MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Subcommittee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

March 29, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee on Government Affairswas called to order at 3:50 p.m., on Thursday, March 29, 2001.  Chairman Bonnie Parnell presided in Room 1214 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 Homebuilder’s Association

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County

Tracy Chase, Deputy City Attorney, Reno

Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County

Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas

James Bell, Director, City of North Las Vegas Public Works Division

Janelle Kraft, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

 

 

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 Homebuilder’s Association, stated all parties concerned had verbally agreed with the proposed amendments (Exhibit C).  “Perimeter subdivision” replaced “exterior” in subsection 1(a).  Subsection 3 changed the landscape maintenance district approval time from 120 to 90 days and allowed approval before the final map was filed.

 

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, stated “before the approval” would replace “of the approval” in subsection 3.

 

Tracy Chase, Deputy City Attorney, Reno, added “alternatively, a governing body may, by the ordinance established in paragraph 2, delegate the approval and acceptance process in accordance with standards set by the ordinance to an administrative if there is an appeal process to the governing body” to subsection 3.  The additional language gave local governments an alternative administrative process.  A master ordinance would be created and the developer or subdivision would have appeal rights on a denied petition.

 

Ms. Shipman said there were questions on the technical language but they would allow legal to correct the language.

 

Ms. Porter explained new language should be added to subsection 3(g) (Exhibit D) that addressed subdivision trails dedication.

 

Mr. Brown questioned whether the word “improvements” had been satisfactorily defined.  Ms. Porter referred to the new language in subsection 1(d) (Exhibit C) that specified the types of landscape improvements desired.

 

Mr. Brown asked whether the term “perimeter subdivision” should be added to “public lighting” and “security walls” in subsection 1.  Ms. Porter responded she had no problem with that and deferred to local governments.  Ms. Chase stated the additional language would clarify what the statute addressed. 

 

Mr. Brown questioned whether a new “final” map would be required of existing homeowner associations that wanted to become a landscape maintenance district.

 

Ms. Shipman answered subsection 5 addressed homeowner associations.  Ms. Porter said item (c) could be added to subsection 5 to specifically address the issue.

 

Mr. Brown questioned if subsection 3 adequately addressed an existing homeowner association that petitioned to become a landscape maintenance district.

 

Ms. Shipman replied it did as long as subsection 5 provided for a petition to be brought forward.  Mr. Brown said the homeowner association could apply before a public hearing or an administrative body.

 

Ms. Shipman stated the public lighting in A.B. 63 was the median lighting at the entrance of a subdivision and did not know whether it needed further definition.

 

Ms. Porter suggested a compromise might be “subdivision public lighting” and it could be moved into subsection 1(d) to be covered.

 

Chairman Parnell summarized page one:

 

            1) Section 1(a) would add, “perimeter subdivision landscaping.”

            2) Section 1(b), public lighting, would go into Section 1(d).

            3) Subsection 3 changed “120 days” to “90 days.”

            4) Administrative option language would be added.

 

Ms. Porter explained subsection 3(a) through 3(g) would stay as proposed.  She felt an additional subsection needed to be drafted and added to address the dedication of trails.

 

Ms. Shipman responded an addition to subsection 3 would fall under the optional section.  Any subdivision that had a public trail required by local government should be dedicated.

 

Ms. Porter concurred with Ms. Shipman and felt it should be a separate section.

 

Mr. Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst, suggested, “perimeter trails required by the governing body and open to the public must be accepted by the local government.”  Ms. Porter responded that would be adequate.

 

Ms. Chase expressed she felt the language needed to be tied to Section 1(d), which stated trails provided a substantial public benefit or were required by the local government intended for primary use of the public.  The same thought pattern should continue throughout the statute.

 

Chairman Parnell thanked Ms. Chase for her comments and stated all committee members would be comfortable with that.

 

Ms. Shipman stated there might be a situation where the governing body would be required to accept trails but did not want to accept the landscaping or exterior walls.  Additional language was needed so the governing body could not accept the perimeter landscaping in lieu of trails.

 

Ms. Porter summarized there could be options for local government to accept landscaping and trails if they chose, but an open, public trail required by the government must be dedicated.  The perimeter landscaping was an option for acceptance, but the trail was mandatory.

 

Ms. Porter explained subsection 5(c) could address Ms. Shipman’s concerns about homeowner associations.  Sections 2 and 3 would be deleted from the bill.  All parties agreed the land trail dedication section would become effective “upon passage and approval.”  The balance of the bill and ordinances would have an effective date of October 1, 2001.

 

Chairman Parnell reiterated they had covered all the unresolved issues from the previous subcommittee meeting.

 

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, questioned how proposed paragraph (c) in subsection 5 related to the rest of the bill.

 

Ms. Shipman explained the idea of a majority of property owners of an existing homeowner association, or as otherwise set forth in their CC&Rs, that petitioned for a landscape maintenance district could be tied into the rest of subsection 5.  The bill’s intent gave property owners the right to take action.

 

Ms. O’Grady responded a paragraph (c) was not needed if paragraph (b) could be amended to address the issue.  Ms. Shipman replied that would be okay if the law did not interfere with existing CC&Rs.

 

Ms. Porter thanked the subcommittee for their patience in working with them to solve the issues of A.B. 63.

 

Chairman Parnell appreciated and thanked them for their hard work on the bill’s language.

 

Colleen Wilson-Pappa, lobbyist, Clark County, stated they met with Ms. Porter on the amendments and agreed in concept with everything presented today.  She appreciated the development of a master ordinance that gave people a fair hearing.

 

Kimberly McDonald, lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, thanked the committee for their patience in resolving the issues of A.B. 63 and they supported all the proposed amendments.

 

James Bell, Director Public Works Division, City of North Las Vegas, suggested the language in subsection 3 be changed from “administrative” to “an official designated by the governing body.”  He commented the cities were not currently staffed to handle the new agreements but felt the bill would be a benefit to those concerned.  Billing was not addressed in the amendments and they would wait and see if that became a problem.

 

Chairman Parnell thanked Mr. Bell and commented the wonderful part of the legislative process was they could return in two years and address or correct any mistakes that were made.

 

Mr. Bell commented the homeowner’s associations had complexities that might become issues when converted to landscape maintenance district.

 

Janelle Kraft, lobbyist, city of Las Vegas, commented they were in agreement with the proposed amendments.  The issue of assessments on trails had been addressed to their satisfaction.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE             FULL ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AN AMEND             AND DO PASS A.B. 63.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS AGREED UNANIMOUSLY WITH THE             RECOMMENDATION.

 

           

Chairman Parnell thanked everyone for his or her work and dedication and adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Glenda Jacques

Committee Secretary

 

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, Subcommittee Chairperson

 

 

DATE:           

 

 

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

 

 

DATE: