ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

Seventy-First Session

February 12, 2001

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:03 a.m., on Monday, February 12, 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Speaker Richard Perkins, Assemblyman, District #23

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Irene Porter, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association

Assembly Bill No. 63: Revises provisions governing maintenance of landscaping, public lighting and security walls in subdivisions and planned unit developments. (BDR 22-994)

Assemblyman Richard Perkins noted he was presenting A.B. 63, which provided for maintenance of security walls in subdivisions and planned unit developments, as an alternative to homeowner’s associations. He added he was aware additional work needed to be done on the bill, but he would defer any questions to Irene Porter, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, who would actually address A.B. 63.

Mrs. Gibbons stated she was curious as to where the petition mentioned in the bill would be filed. Since it dealt with the governing bodies she wanted clarification.

Ms. Porter interjected the petition would be filed with the local governing body, such as Washoe County, City of Sparks, or wherever the property was located. The exact location would be determined by whose jurisdiction it fell under. It would likely be the city clerk or planning department of the entity.

To make her question clearer, Mrs. Gibbons wanted to know where the petition that the homeowners signed would be filed. Ms. Porter reiterated that the actual petition would be filed with the local government. Whether it was the homeowners or builders initiating the petition it would be filed as part of the subdivision process with the local governing body. If the local ordinance required it to be filed with the planning commission, it would then be forwarded to the county commissioners or the city council.

Mrs. Gibbons remarked most petitions affecting government were submitted to the Secretary of State for signature verification. She wondered if there was some security for the homeowners in reviewing the signatures, assuring they were all legitimate in the particular tract of homes it would affect. Ms. Porter responded the verification would be a function of the local government. They would have to create an ordinance setting up parameters and procedures on how the signatures would be verified.

Mr. Perkins stated Ms. Porter would walk the committee through the rest of the bill, as he had to return to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Irene Porter, Executive Director of Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, stated she would discuss the remainder of the bill. She pointed out there was a second bill which would not come before the Committee on Government Affairs as it dealt with chapter 116; subsequently, it would go to either Judiciary or Commerce and Labor. In some instances, homeowner’s organizations have had to be formed for things such as landscaping. In southern Nevada, developments are required to put in landscaping along the outside perimeter of the block wall that secures the development in order to comply with the beautification requirement of the local entity. Some of the security walls and median islands also had the same requirements. Because of those requirements, all the subdivisions in southern Nevada had to have “full blown” homeowner’s associations. The law already existed, but because of incidents where petitions were submitted to local governments by builders, and local government refused to abide by the law, language was submitted which became A.B. 63. The bill would make it mandatory.

Ms. Porter indicated the other bill would set up just a landscape association that took care of the landscaping on the perimeter or within the development but would not have authority to do anything else. It would be limited by statute as to what activities were covered. She had found more and more people do not want a “full blown” homeowner’s association and many were actually walking away from developments where associations were required.

There were some concerns from local governments and Ms. Porter asked Chairman Bache to place A.B. 63 into a subcommittee to iron out some issues such as trails. She felt the bill needed to be clearer in some areas. The bill would make the landscape maintenance district mandatory if so petitioned. Ms. Porter stated there was a new addition on page 2 regarding the recording of affected tracts of land with the county recorder. She pointed out another item she would address in the subcommittee was the change from “final” to “tentative” when addressing the map. Also, the mandatory provisions within the bill needed to be addressed.

Chairman Bache stated that he would appoint a subcommittee at the February 13 meeting.

Mr. Lee questioned the use of “termination” in the bill. Ms. Porter responded that the association or the group of individuals couldn’t say the agreement had been terminated without the approval of the governing body. Those that had petitioned couldn’t terminate the agreement midstream.

Mr. Price felt he should disclose that he was on the board of the association in the condominium in which he lived. He stated it would not affect him any differently than anyone else.

Mrs. Gibbons had received an e-mail from a constituent last week who had pointed out the cost could be cut if, rather than mail information to homeowners, it could be e-mailed whenever possible. She requested that perhaps that issue could also be addressed in the subcommittee.

Ms. Porter pointed out there were other issues addressed in other bills regarding electronic transmissions in homeowner’s associations and those were all within the jurisdiction of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 116 and would be considered in the committees handling those bills. Mr. Bache agreed and said chapter 116 fell under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Judiciary.

Mr. Brown was curious as to the typical method of determining assessment and the manner of payment in the past.

Ms. Porter replied there was not a single local government in southern Nevada that had allowed the use of the issues in the bill and not one had an ordinance. She understood that was not the case in Washoe County where it had been used. The assessment was made as to what the costs would be for the required landscaping, and then divided between the lots in determining what the charge should be to each owner. Mr. Brown asked if there was then an addition to the property tax. Ms. Porter indicated it was just like an assessment district bill.

Mr. Bache announced he had some BDRs that needed to be processed so he could get them to the floor session. He stressed that voting for introduction did not in any way commit any member of the committee to support the bill. It merely meant that would allow a measure to become a bill and be heard by the committee.

Mr. Bache then introduced several Bill Draft Requests (BDRs).

BDR 23-209 – Authorizes collective bargaining for certain state employees. (A.B. 89)

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 23‑209.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.

********

BDR 31-338 – Revises certain provisions governing financial administration of local governments (A.B. 96).

ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 31-338.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.

********

BDR 20-183 - Revises provisions governing waste of water (A.B. 97).

ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 20‑183.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.

********

BDR 23-343 – Revises provisions regarding state personnel system. (A.B. 95).

ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 23‑343.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.

********

BDR 31-418 – revises dates on which certain special elections may be held by local governments (A.B. 99).

ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 31‑418.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN LEE.