MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
March 31, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:19 a.m., on Monday, March 31, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A was the Agenda. Exhibit B was the Guest List. All exhibits were available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Walter Andonov, Clark County District No. 21
Assemblywoman Sharron E. Angle, Washoe County District No. 26
Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, Washoe County District No. 25
Assemblyman Josh Griffin, Clark County District No. 29
Assemblyman Don G. Gustavson, Washoe County District No. 30
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
JoAnn Aldrich, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Stewart White, Sun Valley General Improvement District, Lemmon Valley
Elizabeth M. Howe, President, Silver Lake Property Owners’ Association
John H. Howe, resident of Silver Knolls, North Valleys area
Gary Sayer, President, Golden Valley Property Owners’ Association
Jerry Jackson, Horse Council of Nevada
Nancy Bonham, resident of Golden Valley, representing the Horse Council of Nevada, Washoe County Chapter, Silver Knolls Spurs 4‑H Club, the Comstock Arabian Association, North Reno Horsemen’s Association, and the High School Rodeo Association of Washoe County
Neal Cobb, Past-President, Golden Valley Property Owners’ Association
Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County
Mike Reed, resident of Silver Knolls, North Valleys area
Mike Lynch, Builders Association of Northern Nevada
Mary C. Henderson, representing Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency Governing Board
David Ziegler, AICP, Director of Regional Planning, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency Governing Board
Tom Gallagher, Summit Engineering, and native Nevadan
Robert F. Joiner, AICP, Advance Planning Manager, Sparks
Nicole Lamboley, Legislative Relations Manager, City of Reno
John Wagner, Nevada Republican Assembly
Theresa Shannon, Northern Nevada Mt. Rose Well and Water Protection
Bill Gregory, representing the Howard Hughes Corporation
Chairman Manendo said he received a letter from John Ellison, Chairman, Elko County Board of Commissioners, requesting that he withdraw A.B. 483 (Exhibit C) on behalf of Elko County.
Assembly Bill 379: Requires super-majority vote for approval of certain decisions relating to land use planning in certain counties. (BDR 22-328)
The Chairman opened the hearing on A.B. 379 and asked Assemblyman Don Gustavson and Assemblywoman Sharron Angle to come forward to present the bill.
Assemblyman Don G. Gustavson, Washoe County District No. 30, introduced himself and said that A.B. 379 had been sponsored by himself, Assemblywoman Sharron E. Angle, Washoe County District No. 26; Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, Washoe County District No. 25; and Assemblyman John Marvel, District No. 32, representing portions of Humboldt, Lander, and Washoe County. He said that Assemblywoman Gibbons intended to appear and testify during the hearing.
Assemblyman Gustavson said that passage of A.B. 379 would affect the voting procedures for regional planning agencies in counties where the population was between 100,000 and 400,000, which would only apply to Washoe County. Mr. Gustavson said that year after year, Legislators passed good bills and made important changes, but sometimes there were unintended consequences. A.B. 379 was proposed in order to rectify unintended consequences from legislation passed in previous sessions.
Assemblyman Gustavson said that recent disputes in Washoe County were over the adoption of a regional plan, including governing bodies, policies, and goals for the expansion of the local entities and for future real estate development. The Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency was created in 1989 by the Nevada State Legislature to foster coordination between three local governments: the Cities of Reno and Sparks, and Washoe County. As was originally intended in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), the creation of the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan (Regional Plan) would facilitate cooperative decision-making between the Cities of Sparks and Reno, and Washoe County on how and where future development would occur.
The problem was that, because of the voting structure on the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission (TMRPC) and the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency Governing Board (Governing Board), two entities could simply outvote and ignore the third entity. The two allied entities were usually the Cities of Reno and Sparks, which resulted in total control over Washoe County, the entity most affected by annexation. Many of Assemblyman Gustavson’s constituents requested that he try to do something to equalize the situation. His reply to those constituents was to propose A.B. 379.
Assemblyman Gustavson explained that the TMRPC was composed of nine members: three members from each of the Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County planning commissions. Currently they could act with a two-thirds majority vote. This allowed six members, three from two commissions, to outvote the third commission. Many votes ended up 6-3. A.B. 379 would require a two-thirds vote from each commission, often called a “super majority” vote, which would ensure consensus and cooperation within the TMRPC, as originally intended by the statute.
Assemblyman Gustavson further explained that there were ten members on the Governing Board: four from Reno, three from Sparks, and three from Washoe County. A simple majority of the ten members was required by current statute, so six or seven members from Reno and Sparks could vote together and ignore Washoe County. A.B. 379 would require a majority vote from each of the three entities on the TMRPC, in order to approve or to take action on a Governing Board matter. Mr. Gustavson said that change would encourage consensus and cooperation on the Governing Board as the statutes intended.
Assemblyman Gustavson stated that a proposed amendment to A.B. 379 had been distributed to the Committee (Exhibit D). Mr. Gustavson pointed out that the amendment would delete the entire Section 2 of NRS 278.0282, on page 3 of the bill. In addition, earlier voting changes were applied to voting on conformance review, but should have been applied to voting for adoption and amendment of the Regional Plan by the Governing Board. To correct that error, a new Section 2 would be added to NRS 278.0276, which would apply to the adoption of the Regional Plan by the Governing Board. Lines 8, 9, and 10 of NRS 278.0276 currently read, “The adoption of the plan or any amendment must be by resolution of the governing board carried by a simple majority of its total membership.” The new language would read, “The adoption of the plan or any amendment must be by resolution of the governing board carried by a majority of the representatives appointed by each appointing authority.”
Assemblywoman Sharron E. Angle, Washoe County District No. 26, said her constituents were about evenly divided between Washoe County and Reno. During the campaign, she became educated about the unintentional consequences of regional planning efforts. The original intention was to foster agreement between the three entities on a county plan that would include city expansion. Instead, they realized that they had built in a more adversarial situation. Mrs. Angle said the Committee would be hearing from residents and from county officials that there were lawsuits pending over the situation. She warned the Committee that it was a volatile situation. Although the problem was now localized in one county, she felt it would have implications for other counties because the overriding mentality was, ”The city was expanding. Get used to it. You’re going to be in the city, whether you like it or not.”
Assemblywoman Angle said there were unincorporated areas that were townships in themselves and did not want to be part of Reno. Communities such as Cold Springs, Verdi, and Incline Village did not want to be annexed, yet the expansion of the City of Reno now reached to within 10 miles of Incline Village, causing that community to take steps to incorporate as a city.
Assemblywoman Angle stated that A.B. 379 would equalize voices, rather than Sparks and Reno dictating to everyone in the county. Passage of the bill would give the county the same amount of influence as the cities because it would require two representatives from each entity to agree on changes to the plan, rather than six city votes “ganging up” on three county votes, which had happened in the past. The main purpose was that each entity should be properly represented on the board, so that they had to get along.
Mrs. Angle emphasized that county residents moved there for many good reasons. They enjoyed the rural lifestyle and when annexed into the city negative things happened: They were not allowed to keep their livestock, and high-density housing soon surrounded them, affecting views, water resources, noise, traffic, and land usage considerations. Assemblywoman Angle reminded the Committee that, along with Assemblywoman Gibbons, they brought a water well protection bill before the Committee last week, and those who testified on that bill had voiced similar problems and arguments. Mrs. Angle stated the following:
We need to protect the people who were already there. They moved there for a reason, and we need to not impact existing residents because of this growth. We need to have smart growth, rather than just indiscriminate growth.
Assemblywoman Angle concluded by asking the Committee to consider how the TMRPC could work together for the benefit of all residents. She said if they did not believe that A.B. 379 was the answer after hearing all the arguments, perhaps they could help find the answer.
Assemblywoman Gibbons said she came to testify in support of A.B. 379 and her colleagues, and to seek fairness for those currently living outside a sphere of influence (SOI). She said that this was a difficult issue because she represented both Reno and Washoe County residents. She said changes were needed because rural residents were feeling left out of the process, and that the current voting structure on the TMRPC almost guaranteed that their voices could not, and would not, be heard.
Assemblyman Collins asked which Assemblyperson represented Lee and Nancy Bonham. Assemblyman Gustavson raised his hand. Mr. Collins thanked him and said he just wanted to know to whom to address his correspondence.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said he understood where the three Assemblypersons were headed, but he thought it might provide the mechanism for a true stalemate. It concerned him that the county could block annexations, which would not be “truly representative” either.
Assemblyman Gustavson agreed that it might, but said a stalemate was already in progress, because Reno and Sparks could outvote Washoe County, whose residents were most affected by the annexations. Washoe County was not trying to annex into Reno and Sparks. He said either way there might be a stalemate, but they needed to do something. If the current bill was not the right vehicle, they were open to suggestions. They wanted more cooperation between the three entities represented on the TMRPC. Two should not be able to control everything, and A.B. 379 would prevent that.
Assemblywoman Angle added that they were already experiencing “expensive stalemate” because there were lawsuits and communities deciding to incorporate to protect themselves to avoid the threat of annexation. She said she did not think they would avoid stalemate no matter what happened with the bill. By requiring a supermajority of all three entities, the message of A.B. 379 was, “You must work together. You must understand that if you don’t work together, nothing will get done.” A.B. 379 would create a “work together” climate.
Assemblywoman Angle added that Ms. Bonham, who was Mr. Gustavson’s constituent, used to be her constituent. She said that her concerns were about livestock that she raised there for many years. Because the City of Reno now encroached into Golden Valley, they decided her mules were a nuisance because they brayed. The City of Reno fined her and told her she could no longer keep her animals. Ms. Bonham’s lifestyle had been, and would continue to be, affected by encroachment. Yet, Ms. Bonham was there first, and the zoning still allowed animals.
Assemblyman Grady said he appreciated the problem, but his concern was that A.B. 379 would not solve the problem. He did not want to give one entity the power to block what might be “for the good of the order.” He said that the way the bill was drafted scared him.
Assemblyman McCleary asked whether residents could be allowed to vote on annexation. Assemblyman Gustavson asked who would vote. Mr. McCleary said that the affected residents would vote on annexation, and asked if that would work and if there was any reason not to do that.
Assemblyman Gustavson said he would like to, but that he was elected to represent the people. The problem was that representatives were appointed to planning boards and commissions, and they were the ones making the decisions. He said people were having their say, but they were not being heard. They were being ignored. He admitted that going straight to the people might be a better idea.
Assemblywoman Angle stated that that was exactly what the people wanted. Right now residents had appealed to their community advisory board. They complained about annexation, water, livestock, and development. The result was that their objections were ignored. Mrs. Angle had attended TMRPC meetings where the agency had listened to six or seven hours of testimony opposing the annexations, but they had passed anyway. The crux of the matter was that the voices of people directly affected by the annexations were not being heard. It would take a special election to put those issues on the ballot, which was an onerous option. In theory, the people could vote, and in theory, they should be able to vote, but in reality, that was not what was happening. That was the purpose of this bill: to provide better representation for aggrieved residents.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said that maybe the Assemblywomen could incorporate something similar to the expansion of the “318 District,” which would require that 51 percent of the tax base of the area about to be annexed would have to agree to it.
Assemblywoman Angle said she was very excited to hear him propose a solution. She said she was open to any kind of solution. Assemblyman Gustavson agreed and said that was why they came, to resolve the problem.
Stewart White, representing Sun Valley General Improvement District (SVGID), said he came to testify in support of A.B. 379 on behalf of the SVGID. Mr. White stated that SVGID provided water, garbage, and sewer services to about 14,000 people in Lemmon Valley, just north of Reno. He said they had about $50 million invested in the sewer and water system, and about 2 million gallons of capacity they owned in the Reno-Sparks Water Treatment Plant. Although they tried to provide good service to their people, Mr. White said they were a minor player in regional planning. They only became involved when Reno and Sparks ignored the county comments and moved their sphere of influence into Sun Valley’s hydrographic basin. [A “sphere of influence” (SOI), for purposes of NRS 278, means an area into which a political subdivision may expand in the foreseeable future.]
Mr. White said it did not make sense that anyone would ever develop that hillside and try to pump the sewage over the hill, rather than using SVGID services. He did not think the trouble would be worth the expense, but that was what happened. He said that SVGID requests to move the SOI out of Sun Valley were ignored. Although much of the land was Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, what they experienced was that Reno and Sparks did not listen to county residents because they could always outvote them. The SVGID joined the county in a lawsuit. In the settlement, Judge Hardesty proved to be an excellent judge who was able to achieve consensus in many areas. One of the agreements was that the SOI moved to the other side of the hill and left Sun Valley alone. They requested a change in the voting structure so that future regional planning would not be so one-sided. It was supposed to be a cooperative effort, but what had happened was the Reno and Sparks ignored Washoe County residents. Some other kind of voting procedure needed to be created.
Elizabeth Howe, Silver Lake Property Owners’ Association, said that she and her husband, John, lived in Silver Knolls, a rural community just west of the Stead Airport and about three miles from Highway 395, off Red Rock Road. Silver Knolls was an area known as part of the “north valleys” and located 20 miles north of the center of Reno. She said they had lived there 27 years and had seen gradual growth in their area. She supported A.B. 379 and thanked the three legislators for introducing the bill.
Mrs. Howe said they had attended many of the planning meetings in 2001 and 2002, dealing with the 2002 Regional Plan update. They became very discouraged with the voting process used by the TMRPC and in the Governing Board. Even if it was unintended, she said it was very distressing. Those living in the unincorporated areas felt that when their items came to a vote, their concerns never had a chance. The vote was always 6-3 in the TMRPC and 7-3 in the Governing Board. Reno and Sparks had 6 votes on the TMRPC and 7 votes ion the Governing Board. Washoe County had 3 votes in both cases.
With the new proposal of requiring a two-thirds vote of each entity, she felt that everyone’s concerns would be more fairly heard. She said more compromises would have to be made. They wanted more say on what type of development was allowed within their boundaries. She said with an equal vote, residents would be able to better protect their quality of life, domestic wells, and rural lifestyles. She said they had good reasons for moving to Silver Knolls and loved living there. She was pleased that other ideas for compromise had been proposed because something should be done soon (Exhibit E).
John Howe (Exhibit F) said his family built their home in Silver Knolls 27 years ago. They had been active in community affairs ever since. He said people chose the area for its open spaces and the opportunity to build on large lots. All lots in the area were 1-acre minimum, and many were 5-, 10- and 20-acre parcels, or more. He said the town was entirely residential, and included a church and volunteer fire department. Keeping the town residential was important to the community. The lands around the community were vacant, except for the Stead Airport side, and were owned by BLM, or by developers who intended to build high-density housing that was not compatible with the community. Residents chose the area for the opportunity to own horses, dogs, sheep, and other domestic animals. They did not want high-density housing.
John Howe supported A.B. 379 as a badly needed correction to the NRS. He had attended many Regional Plan meetings, and witnessed the three Washoe County members being outvoted on several occasions, as Reno and Sparks voted together on nearly all the county’s proposals.
Gary Sayer, a resident of Washoe County and President of the Golden Valley Property Owners’ Association, stated that he supported A.B. 379. He said he had been involved in planning issues in the Truckee Meadows since December 2000 when he moved to Golden Valley. He had testified at many meetings of the Governing Board and TMRPC. He testified in support of Senate Bill 383 of the 71st Legislative Session, which then-Senator Jacobsen sponsored and introduced in hopes of amending NRS 278 to allow more meaningful participation and outcomes to develop within the framework of the law, for the benefit of all citizens of Truckee Meadows, not just primarily the Cities of Reno and Sparks. The Reno Gazette-Journal (RGJ) published a “Your Turn” article by Mr. Sayer, in the OpinionSection on May 8, 2002, from which he read the following quotation:
The Nevada Legislature mandated regional planning with the intent “that each local government and affected entity shall exercise its powers and duties in harmony with those of the others to enhance the long-term health and welfare of the county and all its residents.” It also legislated voting procedures in NRS 278 that result in non-compliance with the legislative intent in the Truckee Meadows area where the cities vote together controlling planning outcomes, which has controlled the development of our Regional Plan that was adopted last May.
A.B. 379 would allow merit to be considered and reflected in the voting, not just voting blocks. During the development of the Regional Plan, many citizens, Washoe County, and the regional planning staff all recommended that the Reno and Sparks SOI should remain unchanged, and that future updates to the plan should be based on need and good planning. This was ignored by the TMRPC and was carried forward when the plan was adopted in May. A copy of his Opinion article was enclosed in the handout package (Exhibit G), which also contained excerpts from the minutes of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs hearings on Senate Bill 383 of the 71st Legislative Session, March 30, 2001, and April 9, 2001, and copies of Mr. Sayer’s testimonies.
Mr. Sayer concluded that regional planning pursuant to NRS 278 deprived citizens of the unincorporated communities of meaningful government representation in this process.
Jerry Jackson, a resident of Golden Valley, representing the Horse Council of Nevada, Washoe County Chapter, referred to his handout submitted prior to testimony (Exhibit H). He said there had been a great deal of testimony on many issues today, and he would like to make just a few points.
Mr. Jackson stated that, as a third-generation native Nevadan and Golden Valley resident, he stood in favor of A.B. 379. He said they needed an unbiased vote when it came to issues affecting his home and his family. The City of Reno claimed that that legislation would gridlock the city from annexing property. He said in reply to Assemblyman Goicoechea and Assemblyman Grady, that Golden Valley residents had proved that they were not out to gridlock anyone.
For example, the Golden Valley Property Owners’ Association just recently approved a project called “North Star Ranch” because they wanted to add to the theme of Golden Valley. The North Star Ranch would build 365 homes, which would sprawl from the edge of Golden Valley into Panther Valley, near Reno. They met with the developer on the issue, and they agreed on a plan to buffer the development with 1-acre horse lots, which would include horse trails and ranch-style homes. Mr. Jackson argued they had proven they could get along, but the planning meeting vote did not reflect the people’s efforts or decisions: Always the 6-3 vote.
Mr. Jackson said that A.B. 379 would give the people the right to participate in planning decisions, and would no longer require that they leave their homes and families in the hands of those with an agenda. Mr. Jackson said he felt that the people must trust in the Nevada State Legislature to uphold equal representation under the law. Reviewing the TMRPC 6-3 vote status was highly suspicious of dictatorship and not in line with representative democracy. As a result of actions during the 2001 Legislative Session, the City of Reno said they would correct the problem. They had not kept that promise, and the courts were now involved, costing the taxpayers more money, the people more aggravation, and everyone more trees.
Nancy Bonham, a resident of Golden Valley, representing the Horse Council of Nevada, Washoe County Chapter, Silver Knolls Spurs 4-H Club, the Comstock Arabian Association, North Reno Horsemen’s Association, and the High School Rodeo Association of Washoe County, said she came to testify in favor of A.B. 379. She displayed the handout that was distributed to the Committee (Exhibit I), and said she would read her testimony because her voice was fading.
Ms. Bonham stated that they needed the amendment to the Regional Plan in order to protect existing open spaces and the country lifestyle of residents. Two years ago, a similar bill was presented to the Committee for consideration, and the City of Reno promised they had a plan in the works, which would keep everyone happy. Not only had they not produced an acceptable plan, but they had also acted in bad faith. She said that two years ago, the Committee tabled the bill, but she came forward today to ask the Committee to pass this A.B. 379 for the good of the people of the State of Nevada.
Ms. Bonham said that Reno and Sparks had consistently voted in favor of expansion and against good management. The City of Reno said they needed more money and must annex for the tax revenue. She stated that the City of Reno had expanded 300 percent and the City of Sparks had expanded 280 percent in recent years. She argued that annexation would not help solve their financial problems because with tax revenue also came associated expenses. She said the current bill would restore the balance between rural and urban development.
Ms. Bonham said that she owned over 4 acres in Golden Valley, and that their rural lifestyle was in jeopardy, which was the main reason they moved to Golden Valley 10 years ago. She said that livestock and agriculture were the backbone of the state and of the country, and that the livestock industry was the fifth largest revenue producing industry in the United States.
Ms. Bonham detailed the economic benefits to rural communities, as well as to Reno and Sparks, generated by the livestock industry, using horses as an example. Economic benefits included the assets, income, and tax revenues generated by livestock service industries, including breeders, trainers, veterinarians, and farriers, and by local businesses selling equipment, feed, tack, and riding apparel. License and registration fees for trucks and horse trailers, boarding and training facilities, and real property taxes on livestock structures, such as barns, arenas, stables, fencing, etc. also benefited local economies.
Ms. Bonham said the horse industry contributed $112 billion in revenue, created 1.4 million jobs, and generated $1.9 billion in taxes annually. In Washoe County horses provided taxable revenue of over $150 million, and income to the area for horse related events of over $300 million, and most of that revenue went to Reno and Sparks in the form of hotel rooms, restaurants, and entertainment.
She stressed that sometimes growth was necessary, but that equal consideration should be given to rural residents as well. City residents should not be able to decide that city life was more important than country life, or to dictate that rural residents should change their lifestyle, or move to accommodate them. She said that city and county could live together if they worked together, and that A.B. 379 would make that a reality.
In conclusion, Ms. Bonham stressed that rural property owners whose land was threatened with annexation felt that pending land-use designations were a “taking of their real property.” They believed that removing the ability to use their properties as they originally planned when they purchased the properties violated the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Not only could cities be liable, which would decrease property values, but compensation for those losses would come at the expense of the taxpayer.
Neal Cobb, Past President, Golden Valley Homeowners’ Association, came to speak in support of A.B. 379. He said he started working on the vote issue 2½ years ago, and had two different “Your Turn” columns, which included recommendations of how to fix the problem (Exhibit J). The heart of the problem was the disparity in the vote, which was brought up by Judge Hardesty. Mr. Cobb said they had no way of protecting themselves in a boundary dispute, SOI, or annexation issue. That was where he focused his attention, because he fully supported the idea of a regional plan, especially when directed at water issues, transportation, and things of a general nature. Mr. Cobb’s suggestion was to take the unaffected government entity out of any of the three concerns he just stated: boundary disputes, SOI, or annexation. He suggested a makeup of seven, including a neutral party, rather than the current nine members, and that the unaffected entity should abstain from any vote that involved the other two entities.
Mr. Cobb argued that Washoe County residents do not have representation, because even their County Commissioners were elected partly by residents of the City of Reno. The result was that they worked mostly for the County, but also had some responsibilities to the city voters that helped elect them. This was in stark opposition to the clear focus of city representatives, which was looking out for either Reno or Sparks. He said, in reality, county residents have “half a representative at best. They do a great job in trying to do what needs to be done. They were not any kind of blocking entity, but they were our only voice and we only have half of them.” Mr. Cobb restated his suggested alternative, which was to take the unaffected government entity out of the picture and level the voting on the two entities directly affected by the issue, possibly with a neutral tiebreaker from the state. He fully supported A.B. 379 and appreciated being able to testify.
Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, representing Washoe County, said that she submitted a letter for the record (Exhibit K) on behalf of Washoe County. The last paragraph of the letter explained why the county supported A.B. 379 as amended. She said that the county did not want to have an affirmative majority in voting applied to anything except the Regional Plan. Conformance review, or projects of regional significance review, would be fine with the majority vote. She said they were trying to build a consensus for planning, and for the plan itself, which would ultimately direct the conformance review and projects of regional significance outcomes.
Ms. Shipman outlined the background of the annexation issue because, in mediation on the settlement, they discovered that the issue was not really annexation. No one said the city could not annex because they understood the need for the revenue base, which was the incentive for enlarging the SOI.
The real concern, said Ms. Shipman, were the changes annexation brought to the lives of the unincorporated area residents in existing communities. There were 13 community management plans being developed in Washoe County, in unincorporated areas. The law already authorized 51 percent protest vote for properties threatened by annexation. The plan did not take into account existing residential areas. The plan took all the undeveloped developable land within the Truckee Meadows, and tagged it for one city or the other, with the idea that once someone came forward to develop the property, residents would have to annex into the specified city.
Ms. Shipman said that the issue was how to protect existing residents from the impacts of higher-density populations, which were preauthorized by the cities as an enticement to annex. Normally land-use issues, including population density, were addressed through a county-designated zoning process. Those issues had not been resolved in the Regional Plan. Some protection was offered by the county plan designations, such as rural, suburban, and urban, which specified the highest density that would be allowed within each zoning designation. The current plan circumvented the county zoning designations by authorizing the annexing city, either Reno or Sparks, to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction within the SOI.
Ms. Shipman said she wanted to lay some groundwork for a complicated issue. Washoe County supported A.B. 379 and had for several years. Last session there were three proposed bills, Senate Bill 383 of the 71st Legislative Session sponsored by then-Senator Jacobsen, and two bills sponsored by the county, which were indefinitely postponed at the request of Senator Raggio. Everyone went home to try to work it out through the Regional Plan update process, but that had not been successful. Although the Legislature did not want to intervene in local “squabbles,” she reminded the Committee that the voting structure had been created by the Legislature, and was the logical place to start.
Ms. Shipman thanked the sponsors of A.B. 379 because she felt they were listening to their constituents, who were also Washoe County’s constituents.
Chairman Manendo noted that according to the letter Ms. Shipman submitted, Senator Raggio requested that the entities try to work out the various issues. He asked if Ms. Shipman had discussed those issues with Senator Raggio. Ms. Shipman said no.
Mr. Hardy asked if, since Ms. Shipman represented Washoe County, which was being blocked on the TMRPC and Governing Board, they were in favor of A.B. 379.
Ms. Shipman said Washoe County was in favor of making decisions by way of a consensus-driven approach, so that the majority of all entities on those respective boards would agree.
Ms. Shipman clarified that this voting structure would not necessarily apply to every aspect or every decision. They were looking mainly at the adoption of the Regional Plan itself. She did not believe there would be stalemate because the cities and counties had worked well together in areas of consolidation and saving money for the taxpayers. She said there had not been an issue in reaching consensus except when all the power was on one side and there was no way to leverage the decision. In the early 1990s, the county and Sparks “beat up” Reno, and that “it was not any more right then than it was today.”
Mr. Hardy asked about the make up of the TMRPC and the Governing Board. Ms. Shipman said that the TMRPC was made up of three planning commissioners appointed from each commission of all three entities, Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County, for a total of nine nonelected members on the TMRPC. The statutes allowed members of the Governing Board to be either appointed or elected. However, in practice, since 1989 when the legislation was passed, there have always been elected officials on the Governing Board: three from the Washoe County Commission, three from the Sparks City Council, and four from the Reno City Council. Ms. Shipman said that the three County Commissioners were not interested in getting rid of regional planning. They wanted to make the process work.
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. Shipman if she would speak to A.B. 380 as well. Ms. Shipman said no.
Mike Reed, a resident of Silver Knolls, said he came to testify in favor of both A.B. 379 and A.B. 380. As a professional lobbyist, now retired, he said he was involved for many years with difficulties between the cities and the county and fighting for control of land and water issues. The existing statute was designed to try to take care of those problems, but it had caused unintended consequences. Those consequences had resulted in disenfranchisement of citizens in the unincorporated areas of Washoe County. Now, officials who they had not elected controlled the lives of Washoe County residents via land, water, and planning issues. It was not a fair situation.
Mr. Reed said that Mr. Goicoechea’s idea of petitions would take care of the annexation problem, but not of the SOI problem, which, as Ms. Bonham described, was as important as the issue of annexation. Now there were situations where people were being told what they could do or not do with their land, by entities that they have no ability to elect or to control in any way. The City of Reno and the City of Sparks, through the SOI, could dictate to residents what they could do with their land, and those residents could not vote for them.
Mike Lynch, representing the Builders Association of Northern Nevada, said that he could talk about the most recent master plan update process, and the settlement brought about by Judge Hardesty. He said he would like to clarify a point regarding the Verdi annexation, which was a voluntary. In spite of the fact that Washoe County brought a lawsuit to prevent annexation, 100 percent of Verdi residents petitioned for annexation. Mr. Lynch said that he opposed this bill because it would turn the tables, so that Washoe County could henceforth dictate to the two cities. He said both situations were wrong, but he had no proposed solution. He did not think that A.B. 379 would cause the three entities to cooperate.
Assemblyman Collins’ opinion was, whether it was Sparks, Reno, or Washoe County, “You’re just building houses.” Mr. Lynch agreed. Mr. Collins questioned how Mr. Lynch could oppose who decided what he built, because he could build the same house on any of the three properties. Mr. Lynch said that projects in the SOI would take a master plan amendment, and Washoe County could derail the annexation or block the project. He said Washoe County delayed a Regional Plan update for over a year, because of fiscal equity issues, which were not even part of the regional master plan. The problem was not getting a good project that people agreed on, but the possibility of having your project held hostage by one entity over the other. Assemblyman Collins said that four or five years ago, regional planning was working better in northern Nevada than in southern Nevada. He was surprised to hear that kind of thing was happening.
Mary C. Henderson, representing the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency Governing Board said that their Legislative Subcommittee had voted 2-1 to oppose A.B. 379 and A.B. 380. She presented a handout package to the Committee (Exhibit L and Exhibit M). Ms. Henderson introduced David Ziegler, Executive Director of Regional Planning for the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency, who would speak next.
Ms. Henderson said that A.B. 379 was a direct result of the problems of the last few years. She had always argued for settling the issues regionally and for not bringing them before the Legislature, which was the purpose of the Regional Plan update process. In this case, Ms. Henderson explained, the genesis of the planning process in northern Nevada was the result of huge fights in the mid-1980s among local governments. She said that the Regional Plan was put in place by the Legislature, led by a Washoe County delegation, composed of Senator Raggio, Sue Wagner, former Lieutenant Governor, and former Assemblyman Bob Sader. The purpose of forming a Regional Plan was to end fights and give some predictability to citizens of Washoe County. She said there were numerous split votes on the plan, and on the TMRPC, but the legislation went into place in 1989. Split votes were not new to the process over the last 12-13 years, and this was an emotional issue for residents.
Ms. Henderson said there had been very little discussion about the court settlement process, and she wanted to describe the status of the settlement agreement. She said it was not as onerous to the north valleys, as some prior testimony might indicate. For example, Silver Knolls, and only a few exceptions in Golden Valley, were included in the SOI. Ms. Henderson said they went through a court process in fall 2002 under Judge Hardesty, which resulted in a 212-page document, Terms of the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit N), and laid out a 5-year course of action to resolve those issues. In that document, many changes were made to earlier decisions made by the TMRPC.
Ms. Henderson said that 25 percent of the Truckee Meadows population resided in unincorporated areas, and the remaining 75 percent lived in Reno and Sparks. She said that most of those testifying today were from the unincorporated areas. She believed that County Commissioners should represent the interests of the other 75 percent, as well.
However, in planning matters, Ms. Henderson said that Ms. Shipman was correct to have said that County Commissioners did represent the unincorporated areas in that forum. She said it was important to keep that perspective when reviewing A.B. 379 and A.B. 380.
Another concern was that a super-minority would be able to control the process. She reminded the Committee that Mike Lynch clarified the voluntary annexation of Verdi, which had nothing to do with the Regional Plan, and that Incline Village was not even included in the Regional Plan. She said that she did not agree with the argument of unintended consequences, and that the Legislature had been very clear in what they wanted. She agreed with Assemblyman Collins that five years ago the Northern Nevada Regional Plan was the model for southern Nevada. Now northern Nevada was operating under a court settlement agreement with specific guidelines. Looking at the cycle of voting, she said that time was an interesting thing and wondered what benefit could result from gridlock or stalled regional planning.
As an aside, Ms. Henderson said she had not seen the amendment proposed today, or the letter from Washoe County to the Committee.
Ms. Henderson stated that the issues discussed today did not arise in a vacuum. There were 120 meetings held by the TMRPC on the Regional Plan Update, and there were 112 votes taken during those 120 meetings. All votes were unanimous but 6. Ms. Henderson asked the Committee to leave the settlement process alone for a few years, at least.
David Ziegler, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), Executive Director of Regional Planning for the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency, said that “Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency” was the name given to the regional planning program in NRS 278.026 through 278.029, as implemented in Washoe County. Mr. Ziegler said that his employer was the Governing Board, which was made up of 4 members of the Reno City Council, 3 members of the Sparks City Council, and 3 members of the Washoe County Commission. He said he brought a joint message from the Governing Board and the TMRPC. He also wanted the Committee to know that he would keep his personal opinions out of the testimony, with one exception: his staff tried very hard to create an environment of openness and safety for the free expression of ideas, problems and issues by all agencies and all entities.
Mr. Ziegler said that the Legislative Subcommittee of the Governing Board had voted to oppose A.B. 379, and that the full Governing Board would not meet again until April 11, 2003, which was too late to help the Committee.
Mr. Ziegler said that the TMRPC also voted to oppose A.B. 379 because it would create minority rule, gridlock, and promote conflict, and because it went against the concept of a “regional” planning commission. To sum up what he had heard: the 2001-2002 update process involved over 100 public meetings and over 17 months of effort. It was completed in May 2002, and soon after litigation ensued over that plan. In the fall, there was a 4-week settlement conference, which resulted in a settlement agreement and a new idea of cooperative planning between the Cities of Reno and Sparks and Washoe County. He stated that they would like a chance to implement the settlement agreement, and that the Regional Plan deserved a chance.
Mr. Grady said he would assume that the 2-1 votes were the two cities voting for and Washoe County voting against [on A.B. 379]. Mr. Ziegler said that was correct. Mr. Grady complimented Mr. Ziegler on being well known as a consensus builder and as a very thorough person. Mr. Grady asked if, as a staff person for the group, Mr. Ziegler thought there was a plan in place now that could be settled within the group. Mr. Ziegler said he was hopeful and that relationships had been better recently. He said that the settlement plan was a good one and the dispute resolution process would bring any remaining disputes to the court, if necessary.
Chairman Manendo asked how many times this issue had been before the Legislature. Ms. Henderson answered that it was discussed three times.
Assemblyman Collins asked if Judge Hardesty’s settlement protected existing zoning for folks in rural areas, to a high standard.
Mr. Ziegler said that as a provision of the settlement agreement, any SOI area included during the update process was assigned the same zoning they had under the county plan. Therefore, the county zoning was brought forward in its entirety. The resolution was a process known as cooperative planning, in which the city must give notice to the county when an application was received. There was a cooperative process where the county and city worked through it together, and if they could not agree, then it entered dispute resolution through the TMRPC and the Governing Board, and then finally to Judge Hardesty, for the final decision.
Assemblyman Collins added, on behalf of the Horse Council and other rural groups he represented, “I hope the Judge was doing the right thing there.”
Assemblywoman Pierce asked some questions about the difference between the Truckee Meadows Service Area (TMSA) and the Regional Plan boundaries. Mr. Ziegler clarified that the area encompassed by the Regional Plan was everything in Washoe County except for Incline Village and the tribal areas. The TMSA provided municipal services, such as water, sewer, and garbage to specified urban areas.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked how many people moved to northern Nevada in a month, adding that 5,000 people per month moved to Las Vegas. Ms. Henderson said that the 5-year update was a 20-year annexation plan, if that helped, but nothing close to 5,000 per month. Ms. Pierce asked why the SOI areas grew considerably between 2001 and 2002.
Mr. Ziegler explained that SOI areas allowed the city to expand there within a 20-year period. The reason was to develop a non-residential tax base so that the growth would essentially pay for itself. They were looking mainly at commercial/industrial areas, rather than residential, and some of the SOI areas were not developable.
Tom Gallagher, representing Summit Engineering, stated that he was a fifth-generation Nevadan on both sides of his family. What he had heard today was that the settlement agreement was an attempt at finding fairness in the process. He said that the way A.B. 379 was structured now, it would supply one entity with a veto power. He said that he was qualified to speak on this because he was involved in both the Verdi and Cold Springs annexations. As presented, this legislation sounded like legislation to protect residents inside areas that were due to be annexed. Contrary to other testimony today, every property owner in Verdi and every property owner in Cold Springs signed petitions requesting annexation. He said that there were currently no plans to annex Incline Village.
Mr. Gallagher wanted the Committee to understand the amount of work that went into the settlement agreement and the amount of work that went into the Regional Plan, which was approved by three planning commissions and two out of three governing bodies. The only body that did not approve the Regional Plan was the Washoe County Commission. Concepts like “edge-matching” were put into the settlement agreement and the Sun Valley SOI was withdrawn. Mr. Gallagher stated that in his opinion, no entity should have veto power or the power to force a compromise because the majority should rule. Mr. Gallagher stated he was against A.B. 379.
Robert F. Joiner, AICP, Advance Planning Manager, City of Sparks, stated that the City of Sparks was concerned because they were a party to the settlement agreement of the Regional Plan Update. As such, they wanted to go on record that they were very concerned about the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) that was signed and agreed to by all parties before Judge Hardesty. It was their understanding that the proposed legislation had not been introduced by any of those parties, but the City of Sparks felt that they should have a chance to meet and confer before discussing the legislation any further. Mr. Joiner said that it stated in the MOU that lobbyists and employees of those parties . . .
Chairman Manendo interrupted and asked if they had an opportunity to meet, to which Mr. Joiner answered they had not. The Chairman asked why they had not discussed the bill with them. Mr. Joiner said, “We have not been approached. We attempted to do that last week, but there has not been time.”
Mr. Joiner continued saying that the concerned parties should meet first, before the issue came before the Legislature, so they could try to find common agreement. The whole purpose was to keep unification in the process.
Chairman Manendo asked if they had just become aware of the issue today. Mr. Joiner said they had been aware of it since last week. The Chairman asked how many years the issue had been around, and then explained that the issue had been in other bills in past sessions. He asked whether Mr. Joiner was aware that a BDR was coming regarding the issue. Mr. Joiner replied that he was not aware a BDR was coming this session. He said there had been a great deal of work on the settlement agreement, that they supported the spirit of the plan and of the resolution, and had worked on it in good faith. They did not believe that it would be proper to go into the merits of the bill because they did not think that would be a proper course of action.
Assemblyman Knecht observed that Mr. Joiner had been an outstanding public servant in Carson City before Sparks had stolen him. Mr. Knecht said perhaps Mr. Joiner was still climbing the “learning curve” on regional issues, as this was his first experience with the issue.
Nicole Lamboley, Legislative Relations Manager, representing the City of Reno, said that on March 19, 2003, the Reno City Council voted to oppose both A.B. 379 and A.B. 380 because they would like to see the settlement agreement implemented.
Chairman Manendo asked Assemblyman Gustavson if, when he submitted the bill draft, he disclosed his name. Assemblyman Gustavson said that he had disclosed his name on every bill draft he introduced. The Chairman determined that the draft bill had been out since August 2002. Assemblyman Gustavson said the BDR was requested at that time, but they did not have the language.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 379 and opened the hearing on A.B. 380.
Assembly Bill 380: Abolishes requirements relating to Spheres of Influence in Regional Planning in certain counties and revises manner in which governing board for Regional Planning may take action on certain appeals concerning projects of regional significance in certain counties. (BDR 22‑737)
Assemblyman Gustavson stated that A.B. 380 would affect regional planning in Washoe County because there had been a great deal of concern and lawsuits over Truckee Meadows regional planning issues. A.B. 380 would take care of the other main concern, namely “spheres of influence” (SOI). In regional planning language, an SOI could be designated as an area into which a city planned to expand. The City of Reno and the City of Sparks had adopted SOI into the Regional Plan, which would eventually expand their areas by 300 percent. The SOI process did not identify or plan for the necessary infrastructure and resources to support future populations in the SOI areas. This policy resulted in the cities taking, or intending to take, all the developable land in Washoe County. The ability of the cities to include these large SOI in the contested Regional Plan was made possible by the voting structure, which was addressed in A.B. 379.
A.B. 380 would entirely remove the concept of SOI in the planning process. If this bill passed, the current and long-use concept of property being annexed in an orderly fashion to the cities as they expand naturally would be continued.
Mr. Gustavson produced an amendment (Exhibit O) for the Committee. A.B. 380, page 5, Section 3, lines 9-13, would delete the new language beginning with “Any action...” This language, and possibly new language on lines 14 and 16, which may not be necessary to the bill. He asked the Committee to please consider approving the bill. Some of his constituents were here to testify in favor of A.B. 380. Some people who wished to oppose A.B. 380 could not because of Judge Hardesty’s decision, so they had presented the two bills separately.
Assemblywoman Angle stated that her concerns were the same as her constituency, but the SOI issue was more onerous because it was encroachment. Although the cities of Reno and Sparks had tried to engender trust, property owners did not trust the current process. The promise that rural residents would not be affected had not been kept. Every day they found that SOI increasingly affected their lives. If trust existed, Incline would not be thinking about incorporation. If it were working, they would not be litigating. A.B. 380 was to put an end to litigation.
In NRS 278, Section 3 applied to the Clark County Regional Planning Coalition (CCRPC), and it stated that a passing vote must include “an affirmative vote of not less that two-thirds of the total membership and must be ratified by the Board of County Commissioners.” The law in Clark County was different than in Washoe County.
Assemblyman Knecht said that A.B. 380 focused on the central issue, which had to do with majority or minority imposing their will on the rest. He said that it all depended on boundaries. The population included within the boundaries decided whether the same entity was a majority or a minority, within those boundaries. Was an SOI a useful tool? If so, they need to be fair to both those inside the existing SOI, as well as those outside the SOI. He said they need an approach not rooted in the current concept of an SOI, but something that would be fair to everyone.
Assemblywoman Angle welcomed Mr. Knecht’s help. She said when an SOI was created the extra-territorial jurisdiction caused disenfranchisement of those citizens, because those most affected by the planning decisions within an SOI could not vote for the people who made those decisions. As a representative government, residents had a right to speak to their representatives, and when a citizen could not do that, then citizens were without representation.
Assemblyman Gustavson said that the United States was not a pure democracy, but that it was a constitutional republic, and set up so that the minority and the individual would have influence, and the way the current law was structured, they did not.
Assemblyman Grady said he signed onto this bill but had reservations. Since hearing that the bill might impact Judge Hardesty’s ruling, he was concerned that the settlement agreement would not have time to work. He wanted to hear what the other folks had to say, so that the court ruling would not be affected.
Assemblywoman Angle asked the Chairman if she could invite Ms. Shipman to discuss the SOI situation. Chairman Manendo agreed.
Ms. Shipman said that she wanted to address the settlement agreement, especially the section where those signatory entities had agreed not to sponsor or bring forward any legislation that would be contrary or inconsistent with the terms of the settlement agreement. She said that she advised the Washoe County Board of Commissioners that they were not gagged in any way when taking positions on bills that were brought forward. However, the settlement agreement did recognize SOI as well as extra-territorial jurisdiction, so she advised the board that it could be a violation of the spirit of the agreement to take a position on these bills. The Board voted to support A.B. 380.
John Wagner, representing the Nevada Republican Assembly, said he had friends in the area who were concerned about SOI. He said the annexation process was too much like 1939 when Austria annexed Czechoslovakia. The parallel was that people were being annexed, whether they liked it or not. Sometimes the consequences were expensive, as when the city decided to install a sewer system and billed residents $40,000. Often there were real consequences. Mr. McCleary and Mr. Goicoechea’s ideas were good, but they should let the people who were directly affected have a say in those decisions.
Elizabeth Howe, resident of Silver Knolls and President of the Silver Lake Property Owners’ Association, said she wished to support A.B. 380 and hoped it would go to the Floor for a vote. She said that her group was very concerned about the SOI, which allowed incorporated cities to expand into large areas, which was to the benefit of developers who did not like the Washoe County development requirements. As unincorporated county residents, they had been pleased with county services and did not appreciate the threat of Reno’s encroachment into large areas of the county. The unincorporated areas were most affected by the SOI, and in current law, decisions on how to develop the SOI were made without residents having representation.
Ms. Howe took issue with Ms. Henderson’s testimony, when she said that Silver Knolls did not have concerns because there were no SOI indicated on map 7. She said that on map 5 of the 2002 Regional Plan Update, the several green areas in the north valleys were SOI study areas, which were scheduled to be addressed in the study groups soon. The SOI were a very real threat. She encouraged the Committee to approve A.B. 380.
Gary Sayer, President of the Golden Valley Property Owners’ Association, said he wanted to make one point about A.B. 380, which he supported and urged the Committee to pass. The Regional Plan that was adopted last May by the Governing Board, and sent forward by the TMRPC, purported to limit the majority of future growth within the McCarran Loop in Reno. The plan that was adopted and approved was a 30,000 to 34,000-acre increase in the SOI areas, mostly outside of McCarran Loop. He said he did not think that the SOI phobia would disappear, nor the concerns that came with those fears, unless something like A.B. 380 was done. We need to “level the playing field again” and stop the tide of growth associated with the current plan, over the significant increase in the SOI.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked where the McCarran Loop was located on the map. Mr. Sayer said it was the beltway around Reno, and she located it on the map. Ms. Pierce said that, coming from Clark County, no one who lives in a developing area was unaffected by growth. It affects everything: air, schools, traffic. She said, “In Las Vegas, we breathe the air brought by growth.”
Neal Cobb, past-president, Golden Valley Homeowners Association, said he wanted to address a major concern: Golden Valley was number one in line to be annexed and developed. It was located right next to the City of Reno, with multiple developments coming from the east, the south, and the west.
For example, said Mr. Cobb, the high school in the North Valleys had already applied for annexation to Reno, and they were within an SOI. If it did happen, then by law, anyone who had 15 percent of their property touching the school could file for voluntary annexation. A 200-acre parcel sat directly across the street from the high school, which was on an 80-acre parcel. He said that annexation of those properties would effectively split Golden Valley in half, from south to north. This was a major concern because the City of Reno had stated that they were not the aggressors and not actively trying to annex, but if annexation were voluntarily, they would roll out the red carpet. Mr. Cobb said that fair and equal representation made for good neighbors. They were tired of having only win/lose options. Good planning would produce dialogue, negotiations, and two kinds of winners.
Nancy Bonham, Golden Valley, emphasized that she was not being represented in a fair and equal manner. The cities were not playing fair. They needed help.
Theresa Shannon, Northern Nevada-Mount Rose Well and Water Protection, said that she had concerns about the natural resources available to support the SOI. In other legislation, they asked the Committee to support those concerns. The SOI disenfranchised voters and affected everyone because no one took time to make sure the resources and infrastructure was in place to support proposed development. She said that approach was in keeping with Judge Hardesty’s ruling because it had already slowed down the SOI process. She urged the Committee to approve A.B. 380 and forward it to the Assembly Floor.
Mary Henderson, representing the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency Governing Board, wanted to clarify that the previous witness had mentioned studies in progress, of which there were many, including resources, infrastructure, water, and other subjects; the plan had not been made in a vacuum. The Legislative Subcommittee did vote 2-1 in opposition to this bill. Washoe City was not included in the current plan, and the outer boundary of the SOI was near the Mt. Rose Highway. New SOI were all on undeveloped property with a higher zoning density, which Mr. Zeigler would address.
Dave Ziegler conveyed a message from the Governing Board and the TMRPC, and stated that they had voted against the measure 8-1. Governing Board and TMRPC members wanted the Committee to know that this measure would be a step backward and would take the annexation process back to a pre-1989 condition, as well as nullify three years of hard work. They wanted a chance to implement the settlement agreement. Regarding the SOI and citizens being subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction, they replied that current County zoning designations were transferred intact with each new SOI and incorporated into city planning. Changes to County zoning designations were subject to cooperative planning and dispute resolution procedures.
Assemblyman Knecht asked for map clarifications from Ms. Henderson, and she deferred to Mr. Ziegler, who clarified that, prior to the settlement agreement, services extended to Washoe Valley and the SOI went to St. James above Pleasant Valley. Some of those boundaries were rolled back via the settlement agreement, and the SOI was moved to the north of Mr. Knecht’s district.
Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 380 and opened the hearing on A.B. 408.
Assembly Bill 408: Revises provisions relating to freedom to display flag of United States. (BDR 22-910)
Assemblyman Josh Griffin, Clark County District No. 29, and main sponsor of the bill, stated that the bill would make displaying the American flag on one’s home an act of regional significance. Some homeowners had been told that displaying the flag was a violation of the covenants and restrictions of the subdivision. A.B. 408 would revise the right to display the flag so that it could not be infringed on by a homeowners’ association or property owners’ association. This bill would limit homeowner associations’ authority over how they chose to display the American flag, and prevented them from imposing fines or penalties for the display of an American flag. In addition, a proposed “friendly” amendment would require the person displaying an American flag to follow the United States Code (Exhibit P).
Chairman Manendo added that a similar bill, SB 359, was currently moving through the Senate.
Assemblyman Walter Andonov, Clark County District No. 21, from Henderson, Nevada, said he fully supported this legislation. Especially at times like this, when our country was at war, people wanted to show their support for troops and for the United States, and it was not right that they could not display the flag on their own homes.
Assemblyman McCleary asked if they had considered adding language to include displaying the Service Star and the Gold Star emblems, in addition to the American flag. He said if you have a son or daughter who was in the service, you would display a service star; and if one were killed, you would display the gold star.
Assemblyman Griffin said that these emblems had not been included, but if the desire were there, he would be in favor making this change and of any act to show support for the country and the troops.
Chairman Manendo asked if there was a size limitation on the flags. Mr. Griffin said that there was not, but he would check the amendment.
Assemblyman Christensen thanked both the Assemblymen for coming to the Committee, and said he heard General Norman Schwarzkopf speak recently to legislators. Two things he said citizens could do to show support were to tie a yellow ribbon or fly the flag.
Assemblywoman Weber also thanked the two Assemblymen for bringing the bill, and said it was overdue. She wanted to know if there would be problems adhering to the proper decorum for flying a flag, and if the strict guidelines might provide homeowner associations an opportunity to fine residents for improper display.
Assemblyman Griffin said that the amendment would answer that question, and deferred to Assemblyman Andonov. He said there was some decorum on how to fly the flag, but as long as it was done properly, the bill would not be misused or misinterpreted.
Bill Gregory, Howard Hughes Corporation referred the Committee to the proposed amendment (Exhibit P), which he said would accomplish two things.
· First, it would mandate that the flag could be displayed consistent with U.S. Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Sections 1 through 10. This code specifies things like, the flag must not touch the ground, should be illuminated at night, and must be repaired or burned if it was tattered.
· Second, it would allow an association to adopt rules reasonably restricting the placement and manner of display of the United States flag by the unit’s owner. This would not restrict flying a flag, but it would disallow extreme situations.
Chairman Manendo asked if Mr. Gregory was present during the S.B. 359 hearing. Mr. Gregory answered that he was, and he presented the same amendment. He said that S.B. 100 also contained similar language.
Chairman Manendo noted that Section 11 in S.B. 359 was different. Mr. Griffin said that they would work with anyone, including the Senate, and proceed at the direction of the Chairman. The Chairman said he would discuss the bill with the Chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Committee.
Chairman Manendo asked that a letter from Christy Malone (Exhibit Q) be included for the record and closed the hearing on A.B. 408.
Assemblyman Collins noted that he had reached resolution on the two bills regarding manufactured housing. He said those bills could go into a work session at any time.
Assemblyman McCleary said he had read the minutes and returned them to the Chairman. Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. McCleary.
Chairman Manendo thanked the Committee, and noted that there was no Floor Session tomorrow, and adjourned the meeting at 10:57 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_____________________________
JoAnn Aldrich
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: