MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
March 3, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:02 p.m., on Monday, March 3, 2003, in Room 2149, of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, 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
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman (Excused)
Senator Warren B. Hardy, II (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Olivia Lodato, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bruce Scott, Board for Financing Water Projects
Terry Savage, Director, Chief Information Officer, Department of Information Technology
Gary Peck, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Kent F. Lauer, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Laura M. Mijanovich, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association/Carson City, Washoe County
Mike Harper, Planning Manager, Advanced Planning, Community Development Department, Washoe County
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association
Chuck Gardner, Attorney
Chairman O’Connell noted the committee would be a subcommittee meeting today until a quorum was reached when Senator Townsend arrived. She opened the hearing with Bill Draft Request (BDR) 30-553.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 30-553: Increases amount of general obligation bonds that State Board of Finance may issue to provide grants to certain water systems. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 233.)
Bruce Scott, Board for Financing Water Projects, stated BDR 30-553 would increase the bonding available to the State Board for Financing Water Projects. He said the bonding amount would increase from $69 million to $86 million. The board, for the past 10 years, had provided grants to rural water systems in the amount of $67 million. Mr. Scott stated these grants were given to every county except Humboldt County and Carson City. The two counties mentioned had not applied for grants, he said. The program provided a basis for communities to receive grant funding, which could then be used to match community development block grants, United States Department of Agriculture rural grants, and other sources of funding. He requested the committee introduce BDR 30-553 and assign it a bill number.
Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on Senate Bill (S.B.) 175.
SENATE BILL 175: Makes certain documents relating to information technology of state agencies confidential and authorizes appointment of advisory committee on security issues. (BDR 18-536)
Terry Savage, Director, Chief Information Officer, Department of Information Technology, stated the committee had two information sheets, Exhibit C. He said the first sheet was general background information about the bill, and the second one was in response to Chairman O’Connell’s request for examples of borderline cases. Mr. Savage said the first section of the bill dealt with information that could be injurious to security if it were made public. The Governor would be authorized to make those documents confidential, he said. The second portion of the bill would allow Governor Guinn’s Committee on Homeland Security to meet in closed session when they discussed specific areas of vulnerabilities. He stated the Nevada Press Association had raised a number of issues. The major concern expressed was the broad discretion given the Governor in terms of what he could state was confidential. Mr. Savage said a suggestion had been made to identify the specific documents that needed to be made confidential, and specify those documents in the bill. He stated there was no final language as yet, but there was agreement some things needed to be kept confidential.
Senator Care asked if the existence of the document itself would be confidential, or would just the information contained within the document be confidential. Mr. Savage replied he had not considered that aspect of the issue. He said the intent was to keep the information the document contained confidential. Senator Care said, in litigation, attorneys often created privilege logs. He said attorneys exchanged the logs to let their opponents know of the existence of certain documents. He wanted to know if the public would ever know that certain documents existed, but the contents were confidential. Mr. Savage responded he thought it would be reasonable to have the public know the documents existed, but the actual contents of the documents would not be made public.
Senator O’Connell asked for testimony from people opposed to S.B. 175. She inquired if there were people in southern Nevada who wished to testify in opposition to the bill.
Gary Peck, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada, said the American Civil Liberties Union supported the proposition and the proposed amended language put forward by the Nevada Press Association. He added his organization wanted a more narrowly tailored definition of the term terrorism. He said proposed legislation defined terrorism in a too broad and a too open‑ended manner. He recommended the language be tightened up.
Kent F. Lauer, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, said he had discussed the language concerning the broadness of the bill with Mr. Savage. He said it gave the Governor too much authority. Mr. Lauer stated the bill should specifically define the records that would be kept confidential.
Chairman O’Connell asked if Mr. Lauer or Mr. Savage would be offering an amendment to the bill. She said the committee needed to know who to contact for the language for the amendment when the bill was ready for a vote. Mr. Savage said he would continue discussions with Mr. Lauer and would work on the language for the amendment. He stated he would work with the committee staff and hoped the amendment would be a joint proposal.
Laura M. Mijanovich, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, stated the American Civil Liberties Union was not against the passing of the bill. The ACLU respected and supported the principles and objectives being sought in the adoption of this bill. She said the concern with the bill was the language of the bill. The language was too broad, too vague, and it did not provide for the standards under which it would be used. She also said there were no provisions for oversight of the public officials who would enforce the bill. She said she recognized the need to keep some information confidential, but stated the State had a tradition of keeping the public informed. She said there was a need to clearly establish a definition of terrorism that would conform to constitutional requirements.
Senator Care asked if a document might not always be confidential. He wondered if 20 or 30 years from now, it would no longer be confidential. He asked if there was any possibility of an annual or biannual review of the material. He asked if the public would ever know if there had been a meeting of the committee without disclosure of the substance of the meeting. Mr. Savage responded the existence of a meeting could be known, but not the contents of the meeting. He said the longevity of the confidential material and documents had not been considered previously. Mr. Savage said he would not be opposed to language requiring a formal review of documents declared confidential in order to determine if confidentiality was still needed.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 175 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 176.
SENATE BILL 176: Makes various changes regarding planning and zoning. (BDR 22-583)
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, introduced Mike Harper and stated he would describe the bill and explain why Washoe County had requested S.B. 176.
Mike Harper, Planning Manager, Advanced Planning, Community Development Department, Washoe County, stated he had worked with the Legislative Counsel Bureau to draft S.B. 176. He said sections 3 and 4 were proposed by Legislative Counsel Bureau in order to amend the bill to clarify an issue from the previous session. He said sections 1 and 2 were intended to provide a uniform process by which the public would receive documentation by notice of various types of planning actions in the State. Mr. Harper said there were a number of requirements for noticing property owners and other interested parties of zoning changes. He stated there was no uniform method by which the public was assured the noticing had occurred. The concept behind sections 1 and 2 was to create a uniform process by which the public could come forward and receive documentation that noticing had been legally accomplished.
He said there had been concerns about section 3 and the suggestion there needed to be a personal affidavit. He wanted the committee to understand any changes in the language needed to clarify notification requirements would be welcomed. Mr. Harper stated there was no particular change to the law as it had been since 2001, but a conflict occurred in the law between two different sections in regards to noticing of zone changes. He said all counties with populations over 100,000 had been required to notify owners of properties within 750 feet of an area proposed for a zone change. He said that portion of the bill had originally been placed in a section of the code where it might not be noticed. He said section 3 of the bill cleaned up the language in order to eliminate confusion.
Mr. Harper stated section 5 was proposed by Washoe County. He said the Senate government affairs committee supported a bill in 2001 to establish an anniversary date for actions after the first-final map had been recorded. He said Washoe County had not studied the bill closely enough. Mr. Harper stated Washoe County had not understood the language said the anniversary date was the date of presentation of the first-final map. He said there were many different ways to interpret that language. He said the proposed change would make it very clear the date for any subsequent actions would be the date of recordation of the first-final map.
Chairman O’Connell questioned Mr. Harper about the deletion of the language in section 4, page 7, line 7, of S.B. 176. He stated there had been a conflict between that section and section 4, subsection 4, line 30, of the earlier bill. The discrepancy appeared to be between the 500-foot notice requirement and the 750-foot notice requirement on page 7, line 7. He said 750 feet was the latest expression of the Legislature’s intent.
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, expressed concern about section 1 as it had been written. He stated Clark County was concerned about the personal knowledge requirement for notification. He said due to the number of people who must be notified, Clark County utilized a computer program which entered the parcel number and the required radius of the parcel for which notification was required. The computer program generated the list, merged it with the applicable notice requirements, and transferred the information to another department in order to be mailed. Mr. Musgrove said the fear in Clark County was about the personal knowledge, via an affidavit, that the information had been sent. He said Clark County would prefer to use the language of certification. An employee would certify the information was entered in the computer. He said a list of who was noticed, who received the information and the distance requirements would be made available to interested parties. He said Clark County wanted to be able to certify the information was correct, rather than sign an affidavit attesting to personal knowledge of the correctness of the information. Mr. Musgrove said sections 3 and 4 of subsection 1 could be deleted and he suggested the word certification be replaced with the word affidavit.
Senator Raggio asked if a certification based upon information and belief would be objectionable to Clark County. Mr. Musgrove replied there would be no objection.
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, stated her group supported S.B. 176 and concurred with any of the amendments.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 176 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 181.
SENATE BILL 181: Revises provisions relating to amendment of master plans and redevelopment plans. (BDR 22-992)
Senator Terry John Care, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, introduced Senate Bill 181. He said he came to see a need for this bill in response to a disagreement he had with the result of a Nevada Supreme Court decision. He said the court’s opinion was not the problem, but rather Nevada law was the problem. Senator Care summarized the case, Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment v. Crockett, Docket Nos. 27801, 27941, and 29550, for the hearing, Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library. Senator Care emphasized the dissenting vote was cast by Justice A. William Maupin, with whom he agreed. He noted Justice Maupin had stated the vacation of streets and relocation of a public park should have required a formal amendment of the redevelopment plan for the Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Area. Justice Maupin said any major changes to a master plan should require notification of the changes to surrounding areas affected by the changes.
Senator O’Connell asked Senator Care for the definition for material deviation. Senator Care said S.B. 181 would provide the definition. He said he did not believe the court had a definition at the time of the case. He quoted the proposed definition within S.B. 181, section 3, subsection 5. Chairman O’Connell asked how the court viewed material deviation in the case cited in the example. He said the trial court had used a discretionary standard with which the Nevada Supreme Court did not agree.
Senator Care read section 3 subsection 5 of S.B. 181: ”Material deviation” means an action that, if taken, would alter significantly one or more of the aspects of a redevelopment plan that are required to be shown … pursuant to NRS 279.572. He said the crux of the bill was located in section 3, subsection 1. Senator Care said if at any time, after the adoption of a redevelopment plan by the legislative body, the agency desired to take any action that would constitute a material deviation from the plan, the agency must recommend the amendment to the plan to the legislative body.
Senator Care said the issue in the case cited was the duty to go through the process of formally amending the redevelopment plan. When an amendment to a redevelopment plan was announced to the public, it invited public discussion and all affected property owners could participate in the amended redevelopment process. Senator Care stated the basic intent of the bill was to require notification for redevelopment plan amendments.
Chuck Gardner, Attorney, spoke in favor of S.B. 181. He said Senator Care’s bill would help solve problems created by “empty” redevelopment plans. Mr. Gardner said Las Vegas had created an empty redevelopment plan in order to start taking money into the agency. Mr. Gardner had represented one of the property owners in the Stratosphere redevelopment case.
Senator O’Connell asked him if the bill had anything to do with the Aztec Hotel. Mr. Gardner stated the Aztec Hotel was the first to challenge the taking of property under the redevelopment plan of 1986. The Aztec won the original case, but then sold the property to the Stratosphere. All the property owners around the area the Stratosphere needed for redevelopment eventually sold to the Stratosphere Corporation.
Mr. Gardner said the Nevada Supreme Court decided uprooting a low-income neighborhood and removing a historical memorial park, vacating streets, expanding a casino into a neighborhood, and using eminent domain to seize property for the casino expansion were minor details of an empty redevelopment plan. Mr. Gardner stated Senator Care’s bill addressed a major aspect of the problems that occurred with the Stratosphere.
Mr. Gardner said he would like additional language in the bill stating when a redevelopment plan has been completed, the plan would expire. He also said if redevelopment money was used or eminent domain was exercised for a project not in the redevelopment plan, the redevelopment plan would have to be amended or a new plan established. Mr. Gardner stated Senator Care’s bill went a long way in defining material deviation.
Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Gardner what definition had been used in the court case. Mr. Gardner replied Senator Care’s bill was in response to the lack of a definition for material deviation. Senator O’Connell responded by asking if the court was going by a definition it had created. Mr. Gardner stated Justice Maupin, in his dissenting vote, had a different idea of why and when a redevelopment plan should be amended and reheard. Mr. Gardner noted many low-income families protested the plan.
Mr. Musgrove stated Clark County had concerns about S.B. 181. He said he talked to Senator Care when the bill was still a BDR. Mr. Musgrove said the bill might limit some of the current things Clark County did about redevelopment plans. He said the county also had a problem with some of the wording in the bill. The bill affected all master plan amendments in Clark County. He said notices of change are mailed to all property owners in the planning area and advised a limit of 10 days would cause Clark County to do away with some of the notices. Mr. Musgrove referred to the language on line 15 as too vague. He said Clark County preferred a specific notification area be listed in statute. For example, he said, a specific distance radius, or an actual planning area listed, would make it easier to know what notification needed to be given.
Mr. Harper said Washoe County’s concerns were with sections 1 and 2, and not with section 3. He said he agreed with Mr. Musgrove concerning the vagueness in the bill as to who might be the affected party. Washoe County had gone through a 2-year process for a regional plan update which created a significant number of changes. He said most of the changes that would occur to the regional plan would have to be notified to all 90,000 property owners in Washoe County as affected parties. Mr. Harper said the concern was it did not address who the affected parties were. He noted Washoe County followed most of section 2, subsections 2 and 3, for master plan amendments in the county. He said Washoe County’s master plan map was also their zoning map. He indicated a radius or a specific plan that needed to be noticed would assist the counties in making sure they were consistent in the noticing process.
Senator Care stated he could do as Mr. Harper and Mr. Musgrove requested concerning the notice provisions. He said the language, as stated now, dealt with a recent issue in Clark County concerning a lease between a private individual and the county. Senator Care said some of the people affected by a proposed change in the lease were not given notice or an opportunity for a hearing on the matter.
Senator O’Connell closed the discussion on S.B. 181 and asked for a motion on BDR 30-533.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 30-533.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TIFFANY AND HARDY WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell asked the committee if there was any further business to discuss. There was none and she adjourned the meeting at 3:17 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Olivia Lodato,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: