MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventieth Session
March 10, 1999
The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:17 a.m., on Wednesday, March 10, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Simultaneous videoconferencing of the meeting was provided to Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman
Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman
Ms. Merle Berman
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Ms. Gene Segerblom
Mr. Kelly Thomas
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Wendell Williams
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Assembly District 8
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Charlotte Tucker, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Joseph Johnson, representing Nevada Housing Coalition
Laura Fitzsimmons, attorney, representing landowners
Paul Cox, Old Reno Casino, and President of
Nevada Association of Business Owners’ Rights (NABOR)
Virginia Valentine, City Manager, Las Vegas, Nevada
Brent Hawkins, McDonough, Holland & Allen, legal counsel for the
City of Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency
Mike Forche, President, Center City Development Corporation,
Las Vegas, Nevada
Peter Thomas, member, Board of Directors,
Center City Development Corporation, Las Vegas, Nevada
Charles Rosenow, Economic Development Manager,
Reno Redevelopment Agency, Reno, Nevada
Chairman Bache called the meeting to order and introduced two Bill Draft Requests (BDRs).
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF
BDR 20-594.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
**********
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 33-1576.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Bache opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 306.
Assembly Bill 306: Revises provisions governing community redevelopment. (BDR 22-15)
Assemblywoman Christina Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, introduced A.B. 306. She read from prepared text (Exhibit C). Redevelopment was created to allow taxes in blighted sections of a city to be collected and used for revitalization of specific areas, Ms. Giunchigliani began. If handled correctly, redevelopment enriched existing frameworks of cities by renovation, rehabilitation, or rebuilding its street, buildings, land, open spaces and neighborhoods.
Ms. Giunchigliani represented areas of Las Vegas both upscale and poverty-stricken. Blighted areas in her Assembly District were in states of disrepair, some without street lights or sidewalks. Those areas also contained some of the original architecture of the city. They were unique neighborhoods with special qualities, and should not be lost during redevelopment efforts. That was the crux of A.B. 306, and was the substance of Assembly Bill 638 of the 69th Legislative Session.
Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to make sure that property taken under eminent domain would benefit the redevelopment of an area, not a specific company or individual. The bill called for a finding that was made by an agency be reduced to writing. Nothing in the bill language prevented an agency from taking property, it simply made certain the findings were in the public interest and were justified in writing.
Included in A.B. 306 was an attempt to empower neighborhoods located within redevelopment districts. Most projects tended to be directed toward business interests, and it was for those reasons the bill language made provision for the creation of neighborhood committees. At a minimum, she said, those older neighborhoods deserved the same amenities as the "nicer" neighborhoods. Clarification was provided about relocation. It required slum landlords to pay for relocating tenants.
Ms. Giunchigliani provided the committee with an extensive analysis of the language of A.B. 306 (Exhibit D), together with articles and citings regarding eminent domain, the history and role of redevelopment, an explanation of the community development law, portions of the agreement between Las Vegas and Stratosphere, and various news clippings.
Assemblywoman Freeman approved of the bill and asked if Ms. Giunchigliani’s assembly district was in the redevelopment area. Ms. Giunchigliani responded about 75 percent of her district, which consisted of smaller "railroad" houses and apartments, lay within the redevelopment area. Many property owners in the district had allowed property to deteriorate.
Mrs. Freeman alluded to the 69th Legislative Session where a bill had been introduced that dealt with nuisances and code compliances, and asked if A.B. 306 was intended to address similar situations.
That particular bill generated some of the language in section 9 of A.B. 306, Ms. Giunchigliani responded. Many owners and landlords in blighted areas were out-of-state owners, and when the city condemned a property because of its inhabitability and tenants were relocated, owners had to pay relocation costs before the building was demolished.
Ms. Giunchigliani spoke at length about her district. About 25 percent was upscale, she said. The older neighborhoods had personality. Many people had lived in the area 40 to 50 years, which was unusual for Las Vegas. The problems developed when residents of some of the neighborhoods wanted to form General Improvement Districts (GIDs) but were unable to do so because of the lack of a viable tax base. However, several neighborhood councils were started. A group of business owners and residents formed the Downtown Central Development Committee (DCDC). The DCDC wrote crime plans and preservation plans under the neighborhood preservation program the city had put into place.
Mrs. Freeman inquired as to the authority the neighborhood groups had when taking decisions to city council.
Staff from the city council generally attended neighborhood group meetings, Ms. Giunchigliani replied. They worked jointly, but the neighborhood group would write the majority of a redevelopment plan. Staff people who worked with the neighborhoods generally had backgrounds in city planning and neighborhood empowerment.
Assemblyman Lee recalled a plumbing project in the Meadows Village area in which the city had gotten heavily involved. He asked if Ms. Giunchigliani’s bill would go further than what had already been done.
The area was neglected, Ms. Giunchigliani replied. Streets, curbs, and sidewalks were in disrepair. There was no funding available. The bill would provide the impetus for the neighborhood council to write redevelopment plans that complied with the city-wide plan, and then apply for grants for some of the redevelopment funds that were available. Assuming 5 percent of agencies’ budgets was set aside for redevelopment, approximately $450,000 from Clark County and $500,000 from Washoe County would be available for those programs. A.B. 306 envisioned empowerment of neighborhoods to be able to participate in improvements and preservation of the older historical areas.
Mr. Lee asked if Ms. Giunchigliani was implying the city did not have enough money available to fix streetlights, and repair curbs and sidewalks.
Ask the city, Ms. Giunchigliani responded. Neighborhoods did not have the tax base available to create a general improvement district.
Mr. Lee asked for an explanation of how specific property owners would benefit from the redevelopment programs. Ms. Giunchigliani envisioned neighborhood associations encompassing about 8 to 10 blocks. Groups of people from the neighborhood would meet and discuss problems. The group would work with staff from the city council, draft a budget, apply for funding. She wanted to continue to make certain, as downtown areas were revitalized, the residents themselves were not forgotten. Most projects were business-driven, not people-driven.
Assemblywoman Freeman asked if general improvement districts (GIDs) were in Ms. Giunchigliani’s downtown district.
The tax base was so low the area could not qualify for GIDs, Ms. Giunchigliani replied. Ms. Freeman asked for clarification of current law on membership of a redevelopment agency. A redevelopment agency could be formed by any local government, Ms. Giunchigliani responded. The law also allowed a council made up of public citizens to run the agency. As far as she knew, no local government had enacted that portion of the law.
Assemblywoman Berman asked for an explanation of section 3 of A.B. 306 and how an advisory council would be appointed or elected.
When section 3, subsection 1 of the bill was drafted, Ms. Giunchigliani said, the language "An agency shall create . . ." was changed to read "An agency may create . . ." That allowed as many councils that wished to participate within a redevelopment area, to be able to form. The terminology "coterminous with a census tract" meant the councils had to be located within the area. Ms. Berman asked who made decisions as to the worthiness of projects. The redevelopment agency was the responsible agency, Ms. Giunchigliani replied.
Ms. Berman asked what guidelines were in place. There were none, Ms. Giunchigliani responded, but there were neighborhood preservation councils that were used as models by cities and counties.
Assemblyman Thomas referred to the language of the bill on page 1, lines 4 through 6, which stated " . . .shall not exercise the power of eminent domain for redevelopment unless the general public, as the primary beneficiary, will receive and enjoy specific and substantial benefits from the use of the property to be taken." He wondered how the bill language differed from the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and existing case law.
Ms. Giunchigliani understood Chapter 37 of the Nevada Revised Statutes that addressed the matter of eminent domain, did not specifically affect redevelopment areas. The language of A.B. 306 pertained directly to redevelopment areas. She was not clear as to the differences between the bill itself and the Constitution, and would have to consult the legal staff.
Mr. Thomas felt A.B. 306 put into statute that which the Fifth Amendment already granted. Ms. Giunchigliani replied the Pappas family had gotten very little support from the Fifth Amendment, and it was the circumstances surrounding the Pappas case that had prompted the drafting of A.B. 306.
Mr. Thomas referred to lines 7 through 10 of the bill and thought the exercise of the power of eminent domain was due process before the fact. "You’re granted the right of due process," he said.
In a redevelopment project where property was taken, Ms. Giunchigliani said, one was not entitled to the same type of scrutiny or notice, which was partly the reason for the language of the bill. Eminent domain was a useful tool and needed to be in statute, but care should be taken to be sure it was done for the right reasons
Assemblywoman Tiffany opined A.B. 306 went beyond the matter of eminent domain into affordable housing. She wondered how many cities in Nevada had populations over 100,000. Five, Ms. Giunchigliani replied. She had met with planning boards of each municipality on different occasions, and much of the drafted bill language arose from those discussions.
Sensitivity to the effects of eminent domain was important, Ms. Tiffany said. She did not think eminent domain had been used in the city of Henderson. She had learned people in that area were not as concerned about "big, bad government" as they were about their property values all of a sudden shooting up 3 or 4 times. People tried to remain anonymous when buying property because it was taxpayers’ money involved, not government’s money.
In response to a question from Ms. Tiffany regarding the percentage of money allocated for redevelopment, Ms. Giunchigliani stated at all times the dollars started with the agency, generated from the agency, and were accountable back to the agency. The line item percentage was 5 percent.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel had a question on relocation and cited page 7, section 15, line 27. The language "whether an owner or a tenant" seemed to include owners and tenants in the same level. She wondered when an owner had invested capital and would have much more to lose than a tenant, why the bill language put them on the same level.
The language was to close loopholes in sections 24 and 25, Ms. Giunchigliani replied. People were able to skip around relocation requirements. Some tenants needed relocation assistance, particularly businesses which were long-term tenants but did not actually own the property involved. In some instances tenants, as part of the rental agreement, would keep up repairs to the property, put in sidewalks, redo facades. In those cases capital as well as rent had been invested.
Ms. Von Tobel stated there should be clarification between the two. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated if Chairman Bache wished, the clarification issue could be addressed.
Assemblyman Mortenson discussed his neighborhood and how it had changed over the years. At one time, he said, the county came in and installed streetlights. The work was not done under a General Improvement District. He wondered if a city or county could be accused of discriminating when it installed improvements in one area and not another. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would like an opinion from the legal department. In her own district some streets were done 2 or 3 times and others had not been touched for 32 years. She felt the discrimination and disparity that existed would be a worthwhile legal question.
If property was taken and compensation paid for its taking, Assemblyman Thomas asked, could one assume the compensation was just and fair. He had a problem with the language of subsection 3 " . . . pay the cost related to the replacement of the housing and places of business . . . " He wondered if it was the intent of the bill to build a new house for the displaced business owner, as well as a place of business. Ms. Giunchigliani said she was looking only at relocation costs.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in favor of A.B. 306. Her group specifically supported section 1, the basic principles of eminent domain and how it should be used. Eminent domain should never be used to transfer property from one private owner to another more favored private owner, she continued. However she felt the bill language on page 1, subsection 2, lines 7 through 10 which stated "a written finding that eminent domain is necessary" was not a strong enough statement. She introduced a proposed amendment to the bill (Exhibit E) which said, beginning at line 9, " . . .make a written finding with specific facts that the exercise of the power of eminent domain is necessary and the manner in which the general public will be the primary beneficiary of the specific and substantial benefits from the use of the property to be taken in that case." The proposed amendment required the written finding not only to determine that the taking was necessary but also specify the benefits the general public would receive and the manner in which they would be enjoyed.
Joseph Johnson, representing the Nevada Housing Coalition, testified the coalition unanimously supported A.B. 306. The coalition felt the emphasis on citizen involvement and character of the neighborhoods was important. Housing was recognized as a major function of redevelopment agencies, Mr. Johnson continued, and his group applauded Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s efforts in making the language changes in the bill that addressed those issues.
Laura Fitzsimmons, an attorney representing landowners, spoke in support of A.B. 306. She felt the bill was consistent in promoting the basic goals for redevelopment.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked Ms. Fitzsimmons if she felt the language in section 2 went far enough in clarifying the eminent domain procedure for public good. "Can they go outside and claim public good when really maybe it is not?" she queried.
That was one of Ms. Fitzsimmons’ concerns. She felt that if there was a directed inquiry by the people responsible for exercising the power and specific findings, it would go a long way in resolving those concerns.
Paul Cox of the Old Reno Casino, and President of the Nevada Association of Business Owners’ Rights (NABOR), a group of Reno downtown businesses, had doubts about A.B. 306. NABOR was involved with the eminent domain issue for many years. Mr. Cox alluded to major expansion efforts by some of the large Reno casinos, all of which was accomplished without the use of eminent domain. He felt eminent domain needed real restrictions, otherwise it would cease to be good law and become abusive power. He asked the committee to place restrictions and safeguards on the use of eminent domain, especially where small businesses were concerned.
Mr. Cox commented, "Don’t fix it if it’s not broken." He went on to call eminent domain an abusive power. His Old Reno Casino was a tenant, he said. The casino paid all special assessments. The value of his business was in the lease, not in the slot machines, which was tangible true value.
Chairman Bache thanked Mr. Cox for attending the hearing and recalled Mr. Cox’s father’s testimony on Assembly Bill 638 of the 69th Legislative Session.
Assemblyman Mortenson asked Mr. Cox if he was aware or had actual knowledge of cases where, in negotiations for property people were threatened with eminent domain if they did not negotiate.
Mr. Cox replied he had been threatened himself, and he had heard similar claims from others. Mr. Mortenson felt that was a good reason for the bill to become law. Mr. Cox agreed. However, he continued, the problem with the bill language was that it was not simply a redevelopment person or a city council person exercising eminent domain, it was a private party.
Assemblywoman Gibbons reminded the committee of problems people in Reno had with the "dreaded" eminent domain. As she was on the Airport Authority for several years, she had seen blatant misuse of eminent domain. She hoped everyone realized the seriousness of it.
Assemblywoman Tiffany remembered Mr. Cox’s father’s testimony from the 69th Legislative Session. She reminded him that when he said, "This bill should pass", the focus was not on eminent domain but on the 5 percent of a redevelopment agency budget being set aside to focus on blighted areas and affordable housing. She asked Mr. Cox if he would be happy if his situation was taken care of by the amendment that said the private interest needed to be in writing, that it had to be a finding and had to be specific.
Mr. Cox was not prepared to answer Ms. Tiffany’s question. Again, he reiterated his main focus dealt with eminent domain and the issues directly affecting his business.
Chairman Bache called for witnesses in opposition to A.B. 306.
Virginia Valentine, City Manager of Las Vegas, introduced Brent Hawkins, legal counsel for the City of Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency, Mike Forche, President of the Center City Development Corporation (CCDC) and Peter Thomas, member of the Board of Directors of CCDC.
Ms. Valentine said:
We want to start by telling you one of the provisions that discusses the private citizens’ involvement with redevelopment agencies. Part of the thrust of what the CCDC is that this board has been created as a group of private individuals with knowledge and experience the like of which the city of Las Vegas could never afford to advise us on redevelopment issues. We are, in fact, in the process of transferring our redevelopment functions to the CCDC. Lest you fear that elected officials are not making those decisions, their decisions and recommendations do come back to the city council. So it is still the elected officials who are responsible in making those judiciary decisions which we think are very important.
Mr. Hawkins will be discussing some of the mechanics of redevelopment, but I’d like to give you a little bit of information first on how revenues for redevelopment agencies are generated so you can understand our perspective.
Redevelopment is funded by the increase in property taxes, the property tax increase, the assessment value, from a base year which in our case is 1985. Many downtown property values have recently suffered decreases in their assessed valuation and some of them have sought relief through the county assessor, so that in fact we are experiencing still some decrease in assessed valuation. The result is decreasing revenues for redevelopment. To give you an idea, it may be a misperception that there are tons of money sitting around for redevelopment projects. In the city of Las Vegas it’s about $8 million annually. Of that $8 million, 15 percent is taken off the top and set aside for affordable housing. That’s $1.2 million. We have an annual debt service on currency agency bonds of $5 million. We have debt service on city bonds used for the Sun Plaza acquisition of $1.3 million. We have operating costs of under $1 million, and then if we add back the amount of the housing component used to retire debt of $.5 million, the expense side adds up to almost the $8 million that we generate. So the idea that there’s a lot of money in this fund to do other things simply is not accurate.
This bill would allow the use of redevelopment funds for neighborhood projects. I hope there’s been passed around to you some information on our Neighborhood Renaissance Program (Exhibit F), and our Neighborhood Partners Program (Exhibit G). The city of Las Vegas has created a whole department, Neighborhood Services, which deals specifically with code enforcement and redevelopment of neighborhoods and neighborhood projects, and those projects are funded out of the general fund. If you look at some of the brochures (see Exhibit H), we do a lot of outreach, we go into neighborhoods, we seek these people out, we seek out the types of projects that they are interested in, and we’ve recently been discussing an ordinance which would create neighborhood councils. Strangely enough, some of the neighborhood councils which are already in existence, don’t want to be formally created. They like things the way they are, and some of you may have seen an article in the SUN not too long ago about some of their opposition to being mandated neighborhood councils.
You may also remember Barbara Buckley’s bill in 1993 which required this 15 percent set aside. I’d like to tell you that’s been a very successful program.
Since 1995 the city has initiated seven projects that use this funding, resulting in 383 units of housing created. The city’s investment of approximately $3 million leveraged public funds in excess of $19 million being invested in the redevelopment area.
The whole and single purpose of creating a redevelopment agency is to create that increase in property value, and that’s what funds the agency. If we start to allocate out of that fund things we could do with the general fund, or should be doing with other funds, we have defeated the purpose of creating a redevelopment agency and dedicating those resources which focus solely on that purpose.
Assemblywoman Segerblom asked how recommended projects would be implemented by community groups.
Neighborhood planning was a result of city council action, Ms. Valentine responded. Neighborhood planners would work with neighborhood groups to implement the plan, approve the plan, and generate the project. Projects were budgeted annually. In response to Ms. Segerblom’s inquiry about the availability of funds, Ms. Valentine replied funds were indeed available.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked if neighborhood councils were formed out of citizens’ grass roots efforts or if they were similar to the advisory board specified in A.B. 306.
Over 150 neighborhood associations were registered, Ms. Valentine replied. Ms. Gibbons asked for a breakdown of the CCDC and details on its funding.
Tax increment revenues for the current year were approximately $8.2 million, Ms. Valentine responded. With waivers from the Board of Adjustment, that amount fell to $7.5 million in 1999. $1.2 million, or 15 percent of revenues, went to fund the affordable housing program. Debt service on their current agency bonds, which were funded through parking garages, other downtown facilities, and some land acquisitions, was about $5 million.
Debt service on the bonds that were used for the Sun Plaza acquisition, which was a large assemblage of downtown properties, was approximately $1.3 million, she continued. Operating expenses were somewhat less than $1 million, and the housing component used to retire debt, was $500,000. Base costs added up to nearly $8 million.
Ms. Valentine concluded, "The idea that we have a lot of money in there to do other types of projects is simply not true. By making these investments, the things these debts are retired for, or that the bonds have been issued for, will increase the value of the downtown area. We just broke ground on a large downtown project. We think those kind of projects reach a critical mass where the assessed values of those projects and the properties surrounding them increases. And that is what funds the redevelopment agency."
Assemblyman Mortenson asked about the qualifications and backgrounds of the board members of the CCDC.
Peter Thomas, board member of Center City Development Corporation, answered Mr. Mortenson’s question. The board was composed of seven members, all professionals. They met several times monthly for 3 to 4 hours at a time. Mr. Mortenson wondered if a senior citizen or representative of a citizens’ group sat on the CCDC board.
Peter Thomas replied:
You’ve got to understand what the function of this committee is. It’s a working committee to use these various backgrounds, to attempt to come up with a cohesive long-term strategy on economic redevelopment of this area. As opposed to what had been taking place before, which I would characterize more as a transaction by transaction, haphazard spending of the very limited economic development dollars, to try to get an economic engine refired up again. It was not working, or at least not working to the efficiency that it could work, because it did not have a long term view of the necessary components that were going to be necessary to create the environment to allow the economy to once again be on the upswing instead of a downswing in the downtown core. That’s what we’re looking at.
Now as far as the representation you’re referring to, from citizens that may live in the area, senior citizens or whatever, all of our meetings are public meetings. They are open to the public. They are announced as public meetings are, and we certainly invite other people to come and give their comments at these meetings. But what we are working in is a think tank type environment to try to come up and put together the many facets that are necessary to put a viable plan together into a strategy that can be executed with the limited dollars that we have. I’d be glad to talk more about some of the particulars of that when I give you my remarks.
Mr. Mortenson replied, "Thank you. I hope I didn’t sound adversarial. I was just trying to get to the specific list of these things. Even though you do hold your meetings in a open meeting situation, to me, most of what government does in southern Nevada is driven by developers and development, and I look at this panel and I see the same thing. I understand what you’re saying. That you need expertise in this panel, but just holding public meetings and allowing a few citizens to testify and give a few remarks afterwards – to me just doesn’t hack it in the sense that we’re always being driven by developers and development. I’m sorry. That’s my opinion."
Peter Thomas said, "May I respond to that? This is not a developer-driven-by- any-means effort. None of the developers that even serve on this committee have any self-interest in any project in this area. The conflict of interest requirements to serve on this committee are very strict and when and if such a situation occurs, that member vacates his chair on the committee. We’re very sensitive to that. The second thing I’d like to re-emphasize is that we are not making any public decisions in this committee. We are simply attempting to develop a tailor-made strategy that can work in the environment of downtown Las Vegas, giving all the many facets and things that we have to deal with, that we then take and recommend to the city council. It is the city council in the normal function of an open meeting in the city council that makes any decisions that result in the expenditure of any funds."
Brent Hawkins, attorney for the Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency, and representing the Redevelopment Association of Nevada, gave a detailed explanation of the theory of redevelopment, and the CCDC’s objections to the provisions of A.B. 306.
Mr. Hawkins said:
There are in communities, usually in the older areas of communities, portions which are physically and economically distressed. These areas create problems for the entire community, such as crime, disease, declining tax base and so forth, and we call these areas blighted. Because of this blight, these areas are no longer attractive to investors. The costs are higher to develop there, property is already developed, there’s greater complexity involved in developing these areas, and therefore there’s greater risk. So it is necessary for some intervention by the public section in order to overcome the barriers to new investment and development and to get these blighted areas back on the road to economic health. That public sector intervention takes the form of focusing, planning and economic resources on the blighted areas. So the city will adopt a redevelopment plan for the area in question, which is the blighted area, that’s the focus, intense planning effort, and then the community redevelopment law also authorizes redevelopment agencies to use tax increment financing to assist with the redevelopment of these areas and Ms. Valentine has explained to you how tax increment works. It is basically using the property taxes that are generated by new development in the area after the redevelopment plan is adopted, to pay for the public cost of improving the area. Tax increment is the economic engine that drives revitalization. It’s important that you build that economic engine, that you invest in projects that will help build it, and then you can use the funds that are generated by that economic engine to pay for public costs, assisting such things as housing.
I want to focus on four fundamental basic problems that we have with A.B. 306. I have a letter that I would like to leave with the secretary of the committee which goes into all the gory details with the problems that we have (Exhibit I). Let me just touch briefly on four problems.
I’ll touch on eminent domain, citizen participation, housing and relocation.
1. Eminent domain. As you know, the bill adds a requirement that a redevelopment agency finds that the use of eminent domain is necessary in a specific case, if the exercise of that power would benefit a specific and unidentifiable private interest. Virtually any exercise of eminent domain by any public agency is going to benefit some private purpose. Redevelopment agencies, of course, are specifically authorized by statute to use eminent domain to assemble properties for resale to private developers. I think I can fairly say that the provisions of this bill will cover every exercise of eminent domain by a redevelopment agency because they’re virtually always going to be some private benefit involved. The legislature has found that the use of eminent domain in this situation is a public purpose and a public use. Let me read a few sentences from NRS [Nevada Revised Statues 279.424]: "Whenever the redevelopment of blight areas cannot be accomplished by private enterprise alone without public participation and assistance in the acquisition of land, in planning and financing of land assembly, and the work of clearance and in the making of improvements necessary therefore, it is in the public interest to employ the power of eminent domain to advance or extend public support, spend public funds for these purposes, and to provide a means by which blighted areas can be redeveloped or rehabilitated. That the redevelopment of blighted areas and the provision of appropriate continuing land use and construction policies in them constitute public uses and purposes for which public money may be advanced or expended and private property acquired, and are governmental functions of state concern in the interests of health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and of the communities in which the areas exist. That the necessity in the public interest for these provisions is declared to be a matter of legislative determination."
So you have on the books already in the community redevelopment law, a very strong policy statement that the use of eminent domain for redevelopment is to eliminate blight, is a public purpose. Now when these redevelopment plans are adopted, the city council is required to make a finding in the ordinance adopting the redevelopment plan, that the use of eminent domain is necessary in order to eliminate blight. So the specific finding that this bill would enact is already covered both in state statute and in the specific findings which the city council has to make when the redevelopment plan is adopted. And for that reason, we think it’s unnecessary.
Second concern with eminent domain provisions is that it really invites judges to second guess city council about what is in the public interest. These kinds of determinations, about what is in the public interest, have typically been made by legislative bodies. The judicial branch has always deferred to those. The reason is founded in some very fundamental constitutional concepts of separation of powers. It is simply not a judicial function to determine the issue of public interest. That’s a legislative function and in the absence of some gross abuse of the discretion of the legislative body, the courts generally will not get into that kind of weighing of public versus private interest.
2: Citizen participation: The bill authorizes redevelopment agencies to create residential plans and also to appoint these advisory committees. In counties over 100,000 a redevelopment agency must budget at least 5 percent of the redevelopment fund for use by these councils. The bill also requires redevelopment agencies in counties over 100,000 to appoint a citizens advisory board consisting of residents and property owners. The statement was made earlier – I trust that the author of A.B. 306 means what she says – but if you read the language in the bill, it simply doesn’t coincide with what was said earlier about who has the responsibility for carrying out these residential plans. If you look at section 3 of the bill, the first paragraph talks about the agency creating one or more residential plans for a redevelopment area. The second paragraph says, "the agency may include in its budget money for use by an advisory council to carry out the plan of the council." And in the third paragraph, it says that at least 5 percent of the money budgeted for redevelopment has to be budgeted for these councils, and then it says, "for use by such advisory councils to carry out the plans of the councils." It appears to be the language of the bill gives councils authority to adopt plans and carry them out and expend public funds in order to carry them out with no oversight by elected officials. That, we think, is a serious problem.
3: Housing: As was mentioned, in 1993, legislation was enacted requiring the city of Las Vegas, in particular, to dedicate 15 percent of the tax increment which it receives to low income housing. We must emphasize that the city of Las Vegas and the redevelopment agencies in general are not opposed to this. Housing is an important component of redevelopment. This bill, however, would expand this concept – this trust fund concept – to include not just tax increment but all funds received by redevelopment agencies. Now tax increment is by far the largest source of funds that redevelopment agencies receive, but redevelopment agencies have other sources of revenue. These include loans, and grants, and having this requirement in the law would mean the agency might have to break the terms and conditions under which the loan or the grant was made and use a portion of the funds for a different purpose that it was dedicated for. This bill would also make it impossible for a redevelopment agency to pledge the 15 percent of the taxes that have to be used for low income housing for debt service on bonds. Now there are a number of ways of using this 15 percent set aside. One of the effective ways of using it is to leverage it by pledging it to debt service on bonds. So if you pledge the 15 percent to the debt service on bonds then you need to take 15 percent of the bond proceeds and use that for affordable housing. That’s not the only way that you can use these funds, but it’s a good way to leverage the funds and we don’t see any reason why that ought to be eliminated.
4: Relocation assistance: Legislation was enacted in 1995 requiring public agencies, including redevelopment agencies, but it applies to all public agencies, to provide relocation assistance to people displaced by public projects. It’s important to recognize that before 1995, unless the project was federally funded, there was no such requirement. Many of the horror stories that you have heard and may hear about relocation occurred prior to 1995 when this legislation was added to the statutes. Redevelopment agencies have been following the law. We think it has been working well, and we think there’s no need to make the changes that this bill imposes. Specifically, this bill would make private parties jointly and severally liable for relocation assistance if they are working in cooperation with a redevelopment agency. We think that’s a bad idea because we don’t think private parties can be counted on to provide the same kind of assistance to people who are displaced – the same quality of assistance the public agencies can. Public agencies, in order to have a viable long-term redevelopment program, have to have long-term political support. One of the fastest ways to erode that political support is to try and skimp on relocation. Most redevelopment agencies take an approach where they will be very generous with relocation assistance. Private parties, on the other hand, have a much shorter focus. They’re looking at this particular project and they will generally try to reduce their financial exposure and so we think it’s better to keep the responsibility for providing relocation assistance with the public agencies and not try and spread or shift that responsibility to the private parties who are working in concert with redevelopment agencies.
Peter Thomas said:
Mr. Chairman, I began talking a little bit about what CCDC is doing. I’d like to follow up with that. Before I start I’d like to – give you a little bit of my other background, when I give some opinions here it would be helpful to you to know the perspective that I’m giving those opinions from. I am also involved in economic development, both on the NDA (Nevada Development Authority) and the Commission on Economic Development for the state. I am chairman of the Metropolitan Police Department Committee on Fiscal Affairs for Clark County. I am a managing partner in Thomas & Mack Company which is a major commercial developer in the county areas of southern Nevada.
CCDC is a blueprint that we came up with patterned after a similar plan that was very successful in the San Diego area, where a group of businessmen from various fields as I have mentioned got together with a long-term strategy, developed a long-term strategy, developed the method for implementing that strategy, to bring all the various aspects, which we can discuss, of the successful redevelopment plan together. This resulted in the complete turnaround of what was a blighted area far in excess of what exists in the core of Las Vegas at this time, namely the central San Diego area. If you’re familiar with Horton Plaza and the Gaslight District and what that used to be like prior to what you see now, it’s been quite a transformation. That was the blueprint for CCDC.
We were charged by the city council to work on this plan, to develop a way to maximize the leverage from the very limited redevelopment dollars that are available, to execute this plan, and even down to the detail of structuring particular deals, so that the city, when it spent its dollars, could have some assurance of getting those dollars returned to it when that project was successful. One of those projects is the Neonopolis Project, which Mike Forche will talk about in some detail.
That’s a little of the reason for CCDC. A very important aspect that I mentioned is we have the luxury of being in a planning environment where we can have a long-term perspective. That does not seem to be the effect of environment that is present, if all these decisions are made all the time in a political environment where it’s more of a transaction-by-transaction basis, as we saw some evidence of that happening in recent history in the Las Vegas area. While individual projects are good, they do not leverage the short dollars in a way that really creates the synergy to get all of the aspects of economic development the way you can if you have an overall plan.
When I became involved in this effort, I assumed it was just another type of economic development and I am here to tell you that it’s much more complicated than straight economic development. I would compare it with the difference between checkers and chess. Redevelopment involves not only trying to change the economic dynamic that is present, but it also involves trying to change the social dynamic of what’s taking place. We have a situation in the core of Las Vegas where the present dynamic is people are deserting the city to move to the suburbs, both to work and to live. We’re trying to reverse both of those aspects. We’re not interested in just solely looking at a commercial development aspect in redeveloping the downtown core of Las Vegas; and this is where I appreciate Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s focus on the residential and neighborhood aspects.
They are very important aspects of redevelopment. Redevelopment will not succeed without that aspect. But it needs to come into play in balance with the other factors. We have a situation where we are very short on redevelopment dollars and that’s why our focus right now is trying to create a commercial base of development that will increase the tax base and thereby increase the redevelopment dollars that we can then turn around and leverage into other things.
I would venture to say that in over a 10-year period, we will devote more than 15 percent of economic development dollars to the residential aspect of this plan. We need to have people returning to live in the core of Las Vegas where they work so we have a neighborhood-type environment where people are out on the streets at night, where people shop, buy groceries in the area they live – all of those kind of things are part of the plan we’re looking at developing.
Let me talk about flexibility. One of the frustrating things we have in this effort is there are a lot of constraints on our ability. What flexibility we have we need every bit of, and one of the problems with this bill is it reins in the flexibility even further than what we have. The life blood of redevelopment is money, like in most things. It’s in very short supply. We need to have the flexibility to use it where we can leverage it to the greatest degree to cause a turnaround as quickly as possible so that the flow of these dollars will increase as the tax base increases, and provide more dollars so the whole plan can come together.
This bill, if enacted, would put more controls on our ability to effect this redevelopment, as well as cause precious dollars to be spent on overhead functions, thereby lessening our ability to use the dollars to generate product. To spend more money on the overhead of various committees that may be created when you don't have that money, I think you can see how that effect is on the product.
Where do we spend the money? How does it interface with individual interests?
The situation in Las Vegas – in downtown Las Vegas right now – is the risk/reward ratio for a developer to come in, either residential or commercial, is not there. The developer is much better off going to the suburban areas of the county to spend his money in terms of the risk he takes with those dollars and the return he’s going to get with those dollars. The difference between what is present in Las Vegas in the environment and what is present in the county, we call a "gap". Okay, that gap that needs to be filled is to put Las Vegas downtown city core on an even playing field with the county, as far as future development is concerned. That gap basically comes down to being filled with dollars. That is why, to get the Sun Plaza, for instance, when that came about, or Neonopolis, we need to put money into that to close that gap so the developer will come in with his capital and we try to maximize that ratio – and Mike can tell you what our ongoing ratio is – but it’s about 8 or 9 to 1, I believe, of private dollars that we are leveraging with with redevelopment dollars to begin this process.
When we look at the condemnation aspect – actually, in our experience in the core of Las Vegas, condemnation has been used very infrequently. It is clearly a last resort. It is used – or even thought about being used – only when you have a situation where there’s no other way to accomplish the assemblage of land. Let me divert for a minute. The city of Las Vegas was laid out many years ago and the city blocks in Las Vegas are split up into very small lots. Any one of these lots nowadays is not enough to build anything on. In our effort to try to create projects of size, projects that will be catalyst to cause other development, it is necessary to acquire a bunch of these lots and put them together for a project. In our experience, what happens is in private negotiations you will go through and you will acquire these lots one by one, and you get down to about the last one, two, or three, and all of a sudden people see a real value to being the holdout guy on that lot, because here’s the city or a private developer who’s acquired all this land, and now he gets down to the last guy in the block and all of a sudden this guy’s property’s worth five times more than the guy next to him. Because the project doesn’t happen if you don’t buy him out. It’s – I don’t want to say extortion – but this has some aspects of that. In those situations, and only in those situations, where the project’s life is even threatened to happen, it’s the only time you look at a condemnation aspect.
Finally, I’m a little surprised when I read this bill that the legislature would be involving itself with an issue that we basically elect city officials to look at. They’re on the job on a daily basis looking at these same issues. We elect these people to spend the city money in ways that are best for the city, and if they don’t do their job we elect someone else. To have those funding decisions overridden on a state level by a legislature that meets every 2 years in a situation where funding priorities change much more frequently than that, to me, does not make any sense.
Mike Forche, President of CCDC, said:
I have a staff of one executive, one project manager, and two clerical people. We were begun, as Peter indicated to you, about 2 years ago. We have an operating agreement with the city of Las Vegas to manage 600 acres in the downtown redevelopment area, which is the central core of the city. Our first effort was to survey the area, become an urban anthropologist, stand on top of buildings, stand on top of parking garages, see where people go, what they do, what kind of things are needed, what kind of things could be economically feasible, what would be a job-creating engine, what would be possibilities of creating housing. After that exercise ended, it was determined that one of the key components that was missing on Fremont Street in downtown – this is post Fremont Street experience, of course – is urban retail. Phenomenon in the United States and a lot of city cores is a new type of development called an urban entertainment center, components consisting of movie theaters, food establishments, retail, and parking. These are a development phenomenon that has taken place over the past 5 years. Las Vegas doesn’t need any more slot machines. The Indian tribes have gambling. Downtown needed a place to stay other than look at the canopy for fifteen minutes and applaud the show and leave. We needed a component that would hold people and a commercial developer looks at your ability – the longer people stay, the more they spend. That was our driving effort to obtain a project like that. Real estate, as you know, in 1999 is tremendously more complicated than it was 10 years ago. It’s securitized. Wall Street firms are involved in funding. You no longer go to lunch with your banker and get a loan if you’re a developer. It’s very complicated. It’s tedious, it takes effort, and there’s a large team that has to be in place for a large project to be successful. We became part of that team. We went out and recruited a developer who was interested, but he really didn’t see any way of making the project work without municipal assistance. We encouraged him to assemble the block. He did. He was very successful. A few parcels we helped him with. We acquired one parcel – that was a key parcel – and we assembled an entire block – some 13 parcels, 11 leases. We relocated 12 residents, and that relocation expense was $80,000. The entire cost of the block was $23 million. In order to encourage people to sell their property, we effected 1031 exchanges, and we came up with several creative ways of acquiring real estate. Some of these people owned property. They owned a vacant building, they have no income. We showed them how they could take the value of owning that building and convert it to income by acquiring another piece of property that had a credit tenant. That was one of the creative things that CCDC did in order to effect this project.
When all the pieces were in place, we knew the municipal component was a parking facility, that is, would be publicly owned and publicly utilized and all the revenues of that would come to the public. We became the acquirer of the properties. We stepped into the developer’s shoes, sold bonds to buy the land and build a parking structure. In return, we sold him the air rights above the parking structure for $17.4 million, which is what he would have paid for a site in a suburban location to build a project of this size. We backed into the economics of the transaction. The city is a partner in the project. The developer needed a rate of return of 12 percent. We negotiated with him. It ended up being a 12.8 percent on the assets that were expended to build the project, and the city split with him 25:75 all amounts over that. So the city facilitated a project that they are a partner in, the city owns the land still, the city owns the parking garage, gets all the revenues of the garage. We sold the developer the air rights. So on Fremont Street, as you know, we’re competing with gaming and government. A private developer’s competing with gaming for site. When you put a pro forma together on a retail project that has a lot of wonderful aspects to add to your downtown, you still got to compete for that high cost of land. We were able to integrate a project into a formula whereby this developer – and I might add, the lender is Prudential Insurance Company of America – committed $61 million to this project – and that’s new money into our city. I don’t have to tell you the expanse and scope of Prudential’s appetite for real estate development. Having them come to downtown Las Vegas and invest that kind of money is a substantial win.
All the projects will not be that complicated, I think that’s an example of how the private sector can work with government and implement projects. We understand how to negotiate; with the years of experience on our board we know how to negotiate with developers. We understand the pitfalls and the prospects of obtaining financing. The difficult, difficult process. Slow process. It sometimes doesn’t fit into the political cycle of elections. It’s long and drawn-out. We feel we’re well equipped to be an implementer and a project manager, even after the transaction struck, staying on it every single day, every minute, making sure that developer is doing what he said he would do. (See Exhibit J for a brochure on the Neonopolis project.)
Our goals are to create a downtown that’s diverse and has much more economic development potential for the future. Hopefully we’ll get to a point where government won’t have to be involved.
Assemblyman Lee did not see A.B. 306 as a major eminent domain bill. He raised the question of offsite improvements in his assembly district, and wondered if the ongoing improvement programs there were funded by the neighborhood associations. He did not think property taxes had increased enough to account for the ongoing work.
Ms. Valentine referred to a spreadsheet (Exhibit H) which showed that several million dollars worth of projects such as Mr. Lee mentioned were funded from CCDC’s general fund. No special assessment had been levied on the property owners.
Mr. Lee asked if money was available to fund the offsite needs in the community of Las Vegas. Ms. Valentine replied affirmatively and indicated the redevelopment agency would prefer to address outside improvement issues such as repaving, street lighting, and public safety.
In response to a question from Assemblywoman Gibbons concerning the history of the seven-member CCDC board, Peter Thomas indicated it was modeled after similar organizations in other cities. The redevelopment model that most closely paralleled Las Vegas was San Diego. The Center City Development Corporation was created by the Las Vegas City Council.
Ms. Gibbons needed assurance the committee would remain intact "after the pressure was off." Mr. Thomas replied the committee was not created in response to any bill of the legislature. Rather it was created in response to efforts by the city council to find a more efficient way to redevelop the downtown core of Las Vegas. Ms. Gibbons asked Mr. Thomas to redefine "blight". Mr. Thomas referred the question to Brent Hawkins, who cited the Nevada Revised Statues 279.388. Blight was "an area in which one or more of a defined list of physical or economic deficiencies or obstacles exist." A.B. 306 amended the definition.
Assemblywoman Parnell was concerned the membership of the CCDC board consisted of seven professionals with no representative from the neighborhoods being redeveloped. "In A.B. 306, do you have an objection to just the formation of the advisory council made up of citizens in the area, or are you objecting primarily to its possible administrative capability?" she asked.
The role of the CCDC was essentially that of a consultant, Mr. Thomas replied. Did the council have more authority than those who came and spoke as residents, Ms. Parnell inquired. Mr. Thomas reiterated the CCDC had no authority to spend money. It simply made recommendations to the city council.
Ms. Valentine elaborated. The CCDC was not a substitute for neighborhood representation. Instead there was a neighborhood group, the Downtown Central Development Committee (DCDC) whose chairman attended every city council meeting. It was created in response to earlier perceptions of the city’s failures at redevelopment.
Ms. Parnell wondered if CCDC had a problem with the language in the bill that referred to advisory councils, or a problem with their potential administrative capacity in carrying out the plan. Yes, Ms. Valentine replied. The reason for the objections was the language tended to shift administrative costs from managing advisory councils into the redevelopment agency and away from the general fund.
Mr. Hawkins emphasized Las Vegas redevelopment agencies were not opposed to the idea of citizen participation. To what CCDC objected was the sort of "one size fits all" approach used in the bill. He hoped the redevelopment agencies could retain the flexibility to tailor citizen participation to the specific needs of each program.
Assemblywoman Segerblom felt housing redevelopment was a good project and asked Mr. Hawkins if there was cooperation with Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Redevelopment agencies had multiple sources of funds to use to assist housing, Mr. Hawkins said. Those funds included purely local funds such as tax increments, and the use of federal funds was rare.
Assemblywoman Tiffany expressed concern with the use of eminent domain to take private property and turn it over to another private person. She liked Ms. Lusk’s amendment and asked Ms. Valentine if she and her group would have problems with it.
Eminent domain should be used as a tool of last resort, Ms. Valentine replied. Sometimes it was the critical link in the chain for a project and for a project to move forward, eminent domain was needed.
Ms. Tiffany said the bill called for written findings and specified needs. Brent Hawkins responded by citing Nevada Revised Statutes 279.448, "Without the consent of an owner, an agency may not acquire any real property on which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use unless such building requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization or rehabilitation." Those protections were already in the law, he said. He reiterated his previous remarks that the use of eminent domain to acquire private property for redevelopment, or for conveyance to private developers for development, constituted public use in blighted areas to eliminate blight. His concern with the bill language was it could invite judicial review of public versus private benefit. He felt it should remain a legislative function.
Assemblywoman Freeman inquired about CCDC’s bonding capabilities, and if redevelopment agencies lasted 30 years or until bonds were paid off. The Las Vegas redevelopment plan was adopted in 1986, Mr. Hawkins replied. The limitation in the statutes applied to plans, not agencies. Two alternate forms existed; the city council could declare itself to be the redevelopment agency, or the city council could appoint 5 or 7 residents to serve as the board, a form not used much in Nevada.
Ms. Freeman wondered if the agency had any bonding capacity left. Virginia Valentine said the increment as it existed today was allocated between the debt service and housing obligations. If bonds were not paid off at the end of 30 years, what were the agency's responsibilities to the community, Ms. Freeman asked. "Do we just have this agency here we can’t get rid of because they’re always bonded up to the hilt?"
Brent Hawkins explained the agency would not be able to sell bonds whose repayment extended past the termination of the agency. No one would buy them.
Assemblyman Mortenson asked Mr. Hawkins if the protections of which he spoke had been in place during the Pappas situation. Mr. Hawkins responded affirmatively. Mr. Mortensen opined if the law had not changed, there was still insufficient protection under the law. He applauded what the city of Las Vegas was trying to do, but wondered if it was not being overzealous. He felt there should be more input from neighborhoods, and that A.B. 306 provided protection for people whose property might be taken in the "zealous desire to redevelop."
Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8, testified in favor of A.B. 306. She addressed the sections of the bill that dealt with affordable housing, and was stunned by the need for affordable housing in Las Vegas and how vulnerable tenants were to eviction. She studied innovative approaches in other cities, especially San Diego and the east coast. Many cities used redevelopment approaches to improve affordable housing.
The Las Vegas redevelopment agency was not interested in affordable housing in 1993, Ms. Buckley continued. The agency told her the money was needed for the Fremont Street project. She sponsored a bill, carried by someone else, which passed. The bill required 15 percent of the redevelopment agency’s funds be used for affordable housing.
Ms. Buckley felt A.B. 306 would close a loophole and cited an example. Several years before she had called the redevelopment agency and asked how much money was available for housing. She heard of a proposed project that, with a little help, could be financed. The agency told her no money was available. Two weeks later, Ms. Buckley continued, there was a headline in the newspaper that said, "REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO GIVE $6 MILLION TO A NEW PROJECT." Ms. Buckley called and asked why no funds were available for a nonprofit project, and 2 weeks later $6 million was available. The response was, "Well, the city of Las Vegas is loaning the redevelopment agency $6 million and the redevelopment agency will pay the city back, so we don’t have to use any of the funds set aside for housing."
Ms. Buckley discovered the city was taking the position that any float agreements, grants, or loans were not subject to the 15 percent. Housing and economic development went hand in hand, she concluded. By closing the loopholes in the statutes, "float" agreements could not be used as an exception to circumvent the affordable housing set-aside.
Charles Rosenow, Economic Development Manager, City of Reno Redevelopment Agency, testified in opposition to A.B. 306. The bill proposed to fix things that were not broken, contained vague and conflicting language, and could produce endless property litigation and confused administration, he said. He felt it would seriously impede Reno’s efforts to redevelop the downtown area. Exhibit K is an outline of Mr. Rosenow’s remarks.
Only one condemnation case reached trial since 1983. It involved a foreign national who bought a vacant hotel and "sat" on it for 10 years. The agency proposed renovating the building into low income housing for artists.
The Reno Redevelopment Agency functioned with a 13-member Citizens Advisory Committee that met monthly. A.B. 306 narrowly defined who could sit on such a committee, and would result in less citizen participation.
The agency’s budget was $8.2 million, of which $5.8 million was debt service. Salaries were $404,000 for 1998-99. The bill required the agency to set aside 5 percent or $410,000 for each citizen council.
Section 7 of the bill deleted the power of the city to delegate redevelopment work to city staff, which would increase costs. Section 9 seemed to confer relocation benefits to occupants of buildings already illegally occupied. Mr. Rosenow wondered if the bill would confer benefits on squatters and tenants of so-called "crack" houses the city had closed as public nuisances. Provisions in section 16 for long-term relocation benefits for month-to-month tenants would additionally increase costs.
"We don’t want to support this bill," Mr. Rosenow concluded.
Chairman Bache noted the Assembly would convene at 11 a.m. He asked that questions be held until Friday, March 12, at which time the hearing on A.B. 306 would be continued.
Chairman Bache introduced a Bill Draft Request (BDR).
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 22-556.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bache commented on A.B. 306. He recalled from the 69th Legislative Session most local governments who testified had indicated eagerness to work with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani in resolving the issues brought forth in A.B. 306. When he looked at the list of people who indicated they wished to testify in opposition, it looked to him as though there had been no real effort to try to resolve the problems. He was disappointed. "As Ms. Giunchigliani stated in her testimony, no matter how she amended this bill, it’s going to be unsatisfactory, I think, to the various people involved."
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Charlotte Tucker,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: