MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
March 19, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, March 19, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Laura Hale, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Assistant District Attorney, District Attorney, Washoe County
Jim Shaw, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Washoe County
Mark Sullivan, Chairman, Regional Planning Commission, Washoe County
Mary Sonata, Member, Regional Planning Commission, Washoe County
John Howe, Concerned Citizen
Neal H. Cobb, Concerned Citizen
Don Vetter, Lobbyist, Champions of the Truckee
Roy H. Hibdon, Concerned Citizen
Gary Feero, Concerned Citizen
Richard Hobbs, Concerned Citizen
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Community Relations Director, City of Reno
John B. Hester, Community Development Manager, City of Reno
Steve G. Holloway, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors – Las Vegas
Dennis R. Haney, Counsel, Nevada State Contractor’s Board
Margi Grein, Lobbyist, Executive Officer, Nevada State Contractors Board
James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Purchasing and Contracts Administrator, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission
Ted J. Olivas, Purchasing and Contracts Manager, General Services, Clark County
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 279 and S.B. 280.
SENATE BILL 279: Prohibits cities in certain counties from exercising certain powers of zoning in certain circumstances. (BDR 22-497)
SENATE BILL 280: Prohibits certain cities from creating island by annexation of land. (BDR 21-498)
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Assistant District Attorney, District Attorney Washoe County, provided written testimony with a proposed amendment (Exhibit C). She explained these two bills would only affect Washoe County, where regional planning was enacted in 1989, with the first plan implemented in 1991, and updated in 1996. Ms. Shipman said the Regional Planning Commission is composed of nine members, three planning commissioners each, from Sparks, Reno, and the unincorporated area of Washoe County. The Regional Planning Governing Board has 10 members, including 4 elected officials from Reno, 3 elected officials from Sparks, and 3 elected officials from the unincorporated area of Washoe County, she said.
Ms. Shipman clarified the regional plan does not zone property, approve projects, or impose development standards; but is composed of policies and objectives, quality of life factors, designations, and anticipated infrastructure. She added, the plan establishes spheres of influence (SOI), defined in Reno as areas into which the city intends to expand, through annexation, over the next 7 years. Further, she said, under chapters 278.010 through 278.630 Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), a city may exercise the power of zoning through extraterritorial jurisdiction over a SOI.
Ms. Shipman reported that residents expressed concerns about the increase of density within SOI, brought about by officials who are not elected and without notice to the citizens. Although attempts were made to address these concerns through regional meetings, Ms. Shipman claimed the results were not satisfactory. She explained S.B. 279 would limit applications for increased density within SOI, to conform to the existing county comprehensive plan for a given area, until that property is actually annexed to the city. She asserted this would benefit citizens and the city because it would maintain continuity within neighborhoods prior to annexation, and also provide incentive for annexation.
Ms. Shipman explained S.B. 280 would prohibit the creation of islands through annexation, noting that the City of Reno annexed all of its islands in the last 2 to 3 years.
Jim Shaw, Chairman, Washoe County Board of Commissioners, testified many calls were received by the commissioners, from citizens concerned about rapid annexation in Washoe County. He stressed the proposed bills are not for “anti-annexation” purposes, but rather for good planning purposes. He said S.B. 279 would give citizens and the county representatives an opportunity to voice their concerns regarding density, and it would also allow for a smooth transition from county to city in the issuance of building permits and enforcement of development codes within SOI. Mr. Shaw stated annexation must be done carefully to benefit everyone with proper services and representation. He noted that S.B. 280 addresses some of the problems created when people reside in both the city and the unincorporated county.
Mark Sullivan, Chairman, Regional Planning Commission, Washoe County, testified both bills would allow more public input and promote regional cooperation. He claimed S.B. 279 would promote input from residents of areas adjacent to new developments or SOI, and S.B. 280 would strike old language regarding “40 acres or less,” and would prohibit the creation of islands of any size.
Ms. Shipman responded to several questions from Senator Porter. She said citizen concerns were not resolved through regional meetings, and a particular concern was raised regarding authority to reject applications for increased density under local agreements. She said, historically, local governments have accepted the decisions of the regional planning commission, so there has been no need to come to the Legislature.
Continuing, Ms. Shipman said, under current state law, cities are allowed to zone property in SOI, following certification from the regional planning commission. She explained one of the purposes of SOI is to ensure consistent development standards for properties that would ultimately be annexed to the city, and SOI residents get building permits from the city.
Ms. Shipman said, currently in Washoe County, a public vote is required for annexation of any property other than an island of 40 acres or less. She clarified S.B. 280 would still allow involuntary annexation of an island of 40 acres or less, but would prohibit creation, through annexation, of an island of any size.
Ms. Shipman reported that concerned citizens challenged the City of Reno in one case, where it attempted to rezone a parcel from a minimum of 2.5 acres to 5.5 acres, and the City of Reno withdrew its proposal. She added there have been no problems with the SOI regulations until recently, because the City of Reno did not exercise its option of extra-territorial jurisdiction until 1 and 1/2 years ago.
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, explained subsection 2, section 1 of S.B. 279 is written with a precedent condition, to guarantee that each subsequent change in zoning or ordinance does not become effective until the conditions of page 2, lines 4-6 are met.
Ms. Shipman called attention to the proposed amendment at the end of Exhibit C, which suggests joint planning areas as a way to deal with the concerns raised. Chairman O’Connell warned Ms. Shipman of the current delay with amendments, suggesting that she may want to take the bill to the “other side.”
Mary Sonata, Member, Vice Chairman, Regional Planning Commission, testified support for the bills, as the Washoe County delegate to the commission. She reported S.B. 279 addresses heartfelt feeling from citizens who bought into a region with particular zoning, fearing that it may be rezoned without their input. She said S.B. 280 is more related to the 5-year update of the regional plan and incorporates “smart growth” principles. Ms. Sonata explained these principles include that new development and density should occur along existing transportation corridors to avoid sprawl and the related difficulties created in providing municipal services.
Ms. Sonata claimed land is generally cheaper outside these corridors and government effectively subsidizes development by providing services to these outer areas. She asserted if developers are allowed to create islands by going out, then there is no incentive to develop within the corridors.
In response to questions from Senator Porter, Ms. Sonata said the regional plan has been loosely interpreted up to this point, it does include SOI and projected land use, and the regional board has been able to accommodate all the land use changes that have been brought to its attention. She explained, in order to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction, the city has to submit a plan to conform to the regional plan; to date, nothing has been turned down for being out of conformance. Ms. Sonata agreed the process has worked according to the law, but maintained citizens have been concerned about it. She clarified the regional planning board has not discussed, or taken a position on, either S.B. 279 or S.B. 280.
John Howe, Concerned Citizen, provided a copy of his written testimony (Exhibit D), in support of both S.B. 279 and S.B. 280. He reported the goals of the update of the 5-year regional plan are as follows: respect and preserve the character of existing communities; promote common sense land use; preserve open space and protect natural resources; promote cost-effective, high quality service delivery; promote cooperation rather than competition among governments in plans and planning processes; and provide certainty and stability in plans and decision processes.
Mr. Howe reiterated support of S.B. 279 to give residents a say in zoning decisions through their elected county officials, and protect years of planning by property owners and county government. He also reiterated support of S.B. 280 to prohibit the creation of islands.
Neal H. Cobb, Concerned Citizen, testified support for S.B. 279 because it would allow elected representatives to have a say in zoning decisions that affect their constituents. He said there is currently a lawsuit against the Regional Governing Board in relation to a SOI request. In conclusion, Mr. Cobb said, “I live on the edge of change and I would like our concerns recognized, along with representation and a say in good planning processes. We want as much protection of the rural lifestyle as we can get. The county commission represents us, and it’s not the city’s job or goal.” Mr. Cobb also testified support for S.B. 280.
Don Vetter, Lobbyist, Champions of the Truckee, testified support for both bills, and provided written copy of his testimony (Exhibit E). He said he resides on the edge of the county and the city where schools are overcrowded; there are not enough ball fields, service response times are slow, and natural resources are limited. He asserted these bills connect regional planning with the reality of people who live between the county and the city and create checks and balances to recognize physical, as well as economic and social impacts of growth. Mr. Vetter concluded S.B. 279 gives more opportunity for citizens to take part in regional decision making, where currently, there is no opportunity for the county to address a city issue.
Roy H. Hibdon, Concerned Citizen, testified support for S.B. 279 as a resident of the West Truckee Meadows SOI. Mr. Hibdon described a project that came to the City of Reno to increase the density of a 2.5-acre parcel by approximately 700 percent, to build an additional four units. He said the application came forward without any notification on the increase in density, so he requested the city hold some public hearings to inform people what was happening, and they agreed. He reported residents’ objections made at the hearings were forwarded to the planning commission members who agreed the increase in density was too much, and therefore, recommended denial of the application.
Mr. Hibdon explained further the city land use plan allows 3 units per acre, up to 2.5 acres in one master plan, whereas the county land use plan allows only 1 unit per 2.5 acres of land. He reported a group of residents has communicated support for this bill to address the communication problem between the city and county staffs to resolve the density issue. Further, he claimed, it is confusing in SOI to have the county direct people to the city for permits.
According to Mr. Hibdon, zoning and increased density are the primary concerns in West Truckee Meadows, because it is a built-out neighborhood. He added there are no commercial areas there, and a lot of the residents are retired or on fixed incomes and do not want changes. He asserted there is no representation of the citizens when creation of SOI gives the city authority over the master plan, and said, “A lot of people were very upset, when they came to the citizens advisory board meeting, that decisions are being made with no authority to elect any officials.”
With regard to the special use permit for density development on the 2.5-acre parcel, Mr. Hibdon clarified there was notification of the hearing, but no notice regarding the density increase. He said the information only came out when the citizens raised questions and the city delayed the process to allow input from concerned citizens.
Ms. Shipman explained to Senator Neal that SOI is defined in original planning law as an area in which a city intends to expand through annexation within 7 years. She said, under state law, a city can annex within the SOI at any time, but it has to be according to its own program of annexation, which must state how they will proceed and whether annexations will be contiguous. She reiterated S.B. 279 would prohibit the increase of density or use within the SOI, through zoning by the city, until that area is annexed by the city.
Mr. Hibdon stated, in the West Truckee Meadows SOI, there are properties that are noncontiguous with the city limits, and therefore, cannot annex to the city. He reiterated the issue is not about annexation, but about the fact the city master plan overlays the county master plan on the issue of density.
Ms. Shipman reiterated, under state law, the city can annex noncontiguous property, but the City of Reno’s program of annexation does not allow annexation of a noncontiguous property. However, she said, the City of Reno could change its program.
Gary Feero, Concerned Citizen, testified support for S.B. 279 and S.B. 280, noting density is a big issue for citizens because of the very visible impact. He claimed the issue is one of fairness, in that, if you don’t like a government action, you should have the ability to vote people out. Mr. Feero concluded S.B. 280 is just good planning because islands should not be created.
Richard Hobbs, Concerned Citizen, testified support for both bills. He maintained S.B. 279 provides for logical transition, in that the city cannot exercise authority over an area until annexation has been completed. He claimed this would protect neighborhoods and years of planning by residents. Reiterating the testimony of others, he stated support for S.B. 280 because, “islands are not needed or appropriate.”
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Community Relations Director, City of Reno, testified she hoped to resolve the issues at the local level through the 5-year regional plan update. She said the City of Reno shares the concerns presented in previous testimony, and has taken some strong positions related to SOI and forced annexation of property. She reiterated she would like the opportunity to resolve issues through a local process, and suggested unresolved issues be brought back to the Legislature during the next session.
John B. Hester, Community Development Manager, City of Reno, provided written testimony and a timeline for the regional plan update (Exhibit F). He said the Reno City Council has taken a public position that it will not initiate any involuntary annexation of existing residents in unincorporated areas of the county. Also, he said, it has proposed doing away with SOI or coming up with some alternative.
Mr. Hester explained the process for regional planning is to:
. . . adopt a regional plan where SOI lines are drawn and the majority of the governing board and planning commission have to agree on those lines. Then the cities have the responsibility to do a master plan that shows the land uses in those SOI, as well as in their cities. The master plans have to then go back to the Regional Planning Commission and the Regional Planning Governing Board and be found in conformance. Then a city can prepare an annexation program that says which of those lands in the SOI we plan to annex, how, and when. Then you can begin annexation process. But within SOI, if you do things consistent with the master plan, then you can process developments.
The City of Reno has annexed all islands and has only identified voluntary areas of annexation in SOI, Mr. Hester said. He reported, based on suggestions from Mr. Hibdon, the code for the City of Reno requires a public hearing, with notification, if the city master plan shows land use that is different from the county plan. He added, in such cases, the city is also committed to go to citizen advisory boards of unincorporated county areas. Mr. Hester said the whole purpose of SOI is to identify the logical progression of a city’s annexation. He concluded, if the city exercises development review authority, the development would be consistent with city standards so the city can provide services.
Mr. Hester said public workshops have been scheduled, and forms have been disseminated, to get input on the 5-year regional plan update. He said two issues that need to be worked out are fiscal equity and annexation. In Washoe County, he explained, there is no tax to pay for municipal services in unincorporated areas, so the residents of Reno and Sparks fund municipal services to the unincorporated areas, as well as their own. Mr. Hester reported a consultant proposed two solutions: 1) raise taxes in unincorporated areas; or 2) annex unincorporated areas. Mr. Hester asserted these issues need to be worked out through the regional plan update process and local governments need to work together.
Mr. Hester claimed the two bills would make it more difficult for a property owner who desires annexation, and would also make it harder to pursue solutions to the fiscal equity issue. He asserted there is currently an uneven playing field, with developers finding it easier to go outside of the city because of the annexation procedures. He also suggested two unintended consequences of S.B. 279 are: 1) less than desirable density development that would go against “smart growth”; and 2) premature annexations to get the kind of development the city wants.
Pointing out additional concerns, Mr. Hester said the proposed language in section 5 of the bill would limit the hearing process to grievances with the city, whereas currently, there are processes for grievances with the city or the county. Also, he suggested the language in the bill would set up disputes over the definitions of density and land use.
Regarding the proposed amendment to S.B. 280 calling for joint planning areas, Mr. Hester said there was one positive experience with joint planning, but in another case, there was a lawsuit. He said he does not advocate permanent islands, but believes interim islands are okay, such as the example of Stead Air Force Base that was not annexed for about 30 years. He stated support for the “40-acre” rule under NRS 278.471.
In the case of SOI, Mr. Hester said the city of Reno does not collect tax revenues, does not issue business licenses, and does not provide services. However, it does oversee development, planning, and processing, in order to be consistent, he said. In this case, the city is responsible for code enforcement, but, according to Mr. Hester, there is a lot of coordination between the city and the county and they do not let jurisdiction get in the way of providing good services.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 279 and S.B. 280, and opened the hearing on S.B. 63.
SENATE BILL 63: Makes various changes to provisions relating to bidding on and awarding contracts for public works projects. (BDR 28-754)
Steve G. Holloway, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors – Las Vegas, provided a written amendment to the bill (Exhibit G) and stated the amendment has support from the industry. He explained that the bill arose from attempts during the 1999 Legislative Session to prevent out-of-state general contractors from immediately getting the bidders’ preference as general contractors on public works by assuming the work of a local contracting business they had purchased. He said the changes that resulted have prevented specialty contractors or subcontractors from bidding as prime contractors on certain public works.
Mr. Holloway explained S.B. 63 is intended to correct two problems. Section 2 legitimizes the practice of specialty contractors bidding as prime contractors on projects that are limited in scope. For example, he said, if a mechanical contractor or specialty subcontractor bids on the replacement of an air-conditioning unit for a school, additional craftsmen may be needed to handle repairs related to the replacement of the air-conditioning unit. If the costs of the related repairs exceed the cost of replacing the air-conditioning unit, Mr. Holloway said, a general contractor would be required. However, he said, if the cost of replacing the air-conditioning unit is the greater portion of the costs, the mechanical contractor or specialty subcontractor can do the work. He clarified this would not be considered “part of a larger public work,” because the cost of replacement is the greater portion of all related costs.
In response to a question from Senator Care, Mr. Holloway explained a specialty contractor may qualify as a bidder, but not necessarily be awarded a contract based on the lowest or most qualified bid. He noted a lot of mechanical contractors in southern Nevada also hold general contractor licenses.
Mr. Holloway drew the committee’s attention to section 3 of the bill, where the definition of general contractor is expanded to distinguish a general engineering or building contractor from a prime contractor, and the definition of prime contractor now includes a specialty contractor who is authorized to bid on a project. Chairman O’Connell explained there was a need to specifically identify three types of contractors to clarify the problem related to bidders’ preference that came up last session.
Mr. Holloway reviewed the remaining language changes proposed in the amendment (Exhibit G), and assured Senator Raggio the bill does not change the present requirements for 5 years’ residency and payment of taxes in excess of $5,000, to receive the preferred bidder certification. Chairman O’Connell requested committee counsel to highlight the amendments to the bill in color to clearly distinguish them for the committee.
Dennis R. Haney, Counsel, Nevada State Contractor’s Board, expressed his opinion that the bill would help the board to administer contracts more efficiently because it provides needed guidance. He described a lawsuit that involved a fraudulent affidavit (Exhibit H), resulting from the issue with bidding preference under existing legislation. Margi Grein, Lobbyist, Executive Officer, Nevada State Contractors Board, stated that she believes the bill does what the Board needs, but they will have additional people look at the final draft.
Chairman O’Connell stated that copies of S.B. 63 with proposed amendments are to be provided to Ms. Grein, Robert Barengo, Lobbyist, Nevada State Contractors Board, and James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Purchasing and Contracts Administrator, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission.
Mr. Keenan testified support for the bill, as long as the proposed amendment includes removal of the procurement objection on page 7, lines 34-37, and where it’s contained elsewhere in the bill. Ted J. Olivas, Purchasing and Contracts Manager, General Service, Clark County, testified support for the bill as modified by the proposed amendments submitted by the Association of General Contractors.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 63 and opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 31-429.
BILL DRAFT 31-429: Establishes requirements and procedures for strategic planning for state agencies. (Later introduced as S.B. 426.)
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 31-429.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell announced Wednesday’s meeting would be long because there are three new bills scheduled for hearing, as well as a work session on a number of bills already heard. Senator Raggio requested S.B. 279 and S.B. 280 be removed from the work session because he is waiting for additional information. Chairman O’Connell accommodated the request and adjourned the meeting at 4:12 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Laura Hale,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: