MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
February 28, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:09 a.m., on Wednesday, February 28, 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. Vivian Freeman
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Mr. Bob Price
Ms. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Wendell Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Utt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Restrepo, Governor’s Task Force Planning Committee
Russell Guindon, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Phil Rosenquist, AICP, Assistant Director, Clark County, Nevada
Chris Knight, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association
Stephanie Garcia, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson, Nevada
Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant, Elko County
Assembly Bill 19: Creates forecast council and related technical advisory committees to produce long-term forecasts of state revenues and expenditures and estimates of impacts of proposed programs. (BDR 31-203)
John Restrepo, Chairman of the Governor’s Task Force for Long-term Financial Analysis and Planning, videoconferenced from Las Vegas, gave an overview of their recommendations (Exhibit C). He stated A.B. 525 of the Seventieth Session, was sponsored by the late Assemblywoman Jan Evans. This bill created a special task force whose duty was to develop a permanent nonpartisan process that prepared updates of the long-term forecasts on state revenues and expenditures. Mr. Restrepo said the process would be used in the state’s budget, planning and appropriation process. The Task Force was required to provide a written report on or before September 15, 2000 to the Director of the Legislative Council Bureau (LCB) for distribution to the members of the Seventy-First Legislative Session. He acknowledged the Task Force report, LCB Bulletin 01-10, was delivered to the members of the Legislature. A handout was provided for the committee (Exhibit D).
The beginning section of the handout included a list of the appointed designated members of the Task Force. The report included recommendations on three main elements:
· A long-term forecast process
· A long-term forecast committee
· Office of Financial Analysis and Planning
The report discussed a process developed for the preparation and use of the long-term forecast of revenues and expenditures in the states budget and planning process. Included were recommendations for legislation regarding the composition and duties of the permanent committee. Members would be responsible for preparation and adoption of long-term forecasts for future state revenue and expenditures. Recommendations addressed the number, qualifications, and terms of members on the permanent committee. Legislation was recommended to consider the composition and duties of the Office of Financial Analysis and Planning.
Mr. Restrepo testified the first meeting was held on November 2,1999, and he was elected chairman. A plan was developed to complete the task as specified in A.B. 525 of the Seventieth Session. They held a total of seven meetings to complete business of the Task Force. The primary goals were to gather information necessary to determine critical issues and develop a process to be used to produce long-term forecasts.
In order to accomplish this, several presentations of the state’s budget and financial systems were provided to the Task Force by the staff of the Fiscal Analysis Division. The review also included an overview of the state’s revenue and expenditure system, the state’s budget and appropriation process, the structure and function of the Economic Forum and the Governor’s fundamental review process. Additionally, they reviewed processes used by other states to produce long-term revenue and/or expenditure forecasts and their use within selected states.
The intent of A.B. 525 of the Seventieth Session, and the goal of the Task Force, was to create a nonpartisan process responsible for producing a long-term outlook of the state’s revenues and expenditures in an open public forum. He believed they had developed a process that could effectively produce long-term forecasts and provide a reasonable and acceptable level use in the state’s budget and planning process. The proposed system allowed flexibility to change procedures if necessary.
The report analyzed the state’s long-term financial outlook and could be used as a planning tool so the Governor and the Legislature would become aware of long-term consequences of changes in the states tax structure. The Governor would be informed about consequences of prior actions and would help determine what should take place in future sessions.
Mr. Restrepo said the Task Force adopted 33 recommendations necessary to create a permanent nonpartisan structure. They would produce long-term (ten-year) forecasts for use in the state budget, planning and appropriation process.
Mr. Restrepo commended the LCB and their staff along with Russell Guindon for his support, in providing the data and information support to effectively handle the challenge before them the last few months. He introduced Mr. Guindon who gave the committee an overview of the process.
Russell Guindon, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Division, LCB, presented a brief overview of the structure and functions of the proposed long-term forecast processes recommended by the Task Force. The handout mentioned by Mr. Restrepo (Exhibit D) included the introduction, background and summary of recommendations. He asked the committee to turn to the last page, which was a structural flow chart of the process and recommendations of the long-term Task Force.
Mr. Guindon stated an issue the Task Force addressed was the Economic Forum, which was responsible for producing the short-term General Fund revenue forecasts used by the Governor and the Legislature in developing budget and appropriations every session. The Task Force decided the Economic Forum should be left the same, as it had produced forecasts for the prior four sessions. They did not want to make any adjustments to a process that was successful. The Task Force recognized that, as changes evolved, there might be a time when the two forecast processes could merge into one and include the Economic Forum and the long-term Task Force.
Mr. Guindon reviewed with the committee the long-term forecast process as proposed by the Task Force. He said the Task Force recommended there be an entity called the “Forecast Council,” which would consist of seven members. Two members from the Legislature would be the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the Assembly. There would be two members from the Governor’s Office, the Governor and another member from the executive administration or agency. The other three members would come from the “private sector” and would be appointed by the Governor. Only the “private sector” appointees would be eligible to serve as chairman of the Forecast Council with four-year terms.
The Forecast Council would have responsibility for reviewing forecasts and would also make decisions on long-term forecasts. He said the Task Force intended that the Governor, the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House would actively serve on the council but, due to their busy schedules, that might not be possible. An allowance would be made for them to designate someone to serve in their place. The designated person would have to be on the Senate side if it were the Senate Majority Leader, as would the Governor need to pick someone from his staff, if he did not have the time to serve.
Mr. Guindon noted the Task Force decided there would be two different Technical Advisory Committees that would be responsible for production of the forecast that would be presented to the Forecast Council. A Revenue Technical Advisory Committee was responsible for producing ten-year forecasts of the state’s expected revenue stream. The committee would consist of nine members. Those members would be the following:
· The Senate Fiscal Analyst
· The Assembly Fiscal Analyst
· The Director of the Department of Administration
· Chief of the Bureau of Research and Analysis in the Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation
· The State Demographer
· Vice-Chancellor for Finance of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN)
· Three representatives from Nevada’s private sector, appointed by the Governor
All of those members would choose their replacements on the committee as long as it was from their same area; i.e., the Senate Fiscal Analyst would choose someone from the LCB Fiscal Division. For consistency only the private sector appointees would be allowed to serve as chairman.
The Expenditure Technical Advisory Committee would be the body responsible for production of ten-year state forecasts for projected expense needs and would consist of 11 members. The first six members were the same members on the Revenue Technical Advisory Committee. The rest would be comprised of directors of the three major program areas for the state’s expenditure program areas. They were the following:
· The Director of the Department of Prisons
· The Director of the Department of Education
· The Director of the Department of Human Resources
· A representative from the local government appointed by the Governor
· A representative from the private sector appointed by the Governor
He explained the same six members would be on both the Revenue Technical Advisory Committee and the Expenditure Technical Advisory Committee to provide the flow of information between the two processes. The Fiscal Analysts had the ability to protect resources of the state whether from the executive side or legislative side of government.
Mr. Guindon reviewed several processes used by other states that would allow for the creation of work groups by each of the Technical Advisory Committees. These work groups could produce specific revenue forecasts and give some of the gaming revenue predictions. The direction of the Technical Advisory Committees consisting of people from the Fiscal Analysis Division, the Budget Division, the Gaming Control Board, or others deemed to have experience would be useful in production of long-term forecasts.
He summarized by reviewing the top of the flow chart, which was the Office of Financial Analysis and Planning and was created by A.B. 525 of the Seventieth Session. It was created to assist the Legislature in long-term financial analysis. Mr. Restrepo said A.B. 525 of the Seventieth Session required the Task Force to make recommendations necessary and provide general support to the Forecast Council and each of the Technical Advisory Committees. They also provided flow of information between the Economic Forums in the long-term forecast process.
Assemblyman Lee said the membership of the committees seemed to be comprised of members in good standing in the state of Nevada. Either the committee members were employees or members of the Senate or Assembly, but the three people appointed by the Governor were all from the private sector. Mr. Lee questioned why there was no specification or requirement members live within the boundaries of the state. If someone moved out of state would they still be considered a member? Someone in San Francisco might have a law firm there yet still serve on the committee. Mr. Lee requested an amendment be made to specify only Nevada citizens could serve on these committees. Mr. Guindon agreed with Mr. Lee, although he felt it would be implied.
Assemblywoman Gibbons stated she looked at three councils: Forecast Council with 7 members, revenue with 9 members and 11 members in expenditures. She saw conflict in the different positions and although there were 27 positions, 13 would be in control. She questioned appointments the Governor would make in the Forecast Council, and stated there could be a person from higher education rather than a layperson as chairman. She felt the forecast position for number four could be the same as the expenditure person for number ten. Also, the ninth position of the Revenue committee should be the same as the ninth position of the Expenditure committee. She wanted non-partisan as well and was not quite sure how they would remove the politics from those committees. They had people in both administration and in government on the same committees. Only two positions could truly be considered lay positions and all of them could be state positions. She read the list of member’s positions for each committee again and stated the Governor could appoint someone from higher education. Technically only two lay positions were under revenue and two under forecast.
Ms. Gibbons questioned the word “practicable” located in Section 5, Subsection 9 and wondered if it could be made more specific. The term of office on the committees were appointed for four years and they could be reappointed for two years so there was no term limit.
Mr. Guindon tried to address some of the issues Ms. Gibbons mentioned. In her last statement about the term limit, she said there was nothing to restrict them from serving longer than eight years. With the change in leadership the Governor’s appointees would most likely change. The Technical Advisory Committee wanted to have people responsible for producing the forecast. They wanted people who had background and experience and could actively participate in the production of those forecasts. He stated there was nothing in A.B. 19 that prohibited the Governor from appointing a private sector person that served with the University System. The appointee would need to be from the private sector and not serving the state.
Assemblywoman Gibbons questioned positions and the possible conflicts of maybe having two appointees from higher education on the revenue and two from the expenditure council. Mr. Guindon stated there was nothing that prohibited the Vice-Chancellor from serving on both committees, but the intent of the Task Force was for the Vice-Chancellor to appoint someone to the Revenue Technical Advisory Committee that would have expertise or background to enhance the committee. On the expenditure side the intent was not for the Vice-Chancellor to actually serve but to appoint someone from the University who was actively involved in the budget and expenditure program within the University System. Mr. Guindon mentioned UCCSN, the Department of Prisons, Department of Education and Department of Human Resources; those four areas made up 90 percent of the General Fund appropriations and therefore represented both committees.
Ms. Gibbons advised Mr. Guindon her questions were still not answered and the possibility still existed that two members of revenue and two members of expenditure could be from higher education. She asked about the administration looking at someone who served in grades K-12. Mr. Guindon agreed that on both of the councils there could be two people from higher education. Nothing in the way the Task Force made proposals limited the Governor from appointing someone from the University System. This would create two higher education people on the same committee. He was not sure that provided a level of conflict. He also replied to Ms. Gibbons that he could not deny her proposals that there might be a greater representation from one area over another on the committee.
Assemblyman Mortenson stated he assumed the committee would function and do their work under public observation. Mr. Guindon replied that this was correct and was the intent of A.B. 525 of the Seventieth Session. He reiterated they were all public entities and would hold a public forum. If the advisory committee created a work group they would also have their meetings in public forum. All discussions would be open to the public. Mr. Mortensen understood the advisory committee was required to adhere to the open-meeting laws. Mr. Guindon said he understood the statute would require each body to hold their meetings in public forums. Mr. Mortenson agreed the advisory committees were required to comply with the open-meeting laws.
Assemblyman Humke described an incident as being the primary cause for the Economic Forum. He said there was a situation near the end of a legislative session in the early 1990s when the budget was nearly complete and the revenue forecast did not match the budget expenditures. He explained the situation was very precarious but a solution was reached in a private office and not in an open public session of the Legislature. This was part of the reason for the long-term forecasting mechanism. He cautioned the members of the committee not to try and “pick” this to death. He emphasized the Task Force represented at least ten years of work by those members on the money committees and they knew what they were doing.
Mr. Humke had a couple of questions regarding the private sector. He wondered if there was anything in the bill that stated the private members should be taxpayers. Mr. Guindon said there was nothing in the language of A.B. 19 that would require them to be a taxpayer. Mr. Humke felt that was the most important qualification. They could quibble about them being a registered voter but being a taxpayer was the most important criteria. He questioned if all the members on the committees would be subject to ethics and financial disclosure requirements, which existed in statute. Mr. Guindon was not sure he was qualified to answer the question and would get back to the members of the committee. His guess would be if it functioned like the Task Force some of the members had no disclosure requirements but others did. Mr. Humke assumed the state and local officials should come under the reporting requirements for financial disclosure. He believed private members would also be subjected to financial disclosure requirements. He also requested an answer to the question about their disclosure requirements.
Mr. Humke questioned Mr. Guindon whether the committees would assist newly elected Governors in their transition. Mr. Guindon stated he had not been able to go through the use of the forecast, but his answer would be yes, if the Governor chose to make use of the information provided. Mr. Humke summarized, saying a private sector person who would run for office could use their staff during those open meetings to become more familiar with the expenditure process before election.
Mr. Humke had one other technical question about the chart created by the Task Force. Under the Revenue Technical Advisory Committee, was there a description of the Chief of the Bureau of Research and Analysis in the Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation or his designee? Who was that person? Mr. Guindon replied it was currently Robert Murdock. Mr. Humke asked about Mr. Murdock’s background and credentials. He stated Mr. Murdock’s shop had several economists on staff and they were the agency that collected all the employment numbers, labor force numbers, wage surveys and had available resources from several economists. The revenue side would be able to project certain caseloads for some of the expenditure programs. He stated the intent of the Task Force was not for the director to actively serve in both of those committees, but to be able to appoint people from his background to both the revenue and the expenditure side. Mr. Humke admonished the committee and advised them again of the work involved over the past ten years to put together the information. He felt it was “on a good track” and the bill could serve the Legislature as elected officials, including Governors, come and go.
Assemblywoman Parnell questioned the fiscal note on the bill and also had a question on current expenditures on the Economic Forum. Mr. Guindon said the fiscal note of approximately $9,500 was attached with the bill and provided all the meetings, travel and per diem for all the different private sectors. Ms. Parnell verified approximately $10,000 per year with Mr. Guindon.
Chairman Bache stated since Mr. Guindon had more testimony he would like him to complete the testimony before taking more questions.
Mr. Guindon went through some of the recommendations of the Task Force and how they would be used in the state’s budget and planning. He explained the forecasts they were required to adopt must be submitted in a written report by March 1 of every even-numbered year. The forecast report of revenue expenditures would be delivered to the Director of the Legislative Council Bureau, to all legislators, staff, and Governor’s Office for distribution to the Department of Administration and appropriate state agencies. This long-term report would be formally presented to the Senate Finance Committee and the Assembly Ways and Means Committee at the beginning of each legislative session.
Mr. Guindon explained the Task Force thought it was important for the report to contain certain types of information with regard to the forecast. First it needed to contain a discussion of the changes in the current forecast from the prior long-term forecast. He emphasized the Task Force should include this information to make it more beneficial to the Governor, Legislature and the public and would help identify the impacts of prior decisions. Secondly, the Task Force felt the report should compare past long-term forecasts to the actual performance of each revenue and expenditure. Also, the Task Force felt a historical record of the forecast performance would be important information and would provide a tracking record of forecasts. Mr. Guindon identified the long-term forecast, which was prepared by the Forecast Council and would be considered the official state long-term forecast that would be used in all state planning and budget purposes. Differences between the published long-term forecasts and what were presented in the March 1 forecasts and an agency’s budget request or the Governor’s Executive Budget would be identified and explained in the document. The Task Force spent some time in discussing issues they felt might involve the individual agencies’ caseloads. They wanted the ability to say they had the forecasts produced and there were differences and economic factors which could change those forecasts. They felt they should discuss the differences from what was reported in the long-term forecast report. Lastly, he felt a useful mechanism to have in place was the required automatic review or preparation of a long-term outlook of measures deemed to carry a significant impact in the budget. The criterion proposed by the Task Force was that any measure could trigger the appropriate advisory committee to produce a long-term outlook of the potential impact of the proposals on the state’s revenue or expenditures. Mr. Guindon offered that they were in the second year of the biennial forecast of $1.9 billion so with the formula the criterion would be $38 million or 2 percent. He said because of the timing the committees would need to meet on or before 30 days prior to the end of the session or 90 days from the beginning of the session. They wanted time to get estimates and would need any long-term expenditure to be introduced at the beginning of the session or before the 75 days to allow time for estimates by the 90th day.
Mr. Guindon said the final element of the Task Force was they realized there might be several proposals that could be considered significant, but they might not trigger an automatic review by the two percent criterion. The Governor would be granted two requests and the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Majority leader would receive one each during each legislative session.
Assemblywoman Smith commented on the structure and had a special interest in the Task Force structure having served as a chairman for the past three and one-half years of a council created in the same fashion from the Sixty-Ninth Legislative Session. She emphasized the structure was really what drove the success of the work groups. The chairmanship of the Forecast Council and the Revenue Technical Advisory Committee would elect their chair but only from those three members. She suggested it would be better to have a chairman be appointed because it would be a difficult decision for three people. She pointed out the Task Force would have a lot of work to do in a short period of time and if a chairman was appointed and they knew they were in charge there would be adequate presentation time. Mrs. Smith stressed that in her experience the building of relationships within the committee that would speed up the processing necessary to make important decisions was of importance. She noticed just one representative on the Expenditure Technical Advisory Committee from the private sector and determined that person would automatically be the chairperson of the committee.
Mrs. Smith also wanted to point out the fiscal staff expenditures from the Legislative Council Bureau (LCB) and administrative services would be tremendous. Staff support from the three different committees should be considered and fiscally she did not want to minimize the staff requirements and their needs. They would need technical support, necessary information from outside entities, such as speakers, travel, education, and training regarding their jobs and what they are asked to do. She felt they should not be asking existing staff to perform those duties in addition to everything else they normally do.
Mr. Guindon wanted Mrs. Smith to give her opinion on who should be appointed chairman if the committee did not choose to elect a chairman when they met. Mrs. Smith responded she did not have an opinion as to who would be appointed as chairman. She supposed someone from the private sector would be the logical appointment and felt having that person in place would make more sense.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked about the Revenue and Expenditure Committees and suggested there be some kind of time limit on when their meetings took place. Mr. Guindon responded that was a difficult question to answer because the Task Force discussed those matters and wanted to try and not put too much structure in the process so the statutes would not need to be amended. He stressed he felt the process, as specified, would work.
Assemblyman Price appreciated the detail of the report but stated he had several problems with the concepts. He questioned if a legislator “dropped” a bill that would have a long-term fiscal impact why would they have to go to some other committee to have an approval. Also, was a constitutional question involved? He said the Legislature had the absolute constitutional power to introduce and pass any law it wanted to along with any budget. The Governor had veto authority. He questioned if this proposal was done in any other state and were there any guidelines. Mr. Guindon replied they were not telling the legislators what they could and could not do. Mr. Price interjected and requested to read the portion that concerned him. He read, “proposal introduced by the Legislature during the session must be prepared if the proposal modifies an existing or creates a new revenue expenditure program projected impact that amounts to two percent more” and stated the committee must come back before a proposal would be done. If they were doing business in the last three days and they needed to wait for a report back from a committee it would not be good. Mr. Guindon responded the requirement was appropriate; the Technical Advisory Committee would just produce an estimate to the Forecast Council and Governor and what was done at that point would be up to the legislator.
Mr. Price stressed if they put into statute that a committee or legislator was going to prepare and give a report, there was an indication they would need to wait for that report. Mr. Price stated the Legislature did not need to wait for anyone’s report under the Legislature’s power.
Ted Zuend, Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analyst Division, LCB, responded to Mr. Prices’ concern. The process would be similar to the fiscal note process except for a longer-term outlook. He did not think it demanded they wait for anything and in the current statutes on fiscal notes it stated the committees could not take action until the fiscal note was available on any bill. Mr. Price questioned if that was a joint rule and Mr. Zuend advised yes. He also said it was modified last session because in prior sessions by law they were unable to hear a bill unless there was a fiscal note. During the Seventieth Legislative Session they changed the statute because of the 120-day period to make it more workable. Mr. Zuend stated they were to have the fiscal process completed a minimum of 30 days prior to the end of session. If they created a new senior citizen drug program for all seniors then the Government Affairs Committee would hear the proposal and decide on long-term impacts. The committee would give the information to the Governor and Legislature and of course to the public. He stated what they did as a committee with bills was their own business but the Task Force would respond to the long-term proposals and the committee could choose to ignore what information was provided. Mr. Zuend said he felt it was more like a long-term fiscal process and would be for “high expenditure” issues.
Assemblyman Mortenson agreed with Mr. Humke about the Task Force and felt it was very important that the two public members on the committee be taxpayers. He felt it would also take care of Mr. Lee’s concern and would be a good amendment.
Assemblyman Humke was concerned about the open-meeting law and ethics implications and posed a question to council. Would the members be subject to the open-meeting laws at all their deliberations and would all the members be subjected to financial disclosures and ethics laws?
Chairman Bache asked Ms. O’Grady, Committee Counsel, to research and provide the committee with this information.
Assemblyman Lee had a question for Mr. Zuend. As he looked at the veterans’ issues he acknowledged they wanted to be heard statewide and wondered if they foresaw meetings being held all over the state rather than exclusively in Carson City. He needed to know if this had been discussed. Mr. Guindon replied it had not been discussed and this was left up to the Forecast Council and advisory committees. Their intent was to have the meetings conducted in a public forum and have the public participate. At a minimum, the meetings would be videoconferenced. Mr. Lee requested to add an amendment that the committee meetings be videoconferenced to other locations.
Assemblywoman Freeman, after listening to the testimony and the questions asked, shared the late Assemblywoman Jan Evans’ concerns. Mrs. Freeman said they must be very careful not to think the Task Force would be the best for our fiscal projections in the future. She questioned Mr. Humke about his request for legal opinion on open-meeting laws and the ethics issues and wondered if there was some way to include a letter of legislative intent. Somewhere along the line they needed to understand what they were trying to do here and they should not leave session and come back two years later and find more “perception” than “reality.” They needed to send a clear message to the public. She also agreed completely with Mr. Lee that meetings should be heard throughout the state. She said she missed the days when they could go out to the various communities and talk to the people about their concerns. She cautioned everyone to make sure this Economic Task Force would do what the committee wanted it to do.
Assemblywoman Gibbons wanted to know their budget since the Director of the LCB and the Department of Administration were jointly providing the committees with meeting rooms, staff, data services, and clerical assistants and the budget would increase to support those committees. She felt like it was coming from the legislative budget instead of more on the administrative side of the budget. Mr. Zuend said A.B. 525 of the Seventieth Session created Russell Guindon’s position regardless of what was done with this new bill. He stated this position would be funded as long as there was a statute. He mentioned there was a proviso for secretarial funds and they were envisioned for the future in A.B. 525 of the Seventieth Session. They were not funded in the Seventieth Legislative Session because he believed the fiscal analyst handled everything without sufficient resources. Ms. Gibbons asked again if funds would be under the LCB budget or administrative budget. Mr. Zuend stated the office of Financial Analysis and Planning would be the ones to coordinate most of the work and the Fiscal Analysis Division would provide secretaries to take minutes when the economic forum took place.
Assemblywoman Parnell shared her concerns with A.B. 19. She supported all the work done on both the short and long-term processes. Ms. Parnell said she was surprised they would need five different committees and councils to complete the job and there would be nearly fifty people on the combined committees. Her second concern was similar to Assemblyman Price’s in that the makeup of the committees would be very strongly managed by Governor’s appointments on those councils.
Assemblyman Price discussed the open-meeting law and stated they knew the Legislature was excluded. He only thought in terms of the minimum number of days to give notice of a meeting. The Legislature was excluded because at the end of session they made many decisions in very short periods of time. He would be reluctant to exclude another committee from those rules. Also, one committee consisting of seven members had five of those appointed by the Governor. He questioned why the Judiciary Branch had not been included in the long-term plans and money forecasts. He also asked why there was no member from the Supreme Court.
Mr. Zuend said the limit of ninety days after the beginning of the session was to cover big-money proposals reviewed by the technical board. After that there were thirty days left and things got hectic around that time in the prior sessions. Mr. Zuend stated the whole idea of the group paralleled the Economic Forum and they had always followed the open-meeting laws. He wished to make sure the committee was aware that a “third level” could be working in the background.
Assemblyman Price wanted the second part of his question answered. Mr. Guindon said the Task Force discussed the appropriate makeup of the committees. As they gathered all the different expenditure areas they determined those members were correct and anything larger in membership would become too unmanageable. The three departments including the University System should account for the bulk of these committees. Mr. Guindon contended the others would not be prohibited from participation although they would not actively serve. Mr. Price thought either one of the Chairmen from the two “money” committees and possibly the taxation committee should be part of the new committee.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 19.
Assembly Bill 182: Makes various changes to process of land use planning in certain counties. (BDR 22-57)
Chairman Bache called the meeting to order and introduced Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, explained legislation on A.B. 182 was actually a reprint of a bill that passed out of the house as A.B. 388 of the Seventieth Session. There was amended language written into this law by a subcommittee with local staff from local governments. Also it looked a little different from the original bill but this was the bill based on the amendments that were passed last session. A.B. 388 of the Seventieth Session was voted out of the Assembly 42 to 0. The Senate indefinitely postponed A.B. 388 of the Seventieth Session and therefore the Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee requested her to resubmit the bill this session (Exhibit E).
Ms. Giunchigliani explained legislation was still needed because this bill helped clarify what was needed in master plans for communities of 400,000 or under. The bill added mass transit, bike paths, model systems and terminologies that were not anticipated in the past and what must be contained in a master plan.
She explained some of the parts of A.B. 182 and described Section 4, which dealt with the public concerns regarding master plan amendments. Amendments could be made four times a year but also allowed flexibility with a 25 percent factor. She explained Section 7 made it clear that a public hearing must be held on the amendments. Subsection 5 of Section 7 had language stating an applicant who requested a change would be unable to go around a town board but must bring it to them for their consideration. This would allow the board to make recommendations to the county commission. If the governing board rejected those recommendations they would be required to provide a written explanation so the representative could determine the reason for rejection. She explained Section 9 required town advisory boards to obtain training so they would be able to understand their role as well as the law and ordinances. This would help the community that the board represents. Too often people were appointed without training and got into trouble with the open-meeting laws. The board might not even treat the applicants properly because they would not know the proper questioning process. Section 11 allowed appointments or “straw polling.” She explained several of the town boards took nominations from the local people that wanted to run for office. Their names were placed on the ballot and then would be recommended to the county commissions. This gave opportunities to more people who cared about time and commitment rather than appointing members. She clarified that it untied the hands of the commissioners.
Ms. Giunchigliani concluded the city of Las Vegas and Clark County might have potential amendments and the ones she reviewed were acceptable to her. She was concerned with the language regarding the 25 percent factor. If the committee wished, she would be happy to attempt to work with them to resolve any matters. She believed this would be a good piece of legislation and volunteered to answer any questions.
Assemblyman Neighbors asked what problem A.B. 388 of the Seventieth Session had on the Senate side. Ms. Giunchigliani stated part was the lateness of the bill and admitted she had a great deal of legislation last session and felt they passed three and maybe decided to postpone due to the lateness in the session. Mr. Neighbors asked if they looked at any major changes. She said they had not; the bill was passed out of the house after the amendments were worked out with everyone.
Assemblyman Price looked on page 5, line 4, where it said they should not amend the land use plan. He indicated that in a meeting he attended yesterday they changed the word “land” and the word “area” to “territory.” He suggested they use the word “territory” so it would fit with all the other legislation they were considering.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani strongly advised not to do any changes. She felt that would create havoc with individuals regarding the terminology and the master plan for “territory.”
Phil Rosenquist, Assistant Director, Clark County, spoke in support of A.B. 182. He indicated they had a couple of minor amendments but mostly to clarify and not to change any of the intent (Exhibit F). They wished to thank Ms. Giunchigliani for working with them. He summarized by explaining the bill made the 18 potential master plan elements (3 are currently mandatory) mandatory. They suggested making a minor word change from ” include” to “address.” Mr. Rosenquist said the regional flight control district already did regional flight control plans. The perimeters of those plans were being done by others so they felt it necessary to be consistent with the intent of those plans and should be consistent with the intent of the bill by making the change from “include” to “address.”
The second amendment was more clarification and dealt with a section of NRS that required planning by all the local governments, the counties, and the cities within the counties. He said one section talked about the commission’s adoption of master plans and wanted to clarify that the other entities would not like the commission adopting plans for them.
The next amendment fell into the section discussed in prior testimony in terms of limiting the number of amendments to a land-use plan. He stated they would like to change “the land-use plan” to read “a land-use plan.” The reason for the suggested change was that Clark County had 11 land-use plans and the geographic diversity of the county ranged from Laughlin with 10,000 people to a land-use plan for Winchester Paradise, an incorporated area of the Las Vegas Valley, which included 200,000 people. He stressed they wanted the flexibility across their spectrum of land-use plans.
Mr. Rosenquist requested the last change be in the section that dealt with the town advisory boards and citizen’s advisory council recommendations. He said they supported what the bill intended to do in this area in terms of better dialogue with the town boards and help to the people performing their functions. They had one change of language after a sentence that ended with “board,” they would like to add “or that the application was scheduled for a hearing before the affected town boards, citizen’s advisory council, town advisory board but was not acted upon.” They wanted the change because they were subject to a separate NRS 278.315 requirement giving them 60 days to hold a public hearing after they received an application. Also, the town board might have a lack of a quorum or they might need to “table” an item so the meeting cycles would not be on the same track with planning commission cycles. Therefore, they would not be able to meet the 65-day requirements. They believed they were consistent with the intent of the legislation and supported A.B. 182.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel questioned the amendment on lines 4 and 5, which changed “the land-use plan” to “a land-use plan.” She wondered if it would allow additional land-use plans to be produced under certain circumstances that otherwise would not have been allowed. The bill called for only four changes during a time period on land-use plans and if they changed “the land-use plan” to “a land-use plan” it indicated to her that land-use plans could be produced repeatedly. Mr. Rosenquist replied she was correct in her perception but they liked the flexibility in having it applied to each of their land-use plans. Their intent was not to create additional land use plans. He stated it was different in the rural areas because there were many land-use plans. There was only one land-use plan for the entire area of Clark County, which included Bunkerville, Moapa Valley, Moapa and Glendale. The provision would be the same with the northwest where they had either town advisory boards or citizen’s advisory councils, which included Indian Springs, Mount Charleston, Red Rock, which was also Blue Diamond and Mountain Springs. He said the whole geographic area would be one land-use plan. Ms. Von Tobel stated she was impressed that Mr. Rosenquist was so familiar with her district. She also said the major concerns from constituents were how often the land-use plans were allowed to change. They felt it should be good for many years and every time a developer went in they were allowed to make changes to the plan. Ms. Von Tobel stressed she did not want to see additional land-use plans which would allow over four maximum changes yearly.
Assemblywoman Gibbons referred to Section 9 and mentioned she liked to see town boards have training on the “red book” from the Attorney General’s Office regarding ethics, requirements, forms to fill out and discussions of open meeting laws. She asked about Section 7, Number 5, and Section 8, Number 4 regarding appointed people bringing recommendations to a governing board, which is an elected body. Ms. Gibbons questioned if the board ever decided to disregard and not accept those recommendations. She also questioned whether they had to submit and provide their reason for refusal in writing. If so, they would then have taken too much power from elected officials. She stressed elected officials are really the voice of the people and that is why she would be concerned. Mr. Rosenquist responded he felt comfortable with that area and gave an example. He said elected officials had a lot of final decision making. Variances, use permits and similar items were not done by the elected officials but were done by appointed members to the planning commission with delegated authority. There would also be an ability to appeal those decisions to the county commissions so there would be ultimate accountability to the elected officials. He explained if the elected officials made their final decision and it was different from the town advisory board recommendation they would be required to state why they reached their decision.
Assemblyman Mortenson did not understand the last amendment Mr. Rosenquist was suggesting and requested an explanation. Mr. Rosenquist explained this bill would say the recommendations from the town advisory boards needed to be considered by the elected body and the elected body could not hold a public hearing until they received those recommendations. That would put them in a separate section of NRS that would require them to hold a public hearing within 65 days of submission of an application. If the town board and especially those meeting on a monthly basis rather than biweekly took no action, they would go off cycle. Since they were required to hold a public hearing within 65 days and might not be able to fulfill commitments because of time constraints, they wanted the change in the bill to allow more time. Mr. Mortenson stated it was necessary to have advice from a town board in order to act. He did not understand the 65 days; and if the most infrequently meetings would be held was once a month, there was no problem. He believed in the amendment, if they did not take action they could proceed but if their amendment went through they had totally circumvented the town board. Mr. Rosenquist replied he wanted to clarify their intent and stated they tried to work out the language to represent exactly what he had suggested. They would say that once the application was scheduled for the affected town board it was their responsibility to post the agenda and take appropriate action. If they did not take action they would be able to move forward. Mr. Mortensen said it sounded fair and he understood.
Mr. Mortensen asked about Section 4 which said the commission shall not amend the land-use plan of the master plan more than four times in a calendar year except as otherwise provided in the subsection. He stated that would not apply to changes if they affected less than 25 percent of the area. He asked for a definition of the word “area.” Also, he wondered if that was the area of the land-use plan. Mr. Rosenquist replied he believed as the language was written the amendment the county was requesting was to change “the” to “a” and the other language was acceptable to them.
Mr. Mortensen stressed his concern because some of the land areas were very large and one section of eleven sections could be a sizable area. In effect, commissioners could set up land-use plans and then violate the plans constantly because every time they met it affected less than 25 percent of the whole land-use plan area. Mr. Rosenquist interpreted it to be one way but wanted to give a history of what was discussed. He said when Assembly Bill 388 of the Seventieth Session came up, a discussion referred to a particular “area” as something contained on the land-use plan. An example was when they tried to concentrate commercial nodes around major street intersections. He said they tried to avoid, when feasible, the strip-commercial development along the entire length of the street. If there was a portion of the land called commercial-professional (CP) it was an office-related node around an intersection. If 25 percent of the area planned for an office node then another 25 percent could be planned for a different use. There might be a plan for a convenience store or for small-scale retail use.
Mr. Mortensen stated he believed the use of the bill was to satisfy the complaints of people who would go into an area, build a house, consult a land-use plan and concur with their surroundings with awareness of the undeveloped land-use. People would move into their new homes and six months later everything had changed. They had a “skunk-works” next door to them. He mentioned if the area was large, and “area” meant 25 percent of a land-use plan, then everything in the land-use plan could change as many times as desired with no consistency. Mr. Mortensen would like to see “area” defined and would hope it was defined as a small area. He stressed there would be no importance without the “area” defined.
Chris Knight, City of Las Vegas, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Planning and Development Department, stated they wanted to speak on behalf of A.B. 182 and were in support of the bill with some amendments that Clark County had presented. They also wished to express their concerns and answer Mr. Mortensen’s question about the definition of “area.” Their primary concern was that the amendments Clark County presented would require that they address the 18 areas, and they concurred with that. Mr. Knight addressed page 5, Section 4, lines 3 through 8, which dealt with the amendment of the master plan four times yearly. The city of Las Vegas prepared general plan amendments on a quarterly basis but they still wanted to remain flexible. He said there might be circumstances based on work load that would require them to meet five or six times yearly. He stated they had done that to manage their workloads and thus far everything had been fine for four times yearly. He reasoned they were unable to predict what their future would be in their workloads and general plan amendments. They anticipated continuing with the quarterly meetings but wanted the ability to change if necessary based on their circumstances.
Mr. Knight also said they had created a policy plan for a new master plan in the city of Las Vegas. Before completing their plan they went into the three sectors of the city of Las Vegas and updated their land-use elements. Those were not done on a quarterly basis; they were done as they were completed to have a consistent land-use plan. The sector plans would have been delayed had they waited for the quarterly planning commissions and city council meetings. In conclusion there were some issues in that area.
Mr. Knight stated another issue was the 25 percent or more of an “area.” He stated there were three ways to look at that part of the bill. The first was to look at the entire area. If one took the northwest sector of the city of Las Vegas, which totaled approximately 58 square miles, that could be called the “area” and the 25 percent rule used on just that portion of land. Mr. Knight did not think that would be a prudent way to address the “area” of land.
He said another way would be to look at an area of a particular land-use classification. There are different land-use classifications within their plans and there might be 100 acres or 2 square miles of any particular land-use classification that are contiguous land and excluded roads. He defined there would be 25 percent of the land-use classification and authors of the bill also thought this way when the language was proposed.
Another interpretation would be 25 percent or more of the area would need to be notified under state law. He proposed they sit down and work on a definition; they spoke to Ms. Giunchigliani and she stated she would work with them to come up with some language that was acceptable to all the communities in southern Nevada.
Assemblyman Mortensen said he appreciated their three definitions and he would vote for 25 percent of the notification area. He asked if they would propose an amendment to define “area.” Mr. Knight responded it would be their intention to work with North Las Vegas, Henderson, Clark county and Las Vegas to develop a definition of “area” because it concerned all the municipalities. Mr. Mortensen asked if the amendment would be part of this bill. Mr. Knight said he agreed.
Assemblyman Price questioned whether they would need to exclude the acreage within areas that were called “county islands” or clusters that were not included in the city property. Mr. Knight stated when they looked at land-use plan amendments in the northwest area with the county islands they were viewed as the whole area. Also the definition of “territory” was an “assemblage of parcels,” which included multiple parcels. He said those would be in the county and under the annexation law would be called a territory. He said it would be difficult and would cause a lot of confusion when using the term “territory” for land-use plan amendments. Mr. Knight said they served two different purposes and functions.
Assemblyman Brown said this was his first session and he was not involved but stated this bill would impact primarily Clark County and asked Mr. Knight if he was involved in the discussions or development of A.B. 388 of the Seventieth Session. Mr. Knight said they provided comments at the last session and also had some discussion but were not part of the authoring of the amendments. Mr. Knight stated they helped author the current amendments. Mr. Brown said this impacted not only the county but also the cities and he was curious if Boulder City was involved and if they had any input on the bill. Mr. Knight stated he had no knowledge of their involvement.
Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association (SNHBA), said she spoke with the sponsor of the bill prior to the hearing. Ms. Porter explained they had a little different perspective than some of the other testimony heard in the meeting and addressed her concerns. She said SNHBA were regulated and must go before the town boards; they had testified on the issues many times over the years. She felt some of the suggested amendments were excellent and would clear up some of their questions. Ms. Porter agreed with “county” on page 2, and the requested change from “include” to “address.” Now that they had all elements in the general plan the town boards and citizen groups were still capable of developing their own land-use plans. She said their land-use plans sometimes meant, “I want that corner colored red and the other corner colored for multi-family” and they had not looked at what land use was all about. She said with all the processes involved they actually built the land to what the land-use plan should be. This would move away from citizen groups and town boards who sat down and colored up a map and called it a land-use plan.
Ms. Porter gave an example concerning areas of a county that had been determined to have very bad soil. As part of the general plan it would show bad soils and recommend no residential homes be built in those areas without extensive modification. She stated the area would be used more for mobile homes or industrial uses and could be adjacent to existing residential areas. Ms. Porter revealed they could have a whole new master plan and land use concept than ever before by actually doing this type of planning.
She concurred with removing the word “commission” on page 4. On page 5 she said something needed to be done about defining an “area” or possibly removing the word altogether. On page 7 she wanted to explain what they went through in the development industry today. The amendment stated they shall file with the town boards. Ms. Porter said currently they filed zone change applications with the city and county planning department. They paid the fees and filed sufficient copies of everything and sent those out to the agencies that needed to look at their applications. She said they also filed with the town boards. The new amendment appeared to change the process and by doing that it meant town board offices would need to be open so they could go to the town boards and process their filings. She questioned if there would be additional fees and how this would be handled because they would file directly with the town boards. Currently they filed with the county and referred their applications to the town boards. Ms. Porter emphasized those were parts of this bill and amendments that had not been thoroughly studied.
Ms. Porter sided with Assemblywoman Gibbons about the findings issue. She said this was a personal observation and not the Home Builders’ observations. Ms. Porter stated elected officials had to justify their actions every two or four or six years before the general public. She felt by using the language that was on page 7 and page 8 the elected officials were placed in a very difficult position. They had to justify what they did on appointed town boards that may or may not have the broad understanding of the issues in the communities but only in their small neighborhoods. We would now have an appointed body, the planning commission, who would have to give their findings and justify their actions to another appointed body in the town board.
Ms. Porter summarized by stating she felt there were some real problems to be worked through and she had already asked Ms. Giunchigliani if she could talk to her about the issues. She also said they needed to interrelate to all the time frames on development processes in the local ordinances as well to make sure when they were doing this they were not stepping over a time frame. She concurred members of town boards needed to be trained. Ms. Porter advised they also needed term limits for town board members. She said Clark County had changed so much in southern Nevada, some people on town boards began 18 years ago and could not relate to the urbanization of their location. She stressed they needed to relate and address the issues of the people that had moved into the area in the last 15 years. They needed new and fresh ideas all the time. They needed to have basic training in government, budgeting, land-use itself, the whole scheme of planning as well as the state laws on an annual basis. Another suggestion was to have procedural or Robert’s Rules of Order and some sensitivity training.
Ms. Porter gave an example of a lowly citizen going before the town board who had owned his house for years. The county built a new road and the road elevation had changed the elevation beside his house and as a result he needed to put in a retaining wall. Because of the regulations, he was unable to have a six-foot fence without a retaining wall and he needed to build it up and therefore needed a variance. He needed the fence and retaining wall to keep his children off the road. The variance was denied because the town board did not like the way the county built the road. She explained the town board sent a “message” to the county and the property owner was caught in the middle.
Assemblyman Lee asked Ms. Porter what members were on a citizen’s advisory council. He understood the town board but in his area they had neighborhood associations that came together and elected a chairman. Ms. Porter responded there were parts of the state that used citizen’s advisory councils and they had them in transportation and other things in southern Nevada. She felt the bill drafter was trying to cover all bases. She indicated builders who intended on building a subdivision contacted all the neighbors with letters and had a meeting with the local people since they were the best support group. The town board member might live six miles away and not be aware of impacts to a community.
Assemblywoman Freeman stated she was also interested in the town advisory boards and training. She wondered if the term “town advisory boards” was defined in the statutes. Ms. Porter replied she did not know and would probably need to look under the city and county statutes and perhaps the staff could research also. Mrs. Freeman questioned how the training would be funded. She stated they were doing training in Washoe County currently and it worked very well. Ms. Porter stated the local governments would provide the training and also would need to pay for the training. She stated she had pointed out earlier her concern for some other costs she felt would arise such as the staff for the town boards. Mrs. Freeman stated northern Nevada had a Regional Planning Commission and they also provided the funding.
Mrs. Freeman emphasized people who bought in rural areas had a right to know what their responsibilities and liabilities were. She was not sure those issues were addressed for the average homebuyer. Homeowners living in the middle of the desert should not expect local governments to provide their sewer service. Mrs. Freeman said there were certain expectations that make sense. Ms. Porter recalled many sessions ago disclosure laws were enacted so when people bought within a subdivision they received the master zone and surrounding area plans with their sales agreement. However, a home developed on a single lot or four-lot subdivision would have no disclosures. People who went out in the desert and lived on property with no disclosures became very unhappy when development occurred. Ms. Porter made a suggestion of requiring disclosures even in desert areas and felt it should be considered in a future session.
Assemblyman Mortenson agreed 100 percent on the last subject. He felt if one person moved into “rural estates” land, which was a term for “undeveloped” land, then the rural area should be named “rural estates.” They should differentiate between what is already zoned to be rural versus undeveloped land. Mr. Mortenson stated his impression was Ms. Porter was not very impressed with town boards and citizens’ advisory councils. Ms. Porter interjected and said they were a part of the process and could contribute. She felt we should educate, train and select town board members a little better than they had been before. Mr. Mortensen did not argue with her and stated the training would be good on an annual basis and said they received training before they began their tenure.
Mr. Mortenson said he had to disagree with Ms. Porter on a couple of items. He felt commissioners had an enormous area to represent and he did not feel they could keep up with everything going on in their particular area. The town boards and citizens advisory councils were closer to the people and were good appointments. They made decisions conducive to what their constituents requested. Sometimes it would go against a developer. He said those people put in a lot of time and did their work for free. He stated it was reasonable that if the commissioners voted against a recommendation they should show the courtesy of explanation. Also he was under the impression they presently corresponded their reasons for rejection in Clark County. Ms. Porter stated that should work two ways and the town boards should be a little more explicit in their recommendations as to why they had turned something down. Too often they made their recommendations based on prejudice and possibly did not want “those” people in their neighborhoods. Mr. Mortenson agreed with her but felt his town boards always gave a reason when their requests were rejected. Mrs. Porter said the statute made them hold meetings four times yearly and they should be more flexible. They needed more than four times yearly with some of them and said no flexibility might be a restraint on the staffing for local governments.
Assemblyman Neighbors questioned the term limits and wondered if she thought about just one term. As a prior county manager he recalled there being three different town advisory type boards. One was the town board where the people elected the board members. The other was the regular advisory type of board, which was appointed.
Assemblyman Mortenson mentioned there were also the Citizen’s Advisory Council and the Town Advisory Boards, which were both in the unincorporated part of Clark County. There was a small distinction between the two types but he was not sure and possibly it was the number of members or the degree of urban and rural land.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated in Sandy Valley they were called the Citizen’s Advisory Council. She said she was not sure why they had different names but felt they performed essentially the same functions.
Stephanie Garcia, City of Henderson, stated she supported the amendments proposed by Clark County and also would like to agree there needed to be clarification to page 5, line 8 in the reference to “25 percent.”
Stephanie Light, representing Elko County, stated she was not familiar with A.B. 182 and would need to study it further. She noticed several distinctions about whether a proposed amendment involved a county whose population was less or more than 400,000 or 100,000. She said when you reached page 7, item 5, line 32, it said “if a proposed amendment involves a change in the boundary of a zoning district” there was no distinction between a county and whether it was 100,000 or 400,000 in population. She stated her county was going through the bill to determine its effect on their town boards, town councils and town advisory committees. In one case they had a town board and citizen advisory committee that did not even live there. On page 10, line 10, there was no distinction about the variance or special use permits as to a small community or one with over 400,000 population.
Chairman Bache asked Ms. O’Grady to help answer the question. Ms. O’Grady, said, Subsection 5 on page 7, and Subsection 4 on page 10, applied to all counties. There was distinction in the statutes for notice in the counties but generally it would apply to all counties.
Ms. Light commented on term limits and said they might affect the county or a town board where the population had not grown in a long time or was declining.
Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 182.
Chairman Bache introduced one Bill Draft Request. (BDR)
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 20-420.
MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
********
Chairman Bache asked for any further business and with none adjourned the meeting at 10:52 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda Utt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: