MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY SubCommittee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

March 6, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee on Government Affairswas called to order at 3:49 p.m., on Tuesday, March 6, 2001.  Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 4100 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.

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms.                     Bonnie Parnell, Chairman

Mr.                     David Brown

Ms.                     Debbie Smith

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Assoc.

Jim Bell, City of North Las Vegas

Kimberly McDonald, City of North Las Vegas

Dan Musgrove, City of Las Vegas

Chris Knight, Planning & Development Department, City of Las Vegas

Stephanie Garcia, City of Henderson

Tracy Chase, Deputy District Attorney, City of Reno

 

Chairman Parnell opened the meeting and read a statement from Madelyn Shipman, Washoe County District Attorney, regarding the proposed amendments to A.B. 63 (Exhibit C).

 

Assembly Bill 63:  Revises provisions governing maintenance of landscaping, public lighting and security walls in subdivisions and planned unit developments. (BDR 22-994)

 

Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, stated the discussions held since the last subcommittee meeting had brought them closer to solving the problems with the first bill draft.  Ms. Shipman’s amendments (Exhibit D) had addressed many of the areas of concern. 

 

The original bill had mandated local governments to accept all landscape maintenance district petitions.  The revised amendment would mandate local governments to establish an ordinance to allow landscape district petitions to be heard on their own merits.  The builders needed to have an avenue to present their petitions.

 

Subsection (d) was added to Section 1 to include bike paths and walking trails.  This provided a way for the city to maintain those improvements without buying that right-of-way.  Private land dedicated to local governments for maintenance would be beneficial and result in a cost savings.  When exterior landscaping was the only amenity in a subdivision, there needed to be an alternative vehicle to maintain those improvements.  Landscape districts would maintain the exterior landscaping and would remove the public liability from homeowners.  Builders wanted to dedicate the exterior landscaping to local governments.  Local government could address liability issues with tort caps and other legal remedies.  At the formation of a landscape district, the local government could include the cost of added insurance in the fee.

 

Section 3, Subsection (g), left the dedication of the mandatory trails optional.  If a builder was required to put in trails the general public would use, local government should be mandated to accept the dedication of that land.

 

Chairman Parnell questioned whether the deletion of the majority of Subsection 3 in the original bill had been revised to Ms. Porter’s satisfaction.  Ms. Porter responded she agreed with the revision because it gave local governments the authority to approve landscape maintenance districts.  The builders simply wanted local governments to be mandated to allow landscape district petitions to be filed.

 

Ms. Smith wondered if “perimeter” landscaping should be defined.  Ms. Porter replied they preferred to keep the definition flexible to include trails, paths, sidewalk landscaping, or linear parks.

 

Jim Bell, city of North Las Vegas, noted the addition of Section 1, Subsection (d), would open up the landscape maintenance districts to include many additional items.  His concern was the 45-day filing period in Section 1, paragraph 3.  Possibly criteria should be established on what a complete filing package would consist of for review. Instead of declining a petition for lack of information at the time of filing, the city could say insufficient information had been provided to make a determination.

 

Mr. Bell felt conferred powers needed to be provided so local governments could implement the powers of the landscape maintenance association (LMA).  He felt the addition of land dedication added to the complexity of the issue and was not needed.  A note in the law would allow governmental agencies the existing LMA authority.  Present powers in the agreements could be extended to governmental agencies.  The discretion would lie with local governments to modify or limit those powers.  A concern was raised on the issue of land dedication if unforeseen issues arose.  Besides accidents, environmental or other major problems could affect liability issues. 

 

Mr. Brown questioned what was involved in the process of dedicating private property to a public entity. 

 

Mr. Bell explained that depending on the types of land involved there were different ways to dedicate private land.  The city would first need to make a determination if it would be in the public benefit to annex the land.  The city would usually make an agenda item and then proceed forward.  Cities typically consummated the dedication with a recording of a map or other specific documents.  Typically those were done in accordance with the city’s master plan.  The government needed to have the power to enter private land to properly execute the maintenance of those districts.

 

Mr. Brown stated his concern over the builder being mandated by the city to put in specific landscape amenities that could result in a liability to homeowners.  Builders mandated to install landscaping that was used by the public should not be required to carry the liability.  It might be more equitable to have the liability shifted to the governing body whose residents, as a whole, enjoyed that benefit.

 

Mr. Bell replied liability was an increasing issue.  The answer could be that additional protection should be provided to homeowners associations.  Many private associations provided better maintenance than governments.  The strengthening of the homeowners associations would be an advantage to local governments.

 

Chairman Parnell pointed out Section 1, referencing people who proposed “to divide land for transfer or development,” clarified the bill referred to new developments only.  Mr. Bell responded that maybe initial government responsibilities should be looked at instead of looking at situations where problems had already developed.  Governmental agencies owed it to their community to keep those agencies intact. 

 

Kimberly McDonald, city of North Las Vegas, thanked Ms. Shipman for the proposed amendments and looked forward to working on improving them.

 

Dan Musgrove, city of Las Vegas, clarified some misstatements made during the first subcommittee hearing.  The sponsors of the bill felt Las Vegas had misrepresented themselves in regard to the filing of landscape maintenance district petitions.  Further research revealed that Richard Plaster of Signature Homes had inquired about the process of initiating a landscape maintenance district.  Those inquiries never got to the petition stage because the city discouraged them.  The city would like to develop a process to work with those issues.  Ms. Porter’s concerns regarding homeowners associations were legitimate.  The city needed to develop a process, by ordinance, where petitions could be filed and the decision making process would go before the governing bodies.

 

Currently, Las Vegas was in agreement with the proposed amendments.  They would like to have “perimeter” landscaping defined further.  Possibly the city would be allowed to go to the builder and define what landscape areas they would accept.

 

Chris Knight, Comprehensive Planning Manager, City of Las Vegas Planning and Development Department, stated they agreed with the proposed amendments.  They would also like to see “perimeter” landscaping and lighting be more defined.

 

Stephanie Garcia, city of Henderson, appreciated the proposed amendments and requested an additional meeting to finalize the details.  They would like “perimeter” landscaping define.  They wanted clarification of what was specified in the landscape areas intended for use by the general public and what level they had to be maintained.

 

Tracy Chase, Deputy City Attorney, city of Reno, explained they needed two weeks to complete a landscape maintenance district ordinance.  The 45-day filing period would not allow them the time they would need.  The park referred to in the previous subcommittee hearing dedicated to Reno was a perimeter, linear park.

 

Ms. Chase continued, in Subsection (g), the reference to property dedication might be more appropriately changed to property ownership.  There were different forms of ownership or holding property that could be totally acceptable under certain circumstances.  Each individual applicant needed to be looked at and a determination would be made on what best suits the needs of the applicant and the city or county that was accepting the improvements.  For example, one homeowner did not want to dedicate their land and provided the city with the necessary easements.  Because there were many avenues to work out problems it might not be prudent to restrict everyone to land “dedication.”

 

She added it would assist the city to have the county include the landscape maintenance district billings in the property tax billings.

 

Ms. Smith recommended an additional subcommittee meeting be held to iron-out the final problems with the bill.

 

Chairman Parnell said she would tentatively schedule a meeting for the week of March 19, 2001.  She summarized the areas that needed clarification were; 1) Section 1, (d), covering the issue of bike paths and trails; 2) the 45-day filing period; 3) concern over the use of the word “dedication;” and, 4) a clear definition of the word “perimeter.”

 

She thanked all the participants for the headway they had accomplished since the last meeting.  Hopefully, the third subcommittee hearing would finalize the bill.

 

Having no further business before the committee, Chairman Parnell adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, Subcommittee Chairperson

 

DATE:           

 

 

 

                                                           

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

 

 

DATE: