The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:23 a.m., on Friday, April 9, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Bache stated before hearing the rest of the bills, it had been recommended A.B. 369 be made into a resolution at the previous meeting. Ms. O’Grady checked into using the bill jacket from A.B. 369 for the resolution and discovered it would have to be a separate bill request. So a separate motion would be needed to process it.

Dave Ziegler, senior policy analyst, testified he had a memorandum (Exhibit C) indicating the premium rates for state and nonstate employees participating in the health insurance program. He had contacted the group health insurance plan’s actuary who stated the premiums were supported by claims paid data in four categories. The categories were state and non-state, active and retirees. The difference in the rates was actuarially supported in four broad categories and broken down further by actuarial formulas.

Ms. Tiffany stated it was what she expected and that was the rates could not be mandated in statute because the premiums were actuarially based. When state and nonstate employees were placed in the same actuarial data state premiums rose. She indicated she had pointed out the exact problem when testimony was first presented and therefore she would not be supporting the bill. She did want to disclose she was a member of the state health benefit plan.

Ms. Parnell questioned if passage of the bill would have either a negative or positive long-term effect on retirees. Chairman Bache felt the rates were based on experience, which was standard insurance practice.

Mr. Lee directed the secretary to pass out a copy of the amendments discussed at the previous meeting (Exhibit D). The first amendment divided the city into four wards and equal in population. It was done to allay concerns of people wanting representation, so a city councilman would be selected for every single ward. Second, boundaries of the wards would be established and could be changed by ordinance. There was some new verbiage because of annexation issues raised by the city of North Las Vegas. The third issue was to assure the city council did not change boundaries within 30 days of candidacy filing for municipal elections except to accommodate annexations. The last item he wanted to point out (Exhibit D item (c)) indicated all councilmen including the mayor must be elected by the city at large and serve a term of 4 years. That way no one in North Las Vegas would be disenfranchised from voting in both the primary and the general election.

Chairman Bache questioned if amendments became effective for the 2001 election as was decided yesterday. Mr. Lee replied that part of the amendment had already passed, so the present amendment would just be an addition to that amendment.

Mr. Humke inquired if the intent was to amend the North Las Vegas charter by state statute, or would the citizens vote on the issue. Chairman Bache interjected that had been decided the previous day so that particular issue was resolved.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 590.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Humke stated the proposed amendments were not a bad compromise, but he was reading something else when the vote was taken and believed it should be a ballot question not a mandate. He added there was a split in North Las Vegas, even on the city council, and he did not feel it was right for the legislature to substitute the judgements of the citizens of North Las Vegas.

THE MOTION PASSED. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE VOTED NO.

*********

Chairman Bache stated Ms. O’Grady had passed out the proposed amendments to A.B. 62 (Exhibit E) and A.B. 388 (Exhibit F) and A.B. 62 would be considered first.

Chairman Bache asked Mrs. Freeman to present the proposed language as she had chaired the subcommittee on the bill.

Mrs. Freeman testified it was mentioned no information was available to the public when group homes existed in a neighborhood. The same issue had been addressed in the 69^th Session and it was discovered there needed to be a registry of information at that time. On the bottom of page 3 that issue was addressed and any information contained in the registry was made available for access on the internet. She added a special use permit would not be required.

Ms. Tiffany related she had received calls from her constituents on group homes, but most of the restraint came from the Federal Fair Housing Act. A group home could not be prevented from being in any neighborhood. From calls she had received it looked like they were indemnifying the homes could be placed anywhere at any time. There had been a request allowing 10 patients in a group home but it was concluded the number should be kept to 6 plus staff. There was also the issue of licensing, because they were licensed at the local government level with a business license and then they had to be licensed by the state, depending on the type of home. The registry came about because information was needed from both the state and local level, but the registry would be located with the state. Information was now internet based so local governments could make the determination if the next home contemplated for licensing was 660 feet from the existing home. Another issue brought up was clustering of the homes, and it was felt 660 feet was the maximum that could be mandated without having to go to court, which was approximately one city block. The remainder was language already in existence in the Federal Fair Housing Act. She pointed out all existing group homes were grandfathered in; however, when they were sold the 660 foot limit would be imposed.

Mrs. Freeman expressed the present language was much less contentious than in past sessions.

Ms. Gibbons was curious, as Opportunity Village opposed the original bill and if they were satisfied with the present language. Ms. Tiffany remarked they had not testified against the bill, but Brian Laird representing the handicapped was concerned and that was why the handicapped were included specifically in the language.

Ms. Segerblom questioned who had the authority to inspect the homes. Mrs. Freeman responded it was the Bureau of Licensure and Certification. Ms. Segerblom asked if that was done on a regular basis. Mrs. Freeman stated the problem with that particular agency was funding came only from fees, no general fund monies were involved. She was talking to everyone she could find to contact the governor and members of the money committees to fund the office adequately so there could be an ombudsman and staff to review the homes on a regular basis.

Ms. Tiffany pointed out the bill only addressed the clustering portion of the statutes and recalled there was a lot of testimony against group homes period. The type of group homes and quality control issues were not really addressed in the bill.

Mr. Lee asked if a facility was grandfathered in and they did not realize a change had been made and down the road were turned in, if they had records prior to the bill being passed, would that be appropriate or was there a cutoff date for the homes. Ms. Tiffany said if it was in a residential home nothing would impact them unless the existing one was sold or they bought a new one and then they had to be under the 660-foot requirement.

Mr. Lee stated 660 linear feet was quite a distance to mandate. Ms. Tiffany indicated by most people’s standards that testified it was not nearly enough.

Ms. Von Tobel interjected she had received notice from a couple of owners in her district and as she understood the bill, they would be grandfathered in because they were on half-acres, separated from each other and most neighborhoods had no issue with them being there. One owner had pointed out if one of her homes was shut down it would put her out of business as they were all operated together. She needed assurance they could still group together in the future. Ms. Tiffany stressed the owner was completely protected. The limit would only be applied if another home wanted to move around her and then they would have to be 660 feet away from her. If she wanted to sell, anyone coming in would have to comply with the 660 foot requirement. She added most of the complaints came from those owners of 10 residences side by side because if they wanted to sell one or more they could not be sold as a group home.

Mr. Thomas clarified the bill as amended was similar to what had passed unanimously out of the Assembly in 1997 with some of the negative language included in that bill removed. It did not prohibit anyone from locating within 660 feet, it merely created a registry of where the homes were located because if locating next to each other was prohibited it would be in violation of Federal Housing Authority (FHA). The issue was also addressed in 1997 by the Legislative Counsel Bureau and they issued an opinion the language in the bill complied with the Federal Housing Act.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

*********

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Thomas to explain the amendment to A.B. 388. Mr. Thomas stated there were some issues with the master planning and notification. The notification provision in A.B. 388 was moved into A.B. 349, so what was left addressed elements of the master plan, and when approaching the planning commission there was proof of attending a town board meeting. It also allowed for straw polling for town board members. The amendment also limited the number of times the master plan could be changed. Additional language also required counties with a population of more than 400,000 to adopt a master plan as set forth in Nevada Revised Statute 278. He also added the recreation plan did not have trails, so those were added and the transit plan became a multi-modal system. The commission could change the land use portion of the master plan four times a year, unless that change affected less than 25 percent of the parcel. Also addressed on page 5 of the bill were zone changes indicating a town board meeting had been attended. Section 7 incorporated education standards for members of the town advisory board and section 9 allowed straw polling for election of the town advisory board.

Mrs. Freeman stated she knew the bill was only directed at Clark County, but there were a couple of areas similar to those in a bill she had introduced. She appreciated the fact that the master plan could only be changed four times a year because that made it uniform with other boards throughout the state. Section 7 covered the training issue and she wondered where the training would be held and how it would be funded. Mr. Thomas responded training was generally held within the municipality where either town boards convened or where the city planning commissions met. Mrs. Freeman asked if actual courses were held there. Mr. Thomas responded it was much like the amendment to the water district where people went to the municipality where the course was offered.

She also questioned if the trainee incurred any cost. Mr. Thomas replied that had not been addressed in the bill but felt there would be minimal or no cost.

Ms. Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, declared with regard to training, there should be no fiscal impact on the entities.

Lesa Coder, assistant director, Comprehensive Planning for Clark County, did not believe the requirement to appear at the town board would have any fiscal impact on the department. It may, in some instances, inconvenience some of the applicants but the objective was to get town boards input so applicants should make that stop.

Mr. Lee questioned section 9, as he did not understand why the verbiage even needed to be put into the bill as it seemed it was already the option of the county commissioner. Ms. Giunchigliani replied the request came from the town boards as the original bill had them being automatically elected and took away the appointment. What was determined, in part came from discussions with Ms. Von Tobel, was because some boards wanted to be appointed and some wanted elections, the election process needed to be specified. Tom Reily, County Comprehensive Planning, provided the language in that section and allowed town boards who opted to make selections by a straw poll to have that ability.

Ms. Tiffany asked when a review of four times a year was placed in the master plan, could it be modified, and was there presently a limit. Ms. Giunchigliani responded except for the city of Las Vegas, none of the other entities had adopted the four times a year meeting limitation. Although they would now be limited it also gave flexibility in cases where new boundaries needed to be drawn for small parcel pieces in the county.

Ms. Tiffany asked Ms. Coder if the guidelines of the bill were what Senator Porter recommended during their study, in limiting the changing of the master plan. Ms. Coder replied she was not familiar with Senator Porter’s bill. However, Ms. Giunchigliani was correct that most jurisdictions in the Las Vegas Valley had not adopted any kind of regular pattern for amending master plans. Clark County had no opposition to the four meetings per year, because Clark County had already planned to implement that method.

Ms. Tiffany questioned if Ms. Giunchigliani knew whether the bill was the same as what Senator Porter’s group was pursuing with regard to the master plan. Ms. Giunchigliani responded she did not really know.

Ms. Fretwell, representing the city of Henderson, interjected the detail of the bill was not part of the discussion of the planning authority. When working with the subcommittee Ms. Giunchigliani had said she was willing to give the city a year reprieve on that portion. She also requested that the meetings be changed to six times a year instead of four, which gave the city some flexibility.

Ms. Tiffany said she always worried about high growth areas. She did not believe the plan should be changed, but very often it seemed like everything the legislature did either hurt the older districts or the growth areas. Ms. Fretwell thought six meetings would make it a little more manageable and appreciated Ms. Giunchigliani agreeing to give them a year to get ready as it would take that long to redo a lot of their processes.

Ms. Tiffany asked what the impact would be on Henderson if it was left at four meetings but also gave them a year to move in that direction. Ms. Fretwell responded the city would have to go back to all their land use plans as there were some transitional holding plan designations that would have to be reevaluated. Even though those areas were not ready for development they would have to try and identify the highest and best use of that property. Many times it was done through the city’s regular process, but now it would have to be more detailed prior to development. It was particularly challenging in areas where there was vacant land particularly with the pending annexation of the area south of the airport.

Ms. Tiffany questioned if north Las Vegas would encounter the same problems, as there was some land where the city was contemplating annexation and was in a high growth area. Ms. Fretwell responded she could not speak on that issue, as she did not know if they had plans for the 7,500 acres. She knew as part of the southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act there had to be a plan, but Henderson was trying to be assured there was flexibility to adapt.

Ms. Tiffany wondered if there was something that could be done in the growth areas to give a little flexibility. Ms. Giunchigliani interjected one thing decided was the act would not take effect until July 2000, which gave them the 1 year for section 4. She felt it was a reasonable request because it was far more complicated than originally thought.

Ms. Tiffany asked if the bill passed, could it be changed in the next session if needed. Ms. Giunchigliani responded once the program was up and running the timelines could be administered at that point in time. The bill just gave an effective date. She understood the concerns of the city of Henderson, but the subcommittee chose to stay with four meetings. If the committee wanted to change it to six meetings, that was their prerogative. She pointed out Los Angeles County did it four times a year and they were quite a bit larger so that was why they stayed with four. If they were able to deal with their master planning process within that amount of time, she felt it was a reasonable request; however, timelines had not been carved in stone.

Ms. Tiffany questioned if Ms. Fretwell was comfortable with four meetings and then a year for implementation. Ms. Fretwell said she was more comfortable with four meetings than the July 1 deadline because the city would definitely not be ready.

Ms. Tiffany questioned Ms. Giunchigliani if changes had been requested, why did the applicant have to appear before the town board first, even though there was no authority and nothing could be changed. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that was the number one issue from town boards around the district. If by establishing them, the county commission wanted their input then they should be the first stop for zone variance and plans. The language gave them deference rather than a mandate and also some flexibility to the commission, and seemed to be a main issue of concern for town boards. People waited until the day after a meeting and then submitted their plans directly to the planning commission circumventing the county commissions.

Ms. Tiffany asked if it was to provide the town boards with information and provide them the opportunity to have a hearing at the county level to testify for or against. Ms. Coder indicated when an applicant appeared before the town board, she felt an applicant would be a little more comfortable with a minor modification to the language. Item 5 stated an applicant must present evidence that it was the intent of the applicant to apply for a zone change in a boundary of the zoning district, and it had been discussed at a public meeting of the town advisory board. She felt it might provide them with a little more flexibility if the language was changed to "has been presented to" rather than "have been discussed at" the public meeting.

Ms. Tiffany exclaimed it would be better language because discussing issues was different than presenting them, as there was no empowerment at the local level. That way when it went to the county there would be enough knowledge and if needed people could protest at the level where it could be changed. Ms. Coder commented, at least from the perspective of the Board of County Commissioners, they did not want the presentation to the town board to be used as a delay mechanism, preventing them from hearing an item in the normal course of events when the town board could not meet, or did not have a quorum. The way the language read it meant the applicant had to wait and the project delayed until a town board or citizens advisory council had a quorum.

Ms. Giunchigliani interjected she did not see where the word "deference" was. Mr. Thomas indicated that was in section 4, subsection 5, showing it had been presented at a meeting. Ms. Giunchigliani remarked there was an actual section saying "the county commissioner would show deference to," and thought it might have gotten dropped when the amendment was written. She also thought she had language giving an escape valve so nothing was prevented and the plan could still move forward.

Chairman Bache asked Ms. O’Grady to address what happened with the language that had been determined at the previous hearing and not included in the bill. Ms. O’Grady replied because the word "deference" was rather ambiguous, she drafted language showing it had actually been presented to the town advisory board and then because the Board of County Commissioners had the ultimate authority she had reworded the section so there would not be any confusion.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted there had been discussions in subcommittee meetings that the term "deference" was used in earlier sections of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278. The subcommittee felt with that language it would not be binding but could be taken into consideration. As she recalled, the motion added a sentence "the commission and governing body shall give deference to any recommendation of the advisory board." As far as Ms. Tiffany’s issue, she thought she had offered language allowing appearance before the board, but if for some reason they were unable to meet, they would at least have to present the information as to why they were not able to appear before the board. She thought perhaps a compromise could be reached and felt perhaps there needed to be discussions on that particular section.

Ms. Von Tobel said she was pleased with A.B. 388, as it seemed to be directed mainly to the unincorporated towns, which comprised much of her district. Since her bill A.B. 142 passed and some of the language in the bill was identical, including the requirement to appear before the town advisory board, she felt either her bill should either be rescinded or that section removed, since A.B. 142 already had the exact language. She added if anyone had ever attended a town advisory board meeting in one of the small towns, 50 to 100 people would turn out for the meeting, as it was very important to them on how growth affected their area. Although, they were just advisory it was important applicants appeared before them, and the process was not circumvented. She thought it was important not to give applicants a way out because under current law they constantly circumvented the town board when it was known the town was against a project.

Ms. Fretwell said she would concur, as the deference language was very important. What it addressed was master plan issues because if governing bodies decided not to follow a recommendation from a town board they would be required to explain their actions. With a master plan effort, state law required the master plan be shown deference so if there was disapproval of land use designation a statement must be made as to why they were opposed. That way those types of decisions could be monitored and some follow-up language should be on the record, as to why the board may have deviated from the recommendations.

Ms. Segerblom stated she agreed, for instance Laughlin and Searchlight were so far away from Las Vegas there should be an opportunity for those communities to have some input from the beginning. Ms. Fretwell felt mandating a stop at the town boards could prevent any kind of emergency item being placed on a prior agenda. In Clark County the cycle time was 45 days and if there was an emergency measure, the timeframe could be shortened to about 2 weeks so there was a possibility a hearing before the town board would not be held before the item was heard by the planning commission. Typically items that were appealed and forwarded to the board had another month going through the process so it could catch up with the town board’s recommendation.

Ms. Giunchigliani declared since A.B. 142 had been voted out of committee the language should be replaced in A.B. 388 so there was no conflict, or the language in A.B. 388 should add the "deference" phrase. She stressed if the deference language was in both places there could be a conflict notice.

Mr. Mortensen pointed out in section 5, subsection 5 stated "an unincorporated town that is governed by a town advisory board," and felt "governed" seemed an odd choice, he thought "represented by" might be more appropriate. They certainly did no governing. Ms. Giunchigliani replied that terminology was used in town board statute.

Chairman Bache said before a motion was taken, he wondered if the written language accepted by the parties was available to the committee. Ms. Giunchigliani replied it was to be placed in the two places where reference was made to the town board, and she would provide copies to the committee. Page 5, Subsection 5, and again on page 7, subsection 4, it would read "The commission and governing body shall give deference to any recommendation of the advisory board."

Chairman Bache stated he needed to clarify the four master plan review meetings because he had thought of drafting a bill requiring twice yearly meetings. He pointed out Ms. Fretwell addressed the 1 year delay, but he saw nothing at the end of the bill addressing the 1 year delay. Ms. Giunchigliani thought the remainder of the bill could be effective October 1, but an effective date of July 1, 2000, for section 4, subsection 4 was needed.

Chairman Bache said language could be added to clarify the effective date as July 1, 2000, for purposes of adopting the necessary regulations with other changes effective October 1, 1999, so it could be started at that point.

Mr. Thomas stressed Ms. Von Tobel’s bill, addressed variances and special use permits while A.B. 388 addressed changes in to the zoning districts. Chairman Bache said as A.B. 142 was on second reading, it could be placed on the chief clerk’s desk upon return from reprint and then the amendment on deference could be added so the language would be uniform.

Chairman Bache mentioned there were proposed amendments submitted by Elko County.

Stephanie Licht representing Elko County Commissioners stated she had passed out two pages of amendments (Exhibit G). She directed the committee to refer to page 2 as some words were omitted in item 10. Where it read "the provisions of" language should be inserted so it would read " the provisions of this chapter of Title 25," as a new chapter was being added. Item 11, line 6, read "in writing of" needed to be added so it would read, ". . .the Board of County Commissioners in writing of both the appeal and reasons. . ."

Ms. Licht added lines 1 and 2 on page 2 were being deleted because in small road maintenance districts the county could only blade the road once a year. The citizens in those areas would like to contract with someone at the discretion of the board of commissioners to blade those roads more than once a year. The second amendment was on page 2, line 5, where 66 2/3 percent of the people in the district were needed if a road maintenance district was warranted. It would replace the current 50 percent making it consistent in statute with local improvement districts. Under section 7, two additional sections were requested: (e) would cover when a petition was filed a description would be given of the proposed road maintenance contract, and (f) would require the annual estimated cost to perform proposed road maintenance contracts.

Under item 4, section 7, line 25 would change in order to protest "within 60 days" the formation of the road maintenance district with 10 percent of the people be changed to 51 percent. In deference to Mr. Lee a new point under section 8 was an addition stating "(c) Abide by the provisions of the Nevada Open Meeting Law."

Ms. Licht indicated on page 4, section 12, another addition was requested asking a report be presented to the board of county commissioners specifying the total cost of prior year contracts and whether the goals and objectives of the district were accomplished. The commission would like to be assured they had accomplished what they set out to do. At the top of page 5, section 14, once again it was requested "51 percent" replace "10 percent." On the third line at the end of the line where it read "dissolution of the district." Remove the period and add "or at the discretion of a board of county commissioners by a 2/3 majority vote." That was requested because of the concern that a district might become a rogue district, or they were not meeting their goals and objectives. Although she had previously pointed out the change in section 10, it would only apply to counties with a population of less than 100,000. She indicated Carol Vilardo had requested the final section.

Mr. Neighbors questioned the language specifying the district could be dissolved at the discretion of the board of commissioners by a two-thirds majority. Ten of the counties had town boards of 5 commissioners that meant one person could make that decision over the other 4 and he would like to see a change to simple majority. Chairman Bache asked if the two-thirds majority was in the creation or dissolution or both. Mr. Neighbors replied it was the dissolution. Ms Licht interjected a simple majority would be fine.

Chairman Bache opined if the two-thirds majority was changed to 60 percent, it should address Mr. Neighbor’s concerns.

Ms. Parnell said she voted against most of the bills dealing with special assessment districts, mainly because there was just a 50 percent requirement, and there was no reference to financial hardships. She declared she would be voting for the bill because it did address those issues.

Ms. Gibbons questioned why page 5, section 13, lines 29 through 32, which addressed revenue collection, was being changed and how it was currently handled. Ms. Licht said she could not really respond to that because she was not fiscally knowledgeable, but she understood instead of the money being placed in the general fund it would be deposited in a special account in the county treasury. It had to go through a voucher system so when a district was formed with all the paperwork in place they went out to bid the contract. A claim form was then submitted to the county treasurer creating a paper trail and only then would a check be issued to the contractor. When it was in a special fund it was her understanding it could only be spent for road maintenance projects in that particular district.

Chairman Bache interjected "a special account" designation in the general fund was an appropriate description because it would not be a fund, but only an account for road maintenance. Ms. Licht noted when they contracted with the county to hold the sheep commission accounts it was an account in the general fund having a special number and that was the same situation.

Mr. Lee indicated he had been involved in issues involving maintenance. He had a piece of property in the mountains and when the bridge washed out the homeowners used funds they were assessed to repair it. The assessed money went into an account managed by the homeowners association and could only be used for maintenance purposes. He felt what was being requested was not unique. Ms. Licht pointed out the interest earned on the sheep commission account was given to the county as part of their fee for managing the account.

Chairman Bache clarified what the amendments would be. Section 13 clarified a special account within the general fund would be set up. Mr. Neighbors pointed out the language on page 2 should be changed to "simple majority" as discussed earlier.

*********

Mr. Humke stated he would make a motion; however, he wanted some of the people involved in the discussions when compromises were reached to voice their opinions.

Ross de Lipkau, attorney for the Airport Authority of Washoe County and active in the background of A.B. 575, stated they would like to withdraw the water rights issue as it would be covered administratively by the state engineer, Sierra Pacific Power Company, and the airport authority.

Pete Morros, director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said he was appearing for the state engineer as he was attending a Western Water Council meeting in Washington D.C. On behalf of the state engineer he wished to concur with Mr. Lipkau’s comments as he felt the issue could be handled administratively, and it would be a proper solution.

Hugh Ricci, deputy state engineer, Division of Water Resources testified he just wanted to concur with Mr. De Lipkau’s comments.

Mr. Humke declared he was withdrawing the bill at the present time and would make a motion to that effect. Chairman Bache said the bill would be withdrawn, but a motion was not needed.

Mr. Williams stated the amendment deleted section 1 and replaced it with the language as indicated in Exhibit H. Subsection 2, section 1, and all of section 2 were deleted. The bill then became the language in Exhibit H. He felt it was a fair amendment allowing each property owner notification when there was a change in zoning ordinances, and if in fact 20 percent of those people responded then a super-majority was needed before changes took place.

Chairman Bache asked if the amendment was presented to the various local governments for concurrence as they had originally voiced their concerns. Mr. Williams replied he talked with those who were interested, but he was not sure if all the entities had time to look it over. He thought the amendment seemed pretty harmless and fair to both sides.

Chairman Bache asked if Mr. Williams would consider an additional amendment dealing with county islands. It was an issue raised by some of the local governments and prohibited zoning changes within county islands unless the surrounding city also approved, because those islands would eventually become part of the city. Mr. Williams stated he would consider additional language, but he would have to confer with Ms. Giunchigliani and if she agreed, it was all right with him. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated she would accept the additional amendment.

Marta Brown, representing the city of North Las Vegas, stated she had just seen the amendment for the first time and believed the local governments might be concerned with the phrase of "super majority."

Mr. Williams questioned with what the council would feel comfortable. Marta Brown replied "a majority vote of the council or the governing body" was sufficient. Sometimes if people were absent or out of the room it could stall the vote if it required a majority of the entire committee.

Mr. Williams said he had no problem with that change. Chairman Bache asked if it was agreeable to all parties if the wording was changed from "super majority" to "majority," to which Mr. Williams replied he welcomed Chairman Bache’s suggestion.

*********

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Assembly District 28, testified the amendments she was proposing were contained in Exhibit I. She added on the last page of the handout, the language she proposed in section 3, was a new section amending chapter 269 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). The cover sheet contained the lists of fireworks allowable according to the definition outlined in the "American Pyrotechnics Association, Inc. Standard 87-1." She wanted assurance the types of fireworks approved were not aerial devices as those caused enormous impact to county firefighters. She had several calls from constituents in the Mountain Springs area, indicating that at least 40 acres of land had been lost because of illegal fireworks. There was also a large impact on insurance as well, as the exploding type of fireworks caused most of the injuries. She had also addressed Mr. Neighbor’s concern of adopting ordinances for unincorporated towns. She stressed Nevada was the only state not having a state fireworks control law.

Chairman Bache stated the original bill stated the "state fire marshal or any agency of the state or local government may institute legal proceeding." He felt much as in worker’s compensation, where the attorney general had prime responsibility, the state fire marshal needed to be designated as having prime responsibility under the law.

Ms. Chowning stated she had no aversion to having that language added to the amendment. She did not want to clog up the jails, but felt persons causing the damage should be required to reimburse whatever agency had been involved in fighting the fire caused by a misuse of fireworks.

Mr. Lee asked about the language on page 4, "institute a legal proceeding," and wondered if it would have a fiscal impact on the fire marshal’s office. Bryon Slobe, assistant state fire marshal, stated with the requested amendment the fiscal impact would be less than $2,500 a year because they would be able to institute restitution.

Mr. Lee questioned if the bill should be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means even with a nominal impact. Chairman Bache responded the original bill had no fiscal impact and as Mr. Slobe indicated there would be nominal impact, but he would talk with Mr. Arberry. Mr. Slobe added if aerial or audible devices were found they would be seized. Typically if they were using the devices and caused a fire, a citation would be issued, that was why he felt the cost would be less than $2,500 and probably even less than $1,000 a year. A majority of their work would involve seizure of the devices, which would then be destroyed.

Ms. Chowning interjected nothing had been added in definition of duties that differed from the bill she introduced in 1997. At that time it was railroaded into the Committee on Ways and Means who had sent it sent right back because they felt there was no fiscal impact.

Ms. Von Tobel wanted to stress the importance of the bill as it allowed the safe and sane sale of fireworks that did not leave the ground. She was aware of illegal fireworks brought into Clark County that had caused fires. She felt a state policy was needed as all the other states had some type of law on the books. She also questioned if the only opponent to the bill had submitted any amendment as had been indicated at the original hearing.

Chairman Bache interjected he was waiting until all the testimony in favor of the bill was heard and then the opponent would submit an amendment at that time.

Ms. Chowning replied she had seen an amendment; however, it was not acceptable. The amendment had not been given to her and as she was the sponsor of the bill she wanted to let the committee know that. She also brought out there were hundreds of nonprofit organizations in Clark County who sold safe and sane fireworks, and the bill would not affect them. The language in the bill stated the "state fire marshal shall not adopt regulations that entirely prohibit a local government from authorizing fireworks for a public use."

Mr. Slobe stressed the major fiscal impact was on the city and county fire departments, and the Nevada Division of Forestry as they were the ones called to fight any fires caused by fireworks.

Ms. Chowning interjected the amendment affected NRS chapter 477, the sections addressing the aerial and audible devices. The amendment allowed not only the visible items that were stationary on the ground, but also the aerial devices as well as exploding items sold and used in the state of Nevada. Also, at the bottom of page 1 there was allowance for a 30-day window, so if someone had an item that was illegal they would have 30 days to return the item to the manufacturer, destroy, or modify the item. She felt an honor system was not the way of addressing the issue. She added those were unacceptable amendments to the bill.

Chairman Bache stated even though there was no one appearing in opposition, he wanted Ms. Chowning to have the opportunity to present her opposition to the amendment. In response to Chairman Bache’s request for other comments, Mr. Slobe said he wanted to go on record as also opposed to the amendment.

Chairman Bache stated the subcommittee had held two meetings with a final decision reached, making a recommendation of amend and do pass A.B. 306. All parties were in agreement at that time except with section 2, dealing with eminent domain and section 14 dealing with the percentage of money from the city of Las Vegas going toward the housing issue. After more discussions an agreement was reached and the proposed amendments addressed those issues with all participants in agreement.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, stated she was not sure which section to cite regarding bonds, because in going with 18 percent on the housing, the life of the bond needed extending. She was able to locate the correct citation as indicated in the handout (Exhibit J). She felt the amendment was a reasonable compromise on behalf of the public and yet still allowed the redevelopment agencies to have a comfort level with eminent domain. Section 2, subsection 2, required redevelopment agencies to make written findings and must include sections A through E in the amendment. She had not wanted to get into the court process, so it was restricted from judicial review. The remainder of the amendments addressed language changes and in section 14, 15 percent was changed back to 18 percent as stated in the original bill.

Mrs. Freeman addressed section 5 where blighted area was defined and, the wording "menace to the public health, safety, and welfare" had been removed. She wondered if it was felt the language was redundant as she felt safety was an important issue because of the high crime rate in blighted areas. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she had agreed to remove that language as it was currently in statute. If the issue of economic or social liability was examined it was defined as public health and safety. Also it was felt spelling it out would have invited more court involvement, and that was not the intent. The purpose of redevelopment was for economic and social ability in order to bring back areas which had died out.

Mrs. Freeman noted where there was discussion of the alternative to the appointment of the five members and if any consideration was given to placing a private citizen on the redevelopment agency. Ms. Giunchigliani replied there was already the authority to appoint an advisory committee so when removing the language, it would revert back to the existing requirements.

Mr. Humke noted the judicial challenge portion was a strange issue to place in statute, to say citizens did not have a right to go to court to interpret a law. Ms. Giunchigliani responded that was what currently happened in an eminent domain proceeding within a redevelopment area. That was why cases such as the Carol Pappas case was currently being heard by the Supreme Court. Part of the issue was that former District Judge Chairez did not even have the authority to deal with anything other than the value of the property. She did not want to see agencies holding out simply to get more money when the initial offer had been proper.

Mr. Humke stated it would then be a redundancy. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated it would be, if there was no requirement for necessity and public findings. Judicial review would occur if someone alleged bribery or fraud regarding cost issues.

Mr. Humke felt it gave a message to the public, that the redevelopment agency had so much power they had no right to go to court. Ms. Giunchigliani responded she did not believe that was what it said, because for the first time a redevelopment agency had to establish a resolution or necessity before they could take the land. The resolution spelled out that the property was being taken for redevelopment purposes with a reasonably detailed description of the property. Previously there had never been requirements along those lines for public protection.

Mr. Humke declared he had no objection to the findings, just to the statement "there shall be no judicial review." Ms. Giunchigliani said it was a determination by the committee, she was merely voicing to what she had agreed.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned why the percent went from 15 percent set aside to 18 percent and wondered how the compromise came about. She understood the bill would only affect Las Vegas but not Henderson because of the population cap. Ms. Giunchigliani replied Ms. Buckley made the offer that if communities did not want to have all funds included it would be at 20 percent, and after negotiations 18 percent was decided. The original language was imposed so it did not capture all the revenue sources such as loan funds. In addition with the adoption of the bond extension only the city of Las Vegas would be affected and possibly Sparks, because Henderson had not moved into that area in 1987.

Doug Dickerson, representing the city of Las Vegas, just wanted to go on record the city supported the bill with the amendments. They were not happy with the 18 percent but felt with the tradeoff they were able to get an extension on the plan and then with the available money they could improve projects if the plan was extended. Presently there were only 16 years left on the plan so when the city went to bond even if a project was already in progress there would probably be only 13 or 14 years left.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Lee said there was a lot in the bill on which he still was not clear. He would vote for the bill with the caveat he might vote against the bill on the floor if there were still points he did not understand.

Mr. Humke stated he had the same reservation as Mr. Lee, but he would vote for the bill to get it out of committee.

Chairman Bache indicated it was requested by the regional planning agencies and Ms. Fretwell was very helpful in working with he and Ms. Giunchigliani. There was a proposed amendment (Exhibit K) and he would let Ms. Fretwell and Ms. Giunchigliani explain the amendment.

Betsy Fretwell, representing the city of Henderson stated on lines 2 to 38, page 3, of the amendment where it read "each of the four largest" should be replaced with "at least three of the largest." It would then be consistent with existing interlocal agreements, but gave the flexibility to add more people when they wanted to join the plan.

Ms. Giunchigliani interjected it represented what was currently occurring with the regional coalition. She continued, on page 4 the language was reworked indicating a "land use plan map for the region based on the adopted plans of local entities." That language more closely aligned with what was currently done by the planning authority. They had tried to work with what Senator Porter’s bill encompassed so there was no conflict but still took into account what the strategic planning coalition had been designing. Also changes in subsection 7 addressed another public purpose statement that the plan should take into consideration. Section 6 was the original proposed incentive language although when it was rewritten there was an error, so where it read "creating a building permit fee," "building" should read "development."

Ms. Fretwell interjected in section 7 the language seemed to indicate the entities if they were otherwise required to submit a plan to the public utilities commission (PUC) then they were required to submit those plans to the coalition. She felt there should be an "or" added, to read "The following entities shall, or if otherwise required…"

Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out section 8 was rewritten and referred back to what the regional planning coalition wanted in section 5, subsections 2 and 3. Section 9 dealt with the budget and lifted directly from the original bill, so plans would be submitted to the local governments for recommendation for funding, but it would determine what triggered the funding mechanism. In section 10 the original language was deleted in its entirety with the recommended language allowing the coalition to enter into a contract for services necessary to implement the provisions of the act. There was also a mandate starting July 1, 2002, the coalition must review the consistency with the adopted regional policy plan not more than every 2 years. The last change provided 90 days for plans to be submitted with the act becoming effective January 1, 2000, which should provide adequate time to have the plan in place.

Ms. Fretwell added throughout the document it went back and forth between conference of "regional plan" and "comprehensive regional policy plan." Since everything was developed by policy, she felt the phrase should be "comprehensive regional policy plan." Also, in section 5 where it referred "from federal agencies" that should be changed to "to federal agencies."

Ms. Von Tobel questioned if the plan worked in conjunction with the plan introduced in the senate. Ms. Giunchigliani replied in the affirmative and that was on what Ms. Fretwell had been working and what the coalition was moving toward.

Kelly Thomas, District 16, testified he had passed out the proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit L) which addressed community notification of nonconforming zone changes, other applications, and school districts. There was concern about the fiscal impact, so he reduced the requirements. Currently master plan notification in counties over 400,000 was 500 feet, and was being changed to 1,000 so it reduced some of the impact. In the rural counties the notification area went from 300 to 500 feet. He had also included enabling legislation so notification could be made by electronic means if there was a request to do so. The noticing requirements were mirrored in the zoning portion of statute to match that of the master plan. A requirement was added to notice the superintendent of schools and his/her designee, which was the impetus of the original bill. Mr. Lee’s concerns had also been addressed regarding commercial and residential use permits. Those were separated so commercial enterprises required use permits and land use variances would be in place for residential use when someone wanted to add a carport, deck, or something that encroached into a set back. The use permit requirement would be 500 feet instead of the current 300 feet, and he believed the rural counties would remain at 300 feet but could go to 500 feet if a bar, tavern, or casino was being contemplated.

Mr. Lee asked why the decision was made to raise the 500 feet to 700 feet for a use permit application. Mr. Thomas replied those were generally used for commercial construction, so if someone wanted to put in a convenience store or something of that nature notification would be required to extend from 300 to 500 feet.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned if a use permit would be required if someone decided to work at home as an accountant. Mr. Thomas replied that was a home occupation and entirely different.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if a use permit could ever be used for something within the home or would the structure have to be commercially zoned. Mr. Thomas responded home occupations were generally allowed without a special use permit from the county.

Ms. Von Tobel wanted assurance the owner of a home business would not be hurt by the permitting process.

Ms. Coder, representing Clark County planning interjected, the use permit was really a land use application permit and would not affect any type of construction or building permit fees. Notification referenced in the bill was for land use applications. Variances would typically be something a carport might fall under as far as set back or height restrictions and it was her understanding notification remained the same as it was presently. The use permits were not always for commercial uses, and in Clark County at least, they were also used for churches, schools, and government offices. The increased 300 to 500 feet notification for use permits was proposed allowing better notice and the alcoholic consumption on the premises notification was increased from 500 to 1,000 feet. She added overall there would be a slight increase in fees for noticing a larger area, but given the delay in implementation time it would certainly allow the city to be included in the budget or fee structure.

Mr. Lee pointed out in original testimony Ms. Coder had requested a delayed phase in approach, and asked if she was satisfied with the bill in its present form. Ms. Coder responded they had not wanted any increases, but they were in agreement with time delays as it allowed the city the ability to increase the fee structure and make appropriate budget requests.

Steve Van Guard speaking for the city of North Las Vegas, pointed out north Las Vegas already notified an area greater than the required 500 foot radius. It was already closer to 750 feet and often times 1,000 to 1,500 and were in support of the bill.

Ms. Parnell said she wanted to speak on behalf of the smaller counties, as she still had concern over the 500 foot notification for those counties with populations under 100,000.

Ms. Von Tobel interjected the homeowners association was not presently in attendance and was the one group testifying against the bill and wondered if they were in agreement with the amended version. Mr. Kelly opined as it had the potential of increasing fees if the local municipalities and not included that in their budget, he felt the association would probably still oppose it.

Ms. Von Tobel questioned when a development was going in, how often did a builder have to request a variance and how often were mailings prepared. In a single development would one change be required or were many variance notifications made, because if a builder constantly had variance changes it could be quite expensive. Mr. Kelley responded it was contingent on what was being proposed. If they were proposing a zone change it would only be done once, on average with the 500-foot he thought about 250 notices would be mailed. In addition if the master plan had to be modified there could be another 250 notices but both would be enclosed in the same envelope.

Ms. Coder, remarked most developers sought their zoning permits for a residential subdivision only once. If a special use permit was needed for compacting lots or plan development it would typically occur at the same time. However, regarding variances there was no way to predict how often a different application may be needed. She added in her experience only one or two variances were needed during construction. But once the home was sold the homeowner might experience any number of variances.

Dick Heikka, representing Southern Nevada Home Builders stated the builders would bear the burden of the noticing costs. He had probably written five or six zoning ordinances through the years and found local zoning ordinances should reflect the interest of the local developers. When the distances were being micromanaged on a variance, use permit, or rezoning, he felt some options were being removed from the community. For example he had spent several years as a zoning administrator where his decisions were final unless they were appealed and minor variance changes were made with only two or three of the adjoining property owners notified. Use permits might go out 500 feet but depending on the nature of the use permit noticing might extend a quarter of a mile, if the project was significant and had an impact on the community. When regulations were written affecting everyone from Fernley to Las Vegas and mandating how notices were issued, he thought the opportunity to develop something that fit into the community was not being taken into consideration. With the type of requirements placed in the bill, he wished to voice his objection.

Mr. Thomas stated he felt Mr. Heikka’s concerns were addressed in the bill, because it did separate urban from rural areas. The intense notification requirements only affected Clark County so he felt those concerns were addressed. Mr. Thomas added he would like to address some of the other pieces of legislation affecting land use until a full committee was present before taking action on the bill.

Mr. Kelly stated the bill identified incentives for what was called "infill" development, where vacant parcels were addressed that existed on the interior of urban development. The bill created equity between the price of the land on the urban fringe with that in the interior of the existing built out form. The first thing was to define infrastructure, which was basically police stations, roads, water, sewer lines, and what the municipalities would be doing. The date by which municipalities had to identify the "infill parcels" they felt would benefit from development was January 1, 2000. It would create a boundary around the areas and the Commission on Economic Development and Nevada Division of Housing would come up with some incentives to locate in those smart growth zones. They were not being told where to place them but they could designate zones that were likely to benefit. So even if it was an "infill" piece it might not be worth creating a zone around it, so the local governments had total control over land use decisions.

Ms. Parnell asked if the smaller counties had accepted the amendments to the bill. Mr. Kelly replied it was enabling legislation for counties under 100,000.

Ms. Coder said Clark County had no problems with the bill, although she believed a postponed effective date was to be included. Mr. Kelly responded the effective date was January 1, 2001, and that gave the counties 18 months after adjournment of the legislature to analyze and insure they planned appropriately as to where development should be placed.

Tom Parago, city of Las Vegas testified the legislation was consistent with the "infill policy" the city was currently drafting and they were in support of the bill.

Barbara A. McKenzie, representing the city of Reno, testified she had just received the proposed amended version of A.B. 563 (Exhibit M) and did not have a copy of the previous bill with which to compare it to determine what changes had been made. With respect to the original version of the bill, Reno’s planning staff said the bill did not appear to provide any planning tools not already at Reno’s disposal, but it mandated more planning activity.

Ms. Tiffany said she found it interesting Nevada’s local governments had not requested "smart growth zones" be implemented. She asked whether Ms. McKenzie had previously heard of "smart growth zones" and whether Reno planned to implement them. Ms. McKenzie replied "smart growth zone" was not a new term, and Reno utilized it in their planning efforts. The city promoted "infill" development when developers wished to engage in that type of development. Reno had a number of affordable housing projects, within and surrounding its downtown redevelopment area utilizing "infill" parcels.

Mr. Thomas explained the proposed amended version of A.B. 563 (Exhibit M) was very similar to the original version. A hearing held on the original version of the bill the city of Reno expressed concern over who would establish "smart growth" or "infill" zones. According to the original version of the bill, the regional planning commission would establish those zones. Reno did not want the local regional planning commission dictating where those zones would be located within the city. Pursuant to the amended version of the bill, either counties or cities would establish those zones. Mr. Thomas added section 2 of the original version of A.B. 563 was deleted from the bill; therefore, Reno’s concerns about that section had been addressed.

Mr. Thomas conceded A.B. 563 would create more work for the planning staffs of local governments. For that reason, an effective date of January 1, 2002, was established allowing local governments 18 months in which to establish their "smart growth zones." He explained A.B. 563 required a land use plan be incorporated as part of a master plan as it was common practice throughout the state. He believed the present version addressed all of Reno’s concerns.

Ms. McKenzie remarked based on a cursory review of the proposed revised version of A.B. 563 (Exhibit M), she did not believe the bill addressed anything Reno was not either already doing or planning to do within the next 2 or 3 years. Therefore, she did not believe there was any particular problem with the bill.

Richard Heikka, representing Southern Nevada Home Builders Association testified the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association were in opposition to A.B. 563. What the bill was providing could already be accomplished under the provisions of NRS 278. He believed the term "smart growth zones" could be misunderstood. Currently, although an "infill" parcel in a community might be undeveloped it would have zoning restrictions. Local government would be aware of the parcel’s zoning designation, but until the owner of the parcel wanted to do something with it the parcel would remain undeveloped.

Mr. Thomas declared A.B. 563 was relevant. The bill required local governments to establish "smart growth zones" within a given timeframe. The bill would bring national attention to Nevada, with respect to smart land use planning policies, and would help the state qualify for some of the federal funding initiatives proposed by President Clinton’s administration.

Ms. Parnell indicated she, too, wished to respond to Mr. Heikka’s comments. Referring to Ms. Tiffany’s question about the meaning of "smart growth zone," even though there were the same provisions in A.B. 563 as in statute, the bill might make a progressive policy statement incorporating 21^st century planning vocabulary in Nevada law.

Ms. Freeman said she heard about the federal assistance that might be available if Nevada proceeded with the language provided in A.B. 563. She believed the bill addressed a valid issue and made a statement that Nevada was thinking about the future of its municipalities, and how those municipalities would accomplish "infill" development. Therefore, she supported A.B. 563.

Ms. Gibbons related she had received a memo from Bob Shriver, executive director of the state’s Commission on Economic Development, expressing some concerns about A.B. 563 and asked whether those concerns were addressed by the proposed amended version of the bill (Exhibit M). Mr. Thomas responded, as A.B. 563 progressed through the legislative session he would be working with Mr. Shriver.

Mr. Humke said he had some doubts about A.B. 563. However, he would vote "yes" on the pending motion but reserved the right to reverse his vote on the Assembly floor. Both Mrs. Berman and Ms. Gibbons said they too would vote "yes" on the pending motion but reserved their right to vote differently on the Assembly floor.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Bache called for a vote.

*********

Chairman Bache asked whether the committee had any questions about A.B. 349.

Ms. Tiffany announced she would vote "no" on A.B. 349 primarily because of the costs and mandates the bill imposed on local governments.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Bache announced he would accept a motion.

*********

Mr. Thomas submitted a proposed amended version of A.B. 566 (Exhibit N). He explained the amended version of the bill required the inclusion of policies for development of traditional neighborhoods in both a municipality’s master plan and its land use plan. However, it did not require municipalities to reflect zoning of specific areas for traditional neighborhood development in their master plans. The bill defined "traditional neighborhood development," and one concern about the original version of the bill was that the definition was too broad.

Lesa Coder, assistant director and zoning administrator, Current Planning Division, Comprehensive Planning Department, Clark County, testified Clark County supported the bill based on the fact the amended version of A.B. 566 (Exhibit N) was permissive.

Ms. Gibbons said she recalled Carol Vilardo, executive director of Nevada Taxpayers Association, suggested deleting section 6 of the bill. Mr. Thomas responded section 6 was deleted from the proposed amended version of the bill (Exhibit N).

Steven Ressler van Gorp, Urban Design Coordinator, Comprehensive Planning Department, city of Las Vegas indicated the city of Las Vegas supported A.B. 566. He said Las Vegas was initiating a new master planning process and was including traditional neighborhood developments in that process.

Mr. Lee said he believed roads in Las Vegas were required to be 60 feet wide to allow fire engines to turn around. Mr. Thomas responded Las Vegas’ master plan for streets and highways established a minimum width for residential streets of 51 feet. In order to accomplish the proposals in A.B. 566, Las Vegas might have to amend its master plan for streets and highways.

Mr. Lee asserted the city of Las Vegas could not reduce the required width of a street because it had to accommodate a fire truck when they needed to turn. Mr. Thomas indicated there were other ways, such as prohibiting parking on narrower streets.

Mr. Lee cited a street in Las Vegas where parking had been prohibited and the residents were now parking in their yards, which was illegal. He contended off-street parking was not a solution to the problem, and section 1, subsection 3, would have to be stricken from bill if he were to support the bill.

Mr. Thomas said "narrow" was a subjective term. Individual municipalities established their own ordinances and he was certain fire departments had input into those ordinances. He stated International Transportation Engineers adopted standards for traditional neighborhood development and addressed fire departments’ concerns when establishing those standards.

Ms. Tiffany voiced her concern, as it pertained to "social engineering." She said she was seeing bills through which government and environmentalists were in contention over what neighborhoods should be. Another concern was the fact the state’s Commission on Economic Development was being charged with the development of traditional neighborhoods. She did not approve of government entities attempting to encourage, manipulate, or "engineer" the private business sector to participate in government’s social engineering. She declared she was voting "no" on A.B. 566.

In response, Mr. Thomas pointed out the reference to the Commission on Economic Development had been removed from A.B. 566. He contended all laws currently in effect engineered society and stressed the bill was permissive.

Ms. Tiffany said she appreciated Mr. Thomas informing her the reference to the Commission on Economic Development had been removed from A.B. 566. However, her philosophy about social engineering remained unchanged, and she would be voting against the bill.

Ms. Von Tobel said the state of Oregon was attempting to pass a law requiring signs be posted at the state’s borders, telling people it was nice of them to visit Oregon but not to move there. Having grown up in the state of Washington, she appreciated open areas and parks. She did not believe Nevada wanted to send the message it was gearing up to planned development and closing the state to innovative ideas. She maintained the building industry had always been one of supply and demand, and it should be up to them in deciding what they wanted to build, as opposed to government dictating what they should build. Mr. Thomas asserted A.B. 566 if a builder determined he wished to build the type of development discussed in the bill, the bill only provided him that opportunity.

Ms. Von Tobel maintained builders currently had the opportunity to build developments such as that discussed in A.B. 566 and did not need the legislature enacting a bill for something already available. Builders could design their developments any way they chose as long as they were able to obtain necessary zoning variances. Mr. Thomas proposed an amendment to the proposed amended version that he felt might address the concern Mr. Lee previously expressed. He suggested section 1, subsection 3, be amended to discuss streets which supported "traffic calming" rather than "narrow" streets." He asked whether Mr. Lee would be amenable to that amendment. Mr. Lee indicated he would like some time to consider it.

Chairman Bache suggested deleting section 1, subsection 3, and retaining the definition of "traditional neighborhoods." A provision should be included precluding local governments from prohibiting traditional neighborhood developments so developers could incorporate their own ideas.

Mr. Thomas responded he had no problem following Chairman Bache’s suggestions. However, the amended version had received nearly unanimous support from Nevada’s municipalities, who had no problem with the language.

Ms. Parnell noted if Mr. Thomas followed Chairman Bache’s suggestion it would establish creative 21^st century language. Therefore, even if the bill were made more permissive, it would not be "lost." Mr. Thomas submitted additional proposed amendments (Exhibit O), which he thought addressed Chairman Bache’s concern. Pursuant to those amendments, section 4, subsection 1(f)(1) would preclude a city, county, or region from prohibiting, through its master plan, the creation of traditional neighborhood developments, and section 5, subsection 3, would preclude a city, county, or region from prohibiting the creation of such developments by ordinance.

Richard Heikka, representing Southern Nevada Home Builders Association testified he believed Southern Nevada Home Builders Association wholeheartedly endorsed the amendments proposed by Chairman Bache. He pointed out a traditional neighborhood involved mixed land use, both commercial and residential. He added potential problems could be realized if building a tradition plan was undertaken and then and one morning a 7-11 was being built in the middle of the neighborhood. He suggested caution should be exercised regarding mixed land use. Another problem could be the encouragement of constructing alleys. Southern Nevada Home Builders Association’s belief was residents would not want their children walking through alleyways.

Mr. Mortenson commented he grew up with alleys and he thought they had a purpose, garbage cans and cars were hidden from view. Unsightly items were not sitting out in front of people’s homes. He conceded the possibility that crime might occur in alleyways but thought advantages outweighed their disadvantages.

Mr. Thomas said traditional neighborhood developments would include large amounts of open space encouraging residents to gather in those. A 7-11 store would not be placed in such a neighborhood, because the neighborhood would be a planned development, approved by the local government in which it was located. That local government would examine the issues ensuring the neighborhood’s quality of life.

David R. Hill, Legislative Assistant, Rose Glenn Group, representing the city of Sparks stated A.B. 566 should be amended to include a provision precluding local governments from prohibiting creation of traditional neighborhood developments. He also questioned if that provision precluded local governments from prohibiting such developments, if those developments did not comply with the regional plan or zoning designation of the area where the construction was proposed. Mr. Thomas replied he did not think it would. The language of the proposed amendments (Exhibit O) indicated local governments could not prohibit creation of such developments either by ordinance or through a master plan. Local governments would retain the right to make land use decisions.

Chairman Bache clarified Mr. Mortenson’s motion by amending A.B. 566, by deleting section 1, subsection 3, and adding the language set forth in Mr. Thomas’ proposed amendments (Exhibit O).

*********

Mr. Thomas presented proposed amendments to A.B. 565 (Exhibit P), explaining it attempted to resolve problems encountered primarily in Clark County by increasing the number of parks and trails and the amount of open space available to residents in southern Nevada. Section 1, required Clark County developers to provide a certain amount of open space in residential areas. In lieu of providing open space, a developer could either pay the residential construction tax or develop public lands adjacent to his residential development.

He explained the bill defined the term "common open space" and ensured no entry fee or use fee would be charged for use of common open space or precluded golf courses from being deemed common or open space. The bill also required municipalities to develop recreation plans in order to establish certainty and predictability in the development process. He had worked with local governments in developing fairly palatable language for A.B. 565 and most were either neutral of favored the bill.

Ms. Gibbons requested clarification, as she understood it applied only to counties with populations of 400,000 or more and would not apply to Washoe County. Mr. Thomas confirmed that was correct.

Mr. Lee said approximately 7,000 people lived in the square mile area surrounding Mr. Thomas’ house and 28 acres of open space would be required within that square mile area if the bill passed. It appeared to him Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority (SNSPA) was developing a master plan and attempting to address the issue of open space. He asked if Mr. Thomas would update the committee on what Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority was doing. Mr. Thomas replied Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) had adopted a standard whereby it attempted creation of 2.5 acres per 1,000 of programmable open space. The bill addressed kinetic elements of open space, such as trail systems and small neighborhood parks.

Mr. Lee pointed out in order to create open space someone had to relinquish land that had already been purchased. He posed a scenario in which he and other individuals were owners of small pieces of property. He asked if the hope was that enough owners of small parcels would elect to pay the residential construction tax to provide sufficient funds to purchase property for a park and develop that park or was the hope many individual parks would be created. In response, Mr. Thomas posed a scenario in which he was attempting to develop a 40-acre parcel of property. He explained under that scenario, he would have three options. His first option was to provide a parkland area for residents of his development, who would then own that parkland. The manner in which he accomplished that would be established by local ordinance. His second option was to pay the residential construction tax, as he currently could under NRS. Revenue from that tax could then be used to fund creation of 2.5 acres per 1,000 of open space in accordance with the standard established by SNRPC. His third option was to develop an area of open space and dedicate that area to the public.

Mr. Lee asked what would happen if he decided not to create a park in his development. Mr. Thomas responded Mr. Lee would then have to pay the residential construction tax, which would be used to fund the additional regional park system SNRPC was working to create. Mr. Lee observed money would then be taken from him to pay the residential construction tax, but would provide no benefit for his development area. Mr. Thomas responded that money might benefit Mr. Lee’s development area. He said, "Those are some of the procedures and things that SNRPC is working to come up with at this time."

Ms. Tiffany asserted the biggest problem raised in discussions about parks was that of funding, particularly in Clark County. She believed it inappropriate, at the present time, to mandate the things discussed in the bill without input on how that mandate was to be funded because funding was currently a problem. She observed Mr. Thomas had taken a direction in provision of funding; however, she was not certain the funding source established by the bill agreed with the regional planning coalition. Especially when a small developer was being required to contribute to a pool of funds that might not benefit the residential development he was involved in.

Mr. Thomas reiterated the three options A.B. 565 provided, 1) to create a private park, 2) build a park and dedicate it to the public, or 3) pay the residential construction tax. The park created under the first option would have to be maintained through some funding mechanism, which would probably be a fee paid by residents to a homeowners association. Mr. Thomas said he believed a representative of the public sector might be better able than he to address maintenance of parks created and dedicated to the public under the second option. With respect to the third option, he believed SNRPC anticipated using revenue from the residential construction tax to create parks pursuant to standards adopted in the course of its planning process.

Ms. Tiffany said the city of Henderson had an extremely favorable attitude toward parks and frequently asked developers to donate land for parks; however, such donations did not provide sufficient park areas. There were many means of funding parks; however, she was not certain she would support the funding mechanism established in the bill.

Mr. Lee observed funding for residential areas was also obtained through the building permit process and asked whether he was correct when a builder obtained a building permit for a house in a residential development, funds thus generated would be utilized for the park in his residential development. Mr. Thomas responded he was not certain where funds generated through the building permit process were directed.

Thomas A. Perrigo, planning supervisor, Comprehensive Planning Division, Planning and Development Department, city of Las Vegas, testified the city of Las Vegas had an open space ordinance. He was not certain how the language of the proposed amendments to (Exhibit P) would fit in with the formulas the city utilized to determine open space. Therefore, although the city of Las Vegas supported the concept of A.B. 565 he believed the city must remain neutral on the bill.

Ms. Gibbons asked Mr. Thomas how he would feel about changing "shall" to "may" in section 1, subsection 1. Mr. Thomas replied most municipalities did not perceive that "shall" was a problem. They were concerned about establishing some ratio or formula in statute.

Chairman Bache stated he was opposed to A.B. 565. He believed both Assembly Bill 493, the regional planning bill previously passed; and the efforts of the SNSPA attempted to address the subject of A.B. 565. In particular, since A.B. 565 applied only to counties with populations of 400,000 or more, he believed the bill’s subject could be dealt with locally rather than through state statute.

Mr. Mortenson declared he supported A.B. 565. For as long as he could remember, Clark County’s intention had been to achieve 4 acres of open space per 1,000. The county had not achieved 50 percent of that goal. He believed A.B. 565 constituted a step in the right direction to even though the Southern Nevada Strategic Authority was a wonderful organization all the verbiage was enabling and if it was not mandated it would never happen.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, representing the city of Henderson, testified. She said she might be able to shed some light on what SNSPA had done. During its "needs assessment process," SNSPA crafted a narrow definition of "open space" and did so for a reason. SNSPA believed if it was to attempt to identify open spaces, including all national park and recreational facilities in southern Nevada in its considerations. She pointed out both Lake Mead and Red Rock recreation areas were of tremendous size. Because of the time the legislature allotted SNSPA to accomplish a "needs assessment," SNSPA decided it should focus on the open space areas of greatest concern, programmable areas, and that was what it did in establishing the standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000. SNSPA had recommended Southern Nevada Regional Planning Commission conduct further evaluations, establishing both a definition of "open space" and a plan of regional trails that would contribute to the use of open space. As new developments were proposed in southern Nevada every local government was striving to acquire a minimum of 2.5 acres of open space. The city of Henderson asked for more than twice that amount of open space in connection with new developments.

Richard Heikka, representing Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, stated the Senate Committee on Government Affairs approved a bill which established impact fees to fund fire stations and parks, which had a significant impact on what developers did. He believed developers either dedicated land or paid money for more park area than the average local government could afford to maintain. He agreed with Chairman Bache that the issues of open space should be left to local regional planning commissions.

Lesa Coder, assistant director and zoning administrator, Current Planning Division, Comprehensive Planning Department, Clark County, reminded the committee Clark County previously said it had no opposition to A.B. 565 if certain clarifications were made to the bill and she believed those clarifications had been made. With respect to establishing a requirement for a specific amount of open space, she suggested that should be left to SNSPA or the regional planning coalition.

Mr. Thomas said A.B. 565 was intended as a tool and to help align SNSPA recommendations. There were two other pieces of legislation addressing the issues addressed in A.B. 565. He hoped as many vehicles as possible would be generated during the current legislative session to help SNSPA accomplish its recommendations.

Chairman Bache said the intent behind the motion previously made and passed to amend A.B. 566 required clarification and asked Ms. Fretwell to comment.

Ms. Fretwell testified she had spoken with Ms. Coder after the motion to amend and do pass A.B. 566 had been approved. It was her understanding the bill, as amended, would not prohibit a local government from approving traditional neighborhood development. However, the bill said a city, county or region could not, through its master plan, prohibit the creation of a traditional neighborhood development.

Chairman Bache said if he correctly understood Ms. Fretwell’s concern, it was the language mandating a local government to approve all proposals for traditional neighborhood developments submitted to it.

Ms. Fretwell responded it appeared if someone presented a local government with a proposal for a traditional neighborhood development, that local government’s current zoning designations would have no bearing on whether it should be approved. Usually, if the legislature wished to encourage local governments to do something, it merely said they "may." Prohibiting local governments from evaluating projects for development of a traditional neighborhood on an individual basis defeated the purpose of having zoning regulations.

Chairman Bache said he did not believe that was the intent behind the motion, and it was not his intent when he voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Thomas stated that was not his intent either. He indicated he would work with municipalities to ensure both they and the committee’s intent was expressed in the amended version of A.B. 566.

Chairman Bache said he believed Eileen O’Grady, committee counsel, could develop appropriate language to express the committee’s intent.

Chairman Bache stated part of the language came from testimony by Richard Heikka, who represented Southern Nevada Home Builders Association that was "The decision of the committee is final and binding on the public agency and is not subject to judicial review." He felt that language caused local governments to negotiate with one another to resolve their issues and avoid submitting them to the Committee on Local Government Finance. He pointed out the provisions of the proposed amendment (Exhibit Q) would not apply to disputes already in the process of being litigated in a court of law.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, representing the city of Henderson, testified she had concerns that local governments would be able to use the provisions of the proposed amendment (Exhibit Q) as leverage to force one another to negotiate. She also expressed concern about a state entity being placed in the middle of a dispute between local governments and having to determine a resolution. She contended the proposed amendment might establish a bad precedent particularly when one could be forced to relinquish its authority to another through an interlocal agreement.

Chairman Bache said he wished to make it clear if a local government did not have an existing interlocal agreement, the provisions of the proposed amendment (Exhibit Q) would not affect that local government. It applied only when re-negotiation of an existing interlocal agreement reached impasse. Ms. Fretwell stated when she worked for Clark County, the county and the city of Las Vegas entered into an interlocal agreement to allay their annexation issues. Subsequently, when the composition of the governing boards of those entities changed, the policies established by those boards were at odds, and the entities decided to let their interlocal agreement expire. She contended the provisions of the proposed amendment might have forced Las Vegas’ city council to negotiate with Clark County’s board of commissioners regarding something the board believed was no longer applicable in light of its policies and the direction it wanted to take. Those provisions would have removed the responsibility of the board members and place that responsibility in the hands of the Committee on Local Government Finance comprised of the finance directors of all of Nevada’s counties.

Thomas J. Grady, representing Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, wished to thank Chairman Bache for the hard work he had done in effecting a compromise. Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities believed the city of Ely and White Pine County should be directed to resolve their issues at home and that could be done, there would be no need for A.B. 422.

Marta Golding Brown, representing the city of North Las Vegas, contended the policy statement reflected in the proposed amendment (Exhibit Q) should not be placed in statute. Therefore the city of North Las Vegas was opposed the proposed amendment.

Chairman Bache announced to simplify matters, the committee would give no further consideration to A.B. 422. He thought Mr. Grady should send the message to all Nevada’s cities that if they failed to resolve their own problems, the legislature would take action they would not like. He also requested Mr. Grady to ask Robert Hadfield, the representative of Nevada Association of Counties, to send the same message to all Nevada counties.

At 1:25 p.m., Chairman Bache recessed the meeting until the call of the Chair.

Chairman Bache did not reconvene the meeting, and the meeting was deemed adjourned.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Virginia Letts,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: