MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Subcommittee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

March 20, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee on Government Affairswas called to order at 3:50 p.m., on Tuesday, March 20, 2001.  Chairwoman Bonnie Parnell presided in Room 3161 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:

 

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County

Stephanie Garcia, Lobbyist, City of Henderson

Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association

 

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

 

Chairwoman Parnell called the subcommittee meeting to order and referred to Exhibit C that outlined the areas of concern from the previous subcommittee meeting.  She referred to the proposed amendment that had been presented in the previous subcommittee hearing (Exhibit D).  The meeting was recessed to wait for Madelyn Shipman to arrive and reconvened at 4:01 p.m.

 

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, presented the proposed rewrite of A.B. 63 that had been done by Tracy Chase (Exhibit E).  The local governments had met and had agreed with the latest revision.  There was continued concern over Section 1, paragraph 1, where the word “improvements” was too broad.  Landscape medians, trails, bike paths, parks, and open spaces that had been previously discussed should be specifically outlined.

 

Ms. Shipman brought the committees attention to Section 3 where the words “(120) Days prior to the approval of the final map” were inadvertently left out.  A suggestion had been made for the landscape district process to be done administratively so it would not take up valuable time of the governing boards.  The governing board could delegate the administrative process by ordinance and reserve appeal rights.  A request was made to have the effective date of the bill changed from October 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002.

 

Ms. Smith questioned the relationship of Section 1 that referred to “A person who proposes to divide land” and then Section 3, Subsection (a), where it said “or include the tracts of land set forth in the petition in an existing maintenance district or unit of assessment.”

 

Ms. Shipman replied a developer would propose the division of a piece of land and certain landscape amenities would be included.  Each community had ordinances or master plan maps that dictated the criteria for those amenities.  The landscape maintenance district was an alternative to a homeowners association to maintain those areas.  Maintenance districts did not need to be connected and could be added when needed.

 

Ms. Smith explained she understood the process of the creation of the landscape maintenance district but felt the bill’s emphasis had shifted towards the assumption of existing homeowners associations. 

 

Ms. Shipman responded that NRS statute provided specific provisions for take-over of the maintenance of improvements that were not maintained by a homeowners association.  The provisions on page 3 (Exhibit E) provided for “retroactive” interaction and allowed for the creation of a maintenance district that had been specifically outlined in the subdivision’s CCRs.  The developer had chosen the alternative before the land had been turned over to the homeowners.  The language in Section 5, Subsection (b), referred to “A majority (all) of the owners of affected tracts” and addressed the developments that had more than one developer.  Subdivisions with current homeowners associations could not use the process.  A majority of homeowners in a subdivision could file a petition to form a landscape maintenance district if there was no homeowners association.

 

Ms. Smith questioned where the word “exterior” had been added in Section 1 and wondered if “public lighting” needed to be further clarified.

 

Ms. Shipman responded the “public lighting” referred to was additional lighting in landscape areas that outlined those communities.  The landscape lighting benefited the public and was required by local building codes.  Normal street lights were an ordinance of local government. 

 

Ms. Smith stated she wondered if the lighting was inside or outside the development.  Ms. Shipman said lighting under the language was not limited to exterior walls.

 

Mr. Brown questioned Section 3, where the trigger of filing the petition had been changed to the “approval of the final map.”  Ms. Shipman recalled a landscape maintenance district could not be created until all improvements had been made and accepted.  The developer needed to know when he filed his final map that his improvements had been accepted.  If the improvements were not accepted, the developer needed time to change those amenities and modify the CCRs accordingly.  The increased time frame would benefit the developer and could be waived or shortened by the local governing body.

 

Mr. Brown wondered if the extended time frame was necessary for an “existing” development.  Ms. Shipman responded maybe the time frame could be shortened for an existing development.  The language could be worded to state that “120 days of filing of a final map of a new development and/or 45 days of filing of a petition for an existing development.”

 

Mr. Brown paraphrased Section 3, Subsection (g), where “the governing body determines that it would be desirable to assume the maintenance of the improvements, the governing body shall by ordinance address matters relating to the ownership of the land and improvements.”  He felt the wording was wide open to interpretation.

 

Ms. Shipman clarified the key to the section was to allow maintenance areas that met certain criteria be accepted as landscape districts.  Those common areas of public benefit were required by local government and should be accepted by them.  Any additional cost to local government could be assessed back to the homeowners in the subdivision.

 

Mr. Brown questioned whether the issue of land ownership and improvement was related to liability.  Ms. Shipman responded they did not want to mandate that landscape areas be owned by government.  Two parks, one in Caughlin Ranch, Reno, and one in Saddlehorn, Washoe County, were owned by the homeowners associations.  They had chosen to maintain and own those public parks because they wanted to retain control of the maintenance and available services.  A.B. 63 allowed the creation of landscape districts and outlined where the ownership would belong.  Local government would be required to accept landscape districts they had required the builder to create.

 

Mr. Brown questioned if the word “address” in Section 3, Subsection (g), referred to the governing body accepting or not accepting the landscape maintenance district.  He said the language was not clear and questioned if it also related to the areas outlined in Section 1.

 

Ms. Shipman responded in the affirmative and stated Section 1, Subsection (d), had been added to include additional amenities that were required by local governments.  Those could include trails, parks, open spaces, and landscape medians. 

 

Mr. Brown questioned if Section 3, Subsection (g), was a mandate to local governments.  Ms. Shipman clarified if local governments chose to go forward with landscape maintenance districts and improvements that met specific criteria, then ownership of the area would go to the local government.

 

Ms. Shipman concluded that Washoe County was satisfied with the proposed amendments.  NRS had defined landscaping, public lighting, and security walls.

 

Stephanie Garcia, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, stated they would like further clarification on Section 1, paragraph (d), to specify the amenities they had talked about, such as, trails, paths, open spaces, and median islands.  They wanted the flexibility to have the procedure done administratively.  She concurred with Mr. Brown and the need for further language clarification.

 

Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, city of North Las Vegas, stated for the record they were pleased with the proposed amendments and Mr. Brown’s comments for further language clarification.  They also wanted further definition of “exterior landscaping” in Section 1.

 

Chairwoman Parnell questioned if the NRS definition of exterior landscaping was okay.  Ms. McDonald replied she would confer with her staff, but felt that was okay. 

 

Ms. McDonald felt the word “retroactively” in Section 5 could be burdensome on local government.  They appreciated the discretion given local governments in Section 3.

 

Chairwoman Parnell clarified the three major concerns were Section 1, Subsection (d), where specific types of amenities needed to spelled out; Section 3, the option of administrative review; and Section 5, the use of the term of “retroactively”.  Ms. McDonald replied in the affirmative.

 

Ms. Smith stated that NRS did not define the term “exterior landscaping.”

 

Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, city of Las Vegas, stated they were satisfied with the proposed amendments.  He did feel an administrative process with appeal rights reserved for the governing board would be easier for the developer.

 

Mr. Brown questioned the length of an appeal process in Las Vegas.  Mr. Musgrove did not know but would get the information for the committee.  He did feel it should be consistent with local government standards.

 

Mr. Brown was concerned whether a denied petition and the subsequent appeal process could be completed in the time frame of the bill.

 

Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, had concerns about the land dedication issues that were directly related to the governing body’s acceptance of landscape maintenance districts.  The homebuilders association did not have faith those districts would be approved by local governments.  The current landscape maintenance district law had been on the books for four years and no governing body in southern Nevada had applied the law or accepted the petitions that had been filed.  She felt tight time frames and additional clarification were needed.  She strongly objected to the request that moved the inception date from October 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002.  She felt it should be effective “upon passage and approval” and ordinances could be done within 30 days.

 

Chairwoman Parnell questioned if she had any problems with the Tracy Chase proposed amendments (Exhibit E).

 

Ms. Porter stated the language in Section 3, Subsection (g), was a little broad and could be clarified more.  The issue was not mandatory land dedication but that homeowners in a subdivision were left with the liability of public landscape areas.  Because discretion had been given local governments, the area needed to be expanded to include trails, bike paths and other improvements that were open to the general public.  Land ownership should be deeded to local government regardless of who maintained those areas.  Any trail or path that sat in private ownership, whether part of Nevada adopted trails plan or not, could be fenced off by a homeowner or a homeowners association.  The trail would be removed from public use.  The adopted trails plan did not work unless the land was deeded to the public.  The problem needed to be addressed because the emphasis of the bill had shifted from a mandatory to optional landscape maintenance district.  She agreed the proposed administrative process was a good idea.

 

Ms. Smith questioned if the time frame should be shortened to 45 days for an administrative process.  Ms. Shipman said the builder needed to know before he recorded his final map whether he needed a landscape maintenance district or a homeowners association.  A shortened administrative hearing time would benefit the builder.

 

Mr. Musgrove stated the 45-day filing period would be sufficient for an administrative process.  The appeal process could need the additional 90 to 120 days.

 

Chairwoman Parnell explained one more meeting was needed to address the issues that remained.  Her staff had discussed whether a “tentative” map or a “final” map had more flexibility, but she did not want to introduce new issues.

 

Ms. Shipman suggested local governments could provide the time frames they used for processing subdivisions.  By working together they could set shortened time frames.

 

Chairwoman Parnell referred to Exhibit C and that they had covered all the issues except for two.  “Perimeter” landscaping and “tentative” or “final” map terms needed to be decided.  All other issues had been discussed and resolved.  Currently, Section 1, Subsection (d), needed clarification; Section 3, the addition of administrative review; general concern about clarification of Section 3, Subsection (g), and Section 5, the word “retroactively”, were issues of concern.

 

Mr. Brown stated Section 1, Subsection (a), had added the word “exterior” to landscaping and suggested a change from “landscaping defined” to “exterior landscaping defined.”  Additional specifications were also needed for the word “improvements.”

Dave Ziegler, Political Analyst, questioned whether Section 2 of the original bill that amended NRS 278.4789 was included or had it been deleted.

 

Ms. Shipman replied that Section 2 had been written in 1995 to take over a failing homeowner’s association because a landscape district option had not been offered to the builder.

 

Chairwoman Parnell clarified no changes would be made to Section 2.  Ms. Shipman replied their proposal would delete the changes to Section 2.

 

Chairwoman Parnell thanked everyone for their time and commitment to A.B. 63 and she would schedule another meeting.  Seeing no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, Subcommittee Chairwoman

 

 

DATE:           

 

 

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

 

 

DATE: