The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Friday, February 12, 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 Mark A. James, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, Clark County Assembly District No. 16

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Silvia Motta, Committee Secretary

Chairman James called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 61.

John P. Fowler, Chairman, Business Law Section, State Bar of Nevada, indicated the secretary of state’s office had mutually agreed to combine two "fix-it" bills, Senate Bill 122 and Bill Draft Request (BDR) 7-660, without conflicting amendments.

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 7-660: Makes changes concerning filing of organizational and related documents.

Mr. Fowler pointed out the two "fix-it" bills in final form with S.B. 61 would act together to the satisfaction of all entities involved. He added, the new bill would reduce the number of filings at the Office of the Secretary of State, and would help to administer the laws.

Mr. Fowler referred to a letter from Scott W. Anderson, Deputy Secretary, Commercial Recordings Division, Office of the Secretary of State, addressed to the committee with proposed amendments (Exhibit C). He also provided a marked copy of BDR 7-660 (Exhibit D), a marked copy of S.B. 122 (Exhibit E) and a marked copy of S.B. 61 (Exhibit F), which all showed the secretary of state’s proposed amendments to adjust provisions within Title 7 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

Mr. Anderson briefly explained the contents of his letter (Exhibit C), which is an extensive list of recommendations to amend S.B. 61 and BDR 7-660. In agreement with Mr. Fowler’s testimony, Mr. Anderson reiterated the positive effect for the secretary of state’s office to convert the three bills into one. He said the first priority of the secretary of state’s office would be to have the ability to speed up the process through electronic filings. He clarified the proposed increase from $75 to $125 for merger filings (item 5 of Exhibit C) was made to be consistent with regular business-trust and corporate-filing fees. He indicated some of the other recommendations would allow the secretary of state to accept documents electronically, to ensure that all statutory provisions and requirements are properly followed.

Mr. Anderson stated item 10 of Exhibit C would not be part of the amendment for S.B. 61 and BDR 7-660 due to further discussions scheduled with the Real Estate Division. Mr. Anderson spoke about the existing provisions in both bills, and pointed out the changes in S.B. 122 and S.B. 61 needed to be consistent.

Mr. Anderson presented a letter from the Business Law Section of the State Bar of Nevada, addressed to the secretary of state (Exhibit G), with additional items proposed in S.B. 61 to be included in the new business trust section. He expressed such recommendations would provide for foreign business trusts to qualify and do business in the State of Nevada.

Chairman James suggested that after a motion to amend the bill, the committee should further review the amended bill. The committee decided to allow the bill to go to the Senate Floor for adoption of an amendment and then to refer it back to committee for a full hearing.

Chairman James requested a motion on S.B. 61.

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

Chairman James introduced S.B. 121.

Douglas L. Dickerson, Lobbyist, Deputy Director, Intergovernmental Relations & Policy Research, City of Las Vegas, indicated S.B. 121 was requested on behalf of the City of Las Vegas to clarify designation of zoning for home buyers. He said the City of Las Vegas is willing to cooperate in furnishing maps and tables of designated zones.

Stephen L. George, Deputy City Attorney, Civil Division, City of Las Vegas, expressed his opinion about notification of commercial development in a residential area. Mr. George affirmed it is required for buyers to receive two maps, a zoning map and the general zoning plan. He added the law provides for home sellers to disclose to the new buyer the zoning of property and general plan designation.

Mr. George pointed out home buyers are often not familiar enough with the process to understand what a plan means. He said developers are entitled to build a commercial project under the general plan and, as a result, problems arise. In many cases, the home buyer would not be aware of any changes to future projects in their area. Mr. George further explained that in such cases the property owner ends up in despair because of the impact this has on their lives and their investment. Mr. George emphasized the home buyer does not understand that the purchased property holds future land development for the State of Nevada or the different zoning classification.

Senator Porter asked Mr. George the difference between general plan and master plan, and to clarify whether the plan reflected the actual future zoning. Mr. George replied the general and master plans are the same and do not reflect future zoning.

Chairman James recognized S.B. 121 as a bill to provide an explanation of the master plan and to educate consumers in regard to the zoning plan, and be properly notified of future developments within residential areas. He insisted the common person may not know where to look for zoning development information.

Senator Porter asked about the subsequent buyer, and suggested that the zoning information be made part of the deed or information made available to the consumer through the assessor’s office. Mr. George agreed the consumer needs to be informed through the sales agreement, escrow papers, on a separate disclosure, or by the assessor’s office.

Senator Wiener questioned how the zoning information would be updated once it becomes a permanent document, such as escrow papers or a deed. Mr. George replied, by notifying consumers that the maps are subject to change, and the statutes only provide adequate mechanisms to update records every 6 months.

Senator Care and Senator Porter inquired about multiple types of zoning, residential and commercial. Mr. George explained the general plan and zoning plan are separate categories; there are several zoning classifications for commercial and residential land, with residential zones remaining until a change request is made. He pointed out the general plan states what future uses may be in a particular area. The zoning plan indicates what can be done. Senator Porter suggested consolidating the plans into one and doing so without legislation. Mr. George said it would be very difficult to coincide with the general plan since the plan has a broad category of ranges, compared to the zoning plan that has one specific category.

Senator Care asked Mr. George to clarify "holding zone" classification. Mr. George said it is a requirement to place a holding designation on a particular property within the jurisdiction, because not all properties are ready for development when it is unclear what the future designation will be.

Senator Washington inquired how these problems were handled in the northern and rural parts of Nevada. Mr. George answered, some counties outside of Clark County operate under the Regional Planning Commission; but southern Nevada does not, and that is why there is more of an effect on Clark County.

Mr. George concluded his testimony and informed the committee there were very limited funds to compete with community growth in the State of Nevada. Senator McGinness suggested the use of a notice stamp to indicate "Subject to Change." Mr. George noted the majority of the people are under the impression that the city council has the authority or discretion to change a zoning development; but, in fact, it is very difficult to change direction on the general plan.

Senator Care asked if the 500-foot radius was measured from the center of the lot or the edge. Mr. George referred to the zoning notification requirements in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), chapter 278, "from the center of the land." The seller is only required to disclose what is around the 500-foot radius.

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, Clark County Assembly District No. 16, testified in favor of S.B. 121. He recognized S.B. 121 as good legislation for the protection of consumers. Mr. Thomas introduced Exhibit H, a list of "every allowable land use" as done in Clark County and the zoning designations for North Las Vegas. Then, he briefly referred to page 2, section 1, subsection 4, lines 14 to 16 of S.B. 121 regarding disclosures and to the related matters on page 3, section C of Exhibit H, "special uses for subject to section." Mr. Thomas suggested zoning information be disclosed to subsequent buyers as well. He disagreed with prior testimony regarding the 500-foot radius, stating it is based on measurements taken from the edge of the lot and not from the center.

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, talked about the parcel tables becoming confusing in the way presented and possibly defeating the intent of the bill. He outlined the potential use on a commercial designation within the 500-foot radius. Chairman James concurred the law could be changed to read, "every legally permissible use."

Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, stated the maps are prepared by engineering companies and are distributed to the public according to the state laws. In addition to the map and sales agreement, the buyer receives detailed information about limited and general commercial developments; a disclosure stating which zonings are subject to change, and who is responsible for any error that may occur.

Ms. Porter further elaborated the buyer is provided with the address and telephone number to contact the planning department for further information on designations and allowable use. She assured the committee that the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association makes every effort to ensure the public obtains all the information necessary; an oversized map is displayed in county offices as well as sales offices. The maps demonstrate a unit of subdivision with every parcel adjoining the total unit of the subdivision, indicating both the zoning of each parcel and the current master plan designation of each parcel.

Ms. Porter expressed her concern for the consumer, stating when a person receives a notice of public hearing on a zone change, the person does not understand the meaning of "RE" changed to "C1" for a commercial center. She suggested the local government should include a statement with the notice of public hearing, explaining the application and current master plan, and use public hearings to educate the public about the zoning and impact of the area. Ms. Porter restated the need to eliminate confusion and misrepresentation regarding land zoning.

Chairman James acknowledged that the best outcome from this legislation would be for home buyers to have a complete understanding of any changes within the area of their property. He also agreed the land-use information must be made "user friendly" to the public.

Ms. Porter urged the committee to require city and local governments to provide the zoning information to the public without cost. She indicated the high cost for 30 separate zoning disclosures is currently covered by the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association. Chairman James referred S.B. 121 to a subcommittee of Senators Porter, Titus, and McGinness. He then opened the hearing for a work session.

Senator Care noted there was no opposition from representatives of the justice courts.

Chairman James made comment of a minor issue regarding the fiscal impact for S.B. 57. Referring to the work session document, Exhibit I, he noted no amendments or opposition to the bill.

Chairman James pointed out the changes proposed in Exhibit I for S.B. 69, to modify the penalty based on the monetary loss, as in the theft laws, and to change the effective date. The changes were requested by the sponsor of the bill, Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 3, who expressed, in prior testimony, no monetary value could replace the loss of identity.

SENATE PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 87.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 96.

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 114.

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, introduced Exhibit J to the committee, an estimated cost regarding the amount collected for booking inmates. He stated that the information on indigent status was based on the federal poverty guidelines. He clarified that if an inmate does not pay, jail time does not go in conjunction with booking fees, and it is strictly a civil process. He pointed out the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office would have to pursue uncollected fees through a collection agency.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 115.

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman James indicated there was no proposed amendment for S.B. 118 and requested a motion.

Chairman James mentioned other states like Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Oregon have more liberal laws than Nevada pertaining to wiretap. Senator Care voiced his satisfaction with this bill.

SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 120.

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

* * * * *

Thee being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Silvia Motta,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: