ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

May 21, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:18 a.m., on Monday, May 21, 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

Mrs. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Bob Price

Mrs. Debbie Smith

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Renee Lacey, Chief Deputy, Secretary of State

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities

Mark Fiorentino, Lobbyist, HHH Investments LLC

Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County

John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, HHH Investments LLC

Stephanie Garcia, Lobbyist, City of Henderson

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County

Janelle Kraft, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Doug Smith, Chairman, Citizens for a Scenic Reno

Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas

Senate Bill 356: Makes changes regarding filing of documents with secretary of state. (BDR 18-1206)

Chairman Bache said he had requested an amendment from the Secretary of State for the bill.

Renee Lacey, Chief Deputy, Secretary of State, introduced the amendment to give their office regulation authority to prescribe procedures to help prevent the filing of false documents (Exhibit C). Resident agents and interested parties would come together to discuss problems in a manner that did not affect the ability to attract business to Nevada.

Mrs. Smith asked if Senator O’Connell agreed with the proposed amendment. Chairman Bache responded Senator O’Connell had wanted something to address the issue besides the criminal penalty in the bill. He had spoken with her and was comfortable the regulatory process would satisfy her concerns. Mr. Mortenson suggested the language should be changed from “may” to “shall.” Ms. Lacey stated the “may” was safer because it gave them flexibility to address issues.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 356.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 553

Senate Bill 553: Makes various changes concerning finances of local governments. (BDR 30-130)

The Chairman proposed an amendment to Section 48 that required the school board to produce an itemized report of what they had purchased. A July 1, 2003, sunset provision would be added. Section 40 addressed the fund for extraordinary maintenance and repair and he recommended the section be deleted and left at current language.

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, was concerned about smaller school districts. The original language set up depreciation accounts with “set-asides” for bonds. Surplus money would take care of maintenance and the bonds would be used for new construction. The language had proven to be problematic for smaller districts because the “set-aside” isolated each repair. Technically, the “set-aside” would be spent as “first money in, first money out.” The smaller districts were not getting enough to do repairs and it had created problems. The hope was to consolidate the accounts and provide more flexibility for “set-asides” or additional capital improvements.

Chairman Bache asked if she was referring to Section 40. Ms. Vilardo said the section allowed the fund to be an aggregate and did not recommend any changes to the section. She totally agreed with the Chairman about Section 48.

Ms. Parnell was not comfortable with the deletion of language that referenced the annual budget and audit report in Section 40. She wanted to leave page 21, lines 41 through 48, and page 22, lines 1 and 2, in the bill.

Ms. Vilardo stated there had been roughly five to six workshops on that particular area of the bill. Most people did not understand quarterly or annual reports that were created and the bill created reporting mechanisms that were meaningful. The Committee on Local Government Finance was working to provide information to the Department of Taxation to track governmental spending. The annual budget would still need to be approved on schedule.

Ms. Parnell was concerned about the addition of “extraordinary” and “new abilities” in Section 48 and how those would figure into the budget.

Ms. Vilardo replied the deleted language on page 21, lines 41 through 48, was impossible to accomplish. Accountants did not audit to that degree. The language required every issue and “set aside” to be audited and certified from local governments. The funds would be aggregated in the report and not itemized. Law needed to address things that could be administered. Many provisions sounded nice but could not be realistically accomplished.

Mrs. Smith felt the restriction of bus purchases and detail to bio-diesel fuel might be problematic. Chairman Bache clarified that previous legislation had required fleet vehicles to use alternative fuel.

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, clarified previous legislation had outlined alternative fuel usage in Washoe and Clark Counties. Southern Nevada had problems with inadequate alternative fuel stations, but generally had success with the program.

Mrs. Smith wondered if the smaller counties would have the same problem. Chairman Bache stated the smaller counties had not expressed concern about that when the bill was originally heard.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 553 WITH THE SUNSET PROVISION FOR SECTION 48 AND THE REPORT TO THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Humke asked when the report would be due. Chairman Bache clarified it would be before the 2003 Legislative Session so information could be reviewed.

Mr. Humke asked if the report would be done in time so Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) could be proposed. Chairman Bache replied affirmatively.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

The Chairman opened the hearing on S.B. 299.

Senate Bill 299: Makes various changes relating to Airport Authority of Washoe County. (BDR S-759)

Mrs. Gibbons introduced the bylaws adopted by the Airport Authority Board of Washoe County (Exhibit D) and felt comfortable new members would be informed of their duties. A “cooling-off” period and accountability had been added to S.B. 38. She advised the community to attend meetings and voice their concerns regarding prospective appointees.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 299.

ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mrs. Smith stated the bill was difficult because residents did not have a good relationship with the Airport Authority. She suggested “community relations” be added to the board orientation. She hoped the bill would improve things.

Ms. Parnell was comfortable with the increase in board members. She felt a Carson-Douglas area representative should be on the board.

Mr. Humke stated he would support the bill but reserved the right to change his floor vote.

Mr. Williams questioned how the new bylaws addressed the concerns of the citizens that had testified before the committee.

Mrs. Gibbons felt the public needed to be involved with the appointing process to weed out those individuals they did not want.

Mr. Williams asked how the bylaws prevented bad experiences on the board.

Mrs. Gibbons stated nothing in bylaws or legislation would prevent that. Legislation would not change people who were bad and mean by nature. Involved citizens could change the boards. The public had the responsibility to get rid of public officials who did not respond to their needs.

Mr. Williams questioned how the bill addressed public input when they had testified against the bill.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL AND ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS ABSTAINING.

Senate Bill 395: Transfers certain territory from Clark County to Nye County. (BDR 20-1220)

Assemblyman Neighbors explained S.B. 395 transferred certain property from Clark County to Nye County.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Zeigler to review the bill and give a brief history of when county lines were changed.

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst, stated since statehood there had been about 25 boundary changes among the counties and 7 of them had occurred in the last 50 years, excluding the creation and subsequent abolishment of Bullfrog County. Storey County changed its boundary because of the changing Truckee River. Washoe County boundaries were modified when Ormsby County and Carson City were consolidated. Occasionally county boundaries had been realigned to follow section, township and range boundaries. A boundary change in 1977 moved a certain number of vacant parcels within Carson City that had been in Washoe County on County Line Road at Lake View. In 1985, Clark and Nye County changed boundaries that went through individual parcels or residents. Alignment history related to assessment practices. In summary, there was precedent and a variety of reasons for boundary changes under legislative discretion.

Mr. Neighbors stated that Congressman Gibbons and the state of Utah were considering changing the Wendover boundary. Boundary changes were inevitable.

Chairman Bache asked if Utah was giving Wendover to Nevada. Mr. Neighbors replied that West Wendover in Nevada was better off financially than the Wendover in Utah.

Ms. Von Tobel said cities had to notify property owners in writing that they were being annexed. A protest period for hearings was allowed before changes were made. The proposed change affected many property owners that had not been notified. She did not want property owners to hold the state liable for nondisclosure. She did not understand the rush to change county lines and felt the state should follow the same guidelines cities had to. The counties had been that way since Nevada’s inception and she did not feel changing the boundaries for a developer was justified. Property owners that knew about the boundary change had come to the committee meeting to protest. No resident had come forward to support the change. The state had not notified any property owner they were planning to change the county they had purchased their land in. She was adamantly opposed to the bill and did not believe there was any hurry. An interim committee should be formed to discuss proposed boundary changes. Every property owner should be properly notified and be able to participate in discussions about the proposed changes. Rushing the bill through this session did not make sense to her.

Mr. Neighbors stated downtown Las Vegas was once part of Lincoln County. The Clark County Board of Commissioners, Pahrump Town Board and the Nye County Commissioners had held public meetings and voted unanimously to exchange the land.

Ms. Berman stated she had received three or four letters from residents that wanted to remain in Clark County. She asked if something could be done to leave them in Clark County.

Mark Fiorentino, Lobbyist, HHH Investments LLC, stated the amendment (Exhibit E) addressed the concerns expressed during the hearing and allowed the private road to remain in Clark County. The bill affected private property owners that owned vacant land and those who owned actual residences. Letters of support from both groups had been previously distributed to the committee. There were roughly eight or nine families that did not support the bill. The proposed amendment would carve them out of the annexation. He did not support the "carve-out" because it made the county line irregular.

Ms. Von Tobel asked how many property owners within the area of change had been notified.

Mr. Fiorentino stated he did not know of any property owners that had been notified in writing. He could not say how many telephone calls had been made.

Ms. Von Tobel asked Legal Counsel about the state’s liability when changing boundaries.

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, stated the Legislature had the authority to change boundaries and the state had no liability.

Mr. Price asked if there had been notification in the newspapers’ “public notice” sections.

Mr. Fiorentino responded there had been a number of public hearings that were publicly noticed. The Nye County Commission, Clark County Commission and the Pahrump Valley Town Board had held public hearings on the issue before they voted to unanimously support it.

Mr. Neighbors read a letter from the Nye County Sheriff into the record (Exhibit F).

Dear Committee Members,

I am writing to ask for your support for S.B. 395 regarding moving the county line between Nye and Clark Counties.

My office has responded to every type of call for service for the residents in the proposed line change area for many years. As you may know, this area is quite isolated, is sparsely populated, and the people in this area have become accustomed to our office responding to their problems. They seldom call Las Vegas Metro, as they know our officers are much closer and respond very quickly.

I believe our office would be able to provide better and more complete service because of the distance from Las Vegas being a major factor. If this area were part of Nye County, we would then have full jurisdiction; whereas, now if we make an arrest on the Clark County side in the area, the suspects must, by law, be transported to the Clark County Detention Center in Las Vegas. They must also be prosecuted in Clark County, which necessitates Pahrump officers having to make appearances in Las Vegas courts concerning these issues. Problems also arise concerning the 500 - yard rule, wherein, if a crime is committed within 500 yards of the county line either way, both counties could claim jurisdiction for the prosecution.

I encourage you to support the bill which will also show support for the decision made unanimous vote of the board of commissioners in both counties affected by this change.

Sincerely,

Wade A. Lieseke, Jr.

Sheriff

Ms. Von Tobel recalled Clark County paid Nye County for services performed in remote areas. Clark County would continue to have inter-local agreements for those services. Citizens recognized they were in rural locations and did not complain about the level of services they received. She believed the county lines were changed to satisfy a developer. The bill came forward because a developer found zoning restrictions easier in Nye than Clark County. The developer could still develop his land without the bill’s passage. She did not believe it was fair to property owners that opposed the annexation. Absentee property owners had not been notified. The change could be done next session after property owners were properly notified and allowed to voice their opinions.

Mrs. Smith asked if the bill was supposed to provide better service, then what would be accomplished by carving out a section of homeowners that did not want to be annexed.

Chairman Bache remembered the two counties’ inter-local agreement for service had expired and currently there was no agreement.

Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated the Chairman was correct. Clark County would work with Nye County to develop any future inter-local agreement for services provided to those areas in Clark County.

Mrs. Smith asked why the bill was needed if the carve-out removed those people that had service provided. Ms. Wilson-Pappa stated Clark County had the responsibility for them and would work with Nye County to provide the needed services.

Ms. Parnell welcomed Mrs. Glancman and Ms. Rothchild’s third-grade class from Fremont Elementary School. She would vote on the bill if she thought the residents would receive better service. She did not want to provide selective service to residents.

Mr. Fiorentino stated the “carve-out” was a very small percentage of the area being changed and felt it was better to not have it. Either Clark County would service them or Nye County would negotiate an inter-local agreement to provide service.

Mr. Brown talked to a member of the Clark County Commission who had been concerned with the issue. The county was concerned about providing service to those residents. Mr. Neighbors replied residents would be able to take advantage of the excellent Nye County Fire Department.

Chairman Bache expressed concerns over the Pahrump Valley Fire Department and asked what their rating was.

Mr. Neighbors said the Pahrump Valley Fire Department had an excellent volunteer fire department.

John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, HHH Investments LLC, replied the Pahrump Valley Fire Department had 5 fire stations, 35 paid fireman and about 100 volunteers. They were rated a six.

Ms. Von Tobel stated no constituent had said they were unhappy with services provided them. S.B. 395 trampled on the property rights of owners and would change the zoning laws and tax structures they lived under. Not one legal notification had been sent to property owners notifying them of the proposed change. She wanted the bill to become an interim committee so counties could meet and discuss the relevant issues.

Mrs. Freeman questioned whether an interim study could be formed to address all property rights issues throughout the state.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 395.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Bache did not feel moving boundaries should be done on that basis. The Clark County inter-local agreement had expired over a year ago and they should have taken care of the problem then. Moving county lines for convenience was a serious thing.

Mr. Neighbors stated three separate independent boards, elected by the people, unanimously supported the measure.

Ms. Von Tobel stated those elected boards could have done a legal mailing to the property owners. She could support the bill if she knew every property owner had been legally notified about the proposed change. Clark County had not held any town hall meetings to discuss the issue.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN VON TOBEL AND CHAIRMAN BACHE VOTING NAY.

Chairman Bache advised Ms. O’Grady that any bill with conflict notices would need to be addressed. He opened the hearing on S.B. 425.

Senate Bill 425: Makes various changes concerning certain utilities operated by certain governmental entities. (BDR 20-1243)

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 425 WITH THE VILARDO AMENDMENT THAT ADDRESSED SECTIONS 5, 16, AND 25.

ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Zeigler to discuss the possible interaction between S.B. 425 and A.B. 661, A.B. 369 and possibly S.B. 211.

Mr. Zeigler clarified A.B. 661 and A.B. 369, which had gone through the Assembly Energy Committee. A.B. 661 was still in process and A.B. 369 had become law. S.B. 425 could essentially be considered a “stand alone” bill and did not appear to directly interact with either Assembly bill. The two energy bills dealt with regulating public utilities and S.B. 425 dealt with ownership of utilities by cities, counties and general improvement districts (GID) that were not regulated by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). There might some concern in cities, counties and GIDs purchasing or disposing of generation assets after July 1, 2003. S.B. 425 had a sunset date of June 30, 2003, and was more restrictive toward the Colorado River Commission. S.B. 211 was generous toward the Colorado River Commission and allowed them more responsibility.

Ms. Berman asked who would pay the franchise or business fee if local governments got into the telecommunication service business.

Ms. Vilardo stated there was a provision in law that said if you expanded out, consideration had to be given. If the expansion displaced private industry it would affect local governments that relied on the tax revenue.

Ms. Berman felt there should be equal footing in the community. Any local government competing in private utilities should not charge private telecommunication companies a franchise or business tax.

Ms. Vilardo stated she was correct and hoped the interim study of S.B. 355 would explore the services of local governments that competed with private industry and the impacts of taxation and regulatory issues.

Ms. Berman asked what would happen to telecommunication companies that went out of business during the interim.

Ms. Vilardo stated two things could happen. Another private carrier could take over the failed business or the government would provide the service. There were temporary measures in the bill that addressed that issue. Feasibility studies had to be done and jurisdictions had to enter into local agreements to prevent the loss of revenue from property or franchise fees. Debt and lack of revenue to pay those debts had to be addressed.

Ms. Berman asked what the ramifications would be to a county that lost a tax base of $10 million or $11 million.

Ms. Vilardo replied only the larger counties had a tax base that large and it would be a sizeable part of their budget. A rural county could not survive if something that detrimental happened.

Ms. Berman hoped the interim study would get their work done in a timely manner to address those issues before something catastrophic happened.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

Chairman Bache opened the hearing on S.B. 265 and asked Mr. Zeigler to review the bill.

Senate Bill 265: Requires city or county to pay just compensation or authorize alternative location for certain nonconforming outdoor advertising structures under certain circumstances. (BDR 22-156)

Mr. Zeigler stated the bill was presented by Mark Fiorentino and protected private property rights by requiring just compensation when local governments wanted to remove legal or off-premise signage. It was unfair for local governments to remove structures without compensation to the owner of the sign or the property where the sign was located. It negatively affected the outside advertising industry and industries that relied on outdoor advertising. An amendment was proposed by Las Vegas that excluded amortization.

Mrs. Freeman was opposed to S.B. 265. Outside billboard companies had come into Nevada and manipulated the Reno city council to allow billboards anywhere they wanted. The billboards were an intrusion into neighborhoods and the passage took away the homeowner’s ability to fight unwanted billboards.

Mr. Fiorentino clarified they preferred the bill be passed as it was presented to the committee. If necessary, they could accept the amendment proposed by the city of Las Vegas. All other amendments included amortization and they did not want to accept them.

Stephanie Garcia, Lobbyist, city of Henderson, asked the committee to consider the proposed amendment (Exhibit G) and some form of proposed amortization.

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, stated the amendment was supported by local government. It continued the requirement for just compensation or relocation of any billboard that was removed without the minimum five-year maximum ten-year amortization. Just compensation did not apply if a property owner terminated his own lease. Paragraph 5 addressed the development of property where the billboard wanted to be kept as an “additional use” billboard. No compensation or relocation would be required if a public hearing decided the billboard was not appropriate to keep.

Janelle Kraft, Lobbyist, city of Las Vegas, clarified the amendment they proposed was the best compromise they could come up with. The amendment prohibited amortization and she had agreed to disagree with Mr. Fiorentino on that issue. They supported amortization as an option to local governments when immediate removal was not required.

Ms. Garcia stated they had listened to their constituents in 1991 and created an ordinance that required the removal of nonconforming billboards after a ten-year amortization period. Local governments felt amortization was a viable and legal tool.

Chairman Bache asked who was in control of what options were used towards nonconforming billboards.

Ms. Garcia stated local government was responsible for the final decision. The billboard company preferred to keep billboards or have complete compensation at time of removal. Any billboard removed through amortization belonged to the billboard company and could be transferred to another approved location. Local governments needed the authority to choose what payment option to use.

Ms. Shipman stated local governments had the control and amortization would be used in normal situations.

Mrs. Freeman stated citizens in Reno had supported a billboard control bill.

Mr. Mortensen asked if the bill affected signs that were built without use permits. He questioned how many billboards would be affected by the bill.

Ms. Shipman stated the issuance of special use permits for future billboards had been outlawed and all new billboards fell under the bill.

Ms. Kraft stated the city of Las Vegas had approximately 400 billboards and about 150 did not have special use permits. The remaining billboards came up for review periodically and could be denied for renewal.

Mr. Fiorentino stated all Carson City billboards were done by special permit and would not be affected by the bill. He guessed roughly 60 percent of the structures would be protected by the bill and 40 percent had time limits that exempted them.

Mr. Brown stated judicial precedence had determined amortization was a legitimate way of compensation for those issues.

Mrs. Parnell was concerned the local governments would always choose amortization and shut out other options.

Ms. Shipman stated the immediate removal of a structure from a piece of property less than five years would require a different payment option. Immediate clean up of a redevelopment area could by-pass that option.

Ms. Garcia replied any removal under the amortization time frame required just compensation or relocation.

Ms. Parnell felt most local governments would function as they had with the same guidelines.

Ms. Garcia stated they would need to make changes to their current ordinances.

Chairman Bache asked if Henderson and North Las Vegas used amortization. Ms. Garcia stated that was correct. Clark County had an amortization clause but had chosen not to use it.

Ms. Shipman added it was used in Douglas County to get rid of their billboards.

Mrs. Smith asked if Reno’s ordinance prohibited the relocation of billboards.

Ms. Shipman said the “no additional billboard” ordinance had come through citizen initiative. Washoe County and Sparks already had ordinances outlawing new billboards. Relocation could be done in designated areas. All entities had limited the increase of additional billboards in those areas.

Mrs. Smith asked what the cost would be if the bill passed without amortization. Ms. Shipman stated Reno would have to pay just compensation for removing nonconforming billboards.

Ms. Von Tobel stated she felt amortization was unfair to the billboard industry and could put them out of business.

Ms. Shipman said other states and cities did not allow billboards. The question was balancing the needs of the people and the demands of business.

Ms. Von Tobel stated Nevada was unique and signs were everywhere. Billboards and signs were a part of Las Vegas and it was unfair to put the billboard industry out of business.

Mrs. Freeman asked if the bill could be drafted to exclude Washoe County from the bill.

Chairman Bache asked if a population clause could be added to the bill. Ms. O’Grady replied it could be addressed to counties over 400,000.

Ms. Kraft stated billboards were removed because of constituents’ requests and local governments needed flexibility to respond.

Mrs. Smith questioned how the industry would go out of business if only nonconforming billboards were removed. Ms. Garcia agreed the bill only addressed nonconforming billboard structures. Each local jurisdiction had approved zones for billboards.

Ms. Shipman stated all Washoe County jurisdictions had areas that limited the increase of billboards. The hope was nonconforming billboards would comply with the codes.

Mrs. Smith stated local governments could make ordinances to outlaw billboards. S.B. 265 dealt with how to compensate for nonconforming signs.

Ms. Garcia agreed and stated the bill outlined compensation for nonconforming billboards.

Mr. Fiorentino agreed the bill dealt with local nonconforming issues, but local governments controlled when and how billboards become nonconforming. The city of North Las Vegas wanted to remove all structures and negotiated an ordinance that reduced 70 percent of the structures. Because local governments controlled the rules they could put the industry out of business. There were fundamental differences between the billboard industry and local government. Mrs. Smith said amortization allowed that to happen. Mr. Fiorentino agreed.

Chairman Bache asked if the amendment was acceptable with deleting amortization. Mr. Fiorentino replied it would be more efficient to adopt the amendment from Las Vegas (Exhibit H) than to modify this one.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 265 WITH THE AMENDMENT FROM THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS.

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Doug Smith, Chairman, Citizens for a Scenic Reno, stated they were not getting rid of billboards in Reno. The citizens felt they had a quality of life issue.

Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, city of North Las Vegas, stated there were 92 billboards in their city and 40 of them clustered in the downtown area. It would gravely impact the city to provide just compensation for those billboards. They were not against just compensation but were ardent believers in amortization. Local governments had a constitutional right to have all three options available to them.

Mrs. Gibbons asked if Exhibit H included amortization as outlined in Section 7. Mr. Fiorentino clarified the amendment did not allow amortization but defined it in lines 31 through 33.

Chairman Bache asked Ms. O’Grady about the use of amortization in the amendment. Ms. O’Grady felt the amendment prohibited the requirement of amortization but allowed it under mutual agreement.

Mr. Fiorentino stated the legal staff was right. The deletion of “or allow” allowed local government to approach each sign owner and reach separate agreements. They were comfortable with that language.

Ms. Parnell was comfortable with giving both parties the ability to come together and talk about the options that best suited them.

Mrs. Smith asked Ms. Shipman’s opinion on the proposed amendment as it related to Washoe County.

Ms. Shipman stated the amendment did not have the additional language in subsection 5 of Exhibit G that addressed billboards as “additional use.” She felt it was critical to have that sentence in the amendment.

Chairman Bache asked if subsection 5 dealt with the property owner or the owner of the sign terminating their lease.

Ms. Shipman stated billboards tended to be on undeveloped property. When a property owner choose to develop the property a public hearing was held to determine if the billboard was appropriate to the new development. If the billboards were determined to be incompatible, relocation or just compensation would not be required.

Mr. Fiorentino stated they had no objection to adding that sentence to page 2, line 14.

Mrs. Gibbons suggested the maker of the motion amend the motion to include the additional language Ms. Shipman wanted.

ASSEMBLYMAN VON TOBEL AND ASSEMBLYMAN LEE CONCURRED TO ADDED MS. SHIPMAN’S ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO THEIR MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN VOTING NAY.

*********

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL TO APPLY TO COUNTIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 400,000.

THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND.

Mrs. Smith wanted to reserve her right to change her floor vote after the additional language had been added.

Chairman Bache seeing no other business adjourned the meeting at 12:18 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: