The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 6:17 p.m., on Thursday, April 1,1999. 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.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

OTHERS PRESENT:

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Kathy Von Tobel representing District 20, Clark County, explained A.B. 295 was a cleanup measure relating to the Virgin Valley Water District. She then deferred time to Warren Hardy, representative, Virgin Valley Water District.

Mr. Hardy said there were technical changes to the Virgin Valley Water District’s charter. When the water district was created in the 1993 Legislative Session a portion to the charter was absent in which an exemption was provided. The exemption was similar to that maintained by other water districts under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 338. He said subsection 6 was not applicable to utilities subject to NRS Chapter 318 and NRS Chapter 710 provisions. The original intent of the legislation was to extend the Virgin Valley Water District boundaries into Lincoln County based on an arranged agreement. The language that would have extended the boundaries was removed, and new language had been provided wherein new boundaries would be created between the two water districts (Exhibit C).

Chairman Bache asked if the physical description of Exhibit C would amend and replace the verbiage located on page 5 of A.B. 295. Mr. Hardy replied affirmatively. The new description would replace the legal description of the water district in its entirety.

George Benesch, Legal Counsel, Virgin Valley Water District, explained that included in the legal description of both the Virgin Valley and Moapa Valley Water Districts was an agreed upon section of ground that would be more practical for the Moapa Valley to service. Assuming the legislature concurred, the section of ground would be shifted from Virgin Valley to Moapa Valley. The intent of A.B. 295 was to refine the language in the original description of the boundaries of the Virgin Valley district as well as amending the beginning point of the district as indicated by Exhibit C. No further discussion ensued.

There being no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 295.

Assemblywoman Kathy Von Tobel representing District 20, Clark County, explained A.B. 425 revised the language relating to the Moapa Valley Water District.

Warren Hardy, representative, Moapa Valley Water District, said A.B. 425 made provisions to expand the jurisdiction and service area of the district, thereby reducing the size of the governing board; equal representation among the members would result.

Van Robinson, Manager, Moapa Valley Water District, began by describing the location of Moapa Valley (Exhibit D) and stated A.B. 425 proposed minor inclusions to the service area overlooked in the 1983 enabling legislation. Current legislation mandated that the board adjust the number of representatives or the boundaries in a manner that ensured equal representation for all registered voters in the service area. As indicated in Exhibit D, representation differed by 241 registered voters per representative. After examining various scenarios the board had reduced the number of members to five, thereby narrowing the difference of voters per representative considerably. The duration of the two board seats was clarified, and specific conflicting, redundant, and obsolete provisions were eliminated in A.B. 425.

Chairman Bache wanted clarification there were no overlapping borders with the Virgin Valley Water District, to which Mr. Robinson said there were none.

There being no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 425.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on A.B. 569.

Assemblyman Wendell Williams representing District 6, Clark County, explained a great deal of people believed the intent of A.B. 569 was to obtain the approval of every landowner for every construction project that arose within a governing body or agency, which was not the case. The intent of the legislation was to obtain the express written consent of the landowner only if the amended provision or ordinance would affect the intensity or density of the development.

Continuing, Mr. Williams explained A.B. 569 would eliminate concerns relating to property being taken before a project had been proposed or developed, specifically wherein governmental bodies looked toward downsizing the value of residential property.

Ms. Segerblom expressed her displeasure with living in an area thought to be zoned for one purpose, but discovering the zoning would include a greater population density than anticipated. She asked if A.B. 569 would aid in deterring such an incident from occurring. Mr. Williams replied it would aid in deterring that type of an incident especially without consent or knowledge of the residents.

Ms. Gibbons asked Mr. Williams to provide a situation in which the proposed legislation would be applicable in preventing. Mr. Williams replied many times a person purchased property for a specific reason only to have the property, or community, devalued upon passage of an ordinance. A.B. 569 would prevent bodies of government from randomly devaluing property. The bill would condone a more amenable association between property owners and governmental bodies in relation to eminent domain or community downsizing.

Mr. Lee asked if a 600-foot radius was used in determining parcels of land and landowners affected by ordinance or amendment changes. Mr. Williams replied a landowner would be affected by a change or an amendment to a specific ordinance directly affecting the intensity or density of a parcel of land.

With regard to zoning issues, Mr. Lee asked how the proposed legislation would capture the affected area. Because consent was not received from one person opposed to a project, it failed. Mr. Williams indicated consent was not needed for a development project, but for an amendment of a zoning ordinance change. A requested ordinance, which would directly affect the residents in a particular area, would need to be approved by those residents.

Ms. Berman understood the intent of section 1, lines 10 and 11, to be that if one of several landowners did not consent to a development project, the project would cease. Mr. Williams said the project would not necessarily cease, but before a governing body could progress with a particular project the concerns of that one landowner needed to be addressed.

In response to Ms. Berman’s question, Mr. Williams said the intent of the legislation was not to address a proposed project, but to address the ordinance.

Mr. Mortenson remarked he understood Mr. Williams’ position. There were instances in which land was zoned for a particular density whereby the value of a piece of land was decreased by reductions made to density in land-use. He suggested the word "reduce" in section 1, line 4, be amended to "change."

Mr. Williams reiterated the intent of A.B. 569 was not to stop a particular project, but to stop an amendment to an ordinance if that ordinance resulted in the decreased value of property in the development area.

Mr. Thomas provided the committee with an example of how A.B. 569 might be applicable to the affects of density changes.

Elizabeth Fretwell, representative, city of Henderson, related a story to the committee that involved the decisionmaking process in Sandy Valley. She said if a vote on a proposed amendment was desired, whether it was for a project or a zoning change, those people affected deserved an equal opportunity to voice their opinion. A court hearing might be the only way to assure those individuals’ opinions were considered and represented.

Ms. Fretwell said there were issues that concerned the city A.B. 569 had not addressed. In the current form, the bill did not allow for many zoning changes, and it was policy shift from representative democracy. Instead of decisionmaking by elected officials for the overall public good, the shift was being made toward direct democracy involving the rights of individual property owners. With that shift toward direct democracy came a cost associated with giving all parties concerned an ample opportunity for representation. She felt the takings procedure to recoup property losses, established currently in the court system, was adequate. She was unsure where the language and intent of A.B. 569 would fit into the judicial process.

Lesa Coder, Assistant Director, Clark County Comprehensive Planning, stated for the record she concurred with Ms. Fretwell’s observations of A.B. 569 as it was currently written. She understood and sympathized with Mr. Williams’ comments and intent; however, the bill would have far-reaching negative impacts for Clark County. If the bill was enacted, many actions recently taken by Clark County would have been prohibited as indicated in Exhibit E. There had been an area created by Clark County and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the possible location of high intensity, high industrial usage known as the Apex Industrial Park. In order to protect the area, the county initiated a downzoning process reclassifying the property around the park from R-U to O-S, open-space classification. In an effort to promote public safety the BLM reclassified the property in order to create a buffer. The buffer would ensure the residential uses did not encroach close to the park.

Ms. Coder provided the committee with additional examples read from Exhibit E. Nellis Air Force Base had informed Clark County the existence of live ordinance loading areas had a negative public safety impact on adjacent residences and future land uses on vacant property. Due to safety considerations, a distance of 1,300 feet and an evacuation radius of 4,000 feet from those locations was required. The county established an overlay district for the area, restricting permitted uses to that compatible with base operations. Thus the overall public had benefited, although not necessarily to the liking of each affected individual property owner. Safety considerations dictated walls, landscaping, and other structures adjacent to street intersections be designed so as not to obstruct the vision of oncoming traffic. Clark County had recently replaced existing sight zone requirements with standards conforming to those recommended by a national safety organization. The changes would have affected the intensity of use, but were essential for public safety. The adoption of A.B. 569 would prohibit the county from adopting regulations which would lead to the removal of old nonconforming signs incompatible with the uses around them.

In conclusion, Ms. Coder stated that because almost any change in the zoning ordinance would have the affect of limiting the density or intensity of use, the bill would have the affect of freezing zoning considerations. The establishment of a buffer to protect existing residences from the effects of an adjacent development would violate the intent of A.B. 569.

Mr. Mortenson asked Ms. Coder to clarify the billboard overlay district. Ms. Coder said the billboard overlay district defined a specific area in which off-premises advertising was encouraged. Adoption of A.B. 569 would prohibit the removal of billboards left in the overlay area unless every property owner consented.

Robert Joiner, Nevada Chapter of the American Planning Association, Carson City, stated there had been many bills requesting state and local governments to do a better job of performing "smart-growth." Unfortunately, A.B. 569 was contrary to "smart-growth" in various ways. There had been a great deal discussion about passive, as opposed to active, use of open-space. Under that particular piece of legislation, it would take only one individual to say their land adjacent to the open-space was adversely affected through the intensity of use. Because of the myriad of issues with which state and local governments dealt with on a day-to-day basis the proposed legislation, in skeleton form, could quell the good of the community with the opposition of one individual. He said the government currently maintained plenty of protections for the opinions of all landowners, rendering A.B. 569 unnecessary.

Ms. Parnell commented she agreed with Mr. Joiner, and asked if the intent of the A.B. 569 had been addressed in a better form in another piece of legislation. Mr. Joiner said A.B. 388 and A.B. 349, both of the current session, had addressed the issues of notice-giving and the involvement of all individuals in the process. He stressed communities in a pro-growth mode could be economically depressed if an obstructionist halted a project or a regulation change.

Robert Sellman, Community Development Director, Washoe County Department of Community Development, said he appeared before the community on behalf of the county commission which was opposed to A.B. 569. The state’s primary charge was to protect the public’s health and safety; however, the adoption of A.B. 569 would decrease the power to protect the public. Although the bill gave the authority to increase the density and intensity of land-use, it decreased the density and intensity of land-use as well.

Continuing, Mr. Sellman provided the committee with an example of a public health and safety problem relevant to decreased intensity and density of land-use. Most rural counties utilized wells and septic tanks to provide water and sewage disposal. In many cases, the size of a parcel of land needed to be increased in order for the addition of sewage disposals and wells. The legislation would prohibit a rezoning to increase the minimum parcel size for divisions, which was a direct public health and safety issue. Hazard areas such as floodplains and landslides would require certain actions to be taken in order to protect the public’s health and safety. That would be prohibited with the passage of A.B. 569. He stressed the passage of the bill could substantially reduce the county’s ability to enter into problem areas that required restrictive zoning for the public’s safety.

Mr. Sellman was concerned the passage of A.B. 569 placed the county in a position whereby any choices made regarding downzoning or conformation to a master plan would be in direct conflict with state laws, and public health and safety issues. He felt that particular approach prohibited fixing existing problems.

Ms. Gibbons went on record saying the state was very happy with the county commission and the job they were performing.

Marvin Leavitt, representative, city of Las Vegas, commented the city had similar problems with the legislation, and was opposed to A.B. 569 in its current skeleton form.

Patty Brown, representative, city of North Las Vegas, expressed concerns of zoning-use incompatibility that would take place with the passage of A.B. 569 as currently presented.

David Hill, Representative, City of Sparks, echoed the sentiments expressed by others.

There being no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 569.

Chairman Bache brought back to committee for a vote, A.B. 368, which had previously been heard on March 16, 1999. He suggested a follow-up for compliance with the audit be completed.

Ms. Tiffany noted in Clark County a discussion had ensued between the school board and the convention authority on taxes. She commented currently an audit was needed in grades K through 12, and thought that particular piece of legislation was very timely.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 368.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE AND ASSEMBLYWOMEN SEGERBLOM, FREEMAN, AND BERMAN WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE).

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Rachel Baker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: