MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
April 28, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:18 a.m. Wednesday, April 28, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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. Pete Ernaut
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Erin Kenny
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Excused.
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Charles Joerg, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association; Mr. Steve Coulter, President, Steve Coulter Mobile and Manufactured Homes; Mr. Doug Malan, Attorney with Deaner, Deaner & Scann; Mr. Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson; Mr. Kirby Burgess, Clark County; Mr. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties; Mr. Pat Coward, Nevada Association of Realtors; Ms. Irene Porter, Nevada Homebuilders Association; Ms. Barbara McKenzie, City of Reno; Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities; Ms. Lisa Foster, City of Sparks; Mr. Brian Doran, Court Administrator, Sparks Municipal Court.
ASSEMBLY BILL 484 - Makes various changes relating to land use planning with respect to manufactured homes.
Mr. Charles Joerg, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, testifying in support of AB 484, gave a brief review of the bill (Exhibit C). He stated AB 484 would require local governments to include manufactured homes in areas presently zoned for conventional single-family dwellings as contained in Section 2. He said it would provide various criteria for that to be accomplished. Mr. Joerg stressed the need to distinguish between "mobile homes" and "manufactured homes," indicating Mr. Coulter would address the subject, but he did not want anyone to think, "We want to put the old 1920 mobile home next to a million dollar house." Mr. Joerg continued with Section 3, indicating it set forth the minimum standards a manufactured home would have to meet in order to be placed in a residential area. He pointed out it would have to meet the requirements of Nevada statutes Chapter 489 and the requirements set forth in Nevada Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, more commonly referred to as the HUD code; the home must contain at least 1,000 square feet and be put on a permanent foundation which would meet the standards set forth in the previously mentioned codes; the space under it must be enclosed with weather-resistant material; it must be placed above grade and consist of more than one section; it must be set in a permanent location on a separate parcel of land and converted to real property pursuant to Nevada Statute 361; it would have to be permanently connected to all utilities; and a very important point: it must be similar in color, material, size and appearance to the surrounding dwellings, including the exterior siding and roof; and any items used to haul the home to the site must be removed.
Mr. Joerg indicated Section 4 would prohibit Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) from excluding manufactured housing simply on the basis it was a manufactured home, and Section 6 would make Section 4 more applicable to future CC&Rs, not current ones. He said Section 5, subsection 11 simply added the definition of a manufactured home.
Mr. Steve Coulter, President, Steve Coulter Mobile and Manufactured Homes, indicating he was president of Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, testified in favor of AB 484. Mr. Coulter gave a history of mobile homes and manufactured homes.
Mr. Coulter commented the national HUD code was enacted to regulate manufactured housing in 1976 changing the industry to separate "mobile homes" and "manufactured housing," manufactured housing to be built to HUD code. He said the HUD code was a national code and sometimes homes would be built in one area and transported to another area for completion. Mr. Coulter indicated since 1976 the industry had been able to obtain longer term financing, and the product was built differently from previously manufactured homes, making them equal to or better than some site-built homes; therefore, the manufactured home could now be placed next to a site-built home and no one would be able to tell the difference between the two.
Mr. Coulter indicated California had passed a mandate for all municipalities to allow manufactured homes on individual lots.
Mr. Coulter pointed out once the home was converted to real property, 30-year financing through FHA, VA, and conventional sources was available the same as for site-built homes. Mr. Coulter stressed there was tremendous need for housing on individual lots throughout Clark and Washoe counties and in rural areas in the state where it would be cost prohibitive to bring in the outside trades to build homes and still keep it affordable.
Mr. Coulter spoke at length regarding manufactured home locations, comparability to site-built homes, appreciation as opposed to depreciation, and building standards.
Mr. Joerg stipulated Section 1, subsection 3 in AB 484 dealing with the pitch of the roof would have to be addressed as it was not correct, and there were some areas such as Lake Tahoe where it would not meet the snow-load requirements. He indicated his willingness to work with those with expertise in that area to address the problem so long as it was not preempted by the HUD code.
Mr. Doug Malan, Attorney with Deaner, Deaner & Scann, testified he had worked with the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association for over a year on the issue of taking manufactured homes out of mobile home parks. He indicated in Clark County the only place a manufactured home could be placed was in a designated mobile home park, and quite a few mobile home parks in Clark County were situated either in swampland or the hundred year flood plain. He stated rent control issues frequently arose because it was cost prohibitive to build more mobile home parks as there was a minimum acreage requirement of ten acres, which was extremely expensive to purchase. He said there were tremendous development costs involved in building more mobile home parks.
Mr. Malan read portions of a position paper he had drafted which dealt with legal issues (Exhibit D). Mr. Malan indicated in both the city of Las Vegas and Clark County manufactured housing was simply not dealt with but was lumped with mobile homes. He said the city of Las Vegas did not even define manufactured housing in its zoning code, and they were basically treated as mobile homes. Mr. Malan asked committee to favorably consider AB 484 and felt it would avoid needless litigation and greatly increase the opportunity for a broad cross-section of people to buy an affordable home.
Extensive discussion ensued among committee members, Mr. Coulter, Mr. Malan and Mr. Joerg mostly about the distinctions between mobile homes and manufactured homes, and compatibility between manufactured homes and site-built homes.
Mr. Hettrick questioned Section 3, subsection 2(b) indicating 1,000 square feet might not meet the criteria of areas where larger homes were built. He also questioned Section 3, subsection 3(d) stating he felt it should read not more than 12 inches above the requirement set by the county.
Further discussion ensued.
Mr. Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson, testified in opposition to AB 484 (Exhibit E).
Mr. Kirby Burgess, Clark County, testified on behalf of Bonnie Renaldi, zoning administrator. He said, "Unfortunately, Ms. Renaldi could not be here today, so she sent me some comments I would like to read into the record. Clark County is strongly opposed to AB 484 primarily because from every indication available to us, our residents are opposed to allowing mobile homes or manufactured housing in every zoning district. They appear to be most opposed to the rules changing in the middle of the game. In other words, if the general public had purchased their property and homes knowing that mobile homes were allowed next door, or if they had some more specific notice or input into the decision to allow manufactured homes or mobile homes next door, they would find it more acceptable. Currently, most of the land in Clark County is zoned to allow manufactured housing. They are allowed into R use zoning districts which consist of two acres, into RT zoning districts which are 6,500 square foot lots and in the TC zoning district which includes the mobile home parks. In the rural areas of Clark County, mobile homes are also allowed into RA zoning district, one acre lots, and the manufactured home subdivision of five acres or more is permitted in any zoning district with a use permit. Our board of county commissioners has requested that the zoning ordinance be amended to allow a district which allows manufactured homes on a lot of approximately 15,000 square feet and has requested that the minimal size of mobile home parks be reduced to five acres instead of the ten acres mentioned earlier. In Clark County there is very little prezoned land. Almost any type of development requires a zoning change. The submittal of a zoning change is a very routine part of development in Clark County. According to our statistics, most requests, which is about 81 percent, for zoning changes to allow manufactured housing development have been approved. Furthermore, of these approvals, only 15 percent of the subdivision lots and only 56 percent of the mobile home park spaces have been actually built. And they basically bear that the following information - almost everyone in Clark County must ask for zoning since there is no prezoned land, and if someone asks for a manufactured housing zoning, primarily they are approved for that zoning."
Mr. Burgess indicated concern with AB 484 in addition to what Mr. Fritsch had mentioned, with Section 3.1 which required a manufactured house be similar in material, size and appearance to surrounding dwellings, and Section 3.2 which would require material be aesthetically consistent with the surrounding dwellings. He questioned who would be making those decisions and on what basis, and felt it would create an unusual precedence for dictating architectural style and color in single neighborhoods. He also felt there would be a potential for lawsuit if AB 484 passed. Mr. Burgess wondered why these matters could not be resolved at the local level.
Mr. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, testified in opposition to AB 484 stating it was obviously a very emotional technical issue and the issue was addressed in many different ways in different areas of the state. He felt the difficulty with AB 484 was it attempted to address the problems all at once at a state level, ignored the diversity found in the state and took away a very important system of local government which allowed for diversity. Mr. Hadfield stressed his concern that whenever there seemed to be a difficulty in an area of the state, it was automatically addressed at the state level. He felt the bill should be looked at very carefully as it discussed construction and housing and a diverse industry. Mr. Hadfield urged committee to give local government a chance to make this work before applying a standard to the entire state which at best was confusing to many.
Extensive discussion ensued between committee members, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Fritsch and Mr. Hadfield.
Mr. Pat Coward, Nevada Association of Realtors, testified his concern primarily dealt with Section 4 which from his interpretation would preclude CC&Rs and would create a tremendous upheaval in the many communities throughout Nevada.
Ms. Irene Porter, Nevada Homebuilders Association, testified AB 484 would preempt the master plan, zoning ordinances, local building codes, and the homes would not need inspections by the local building inspector. She stated if it should pass, the other part of the shelter industry would be in the position of saying, "We will either bring legislation for, or we could litigate that we are being discriminated against in having to comply with master plans and zoning ordinances where other types of housing do not have to comply with those same standards that we have to meet."
Ms. Porter quoted a portion of Section 4, "Any restriction, covenant or servitude that purports to prohibit such placement is void." stating if in any area there was a deed restriction which indicated a mobile home could not be placed on a lot next to the deeded property, that deed restriction would be null and void. She stated it would affect all existing law on deed restrictions and covenants, and she did not think it was constitutional.
Chairman Garner commented he was under the impression the bill did not ask for carte blanche in placing homes but made a distinction which clearly identified the homes as manufactured housing and not mobile homes. He asked Ms. Porter to respond.
Ms. Porter replied under Nevada statutes mobile homes were called manufactured homes. She indicated a factory-built house which met the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) was allowed on any lot in any residential zoning district and this bill addressed manufactured homes which were built like mobile homes and did not meet the minimum requirements of the UBC. She said under the manufactured home law in the state a manufactured home would also be defined as a mobile home.
Ms. Barbara McKenzie, city of Reno, reiterated testimony given by Mr. Fritsch.
Mr. Ernaut indicated he was under the impression the majority of manufactured homes met the UBC.
Mr. Coulter replied there were several different types of manufactured housing, most of which met the HUD code standards. He said the UBC was equal to or better than the HUD code standards, "So you are looking at basically the same house, it just goes through a different code, and we are saying that our code that we have is just as strong and just as good as the UBC code."
Further discussion ensued.
Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, testified in opposition to AB 484, indicating she concurred with previous testimony. She referenced Section 3, line 13 which further classified the home as real property and pointed out another bill, AB 482, was going to be heard which provided for converting real property back to personal property so a home could be moved to another location, and felt that should be considered.
Chairman Garner indicated he would like to meet with Mr. Joerg and Mr. Coulter to discuss the issues to see if there were any solutions.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 484.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 28 - Urges Congress to review Social Security offset and windfall provisions.
Chairman Garner stated a letter which dealt with social security benefits was received by Chief Clerk Mouryne Landing. He said apparently a problem existed if a person had worked in the private sector and also the public sector, there was some discrepancy involved whereby the person would not get all the benefits from social security. He indicated Mrs. Landing had given it to Mr. Dini and Mr. Dini had asked him to have a bill drafted. Chairman Garner stated AJR 28 would urge Congress to address the inequity involved with the social security benefits.
Discussion ensued.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 28.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblyman Williams was not present for the vote.
SENATE BILL 308 - Makes various changes to charter of City of Sparks relating to judicial department.
Ms. Lisa Foster, city of Sparks, testified in favor of SB 308 (Exhibit F).
Mr. Brian Doran, Court Administrator, Sparks Municipal Court, testified the original bill had also been sponsored by the court, and the court was in favor of the changes to the bill. Mr. Doran remarked, "As we looked into the future, we had determined that in legislative year of 1991 when the Supreme Court tried to come through with a bill that would establish a futures commission on the courts, and I being from other jurisdictions in other states, felt that at this point Sparks should be looking at combining the justice and municipal courts together, and therefore set the qualifications to be the same. We are presently physically separated, but the buildings will be built together within three or four years, so we were looking to combine like qualifications and like benefits."
Mrs. Segerblom asked if the court would have a separate justice of the peace and municipal judge.
Mr. Doran replied they did have separate courts and since 1989 they had established a court of record to become as like a justice court as possible so if the limited jurisdiction courts were ever combined, Sparks would be in a position to do that.
As there was no further testimony Vice Chairman Bennett asked for a motion to do pass SB 308.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 308.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblymen Garner and Williams were not present for the vote.
Vice Chairman Bennett requested Mr. Bache handle the bill on the floor.
Vice Chairman Bennett asked for committee introduction of the following bill draft requests:
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-1915 - Allows state public works board, upon request of board of trustees of school district, to waive requirements of submitting certain plans for approval that relate to school buildings.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 42-1910 - Excludes certain fire extinguishers from licensing requirements.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 34-1915 AND B.D.R. 42-1910.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblymen Garner and Williams were not present for the vote.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
LINDA FEATHERINGILL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
April 28, 1993
Page: 1