MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
May 1, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Tuesday, May 1, 2001. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman
Mr. John J. Lee, Vice Chairman
Ms. Merle Berman
Mr. David Brown
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Mrs. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Wendell Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Humke
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Bob Price
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Museums, Library and Arts
Ron James, State Historic Preservation Officer
Renny Ashleman, Nevada State Board of Museums and History
Madelyn Shipman, Washoe County
Mike Harper, Advanced Planning Manager, Washoe County Community Development Department
Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities
Senate Bill 541: Makes various changes to provisions governing department of museums, library and arts. (BDR 33-545)
Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Museums, Library and Arts testified he had provided a handout (Exhibit C), which summarized the major components of the bill. Included in the package was an organizational chart detailing various agencies and programs in the department, also an example dealing with the minimal piece the agency received of the General Fund “pie.” The department was one of a few in the state where citizens and visitors voluntarily requested services. Hundreds of people participated in events sponsored each year by the Nevada Arts Council and thousands of children visited state museums through field trips. The Board of Museums and History pledged part of museum store proceeds and other trust funds to the school districts so they can pay for gas and bus drivers for those field trips.
S.B. 541 had two primary purposes. First, as per a recommendation from the Governor’s Fundamental Review of State Government, the bill would change the name of the Department of Museums, Library and Arts to the Department of Cultural Affairs because it encompassed many programs and agencies. While all the programs had a great deal in common, it was the cultural aspects that tied them together. Another issue brought out in the review process was the constant problem of name recognition. It was estimated that the Department of Museums, Library and Arts was misidentified approximately 85 percent of the time. It was determined that the name of the department should reflect the cultural and historical nature of services provided rather than trying to reflect the internal organizational structure. The bill also attempted to clarify the statutes as they related to various museums and historical societies within the Division of Museums and History. When working on the statutes enabling inclusion of the Boulder City Railroad project, it was noted there were many inconsistencies and the department determined it was time to update and combine statutes to more closely match the state’s single system of museums. It combined NRS 381, 381A, and 382, which defined the state museum system within the department under oversight of the administrator, with the administrator responsible for delegation of duties and powers to each museum director for an efficient operation in each museum or historical society. It also removed references to unclassified museum directors as those positions were classified during the 1977 Session and it eliminated language restricting museum directors from having outside employment, which was inconsistent with classified positions. The Department of Personnel would develop an appropriate museum director classification series based upon the size and complexity of each institution and authorize the board to increase the size of various petty cash funds. Authority to establish change funds for museum stores was somehow missed in previous revisions.
Mr. Lee questioned the consolidation of all museum and historical societies. He was meeting with Dean Haymore, who was the building inspector for Virginia City and frequently dealt with the Comstock Historical Society and wondered if that historical society was under the protection of the state’s umbrella. Mr. Sisco replied the proposed bill dealt strictly with the state’s system of museums. In Exhibit C, the second page was an organizational chart, which basically covered the proposed Boulder City Railroad Project, the Nevada State Museum in Carson City, the Lost City Museum in Overton, the Nevada Historical Society in Reno, the Nevada State Museum and Historical Society in Las Vegas, and the Nevada State Railroad Museum in Carson City. There were several private historical societies and private museums throughout the state, one of which was the Comstock Historical Society.
Mr. Lee stated he had dinner recently at Piper’s Opera House in Virginia City and observed the extensive renovations underway. He wondered if the department was participating in retrofitting of that building. Mr. Sisco indicated he would like to have Ron James with the State Historic Preservation Office respond, as they had dealt with the issue.
Ron James, State Historic Preservation Officer, testified the Commission for Cultural Affairs was an advisory board to the department and had an annual bond program, part of which had been used to assist in saving Piper’s Opera House as the retrofit was ongoing.
Renny Ashleman, speaking on behalf of the Museum Board, wished to state the board was in full support of the bill and unless there were questions, he had no actual testimony.
Ms. Berman asked who determined the name change. Mr. Sisco replied when the Governor’s Fundamental Review was conducted the department realized at least 85 percent of the population got the name of the department wrong. At the time of the review, the director searched the country looking at other states with similar organizational structures and found “Department of Cultural Affairs” was used the majority of the time. It was felt that the name reflected the overall makeup of the department and clearly defined the internal components of that department. Governor Guinn put a lot of emphasis on the fact that culture was important to him and wanted to ensure the name encompassed all aspects of the department.
Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 554.
Senate Bill 554: Makes various changes concerning land use planning. (BDR 22-322)
Madelyn Shipman, representing Washoe County, introduced Mike Harper, Planning Manager for Washoe County, indicating he would address S.B. 554.
Mike Harper Advanced Planning Manager, Washoe County Community Development Department, provided a handout (Exhibit D), which summarized the bill as it was passed out of the Senate Government Affairs Committee. Section 1 consolidated the appeal processes for a number of planning and zoning actions authorized by Nevada Revised Statutes. These included zone changes, special use permits, variances, abandonment of streets and easements, and administrative decisions of appointed officials. It also defined the time period in which an appeal must be acted upon by local government. For counties over 400,000, it would be 45 days, and 65 days for counties under 400,000. It also specified options for processing appeals, administrative decisions by an appointed official and identified the period in which a final governing body action must be submitted to the appropriate district court. The value of the changes was all the appeal processes were now consolidated in one area. One item was missed in the original review of the bill, but he wanted to request a minor amendment. It currently stated a fee may be charged by a governing body if an appeal was considered “frivolous.” The intent was just to ensure that if an appeal to a governing body was made a fee could be charged. Most local governments believed it was appropriate that local governments, on behalf of their citizens, needed to pick up part of that cost.
It was suggested lines 23 through 25 at the bottom of the page be amended so the governing body could charge a fee for the cost of the appeal and eliminate the rest of the language dealing with “frivolous.” The county was requesting that the Assembly Government Affairs Committee consider raising the allowable compensation for the planning commission from $50 to $100. The planning commission made most decisions on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners as many states and counties were going to that process in streamlining their procedures. An appeal could still be made to the board of county commissioners or city council. Because of that responsibility, the county felt it was appropriate to permit a city or county to consider providing them compensation of $100 per meeting, not to exceed $400. Some cities and counties did not compensate their planning commissions and the bill would not change that, it was only enabling language. Most zoning in the county was generated to the Geographic Information System (GIS) with the only problem the signatures on the map would have to be done by digital signatures. The federal government had promulgated statutes to the effect that digital signatures could be allowed, and they would like to have state laws changed to allow electronic certification. Section 6 basically clarified the process of appealing a decision that a planning manager or director of a department made. It would allow the governing board to make a final decision on an appeal. It also provided for two alternatives it there was a disagreement with a decision by the board. It could either be taken to the governing body or directly to district court.
Sections 10, 11, 14, and 15 addressed actions on final and tentative subdivision maps when developing property. Presently tentative subdivision maps were submitted to citizen advisory boards within 45 days and many times it became difficult for those citizen advisory boards to get responses back to the planning commission. There had been instances where the tentative subdivision maps were not submitted until the day before the planning commission was supposed to take action, which did not help the citizen involvement process. If the legislation passed counties under 400,000 would have the period of time extended to 60 days for map approval. The 45 days would remain in place for counties over 400,000 because Clark County wanted to retain that time period.
Mr. Mortenson asked if the extension involved the town advisory boards. Mr. Harper explained the citizen advisory board was different than the town boards in southern Nevada. The citizen advisory boards did not function with the same authority as a town board, but provided considerable input to the board of county commissioners and planning commission. When the planning commission did not receive the information in time the board of county commissioners authorized the planning commission to file a tentative subdivision map, even though input from the citizen advisory board was completely lost.
Mr. Mortenson questioned why the boards could not meet simultaneously. Mr. Harper replied that there were staff members who needed to appear at not only the board meetings but also county commission meetings, and that would not be possible if they were held at the same time.
Ms. Shipman interjected there were also staff secretaries taking minutes of the meetings and that also created a logistic issue. The board met once a month on a standing date so there was usually only one opportunity for review of those maps.
Mr. Mortenson stated in the south they met twice a month and felt that extending the time seemed to impose a hardship on the construction industry.
Mr. Harper indicated Section 12 addressed subdivider problems many people experienced in the development community. It was not well known but when more than one tentative subdivision map was filed, the date in which the next map must be recorded was based upon the previous recording. Many subdividers were under the impression that once their tentative subdivision map was approved, or when the first file map was approved, that was the date from which they could record the next map. In order to solve that misconception, it was suggested that the only date used be the one when the tentative subdivision map was originally approved. That set an established date for requests for extensions and did not place the subdivider in a position of having to go through the whole process again because of a missed deadline. Section 17 repealed a conflicting portion in the law and Section 18 established the effective date.
Mr. Lee suggested the phrase “attended a meeting” be added to the increase in compensation. He felt if the amount was increased to $100 per meeting the taxpayers would feel more secure knowing the meeting had actually been attended by the member receiving that compensation. Mr. Harper said he thought that would be an appropriate clarification, as they did not pay commissioners when they did not attend a meeting.
Mr. Bache interjected he did not feel it necessary to include that language. It was understood during Interim Committee meetings that if a member did not attend they would not be paid for that day. Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, indicated it might create some confusion in other statutes. There were many different statutes dealing with compensation and she thought it was understood members would not be compensated if they did not attend.
Mr. Brown wondered if there was any recourse through the appellate process. Mr. Harper replied there were appellate procedures spread throughout the Nevada Revised Statutes. One recourse was appealing to the District Court while another suggested an elected governing body had authority to make decisions.
Mr. Brown asked if the calendar days were business days or included weekends. Mr. Harper responded it was 60 consecutive calendar days.
Mr. Bache questioned the change from 40,000 to 400,000. Mr. Harper stated with the new figure it would probably exclude Elko County and definitely Washoe County and Carson City at this point in time.
Ms. Shipman stated the proposed bill had been discussed with Clark County builders and others who might be interested in the bill. In Washoe County the citizen advisory boards only met once a month and that was the primary reason for the increased time frame to 60 days. The 45-day retention in Clark County was proposed by Irene Porter from the Builders Association and was based on the fact that evidently Clark County did not submit most of their tentative maps through town boards, only those in the outlying areas. She felt the additional time period was not needed in Clark County because the tentative maps were submitted directly to the planning commission.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 554 and opened the hearing on S.B. 555.
Senate Bill 555: Makes various changes in general laws governing cities. (BDR 21-352)
Tom Grady, representing Nevada League of Cities, testified S.B. 555 addressed general law cities which included Fallon, Ely, West Wendover, Lovelock, Winnemucca, Mesquite and, as of July 1, the city of Fernley. All other cities were known as “special charter cities,” as listed in statute. The bill raised the population from 20,000 to 50,000 in a category 1 city, although none of the cities now met the criteria, it was felt it should be raised at this point in time. Another change was in section 15, defining the makeup of wards. Section 18 was changed because that section did not comply with the open meeting law. Section 26 addressed staff appointments and who and when salary increases could be made for city appointed officers.
Mr. Mortenson wondered what the differences were between a general law city and a special charter city. Mr. Grady responded general law cities were governed by NRS 266 and what the proposed changes addressed. Special charter cities came to the Legislature and requested a special charter, so all charters had to be approved by Legislature. There was also the availability of having a charter established through initiative petitions, although that method had not been used as yet.
Mr. Mortenson questioned if the differentiation was according to the size of the city. Mr. Grady said the smallest city with a special charter was the city of Gabbs, and why that charter had to be removed by legislation when they requested unincorporation. The city of Las Vegas was the largest special charter city, so size had nothing to do with why a city chose to be a special charter or general law city. Mr. Bache believed Boulder City was a special charter city. Mr. Grady replied Boulder City’s charter was unique because “home rule” was addressed in that charter. Mr. Bache added Boulder City received their charter by a vote of the people. That procedure was no longer available to cities.
Mr. Brown asked if there was any advantage to having one type of charter over the other. Mr. Grady felt a charter city could be tailored to the needs of that city with the acceptance of the Legislature. Larger cities such as Las Vegas, Henderson, or North Las Vegas had special needs that probably would not be necessary in smaller cities. General law cities were included in the constitution and only the Legislature could change the charters of charter cities.
Ms. Parnell stated she liked the legislation, as it eliminated the second- and third-class cities. She did question the consolidation of Carson City with the county as it seemed shortsighted to only have a sheriff’s department rather than a full police department. Mr. Grady replied Carson City had the “best of two worlds” as they were a county government operating under a city charter. He added a sheriff could be appointed as a police chief and that had been done in the city of Ely who contracted with the White Pine Sheriff’s Department for police services with the sheriff acting as chief. Fernley was looking at doing the same thing in contracting with Lyon County for police protection.
Ms. Von Tobel queried if the number of wards were being changed in any of the cities. Mr. Grady indicated nothing was being changed. Presently there were six wards in the city of Las Vegas although there could be as many as eight. The legislative committee had worked with the general law cities and they agreed to accept the proposed legislation. He said it was his understanding that during the interim, they would be working with Mr. Bache on a bill for next session that would examine both cities and towns, as there were some discrepancies in NRS 266.
Mr. Bache wondered if a charter was silent on a particular issue and it was covered under general law would the city be able to use that general law provision to provide what was needed. Mr. Grady believed they could but would defer to legal counsel. Ms. O’Grady interjected she did not believe Chapter 266 would apply. The statute stated, “that the provisions of the chapter, except as otherwise provided in a city charter, shall not be applicable to incorporated cities that are organized under a special charter.”
Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 9:12 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Virginia Letts
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: