Duck Creek detention basin, which has removed portions of their property from flood hazard areas. The entire length of Duck Creek, down around Green Valley Parkway, and east of the channel is unimproved, and until the channel is improved, some of those areas will not be removed. Mr. Cederburg stated, once a project is under design, they submit it to the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a conditional letter of map revision. If they approve it, when the facility is partially built and submitted to FEMA, they will issue a letter of map revision within 90 days.
Chairman O’Connell mentioned she was often asked that question because it is in part of her district and she knew they had not received any type of reduction there and public works did a concrete basin at least 10 years ago.
Mr. Cederburg asked the chairman if the area she was speaking about was around the Bermuda Road area. Chairman O’Connell responded it was between Eastern Avenue and Pecos Road and further east of the Bermuda Road area.
Mr. Cederburg admitted he was not aware of that and was under the impression the area through Sierra Vista Ranchos had been removed from the new maps done for FEMA. He mentioned the flood insurance rates recently took effect last fall. He said, if mortgage companies were not notified, the companies would not automatically drop the flood insurance from their mortgage. Property owners would have to notify their mortgage companies that they were now out of the flood hazard area or they would have to go through a refinance and it would be determined at that time.
Chairman O’Connell asked if there was anyone who wished to testify in support of or opposition to S.B. 110.
Bonnie Parnell, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada, testified on S.B. 110. She was concerned with the expanded authority section 1 would give. She said she saw this piece of legislation as expanding authority at the same time lessening the requirement of notification. Ms. Parnell said she wanted to see the notification process addressed.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 110 and opened the hearing on S.B. 113.
SENATE BILL 113: Revises manner of valuing certain property that becomes exempt from taxation for purposes of allocating certain tax revenue among taxing agencies and redevelopment agency. (BDR 22-263)
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, and Douglas County, testified in support of S.B. 113. She stated this bill would correct an error in legislation passed in 1989, S.B. No. 197 of the 65th Session, which she documented in a handout, Exhibit E. One of the minor things the past legislation did was address redevelopment, she said, referring to page 2 of the handout. She pointed to the top of the page, paragraph 3, which she noted illustrated the intent of the original legislation, which was to protect redevelopment tax bases when the State acquired property and moved it off the tax rolls. One of the concerns she expressed was illustrated when the State expanded in Carson City’s downtown, and the redevelopment authority had taken tremendous hits prior to S.B. No.197 of the 65th Session going into effect. One of the things that has happened over the years as they have gone to bonding, the different bond rating agencies and different potential bond holders have asked Carson City what happens to the redevelopment incremental tax increases used to repay bondholders if the State comes in and purchases property in Carson City redevelopment areas. Ms. Walker mentioned S.B. No. 197 of the 65th Session should have taken care of that problem. She further illustrated what had happened in the last couple of years, saying they found, in a couple of property transactions the State had done, the mechanics the assessor was using were not protecting the incremental base. Ms. Walker said she realized if the State did purchase a lot of property in downtown Carson City, the City would not be able to make those bonds. She said this was when they realized there was an error in the prior legislative action. She said Senate Bill 113 only affected Carson City redevelopment. The reason they didn’t catch it for 14 years was because the State really had not purchased a lot of properties in the downtown area. Ms. Walker concluded, this was important for Carson City and it was not a fiscal issue, for them it was a guarantee to the City’s bondholders that it was not going to go defunct if the State purchased additional property.
Chairman O’Connell wanted to know more about how the property was assessed.
Ms. Walker, explained, while referring to page 3 of Exhibit E:
Basically what the LCB fiscal staff did is give three examples of what happens. First example is, before you purchase a property, the example in the handout is if the current assessed value in the redeveloped district was $10 million, and then the original assessed values when the district was formed was $9 million… That means we have a tax increment of assessed value of $1 million that is going to fund redevelopment. Then what happens after you purchase without this law change, if your value is $10 million, the State purchases it at $1 million, so therefore it comes off your tax increment, so it goes down to $9 million, which is what you started with, you go down to zero. So, just by the State purchasing the property, the redevelopment district could literally go bankrupt. Currently, our assessed value is $19 million. With this change, the original intent of S.B. No. 197 of the 65th Session, which is the final column, the current assessed value in the district was $10 million, the State purchased the property, which brings the assessed value down to $9 million within the district, but then what happens is the base lowers by $1 million. So, the increment is lowering, but the base is lowering, so there is no net effect on the increment. What happens is the redevelopment is able to retain the $1 million and keeps it whole. What the effect does is by changing the base, then the other entities, for example, the county and the school district, would be affected in regards to what taxes they collect. In 1989, we came before you and the school district was supportive of this and today they are supportive of this also. If we look at the last 14 years, the State has purchased a couple houses to put in a parking lot and then there has been a couple of other things, but it hasn’t been much, it is not really a money issue, it is a bond holding issue to us.
Chairman O’Connell asked if there were any other questions. As there were none, she closed the hearing on S.B. 113. She opened the work session, beginning with Senator Care’s 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 asked Chairman O’Connell if he might postpone discussion and motions on this bill until Monday, February 24, 2003. The Chairman agreed to do so.
Chairman O’Connell next opened discussion on S.B. 28.
SENATE BILL 28: Provides that certain money set aside for group insurance for officers and employees of school districts must not be used for other purposes. (BDR 23-195)
Chairman O’Connell mentioned the committee’s past concerns for this bill’s inability to invest the school funds, an issue Senator Mathews and Scott Wasserman addressed by proposing two possible amendments. Although, Senator Mathews was not present, she had made it clear to Chairman O’Connell she was satisfied with either of the two alternative amendments proposed, said Chairman O’Connell.
Mr. Wasserman read to the committee both alternative amendments being considered.
Senator Raggio stated he preferred the second alternative amendment, which would allow the money to be deposited in a trust or otherwise held in trust and might be invested in any reasonable and prudent manner, and would not need the approval of the Committee on Local Government Finance.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 28.
SENATOR TIFFANY 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)
Chairman O’Connell mentioned there had been a phone call from Tom Stratton, Director, Department of Public Works in West Wendover, in support of this bill.
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, explained the phone call he had received from Mr. Stratton, who wanted S.B. 54 to be amended to include solid waste disposal to the list of services for which delinquent charges might be collected through the tax roll. Mr. Stewart also mentioned new letters of support for S.B. 54 from Mr. Kramer, who testified in a previous meeting. One of the letters included was from Nanette Moffett, who testified at a previous meeting. Originally in opposition to S.B. 54, Ms. Moffett had now written a letter of support for the bill. Mr. Stewart claimed this was a policy issue before the committee.
Senator Tiffany commented she was very sympathetic to people having their water turned off, however, she was not sure whether it needed to be addressed in the form of S.B. 54.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 54.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Senator Raggio mentioned he was impressed with Nanette Moffett, who had changed her position on the bill. Senator Titus concurred with Senator Raggio.
Senator Hardy expressed he was ambivalent to the bill, but did not know if a different set of remedies were needed to replace the current method of collection.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 54.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O’CONNELL, TIFFANY AND HARDY VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing and adjourned the meeting at 3:38 pm.
Tara DeWeese,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: