MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
May 17, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, May 17, 1993, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Principal Research Analyst
Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Joe Guild, Attorney, Santa Fe Pacific Minerals Incorporation, Santa Fe Pacific Corporation and Nevada Cattleman's Association
Mark Pollot, Concerned Citizen
Barbara Curti, President, Nevada Farm Bureau
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau
Dan Hickey, Vice President, Douglas County Farm Bureau
Stephanie Licht, Treasurer, Nevada Wool Growers Association
Pete Bachstadt, Concerned Citizen
Marta S. Agee, Concerned Citizen
Mary Santina, Concerned Citizen
Juanita Cox, Concerned Citizen
Sonya Johnson, Concerned Citizen
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association
Kit Weaver, Assessor, Assessor's Association of Nevada
Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 142, Senate Bill (S.B.) 285 and Senate Bill (S.B.) 384. She told the committee they would take these bills as a package.
SENATE BILL 142: Protects private property from regulatory taking by government. (BDR 22-70)
SENATE BILL 285: Requires executive branch of state government to prepare assessment of takings implications on private property for certain governmental actions. (BDR 18-1062)
SENATE BILL 384: Establishes remedies for certain regulatory actions that reduce value of real property. (BDR 3-1063)
Senator Rhoads explained these bills to the committee members. He stated they are all about the Fifth Amendment which prohibits government from seizing private property without paying just compensation. He stated in 1988 the United States Supreme Court reversed 40 years of policy on the takings of private property. He explained in the past if an individual won in court the government would just rewrite the regulation. He stated now the government has to pay compensation for damage of reduced value of that property. He told the committee in the last year of President Reagan's term as president, he signed an executive order which mandated federal agencies must file a Takings Impact Assessment (TIA) prior to writing regulations, proposing legislation or commenting on a policy. He explained this is simply a one page document that has to address whether there was a takings or not. He stated if it were then determined it was a takings the agency either had to change policy or make sure they had the money in their budget if a takings occurred. He pointed out this legislation did not address many state and local problems because the executive order only applied to federal agencies. He stated during the 1989 legislative session many legislators attempted to draft legislation addressing state and local government on the takings issue. He explained they consulted with many legal authorities and drafted a bill, but it was too late in that session to introduce this complex legislation. He testified they launched an interim study in 1989 and 1990 by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands which was financed by the private sector. He explained they did extensive studies on this bill and then introduced it in the 1991 session of the legislature, but the bill failed in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs by a three to four vote. Senator Rhoads referred to Exhibit C which is a letter from Mark Killian, Speaker of the House, Arizona House of Representatives, regarding takings. He explained almost every state has considered some type of takings legislation over the past 2 years. He pointed out S.B. 285 is the same as the Arizona bill which was passed.
Joe Guild, Attorney, Santa Fe Pacific Minerals Corporation, Santa Fe Pacific Corporation and Nevada Cattleman's Association, stated he represents these corporations on the takings issue. He told the committee he has brought with him Mark Pollot who is highly respected and recognized for his scholarship in the takings area and in private property rights law. He explained Mr. Pollot is also the author of a recently published book, "Grand Theft and Petit Larceny" which is Exhibit D. Mr. Guild told the committee Mr. Pollot is also a consultant to the United States Congress and various other states which are looking at takings issues. He also pointed out Mr. Pollot is here on his own today and is not representing any special interest groups. Mr. Guild directed the committee's attention to Exhibit E which is a matrix titled, "Takings" bills. He emphasized he would not use this as evidence in court or as a background argument in a legal brief, but it is meant only to be a guidepost for the committee members.
Mark Pollot, Concerned Citizen, spoke to the committee on the takings bills. He gave the committee some background on himself so they would understand he has done a lot of research on this subject. He told them he started his career at the district attorney's office in San Diego County, first as an intern and then later on as a clerk. He explained his interest there was criminal law, but particularly constitutional law. He emphasized the Constitution is the foundation of the government and the protection all of us have against unreasonable or excessive governmental action, no matter how motivated. Mr. Pollot stated after law school he went into the United States Department of Justice as a litigator in the civil rights division, dealing particularly with special litigations section. He explained his job was to help individuals who were in institutions which were state owned or operated such as jails, mental retardation facilities, psychiatric facilities, prisons, juvenile detention homes and many others. He told the committee he was asked to join the Land and Natural Resources Division as a special assistant to the assistant attorney general who was in charge of that division. He explained that division is the division of justice which is given the task of enforcing the environmental laws of the United States. He told the committee the reason he gives this history is to let them know he has spent a good part of his time in practice representing the government and dealing with government agencies at the federal, state and local level. He stated he is very well aware of the concerns of the people who run those departments and he has a great deal of admiration for individuals who are trying to a difficult job under difficult circumstances. He insisted since he has worked in that capacity he also understands the psychology of such organizations and he understands how they work in real life. He stated he has seen these issues from both sides and he understands the concerns of both sides. He insisted he believes, however, that his experience has shown if this issue is not dealt with forthrightly with a true understanding of what is going on, then everybody pays. He directed the committee's attention to Exhibit D which is his book. He stated the issue of private property rights is over 1,000 years old. He emphasized this concept is not new and has not developed within the last 100 years, but a person goes back into our history the first 100 years of the law in this country favored private property rights. He explained the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights which contain over 20 provisions dealing with the protection of private property rights are documents which were founded on the idea that one of the most important civil rights is property. He stated there is a moral concept to this and when a person takes something that does not belong to him and he does not pay for it, that is theft. He also stated it does not cease to be considered a theft just because 50 percent of his neighbors are in on the caper. Mr. Pollot explained the power of eminent domain was established precisely to give government the opportunity to acquire what property it needed regardless of whether that was real property or personal property, tangible property or intangible property and it would preserve the rights of the individuals affected by paying them for that property. He stated to do anything less than that was to jeopardize the financial well-being of both the individuals in the country, but above and beyond that they also believed that private property rights were essential to protection of all other rights. He stated, for example, if an individual knows their private property rights are subject to attack by a regulatory agency and the court will not investigate the agency's purpose or to mandate payment, then other civil rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, religious freedoms and others are meaningless. He told the committee during his time with the justice department he was appalled to see local land use zoning power being used to exclude from the community minorities, single-parent families and those without money. Mr. Pollot stated since 1987, 50 percent of all cases in the United States, at the federal and state levels particularly in California, have favored private property owners. He told the committee until recently California would pass any initiative if the word "environmental" was put in the title, but now California has turned down one of the biggest environmental initiatives of all time by a 2 to 1 margin. He explained they turned it down because they figured out it would cost a great deal of money and it would cost jobs and increase the cost of housing, goods and services. He stated in the Bay area of California it has been shown that better than 50 percent of the cost of new housing is attributable to developer fees and exactions alone. He explained this means if an individual wants to develop their property the regulatory agency states they can, but they want something in return such as land for a park or some other kind of donation. He stated 50 percent of housing costs were those kinds of regulatorily imposed costs. He said in addition to that they require an environmental impact report which can be very costly and it is also far more complex than what this bill would ask the state to do in terms of accessing regulatory takings potential. He gave the committee several other examples of takings.
Mr. Guild stated there was a need to have Mr. Pollot speak on this subject because of the complexity of the bills and to give the committee some understanding. He explained this is not an attempt to overburden the government. He pointed out S.B. 285 and stated it has been presented as different bills in past legislative sessions. He told the committee there is an insensitivity in government agencies for private property rights which is the problem these bills are attempting to solve. He emphasized section 9 of S.B. 285 states the attorney general consults with the departments and adopts regulations to help evaluate state agency actions. He explained they would then write an assessment of those takings implications which might occur. He stated in section 13 it explains some of the issues the attorney general and the departments must consider as standards for what constitutes the kind of action contemplated by this bill. He told the committee this bill would require the agency proposing the regulation to do a Takings Implications Assessment (TIA). He pointed out Exhibit E for the committee review. He explained this is 1-1/4 pages of questions any competent lawyer who has some knowledge of this area of the law can fill out and answer in a very short period of time.
Senator Callister stated he sees a few potential decisions in section 13 1A through 1H that the Attorney General's Office would have to make in trying to determine whether a taking may result. He explained this would come from a governmental action which regulates the use of private property and fails to advance legitimate governmental objectives. He asked who would make that determination.
Mr. Pollot stated when he wrote these guidelines he designed them to be used by individuals who are not attorneys. He explained it is almost invariably concluded the government's purpose is legitimate and the question will be, does it constitute a taking.
Senator Callister stated this language is not nearly as clear as Mr. Pollot states it may be. He explained he is troubled by the notion that somebody could quickly check off this list.
Mr. Pollot stated the whole idea of a takings implication assessment rests on the idea that the agency is going to make a genuine effort to try and understand what are the legal risks. He explained that will not always be the case because there is a tendency for government attorneys to take a position and advocate, as opposed to being a neutral anticipator of what are the potential legal consequences. He told the committee he would hope that most government attorneys or regulators would try to be honest and fair about this, but it is not unilateral in the sense the agency makes its decision and it is binding on anybody. He stated this is an attempt to anticipate what would happen if somebody were to sue on this issue and what the court might say about what is going on. He emphasized the ultimate decision, as it always is in constitutional matters, is in the hands of the court. He maintained all this executive-like order bill is, is an opportunity for the agency to sit down and decide what risks it
is running by pursuing the course of action it wants to pursue. He emphasized part of the TIA is that the agencies look for alternative methods of doing what is required to do methods which are less intrusive.
Senator Callister stated he is just questioning if it is that simple of a process to deal with. He explained this process by its nature is a little more complex and fraught with potential for somebody arguing the issue of what is substantial advancement of a legitimate purpose, but another individual does not. He maintained he feels it is dangerous to oversimplify the complexity of issues that are extraordinarily difficult for our own supreme court to get a handle on.
Mr. Pollot stated it is better to try to anticipate the risks and do it badly or do it wrong in individual cases than to not make the effort at all. He explained the way this bill is designed is to be used as an internal management tool with the idea of trying to keep them confidential to such things as a freedom of information act request. He mentioned there are circumstances where the privilege could be overcome, but it is fairly rare. He explained this would give the agency some incentive to be honest.
Mr. Guild explained S.B. 384 to the committee, which he feels is arguably the more complicated of the two other kinds of bills. He stated this is an attempt to create an objective standard and Mr. Pollot stated the court has struggled with this for 70 years and has not gotten to an objective standard. He pointed out subsection 3 of section 2 on the first page of the bill which is a definition of what is a taking. He stated if it can be proven that the government has taken more than 50 percent of an individual's real property interest then they can determine a taking has occurred. He stated the private property owner has to go to court and affirmatively prove the taking and then the court is given the charge to the agency to have them either exercise their power of eminent domain or pay the owner the amount equal to the proven reduction of value. He explained it is up to the owner to choose that remedy. He iterated this sounds harsh, but he explained there is a valid public policy reason for this. He told the committee there is an escape clause on page 3 at subsection 2 of section 6 which states an alternative way the government can seek to further its statutory mission, but reduce the problem. He pointed out section 5 is an embodiment of the United States Supreme Court's exposition of the new nuisance exception.
Mr. Pollot stated the reason for the 50 percent is because this is a significant diminution and yet in spite of a lot of criticisms of this bill or the executive order on takings, there are many, many cases out there that have been decided which were far less than 50 percent of the economic value of the property which constitutes the taking. He explained when they get to 50 percent of the property value it should put the individual on notice that something important is occurring here. He further explained either the public goal is so important that paying 50 percent or more of the value of the property is worth it or not.
Chairman O'Connell asked how long these types of cases take to go through court.
Mr. Pollot stated the 50 percent will give them a judgement a lot faster than it will give a judgement in a standard regulatory takings case. He explained the reason for this is because the bill states at this point they have triggered a statutory taking and a taking bill involves a lot of attorney time and court time which is very expensive and time consuming.
Senator Callister asked how they establish there has been a takings. He told Mr. Pollot he was not clear on his explanation of how this bill will help.
Mr. Pollot stated there must be an evidentiary procedure, but there is only one issue and that is if they get 50 percent, less than 50 percent or more than 50 percent. He explained once the amount is established it is simplified because most of the work is done already.
Senator Callister stated he did not feel this would cut down on the time involved in these cases. He explained he does not see how this would be significantly different in the establishment of the initial entry level question. He told the committee on page 2, section 5 it states if the court finds that the allegations filed pursuant are true and that the regulatory action has caused a taking then they have to have an entirely new trial to determine whether the taking was made in response to a threat to public health or safety. He asked Mr. Pollot why they would require two mini trials which would end up in one litigation.
Mr. Pollot states it is still all one litigation. He explained they just deal with one issue first and depending on that outcome they will either proceed or not with the new trial.
Senator Callister stated he still does not agree with Mr. Pollot on what lines 20 and 21 would mean to a judge and jury. He still feels this bill would promote the lengthening of the litigation process with regard to takings.
Mr. Pollot stated he has done a lot of takings cases and he invariably bifurcates them. He explained first they bifurcate them into liability issues and then compensation issues because the trial on the one may obviate the need for continuing on and reaching the next issue.
Senator Callister stated this part of the bill does not address the damages, issue only the liability issue.
Mr. Guild stated the inquiry is to whether more than 50 percent of the value was taken which means the very first inquiry is an appraisal inquiry of sorts. He explained in an eminent domain case a plaintiff can ask if the use will be for the public. He told the committee they will rarely litigate that in an eminent domain case because the question has been asked and answered so many times that that part of the Fifth Amendment really never comes up. He stated if it does come up it is the entry level inquiry. He emphasized if it is determined by the court that it is for public use they will fight it out with the appraisers.
Senator Callister stated after some discussion that he still disagrees with the idea that this bill would simplify the procedure.
Chairman O'Connell stated with her experience, government she feels, should be right between 45 and 48 percent takings every time to try to cover themselves with the 50 percent, so there is not a long drug out court proceeding and the individual will never recover.
Mr. Pollot stated most people do not want their property taken at all, unfortunately under the eminent domain law in the Constitution, most states and certainly the federal government is of the opinion if the government wants to take the property for public use they may do so. He told the committee at least the 50 percent rule allows the individuals to keep some part of their property in production, which is better. He stated in his experience a battle of the appraisers simply does not take that long. He explained it only lasts 2 to 4 days and it is not a major complicated issue.
Senator Hickey asked if statutory and regulatory takings are interchangeable.
Mr. Pollot stated it is a regulatory takings in that it is aimed at takings accomplished by regulation as opposed to the standard going in and filing a condemnation action. He explained it is statutory in that the standard may at times be more strict and at other times less strict than what the Constitution demands. He told the committee the state can give more protection than the federal constitution. He explained a taking is with less than 10 percent deprivation and then an individual is free to sue under the Constitution and recover the taking even though it was less than 50 percent. He stated in that sense the Constitution gives greater protection and it is allowed to do that. He told the committee on the other hand it may be that under the federal Constitution it would not have been a taking even if 90
percent of the value of property is gone and in that case the statute gives the individual greater protection than the federal Constitution does. He explained in either case it protects not only the property owner, but it protects the state as well.
Senator Hickey asked if there are any cases where federal law has preempted state law.
Mr. Pollot stated California has a Constitutional provision that is at least theoretically broader than the federal constitution because it protects not only against taking, but it protects damage. Mr. Pollot explained the federal government had tried to defend against a wet lands taking claim on the grounds that it was not the federal government, but it was the state doing the taking. He told the committee under the 404 Program which is the wet lands permitting program, but before they can get a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers the state has to issue something called a 401 C Water Quality Certification. He stated what happened in this particular case was the state did not issue the 401 C Certification and the property owners sued the Corp of Engineers and the Corp of Engineers said it was the state and the state blamed the federal government. He stated because the federal government puts a mandate on the state they will have to make a payment if it is due. He explained there is a provision in the act that states if there are two state agencies involved then they look to their liability individually and allocate between the two agencies who took what, but as between the federal government and the state government the federal government exercise their superiority power under the Constitution, then they should make restitution.
Senator Hickey asked if these decisions are made by state courts or federal courts.
Mr. Pollot stated a state court can make the decision because they have concurrent jurisdiction over federal Constitutional issues.
Senator Callister stated he understood from what Mr. Pollot said that much of the regulatory structure which is implemented on a state basis is typically a function of federal law which establishes clean air acts or clean water acts. He stated that most of the actions described would be necessarily actions brought against both the state and the federal government.
Mr. Pollot stated under the scenario Senator Callister painted it would depend on if the state was doing no more than what the federal government requires, in that case then it is a federal problem. He told the committee on the other hand if the state goes beyond what the federal government requires which is more invasive of property rights and if that amounts to a taking, then the state must take responsibility.
Senator Callister stated in the State of Nevada the federal law is probably more invasive than state law and in the vast majority of the takings actions seen here in this state would in fact be actions that were either brought against both the state and federal government initially or the state would bring in the federals as a party defendant to share the obligation. He insisted the state would undoubtedly say they did no more than they were compelled to do under federal law. He stated this bothers him because it would lengthen the time for litigation which tend to be increased as a function of the number of parties who are participating. Senator Callister stated it was difficult for him to think of a regulatory takings instance which would not involve the federal government. He explained most of the takings would involve the federal government simply as a matter of strategy on some parties part.
Mr. Pollot stated that would be very poor strategy because when suing the federal government for taking there is only once place to go and it is not state court and a person cannot bring the state defendant into this case because the only one who can be a defendant in that court is the United States.
Senator Callister stated he feels with this scenario there would be a whole lot of state court actions which are almost immediately challenged by the state, who is saying it was the federal government. He explained in this instance the state would be trying to get the litigation into federal court.
Mr. Pollot explained in state court all the parties go into the courtroom and sit down and talk with the judge. He stated all of the claims go into this courtroom. He explained the federal government can be sued for a taking in one court and one court only, which is the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He told the committee no other party, whether it be state or county, can be a party in that action, only the United States can be a defendant in that action. He pointed out on the other hand when the claim is against the state the state courts deal with the state because they must go through the state court procedure before they can go to federal court.
Senator Callister interjected that is one of the problems he sees with this. He explained the individual would end up with multiple actions beginning with the state court to establish liability and then go back and find out which federal law is the driving force for this taking so the whole suit will be turned over to federal court and begin again.
Mr. Pollot stated he disagreed because most of what will happen will be under the local land use zoning power, but when the state gets into it they do it in a big way. He added if he were the attorney he would be trying to figure out which was the better forum and which would
have the better standards. He told the committee his first step would be to decide if it was a state or federal action because if it is truly a federal action going against the state will do no good.
Mr. Guild stated S.B. 142 is a variation of S.B. 384, but he wanted to point out the opposition to these bills comes in the fiscal area. He explained most of the arguments he has heard from the state agencies is the fiscal impact. He told the committee in S.B. 384 the author states a whole new cause of action is created by S.B. 384. He stated he and Mr. Pollot disagree with this because indeed an individual could bring an inverse condemnation lawsuit against the state or local government if none of these bills see the light of day. He explained they are not talking about a whole new cause of action, what they are talking about is an objective standard by which that cause of action would now be measured. He stated in the fiscal note from the state's point-of-view the author states some 80 new cases in his estimation would be a reasonable assumption that would be filed under S.B. 384 if it became law. He insisted there is no logical analysis which leads to the number 80 and he feels it is an assumption, but he does not see how anyone can reasonably assume a number without a great deal of true fiscal analysis rather than conclusions that lead to a number. Mr. Guild told the committee as a deliberative body they need to figure out what this assumption was based upon. He stated it goes to the final paragraph of the fiscal note to S.B. 384 where the author concludes that now a revolutionary inverse condemnation standard of 50 to 99.99 percent of fair market value instead of no economically viable use would be the new standard. He told the committee as Mr. Pollot articulately explained to them, that has never been the standard and he maintained he would put Mr. Pollot and his knowledge in this area up against any lawyer he knows across the country to challenge him on that point. He stated he believes the fiscal note is based on a false assumption of what the law is and that is why there is a fiscal note which has no basis. He maintained the committee needs to make that inquiry on the fiscal note on S.B. 384. Mr. Guild stated the fiscal note to S.B. 142 is described by the author as a new cause of action and he bases the conclusion on the fact that there is a greatly expanded view and he feels that is also a false assumption.
Chairman O'Connell stated most of the committee was here when the bill was proposed and the attorney general at that time did not feel there was a fiscal impact to it and she told Mr. Guild that will be weighing in most of the committee's minds.
Mr. Guild stated the primary difference to look at in these two bills is the more complicated procedures set forth in S.B. 384 and some conditions that are placed in front of the inquirer under S.B. 384 rather than S.B. 142. He pointed out he would like to offer more time to other proponents on these bills.
Barbara Curti, President, Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke in favor of these bills. She gave the committee written testimony which is Exhibit F. She told the committee the local government needs to be as aware of what is going on with takings as the federal government or state government.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke in favor of these bills. His written testimony is Exhibit G.
Dan Hickey, Vice President, Douglas County Farm Bureau, told the committee he was in favor of these bills.
Stephanie Licht, Treasurer, Nevada Wool Growers Association, stated her organization would like to go on record as being in support of these three bills. She gave the committee members a copy of The Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights out of the Civil Rights Code, (Exhibit H). She read this to the committee and told the committee property rights are civil rights.
Pete Bachstadt, Concerned Citizen, spoke on these bills. He stated he was born in the United States and he lives and pays taxes in Nevada. He told the committee he is in favor of these bills and any others that come to them on private property rights.
Marta S. Agee, Concerned Citizen, spoke to the committee in favor of these bills. She gave the committee members a written copy of her testimony which is Exhibit I.
Mary Santina, Concerned Citizen, stated she was also speaking for Ex-Senator Ron Cook. She explained Senator Cook sat on this committee last session and did not support the takings legislation, but this year he supports it. She told the committee he found out first hand what it feels like to have the government dictate what you can do with your land with zoning and government intervention as he did just last year.
Juanita Cox, Concerned Citizen, spoke in favor of these bills. She told the committee the other counties or entities which can be impacted by certain takings need to be represented and oftentimes are not, but she believes these bills will help.
Sonya Johnson, Concerned Citizen, told the committee she really supports these bills.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, told the committee her organization supports the concept of takings as they did last session and they helped fund the study which was done in the interim. She stated the takings concept and anything pulled together from these bills is a reaffirmation of the property rights which were heard during this testimony. She emphasized it is an acknowledgement that the government is by, of and for the people and not the other way around. She told the committee the individuals in these cases are not only out of pocket to prove that government had caused a taking or devaluation of a property that caused a loss, but through the property taxes they also pay for the attorneys that are suing against them. She urged the committee to look at takings although she is not sure any one of these bills is the total vehicle, but there are good elements from these bills.
Senator Hickey asked Ms. Vilardo of the fiscal note would keep her from being in favor of these bills.
Ms. Vilardo stated the fiscal note would not stop her or her organization from backing these takings bills.
Senator Callister told Ms. Vilardo to the extent they expand opportunity and ultimately the obligation for the municipality to compensate for takings, much of which is driven for the need to respond to enormous southern Nevada population growth and demand. He stated there is another payer in the system which is us. He pointed out individuals are compensated some for the land that was taken, but that money came from some place which he suggested is from the taxpayers. He stated he differs from the other members of the committee and he believes the fiscal note as presented on these bills is ludicrously low and it reflects no participation from the municipalities who have much more day-to-day experience in Clark County and the City of Las Vegas dealing with these issues. He is not saying it is not a good idea, it is just a very expensive proposition and the money to compensate has to come from some place which is probably the same people who are here today saying the government is taking their property. Senator Callister stated the state is going to need an alternative device if they are going to keep pace with the growth in this state and he suggests this is just another manifestation of the same.
Ms. Vilardo stated her organization supports the concepts of the bill and the concepts of what takings do. She told the committee from the study she surmised these bills are in the regulatory area. She pointed out she believes there is a need for some legislation which is one of the things that should be considered and it needs to be narrowed down because of the potential impact. She maintained when someone's land is impacted as to the degree of use, there needs to be something done. She stated we need to have a bill which starts putting the state in the direction where they can look at what they are doing with private property.
Kit Weaver, Assessor, Assessor's Association of Nevada, spoke on S.B. 384, section 9. He told the committee his organization has no problem with this addition to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 361, but they proposed two minor amendments to make the language more consistent. He gave the committee members copies of the amendments which are Exhibit J.
Charles Hauser, District Attorney's Office, Clark County, spoke to the committee on these bills. He told the committee Mr. Pollot gave many good reasons for this bill in California, but not for Nevada. He stated he has been litigating zoning actions for 10 years in Clark County, but he started his practice in California. He gave the committee written testimony, Exhibit K.
Senator Callister asked Mr. Hauser if he had any objections to S.B. 285.
Mr. Hauser stated as that bill is written right now it only applies to the state and he did write opposition to this in 1991 when it would apply to local government. He told the committee he opposes any bill which applies to local government.
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
May 17, 1993
Page 1