SENATE COMMITTEE MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-second Session

April 28, 2003

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:04 p.m., on Monday, April 28, 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 J. Tiffany, Vice Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Warren B. Hardy II

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, Assembly District No. 25

Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Assembly District No. 10

Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Olivia Lodato, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Cassandra Smith, Regional Supervisor, Sierra Eye and Tissue Donor Services

Frankie Sue Del Pappa, Ex-Attorney General, Co-chairman, Organ Donor Task Force

Linda F. Covelli, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association No. 4041, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14

Terri B. Barber, Lobbyist, City of Henderson

Raymond C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State

Laura (Bru) Ethridge, Administrator, Notary Division, Office of the Secretary of State

William Chisel, Chief, Division of Internal Audits, Department of Administration

Kim Huys, Acting Deputy Controller, Chief Accountant, Integrated Financial System, Office of the State Controller

Ned Madonia, Redevelopment Association of Nevada

Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas

Kami Dempsey, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County

Greg Salter, Special Assistant, City of Sparks

Chairman O’Connell opened with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 3.

ASSEMBLY BILL 3 (1st Reprint): Provides for paid leave of absence of certain duration for certain public officers and employees who donate bone marrow or certain organs. (BDR 23-147)

Dawn Gibbons, Assembly District No. 25, spoke in favor of the bill. She said A.B. 3 would provide authorized paid leaves of absence for state employees who donate organs or bone marrow for transplant. Assemblywoman Gibbons said federal employees were entitled to paid leave for organ and bone marrow donations. She said she brought the bill forth as a policy statement to encourage organ donor gifts. Assemblywoman Gibbons read testimony from James W. Morgan, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Exhibit C. Assemblywoman Gibbons said A.B. 3 probably would not cover all the time off involved in a bone marrow transfer, however, it would reduce a significant barrier for state employees to become bone marrow donors.

Assemblywoman Gibbons stated the Legislative Counsel Bureau estimated the fiscal impact of A.B. 3 would be approximately $1500 for the state. She said there was no longer an unfunded mandate on counties and municipalities to duplicate the state program. Cities and counties were given the option of establishing a similar program for their employees. She also said the bill had been amended to allow employees to share a pool of leave time when an employee had exhausted his or her paid leave.

Cassandra Smith, Regional Supervisor, Sierra Eye and Tissue Donor Services, spoke in favor of A.B. 3. She stated a critical need existed for organ donors.

Chairman O’Connell asked Assemblywoman Gibbons if the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had heard the bill. Assemblywoman Gibbons stated the Ways and Means Committee did not wish to hear the bill because the $1500 estimated cost was too small. Chairman O’Connell asked if there would be a financial impact if an employee was gone for 30 days or more. Assemblywoman Gibbons said it had not been considered by Ways and Means.

Frankie Sue Del Pappa, Ex-Attorney General, Co-chairman of the Organ Donor Task Force, said she wanted to express her support for A.B. 3. She stated the bill was good public policy and the cost was miniscule to the state.

Linda F. Covelli, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association No. 4041, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, testified in support of A.B. 3. She said anything that could be done to assist a donor was a meritorious act.

Senator Care asked Assemblywoman Gibbons if an employee did not use all the allotted time for recovery from a donation, what would become of the remaining paid leave. He also inquired about the need for more leave time due to physical complications for the donor. Senator Care asked if the state would be responsible for the costs. Assemblywoman Gibbons said employees would be allowed to use their annual sick leave, if necessary. She also said if an employee did not need the full 30 days for recovery, the time would remain in the donated bank.

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14, offered support for A.B. 3.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 3 and opened the hearing on A.B. 67.

ASSEMBLY BILL 67 (1st Reprint): Amends Charter of City of Henderson to revise positions of city employment excluded from system of civil service. (BDR S-457)

Terri B. Barber, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, said A.B. 67 proposed to change the charter of the City of Henderson to identify positions exempted from civil service. She said the positions had been identified by name in section 1 of the bill. Ms. Barber stated the last portion of the bill identified any employee who reported directly to an elected officer. She said the court administrator, was hired by the judges, and the executive assistant to the mayor and city council reported directly to elected officials. Ms. Barber said people who currently hold positions affected by the bill would be grandfathered in under the bill.

Mr. Wolff said his clients supported A.B. 67.

Raymond C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, also spoke in favor of A.B. 67 for his organization.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 67 and opened the hearing on A.B. 87.

ASSEMBLY BILL 87 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning notarial officers. (BDR 19-230)

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, said A.B. 87 would make changes to the notary statutes. She said the bill added some definitions not specifically defined in statute, removed requirements no longer applicable, clarified requirements by combining two statutes that had been confusing to notaries, and changed some fees.

Ms. Parker introduced Laura (Bru) Ethridge, Administrator, Notary Division, Office of the Secretary of State, and stated Ms. Ethridge would cover the bill, section by section, Exhibit D.

Senator Tiffany asked Ms. Ethridge why the notary’s ability to take verifications was removed in section 5 of the bill. Ms. Ethridge stated verification and a jurat were the same thing. Senator Tiffany asked if it were repetitive and Ms. Ethridge responded in the affirmative.

Chairman O’Connell asked for a definition of jurat. Ms. Ethridge stated a jurat was the wording a notary filled in to describe the action that took place. She said there were two basic forms of notarizations, the acknowledgement and jurat. An acknowledgement meant the document signer appeared before the notary and acknowledged his or her signature on the document. A jurat was an oath. Jurat meant the document signer personally appeared before the notary and took an oath swearing the content of the document was true. A jurat holds the document signer accountable for the contents of the document.

Chairman O’Connell asked if there were certain documents requiring either one or the other type of action. Ms. Ethridge stated the only situation she was aware of, which always required a jurat, was an affidavit. She said real estate documents, by statute, say all signatures must be acknowledged. Ms. Ethridge said mortgage companies take the wording literally and believe an acknowledgement was required for all signatures.

Chairman O’Connell asked Ms. Ethridge about section 5 and section 10, subsection 2, paragraph (a). Ms. Ethridge said in an acknowledgment, all document signers must appear before a notary, there was no provision in Nevada law omitting the requirement. She said she was not removing the requirement, rather she combined two sections together. She said new notaries might only read one section and leave portions of the notarization off the document. She said the bill would put the two sections together concerning what was required of a notary. She said at no time was the bill removing the requirement for a document signer not to appear before a notary.

Ms. Parker said her office worked with Legislative Counsel Bureau legal counsel to combine the sections of old statutes without losing anything previously in the law.

Senator Care asked Ms. Ethridge about section 10, paragraph (e). He said the identification section required personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence of who the signer was. Senator Care asked what the level of satisfactory evidence included. Ms. Ethridge said it might be necessary to find a common denominator in some situations. She said one situation might use a person as a creditable witness. She said if the notary knew the person affirming the signature of the affiant and that person swore an oath as to the identity of the person signing the document, the notary would be able to accept the information. The notary would not be liable if the information was not true, but the creditable witness would be liable for the information. Ms. Ethridge stated Nevada had no notary case law. Assembly Bill 87 did not change any section of current law, she said, with the exception of the change in fees for travel.

Ms. Parker said Senator Care’s questions could be answered by looking in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 240.163. She said section 10, subsection 4, defined a notarial officer’s requirements for satisfactory evidence of identity.

Ms. Ethridge said Nevada did not have an association of notaries, however, she had been training them since the first of the year, and the notaries expressed interest mainly in the ability to charge a nominal fee for travel.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 87 and opened the hearing on A.B. 216.

ASSEMBLY BILL 216: Revises manner in which certain claims against state are audited. (BDR 31-491)

William Chisel, Chief, Division of Internal Audits, Department of Administration, presented a brief overview of the A.B. 216. Mr. Chisel stated the bill addressed three areas: it updated statutes, it eliminated post-auditing of the transactions of the controller, treasurer, and secretary of state. He noted the bill also clarified internal audits as the only section within the Division of Internal Audits requiring compliance with the Institute of Internal Audit Standards.

Mr. Chisel said post-auditing the Office of the Secretary of State, State Controller, and State Treasurer was in direct conflict of NRS 353A.055. He said the bill updated the statutes to accommodate the transition from pre-auditing to post-auditing expenditures for the State Board of Examiners. Mr. Chisel said the bill addressed the change from pre-auditing to post-auditing due to automation through the Integrated Financial System, which eliminated pre-audits, Exhibit E.

Kim Huys, Acting Deputy Controller, Chief Accountant, Integrated Financial System, Office of the State Controller, reiterated the controller’s office support of the bill. She said the amendments to NRS 353 cleaned up language such as pre-audit to post-audit review and clarified the role of the Division of Internal Audits as it related to reviewing the books of constitutional officers. Ms. Huys said NRS 353A allowed the Division of Internal Audits to audit constitutional officers only when requested by that officer. She said A.B. 216 would eliminate the current conflict between NRS 353 and NRS 353A.

Chairman O’Connell asked how the State Controller’s office was currently audited. Ms. Huys said the Legislative Counsel Bureau had oversight over the constitutional officers and performed those audits.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 216 and opened the hearing on A.B. 270.

ASSEMBLY BILL 270: Revises provisions relating to community redevelopment. (BDR 22-384)

David E. Goldwater, Assembly District No. 10, introduced A.B. 270. He explained he had become interested in redevelopment and the state’s economic development program and its tax incentive program. He said redevelopment was tax-increment financing for blighted areas and was under the control of municipalities. He explained when Las Vegas wanted to extend a tax rebate to a proposed business under the guise of redevelopment, he realized a city could not abate taxes. He said the city wrote a check from the tax-increment financing to provide for the estimated tax increment the business would incur. Assemblyman Goldwater asked what the criteria was for municipalities and redevelopment agencies to deal with redevelopment. Assemblyman Goldwater said at the current time, the only requirement was it be called redevelopment. He said it was a very vague statute. He said the bill was an attempt to develop some criteria in statute for redevelopment. He said A.B. 270 required municipalities to consider a list of criteria in sections 1 through 3. He said it would make redevelopment agencies and municipalities more accountable for the tax dollars spent in redevelopment.

Chairman O’Connell asked how an agency or municipality determined when an area was eligible for redevelopment. She asked Assemblyman Goldwater if there would be a report concerning the findings and who would receive the report. Assemblyman Goldwater said there was no requirement for a report. He said a public hearing or public forum would be how he envisioned the statute working.

Ned Madonia, Redevelopment Association of Nevada, said his members extended their support for A.B. 270.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 270 and opened the hearing on A.B. 427.

ASSEMBLY BILL 427 (1stReprint): Makes various changes with respect to requirements relating to land use that may be imposed by governing body. (BDR 22‑1050)

Lynn C. Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39, discussed A.B. 427. He said there were two parts to the bill. The first issue related to land use planning. He said a United States Supreme Court ruling was pertinent to the bill and he believed some of that ruling should be put in Nevada State law. Assemblyman Hettrick said a section of the bill stated you could not require an owner of land to dedicate real property or an interest in real property as a condition for the issuance of a building permit. The bill did not prohibit asking for dedication of land for bike paths or parks before a permit was issued, but Assemblyman Hettrick said, it was inappropriate to request such things after a building had been erected. The language in section 1, lines 9 and 10, would not prohibit a governing body, before the issuance of a building permit, to require an owner of land to comply with any applicable conditions of a discretionary approval as applied to a broad class of owners of land.

Assemblyman Hettrick said the second section of A.B. 427 pertained to concerns arising recently in Douglas County. He stated the master plan in Douglas County included trails and hiking paths. Assemblyman Hettrick stated much of the land was in private ownership and was agricultural land that would be divided by the trails. He said section 3, line 16, page 2, would amend NRS 278.462 to say, “based upon duly adopted ordinances and plans.” The reasoning behind the addition was if a county had a master plan and called for open space in certain areas, the owners of such land should not be forced to install access, water, sewage, or other improvements not shown in the master plan. He said the intent of the bill was for the benefit of individual or smaller parcels, not subdivisions.

Senator Care asked Assemblyman Hettrick if there was anything in the bill that would preclude the pursuit of eminent domain if a problem should arise at a later date. Assemblyman Hettrick replied the bill did not affect eminent domain capability in any way.

Chairman O’Connell asked Assemblyman Hettrick if the bill would affect existing utility easements on property. Assemblyman Hettrick said A.B. 427 was a different situation in that it was related to subdivisions, parcel maps, and building permits.

Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, said North Las Vegas supported A.B. 427. She said the city had worked with Assemblyman Hettrick on the bill and had arrived at a workable agreement.

Kami Dempsey, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated Las Vegas had also worked very closely with Assemblyman Hettrick on the bill. She said some discussions concerned master planned communities in Las Vegas with put-asides for fire stations, schools, and police stations. Ms. Dempsey said the new language took care of any problems the city had anticipated in the bill.

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County, said local government officials had worked with Assemblyman Hettrick on the bill and they all concurred with the bill.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 427 and opened the hearing on A.B. 456.

ASSEMBLY BILL 456: Revises provisions relating to employment of certain persons in connection with redevelopment projects. (BDR 22-1295)

Chairman O’Connell inquired if Assemblyman Wendell Williams was available to present A.B. 456. She asked the other testifiers to present their testimonies.

Greg Salter, Special Assistant, City of Sparks, spoke against A.B. 456. He stated the way the bill was structured, it would make it nearly impossible to obtain financing in redevelopment deals. Mr. Salter said redevelopment was good for everyone and increased property tax revenues for cities, if it was done correctly. He said almost all redevelopment deals required financing. He said A.B. 456 made it mandatory a developer in a redevelopment area had an employment plan. He said the bill also made the employment plan a covenant running with the land. He said that meant every tenant or subsequent owner would be required to follow the employment plan. The bill also said if any tenant failed to live up to the employment plan, the property would revert automatically to the redevelopment agency. Mr. Salter stated the lender who had funded the project for the building would lose his deed of trust and the developer would lose all his equity. Mr. Salter said he had spoken to lenders and lawyers who said they would not lend redevelopment money under this bill.

Senator Titus arrived at the meeting at 3:07 p.m.

Mr. Madonia said the Redevelopment Association of Nevada was opposed to