MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session April 6, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, April 6, 1995, Chairman Joan A. Lambert presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Pete Ernaut Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Wendell P. Williams STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Michael Harper, Director, Department of Development Review, Washoe County; Mr. Dick Heikka, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association; Mr. John O. Swendseid, Clark County (See also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 369 - Authorizes governing body to direct hearing examiner to take final action on zoning matters. Mr. Michael Harper, Director, Department of Development Review, Washoe County, testified. He explained the Department of Development Review was responsible for processing all development applications for the unincorporated portions of Washoe County. He referred to Section 1 of A.B. 369 and explained the change from "American Institute of Planners" to "American Institute of Certified Planners" was necessary because the American Institute of Planners had not existed since 1979. He said its successor, the American Institute of Certified Planners, was a combination of the American Institute of Planners and another organization. Mr. Harper said Washoe County's support of A.B. 369 represented an effort by the county to provide better customer service and to streamline its hearing process. He advised, at the present time, hearings were held on the majority of development applications either by Washoe County's seven member planning commission, which met twice a month, or its five member board of adjustment, which met once a month. He indicated, with respect to applications for minor development, which comprised the majority of applications received by the Department of Development Review, Washoe County wished to provide greater access to the review process by reducing the amount of time required for that process. He suggested a hearing officer would be able to hold hearings more frequently, more conveniently and at less cost than could the county's volunteer boards (the planning commission and board of adjustment). He contended a hearing officer could hold hearings in locations other than the city hall or county administration complex and explained it could be very costly to secure a large meeting room and to provide both audio equipment and staff for the purpose of holding meetings of the planning commission or board of adjustment in locations other than the city hall or the county administration complex. He advised Washoe County paid the members of its planning commission and its board of adjustment and advised it cost Washoe County approximately $500 each time one of those bodies met. Mr. Harper assured the committee Washoe County had no intent to circumvent either the procedures for providing notice of hearings or the hearing process itself by utilizing a hearing officer. He said Washoe County needed the statutory change which A.B. 369 would provide in order to provide better public service. Assemblyman Segerblom asked, "A hearing officer would then go to the planning commission. Is that correct?" Mr. Harper replied the hearing officer would be hired by the board of county commissioners and would function in lieu of the planning commission. He said Washoe County intended to use a hearing office for minor matters but not for major projects. He indicated the county recognized the need to have hearings on applications for major projects conducted by "...lay member bodies..." and to have the recommendations of those bodies submitted to the board of county commissioners. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether the hearing officer would be able to submit his recommendations directly to the board of county commissioners. Mr. Harper replied affirmatively. Assemblyman Bache said the language of A.B. 369 did not provide for the process Mr. Harper described. He indicated Washoe County would establish the process Mr. Harper described by means of ordinance and expressed concern the county might eliminate the planning commission entirely and provide all hearings be conducted by a hearing officer. He suggested language might be included in A.B. 369 which would provide for matters above a certain level of importance to be submitted to the planning commission and then to the board of county commissioners and matters below a certain level of importance to be submitted to the hearing officer. Mr. Harper replied it might be desirable to limit the matters submitted to the hearing officer to variances and special use permits or to variances and minor special use permits. Chairman Lambert asked whether there was a definition of "minor special use permits." Mr. Harper replied there was not but said he would be willing to cooperate in developing a definition. He explained most counties separated their special use permits into categories of "minor" and "major," with minor special use permits being reviewed by a board of adjustment and major special use permits being reviewed by a planning commission. He advised, in Washoe County, any project which had regional significance required a major special use permit. He indicated minor special use permits pertained to such things as water tanks and day care centers. He suggested the legislature might wish to limit the provisions of A.B. 369 to variances for a two year period in order to test how those provisions worked. Chairman Lambert asked whether the provisions of A.B. 369 would allow fees for minor projects to be reduced. Mr. Harper replied affirmatively. Chairman Lambert asked, "Would we be able to possibly limit it by just saying that the hearing officer doesn't have to report to the board of adjustment. Would that be a way of segregating the major from the minor." Mr. Harper responded Washoe County desired that the hearing officer be able to act in lieu of the board of adjustment. He pointed out appeals (of a hearing officer's decisions) would be submitted to the board of county commissioners. He stated Washoe County was merely requesting that the same ability to take final action which was granted to the board of adjustments and to the planning commission be extended to the hearing officer. He advised, in the state of Washington, nearly all "...actions..." were handled by hearing officers. Mr. Harper said, if the committee wished to limit the application of the provisions of A.B. 369 to variances or special use permits or if the committee wished to create a definition of "minor special use permit", he would be happy to work with the committee to accomplish those purposes. He conceded the provisions of A.B. 369 were broad and could be extended to apply to such things as zone changes. Assemblyman Freeman commented ...I would favor giving local government, within the guidelines that we set up, the power to decide how it should be done." Mrs. Segerblom pointed out A.B. 369 did not contain language making its provisions applicable only to Washoe County and, therefore, its provisions could be used throughout Nevada. Assemblyman Neighbors pointed out line 20 of A.B. 369 said "The governing body shall by ordinance..." He explained the adoption of an ordinance required noticed public hearings. Mr. Dick Heikka, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, testified. He advised he had served as a hearing officer with respect to zoning applications for seven years. He stated A.B. 369 was enabling legislation. He said, in another jurisdiction, enabling legislation was enacted which established provisions for a hearing officer, who conducted hearings as though they were being held by the planning commission and whose decisions could be appealed. He contended enabling legislation such as A.B. 369 worked when it was "...properly set up..." and saved tremendous amounts of time. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 369. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 370 - Revises provisions governing alternative procedure for creation of local improvement district. Mr. John O. Swendseid, Clark County, testified. He provided a document entitled "Summary and Purpose" (Exhibit C). He said A.B. 370 changed some language in those statutes which authorized developer special assessment districts. He advised a developer special assessment district was a special assessment district created by a municipality when 100 percent of the property owners gave their written consent to creation of the district. He explained these special assessment districts were referred to as developer special assessment districts because, typically, the consent of 100 percent of the property owners could be obtained only when there were no more than one or two property owners, and when that was the case, the property owners were usually developers. Mr. Swendseid said A.B. 370 had two purposes. He advised the first purpose was to make it clear that the requirement for written consent of 100 percent of the property owners pertained only to owners of assessable property. He explained, if a street or piece of public property within a special assessment district was not to be assessed for improvements, the consent of the owner of that street or property would not be required. He advised the second purpose of A.B. 370 was to address a statutory ambiguity which was created by two bills passed by the 1991 legislature and which pertained to the number of readings required to adopt an ordinance. He said the purpose of A.B. 370 was to make it clear, when 100 percent of the property owners in a district of the kind being discussed gave their consent, an ordinance could be adopted based on only one reading and without the necessity of a hearing. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 370. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 382 - Makes various changes to provisions governing local improvement districts. Mr. John O. Swendseid, Clark County, testified. He said the purpose of A.B. 382 was to deal with minor problems counties encountered with respect to special assessment districts other than developer special assessment districts. He submitted proposed amendments to A.B. 382 (Exhibit D). Mr. Swendseid said the new section which A.B. 382 would add to NRS 721 was designed to address a problem Clark County, and perhaps other local governments, encountered when, after a special assessment district had been created and construction, perhaps, had begun, a property owner decided he wanted something done which was not originally included. He said existing statutes prohibited the county from adding something, which was not included in the provisional order resolution, after the provisional order was made. He advised the new section would allow the county to add something to a special improvement district and to the construction contract for that district if it obtained the consent of the property owner who would be required to pay for that addition. Mr. Swendseid advised Section 2 of A.B. 382 would address the same problem he had testified to when testifying on A.B. 370, which was the ambiguity in statute regarding adoption of ordinances in one reading. He suggested it was important to have the ability to adopt bond ordinances in one reading because those who offered to buy bonds at a certain rate of interest did not want to "...hold that rate..." for the length of time required for two readings due to the fact interest rates changed. He explained Clark County was asking for an exception from the requirement that there be two readings to adopt an ordinance only with respect to bond ordinances. He said the county would still be required to have two readings in order to adopt other ordinances for special assessment districts. Mr. Swendseid advised the purpose of Section 3 of A.B. 382 was to simplify procedures. He said, "There's a finding that's now required in a resolution, and that's immediately followed by an ordinance, and the governing body does these two things on the same day. This amendment would let us combine those two findings and put them all in the ordinance." Mr. Swendseid explained the purpose of Section 4 of A.B. 382 was to allow Clark County, immediately, to apply any monies which remained after improvements in a district were completed as a credit against assessments on property owners in order to reduce those assessments. He said existing law allowed the county to give that credit to property owners but did not allow it to do so until the bonds were paid off. Mr. Swendseid referred to subsection 7 of Section 4 of A.B. 382 and explained the purpose of that subsection was to allow the county to reduce the interest rate on assessments if it found it did not need to charge as high a rate of interest as it had originally set. He indicated current law required the interest rate on assessments to be at least as high as the highest rate of interest on the bonds. He indicated, in some instances, bonds were structured in such a manner that the interest rate on those bonds decreased over time and said the county wished to be able to reduce property owners' assessments if it did not need the higher interest rate on those assessments in order to pay off bonds after interest on those bonds had been reduced. Assemblyman Nolan asked if A.B. 382 would permit Clark County to circumvent the "no cut" policies which were currently applicable to new streets. Mr. Swendseid replied it would allow a property owner, in a special assessment district, who realized his street was going to be paved, to request the special assessment district be amended to include (for instance) his sewer lateral in order to avoid the need to cut the pavement. Chairman Lambert asked whether, by his testimony, Mr. Swendseid was saying, after the notice required by NRS 271.305 had been given, "...when everyone knows what the cost of the project will be, then they would have the right to waive the notice." Mr. Swendseid replied affirmatively. He reiterated his prior testimony regarding the circumstances under which the county would like the ability to add something to a special assessment district. Discussions were held between Chairman Lambert and Mr. Swendseid. Assemblyman Bennett asked Mr. Swendseid to point out the language in A.B. 382 which would require a property owner to pay for an addition to a special assessment district made at his request. Mr. Swendseid advised there was no such language but indicated the county's practice would be to have the property owner who made such a request pay for the cost of the addition. He advised NRS allowed the county to levy assessments on property for improvements it constructed and said the county's practice was to assess the property which received an improvement for the cost of that improvement. He suggested A.B. 382 could be amended to include language which would provide for such payment. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 382. Chairman Lambert advised the committee Clark County had requested an amendment be made to the amendment the committee previously caused to be made to Assembly Bill 143. She referred to page 1, lines 9 through 13, of A.B. 143 and said Clark County wished to remove "aviation field" from the list of properties contained in those lines and also wished to add the language "Nothing in this section shall be construed to pertain to any aviation related facility or property where federal regulations or grant assurances preclude such activity." Chairman Lambert explained, if the county had the ability to donate property acquired through eminent domain proceedings for use as an airport, it might result in a loss of Federal Aviation Authority funding. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND THE COMMITTEES PRIOR ACTION OF "AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 143" TO CAUSE THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT TO A.B. 143 TO BE AMENDED AS STATED BY CHAIRMAN LAMBERT. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Lambert suggested a more appropriate action for the committee to take would be to rescind its prior action and then proceed to add the additional amendments. Mr. Ernaut withdrew his motion. Mr. Bache withdrew his second to Mr. Ernaut's motion. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE RESCIND ITS PRIOR ACTION OF "AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 143." ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Denice Miller advised the individual who provided the proposed amendment to A.B. 143 told her only that portion of the proposed amendment which would remove the words "aviation field" from A.B. 143 was necessary and that the second portion of the amendment, which Chairman Lambert read to the committee, was not necessary. Chairman Lambert indicated the bill drafter would determine whether or not the second portion of the proposed amendment was necessary. Mr. Bache said he was advised if "aviation field" was deleted from A.B. 143, the second portion of the proposed amendment would be unnecessary but, if "aviation field" was not deleted, then the second portion would become necessary. Chairman Lambert called for a vote on the motion pending before the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 143 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDMENT APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON MARCH 22, 1995, AND TO FURTHER AMEND A.B. 143 TO DELETE THE WORDS "AVIATION FIELD" AND DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Nolan advised he would vote against A.B. 143 because it still would allow private residences to be acquired by power of eminent domain and used to provide low-income housing. Assemblyman Harrington indicated he would like to see the eminent domain provisions removed from A.B. 143. Chairman Lambert called for a vote on the motion pending before the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN AND ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON VOTED "NO." B.D.R. 30-921 - Repeals certain provisions governing sale of state securities. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 30-921. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs April 6, 1995 Page