The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:50 p.m., on Thursday, May 13, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, Clark County Assembly District No. 16

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Angela Culbert, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, Clark County Assembly District No. 16, explained the intent of the bill was to provide notice to the school districts affected by master plan changes to allow them to better manage growth. He said the legislation would match policy to practice with regards to nonconforming master plan changes while expanding the notification requirement from 500 feet to 1,000 feet in urban areas. Drawing attention to a proposed amendment (Exhibit C), which would reduce the notification requirement from 500 feet to 300 feet for rural areas, Assemblyman Thomas noted the rural communities had indicated the original proposed requirement would be burdensome. Assemblyman Thomas indicated the bill would allow notifications sent by electronic means if receipt of the notice could be verified. He stated the 1,000 foot notification requirement for urban areas intends to cover a broader area to increase community awareness about local neighborhood development.

Senator Neal questioned the circumstances by which the bill was requested. Assemblyman Thomas indicated the proposal was based upon his planning experience in North Las Vegas.

Chairman O’Connell questioned if he had heard from constituents who did not have notice of development activity in their area. Assemblyman Thomas indicated he had heard complaints from residents in North Las Vegas. He explained the intent was to make a larger segment of the community aware of development in their neighborhoods within walking distance.

Assemblyman Thomas explained A.B. 349 separates the provisions concerning use permits and variances. He pointed out a person wanting to put a bar in which alcoholic beverages would be consumed on commercial zoned property must apply for a use permit, with the notice requirement being a 1,000 foot radius. He stated the same notice would not apply to variances which would need to be obtained in order to add insignificant changes to private residences. Assemblyman Thomas indicated the bill would take effect on July 1, 2000, explaining Clark County had requested additional time to incorporate the noticing requirements into their budget cycle.

Senator Neal questioned the reason notice could not be given by requiring the developer to put up a sign on the property designating its purpose. Assemblyman Thomas stated the developer currently has to put up a sign. Senator Neal questioned what A.B. 349 would accomplish in terms of notification. Assemblyman Thomas said not everyone would see the sign, noting neighbors within 1,000 feet deserve a more personal notification of the development. He contended a sign would not always offer the information provided by a written notice.

Assemblyman Thomas stated the amendment (Exhibit C) to create a subsection 10 in section 2 of the bill was requested by North Las Vegas. He stated, "I allowed them [North Las Vegas] to use this as a vehicle because what they want to do, after they get their master plan update approved, they want to go back through and do conformance zone changing across the whole entire city. So what they would do, if they make a master plan change of commercial over a parcel that is residential, what they will go through as an administrative body and go through and make all of those match one another."

Marta Golding Brown, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, stated the city had testified in opposition to the bill in the Assembly. She noted the amendment (Exhibit C) had been suggested because the city is about to conduct "hard zoning," which would put the zoning in conformance with the master plan. With the law in its current form, she pointed out, the city would be required to notify every resident of the city; noting if one resident does not receive notification, the process of hard zoning could be stopped.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the city council of North Las Vegas has taken a position on the bill. Ms. Brown indicated the bill had not yet be voted upon by the council.

Ms. Brown read from a prepared statement, stating:

Ms. Brown read the amendment proposed (Exhibit C) to create a subsection 10 in section 2 of the bill.

Chairman O’Connell questioned how the amendment differs from current practice. Ms. Brown agreed the amendment would set forth the practices which the city plans to accomplish without the law.

Senator Neal asked for clarification of how zoning is brought into conformance with an adopted master plan.

John T. Doughty, Lobbyist, Planning and Economic Development Manager, Community Development, Douglas County, and American Planning Association, expressed support for the language recommended by the City of North Las Vegas. He indicated Douglas County, like North Las Vegas, attempted to adopt a master plan which is a generalized approach to land-use categories while zoning specifies the types of developments allowed. Douglas County made zoning consistent with their master plan, he noted, and was thereby required to mail notices of proposed changes to more than 10,000 individual property owners. He pointed out the process was costly and time consuming. Mr. Doughty contended in Douglas County there was no greater response to the individual notification process than was had in other states with the notice being posted in the newspaper.

Mr. Doughty pointed out individual notices of development plans would be sent out at the same time the property owners are notified of zone changes, stating work would be duplicated by the measure. He suggested an easier method would be to send one notice providing zone-change information with a request to contact the planning office for development information. Recognizing this method to be more cost-effective, Mr. Doughty maintained individual notice would not increase the amount of public response.

Senator Neal stated he was a resident of North Las Vegas and pointed out the city has both an old and new community. The new community is master planned, he explained, but the old community is not. He questioned which areas would be affected by bringing zoning in conformance with the adopted master plan. He indicated zoning problems have occurred in the past.

Ms. Brown stated it is intended that the changes in zoning and planning would be more responsive to the citizens of the city. She indicated conforming the zoning to the master plan should have been done earlier, and pointed out this process is conducted in many areas of the country.

W. Dean Dietrich, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development, Washoe County, stated the master plan sets forth the way in which a community wants to grow within a 20-year period of time. He noted a currently residential area may be going through economic changes which would require zoning changes. The master plan, he stated, provides broad labels, while zoning conformance would make the vision of the master plan possible. He said, "When we say we want to make zoning in conformance with our master plan, it literally means, if you agreed this is your 20-year vision, what tools do you need to get you there." He indicated Senator Neal’s concerns may be related to certain provisions of local codes, noting these are not the primary tools concerning zoning or master planning.

Mr. Dietrich commented on section 3, subsection 2, paragraph (b), subparagraph (2) of A.B. 349, which references notification requirements regarding special use permits for establishments serving alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. He sought clarification notification only needs to be provided if the on-site liquor sales has to go through a special use permitting process, noting Washoe County’s regulatory zones in residential areas would require this process, but tourist commercial zones would not. Mr. Dietrich clarified for the record:

Assemblyman Thomas concurred the intent of the bill would require the noticing provision for instances in which a special use permit is necessary. He suggested this intent is reflected in section 3, subsection 2 of the bill which states, "A hearing to consider an application for the granting of a special use permit." He pointed out a hearing must take place for the following provisions to apply. Assemblyman Thomas said he would not oppose the change suggested by Mr. Dietrich.

Lesa M. Coder, Lobbyist, Clark County, indicated she had previously testified in the Assembly regarding the increased area of notification. Land-use applications from the past year indicated the Clark County planning division would need $120,000 in addition to the general budget to provide a 1320 foot area of notification. She pointed out this amount would double the notification portion of the budget. Although the notification area provided in A.B. 349 has been reduced to 1,000 feet, she contended, it will continue to represent a significant cost. Ms. Coder stated their preference would be to provide no additional costs which must to be passed on to the customers and requested the increase in notification area be kept to a minimum. She asked for language to clarify section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (g) of the bill which states, "In place of the mailed notice required pursuant to paragraphs (b) through (f) notice would be sent." She indicated the language would then explain the electronic notification rather than the current sentence structure reading, "To be sent by electronic means …."

Chairman O’Connell asked for Ms. Coder’s opinion of the proposed amendments (Exhibit C). Ms. Coder stated the first two amendments dealing with reducing the area of notification with populations less than 400,000 would not affect Clark County. She stated, "Regarding the additional section 10, we do have occasions where the board of county commissioners would initiate zone change requests, although they have not asked for anything to the extent that North Las Vegas has. There may be a point in time at which we would look, to perhaps use this, but in terms of corrective zone changes, it has always been our courtesy to the public to fall in line to do the area of notification for any type of zoning action that we are required by law to do today."

Chairman O’Connell requested Ms. Coder to provide her recommended amendments to the committee in written form for further consideration.

Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, expressed concern regarding expanding the area of notification, stating currently extensive notice is given with all zone changes. She noted at the time of a property sale, the homeowner is furnished a copy of all current zoning and master plan designations surrounding the parcel as well as gaming-enterprise district maps. If a zone change is conducted, she pointed out, there is a notice in the newspaper, a notice of public hearing sent out to the surrounding 500- to 600-foot areas, and a notice to the 30 nearest parcels for areas consisting of larger lots. Ms. Porter indicated the cost of the notification is passed on to the person making the application. She stated developers are required to put up signs identifying zone changes on the property which must be visible from the adjoining streets, stressing increased notification procedures would add unnecessary costs.

Ms. Porter indicated the language in section 1, subsection 2 and the subsequent paragraphs (a) through (g) of the bill is unnecessary as the notice of amending the master plan could be included with the notice currently sent out on the zone change. She pointed out this would avoid duplication in both the notice and the law.

Chairman O’Connell questioned what the proposal would do that has not already been accomplished. She indicated she has not had any complaints from constituents regarding this issue. Ms. Porter stated the previous changes requiring signs be posted on the property and notifying the surrounding 30 parcels regarding zone changes have made the biggest difference in the amount of complaints received. She pointed out changes are also advertised in the newspapers and agendas of public hearings are being posted. Increasing the notification area and thereby increasing the costs to the county, she contended, does not serve any additional purpose.

Chairman O’Connell viewed the measure seemed as an unfunded mandate because it requires more of the counties without offering state funding.

Assemblyman Thomas requested the committee to make further recommendations if they did not feel their constituents would have notification concerns. He stressed other portions of the bill are important, expressing concern that one provision would prevent passage of the measure.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 349, and opened the hearing on A.B. 563.

Assemblyman Thomas indicated the bill would promote infill development, a nationally recognized growth management tool, thereby allowing more efficient utilization of current infrastructure. He said the bill defines infill development and infrastructure, noting the infill development would have to be surrounded by infrastructure. He pointed out the proposal designates terminology for created zones which would match the terminology of the national land-use management provision. Section 5 of the bill, he stated, requires Washoe and Clark counties to designate zones that are likely to benefit from infill development to be included in the land-use master plan. In addition, he noted, policies and incentives would be created to locate growth within those zones.

Assemblyman Thomas drew attention to the proposed amendment (Exhibit D) in which the amended language in section 10, subsection 1 of the bill would be removed and inserted into section 10, subsection 5 upon suggestion by the Commission on Economic Development. He pointed out the bill would take effect January 1, 2001. The assemblyman explained the bill does not provide the number of zones which may be created, noting the municipalities will be managing their own land-use decisions and creating the zones by way of a master plan.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether there had been the opportunity to work with the counties prior to the bill’s introduction. Assemblyman Thomas indicated the municipalities had been consulted post-introduction. He explained he had researched land-use management decisions in other states, and pointed out Maryland has passed a similar law concerning priority-funding areas. He restated the measure promotes infill development.

Senator Care questioned the successfulness of smart growth in other jurisdictions. Assemblyman Thomas stated the most nationally recognized package is the one adopted in Maryland in 1997. He stressed the measure would provide a layer of incentives from the local to the federal level as there has been federal proposals to grant interest-free bonding authority to states and local communities moving towards proactive growth management tools.

Senator Porter questioned the way in which A.B. 563 would affect Senate Bill (S.B.) 191.

Assemblyman Thomas indicated the two measures would be entirely separate. If someone were to develop in a zone, he noted, an impact statement must be provided. Impacts statements concerning infill development, he contended, would be less than those of the urban fringe because the infrastructure is already in place.

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, stated:

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, American Institute of Architects, stated:

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the southern Nevada chapter of the American Institute of Architects had participated in the interim committee studying growth in southern Nevada. Mr. Hillerby indicated the group had participated in the public hearings. Chairman O’Connell clarified the group’s awareness of a similar proposal being addressed through the interim committee. Mr. Hillerby confirmed their awareness.

Ms. Coder indicated Clark County did not have a position on the bill. She stated her testimony in the Assembly reflected that encouraging infill development is currently at the discretion of the governing bodies. She indicated the county would be able to meet the bill’s intent as drafted in the first reprint.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, indicated she was on record in the Assembly as stating the City of Henderson currently has the authority to accomplish the bill’s intent. She expressed concern regarding the lack of a statutory definition of "smart growth zone," indicating confusion is created as areas are to be designated without definition. Ms. Fretwell expressed the city’s current support of infill development and expressed willingness to follow the intent of the measure.

Prompted by Senator Neal, Ms. Fretwell clarified there are many elements to smart growth as referenced by planning documents. She indicated the bill does not define "smart growth zone," noting the importance of handling future legislation with care as it relates to definitions concerning designated infill areas.

Ms. Porter concurred with Ms. Fretwell’s testimony. She restated there is no definition of a "smart growth zone" in the bill and questioned how areas could be designated without this classification. Pointing out that Maryland has a statewide smart growth act which encompasses a variety of elements, Ms. Porter indicated research has shown local governments in Maryland are beginning to ignore parts of the act due to problems experienced. She suggested smart growth was a fad in the planning field. Calling attention to escalating housing prices in Maryland, she offered to provide the committee with further information.

Ms. Porter indicated planning intelligently is the purpose of having comprehensive general plans. She expressed the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association’s support of infill development, though noted when the group has worked with local governments to infill develop parcels in the past, the process has caused protests from neighborhoods. The land costs on infill parcels are much higher, she said, and explained these costs must be offset by working with governments for fee reductions. She expressed the difficulty in building on infill parcels, stating by designating an undefined smart growth zone, the problem of land costs remains unsolved. Ms. Porter proposed a situation in which land is held as an investment thereby prohibiting the purchasing of the property for infill development. She stressed the importance of working together to develop more creative ways in which to promote good quality infill.

Chairman O’Connell indicated a part of her district recently requested a development buffer be added to protect rural property. She questioned the way in which this would be affected by A.B. 563. The chairman inquired as to whether the assemblyman had discussed the language added in section 10, subsection 1 of the bill with the Nevada Association of Counties, the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, or the Lieutenant Governor. Assemblyman Thomas indicated there had been no discussion; although, he pointed out, they had not raised any concerns in previous testimony.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the way in which the proposal would affect rural counties currently having problems with their assessed valuation, noting these areas do not control much of the land within their boundaries.

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, stated, "We did, at Mr. Thomas’s request, send out some early questionnaires on how this would affect mainly our rural areas. And after we got some answers back, the bill had some amendments on it. And we did not get any answers back after the bill was amended. So I really don’t [do not] feel comfortable answering for the rural areas on that."

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 563 and opened the hearing on A.B. 566.

Assemblyman Thomas stated A.B. 566 defines "traditional neighborhood development" and requires a mix of residential and commercial land uses be included in the land-use portion of the master plan. He commented a similar provision must be provided in the zoning regulations. The assemblyman indicated the bill does not require any municipality to zone land by this method, but it ensures that the land is permissible to develop in the traditional manner. Drawing attention to a proposed amendment (Exhibit E) which make provisions of traditional neighborhood development permissive rather than mandatory, he explained the change would allow the developer flexibility to fulfill the definition without including one of the four outlined proposals. Assemblyman Thomas referenced Boulder City as a traditional neighborhood development site, stating the area has a central open space and a radial street pattern. He pointed out the city is a pedestrian-oriented community with a mix of residential and commercial developments.

Senator Neal questioned the provision in section 1, subsection 1 of the bill in which single-family residences must have a garage or carport located in the rear of the house. He indicated most of the houses in Nevada have the garage located in the front of the house with the possible purpose of converting the area into living space.

Assemblyman Thomas indicated the provision would provide an aesthetic way of handling design in a community. He said the visual impact of a street lined with garages is reduced, if they are set towards the back of the house. He noted the amount of space occupied by a blank surface of the garage door on a smaller lot, stating if it is set back, the street edge can be better articulated. The assemblyman indicated the effect was visual rather than functional.

Senator Neal questioned whether the land in which the houses were being developed must be of a certain dimension to accommodate a setback garage. Assemblyman Thomas suggested there could be a rear access through a smaller alleyway or the driveway could be placed along the side of the house. He stated the dimension of the lot would be determined by the space needed in which to drive into the garage.

Prompted by Senator Neal, Assemblyman Thomas indicated the bill would take effect on January 1, 2001. He stated the local governments needed time to ensure they would be able to accommodate the provisions.

Senator Porter questioned whether North Las Vegas had a similar regulation in their planning process. Assemblyman Thomas stated there was no development of this sort being conducted in Nevada, although, he noted, it is being used in Florida and in California. He suggested the same type of people coming to Nevada are also going to Florida, maintaining it is a niche market that needs to be filled.

Prompted by Senator Porter, Assemblyman Thomas indicated people in planning departments support this type of development although there is not a specific ordinance requiring it. He pointed out Austin, Texas has a 50-page traditional neighborhood-development ordinance.

Mr. Doughty stressed the importance of making the measure optional. He indicated Minden is a good example of traditional development, noting it represents the highest assessed value and some of the highest resale values in the Carson Valley portion of Douglas County. He explained the environment created by the development is popular. The bill, he noted, would provide an option which should be encouraged rather than prohibited or required. Mr. Doughty recognized the Douglas Planning Commission has recently directed the county to develop a parallel ordinance to address traditional neighborhood development. The planned-unit development process, he noted, does not work for this purpose. He restated the county’s opposition to making the provision mandatory, though noted it should be an alternative available to the planned-unit development process.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the law was necessary to accomplish the intent of the proposal. Mr. Doughty stated he did not believe the law to be necessary, though noted, it did not impede the process. He recognized the previous request for language which would indicate no local jurisdiction shall prohibit this type of development from occurring, but instead require the encouragement of adopting ordinances relating to traditional neighborhood development.

Ms. Coder indicated she had previously testified the bill will encourage mixed uses which Clark County is moving towards. In the amended version of the bill, she explained, language was created to give the local governments the ability to approve or deny the traditional neighborhood development. She requested clarification on this point. Expressing a concern about mandating a specific housing type, she maintained the bill to be restrictive in its current form whereby it would not allow the desired flexibility. She recommended section 1 of the bill be changed to read, "the development may include," and additionally delete the words, "must" and "without limitation." Without the change, she recognized, Clark County cannot support the bill.

Chairman O’Connell asked whether the bill was necessary in order to develop traditional neighborhoods. Although Ms. Coder indicated the bill was not needed, she pointed out if the bill was made to be permissive, it would have no harmful effect. She explained Clark County presently handles these types of developments through multiple zoning districts and the planned–unit development process, which, she noted, do not have required garage setbacks.

Senator Neal questioned whether developing a residence with the requirements set forth in section 1, subsection 1 of the bill would require the house to be set further towards the street. Ms. Coder indicated this may occur in some cases, although, she noted it would be easier to accommodate the requirements on larger lots. It would be more difficult, she explained, on the higher density lots.

Senator Neal pointed out a house with a garage in the back must provide space for a car to turn around. Mr. Doughty stated the concept behind traditional development is to have a system of alleys. He noted the amount of road area is reduced in the front, thereby reducing traffic and speed on the streets. Senator Neal pointed out old Las Vegas had an alley system and as a result experienced a rash of burglaries. Chairman O’Connell noted the intent to access the house from the garage in the nontraditional method of development.

Mr. Doughty stated many communities have reviewed the traditional development method to allow a secondary dwelling unit be placed above the garage in the rear area, thereby providing less impact.

Senator Neal questioned whether the garbage pickup would be in the alleyways. Mr. Doughty indicated this was typically the case.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Porter indicated the majority are on 60 by 120 foot lots. She indicated the traditional neighborhood development method is not new, and she reminded the committee of older communities with front porches and garages off of a back alley connected to the house by a breezeway. Ms. Porter told the committee of a project in the City of Las Vegas which contains many of the traditional concepts including reduced size streets, walking paths into a park area, and front porches. In Portland, Oregon, she noted, the concept was being used because of the high costs of land. She explained the lots ranged from 2,500 to 2,800 square feet, noting the houses were close together and brought within 15 feet of the front property line. The garages hook to the houses by breezeways and are accessed by small backyards. She indicated the houses in this development range from 900 to 1,300 square feet costing over $180,000. Ms. Porter stressed there should be selection available in communities. The traditional method, she pointed out, can be developed under current zoning provisions allowable by local governments. Although, she noted, it is a good option to be made available, the legislation is unnecessary.

Senator Neal questioned whether the bill should be retained as a suggestion, noting the language would be permissive. Ms. Porter indicated she would have no objection to a permissive piece of legislation.

Ms. Fretwell indicated the City of Henderson currently has projects in development similar to those outlined in A.B. 566. She predicted the projects would be successful. Expressing support for the proposed amendment suggested by Ms. Coder which would make the bill permissive, Ms. Fretwell commented the legislation may encourage developers to bring forward more traditional development projects. She supported the provision which would not require the local governments to accept all proposals of this nature.

Mr. Hillerby stated the bill, with the amendment, would be permissive, noting although it is not necessary, it may encourage people to use innovation in development.

With no further testimony on the measure, the chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 566. She directed the committee to address A.B. 493.

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, explained A.B. 493 is a rewrite of previously proposed regional planning legislation, and she cited the Urban Land Institute findings regarding a study of the Las Vegas Valley to illustrate the necessity of the measure. She read:

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani read from the recommendations made by the panel in response to questions from individuals in the community, stating "The panel strongly recommends the valley leaders move to a form or regional organization to provide leadership, strategic planning and coordination of the valley’s growth to strengthen the regional economy, to assure the community’s livability and to meet current and future demands for public facilities and services." She pointed out the panel believed the valley to be fortunate to have five local governments, but that those jurisdictions needed the "leadership, guidance and coordination to respond to tomorrow’s growth challenges." She noted the recommendation was made of "building strategic leadership and a sense of community among Las Vegans should be a high priority for the region’s management of growth." She acknowledged the panel’s observation regarding "the relative weakness of civic leadership and community identity in the valley especially with regard to region-wide issues. Political leadership appears fractious and unfocused on the major issues confronting the valley. Business leadership and civic affairs in some cases was invisible. It is time to form a more collaborative approach to the regional development and to formulate a shared vision to guide the future growth."

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani suggested, based on the leadership of Senator Porter and the work completed by the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority (SNSPA) over the last 2 years, it is necessary to utilize A.B. 493 as "the next step." She stated the bill parallels and complements legislation proposed by Senator Porter in setting up the format for the next 2 years.

The assemblywoman indicated the proposal had been amended from the previous session to remove the majority of the mandates, though noted the mandate to create the plan remains. She pointed out the regional planning coalition is the body designated to create the plan, noting the determination of a regional significant project would be the purview of the coalition. In addition, she noted, the coalition would have the opportunity, through A.B. 493, to present the Legislature with three bill draft requests next session in the case it is found their ability to properly plan and manage growth is impeded. The bill, she explained, would allow the coalition a 2-year additional time line in which to complete the plan. She noted the public purpose section had been rewritten from the previous session to provide more of a statement within statute as to what the plan would be about

Chairman O’Connell clarified the SNSPA has endorsed the bill. Ms. Giunchigliani concurred.

Phil Rosenquist, Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit F), explained the SNSPA has produced a strategic plan which provides a vision of the future for southern Nevada and contains numerous strategies. He suggested A.B. 493 is "the next step." Reminding the committee that the SNSPA will sunset in June 1999, Mr. Rosenquist indicated the bill will assist in implementing the plan by requiring the regional planning coalition to prepare a regional policy plan whereby all local jurisdiction plans would be reviewed for conformance with those policies. Original testimony, he noted, expressed support for the intent of the measure, but raised concern with several aspects of the bill. He indicated they had worked with the assemblywoman to address the future planning needs of southern Nevada and expressed support for A.B. 493 in its amended form.

Steve G. Holloway, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Las Vegas Chapter, voiced his concern regarding the amount of planning measures before the Legislature. He requested a thorough attempt on behalf of the committee to review the bills’ impact on growth in southern Nevada. He indicated there has not been discussion as to the cumulative impact on growth and the economy. He expressed concern regarding the redundancy in the proposals, noting a land-use coordinating entity, a Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition, and regional planning coalitions are all established in different measures this session.

Chairman O’Connell commented three bills regarding planning issues had been passed out of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated she had coordinated her planning proposal along with those by Senator Porter and Senator Titus so as to avoid duplication and conflict. She expressed the importance of addressing construction and development needs.

Further discussion ensued regarding the numbers and the status of proposed planning bills. Chairman O’Connell questioned whether Senator Porter was familiar with all of the various planning bills. Senator Porter indicated Assemblywoman Giunchigliani has attempted to work her proposed bills in with those originating in the Senate, noting meetings on the bills had recently been conducted to "compare notes" on the subject.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell to give a comparison of planning proposals, Ms. Fretwell indicated she had been working with Mr. Rosenquist to ensure the measures did not duplicate one another or create two levels of government. She explained that although bills proposed by Senator Titus and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani both reference an interlocal body, the entity will be the regional planning coalition. She pointed out Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s bill represents much work, but it allows 3 years in which to complete the tasks set forth. Senator Porter’s measure, she noted, mandates the coalition to exist upon passage while Senator Titus’s proposal requires policies be coordinated. Ms. Fretwell contended the bills will work together.

Chairman O’Connell indicated the committee has attempted to oversee the coordination of efforts regarding planning legislation. Mr. Holloway thanked the body for their effort, noting the construction community has not been vocal in testifying against the various measures because there are positive aspects to the proposals. He restated the concern regarding coordination of bills.

Senator Porter stated there has been cooperation between the Legislature and local government to coordinate efforts while not "over-regulating" planning issues.

Ms. Giunchigliani expressed her appreciation of Bruce Woodbury, Board of Commissioners, Clark County, noting his active participation in ensuring coordination of the proposals. She indicated the intent is to create workable legislation which assists rather than impedes the process.

Chairman O’Connell suggested Mr. Holloway review the various proposals presented for legislative review. Senator Porter recommended Mr. Holloway and the committee review charts created by staff in the southern communities as to the coordination of the planning measures.

With no further testimony on A.B. 493, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing. She opened the hearing on A.B. 424.

Assemblywoman Vivian L. Freeman, Washoe County Assembly District No. 24, drew attention to a prepared amendment (Exhibit G), noting the mock bill was an unofficial bill draft created by her staff. She indicated this proposed amended form of the bill was greatly changed from the original bill.

Chairman O’Connell clarified the changes made in Exhibit G have not been acted upon by an Assembly committee. Assemblywoman Freeman confirmed the changes made were new.

Assemblywoman Freeman pointed out northern Nevada passed regional planning legislation in 1989, and told the committee of its genesis. She explained the regional planning originally focused on growth within the McCarran Boulevard ring, which, she noted, has worked well. Assemblywoman Freeman indicated she represents the older district in Washoe County, including the area surrounding the university which is north of downtown. Noting most of the resources are spent in the high-growth areas, she commented on the neglect of the older neighborhoods in the northern part of Washoe County. She attested to the increase in crime in the these neighborhoods, citing circumstances of crack houses close to the university in residential areas. She reasoned the crime was due to the proximity to downtown, commenting the majority of the planning focus recently has been outside of the McCarran Boulevard circle. She indicated an increased neglect of downtown areas and concentrated resources in newer neighborhoods was a national trend.

Assemblywoman Freeman introduced David Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, noting his extensive background in regional planning in Washoe County. She indicated that due to new time limits, she did not have the opportunity to work thoroughly with local governments, noting the proposed changes result from concerns raised by the entities in previous testimony.

Assemblywoman Freeman explained section 2, subsection 2 of Exhibit G addresses the process of regional planning without specifically limiting the "premature expansion of development into undeveloped areas." She indicated there had been a question regarding the use of the word "premature," although, she contended it to be appropriate as it is used by planners frequently dealing with a long-term view of a specific area. She conceded "premature" would need definition as it currently does not exist in statute. Addressing the issue of expansion into undeveloped areas as opposed opportunities in older neighborhoods, she indicated there must be cooperative efforts and review of plans. She read from section 2, subsection 4 of Exhibit G, stating, "… each local government and affected entity shall exercise its powers and duties in a manner that is in harmony with the powers and duties exercised by other local governments and affected entities …." She restated the importance of cooperation among local governments.

Assemblywoman Freeman explained section 3 and section 4 of the bill had been removed in the amended version of the bill (Exhibit G).

Senator Raggio questioned whether section 3 was being deleted in the proposed amendment (Exhibit G) or whether the deletion existed in the original bill. Assemblywoman Freeman indicated section 4 had been deleted in the first reprint of the bill, but the proposed amendment (Exhibit G) seeks to remove section 3 as well.

Mr. Ziegler indicated the original bill contained a provision, set forth in section 4, regarding an advisory committee on capital improvements which had been deleted. He noted the assemblywoman was recommending section 3, regarding urban service areas, be deleted as well.

Assemblywoman Freeman explained section 5 of Exhibit G proposed the plan for capital improvements must be examined within 20 fiscal years as opposed to the previously recommended 5 years.

Mr. Ziegler disclosed his assignment to A.B. 424 by the Legislative Counsel Bureau precluded his support or opposition of the measure. He also told the committee that he had previously worked for the regional planning agency in Washoe County on an independent contractual basis, though currently has no employment association with the agency.

Mr. Ziegler explained Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.0226 addresses capital improvement programs statewide and provides a 5-year limitation. He indicated Assemblywoman Freeman viewed this as a short period of time in which to review capital improvement programs, hence the suggestion of a 20-year horizon. Drawing attention to a provision requiring plans for capital improvements to identify both costs and sources of revenue, he noted, it would cover the acquisition, maintenance, operation and replacement of capital improvements.

Prompted by Senator Raggio, Mr. Ziegler explained the provision would provide a 3-year minimum with an outside horizon of 20 years.

Assemblywoman Freeman indicated section 6 addresses the impact both the university and the community college have on Washoe County in terms of growth and student housing. She suggested the university and the community college system should be involved in the regional planning as the institutions need to be aware of their impact on growth. She called attention to the difficulty local governments have had working with the university and community college system because they are state owned, and she noted the necessity of cooperation.

Assemblywoman Freeman drew the committee’s attention to the amended version of section 7 (Exhibit G), and pointed out that due to much opposition, she had removed a provision which would include members of neighborhood advisory groups in the regional planning commission. Citing circumstances of the opposition expressed, the assemblywoman commented she had decided to remove the provision as the City of Sparks does not have the neighborhood advisory groups that can be found in both Reno and Washoe County. She indicated concern had been expressed that the people at the advisory level would not be knowledgeable enough to sit on the commission.

Assemblywoman Freeman testified regarding a discussion on providing training for those without a background in planning. She remarked that training at the community college level would necessitate a cost. Regardless of opposition expressed by local governments, she recommended the provision be retained. The assemblywoman called attention to section 7, subsection 4 of the amended version of the bill (Exhibit G) in which the compensation rate of the planning commission members would be raised to $80 per meeting or $400 per month, depending upon which amount is less. She indicated the $40 rate had not been changed since the legislation was established in 1989, noting the increase would conform to that of other local commissioners.

Calling attention to section 8 of Exhibit G, Assemblywoman Freeman indicated the measure provided increased neighborhood preservation, urban area revitalization, and "policies that relate to the interspersion of new housing and businesses in established neighborhoods." She stressed the measure does not mandate growth be directed into older urban areas, though suggested it may assist in the implementation of an infill study conducted in the City of Reno. She contended the provision would be useful for Sparks, as well as in Reno.

Mr. Ziegler explained the amended version of section 8 (Exhibit G) would add requirements as what the regional plan must contain along with the current population, conservation, land use, and transportation components. He noted the bill provides for the inclusion of goals and policies on sprawl limitations, neighborhood preservation, and urban area revitalization. In section 8, subsection 5, paragraph (d) of Exhibit G the plan would also be required to include a summary of capital improvement programs for the region. He explained each local government and other regional entities have capital improvement programs which are not coordinated with each other.

Mr. Ziegler called attention to the language stricken from section 8.5 of Exhibit G, noting it had referenced a consistency doctrine which was objectionable to the local governments. Additional language in this section, he explained, concerns a dispute-resolution process. He indicated the regional planning entity could serve as a mediation function in which disputes could be resolved. Assemblyman Freeman noted the word "resolution" should be changed to "mediation."

Senator Raggio clarified section 8.5 would be deleted but it would not affect the referenced NRS 278.0284. He indicated the proposal (Exhibit G) appears to remove the section from statute. Mr. Ziegler explained the statute, NRS 278.0284, would remain, noting the members of the regional planning commission do not want to change the current law. Assemblywoman Freeman validated the senator’s concern about striking the statute and assured him the existing law would not be deleted.

Mr. Ziegler explained section 9 of the bill in proposed amendment form (Exhibit G), noting subsection 4 attempts to change NRS 278.250 which deals with statewide zoning regulations. He indicated the proposal would enable a local government to incorporate "density bonuses, inclusionary zoning and minimum density zoning" into their zoning ordinances. Mr. Ziegler commented these, too, were suggested by members of the affordable housing community who believed statutory authority would be helpful to the affordable housing provision.

Senator Raggio questioned whether these techniques were necessary. Mr. Ziegler explained previous testimony reflected that local governments currently have this authority, although, he noted, an affordable housing study conducted in Reno identified the absence of such explicit authority to be a barrier to affordable housing. He suggested there was an argument to be made that a local government could be sued for damages if it exceeds its authority.

Assemblywoman Freeman pointed out section 10 had been deleted by Assembly amendment, noting the provision would have applied statewide. Section 11 of Exhibit G would require a report from the regional planning commission, she noted, and explained the language is new, but the section is transitory, therefore, it looks as though it currently exists in statute. She indicated this proposal is opposed by some local governments, but recommended the committee retain the provision.

Referencing section 2, subsection 4 of the bill, Senator Care asked for clarification as to the intent of "powers and duties" exercised by local governments and affected entities.

Under existing statute, Mr. Ziegler explained, local governments in northern Nevada have the right to run their own land-use planning processes with the additional duty of submitting their plan amendments and projects of regional significance to the regional planning commission and the regional planning governing board for conformance review. He indicated the intent of the provision is that these rights and duties are to be carried out in harmony with one another.

Assemblywoman Freeman pointed out the bill would only apply to Washoe County.

Mr. Johnson expressed appreciation for Assemblywoman Freeman’s effort in addressing the issues and concerns of her constituents on the issues of planning and zoning. He compared the measure to a message delivered to the various political entities, stating the process has been beneficial. He expressed support for increasing citizen involvement and the requirement of formal training for serving on a planning commission. Drawing attention to section 8.5, subsection 2 of the bill, Mr. Johnson suggested the disputes be mediated by the regional governing board so as to provide greater objectivity to the process.

Don Vetter, Lobbyist, Concerned Citizen, read his prepared statement to the committee (Exhibit H). He stressed the great effect A.B. 424 will have on individual’s lives within the community, noting quality of life is determined by efforts and insights into planning. The physical impacts of growth, he noted, should be considered along with the economic and social impacts in the planning process. As a result of the bill, Mr. Vetter expressed hope the regional plan would make a "stronger connection" with land-use plans of regional impact developed by citizen advisory boards. He expressed the importance of connecting the proposed plans to reality, which, he noted, is the intent of the bill. He voiced his disappointment in the proposed amended version of the bill (Exhibit G) which would not require members of the neighborhood advisory boards be included on the regional planning commission. He declared the necessity of creating a process for the people.

Prompted by Senator Raggio, Mr. Vetter indicated he supported the retention of the language in section 7 of the bill which requires the inclusion of representatives from neighborhood advisory groups on the regional planning commission.

Assemblywoman Freeman indicated a member from the school district had been included on the regional planning commission in the first reprint of the bill. She indicated this had been left out in the amended version (Exhibit G) as it was uncertain whether the representative should be added to the advisory committee or to planning commission. She requested the committee add school district representation where appropriate.

Mary Lee Dazy, Citizen Alert, stated her support for the changes in the regional planning statute. She expressed concern the amendment proposal (Exhibit G) weakened the original intent of the bill, and she recommended the changes regarding the inclusion of advisory board members be restored to the process. Stating appreciation for regional planning in Nevada, she reiterated support for the legislation and the participation of the citizens in the process. While the regional planning statute has fostered greater communication and cooperation among local governments in planning decisions, she suggested much more could be done. She indicated the advisory boards represent the people, and although the local governments consult these boards in the planning decision process, they do not have a vote on planning issues. In its original version, she pointed out, A.B. 424 would have empowered the representative boards by allowing members to be included on the regional planning commission. Ms. Dazy stated:

Sherrie Doyle, City Council, City of Reno, clarified she was not voicing the majority opinion of the council as there was never a final vote on the matter, but was testifying as a private citizen. Ms. Doyle indicated she had recently participated in the National American Planning Association conference, and stated it was the job of the elected officials to enable planners to plan communities to the best of their ability. The proposed legislation, she explained, would assist infill development in her neighborhood, noting her district is one of the oldest in Reno and has been decaying due to increased rental population. She indicated the area’s lots have not been purchased for redevelopment because people would rather buy new homes in the outlying areas. Ms. Doyle expressed concern the city does not have all of the available resources to thoroughly plan the restoration of the 4^th Street corridor, which, she noted, has a great history. She cited some of the historical landmarks that have decayed as a result of neglect, and she suggested this area has great potential for infill development. Expressing support for the legislation, she indicated it would spur involvement from the regional planning commission to broaden the scope of the plan.

Ms. Doyle told the committee that Reno is in the process of rewriting zoning ordinances with the attempt to set infill design standards. She maintained the necessity of A.B. 424 to reinforce the message that the community has a belief in the urban neighborhoods. She stressed the need to provide incentives for developers to continue building quality housing for working-families projects, indicating A.B. 424 is a good beginning for the revitalization of the urban areas.

David Rigdon, City Council, City of Reno, stated:

Mr. Rigdon expressed concerns on behalf of the city council regarding section 8.5, subsection 2 of the proposed amendments (Exhibit G). He explained the importance of clarifying the language so as to preclude any action, ordinance, or resolution that is passed by a local government from the dispute process. Although the intent of the provision is to limit the disputes to land-use decisions, he acknowledged the necessity of clarification. He further indicated the actions by elected officials should not be subject to review by appointed officials, though noted if the provision was strictly limited to land-use actions, the council would not oppose the measure.

Mr. Rigdon drew attention to section 9, subsection 4 of Assemblywoman Freeman’s proposal (Exhibit G), indicating the city council’s desire to ensure the referenced governing body was the local governing body and not the regional planning commission, noting the decisions are made at the local rather than regional level. On the point dealing with the training program for the regional planning commissioners, Mr. Rigdon stated the training budgets are done at the local level. He expressed the need to clarify the referenced governing board to set up the training programs would be the local governing board.

David Hill, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, stated, "We would like to go on record as being in support of the amended changes [Exhibit G] that Mrs. Freeman just laid out. We also echo some of the concerns that Mr. Rigdon just had, but on the whole, we can support the changes."

Mike Harp, Special Projects Manager, Community Development Department, Washoe County, thanked Assemblywoman Freeman for the amended version of the proposal (Exhibit G), noting some of the changes made had been at the request of the county. However, he indicated, it is the opinion of the board of county commissioners that provisions of the bill continue to create enough concern to continue their opposition to the measure.

Mr. Harp drew attention to section 8.5, subsection 2 of the amended proposal (Exhibit G), noting the provision would require the regional planning commission to adopt resolutions concerning disputes. He stated this would put the commission in the position of being an appellate body for all decisions of local government, pointing out the conformance finding could concern a decision on a variance. Recognizing the regional planning commission was formed in 1989, he noted it had not been the intent of the Legislature that this commission would become another level of government for review of local planning decisions. Planning, he noted, has been left primarily to the local level for specific items, noting regional planning in Washoe County is a policy document intended to provide guidance. He expressed concern regarding allowing the regional planning commission to resolve disputes made at the local level, noting issues of the budgets could be disputed if they were considered to be out of conformance with the regional plan. He stressed the board of county commissioners could not support this provision and, thereby, opposed the measure.

Calling the committee’s notice to section 11 of Exhibit G, Mr. Harp explained the language suggests that if changes are not made to the regional plan, they would be forthcoming. He contended the Legislature was setting itself up to be a policy body for the local government concerning issues of planning. He stated, "Certainly if you are looking for reports that specifically talk about achievements, we are always glad to talk about those things that we do well. But to suggest that we need to come back and identify to the Legislature, new policies and things like that, suggests that the Legislature may in fact be suggesting that policy to the local government, rather than vice versa."

Mr. Harp stated the remainder of the bill concerned policy decisions, though indicated many of the sections are redundant. He called attention to items in section 9 which, he noted, are currently allowed by local government, and stated they do not need to be repeated in state law. Mr. Harp pointed out they currently conduct a 20-year capital improvements plan to prove they are keeping pace with the development in the community and a 5-year capital improvement program which tracks funding. He stated the county does not object to the provisions, but views them as unnecessary. Mr. Harp said, "The board of county commissioners has gone on record as committing to working through these issues at the regional planning level. They are a strong participant in that process. We would like to have the opportunity to do that, I represent that to you as a position of the entire five-member board of county commissioners in Washoe County."

Mr. Dietrich indicated the bill draft (Exhibit G) duplicates material in the Truckee Meadows regional plan. He noted the regional plan includes five goals which relate to dispute resolution, and indicated a process is currently in place that identifies how disputes related to the interpretation to the regional plan can be resolved through the regional planning process. Mr. Dietrich commented the regional plan is a wonderful tool which has brought the local entities, Reno, Sparks and Washoe County, together to work on land use, and noted the plan is a document jointly recommended based on workshops held by the planning commissions. He noted there has been extensive public involvement through the local and regional planning adoption process, mentioning property owners receive notice of the hearings.

Senator Raggio questioned whether the neighborhood advisory boards participate in the meetings and receive notice of the hearings. Mr. Dietrich indicated the advisory boards are involved in the process, noting state law requires the first step is to notify the citizen boards. He stated there is currently an extensive public involvement process crafted through both state law and the regional plan. He pointed out someone who did not participate and was dissatisfied with the outcome could use the dispute resolution process. He stated the current process is sufficient.

With no further testimony before the committee, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 424. Commencing the work session, the committee first addressed A.B. 614.

Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City, reminded the committee the bill had been extensively amended in the Assembly, and noted the measure contains necessary provisions.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani summarized the changes made by the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures and Ethics.

Senator Raggio drew attention to section 3 of the bill and questioned the situation which would occur if the provision was not passed. Mr. Glover explained the requirement to inform the county clerks if more than 500 requests for absentee ballots are sent out. He indicated both major parties mailed the requests during the last election which resulted in a lack of available ballots so that more had to be ordered. He suggested the process would be more fair if the clerks were notified and if the request forms for ballots contained correct language.

Senator Raggio clarified political parties attempted to recruit voters by giving the requests to absentee voters. He questioned whether the parties also assisted in marking and turning in the ballots. He asked if this practice was currently allowed. Mr. Glover indicated that it was, noting the bill would require notice of bulk recruitment of absentee voters. Senator Raggio pointed out notification does not change the situation. Mr. Glover stated if the clerks were made aware of this practice, they could base their ballot orders on the readjusted numbers. He commented during the last election, the clerks had ordered the traditional number of absentee ballots, but the numbers increased due to mailings containing the request forms. He contended this caused many problems and noted the requests were not properly created.

Senator Raggio asked why people were allowed to distribute absentee ballot requests if the goal was to keep the sanctity of secure voting. He questioned the reason voters were being encouraged not to come to the polls to vote. Pointing out the committee was against mail-in voting, the senator remarked on the potential mischief involved in voting away from the polls as it cannot be ensured the person is actually voting for his or herself.

Mr. Glover said under the present situation, the parties and the candidates are attempting to turn the election into mail-in elections. He pointed out absentee voting cannot be outlawed because of its necessity to those in need.

Senator Raggio questioned the reason the practice of sending out absentee ballot request forms was being encouraged. Mr. Glover stated this is currently being done by political parties. Senator Raggio suggested tightening up this process. Mr. Glover indicated the Legislature could prohibit groups, by law, from sending out ballot request forms, but questioned the constitutionality of such a provision. He indicated the intent of the proposal was to "get a handle" on the number of mass mailings.

Mr. Glover expressed concern regarding the misleading nature of request forms mailed out by the political parties, pointing out one form did not explain that it was an absentee ballot request but indicated it was a ballot for voting by mail. He pointed out there was a lot of confusion, noting one mailing stated the ballot would be sent by a certain date although the clerk’s office did not receive the ballots until after that date. He stressed the tactic did not increase the number of voters but changed the patterns on the way in which they voted.

Senator Raggio questioned the procedure for receiving ballot request forms. Mr. Glover indicated the voters send the request forms to the clerk’s office. Prompted by Senator Raggio, Mr. Glover explained the clerks compare the signatures for verification. He pointed out there is currently no restriction on the number of ballot request forms parties can send out.

Senator Neal questioned whether there was any law to prevent a party from obtaining a registration list and sending a letter out to the voters explaining their ability to request an absentee ballot. Mr. Glover stated this is what happened in the last election. Senator Neal questioned whether the clerks could stop this from happening. Mr. Glover indicated there was nothing they could do. He reiterated the request that the clerks be notified if one was sending out more than 500 forms. Their intent, he noted, is not to restrict absentee voting, but to assist the clerks in their administrative function.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether a disclaimer should be required to identify those sending the form as well as clarifying it is an absentee ballot request. Mr. Glover indicated there had been a misunderstanding in the last election from people who thought the county clerks had sent the forms and were angry the election would be held by mail.

Barbara Reed, Clerk/Treasurer, Douglas County, indicated the forms sent out in the previous election created much confusion with the voters as both parties used the terms "vote by mail," or, "I voted by mail." She pointed out many voters did not realize they were requesting an absentee ballot, but believed they had to vote by mail. She noted these same voters would show up at the polls and say they did not request an absentee ballot. By the standards of A.B. 614, she commented, the secretary of state would design a form with the correct language so as to avoid confusion. She restated the problem caused because the clerks were unaware of the form mailings, were inundated with the requests 2 weeks prior to the election, and ran out of ballots. The intent, she contended, was to avoid voter confusion by misleading language.

Senator Raggio stated if the measure were to be passed, the disclosure suggested by the chairman should be required. He noted it should be made clear that those requesting absentee ballots would be precluded from voting at the polls. Mr. Glover drew attention to section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (a) of the bill which would require the form prescribed by the secretary of state be sent out. Through the hearings process, he noted, they plan to request that information regarding the availability of early voting, the election dates, and the term "absentee ballot" be included on the form. He stated the intent was to provide the accurate information by regulation.

Senator Titus stated a person could not be prohibited from voting on election day if they request an absentee ballot. She cited a situation in which someone had requested an absentee ballot and made a mistake. She indicated the procedure was to turn in the absentee ballot when voting at the elections office.

Further explaining a concern voiced by Senator Raggio, Ms. Reed indicated voters requested absentee ballots through a form containing the clerk’s name and address. The voter would then receive an absentee ballot. Some voters, she noted, showed up at the polls not realizing they had requested an absentee ballot.

Senator Raggio asked what had happened when those who previously requested an absentee ballot showed up at the polls to vote. Ms. Reed explained:

Ms. Reed restated the confusion that had been involved, and indicated thousands of the absentee ballot request forms were mailed.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani expressed support for a form, from the secretary of state’s office, to be prescribed through public hearing, noting the necessity of evaluating all of the problems experienced in the different counties. She noted this form would be standardized and required for those choosing to mail absentee ballot requests.

Chairman O’Connell suggested the form be prescribed by the secretary of state with critical items listed for inclusion. The items, she pointed out, would include language identifying the form as an absentee ballot, the procedure by which one would follow if they have requested an absentee ballot, and the person or group who has sent the form.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani suggested the language state, "This is an absentee ballot request to your clerk." She indicated this would help voters understand the request is a more involved process. Senator Neal suggested the language state, "This is an absentee ballot request to your election official." Assemblywoman Giunchigliani agreed this language would be more appropriate.

Senator Raggio stated his concern with regards to the residency requirement changes set forth in sections 8 and 11 of A.B. 614. He questioned the intent of the amendment to current law.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated the attempt was to clarify residence in provisions regarding candidacy declarations. She indicated she would not object to deleting the changes regarding residency if they do not meet definition concerns. Prompted by Senator Raggio, the assemblywoman reiterated the intent to more closely define residence for the purposes of filing for office.

Senator Raggio proposed a situation in which a person has two houses in two districts, and he questioned the actual residence of such an individual. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated the residence would be the address one claims when filing for office. Senator Raggio asked about the meaning of the language, "actually as opposed to constructively." Assemblywoman Giunchigliani drew attention to the language in section 41 of A.B. 614. Senator Raggio pointed out there is a definition for "actual residence" which indicates it is "the place where a person is legally domiciled and maintains a permanent habitation." Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated this definition was drafted last session based upon Senator Raggio’s concerns, noting persons could have 3 or 4 residences. When filing out the declaration of candidacy, the address was the confirmed residence. Senator Raggio expressed concern that a person could declare an address that may or may not be his or her residence. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated the residence would be a place where a person "lays their head."

Senator Raggio pointed out the language set forth in section 14 of A.B. 614, which states, "If a person maintains more than one such habitation." He stated residency to be different than a domicile as a habitation indicates one only has to live there 1 day, though the language would indicate the habitation could be deemed one’s residence. The senator expressed concern that one would be able to rent a room at a hotel for a week, regardless of another residence, and declare the habitation as his or her residence for purposes of candidacy.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the situation expressed by Senator Raggio currently occurs. The intent, she noted, would tighten the language while taking into consideration concerns voiced in the previous session.

Chairman O’Connell requested Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, comment on the language at hand. Ms. Guinasso pointed out there is a legal distinction between the concepts of domicile and residence. She indicated one may have many residences but only have one domicile. In distinguishing domicile and residence, Ms. Guinasso read from Black’s Law Dictionary stating:

Ms. Guinasso pointed out the legal distinction turns on intent, as do other concepts that are, in practice, difficult to ascertain. If one’s intent is to remain permanently in a place, then that would be his or her domicile.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the declaration for candidacy is signed under penalty of perjury. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani confirmed this to be true, stating, "We thought that was cleaner … the thought was you already have to fill out that form. That is what you declare anyway. That … becomes a public record. So at least, then, if your opponent wants to make that allegation, they have a little something more to go on rather than just a definition."

Chairman O’Connell asked if the issue of residency continues to be a problem. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated that there have been several cases of fraud concerning residency as recently as the last election.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 614.

Senator Titus indicated the amendment would add the language suggested in the discussion regarding itemizing elements for inclusion on the secretary of state’s form for absentee ballot requests. She indicated the language should identify the person or group sending the request form, state it is an absentee ballot request, and clarify the form is being returned to the appropriate election official. It was agreed this amendment would indicate the type size of the disclaimer on the absentee ballot request form to be in large print.

Chairman O’Connell indicated there was a conflict amendment. She asked a question regarding the necessity of the "actual, as opposed to constructively" language. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated this language would parallel the "actual" definition and would affect the way in which it was interpreted in statute. She said if the language was going to preclude passage of the legislation, she would agree to its deletion. The assemblywoman stressed her preference would be to retain the language referencing residency.

Senator Neal pointed out the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety gives licenses based on one’s domicile. He questioned whether the address on one’s driver’s license could be used to determine a residency versus a domicile. It was found one no longer has to use his or her domicile address to receive a driver’s license as a business address could be given instead. Senator Porter suggested the requirement could be tied to the address given on one’s tax return.

Senator Titus indicated her motion would not include amending the language concerning residency.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblywoman Sandra J. Tiffany, Clark County Assembly District No. 21, indicated there were residences in Green Valley that had blocked, rather than gated, communities, and she noted she had received much protest regarding this issue from her constituents. The Fair Housing Act, she explained, does not provide the authority necessary to allow people to reside in these areas. She pointed out the bill would assist in setting a distance from which one home could be from another so as not to create a clustering effect. When researching the locations of the various homes, she noted, the information was not found in a central location; thus, the genesis of the registry provision. The assemblywoman noted if there was a concern regarding the location of a group home, it could be looked up in one particular register. She noted the measure had been reviewed by an Assembly subcommittee, and she expressed support for the amendments proposed by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani. Prompted by Senator Neal, she indicated the attempt had been made to consolidate the housing information in three different locations including the Internet.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani drew attention to the amendments (Exhibit I), noting they had been agreed upon by those testifying in the previous hearing. She pointed out the first amendment would change the residential facility requirement from 6 to 10 people. She referenced the amendment (Exhibit I) which would change the October 1, 1999, date in section 1, subsection 4 of A.B. 62 to July 1, 2000, and explained while the registered homes become licensed as of January 1, 2000, the change would allow a 6-month leeway to complete the process. She indicated the intent was not to penalize the residences as a registered home.

Calling attention to the proposed changes (Exhibit I), Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the key issue to those in opposition of the measure was to allow a family transfer exception to the grandfather clause. She noted the change would provide the protection of the home in the case of a family transfer.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained the definitions in section 1 of the bill, reflect the mandate for a minimum number regarding the Fair Housing Act. She indicated current law provides that nothing will prohibit the number of family members that can live within a home. The assemblywoman told the committee of her plan to read a statement to this intent, as set forth in Exhibit J. She stated, "You can have 10 kids and your mom and dad and yourself, and still be licensed for a group home of up to 10. So you could actually have 20 or whatever number of people in the home."

Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Nevada Elderly Care Providers Coalition, stated his client agrees with the proposed amendments (Exhibit I) and would support the bill with the suggested changes.

Senator Raggio questioned the support of the others who had provided opposing testimony at the previous hearing. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated she had agreed to submit a copy of the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s opinion (Exhibit J) to those who had expressed concern regarding the number of people allowed to reside in a home.

Senator Raggio questioned the effect of the bill with the proposed amendments. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated the proposal would require a "master-list" registry and discourage clustering homes by a 660-foot distance requirement. She noted the bill would recognize a family’s investment and allow the home to be passed on to family members without the distance requirement.

Prompted by Senator Raggio, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani indicated 660 feet is equivalent to one block.

Senator Raggio questioned, "If somebody runs a very nice home, and then this would preclude them from … within one block … from building another one, if the they had some adjacent land?" Assemblywoman Giunchigliani referenced a concern expressed by a person who had testified in the previous hearing, explaining, "His concern was … he has a piece of property, someplace way out in a rural area that he may build an entire senior residential setting. Well at that point, this bill does not affect him, because that would be determined by zoning purposes as to whether or not …." She explained currently licensed group homes existing within the same block would be grandfathered in, noting the distance requirement does not apply to one new home within the same block as grandfathered homes. The new home, she stated, would be counted as the first home located in the particular neighborhood. She noted a second new home in the area would call for a review of the zoning ordinance.

Senator Raggio expressed concern with the bill’s concept. He told the story of his mother who lived in a wonderful residential home, and he questioned the reason statute should discourage the building of these places. He noted it is difficult to find housing for the elderly.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated:

Senator Care requested clarification regarding the July 1, 2000, date. He indicated homes did not have to open their doors by this date, but had to be on the register. The assemblywoman confirmed the homes would have to be on the registration and in the application process. She indicated another piece of legislation made registered homes become licensed homes, but noted the requirement will not go into effect until January. She indicated the time lines were a local and not a state problem. She noted the July 1, 2000, date would allow a 6-month period in which to receive the grandfather clause, providing that the application has been turned in prior to January.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator O’Donnell expressed opposition to the bill. He pointed out the amendment would codify the allowance of 10 residents, noting the current limit is set in the Nevada Administrative Code.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 11.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 131.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Calling attention to the work session document (Exhibit K. Original is on file in the Research Library.), the chairman requested review of A.B. 142.

Senator O’Donnell questioned whether the two proposed amendments, as set forth in Exhibit K, were in conflict.

Ms. Guinasso stated the amendments (Exhibit K) could be made to conform with one another, pointing out the provision would only apply to towns that are rural in character and not located within an urbanized area.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Next, the committee addressed A.B. 297.

Noting he is a former police officer and business owner, Senator O’Donnell indicated he would support the bill with the deletion of section 1, subsection 5.

Senator O’Donnell pointed out section 1, subsection 5 of the bill would allow a court action in the event an employer refuses to provide information regarding a current or former employee to the law enforcement agency for hiring purposes.

Senator Care indicated he would agree with the intent of the amendment, although, he pointed out, with the removal of section 1, subsection 5 of the bill, the agency requesting information has no recourse. He suggested with this deletion, there would be no reason to retain the language, "an employer shall" in section 1, subsection 1. He contended the language would need to be changed to read, "an employer may."

Senator O’Donnell pointed out the state personnel office indicated, when receiving requests for information regarding former employees, they provide the hire date, the termination date, and the salary rate. He said no other information is given. The senator stated he understood the request, but noted without subsection 5 of section 1, the bill would give the personnel department immunity. He suggested, with the immunity, the employer would be more willing to give the information to the agency, but would not be required to do so.

Senator Neal stated the employer should give the information if the employee has signed such a request. Senator O’Donnell stated the bill would improve the current process. Senator Neal suggested in order to obtain the information, there would only need to be a release form signed by the employee. Senator O’Donnell stated, "You can sign a release, but you cannot sign somebody else’s liability away." He said the bill would provide immunity to the person who is giving the information.

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, stated the language, "the employer shall," in section 1, subsection 1 of the bill, is important. He expressed acceptance of removing the civil liability in section 1, subsection 5 of A.B. 297. He stated, "We fully intend, and that we will put into the disclaimer or the waiver that is signed, that failure of the employer to provide that information could be used as rejection criteria when we are seeking review in an application." Under the existing law, he explained, the law enforcement agencies have the employee sign a waiver, though noted previous employers are still not willing to provide the necessary information. He stated support for compelling the employer to provide the information, noting it is critical for reviewing and conducting a background investigation on the employee.

Captain Nadeau pointed out California has a similar law, with the retention of the civil action provision. He cited two cases which upheld the former employer’s immunity from liability because the statute required the information be given. Under current law, he said, the employer is not compelled, and, therefore, does not provide the information. He stated they should be compelled to give the information while receiving the immunity protection.

Senator Titus cited a recent newspaper article in which a police officer was arrested, and through the background check process, was found out to have had outstanding (driving under the influence) DUIs. She questioned what reviews, other than employment checks, are conducted on potential employees. Senator Raggio pointed out the referenced police officer received a DUI after he had been employed. Captain Nadeau explained the police officer had been arrested and convicted of a DUI, though was employed at the time. Captain Nadeau stated:

Senator Raggio stated the problem is serious, noting former employers are reluctant to say anything adverse about an individual due to the fear of being sued. Regarding this practice in law enforcement, he suggested it is in the public interest to encourage information be provided. He said the employers should be offered immunity from recourse. Senator Raggio indicated with the deletion of section 1, subsection 5 of the bill, he believed the agency could compel this information in court anyway. He reiterated the importance of disclosing information prior to the hiring of a police officer, and suggested this would work to the advantage of the applicant as well.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Neal noted a federal Privacy Act of 1974 exists which governs information pertaining to individuals, and he drew attention to section 1, subsection 4 of the bill which would prohibit information being provided if it is currently disallowed pursuant to state statute or federal regulation. He said the Privacy Act of 1974 has been broadly litigated for years, noting companies with federal contracts are governed by this act. Senator Neal requested this be further researched prior to committee action on the measure.

Senator Care pointed out the job applicant could designate the law enforcement agency as his or her agent because the employee is entitled to his or her own employment records.

Senator Neal drew attention to the requirement for signing a notarized statement, and contended it would be a necessity for receiving the information. He restated his question regarding the federal regulations, and indicated the Legislature was obligated to provide this information to employers if the law were to be passed.

Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metro Police Department, stated the employers are responsible for and do understand what information can be released even with the signed release form.

The chairman indicated the committee would hold A.B. 297 until the next meeting.

Next, the committee reviewed A.B. 484.

Chairman O’Connell indicated she had concerns on the measure, stating the housing authority would be given too much control. She requested questions be answered by the proponents of the legislation.

Assemblywoman Gene Wines Segerblom, Clark County Assembly District No. 22, stated she had presented the bill at the request of the housing authority. She explained the involved parties had all agreed to the proposal.

Chairman O’Connell stated the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau informed her of the merit of her concerns. She pointed out the bill refers to an affiliate who is a party in the partnership and would be given the same privileges, including the tax exemptions, as the housing authority. She drew attention to section 30, subsection 4 of the bill, which removes the "noncontrolled affiliate" from all of the normal, required processes including the open-meeting law. She questioned the reason the noncontrolled affiliate would be given these privileges.

Chairman O’Connell called attention to section 9 of the bill which defines "guest," and section 10, which provides the definition of "mixed-finance development." She pointed out the development would not have to be secured by a mortgage as set forth in section 19, subsection 3, paragraph (b) of A.B. 484. The chairman read section 19, subsection 4 of the bill as a point of concern. Drawing attention to section 20 of the bill, she commented the authority may, "forgive, compromise or forbear from collecting or enforcing, in whole or in part, a debt or obligation owed to it." She questioned the reason the authority would be given not to collect upon a debt or obligation.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the reason the noncontrolled affiliate would be removed from all of the bonding chapters and property taxes. The chairman expressed further concern regarding section 40, subsection 3 and section 41, subsection 1 of the bill. She commented the bill would allow the housing authority to participate in the real estate business, and questioned the amount of power that would be given to the housing division.

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Nevada Housing Coalition, he clarified the coalition was not the sponsor of the bill, but they did review the measure. He indicated he would convey the chairman’s concerns about the measure to the proponents of the bill.

Chairman O’Connell indicated the committee would hold the bill for further questioning. Next, she called attention to A. B. 318.

Chairman O’Connell pointed out the amendment offered was considered friendly by the sponsor of the bill.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 318.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Next, the committee addressed A.B. 371.

Senator Raggio expressed concern regarding the measure, and questioned the purpose of the employee-management committee. He stated a compelling reason was not given as to why arbitration should be provided, noting this process is lengthy and costly. He said there had been no reason testified to that the present system of filing grievances is not appropriate. He expressed his opposition to the measure.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 371.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Chairman O’Connell requested the committee review A.B. 486.

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, indicated an amendment had been submitted with the approval of the bill’s sponsor. He expressed support for the bill with the amendment.

Prompted by Senator O’Donnell, Mr. Musgrove explained the amendment excludes the exercise of any legislative power authorized by chapters 271, 278, 278A, and 278B of NRS. Because of the number of planning bills presented this session, he stated, both the trade organizations and the business groups saw no need to include those provisions in their business protection bill. Mr. Musgrove explained the amendment would exclude anything passed at the federal or state level, as well as any contract or agreement into which the local governments have entered. He stated the local governments will not have to prepare impact statements to all the businesses that are included under this provision. By removing the word "small," he noted, the entities will notify every business anytime there is an ordinance or rule passed by the local governments. He said, insofar as practical, the governments will consult with the trade associations or owners of businesses that are likely to be affected.

Mr. Musgrove pointed out a provision changed by the amendment in which the local governments are required to provide a procedure to object to a rule. He suggested the committee counsel review this provision as it may present a conflict with the existing section 14 of the bill. He expressed support for the bill as amended, noting it would allow the local governments to pass an emergency measure to be in effect for 6 months.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 486.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

The committee addressed A.B. 494.

Senator Titus stated there is nothing unreasonable about A.B. 494, which would set rules dealing with work shifts based on seniority.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 494.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator O’Donnell stated the measure would remove the management capability of the Department of Prisons over its staff. He said flexible and immediate decisions need to made in the staffing for prisons, which, he stated, cannot be limited to seniority.

Senator Titus pointed out the bill would require a process be established based primarily on seniority, noting the bill does allow for flexibility. She stressed consideration and reward need to be given to the employees and not solely to the director of prisons. She pointed out the director was already researching such a pilot project, noting the requirement would not be impossible.

Senator Raggio expressed opposition to the measure, noting it is inappropriate to take away these decisions from managers of the department. He suggested seniority is a factor that is considered in the managerial process, but would be too litigious if put into statute. He expressed reluctance to pass the measure opposed by the department head.

Senator Porter stated there was to be serious changes in the state government in the next 6 to 8 months due to the new Governor. He suggested allowing gubernatorial leadership on the matter. Senator O’Donnell expressed his agreement.

*****

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 494.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Clark County Assembly District No. 42, submitted an amendment to the committee members (Exhibit L) to address concerns expressed at the original hearing. He indicated Senator Raggio had voiced opposition to allowing individuals, who were not a part of the government, to construct the ballot. The amendment (Exhibit L) he pointed out, gives more form to the process. The assemblyman noted the bill had been patterned after the State of Washington’s statute, and explained a further review of the state’s administrative regulations was conducted in drafting the amendment. As a result, he noted, the ballot will conform to the format that the city clerk or the county clerk will dictate. He pointed out the clerk will actually write the ballot question based upon language submitted by the appointed committee. He outlined rules pertaining to the committee as well as the duties of the clerk (Exhibit L). He said the committee will have the option of objecting to submissions turned down by the clerk in a process held before the district attorney, who will in turn issue a decision within 3 days.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 200.

SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Prompted by the chairman, Assemblyman Mortenson stated the individuals could write letters for appointment to the committee to the county commissioners. He referred to the amendment (Exhibit L) which lists procedures by which the committee would be conducted.

Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Angela Culbert,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: