The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 6:10 p.m., on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, in Room 2135 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:

Assemblywoman Kathy A. Von Tobel, Clark County Assembly District No. 20

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Clark County Assembly District No. 6

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 388.

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, stated the key provisions of the bill are on page 5. She noted subsection 4 will restrict the amendments of land-use plans of the master plan to no more than 4 times in a year; unless the designated area does not change by more than 25 percent. The criticism from the public is how many times the master plans tend to get changed. She worked with the local governments, and many have signed off on this language, and it was worked out on the Assembly side. In addition, the bill empowers local town boards to do certain things; one being, if a town board makes recommendations regarding an application, the application needs to go before the town board first for review. There is a stop-loss process that is contained within the bill; but after that, the county commission or city council will give deference. It is nonbinding, but they will take into stronger consideration the recommendations made by the town boards.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani expounded, from the town board perspective, a couple of things were going on because many of them only met once a month. A developer could wait on submitting a plan, and then go directly to the planning commission; totally circumventing the town board for notice regarding a land-use plan change. The bill would require the developer to go before the town board. She believed there is a proposed amendment to cleanup language that Clark County will bring, which is acceptable to her. In addition, the other concern from the town advisory boards is that they were not being listened to as strongly as they felt they should be by their local government. As a result the language developed was that the commission or council would at least give deference to the recommendations from the board. So while it is not as stringent or binding as they would have liked, the recognition and the fact that the applications will go before them, and the proposed amendment from Clark County, will move the boards to what they wanted, which is two meetings a month. This should keep the developer from circumventing the process.

Chairman O’Connell queried regarding variances, that sometimes could be as minor as a backyard fence, or a wall going up, or a roof being changed, or a second story being added, anything that is going to prolong this issue.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani answered that it could have been, but the language chosen was that boundary of a zoning district. She feels the language was narrowed so it was not stretched out. The applicants can still go to the planning commission, but it gives them an opportunity to go before the board, not just purposefully circumvent. She thinks the amendment that will be brought forth from the county will clean and tighten that up, so there is no delay from individuals who wish to have their projects reviewed.

Chairman O’Connell commented that upon first reading it seemed as though elected officials were being circumvented by the other elected officials. The council and county commission are elected, and the county boards are appointed, and that was the impression left with her after reading the bill.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded that in one section it allows for a straw poll, which was requested by some town boards, which is what many of them do currently. It was added as an additional option and a process set up for how to do the straw poll. She acknowledged the chairman was correct, the original bill actually created the town boards and let them be the planning commissions and totally circumvent other processes. The local governments had concerns that the town boards were not meeting as often as they should. The boards tend not to know the law, and they are ruling on things that are more emotionally based rather than a rational concern, such as, is the setback proper or something along those lines. In drafting this bill it was felt that by tying those two issues together, it actually would work better for both the town advisory boards as well as for the commissions. This is their recommended language, and she found it acceptable.

Referencing page 8, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated it restricts a little bit. It deals with the variance and the special use permit with regard to property. It does not address every change that would necessarily come forward. She said the requirement for training is on page 10. Each member of the town board must, at least twice during the first year of their appointment, receive the proper training. If fact, Clark County has already started this type of program, and it has proved quite beneficial. Not all town boards want an election, but some did, and section 9 points to that issue. What used to be done, and still is in some places, is on election day they set up a separate booth. Those individuals interested in an appointment to the town advisory board had placed their name there so people in the community could cast a vote for them, and that went forward to the commissioners.

Senator Porter noting section 9, lines 29-30, "… the reappointment of any member …," asked what "shall consider" means. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani answered it simply says that if the person wishes to be appointed, they notify the commissioner, but the commissioner still has his/her choice. Senator Porter commented that it is still an option that needs to be considered. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded that is correct.

Senator Neal asked for clarification on disallowing the changes of the land-use plan for not more than four times in a calendar year. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded she believes that language resides in subsection 4 of section 4. There was a discussion amongst the local governments that there are some proper times they absolutely need to make amendments to the master plan. It was felt reasonableness would be on the side of four times a year. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the City of Las Vegas has begun to cap theirs; and some other local governments have started to look at that. During the work session on this provision the 25-percent area was discussed; because if there is a boundary line, it is her understanding, if it is not impacting and changing it all from commercial all of a sudden to rural, or from rural all of sudden to commercial, that gives planning some flexibility. But it is fairly narrowly confined because it only deals with the land-use plan portion of the master plan, it is not the entire master plan; and the local governments felt that four times a year was a reasonable time period. She continued that she drew out in committee on the Assembly side that Los Angeles County, San Francisco County, and various other areas do restrict the number of master plan amendments they make to the same amount. So there was a feeling that was a reasonable amount of changes that needed to be considered.

Senator Neal stated it seems it has been set up where the board has absolute authority to govern that type of situation, because the bill says that the governing body or other authorized person, or entity authorized to take action on an application, cannot do that unless they receive a recommendation from the town board.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said that situation had been talked about on the Assembly side. She stated the intent was not to stop an application, but we wanted to make sure the town boards were not circumvented. If the language is not quite right, she thinks that is why Clark County has a couple of language changes, with which she is in agreement. She said the point is not to stop the process. The issue with the boards is they wanted to have some recognition and make sure they were not being solely circumvented by developers not having to go to them. That is why it "may make a recommendation" and the commissioners will give them deference; but it is nonbinding.

D. L. "Dusty" Dickens, Director, Demographics, Zoning and Realty Department, Facilities and Transportation Services Division, Clark County School District, stated, from prepared testimony (Exhibit C), she is both supporting and sharing concerns regarding sections of A.B. 388. She said the provision to notice a school district was dropped in the first reprint of the bill. Ms. Dickens emphasized how extremely important it is that a school district receives proposed land-use change notices. She pointed out, in some instances, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sites do not reflect school district ownership until a school is complete and the patent is received. Such a situation could cause an applicant expense and/or place an entity in an awkward position. Ms. Dickens proposed three amendments to A.B. 388 to ensure the school district receives notice of land-use matters.

Senator Porter said he agrees and supports the need for notification, but he also hears the reverse that the school district does not notify the local governments. He asked Ms. Dickens if she could propose some language to be included that would provide notification by a school district to local governments. He said there are a lot of cases where cities have negotiated land sites for schools with developers who have substantial investment in those properties, and then those sites are not used. He concluded it would be helpful to also notify governments when those sites are determined not to be used. Ms. Dickens responded she would be happy to comply with the senator’s requests.

Chairman O’Connell iterated that same complaint has also been made to her, specifically by the City of Henderson, who was having problems with some land they thought was all set and then found out the school district, through BLM, had options on that particular piece of property. She concluded it would be helpful for the school district to also notice the local government. Ms. Dickens stated the school district agrees, and that is the reason the school district feels it is so important to be included in that notice process.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she was not aware of these proposed amendments, but does not think there would be a problem. She wanted to make it clear the reason there is no notification any longer is the subcommittee made the decision to make this a land use and town board bill; and took all the notification language out and put it in A.B. 349. She urged that A.B. 349 be checked first to make sure the school district’s proposed amendments language is not in that bill. She said the committee decided to separate the issues so it was easier to focus on each of the issues.

Senator Neal said he did not understand Senator Porter’s question regarding the school district should notify the entity; and did not understand for what purpose.

Senator Porter replied that he believes Senator O’Connell summarized it far better than he. He said he has received numerous complaints that local governments will negotiate with local developers that certain sites will be left vacant on which to build schools in the City of Las Vegas or Clark County. The developer then sets aside these properties, but the school district may choose a site that is not related to the sites set aside. He is trying to encourage better communications regarding those sites. Senator Porter said, if the city is negotiating for sites, and the school district is negotiating for sites in the same community, perhaps across the street from each other, they ought to be coordinating their efforts. This bill asks local governments to notify school districts 30 days in advance. What he is asking for is notification from school districts when they are considering a site, in a local government area, to coordinate those efforts.

Senator Neal stated the reason he asked the question was the priority and responsibility to say what site that is selected should be left to the school district. But if it is going to put into law that there is a negotiated arrangement, then there may be a loss of priority or responsibility as far as the school district is concerned.

Senator Porter replied he did not disagree; he thinks there should be priority, but there should also be some communication. It is the notification that is important.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani commented when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land donates land to schools it does not show the school on its map until the school is built. The City of Henderson ran into some major problems with that. She added she would be willing to work on language to address the valid concerns of the senators. She urged caution in that land set aside for a school is not always a usable site. She thinks the master planning part, which brings everybody to the table at the same time, should be the first consideration. She concluded both concerns could be accomplished without jeopardizing the prioritization about which Senator Neal is talking.

Senator Porter voiced that he thinks everyone agrees that if it is not an appropriate site, the city needs to know, and other arrangements or concessions could be made for the project.

Senator Titus said she has a bill that is a "smart growth" bill that did not get out of this committee, which has similar provisions in that bill, dealing with master planning. One of the provisions was consistency between the master plan and zoning. Another one was to have a master plan include land use and transportation. The third provision dealt with how often the master plan could be changed. She asked if there would be any objection to looking at some of those proposals and possible additions to this bill.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded the subcommittee would not have a problem. She pointed out on page 5, there is language that caps and restricts the number of times a master plan could be changed. She asked the senator to restate her question. Senator Titus repeated one part had to do with conformity, and the other part was the master plan to include a housing and a population plan. She wanted to add to that land use and transportation. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied this bill already does that. The bill requires that populations of 400,000 or more to adapt all of the subject currently in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.166. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she does not want to pass legislation that local governments cannot implement. She said two of the three points have already been included in the bill. The issue of conformity was not.

Phil Rosenquist, Assistant Director, Advanced Planning Division, Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, announced he would like to provide a little background. He said the staff has been working closely with this bill on the Assembly side and would like to see a few clarifications to the bill (Exhibit D). He added there are concerns relating to the interplay of the NRS requirement that a public hearing be held on zoning or land-use application within 65 days of receipt of an application. Also how that interplays with the cycle of town board scheduled meetings; and how that interplays with planning commissions’ and board of county commissioners’ agendas. He said the source of the concern is there have been times when items fall out of cycle, primarily because the town boards only meets once a month. He conveyed because of the 65-day requirement, either the planning commission or board of county commissioners is taking action on something that has not yet gone to the town board. He averred when those situations occur, it is a great concern to the town boards, because they have an applicant coming in front of them asking for their recommendation on something on which a final decision has already been made. Mr. Rosenquist offered the solution is to have the town boards go to two meetings a month; and Clark County is prepared to provide the staff and the support. He articulated, to be honest, a couple of the town boards have resisted that; but in order for them to be consistent with state law, they would have to go to a two-meeting-a-month cycle.

Chairman O’Connell asked whether the county has considered this as an unfunded mandate. Mr. Rosenquist affirmed, yes. He added, again, the county is willing to accept this. Chairman O’Connell said she wanted to know if the county feels they have enough communication, currently, with the town boards. Mr. Rosenquist opined that without question, especially in the rural town boards, there is room for improvement. He added he has been to enough town board meetings to know they are expressing some legitimate concerns, and this is one way of dealing with those concerns.

Mr. Rosenquist stated he was encouraged to hear the author of the bill concur with a couple of minor clarifications. He said there are two points; one is if, for some reason, the town board is unable to achieve a quorum for a meeting, it should not delay the applicant from getting a decision. The second point would be, in terms of how the final decision is relayed back to the town boards, a minor clarification change, rather than having the board of county commissioners or a planning commission make a written finding, they just specify for the record why they would choose to depart from the town board recommendation, if they do so. In that way the written finding becomes part of the record as part of the public hearing.

Mr. Rosenquist stated another point on this bill is that last Thursday, April 22, the proposed amendments to A.B. 388 were considered by the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC). He stated the SNRPC did adopt a position in opposition to this bill. The primary reason was the provision that requires all 16 potential master plan elements, as specified in NRS, would be mandated. Again, that was perceived by the SNRPC as a significant unfunded mandate. He stated he was encouraged to hear the author indicate some flexibility to work that out also.

Senator Porter inquired of staff, saying he looked at the fiscal notice which says there is no effect on local government, but there is testimony saying there is. He asked for clarification.

Chairman O’Connell communicated if the staff is provided by the county, she does not know to what extent staff may be required, but would imagine at least two people; an attorney, plus a recording secretary.

Senator Porter inquired about writing local governments asking for their input as to whether there would be a fiscal impact. Chairman O’Connell stated that would normally be to ask Clark County what kind of fiscal impact the bill has on them. The Chairman asked Mr. Rosenquist what other kind of staff would be provided.

Mr. Rosenquist replied it is somewhat dependent on which provision of the bill. He said in terms of the town boards, they are staffed by secretaries that live in the jurisdiction of the town and are under contract to the county. Those contracts are fixed amounts, so the secretaries would be working a quite a few more hours for the same amount of pay. Staff representatives are sent to the town board meetings, so the administrative services department would be placing an extra burden on staff, in that regard. He noted the primary concern of the SNRPC were the mandated 16 components of the master plan, and that is looked at as placing a burden on the comprehensive planning staff in terms of trying to develop items not currently available.

Mr. Rosenquist expounded that currently there are 19 boards. He said it instills in the county a three-tiered approval process for development; because in most jurisdictions there are the planning commission and city council. He added Clark County has an advisory board, a planning commission, and a board of county commissioners. All 19 boards have regularly scheduled meetings once a month, and some meet twice a month.

Senator Raggio asked if there was enough regularity of town board meetings to rely on to make application. He said he could foresee somebody’s application would go without the necessary condition, if there was not a meeting.

Mr. Rosenquist responded if the meetings could go to a 2-week cycle, then they would be regular enough. A couple of town boards are already meeting on a 2-week cycle, which is the reason why Clark County introduced that first clarification.

Senator Raggio interjected that was if there was a lack of a quorum, but what if they do not have a meeting or postpone a meeting. Mr. Rosenquist remarked Clark County is going to have to work with them to explain the importance of scheduling.

Senator Porter went back to his first question regarding unfunded mandates. He would like to see from staff some of the responses received from local governments on this particular bill. He would like to see those responses before the committee takes action.

Senator Raggio noted, as a general issue, if four times a year is an unusual amount of times to change a master plan. He thought a master plan had more rigidity than that.

Mr. Rosenquist said he will try to answer in a straightforward manner, but the real answer to that is it depends. For example, the City of Henderson will not grant zoning that conflicts with the master plan, so they will schedule an agenda item that includes both a potential zone change and a master plan amendment for consideration by the governing board; and those will be placed concurrently on the agenda. He said, at present, Clark County does not do that. Typically, Clark County does not amend the land-use plan until they determine it has become out-of-date, and will be reassessing the whole master plan for one of the planning areas. In the meantime, the procedure is the county commissioners then consider zone changes that conflict with the master plan, and determine whether or not they would approve what is called a non-conforming zone change.

Senator Raggio queried that they do not change the master plan. Mr. Rosenquist stated that was correct.

Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association (SNHBA), brought to the committee’s attention the section of the bill relating to having all of the elements of the master plan considered as a part of the total master plan. She said SNHBA does not have a problem with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s proposal on that. She believes that is extensive and is going to be expensive for the local governments, and it would be best for the local governments to find out the ones that would be mandatory. She said in previous statutes there were only two or three items that were mandatory. It also changed some language in the transit plan, talking about multimodal system in mass transit. She would concur with that proposed amendment. In the section regarding amendments to the master plan, four times a year, everyone thinks there is an enormous amount of zone changes in master plan amendments. Ms. Porter stated the City of Las Vegas, in their first quarter, had no master plan amendments proposed, because they had just finished their new master plan. As a master plan becomes older and conditions change, yearly updates will help keep zone changes and master plan amendments from being in conflict with the plan. She said she hates to see it put into statute that it is in concrete four times a year, for the simple reason that each local jurisdiction functions in a different way. Currently, Clark County, when doing a new land use guide, has a provision for a moratorium on any master plan amendments for a certain period of time. In the meantime they will be going to other things, but they will do them as each new plan is adopted, not dealing with the old plans. She commented by putting it in to the statute, options are closed for local governments to function the way they function at each of the levels.

Senator Neal wanted to know how often a master plan should be changed. Ms. Porter opined she thinks there is a very distinct difference between a master plan and a land-use element of a master plan. The master plan itself should be updated every year, and should, probably, have a major overhaul every 5 years. They have to be comprehensively reviewed every 1 to 2 years, because the world is changing; it is not something that can be completely stagnant.

Senator Neal stated the bill indicates a master plan can be changed four times a year, which is every 3 months. Ms. Porter expounded that some local governments require a master plan amendment be submitted with every zone change for a single piece of property that may not be in conformity with the master plan; that is what this is all about. Where other entities will have a special section of their ordinance that deals with a larger noticing area, increased application fees, and more requirements, if the applicant is submitting a zone change that is not in accord with the master plan, then it goes through the hearing process. But they do not require the applicant to do a master plan amendment along with that zone change. She said it can get very confusing.

Senator Neal said, as he understands this bill, along with the proposed amendment, it is trying to set out a framework whereby the procedure rights of citizens that want to deal with and become involved with the land-use element of the master plan, can exercise those procedural rights, within that particular framework. Ms. Porter interjected that applicants have all those procedural rights with the notifications; with the authority to go to the commission meetings or the planning commission and city council meetings. She said this is all in NRS chapter 278. All this bill does is say the city council or the county commission will only hear, four times a year, a zone change that has a master plan amendment attached to it. The other procedural rights individuals have are already in NRS chapter 278.

Senator Neal asked if Ms. Porter was opposed to the bill. Ms. Porter insisted the SNHBA is not opposed to the whole bill. She continued by referencing the language on page 6 regarding each owner of the 30 nearest parcels be notified of public hearings; that the language has been changed to "each of the owners." She is interpreting that to mean if someone owned a piece of property, a husband and the wife and three of the children’s names are on the property; under that change each family member that is on the deed will have to receive a notice of public hearing. She thinks that will expand the cost of noticing. She does not understand why the bill was drafted that way.

Ms. Porter continued to the town board items. She thinks there is easy confusion as to what is a variance, what is a use permit, and what is a zone change. This bill would make mandatory that every variance, every use permit, and every zone change that is presented would go to the town board prior to its going to the planning commission and the city council. Variances are not commonly used by the home builders industry; they submit a limited amount of variances. She pointed out variances are primarily put in by individual citizens. A variance is to vary the strict application of the zoning ordinance when there is a special condition; such as, unusual shape or topography of a lot that denies that individual the reasonable use of his property that is enjoyed by everyone else in the same zoning district. This would be someone doing a carport or a garage that might need a 1- or 2-foot setback variance on it, or might be changing a fence height. She acknowledged that Senator Raggio was right; this could hold up a lot of individual citizens with small variances. Now they would have to go to three meetings. The county is going to have to put in more staff, and she is really glad to hear that Clark County has said that they can go ahead and provide all of the staff. And since they have said it here today, she is presuming that means they will not increase to pay for all of this. The SNHBA has no objection going to the town boards on zone changes; they are doing it today. Her only comment on use permits is, in some cases, use permits are used for assisted living facilities or something in a residential neighborhood that people would want. But she can tell the committee the 19 town boards also include the town board that is in The Strip area. Most hotel properties, because of the zoning district variance, require use permits for anything done on the hotel properties, whether they are putting a sign up, or expanding the hotel. That means that those hotel properties, under this provision with the use permit provision, will have to go to the town board for citizen input on anything they are doing on their property; this is the same procedure as would apply to anybody else.

Senator Neal asked if Ms. Porter was suggesting that the town boards should not have any say in land-use planning of their area. Ms. Porter responded, "Not at all, sir." She said she has supported zone changes and she has not opposed use permits. She was just pointing out how use permits are used, and what kinds of people would be involved going to town board meetings. She stated the only problem she has is with the variance. She reiterated she has no problems with the zone change, and probably not with the use permits.

Senator Neal surmised that with the variance, Ms. Porter thinks the town board should not be a part of it. Ms. Porter clarified she thinks it is because it is more the individual citizen who is doing a little something to their property. She does not believe it should be mandatory, there should be an option. She wanted to know why that individual would have to pay all the fees, and go through three sets of hearings, just so he can have a garage or patio the same as his neighbors do; just because of setback problems. Ms. Porter said, that is what she was trying to point out.

Senator Neal asked if Ms. Porter envisioned that a fee must be charged by each level of authority the individual has to go through. Ms. Porter stated the county does charge a variance fee, a use permit fee, and a zone change fee. She said whatever the county has to do, they will increase those fees. She said that is okay when they do not get outrageous. But when some regular citizen who is just trying put in a patio with a variance, has to pay a $500 fee, that is difficult. She said that is why some people do not get building permits, because they find out they have to do all of this, and they are not about to pay all those fees; so they do not try to obtain building permits and inspections.

Ms. Porter continued there is a proposed amendment being presented on A.B. 142 that changes the specific finding language. She finds these written findings specify reasons for the refusal to accept the application rather interesting. It puts the elected officials on the board of county commissioners in a position of having to do a written finding to an advisory group as to why they did not follow the recommendation. Ms. Porter surmised maybe that is where government is to go. She pointed out the same thing could apply to the Legislature, where a legislative committee would have advisory committees, and the legislative committee would have to do a written finding as why they did not agree with their advisory committee. She mused that is a whole government philosophy for discussion.

Chairman O’Connell wanted to know if Ms. Porter was saying that was not in the original bill. Ms. Porter replied she did not believe that written findings were in the original bill. She understands it was in the floor amendment, or the amendment came out of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) and was not talked about in the committee on the Assembly side at all.

There being no further testimony, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 388, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 306.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, explained A.B. 306 was the result of a great deal of negotiations. It was a piece of legislation, similar to what she had last session, that died on the floor of the Assembly as the issue of eminent domain was debated. The key provisions of this measure are section 1, which lines out how, in the area of redevelopment, a property may be taken via eminent domain. As she had noted, this is negotiated language. It may not be ideal but she did think it is a step in the right direction on the part of the public.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani went on to explain a redevelopment project would have to make a finding that the use of eminent domain is for the purpose of redevelopment. Included would be a reasonably detailed description of the property that would be acquired, and details that the agency has to make a finding that the public interest and necessity requires the acquisition of that property. And a finding by the agency that the acquisition of the property will be at the option for redevelopment, that is the most compatible and for the greatest public good and the least-private injury. Finally, they must make a decision of necessity. It also encourages the resolve of this matter, wherever possible, through negotiation prior to entering into the area of eminent domain.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted on page 2, section 3, it does not allow for judicial review. Currently, in redevelopment, it was her understanding there was no judicial review except regarding the area of value; that was a trade-off she had made. She believes that is a reasonable compliance. She does understand that eminent domain has to be utilized properly; but the bill sponsors did want to ensure there was a public finding and a public necessity that was made and this legislation is a step in the right direction, without the redevelopment agency worrying about being dragged into court over every single item on which they made a finding. In addition, the bill tightens up some of the language regarding the purposes for redevelopment and when a property may be taken. Moreover, the bill deals with the allowance or establishment of a residential plan by the city council handled by an advisory committee within a neighborhood; this is not mandated. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani emphasized constituents in redevelopment areas, wanted to have more of a voice, or participation in the crafting of the redevelopment plan in a redevelopment area. This then allows constituents to have input in discussing budgets. For example, in many of the older sections, in Henderson, North Las Vegas or the City of Las Vegas, the money tended to go more to private sector, commercial projects, and upkeep. However, the individuals who live in those areas cannot be neglected, nor the properties. This bill would allow for a redevelopment neighborhood to come together and work with the city council to suggest other changes that might benefit the constituents who live there, not just the commercial side. She stressed it is advisory and not mandatory.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the legislation would clarify the current law; page 5, lines 5 and 6, language is added, " … including, without limitation, the provisions of an employment plan or a contact approved for a redevelopment project." Currently, most redevelopment agencies do this, but it was thought that this needed to be clarified, because some would argue that it did not.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated section 9 added the words " … and assistance …." This was suggested by both businesses and property owners; that the plan needs to ensure the individuals will be assisted if their property is being taken. Page 6, section 11 language increases the amount, currently 15 percent, for low-income housing to an 18-percent portion. Subsection 3 allows the redevelopment agency to extend their bonds for those purposes.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s understanding, although certainly not her field of expertise, was the bonding capacity is minimal at this point, about 15 years left, by allowing redevelopment agencies to extend being able to enter into larger projects or projects that would generate the revenue in order to conduct them. Finally, in section 12, it is clarified again that a person in a redevelopment area that is entering into a contract cannot subvert that contract by hiring another private person to be the one that actually implements the contract. This tightens a loophole that had been left from the 1995 legislation; and it also clarifies that if a relocation occurs, whether it is an owner or tenant that is displaced from his business, that person would be assisted. And then ending, "Nothing in this section prohibits the payment of relocation benefits to a renter or lessee of real property whose tenancy is from month to month." There had been a misunderstanding in some cases where a business may have known that eminent domain would be utilized; and may have switched their annual rentals to a month-to-month collection, trying to get out of this issue by calling it something different. This language clarifies that will not occur. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated, again, this language has been agreed to by the local governments.

Senator Raggio indicated this bill affects an area he represents, and he detected some similarities between this bill and an issue discussed in the last session. Senator Raggio directed attention to section 3, NRS 279.388, and the definition now in the law as to what is a "blighted" area. This would enlarge upon that definition and he asked for explanation as to the new language. Also on line 8, page 3, the language that refers to structures "That are faulty in size, accessibility or usefulness." Senator Raggio questioned the meaning of those terms. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied this language had been lifted from S.B. 312 of the Sixty-ninth Session.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the language in the bill sponsors’ opinions, and more properly defines what is a ‘blighted’ area. It was thought the language regarding the development of adequate housing or constitutes an economic or social liability in their present condition would be an "area." In addition to just having commercial/industrial transmission of diseases, infant mortality, etc., the area also had a portion where commercial no longer wanted to come; therefore, no one could be enticed that wanted to invest within that area. She said her understanding in working with the language from last session, as well as this session, was to tighten the language on a "blighted" area on lines 28 and 30, of page 2.

Senator Raggio asked for an example of a commercial operation that is in business, which would be considered faulty in size, accessibility or usefulness. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained her understanding was it would be an empty lot that was jagged edged and there was no way it could properly be squared off.

Senator Raggio addressed the definition under "blighted area;" the existence of buildings or structures which talks about retarding the development; where it talks about the social liability in present condition or use; and he wanted to know what that meant. Ms. Giunchigliani responded that truthfully, she was not sure. Senator Raggio quipped that he was a lawyer and he was not sure. He went on to explain his difficulty with this issue, and that is, authorizing a governmental entity to use eminent domain to take an existing business use and then sell that property to someone who is bigger and better and wants to use it for their purposes. That is where the line in the sand was drawn last session. He stressed he was not ready to wipe out that line. For example, Senator Raggio said, a small casino could be taken under this, because it is a liability in its present condition or use, an economic liability, because someone would like to see something bigger and better built in its place. Senator Raggio indicated, on the other hand, he would have no problem with replacing a building that is deteriorating, not operating, or not being kept up to code; but the Senator said otherwise, he still had difficulty with the bill.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stressed that Senator Raggio’s points were very well taken, and she had similar concerns. She said the intent was to narrow the scope so that circumstances would not arise. She went on to say that after many hearings, no one really focused on this section. Everyone got hung up on the eminent domain section, the housing section, etc., the committee never revisited whether or not this was an expansion. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that she personally would not support an expansion. The whole point was to side more on the right of property owners’ rights rather than just an arbitrary taking of properties. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she would be happy to work with Senator Raggio.

Senator Raggio said he would give another example; the new language in paragraph (f), page 2, "An inability to pay for improvements to such buildings and structures." A redevelopment agency could say unless the property owner expands his casino, or unless he builds some rooms, or something, the agency would condemn the property. He stressed that unless someone could correct his interpretation of the language those were serious problems he foresaw.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the conversation regarding paragraph (f), was there might be businesses, for example, small motels, that are in a general improvement district; that do not have any sidewalks, and no lighting. The council never bothered to put lights in because they decided it was in a poor area, a "blighted" area, and they did not want to put any more money into that area. That affects that property which begins to negatively impact the owner. The intent was not to penalize them; perhaps others with more experience could explain this better. Again, on this particular section, if any of the language expands the ability to just come in and take over property, she would oppose that, also.

Senator Care gave an example, that several years ago the city tried to take the Aztec Inn because somebody wanted a larger parking lot. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied yes, because it was in her district. Senator Care said his question was going to be, unless the line had already been drawn, whether this bill would prohibit something like that. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani answered the intent would be, if the language does not, then section 3 needs to be reviewed to make sure that a hole is not being opened rather than closing some loopholes,

Senator Neal stated he was disturbed by the limited judicial review, a finding of bribery or fraud. He did not think that the Legislature had the constitutional authority to limit judicial review of a governmental act.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani interjected, that while not being an attorney, her understanding is when a property in the area of redevelopment is taken by eminent domain, currently the only court review or judicial review is solely to whether or not the price was proper for the offering. She mentioned a case regarding a garage in the City of Las Vegas concerning the Pappas family. Unfortunately, the judge’s ruling was unanimously overturned, because he went beyond what judicial review was allowed in this area. It was her understanding it was remanded back for lack of a better term, because the only jurisdiction they currently have is whether or not the value of property was proper. In working out this language with the various groups that were strongly in opposition, she felt that because there was not an area currently allowed for judicial review to get the purposes of a public finding to be made and some of those other points for the public, that it was a worthwhile trade-off. She hoped that she had not made a legal blunder, but she did not believe they had that authority in the first place.

Senator Neal asked why not just limit it to fraud. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded that was language recommended by a variety of attorneys and she just did not question that side of it. Senator Neal said, "Enough said."

Chairman O’Connell stated that she had two major problems. On page 2, the language under paragraph (f), and this occurred to the chairman because of another bill recently passed, S.B. 530. This would definitely put some people in the position of having their property taken away, based on her understanding of how the two bills would mesh. Senator O’Connell asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani if she had had the opportunity to look at S.B. 530 and the Assemblywoman replied she had not, but would do so.

Chairman O’Connell explained that S.B. 530 creates a special business district in the downtown areas and it allows them to apply fees to people. The district has to be formed, and then it allows the district to set a fee and a charge. If someone had the inability to pay for that improvement for which S.B. 530 asks, according to this language, she thought their property could be taken from them. The chairman said the committee is also looking at A.B. 95, which is the city’s bill allowing them to add beautification in NRS chapter 271. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani recalled that bill.

Senator O’Connell said in looking at this bill and thinking of the other two bills, she wondered how they would all fit together and why would there be a need for all three. She continued the second question goes to line 31, page 3 and the 45 years. There definitely will be building that will deteriorate in a redevelopment area in that length of time. The Chairman asked why 45 years. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded section 3 was not intended to open it up, so if any of that language does, she would support removing it and going back to the current language so it does not conflict. In reference to the other two bills, she said she would look at S.B. 530. She recalled A.B. 95 because there was some discussion. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated those bills dealt solely with business beautification in a downtown area. She stressed originally the city was not in support of this legislation and, therefore, it was her belief the bills could stand independent of each other. Her understanding of section 4 was that it related back to the change of the 15 percent to 18 percent regarding the redevelopment bonds, by increasing the dollar amount that would be set aside and paid. However, she thought in order to secure some additional revenue to really get the projects up and running, that the expansion of the bonding may be necessary; but she reiterated that she was not a bond expert. The original language that was in the bill captured every dollar whether it was a loan, a grant or a fund. The cities objected strenuously and then agreed, apparently to negotiate to the 18 percent with the bond capacity change. Perhaps the city can explain that section more clearly for the committee.

The Chairman stressed that 45 years was an extremely long time considering how streets have changed in the downtown area over time and how buildings have definitely changed. The Senator said she has lived in Nevada for 31 years, and she had seen major changes and buildings disappearing in that area.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said she thought the issue was that the bonds currently only have 10–12 years left on them, which is not enough to generate the revenue to not only pay for the additional, but to really get a decent sized project off the ground.

The Chairman qualified they were looking at an additional 45 years. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated it was 15 years, plus 30 years, for a total of 45 years. The additional 15 years was for whatever was left on the bond.

Senator Raggio interjected that the language in the law now says they must terminate, but they cannot terminate before the bonds mature. He thought this recognizes that otherwise there was not a termination date, or there would not be if the bonds matured earlier, so they were trying to give it some time to extend.

The Chairman asked Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, if the bonds are currently 30-year bonds or 20-year bonds. Mr. Leavitt stated he did not think they had any bonds that were as long as 30 years. The Chairman then said they are 20-year bonds; Mr. Leavitt said 20-year or 25-year bonds.

Douglas L. Dickerson, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, introduced himself as one of the key people involved with the original bill. He testified the city was in opposition to this bill; however, after several meetings they negotiated this first reprint. He wished to point out a couple of concerns that they had in the negotiations. He pointed out when discussing 45 years in section 4, that it is for redevelopment plans that were approved before July 1, 1987. He thought there were three plans in the State of Nevada that were approved prior to July 1, 1987; they were for the City of Las Vegas, the City of Reno and the City of Sparks. So this particular extension from whenever that plan was approved prior to July 1, 1987, would only be 45 years from that date. The City of Las Vegas was approved in 1985, so they are about 14 years into their plan. They would be limited to bonds that could be no more than 15 or 16 years right now. When negotiating over the additional money for affordable housing going from 15 percent to 18 percent, they said they needed to extend the life of the plan, and that was part of the negotiations. That is how that came about. He also pointed out the City of Las Vegas’ redevelopment agency is the only agency that puts money out of their redevelopment tax increment into affordable housing. None of the other redevelopment agencies do.

The Chairman asked how did that impact the money that would normally go to schools or if it does. Mr. Dickerson replied that it did not. He added it impacts the amount of money that is available for redevelopment projects. The Chairman asked if they took schools out of that the last time.

Brent Hawkins, Attorney, Redevelopment Association of Nevada (RAN), stated the 15 percent of tax increment that goes to affordable housing is drawn out of the tax increment which the agency receives. That is a finite amount of money and would go to the agency. It would be the same amount no matter how the agency uses it. The agency is taking money they could have used for other redevelopment purposes and using it for housing. But it does not change the allocation of taxes between the redevelopment agency and the school districts.

Chairman O’Connell commented that when new building is going on, normally schools get a share of that. However, if it is in a redevelopment district, then that money does not go to the school district. Mr. Hawkins explained the way it worked was once a redevelopment area has been established, is if there are increases in assessed value which occur after the redevelopment plan is adopted, those increases in assessed value as might occur when a new building is built, go to the redevelopment agency to pay redevelopment costs, rather than to the other taxing agencies which levy taxes in the redevelopment area.

The Chairman said, in essence, as long as the redevelopment area is open and alive, then the money will not go to schools. Mr. Hawkins replied the decision to establish a redevelopment plan in the first place does result in a reallocation of property taxes, but once, as is the situation in Las Vegas, where there is a redevelopment plan in place and the agency is getting an amount of tax increment, increasing the amount that goes to housing is not going to change the allocation between the redevelopment agency and any of the other taxing agencies. It just means the redevelopment agency has less money to spend on other things.

Senator Raggio explained he had been there when these things were created, and there were concerns. The concerns were that it would go on forever, and those that relied upon this kind of tax revenue would not receive any allocation. That was the reason why the information was put in the bill that they had to terminate when the bonds were paid. This is a departure from that. Senator Raggio said he was neither speaking for nor against. That he was just saying that there had been a lot of arguments about how long these redevelopment areas should last, precisely for the reason that the chairman is asking.

Mr. Dickerson said he agreed in that situation. The city negotiated if they were going to put more of their redevelopment money into affordable housing, that the trade-off was extending the program. And so if that goes out of the bill, the city is not in favor of the bill; however, as long as that stays in the bill they will support the bill.

Senator Neal said as he understood the original law, no taxes would be disturbed in terms of what percentage went to schools, an increment of that would go to the redevelopment area. Chairman O’Connell stressed the point she was bringing up was with new construction, schools get a part of that, but schools in a redevelopment area do not.

Marta Golding Brown, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, echoed the comments of the City of Las Vegas, but would like to correct Mr. Dickerson’s testimony; that is, the City of North Las Vegas has been putting money toward affordable housing through their Neighborhood Housing Services organization within the City of North Las Vegas. They have put a substantial amount of money for about the last 6–7 years through the redevelopment agency, through the Community Development Building Grant (CDBG) funds and a modicum of general fund money that also went to that agency; and they continue to do so. They would also be in support of the bill as amended but not with the discussion that just took place.

Senator Neal said he missed the point. Ms. Brown pointed out Mr. Dickerson stated they were the only agency that put money toward affordable housing, and she was correcting that statement that North Las Vegas has been putting it toward Neighborhood Housing Services affordable housing. Senator Neal asked if they were comfortable with that provision in the bill. She responded they were comfortable with the provision, as stated currently.

Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association (NTA), spoke in opposition to section 4. The area of eminent domain has not been an issue with the NTA, and it is not generally an area with which they would be involved. Ms. Vilardo said she had not testified on the Assembly side when the bill was in its original form. In rereading the reprints and going through the bill, she had found the extension of the redevelopment plan to 45 years. She had a major problem with that and hoped the committee would also. She stated the NTA came with a bill request last session, which this committee, and subsequently the entire Legislature, passed to remove bonds that were approved by the voters in operating overrides from the increments, because the voter was approving anticipating how far that increment would go.

Ms. Vilardo stated the NTA had gone into session before with a bill, because one of the issues to which Senator Raggio alluded was the way the original language was written, so there have been some major cleanups between 1995 and 1997. One of the concerns and reasons for getting involved, as an association, is the issue that has been raised, starting in 1991 through 1993, that growth does not pay for itself. It has been the policy of the Legislature to allow redevelopment for a specific purpose, and that is to revitalize and generate increased revenue in downtown areas. What happens is the loss of the increment of the increase to everyone. For fiscal year 1999, in the City of Las Vegas, the redevelopment agency, the increment increase and the revenue generated does not go to district court, does not go to cooperative extension, does not go to county, does not go to city operating, and does not go to any debt from the city, county or school district, prior to November 1, 1996 (8.2 million dollars). That is a large sum of money. Ms. Vilardo averred redevelopment people told her that extended time is needed because when a plan and the area are created, it generally takes about 5 years to put the plans in place, accumulate "seed money," and then bond. They would like to figure out a way to peel back some money, to extend that life out to 45 years and then continue to remove that increment. The irony is, of the structures generally built with redevelopment, there are not many of them that have a life that long.

Ms. Vilardo pointed out the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) went before this committee wanting 40-year bonds. The 40-year bonds were not approved; the SNWA was given 30-year bonds. She did not know at the time, that the SNWA would wind up selling bonds when bonds retired, so they can meet the requirements of that section and for that reason. She stressed she was testifying in opposition to section 4. She iterated it is a real monetary issue regarding eminent domain, and it is a case of how do we eventually return the increment back to all the entities that should receive it.

Senator Neal asked if it was Ms. Vilardo’s position that there should be no section 4 at all, or a section 4 in limited form in terms of the years in which the bonds should be retired other than the 45 years listed in the bill.

Ms. Vilardo stated that because of agreements the SNWA made in 1995 and 1997, to obtain some changes to redevelopment law, she would remove the new language, starting with 45 years, lines 31 to 33. And where the deletion occurs on line 31, NRS 279.439, she would leave that alone. That particular statutory cite speaks to 30 years. Senator Neal verified that Ms. Vilardo was speaking to 30 years, not 45 years. She responded that was correct, what it was right now, with no change.

Senator Neal asked if there was some pride of authorship with which they were dealing. Ms. Vilardo replied there was no pride of authorship; however, the SNWA does not think it should be longer than 30 years. She had spoken with most everybody between last evening and early this morning to tell them where her opposition existed and why. Senator Neal asked her to briefly explain the advantages of 30-year bonds over 45-year bonds. Ms. Vilardo believed Mr. Leavitt had said that the City of Las Vegas had some bonds that were 20 and 25 years. Those bonds will be paid off very shortly.

Senator Titus questioned the 3 percent. Chairman O’Connell explained the agency needed money for additional housing for low-income folks, and they needed to add the 3 percent in order to pay for that. In exchange the city would be allowed to extend the life of the bonds, so they know they will still have money to pay for the redevelopment area.

Senator Titus asked if the last section was a tacked-on low-income housing section to the general provision that deals with eminent domain. She wondered if some problems of eminent domain could still be dealt with, or do these two things have to go together. Chairman O’Connell explained the agreement they heard from testimony was the two things do go together. Senator Titus said she did not mean that the 45 years and 3 percent were together, she meant that whole section has to go together with the eminent domain part.

Mr. Dickerson clarified, the 18 percent or the 15 percent that is now going to affordable housing is only required by law for the City of Las Vegas. Other agencies may be putting money into affordable housing but they are required to put 15 percent. This bill will require that they put 18 percent into affordable housing. Senator Titus asked if that was only Las Vegas or everyone else. Mr. Dickerson replied that it was only the City of Las Vegas, they may be putting money into affordable housing, but the City of Las Vegas is the only city required to do so by statute. Chairman O’Connell noted that Marta Golding Brown had testified that evidently they had some provision.

Ms. Brown said her statement was that they had been giving money toward affordable housing and doing it voluntarily. Chairman O’Connell verified that they would only support the bill with the 45 years in it. Ms. Brown said yes, that was her understanding from their redevelopment person.

Mr. Dickerson explained that the additional 3 percent would go to affordable housing. The extension of the plan, as the language reads, is prior to July 1, 1987. The City of Las Vegas plan was in 1985, so 14 years of that is gone, with only 16 years remaining. If the city wanted to issue bonds, whether for affordable housing or for another redevelopment project, the city could not issue bonds for longer than 16 years, if they could do it today. In order to issue bonds for an affordable housing project or a redevelopment project, the city needed to extend their plan. Because of the request for additional funds, to come out of the redevelopment funds and go into affordable housing, they would agree if there was an agreement to extend the plan. That was in the negotiations.

Senator Raggio said he was not sure he was getting the distinction. He knew that a plan, created after this date, must terminate in 30 years, regardless of the bonding. So effectively, you cannot go beyond the time. Mr. Dickerson acknowledged that was correct. Senator Raggio went over the bond issue again. Doug Dickerson explained the redevelopment plan must terminate after principal and interest on bonds had been paid, for bonds issued before July 1, 1987. The requirement is that the plan terminates on the later of the last maturing of securities issued prior to July 1, 1987, or 30 years. Senator Raggio said that was how he interpreted it. Senator Raggio then asked what is wrong with leaving it like that because the city only has 15 or 16 years left.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 306, and opened the hearing on A.B. 142.

Assemblywoman Kathy A. Von Tobel, Clark County Assembly District No. 20, recalled, for the committee, that A.B. 142 had identical language to Assembly Bill 388, except that it affects a different statute. It would require that an applicant for a variance or special use permit first go before a town advisory board, then to the planning commission, and then on to the board of county commissioners. The bill would also require that there be a written finding; however, the county would be bringing forward an amendment which Assemblywoman Von Tobel said she would support. Assemblywoman Von Tobel explained that rather than a written finding, they would have to specify for the record why they were not concurring with the town advisory board.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel gave some background information to the committee. She does represent, along with Senator Porter, almost every outlying town in Clark County, from Bunkerville, Overton, Logandale, and over to Mt. Charleston, Indian Springs, Colt Creek, Mountain Springs, Blue Diamond, Sandy Valley, and Goodsprings. Ms. Von Tobel continued by saying after attending town advisory boards and having brought this bill forward because of the frustration of these small towns, who in their opinion are not heard, Assemblywoman Von Tobel believes it is very important the town advisory boards be the first step for an applicant. These areas, as specified earlier, are outlying and quite a distance from Las Vegas. They are remote and if someone asked for a variance or special use permit, it will affect their community and they should know about it.

Another point, Ms. Von Tobel wished to make is in Clark County and Washoe County, unincorporated towns can only be one form of government because of statutes. These towns can only be advisory to the board of county commissioners. That is not the case in 15 other counties in the state and so for that reason, she would like to give the town advisory boards a little additional authority, because they can only be advisory. There are unincorporated towns in Clark County that would prefer to be an elected town board form of government, but are unable to because of the statutes. That was originally part of A.B. 142. Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated, although she had forgotten that a portion of "The Strip" is an unincorporated town, and could form a very powerful unincorporated town which Assemblywoman Von Tobel thought would be fine; but she also thought the board of county commissioners might have a different opinion. The result is that the law for all the unincorporated towns in Clark County, leaves a little town like Bunkerville or a small town like Indian Springs strictly advisory. This bill would give these towns a little more authority in their communities.

Senator O’Connell asked what the reasoning was in that both bills were passed in the Assembly. She replied A.B. 142 deals with a different section of statutes. The other bill dealt with land-use planning, and the statutes are different. A.B. 142 does not have the additional language involving the number of times a master plan can be changed. She emphasized this was brought forward on behalf of her constituents from every town advisory board attended; therefore, both bills passed out of the Assembly.

Senator O’Donnell stated, as a former town board member, his concern was the board is not elected and to require a person applying for a variance or special use permit to go through the process, then the governing body or other authorized person shall consider any recommendations made by the town board ("Which they do," Senator O’Donnell added), and if the governing body or other authorized person or entity does not accept the recommendations then the governing body or other authorized person or entity shall make a written finding. The Senator asked that Assemblywoman Von Tobel explain further.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel explained the amendment, the county would be bringing forward, changes that language as they did with A.B. 388. Senator O’Donnell asked if she had accepted the amendment; Assemblywoman Von Tobel replied that she had. She stated for the most part the county commissioners do give reasons; but when they do not, it is very frustrating to the unincorporated towns. Secondly, most applicants do go before the town board because they live in those communities. Usually, it is applicants who do not live in the community and do not understand the residents, and it seems they will do everything possible to avoid going before that town advisory board. They do not want that small town atmosphere telling them that they might not want this type of development in their area. In attending these town advisory boards, Assemblywoman Von Tobel has seen a real uprising in angry response to what is happening to them. They are advisory, and the statute is very clear that the board of county commissioners is supposed to listen to that; to state on the record as to why they did not concur with the town advisory board is what the amendment does; it does not state that it has to be in writing. This would aid in building cooperation between the board of county commissioners and unincorporated towns. Assemblywoman Von Tobel pointed out the county agreed with the changes to A.B. 142.

Senator O’Donnell questioned whether a hardship could be entertained. He explained his concern, for example, is an individual applies for a variance, pays the filing fee, time is of the essence, and perhaps there is a real estate transaction involved. They are required to go before the town board. Now suppose the town board decided they would not hold a hearing that month because the chairman is going to be on vacation. The senator continued, there is no law that says that they have to hold a meeting. No one gets paid, they are all volunteers and there is no requirement that they go through this process now. However, if this bill passes, they have to go through the process. Assemblywoman Von Tobel answered that the senator’s concerns are covered in the bill.

Ms. Porter suggested an amendment to the bill so it only applies to the rural unincorporated towns, without creating problems for the other town board areas.

Chairman O’Connell asked to put Mr. Rosenquist on the spot by inquiring if the county commissioners have taken a position. Mr. Rosenquist opined the items have not been taken to the board of county commissioners for a specific recommendation, although the staff has been working closely with Assemblywoman Von Tobel and others in the Assembly. He added, with regard to A.B. 388 and A.B. 142, the primary focus has been on the master plan portion of the bills. Mr. Rosenquist stated Clark County supports A.B. 142 with clarifications as submitted in proposed amendments (Exhibit E).

Mr. Spinello averred, as this pertains to the rural area towns of Clark County, the commission has been actively involved in trying to invigorate the work of those town boards in those areas. He said, in terms of Ms. Porter’s suggestion, he is not sure how to do that at the moment. He is sure the county would be supportive of such a move. He agrees there are definite differences in how they operate.

Senator Raggio pointed out, on page 2 of the bill, it refers to counties with a population of 100,000 or more. This would then apply to Washoe County.

W. Dean Diederich, AICP, Planning Manager, Planning Division, Department of Community Development, Washoe County, acknowledged the senator’s observation. He said the reason Washoe County has not been involved is because it does not use town boards. The county uses citizen advisory committees which are empowered under a different NRS section. The provisions in the bill address unincorporated town boards, and Washoe County has a different structure from Clark County’s.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 142, and opened the hearing on A.B. 461.

Lisa A. Gianoli, Lobbyist, Senior Administrative Analyst, Finance Division, Office of the County Manager, Washoe County, explained A.B. 461 was being brought forward to accomplish three things. One provision would make changes in the approval process of parcel maps, which come before the county in a less-than-5-year time frame on the same piece of property. The next provision would establish a fee, similar to other fees for maps which the county presently approves. This would be on the division of large parcels. The third provision would clarify the recording of the time frame on an approved map.

W. Dean Diederich, AICP, Planning Manager, Planning Division, Department of Community Development, Washoe County, wished to familiarize the committee with the three types of land divisions that can occur under state law. They are: tentative maps which are 5 or more parcels (the larger subdivisions); parcel maps which are 4 or fewer parcels; and divisional large parcel maps which are lots 40 acres or greater in size. These all create new parcels for sale and use for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. Each, however, is spelled out differently in terms of the processing. They all work well in their individual application. The problems arise with parcel maps in the so-called "second" or "subsequent" parcel maps. For example, someone may have a 10-acre parcel; they break it down into four 2½-acre parcels; and then in turn, continue to break that down into 1¼-acre parcels, and on down. When that procedure is used, the individual has moved away from the tentative subdivision approval, and the county then does not have the full considerations that the NRS provides for a tentative map approval. The proposed change in the bill would allow, as permissive, the counties or cities to use the review criteria for a tentative subdivision map if a second, subsequent parcel map is being proposed.

Mr. Diederich expounded that Washoe County has had a number of problems. He specifically pointed to an area near Andrew Lane off of Highway 395, known as the Pleasant Valley area, leading to a subdivision called the Willow Monty Ranch. That area was a series of second, subsequent parcel maps, one right after the other. It raised a significant amount of concern for the residents in the area. The county commissioner, at that time, expressed concern to staff as to how that had happened. It was explained to the commissioner that it fell under this provision in the law. The current commissioner continues to hear complaints regarding the way the subdivision was created. Mr. Diederich explained there are similar situations in the Sun Valley area and many other areas in unincorporated portions of Washoe County.

Chairman O’Connell interjected with a question referring to Clark County’s bill, S.B. 542, and asked how this differs from what was accomplished in that bill. Mr. Diederich replied that this bill addressed a separate provision. The provisions that were brought forward in S.B. 542 did not address the second, subsequent parcel map issue. The bills are complimentary, but of different subject matter.

Lesa M. Coder, Lobbyist, Clark County, and Nevada American Planning Association (NAPA), proffered the amendments before the committee with this particular bill do not apply to any other jurisdiction. Ms. Coder recalled that S.B. 542 dealt with "reversionary" maps, in that the parcel map lines have been created and the reversionary maps would take those lines away. An entirely different issue was addressed.

Mr. Diederich then commented on the next change in A.B. 461, relating to parcel maps, in Section 2. Currently, the provisions in NRS state the final map may be recorded within 1 year after all the conditions have been accepted by the county. That can put the recordation several years out, because the applicant has as much time as they would like in order to satisfy those conditions. It is more typical to have time frames for a tentative map approval and, within that time frame, satisfy the conditions and record the map. That is, in fact, what this clean-up language would clarify, between 1–2 years, by local option in their enabling ordinances.

The final change affects the divisional large parcel, 40-acre plus parcels. He noted section 3 of the bill draft, remarking that the current fee is limited to $250. Mr. Diederich indicated testimony had been provided at the Assembly hearing that their cost of service is closer to $750, which is the amount provided for in the amendment, and they concur with that amendment. He reiterated that $750 is comparable to their cost to review a parcel map.

Chairman O’Connell requested an explanation as to what would be involved in the $750 cost. Mr. Diederich replied that Washoe County had taken advantage of a number of streamlining provisions the Legislature passed in 1997. For example, instead of sending a divisional or even a parcel map to a planning commissioner or ultimately the county commission, a review group has been empanelled, called the Parcel Map Review Committee, and/or the director of Community Development. When an application comes in, it must be circulated to the affected citizen advisory board, in order to obtain the local input. There are a number of agencies; engineering, roads, utilities, water and sewer, district health department, and the parks and recreation and fire protection districts; all of whom provide comments. The comments are accumulated; then a staff report is written indicating compliance with zoning ordinances and the comprehensive plan. Then the conditions for tentative approval are imposed. Typically, on a divisional large parcel map there will be 10-12 conditions on average. The review process takes approximately 3 weeks. The fee of $750 covers the other department costs in terms of the application. The $750 would go into the General Fund to cover the costs of service.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 461, and opened the hearing on A.B. 640.

Lisa A. Gianoli, Lobbyist, Senior Administrative Analyst, Office of the County Manager, Washoe County, stated that this is a short and simple bill. She explained that in the annexation process, the annexation will follow parcel lines rather than using metes and bounds. This issue arose when there was some difficulty for the voter registrar, as well the assessor’s office, in splitting some parcels and annex. This is to clean up and make it a simpler process. Ms. Gianoli also noted, for the committee, that the cities had no problem with this bill.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 640, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 569.

Ms. Coder stated she had expressed to Assemblyman Williams some concerns regarding A.B. 569, specifically to the statement regarding obtaining concurrence between the county and an adjacent city regarding any type of zoning regulation for county islands. One behalf of Phil Resenquist, Ms. Coder submitted suggested language for clarification of section 11, along with a map showing the county islands in the Las Vegas Valley (Exhibit F).

She said Assemblyman Williams did agree and concur there should be some clarification; primarily this would affect only the zoning amendments themselves and not zoning regulations in their entirety. To have the language as broad as it is presently written, in effect, would mean there would be one set of ordinances for county islands. Then if any other changes were made, they would be keeping books on new regulations for the rest of the county.

Ms. Coder noted that it was her belief that Assemblyman Williams wanted to specifically address zoning amendments; the day-to-day decisions that are made regarding land use. Ms. Coder explained that there would be a suggestion to change the language and delete zoning regulations, restrictions or boundaries or amendments thereof, and to simply insert the zoning boundary amendment.

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Clark County Assembly District No. 6, iterated to the committee, this was a simple bill that intends to do two things. First, it deals with changes in a zoning provision. When a government entity is looking to change some zoning, he is asking that residents and property owners, who would possibly be affected by this zoning change, should be notified. And with that notification, give them the opportunity to respond if, in fact, they support the proposed change or are opposed to the proposed change.

Assemblyman Williams stated that those comments, when received by local government reflect that 20 percent of property owners are opposed. Local government is asked to do three things. 1) Take the items of opposition separately and review them; 2) If in fact, the findings are the zoning still needs to be changed, verify in writing that these changes should take place. The second item that the bill is proposing is separate, and the representative from the county has some concerns dealing with county islands; and 3) If county islands are located within a particular city, and there are changes to be made with those islands, the city in which they are located should approve those particular changes. Assemblyman Williams believes it is unfair that a piece of land located within a local city government is being proposed to be changed by the county. The people who live in the county should have a voice in that particular part. He pointed out this bill was heard in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs; it received no opposition, and was passed unanimously from committee as well as on the floor of the general body.

Chairman O’Connell stated for clarification that Assemblyman Williams had mentioned three conditions the county had to meet when they were changing zoning; they had to let the residents know, they were able to make comments and then they were to take the items of opposition individually.

Assemblyman Williams replied, if 20 percent of the contacted property owners respond in opposition, the governing body should then consider separately the merits of each aspect of the proposed amendment in which the owners expressed opposition. It does not stop the governing body from moving forward, but to take those points of opposition and consider them separately when deciding. Assemblyman Williams said the second item, is to make a written finding that the public interest and necessity will be promoted by the approval of the proposed amendment. Senator O’Connell said, so it is a written finding and then the reasons. Assemblyman Williams replied those are the two things that would have to be done by the local entity. He added the second part of what the bill is supposed to do is the one that comes into question here, which is in regard to the islands in the city.

Ms. Coder opined the first area of concern would be to try and limit this to the zone change amendment itself and not zoning regulations across the board. Secondly, would be, rather than seek the approval, to at least have due consideration of the recommended land use by the governing body. She said she understands Assemblyman Williams would prefer to obtain concurrence to move forward with any approval. She would not question that except to the extent it may pose litigation, should one jurisdiction state approval and one state denial. Another example might be that they would both recommend approval, but with a different set of conditions. There may be some inequity from the applicant’s perspective that instead of just simply being answerable to a single jurisdiction and getting a single answer, now the applicant has to deal with both. Ms. Coder stated that was a concern. She suggested, perhaps, the Legislative Counsel Bureau could provide comment or feedback, or help clarify this issue in the bill so litigation is not opened. She felt certain that at some point in time, with as many county islands as there are, there may be opportunities where the cities would not necessarily meet eye to eye. She wanted to kind of take that one step further and receive some clarification on that particular point.

Chairman O’Connell inquired as to the reason it was not brought up in the Assembly.

Ms. Coder replied she was out of the room at the time doing some other work on another bill that was coming up before the same committee. Although one of the city’s lobbyists was there, he simply did not have the knowledge or understanding of what the impact may be.

Senator Porter commented he would take the blame, since Ms. Coder was helping him with S.B. 391 in the Senate at the time.

Senator Neal asked who proposed the amendment, perhaps, the county; and if the city could annex this.

Ms. Coder affirmed the proposed amendment belonged to the counties. She then responded the opportunity does exist for annexation. However, some of the constituents would prefer not to be annexed due to the taxing structure, while some others would, probably, find advantages to annexation. Some applicants that come before the county do have a desire to be annexed in order to be provided with water and sewer services, but the process to be annexed can be rather lengthy.

Senator Neal asked when there is a small parcel, surrounded by another entity, how does the county now claim that property. Ms. Coder responded, it just happens that it presently falls under one jurisdiction.

Senator Neal wanted to know how the services are paid. Ms. Coder responded that in several of the county islands to the northwest part of the valley, the property owner can sink a well and go on a septic system, which is oftentimes the case. Aside from that, the property owners would have to hook up to provided services. In a lot of those cases, the adjacent municipalities are the only ones who can provide that service. She thinks the mechanism that applicants would like to go ahead and be annexed and get those services, and entertain zoning within that jurisdiction. But again, the process can be rather lengthy, and sometimes a little overwhelming for the applicant.

Senator Neal queried why the process would be lengthy. Ms. Coder answered she does not do the annexation for the city, but would try to provide the answer.

Senator Neal commented he knows this problem has been ongoing for about 30 years. He had a problem fathoming there being a county when they are sitting in the middle of a city. Ms. Coder agreed it is historically a problem.

Senator Neal gathered the amendment is saying that the governing body of the county shall not approve the zone boundaries.

Ms. Coder clarified the proposed amendment is stating the county would not be able to act unless the adjacent city approved of the request. So rather than having a single jurisdiction make that decision, it is now, according to this language, dependent upon two jurisdictions concurring in order to approve.

Senator Neal noted, "So what you would do is just have one jurisdiction make that decision, which more than likely would be the city or the county." Assemblyman Williams responded that it would be in this case.

Senator Neal inquired why the county would want to make the decision on a parcel of land that is situated in the city. Ms. Coder iterated oftentimes the county does not necessarily want to make that decision. The property owners, however, are falling under that jurisdiction and by law then have to look to that jurisdiction to make a determination.

Senator Neal asked what the benefit would be of these parcels to the county. Ms. Coder responded, to be honest, the county does not see a lot of them as having benefit; but the county does not have much of a choice to force people to go to another jurisdiction. Typically, that is done with 51 percent of the property owners’ concurrence, and then they petition for annexation. Some property owners find that to be desirable; others do not.

Assemblyman Williams commented that is the reason for the bill, because of the questions Senator Neal raised. For instance, if North Las Vegas did not approve of a change the county was about to make and the county did it anyway, the county would stand more of a chance to face litigation in that particular case. This bill brings about the opportunity for both entities to collectively do something that is in the best interest of the property owner. She opined that is only fair to the property owners.

Chairman O’Connell inquired if Assemblyman Williams had seen the proposed amendment. Assemblyman Williams answered he thinks the proposed amendment pretty much brings the status of the situation, the problem, back to square one. Assemblyman Williams continued that the due consideration of the recommended land use would depend on how ‘due consideration’ would be defined. He thinks the city should give that approval prior to the county. He stated if there is some possibility to have both local governments not being hurt in either way, and it can be worked out, he is open to do that. Assemblyman Williams opined he did not think this particular proposed amendment would take care of it. But stated he is open to fix it to satisfy the county’s position.

Chairman O’Connell pointed out the assemblyman has a clarification to section 11, and then has it numbered ‘number 10.’ She was not sure if the committee looks at the proposed amendment where exactly it should be in the bill.

Assemblyman Williams clarified, "It’s [It is] 10 on the proposed amendment, but it’s [it is] section 11 in the bill."

Senator Raggio interjected, it is subsection 11. There is only one section." Assemblyman Williams replied, "Exactly."

Chairman O’Connell asserted that is a subsection 11, and not a section 10. She clarified the suggestion is to take out all of subsection 11 now, and replace it with the new language in the proposed amendment. Ms. Coder responded, "That’s [that is] correct."

Senator Neal asked, "What is the age of these homes that are now on these parcels of land?" Ms. Coder answered that, in some places, there are no homes, and in others there are some homes, and the homes vary in age. In other cases, the property may be the BMI complex, or it may be areas that are further to the north and east; presently where the speedway, for example, might be located. So they do not necessarily just refer to smaller properties with or without single-family residences. She referenced an exhibit (Exhibit F) to help identify the areas.

Senator Neal asked if the county was not concerned about contiguous boundaries.

Ms. Coder responded:

Senator Neal maintained, "You mentioned the speedway. Is that the only new development that you’ve [you have] had on these parcels?"

Ms. Coder answered there have been other developments all around. But the raceway would fall into one of the areas to the northeast. There have also been some other industrial users and some recycling facilities go in the other M2 areas further to the north.

Senator Neal inquired about other situations like this in the state, where the county is within the city boundaries.

Senator Raggio responded:

Chairman O’Connell pointed out, for example, where streets are separated, and the homeowner across the street is paying a city tax, and the guy on the other side is paying a county tax. And since the county tax is less than the city tax, the homeowner in the city does not like it. So annexation becomes very involved.

Senator Titus stated:

Ms. Coder responded:

Senator Porter asserted he does not quite understand what is being asked for because of zone changes happening, and vice versa. He asked, "What is it that you currently do as far as making a zone change? [Are] there certain steps that the commissioners take that they must meet before you’ll [you will] make a zone change?"

Ms. Coder answered:

Senator Porter suggested using similar language to what is already being done, but making it part of the language of the bill. He stated it sounds like something similar is being done now. Ms. Coder responded that would raise Assemblyman Williams’ level of comfort; and added she would be happy to work on some language.

Senator Porter noted that in his local government days, they had to have these findings, and they are very similar to what Assemblyman Williams wants. And maybe with a few adjustments, it would help eliminate the problem.

Mr. Williams stated:

Senator Porter stated there is where the residents were notified, and since they were not in that particular entity, they were ignored. And that is probably one of the issues the assemblyman is trying to address.

Assemblyman Williams responded, "Exactly. And if, in fact, the notices are mailed out and less than 20 percent of the opposing people respond, they can move forward without any of these situations. I think it gives the county a little bit more of an ability to satisfy the public when they’re [they are] considering these changes."

W. Dean Diederich, AICP, Planning Manager, Planning Division, Department of Community Development, Washoe County, indicated he is authorized, on behalf of the Washoe County commission, to say that they are in opposition entirely to this bill. If he could, he would try to offer a different perspective with which Washoe County has had to deal.

Mr. Diederich stated, first of all, a number of conflicts could be created with already adopted provisions in NRS chapter 278; recognizing that zoning is the tool to implement a master plan, and it is being said it is the master plan that every community needs to have. He averred, in fact, several bills are asking for additional elements, really "beefing up," the requirements for a master plan.

Mr. Diederich continued:

Senator Neal asked if Mr. Diederich would be opposed to the bill if Washoe County were excluded. Mr. Diederich stated, "Certainly not." Mr. Diederich continued by pointing out the Washoe County commission did address that point. There is a concern that when a system of law is created for Clark County, Washoe County residents expect the same service. In fact, there are many notification provisions in NRS that Washoe County implemented, simply because the residents asked why they cannot do the same when it is required in Clark County.

Ms. Porter commented that the original bill was not a concern to SNHBA, and as a result gave no testimony. She emphasized the reprinted bill is a substantial change from the original bill. There are sections of the bill that only deal with property that is "downzoned" or with density or intensity. She said there are many occasions where SNHBA finds in the building community that downzoning is done. Some property may have been zoned for multifamily several years ago, and find it is better used for single-family homes. Changing from multifamily down to single family would be the downzoning that is involved in this proposed amendment. Ms. Porter stated SNHBA sends out a notice of public hearing or the county does, which has a checkoff box. It is interesting to note with 80 percent in support and 20 percent opposed, that this could almost stop a project. Ms. Porter voiced she was not quite sure what was trying to be accomplished with this bill. She does understand the intent with section 11 and the island area, but does not understand what is to be accomplished in the balance of the bill with downzoning and in relation to having the people mail in their opposition. She agrees with many of the comments made by Mr. Diederich. Ms. Porter agrees people do need to be notified, and they do need to attend meetings to find out what the proposals in their neighborhoods are really all about, rather than just relying on a short public-hearing notice by which to make an informed decision.

David Hill, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, stated the City of Sparks is in opposition to the bill; although they generally like section 11. Mr. Hill said, for the record, "the city also expressed their concerns on the Assembly side."

Ms. Brown told the committee the City of North Las Vegas had concerns with the original bill, and also has concerns with the way the bill has been rewritten. One of the concerns is the notification requirements. It is believed the notification would need to be sent by certified mail, if there is to be a returned receipt; thereby, dissolving any disparities regarding whether the notice was received. This would be an added expense, but the city feels it is something that has to be done. The other concern is the city believes the signatures should be notarized, if the notice is signed and returned. This would assist with the legal discussions that may occur in the future with a particular piece of zoning. The City of North Las Vegas’ planning department also felt that the percentage of those in opposition to any change, should be higher. She said, if 20 percent of the residents in a particular area are opposed to something, which means that 80 percent are probably in favor of it; therefore, the city would like to see that section of the bill changed. Ms. Brown concluded that the City of North Las Vegas is in favor of section 11 of A.B. 569.

Senator Neal posed if it was part of government to notify the public of an action that pertains to them; then why the objection. Ms. Brown responded they were not objecting to the notification. The concern is that the bill would require the notices to be returned with a signature, if the property owner has a response. The concern is when residents say they did not receive the notice, that the city never mailed it. The city would need to send the notices by certified mail in order to show that the notice was, indeed, mailed to the property owner and signed as being received by them.

Senator Neal asked what the other part of the objection is. Ms. Brown replied it is felt because of the requirement of the signature coming back, that the city would have to take on a more stringent mailing procedure within the City of North Las Vegas just to defend the city’s actions in the future, if there was a complaint later as to what had occurred.

Senator Neal inquired why make it difficult for the people to exercise their will in these particular areas. Ms. Brown acknowledged it would make it more difficult, in that they would have to get their signature notarized; however, it would help the city should there be any legal arguments at a later time.

Mr. Diederich commented that the signature is an indication of a vote; one of the procedures required for the certification of any type of election. He contended the indication of registered mail to ensure a person received their ballot, and making sure the signature could be identified as the property that was requested, is literally taking a planning activity and turning it into an election activity. This is done in order to protect the local government to ensure the record would be established, so if it did go to court, because somebody still did not agree with it, the local government had proof it followed the law. Mr. Diederich said:

Senator Neal inquired about the publication of the notice. Mr. Diederich conveyed that is required, and a tear sheet from the newspaper goes into the file. He said those actions are already required in law. He said what is now being asked for is an expansion of that notification. It is not that the entities disagree that notification is not important; but the way the bill is structured, it is turning it into an election.

Mr. Hill pointed out that not only is the bill expanding notification to an election process, but also expanding it to an election process that can be won with 20 percent of the vote.

Senator Titus noted that instead of comparing it to an election, why not compare it just as easily to a petition process. A petition only takes 10 percent of signatures. She thinks the petition law could just as easily be used as the elections laws for comparability. Mr. Hill elaborated that typically at most public hearings, either at the planning commission or the county commission, if someone is in opposition, they have spent some time to walk the neighborhood to bring forth a petition; and that certainly is important. But in terms of satisfying a provision in state law, it is simply a mechanism for the public to express their pleasure or displeasure with an action; but it does not have the force of law, as you are asking for here.

Senator Titus interjected that petitions have the force of law. She said there are lots of statutes that regulate how petitions work in this state. Mr. Hill responded, not for land-use actions.

Senator Titus stated there are no election laws specifically for land use, either; and you are making a comparison between this and election laws. It is just as easy to make a comparison between this and petition laws. Mr. Hill elucidated that if the applicant, proponent, or opponent had to follow petition law, in order to identify the opposition or support, that too, would require verification of that petition. He said that is not what is being proposed in the bill. But to move into that direction, would require submitting the petition to the registrar of voters to verify signatures, and to the assessor to verify that they are also landowners.

Senator Raggio asked why the concern in this bill with more notice and involvement being given when downsizing something. It seems to him it should be just the opposite. It seems there should be more concern about raising the density, so what is the problem that is being addressed.

Assemblyman Williams remarked that in many cases when a local government tends to downsize through density, that affects the property value for those property owners. He said, currently, when residents are notified, only 6 percent respond positively; that is assumed a majority in those cases. Now we are saying that if 20 percent respond, and 80 percent is in agreement, then that is not necessarily the case.

Senator Raggio stated, in other words this only applies in a downsizing situation. Assemblyman Williams agreed, and said he had another point, and that is when this bill went for a vote before the committee, the representative from North Las Vegas asked for one change. The original language said a super majority of the vote of the council had to approve it. North Las Vegas indicated that if that was changed they would be fine with this bill, if it passed. It really is a major concern to him that now; they are representing something that is totally different than was represented to the Assembly committee. He averred the minutes would reflect that if the super majority were taken out of the language, then North Las Vegas would be all right. But it appears now that none of that happened. And it is the same with the other representatives here; they were fine with the bill last time. He would like to say to the committee members, "As colleagues, be very careful of those who would tell you we will fix it in the other house."

Senator Titus commented she has gotten that impression, too. She thinks that is very clear in the testimony given.

Assemblyman Williams stressed he does not mind that technique happening; but he does mind it when one comes up on the record, and specifically says the only concern they have is this line or this word, and if that could be changed they would be fine. In this particular case North Las Vegas expressed they did not think the super majority was fair. He said he took that part out of the bill, and they left the table in agreement with the language. Now, it appears they have seen this for the first time.

Mr. Spinnello remarked the issues Senator Titus and some other raised are fair questions and deserve a fair answer. He thinks that by and large the local governments would, if they could with a stroke, erase all of the planning bills that have been brought forward in this session. They would have done that, but they do not feel they can. The entities know they have to work with many of the legislators, and have been trying to do that in good faith, hoping some of the bills could be weaved into something workable. In some cases, there are bills that mandate things the entities are already doing; and in some cases, there are bills that are mandating some interlocal agreements upon which the entities are already working. He thinks it has been a sincere attempt. He emphasized, on behalf of the local governments, he feels, particularly in southern Nevada, everyone has spent about 18 months learning how to work much better together, and believes they are making some strides in doing that. Some of the actions of the last session have helped to produce that improved working relationship, and would like the opportunity to let that process work.

Chairman O’Connell formally adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: