MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 18, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:37 p.m., Tuesday, May 18, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mrs. Myrna T. Williams, Chairman

      Mr. Robert E. Price, Vice Chairman

      Mrs. Jan Evans

      Mr. Val Z. Garner

      Mr. David E. Humke

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. Gene T. Porter

      Mr. Robert M. Sader

      Mr. Scott Scherer

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

     

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Irene Porter/Executive Director, Nevada Home Builders

        Association

      Mr. Nick Niarchos/Sr. Vice President and General Counsel,    Summa Corporation

      Mr. Bruce G. Barton/President, Southern Nevada Chapter       NAIOP, the National Association Industrial Office Park     Operators

      Ms. Anita Laruy/City of North Las Vegas

      Mr. Phillip C. Peckman/American Nevada Corporation, Las      Vegas

      Ms. Margaret McMillan/Business Affairs Manager, Central      Telephone Company of Nevada

      Ms. Helen Foley/Pardee Construction Company

      Ms. Nancy Howard/League of Cities                    

      Ms. Maddy Shipman/City of Reno, NACO

      Ms. Carole Vilardo/Nevada Taxpayers Association

      Ms. Mary Santina/Representing Pat Coward for Economic        Development Authority of Western Nevada and Nevada         Realtors Association

      Ms. Carolyne Edwards/Clark County School District

 

 

ACR 38:     Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of laws relating to financing of infrastructure which accompany residential, commercial and industrial development in Nevada.

 

Chairman Williams opened the meeting by stating she had requested the BDR for ACR 38 with the agreement of the committee.  Nevada and local jurisdictions had problems related to financing of infrastructure, and while the previous study allowed Nevada to progress, she felt refinement was needed.  Mrs. Williams then asked for testimony.

 

Ms. Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Home Builders Association, proponent of ACR 38, testified four Home Builder Associations in Nevada supported ACR 38.  She told  committee the associations participated as members of the interim study advisory committee after 1987 legislative session and 1989 legislative session where nine bills came out of the interim study on infrastructure financing.  This was an extremely productive study, and infrastructure in Nevada was addressed for the first time in a comprehensive manner.  Because of Nevada's growth and changes resulting from federal funding, she contended infrastructure and financing at state and local levels should again be examined.

 

Ms. Porter suggested amendments in ACR 38, page 1, line 8 the word whole should be omitted; and page 1, line 28 should read, "sustain continued future development".  (See Exhibit C.)

 

She stated people who supported the resolution, some of whom participated in the previous interim study and some of whom wished to speak to the committee, were Mr. Michael Niarchos, General Counsel, Summa Corporation; Mr. Bruce Barton, President, NAIOP; Mr. Phillip Peckman, American Nevada Corporation, Las Vegas; and Ms. Mickey Johnson, who supported the legislation as an officer of southern Nevada Home Builders Association.  Ms. Porter stated Ms. Bonnie James, who represented Greater Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, supported ACR 38.  Ms. James could not attend due to another committee meeting.  Ms. Porter also said Mr. Robert Lewis, Lewis Homes of Nevada, who served on the previous advisory committee, could not attend the meeting, and he also supported ACR 38. 

 

Mrs. Williams at this time spoke about the 1987 legislative session study which was drafted without the word infrastructure because at that time infrastructure was not a term used in Nevada Revised Statutes.

 

Mr. Nick Niarchos, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Summa Corporation, a major landowner in Greater Las Vegas, provided the committee with prepared testimony in support of ACR 38.  (See Exhibit D.) 

 

Ms. Porter referenced a bill on a single-developer assessment district from the last interim study and told the committee Summa Corporation utilized the legislation to provide funding for the triple decker freeway interchange at Summerlin Parkway in Las Vegas.  In response, Mrs. Williams stated she and other members of the committee were pleased with the legislation.

 

Mr. Bruce G. Barton, President, Southern Nevada Chapter of NAIOP, the Association for Commercial Real Estate, explained commercial real estate's perspective in support of ACR 38.  He felt the study would encourage sound planning to accommodate growth throughout Nevada and was concerned other legislation might have undesirable side effects on levels of development activity.  The study would allow for comprehensive review of  costs of infrastructure and sources for funding.  Mr. Barton presented the committee with NAIOP's comments and recommendations regarding ACR 38.  (See Exhibit E.)

 

Mr. Humke, referencing Mr. Barton's definition of commercial, asked Mr. Barton if he felt the proportion of members on the advisory committee representing the various constituencies was correct. 

 

Mr. Barton stated currently the committee consisted of two representatives of commercial.  If commercial included resort, the total representing commercial would be four.  Different associations represented the resort industry, he said, and resort members were not in NAIOP.  The commercial sector  typically included retail, office, warehouse, industrial, manufacturing and office buildings.

In response to a question from Mr. Humke, Mr. Barton stated the Association was statewide.  There was a southern Nevada Chapter, and a northern Nevada Chapter was recently formed in Reno.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Barton, for clarification, to note on page 2, line 22, the advisory committee was composed of five members involved in local government, three members in residential housing development, two members from gaming resort development, and two members from commercial or industrial development.

 

Mr. Barton stated NAIOP had gathered data with the assistance of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada Las Vegas and had planned to study the impact of various forms of development:  resort, residential, commercial,  and would make available data gathered from the study for Clark County metropolitan area as a subset of the ACR 38 study.

 

Mrs. Williams discussed the previous infrastructure study committee and stated anyone who wanted to participate was welcomed.  The meetings were all noticed.  This was the official advisory committee, and many people who were not official members of the advisory committee participated.

 

Ms. Anita Laruy, representing the City of North Las Vegas, stated they supported ACR 38, but would like to see the number of local government representatives increased.

 

Mr. Phillip C. Peckman testified as a proponent of ACR 38 on behalf of American Nevada Corporation, a large landowner and master plan developer in Henderson, Nevada.  American Nevada Corporation started with 8,500 acres and presently had 35,000 residents, he reported.  He commended the committee on  drafting the resolution and felt a need existed for a comprehensive solution which would enhance growth, would treat newcomers fairly, would not kill an industry, would keep alive the American dream of affordable housing, and would pay for services and needed infrastructure.  Mr. Peckman expressed ACR 38 was a positive approach to help the state plan for the future.

 

Ms. Margaret McMillan, who represented Sprint Central Telephone Company, testified in support of ACR 38.  Since utilities were to be included as a part of the study, she proposed two members of the committee be from the utility industry:  one member from telecommunications and one member from energy.  She proposed local government (page 2, line 20) be reduced and possibly residential housing so that two utility representatives could serve.  (See Exhibit F.)  

 

Mrs. Williams, in response to a question from Mrs. Evans, stated all who had signed the guest list for the meeting were proponents of ACR 38.

 

Mrs. Williams then stated since a certain number of interim studies were allotted, the studies were prioritized and not voted on until the end.

 

Ms. Helen Foley, who represented Pardee Construction Company of Nevada, stated Pardee Construction strongly supported ACR 38.  They built affordable housing, and when the cost of a home was increased by a minimum of $4,000 to $8,000, the number of people eligible to receive financing to buy homes was reduced.

 

Ms. Nancy Howard, League of Cities, testified the League of Cities supported ACR 38, and she would be happy to serve on the committee.

 

Ms. Maddy Shipman, City of Reno, NACO, stated the council had not taken action on ACR 38.  She addressed one item which she felt justified the study; actions had been taken based upon legislation enacted out of the last infrastructure interim committee.  Some of the entities could be impacted as a result of changes by ad hoc legislation and needed to be covered in a comprehensive way so as to not jeopardize what had already been accomplished.

 

Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, declared her support of ACR 38.

 

Ms. Mary Santina, representing Pat Coward for Economic Development Authority  of Western Nevada and for Nevada Realtors Association, declared support of ACR 38.

 

Ms. Carolyne Edwards spoke on behalf of Clark County School District in support of ACR 38 and called attention to school involvement in infrastructure.   She referenced page 2, line 20, five members involved in local government, and stated she would like to see the bill include representation for the school districts.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Mrs. Lambert if she wished to discuss her concerns regarding ACR 38, and Mrs. Lambert replied she had a discussion with Ms. Irene Porter who had responded.

 

Mrs. Williams thanked the attendees and declared no vote would be taken this date.

 

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                              

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

May 18, 1993

Page: 1