Assembly committee hears bill to expand small-business notice and impact-statement rules

CARSON CITY — The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on April 1 heard testimony on Assembly Bill 444, which would expand Nevadas small-business impact statement (BIS) and notification requirements to include state agencies and require notice to chambers of commerce and trade associations about proposed rules and impact fees.

Assemblymember Gregory Hafen, sponsor of AB 444, told the committee the bill builds on prior 2013 requirements and "intends to build on these requirements so that other entities whose rules and decisions may impact small businesses must abide by the same requirements." Hafen represents Assembly District 36, which includes parts of Clark, Lincoln and Nye counties.

The proposed amendment on NELIS would specifically expand notification to chambers of commerce and trade associations affected by proposed rules and would include certain state agencies in BIS coverage, Hafen said. He also said the bill would move impact fees under NRS chapter 278B into the definition of "rule" for purposes of the BIS process so increases or changes to such fees trigger a business impact analysis and notice requirements.

Supporters from the business community said the change would improve transparency and reduce surprises for small businesses. Paul Muratko, vice president at the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber and its members rely on consistent notification methods. "This bill will standardize how business groups are notified about the process," Muratko said. "Many of our small business members rely on us to notify them of proposed ordinance changes as they do not have lobbyists or dedicated staff to track these items for them."

Eric Cardona of the Henderson Chamber of Commerce said formalizing BIS consideration early in the regulatory process "can help prevent unintended negative consequences that regulations may have" on small businesses and foster a collaborative relationship between government and the business community. Other trade associations and industry groups including the Reno-Sparks Chamber (Tom Clark), Nevada Resort Association (Misty Grimmer), Retail Association of Nevada (Joe Hill), Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Association (Andy McKay) and Nevada Trucking Association (Matthew Sauls) testified in support.

Local governments and urban jurisdictions worked with the sponsor on an amendment and testified they were moved to a neutral position. Vincent Guthrieau of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) said counties appreciate the sponsors willingness to negotiate and that the amended version addressed many concerns. Isaac Hardy of the Urban Consortium, representing Reno, Sparks, Henderson, Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, also said the amended language brought the group to neutral.

Sponsors proposed changes and next steps

Hafen told the committee he withdrew a longer PowerPoint and sought to be concise in the hearing. He said he has one amendment currently filed and expects to draft a second amendment to be circulated for a future work session; the second amendment will add in the language read into the record during the hearing. The sponsor also said he accepted a late amendment proposed by NACO that would make a rule void and unenforceable if adopted without following BIS procedures and would require the governing body to readopt the rule following the proper process rather than trigger immediate litigation by the Attorney General.

Public testimony and posture

Business groups uniformly supported AB 444 as improving transparency for small businesses and clarifying who must be notified of proposed rules, fees and changes. NACO and the Urban Consortium testified neutral after multi-stakeholder negotiations produced amended language. No callers registered formal opposition during the hearing.

No formal committee action was taken on AB 444 at the hearing; the sponsor indicated additional amendment language would be forthcoming and the bill will return for future committee consideration.

(Reporting based on testimony and sponsor statements in committee hearing.)