MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 5, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, May 5, 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 Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Pete Ernaut GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, District No. 5 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association; Ms. Ande Engleman, Society of Professional Journalists; Mr. Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association; Ms. Barbara McKenzie, city of Reno; Mr. Robert Rightmyer; Mr. Bill Hamma, President, Nevada Organization of Growth Opponents; Ms. Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County; Mr. Mike Harper, Director, Department of Development Review, Washoe County; Ms. Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County; Ms. Kathryn McClain, Legislative Analyst, Clark County Manager's Office; Ms. Stephanie Tyler, city of Sparks; Ms. Barbara McKenzie, city of Reno; Ms. Irene Porter; Mr. Pat Coward, Nevada Association of Realtors; Mr. Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities; Ms. Michelle Gamble, Nevada Association of Counties; Mr. Marvin Leavitt, city of Las Vegas (see also Exhibit B attached hereto). SENATE BILL NO. 277 - Revises administrative procedure for adopting and amending administrative rules and regulations. Senator Ann O'Connell, District No. 5, testified. She advised S.B. 277 was very similar to Senate Bill No. 370 of the sixty-seventh session, which was passed by the legislature but vetoed by the Governor. She said the Governor indicated, if the two sections of Senate Bill No. 370 of the sixty-seventh session to which he primarily objected were eliminated, he would be very supportive of the bill. Senator O'Connell explained the purpose of S.B. 277 was to attempt to generate greater public involvement in the regulatory process. She said, often, when the legislature permitted agencies to promulgate regulations, those regulations exceeded the intent of the legislature. She indicated S.B. 277 was an effort to cause agencies to keep their regulations within the bounds of legislative intent. Senator O'Connell said the two sections of Senate Bill No. 370 of the sixty-seventh session to which the Governor objected were one which defined when and how the Governor could declare an emergency and one which addressed the issue of federal regulations and provided that state agencies could not promulgate regulations which exceeded the scope of federal regulations. She indicated the Governor's objections to those sections had been addressed. She explained the Governor also had some concern about a provision that "...the number of persons who were solicited to attend a meeting must be identified in the minutes and the number who opposed the regulation and also the number who supported the regulation." She advised that language was eliminated. She suggested, except for changes made to address the Governor's concerns, S.B. 277 was substantially the same as Senate Bill No. 370 of the sixty-seventh session. Assemblyman Segerblom referred to Section 7 of S.B. 277 and asked whether Senator O'Connell had testified that the language concerning the number of persons who attended meetings had been omitted from S.B. 277. Senator O'Connell replied affirmatively. Mrs. Segerblom contended that language appeared in S.B. 277. Senator O'Connell responded the language which was contained in Senate Bill No. 370 of the sixty-seventh session but which was omitted from S.B. 277 was "...the number of persons solicited." She explained why the term "solicited" was used initially. Assemblyman Bennett referred to the provisions of Section 6 of S.B. 277 pertaining to determination of an emergency and asked, "Does this apply only to state agencies? What I'm getting at -- this bill is effective on passage and approval. We've got the bill through declaring the emergency with White Pine County School District, and I want to make sure we aren't conflicting among ourselves, here." Senator O'Connell replied, "...We're not." Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified. She suggested a balance was needed between the laws passed by the legislature and how agencies interpreted those laws when creating regulations which impacted Nevada's citizens. She declared bills such as S.B. 277 were extremely important. She contended they did not negate regulations but provided that regulations not be more restrictive than the legislature intended. She urged passage of S.B. 277. Ms. Ande Engleman, Society of Professional Journalists, testified. She advised she was a former director of the Nevada Press Association and said the Nevada Press Association had supported Senate Bill No. 370 of the sixty-seventh session. She stated the Society of Professional Journalists supported S.B. 277. Ms. Engleman pointed out subsection 3 of Section 3 of S.B. 277 concerned the Public Service Commission. She said the Nevada Press Association had extensive dealings with the Public Service Commission and stated, "We support this language." Ms. Engleman said the Society of Professional Journalists believed the language contained in Section 7 of S.B. 277 was very important. She indicated there had been much abuse by agencies in their adoption of regulations. She observed there were occasions when few members of the public were aware a regulation was to be adopted. She said, on other occasions, extensive testimony was given by members of the public and many people appeared at a hearing to object to a regulation but the agency who proposed the regulation would adopt it in spite of those objections. She contended (a record of) the number of people who attended a meeting had significance because it indicated whether or not an agency was listening to the public's concerns. Mr. Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association, testified. He advised the Nevada Manufacturers Association supported S.B. 277. He explained manufacturers had many dealings with the environmental commission and the Department of Natural Resources, in general. He said, "One of the things Lou Dodge had discovered as he was looking through this bill last session is they had 13 separate mailing lists...to notify people of various regulations and hearings and notices. They recognized that that was an unmanageable situation for them, so now, in trying to get ready for compliance with this, they're consolidating their mailing list...to get down to something that they can manage too." He declared the Nevada Manufacturers Association believed S.B. 277 to be a very strong step in the right direction. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 277. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS S.B. 277. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL NO. 282 - Provides for judicial review of disciplinary order of Reno civil service commission. Ms. Barbara McKenzie, city of Reno, testified. She stated the purpose of S.B. 282 was to assist civil service employees who were the subjects of disciplinary procedures. She advised civil service employees experienced a great deal of confusion as to how to proceed if they were unhappy with a decision rendered by the Civil Service Commission with respect to a disciplinary action. She explained S.B. 282 referred to NRS 233B, which dealt with judicial review, and utilized the guidelines set forth in that statute, which guidelines were presently used by many governmental agencies in their administrative and personnel matters. She suggested S.B. 282 was a good tool for providing civil service employees with direction as to how to proceed if they were dissatisfied with a decision of the Civil Service Commission. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether S.B. 282 would reduce the time involved in disciplinary proceedings. Ms. McKenzie replied affirmatively. She stated it would reduce the time a civil service employee was "...in limbo..." from as much as two years to approximately 120 days. Assemblyman Harrington asked for confirmation that S.B. 282 would not cause an increase in lawsuits (against governmental entities). Ms. McKenzie indicated it would not. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 282. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED DO PASS S.B. 282. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 507 - Requires under certain circumstances, proposed change in zoning regulation, restriction or boundary that affects property in area zoned for residential use be approved by referendum. Assemblyman William Z. Harrington, District No. 2, left his chair in the committee and testified from the witness table. He said A.B. 507 attempted to accomplish several purposes, and he provided a one-page document setting forth six reasons to support A.B. 507 (Exhibit C). Mr. Harrington explained A.B. 507 would allow residents of a neighborhood who opposed a zoning change in their neighborhood to submit a petition to their local government requesting the proposed zoning change be subjected to a referendum. He contended this would empower people to control their neighborhoods. Mr. Harrington advised Section 3 of A.B. 507 provided that a petition requesting that a zoning change be subjected to a referendum must be signed by at least 100 people and must be submitted within 45 days of the time those submitting the petition were notified of the proposed zoning change. He said the local government was to hold the referendum as soon as was practical. He pointed out Section 4 provided the size of the area to be included in a referendum would be determined by local government, based upon the area which would be affected by the proposed zoning change. He explained, if a requested zoning change was defeated by referendum, it could not be proposed again until at least two years had passed. He indicated Section 5 of A.B 507 set forth existing law. He advised Section 6 dealt with the Governor's authority regarding the zoning of those portions of the state not zoned by local governments. He said Section 7 provided that the costs of a referendum be borne by local government. Mr. Harrington contended there would be few referendums because, if there was a great deal of neighborhood opposition to a proposed zoning change, those who proposed the change would realize they would be unlikely to prevail in a referendum. Mr. Harrington amplified on the reasons to support A.B. 507 which were set forth on Exhibit C. He stated the fourth reason, that A.B. 507 would diminish the potential for corruption, was very important. He contended giving power to the people and removing it from local government eliminated the incentive for a developer or contractor to make significant political donations to members of local government. He suggested a developer or contractor (who sought a zoning change) would have to pursue a campaign to convince neighborhood residents that the zoning changes he proposed would be good for their neighborhood. He said, because A.B. 507 would provide integrity to zoning laws, it would force local governments to plan more carefully. He referred to two bills previously before the committee, Assembly Bill No. 444 and Assembly Bill No. 506, and contended those bills, also, would be beneficial in forcing local governments to plan more carefully. Assemblyman Neighbors asked whether Mr. Harrington could provide a specific example of abuse (with respect to changing zoning laws). Mr. Harrington replied residents of his neighborhood continuously received notices of proposed zoning changes. He advised, in the eastern part of his neighborhood, there were only a few available lots. He said constant attempts were made to rezone those lots and to place something on them which would be completely different from the neighborhood as a whole. He stated those attempts made residents of that part of his neighborhood extremely angry. He declared those residents were frustrated by the necessity to appear repeatedly at planning commission hearings. He indicated, in his immediate area of the neighborhood, there were many available lots, and repeated attempts were made to rezone those lots to permit a greater density of housing. Mr. Neighbors asked whether requiring that two-thirds of the members of a governing body must vote in favor of a proposed zoning change, rather than requiring a referendum, would save taxpayers money. Mr. Harrington responded affirmatively. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether the city of Las Vegas and Clark County had zoning plans and zoning maps. Mr. Harrington replied they did, as did nearly all local governments in all counties of Nevada. Mrs. Segerblom commented, "Then you really have to put up a fight to have it changed, I would think." Mr. Harrington responded most zoning changes were made with relative ease, however, when a zoning change was proposed which residents of the neighborhood which it would affect did not want, it created a great deal of conflict and imposed a great deal of inconvenience on those residents. Assemblyman Bache pointed out A.B. 507 allowed only property owners to vote in a referendum. He suggested apartment dwellers were also affected by zoning changes but would be denied the right to vote on such changes. Mr. Harrington replied he was not opposed either to including apartment dwellers or to including all registered voters in an affected area under the provisions of A.B. 507. Mr. Bache suggested A.B. 507 would create special elections and advised special elections had been eliminated during the last legislative session. Mr. Harrington replied special elections could occur (pursuant to the provisions of A.B. 507) but he believed they would be relatively infrequent. Mr. Bache asked whether Mr. Harrington would care to see A.B. 507 amended to provide that voting on proposed zoning changes be done only during general or primary elections. Mr. Harrington responded, "I'd hate to put a zoning change on hold that long and leave the developer in limbo." He indicated, however, if Mr. Bache believed such an amendment would provide a better way in which to proceed, he would not object to such an amendment. Assemblyman Williams asked whether Mr. Harrington knew what the fiscal impact of the unfunded mandate which A.B. 507 would create would be. Mr. Harrington replied he did not but said he believed the fiscal impact would be small. Mr. Williams asked whether Mr. Harrington planned to have A.B. 507 referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Harrington responded A.B. 507 would create no fiscal impact on the state. He advised any costs it created would be imposed on local governments and would be only those necessitated by holding elections. Mr. Bennett asked whether Mr. Harrington could be more specific as to what he meant when he discussed "high density." Mr. Harrington answered density was variable, and he contended developers profited when they were able to acquire property "...that's been zoned less dense and then, up against those less dense properties, they can put something more dense. It tends to increase the value of those more dense properties that they're putting on, and they tend to make a better profit by getting that zoning change and putting a more dense property against less dense." Mr. Harrington explained the density permitted by various zoning designations. Mr. Bennett asked, "How many steps difference are you seeing between the proposals and what currently exists." Mr. Harrington said, usually, there were only one or two levels of difference in the density permitted by an existing zoning designation and that which a proposed zoning change would permit, however, the difference could span the entire range of densities. Assemblyman Nolan indicated, initially, he shared Mr. Bache's concern about apartment dwellers in an area which would be affected by a zoning change not having the right to vote on that change, however, he had given the matter further consideration. He pointed out, in general, apartment dwellers were transient and, while a zoning change might affect them in their immediate futures, it might not affect them at a later time. He contended their concerns were not the same as those of owners of real property. Mr. Robert Rightmyer testified by providing written testimony (Exhibit D) upon which he elaborated, orally. He expressed strong support for A.B. 507. Mr. Rightmeyer discussed the frustration engendered by the necessity of making frequent appearances before planning commissions and city councils with respect to proposed zoning changes and by the fact developers sometimes did not discuss proposed zoning changes with the residents of the neighborhoods where those changes were proposed. Mr. Rightmeyer said he attended seven hearings related to proposed zoning changes and observed that many people were afraid to speak in public in order to express their opinions. He stated he also observed that some developers who proposed zoning changes were not residents of Nevada. Mr. Rightmeyer contended master plans were the foundation of good communities and declared deviations from those plans which did not have neighborhood support could destroy the desired appearance of a community. He indicated A.B. 507 would cause developers to make efforts to convince neighborhood residents of the efficacy of their proposed zoning changes and would reduce frivolous requests for such changes, thereby saving taxpayers money. Chairman Lambert asked whether, in Mr. Rightmeyer's experience, the planning commission or city council was sympathetic to the concerns of homeowners who appeared before it. Mr. Rightmeyer responded affirmatively. Mr. Bill Hamma, President, Nevada Organization of Growth Opponents (NOGO), testified. He declared, in the city of Reno and in Washoe County, often, when developers requested zoning changes, residents of neighborhoods affected by those changes appeared before the city council or the county commission and pleaded that those zoning changes not be granted. He contended those residents might just as well have remained at home. He opined A.B. 507 was a great step forward in restoring control over neighborhoods to the residents of those neighborhoods and urged the committee to approve A.B. 507. Ms. Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County, introduced Mr. Mike Harper and Ms. Marlene Henderson. She advised Mr. Harper and Ms. Henderson would testify regarding the fiscal impact of A.B. 507 and regarding the manner in which Washoe County handled zoning changes. Mr. Mike Harper, Director, Department of Development Review, Washoe County, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit E). He explained the Department of Development Review was responsible for processing all applications for development of unincorporated portions of Washoe County and advised Washoe County opposed A.B. 507. Mr. Harper advised Washoe County's zoning and its master plan were identical. He stated zoning could not be changed in Washoe County without "...a super majority." He explained Washoe County amended its zoning ordinances only three times a year and notified all members of each of its 13 citizen's advisory boards, as well as all members of other advisory boards and members of "...the development community...", of any proposed zoning changes. He indicated the county also provided a copy of any proposed zoning change to anyone who requested it. He advised the cost of providing notices of proposed zoning changes was approximately $3,000 per year. Mr. Harper declared, if A.B. 507 was passed by the legislature, the cost to Washoe County to provide notices of amendments to its zoning regulations could increase to $287,994 per year. He explained A.B. 507 required notice of every ordinance amendment which affected residentially zoned property and which was approved by a local governing body be given to every property owner affected by said amendment. He said approximately 14,200 lots in unincorporated Washoe County were zoned for residential purposes. He contended it was likely Washoe County's Board of County Commissioners would approve at least one ordinance amendment which affected residentially zoned property each of the three times per year that it acted on zoning changes. He pointed out this would require Washoe County to give notice to 14,200 residential property owners three times each year. Chairman Lambert interjected current law required notice be given to every real property owner within three hundred feet of an area affected by a zoning change and asked whether Washoe County provided such notice. Mr. Harper replied it did not. He indicated the law to which Chairman Lambert referred dealt only with changes to zoning maps. He advised Washoe County had combined its zoning map with its master plan map and followed the master plan amendment process for all zoning changes. He stated, "...we go beyond 300 feet when we do a master plan amendment. We do approximately a thousand foot radius...." Mr. Harper declared, even if no referendums were held and there was no opposition to proposed changes to its residential zoning laws, Washoe County would be required to reserve $300,000 "...in the anticipation that that's a likelihood." Mr. Harper advised, in Washoe County, anyone who unsuccessfully proposed an amendment to the county's master plan was required to wait one year before again proposing that amendment. He indicated he agreed residents of neighborhoods should not be required to be involved, repeatedly, with proposed zoning changes but declared A.B. 507 would have a tremendous fiscal effect on Washoe County. Ms. Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County, testified, utilizing prepared text (Exhibit F). She advised, in one year, the city of Reno had eighty- three zoning changes, Washoe County had three zoning changes and the city of Sparks had seventeen zoning changes plus nine zone ordinance changes and four annexations. She pointed out, if a referendum was held on each of those changes, she would be required to conduct 116 elections in one year. She stated the cost to Washoe County, alone, for each election would be approximately $75,000 to $120,000. She indicated she had just printed ballots for the city of Reno and advised the cost of paper had increased by 52 percent since the previous September. Ms. Henderson referred to a copy of a ballot question and a copy of a summary report of the results of an election held in Washoe County, attached to her written testimony (Exhibit F), and declared Washoe County's voters did not want any more unfunded mandates. Ms. Henderson pointed out NRS provided special elections could be held only on an emergency basis and contended A.B. 507 would require that (special) elections be held on all zoning changes. She stated she did not support A.B. 507. Assemblyman Krenzer asked for clarification of the answer given to Chairman Lambert's question as to whether or not Washoe County gave notice to every real property owner within three hundred feet of an area affected by a zoning change. Mr. Harper responded there were 45,000 parcels of real property in the unincorporated portions of Washoe County and said Washoe County did not send notices to all 45,000 owners of those parcels of real property of changes made to its (zoning) law. Ms. Krenzer said her question was whether or not Washoe County gave notice of a zoning change to all owners of property within 300 to 500 feet of the area affected by the zoning change. Mr. Harper replied, "We do not do zone changes in Washoe County. We do master plan amendments." He said no change of zoning could be accomplished in Washoe County except through an amendment to the master plan and explained NRS imposed different requirements with respect to amendments to master plans (than it did with respect to zoning changes). Ms. Krenzer asked whether Washoe County was required to mail notice of changes to its master plan. Mr. Harper replied there was no statutory requirement to give notice of a change in a master plan. He said, "...but we have imposed in our ordinance a thousand foot radius from the property boundaries...". Mr. Harper pointed out Washoe County was the only county in Nevada whose zoning was required to conform to its master plan. Mr. Harrington commented, based on the way Washoe County dealt with changes in land uses, he would not object to Washoe County being exempted from the provisions of A.B. 507 nor to including a population cap in A.B. 507 to cause it to apply to Clark County where, he maintained, the problem regarding zoning changes existed. Mr. Harper responded what Mr. Harrington suggested was acceptable but pointed out he spoke only for the unincorporated areas of Washoe County. Mr. Williams asked whether it was feasible to require that, before a developer could place a request for a zoning change on the agenda of a city council or a planning commission, he first must prove to the city council or planning commission he had contacted the residents of the neighborhood which would be affected by the proposed zoning. Mr. Harper replied Washoe County had no legal requirement that a developer do as Mr. Williams' question suggested but indicated Washoe County's planning commission or board of county commissioner's would not consider a developer's request for a zoning change if he had not first discussed his request with the appropriate citizen's advisory board. Mrs. Segerblom asked, "How many changes (related to zoning) were there in Washoe and the city of Sparks and the city of Reno." Ms. Marlene Henderson replied there were 116 changes in one year. Ms. Kathryn McClain, Legislative Analyst, Clark County Manager's Office, testified. She read from a communication from Clark County's zoning department in which the zoning department contended: zoning was a legislative act which should be performed by the legislative body; the public hearing process involved in adopting a master plan and in considering proposed zoning changes permitted more than adequate public participation; and, if done through the referendum process, zoning would become a tool by which neighborhoods could exclude certain necessary zones (from those neighborhoods). Ms. McClain advised Clark County's zoning department received between 500 and 600 applications for zone changes each year and, during the first quarter of 1995, had experienced an increase of 15 percent in those applications as compared to 1994. She said 25 percent of applications for zone changes would be protested. Ms. McClain explained, in Clark County, anyone requesting a zoning change was required to present that request to the town advisory board of the area in which he proposed the change be made. She said the board would consider the request and make a recommendation to the planning commission. She estimated the planning commission followed advisory boards' recommendations 90 percent of the time. She indicated all residents of the affected area were notified of the requested zoning change and had the opportunity to appear before the advisory board or the planning commission to voice any protests they might have. She stated, if the planning commission approved a protested zone change, those who protested could appeal its decision to the board of county commissioners. Ms. McClain read from a communication from Clark County's financial analyst in which he advised: if A.B. 507 was passed by the legislature, it would affect all eight planning areas of the unincorporated portions of Clark County; it was anticipated all registered voters who owned real property in the unincorporated portions of Clark County would be requested to vote on at least one zoning question per year; based upon one notification per parcel, the notification cost (to Clark County) would be approximately $53,500; on the average, it cost $250,000 to hold an election; if Clark County was to aggregate all zoning questions into only two elections each year, the primary and the general, the fiscal impact of A.B. 507 would be approximately $553,000; and the feasibility of holding referendums on approximately 350 voting questions was questionable. Ms. McClain indicated she believed the financial analyst's estimate of the number of referendums which might be required was high and suggested the number would probably be nearer 150. Ms. McClain read from a communication from Clark County's advance planning department in which it indicated: zoning by referendum would severely affect the ability of local governments to determine land use and would halt land uses for public facilities such as freeways, schools, airports and affordable housing; and there was no definition of what should constitute the boundary or limit of a residential area whose residents would participate in a referendum. Ms. McClain read from a communication from Clark County's district attorney's office in which the district attorney's office maintained that A.B. 507 would necessitate court evaluation of zoning law to determine whether rezoning was a legislative action or an administrative action and further maintained the provisions of A.B. 507 were unworkable because the area for a voting referendum was undefined. Ms. Krenzer asked if she correctly understood 90 percent of the recommendations made to Clark County's planning commission by town advisory boards were approved. Ms. McClain replied it was her observation the planning commission usually followed the recommendation of a town advisory board. Ms. Krenzer asked, "If it doesn't follow the town board recommendation -- they go against the town board recommendation--then they (remainder of question unintelligible; witness speaking simultaneously with Ms. Krenzer)." Ms. McClain said, "There is an appeal process." Ms. Krenzer asked whether Clark County's board of commissioners tended to support a town advisory board's recommendation. Ms. McClain replied county commissioners tended to support the public's desires. Ms. Krenzer asked whether it was Ms. McClain's perception that, in Clark County, both elected and appointed representatives of the people tended to listen to the public. Ms. McClain replied affirmatively. Mr. Harrington asked whether Clark County currently gave notice of proposed zoning changes to "...people within 500 feet..." as required by law. Ms. McClain answered that it did. Mr. Harrington pointed out A.B. 507 did not require Clark County to give notice to anyone in addition to those to whom it currently gave notice. Mr. Harrington referred to Ms. McClain's testimony that A.B. 507 did not specify the area which must be included (in a referendum) and said A.B. 507 left the decision as to what constituted the neighborhood affected by a proposed zoning change to local government. Ms. Stephanie Tyler, city of Sparks, testified. She referred to subsection 4 of Section 4 of A.B. 507 and advised the city of Sparks was concerned there would be no practical way to include sufficient details and sufficient explanation concerning proposed zoning changes on a ballot. Ms. Tyler advised the city of Sparks utilized a lengthy process, with respect to zoning changes, in which neighborhood meetings were held before proposed zoning changes were considered by the planning commission. She indicated the city of Sparks was concerned about making that process slower than it already was. Ms. Tyler advised, in the 1991 legislative session, legislation was passed through which the legislature sent a very strong and very clear message to the local governments of northern Nevada that they must plan and how they must plan. She said the city of Sparks was concerned that "...this legislation could be a boundary to that process in that, right now, within our master plans, particularly land use, we would be making exceptions, wholesale exceptions, if some of these ballot questions came forward. So, again, we get one edict that we should plan and that we should stick to those plans, but then, with this, we feel like we'd be in a position where we would be out of compliance with our master plan." Ms. Barbara McKenzie, city of Reno, testified. She stated the city of Reno agreed with the fiscal concerns expressed by Ms. Marlene Henderson. She advised the city of Reno had a number of informal neighborhood groups and was in the process of establishing (formal) councils to represent all neighborhoods in Reno. She said, with regard to anything a developer proposed which was at all controversial, the developer must meet with affected neighborhood residents before appearing before the city council. She contended, by means of its regional planning, its master plan process and its neighborhood councils, Reno did a good job of mitigating concerns about zoning changes. Mr. Harrington asked what individuals comprised a citizens' advisory committee, who elected those individuals and how much contact those individuals had with citizens. Ms. McKenzie replied some citizens' advisory boards were fairly comprehensive but they were voluntary and were staffed by the city. She indicated the city provided notice of those boards' meetings. She reiterated the city of Reno was in the process of making such boards formal advisory boards. She advised, presently, the members of those boards were elected by the residents of their neighborhoods, not by means of a city election. Assemblyman Freeman said she wished to advise Mr. Harrington that, during the 1991 legislative session, the legislative representatives of Washoe County believed there was too much dissension between the various governmental entities in Washoe County and requested legislation which would require local governments to work out their problems. She suggested the testimony given at the present hearing, by the representatives of Washoe County, Reno and Sparks, conveyed the results of that legislation. Ms. Irene Porter testified. She advised she was testifying as an individual. She stated she had been a resident of Clark County for 41 years and declared she was personally offended by some of the comments made earlier in the meeting. Ms. Porter proclaimed, "I spent thirteen years of my life as a planner and nobody ever bought me." She asserted she knew of no elected official who had ever been "bought" and stated she wished to voice her objections to anyone making statements to that effect about any elected officials in the state of Nevada. Mr. Pat Coward, Nevada Association of Realtors, testified. He contended citizens had a voice with respect to zoning changes and advised, in both Clark County and Washoe County, the process for implementing zoning changes was a lengthy one. Mr. Coward said the Nevada Association of Realtors believed A.B. 507 could have an indirect effect on the affordability of housing. He suggested A.B. 507 would cause lengthy delays in zoning changes and contended the cost to hold referendums would be "astronomical." He declared the Nevada Association of Realtors opposed A.B. 507. Mr. Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, testified. He referred to a comment made by Mr. Harrington and said the Nevada League of Cities believed local government officials were "the people" and represented everyone "...in each city." Mr. Grady advised the Nevada League of Cities would object to limiting the provisions of A.B. 507 to counties with a population of 400,000 or more. He advised there were five cities in Clark County and contended what might work in the city of Las Vegas might not work in Boulder City, Mesquite or Henderson. Mr. Grady advised legislation was passed during the last legislative session which dealt with the issue of special elections and maintained the provisions of A.B. 507 would be in direct opposition to that legislation. He declared Section 7 of A.B. 507 created an unfunded mandate. He stated the Nevada League of Cities was very opposed to A.B. 507. Ms. Michelle Gamble, Nevada Association of Counties, testified. She said she could add little to the testimony already given by county representatives. She advised the Nevada Association of Counties opposed A.B. 507 for those reasons already stated. Mr. Marvin Leavitt, city of Las Vegas, testified. He stated the city of Las Vegas opposed A.B. 507. He said, normally, when there was a protest regarding zoning, two sides were involved: the residents of a neighborhood and the developer or other individual who wished to make a (zoning) change. He explained both sides presented their views to a board, the members of which were selected by the people within its jurisdiction, and the board made a ruling regarding the proposed zoning change. He contended, in essence, A.B. 507 eliminated the board, gave one side the right to vote and deprived the other side of any rights. He stated the city of Las Vegas believed there were boards (to deal with the issue of zoning changes), whose members were elected by the people within their jurisdictions, had the interests of the entire community at heart and were the appropriate people to rule on questions regarding zoning changes. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether Las Vegas' city council could override a decision of its planning commission. Mr. Leavitt replied affirmatively. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether the city council often did so. Mr. Leavitt answered it did so occasionally and, usually, when it did, it did so in the interests of the affected property owners. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 507. A work session was held. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26 - Expresses vehement opposition to storage of radioactive waste in Nevada. Mr. Bache distributed one page of proposed amendments to A.J.R. 26 (Exhibit G). ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 26 ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held. Mr. Bache reviewed the proposed amendments to A.J.R. 26 (Exhibit G). Assemblyman Tripple said she was concerned about "...the first whereas..." because it repeated the fact there had been disagreement among Nevadans. She suggested removing the language which referred to the recent debate. Ms. Krenzer observed, at the hearing held in Las Vegas, Senator Bryan made it clear there was controversy among Nevadans. She contended those in Washington, D.C. who would receive A.J.R. 26 were aware of that controversy. She indicated she would prefer A.J.R. 26 retain the language Ms. Tripple wished removed. Mr. Neighbors, too, suggested the language Ms. Tripple wished removed from A.J.R. 26 be retained. Mr. Bennett said he gained the impression from Ms. Krenzer's comments that the original version of A.J.R. 26 had been circulated in Washington, D.C. and asked whether or not his impression was correct. Ms. Krenzer replied her comments referred to a resolution previously passed by the Assembly. Chairman Lambert called for a vote on the pending motion to amend and do pass A.J.R. 26. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT VOTED "NO." ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 407 - Makes various changes concerning state treasurer. Mr. Bache reminded the committee there had been considerable controversy about A.B. 407 and advised the state treasurer indicated the two sections of A.B. 407 which were most important to him were Sections 1 and 2. He said the treasurer testified that the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 would permit the state to save approximately $1 million. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 407 BY DELETING SECTIONS 3 THROUGH 26 AND DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held. Ms. Tripple said she wished to be certain passing A.B. 407 as it was proposed to be amended would not transfer to the state treasurer functions which presently belonged to another department. Chairman Lambert indicated it would not. Chairman Lambert called for a vote on the pending motion to amend and do pass A.B. 407. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Lambert assigned A.B. 407 to Mr. Harrington for the purpose of making a floor statement. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 455 - Revises provisions governing sick leave for state employees. Mr. Bache distributed and explained a proposed amendment to A.B. 455 (Exhibit H). Discussions were held between Chairman Lambert and Mr. Bache. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND (in accordance with Exhibit H) AND DO PASS A.B. 455. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Lambert assigned A.B. 455 to Mr. Bache for the purpose of making a floor statement. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 525 - Requires certain counties to create commission to study Asian-American communities. Discussions were held among Mrs. Segerblom, Chairman Lambert and Mr. Bache. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 525 BY DELETING SECTION 3 AND DO PASS A.B. 525. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held. Mr. Bennett commented the amendment proposed by Mrs. Segerblom would cause A.B. 525 to impose on Clark County an unfunded mandate, which would require Clark County to study three percent of the population and, based on the results of that study, recommend legislation which would affect the remaining ninety-seven percent of the population of the state of Nevada. He declared he was unable to support A.B. 525. Chairman Lambert commented legislation was passed, during the last legislative session, which prohibited unfunded mandates. She referred to Section 7 of Assembly Bill No. 507 and specifically to the words "notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1 of NRS 354.599," contained in that section, and advised any bill proposed during the current legislative session which would impose an unfunded mandate was required to contain that language. She suggested employing use of that language constituted a statement by the legislature that it would ignore the law it created, during the last legislative session, prohibiting unfunded mandates. Mrs. Segerblom contended A.B. 525 did not create an unfunded mandate because Clark County believed it had the necessary staff to carry out the provisions of A.B. 525 "...in-house..." Mr. Harrington advised he opposed A.B. 525. Ms. Tripple stated she opposed A.B. 525 because, through it, the legislature was dictating to a county what that county should do and, aside from that reason, she was philosophically opposed to A.B. 525 because she did not believe in dividing the American community into "...sub, sub, sub groups." ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION BY INCLUDING THEREIN A MOTION TO AMEND A.B. 525 BY DELETING THE WORD "SHALL", CONTAINED IN LINE 7 OF SECTION 2, AND INSERTING IN PLACE THEREOF THE WORD "MAY." ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Further discussions were held. Mr. Williams stated he believed three percent of the population of Clark County to be important regardless of who comprised that three percent. He contended the American society was not undivided and, until it arrived at the realization there were disparities within it, it would never progress to the point at which it was no longer divided. He asserted circumstances which placed groups of people in situations which prompted legislation such as A.B. 525 could be resolved only through legislation or by arriving at other means to deal with those circumstances and not by attempting to ignore the fact problems existed and taking the position "...that three percent of the population of Clark County, if that is the Asian- American population of Clark County, doesn't matter and doesn't count and shouldn't deserve an opportunity for this kind of legislation..." Chairman Lambert responded, "I don't think anybody in this committee said the Asian population of Clark County didn't count." Mr. Bennett said he must still oppose A.B. 525. He suggested A.B. 525 would fuel the concept of micro management by establishing provisions which would apply only to Clark County. He indicated he believed A.B. 525 would create an incentive for some to "...come in and say `I'm going to go get my hundred thousand plus piece of Clark County's pie." He declared A.B. 525 was bad legislation and he could not support it. He stated the funds to carry out the provisions of A.B. 525 were not contained in Clark County's budget and, based on discussions he had with some of "...the Clark County delegation...", he did not believe it would be proposed those funds be placed in its budget in the future. Mrs. Segerblom said she believed members of the Asian community wished to be identified as Asians. She pointed out the Asian community had a very active chamber of commerce and had done much for the community as a whole, for which it was desired to give it recognition. She declared she was very much in favor of A.B. 525. Mr. Bennett said, "That's just the point Mrs. Segerblom. The Asian community does have an Asian chamber of commerce. They do have Asian pride in their community. If they're so interested in this bill, (why is it that) not one Asian- American from Clark County or from the state of Nevada came to testify in favor of this bill?" He contended A.B. 525 was a whim of the legislature. Chairman Lambert called for a vote on the pending motion to amend and do pass A.B. 525. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMEN BENNETT, TRIPPLE AND HARRINGTON VOTED "NO." Chairman Lambert assigned A.B. 525 to Mrs. Segerblom for the purpose of making a floor statement. SENATE BILL NO. 23 - Revises provisions governing power of eminent domain of City of Henderson. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 23. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held. Chairman Lambert called for a vote on the pending motion. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMEN BENNETT, HARRINGTON AND BRAUNLIN VOTED "NO." Chairman Lambert assigned S.B. 23 to Mrs. Segerblom for the purpose of making a floor statement. SENATE BILL NO. 280 - Authorizes additional counties to establish medical scholarships for persons who agree to return to the county to practice medicine. Chairman Lambert reminded the committee of the purpose of S.B. 280. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 280. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Lambert asked Ms. Kathryn McClain to clarify for the committee what S.B. 280 would accomplish. Ms. Kathryn McClain, Legislative Analyst, Clark County Manager's Office, identified herself for the record. Mrs. Freeman indicated she had spoken with Ms. McClain earlier in the day and asked whether she had correctly understood Ms. McClain to say the present language of S.B. 280 would include both nurse practitioners and midwives under its provisions. Ms. McClain replied affirmatively. She explained the scholarship discussed in S.B. 280 pertained to "primary care medical professionals," which included advanced practitioners of nursing. Discussions ensued both between Mrs. Freeman and Ms. McClain and between Mrs. Freeman and Chairman Lambert. Mr. Harrington advised Chairman Lambert that, because he was a physician, he would abstain from voting on S.B. 280. Chairman Lambert called for a vote on the pending motion to "do pass S.B. 280." THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. Chairman Lambert assigned S.B. 280 to Mrs. Freeman for the purpose of making a floor statement. SENATE BILL NO. 289 - Revises authority of state board of examiners regarding payment of claims from money appropriated or authorized by legislature. Chairman Lambert reviewed the purpose of S.B. 289. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER MOVED DO PASS S.B. 289. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. Chairman Lambert assigned S.B. 289 to Ms. Tripple for the purpose of making a floor statement. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 10:37 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 May 5, 1995 Page