MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Subcommittee
Seventy-Second Session
April 7, 2003
April 9, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairs Subcommittee was called to order at 6:47 a.m., on Monday, April 7, 2003, and reconvened on Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 7:06 a.m. Chairman Tom Collins 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.
NOTE: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Subcommittee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Tom Collins, Chairman
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Ron Knecht
Ms. Peggy Pierce
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. Mark Manendo
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Vic Buron, Citizen, Wellington, Nevada, Douglas County, Nevada Land Owner
James Settelmeyer, Settelmeyer Ranches, Inc., Carson Valley Conservation District
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation
Daniel C. Holler, Douglas County Manager
Barbara Slade, President, Carson Valley Trails Association
Lorilyn Chitwood, Douglas County citizen
Larry Werner, City Engineer, Carson City Development Services
Kimberly McDonald, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
James A. Bell, Director, City of North Las Vegas Public Works
Tom Perkins, Douglas County District Attorney’s Office
Madelyn Shipman, Washoe County Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division
Chris Knight, Deputy Director, City of Las Vegas Development Services Center
Terri Barber, Lobbyist, City of Henderson
Assembly Bill 427: Prohibits governmental entity, under certain circumstances, from conditioning approval of certain land use permits upon dedication of land, dedication of certain rights or contribution of other thing of value. (BDR 22-1050)
Subcommittee Chairman Collins:
The Assembly Government Affairs Subcommittee on Assembly Bill 427 is now called to order. Will the secretary call the roll? [Roll called] We have a quorum. Maybe we should expand it to other parts of the Legislature.
We want to start off with Mr. Hettrick. This is your bill, and you might have some amendments. Would you like to start off?
Assemblyman Hettrick, Douglas County Assembly District No. 39:
Good morning, ladies and gentleman. [Introduces self] When I first presented A.B. 427, several of the government entities asked to amend the bill. I agreed to the amendments, to the intent of the amendments. I do not have a problem with the intent of the amendments. What the amendment proposed was to change two things essentially. It used, instead of the words “land use” permit, the words “building permit.” It cited Dolan v. Tigard, City of Tigard (1994). When I took that to drafting, they said they would look at the citation. We normally do not cite anything in our statutes; we use the language. We do not use specific citations. What drafting came back with is what you see before you. Most of the folks in the audience have a copy (Exhibit C). They quoted the language in Dolan v. Tigard. That language is granting to that person a land use permit. It goes on to say there has to be an “essential nexus” between the dedication or contribution and legitimate governmental interest. The dedication or contribution is “roughly proportional” in nature to the extent of the impact proposed by the development.
[Mr. Hettrick continued:] I checked with Ms. O’Grady this morning, and she said they believe that is the appropriate use of the language and the citation. I, frankly, would not have a problem if we were to strike Section 3, which might make some of the opposition more comfortable as to what land use means without spelling it out in detail. I do not know that they ultimately care, but it might be cleaner that we do not try to pick everything that is in and, perhaps, eliminate something that might be out by omission. But that is their choice. That is the other folks’ choice that the people who do the planning will know better than I. I believe this is probably the correct language now. I have also had a question as to whether it should apply to all of the sections of NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) that are listed in Section 1. I will have to ask Ms. O’Grady to comment on that if need be. I have had questions about NRS 278B, whether or not it is appropriate. I guess that is specific to impact fees, whether this is appropriate. I think an impact fee ought to be at some reasonable “nexus and proportionality,” and I think our state law is pretty clear on impact fees. But, if there is a question that needs to be defined, then we should do that.
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel:
As far as I could tell from my research, the Supreme Court has not decided clearly that it does not apply to impact fees or fees related in lieu of dedication of land. If somebody here knows something different, they can let me know, but I do not think the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly determined that it does not apply to those types of fees.
Chairman Collins:
Assemblyman Hettrick, the intention of this legislation is the proposed trails system meandering across the middle of people’s property versus the typical edges or boundaries of their property for roads, curbs, streets, streetlights, et cetera.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman. If you recall, the original testimony was about two things. One is, “Yes,” it was brought up primarily because of the trail system that is proposed. As I recall, some 400 miles of trails in Douglas County were proposed, and a lot of private landowners were very concerned about that. Obviously, they are concerned about what it does, and they want to make sure that, if there is to be a dedication because they try to pull any kind of permit, that there is “nexus and proportionality.” They want to make sure it is fair. The second part of the testimony, as you may recall, was my own situation where a governmental entity wanted me to dedicate a bike path. A permit was withheld in an attempt to have me agree to donate or dedicate an easement for a bike path. That was the personal situation that I had.
I just think it is important that we have “nexus,” and we have “proportionality” reflected in A.B. 427. You should not have the problem if you have to dedicate a huge easement or something when you pull a permit to do a deck. If you want to divide, as Mr. Russell Scossa [representing Scossa Ranch] said here in testimony the other day, he owns a large ranch, and he wants to divide two or four acres off for his son to build a house. To do that he may be required to allow trails all over his entire ranch. When I say entire ranch, I do not mean they are going to cover it; it may be divided by trails or have access across his property by a trail that is his private land. I do not think that is fair. It should have “nexus and proportionality.”
Chairman Collins:
In that example of dividing off a little lot for his son’s house, was that trails system proposed in the Master Plan of Douglas County to go along a stream or creek of something, or was it just arbitrarily chosen to connect both sides of that property for access?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I don’t even know how it goes across Mr. Russell Scossa’s property. I cannot answer the question, because I don’t know.
Chairman Collins:
So, basically, we are considering changing state law with A.B. 427 to reign in Douglas County Planning.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I think all of the counties, frankly. My situation was not in Douglas County.
Chairman Collins:
On the front of your property? On a main road somewhere? [Mr. Hettrick nods affirmatively.] People needed access to [somewhere] so you did not want to put in curb and streetlights?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I put in all those things. I put in the street.
Chairman Collins:
You did not want to put in the bicycle path.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I did not want to put in the bicycle path that was an easement at a remodel. It was “pave it, dedicate it, pay the taxes on it,” and take the liability. I disagreed with that. That is what I think this is about. Again, on a remodel, I do not think you should be forced to give up something. Had they asked for that in the first place when I first bought the property and did it, I probably would have dedicated without a second thought. But, in a remodel, they came back, when no other land around it had a bike path on it, and, on either side of the property, no one had a bike path on his or her property.
Chairman Collins:
And this was the start of a new bike path in that area. You were first. Thank you, Mr. Hettrick. Are there any questions for Mr. Hettrick before we call a couple of other people? On the record and on the sign-in sheet, I have two people plus Mr. Hettrick in favor of this bill that signed in to speak. I have four people who have marked “opposition” to speak. I have a total of six who are neutral and a question mark. Those who did not mark whether they wanted to speak or which way they wanted to go, there might be another sign-in sheet up there. We will chase that down in a few minutes. Are there questions for Mr. Hettrick?
Assemblywoman Pierce:
Good morning, Mr. Hettrick. So yours was the first piece of land they wanted to put the bike path on, and you objected to that. Where does a bike path start? How do you get a bike path if the land is already—so we just decide that, because things happened 20 years ago, nobody ever gets a bike path?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
No, Ms. Pierce. The problem was that, when the issue arose, there was no bike path that I am aware of in any direction for some distance. This went on for about six months or maybe more. When I finally said, “What are you going to do with a piece of land in this chain that never asks for a permit so you can require that they give the bike path?” They said, “The Parks Department will buy it and pave it then.” I said, “You can buy mine and pave mine. If you can buy theirs, you can buy mine.” They said, “No, we do not want to do that.” They wanted me to give it to them as a requirement of the permit. I do not see that as being fair. Why would one person get his property purchased, and the path built for them, and another person be forced to donate it and build it himself? It should be one way or the other. It should not be that you can extract it because one party asked for a permit.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I am not sure how this works. So, if a town decides they want a bike path and the people do not want to sell, then how does that work?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
They have imminent domain capability where they can go in and condemn the property right at fair market value.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
So that is their only choice, imminent domain. I have a document up here, we all do, it’s called the “Douglas County, Nevada, Citizens’ Opposition to Trails Plan on Private Property.” I look down on this thing, and there are a couple of phrases here, “these ‘collective’ thinking staff members,” collective being in quotes. But I know what this means when “collective” is in quotes. That is offensive to me, and I am not going to read this. I do not think that simply wanting trails and wanting to be a part of this discussion means that anybody gets to impugn anybody else’s dedication to the way we live in this country. So, you can have that. [Ms. Pierce handed a piece of paper to Mr. Collins.]
Chairman Collins:
Who is that from? Wellington, Nevada. Douglas County, Nevada, Land Owner. Is Vic Buron in here? Did you want these presented to the whole Committee?
Vic Buron, Douglas County resident:
I presented them to the whole Committee at the last meeting.
Chairman Collins:
So that had been filed on the record for the hearing originally. Any other questions of Mr. Hettrick? I want to ask two more people to come up, James Settelmeyer and Doug Busselman. We have a proposed amendment from Mr. Hettrick prepared by the Legal Division. If you two agree with that amendment or have any other comments related to that amendment on A.B. 427, go ahead.
James Settelmeyer, representing Settelmeyer Ranches, Inc.:
Thank you for hearing me today. I will try to be quick in that respect. [Introduces himself as Chairman of the Carson Valley Conservation District and as Chairman of the Nevada State Conservation Commission.]
There is a tremendous need for this law, in my opinion. There are situations now occurring in Douglas County as well as other areas of Nevada that show clearly that we need it. I handed out a page from the Douglas County Trails Plan of Carson Valley, and there is a portion of it in the second paragraph, second sentence. It states, “The adoption of the Trails Plan will assist Douglas County in prioritizing and supporting the purchase of conservation easements with the requirement that various public access trails be dedicated as a condition of receiving county support for easement purchases” (Exhibit D).
No funds for county easements can be available without county support. So, the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the United States Forest Service funds—I am sorry, private funds could be available—the BLM funds, the big guys provide the most money. This would basically, in our opinion, lead to a situation where the rancher will be faced with a situation; either we allow public access through your ranch or you do not get to participate in the conservation easement program. We think that would be very detrimental to the idea of what the goals are of these conservation easements’ protection of open space. I thought that was the goal, to protect the groundwater recharge and protect the wildlife habitat. In some places it is not always beneficial to have a bunch of people traipsing through those areas.
There are other situations occurring, such as with the Mac Land and Cattle Company in the Carson Valley. One of the Douglas County Planners told them that they did not like the trail on their property as it was. The reason they did not like it was that it backed up to Cottonwood Slough, and the Cottonwood Slough, when it backs up, flows evenly over the Cottonwood Slough-irrigated field. The county had arbitrarily, or someone rather, decided they wanted to have a trail along that slough. Well, that does not exactly work if you have water going across it. They said they did not like it, and the county representative who is no longer with them said, “If you don’t like it, we can down-zone you.” Those types of things this would help prevent.
Chairman Collins:
Downzoning is where you have to go back seven years and pay taxes as residential property. No?
James Settelmeyer:
I have no idea. I believe what they were stipulating was, if they didn’t like the fact, they would take their zoning that the ranch had, they have some receiving areas on their property, and they would eliminate them. In other words, in my opinion, it would seriously reduce the economic value of their assets.
There are other situations where people had gotten horses in Carson Valley, and they had a 40-acre parcel. The county decided, “You are doing that, so we want you to dedicate another 20 to 40 feet for a road in case the road, in the future, expands, and also move the ditch because the ditch is right next to the road.” That doesn’t pass the Tigard test of “reasonable and rational nexus or proportionality.” Obviously, just creating two lots because of a divorce doesn’t necessarily require the dedications. How is that going to increase that much traffic on the road? In that respect, I feel that certain situations are occurring that are problematic. This uncertainty within the field of property, to me, is particularly vexatious. You need certainty in conveyance of property for your future estate planning. When you are planning to pass land on to your kids, say I’m going to divide up the ranch here giving 100 acres to this kid and 100 acres to this kid, you go to Douglas County for a map change. Are they going to require me to give up an easement? I would like to have some more validity than what I have now.
I am not sure they would require that but, in our situation, we have decided to diversify, and we sell a whole $6000 worth of gravel a year out of a gravel pit we have, which is on a special use permit as most all gravel pits are. Are you saying that in three years, when that special use permit comes up, they may condition something on that? So, in that respect, I think this law is very valid. Some of the people would disagree with me saying it doesn’t hurt for the county to ask. I completely disagree.
If we look at the fundamental part of the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, it clearly says that “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property” is a constitutional right. It is a very valuable right, an inalienable right according to the United States Constitution. Following up with that, you go to the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine that states that a government cannot condition receipt of a public benefit on the surrender of a constitutional right. If we decide that “property” is a constitutional right, an inalienable right, which the Nevada State Constitution has dictated, and you follow forth with the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine and get into the doctrine of vested rights, which sets forth that owning property is fundamental, and any law that impairs those vested rights, those inalienable rights, whatever their intent, is a bill of pains and penalties and void.
It follows that property needs to be protected. That is clearly set forth in the handout I gave you. It also has, in a nutshell, the Dolan v. Tigard case indicating clearly that the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” need to be given to every case. Dolan really gave teeth to the Hal Nollan case. In Nollan, it was clearly stated that the idea you had to give up land for a public walkway if it didn’t have an “essential nexus” or “rough proportionality,” was invalid and unconstitutional and, hence, void.
[Mr. Settelmeyer continues his testimony.] It is my feeling that this bill [A.B. 427], in its current form and as amended by Mr. Hettrick, I have read the changes and I completely agree with them, clearly puts the Tigard information and wording directly into it. It will help restrain municipalities from pushing the issue; it will help make them abide by the aforementioned decisions and discussions that we have talked about today. It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has set out the supreme law. There is a supreme law of the land. But, they are not the absolute law. You guys have the ability to provide us, the landowners of Carson Valley, through the United States Constitution and through your laws, a higher protection than the Supreme Court traditionally gives us. You guys have that right and authority. I am very happy that you were thinking about doing this. I sincerely hope that you follow through with it. The idea of the laws being able to be created to give you more protection has been clearly dictated through all the right-to-choose cases: pro-life and pro‑abortion. You can provide a higher level of protection than the Supreme Court has set forth. I urge you to. Thank you for your time. I will gladly entertain questions.
Chairman Collins:
I had a question when you brought up the gravel pit. If the County passed a new ordinance that required a better access to your gravel pit before your use permit could be renewed, making you pave it or put a street light or a stop sign on it, would you object to that? Those are normal improvements in a community that would fit this law, wouldn’t they?
James Settelmeyer:
Let’s go back to the City of Tigard, as long as you are dealing with an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality.” I earn $6000 off that gravel pit a year. Every three years it comes up for Master Plan review or, rather, for special use permit review, and every year I spend about $6000 on trees and redoing the reclamation plan, and things of that nature. If you require me to put another $30,000 or $150,000 for a road, then I am sorry. You are really going against the idea of “rough proportionality” and you are putting me out of business. So, yes, I would object to that. But, in that respect, I already have a turn lane into it, so that would be fine in my situation.
Chairman Collins:
I guess the example I bring up is because of new dust-control laws, new EPA [Environmental Protection Association] laws. If you had to have another entry or exit, it might make your business unprofitable. But, if it still met the Tigard thing, you would agree to it if, in the long range, it would pay off. You are not trying to stop them from improving their ordinances; you just want them to be applicable to this Tigard case.
James Settelmeyer:
I would prefer to see things equalized, equality in all actions, as in A.B. 427. Obviously, all of us have to obey the EPA rules and regulations for a good reason.
Chairman Collins:
The next question, James, would be if you subdivided some land—you talked about 100 acres for this son and 100 acres for that son or daughter—part of the Douglas County Master Plan had a road grid that required a road would go through there someday. Do you have an issue with that?
James Settelmeyer:
Yes, I do. The simple fact that it doesn’t pass the Dolan v. Tigard Case makes it an issue. Clearly, the property owner could take it to court and win. You don’t have an “essential nexus” when that person has the same amount of people living on said property and is just physically dividing the land in two separate pieces. That would not, somehow, increase the traffic enough to require a road to be built. If Douglas County wants to do that, any county wanted to do that.
Chairman Collins
Most communities have a road grid, section lines, half section, and quarter section. Let’s say you divide up a piece of property that had that section line or even the quarter section line going through there, and that there was a road on the north and a road on the south. Or, there was a road on the east and a road on the west. When you divided that property, the city said, “We would also like, as part of this recording, that you vacated an easement for that road tying those two roads together.” They had waited until this time. They didn’t come in ahead of time and tell you they want this road right now, but, when you made that division on that quarter line, they would like you to vacate that easement. That’s where, if they could show the need for tying those two roads together, then you would vacate that.
James Settelmeyer:
I guess a typical lawyer answer, legal answer, is, “It all depends on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis.” Obviously, if you’re creating two-acre lots, yes, for sure. If you’re taking a 200-acre ranch and dividing it into 100 acres and 100 acres, I don’t see how you can justify it. I hate to be that way, but it is very dependent on a case-by-case situation. I have no problem paying for cost of development and helping the community, but, again, I refer back to the clause that some cost or burden should be shouldered by the community as a whole, and not by one individual. If it is beneficial to have a road, then, maybe, the municipality should work with said landowner and say, “How about I give you a little more zoning over here or a benefit here to help compensate you for your giving us this,” rather than saying that you are going to shoulder this burden for the betterment of the community. That’s the way I sometimes see some of the actions occurring now, and I oppose them.
Assemblyman Grady:
Mr. Settelmeyer, I agree that the ideal is that we could have trails in every community. But, looking at it from an agricultural point of view, from a cattle standpoint, you are running cattle, the trail goes through your properties. How much disturbance do you have or have you seen by people coming through your properties when you are trying to go through your calving season with just leaving gates open, the cattle going from one place to another? Has this become a problem for you already?
James Settelmeyer:
I really don’t think you have a spare couple of hours. In all reality, I have situations where people leave gates open, and I’ve had cows get hit and horses get killed. There was a situation in California, not Nevada, where I have people cutting fences to get in for hunting access in situations. Unfortunately, sorry, Nevada State Lands holds the archaic belief that the state also owns the rivers; that has left me in a situation where I have hunters now walking up on the edge of my property shooting guns right next to my cows, which runs them through fences, and, probably, the worst thing is the domestic dog problems. Those are actually domesticated dogs from the Washoe Indian Tribe, so there is nothing anybody here can do about that. That is not a very good answer to your question. I just, unfortunately, can’t give you it. It would take too much time.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I just want to say that my recollection of the testimony when we first heard this bill [A.B. 427] was that there was one gentleman who was basically talking about subdividing his ranch for his son. It seemed to me that everyone else we heard was a rancher today who was looking to sell his land for development ten years down the road. This, to me, is not really about cows. It’s about being able to sell your ranch down the line for development. I just want to get back to something you said earlier. You said something about it might not be a really good idea to have a lot of people walking around on public lands.
James Settelmeyer:
No. On my private land.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
We were talking about access to public lands, though.
James Settelmeyer:
That’s fine as long as it is not through my private land.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
You don’t picture yourself as protecting public lands from the citizens of this country by not providing access.
James Settelmeyer:
No, ma’am. If you like, I have a letter, if I can find it at home, from the United States Forest Service. It says they do not necessarily wish to increase access into some wilderness areas. If anybody is against some public access, it is public agencies. I have no problem with people having access to public lands, but to get to it through my private land, that can become an issue. I am willing, and have already discussed with Mr. Holler and other people within Douglas County, I have some areas they would like to have a trail on. If they give me this, I would be willing to give them that. It would be a willing buyer–willing seller situation, or benefit-for-burden. That’s what I am basically looking for.
As far as the idea of agriculture, ma’am, my family has been in agriculture in Carson Valley since 1890. I want to build a home. Obviously, to get a mortgage, I have to have the land completely in my name. If I get an acre of land in my name, I will have to pay the back agriculture taxes and all the fees; that will be about $20,000 in itself so free land isn’t that free, as the old saying goes. Then, if Douglas County or some other municipality were to require that I give them something just for the right to build my home on an acre of land, that doesn’t seem very rational according to the Tigard decision. Of course, I could legally fight it, but it seems sad to force landowners or anyone to have to be the private-public district attorney to have to enforce the Constitution as it is now written. That’s where my problems are.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation:
[Mr. Busselman introduces himself.] We testified before the full Committee of our support for the bill [A.B.427]. We have taken a look at the proposed amendment. We have some concerns as it relates to having the governing body that is going to be doing the taking/making the decision. Nevertheless, if that fits what needed to fit by virtue of the court case, then so be it.
There have also been some discussions about, and a lot of the emphasis has been focused on, Douglas County and the proposed trails situation. From our perspective, we look at this as a policy that covers all private land scenarios as we cross the state with all counties and with all levels of government. I think we need to keep that perspective in mind as we make whatever decisions we need to make pertaining to A.B. 427.
There were discussions earlier in the example that pertained to Mr. Hettrick’s liability issue. It would seem, if there were a possibility of putting into the bill some kind of a requirement for assuming liability that should be done. If a local government or any government were to receive something through a dedication and were to decide they could get it because they went through the proper procedures, would it be also possible, then, to include in the proposed legislation some provision that, in taking that land, they would receive the liability that goes with their receiving that dedication? That was one of the other issues that had been talked about. There needs to be some kind of responsibility on the part of the government, if they are going to go through this process, that they should then, at least, accept the liability that goes with getting the property in the first place.
Chairman Collins:
An example, Doug, would be like the railroads all over the country buy livestock every year. Would that be an example of that?
Doug Busselman:
Yes, they do. That could be an example. In the case of the trail that was talked about, if the governing body were to make the decision that the bike trail was something that they needed to have and that they were going to insist that there be a dedication, then there ought to be some responsibility on the part of the governing agency, in receiving that easement, that they would then be responsible for that property they received. That would be my only comment or proposed addition to what’s listed here.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be brief. Mr. Busselman, I understand your last point. My problem is that it seems to bite off a really big task that I don’t think we can solve in A.B. 427. I very much understand and sympathize with the point, but are you comfortable with the bill as proposed for amendment by Mr. Hettrick?
Doug Busselman:
Because the provisions that are in the bill meet up with the court case that’s been referred to, we would then accept the amendment as it is. We were hoping that there might be more. It doesn’t hurt to ask.
Chairman Collins:
Now that we just got a room full of speakers signed up, I want to call up several people at a time: Larry Werner, Dan Holler, Lori Chitwood, and Barbara Slade. If all of you still need to speak after what’s been discussed, go ahead, and make your statements as brief as you can, please. Address them to the bill or the amendment or another amendment, if you have one.
Dan Holler, Douglas County Manager:
I think the amendment starts to make some headway in getting the bill where it needs to go. I think, from a legal perspective, there are still some issues that’ll need to be addressed but I’ll leave that to the legal folks to hash out. I want to address a couple of issues. In the bill, Section 3, where you call out the specific items, I think that I would agree that it would not have to be spelled out and leave it just as land use. I think it is defined other places in law that apply to that. It would make things a little simpler, frankly, in some issues.
To the intent of the bill, I think the example given by Assemblyman Hettrick as it relates to the dedication of the bike trail, was one I don’t think anybody disagrees with, or with the challenges that are laid out in there. As it begins to apply to Douglas County specifically with the trails plan, under your Master Plan provisions, there are two different sections: you are required, if you have those sections in a recreation plan, to include trails, your transportation plan also must include trails, so, from a planning perspective when you are working on a 20‑year document, you’re going to plan for trails whether that’s across public or [Mr. Holler’s] private properties, “public” being Douglas County’s property.
We really don’t have the authority to plan for BLM and Forest Service. You lay that out there. It is a planning document, just as mentioned earlier as to the road grid, we have plans of roads that go through the community in different areas. We do have to work with any property owner in terms of a subdivision or parcel map or those types of things. How do you have those things? Usually, it’s a give and take. The property owner receives something, whether that be the approval of a subdivision or whether it be approval of the parcel map, in exchange for whatever they dedicate to the County. I don’t think it’s an exaction process as you walk through that.
[Mr. Holler continues his testimony.] Some of the specific issues that I’m not sure the bill [A.B. 427] would address were these. If you take a large piece of property and subdivide it, for a large land division, you can require access to be provided so that you don’t have the land-locked parcel. It’s an easement; it’s not necessarily a paved road. Those usually come later in the process if they further subdivide that property. I don’t think that, when taking the example of creating 200-acre parcels, you require access so that you have legal access to those two properties to avoid a fight later about a land-locked parcel. But you’re not building a road; you are not requiring that at that point in time.
The things you also get into, for public improvements and the concerns we would have, is that you deal with a lot of other public activities, whether that be for drainage, utilities, water, sewer, power, or gas. Can you require those kinds of easements to a property? Sometimes those come easy prior to a building permit going out, but, sometimes, it could be at that legal level. Again, you are working cooperatively with the property owner who says that he needs those public services into his property. If there is an easement, the utilities go in and you have that process to go through. Frankly, the majority of the issues we deal with are already covered in other sections of law; they are covered as a matter of process when you subdivide land. I guess the question comes with the issues that are brought forward; sometimes I think they are valid issues. I am not sure a new piece of legislation is a necessity to address them.
Chairman Collins:
So, if this bill [A.B. 427] does nothing more than address that we will follow the court case of Dolan v. Tigard.
Dan Holler:
It would be the application of it that would be of some concern. I think the amendment definitely helps address some concerns that we had originally.
Barbara Slade, President of the Carson Valley Trails Association:
[Introduces herself.] I have worked extensively on this comprehensive trails map in Douglas County. I know that you are here today to look at the possibility of amending this bill [A.B. 427], but I would urge you to deny it. As Dan Holler said, the Legislature is not a place to decide local politics. Creating state law is a very serious issue and should not be dictated by a special interest group or certain private concerns.
Chairman Collins:
If you helped make those trails, why did you choose to go right across people’s property?
Barbara Slade:
We did not, Sir. Mr. Scossa does not have a trail on his property; neither does Mr. Settelmeyer.
I am in favor of asking developers to dedicate when they buy large parcels of land and put gated communities or communities in and block public access. [Chairman Collins clarified, “Developers, not ranchers or large land owners?] Yes, Sir. I agree with a lot of the testimony that it is a private issue. It is difficult. We have tried to take off a ton of trails so that we weren’t on the rivers or sloughs or through the middle of a working ranch. We are not into “takings” or “condemnings;” that is not of community benefit. We have really scrutinized this map and think we have come up with a good solution, especially bikeways. Our children are really in jeopardy now trying to get from specific areas to downtown, to state parks, and to the swimming pool. The county has a one-time opportunity when these developers come forward—I keep using the word “developers” because I think that is really what the issue is—with their plan for the development and they ask for concessions.
It is a great time for the county or the city to negotiate to get access to public land. We have worked with the USFS [United States Forest Service] and BLM for over seven years on these issues. We are coming from an educated place, and we are trying to pick and choose trailheads and accesses to public land so that it is in areas where the USFS or BLM wants to work. We usually work with USFS, because we are working on the west side of the Carson Valley. If this bill were to go forward, this is very simplistic, but, again, it would be nice if the developer had to negotiate with the county so that the developer doesn’t have all of the power and the county has none so that the county can provide for a public good. Maybe even mediation would be called for if it gets to that point where something has to be agreed upon.
Chairman Collins:
Those things are in place. What this bill does is just dictate some parameters.
Barbara Slade:
Right. But I don’t want the governmental entity to lose the one-time opportunity to get a public good.
Chairman Collins:
Have you looked at the amendment?
Barbara Slade:
I just got it at the last minute. Everybody passed them out, and I just borrowed somebody’s, so I have to say that the amendment is definitely better than the original.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
My concern here is that this is presented to us and this is Douglas County. All of the developers who come before us have small pieces of land and are local Douglas County people, and it’s sort of a neighborly thing. I live in a county [Clark County] where very large pieces of land get developed by enormous multinational companies with connections in Washington.
The fact is that one of these days one of these 800-pound gorillas is going to land in Douglas County. I think that you folks should look down the road and know that. You need, when Del Webb or Howard Hughes arrives in Douglas County, and they will, I’m concerned that you are going to be back here saying, “Protect us!” I think that there needs to be a little longer look down the road here to the day when the “big guys” get here, not your neighbors, not some nice rancher down the road, but the guys in the suits with the million dollar lawyers, and they are going to walk all over you. I ask that you consider that and keep that in mind, because it is an 800-pound gorilla, and you’d better be ready.
Lorilyn Chitwood, citizen of Douglas County:
I am opposed to A.B. 427, because land use planning is a county issue, not a state issue. Counties should have the right to decide how their communities will grow. Passage of this bill transfers critical community planning divisions to non-elected developers, many of whom are not even Nevada residents. Nevada’s greatest natural resource is our abundant public lands. Much of the access to public lands in Nevada is blocked by private land. As we grow, access to these public lands can be enhanced if developers are required to support open spaces, parks, and trails. This opens this natural resource to the citizens with no cost to the government or devaluation of the developers’ projects. I would like to see, if you pass this bill, a liability law attached to this bill that states that people recreate at their own risk.
Chairman Collins:
Do you know of any specific property that anybody is locked out of right now?
Lorilyn Chitwood:
The whole west side of Carson Valley except for the Luther-Faye Canyon Trailhead, which we purchased about five years ago.
Chairman Collins:
The last time I drove down that road, I didn’t have any trouble, so maybe you know something I don’t.
Lorilyn Chitwood:
Getting into the public lands?
Chairman Collins:
Being able to just get out of the truck and walk up the hill.
Lorilyn Chitwood:
You can’t; you are on private property.
Chairman Collins:
There are no fences anywhere. It’s not fenced.
Lorilyn Chitwood:
No, but you are on private property.
Assemblyman Grady:
I am for local control also, but the reason you are here is because it did not work where you live. I would like to see all of our city and county problems solved at home. It would make our jobs a whole lot easier. You couldn’t do it, and that’s why you are here.
Larry Werner, Carson City Engineer:
I just want to quickly second Dan Holler’s comments on our position with the bill [A.B. 427]. I think the amendment goes a long ways to try to solve the problem. One of the concerns I had is trying to work out these agreements and to individualize “rough proportionality.” I see that being fraught with a lot of subjectivity, and, mainly, that’s the same point we are making today. I think I would second what I heard someone say, that maybe these need to be resolved at the local level. If there are issues with trying to determine when the extractions or the trade-offs occur, that really should be resolved at each county or city level.
Chairman Collins:
We are going to call the next group up: Kimberly McDonald, Jim Bell, Tom Perkins, and Maddy Shipman. Tom Perkins says he’s neutral, but we’ll see. Try to address the bill or the amendment, and don’t tell me why there’s not a trail down the wash of North Las Vegas. When I was on the Planning Commission, we planned for it, but it’s not there now, but there are developers up to fences and the concrete ditch. Don’t even go there, but tell me what you think about this bill [A.B. 427] and this amendment.
Kimberly McDonald, representing the City of North Las Vegas:
We have been discussing Assemblyman Hettrick’s new proposal, and I believe the local governments, specifically the Cities of North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Las Vegas, have been discussing this. I think we are moving in the direction toward finding some type of agreement. I would like to leave it open for some other comments to be made. We have been discussing specifically the issues regarding “nexus” and “proportionality,“ in terms of running into the building permit. With that I would like to give my time to Jim.
James (Jim) Bell, Director, City of North Las Vegas Public Works:
We did have an amendment to A.B. 427 through North Las Vegas, and it did refer to the Dolan v. City of Tigard. Our thought right now is to go to the proposed amendment that Assemblyman Hettrick has suggested. We would like to remove the direct reference to Dolan v. City of Tigard. With that, we would then like to refer to the application of this being made to a building permit and not all land use items. We feel this would address the larger issue. In the Assemblyman Hettrick amendment, furnished today, page 1, Section 1(d), there is a reference to “roughly proportional,” like a roughly proportional calculation. We would like that changed to “reasonably proportional.” In other words, it would read:
Contribute or donate any other thing of value, as a condition precedent to the governing body or its designated representative approving or granting to that person a land use permit unless the governing body or its. . .
In fact, I want to change “land use permit” to “building permit,” unless the governing body or its designated representative makes an individualized determination that there is an essential nexus between the dedication or contribution and a legitimate governmental interest, and the dedication or contribution is “reasonably” rather than “roughly.” I would like to put “reasonably” proportional both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed building permit for the property for which the building permit is requested. Other references to “land use permit” would all be made to read “building permit.” And, there are several references to “land use permits.”
Chairman Collins:
Are you for or against deleting Section 3?
Jim Bell:
I think, if we condition this to “building permits,” then Section 3 would be removed.
Chairman Collins:
So you would change “land use” twice to “building” permit.
Jim Bell:
Yes, anything that says, “land use” changes to “building” permit. The reason I am suggesting “reasonably” instead of “roughly” is to avoid the possibility that the word “roughly” would end up with legal interpretations, which, we fear, will slow the development or approval process.
Assemblyman Knecht:
The “roughly proportional” language is from Dolan; the “nexus and proportionality” requirements in Dolan, as I recall, apply to land use, not just to building codes. Why should we introduce this difference, this additional level of complexity and uncertainty, by using some language other than what the Supreme Court case already says is the law? Wouldn’t that open up some question such as “reasonable” being more than “roughly” and that sort of thing? Wouldn’t we keep it simpler by using the language directly from the Dolan case?
Jim Bell:
I think the Dolan case still applies. Even without this law, I think the fact really is that you have laws on the books right now that govern this whole development operation. If that were the view, we could eliminate all of A.B. 427. I think the issue here is that the building permit process has been the issue for a lot of development. What we want to do here is just send a clearer message on this. This is what we understood to be the issue. That is what our proposed amendment would be for.
Tom Perkins, Douglas County District Attorney’s Office:
First of all, I think that the decision in Tigard is highlighted by the question of compensation, because the Supreme Court clearly said that the local government had the power to acquire the trail for a public purpose; the decision was that they couldn’t acquire it without compensation. One of the refrains we have heard from people who are in favor of this legislation is that there is an exaction without compensation. The bill should address that, if it goes forward, because there are legitimate public purposes.
In fact, NRS Chapter 275 requires local governments, in their Master Plans, to include a trail plan. It includes transportation plans and many things for the betterment of the community. It should be clearer in legislation like this that attempts to restrict the power of local government, still leaves the local government the power to acquire property for a public purpose. What you are really trying to say is that we can’t make these extractions, without compensation like the horror stories we have been hearing about, which have been postulated in this hearing room.
[Tom Perkins continued his testimony on A.B. 427.] The second thing I recommend is that Section 1 not refer to specific statutes. If you are going to go forward with it, you should say, “Unless otherwise permitted by law, a governing body or its designated representative shall not require that a person, (a) dedicate land, (b) dedicate an easement, (c) dedicate a right-of-way, or (d) contribute or donate any other thing of value.” I understand the sentiment behind that. I don’t disagree with it but I think it should be tossed out of this bill. I would then insert the words “without compensation,” and then continue with your text as written in Mr. Hettrick’s proposal “as a condition precedent. . . “ Section 3 should be deleted. I agree with Mr. Holler on that.
This fight in our community has already been won by the people who are advocating passage of this legislation. The proposed plan no longer has the trails. They don’t want to fight that fight again; I don’t blame them. I agree with their position on private property rights. Under our constitutional form of government, with the separation of powers, the judiciary is adequately competent to address the conflicts between private property owners and government in these situations. I don’t think that people have to go hire a lawyer every time they want to quarrel with local government about this. Local government, by its nature, and because of the jobs you have given us, we tend to overextend its power. Maybe the people shouldn’t have to fight these fights in hearing rooms of local government, but I think they do, and they do it well. They usually win. Even though I am telling you how I think this bill could be fixed up, frankly, I believe that private property owners have better protection under constitutional law.
An attempt to codify Dolan v. Tigard is a little bit scary; there’s been 20 years of case law since that case was handed down. It is a complex area of the law; people have more rights under the Constitution with due process as it is fleshed out by the courts than they could ever have with codifying. No disrespect to the Legislature, but the legislative process would require a great deal of care to provide it a greater level of protection than the people already have.
Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Washoe County:
I don’t want to say that I am necessarily saying I’m neutral. I have the greatest respect for Assemblyman Hettrick and what he’s trying to do to codify this. I have to say, basically, we are opposed, and Washoe County is opposed,to having legislation at all on this issue. I think you’ve heard that I adopt everything that Tom Perkins has said. I believe that there are instances of over-reaching by local government. No question. I think that’s why I exist; that’s why we, hopefully, get good, competent public lawyers. There’s always going to be that little line that somebody thinks is pushed one way or another. There’s already an adequate remedy in law. Judicial review is available by any landowner who feels that there’s been an over-exaction or condition imposed that’s inappropriate or unlawful or in excess of lawful authority, which certainly expands into and beyond the constitutional level of “authorized.”
There’s not only that; I’m hearing issues relating to liability and those types of concerns coming from the property owners. Those are legitimate, but, really, when you think about it, there are a couple of things going on here. Last session, you specifically expanded your landscape maintenance district law to include trails. If “trails” is the issue, you have at least a mechanism for new development as to how to handle those liability and maintenance issues through the creation of a landscape maintenance district to include trails.
That doesn’t help with the ad hoc individual review of a building permit or something that comes in on an individual basis. That certainly is a way to handle new development. Secondly, you are also considering this session, a bill that was submitted by the Builders’ Association, which deals with who is going to be responsible for the maintenance and liability of right-of-ways and areas that are adjacent to properties. All of that being said, there are other mechanisms and areas where you can handle the liability and maintenance issues related to trails.
[Ms. Shipman continued her testimony.] If this were to go forward in any form as an amendment, I do want to point out a couple of things specific to the proposed amendment. NRS 278.497 to NRS 278.4987, I know that Ms. O’Grady, Committee Counsel, has mentioned that, specifically relates to dedication. That is the alternative that I don’t believe any local government is following at this point on residential construction tax. A residential construction tax is called a tax because it is not proportional. I know that is an exception, but I just wanted to make that clear.
Subsection (d) on the proposed amendment to A.B. 427 should not exist. Dolan only applies to the taking of land or the required dedication of land. The phrase, “contribute or donate any other thing of value,” is not covered by Dolan. We shouldn’t have that as any piece of this legislation. I am not sure what was in mind when that was written down, but Dolan does not apply to it.
[Ms. Shipman continued her testimony.] I would agree that the third paragraph should be removed, because, technically, land-use approval we all understand. Typically, on a building permit, you don’t have required dedications unless it’s in ordinance, which, of course, my understanding is that an ordinance cannot be subject to the Dolan test. It’s only on an ad hoc individual basis. If you had an ordinance that said, for instance, that you had to dedicate the right-of-way in front of your property if you were going to develop or build a business, and maybe your property is very long and maybe the business is very small, you couldn’t make the argument on disproportionality or nonproportionality until after you actually tried to develop. But the ordinance, on its face, is constitutional, and Dolan doesn’t really address ordinances at all.
Finally, I wanted to mention that I heard a request for change from “roughly” to “reasonable.” If you had to mimic the law, I would stick with what the law is or what the case law is, which is “roughly.” This bill [A.B. 427] has the ability to become what one would call “the bill of unintended consequences.” One thing that nobody has mentioned is that the findings that a local government has to make in order to issue a special use permit, a conditional use permit, are not necessarily directly related to dedication and conditions. I can tell you that, if this bill were to prohibit certain requirements being imposed on properties, you could find that those findings could not be made, and you could impact the ability to develop all together.
I have three more people to come up: Chris Knight, Terri Barber, and Stephanie Garcia-Vause. If you so wish, please step forward. You are the last people who have signed up to speak. [Another guest raised his hand to indicate that he wished to speak.] If you will sign your name on a list that you wish to speak, I’ll give you a minute if we have any time.
Chris Knight, City of Las Vegas Planning and Development Department:
I think, conceptually, we understand what is being attempted by Assemblyman Hettrick. I think that we have wanted to work with him and agree with him on some of the issues he’s trying to resolve. The problem is that the approvals of certain land use permits typically are the method by which local units of government get dedication and get implementation of the plans that they have adopted.
What we are trying to say and agree with Assemblyman Hettrick is that, if all you need is a building permit, the issues of zoning, special use permits, variances, conditional uses, or even a subdivision have been resolved. If you just need a building permit for that or you just need a building permit to put a patio on the back of your house, there does seem to be some inequity of requiring some kind of dedication related to a patio being put on your house or some other addition or remodel. At the same point, we should be able to develop some language that recognizes that these types of dedications are standard practice in rezoning applications, for subdivision approval, special use permits, and the other land use entitlements that people seek from the local units of government. We haven’t quite arrived at the language that does exactly that. Conceptually, we are in agreement with what is being attempted.
The issue is the technical language that goes into this bill [A.B. 427] and how we address the problems that have been identified. If you think about it, most of the problems have been very rural in nature. There is an intuitive feel there that, if you are dealing with a very large rural parcel and you want to break off an acre of land and you have still an entire ranch remaining, there seems to be some intuitive feeling that the dedication of a trail across that entire ranch isn’t reasonable. I think there may be something intuitive in that. The acre itself should probably do that. As you get into a more urbanized or suburban type of environment, the need and the nexus of everyone to participate in the development of trails becomes imperative. In a more rural setting, maybe it’s not quite as imperative, and it’s hard, in most people’s minds, to make that connection.
[Mr. Knight continues.] I would like to talk about the conservation easements that were mentioned earlier today. Those conservation easements, and the funding that comes through the BLM, are typically funded through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA). The issue with conservation easements that concerns us the most is that, when funding for conservation easements moves forward and the easement is purchased, if there is no change at all in the character of the land, then what was the easement for? There is an argument to say, “We have protected the environment.” But, at the same time, the end result is the money just goes into a bank account and nothing changes.
If you are not getting better preservation of the environment or improved access, if you are not getting something out of that conservation easement, you have accomplished very little. From southern Nevada’s standpoint, in dealing with that and the SNPLMA, there needs to be some tangible management and that may sometimes include access but not always. Those issues need to be separated out of this bill [A.B. 427] and dealt with in another manner. BLM is currently working on those issues. From our standpoint, we conceptually agree, but we just don’t think we have gotten there on the language.
Terri Barber, representing the City of Henderson:
I would have to echo Chris’ [Chris Knight] comments. We have tried to work with Assemblyman Hettrick, as we can sympathize with his personal situation. We agree that there shouldn’t be abuse by local government, but we also agree with Assemblywoman Pierce that, particularly in the City of Henderson where we have lots of Master Planned communities by those 800-pound gorillas, we need to get those kinds of things that will help us serve our citizens, the trails, the additional open space, and those types of things that make it a livable community. The way this A.B. 427 is currently written, it has become the bill of unintended consequences, and it could potentially end up being worse than what the current law is for us.
Chairman Collins:
Mr. Hettrick, I think I have heard about five amendments. A couple of them don’t agree with one another. If the Committee would agree with letting us recess until Wednesday morning, you want to try to iron it out?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I would be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. What you have heard for the most part is that there’s agreement on concept and a little concern about language. Nothing in this is intended to stop any city from asking a subdivision, where we are truly talking about a subdivision, from requiring a road or a trail or an easement or open space. Nothing is about that. It is about nexus and proportionality. I have made the comment to several people. If you have somebody subdivide a little piece of land that wants to build four houses, you can’t ask them for a school site or for a park. It’s impossible. There has to be nexus and proportionality. That’s what this is trying to do.
Chairman Collins:
Do you want to try to work this out? See, I guess the example is that I’ve got 20 acres down there, and, on an acre and a half on the corner of two major streets, I put a little mini-casino, a 7-Eleven, a convenience-type store with slots. I am not going to curb, gutter, pave, and streetlight the whole frontage on both those streets for that piece of property. I am going to subdivide that parcel. I think that’s what we are talking about. Do you want to try to fix these four or five amendments to see if you’ve got a bill [A.B. 427] left? Or, do you want to accept that there is enough law in place, like in Ms. Shipman’s testimony, that doesn’t deal with (d), and nobody likes (c), and we want to be reasonable, or we want to be rough?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Mr. Chairman, you don’t see all those people sitting behind me because they think the law’s adequate in the form it’s in. They want the law to stay the way it is, because, obviously, they have a concern about doing what they think they need to do. But, the fact is, there are many people who can’t be here, who are going to be impacted. It is not just bringing this bill forward and having one or two individuals coming up here and saying, “This is a problem; we ought to address it.” I don’t need it to be any more difficult. Mr. Settelmeyer said, “I want it to be stronger than the constitutional law.” No, I don’t think it needs to be stronger than the constitutional law, but we ought to follow the constitutional law, and I believe Dolan is the standard. Why would we not agree to do Dolan? The only difference is, they say, it already is in the law. Yes, it is. It guarantees that the property owner has to go to court.
Chairman Collins:
And, they said Dolan doesn’t cover (d).
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I don’t have any problem removing (d).
Chairman Collins:
We will recess this hearing until Wednesday at 7:00 a.m. If those five amendment people will get with Mr. Hettrick and iron it out or deposit it in the right place, we are recessed. [The meeting was recessed at 7:59 a.m., Monday, April 7, 2003, until Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 7:06 a.m.]
********
The Committee on Government Affairs Subcommittee was called back to order at 7:06 a.m., on Wednesday, April 9, 2003, following the recess called on Monday, April 7, 2003, at 7:59 a.m. Chairman Tom Collins presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit E is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
NOTE: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Subcommittee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Tom Collins, Chairman
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Ron Knecht
Ms. Peggy Pierce
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. Mark Manendo
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
None
Assembly Bill 427: Prohibits governmental entity, under certain circumstances, from conditioning approval of certain land use permits upon dedication of land, dedication of certain rights or contribution of other thing of value. (BDR 22-1050)
Subcommittee Chairman Tom Collins:
The Assembly Government Affairs Subcommittee on Assembly Bill 427 is now called to order. Madam secretary, would you call the roll? [Roll called.] We do have a quorum. Is Mr. Hettrick here? I don’t see him yet. We have many people in favor of this bill, and we have some proposals. I still have one person who wishes to speak. Mr. Holler has marked, “neutral.” I have Maddy Shipman marked against it with a question mark as to whether or not she wants to speak. So, I have no one in opposition this morning. I wanted Mr. Hettrick to be here because he e-mailed me a couple of proposals, so let me discuss these proposals with the Committee Counsel for a minute. [The meeting stands in recess.]
Chairman Collins:
We are back in from our recess [7:22 a.m.]. Mr. Hettrick, could we get you to come up to the microphone as the sponsor of the bill? Mr. Hettrick, as Chair of the Subcommittee, I had thought we had gotten this worked out. It sounds like there’s more negotiation that needs to go on; we have a deadline on Friday. In fact, I very much like the proposal you showed me last night that I thought was going to be okay. I understand there are still some concerns.
I fully understand and appreciate Mr. Hettrick’s bringing this bill forward. I can remember Carson Valley over 30 years ago when it was much more peaceful, calm, and beautiful. I really appreciate the efforts of this bill, and I understand that there is a possibility that something can be arranged to allow you folks to find out what can be addressed, how the state can address a local issue in fairness and not violate federal court cases. I know that there are pretty sticky issues here. I also know that you would like to go into a conference and work that out. If you would like to ask us to send this back, we would be glad to.
Lynn Hettrick, Assemblyman, Assembly District No. 39:
I think we are getting closer to something that can work and not have the concerns that were running too far one way in part of it and too far the other way in the rest. That seems to be the problem. Everybody agrees that there are parts of A.B. 427 that need to be fixed, but we seem to be overlapping on things and then there is concern.
What we would like to do is have you folks just send this back without recommendation the way it is. If we can’t come to a solution, I would expect that the Committee would take a vote and kill the bill. If we do come to a solution, we will bring it to you and, hopefully, we can incorporate it into the bill and move forward. I don’t know what else to do at this time. What we are doing now is doing things that are both overlapping and causing problems, or they don’t go far enough to do anything, and we might as well not deal with it. We might as well just forget it.
What I would like is the time, and the only way to get the time without killing the bill is to have you folks send it back without recommendation. Let us see if we can’t work this out.
Chairman Collins:
My question then would be, “Would you want it sent back with these 5-acre and other provisions?
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I think that would probably make the people uncomfortable. I almost would say just send it back the way you got it without changing anything and say, “No recommendation.” We will come with something different. If we don’t come up with something, then we will kill the bill.
Chairman Collins:
Don’t give up!
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I’m not giving up. That’s why I want the time. If I were going to give up, I’d tell you this morning to take a vote and forget it. No, some of these concerns need to be dealt with. I think they agree to that as well. In good faith, they [the opposition] are trying to come with solutions they can live with. We just have to see if there’s a little compromise that can be made somewhere in there that everyone can live with. That’s what we are trying to achieve, and we haven’t gotten there yet.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY MOVED TO SEND ASSEMBLY BILL 427 BACK TO THE FULL COMMITTEE WITH NO RECOMMENDATION.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Collins:
Thank you very much. We definitely have issues that need to be addressed in Douglas County and throughout the state as far as that goes. This could hit other places and probably the size of your community makes it stand out more. This Subcommittee is adjourned [at 7:28 a.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Nancy Haywood
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: