The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Wednesday, March 24, 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:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Bache stated there was one bill on the agenda making various changes regarding regional planning and Ms. Giunchigliani would open the remarks.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, stated Washoe County took steps about 14 years ago to implement their own regional planning and in the 1997 session she requested legislation to require Clark County to do the same thing. She felt if A.B. 493 were implemented, it would force southern Nevada communities to work together for solutions for their areas. There had been questions regarding the state’s involvement, but state statute gave them the power to deal with land use, zoning, planning, including regional planning. The bill was modeled after A.B. 399 of the 69^th session and as she looked at various state land use policy and public purpose language, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), chapter 278 did not really address the issue. She added in looking at statutes in different states, particularly Florida, she thought the bill addressed regional plan problems.

Section 3 recognized the need for innovative strategies of planning and development and would allow development of less populous regions of the state. The population cap of 400,000 or more was addressed in section 4 and applied to the four largest cities in establishing regional planning coalitions. The issue was different than the bill from 1997 in which the regional planning board based their decisions through inter-local agreement. If that was how they wanted to pursue it, she had no argument as long as elected officials were the ones making planning decisions. She thought that perhaps the section did not quite capture the language she intended and needed some tightening up.

Section 5 required the regional planning coalition to develop a comprehensive regional plan. That was where the bill differed from what local planning had been requesting and felt it was the teeth of the bill. In her mind there was no sense having a group of people talking about the issues without a required outcome. Although the language in the section was the same as 1997, she would be willing to work with the local entities in refining the definitions. It also addressed land use and development, public facilities and services, air quality, and transportation. She felt the state needed to be responsible and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) should be participating in any plan and looking at what roadways, highways, or water projects were planned. One major complaint from constituents was, "Why are you digging up that street, three times, first to put in a new water line, then come back and redo the pavement, and come back and widen the street." If the project could be examined in the beginning with assurance there was a true overlay of the project it would make better sense and would instill more trust in the public’s mind.

She indicated section 6 was new language. Although she supported home rule, instead of mandating she wanted some incentives in establishing master plans. The population cap was also changed to a county whose population was 100,000 or more. The regional planning coalition or regional planning commission, in cooperation with appropriate state agencies and local governmental entities would develop programs to provide incentives to pay for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure within the region. Ms. Giunchigliani stated she also had a possible amendment to section 6 (Exhibit C) defining some of the incentives and clarifying the language. Ms. Vilardo may also have some additional language changes and that could be worked out between them.

Section 7, allowed issues the planning commission could request such as reviewing master plans and recommendations in efficiency for government. It was an enabling section which authorized a committee or organization to define what their job or role was when dealing with regional planning.

Section 9 prohibited a governing body, regional agency, state agency, or public utility, located in a region from adopting a master plan, facilities plan, or other similar plan or amendment after July 1, 1999, unless the regional planning coalition had an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the plan or amendment. In essence no more amendments could be adopted after that period of time if it was determined to be within the sphere of influence, so there was not a constant amendment to a plan which then effected the entire plan. While planning was a guideline if there was proper zoning, there should not be constant amending.

Language in section 10 allowed for preparation and adoption of the regional planning coalition budget and submitting it to each of the local governments as a recommendation for funding.

Section 11 was taken directly from the bill submitted in 1997. It allowed for contracts with planners, engineers, architects and other consultants to carry out provisions of the bill. The remainder of the sections indicating timelines for reporting, review, and adoption of various plans. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out she had also handed out findings from the Urban Land Institute as well as copies of articles from other states (Exhibit D).

Ms. Segerblom questioned if capital improvement plans for Boulder City would have to be submitted to the regional planning coalition. Ms. Giunchigliani answered only if the coalition determined it was a project of regional significance, and what must be developed in their comprehensive plan in the first place. Determination of the plan would be made by local leaders and would be determined as it went through the public hearing process if it had regional effect and needed to be submitted to the regional planning coalition.

Ms. Segerblom questioned if it was confined to Las Vegas Valley or Clark County in its entirety. Ms. Giunchigliani responded other areas, such as Boulder City, would only be affected if they chose to be a part of the coalition by a vote of their board. The only difference in the bill from the one 1997 was it codified rather than required the regional planning board to be made up of three members from Clark County and two from the city of Las Vegas. It did take into consideration what had already been adopted in Clark County.

Mrs. Freeman stated she had a similar bill from Washoe County on the question of regional significance. It was her opinion if a decision was made by Washoe County a certain project fit the definition of being of regional significance, it could severely affect the older parts of the city. It seemed to consider only the needs of the outlying areas and thought there had to be a careful definition of what constituted a regional plan. She questioned, with respect to a project proposed by public utilities that had to do with regional significance.

Ms. Giunchigliani replied throughout page 4 it dealt with projects regarding public utilities and gave them some guidance as to what type of a project should be considered so every single utility issue did not have to be considered. It was language suggested from 1997, but she would work with anyone who wanted changes. She did note it had come out of the previous coalition meetings.

Chairman Bache interjected he believed the Committee on Government Affairs adopted that language in a subcommittee, and it came from some of the language in Chapter 278 defining projects of regional significance.

Mrs. Berman questioned if the regional planning coalition may adopt master plans, it did not indicate what would be done with them. Ms. Giunchigliani replied the regional planning coalition could develop policies for the region, including orderly development but could review capital plans in all regions. Mrs. Berman asked why they were being reviewed when they were directing how to implement the plans.

Ms. Giunchigliani thought the intent under regional planning was to develop a comprehensive plan of regional significance, and as local governments adopted master plans there could be an impact on what was already adopted by regional plan. The legislation enabled the local government serving on the coalition the opportunity to return to the local governmental entity, if a problem arose, so they could discuss solutions. Nothing was mandated, there may be discussion between local planners on what the language meant, and they in turn would have input into the plan. Most planning would still be handled at the local level, and only if it were deemed to be of regional significance would it even be submitted to the regional planning agency. If, for instance, Boulder City wanted to become part of the coalition, they would have to play by the same rules. By doing that they would have to be aware of what projects could impact the region as a whole, and which were just local issues to assure the entire region was not being impacted.

Ms. Segerblom asked if Senator Porter’s bill addressed the same issue. Ms. Guinchigliani believed his bill codified the inter-local agreement for the coalition. It created the same types of plan, but there were no teeth in them requiring anything must be developed. She thought there was some interest from local governments in loosening their purse strings. There were incentives suggested in section 6 for moving forward in that direction.

Mrs. Freeman questioned which other bill Ms. Giunchigliani had with regard to planning.

Ms. Giunchigliani related she was probably referring to A.B. 388, which mainly addressed planning and zoning. The teeth in the present bill was in requiring the governments to implement a plan rather than just meeting for discussions, without every reaching any consensus for putting the plan in place implementation. She thought it was responsible to give financial incentives for implementing plans and should help local governments in looking at the regional picture.

Mrs. Freeman liked the idea of including the historical district in the bill and questioned if certain areas were labeled historic. Ms. Giunchigliani believed some of the local governments such as Carson City and Clark County had done that. She pointed out it was a policy statement, and the language came from Florida statutes.

Mrs. Freeman said the conversion of rural lands in Washoe County concerned both she and Ms. Von Tobel and wondered where those areas fit into the entire plan.

Ms. Giunchigliani responded the plan would apply to the entire state including both urban and rural areas, so there could be recognition that some areas needed to remain rural, even within the larger communities. She believed the guidelines of the bill would recognize zoning issues as far as what size lots should be in order to be classified as rural rather than urban.

Ms. Berman questioned the definition of a public facility on page 25, as she was unaware of a statute covering that issue. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she assumed in the drafting of the bill, Chapter 278 was checked to see where language changes were needed, and the terminology came from there. To her, public facility would be libraries, schools, or county buildings, but she would check with the bill drafters.

Ms. Von Tobel pointed out on page 6, section 8, it talked about the Public Utility Commission, the school districts, and the Department of Prisons and asked if those entities would have to go before the regional planning commission for approval. Ms. Giunchigliani said it was her understanding those entities would provide their plans to the Public Utilities Commission, so an overlay of what they had planned would be in place. They would not be stopped from pursuing their plan, but basically a map could be created so future growth in the area would conform. She wanted to include all entities in the infrastructure process, so it would not impact the community, the idea was not to stop a project but simply look at it and include it where necessary.

Ms. Von Tobel remarked if she was correct in assuming plans would be submitted to the Public Utility Commission (PUCN) in addition to plans submitted to the regional planning coalition. Ms. Guinchigliani responded that was correct

Ms. Von Tobel questioned if plans for the school district and Department of Prisons would also have to be submitted to the PUCN. Ms. Giunchigliani replied, it was only meant to be informational.

Ms. Von Tobel queried if any decision by the school board would be final only after being presented to the regional planning board. Ms Giunchigliani stressed her intent was only to have plans submitted to the coalition, so it was aware of any additional schools being proposed, and where they would be located. She did not want prohibition of any expansion.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned if the ultimate decision lay with the PUCN or school board rather than the regional planning coalition. Ms. Giunchigliani replied the entities would take precedence and the coalition could not stop development unless it had been deemed previously as an issue of regional significance. Those entities, in her opinion, would have that responsibility. The regional planning coalition would be able to stop anything only if it had been deemed previously as an issue of regional significance. School trustees should have the final say on school matters, and she did not request the public utility language, and assumed it had been included because of the deregulation issues brought up in 1997.

Mrs. Freeman questioned if the prisons were included in the language, was it determined the universities did not need to be added. Ms. Giunchigliani thought it could be added to the permissive language in the bill to indicate if an addition or expansion of a facility was planned which could include the university.

Ms. Parnell felt it was more of an effort in coordination rather than a decision-making coalition. That would allow the coalition to envision what they wanted the valley to be and then bring all the entities together to make the vision become a reality. Ms. Giunchigliani said it was initially coordination. It would give Clark County the ability based on their plan to have it adopted just as it was in Washoe County. Local governments would still have the ability to stop projects, let them move forward, or award projects previously denied. The point of the bill was to allow development at the local level not dictating to them.

Chairman Bache stated he did not see the technical committee in the current bill. Ms. Giunchigliani believed that was contained in Senator Porter’s bill and she had tried not to duplicate his request. The technical committee was already in place and functioning so she did not know if there was a need to have it spelled out in statute. She added the individual city and county planners with whom she dealt during 1997 were helpful, and even when there were disagreements it was a good working relationship. Even individuals at the hearing who might be in opposition would bring their points forward, and with everyone working together she thought it would only make a better bill. She also felt it could give some guidance to Assemblywoman Freeman as she was trying to tighten up some things in Washoe County. It had been a collaborative effort because the same type of infighting had gone on in Washoe County as in Clark County.

Things started coming together after Senator Titus introduced her "ring-around-the valley" and Senator Porter’s planning bill forced communication between the entities. However, the next step needed to be taken addressing the affected community and represented by the people who paid taxes in that region. The idea was to have reasonable planning with the expectation that what was done was good for the entire valley, while still allowing local government to have their autonomy. It was simply an attempt to force collaboration to insure a plan was in place.

Ms. Segerblom questioned if all cities in the state agreed to the bill. Ms. Giunchigliani thought the cities should respond and indicated some cities opted not to participate in the coalition, but felt the legislature should respond to all their concerns.

Mrs. Freeman indicated she would like to have one meeting where all the planning bills could be heard together. She realized there were differences in the two ends of the state, but she felt there were still common interests.

Chairman Bache said he had one comment regarding the bill. When he was campaigning there was a misconception that all of Clark County had a master plan, in reality North Las Vegas, the city of Las Vegas, and Henderson actually had their own. He found there was a great deal of frustration because they thought there should be one master plan for the whole county, and he felt that was the goal of the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani thought Boulder City was a good example, if a new project directly impacted traffic or environment, the city should know about it and be able to make the decision on where it was located. Many times a game was played of locating something outside the one line where the city had the benefit of the taxes but the impact was borne by the other city. It became a part of a problem, so as a plan developed, the significance of the project needed to be very clear and concise, and what the impact would be on the valley. Regional planning was not new and had been in place in other states for many years. She felt it was time to embark on assisting local governments and saw it as a beginning in empowering local governments so they were more comfortable with legislation affecting them. It would loosen the purse strings enabling each entity to do what they thought was in the best interest of that body.

Mrs. Freeman said she came to the conclusion one of the reasons there was so much building in the outlying areas instead of the core of the city, was there was a lid on local government in terms of taxing themselves. So they were looking for tax dollars. She added when the flood 1997 happened she had the opportunity to take a helicopter ride over the affected area. Most of what she saw was the result of poor land use planning with people living in areas that were flood plains, so bridges were falling down, and there was all sorts of destruction. With the cap on taxes it was a slow process in cleaning up the flooded area. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated the cap was an ongoing debate. She personally thought the cap should be removed, letting local governments do what was in their best interest. She added the amendment attempted to give them some financial relief it they did certain things and would hope after local governments took a look at the amendment they would realize the bill was meant to assist them, as that was the intent.

Mrs. Freeman stated Ms. Tiffany had just pulled all the regional and land-use planning bills up on the internet, and asked if it was possible to have a chart put together so comparisons of the bills could be made.

Dave Ziegler, research analyst, pointed out it could be done and perhaps since Assemblyman Thomas had been involved in the drafting of several land-use planning issues, he could assist.

Dusty Dickens, director of Demographic Zoning and Realty, Clark County School District stated the district supported the concept of the bill. They felt it put the school district in the planning process in creating a regional planning authority. He questioned if the word "plans" in the bill referred to capital improvement or specific site-development plans so the district would know the level of details that were expected to be reviewed by the regional planning coalition. Presently whenever there was a proposal for school construction the district was required to present plans to the town boards, planning commission, and city council for approval under zoning laws. The bill placed another approval body into the process creating a time issue construction projects. He also questioned if the coalition reviewed specific projects, and if that approval superseded approval by the local entity or was it an additional measure. Section 9 required recommendations by the regional planning commission must be accepted before adopting a master plan, a facilities plan, or other similar plan or amendment and questioned the term recommendation. The school district had a 10-year capital improvement program, and while they could be relatively specific on cites and provide information on where the current school district land was located, long-term planning or specific timing for construction would be dictated by student enrollment. It would be difficult for the district to be extremely specific and felt if the plans provided to the regional planning commission was for information only, there was no problem with the bill. But if the intent required them to move through another approval body it would become problematic for the district.

Mrs. Freeman asked if there were cases in Clark County where builders donated land for schools in the area they were developing. Mr. Dickens replied "yes and no," as there were two instances of out-and-out donations, where there was no cost to the district. Generally, said developers did donate land in Clark County for the cost of off-site improvements, usually on a per-acre basis. The district paid anywhere from $30,000 to $52,000 an acre for those off-site improvement costs.

Mrs. Freeman requested an example of an off-site improvement. Mr. Dickens stated it would be curbs, streets, gutters, sidewalks, or utilities.

Ms. Von Tobel was concerned if the elected school board was going to be expected to follow the regional planning coalition or if it was the other way around. When talking about capital improvements building schools usually needed to be done quickly to accommodate growth, so she was not sure which body would take precedence.

Chairman Bache remarked on page 4 of the bill the criteria for regional planning was spelled out. He felt with schools he was not sure the sewer, water usage or traffic increases would fall under regional planning. He was sure the middle or elementary schools would not qualify, but the only possibility would be the high school sites. Mr. Dickens stated he was unaware of water or sewer usage, but felt perhaps high schools might meet the traffic requirements. He added there were requirements for changes in zoning for any school facility. There was an impact on neighborhoods and regions in which schools were constructed in relationship to water and other issues that might be affected.

Phil Rosenquist, assistant planning manager, Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning testified they were support of the ideas and concepts of goals outlined in A.B. 493. There some concerns over a few details outlined in his testimony (Exhibit E). There were also some handouts (Exhibit E) showing selected regional entities around the country and describing some of their roles, scope of their authority, funding, and staffing of those entities. He believed the intent of bill was to establish a link between a higher level of broader visions and strategies and establish more of an implementation link down to the individual master plans and zoning ordinances of local jurisdictions.

They would like to see an amendment to section 5, clarifying the intent of a regional policy plan where their comprehensive plans would be reviewed according to the broad-reaching policies as set forth by the regional planning coalition. When looking at regional entities around the country it was found some had significantly large staff and resource commitments, and they were concerned about the staffing ability of local jurisdictions in southern Nevada with deadlines specified in section 13. Also potential regional planning commission tasks in section 7 were aligned with powers as specified in the inter-local agreement for the current Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition, and the similarities indicated both entities were trying to accomplish the same goals. He also felt the references to the Board of County Commissioners and City Councils of the four largest cities in Clark County did not take into consideration that in several years Mesquite could eclipse Boulder City as the fourth largest city in the county.

Mrs. Freeman questioned how the staff and workload were funded in his department. Mr. Rosenquist responded the comprehensive planning department in Clark County was primarily funded through the Clark County general fund. The planning division did charge application fees, but those fees did not cover the current planning function itself, and there was some air quality grant money, but the majority of the department was funded by the general fund.

Mrs. Freeman asked if there was an inter-local agreement between the cities and the county why was only the general fund used, and queried if there were any other funding mechanism. Mr. Rosenquist thought the intent, especially in regard to the existing regional planning coalition in southern Nevada was to establish a basic structure. However, the coalition was meeting the next day in Boulder City to develop a work program. He felt the intent of the local jurisdictions was to have the coalition staffed much like the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority if in-kind staff contributions could be found.

Ms. Segerblom asked if Mesquite surpassed Boulder City in population, would they be added, or would Mesquite replace Boulder City. Mr. Rosenquist said he had made the comment because some of the planning bills being introduced in the present session specified membership according to the Clark County Board of County Commissioners and the four largest cities in Clark County. He wanted to make the point if the intent was to include Boulder City when Mesquite had a higher population, Boulder City would automatically fall off the list.

Ms. Tiffany told Mr. Rosenquist sounded like he agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani as far as the philosophy of the bill, and asked if the definitions in statute would help his department. He replied some of the terms needed clarification. The language needed to be interpreted, as far as what was meant by intense habitation, region, and potential incentives regarding development which occurred in undeveloped areas that were surrounded by developed areas. There could be numerous ways of construing the meaning, and those were some of the details with which they would like to work with the committee.

Ms. Tiffany pointed out he seemed to be indicating those seemed to be policy type questions and wondered if it was really necessary to have the details in statute rather than having it handled through inter-local agreement. Mr. Rosenquist thought it depended on the scope or authority of the entity. The idea was to have collaboration between local jurisdictions and not argue over what each entity wanted.

Ms. Tiffany questioned if there was a yes in the answer. Did they want the plan handled as was now in place with an inter-local agreement or by local agreements and statute. Mr. Rosenquist said their preference would be to have matters handled through inter-local agreement; however, if state legislation affecting the local entities by mandates was being contemplated, they would like those mandates clarified.

Ms. Tiffany opined she saw the bill as containing guidelines rather than mandates and were fairly detailed in the bill. She added if the bill passed it would be in statute and she was trying to ascertain if his department agreed to the language. Mr. Rosenquist replied the best way to explain was in section 5, clarification was needed on whether it was addressing a regional policy plan or a detailed comprehensive regional plan, because it could affect many different entities from the Regional Transit Commission (RTC) to local governments. They were trying to obtain a clear picture of what the intent was and were concerned with the depth of involvement of local entities. Ms. Tiffany thought the committee was trying to identify the different categories of land use and regional planning. She was aware Clark County was pleased with what the planning coalition had accomplished so far, but the legislature needed to give them support in statute and guidelines, but not in a way as to interfere with local rule. She questioned how the legislature could help by identifying some issues in statute and which should be left as agreements.

She added it seemed like a cognitive leap in the bill, compared to what was presently being done and perhaps was making it into a governmental agency having a staff and an identifiable revenue source to support it. Mr. Rosenquist replied it depended on how deeply involved the regional planning coalition would be in any project. He believed that if establishing a regional policy plan was being contemplated, the issues such as fair-share housing and establishment of broad-reaching regional policies addressing policies of affordable housing must be addressed. Then when the local communities in the jurisdiction came up with either an amendment to their master plan or adopted a new element to that master plan, then that master plan could be reviewed in light of those adopted regional policies. From that perspective he believed the entity could function on income contributions from local governments without becoming an additional layer. At some point, when a comprehensive regional plan for southern Nevada was completed, terms of identifying linkages between service provisions and development identifying resources would have to be addressed, tying that master plan to capital improvement plans. Without knowing the outcome, it was hard to project what professional staff would be needed to accomplish the job.

Ms. Tiffany remarked it sounded as if he would like the process slowed down a bit and liked some of A.B. 493, but would like to be included in processing of the legislation. Mr. Rosenquist believed that would be an accurate representation and the Urban Land Institutes report recommended regional government for southern Nevada be implemented in stages, with the first step one of collaboration and down the road some type of a regional entity with more authority. He felt the current Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition was the first step in the process.

Mrs. Freeman questioned if federal grant money was available. Mr. Rosenquist replied the only one of which he was aware was through a joint center for sustainable communities created through the United States Conference of Mayors. There was a small pool of grant money available nationwide on a competitive basis to promote sustainable communities from a regional perspective. Mrs. Freeman asked if there were any federal grants specifically for regional planning. Mr. Rosenquist reiterated the only one of which he was aware was the one available through the United States Conference of Mayors. He believed in the last year two or three jurisdictions were able to access a little bit of that money in promoting sustainable communities from a regional perspective. Mrs. Freeman thought it might not be a bad idea to get in touch with Nevada’s congressional delegation and see some of that money could be acquired by the state.

Chairman Bache thought that perhaps his comments on the various master plans raised some concerns, because his constituents had indicated frustration that the Clark County master plan was not for the whole county. Mr. Rosenquist commented, before coming to southern Nevada he had spent 7-1/2 years working in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, an area famous for having one of the stronger forms of regional planning in the country. In that area regional policies were established even though there were 141 local jurisdictions within the metropolitan area, with local communities, different cities and suburbs setting up their plans in accordance with the policy set by the regional entity. The regional entity had some level of review, input, and acceptance of the local plans, but the local jurisdiction retained the ability to establish their own plan. What was envisioned by the regional planning coalition was even though a plan could be individually adopted for a jurisdiction by that jurisdiction’s board of county commissioners or city counsel, it did not preclude some other creative way of working out differences with city boundaries. They would use a geographic information system to reproduce all entities land-use decision so there would only be one joint map.

Mr. Williams stated he wanted to follow-up on some of the questions, Mr. Rosenquist mentioned they would like to move in stages but eventually get to the point brought out in the bill. He believed through the southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition, local governments had taken a major step toward regional collaboration and they intended to pursue that in the future. Whether state legislation mandated cooperation, it seemed to be a road that everyone was pursuing, and he just wanted to make sure they all had the same perspective.

Mr. Williams wondered if Ms. Giunchigliani would consider changing the effective date so implementation could be done in stages but would not actually become effective until the legislative session. That would give local governments some parameters within which to work, and the issue could be revisited next session or the year after, to assure the direction the governments were moving.

Chairman Bache requested if the committee could be provided with some of the timelines for implementation of stages they could include in the bill.

Mr. Rosenquist indicated he would like to directly answer the question, but it depended on what each entity was going to be charged with implementing and that would have a direct relationship on the staff commitments. When looking at section 7 of the bill, it closely mirrored the powers specified in the regional planning coalition inter-local agreement. They were currently spending a lot of time with the regional planning coalition and through their technical committee trying to define a work program. When asking if the regional planning coalition by itself was able to address all seven things within a deadline, it depended on the deadline and the level of detail required. He believed there was some flexibility being offered because the regional planning coalition and inter-local agreements coincided closely with language in section 7. One of the other intents of the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition was to carry forward the recommendation from the strategic plan and the coalition was in the process of prioritizing a work program. He added he was not trying to be evasive, but until the group decided what their work program was and it was very difficult to start matching up staff resources and the issue of deadlines. On the other hand, Senator Porter’s bill S.B. 383 from 1997 established the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition had some very clear and specifically mandated deliverable deadlines. It was difficult for the local jurisdictions to meet those deadlines, but they also found alternative ways of doing things.

Mr. Williams pointed out if the bill mirrored what was being done there should not be a problem if extending the date would give them flexibility and the change would allow them to have everything in place by the next session. He thought it would be fair to both sides. Chairman Bache said he would discuss the possibility with Ms. Giunchigliani and the others. Mr. Williams added he would like his suggestion be considered as a possible amendment.

Ms. Tiffany said although he had stated he did not want to be evasive he was doing a good job of it. In trying to understand, she paraphrased, if he represented Clark County was he saying, if there were comprehensive coverage with the level of details mandated by the bill, would it then force a professional government group with sufficient staff and revenue to get the program up and running. Mr. Rosenquist replied that was a fair statement as the way the bill would presently be interpreted, in order to accomplish what the bill set forth, either a professional staff would need to be hired or a large professional services contract would have to be pursued with a consulting firm.

Ms. Tiffany asked if the coalition already existed, why were they against moving to the next level. Mr. Rosenquist believed speaking from the perspective of Clark County, inter-local agreements established by the current southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition was typical of negotiations between parties with different interests. He felt what they were already doing aligned well with the inter-local agreements and what was basically stated in section 7 of the bill.

Betsy Fretwell, representing the city of Henderson, stated she agreed with many of the remarks made by Mr. Rosenquist and felt the local governments had started working together over the past 18 months resulting in a 20 year strategic plan and two inter-local agreements (Exhibits F and G). She felt the results indicated local governments could manage land use as well as a variety of other planning-related issues. When looking at annexation in the local agreement between Clark County and the city of Henderson, it should be noted they had jointly decided and identified about a 10-square mile area for joint transportation planning and the coalition has systematically taken care of their neighbors with inter-local agreements. What the coalition did was allow negotiation within city boundaries, as what happened in Henderson could be very different from what happened in North Las Vegas. Issues could be extremely different for what Clark County and the City of Las Vegas felt was an important policy perspective for their communities.

She added, Mrs. Segerblom questioned if Boulder City’s capital improvement plan would be affected, and if the planning authority approved a capital improvement plan affecting the region and if she was reading the bill correctly, if the master plan were amended, it would have to be presented to the coalition. There was also discussion about definition of infrastructure and public facilities and in checking through Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) seven major infrastructure categories were identified. Each planning authority went through every capital improvement plan in detail to evaluate the phases, how the encumbrances would be funded, and then balanced that with the master plan review. When looking at the master plan it was apparent decisions must be made regarding the densities, and which required certain kinds of public facilities. She agreed with Mr. Williams that a little more time was needed to get some of the planning policies in place and the counsel for the city of Henderson did not really support the state telling the local government on the land-use planning process. The city planners met every 2 weeks to make those determinations based on neighborhood concerns. She agreed with the suggestion about blanket policies that would have regional application and were included in the inter-local agreement. A lot of those issues had been addressed over time through the regional transportation commission, the air-quality planning committee, as well as the flood-control district, the health district, and a variety of other entities.

One item of interest in the bill to her was in section 5 where it specifically stated only projects of regional significance, could be discussed at the coalition level and would be defined by them, which could be a stopping point for local governments. However, the Washoe criteria for local governments to follow were in the bill. That criteria was untested in southern Nevada, and if it did what it did in Washoe, it would certainly slow things down, and that may be the intent of the legislation. There were some economic ramifications if that actually happened.

Another comment she wanted to make was schools were significant in Henderson, and there was a commitment to provide whatever possible for schools. She felt Henderson had one of the most effective local governments through annexation with developers as well as the master planning process in trying to get good sites donated to the school district for their development. The city also had to do outside improvements if a new administrative building were built and connection fees would be paid to our utility department for those type of things. The city worked with the public works department and that process had to be reimbursed, so there were a lot of things impacting regional planning, and the regional planning coalition was designed in a way everyone had to come to the table. Everyone had to deliver their capital improvement plans at least annually and have them reviewed at least every 2 years. She felt doing it any more frequently than every 2 years might be something that could not be accomplished and do a good job at the same time. She thought boundary issues really deserved special attention and was one of the key issues in the inter-local agreement when it related to land use and had already been implemented in Henderson. Any time there was even a small zone change, not even a master plan amendment, Clark County notified Henderson and if Henderson had a land-use plan amendment they had to notify Clark County.

Ms. Fretwell added the requirements were becoming much more stringent with every piece of legislation and would like to see the ability to adjust usage based on the needs of the community. She would like to see the present process continue to prosper, and it would give the city enough time to prove they could do a good job with their present process which she felt had been done over the past 18 months. The local delegation had some concerns about the way the bill was currently written and felt there was too much detail. She had spoken with Ms. Giunchigliani about section 3 in the cities developing their own comprehensive plans, but felt that could be done on a local rather than regional level. She felt they had followed through on the intent of the legislative action in 1997, and were more than willing to help all the sponsors of the growth and land-use related bills to try and improve the areas of most concern to the committee.

Mrs. Freeman related she was from the north, but there were some common interests and questioned section 5 where it talked about resolving disputes. As Ms. Fretwell had said the entities were forced to come to the table to talk and wondered how they could be forced to communicate with each other. She questioned the annexation of schools. Ms. Fretwell replied section 7 was a clear-cut replication of what needed to be in the inter-local agreement for the regional planning coalition. They recognized there needed to be an opportunity for discussion on boundary issues. The real policy dilemma for both the regional planning coalition and the city of Henderson was whether or not they wanted the city of Henderson to be the key decision-maker in a land dispute between Clark County and the city of Las Vegas. What were needed were discussions on boundary issues and to draw up maps to identify inconsistent areas. There were areas on the northern edges of Henderson where Clark County had done some commercial development and was completely inconsistent with residential development in the area. She also thought by having better dialogue, better notification and more local involvement a lot of those problems could be solved without having someone else mediate those disputes.

Mrs. Freeman asked if she thought the goals could be achieved by inter-local government agreement. Ms. Fretwell replied yes. Mrs. Freeman asked how all entities could be forced to cooperate. Ms. Fretwell responded the way the inter-local agreement was currently written the coalition could request a response from any of the local government, including the school district, Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), and any other of the other regional agencies on a proposed plan. If they chose not to respond the coalition could implement the policy without their feedback. One large discussion point during the process was once the policies were developed there needed to be a checkpoint so there could be a comparison on how things were being implemented. If inter-local agreements were examined, how were the pieces of those policies being implemented, were they consistent and if not was there effective review of those policies as they were developed and implemented over time. Everyone agreed to the inter-local agreement, and by doing so agreed to respond and participate, which would hopefully help in developing those recommendations and policy statements.

Mrs. Freeman asked if annexation for school sites was the responsibility of the city of Henderson or done by regional planning. Ms. Fretwell commented Henderson had been very aggressive in assuring the school district had adequate cites in the new-developing areas and were firm in that policy. They had also been very aggressive on land use and sometimes to the dismay of developers, but they felt it was important for the community and education was that, much to the dismay of developers, but education was a significant issue for the city of Henderson.

Mrs. Segerblom pointed out a reference was made to an agreement with Clark County, would any of the proposed bills keep the city from making one agreement with another group, or would everybody be included when making an agreement. Ms. Fretwell replied any local government could enter into an inter-local agreement based on the powers of authority they legislatively had under NRS 277. With that in mind, and with the regional planning coalition and its current format, the regional planning coalition could also enter into an inter-local agreement with anyone of the other regional bodies in that area, if it was felt that was needed. But nothing would preclude those inter-local agreements from happening on the side. She added that was exactly what happened between Clark County and Henderson. Both entities had specific issues that needed to be addressed and both bodies were willing to come to the table to work things out without getting the legislature involved, and that was exactly what happened.

Mrs. Segerblom queried if all the land use bills passed then it would not preclude inter-local agreements, and there would not have to be concurrence between the four cities and the county. Ms. Fretwell stated A.B. 493 and a couple of bills on the senate side would specifically impact the regional planning coalition under the present language structure.

Mr. Williams questioned if they would support the bill if the Assembly passed it with only sections 3 and 7 in it. Ms. Fretwell responded the city would probably ask for a slight adjustment on the dispute resolutions in section 7 and would like to work on the language to make it a little more consistent with the inter-local agreement. She added section 3 was what was already used in their master planning process. So, they would not have a problem with those sections.

Ms. Tiffany stated she wanted to present some informational background about Henderson and Clark County for some of the people who did not live there. Any of the new growth areas were master plan communities and therefore the situation was not the same in Washoe as Green Valley, which was the growth part of Henderson, and was definitely a master-plan community. Henderson took the lead in that area and developers had been heard to say, "don’t go to Henderson because they blackmail you." A project would not be authorized unless there was project approval including land improvements and parcels of land dedicated for schools.

She felt a lot of foresight came from strong mayors in Clark County, as they were almost celebrities and personalities in themselves, and whether it was parks, roads, sewer, water, or infrastructure, it was a main focus for them. She felt Ms. Fretwell was trying to convey to the committee, was Henderson liked what was going on with the regional planning coalition program and liked the fact they had been able to work with the personalities through inter-local agreements. Although it might not work quite as well as if it was put into statute and mandated, there might be a time the counties came back and requested it. She added it was the second time Ms. Giunchigliani had submitted a bill and felt she had made some very strong compelling statements and would like to see some of her sections of the bill remain intact. She questioned if there was anything else in the bill that might help Clark County, without it becoming another mandated governmental agency.

Ms. Fretwell thought she could sit down with Mr. Rosenquist and go over the bill specifically identifying the areas where Clark County and the city of Henderson agreed. Mr. Rosenquist seemed to imply that he felt some parts of section 5 could be amended to make it a little more amenable to what they were trying to achieve.

Ms. Tiffany questioned if Ms. Fretwell was going to Commissioner Woodbury’s meeting, and if not could the committee get feedback to make sure Commissioner Woodbury examined the bill in a comprehensive manner. Ms. Fretwell stated she would be monitoring that committee’s activities and all of the local governments, including city and county managers would be attending because they were on technical committees so disposition from the committee regarding the bills should be fairly fast.

Ms. Tiffany wondered if they were looking at all the legislation. Ms. Fretwell believed there were 12 bills under consideration, and she would keep the committee updated.

Mrs. Segerblom understood similar meetings would be held. Ms. Fretwell indicated the group had decided to hold monthly meetings rather than the required quarterly inter-local meetings. She thought the group realized there was too much work to review and needed to meet at least monthly. It also gave staff the opportunity to get the materials prepared in a thorough and comprehensive fashion for the planning coalition members to then deliberate on those topics at the subsequent meetings. Historically the group had rotated between areas so various citizens from different communities could have adequate participation, as it was difficult for people from one community to travel to another community.

Chairman Bache stated he tended to be frustrated, there were 26 members of the Assembly and 13 in the Senate representing various areas in Clark County. Those members were representing their constituents at the state level and were duly elected officials, yet the perception with local government was members of the Senate and Assembly were not aware of local issues, and those issues should be left to local governments. A lot of what was accomplished over the past 18 months started as a result of Senator Porter’s legislation and Ms. Guinchiligani’s legislation in the 1997 session, and he believed the technical group was formed when the bill came out. He was pleased to see what had been done by the local government, but sometimes those types of things left him making comments as he once did about abolishing all the city charters then there could truly be a regional government in Clark County. He thought the state should have a role in regional plans and felt the present bill addressed some of those issues.

Ms. Fretwell stated she had not meant to imply the legislature did not have a role in the process. She believed the reason she was able to present the inter-local agreements and strategic plan to the committee was because legislation passed in the 69^th Session forced the issue. She understood there were areas that needed improvement and if policy guidance was needed, local governments definitely needed to know what those legislative expectations were. However, there needed to be guidelines that could be reviewed every two weeks when residents came with comments such as, "Hey, why can’t you do this project, this is going to stop my whole business from existing." Or "We want you to stop this project because it is going to hurt my residential subdivision right over here. Please listen to us."

The reality of planning programs was decisions were made every 2 weeks and flexibility was needed in that process, so it should be participatory. She added intergovernmental entities would be happy to work with the sponsor of the bill, and other related growth bills to try to achieve an outcome that was equitable and amenable to all. She hoped she was not misunderstood, as she felt some things needed to remain at the local level, and some issues needed to be addressed at the state level when dealing with regional plans.

Ms. Von Tobel stated she was pleased to see Ms. Fretwell felt there were sections in the bill that would help local government. She knew several of the legislators had heard from constituents that they needed help with respect to regional planning. She wanted to bring out the town-center concept that both the city and county worked together in the northwest as a joint effort, it was painful at times for all, but it finally came together. In that respect, she saw regional planning might have helped with that project, so she was pleased to see there was support for some of the sections in the bill.

Mr. Williams commented he was having flashbacks of the charter school hearings. It was the same conversation about charter schools that flexibility was needed so "just leave us alone and stay out of our business." He felt the dialogue here was similar and felt there should be caution exerted in expanding parameters.

Marta Brown representing the city of North Las Vegas stated they were in opposition of the bill as currently written. She pointed out she had just seen the amendment to the bill and wanted the city’s planning department to review it and perhaps add additional comments. Two main areas she felt would significantly impact the city were the financial impacts of the plans and details specified in those plans which they would like to keep at a regional level. She also had concerns because of possible significant delays, if all developments or changes in zoning would have to be submitted for approval to the regional planning coalition. She added North Las Vegas were currently willing participants of the regional planning coalition through the inter-local agreement in southern Nevada. They did support the sections of the bill that paralleled those in the current inter-local agreement, but they would want some amendments if the bill were to be supported.

Lisa Gianoli, representing Washoe County, testified she had just received information that Washoe County was impacted by section 6 of the bill. She had spoken with Ms. Giunchigliani, although she had not had a chance to go through the proposed amendments, but the county would work with her on their concerns.

Ms. Gibbons asked if Washoe County was supporting the bill if the problems with section 6 could be resolved. Lisa Gianoli responded they had no problem with the rest of the bill, but there was some language in section 6 that would impact the county.

Chairman Bache questioned if she had seen the proposed amendments for incentives that Ms. Giunchigliani had. Ms. Gianoli responded they had not had a chance to send them back to the planning staff to review. They would coordinate with Ms. Giunchigliani on any further concerns the city might have.

Chairman Bache informed the committee he would be coordinating with Ms. Giunchigliani on the proposed amendments and would be willing to work with any of the other entities in reaching an appropriate amendment on which all the entities could agree.

Chairman Bache advised the members of the committee that on Thursday floor session was not until 5:00 p.m., so he had added two more bills to the committee meeting. One item he needed to discuss was A.B. 303 that the committee voted amend and do pass, Ms. O’Grady needed some clarification, and he thought it was best to bring it before the committee. Ms. O’Grady stated she was unclear on the issue of whether it was the same public employer and if the brackets around participating needed to be removed to clarify intent.

Chairman Bache said he was under the impression the language was going to be changed in the second paragraph to read, "in lieu of disability retirement benefits, he accepts another position with the public employer as soon as practical but no longer than 90 days after his application for disability has been approved by the board." He asked if any members of the committee had a different understanding.

Ms. Von Tobel wondered what the meaning of the word "the" was. Chairman Bache reminded her there had been previous discussion and he thought "the" public employer and the same public employer were redundant and the word "same" did not need to be there. By taking out "same" and leaving the brackets around participating it was his understanding that was the way it was passed.

Ms. Von Tobel stated her concern was they went back to their employer versus having the option of going back to 120 employers that offered the same plan. That was not her intention, as she understood with the word "same" it only allowed them to go back to the employer they were with, and that was her understanding with the original vote.

Ms. Parnell had a question about public employer. When she served on the welfare board in her ethics disclosure where it asked for employer, she responded with State of Nevada. She did not specify welfare division or any other division. Ms. O’Grady stated she felt if "the" was left in it would be the same employer he was with, where if it was a participating public employer then it would any state agency that was a public employer participating in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).

Chairman Bache pointed out again if "public employer" was used, if it was a different agency within the state and someone wished to litigate it, they could litigate it. As was pointed out the probability was there might be two cases occurring in a 20-year period. The way he read the language "in lieu of disability retirement benefits he accepts another position with the public employer as soon as practical", his understanding was it had to be the same public employer.

As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:06 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Virginia Letts,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: