The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:05 p.m., on Monday, March 29, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 1, noted S.B. 383 of the Sixty-ninth Session formed the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority.

Senator Porter continued, S.B. 383 of the Sixty-ninth Session mandated that local governments in Clark County work together with the community to create a strategic plan that sets forth goals, objectives, and strategies to address the effects of growth. He pointed out the plan must address education, transportation, environment, water, public safety, housing, parks and recreation, local land use, economic development, sewage, and sanitation.

Senator Porter asserted the issues facing southern Nevada are "very complex," and the strategic planning authority was created to provide for a structure and a process by which citizens and elected officials could determine the optimal future for the community. He contended the strategic planning authority will "create a roadmap which [will] … lead us all into the future."

Senator Porter maintained the planning authority was instructed to identify and evaluate the needs of Clark County relating to its growth; prioritize the objectives and strategies relating to the growth of Clark County; recommend to the Seventieth Session of the Nevada Legislature strategies for meeting the growth needs and objectives of Clark County; and review the master plans, the policies contained within the master plans, and the capital improvement plans of the planning agencies of Clark County, to determine if they are sufficient to meet the needs and address the expected amount of growth in Clark County over the next 20 years. Senator Porter added the strategic planning authority was asked to develop a needs assessment identifying the issues relating to the growth of Clark County over the next 20 years. He continued, the planning authority was also directed to develop a strategic plan that sets forth the goals, objectives, and strategy of the authority; with regard to the effects of growth on economic development, education, environment, housing, local land use, growth boundaries, parks and recreation, public safety, transportation, and other issues deemed pertinent by the authority.

Senator Porter explained S.B. 436 is an "outcropping" of the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority. He elaborated the members of that authority believe the findings, the work, and the amount of effort put into the planning authority should be continued. Thus, Senator Porter stated, a coalition has been formed through an interlocal agreement in southern Nevada. He contended, "We’re [We are] now moving into the next stage of that [the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority], which is the coalition."

Senator Porter indicated the planning authority presented their strategic plan for southern Nevada in March 1999. He pointed out the authority has also generated various bills to be heard by the Legislature.

Senator Porter expressed the aforementioned coalition is an agency that will allow the Legislature to put the ideas of the strategic planning authority into law. He added the formations of the planning authority and the coalition reflect the first time, since the water crisis of 1991, that local governments have worked together for the future of southern Nevada. He emphasized the authority’s ideas should be put into law so that an agency will be in place to address challenges of regional significance.

Senator Porter commented the language in S.B. 436 closely resembles the aforementioned interlocal agreement, which was approved by the local governments in southern Nevada. He noted there was a lot of compromise throughout the interlocal-agreement process, and not all local governments agreed on all the issues. He elaborated some local governments wanted a "very strict" plan similar to the one in Portland, Oregon, while others did not want a plan at all.

Senator Porter stated the interlocal-agreement process identified a number of issues, including a suggested consolidation of various agencies. He asserted S.B. 436 would consolidate a number of agencies that currently exist in southern Nevada.

Senator Porter maintained section 5 of S.B. 436 provides a "quick overview of the members" of the proposed Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition. He noted section 6 of the bill sets forth the members of the board which would govern that coalition. He commented paragraph (f), subsection 2, section 6, of S.B. 436 might be addressed in a later amendment. Senator Porter stated, "These are members of the public that are being suggested to become a part of the coalition." He contended initial thoughts involved making the coalition similar to the planning authority, with members of the public serving as members of the board. Senator Porter indicated future testimony would likely suggest that those members should be permissive, not mandatory.

Senator Porter continued section 7 of S.B. 436 requires that the proposed board would meet quarterly or more frequently. He noted section 8 of the bill addresses the chairperson and vice chairperson of the board, and section 10 would allow the board to employ professionals for technical assistance.

Senator Porter expressed section 11 of S.B. 436 presents the first "major difference" between the bill and the aforementioned interlocal agreement. He pointed out that section would allow the debt management commission of Clark County to become a part of the coalition. He explained oversight for the debt management commission would thus become a function of the coalition.

Senator Porter testified section 12 of S.B. 436 would provide for a technical committee to the coalition, and he asserted section 13 "goes into the meat and potatoes of the bill." He explained that section would allow the proposed board to develop policies for Clark County on the issues listed in paragraphs (a) through (e), subsection 1, of section 13. He added subsection 2 of section 13 would enable the proposed board to carry out the findings of the strategic planning authority, and subsection 3 would authorize the board to compile and coordinate a regional and local database, using information from local governments. Senator Porter maintained it is often confusing to identify which agency to approach for certain information, and the aforementioned database would help alleviate that problem.

Senator Porter continued section 13 of S.B. 436 would also allow the proposed board to establish standard projections for population and to recommend methods for increasing the efficiency of and reducing the costs of local-government services. He commented a government-efficiency committee was previously formed to consider ways to improve the efficiency of local governments.

Senator Porter indicated Senator Titus suggested that the board be allowed to make recommendations for the disposal of federal land, as set forth in subsection 6, section 13, of S.B. 436. Senator Porter continued subsection 7 of that section would enable the proposed board to establish methods for resolving disputes relating to annexation, future land use, and other matters. He asserted, "I think you may have found that already happening with … [Clark County] and the City of Henderson, recently."

Senator Porter pointed out subsection 8, section 13, of S.B. 436 would authorize the proposed board to establish incentives to encourage regional strategic planning for economic development. He continued subsection 9 of that section would provide a "significant change" by allowing the planning coalition to develop a regional park plan, in coordination with the Clark County Regional Flood Control District. Senator Porter noted southern Nevada currently does not have such a plan. He further maintained a number of flood projects in southern Nevada have become regional parks.

Senator Porter stated subsection 10, section 13, of S.B. 436 would allow the proposed board to consider any other issues of regional significance. He indicated subsection 11 of that section would authorize the coalition to review local-government master and capital-improvement plans; as well as certain plans adopted by the Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Clark County School District, the Clark County District Board of Health, and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

Senator Porter continued section 14 of S.B. 436 would direct the proposed board to establish a subcommittee to address issues relating to the disposal of federal land. He noted that section would also "roll [the Clark County Clearinghouse Council] into" the proposed coalition. He mentioned the clearinghouse council is permanently in place to coordinate federal grants.

Senator Porter clarified he requested S.B. 436, which "is not a strategic planning authority initiative." He explained he believes the Legislature needs to codify the efforts of the planning authority and of the coalition formed by the aforementioned interlocal agreement. He concluded, "We need to put into law their findings to date and to formalize their existence, which is why we’re [we are] here, today, with S.B. 436."

Senator Neal asked why S.B. 436 is not in bold type. Chairman O’Connell suggested the bill contains all new language. Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, clarified S.B. 436 is a special act, and the Legal Division emboldens and italicizes only language that would add provisions to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).

Senator Neal commented the proposed board would include members of the Board of Commissioners of Clark County, and he asked whether that situation would be constitutional. He mentioned, "I know we can do it, as far as the cities are concerned, … combine them and have them operate from one particular unit. But once we include the county, in the past we’ve [we have] had some problems with that. So why is it, now, that we’re [we are] able to do that?"

Ms. Guinasso responded there is no note in the file for S.B. 436 that would indicate a constitutional concern. However, she stated, she would have to look into the matter further.

Senator Neal stressed, "I know, in the past, that when we tried to move towards anything regional, then the counties have to be initiated from a county point of view, rather than from a legislative point of view, if we’re [we are] going to include them in it." He asked, "This is actually another governmental structure, is it not, that we’re [we are] talking about here?"

Senator Porter replied S.B. 436 would form a regional coalition of local governments. He stated staff would have to determine whether or not the coalition would be considered a new agency.

Senator Neal asked if the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition would have "any type of final authority." Senator Porter answered affirmatively. Senator Neal further asked if Clark County agreed to that situation. Senator Porter responded the coalition met on Thursday, March 25, 1999, and concurred with the proposals outlined in S.B. 436, with the exception of one item. He elaborated the item in question involves whether or not members of the public should act in an advisory capacity or should serve on the board itself.

Referring to subsection 9, section 13, of S.B. 436, Chairman O’Connell asked if Senator Porter was aware of what the Phoenix, Arizona, area has done with regional park plans, in partnership with its flood-control district. Senator Porter replied he has visited and observed some of the Phoenix programs, but has "not formally" looked into the matter. He explained subsection 9, section 13, of S.B. 436 arose from discussions regarding the formulation of a plan for regional parks. He elaborated the coalition, in concert with the flood-control district, would be the "natural" manner in which to address the issue. Senator Porter pointed out NRS 543.240 allows the Clark County Regional Flood Control District to develop parks.

Chairman O’Connell commented the Phoenix area has implemented a system in which parks serve as retention areas during times of heavy rainfall. Senator Porter responded Boulder City has "done just that, in concert with the regional flood-control district." For example, he expressed, the city has turned a detention basin into a ballfield, where the "actual wash, itself, is a biking [and] … walking path." He stressed that use of the property has been very effective.

Chairman O’Connell stated:

Phil Rosenquist, Assistant Planning Manager for Regional Planning, Advanced Planning Division, Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, testified S.B. 383 of the Sixty-ninth Session has resulted in the preparation of a strategic plan to address the 20-year growth needs of southern Nevada. Mr. Rosenquist asserted Clark County believes that plan is a "roadmap" for the future of southern Nevada, and now another entity needs to take over the plan to develop more specific implementation strategies. He indicated the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition could serve that purpose, so Clark County supports S.B. 436.

Mr. Rosenquist indicated the coalition was scheduled to consider a variety of pending planning- and growth-related legislation at its aforementioned meeting on March 25, 1999. He reported the coalition made a recommendation to support S.B. 436 at that time, though the coalition also raised a couple of questions regarding the membership proposed in the bill. Mr. Rosenquist maintained those questions did not necessarily involve whether or not citizens should serve on the board. He elaborated the coalition raised concern regarding "numbers." For example, he suggested, some regional planning coalition members believe including only four citizens on the proposed board would not provide a sufficient cross section of the community. Mr. Rosenquist maintained the coalition is "more than willing" to work on creating alternatives, such as the creation of a citizens advisory panel which would review issues considered by the full board and would make recommendations to that board. He indicated an amendment would likely be forthcoming on the matter.

Senator Neal commented he believes the Legislature has the authority to bring cities into a coalition such as the one proposed in S.B. 436. However, he stressed, the Legislature does not have the same power regarding county governments, which themselves must move to become part of such a coalition. Senator Neal reiterated his concerns regarding the constitutionality of Clark County’s involvement in the proposed coalition, since the group would have final authority on certain matters.

Mr. Rosenquist responded he could not give a legal opinion on that issue. However, he indicated, county commissioners currently serve on certain regional entities, such as the Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

Senator Neal stated:

Mr. Rosenquist answered affirmatively and pointed out the Clark County Board of Commissioners has already signed an interlocal agreement with the other relevant jurisdictions to create the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition, as a voluntary effort.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, offered Henderson’s support for S.B. 436. Ms. Fretwell testified a lot of work has yet to be done regarding southern Nevada growth issues, and the regional planning coalition will likely be charged with doing most of that work. She indicated she would like to consult with the committee on the aforementioned amendment to address private-sector participation.

Chairman O’Connell asked how the strategic planning commission believed its plan was going to be implemented, in the absence of a group such as the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition.

Ms. Fretwell replied that about one year ago, the strategic planning authority asked the government efficiency committee to consider ways to implement the authority’s strategic plan. She explained that committee considered the issue for about 7 months, after which it proposed that a coalition be formed as an implementation body for the plan. She asserted there was a "dialogue" between the relevant governing bodies throughout the process.

Ms. Fretwell concluded:

Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, testified in support of S.B. 436. She contended many private-sector and local-government representatives have been involved with growth planning in southern Nevada over the last couple of years, as have various legislators. Ms. Porter stressed the work in this area should continue.

Marta Golding Brown, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, offered further support for S.B. 436. She noted the City of North Las Vegas has participated on the government efficiency committee, the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority, and the regional planning coalition.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 436 and opened the hearing on S.B. 393.

Senator Alice Costandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, testified S.B. 393 is "a Nevada version of the model smart-growth bill that was written and distributed by NCSL [the National Conference of State Legislatures], based on the original version, which was adopted in Maryland in 1997." Senator Titus indicated Maryland’s smart-growth law has received a lot of attention, and she noted it was featured in the January 1999 issue of Governing Magazine. She explained the idea behind that law is to "steer" infrastructure dollars in such as a way as to discourage sprawl and encourage development or redevelopment in areas that are already settled.

Senator Titus asserted smart growth is supported throughout the nation by environmentalists, planners, and politicians. She further mentioned smart growth is on the congressional agenda, and she pointed out several western states, such as Utah and Arizona, have presented ballot questions on the issue. Senator Titus also commented voters in New Jersey recently approved a measure to spend $1 billion over the next 10 years to preserve half of the state’s remaining undeveloped land. She noted Arizona citizens have agreed to spend $220 million on preservation of open space, and the State Legislature in Tennessee recently passed a measure requiring counties and municipalities to establish growth boundaries. Senator Titus concluded, "This is not new, and it’s [it is] not just specific to Nevada."

Senator Titus stated she refers to S.B. 393 as "Nevada’s smart-growth bill." She asserted the bill focuses on leaving decisions with local governments, which is one of the principles of planning stated in NRS 321.640. She said S.B. 393 would add to Nevada’s "position on planning" by setting forth some principles of smart growth. Senator Titus emphasized the proposed principles would not change existing principles, but would only add to them. She indicated some of the bill’s language is "lifted directly from" the strategic planning authority’s recommendations and proposals.

Senator Titus summarized sections 1 through 4 of S.B. 393 would provide a definition of smart growth. She indicated section 5 of the bill would require every state agency and local-government entity to consider smart-growth principles before adopting or changing a plan. She pointed out the bill does not set forth specifics in this area.

Senator Titus stated section 6 of S.B. 393 is the bill’s "only real mandate on local governments." She explained that section would require Clark and Washoe counties to provide a map of priority-funding areas by June 30, 2000. She mentioned subsection 3, section 6, of S.B. 393 defines priority-funding areas, and she noted the definition is tied to where sewer service exists or is planned. Senator Titus contended drawing the priority-funding map should not be very difficult for the counties in question because they know where sewage service currently exists and where it is planned for the future. She expressed the purpose of the provision outlined in section 6 is to identify areas for smart growth so that those areas can then receive economic incentives.

Senator Titus commented section 7 of S.B. 393 would provide that priority-funding areas be given relative preference for the distribution of grants and any other funds from the federal, state, or local level to be used for the construction, maintenance, or expansion of infrastructure. She stressed relative preference would be determined by local governments.

Senator Titus indicated sections 8 through 11 of S.B. 393 deal with master plans and zoning. She referred to an editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal on March 29, 1999, entitled, "What land use plan?" Senator Titus asserted:

Senator Titus claimed sections 8 through 11 of S.B. 393 would address such problems. She said section 8 would provide that zoning must comply with the master plan, and she elaborated zoning changes and variances could be made, as long as they complied with that plan. She explained sections 10 and 11 of S.B. 393 would require that the elements of the master plan be consistent, compatible, and integrated. Senator Titus noted the master plan is currently required to include plans for conservation, housing, and population. She asserted a land-use plan and a transportation plan should be added to that list, as set forth in subsection 3, section 10, of S.B. 393. She contended those additions would not create a "great burden."

Senator Titus pointed out subsection 4, section 11, of S.B. 393 would allow master plans to be changed only twice per year. She expressed, "The argument was, if you make the zoning be consistent with the master plan, then they’ll [they will] just change the master plan all the time, [and] you won’t [will not] have accomplished anything." Senator Titus pointed out the City of Las Vegas amends its master plan each quarter, and she recognized, "Maybe that’s [that is] more manageable than only twice a year." However, she emphasized, some restriction must be placed on the number of times a master plan can be changed per year.

Senator Titus continued, section 12 of S.B. 393 addresses the state plan and directs the state to give relative preference to smart-growth areas in its economic-development efforts.

Senator Titus stressed S.B. 393 is a "positive bill" which would not "put any restrictions on anybody." She noted the bill would offer an economic incentive to build in more developed areas, and she asserted that practice would address the issue of sprawl. Senator Titus elaborated the bill would accomplish its goals by giving money, through preferences, as opposed to "drawing a line in the sand." She reiterated most decisions would be left to local governments, and the only "burden" the bill would put on them would involve preparing the aforementioned priority-funding map. She contended S.B. 393 would address recurring issues about inconsistencies in and revisions of master plans, as well as zoning that does not comply with master plans. Senator Titus asserted these issues have created problems for citizens who do not know what to expect in terms of zoning changes.

Chairman O’Connell asked:

Senator Titus responded S.B. 393 would be beneficial for developers because they would know, with more certainty, "where things are going to go and when they can be changed." She maintained provisions on the issue are currently "pretty capricious" and are changed for many reasons. She suggested developers and homeowners would gain a "better sense of security" if zoning had to be consistent with the master plan, and if the master plan could not be "randomly" changed.

Chairman O’Connell asked if other states with laws similar to S.B. 393 have processes in place to prevent arbitrary changes such as those described by Senator Titus. Senator Titus replied, "Not beyond this. … It is a political process, … and that planning commission, or that county commission, can still make those kinds of determinations." She stated the main focus of Maryland’s smart-growth statute involves economic incentives for priority-funding areas. She recognized it is difficult for Nevada to adopt programs from other states, where a lot more money goes from state to local governments. Senator Titus elaborated other states can often provide more economic incentives than can Nevada. Thus, she concluded, Nevada would have to base its program on a relative preference.

Chairman O’Connell asked how extreme the changes to the master plans could be, under S.B. 393. Senator Titus answered the bill contains no restrictions on the extremity of changes that could be made to master plans. However, she stressed, S.B. 393 would require that zoning changes be consistent with the master plan.

Chairman O’Connell commented, "So if something were planned for commercial [development], all of a sudden, it could change to industrial, or even to residential, without too much … notice?" Senator Titus responded, "Well, that’s [that is] the way it is now. But I think … you have to go through more hoops to change a master plan than you do zoning, in terms of notice … ." She suggested county representatives could better answer Chairman O’Connell’s question.

Senator Raggio reiterated S.B. 393 would affect Clark and Washoe counties. He contended the bill "seems to be an overlay, in addition to what Washoe County has already done with respect to comprehensive regional planning." He asked how the bill would impact Washoe County’s existing provisions on the issue and that county’s development of a master plan. Senator Raggio pointed out Washoe County might not have any extensive "brownfields," as referenced in S.B. 393.

Senator Titus responded Washoe County might contain brownfields. She mentioned 450 brownfields exist in Nevada, and they include sites like vacant gasoline stations. However, she commented, Washoe County does not have "extensive" brownfields, such as the railroad yards in Las Vegas.

Senator Raggio pointed out paragraph (d), subsection 1, section 4, of S.B. 393 would provide that "a plan for capital improvements … should be carried out with a preference for constructing and maintaining infrastructure in compact urban development." He questioned the meaning of that language, noting the term "compact urban development" is used at various places in the bill.

Senator Titus replied the requirement for a capital improvement plan already exists. Senator Raggio agreed, but pointed out S.B. 393 would provide that such plans "be carried out with a preference for constructing and maintaining infrastructure in compact urban development." Senator Titus indicated that language comes from "kind of a definition of smart growth, that you don’t [do not] do leapfrog development [and] that everything is kind of contiguous." Senator Raggio suggested "compact urban development" is the opposite of urban sprawl. Senator Titus agreed.

Senator Neal asked if Senator Titus has considered S.B. 393 in relationship to S.B. 436. Senator Titus responded she has done so, and she does not believe the bills are contradictory.

Senator Neal further asked, "Do you see it as overriding?" Senator Titus replied, "No, I see them as side by side." She noted Senator Porter wants to create a regional planning body that would act in an advisory capacity, and she has no objection to that. On the other hand, Senator Titus stated, S.B. 393 would identify areas for smart growth.

Senator Neal commented section 13 of S.B. 436 would allow the board proposed in that bill to develop certain policies, and he contended that section would give the board authority over the provisions of S.B. 393. He added subsection 11, section 13, of S.B. 436 would allow the proposed board to review master plans.

Senator Titus responded she sees the board proposed in S.B. 436 as an advisory body only. She noted S.B. 436 states the board "may" do the things Senator Neal mentioned.

Senator Neal asserted the development of policy is not an advisory function. Senator Titus responded the board in question "may not get around to developing any policy." She clarified, "Their policy may be to not have a policy."

Senator Neal maintained he sees one bill as overriding the other. He indicated Senator Porter’s bill, S.B. 436, has a later bill draft request (BDR) number than Senator Titus’ bill, S.B. 393. He asked whether Senators Porter and Titus have discussed the bills.

Senator Titus stated she requested a BDR for S.B. 393 "a long time ago, after last session." She recalled a measure she sponsored on smart growth during the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session did not pass, but generated much debate. She expressed, "One of the things that came out of that was this interim strategic committee that met to come up with some recommendations." Senator Titus said she understood that committee would request bills for the Seventieth Legislative Session, but she could not wait for their recommendations before moving forward with her own bills. Thus, she explained, her BDR for S.B. 393 was submitted before BDRs from the strategic planning authority. Senator Titus reiterated she does not oppose S.B. 436, but she contended that bill "doesn’t [does not] go as far as I think we need to go." She suggested S.B. 393 would be a policy that could be considered and enacted by the coalition referenced in S.B. 436. She concluded, "[S.B. 393] just takes the initiative a little further than they have, at this point, but it doesn’t [does not] contradict anything that they’re [they are] doing there."

Senator Neal recalled Senator Porter testified the coalition proposed in S.B. 436 would have final authority in some areas. Senator Neal surmised those areas would include developing land-use plans.

Senator Titus noted she missed Senator Porter’s testimony because she was testifying in another hearing. She commented, "I think they do have final authority, but I don’t [do not] think they have final authority over things like a regular, regional planning authority would have, as exists in Washoe County. Maybe I’m [I am] mistaken about that." She asked Senator Porter if that was his intention in S.B. 436.

Senator Porter indicated he and Senator Titus agree in certain areas, but disagree in others. He clarified his intention with S.B. 436 is "to allow the southern Nevada community to establish their [its] policies and land-use planning, per individual community, with a coordinated effort." He noted some regional planning agencies face representation challenges. For example, Senator Porter expressed, the City of Henderson might not want someone who is elected in the City of North Las Vegas to make decisions regarding Henderson.

Senator Porter indicated he put together some findings of the strategic planning authority, including key areas the authority believes need to be addressed and ideas for consolidation of certain local agencies. He suggested such items would "come under" the coalition proposed in S.B. 436. Senator Porter added S.B. 436 attempts to put into place the findings that the planning authority made in its strategic plan. He noted the implementation process could take "another 10 years," since the authority put together a 20-year plan. He concluded, "This is just the beginning of formulating the formal body."

Senator Titus reiterated S.B. 393 would not interfere with the provisions of S.B. 436. She contended S.B. 393 would simply direct local governments to identify where they want growth to occur, and to designate those areas as smart-growth areas. She stressed the bill would also put into place some economic incentives for growth in the identified areas.

Senator Porter pointed out some of the findings of the strategic planning authority came from Senator Titus’ initiatives regarding federal lands.

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 394.

Senator Titus testified the combination of land use, transportation and air quality (LUTRAQ) is currently a prevalent issue in planning and politics. She asserted, "Everybody recognizes that those three things should be considered together, in order to do good planning." She commented the Lincoln Institute recently held a conference on transportation and land use, resulting in ten papers that were published in a special issue of the journal Urban Studies. Senator Titus added a book entitled Transportation Land Use Connection addresses this matter and recognizes that "the single greatest force in the development of cities has been highways." She stated the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 also recognize the importance of connecting transportation with air quality. She indicated the relevant provisions, which must be met at the state level, are known as the transportation conformity requirements. Senator Titus concluded, "This is [a] well-known, well-documented, well-established fact that these three things need to go together."

However, Senator Titus asserted, Nevada’s long-range plans for land use, transportation, and air-pollution control are currently prepared by different public agencies; for different reasons; with different timetables; under different federal, state and local laws and regulations. She maintained S.B. 394 would address this lack of coordination and promote cooperation among the various agencies. She noted these agencies are already in existence on the local level and are already preparing the relevant plans. Senator Titus contended S.B. 394 would "make it much easier to promote vigorous economic development, transportation access and mobility, and a clean [and] healthy environment."

Senator Titus pointed out S.B. 394 recognizes the agencies involved in land use, transportation, and air quality. She elaborated the bill recognizes the aforementioned regional coalition, created by interlocal agreement, which grew out of the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority. She suggested, "If … Senator Porter’s bill [S.B. 436] … turns this into a permanent body, and this passes, then that would be substituted for this body that now exists under interlocal agreement." Senator Titus stated the land-use planning entity in Washoe County is a regional planning body created under NRS 278.0264.

Besides land-use planning agencies, Senator Titus continued, a second group of agencies involves local air-pollution control boards. She emphasized those boards, which were created under NRS chapter 445B, are already in existence.

Senator Titus added the third group of relevant agencies includes the Regional Transportation Commissions which have been created in Washoe and Clark counties under NRS chapter 373. She summarized, "Those three groups, then, are defined for you, that should be working together. So it’s [it is] the air-quality [boards]; it’s [it is] the regional transportation [commissions]; and it’s [it is] the established land-use bodies."

Senator Titus noted section 6 of S.B. 394 would provide that agencies in the three aforementioned categories "shall cooperate." She commented the bill does not provide specific details, which would be left up to the local governments. She asserted the agencies would coordinate their efforts, cooperate to draw up plans, and jointly publish one volume at the end of the year summarizing the plans they have prepared.

Senator Titus explained sections 7 through 10 of S.B. 394 "are just repeats of the first section, because you have to do it each time, for each of the three groups." She elaborated those sections address transportation and air-quality agencies in the same manner that land-use planning agencies are addressed earlier in the bill.

Senator Titus emphasized decisions would not be mandated by the state, but would be determined by local governments, acting through regional bodies which already exist. She stressed S.B. 394 would simply ask those bodies to communicate with each other and to cooperate. She claimed land use, transportation, and air quality are critical to smart growth; and she maintained, "We can’t [cannot] get a whole picture of what’s [what is] going on in an urban area if you don’t [do not] have coordination of these three things."

Senator Titus expressed sections 11 and 12 of S.B. 394 deal specifically with air quality. She noted the provisions of section 11 would apply to a program in which credits are given for reducing air pollution. She stated that program currently allows people to earn credits by paving a road or performing other actions, and paragraph (a), subsection 1, section 11, of S.B. 394 would also allow persons to earn credits by using solar energy. Senator Titus distributed a letter from Rose McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Corporation for Solar Technology and Renewable Resources, endorsing that provision (Exhibit C).

Senator Titus continued paragraph (b), subsection 1, section 11, of S.B. 394 would prohibit a person from "double counting" credits. She explained, "If they are sanctioned because of something they are doing that creates air pollution, and they have to clean it up by, say, paving a road, then they shouldn’t [should not] be able to get credit for paving that road which they can then sell to somebody else or use as an offset for some other polluting activity."

Senator Titus noted section 14 of S.B. 394 would direct the state to prepare guidelines for coordination of the aforementioned agencies by June 30, 2001. She further indicated the state would act as a "clearinghouse" for the reports that come out of the relevant agencies each year.

Senator Porter suggested he and Senator Titus could provide the committee with an outline of S.B. 393, S.B. 394, and S.B. 436 before the work session on those bills.

Senator Neal asked which bill would be overriding if conflicting bills involved NRS and the Statutes of Nevada. Ms. Guinasso responded she does not believe either bill would override the other. Senator Neal commented the Statutes of Nevada are placed in different volumes than are the NRS, and the Statutes of Nevada are not always accessible by the public, though the NRS are. Ms. Guinasso indicated she does not agree with Senator Neal’s statement regarding accessibility. She added the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau "keeps an eye on" substantive conflicts among bills. Ms. Guinasso asserted the Legal Division’s concept of conflicting provisions might not necessarily match Senator Neal’s. She clarified the Legal Division deems provisions conflicting only if there is a clear conflict in the relevant language. She concluded, "But if something could be accomplished by doing two different things at one time, then I don’t [do not] think we would look at it as a conflict, in the sense that we look out for."

Senator Neal asked why Statutes of Nevada are used. Ms. Guinasso explained the Statutes of Nevada contain everything the Legislature does in a particular session. She elaborated they include amendments to NRS, as well as special acts, local acts, resolutions, and so forth.

Senator Neal asked why S.B. 436 would not be put into NRS. Ms. Guinasso answered that bill is a special act and therefore is not designed to be inserted into NRS. However, she pointed out, it would be included in the NRS volume entitled "Special Acts." She maintained the Legal Division would alert the Legislature if that act were specifically conflicting with other legislation.

Senator Neal noted S.B. 393 and S.B. 394 would go into NRS, but S.B. 436 would go into the Statutes of Nevada. He contended a conflict exists between these bills, and one bill would be overriding. He further suggested section 13 of S.B. 436 addresses everything in S.B. 393 and S.B. 394. Senator Neal commented, "If that’s [that is] going to be in the Statutes of Nevada, rather than in NRS, then it seems to me the availability of that information is not there for the general public."

Ms. Guinasso replied some bills are only in "skeleton form," so they have not been checked for all the internal references and measures that would need to be included. She clarified "skeleton bills" provide only the essential idea of the legislation. Ms. Guinasso continued a bill often needs to amend several different statutes in order to address all of the potential conflicts. In terms of possible conflicts between S.B. 436, S.B. 393, and S.B. 394, she indicated items that related to the "same specific issue" would be considered conflicting. For example, she suggested, if two bills proposed different committees with the same purview of authority, and if those bills had differing requirements set forth for the committee members’ credentials, a specific conflict would exist. Ms. Guinasso asserted it is difficult for the Legal Division to determine whether a conflict exists when bills are dealing with generalities. She maintained that would represent a policy issue, not a legal conflict.

Chairman O’Connell said S.B. 394 is in "skeleton" form, and she asked if Senator Titus believed any part of the bill would need to be "filled in" before it left the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. Senator Titus responded she is unsure what makes S.B. 394 a "skeleton bill." She contended no substantive changes need to be made to the bill, but perhaps the Legal Division still has to make sure the bill refers to all of the relevant statutes. Ms. Guinasso agreed and noted internal references would also have to be checked.

Senator Neal claimed a "strong kinship" exists between S.B. 394 and S.B. 436.

Chairman O’Connell mentioned a southern Nevada coal company which produces electricity is being blamed for pollution in the Grand Canyon area. She commented she finds that fact interesting, "because the only thing that we tax, as far as our generating electricity, is the coal, which does give quite a bit of income to the State of Nevada." She commented, "I’m [I am] looking at this [S.B. 394], and I’m [I am] wondering what kind of a find we are going to be getting, if indeed this were to pass."

Chairman O’Connell pointed out S.B. 394 would have a fiscal impact on both state and local governments. However, she stated, no fiscal note is attached to the bill. She asked why a fiscal impact is indicated. Senator Titus replied she is not sure, but she suggested, "I think they may think that local government … will have to draw a map." She reiterated local governments already know where sewer service exists and where it is planned, so a map based on that knowledge should not be a burden. Senator Titus added she spoke to Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, about the bill’s fiscal effect on the state. Senator Titus indicated section 14 of S.B. 394 might involve a fiscal impact because it would require the state to provide guidelines and act as a "clearinghouse," as mentioned earlier. She contended those actions would not place a financial burden on the state.

Chairman O’Connell invited further testimony on S.B. 393.

Michael A. Harper, Special Projects Manager, Department of Community Development, Washoe County; introduced W. Dean Diederich, Planning Manager, Planning Division, Department of Community Development, Washoe County. Mr. Harper emphasized Washoe County supports smart growth, and he noted he is a member of the governing board of the Institute of Certified Planners, which represents approximately 11,000 certified planners across the nation. He pointed out smart growth has been a "huge initiative" of that organization.

Mr. Harper raised concerns regarding the potential impacts of S.B. 393 on Washoe County. He stated the county is currently in its tenth year of regional planning, as mandated by the state in 1989. Thus, he indicated, Washoe County has "extensive experience" in regional planning. Mr. Harper asserted the processes proposed in S.B. 393 would create some potential conflicts with current processes in the county.

Mr. Harper expressed one of Washoe County’s concerns involves the definition of a priority-funding area. He maintained, "Although it’s [it is] fairly low, … there is the potential that what it does do is focus dollars into areas that don’t [do not] necessarily represent areas that still need funding." Mr. Harper referred to the aforementioned article regarding Maryland in Governing Magazine. He noted that article states smart growth sometimes causes an avoidance of providing money to communities that need funds to bring their areas up to a certain standard. He expressed he was "heartened" to hear Senator Titus testify that S.B. 393 reflects a more "voluntary" end, rather than a "mandatory" one. However, he asserted, the bill should clarify that the state and federal governments would not deny counties the funds they need to provide infrastructure in areas where the density of residential development is less than 3.5 units per acre. Mr. Harper mentioned such infrastructure includes sewer service, roads, and parks, among other things. He pointed out, "[Washoe] County is, basically, the regional parks provider; we would not want to see this bill [S.B. 393] conflict with the ability to provide for park funding."

Mr. Harper next addressed the issue of conformance. He indicated Washoe County requires that all local plans and zoning actions conform to the regional plan. He asserted section 8 of S.B. 393 would specify that a finding of conformance must be made for every pertinent action taken by a local government. Mr. Harper argued that provision is unnecessary in Washoe County, and he pointed out the county has been meeting its conformance requirement for the last 10 years. He stressed the actions taken in accordance with the county’s local-zoning ordinance and development regulations must conform to the regional plan. He further contended section 8 of S.B. 393 is redundant because a portion of state law already requires the appropriate conformance in Washoe County. Mr. Harper maintained two NRS provisions regarding the same subject could be interpreted differently.

Still addressing S.B. 393, Mr. Harper stated he "[appreciates] the comment regarding compatibility, consistency, and internal conformity." However, he indicated, section 10 of the bill should be more specific as to the meaning of such terms. He explained Washoe County is concerned because that section could raise a series of challenges to every relevant action that is taken. Mr. Harper commented, "I understand that this is a desired end, but … if it’s [it is] in the state law, someone is going to ask for a definition." He suggested professional planners in Nevada could offer an appropriate definition.

Mr. Harper continued Washoe County has land-use and transportation plans, so there would be no problem with subsection 3, section 10, of S.B. 393. However, he raised concern with allowing the master plan to be amended only twice per year. He expressed Washoe County currently allows that plan to be amended three times per year, for each element. Mr. Harper emphasized the necessity for such amendments, since conformance to the regional plan is required. He elaborated the regional plan is sometimes amended more than three times per year. Thus, Mr. Harper asserted, subsection 4, section 11, of S.B. 393 would prevent Washoe County from meeting the requirements of the regional plan. He commented, "That puts the county in a bit of a conundrum and straightjackets the regional plan in meeting its requirements to be a flexible document." Mr. Harper added development opportunities that are supported by the community often require an amendment to the regional plan. He indicated, "We would not particularly like to see that truncated by a provision that only twice a year, the master plan can be amended." He suggested the cities of Reno and Sparks would likely agree that it would be difficult to amend a master plan only two times per year. Mr. Harper maintained the current requirement that local governments must be in conformance with Washoe County’s regional plan acts as a "safeguard," so it is unnecessary to limit the number of times the county’s master plan can be amended.

Mr. Harper noted S.B. 393 provides that the board of county commissioners would prepare a map of priority-funding areas. He suggested city representatives would likely be uncomfortable with designating the county to develop such a map. He elaborated the cities and the county might disagree about the specific details of the map.

Mr. Harper reiterated Washoe County and the cities of Reno and Sparks have had 10 years of experience with regional planning. He asserted current efforts in that area are "working … quite well" and are moving toward smart-growth options such as those proposed in S.B. 393. However, he repeated his concern that smart growth focuses only on urban areas, noting Washoe County "embraces" suburban and rural development as viable living options. Thus, Mr. Harper concluded, the proposed priority-funding map might be unnecessary for Washoe County. He further agreed with Senator Raggio’s aforementioned concern regarding the definition of "compact urban development." Mr. Harper contended that term is not necessarily "the opposite of urban sprawl." He asserted he believes Washoe County’s regional planning director would support his statements.

Senator Titus indicated Washoe County has not contacted her regarding S.B. 393. She said some of the county’s concerns could have been addressed earlier, had she known about them.

Senator Titus commented she is glad to hear that regional planning is working well in Washoe County. However, she stated, southern Nevada does not have regional planning. She noted, per Mr. Harper’s testimony, conformity is a positive concept. Senator Titus expressed a conformance provision might be repetitious for Washoe County, but southern Nevada currently has no such requirement. She suggested southern Nevada could consider Washoe County as an example in that regard.

Mr. Harper apologized for not relating his concerns to Senator Titus at an earlier time. He pointed out southern Nevada has different needs and opportunities than does Washoe County. He commented:

Mr. Diederich indicated he concurs with Mr. Harper’s comments. Mr. Diederich also expressed support for Senator Titus’ efforts with legislation like S.B. 393. He noted the provisions in section 10 of the bill would occur in NRS 278.150, which addresses plans at the local level, before they are brought to a regional planning authority for a determination of conformance with the regional plan. Mr. Diederich commented, "The difficulty that you have now, is you, literally, are creating a two-stage level of findings of fact that need to be incorporated into the adoption of any master plan." He mentioned California has language like that contained in section 10 of S.B. 393, and the language has been used to "tie up" plans for developing communities while the linkage between transportation, air quality, and land use are discussed. Mr. Diederich stated Washoe County supports that linkage, but sometimes it is not very "clean" in its application. For instance, he asserted, the choice must sometimes be made to intensify land use, though an associated transportation network will suffer. He maintained, "If somebody feels that that’s [that is] inconsistent with an overall, overriding goal, then you are, literally, going to put us into court very quick [quickly] while the citizens request some kind of deliberation on that matter."

Regarding subsection 3, section 10, of S.B. 393, Mr. Diederich reiterated Washoe County already has land-use and transportation plans. He pointed out those plans are required under NRS 278.0274, the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

Senator Raggio commented Senator Titus should have contacted Washoe County representatives regarding S.B. 393 before including that county in the provisions of the bill. Senator Raggio recognized the "tremendous effort" that went into the legislation which resulted in the present situation in Washoe County. He emphasized that legislation was based on communication between legislators and Washoe County representatives.

Senator Raggio reiterated his earlier question regarding the meaning of "compact urban development," and he also asked how that concept is a part of smart growth. Mr. Harper responded most planners associate that term with "urban villages" or "downtown, very urbanized" areas, where "the idea is growing up rather than growing out." He agreed many cities in the western United States need to "embrace" that concept, but he suggested "compact urban development" does not represent the opposite of urban sprawl. Mr. Harper added, "It certainly is not a panacea to … leapfrog development."

Senator Raggio indicated, "I would be interested if it meant something like dealing with the deterioration of the inner core or infrastructure of a city. Is that what you’re [you are] looking at, or not? Is that what it means?" Mr. Harper replied, "I think that’s [that is] exactly what you are seeing as one of the results of that type of deterioration of the inner city, is going back and increasing the densification, which then, basically, increases the investment opportunities for developers." He asserted the Embarcadero area in San Francisco offers a good example of this practice.

Senator Raggio maintained one of Washoe County’s successes has been "coming over the first hurdle" of communication so that the relevant planning agencies now work together. He contended Clark County is currently experiencing coordination and communication problems similar to those that used to exist in Washoe County. However, Senator Raggio indicated, he wants to defer to the representatives of Clark County to address the issue for southern Nevada. He expressed Washoe County has recognized that "you have to get over the turf battles … [and] the arbitrary lines that are drawn dividing cities and communities and realize that there are certain issues that are regional in nature." He contended no regional-planning problems can be solved until those recognitions are made. Senator Raggio emphasized some regional issues cannot be considered the "sole, possessory" matters of any political subdivision.

Senator Raggio reiterated Senator Porter’s previous comments that people are reluctant to allow representatives of one area to make decisions on matters that occur outside of that area. Senator Raggio commented, "Unfortunately, if you can’t [cannot] get over that hurdle, you’re [you are] going to have a tough time ever having true regional planning." Thus, he asserted, Washoe County created a governing body consisting of representatives from all of the political subdivisions that are affected by regional issues.

Senator Porter claimed rapid growth presents one of the biggest challenges to southern Nevada. He stated:

Senator Porter continued southern Nevada has learned from Washoe County, noting that county has worked in concert with the community to formulate a regional vision. However, he expressed, Washoe County still experiences disagreements among local governments, as does southern Nevada. He maintained, "There is not a plan that is perfect. We can’t [cannot] legislate cooperation."

Senator Porter commented both Washoe County and Clark County have had successes and failures in planning. He added southern Nevada has "come a long way" in this area, and communication has improved. He asserted local governments still understand that the Legislature can and will make final decisions regarding planning. Senator Porter contended current legislation proposes "ideas, … visions, and … suggested changes that are only the beginning." He elaborated growth management is an "ongoing, fluid" process, and he expressed his biggest concern is not about transportation, but about work for southern Nevada citizens. He indicated his constituents are concerned about their jobs, and such concerns are a part of growth management.

Regarding the development of regional planning in Reno, Senator Titus commented:

Senator Titus continued she does not think S.B. 393 would impose a problem on Washoe County. She elaborated the bill would allow local governments to determine where they want to grow and to identify their own smart-growth areas. She noted those areas would then be given priority for state and federal funding, in order to promote smart growth. Senator Titus emphasized the bill does not entail restrictions or punitive measures.

Mr. Harper reiterated Washoe County does not oppose the concept of smart growth. However, he stated, the county is concerned that people would interpret S.B. 393 as a limitation on providing funds to certain areas, such as those where the density of residential development is less than 3.5 units per acre, those that are not consistently commercial, and those that are not currently planned for sewer service. He indicated such areas might need assistance from the federal or state government to build roads, for example.

Senator Titus explained S.B. 393 would provide only that "relative preference" be given to identified priority-funding areas. She further pointed out that term would be defined by local governments. She concluded, "Maybe … you look at it and say, ‘Well, this is a smart-growth area; but right now, we need a sewer over here.’ Again, that is left totally in your hands. It just says you look at it."

Mr. Harper indicated Senator Titus’ explanation of that point relieves some of his concern. However, he noted, that explanation must be clarified, especially for the people who would implement S.B. 393. He commented, "I’m [I am] going to be the person … [who] is going to be reminding them that Senator Titus made that statement that it was a relative preference, and that it was not intended to be focused completely on smart growth, as I indicated earlier." Senator Titus responded, "And that’s [that is] what it says."

Chairman O’Connell suggested that Mr. Harper testify on S.B. 394. Mr. Harper indicated, "S.B. 394 … makes the regional planning governing body what is called the regional land use coordinating entity in Washoe County." He stated that county’s air quality and pollution control board and its Regional Transportation Commission are currently required to bring their plans to the regional planning commission for findings of conformance. Thus, he asserted, the language in S.B. 394 which would require that action is redundant.

Mr. Harper added:

Mr. Harper commented it may seem inexpensive to create a volume of findings and policies each year, as proposed in S.B. 394. However, he maintained, that process would actually be "very expensive," because it would simply duplicate information that is available from other sources. He further contended it is not very difficult to direct people to those sources, though compiling the information into one volume might be more convenient. Mr. Harper said he discussed this issue with the director of the air quality and pollution control board, who agreed the compilation of the proposed volume would be "rather expensive."

Mr. Harper stated Washoe County would not comment on the air-pollution credits, which are an issue for the district Health Department.

Mr. Harper emphasized S.B. 394 addresses a process that has been required in Washoe County for the last 10 years. He expressed, "Every time you put in new language that is already integrated with existing language, you tend to create a problem … where you have people reading things differently." He apologized to Senator Titus for not contacting her earlier with his concerns regarding S.B. 394. Mr. Harper stressed Washoe County is comfortable with and confident in its current process. He added the county did not anticipate being drawn into a process that might be more oriented toward Clark County.

Ms. Fretwell addressed S.B. 393, asserting the City of Henderson is very supportive of smart growth. She pointed out that city has been recognized for its progressive planning efforts. However, Ms. Fretwell testified, Henderson has some concerns regarding the process outlined in S.B. 393. She clarified the city does not oppose the concepts or policies contained in the bill.

Ms. Fretwell commented cities would not be involved in the designation of priority-funding areas under S.B. 393, and she suggested perhaps Senator Titus could clarify that issue. Ms. Fretwell contended every local government needs to participate in identifying priority-funding areas. Due to that concern, Ms. Fretwell added, the City of Henderson is also opposed to sections 6 and 7 of S.B. 393, in their current form.

Ms. Fretwell raised further concerns regarding the impacts of sections 8 through 11 of S.B. 393 on Henderson’s current processes. She elaborated the bill proposes a philosophical change in the interaction between zoning processes and the master plan. She maintained Henderson would have to "retool quite a bit" to accommodate the provisions of sections 8 through 11. Thus, Ms. Fretwell expressed, it would take some time before the city could implement the proposed procedures.

Ms. Fretwell indicated she has discussed some of her concerns with Senator Titus. Ms. Fretwell further stated section 11 of S.B. 393, which addresses amendment of the master plan, presents a significant area of concern for Henderson. She mentioned the master plan should drive zoning decisions, but she asserted that goal is difficult when dealing with "huge tracts" of undeveloped land. She noted Henderson has an interlocal agreement with Clark County regarding an area of several thousand acres which the city plans to annex. Ms. Fretwell commented:

Ms. Fretwell recalled Senator Titus testified that twice per year may be too infrequent for amending a master plan. Ms. Fretwell mentioned Florida allows master plans to be amended only once per year. Especially considering the growth in Henderson, she maintained, amending the plan only once or twice per year would not help the city be flexible in accommodating new development. Ms. Fretwell explained the city will have to develop its communities in such a way as to provide housing for new residents, if growth continues.

Ms. Fretwell offered to work with the committee on S.B. 393, but she noted many changes would have to be made in order to make the bill "work" for the City of Henderson. She commented the city does not have specific amendments for the bill yet. She emphasized Henderson supports the concepts of smart growth, and she asserted the city already strives to achieve that goal.

Senator Titus asked Ms. Fretwell if once per quarter would be too infrequent for amending master plans. Ms. Fretwell replied, "I think that that would be a little easier for us." She added Henderson would need some time to organize its plans in order to accommodate such an amendment schedule. She stated the city currently has land-use plans which guide infrastructure and development patterns. However, Ms. Fretwell pointed out, those plans are not always consistent with the end results. She indicated Henderson currently changes its master plan "fairly regularly" because of the amount of growth that is occurring in the area.

Senator Titus asked if changes to Henderson’s master plan are based on initiatives of the city or on proposals for development. Ms. Fretwell answered changes are usually made in reaction to development proposals. Senator Titus asked, "How can you really call it a plan, if you change it that often, just in response?" Ms. Fretwell responded the City of Henderson comes up with an initial plan. As the area then becomes ready for development, she explained, a "reconciliation process" occurs between the initial plan and the actual development, based on the wishes of the relevant property owner. Ms. Fretwell concluded the city attempts to "merge" its policies with the property owner’s ideas for development. She suggested, "Sometimes the lines just don’t [do not] line up exactly right when we do that, particularly when you’re [you are] talking about some areas that just don’t [do not] have anything on them."

Ms. Fretwell maintained Henderson could work on the timing of amendments to the master plan. She asserted, "I know that there are some other local governments in southern Nevada that have already embarked on this. It would be interesting to find out how successful that’s [that has] been for them, and to hear from the development community about the impact of that for them." Ms. Fretwell expressed that information could help gauge whether or not four times per year would be sufficient for amending master plans. She commented, "I would venture to guess that it would be a big step for us if we did it 12 times a year, right now." She explained Henderson adheres to the "big-picture" standards it has set when it adjusts the master plan, and she stressed the city needs flexibility on this issue.

Ms. Fretwell moved on to address S.B. 394, asserting the City of Henderson "likes" that bill. However, she raised a few concerns. For example, she contended, section 3 of the bill would probably require a technical amendment. She elaborated that section refers to the four largest cities in Clark County, but those entities are not the ones involved in the relevant interlocal agreement.

Ms. Fretwell continued subsection 1, section 5, of S.B. 394 references the regional planning coalition established by interlocal agreement. Further, she pointed out subsection 2 of that section refers to NRS 278.090. Ms. Fretwell questioned what would happen if the county commission created a regional planning commission and the regional planning coalition also existed. She recommended that a group established through interlocal agreement should supercede one created under NRS 278.090. She explained such a provision would eliminate the possibility that two bodies could exist to address the same issues.

Ms. Fretwell stated some plans referenced in sections 6, 8, and 10 of S.B. 394 are already being provided to the regional planning coalition in southern Nevada. She suggested the language in those sections could be consolidated and streamlined. She further indicated the regional planning coalition could be directed to coordinate and review the relevant plans. Ms. Fretwell added the compilation of plans and policies into a volume might be a function of the regional planning coalition, and efforts in that area should not be duplicated. She agreed to prepare some proposed amendments to address her concerns.

Robert F. Joiner, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter of American Planning Association, indicated he would also be representing Carson City. He stated, "I would also like to represent some of the smaller governments that I haven’t [have not] seen represented today, that have, obviously, planning commissions and professional planners."

Mr. Joiner pointed out Carson City adopted a new land-use master plan in 1996. He asserted the plan had not been updated for 15 years before that. He expressed the new master plan sets forth an urban-service boundary, as well as incentives for developing within that boundary and "disincentives" for developing outside of it. Mr. Joiner further noted an open-space acquisition bill was passed during the last Carson City election. He contended the city is "being very active" in acquiring open space, and he commented managers of Douglas County, Lyon County, and Carson City meet frequently to discuss regional issues, though they are not required to do so. Mr. Joiner stated Carson City was the first government in Nevada to pass a growth-management ordinance.

Mr. Joiner continued each local government in Nevada is different. He suggested local-government concerns should be addressed by the appropriate county commission; then addressed by the Legislature for policy establishment, if necessary. Mr. Joiner expressed many bills regarding NRS chapter 278 are being considered during the Seventieth Legislative Session, and these bills contain contradictions and overlapping provisions. He maintained that if some of the bills do not pass, and if some "overriding" issues remain, the Nevada Chapter of the American Planning Association would be willing to work on a "total rewrite" of NRS chapter 278. He emphasized that association would like to see all of the local governments in Nevada represented.

Mr. Joiner said Assembly Bill (A.B.) 388 would provide that master plans be amended no more than four times per year.

Mr. Joiner continued A.B. 349 addresses similar issues.

Mr. Joiner commented Carson City currently amends its master plan twice per year. However, he mentioned, "We have areas where we can do it more frequently." Mr. Joiner contended:

Mr. Joiner indicated he previously worked in California, where governments are required to make their zoning conform with the master plan within a year. He explained that process forces governments to amend their master plans frequently.

Mr. Joiner asserted many smaller local governments in Nevada are economically depressed and might be in a "pro-growth mode." He noted those governments face different issues than those faced by Carson City, Clark County, and Washoe County. He suggested the situations of all local governments should be considered, since some provisions of the relevant bills, including section 8 of S.B. 393, would affect all local governments. Regarding that section, Mr. Joiner argued:

Mr. Joiner elaborated Carson City uses its master plan for long-range planning, and the city has to be "ripe" for zone changes at any time. He mentioned, "As recently as last week, before our board, a zone change was denied which, in 1996, was master planned for a more intense land use." He explained the change was denied because members of the community indicated they did not believe it was the right time to change the zoning. Mr. Joiner noted:

Mr. Joiner continued Carson City could "live with" a provision allowing the master plan to be changed only four times per year. However, he stated, "As a planner, my bias is to the land-use element [of a master plan];" so he asserted he could not speak for departments that deal with other plan elements.

Mr. Rosenquist submitted prepared testimony (Exhibit D) and stressed the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning is opposed to S.B. 393. He indicated that county is already doing some of the things proposed in the bill, and he further maintained the bill would preclude the county from accomplishing some of its goals. Mr. Rosenquist contended the Clark County Board of Commissioners should not be responsible for designating priority-funding areas within incorporated areas of the county.

Mr. Rosenquist continued various studies and legislation attempt to encourage "infill" through faster processing, redevelopment agencies using eminent domain, and so forth. He noted paragraph (j), subsection 1, section 4, of S.B. 393 "is the closest thing that … comes to really address the root cause of infill, and that is tax structure." He indicated S.B. 393 would allow local governments to negotiate different allocations of tax formulas in order to provide incentives for infill. However, Mr. Rosenquist expressed, that scenario is not realistic, given current budgets and the current focus on using money from the General Fund for public-safety issues.

Mr. Rosenquist asserted the greatest concern of the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, with regard to S.B. 393, involves master plan amendments. He commented NRS currently lists 15 master-plan elements, 3 of which are mandatory. He pointed out S.B. 393 would make two more elements mandatory to master plans, and other pending legislation would require additional elements. Mr. Rosenquist mentioned the 15 elements currently listed in NRS include a land-use plan. He explained Clark County has individual land-use plans for 13 different planning areas, and most of the county’s unincorporated towns have a land-use plan. Mr. Rosenquist further stated those plans are adopted and amended individually, rather than amending the whole master plan at once. He asserted many of the relevant issues are "highly controversial" and "highly complex," so they require public debate and citizen participation. Thus, he concluded, plans are addressed one at a time.

Mr. Rosenquist contended a limit on master-plan amendments would not work for Clark County, given the number of elements involved. He noted previous testimony suggested allowing master plans to be amended four times per year. He commented, "I believe that the number ‘four’ was put in place, and that number would apply to land-use plan amendments and not prevent us from updating and bringing other aspects of the master plan to bear, that that may be something that would require us to look at a little more, … but could be feasible."

Mr. Rosenquist noted section 8 of S.B. 393 would require that local ordinances be brought into compliance with the master plan within 1 year. He stated, "Our concern with that is, again, once you get within the elements of the master plan that are outside of a land-use plan, … when you start trying to determine which items of an ordinance are consistent with more of a broad-reaching policy document, there’s [there is] a lot of room for wide ranges of interpretation." He contended "interpretive calls" would have to be worked out, even if the provisions of section 8 of S.B. 393 were restricted to the land-use plan.

Mr. Rosenquist mentioned the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition considered S.B. 393 on March 26, 1999, and the coalition adopted a motion to oppose the bill at that time.

Mr. Rosenquist submitted prepared testimony regarding S.B. 394 (Exhibit E), and he asserted Clark County "strongly supports" the bill. He pointed out the Clark County Board of Commissioners adopted a smart-growth program in January 1988; and one element of that program involves establishing better linkages between land-use, air-quality, and transportation planning. Mr. Rosenquist expressed it is difficult to establish such linkages, and the county has been working to develop a database for that purpose since June 1998. He explained the county needs a database and a computer model of the southern Nevada transportation system, which could then be linked to the county’s air-quality dispersion models. With that system, Mr. Rosenquist contended, Clark County could test different scenarios when considering new land-use plans.

Mr. Rosenquist suggested amending the provisions of S.B. 394 regarding the annual publication of the plans, policies, and programs of the regional coordinating entity, the air-pollution control board, and the Regional Transportation Commission. He indicated the regional entities deal with many things in addition to land-use and air-quality planning. He further commented, "But I think we understand the intent of the bill, and that is, if we could focus on any sort of … coordinated plan that comes out of the regional … coordination entity, make that the focal point." Mr. Rosenquist noted his prepared testimony offers amendments to accomplish that intention (Exhibit E). He reiterated the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning supports S.B. 394, with those minor amendments.

Mr. Rosenquist concluded the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition recommended support for S.B. 394, with the aforementioned amendments. He added the coalition would also prefer the bill to be worded in an enabling manner, rather than a prescriptive one.

Senator Titus explained the intent of the sections Mr. Rosenquist proposes to amend is to create one volume which would be a "summary" of the coordinated efforts of the relevant groups. She indicated she is open to suggestions for other approaches to creating such a volume, and she commented, "I don’t [do not] want a book that everybody puts all their plans in [and] staples together. … I don’t [do not] want to duplicate efforts where the three different bodies have to do it. We wanted one … summary of what the coordinated effort has produced, and so that would be in keeping with the suggestions."

Pamela B. Wilcox, Administrator and State Land Registrar, Division of State Lands, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified section 14 of S.B. 394 would set forth a provision involving that division, the Division of Environmental Protection, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. She indicated those agencies are unsure what the state’s role should be in the matter, and she questioned the state’s intended role in S.B. 394. Ms. Wilcox noted she has discussed the issue briefly with Senator Titus, but more time is needed to clarify the issue. Ms. Wilcox asserted a fiscal note would be completed after such clarification.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 393 and S.B. 394 and opened the hearing on S.B. 542.

Deborah Murray, Planning Manager, Current Planning Division, Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, stated she would be speaking on behalf of Lesa M. Coder, Lobbyist, Clark County, and Nevada American Planning Association, who would not be able to attend the meeting. Ms. Murray read from prepared testimony in support of S.B. 542 (Exhibit F), a bill which was requested by Clark County. She explained the bill would allow the county to "revert acreage, without unnecessary reversionary maps, to eliminate boundary lines." She added the bill would also provide for electronic notification upon request, if receipt of such notification could be verified.

Ms. Murray indicated S.B. 542 was drafted in consultation with the American Planning Association, the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors, and the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, as well as many local governments in the state. She expressed the aforementioned parties support S.B. 542, and she stressed the bill is permissive and would not impose restrictions on any entity. Ms. Murray added S.B. 542 would allow local governments to streamline subdivision and notification processes.

Ms. Murray suggested some amendments to S.B. 542, as set forth in her prepared testimony (Exhibit F). She testified the language that would be deleted per subsection 2, section 5, of the bill should be retained. She explained that language allows a longer time period to process variances and use permits when an application is in conjunction with a development agreement.

Chairman O’Connell asked if S.B. 542 contemplates sending notifications via e-mail. Ms. Murray responded affirmatively and noted such notifications would be sent upon request. Chairman O’Connell questioned whether all the appropriate people would receive those notifications. Ms. Murray responded notifications have not been sent via e-mail before, and she indicated such notifications would be sent only if their receipt could be verified. Chairman O’Connell asked if constituents would have to request that they receive notification via e-mail. Ms. Murray replied affirmatively and stated notification would be sent by regular mail in the absence of such a request.

In response to a comment from Chairman O’Connell, Senator O’Donnell indicated paragraph (d), subsection 2, section 5, of S.B. 542 states that notification would be sent via e-mail only if such a format is "requested by a party." He pointed out, "They’re [They are] the ones that [who] are initiating the request, but if they don’t [do not] get the e-mail, of course, they would probably request to have it sent again."

Ms. Murray testified NRS chapter 278 was amended during the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session to allow final maps to be approved by the planning director or other authorized person or agency. She suggested NRS 278.378 should be revised to reflect that change.

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, clarified the proposed change would occur in subsection 1, section 6, of S.B. 542. In response to a question from Senator Raggio, Ms. Murray explained Clark County would like to change the language in that section to read:

In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Murray expressed:

Mr. Diederich testified the Washoe County Department of Community Development supports the changes proposed by Clark County to NRS chapter 278. He added Washoe County agrees with Clark County’s streamlining efforts. He emphasized Washoe County requests retention of the language which would be stricken in subsection 2, section 5, of S.B. 542. He commented, "That came in in a previous session, and it’s [it is] extremely important for development-agreement procedures which Washoe County does utilize."

Mr. Diederich distributed a handout proposing additional changes to NRS 278.378 (Exhibit G). He reiterated the Legislature voted in 1997 to allow local entities to streamline their parcel-map and final-map recordation procedures, and he maintained Washoe County has used that ability extensively. However, he indicated, the county has noticed a couple of technical problems with the final recordation of the maps. Mr. Diederich explained the planning commission is still referenced at that point, though the final map can be approved by the planning director.

Mr. Diederich continued most public input is provided at the tentative-map stage, and after the map is tentatively approved, technical corrections must be made and compliance with the conditions of approval must be completed before recordation. He expressed local entities typically rely on the planning director to follow through on those procedures. He added some jurisdictions may choose their engineers or surveyors to do so. Mr. Diederich contended, "The language is broad enough, whoever the county commission or city council, whoever they designate as that person should be appropriate."

Mr. Diederich pointed out S.B. 542 does not directly contain some sections of NRS that the Washoe County Department of Community Development proposes to change. For example, he noted, one of the county’s proposed amendments refers to NRS 278.390 (Exhibit G). He asserted that proposed amendment is consistent with the streamlining attempts in S.B. 542.

Mr. Diederich stated the Washoe County Department of Community Development has discussed its proposed changes, in general, with Clark County, and has also offered those changes for review by Washoe County’s Development Services Advisory Committee, which consists of various representatives from the development community and local entities.

Senator O’Donnell asked how Clark County responded to Mr. Diederich’s proposed amendments. Mr. Diederich answered Mr. Harper tried to discuss the issue with various representatives from Clark County, and he spoke with Ms. Coder, in particular. Mr. Diederich asserted Washoe County questioned whether to include the aforementioned amendments in S.B. 542 or in an Assembly bill sponsored by Washoe County. He stated, "As you heard, at least the first section was being read right into the record, and that’s [that is] verbatim, right off of this copy that you’ve [you have] received here today."

John T. Doughty, Planning and Economic Development Manager, Community Development, Douglas County, testified Douglas County is "generally" in support of S.B. 542. However, he raised a question regarding subdivisions resubmissions of reverted projects, and he asserted the bill would allow for the recording of a completely reconfigured parcel or subdivision map, as a final map; right after a reversion. He maintained that process would eliminate the tentative-map stage. Mr. Doughty reiterated the public’s opportunity for input into the process occurs during the tentative-map stage. He commented the public would not receive that opportunity if the tentative-map stage was bypassed.

Mr. Doughty stated, "We would concur with the going back to what the statutes say today, which provides for the administrative approval of the final maps, which we are doing today in Douglas County, and the other revisions that are recommended, as well."

Ms. Murray noted Clark County’s tentative-map procedure is done through a public-hearing process before the planning commission. She clarified the final-map process is handled administratively.

In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Doughty indicated state law requires counties to go through the planning commission and the board of county commissioners. He reiterated his concern regarding public input into the map process outlined in S.B. 542. He elaborated he understands S.B. 542 would allow reversion maps to be done as a part of final maps, thus "skipping" the tentative-mapping process. Mr. Doughty maintained he does not know if that situation is the intent of S.B. 542, but the language in the bill is unclear on that point.

Ms. Murray clarified the intent of S.B. 542 is not to skip the tentative-map process.

Mr. Diederich added:

Senator Titus emphasized she wants to be sure S.B. 542 would not take away public input. Ms. Murray responded, "We’re [We are] not taking away any of that."

William T. Cuddy, Concerned Citizen, testified he was representing "the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors, in cooperation with the American Planning Association, the Northern Nevada Interagency Survey Council, [and the] Southern Nevada Survey Council." Mr. Cuddy indicated those groups support S.B. 542, as introduced, and with any proposed amendments.

Ms. Porter offered further support for S.B. 542.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 542 and began a work session. (See work session document, Exhibit H). She opened discussion on S.B. 311.

Chairman O’Connell pointed out S.B. 311 was requested by Washoe County.

Senator Raggio noted the Senate Committee on Government Affairs discussed S.B. 311 on two previous occasions. He raised concern regarding the use of estimates, as set forth in the bill.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 323.

Chairman O’Connell explained S.B. 323 would allow manufactured housing to be located almost anywhere, and she directed the committee’s attention to the information provided in the work session document (Exhibit H).

Chairman O’Connell suggested the committee could consider a population cap for S.B. 323. She indicated the bill might be able to help the assessed valuation of smaller counties.

Senator Raggio expressed concern regarding the permissive language in section 3 of S.B. 323. He noted the bill states that "the governing body may adopt standards for the construction and placement of" manufactured homes. He further pointed out subsection 2, section 3, of S.B. 323 lists requirements which could be adopted. Senator Raggio commented, "I think the selling point for the bill was that these are homes that meet these requirements; and, therefore, they would not be incompatible, generally, with a good building standard." He pointed out S.B. 323, as written, does not mandate the adoption of the requirements listed in the bill. Thus, he asserted, the bill would allow the placement of manufactured homes without such requirements, if none were adopted. Senator Raggio suggested subsection 2, section 3, of S.B. 323 should be mandatory, if the committee processed the bill. He elaborated that subsection should read, "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1, a governing body shall adopt standards … ."

Senator Raggio continued lines 24 and 25, page 2, of S.B. 323 would allow the governing body to adopt less restrictive standards than those suggested in the bill. He indicated, "I think what we’re [we are] concerned about is that we don’t [do not] do something, here, that allows for a manufactured home that doesn’t [does not] have all these amenities … [to fall under the provisions of the bill]."

Senator Raggio stated proponents had argued that smaller counties should have the option to adopt lesser standards than those set forth in S.B. 323. He asserted lines 24 and 25, page 2, of the bill would provide that option. However, he contended, the bill should contain a provision for a hearing or some other process before lesser standards are adopted. Senator Raggio stressed neighborhoods that would be affected by the adoption of such standards should have an opportunity to address the situation.

Senator Neal recalled a suggestion had been made to take out the word "construction" and leave in the word "placement" on line 10, page 1, of S.B. 323. (See work session document, Exhibit H.)

Juliann Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, commented previous testimony indicated that construction standards are a federal authority, since the manufactured housing addressed in S.B. 323 would use the standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Mr. Joiner said he and Carson City’s building official previously testified on the differences between HUD standards and Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards. He indicated Carson City’s main objection to S.B. 323 is the bill’s use of HUD standards instead of UBC standards. He elaborated the objection is based on types of construction and on limitations of building inspectors and officials in dealing with HUD-standard homes.

Senator Neal asserted the permissive language in S.B. 323 would not "do any damage," but would only "[enable] the local governments, if they want to engage in this, to do so."

Senator Raggio expressed:

Mr. Joiner responded, "That’s [That is] correct." He stated Carson City’s ordinance allows HUD-standard manufactured homes in various zoning districts.

Senator Raggio maintained S.B. 323 would include manufactured homes in the definition of a "single-family residence." Thus, he noted, any reference to single-family residences would include manufactured homes. He continued previous testimony offered examples of some manufactured homes. Senator Raggio contended manufactured homes would probably not be like those examples if the standards in subsection 2, section 3, of S.B. 323 were not required. He reiterated the bill states local governments "may" adopt certain standards; and he expressed, "We would do a great disservice, unless we required them to put those kind of standards in place."

Senator Neal indicated he does not disagree with Senator Raggio’s comments.

Senator Raggio noted Carson City and Clark and Douglas counties opposed S.B. 323 in previous testimony, and those entities asserted their present zoning laws are adequate to address the issue. He recalled many citizens who attended the hearing on S.B. 323 want their manufactured homes to be considered single-family residences. He maintained, "But I think the presentation before the committee was that they were going to be added to or within these kind of definitions."

The sponsor of S.B. 323, Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, testified he has no objection to changing "may" to "must" on line 10, page 1, of S.B. 323. Senator Raggio commented there would still be a problem with the language in lines 24 and 25, page 2, of the bill, because those lines would allow local governments to adopt standards that are less restrictive than those listed. Senator Amodei explained:

Senator O’Donnell commented he supports allowing neighborhoods to have subdivisions of manufactured homes, though he shares some of Senator Raggio’s concerns. Senator O’Donnell asked if Senator Amodei could work out some of those concerns.

Senator Amodei responded he would not be opposed to a measure which would allow for testing of the provisions of S.B. 323 in some areas. He mentioned all the concerns with the bill are prospective, rather than based on experience. Senator Amodei further recalled previous testimony had indicated that both urbanized and rural areas in various other states have provisions like those in S.B. 323. He stated he would not object if the committee put a population cap in the bill to see how it worked in certain counties.

Chairman O’Connell asked if S.B. 323 would be helpful in smaller communities, some of which do not even have zoning laws. She reiterated perhaps S.B. 323 could build the assessed valuation of such communities, since the bill would provide that manufactured homes would be treated like "stick-built" homes for property-tax purposes.

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, testified that group’s biggest concern with S.B. 323 involves the difference between UBC and HUD standards. He expressed the use of HUD standards would go against most cities’ current use of UBC standards.

In response to a comment from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Grady confirmed Nye County does not have zoning regulations; though he noted the Pahrump area is working on that issue. He mentioned all other counties in Nevada have zoning regulations.

Senator Titus stated she has received input on S.B. 323 from residents of mobile-home parks, where lots must be rented. She elaborated those individuals believe the bill would allow them to move their mobile homes onto land they own, thus helping them "get out from under" rent increases. She noted if the bill was changed as Senator Raggio suggested, it would no longer serve the purpose of those mobile-home-park residents. Senator Titus explained she does not think most of those residents’ homes would meet the requirements listed in the bill.

Senator Amodei responded, "It would depend on the type of lot they’re [they are] trying to go into," and he added some people own 5-acre parcels in rural areas. He noted some of those people live in Washoe County, "and if they don’t [do not] have … a trailer overlay, then they can’t [cannot] place that on there unless they bring it up to UBC standards."

Citing the testimony of building officials who spoke before the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor, Senator Amodei asserted no building code is a guarantee. Thus, he maintained, all problems would not disappear with a UBC, versus a HUD, standard. He contended, "There are several very large pieces of legislation that are centered around the other standard, and it does not guarantee that there won’t [will not] be problems."

Senator Amodei continued S.B. 323 would offer some options to people who wish to own a home. He indicated it would not be economically feasible to site manufactured homes in areas where existing homes and foundations would have to be demolished. However, he indicated, "If somebody owns an acre, or 2 acres, or has a lot somewhere, where they want to make it comply and, basically, visually fit in with the other surrounding houses in town, or if it’s [it is] a rural area, the issue ceases. I don’t [do not] see why they shouldn’t [should not] have that option." Senator Amodei contended the issue of UBC versus HUD standards "is largely a function of who likes what code better, and does very little to serve what we’re [we are] trying to get at here, which is give people options."

Senator Amodei suggested:

Senator Titus clarified she supports S.B. 323 and its attempt to offer options for manufactured homeowners. However, she raised concern that the bill would be amended "down to where it doesn’t [does not] mean anything or won’t [will not] help those people that I was just describing."

Senator Raggio asserted the individuals who presented S.B. 323 indicated they would agree with his proposed amendment. He added those individuals presented the bill "on the basis that it would have these kind of standards." Thus, he emphasized, the committee needs to ensure the bill would include the appropriate standards.

Senator Amodei agreed and maintained such standards would be included to allay the fears of people who live in existing neighborhoods and who, "under the stereotypical, historical notion, don’t [do not] want an Airstream trailer moved into their neighborhood."

Mr. Joiner commented many communities are already meeting the needs for manufactured housing. He pointed out 15 percent of the housing stock in Carson City is HUD-standard manufactured housing, which is mostly in subdivisions. He stated, "That does not include the other 85 percent of our housing; I estimated 4 to 5 percent is UBC-standard manufactured housing."

Mr. Joiner indicated UBC-standard housing allows a "2-and-12-pitch" roof, and he wondered why S.B. 323 would limit the standards to "3-and-12." He stressed that standard is not typical of most subdivisions. Mr. Joiner further asked why the bill would not require an overhang, which is typical of a standard home. He indicated, "We have no problem with it going to real property. We would encourage that." However, he asserted, a misconception exists regarding the foundation of a HUD-standard manufactured home. Mr. Joiner elaborated, "It [the foundation of a HUD-standard manufactured home] can still be piers, with skirting, and it qualifies as a single-family [home] on a foundation, with tie-downs." He asserted a foundation of piers and skirting is not typical in single-family residential areas with mostly "stick-built" homes.

Senator Raggio asked if S.B. 323 could be changed to address Mr. Joiner’s concerns regarding foundations. Mr. Joiner replied the bill could require a UBC-standard foundation. Senator Raggio maintained such a change would not be difficult. Mr. Joiner added UBC standards allow for alternative foundation types, not all of which must be concrete. However, he stressed, UBC-standard foundations cannot be "piers."

Mr. Joiner recalled Phil M. Herrington, Certified Building Official, Chief Administrator, Carson City Building Department, previously testified that HUD standards do not provide for the snow loads that are necessary in areas of high elevation, like Carson City. Mr. Joiner asserted HUD standards also do not require sufficient wind loads.

Mr. Joiner continued Carson City would like amendments to address its concerns with S.B. 323. He emphasized building officials in western states are trained to deal with UBC-standard manufactured homes. He recalled previous testimony on S.B. 323 had indicated "that, to do an addition onto these homes, they have to be detached from the home, and then you build a breezeway, with a covering. That’s [That is] not typical in a single-family residential neighborhood."

Senator Neal commented a 3-foot pitch would be "kind of steep" for a 12-foot-wide roof. Senator O’Donnell mentioned the roof pitch, in that situation, would be 22.5 degrees.

Senator Amodei testified, "In many counties in northern Nevada, if I can go through the process and get a trailer overlay, this UBC-HUD discussion that we’re [we are] having doesn’t [does not] occur." He contended those counties place priority on "the eyewash of where this product is located." Senator Amodei maintained, "If I can meet the locally-imposed eyewash requirements, it ought to be an option that I have." He asserted eve overhangs and skirting foundations are issues of appearance.

Senator Amodei concluded, "We don’t [do not] have any bills before the Legislature this time about problems with HUD-standard manufactured homes …. We’ve [We have] got them about the ones that most of us live in that we’re [we are] familiar with."

Mr. Joiner expressed building inspectors respond to complaints, building deficiencies, and appeals in subdivisions. He maintained, "They cannot come to the one next door that’s [that is] a HUD-standard manufactured home. … They’re [They are] not allowed to." Mr. Joiner noted pending legislation would provide more "manpower" for building inspectors. He explained the planning department currently has to wait for weeks before an official is available to look into complaints. Mr. Joiner asserted subdivisions with different standards of homes would require different inspectors. He added, "And when you go on to do an addition, you’re [you are] going to have some real problems."

Senator O’Donnell asked if Senator Neal’s motion would address the foundation issue. Senator Neal responded the bill’s current foundation provisions would remain. He clarified, "[The motion is] just giving the local government the added authority in terms of, between Clark County and the sloping of the roof, that it can come in and say, ‘Okay. If you’re [you are] going to put this [here], it has to have a certain slope.’"

Ms. Guinasso asked if Senator Neal’s motion would leave in the language regarding foundations in paragraph (b), subsection 2, section 3, of S.B. 323, or if his motion would require UBC-standard foundations. Senator Neal responded, "They have to go by the language that is set [forth] in the bill, in terms of the foundation, and … the local government has to make those decisions as to … how these places would be tied down … . We’re [We are] not just talking about pulling a trailer in, setting it down, and putting a skirt around it." He maintained the local governments would determine whether homes would be suitable, in terms of the area and the weather conditions.

*****

Senator O’Donnell pointed out paragraph (c), subsection 2, section 3, of S.B. 323 "is written in the negative" because of the use of the word "not." He noted a roof could have less than a "3-12" pitch.

Senator Raggio clarified his proposed language would make the provisions of that paragraph standard, unless the appropriate governing body deems something more is necessary, due to local conditions. For example, he expressed, snow and wind conditions might warrant other standards.

Senator O’Donnell stated residents of Las Vegas can have slopes of ¼-inch per 1 foot. Senator Raggio explained, "They would have to make that determination, under my motion, that it would have to be more restrictive than this limitation."

Senator O’Donnell asked if governing bodies would make determinations based on aesthetics. Senator Raggio responded determinations would be based on local conditions.

*****

Senator Raggio suggested the committee should see the amended version of S.B. 323. He said, "I’ll [I will] just make my motion to amend, until we see the amendment."

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 348.

Chairman O’Connell requested a motion to indefinitely postpone S.B. 348. She recalled the bill involves an individual "who wants the state to buy her property, for the water rights."

Senator Raggio explained he made that motion because there is currently no need for the water rights in question. He further pointed out the fiscal note for S.B. 348 was $3 million to $5 million.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 409.

Senator Raggio pointed out some amendments had been suggested for S.B. 409, as set forth in the work session document (Exhibit H).

Chairman O’Connell noted S.B. 413 and S.B. 474 are very similar.

Chairman O’Connell recalled the committee heard S.B. 413, but not S.B. 474. She explained Eric Raecke, Manager, State Public Works Board, Department of Administration, testified the language in both bills is "pretty much the same."

Senator Raggio noted Mr. Raecke and the state fire marshal agreed to an understanding on the issue. Ms. Jenson pointed out relevant information is included on page 4 of the work session document (Exhibit H).

Senator Raggio recalled the Associated General Contractors raised some concerns with S.B. 413. He indicated he would like more time to consider S.B. 413 and S.B. 474.

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 498.

Chairman O’Connell noted S.B. 498 was introduced on behalf of the Budget Division.

Senator Neal commented he does not think S.B. 498 should go on the consent calendar.

*****

Senator Raggio mentioned the issue addressed in S.B. 498 is not frequent.

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 499.

Senator Raggio recalled S.B. 499 is a "housekeeping measure" dealing with obsolete provisions.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 531.

Chairman O’Connell noted S.B. 531, which addresses population breaks, was requested by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. She expressed four counties are currently at almost the same population level. She commented, "They [The Legislative Counsel Bureau] asked that this be delayed until the next session of the Legislature, just so that they cannot be working with estimates, but be working with the real head count from the census."

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on S.B. 532.

Senator O’Donnell expressed some discomfort with S.B. 532, but he suggested a threshold would alleviate his concerns. He elaborated the bill could provide that if more than $250 has been collected, it would have to be deposited.

Senator Neal referred to subsection 5, section 1, of S.B. 532. Senator O’Donnell commented, "’In any day’ is the key" term in that language. For example, he expressed, $900 could be collected each day, for 10 days, but that money would not have to be deposited for 10 working days.

Chairman O’Connell indicated the Division of State Parks agreed to amending the bill to place a cap on accumulated collections, as explained in the work session document (Exhibit H). Senator Neal commented he believes the division agreed to a cap of $1,000.

Chairman O’Connell recalled previous testimony had addressed the division’s procedures for accountability and for keeping track of collections.

Chairman O’Connell suggested the cap on accumulated collections should not be more than $500. Senator Raggio responded the cap should not be set at an impractical amount. Senator O’Donnell suggested a cap of $1,000. Senator Neal agreed.

Senator Raggio summarized remote parks sometimes collect very little money, especially during certain seasons. Thus, he stated, S.B. 532 proposes that "if the deposit that they get is less than $1,000 [on] any day, they would have up to 10 days to deposit it."

Senator Neal responded, "I’m [I am] saying, if they accumulate $1,000 within 2 days, they [have] got to deposit it."

Senator Raggio stated, "You’re [You are] saying, less than $1,000? This says for deposit of less than $1,000 in any day, and you want to change it to, if they accumulate more than $1,000 over a 2-day period, they must do what?"

Senator Neal replied, "… They [have] got to deposit the money."

In response to a question from Senator Raggio, Senator Neal clarified the money would have to be deposited on that day or on the next working day.

Senator Titus asked if the $10,000 figure in subsections 3 and 4, section 1, of S.B. 532 would change. Senator Neal pointed out that figure applies to the Division of Wildlife, not the Division of State Parks.

Chairman O’Connell summarized the committee suggests that anytime the relevant collections reach $1,000, that money must be deposited within 24 hours. Ms. Guinasso asked, "And then still keeping the 10-working-day … overarching [provision]?" Senator Neal answered affirmatively. For instance, he asserted, the Division of State Parks would have 10 working days to deposit collections that have summed up to $400. He concluded, "But if it reaches [$]1,000, they have to stick it in the bank."

In response to a question from Ms. Guinasso, Chairman O’Connell expressed the amendment should require relevant deposits to be made on the next working day, rather than within 24 hours. Senator O’Donnell suggested using the next banking day, instead. Chairman O’Connell agreed.

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 16.

Senator Neal maintained S.J.R. 16 "would not affect anything, at the moment." He explained the resolution would be passed in preparation for possible legislation in the future. He pointed out the resolution would also be considered during the Seventy-first Legislative Session, at which time the Legislature could decide not to pass it. If the measure passed during that session, Senator Neal commented, it would go to the voters. He stressed no immediate change would be made if S.J.R. 16 passed during the Seventieth Legislative Session.

David Horton, Lobbyist, Committee to Restore the Constitution, and Nevada Homeopathic Medical Association, submitted an initiative petition regarding the formation of a state bank (Exhibit I. Original is on file in the Research Library.). He expressed the petition reflects "a little test marketing," and about 80 percent of the people who considered the petition, signed it.

In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Horton indicated about 135 people signed the petition. In response to another question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Horton elaborated the petition’s proposal was to form a state bank, generally "along the lines of the statutory version that Senator Jacobsen [Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District] and Senator Neal had two sessions ago."

Mr. Horton added, "[We] had some recitals that pointed out that we need to do something about capital flow in the State of Nevada." He asserted a member of the Lyon County Public Lands Commission wanted to look into the issue. Thus, Mr. Horton stated, the idea was presented at Dayton Valley Days, where support was probably higher than 80 percent. He concluded support has been shown for moving forward with the idea of forming a state bank.

*****

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Senator Porter asserted he does not support S.J.R. 16, but he supports having the resolution heard on the Senate Floor, as requested by Senator Neal.

Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Amelie Welden,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: