MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 18, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:11 a.m. Thursday, February 18, 1993, in room 101/102 of the Cashman Field Center, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman
Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Erin Kenny
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Dana Bennett
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Alan Tinney, Nevada Division of Health; Mr. Stan Jones, So. Nevada Homebuilders Association; Mr. Walter Sullivan, Carson City Community Development Department; Mr. Samuel Coon, Attorney General's Office; Mr. Clare Schmutz, Clark Co. Health District; Mr. Bob Genzer, City of Las Vegas, Comm. Planning and Development
Chairman Garner asked Mr. McGaughey and Ms. Dana Bennett to give an overview on AB 180 and AB 181. He reminded everyone these bills, along with the three heard February 17 (AB 177, 178 and 179), would undergo further scrutiny by the subcommittee and bill drafters before any action was taken.
Mr. McGaughey briefly recapped the summary given on these bills as given February 17. He indicated these five bills dealt with changing the laws in the area of subdivision of state land. Mr. McGaughey stated technical problems existed in all the bills due to a lack of communication between the interim subcommittee and bill drafters, and the subcommittee would go back through the bills and meet with the people interested to correct the mistakes. The corrections would be put in a written amended form and brought back to committee.
ASSEMBLY BILL 180 - Revises provisions relating to tentative and final maps of subdivisions of land.
Ms. Dana Bennett, Research Division of Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated AB 180 dealt with various provisions on subdivision of land. She indicated there were key sections which related to specific recommendations from the interim subcommittee and referred to the report from the subcommittee (Bulletin 93-10 - in Research Library). Ms. Bennett pointed out section 2 of AB 180 was how the subcommittee wanted section 5 of AB 179 to read, to add inclusion of the phrase "designated representative."
Mr. McGaughey stressed the reason was every county did not have a planning commission, "So this way in trying to establish uniformity throughout the state, it's to a planning commission or a designated representative."
Ms. Bennett continued with section 3, stating it resulted from a concern in interim subcommittee that there was some overlap in duties of health division and health authorities in the counties, and this section would address the overlap.
Mr. McGaughey elaborated stating the reason was Washoe and Clark counties both had health districts which had all the tools needed to deal with problems within the county, which was different from rural counties. He said, "In the past these things had to go before the state health department as well as the county health, and we felt it was a duplication of service and unnecessary, so we would remove the requirement that the state health district review anything involving Clark or Washoe county."
Ms. Bennett indicated sections 4 and 5 would reduce the three mile limit for extraterritorial review of subdivisions to a one mile limit.
Dana Bennett continued with the overview of AB 180, referring to Bulletin 93-10.
Mr. Stan Jones, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, stated one of his major concerns dealt with NRS 278.360, indicating this was the most controversial issue of the entire session. He stated portions of Alternative 1 (from Bulletin 93-10) had been passed on to the bill drafter and was included in the bill as it had been prepared; however, it left off what he felt was a very critical area which indicated the ability for a developer to rely on the original tentative map as to what was going to be required for all the infrastructure for a number of final maps based on the tentative map.
Mr. Jones used as an example a planned development of 200 units, the developer would put in approximately half of the amenities and recreation facilities in order to entice people to purchase a unit. Then perhaps the city would decide to install a storm drain costing $200,000 which the developer would have to figure into his amortization costs for the remainder of the unpurchased units. This might cause the cost of the unpurchased units to increase to the point it would no longer be feasible to complete the project.
Mr. Jones stressed he felt there should be some ability to proceed with a project with the knowledge the financial situation present at the beginning would be basically the same as the financial obligations at the end.
Mrs. Lambert asked Mr. Jones three questions: (1) the process between a tentative map and a final map, (2) the difference between a tentative and final map, and (3) how do some subdivisions go on for 8-10 years when there are yearly limits in the law.
Mr. Jones answered question two first. In a normal situation, a tentative map would be filed by the developer who would then go to the planning commission with the map showing how he wanted the project to be built. The planning commission would accept the tentative map, and a final map would be the exact details of the project as approved.
Mr. Jones indicated the state law as written and as proposed for change made allowances for a developer to do a series of final maps. As long as they were within 12 months of the previous final map, he could continue to work off the same tentative map. Mr. Jones said, "And what keeps it from going 7-9 years, if you are really astute and you plan correctly, you could probably stretch it out, but again, that is not the norm. Normally it would last for 3-4 years."
Mrs. Lambert indicated this bill would double the time frames from one to two years and asked why anyone would need the extra time. Mr. Jones stated he did not believe the extra time was necessary.
Mr. Alan Tinney, Nevada State Health Division, gave testimony in support of AB 180 (Exhibit C).
Mr. Clare Schmutz, Environmental Health Manager for Clark County Health Department, testified in support of AB 180 regarding the requirements on the health district and review of subdivisions. He indicated Clark County had been doing that for several years and had a good program.
Ms. Dana Bennett introduced a memo from Pepper Sturm which outlined amendments recommended by the Washoe County district health department (Exhibit D), which would be taken to the Government Affairs subcommittee for consideration.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 180.
Chairman Garner introduced and welcomed students from Las Vegas High School.
ASSEMBLY BILL 181 - Makes various changes relating to subdivision of land.
Mr. McGaughey stated AB 181 dealt with the map of reversion, abandonments, and the surveyors. He indicated Dana Bennett would give further details.
Ms. Dana Bennett said AB 181 involved taxation issues and vacation of streets. Again referring to Bulletin 93-10 Ms. Bennett indicated there were two recommendations which came from the interim subcommittee relating to section 8 and 12.
She said recommendation two was found in section 8 of AB 181, and while there were not many changes in terms of quantity, there were substantive changes. Ms. Bennett said the language which was taken out had been put in by the 1991 legislature; and the language which was put in had been in existence until 1991. She noted the difference was the language to be repealed required a developer to pay all taxes on a property for a fiscal year, whereas the change required the developer simply be current on the taxes.
Mr. McGaughey clarified if someone were to buy property that person would only have to pay the tax bill for the current quarter and not the entire year prior to purchase and then pay the other taxes as they came due.
Ms. Bennett continued with recommendation 3 to section 12, subsection 10 which related to the procedure followed by a local government which was also the utility provider.
Mr. McGaughey stated the intent of the portion of the bill dealing with abandonment or easement was to simplify the process.
Mr. Hettrick commented he had received a call from the county clerk indicating she did not like the change in the delinquency on taxes as she felt every subdivision would go delinquent on purpose allowing it to be caught up in escrow and causing problems for the new homeowner and the county clerk's office.
Mr. McGaughey replied this was an issue which had been debated in subcommittee at length, the county assessors objecting mainly because they did not want to deal with additional bookkeeping. He stated tax bills were handled the same for a house, a commercial property or vacant land, they would be paid in installments as they came due.
Mr. Jones agreed with Mr. McGaughey and gave examples of the workings of taxes during sales.
Extensive discussion was held on the subject of delinquent taxes.
Mr. Walt Sullivan, Carson City Community Development Department, testified in favor of the easement abandonment, stating it had been requested by builders, developers and the general public. He indicated the district attorney's reading of NRS called for a process of 4-6 weeks and he felt the language provided could reduce the time frame to 5-10 working days.
Mr. Samuel Coon, Office of the Attorney General, on behalf of Nevada Department of Transportation (DOT), testified against AB 181 in regard to section 12. He stated the proposed legislation would require DOT, when abandoning an easement or street, to file a petition with the planning commission making an additional burden which would not be warranted by the situation in most cases. Mr. Coon pointed out section 12 appeared to be in direct conflict with NRS 408.523 (Exhibit E) which provided for summary abandonment of property by the State of Nevada. He also indicated there was a possible conflict with NRS 408.533 which was relative to ownership interests of property held in fee which the state wished to abandon.
Mr. McGaughey stated the reason for this legislation was to notify the city and county when the state wanted to abandon something so the city or county could discuss with the state any concerns they might have regarding the abandonment.
Mr. Coon indicated he was not aware the city and county had not been informed of abandonment by the state and if it was the case it would be a relevant consideration. He stated he would ask DOT to address the issue the next time the bill was heard.
Mr. Robert Genzer, Las Vegas Community Planning and Development, stated there was a concern with section 13, subsection 7, regarding the time frame for approval of a reversionary map. Mr. Genzer said under the current system the community planning and development department held two meetings a month and must process applications, send out for comments from other departments and receive those comments back; therefore, he felt ten days was an unworkable situation, and the reversionary map should have the same time frame a final map had as listed in section 11, subsection 1, which was a 45-day time period.
Mr. McGaughey indicated the City of Las Vegas had participated in the technical committee and believed there was an agreement made on ten days or the next meeting. Mr. McGaughey said the purpose of the bill was to shorten the process, however, Mr. Genzer had a good point and this would be taken up in Government Affairs subcommittee.
Mr. Genzer replied his objection was in the wording, which appeared to state it had to be within the ten day period.
Mr. McGaughey agreed the wording was incorrect and it would be handled at the subcommittee level.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 181.
Mrs. Augustine welcomed St. Francis DuSales school. She introduced Senator O'Donnell's son who attended the school.
Chairman Garner thanked and complimented the ACR 46 committee for all the work they had done on the legislation.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
LINDA FEATHERINGILL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
February 18, 1993
Page: 1