The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Wednesday, March 17, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 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.

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:

Christina R. Giunchigliani, District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

James F. Mulhall, Jr., Vice President for Governmental Affairs,

Rob Joiner, Redevelopment Director and Principal Planner,

Alan H. Glover, Clerk-Recorder, Carson City, Nevada, and

Myla C. Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division,

George William Trent Flint,

• BDR 20-1629 – Revises provisions relating to certain county fair and recreation boards (A.B. 599).

Chairman Bache requested the committee be given some explanation of the Bill Draft Request (BDR) before the committee voted on the pending motion.

James F. Mulhall, Jr., Vice President for Governmental Affairs, Nevada Resort Association, testified. He explained BDR 20-1629 would provide an opportunity to discuss the composition of Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. He asserted Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority constituted an important economic development tool for southern Nevada. Its main function was to promote tourism and the convention business in Las Vegas. Nevada Resort Association was concerned about the composition of the authority, an issue the bill created through BDR 20-1629 would address.

Mr. Neighbors asked why it was necessary to ask the legislature to resolve the issue. Mr. Mulhall replied because the composition of Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority was established by statute, any requests for changes in that composition must be presented to the legislature. He stated Nevada Resort Association attempted to reach an agreement with other involved parties as to how the authority should be composed.

Kara Kelley, Senior Vice President, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified. She stated Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce represented more than 5,700 businesses in southern Nevada and believed the bill BDR 20-1629 would create was unnecessary.

Ms. Kelley said she believed Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce was remiss in failing to educate the legislature regarding the significant role the chamber played in the development of both its community and the resort industry. She asserted since Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce was founded, in 1911, its leaders had been pioneers in the community. She cited a number of things accomplished under their leadership.

Ms. Kelley stated Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce helped create Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority in 1953. In 1967, the legislature codified the process for appointing members of Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and gave Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce the right to nominate members for all five "private" seats on the authority. She asserted the individuals who occupied those private seats represented a cross section of the community.

Ms. Kelley maintained although Nevada Resort Association contributed significantly to the economic well-being of the resort industry, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce made significant contributions to all aspects of the tourism industry. She explained the chamber of commerce represented: the majority of casino-resort hotel properties, including those which chose not to be members of Nevada Resort Association; non-gaming resorts, which were increasing in number; motels and other lodging establishments that played an integral part in serving the 30 million people who visited southern Nevada each year; and hundreds of businesses which made it possible for resorts to serve their customers’ needs. Therefore, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce was the best and most effective body to participate in appointing members of Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. The current appointment process had worked well for 32 years, and Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce believed the legislation the legislature was asked to process, through BDR 20-1629, was absolutely unnecessary.

Assemblyman Humke declared he found it ironic the committee was postponing consideration of land use planning issues and issues important to county recorders while Ms. Kelley argued about a bill which, as yet, had not been introduced.

Samuel P. McMullen, representing Las Vegas Chamber Commerce, testified. He said if the committee waited until March 22, 1999, to introduce BDR 20-1629, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and Nevada Resort Association might be able to agree upon an acceptable bill.

Mr. Neighbors commented every bill brought before the committee through committee introduction was heard whether committee members did or did not like the bill.

Chairman Bache reminded the committee a vote in favor of committee introduction of a bill did not bind any committee member to a position on the merits of that bill.

Chairman Bache expressed displeasure at having to hold a hearing on a bill before that bill was even introduced. He said some committee members told him they were " . . . really being wrenched . . . as far as what position they took on introducing the bill." He contended the appropriate time to lobby on a bill was after it was introduced.

Chairman Bache called for a vote on the pending motion for committee introduction of BDR 20-1629.

Christina R. Giunchigliani, District 9, testified. She submitted a proposed amendment to A.B. 388 (Exhibit C).

Ms. Giunchigliani briefly explained various sections of A.B. 388.

• Section 1 amended Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.030 to allow the town advisory board of an unincorporated town in a county with a population of 100,000 or more to act as the town’s planning commission.

• Section 2 amended NRS 278.150, as to counties with a population in excess of 400,000, to require master plans to include everything listed in NRS 278.160.

• Section 3 caused the word "town" to be added to the provisions of NRS set forth in that section.

• Section 4 caused the word "town" to be added to the provisions of NRS set forth in that section. In addition, subsection 3 established a requirement that all master plans discussed in NRS 278.170 must include everything listed in NRS 278.160.

• Section 5 required notice to school boards to be provided by certified mail.

• Section 6 amended NRS 278.210 to require a school board must be given 30 days notice, by certified mail, of any hearing on a proposed master plan or proposed amendment to a master plan which would affect property adjacent to school property. In addition, Ms. Giunchigliani said it amended NRS 278.210 by " . . . requiring notice to the affected areas, changing it from 500 feet in all directions, trying to get a circumference issue rather than just 500 feet from where the property currently is."

Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out, "Drafting did add an issue regarding 100 parcels," and explained she wanted to ensure notice was given all property owners in outlying areas where, possibly, no parcels of property would be located near an affected area. She asserted at some point in time, a master plan or amendment to a master plan would create an effect on such property owners that would not be created if their property was located in a city or (urbanized area of) a county.

• Section 6, subsection 6, restricted to four the number of times a master plan could be amended in a year.

• Section 7 expanded the notification area discussed in that section from 500 feet to 1,320 feet and required notice be given to the school board of an affected area.

• Section 8 expanded the notification area discussed in that section from 300 feet to 660 feet. However, if an alcohol or sex oriented business was involved, the notification area was then expanded to 1,320 feet.

• Section 9 mandated members of town boards undergo training.

• Sections 11 and 12 dealt with the duties of a planning commission.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained the purpose of the proposed amendment (Exhibit C), which was referred to as the "Dolan amendment," was to authorize the governing body of a city or county to require a developer or sub-divider to dedicate land for use in creating infrastructure or affordable housing. A governing body requiring such a dedication must determine there was an essential nexus between the dedication and a legitimate public purpose.

Ms. Giunchigliani said some things she requested were omitted from the proposed amendment (Exhibit C), such as language clarifying state law did not allow either a land use guide or development guide to be deemed a comprehensive master plan. Also omitted was language requiring all governmental entities to use the same definitions for master planning, zoning and land use purposes. Use of uniform definitions would aid both businesses and residential property owners to understand the implications of a master plan or amendment to a master plan.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she also asked for language requiring submission of a business plan for any project approved " . . . under an exemption, even though it was nonconforming . . . " to demonstrate the project was viable. As a condition of project approval, the financial plan must establish funding for rehabilitation or restoration of the project site if the project failed. She suggested if a local government approved a project but failed to secure funding with which to implement restoration of the project site, it be allowed 1 year to fund restoration.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained her constituents expressed concern about the eyesores which sometimes resulted when a project was not completed. She suggested their concern might be addressed by requiring both a business plan to demonstrate a project’s viability and funding to restore the project site if the project was not completed.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated she attempted to address requests made by several town boards. However, it was possible A.B. 388 encompassed far more than she intended. She pointed out there were 15 town boards in Clark County, and it was not reasonable to make A.B. 388 apply to all of them. It was her intent to deal with town boards in Nevada’s more rural areas, and it was suggested to her making town boards in rural areas the planning commissions for those areas would reduce the number of processes developers had to go through when planning projects in rural areas.

Ms. Giunchigliani maintained training was necessary for town boards. Too often town boards were comprised of volunteers who were not given adequate information about their duties. As a result, notices might not be properly posted, and proposed projects might be either approved or denied inappropriately. A.B. 388 attempted to address training for town boards.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she believed it necessary to amend notice requirements. She asserted the existing 500 feet requirement was no longer adequate, and 660 feet would be more appropriate.

Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out the last section of the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) addressed a request by several town boards that their members be elected rather than appointed.

Assemblywoman Freeman asked what was meant by "Dolan amendment." Ms. Giunchigliani replied there was a U.S. Supreme Court case entitled Dolan vs. Tigard. She explained Mrs. Dolan, the owner of a hardware store in Tigard, Oregon, applied for a permit to redevelop her property. The city’s planning commission granted the permit on condition Mrs. Dolan dedicate a portion of her property as a public green way, to improve a storm drainage system, and another portion as a pedestrian and bicycle path. The planning commission found the dedication of property for a green way to be reasonably related to Mrs. Dolan’s request to redevelop her property. Mrs. Dolan maintained the dedications exacted by the planning commission as a condition of approving her permit were not related to her proposed property development and constituted a taking of her property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States’ constitution. The Supreme Court found in order to exact dedications of property, there must be a finding of legitimate public use for the property.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she believed the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) tightened existing statutory language to enable local governments to " . . . make those types of interpretations within the legal code."

Mrs. Freeman said in spite of much opposition, a southern California developer was able to persuade Reno’s city council to issue a permit for construction of a housing development in a wetland area. When a flood occurred in Reno, a year or two previously, the housing development was substantially flooded, and it cost taxpayers much money to repair the damage.

Mrs. Freeman said there were plans to construct a large development in an area north of Reno which, historically, experienced water shortages. However, no plans had been made to ensure water would be available for the development. She asked whether, in the situation she described, the language of A.B. 388 which discussed project viability would allow a planning commission to deny a developer a permit if he did not prove water would be made available for his proposed development. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she thought if the language was tightened it would allow that. She believed under current law, issues of health, safety, and insufficient water were grounds for a planning commission to deny a permit for a development project.

Mrs. Freeman asked how town board members’ training would be funded. Ms. Giunchigliani responded Clark County assigned a staff member to each of its town boards, and it made sense to utilize those staff members to provide training. She suggested it might be wise to assemble all town board members for joint training to establish consistency in the way they interpreted statutes and master plans and preclude an individual town board from unreasonably denying requests.

Mrs. Freeman asked whether A.B. 388 allowed a local government to require a developer to dedicate property for schools. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she was not certain. However, the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) might establish increased authority for such a requirement. She indicated it was probable local governments currently had authority to make such requirements.

Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out sometimes the site a developer chose to set aside for a school might be one a school district was unable to use or one which did not conform to the local master plan. Also, people purchasing homes might be misled by their belief a school would be built on a particular site.

Mrs. Freeman observed A.B. 388 involved schools only to the extent of its notification requirements and the possibility it might allow local governments to require developers to dedicate land for school sites although those local governments would have no voice in choosing the sites. Ms. Giunchigliani responded, "Not in this legislation does it mandate that." She pointed out A.B. 388 dealt with master plans and amendments to master plans.

Mrs. Freeman stated she was certain the committee would hear comment on the proposal to limit amendments to master plans to four per year.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she originally planned to limit amendments to master plans to two per year. She stated she did not want to restrict proper planning. However, her constituents did not believe master plans needed to modified many, many times each year. Constant modification of master plans created frustration and a lack of trust in local government, and reasonable restrictions should be imposed on how often modifications were made.

Mrs. Freeman concurred with Ms. Giunchigliani’s last comments.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel pointed out individual counties had the discretion to decide whether members of their town boards were to be elected, rather than appointed. Therefore, if a town board wanted its members elected, it should seek county government’s permission for that to happen.

Ms. Giunchigliani conceded Ms. Von Tobel was correct. She said through section 12 of A.B. 388, she sought to provide options. Town boards could be allowed to act as planning commissions or, at the least, could be provided training and allowed to have their members elected.

Ms. Von Tobel suggested A.B. 388 could be a companion bill to Assembly Bill 142, which provided for an elected town board form of government. She pointed out 15 of Nevada’s counties currently had the ability to utilize that form of government; only Washoe County and Clark County did not.

Ms. Von Tobel stated Clark County had done a good job, during the previous 6 months, in providing training for its town boards. She pointed out some non-rural communities believed some of the issues with which they dealt were rural issues. She asserted such communities would want to be included under those provisions of A.B. 388 which would allow their governing bodies to act as planning commissions, and care should be exercised not to exclude those communities.

Ms. Giunchigliani concurred with Ms. Von Tobel. She observed some towns contained open spaces, and it was important to many people to preserve the rural feeling created by those open spaces.

Ms. Giunchigliani maintained the heart of A.B. 388 was its provision for training town board members. She indicated she became frustrated when she and her husband tried to deal with " . . . an issue on Mount Charleston . . .. " She asserted numerous changes to master planning and zoning requirements and numerous statutory requirements made comprehension difficult.

Ms. Giunchigliani said although she did not want to excessively dictate to local governments, some consistency and uniformity among local governments was needed. In reference to allowing town boards to act as planning commissions, the chairman of one town board expressed the idea it might not be necessary to make people go through as many procedures as they currently had to go through to have permits approved. Also, if town boards were more familiar with they law, they would be more comfortable making decisions to approve or deny projects.

Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated it was not her intention that all 15 of Clark County’s town boards engage in the entire planning commission process. She believed town boards would be pleased if the legislature approved the training provisions of A.B. 388 and, in addition, allowed town board members to be elected.

Ms. Von Tobel remarked it was very important to town boards that applicants for land use permits approach them first.

Ms. Giunchigliani concurred and said she requested A.B. 388 include language to prevent town boards being circumvented.

Ms. Von Tobel observed currently, applicants could bypass town boards entirely and present their applications directly to county planning commissions.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked Ms. Giunchigliani to elaborate on the meaning of the language "the commission shall not amend a subject of the master plan," set forth on page 6, line 15, of A.B. 388. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out the preceding section of the bill required master plans for counties with a population in excess of 400,000 must include all components listed in NRS 278.160; those components constituted the subjects of the master plan. She assumed the bill’s drafters employed the language Mr. Mortenson cited to refer to the components listed in NRS 278.160. Although statute was currently permissive, A.B. 388 would mandate a master plan include all those components. She said, "Because if you were to accept that in the earlier sections, then for master plan amendments, anything that affected any of those in 278.160 . . . then that would parallel back to everything that’s listed in the master plan."

Mr. Mortenson expressed concern about situations in which a commissioner representing a specific area might establish a land use guide for that area, and a subsequently elected commissioner might entirely revise that guide. He indicated such a situation occurred in his town. He contended homeowners, when they bought their homes, did not have the security of knowing what would or would not be permitted on adjacent properties. He objected to use of the word "guide" and believed land use guides should be designated "land use plans" because the purpose for which land was to be used should be firmly established.

Ms. Giunchigliani responded she believed "subsection 6" would begin to address Mr. Mortenson’s concern. She said she did not believe Clark County’s actions in dividing Las Vegas Valley into five sections and subsequently developing land use guides conformed with the statutory requirement to develop a comprehensive master plan. She envisioned tightening statutory language to establish that a "guide" did not constitute a "plan." She suggested Clark County residents were deprived of the ability to sue (on land use issues) by the fact the county utilized a "guide," divided into several sections, as its master plan. She contended the county’s utilization of its various guides tended to result in zoning changes being adopted without proper, prior public notice.

Ms. Giunchigliani indicated when she dealt with the Mount Charleston issue, she was frustrated by use of color codes, in land use guides, to reflect zoning. The frustration arose when she attempted to ascertain at what point in time one color was replaced with another to reflect a land use change.

Mr. Mortenson pointed out statute required county commissions to adhere to their county’s master plans in the absence of truly extenuating circumstances for doing otherwise. He said when he criticized a particular commission for violating its land use guide many times a week, he was told the guide was not a master plan. He asked Ms. Giunchigliani whether it was her understanding a land use guide was a piece of a master plan and, therefore, something to which reasonable adherence must be given.

In response, Ms. Giunchigliani recited the following language from NRS 278.150, "The planning commission shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term, general plan for the physical development of the city, county, or region in which the commission’s judgement bears relation to the planning thereof. This plan must be known as the master plan and so prepared, in all or portions thereof." She said in light of the changes in Clark County’s land use development guides, those guides conformed to the requirement for a comprehensive master plan.

Mr. Mortenson concurred with Ms. Giunchigliani’s conclusion and said he believed the purpose of a land use guide was to allow changes to be made to something which should have been a master plan.

Assemblyman Lee asked Ms. Giunchigliani to specify her dissatisfaction with what occurred regarding Mount Charleston. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she was pleased with the final outcome of the Mount Charleston matter. She suggested the Mount Charleston issue related to the issue of training town board members. She explained color code map markings, designating two properties as rural properties, were changed to designate those properties as commercial. Many community members believed the change was made in error. They claimed: 1) they pointed out the error prior to the adoption of the land use guide; 2) the proposed zoning change was not property noticed; and 3) the zoning should not have been changed. The property involved had never been zoned as commercial property previously and was not designated as commercial property in one particular document. However, by the time the fifth or sixth draft of that document was completed, the property was reflected as commercial property. Ultimately, the planning commission ruled the map would revert to display its original intent.

Mr. Lee asked whether the county commission appointed the planning commission member who represented residents of the Mount Charleston area. Ms. Giunchigliani replied affirmatively.

Discussions ensued between Mr. Lee and Ms. Giunchigliani regarding to which commissions and boards Mount Charleston area residents had access.

Ms. Giunchigliani contended so many groups and commissions were involved in the planning process it was difficult for the average citizen to acquire a resolution to a problem. She maintained a complaint was expressed a planning commission was controlled more by people involved in land development than by average citizens. Through A.B. 388, it was envisioned town boards in rural areas would constitute the planning commissions for those areas; therefore, any land use project affecting a rural community would be presented to that community’s town board. If the individual who presented the project did not like the result he obtained from the town board, he could appeal directly to the county commission rather than having to approach another planning commission.

Mr. Lee asked whether he was correct even if the things Ms. Giunchigliani described were done, the final outcome of an application for a land use project remained within the discretion of a county commission. Ms. Giunchigliani replied affirmatively.

Mr. Lee observed regardless of what the legislature did, if a county commission was not comprised of the appropriate people, current problems would continue to exist.

Ms. Giunchigliani said Mr. Lee’s observation might be correct. However, the guidelines and balances established by A.B. 388 would make it easier for a commission to listen to its constituents rather than be unduly influenced to approve a development which might not be in the best interest of the community.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated every statute dealing with land use and master planning was created by the legislature. Therefore, the legislature had every right to modify those statutes, and she would like to see the legislature make land use and planning simpler and more easily understood. She contended doing that might sometimes involve creating better notice requirements or providing for better training. It might also mean reducing the number of review boards involved.

Mr. Lee said his concern was the legislature could do all the things Ms. Giunchigliani discussed and still not provide citizens with the control over land use and planning they wanted to acquire through their commissioners, councilmen, or other governing officials. He suggested, "Sometimes putting the control at that point might be the better control point."

Ms. Giunchigliani contended a citizen’s ability to work with his commissioner could not be established by legislation. However, one thing the legislature could do to provide the public with a level of comfort was mandate a master plan must be a long-term, general use plan and not be amended on a regular basis. She maintained many ideas contained both in A.B. 388 and other bills before the committee could be utilized to arrive at a point where the public was comfortable development was being accomplished with common sense and consideration of conservation and proper land use.

Mr. Lee expressed extreme concern about the power allocated by section 1, subsection 3, of A.B. 388 and asked whether there was room for compromise on that provision. Ms. Giunchigliani responded she was not afraid of giving the public power and believed too often the public was not given enough voice. However, she was not adamant about retaining the current language of section 1, subsection 3. She reiterated previous comments about the need for town board members to be properly trained and the desire of town boards to have their members elected. She maintained if town board members were elected, rather than appointed, citizens of communities governed by town boards would have more voice in determining who represented them on those boards.

Mr. Mortenson said he completely agreed a community’s town board should act as its planning commission. He also agreed in the past, planning commissions tended to be comprised of people involved in development. He asserted if town board members were elected, as Ms. Giunchigliani proposed, the result would be good town boards.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated it was for the committee to debate whether or not town boards should act as planning commissions. She reiterated the main thing town boards wanted was to ensure they would not be circumvented, and projects affecting their communities would be presented to them before being presented to a planning commission.

Ms. Giunchigliani suggested to eliminate the argument planning commissions were controlled more by developers than by their constituency, the committee might consider imposing more stringent requirements on the background required for membership on a planning commission. She proposed imposing more stringent requirements might constitute an interim step in the consideration of whether or not to make town boards planning commissions.

Assemblywoman Segerblom pointed out members of Laughlin’s town board were elected and said she thought that was true everywhere. Ms. Giunchigliani replied current statute pertaining to election of town board members was merely enabling. She envisioned mandating town board members be elected.

Mr. Neighbors said current law reserved planning powers to city and county governments. He stated the legislature passed a bill, 6 or 7 years ago, which Pahrump interpreted as granting Pahrump planning powers. As a result of a lawsuit instigated by the county, the Supreme Court rendered a decision which said if Pahrump wanted planning powers, it should become a city under the law.

Mr. Neighbors asked whether, through A.B. 388, Ms. Giunchigliani proposed town boards in counties with populations between 100,000 and 400,000 have planning powers. Ms. Giunchigliani replied affirmatively. She pointed out section 1 of A.B. 388 mandated a governing body of a city or county whose population was 25,000 or more to establish a planning commission; however, it said the governing board of a city or county whose population was less than 25,000 "may" establish a planning commission. She asserted it was likely unincorporated towns would be encompassed by the provisions of section 1, and their town boards would act as their planning commissions.

Mr. Thomas contended it made sense for incorporated cities to have the power granted by section 1, subsection 3, of A.B. 388 and asked whether he was correct that section applied to cities with a population of 100,000 or less. Ms. Giunchigliani replied affirmatively.

Mr. Thomas suggested if section 1, subsection 3, became applicable, the words "or acting planning commission" should, perhaps, be added to section 2, subsection 1. He also suggested if section 2, subsection 2, was amended to require the plan discussed in the previous subsection be known as the "master plan" and be so prepared that all portions thereof must be adopted, subsections 3 and 4 became unnecessary.

Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out section 2, subsection 2, did not make reference to subjects which must be contained in a master plan, which was what subsection 4 of section 2 attempted to do, at least with respect to master plans of larger urban areas. Ms. Thomas suggested section2, subsection 2, could be amended to include such reference.

Mr. Thomas suggested the subjects of air quality, community design, and conservation should be added to section 3, subsection 1, and the recreation plan discussed on page 3 should include trails as well as parks.

With respect to the transit plan discussed on page 4, Mr. Thomas said he would prefer use of the terms "mass transit" and "a multi-modal system" to use of the term "rapid transit;" the terms he suggested would encompass mass transit systems, bicycles, and pedestrians. Ms. Giunchigliani concurred with Mr. Thomas’ suggestion.

Mr. Thomas referred to page 5, lines 22 through 25, of A.B. 388 and said he was concerned notice given a school board pursuant to the provision contained in those lines might not provide the school board adequate time to respond. He stated one bill he sponsored required "regular" notice to a school superintendent or his designee. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she did not request the requirement that notice be given by certified mail; she merely sought more adequate notification. She pointed out the superintendent of a school board could take action only through the board and only after providing public notice. She said she thought the reason "we took the school board language" was because the superintendent of a school board determined the board’s agenda and determined which items required posting of notice.

Mr. Thomas asserted the reference to "100 parcels of land" in section 6, subsection 3, was covered by the requirements established by subsections (a) and (b) of that subsection. In reference to notification requirements, Mr. Thomas pointed out 1,320 feet equaled ¼ mile, which he characterized as walking-distance, and suggested people would want to know about anything occurring within walking distance of their homes. He stated, " . . . we break this out in a master plan and zoning where smaller counties have different noticing requirements . . .." He asked, rhetorically, whether people in rural counties did not have the same "right to know" as people in urban counties.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she understood NRS 278.210 established notification requirements for all areas of Nevada; if not, it could be clarified to do so. She explained she was attempting, through A.B. 388, to expand notification requirements and reiterated some of her prior testimony.

Mr. Thomas referred to Mr. Mortenson’s request, in connection with section 6, that Ms. Giunchigliani elaborate on the meaning of "the commission shall not amend a subject of the master plan." He said Ms. Giunchigliani was correct the words "a subject" referred back to NRS 178.160, and he suggested limiting application of the cited language to land use elements. He pointed out master plans frequently included plans for streets and highways, and occasionally there was a need to delete something from a master plan. He believed land use was the element an attempt was being made to address.

Ms. Giunchigliani responded Mr. Thomas’ comments made sense, and matters constituting standard, everyday items of business should probably not have to be dealt with in the same manner as matters affecting zoning.

Mr. Thomas referred to the notification requirements A.B. 388 established for applications for use permits and variances, set forth on page 9 of the bill. He maintained those requirements would result in local governments increasing fees to cover notification costs, which might make some variances, such as a 1-foot variance for an individual to install a shed in his back yard, unaffordable.

Mr. Thomas stated he believed the education requirements section 9 established were good.

In response to Mr. Thomas comments about the notification requirements A.B. 388 established for applications for use permits and variances, Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not envision a need for requests for minor variances to be encompassed by those requirements.

Mr. Mortenson said he often wished variances were divided into two categories. He pointed out current law prohibited a variance being granted unless a "legal hardship" existed and said he wished things such as extending a backyard patio could be treated as something less rigorous than a variance. In response, Ms. Giunchigliani suggested it might be time to redefine some terminology and not give activities such as erecting a shed or putting up a block wall the same weight as activities which altered the purpose to which land could be put.

Lesa Coder, Assistant Director and Zoning Administrator, Planning Division, Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, Nevada, testified. She explained she administered Clark County’s zoning functions and processed all land use applications submitted to the county.

Ms. Coder contended A.B. 388 would significantly impact Clark County to the extent the bill would cause town boards to act as planning commissions. She pointed out Clark County had a 9-member board of county commissioners and a 7-member planning commission. In addition, there were 5 urban town boards in Las Vegas Valley, and 13 town boards or citizens advisory commissions in the county’s outlying areas. If citizens of each area voted for that area to have its own planning commission, state law would require the county to provide several things. One of those things was a district attorney or other attorney to attend a local planning commission’s meetings and, in the event legal issues were raised, ensure due process was followed and those issues were resolved. Providing an attorney to attend such hearings would increase the county’s staffing needs and costs.

Ms. Coder said a staff of planners and clerical personnel was required for each of Clark County’s commission’s meetings. Clerical personnel took minutes of the meetings to ensure the commission, if taken to court, could account for its actions and the basis for them. It would result in significant staffing and cost impacts if the county was required to staff and provide services for multiple planning commissions.

Ms. Coder declared preparation and adoption of master plans by town boards would create a significant impact on Clark County. She explained historically, for planning purposes, master plans or guides were part of a much larger, comprehensive plan and contained several elements. She pointed out NRS outlined several of those elements, each of which Clark County diligently addressed for different areas of the county.

Ms. Coder said at one time, Clark County had an extremely general land use plan. However, the county had since prepared and adopted five land use plans, which were fairly specific to the county’s urbanized valley and encompassed other land use plans pertinent to its outlying areas. Plans for the county’s outlying areas were contained in three documents and attempted to address each element required under NRS.

Ms. Coder stated although Clark County’s land use plan was originally somewhat archaic, in terms of content and direction, the county was improving in amending current land use plans to cause them to be more specific and thorough and to address elements required under NRS in greater detail. Although the county would continue to improve in that regard, Ms. Coder did not know whether the county would send representatives to each of its town boards and do a more diligent job than it now did.

Ms. Coder described the process involved in amending Clark County’s land use plans as a fairly extensive process. The process had been amended within the past year and was now both lengthier and more "hands-on," in terms of residents of areas affected by land use amendments, that it used to be. A comprehensive steering committee, comprised of town board members and community members, gave advice about what the county’s land use guide should contain and the direction it should take. The amendment process consisted of 120 steps and commenced with planners going into the field and monitoring land uses. The county utilized resultant data, made population projections, and established a good base of information before approaching town boards or citizens advisory committees, whose meetings county representatives attended to solicit information. Eventually, planning advisory groups were established. By the time a "draft plan" was developed and presented to the appropriate decision-making bodies, town boards had provided their input.

Ms. Coder referred to previous comments about establishing consistency with respect to terms used in land use plans. She said while Clark County would prefer such consistency, individual town boards often preferred to utilize language which specifically addressed their communities.

Ms. Coder commented on Clark County’s public hearing notification process. She said each month her division presented approximately 300 to 400 matters to Clark County’s commissioners and mailed approximately 18,000 public hearing notices to affected property owners. A significant cost was involved in mailing those notices, and the possibility of privatizing part of the notification process, in an attempt to reduce that cost, was being investigated. Meetings were held with chairmen of both urban and rural town boards to discuss the effectiveness of public notices. Attempts were being made to avoid use of legal and planning terminology in public notices and utilize language a layperson could understand.

Ms. Coder stated current state law established several radii for notification areas and broadening those radii would create a cost impact. She explained the degree of public notice Clark County provided bore a relationship to the significance of the matter to be discussed at public hearing. A hearing on an application for a simple variance, such as one to allow increased height for a block wall, might not require as broad notification as a hearing on an application for a zone change, which might have a more far reaching impact. Ms. Coder suggested the committee might want to more closely examine the notification changes established by A.B. 388.

Ms. Coder informed the committee the notification radius of 500 feet, for notice of a hearing on an application for a zone change, would encompass an average of 80 to 100 parcels of property, and the cost of notification would be approximately $40 to $50. However, a notification radius of 1,320 feet would encompass 700 or more parcels of property and result in a mailing cost of $304.00, representing a cost increase of between 500 and 800 percent. Establishing that notification radius might constitute an unfunded mandate.

Ms. Coder suggested in establishing a notification area for hearings on proposed amendments to land use plans, the committee might want to consider the degree of importance of proposed amendments. For hearings on minor amendments to land use plans, a notification radius smaller than that of the area of a township plus 500 feet might be appropriate. Currently, Clark County notified every property owner on its tax assessor’s record. When the land use plan for Spring Valley was last amended, between 45,000 and 50,000 notices were sent.

Ms. Coder discussed the issue of training for town board members. She said Clark County recognized decision-making was only as good as the understanding decision-makers had of the issues to be decided. She conceded zoning terminology was difficult to understand and asserted Clark County made and would continue to make every possible attempt to educate the public as well as community decision-makers. Clark County representatives were currently meeting with town boards to establish specific dates and times for not only educating town boards and " . . . and bringing them closer to . . . " the zoning process but also determining how the county would provide town boards with information regarding agenda items and receive input from those town boards. The county believed automation would allow it to be more efficient in both those areas of endeavor.

Ms. Coder said she believed the land use decision in Dolan vs. Tigard essentially involved a nexus for the taking of property, an issue not best addressed in " . . . this particular section of NRS." She pointed out courts helped governmental entities determine what constituted a rational nexus, and she believed governmental entities could continue to defer to courts for help in making such determinations.

Ms. Coder referred to previous discussions about requiring submission of business plans with respect to proposed land use plan amendments. She maintained a significant amount of information was secured from applicants when Clark County considered applications to amend land use plans. Although the county had become more site-specific in implementing zoning changes, it had never gone to the extent of requiring submission of a business plan. She suggested establishing such a requirement might be going a step too far.

Ms. Coder declared Clark County considered adequacy of both water and services prior to allowing development to take place. The county would not record a subdivision map unless provision was made to deliver water to the property involved. Also, the county would not issue a building permit unless it received a guarantee water would be available to the building site.

Ms. Coder said "I would suggest that rather than appointing town boards, for staffing purposes and costs alone, we believe our effectiveness can be increased simply by having those folks remain town boards and citizens advisory councils, as they are today, and to definitely show a significantly greater amount of deference to their recommendations as we entertain land use applications."

Mr. Mortenson pointed out Ms. Coder testified as Clark County developed its land use guides, the county became more specific and made it more difficult to make changes to those guides. He asked whether, at the same time, the county was not more general in designating land use applications in its current guides than in its previous guides.

Ms. Coder replied the county’s land use plans were becoming more specific. If the county, in a land use guide, designated an area as a low-density, residential area, that designation would permit a range of densities up to a density of 8 to 10 units per acre. A rural-suburban designation might allow a density of no more than two units per acre. The county’s land use guides designated ranges of density, any of which could be deemed the most appropriate when zoning was established. When considering a proposed subdivision, Clark County would consider the zoning of property adjacent to the proposed subdivision with a view to providing a buffer or stepping-down of densities. The county’s general plan allowed it to do that.

Mr. Mortenson said Clark County’s previous land use guide was very specific in designating areas as commercial, such as R3, R2, or R1. However, it was his impression the county’s current land use guide was not as specific in designating zoning. Ms. Coder responded the county’s land use plan was meant to be fairly general. The plan was specific to the extent it might designate an area as community/commercial, which in terms of significance to zoning might equate to low-density, office zoning, neighborhood/commercial zoning, or regional/commercial zoning. The plan was general and permitted a range of land uses, typically separated into major categories such as "office," "industrial," "multi-family," "single-family residential," and "commercial."

Mr. Mortenson said although he had recently criticized Clark County a great deal, the training the county provided town boards was excellent.

Ms. Von Tobel said she received the minutes of all town advisory boards in her assembly district, and those boards were very complimentary about the training they received and believed they garnered a great deal of knowledge from that training.

Ms. Von Tobel stated she was glad Ms. Coder addressed the issue of the staff and expense involved in planning processes. She attended many planning commission meetings and wondered about the logistics involved in making planning commissions of town boards. Many town boards met in very small locations and did not have adequate staff for planning purposes. She contended if allowed to act as planning commissions, town boards in unincorporated towns would believe they deserved to have the same staff and resources as those utilized by the county planning commission. She pointed out town boards in many areas currently had no microphone systems for use in their meetings and had no FAX machines.

Ms. Coder said Clark County was attempting to do several things to better town boards’ communication systems, such as providing: FAX machines; better automation through computer use; and hookups to computer networks. The county was attempting to provide a fully automated computer work station within each of the county’s rural communities. Ms. Coder asserted automation would allow her division, as it created its agendas, to create agendas for each, individual town board.

Ms. Coder maintained from the public’s perspective, it was currently extremely difficult, due to lack of technology and equipment, to schedule matters to be heard at a town board meeting and ensure the correct matters were presented to the board. Clark County had taken several measures pertaining to communications to improve that situation. Ms. Coder said her division outlined for applicants everything they should present to town boards to enable those boards to make the best decisions regarding their recommendations.

Ms. Coder stated Clark County was in the process of rewriting its entire zoning code and was about halfway through that process. Individual town board members participated in each of the county’s five task forces, and those members made it clear their role needed to be codified. In working with rural governmental entities to develop rural development standards, the county found a need to deviate from urban standards for many things to create things more rural in character and more appropriate for outlying areas. The county hoped to complete both the rewriting of its zoning code and the establishment of rural development standards by the end of 1999.

Ms. Segerblom asked Ms. Coder whether a representative of her office attended every town board meeting. Ms. Coder replied representatives of Clark County’s administrative services division attended meetings of each of the county’s town boards. One of her staff members was a town board liaison, assigned to receive phone calls from town boards, provide them with specific information, and essentially cater to their needs. Occasionally, she sent members of her staff to attend town board meetings, and she had attended several. She would continue to send members of her staff to town board meetings, as the need arose or as requested by town boards, to ensure a high degree of communication with town boards.

Irene E. Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, testified. She asserted it was members of the private business sector who were regulated and required to live with the many existing laws, fees, and taxes. They passed on the costs imposed on them by those laws, fees, and taxes to housing costs, which exasperated their ability to create affordable housing in Nevada.

Ms. Porter referred to the provisions of A.B. 388 which dealt with notice and pointed out Ms. Coder addressed the cost involved in extending notification radius to 1,320 feet. She suggested if thought was given to what was currently done to notify people of things which occurred in their neighborhoods and communities, a question would be raised about the necessity to expand the notification process to provide notice to more people.

Ms. Porter explained applications for zone changes, master plan amendments, variances, use permits, and subdivision maps were filed with the county. When such an application was filed, the county sent information to various agencies. Those agencies then had a specified time period in which to respond. The county also sent notice of the public hearing to be held on the application to owners of property located within 500 feet of the affected area or, in some cases, 600 feet or more. Ms. Porter said although she agreed there was a clear need for a wider range of notification in remote, rural areas, there was no such need in Clark County’s urbanized area.

Ms. Porter said in addition to notification provided by the county, state law required a developer, at his own expense, to post signs on two visible streets on the property to which his application pertained. Those signs were large and were required to state information about the application’s purpose, how the property was zoned, the master plan, and where the public could obtain additional information. Ms. Porter contended those signs were clearly visible to all members of the motoring-public who lived anywhere in the area.

Ms. Porter said a developer was also required, by county ordinance, to post on the walls of a new subdivision’s sales office copies of both the zoning map and master plan map for the area of the subdivision and also a copy of the gaming disclosure map. In addition, he was required to provide any prospective homebuyer with a map and disclose the land uses currently designated by the land use guide or master plan for the area surrounding the subdivision and inform the homebuyer of where to obtain additional information.

Ms. Porter pointed out legal notices were published in newspapers, and town boards, planning commissions, and county commissions all posted their agendas. She said Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association believed people in urban areas were provided sufficient notice to allow them to participate in the planning process.

Ms. Porter said members of Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association routinely presented projects to town boards to obtain input from those boards. The association did not believe town boards should be made planning commissions; it believed authority to police planning activities was vested in city and county governments.

Ms. Porter stated she wished to dispel a myth about planning commissions. She said Clark County’s planning commission was comprised of seven members, none of whom was a member of the development community. Only one of the seven members of North Las Vegas’ planning commission was a member of the development community, and she did not believe any member of Las Vegas’ planning commission was a member of the development community. She could not remember a time when any member of Clark County’s planning commission was a member of the development community. She maintained members of planning commissions, as well as members of town boards, were average people whose interests were not aligned with any single industry.

Ms. Porter declared Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association was opposed to expanding notification because of the costs involved. Those costs would be passed on to builders, who would then pass them on to homebuyers by adding them to house prices.

Ms. Porter said she agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani it was very necessary to include many elements in a comprehensive, general plan.

Ms. Porter referred to the provision of A.B. 388 which required school boards be given 30 days notice by mail. She suggested that provision should comport with other provisions in NRS 278 which pertained to notice by mail and to the expiration of time between filing of an application and the hearing held on that application.

Ms. Porter pointed out since 1977, statute required when a proposed subdivision was in the tentative map stage, the appropriate school district must be noticed and provided with a tentative subdivision map before that map was considered at a meeting of the planning commission. The school district had 15 days to respond to the notice, and if the school district chose to select a site for a school in the proposed subdivision, further proceedings were halted until the school district and the property owner met and negotiated.

Ms. Porter stated she would like an opportunity for Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association’s legal representatives to review the proposed amendments to A.B. 388 (Exhibit C).

Ms. Porter said since the 1960s, developers had been required to dedicate to the public all rights of way for roads and streets as well as water and sewer lines. For many years, developers had also dedicated land for parks, and the process for making such dedications was established by NRS 278. Ms. Porter maintained developers dedicated land, throughout Clark County, for school sites, and although the city of Henderson acquired either 11 or 13 school sites through land dedication, the school district had not yet opted to use any of those sites.

Ms. Porter asserted the result of imposing additional requirements on developers would be to increase housing costs. She asserted if, in addition to land dedications already required, the developer of an entry-level to mid-level housing subdivision was also required to dedicate land for an affordable housing project, the cost of dedicating that land would be passed through to the cost of the houses in the subdivision. The likely result would be to increase the cost of entry level-houses in the subdivision to the point where they were no longer entry-level.

Ms. Porter stated Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association commissioned an independent financial analysis of " . . . the costs that are going into a house today." The study showed, with respect to the average, medium, single-family home, developers paid $9,200 in taxes and fees alone. When the cost of exactions was added to that sum, developers paid more that $20,000 for each house they built. Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association was concerned about creation of additional regulation, which would increase housing costs.

Mr. Mortenson said if the legislature was extremely clever, it might be able to determine how to reduce notification costs. However, it seemed each time a determination of how to provide proper notification was made, some exception arose, and no one received notification. He cited a situation, in Spring Valley, in which the owner of a very large piece of property, abutted by ½ mile of parkland to the west and ¼ mile of gravel pit to the north, applied for a zoning change to facilitate building high density apartments. No one received notice of his application, and it was granted with virtually no one having knowledge of it. Although there were newspaper ads, apparently no one read them. Mr. Mortenson observed people usually responded when they received letters of notification.

Ms. Porter said she believed placing signs on properties made a great deal of difference in providing notification. She asserted anyone near a property on which a sign was posted would see the sign.

Ms. Coder interjected the planning commission’s staff was thankful for the notification requirements established during the 1997 legislative session. In addition to the posting of signs, those requirements included providing notice to a minimum of 30 owners of parcels of property which were adjacent to an affected area and not owned by the developer of the project being noticed. That requirement precluded notifying no one but the developer of his request.

Mr. Mortenson stated he believed the notification requirement Ms. Coder cited resulted from the situation he previously described. He expressed approbation for that requirement and said it represented the type of thing which needed to be done.

Rob Joiner, Redevelopment Director and Principal Planner, Community Development Department, Carson City, Nevada, also representing Nevada Chapter, American Planning Association, testified. Mr. Joiner stated most of the examples cited and problems related in previous testimony and in the course of questioning by committee members pertained to one local government’s area. He observed although the need for him to appear before the legislature and testify, year after year, invariably arose from problems affecting one, local area, a "one-size-fits-all" attempt was made to resolve those problems. He maintained although A.B. 388 established limitations based on population, the bill would ultimately affect all Nevada’s local governments. He asserted some of A.B. 388’s provisions would bankrupt communities like Wells and Elko, and townships and town boards in some of Nevada’s rural areas would be unable to comply with those provisions.

Mr. Joiner asked, rhetorically, whether problems had arisen in Carson City and in Nevada’s rural communities which A.B. 388 would address. He maintained both he and John Doughty proposed many things, during previous legislative sessions, to streamline NRS 278 and make its provisions more user friendly and more easily understood by both the general public and the development community. As a result of those proposals, administrative variances could be granted, hearing examiners utilized, and use permits be divided into categories of major or minor use permits. Carson City utilized the hearing examiner process, and the process worked well.

Mr. Joiner pointed out A.B. 388 provided separate notification procedures for different types of use permits, which, he contended, created a process extremely cumbersome and difficult to understand.

Mr. Joiner suggested problems experienced in Clark County, which had town boards, were not experienced in Carson City. He pointed out many local governments did not have town boards in their jurisdictions.

Mr. Joiner said Carson City provided notice to its school districts and when amendments were proposed to its master plan, notified owners of properties adjacent to affected areas of the proposed changes to the plan. He maintained there was good notification in Carson City. He pointed out Carson City was a small community with two local newspapers and asserted if a controversial issue arose, everyone in the community knew of it. He contended a major amendment to the city’s master plan was a controversial issue.

Mr. Joiner suggested A.B. 388 be made the subject of an interim study and also suggested planning representatives of all Nevada’s local governments participate in a review of NRS 278 in its entirety. He maintained there were many issues those representatives would like to discuss.

Mr. Joiner cited several court cases which dealt with taking of property and said all those cases were remanded back to local courts by the Supreme Court. He stated the Supreme Court did not render decisions requiring local governments to have a rational nexus for the taking of property; that issue was one with which local governments should deal.

Mr. Joiner said Carson City was asked by Senator O’Connell to examine the issue of home rule and how it would affect the city. He asked, rhetorically, if Nevada was headed in the direction of home rule, why it would also go in the direction of A.B. 388 to establish how communities should deal with local planning, which should be primarily a local issue.

Mr. Joiner expressed a desire to review with Ms. Giunchigliani some amendments to A.B. 388 Carson City wanted to propose. He said he believed those amendments would serve all local planning agencies in Nevada with the possible exception of planning agencies in communities with a population in excess of 400,000. He contended A.B. 388 would do much to harm what Carson City had done to establish good relations with its citizens and a good notification process.

John Doughty, Planning and Economic Development Manger, Douglas County, Nevada, testified. He asserted there was a need to take a comprehensive look at NRS 278. Although local governments recognized the need to streamline some matters, A.B. 388 would not accomplish that streamlining.

Mr. Doughty pointed out there were three unincorporated towns in Douglas County, each of which had a town board comprised of five members. Unlike town boards in southern Nevada, town boards in Douglas County were not rural in nature, and the county was concerned about how A.B. 388 would affect those town boards, particularly in light of the discussion about removing the bill’s "population-defining element."

Mr. Doughty contended the proposed amendments to A.B. 388 (Exhibit C) would change the context and breadth of the bill considerably, and they caused Douglas County some concern. However, his comments would not address the changes effected by those amendments.

Mr. Doughty said Douglas County believed courts had rendered decisions regarding the taking of property. He asserted Dolan vs. Tigard was merely one case in a long serious of cases concerned with taking of property. Douglas County did not know what would happen in the next such case and had significant concerns.

Mr. Doughty maintained Douglas County went "the extra mile" in providing notification and said, "We notice at 1,320 feet for parcels of 40 acres or greater." Douglas County also posted notification signs on development sites even when not required by state law to do so.

Mr. Doughty stated Douglas County believed local governments could fulfill their obligations to their communities, and the county asked that current law not be changed and local officials be allowed to deal with the issues addressed by A.B. 388.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 388.

• BDR 22-776 – Requires conditional use permits for operation of certain

hazardous facilities (A.B. 603).

**********

• BDR 25-674 – Provides for creation of districts for maintenance of roads

(A.B. 604).

**********

• BDR 42-773 – Clarifies class of counties in which state fire marshal may

enforce certain laws and regulations and investigate certain violations

A.B. 594).

Alan H. Glover, Clerk-Recorder, Carson City, Nevada, and President, County Fiscal Officers Association, testified. He informed the committee he was testifying in his capacity as president of County Fiscal Officers Association.

Mr. Glover stated A.B. 414 resulted from a conference held in June 1998 by County Fiscal Officers Association. He referred to page 1, lines 11 and 12, of the bill and said county recorders charged a fee of $3.00 to place a seal on a document plus $1.00 for each additional page requiring a seal. It was suggested a flat fee of $4.00 per document be charged regardless of the number of pages on which a seal was placed.

Mr. Glover referred to section 2 of A.B. 414 and explained currently, a deed was required to bear an assessor’s parcel number. Members of County Fiscal Officers Association held a lengthy discussion regarding other documents on which it would be helpful to have an assessor’s parcel number, and the association requested the following documents be required to bear both an assessor’s parcel number and the address of the grantee: notices of completion, declarations of homestead, liens, affidavits of death, mortgages, and deeds of trust. Language was in included in the bill to provide if there was no grantee, a document bear the address of the party who requested recordation of the document. What that requirement accomplished was to tie a document to a specific piece of property.

Mr. Glover cited a problem which occurred in Carson City and involved a subdivision north of the city, in connection with which numerous liens were filed. Owners of property in the subdivision made inquiries as to whether their properties were affected by those liens, and it took quite a bit of time to ascertain the answers to their inquiries.

Mr. Glover said quite a few county recorders indexed documents by assessor parcel number, grantee, and grantor although Washoe County did not. Although A.B. 414 did not require a county recorder to index by parcel number, it was very helpful to do so.

Mr. Glover submitted a proposed amendment (Exhibit D). He referred to page 3, lines 16 through 19, of A.B. 414 and asserted the provision contained in those lines was onerous to county recorders. He explained the language utilized in the proposed amendment to that provision was language utilized in NRS 440.595, which required recorders to report marriage information. However, the Welfare Division of the Department of Human Resources was substituted for the agency identified in NRS 440.595 as the agency to receive the information to be reported. The Welfare Division assured him it would make reporting requirements very flexible. Some counties would be allowed to provide their reports in written form, while others would be allowed to download the information onto computer disc. The Welfare Division recovered money both for the state and for the state’s individual counties and needed the information discussed in the instant provision; however, county recorders did not like that provision’s current language.

Mr. Glover said the County Fiscal Officers Association also requested section 4 be amended at line 24 on page 3. He explained the recording fee for every document other than a certificate of marriage was $7. The recording fee for a certificate of marriage was $3, as it had been for a long time. County recorders felt strongly that fee should be increased. However, increasing the fee would result in increasing the cost of a marriage license. Since Robert Hadfield, who represented Nevada Association of Counties, informed him Nevada’s counties would be conducting a comprehensive study of all their fees within the next 2 years, it might be better to allow the current $3 fee to remain unchanged.

Myla C. Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, State of Nevada, testified, both orally and by providing written testimony (Exhibit E). She said section 3 of A.B. 414 caused the Welfare Division concern. The information discussed in that section was used as a match against Medicaid payment records of decedents in order to gain reimbursement for Medicaid from their estates. The Welfare Division proposed section 3 be amended to read, "Each county recorder shall monthly forward to the Welfare Division of the Department of Human Resources the information contained on each affidavit delivered to him during the preceding month. The information must be forwarded in a form or media approved by the Welfare Division of the Department of Human Resources." The words "or media" would address accessing information via the Internet, a method acceptable to the Welfare Division. The Welfare Division was willing to work with county recorders to establish the form in which they would supply the necessary information and merely wanted a process in place through which it could obtain that information and pursue recouping Medicaid payments on behalf of taxpayers.

Mr. Glover said County Fiscal Officers Association concurred with the Welfare Division’s proposed amendments.

Ms. Tiffany thanked Mr. Glover for withdrawing the proposed amendment to increase the fee for recording a marriage certificate. She indicated members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee were " . . . looking at this too . . .."

George William Trent Flint, representing Wedding Chapels of Northern Nevada, testified. He declared it was not a good time to increase marriage license fees. However, in light of the proposed amendment to A.B. 414, there was nothing he needed to address.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 414.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:32 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sara Kaufman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: