The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:24 a.m., on Wednesday, May 12, 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. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

John Carpenter, representing Assembly District 33, Elko County, stated he supported S.B. 314, and it specifically addressed Wendover, Nevada. Currently a municipal judge could only serve for 1 year unless otherwise stated in the city charter, and since Wendover did not have a charter, the judges had only been able to serve for 1 year. S.B. 314 would allow a city without a charter to adopt an ordinance, which would enable the judge to serve a longer term. He felt the bill was important to Wendover and would apply to approximately five other cities as well.

In reviewing the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 266.405, Chairman Bache asked if he was correct in assuming Wendover was a general law city, to which Thomas Grady, executive director, Nevada League of Cities, replied he was correct. Nevada was comprised of six general law cities, and the election or appointment of the judges in those cities was addressed in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) chapter 266.405. The section resolved conflict between NRS 5.020 (Municipal judges) and NRS 266.405 (Incorporation by General Law), under which Wendover fell.

Chairman Bache was concerned with an ordinance adopted by a city because then the state was faced with different ordinances adopted by each of the general law cities. He preferred to state the term of office in order to achieve consistency in statute. Mr. Grady explained charter cities were described as those of the first class, second class, and third class. Those cities of the third class were populated with less than 5,000 people and could appoint judges. S.B. 314 would allow a judge’s term of office to be set by an ordinance.

Mr. Mortenson requested clarification of a charter city and how it differentiated from other cities. Mr. Grady said a charter city was a city that had a special charter molded to the desires of that city within parameters stated by the legislature. Boulder City was an example of a true charter city whereby that city’s charter could be changed by a vote of the people. Other cities desiring a change to the charter were required to address the legislature. The six general law cities were organized under NRS Chapter 266.

With regard to NRS chapter 266, Chairman Bache stated the chapter referenced cities of the first class and second class, but had not made reference to the third class as far as the appointment of the various officers. Mr. Grady responded cities of the third class were addressed in NRS 266.405 (3).

Mr. Carpenter informed the committee the judges association approved the passage of S.B. 314.

There being no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 314

Chairman Bache stated S.B. 369 had been amended and referred back to committee. One other cleanup amendment had also been proposed for S.B. 369.

Steven Ghiglieri, chief of office of business finance and planning, State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry, testified in support of S.B. 369. The bill had been referred back to the committee with an amendment (Exhibit C), and members had been provided with a minor amendment to section 3, subsection 1 (Exhibit D). The department had reviewed how the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) implemented the amendment, and he believed the amendment accomplished the intended goal. Exhibit D had been provided with the intent of making the subsection more consistent with the overall intent of the section. The purpose and effect of the proposed change resolved the concern of the department with regard to information submitted by the bond applicant and what could and could not be disclosed.

In response to Ms. Gibbons’ question, Mr. Ghiglieri said there were no problems with the clarification amendments to section 3.

Chairman Bache asked if the proposed amendments provided were the same, to which Mr. Ghiglieri replied affirmatively. With regard to line 2, the only additional change was the "or" changed to "and." LCB, in referring the bill back to committee, had provided the change. Because he did not know if all committee members had received the memorandum, he tried to simplify it based on the information received during a previous meeting. He apologized for any confusion.

Although the amendment was more of an administrative issue than a bond issue, the language still needed to be clarified. The amendment would clarify the intent and it was hoped it would be incorporated within S.B. 369.

In response to Mrs. Freeman’s question, Mr. Ghiglieri said section 3 in its entirety dealt with confidentiality of certain information submitted by the bond applicant to the department. The overall intent was to help provide for that confidentiality in certain circumstances.

Mrs. Freeman asked which amendment Mr. Ghiglieri was asking the committee to approve. Mr. Ghiglieri replied the amendment developed by LCB (Exhibit C and Exhibit D).

Chairman Bache asked if the amendment had been incorporated into the document utilizing language by LCB, and if he was asking the committee to regard the memorandum received. Mr. Ghiglieri replied that was correct. Some of the memorandum was part of the prior amendment, and the additional change was indicated in brackets in Exhibit D. The department had only requested the one additional change.

Mr. Humke commented on the excessive number of executive branch bill drafts within the 120-day session. Chairman Bache remarked he wanted the bill rereferred to committee because of the highly technical bond language within the bill.

Bob Shriver, executive director, Commission on Economic Development, urged the passage of S.B. 369 as amended. As a member of the private activity bond council he felt the bill was long overdue. As more bond projects relating to industrial development were developed, he stressed the need for vehicles such as S.B. 369 to allow for better fund allocation.

Chairman Bache informed the committee he would accept a motion on S.B. 369.

Before Chairman Bache would accept a motion on S.B. 314 he expressed concern with regard to how the language was structured. He preferred to address the issue of how terms could be fixed by a charter or ordinance in those general law cities. He suggested an amendment that would clarify if cities had a charter, the office would be fixed by a charter. If there was no charter, an ordinance may be adopted. The way the bill currently read, the office could be fixed in both manners in charter cities. He would accept a motion on S.B. 314 and Ms. O’Grady would provide a clarifying amendment to the bill.

After recessing the meeting at 8:50 a.m. in order to locate other Assemblymen for voting and to conduct other business, Chairman Bache reconvened at 9:41 a.m.

Senator Mark Amodei, representing the Capitol Senatorial District, stated the committee had been provided with a proposed amendment to the bill (Exhibit E). As a result of concerns expressed throughout the process, various individuals had wanted to further develop the measure. Exhibit E was a culmination of that effort. He said he reviewed the proposed amendments and did not object to the language.

Senator Amodei wanted it known for the record he was thankful to Dave Ziegler, committee policy analyst, for assisting in the research regarding what other jurisdictions had done with the issue.

Madelyn Shipman, representing Washoe County, stated even though some local governments were pleased to be given the authority to deal with the criteria of S.B. 323, the problem was that under the law the criteria would need to be applied to all housing. The major issues with manufactured homes were the aesthetics and the compatibility with site built homes in the neighborhoods in which the manufactured homes would be placed. The proposed changes to S.B. 323 had been drafted with the idea of trying to attain that compatibility and to leave the determination of compatibility left to the discretion of local governments. Ms. Shipman reviewed the proposed amendment changes (Exhibit E) with the committee.

• Omit parts (a) through (c) of section 3, subsection 2. With regard to part (d), the exterior siding and roofing would be established by ordinance and determined by local governments.

• Under the proposed change a manufactured home would have an elevated foundation constructed of concrete, wood, steel, or masonry material architecturally masked in a manner as determined by the governing body in order to achieve compatibility.

• The provisions of affordable housing in section 3, subsection 3 would include manufactured homes (if they fell into that realm).

• Section 3, subsection 4, would not abrogate a recorded restrictive covenant prohibiting a manufactured home, nor would they apply within the boundaries of a historic district as defined in NRS 384.005 and NRS 384.100. In order to place a manufactured home on a residential lot the owner would be required to attest by application to compliance with all covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) placed upon the property and to the fact the property was not located within a historic district.

• Section 3, subsection 5, defined a manufactured home. The home should be at least a minimum of 1,200 square feet of living area unless approved by administrative variance, comprised of more than one section, and manufactured within 5 years of being affixed to a residential lot.

• Section 7 clarified what was being authorized in section 3 was an exception to the provisions of NRS 489.288.

With regard to section 3, subsection 5, Mr. Humke asked if the amendment allowed provisions for additions to the square footage. Ms. Shipman replied a minimum of 1,200 square feet would be required (24’ by 50’). A determination for lesser square footage could be made with a variance procedure, if other variables (as indicated with the subsection) were in effect. The intent of the variance would make it possible and feasible if replacement was required or desired, while at the same time ensuring compatibility of the home.

Chairman Bache clarified subsection (d) was not intended to be a subpart of section 5, subsection (b), part (2) but was a subsection under section 5 and was an overarching rule.

Mrs. Freeman asked what was meant by the term "architecturally masked." Ms. Shipman replied currently it would be left up to the local governing body to determine the appropriate dress for a nontypical foundation.

In response to Mrs. Freeman’s question, Charles Joerg, representing the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, said a number of the older manufactured homes were comprised of only one section. The sections tended to be box-like, whereas a multi-section home was comprised of pieces split in half for hauling purposes. Those homes also had a peaked roof.

Directing her question to Assemblyman Joseph Dini, representing Assembly District 38, Mrs. Freeman asked if the legislature changed the law with regard to manufactured homes, what would that do to the taxation issue. Mr. Dini replied S.B. 323 would mandate those homes be placed on foundations and taxed in the same manner as site-built homes. That would help those counties inundated with trailer overlay, such as Lyon County. He stated the required age of the manufactured home (5 years within being placed on a foundation) prevented the dumping of old homes into one area. The proposed amendment would prevent problems that had been experienced.

Mrs. Freeman asked if manufactured housing would affect regional planning and the affordable housing issue. Ms. Shipman replied the adoption of S.B. 323, or anything similar that would require manufactured homes to be considered as a residence, was a policy statement. Regional planning could not override a statewide policy statement.

Mr. Lee asked if Ms. Shipman would reiterate the discussion relating to the inspection process. Ms. Shipman replied there were several proposals regarding how CC&Rs would be enforced. To require building inspectors to be responsible that applications for any permits applied for were not in areas with CC&Rs was an impossible situation. Washoe County did not maintain records of those CC&Rs.

With regard to CC&Rs, Ms. Shipman said there had been concerns expressed about local governments being in the enforcement position; therefore, it had been determined the owner who chose to place a manufactured home on a lot had the obligation to attest by application that manufactured homes were not prohibited on that property. If in fact it was determined there were CC&Rs, and the owner was not supposed to place a manufactured home in that neighborhood, the owner would be held liable by the homeowners association or those enforcing the CC&Rs.

Mr. Lee asked if the manufactured homes would be built to the specifications of an individual county’s requirements. Ms. Shipman replied local governments controlled the setup of the site for the home. As such, the county would be responsible through codes for servicing the property.

Mrs. Freeman asked if S.B. 323 was enacted, would the market for manufactured housing change. Mr. Joerg replied under the revised version of the bill there was less opportunity for the change. He said there would be little opportunity for an individual currently in a mobile home park to move the home to a private lot; however, an individual would be provided with the option for park placement. The Nevada Manufactured Housing Association vehemently supported the proposed amendment to S.B. 323. He wanted it known for the record he appreciated the efforts of Mr. Dini, Senator James, Ms. Shipman, and the committee. He reiterated any manufactured home placed on a residential lot had to be converted to real property as taxed as such.

With regard to elevated foundations in section 3, subsection 2, part (b), Mr. Thomas remarked Clark County built to slab-on-grade specifications. The foundations were poured directly onto the terrain. He queried why the term "elevated foundation" had been requested and why it could not be replaced with "a foundation" as determined by the governing body. Ms. Shipman replied she did not read the verbiage to require an elevated foundation per se. The verbiage required the home to have "any elevated foundation." If the foundation was elevated an architectural mask would be required.

Mr. Thomas remarked he wanted to ensure the local municipalities had the ability to choose either the slab on grade or the elevated foundation. Senator Amodei said the intent if the home was placed into a slab on grade community the design review process would require that home to be placed on the slab on grade. The provision in S.B. 323 would provide more flexibility to the local municipalities.

Mr. Thomas commented LCB’s Legal Division should review the provision in order to ensure the intent of the bill.

Mr. Joerg concurred with the remarks of Senator Amodei and Ms. Shipman with regard to the intent of the elevated foundation provision.

Tom Grady, executive director, Nevada League of Cities, echoed the comments expressed by Mr. Joerg with regard to the efforts of all those who developed the amendment to S.B. 323.

Ms. Parnell asked if a representative from Carson City was present when negotiations took place, to which Mr. Grady replied Mary Walker, representing Carson City, had been involved.

Chairman Bache called for a motion on S.B. 323.

Chairman Bache informed the committee Senator Jon Porter, representing Clark County Senatorial District 1, possessed amendments that would make S.B. 436 more consistent with S.B. 470.

Senator Porter stated there had been a number of recommended changes to S.B. 436, and provided the committee with the proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit F).

• Amended section 5, line 12, to include the Clark County School District as a member of the regional planning coalition, which would increase the members from 9 to 10.

• Added a new paragraph to section 6, subsection 2, part (f) "one member appointed by the Clark County School District Board of Trustees from its membership."

• Added a new paragraph to section 6, subsection 4, which stated if a member of the board failed to attend three consecutive meetings or five meetings during a calendar year, the membership would be revoked.

• Amended section 7, subsection 1, to require the board to meet each month.

• Deleted and renumbered section 11, subsections 2 and 3 to 1 and 2.

• Amended section 12, line 12, to include the superintendent of the Clark County School District as a member of the technical committee. Currently the committee consisted of the city and county managers.

• Amended NRS 350.002 to add a new subsection that would increase the membership of the debt management commission to include all members of local government in southern Nevada. In the past there had been two members of the Clark County Commission, one member of the city of Las Vegas, and the balance of those members consisted of a rotation of local governments. The term of each appointed member was to be coterminous with his term of elected office, unless revoked by the public entity that appointed him.

• Added a provision that stipulated the chairman of the debt management commission shall be elected from among the three members of the county. The current chairman would remain for the completion of her term.

• The effective date of the new provisions to NRS 350.002 would be January 1, 2000, thus adding consistency to the current rotation.

Ms. Segerblom asked if any of the cities were represented. Senator Porter replied currently on the debt management commission there were two members of Clark County. One member was on the Las Vegas City Council and one member rotated between Boulder City, Henderson, North Las Vegas, and Mesquite. The proposed verbiage would provide for a full-time seat for all the local governments in southern Nevada.

With regard to the proposed amendment to section 6, subsection 4, Mr. Mortenson asked if it was to the individual person the language referred or the school board itself. Senator Porter replied the intention of the language was to provide for the entity to lose the individual member. The entity would then appoint a new member to fill the seat.

Mrs. Freeman asked if there had been a training component included in S.B. 436 for the debt management commission. Senator Porter replied the language in S.B. 479 was specific as to qualifications for the members of the public at large to serve on the commission.

Mrs. Freeman remarked training given to the debt management commission might be considered and extended to the local governments. She asked how the term of 2 years was decided. Carole Vilardo, representing Nevada Taxpayers Association, replied relative to the debt management commission, the commission would be placed into a separate section in NRS 350.002. All other requirements for qualifications for public members would go into NRS 350.003. The public member would serve for 2 years on the commission with 5 years previous experience in banking, as a certified public accountant (CPA), or in public administration. In addition, there was a second provision stipulating the public member could not have been involved with the issues of any debt or financial responsibilities. With changes made to the debt management law during the 1997 legislative session, the local governments held workshops in order to develop expertise qualifications for the commission.

Continuing, Ms. Vilardo said Clark County was the largest debt issuer in the state. Most debt was entity specific and the majority of entity-specific debt was voter approved.

Mrs. Freeman commented she liked the proposed additions to section 6, subsections 2 and 4. She said if a member was not committed to their job another person should be provided a chance.

Mr. Williams asked if a designee of a superintendent of the school district was required to be an employee of the school district or could the superintendent designate any individual from the community. Senator Porter replied it should be a member of the district and its staff; however, if it had been determined the district needed to bring in an expert, the coalition could address the issue.

Mr. Williams remarked he would like that clarified in the bill, and commented S.B. 436 would be a good vehicle in which to raise the trustees’ salaries. Discussion ensued in regard to the comment and the remuneration amount of $80 per meeting. Senator Porter stated it was definitely an issue that needed to be addressed before the end of the 1999 session.

Chairman Bache called for a motion on S.B. 436.

Chairman Bache reiterated the hearing on S.B. 530 had been teleconferenced with Las Vegas. There had been several individuals who had testified in favor of the bill, and he could not recall anyone who testified in opposition. A verbal amendment had been proposed and discussed in the hearing. The sponsors of S.B. 530 had indicated they felt the amendment was not necessary.

Dave Ziegler, committee policy analyst, reviewed the intent of S.B. 530 with the committee. The bill would authorize property owners to form commercial improvement districts and had been described in testimony as a self-assessment process. A provision in the bill stipulated at the time of the district’s formation, if 30 percent written remonstrances had been received it would be a sufficient amount to prevent the formation of the district. Peter Thomas, member, City Center Development Committee, had suggested an amendment whereby a supermajority of the governing body could override written remonstrances if it had been determined the formation of the improvement district was in the best interest of the business owners. There had been testimony indicating such an override would be inappropriate.

Chairman Bache reiterated he had stated if there were problems with the district’s formation, the district lines would be redrawn to exclude those properties not wishing to be part of the commercial improvement district. With regard to letters he received from residents at Arlington Towers, he had expressed concerns those residences had been included within the business and commercial improvement districts and did not want to be.

Mr. Humke remarked he agreed with the amendment offered by Mr. Peter Thomas. Under the provisions of the bill voluntary taxation could be revoked by a city council, which he felt was poor policy. He inquired if there had been testimony on the number of residences contained in the district in Washoe County. Chairman Bache replied he could not recall; however, to his knowledge Mr. Humke testified he did not want to see local governments impose a voluntary taxation issue.

Mr. Humke remarked S.B. 530 was a good bill and the city council should stay out of the issue.

Mr. Ziegler clarified the suggested amendment provided for an override of the objections by a supermajority of the governing body. He noted there had been no testimony on the number of residences contained in the district in Washoe County.

Mrs. Freeman asked if the assessment of residences would be likened to that of the businesses in the district. Chairman Bache replied as the bill was currently written, if those residences were included in the district they would be assessed in the same manner.

Mrs. Freeman remarked the business improvement district lines would border the district she represented. She was unsure if she would want those constituents’ homes included.

Ms. Parnell expressed her concern for residences being included in the district. Referring to section 2, subsection 4 of S.B. 530 (first reprint), she commented the definition of the commercial improvement district did not specify commercial property and should be reviewed in order to exclude residential property within that specified definition.

William Osgood, president, Reno Downtown Improvement Association, said the intent of S.B. 530 was not to have a group of residences included in the district. A district that primarily involved residences would never receive the necessary number of signatures on a petition in order to initiate the district’s formation.

Mr. Osgood said the bill allowed for self-assessment of those businesses within the district. Within the provisions of the bill, parcels would determine the district’s boundaries and those residents who wished to be excluded from the district upon initiation could do so. Arlington Towers within the creation of the business improvement district would be asking for opposition, which would defeat the purpose of self-assessment.

Chairman Bache remarked although he understood Mr. Osgood’s point, there was nothing in the bill prohibiting the inclusion of a residential area with the business district. Those residences would not have the ability to protest or be excluded from the district’s creation without statutory protection. Mr. Osgood stated he understood; however, those residences would benefit from the district’s cleanliness and security. If by-status language was written into the bill, a statewide situation would be set up whereby many residences that had not been included in the creation of the business improvement district would be "free-riding" where others were self-assessing. With both the remonstrance provision and the initiation percentage, he felt there was an adequate amount of provisos for the exclusion of unwilling participants.

Chairman Bache remarked a commercial improvement district’s main purpose was to improve the area for the businesses. He did not want the residences burdened because they happened to be in the district when they did not desire to participate. Mr. Osgood commented there was a polyglot of small business improvement districts under centralized management in Seattle, which were created for the specific purpose of excluding property owners who operated apartment condominiums. He understood the concern that had been expressed; however, there were two sides that needed to be examined.

Chairman Bache said the opportunity to opt-out of the creation of the business improvement district should be provided to residences.

Ms. Parnell remarked S.B. 530 had great potential, and she had always been a supporter of commercial improvement districts; however, she did not support the assessment of residences within a commercial area especially when assessed on linear frontage. She expressed concerns that one residence could be assessed at the same rate as a commercial business, and felt the issue needed to be addressed.

Mrs. Freeman echoed Chairman Bache’s sentiments on an opt-out provision.

Mr. Humke suggested amending and passing S.B. 530. He felt language could be crafted to exempt residential property owners.

Marvin Leavitt, representing city of Las Vegas, stated the city had no objections to amending S.B. 530 to include an opt-out provision.

Mr. Mortenson commented the opt-out provision was a good idea because there was such a small percentage that could halt the creation of a business improvement district.

Ms. Segerblom asked if Mr. Osgood felt the city council should be able to override the 30 percent opposition. Mr. Osgood replied no. Because the district was a self-assessment district, it truly had to represent self-assessment.

Chairman Bache informed the committee he would entertain a motion.

There being no further business, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Rachel Baker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: