MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 1, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Tuesday, April 1, 2003.  Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative counsel.

 

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:

 

Mr. Bernie Anderson

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel

Pat Hughey, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Kimberly McDonald, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City Manager’s Office, City of North Las Vegas

James A. Bell, P.E. Director of Public Works, City of North Las Vegas

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation

Neil C. Krutz, P.E., Deputy Director, Community Development, City of Sparks, Nevada

Barbara Slade, President, Carson Valley Trails Association

Lorilyn Chitwood, Citizen

Jim Slade, Citizen, and member of the Douglas County Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee

Marjorie Sill, Citizen

Russell Scossa, Citizen

Vic Buron, Citizen

Nathan Leising, Citizen

Renee Mack, Citizen

Cheryl Blomstrom, Citizen

Carole Thompson, Executive Director, Douglas County Building Industry Association

Kelly Chase, Citizen

James Settelmeyer, representing Settelmeyer Ranches, Inc., and Carson Valley Conservation District

Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Washoe County District Attorney

John Garvin, Co-Chairperson, Douglas County Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee

Patty Cafferata, Esq., Attorney at Law

Dan Holler, Douglas County Manager

Lori Ashton, Representative, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters

Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District

Jack Jeffrey, representing the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council and the Southern Nevada Water Authority

Steve Holloway, Executive Vice President, Associated General Contractors, Las Vegas Chapter

James E. Keenan, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission

Justine Chambers, Contract Coordinator, City of Carson City

Santana Garcia, Assistant Management Analyst, Southern Nevada Water Authority

Debbie Cahill, Director of Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association

 

Chairman Manendo:

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs will come to order.  [8:15 a.m.]  Madame Secretary, will you please take the roll.  [Roll was taken.] 

 

Assembly Bill 427:  Prohibits governmental entity, under certain circumstances, from conditioning approval of certain land use permits upon dedication of land, dedication of certain rights or contribution of other thing of value. (BDR 22-1050)

 

Chairman Manendo:

Mr. Hettrick, you have two bills.  Do you want to start with Assembly Bill 427?  [Mr. Hettrick indicated that would be fine.]  Good morning.

 

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39 (Carson City (part), Douglas County, Washoe County (part)):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.  I’m Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39.  A.B. 427 is a bill that I will ask you to put into a subcommittee to let me work on some language to bring back to you, and then see if we can take care of this in a work session.  This will save you a lot of time.  But, I would like to talk to you about the impetus behind this bill and what I hope to accomplish with it. 

 

Two situations arose that prompted me to submit A.B. 427.  One situation has caused concern of citizens within my county because of a trails plan that was developed and proposed.  Some of those trails lap over on private property, and people that own that private property have great concern about the impact it will have on their land, their future ability to use that land, and how that trail plan might be implemented.  To describe to you their concerns, but in my terms, I would like to relate a story to you, without identifying where it occurred, about something that happened to me that had a similar effect.

 

I have a commercial building in Nevada that I wanted to remodel some years ago.  I applied for a permit to remodel and, when I did so, the body that I applied to for the permit came back and said, “We will give you the permit to remodel your building, but you have to give us an easement for a bike path across the front of your property, 12 feet wide by 360 feet long, pave it, pay the taxes on it in perpetuity, we won’t take the liability for anybody riding on the bike path, and we’re not going to give you your permit until you give it to us.”  I said, “No,” and they said, “Then we won’t give you the permit.”  This went on for six months, and I finally indicated to them I was going to end up in court over this.  They ultimately decided I wouldn’t have to give them the easement, or provide the paving and the like.

 

Unfortunately, this happens too often.  This is government trying to do its job, and trying to do what it thinks is right, but it ends up using the permit process to leverage the private property owner into providing an easement without reducing or eliminating the liability, or a right of way, or a lot of other things.

 

The concern that people have with this bill, and what I am not trying to address, is when a city or county says, “If you’re going to subdivide here and put in 100 homes, we insist that you give us a site for a fire station, you put in the streets, you put in the appropriate utilities, and all those things.”  That’s not what we are trying to address.  We want the cities and counties to be able to require that, and to be able to say that those things must be put into place as part of the subdivision.  This bill is not to stop them from being able to have zoning or subdivision requirements.

 

This is about a nexus between a permit to do something to your property and a requirement that would come from a city or county saying, to do that, you have to do this.  If I want to build a deck on my property, I shouldn’t have to donate a bike path without the elimination of liability that crosses through the middle of my land and divides it.  I shouldn’t have to do that.  There is no nexus.  If, however, I wanted to subdivide that land and put in 40 homes, and a trail through that land would be appropriate for those 40 homes because of the beauty and the ability to make it a friendly community and the like, I don’t have a problem with that.  But, the nexus has to exist. 

 

With that, I don’t know how much more testimony you need.  I’d be happy to answer questions.  I have agreement from folks who have concerns with the language that we go to a subcommittee.  We believe we can come up with language that will satisfy their concerns and, at the same time, provide the nexus that we need for private property owners.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Since you’ve got so many of your neighbors here, in other parts of the state when folks get out of line like this, they have a thing called a recall election.  Are those allowed in that neighborhood?  [Assemblyman Hettrick answered that as far as he knew, that was still allowed.]

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

I won’t go into all the details, because I’m not trying to specify a county or pick on one place.  All I’m saying is there ought to be nexus between a permit being withheld for some reason and the reason it’s being withheld.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I’ll have to look this over, but I have some concerns.  Basically, what this means is that bike paths and trails go to people who have new homes, and those of us who live in older neighborhoods get big signs and McDonald’s, and we get no bike paths.  We get none of that stuff.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

I understand the concern, but I don’t believe leveraging a permit against a requirement to donate property is an appropriate function for city or county government.  I don’t believe it’s appropriate for government at any level.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

What you’re talking about does not affect eminent domain, so an entity still has those powers available to it, if it wants to go into an older neighborhood and do whatever it wants at the peril of that recall election that Assemblyman Collins was talking about.  I don’t see that as stopping an entity from building a path.  You’re looking at the permit process, not the “feel good” trail process.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

That’s absolutely true, Mr. Hardy.  In fact, that’s the fair way to go about this.  If you put a trail through someone’s property and you impact their land, the appropriate thing to do is have it appraised, find out what the impact is, and then appropriately compensate that individual for the costs they will derive from that taking of whatever it is.  I think that would also address the issue of liability.  This is one of the major things when you talk about a trail.  The path that would have been required of me—not only would I have had to pay the taxes on it in perpetuity and improve it at my expense, which would have raised the taxes some more—but there was no limit to the liability.  Anybody who fell there would say, “The private property owner has the deep pocket and I’m going after him, because the state provides political subdivisions with a limit.”  The private property owner is fair game.  That’s not right when a political subdivision puts something across your land that creates the liability, so it ought to be addressed in some fashion.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Did they give you the opportunity to deed that over in your own magnanimous way?

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

No, they did not.  Even if they had, there is still the concern of what happens when—let’s say it was deeded to the political subdivision, and somebody is riding their bike down the path and they fall in the middle.  This would be a concern I would direct to Ms. Pierce to think about in regard to this path going through an older community.  They fall and they say, “The reason I fell is because dust fell from your property onto the bike path, and it caused me to lose control of my bike and I fell, and it’s still your fault even if it’s the political subdivision’s property.”  There is a liability here that you accrue whether you want to or not.  It’s very troublesome for private property owners.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

You mentioned crafting language that would require a nexus.  It would be easy for all of us to sit here and leave that work to you, but I thought that since I perceive that, from my own previous experience on a zoning appeals board, as being challenging, I would volunteer for that subcommittee.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

I’m sure that people have some comments, but I would just say that I don’t know that we need to spend a great deal of time today because this language won’t apply.  What we need to do is get this into a subcommittee and try to get this fixed, so we have agreement from all the parties that this works.

 

Chairman Manendo:

It is the intention of the Chair to place this in a subcommittee.  To the folks in the audience, if you wish to provide testimony, please be conscious of what Mr. Hettrick has mentioned about the change in the bill.  This is your process as well, so if anybody wants to come up and make some comments, you’re more than welcome to.  This would be for or against Assembly Bill 427. 

 

Kimberly McDonald, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City Manager’s Office, City of North Las Vegas:

[Introduced herself.]  We do have some concerns that we’ve already expressed to Assemblyman Hettrick.  At the same time, we definitely want to express our accommodation to Assemblyman Hettrick.  He has been very receptive, and is very open-minded to working with the local governments.  I have Jim Bell, Director of Public Works, with me today, and he will be relaying some very brief comments.  We do look forward to working with the Assemblyman and the subcommittee.

 

James A. Bell, P.E., Director of Public Works, City of North Las Vegas:

[Introduced himself.]  We appreciate Mr. Hettrick’s offer to meet as a subcommittee.  The issue of development is integral to the operation of government.  We need the ability to build projects, and to condition rights of way, easements, and properties reasonably.  The issue is “reasonably.”  We feel that, done properly, we can build properly planned communities.  We can build the kind of communities that provide the tax base to continue a high level of services for the community.  As an example, if we [cities or counties] were to pay for all rights of ways, development would stop.  Cities could not go forward and have anything approved.  You would also see decision-making from government officials delayed.  That is definitely not something we want to build into law; we want to do the opposite. 

 

We want reasonable, proper, and efficient decision-making to take place.  We feel that a law would be best based upon a proper outcome, and that’s what we’d like to work toward.  We feel that there may be the ability to address this very thing.  How can you use your property and not be overly burdened if you put a deck on?  I think that’s a reasonable issue.  We would like to discuss our view as to how that can be accommodated.

 

We feel this is a topic that should be brought before the [Nevada] League of Cities.  Even when we have a revised law—assuming that we do—we think it would be a notable method to go forward in the [Nevada] League of Cities, where governments throughout the state share their experiences, and how they can best address owners’ issues and the development community’s issues.  We feel that may also be the way to accommodate a proper solution.  We would be glad to work with Mr. Hettrick and address this issue. 

 

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation:

[Introduced himself].  Over the years, we have been very strong advocates of private property rights.  We have appeared before this Committee in past sessions to urge favorable consideration of legislation, including takings protection for private property owners.  It is our position that this is a good bill [A.B. 427], and we think it is important that private property owners’ rights get this kind of protection.  We look forward to working with the subcommittee, and hope that we can resolve the issue while, at the same time, providing needed protection for property owners. 

 

Neil C. Krutz, P.E., Deputy Director, Community Development, City of Sparks:

[Introduced himself.]  The City of Sparks has concerns with the bill [A.B. 427] as it is drafted, and we look forward to working with the subcommittee towards achieving that rational nexus language. 

 

Barbara Slade, President, Carson Valley Trails Association:

[Introduced herself.]  [A copy of Ms. Slade’s testimony is attached at Exhibit C.]  I am here representing approximately 100 members of the Carson Valley Trails Association.  Our association is a non-profit organization that was formed approximately seven years ago, because we saw ranch land being sold and subdivided for residential use, which in turn, blocked public access to public lands.  Our group works with USFS [United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service], BLM [Bureau of Land Management], and Douglas County to promote the planning, construction, use, and maintenance of trails and trailheads in and around the Carson Valley.  We are the group responsible for the purchase of the Faye-Luther trailhead in Douglas County, the only existing trailhead in the Carson Range.

 

We are not in support of takings or condemning land for accesses, trails, and trailheads, but Assembly Bill 427 discourages developers who are blocking people from getting to public land from negotiating with governmental entities to help with providing a much needed trail network that is a significant benefit to the community.  As community growth occurs and public lands are blocked by development, it is even more important to be able to negotiate.  It should never be about the interest of one group, but what is best for all citizens in the community.

 

Bills, as you know, become state law.  It is a broad spectrum.  These bills have to cover a lot of issues for a lot of people, not one particular group.  When a developer comes forward to get approval of his planned development, it is a one-time opportunity to provide a public good in return for the concessions the developer requests from the city or the county.

 

Someone needs to be creative, and maybe the subcommittee will be, in finding language that will provide a trail system, get access to public lands, and not be a taking.  People need trails and have the right to be in public lands.  No one person, no one development, should block public access to public land.

 

I ask you to balance the subcommittee.  I know two people who volunteered for the subcommittee are co-sponsors of this bill [A.B. 427], so please find a balance from the government as well as the Committee.  I urge you to deny the bill as it stands.  Thank you.

 

Lorilyn Chitwood, Citizen:

[A copy of Ms. Chitwood’s testimony is attached at Exhibit D.]  My name is Lorilyn Chitwood.  I’m a lifelong resident of Nevada.  The future quality of life in Nevada is dependent on our elected officials’ ability to control all aspects of development.  Legislation that reduces governmental authority, and gives developers free reign, cannot be good for the citizens of Nevada.  Trails, parks, open spaces, access to public land, and well-planned developments are essential.  These recreational opportunities are crucial to attract quality businesses, which Nevada needs to retain a healthy economy.

 

Admired communities throughout the west such as Jackson Hole, Wyoming; Sun Valley, Idaho; and Bend, Oregon, have all successfully managed development, increasing both prosperity and quality of life for their residents.  Giving the developers uncontrolled development rights could seriously compromise many community assets, which will degrade the value of our communities.  Developmental control by our elected officials is the chief control mechanism we can exercise on developers.  Let’s not take this control away from them.  Please vote against Assembly Bill 427.  I would like to volunteer to work with the subcommittee.

 

Jim Slade, Citizen:

[A copy of Mr. Slade’s testimony is attached as Exhibit E.]  I’m Jim Slade from Gardnerville, and I’m here today to testify against Assembly Bill 427 as it is currently written.  There are two very separate issues here that are not differentiated in this bill at the present time:  public trails on private land, which we do not support; and public access to public lands, which we very much support. 

 

This bill would have the effect of making public access to public lands much more difficult.  It favors a special interest group, namely developers, to the detriment of the general public.  It is not by chance that this bill appears before you two days before the Douglas County Comprehensive Trails Plan goes before the Douglas County Board of Commissioners.  It is an overreaction to the trails plan.

 

When developers seek to subdivide land adjacent to public lands, they come to the county seeking concessions and approval.  This is the one opportunity that the county, and hence the public, has to gain public access to public lands.  This bill would deny the county and the public that one opportunity.

 

If this bill is designed to keep individual lot owners from being forced to grant trail access, then it is a sledgehammer approach to that problem.  It “throws the baby out with the bath water.”  Our concern is public access to public lands when a developer comes forward.  Trails are a sign of community health.  A trail easement is a reasonable contribution to the public good when a developer is asking for concessions from the county.

 

Other master plans in Nevada undoubtedly have similar statements, but here is what the Douglas County Master Plan states, and I quote:

 

Douglas County should facilitate legal public access to public lands.  As community growth occurs on private lands adjacent to public land, right-of-ways should be provided through the proposed development to assure regional access to public lands.

 

Goal 10.23:  Douglas County will ensure development and maintenance of multi-purpose trail systems . . . throughout Douglas County.  This system should provide connection and access to public lands (BLM and National Forest).

 

This bill would seek to thwart this and other similar goals.  It would be a detriment to the citizens of Nevada.  I urge you not to support this bill.

 

Marjorie Sill, Citizen:

My name is Marjorie Sill.  I have lived in Reno since 1959.  When I moved to Reno, you could access the public lands from practically anywhere you wanted to.  Since then, I have seen enormous developments occur, and we have worked very hard to get access through these developments to public lands.  We have paid for some of them.  I am a member of the Truckee Meadows Trails Association and the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club.  We are people who want to go out into our public lands.  That is the reason many of us moved to Nevada, to be able to enjoy this wonderful experience.  If the developments do not provide access to public lands, then you have cut out a large number of people, including our young people.  I think most of us want our grandchildren to be able to get up into the wonderful lands that we have here all along the Sierra front and enjoy the wildlife, the flowers, and the wonderful experiences that you can have living in Nevada.

 

I understand this bill [A.B. 427] will be changed, and I won’t address the specific wording, but when I looked at the wording of the bill the way it is written now, I was very concerned that we would never have the opportunity again, and our children and our grandchildren would not have the opportunity to get up there and enjoy what belongs to all of us.

 

Russell Scossa, Citizen:

My name is Russell Scossa.  I have a ranch in the Carson Valley.  I’m one of the people who is going to be affected quite adversely by this bill.  I am in favor of this bill because, with all the testimony that’s been given this morning, I can understand the importance of trails and dedicating things to the government entity when you’re doing a subdivision.

 

We own a lot of land on the Carson Valley.  We’ve owned it for 115 years.  We’ve never divided any of it.  We’ve been sitting there all these years as people have come in and crowded around us.  In 1977, Douglas County took away most of our zoning, and left 1-acre and 2-acre zoning on our fence line, and we have 20-acre zoning.  It seems if we want to get anything back to where we should be, on an equal basis with the people that are surrounding us, we’re being blackmailed into doing things that aren’t fair or shouldn’t be required.

 

I can understand the previous testimony, and I will agree with it, if the county has given me some increased zoning that’s going to make my land more valuable.  If I’m doing a full-fledged subdivision that’s going to have people and streets and roads, I can see the need for it.  But, in my situation, there’s a law on the books in Douglas County that says if you’re next to public lands and you want to divide a piece of property, you have to provide a trail.  What happens with these 125 acres that I have that is blocking the access to public lands?  If I wish to give my son a few acres to build a house on, I have to go to the county entity and divide that to make it a legal parcel so he can build on it.  If there is not room for negotiation or recourse for the landowner, that means I have to provide public access.

 

Over the last ten years, I went through a very heart-wrenching lawsuit to keep some developers from going through my property.  We’ve never divided our land.  We’ve just tried to just keep it the way it’s been.  We’ve tried to sustain our lifestyle.  We’ve done all that, but if I want to give a lot to my son, I would have to allow the public to come across my land any time they wanted.  In that instance, it would turn my place into a complete subdivision.  There is no way I could continue to ranch there, with the general public being able to come and go as they feel like it, and with the liability problems that were mentioned before.  We’ve had a lifetime of being by ourselves out there.  That is part of the life-style, and we couldn’t continue to ranch if we had to change our life‑style in that fashion.  It would turn into a complete subdivision.

 

The other point is that there are different types of subdivisions, but they pass laws that group them all together.  In 1977, they took our zoning away.  The old-time families gave up lots of zoning.  Now, if you want to do anything, they lump your 20-acre ranchette with the same rules that apply to somebody who is doing a quarter-acre-lot subdivision.  It doesn’t pencil out.  It isn’t fair.

 

As has been explained in previous testimony, there are needs, but there has to be some way that the government entity has to negotiate a process.  It can’t just be written in stone.  There has to be some way that you can explain your situation as being unique and that you shouldn’t have to do this.  I think that’s one of the reasons that this bill [A.B. 427] was created.  I would also like to continue to work on this.

 

Vic Buron, Citizen:

[Introduced himself.]  [Mr. Buron’s testimony is attached is Exhibit F.]  I wasn’t impacted by anything down there, but I am a strong proponent of freedom.  It’s being taken away in Douglas County.  I hate for it to come to the state and be used in a manner of taking of property, but the attempt there is being made that could boomerang across the state.  That’s my fear. 

 

I am a proponent of what Mr. Hettrick has proposed.  I understand there has to be some revisions.  That’s normal.  I look forward to your subcommittee.  I would like to make input to them, and I thank you for all of your comments and for being able to attend.

 

Nathan Leising, Citizen:

[Introduced himself.]  I’m also a ranch owner in the Carson Valley, and I support this bill [A.B. 427].  In the past, the ranchers have been hit hard because of their land holdings and the open spaces.  It’s been something that’s been a real draw to people moving there.  When we did the Douglas County Master Plan, I was on the Douglas County Planning Commission.  When that went through, I went through the process except for the last couple of months.  This was addressed and, at that time, we wanted to mainly go over public accesses that were already there.  If a road was to be proposed or when a subdivision dedicated the roads, these trails would go over the public access.

 

In this Douglas County Comprehensive Trails Plan, they’re proposing 488.3 miles of trail.  We’re looking at taking private property and going through private property to do that.  If that happened on my ranch, it would put me out of the ranching business.  I might as well not take the liability of having those trails there and do subdivisions.

 

A few years ago, the trail committee that previously spoke [Carson Valley Trails Association] originally looked at getting county funds to do the Faye-Luther Trailhead.  Then they were able to get the money together to purchase the trailhead that connected the state highway with National Forest Service land.  That was done right.  They bought the property and donated it.  It’s a nice trailhead.  I am a firm believer that the government should not be threatening and taking property, but there is a need to get to some areas of National Forest land.  In those areas, organizations like the trail committee [Carson Valley Trails Association], instead of looking towards the government to take, should be looking at private entities negotiating with private land owners where they want, and negotiating a fee for that access.  I hope the language in this bill will address that more.  I was told that if I did my land in 20-acres parcels, I would be subject to doing the trails.  I don’t think that’s the way to go.

 

On the foothill portion of Carson Valley, the Forest Service administers a lot of the upper land.  At one of the meetings, the Forest Service testified that there are no current trails or future proposed trails in that area, yet Douglas County is looking at anybody along the Sierra front that may do something with their land having to give an easement.  There is neither rhyme nor reason to it; they just want easements.  I look at constitutionality, and I don’t know where in the Constitution of the State of Nevada it gives a citizen the right to enter public land anywhere they would like to enter public land.  Having lived here for 48 years, I can go on the public lands any time that I want.  I may not be able to go through a person’s property; I might have to go around a little bit, but I can certainly get there.  I think that the laws are in place through eminent domain and to be able to pay for those future accesses, and I would like to see that stay the way it is.

 

Renee Mack, Citizen:

Renee Mack, Mack Land and Cattle Company.  We have a ranch right next to town.  We have been there since 1858 under continuous family ownership.  My father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were in the Legislature, so we are no slouches in trying to do what is right for Douglas County.  In regard to our zoned land, when it comes time to develop, I’m sure that we’ll negotiate with Douglas County, and they’ll ask for things, and we’ll have to give it.  That’s reasonable to me.  But right now, they’re showing trails on our property right next to town on a “draft” plan that is hanging in the Douglas County Library.  People look at that and think it’s in existence.

 

So far, we’ve had four kids bungee jumping off our haystack.  I have a dog that I keep in the backyard and people stroll by there thinking the trail is in existence.  She bites the fence like, “Let me out of here so I can tear your heart out.”  Some kid walked up and stuck his hand through the fence.  Fortunately, the dog just licked it.  These situations could have been different, and I don’t want to accept that liability.

 

When it comes time for us to develop, I’m willing to do what is necessary, but at the present time, we don’t need to have this trail shown on our property.  The Town of Minden is planning a trail and doing the improvements that are approximately a block away from where this trail is shown.  The Town of Minden attorney tells me that if these situations had been different, we would have been sued, the town would have been sued, and Douglas County would have been sued.  I think it’s ludicrous to have these plans shown.

 

The other day, we had a heifer that was having trouble calving.  If someone had walked near her, they wouldn’t have been able to talk about it the next day.  I think that showing these trails on maps at the present time when they’re not in existence is ludicrous.  I would like to thank Assemblyman Hettrick for bringing this bill forward.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I’m closing the hearing on Assembly Bill 427 and appointing a subcommittee of Assemblyman Collins as Chairman, Assemblyman Grady, Assemblyman Knecht, and Assemblywoman Pierce.

 

Assembly Bill 428:  Imposes certain requirements relating to adoption or amendment of master plan of county or city. (BDR 22-1275)

 

Chairman Manendo:

Turn to Assembly Bill 428.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

Assembly Bill 428 is a bill that I have brought in an attempt to assure that when amendments or master plans are adopted within a community by any means, the electorate has an opportunity to be informed as to what that plan would do and what the impacts on the community would be.  Page 2, Section 1, subsection 3, of Assembly Bill 428 requires that:  “Before adopting any master plan or any part thereof, or any amendment, extension or addition thereof, the governing body shall hold at least one public hearing.”  Subsection b goes on to say, “Make findings setting forth the need for the adoption or amendment of the master plan or any part thereof.  The findings must include, without limitation, an explanation of the manner in which the health, safety, and welfare of the residents is going to be affected, promoted, enhanced by the adoption,” and so on.

 

The intent of this is to require a public body to do the exact same thing anybody else would do.  If you want to change the master plan that has been adopted through a process and by a county commission, who are elected people, then there should be some standard by which you develop a reason for the need to do that.  The county should have to do it, and so should anybody else who wants to change the master plan, so the electorate can be informed as to what the impacts would be and why they’re trying to change the plan.

 

If you go to Section 3 at the bottom of page 2 of A.B. 428, it says, “If an initiative or referendum proposes to adopt or amend, in whole or part,” and then it goes on to say they would have findings.  “The board shall hold a public meeting, and the proponents may present the findings.”  If they want to inform the public as to why they believe that something ought to be changed, they have the opportunity to do so.  It says “may.”  It doesn’t prohibit them from doing anything in regard to the initiative petition.  It doesn’t say they can’t have a referendum.  It doesn’t say they have no right to do anything that they are currently granted to do by an initiative petition or referendum.  It simply says that the county “shall” hold a hearing for them to present their findings, and they “may” present their findings.

 

I understand that, as of last night, a new Supreme Court decision came out, but I’m not going to speak to it because I’m not an attorney and I can’t tell you what it says or what it does.  The District Attorney from Douglas County is here and I understand he has some concerns with that.  We’re going to have to ask you to put this in a subcommittee, because I didn’t have a chance to change the language, having just found out about the Supreme Court’s decision that may affect this language.  I apologize for that.  That’s the intent of this bill.  I’ll be happy to work with anyone in a subcommittee to make sure that it accomplishes what we’re trying to do, which is to inform the public as to what changes would be coming to a master plan. 

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Isn’t this already a policy in most counties?

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

No.  In the process of doing a master plan, there are typically findings.  But, what we hear about amendments, in particular to a master plan, is that many times citizens feel that the county amends a master plan without making appropriate findings, and that it’s going to be good for the community and it’s not going to have a negative impact.  I think this weighs heavier on the county than it does on anybody else, because the county considers multiple amendments to a master plan in any given year.  Proponents of an initiative or a referendum probably bring one forward every five years, if that, to try to change things.  This [A.B. 428] is simply to make sure that everyone is informed as to what a change would do and why they are considering it.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I’m leery of getting involved in local matters.  I believe in the home rule and, wherever possible, I’d like to keep the Legislature out of it.  I’m very hesitant to tell them what to do.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

I would agree that the county or political subdivision could find that they should have to have findings and present them at their own hearings.  They could require that of themselves, but they can’t require it of an initiative or a referendum, because it is state law that allows initiatives or referendums.  They can’t require, and this bill doesn’t require—it says “may.”  This requires the county to hold the hearing and says that they [initiative proponents] may propose and that they must have some findings.  They must at least look at that if they want to inform the electorate.  I don’t see where that has any negative impact.  I think an informed electorate is the right kind of thing to have when voting on an initiative or referendum.  The more information you can give the electorate, the more reasoned judgment they can make in regard to voting on the issue.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

You want this to be separate from a standard county commission meeting, correct?  It seems to me that this usually gets done in a regular county commission meeting.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

It doesn’t require that it be a separate meeting.  It just says that they “shall” have a meeting in which they “may” present findings.  It doesn’t prohibit them from holding it at a standard meeting.  It just requires that the board hold a public meeting.  It could be, but it wouldn’t have to be separate.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

In many counties, a component of that master plan is how you adopt it, and most of them require a public hearing.  I don’t see this placing any undue hardship on any board of county commissioners or public body to have to comply.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

I concur with Mr. Goicoechea.  If you do change a master plan without a public hearing, you’re asking for it.  I think this is the common sense approach in putting it in statute and giving direction to entities.  I think it’s good practice and a reasonable thing to do.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I agree.  It is common sense, and that’s why I don’t understand why we’re legislating it.  It seems to me that the government entities ought to be doing it anyway.  But, if we have to legislate it, fine.

 

Cheryl Blomstrom, Citizen:

Cheryl Blomstrom, representing myself today.  I am a resident of Douglas County.  I wanted to talk to you about the master planning process in Douglas County, and the expense the county went to [in order] to formulate what I believe is a very well-crafted plan.  Unfortunately, the county is now going through an expense, on behalf of myself and others, to defend that master plan against an initiative [Sustainable Growth Initiative] that, in my opinion, was not particularly well crafted. 

 

As of the 2000 Census, there were 31,348 people over the age of 18 in Douglas County.  There were 8,823 people who approved Question 4 [Sustainable Growth Initiative].  That is an approval rate of 26.3 percent of voters over the age of 18.  According to the Douglas County Clerk, as of March 3, there was a total of 17,984 registered voters in our county.  Factoring in the same percentage, that’s 49.06 percent.  In either case, fewer than 50 percent of the people who live in our county voted to approve that Sustainable Growth Initiative.  I am one of those people who voted in opposition to that Sustainable Growth Initiative.  I have concerns that my tax money was first spent on a master plan that cost millions of dollars and took years to do, with many public hearings, and that master plan now needs to be defended, again using my tax money.

 

What Mr. Hettrick is bringing to you in this bill creates a stronger master planning process.  As Mr. McCleary said, this should be common sense.  Unfortunately, that’s not always common.  I’d like to see the master planning process strengthened so that it can’t be amended willy-nilly; so that it has to be brought to the electorate; and so that the electorate is completely informed, so that the dreaded recall could happen if the voters aren’t happy with the way a master plan is amended.  That is always our right as voters.

 

Secondly, I’d like to see an initiative process that proposes to amend a very expensive process go through the same rigors because the voters don’t necessarily get all the information.  What was out there during the Sustainable Growth Initiative petition was a lot of hyperbole, a lot of fear, a lot of scaring, and I think the voters were given some interesting information.  I very much support the master planning process.  I equally support the access of voters to that process, and I think the way we make good decisions is by getting as much information as we can.  If that means putting more strictures on the master planning process, I am completely in support of that.

 

Carole Thompson, Executive Director, Douglas County Building Industry Association:

[Introduced herself.]  [A copy of Ms. Thompson’s testimony is attached as Exhibit G.]  I am here today on behalf of the members of the building industry in Douglas County, and to inform this Committee that we are in favor of A.B. 428.  This bill would bring much-needed alignment in thought and rational justification to support an initiative’s ability to be compatible with a county or city’s master plan.

 

A.B. 428 would establish sensible guidelines and structure in the initiative’s designing stages, and it would assist initiatives in remaining harmonious and functional with a county or city’s master plan.

 

The Douglas County building industry does not seek to stop or restrict the initiative petition process.  We are the first to defend the right of the people.  However, we do appeal to the Committee’s sense of reason, inasmuch as, if a county or city has adopted a master plan, and a group decides they want to adopt another measure by the initiative or petition process within the master plan, or wants to amend the master plan, they should be asked to take into consideration the impact of their initiative on that master plan.

 

A.B. 428 asks for the same conscientious effort and due diligence from a committee or group that would bring forth an initiative that a county or city would take before adopting their master plan.  A.B. 428 asks that initiatives look at environmental impact, fiscal impacts, and infrastructure needs, and that initiatives provide some fragment of foundation and accountability of its impact on the public.

 

When an initiative is in direct conflict with a county or city’s master plan, it creates uncertainty and disorder for all the people.  The amount of time, money, and energy it takes to put such a “Humpty-Dumpty” situation together again is infinite.  Doesn’t common sense dictate that, with our right to the initiative petition process, comes responsibility and accountability?  I hope this Committee sees A.B. 428 as a positive approach and an effective solution that could save the citizens of Nevada the loss of their time, their money, and their master plan.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

If people who want to put forth an initiative have a public meeting and consider all these things, and then still want to pursue the initiative process, there’s no problem with that, correct?

 

Carole Thompson:

What we’re trying to do here is set some simple guidelines.  If you’re going to impact your county or city’s master plan, we want you to be able to have the information that’s required on what kind of an impact it’s going to have on the overall community.  I’m trying to look at the general attributes of A.B. 428 and not its applicability to Douglas County, although it is a good example.  If these guides had been in place when they were bringing forward their Sustainable Growth Initiative, I doubt we would be in court at this time.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Because you would have convinced these people that what they were doing was wrong-headed, and they would not have pursued the initiative process?

 

Carole Thompson:

No, they would have pursued the initiative process, but probably in a more responsible manner.  [Ms. Pierce indicated she was not sure what that meant.]  It means that they would have provided the information that was required so that a judge would not say that is was incompatible with the county’s master plan.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I want to say two things.  I’m a Democrat, so you can imagine that there are a couple of elections in recent history that I have not been happy about the outcome of, so I’m completely sympathetic to the idea that elections don’t always go your way.  The other thing is that I come from a place where the master plan is changed every single time a developer shows up at the county commission meeting.

 

Carole Thompson:

I think that this type of guideline and procedure would make it more difficult to amend the master plan, because you would have to go to some extent to do the research and the studies to substantiate what it is you’re asking in your initiative.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

But, in the end, if the people who want the initiative still feel after that whole process that what they’re doing is what they want to do, then they go ahead with the initiative.

 

Carole Thompson:

As long as they have their information in place that would substantiate it, it’s their constitutional right to do that.  [Assemblywoman Pierce agreed.]

 

Kelly Chase, Citizen:

My name is Kelly Chase.  I’m a Douglas County resident as well.  I would like to point out the importance of this.  I would encourage most of you, if you don’t know what happened in Douglas County concerning this growth limit, to become involved with it, because the Supreme Court of Nevada has opened up the initiative process to allow initiatives to do just about anything a county can do with regard to master plans or any kind of developments.

 

The problem with that is, and what this bill [A.B. 428] addresses, in the incident in Douglas County, the information that was given to the electorate was basically wrong.  They said the one of the exhibits would show that there was high-density housing on open space land, agricultural land, and wetlands, and that’s impossible under the master plan in Douglas County, but that was misrepresented to the voters.  They also misrepresented that this wasn’t a property rights issue, and that’s not true.  They also represented that this would have no financial impact on the county, and that was not true.

 

What we’re trying to do is give objective information to the voters.  If the voters are going to take zoning and planning issues on by themselves, they need to be informed on what they’re doing.  I don’t think it’s appropriate, but we’re stuck with that law.  I don’t think voters have enough information or background to be able to make decisions in planning such as the one here.  What would happen in Las Vegas if they passed a law, by initiative, to cut your residential building permits in half?  No other background on it other than that.  If they did that in Las Vegas, what would that do to the budget?  What would that do to Clark County?

 

What’s happened in Douglas County is that the initiative process, because it is a reserved right of the people, the people who format an initiative are not liable for the damages they create.  What they’ve done in Douglas County is that they have gone forward with this, and the idea that this is not a property rights issue is ludicrous. 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

It’s not likely to happen, but if an initiative were passed in Las Vegas or Clark County to cut their building permits in half, a lot of folks would go back home to their real residences, and the budget would be reduced enough to let folks stop working overtime to keep up with the growth.  That’s only particular to Las Vegas.  I don’t think you’d have that problem somewhere else.

 

Kelly Chase:

That’s true.  Douglas County is growing very fast, too, but the point is that if a cleaver were taken to your budget, what would you have to do?  You would have to factor into that budget the exposure of liability that the county or city would have when you’re taking property rights away.  What this bill does is eliminate from residential property the ability to get a building permit until someday in the future.  That’s a property right that establishes damages and that will land on the county or the city’s lap.  The issue is the people who promote this stuff don’t have any liability at all.  They have a free pass to do what they want to do, regardless.  What you’re doing is you’re putting the constitutional right of property rights up for a popular vote.  It’s a popularity contest.  It’s like a high school election for student council officers.

 

Unfortunately, that’s what the law has been opened up to, and that is what this bill [A.B. 428] is trying to address.  The idea that if you’re going to come in and say, “You can’t build your residence,” you have to have a reason.  What is that reason?  Is that a good enough reason to completely trample the Constitution, or is it a popular vote?  That’s what this is trying to do, to make those people come forward with enough information that says, “We need this because we’re running out of water, or we don’t have the infrastructure, and it’s a temporary measure, not permanent.”  This is addressing those types of issues.  None of us wants to see growth.  If the Truckee Meadows had remained in 20-acre parcels, what would it look like now?  That’s what this is trying to do.

 

I encourage all of you to look at this issue, because it is changing the way that Nevada is going to be.  It is no longer going to be the bastion of what I consider the conservatism of being responsible for property rights, of allowing the person to go out and do what he wants with his property.  What this is going to do, unless you take control of it, is allow our property rights to become subject to popularity.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

The City of Boulder City already has a cap, as does Carson City; and I think Lake Tahoe tells people they can’t build on their own land, so those rights have been addressed.

 

Kelly Chase:

Those rights have been substantiated by the proper studies and by a real threat.  [Assemblyman Collins answered he didn’t know about Boulder City’s case.]  I know that’s been litigated, too, and I would expect that.  The other issue that’s already been talked about is, if you’re allowing the electorate to go out and, “willy-nilly” start passing zoning laws, counties are going to be in court forever.  They’re going to pay a lot of attorneys’ fees, and they’re going to end up paying a lot of damages because, when you don’t have the necessary nexus, it’s illegal.  You’re going to subject yourself to liability and that is what’s going on.  It’s going to be rampant.  If you don’t take control of it now, the next election is going to be very interesting.

 

James Settelmeyer, representing Settelmeyer Ranches, Inc., and Carson Valley Conservation District:

My name is James Settelmeyer.  My family has been farming in Carson Valley since 1890.  I represent the Settelmeyer Ranches, Inc.  I’m the chairman of the Carson Valley Conservation District, and also the chairman of the Nevada State Conservation Commission.  Today, I’m only representing the views of Settelmeyer Ranches, Inc., and the Carson Valley Conservation District.

 

We feel that property rights are very fundamental, and protection of them is tantamount.  The issue of A.B. 427, A.B. 428, and, in my opinion, the truth in the initiative process bill, but focusing on this one only, A.B. 428, is it’s a protection of rights and a quality in actions.  The citizens at large should not be able to do by the back door what the county and the government cannot do by the front door.  I believe that the bill is only asking them to focus on a rational basis and have proof that what they’re saying is the truth.

 

In the last election, I was approached to sign an initiative on the idea of a growth cap in the Carson Valley, and the person said, “This will save agriculture and it will lower your taxes.”  I don’t believe that, and I don’t believe you could find any proof to prove that.  On that basis, I felt very offended that they had no rational basis in what they were doing.  To me, without this protection, it places fundamental rights in question.  I understand what the Supreme Court of Nevada ruling is; I may not necessarily agree with it.  In that capacity, I feel that some liberties need to be out of the political arena for the basic protection of a constitutional democracy, as opposed to rank “majoritarianism.” 

 

Madelyn Shipman, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Washoe County District Attorney:

[Introduced herself.]  Section 1 of A.B. 428 is clearly what every local government should be looking at any time they make a master plan amendment.  We don’t have any problem with Section 1.

 

We could be fine with Sections 2 and 3, if one word were changed, and that is where you have the word “hold” a hearing, change the word to “facilitate.”  The reason is, we’re talking about the very beginning of an initiative, and we don’t want our board to get caught in having to make a finding themselves.  There is nothing in this bill that says the board should make a finding.  It says that—we believe this is important—any time there is an initiative that might have an impact on a master plan, it is important for the public to understand what the proponents of the initiative are actually doing, but we don’t want our board to get caught in the process of having to say “yea” or “nay” before it goes to the voters.  I think the only issue for a subcommittee is how to deal with the issue of predetermination, and not getting councils or entities caught up in advance of the initiative going forward, but to have the opportunity to facilitate and utilize the local governments as a mechanism to allow a public discussion on the initiative.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Was there anything keeping the opponents of this initiative from holding a public meeting to discuss this initiative?

 

Madelyn Shipman:

I would assume there would be nothing prohibiting anyone from holding a meeting on any initiative.  The key that this bill is trying to get to is to have an official meeting place and, instead of going to a private hall, to be able to utilize the local government facilities.  The way I read this is that it is to create a public forum for a presentation of what the initiative is.  I’m using the word “facilitate” for a local government because I think the local government could make sure that there was equal time or that there was an opportunity for all views to be expressed.  I just don’t want our board doing it. 

 

John Garvin, Co-Chairperson, Douglas County Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee:

[Introduced himself.]  I am speaking today as the co-chairperson of the Douglas County Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee that placed a slow-growth measure on the ballot in Douglas County.  This is what the subject of everybody’s testimony has been today.

 

I’m speaking in opposition to Assembly Bill 428.  This measure was on the Douglas County ballot last November [2002].  It passed handily, and the measure is now under court challenge.  There have been some remarks that only a small percentage of people over 18 voted for this.  That’s because many people are not registered to vote.  What counts are the voters who have the responsibility, duty, and right to vote.  It is open to all adult citizens.  It [Sustainable Growth Initiative] passed handily at 53 percent to 47 percent.  It’s never been in effect yet because of the court proceedings.

 

It is my understanding that A.B. 428 is sponsored by Douglas County as part of its continuing effort to frustrate and thwart the majority of Douglas County voters in their quest to put the brakes on uncontrolled residential growth.  Douglas County’s efforts in this regard are nothing less than outrageous and display an arrogance to the voters.  In the court battle, Douglas County also sided with the developers.

 

Make no mistake about it, A.B. 428 is aimed directly at stifling the initiative process, which is guaranteed to the voters by our Constitution of the State of Nevada.  I have a prepared statement [Exhibit H], but I want to insert at this point a reference to NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 278.220, which already provides for a notice and hearing procedure for changes in the master plan.  Under subsection 4, it coordinates it with a referral to the planning commission for a report.  So, the official governing body already has a procedure.  It’s very evident that A.B. 428 is aimed at the initiative process and nothing else. 

 

[Mr. Garvin continued.]  Article 19, Section 5, of the Nevada Constitution limits the Legislature’s power to enact only procedures to facilitate, not impede, the operation of the initiative process.  According to the dictionary, the word “facilitate” means “to make easier.”  A.B. 428 does the opposite.  It impedes the initiative process. 

 

The initiative procedure is outlined in Chapter 295 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, which is a major part of this proposed legislation.  A.B. 428, in part, amends NRS Chapter 295 in the wrong way.  A.B. 428 serves to impede the initiative process by requiring voters to make findings to support any proposed initiative aimed at amending the county’s or city’s master plan prior to taking out an initiative petition.  See Section 6 of this bill.

 

A new Section 3 would seem to give the option, according to the author of the bill, to present these findings to the county commissioners at a public hearing.  You can bet that, whether the initiative backers take advantage of that or not, the hearing will proceed, and they’re forced into this arena to present their findings.  When I looked at this bill, I wasn’t sure whether that hearing procedure gave the power to the commissioners to disapprove the findings and keep it off the ballot.  I now understand from Mr. Hettrick that this is not the case.

 

Alternatively, can these required findings form the basis for a pre-election challenge from either the county or a private person to keep the measure off the ballot?  If A.B. 428 passed, it would severely impede and not facilitate, or make easier, the initiative process and, therefore, would likely be challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional.  I want you to understand that, because the only power the Legislature has is to facilitate the process, not impede it.

 

Imposing on any citizen group the burden of making findings is neither logical nor feasible, not to mention the expense.  This requirement is ludicrous and will do away with initiative petitions of this nature.  The aim of A.B. 428 is to keep, in our case, the slow-growth initiative off the ballot unless the Douglas County Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee wants to make extensive research and investigation, and I think that is an impediment.

 

Lastly, I get the feeling that the effect of A.B. 428 on the initiative process is probably unconstitutional as it relates to equal protection of the law.  This is because it substantially and negatively impacts this kind of initiative measure unequally compared to other subject matters on which the initiative process remains viable, thus another court challenge is likely.

 

[Mr. Garvin continued.]  If passed, A.B. 428 amounts to a slap in the face of voters who are constitutionally entitled to enact new legislative policy amending a city or county’s master plan without having to leap over impractical hurdles to do so.  Let the voters, in their innate wisdom, make their choice in the open marketplace of public opinion.  We strongly urge you not to pass A.B. 428.

 

I would like to inform this Committee that this measure was put on the ballot in a very deliberate way.  It wasn’t a “Humpty-Dumpty on the wall,” or a “willy‑nilly” measure that somebody just thought of.  Our executive committee of the Douglas County Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee did extensive work before taking the Sustainable Growth Initiative out.  We spent time at several meetings with the Nevada State Engineer, who provided us with data as to Douglas County’s water situation.  We also met with a private consultant on water, which is a very important underpinning.  The reason for the Sustainable Growth Initiative is our water resource and the need to conserve.

 

We also found out from our research that residential growth doesn’t pay for itself.  It requires a subsidy by the taxpayers to provide maintenance and, to some extent, infrastructure.  There have been four studies done that show that taxpayers subsidize, in the form of taxes, residential growth.

 

The voters were provided information concerning all the matters that this bill addresses.  I see no need for further legislation on the subject.  We put it in our ballot arguments and the opposition did likewise.  We feel that the electorate was well-informed.  The response that wetlands cannot be built upon is simply not true.  It has happened before, and it will happen in the future if land resources dwindle. 

 

Assemblyman Grady:

First, we have to look beyond Douglas County.  This would affect all counties, so we can’t just look at your problem.  Secondly, why would you or any group be opposed to having a public hearing to sell your petition?  I think this is an opportunity for you to come in, and especially using the language that Ms. Shipman brought up to “facilitate” a meeting, why would you be against having a public meeting to give your side of the story of why you think your petition is a good one?  I don’t understand that.

 

John Garvin:

We did have public meetings.  We don’t have a problem having public meetings.  In our campaign, we addressed many service clubs.  We had good opposition coming up there before the developers, before the Business Council of Douglas County, before the Tahoe-Douglas Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Center, and before the Soroptimist International of Carson Valley Club.  Many presentations were made.  A lot of data was given.  We don’t have a problem having meetings.  We think it’s a necessary part of the campaign.

 

All I’m saying is leave it to the voters and leave our system unimpeded with this additional process.  I’m disturbed by the term “findings.”  It seems to infer that we have to hire consultants and do more extensive studies.  We have to do more than we’re doing now.  We think we did a pretty good job as it is.  The term “findings” denotes something pretty official.  It just presents another opportunity to be sued before it goes on the ballot, challenging the findings, keeping it off the ballot.  We’ve been through all that.  I just don’t see the need for the bill.  I think the official governing body is already governed by NRS Section 278.220.  [Assemblyman Grady remarked that he still did not understand why Mr. Garvin would be against having this as a public forum.]

 

Jim Slade, Citizen, and member of the Douglas County Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee:

[A copy of Mr. Slade’s testimony is attached as Exhibit I.]  I am Jim Slade from Gardnerville, and I am here today to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 428.  I speak on my own behalf, and as a member of the Douglas County Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee.  To some degree, I also feel that I speak for the more than 5,000 voters who signed our petition, which was a record in Douglas County, and the more than 8,800 voters who voted in favor of our Sustainable Growth Initiative last November [2002] when it passed.

 

This bill [A.B. 428] is shameless pandering to special interest groups to the detriment of the general public.  This bill is an overreaction to the success of the Sustainable Growth Initiative in Douglas County.  The development community outspent us many times over in an attempt to defeat SGI [Sustainable Growth Initiative].  They had the support of the Douglas County Board of Commissioners and our Douglas County District Attorney, yet the will of the people prevailed and SGI [Sustainable Growth Initiative] passed.  Now they have turned to state legislation as a way to prevent this type of initiative by our group or any similar grass-roots organization.  This is unconscionable.

 

The first speaker who spoke in favor of this bill mentioned the hyperbole and fear that surrounded this issue.  I would agree, and I would attribute most of it to the development community and their self-interested alarmism.  We at SGI [Douglas County Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee] stand by all our facts and figures.  Many studies have shown that residential growth does not pay for itself, and that added costs exceed added revenues.  Governor Guinn admitted as much in his State of the State address.  He then asked for a $1 billion tax increase for the fastest growing state in the Union. 

 

[Mr. Slade continued.]  When Mr. Hettrick spoke at a recent meeting of the Douglas County Building Industry Association, he was introduced as follows:

 

We’re going to talk a little bit about some legislation we’re working on with Mr. Hettrick here, to have some of these situations with— the sustainable growth group got these initiatives on the board, making it harder, make them accountable to the commissioners on that route.

 

Your guess is as good as mine as to what she was trying to say, but two things are clear:

 

1.         The Douglas County Building Industry Association worked on this legislation with Mr. Hettrick.

 

2.         The bill [A.B. 428] was a response to the Sustainable Growth Initiative.

 

Mr. Hettrick, in his comments to the DCBIA [Douglas County Building Industry Association], spoke extensively about the additional burdens his proposed bill would place on initiatives such as SGI [Sustainable Growth Initiative].  He never once mentioned any reference to a government body amending a master plan.  This concern is disingenuous.  He did state, “I’m not a huge fan of initiative petitions.”  The right to initiative petitions is guaranteed by Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution.

 

This bill is a threat to that constitutional right.  It is insulting to the democratic process, and a slap in the fact to the majority of voters of Douglas County who supported our Sustainable Growth Initiative.  Its intended effect is to discourage use of the initiative process on any matter related to a master plan, which is an extremely wide array of issues.  It is a bill that would benefit a special interest group to the detriment of the majority of citizens in our state.  This bill seeks to eviscerate the initiative process.  I am relieved to hear that recall is still a viable option in our state.  I strongly urge you not to support this bill.

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

The last speaker said something about the voters being answerable to the county commission.  I think it’s supposed to be the other way around; the county commission is answerable to the voters.

 

Patty Cafferata, Esq., Attorney at Law:

[Introduced herself.]  I have some prepared remarks that I’d like to make, and then I’d like to respond to some of the comments that have been made here today.  I am opposing A.B. 428.  Part of my background is I represent people who circulate initiative petitions.  I represented groups in White Pine County in 1994, and a group in Douglas County in 1994.  I also represented the people in Washoe County on the train trench, and I represented the SGI [Sustainable Growth Initiative] in Douglas County limiting building permits.

 

This bill is divided into two parts, which I’d like to separate.  Section 1 has to do with governing bodies, and I’m not opposed to them holding hearings and adopting findings. What happens when a governing body or a local body adopts findings is then their decision is not arbitrary and capricious.  If they don’t have findings, their decision will be overturned in court as being arbitrary and capricious.  You have to have findings; those are based on facts.  Any planning commission that isn’t doing that is asking for real trouble.

 

My concern is about Sections 3 and 4, and subsequent sections that have to deal with the initiative process.  Let me talk about initiatives, and then I will talk about the specifics of the bill.  The people added initiative rights to the Nevada Constitution in 1912.  Local government voters received the same rights in 1962.  This is a fundamental constitutional right that the people have.  Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution states that the people reserved the power to themselves to propose law in statutes, amendments to statutes, and the Nevada Constitution.  This article is self‑executing, but the Legislature may provide, by law, for procedures to facilitate the operation thereof.  The operative word is “facilitate.”  Will it make it work?

 

The difference between initiatives and referendums is an initiative proposes a law and a referendum repeals a law.  The people have had the right to repeal master plans and local zoning since the 1970s.  They did not have that right to propose to amend the master plan, or to even adopt one, until the most recent Garvin case [Garvin v. District Court]—you just heard from Mr. Garvin—where the Nevada Supreme Court upheld Douglas County’s rights to propose, by initiative petition, an amendment to the master plan.

 

I’m sure you are aware that there are more and more initiative petitions being circulated and put on the ballots, not only in Nevada, but also across the country.  The reason is people are dissatisfied with government.  They cannot get responses that they want, so they go out and collect signatures.  There are specific requirements for collecting signatures.  There are forms that must be followed, how you number the pages, where you get the signatures from, and who swears the oath.  It is a very complicated process.

 

[Ms. Cafferata continued.]  A.B. 428, Sections 2, 3, and subsequent ones, are all an attempt to overturn the Nevada Supreme Court decision in Garvin v. Nevada Northwest [Garvin v. District Court].  In that case, the Nevada Supreme Court overturned some prior decisions regarding master planning and the initiative process.  I wanted to point out to Mr. Collins that Boulder City building permit limits were adopted by the people, by initiative petition, in the 1970s, and it’s been on the books ever since.  It has been legally challenged, and it has been upheld.  Not only in Boulder City do they limit residential building permits, they limit all building permits, even on commercial buildings.  That is not the case in Douglas County’s initiative petition.

 

One of the things that concerns me about inserting this hearing process is the timing.  You have 185 days to collect signatures, or 130 days before the election.  You file your notice and start collecting signatures.  Then the clerk gets another 20 days to verify them.  The commissioners or city council have another 30 days to approve or reject the question.  Then the ballots have to be printed.  That takes about 2 months before the election.  Now, you are inserting something else into the process and, if you pass this bill, you are going to have to amend the rest of NRS Chapter 295 to include more time for that.  I hope you don’t pass this part of the bill, but if you do, you’re going to have to allow time for another public meeting, notices, and so forth. 

 

This bill [A.B. 428] is strictly to prevent the people from exercising their constitutional rights to amend the local master plans.  I think everybody who talked about being in favor of it was talking about the Douglas County [Sustainable Growth] Initiative.  Mr. Grady is perfectly right.  It does apply to all the counties, but the purpose of this bill is a direct result of what happened in Douglas County. 

 

On Page 2, Section 3 of A.B. 428, it talks about “the board shall hold a public meeting” or, in Section 4, it’s the city council.  This is the people’s process.  This is the people who have already been to the county commission, asked for certain things, and have been denied.  Now you’re going to make them go back to the same place as people who are opposing them?  That’s why they have the initiative petition to being with.  Then, they are going to have to present findings.  When you have a county commission or planning commission doing this, that’s one thing, but if you require this of the people, the Nevada Supreme Court says you don’t need to do that.

 

The decision says they don’t need to go through the hearing process.  This is the initiative right to pass these laws, and they don’t need to go through the process that the local government does.  If you make them have to have findings, and for some reason there aren’t any, then what happens?  Is that another legal challenge?  It’s going to be another hurdle for them.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I believe it says they “shall” hold a public meeting, but only “may” present, in both Sections 3 and 4 of A.B. 428.  [Ms. Cafferata asked why even bother passing the law then.]  The way I see it, it binds the public body to hold the public hearing.

 

Patty Cafferata:

I agree with that and that’s the reason I’m opposed to it.  This is the public body that has already rejected these voters, and it is now inserting itself back into the process.  I would be opposed to that.

 

One of the things about the Douglas County [Sustainable Growth] Initiative petition was that it was heavily debated.  The building industry spent thousands of dollars to oppose it.  It was not some “willy-nilly” thing where nobody knew what was going on.  There were many hearings and many debates.  The idea that we’re going to inform the electorate about what it’s all about, isn’t that what elections are all about?   That’s what happens when you have one of these questions on the ballot.  Quite frankly, I don’t think the voters are stupid.  They were smart enough to elect all of you, and they’re smart enough to figure out what’s right.  Most initiative petitions don’t get passed because the voters are not stupid.  They listen to the debate, and sometimes they’re smarter than the elected officials are.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

If you think that we don’t need this particular information-developing measure, then what information-developing measures do we need?  We have financial disclosures and all kinds of other regulations and laws that apply to elections.  Are you suggesting that we just don’t need any of those or, if you’re not, how did you conclude that we don’t need this one?

 

Patty Cafferata:

We don’t need this one for the reasons I’ve already talked about.  We already have a lot of laws.  [NRS Chapter] 295 has all the things that I talked about:  the number of signatures, the form you have to use.  There’s also all the financial disclosure that the initiative circulators have to comply with, the PAC [political action committee] laws.  What’s interesting in those is, in the past elections, casinos or corporations don’t have to disclose how much they spent.  It’s only the PACs and the groups that circulated petitions.  I’m not opposed to any of that.  I’m opposed to inserting the county commissioners back into the process when they’ve already denied these people these rights.  I’m here to uphold the constitutional right of the voters to propose their own laws, and the Nevada Supreme Court has said they have that right on master plans.

 

[Ms. Cafferata continued.]  This isn’t a bill to talk about a bunch of public policy and what else we’re going to do.  This is a bill strictly on master plans, and it is strictly aimed at the initiative process.  Section 1, there’s not a problem, but, Section 2, and all the subsequent sections, are that.

 

I am, unfortunately, not familiar with the most recent Nevada Supreme Court decision.  Apparently, it was handed down last night, so I can’t address that.  I would urge you to give this serious consideration, and I would urge you not to adopt the subsequent sections after Section 1 of this bill.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

I look at Sections 3 and 4 of A.B. 428 a little differently.  I look at the public board or body “shall” hold a public meeting, and the proponents “may” present, as opening a door for those people to come and talk to people about what they’re talking about.  It doesn’t say who is going to vote on it, but it allows them a forum to come and, in the very place that repudiated them, it makes the public body open the door and say, “Here is our place that’s available and you can make your pitch; you can say what you want.”  That’s how I see that.  It makes the public body open the door for the public to come in and have a forum.  Put it on TV.  That’s how I see that.

 

Patty Cafferata:

They’ve already been there.  They’ve already worked with the planning commission.  I’m speaking specifically of Douglas County now, but this is the process that happened.  They went down and met with the planning commission to try to get what they wanted.  They went to the [county] commissioners.  There was plenty of public debate on this.  This is not something that happened in secret.  Nobody is against any public hearings, but you are putting this in the place, inserting them into the people’s process, and that isn’t done anywhere else in the initiative petition process.  This is specifically directed at what happened in Douglas County on the master plan.  The Nevada Supreme Court said the people have this right, and Douglas County doesn’t want it. 

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I believe in the initiative process.  Don’t get me wrong.  But, I don’t think that this bill does anything to impair the process, and only provides another venue for a public hearing.  I think that’s the intent of the bill.

 

Dan Holler, Douglas County Manager:

[Introduced himself.]  I just wanted to clarify a couple of comments that were made.  One comment by Mr. Garvin that this bill [A.B. 428] was sponsored on behalf of Douglas County is incorrect.  We did not request the bill as a county.  At this point, we have taken a neutral position on the bill.  We do have some legal concerns based on a U.S. Supreme Court case, not a Nevada Supreme Court case.  If the bill does go into a subcommittee, we’d like to be able to work on those issues with members of the subcommittee and Mr. Hettrick.  Otherwise, we’ve taken a neutral position at this point, and have just looked at the bill in terms of how we would actually implement it from a legal perspective.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

My understanding is that the Sustainable Growth Initiative has been taken to court?

 

Dan Holler:

Correct.  It’s in court now.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Who took it to court? 

 

Dan Holler:

The building community, if you will, particular developers and stuff.  Douglas County was also a part of that lawsuit.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

I regret that the Committee has to put up with the rhetoric in regard to this issue.  Six years ago, when I brought forward the bill that increased impact fees that were available in Douglas County and throughout the state of Nevada, all the people who were anti-growth loved me and thought I was a wonderful person.  The builders and developers hated me because they thought it was going to raise costs and impede their ability to build.  Now, when I bring another bill that’s in the opposite vein, and that I believe is doing the exact same thing I thought the previous one did, which is to bring some fairness to the process and make it reasonable that when somebody builds in Douglas County or anywhere else in the state, if they choose to use the impact fees, they pay appropriately and they address issues like schools, parks, and fire protection.

 

It’s always interesting to me that when you get here with a bill that somebody sees as “anti-their-position,” you’re suddenly this terrible villain who ought to be recalled, and I regret that you have to sit through that and that I have to as well.  Reasonable people can look at the same thing and come to different conclusions, and that doesn’t mean that because we differ, one of us is wrong or one of us is right.  I wish it were that black and white, but it is not.  This truly is about informing the public.

 

[Assemblyman Hettrick continued.]  The comment was made, “Mr. Hettrick said he’s not a fan of initiative petitions.”  I’m not.  I think the reason I’m not is very simple.  In 99 percent of the cases that I have seen, when people bring an initiative petition, it’s like a Rubik’s Cube.  You and I and the county commissioners and the people who do master plans must take that Rubik’s Cube and align all the colors to make a pattern that works and makes sense.  People who bring an initiative petition only want the white square on the side that they look at.  That’s all they want.  They want it the way they want it, and they don’t care about the impact on everything else.

 

I think that’s improper.  I think that brings lawsuits, costs, and unintentional consequences to all kinds of people who are affected by that process.  Do I believe in the process?  Yes.  Is it perfect?  No.  Should the electorate be more informed before they vote on initiative petitions?  Absolutely.  Nothing here denies the ability to proceed with an initiative petition.  Nothing stops that process from going forward.  All it says is, you should make the same findings and you may present them.  That’s all it says. 

 

This is about informing the electorate.  What are they afraid of?  They don’t want to make findings?  They don’t want to prove their case?  They don’t want to have to do the exact same things the county and the city is required to do to amend the master plan?  Why?  If it were reasonable to expect it should be amended, why wouldn’t they want to present findings?  That’s all this is about.

 

This is not about the building community and Douglas County and somebody else coming here and trying to take away their initiative petition rights.  It doesn’t affect that in any way.  I find it’s unfortunate that we have to get into that position to testify on bills.  If they truly wanted to work with us on this, I would have heard from some of these people in advance, and they would have offered an amendment to make it more suitable and something that they could work with, but I didn’t get that.

 

I’d like to see this go to a subcommittee and be able to work on the language, and see if we can’t get something that is acceptable to this Committee.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I’m going to close the hearing on Assembly Bill 428.  [Chairman Manendo appointed a subcommittee on Assembly Bill 428 comprised of Mr. Atkinson as Chairman, Mr. McCleary, and Mr. Christensen.]  Mr. Atkinson, if you could take a look at this with the other subcommittee members, see what you can come up with, and bring it back to Committee.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

The Subcommittee on A.B. 427 will meet on Monday, April 7, 2003, at 6:30 a.m.

 

[Chairman Manendo called for a recess at 10:20 a.m.  Chairman Manendo reconvened the meeting at 11:00 a.m.  He opened the hearing on A.B. 540.]

 

Assembly Bill 540:  Revises provisions governing bidders and subcontractors on contracts for public works. (BDR 28-361)

 

Lori Ashton, Representative, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters:

[Introduced herself.]  I’d like to walk you through the amendments that are being passed out [Exhibit J]. 

 

Chairman Manendo:

I believe you want to work from the amendment [Exhibit J], and not the bill [A.B. 540].  Is that correct?

 

Lori Ashton:

That is correct, because there were some misunderstandings with the original draft of the bill.  We’ve gone through and reviewed it, and brought it back to where we felt it should be at this point in time.

 

Since 2001, both the City of Las Vegas and Clark County have adopted prequalification language.  Over that interim, there were some concerns and issues of whether or not certain things that they included in their criteria were within the parameters of the existing statute for the criteria.  Everybody interprets it differently.  We felt there was a need to quantify, clarify, and codify in law those things that have been adopted, in some instances, since 1999.

 

The first section of this amendment [Exhibit J] deals with subcontractors.  For those of you who are familiar with the construction industry, you will note that subcontractors build 90 percent of all public works projects.  Without the ability of an awarding body to address the issues of subcontractors, we feel that it dilutes the whole aspect of prequalification.  We don’t feel that it should be mandated that every public body go through a process of potentially prequalifying for public works.  We did feel that there was a need for an awarding body to have an avenue by which they could remove someone, or deem someone nonresponsive or nonqualified to do the work, because of problems that they’ve had with a particular subcontractor.  This would level the playing field for all general [contractors] bidding, just as the Labor Commissioner does when he reviews wage and hour violations and puts them on a list that says this subcontractor cannot do public works for a period of time.  This would be the same avenue that a public body could implement, based on the listed criteria, to recommend that a subcontractor be put on the list.  That’s what Section 1 of A.B. 540 deals with.

 

[Ms. Ashton continued.]  There is still some concern from the industry.  We thought we had reached the language that was best applicable, being:

 

The State Public Works Board or the governing body of the local government may: (a) Qualify applicants to be subcontractors on a contract for a public work based on the criteria set forth in [NRS] 338.1375,

 

which means if a public body chooses to prequalify all subcontractors, they would use those same criteria that they used for the general contractors.

 

or (b) Deem subcontractors to meet the criteria set forth in [NRS] 338.1375 . . .,

 

meaning it’s a given that they are going to assume that subcontractors are qualified unless the board or public body receives verifiable information indicating that a subcontractor does not meet the criteria.  This same section then goes on to say:

 

Upon receipt of such information, the Board or governing body shall conduct an investigation to determine whether the subcontractor fails to meet the criteria.  If the Board or governing body determines that the subcontractor fails to meet the criteria, the Board or governing body may disqualify the subcontractor for a period not to exceed two years.

 

This is saying that, if either through staff or an outside agency, the awarding body would receive information that says, “I know that this subcontractor has two prior bankruptcies,” or whatever the case may be, such as wage and hour violations, OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] violations, the awarding body will investigate it. 

 

We don’t think this is too much to ask of an awarding or public body to at least investigate a potential problem with subcontractors on their projects.  That was why we entered this in.

 

Going through the rest of the statutes, there is duplication.  NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] Sections 338.1375 and 338.1377 were identical.  One dealt with an application to only the State Public Works Board, while the other one dealt with all the other awarding bodies.

 

[Ms. Ashton continued.]  NRS Chapter 338 is a very large and extensive statute.  Our attempt was to combine the two.  One, that the State Public Works Board has to adopt criteria, and two, that the public body may—and through the industry, they did not like the objectivity of the existing statute which talked about the financial ability, principal personnel—they felt that was too objective, that it needed to be spelled out.  During that interim, we worked with the different bodies and contractors associations to try to reach a semblance of agreement in the language very similar to what is in Assembly Bill 295.

 

After reviewing A.B. 295, we felt pieces were left out that currently exist in the prequalification applications of the Clark County School District, the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the State Public Works [Board].  On page 4 of Exhibit J, under Section 4, subsection 5, because we eliminated the words “whether or not,” Subsections 5, 6, and 7 need to state—Subsection 5, “the applicant has not breached any contracts with a public agency”; in subsection 6, “The applicant has not been disqualified”; and in subsection 7, “The applicant has not been convicted. “

 

In addition to this, there were several criteria.  We added one into the amendment for A.B. 295, because we feel it’s important for public bodies to be able to look at, not only successful projects, but also contracts [where the contractor] failed to perform that were within their jurisdiction to do so.  That didn’t get included.  The other two portions to this would be Subsection 11 on page 5 of the amendment [Exhibit J], which would be, “The applicant filed as a debtor under the United States Bankruptcy Code.”  We thought looking at bankruptcies is important, not just financial ability.

 

Subsection 12 would be, “The application of the applicant is truthful and complete,” because we have found that contractors like to cheat in some of these prequalification processes.  They fail to include all the truth and hope that they don’t get caught, in order to qualify.  We feel that if you’re willing to lie on your application about wage and hour violations or a bankruptcy, then what other misgivings are you going to do to the public body during the length of your contract with them?  We think that a body should have the ability to penalize for failure to file an application correctly. 

 

[Subsection] 13 says, “The applicant has failed to perform any contract during the five years,” and it quantifies what those failures can include.  On the front end of this, it deals with breach of contract.  Those who are familiar with the construction industry know that a breached contract takes two years or more to litigate in court, and that 90 percent or more of all failed projects are resolved through arbitration, bond forfeitures, etc., and are never litigated in the district courts.  This was why we felt breach of contract and failed projects were important to include.

 

[Ms. Ashton continued.]  On page 5, we felt it was important to insert into subsection 3(b), “Within five days after receipt of such an application”—this is talking about if they’ve adopted the criteria—“provide notice of the receipt of the application to:  (1) construction trade associations; (2) labor union representing trades; and (3) other interested person who has requested such notice.”

 

In the existing statute, prior to the implementation of the prequalification criteria, the public body and/or the state had to have a hearing to adopt language that they were going to include.  The fact that we have now gone to where we’re spelling it out, saying this is what you shall use, there won’t be a hearing at that point.  The other portion of notifying other entities when you’re doing an investigation on an application is that the labor commissioner only holds two years of wage and hour violations.  Many times, different organizations have been tracking companies for up to five years.  If they’ve had wage violations, they’ll list the last one from a year ago, but they fail to list those that happened four or five years ago. That’s why we felt that crossover notification, as an avenue to really research the contractor, was important. 

 

The other portions of this—and I think there may be some misunderstandings in the industry—were to basically merge the two existing languages, making them concise, and creating the same requirements, whether it’s a state or local public works project, instead of having two different possibilities. 

 

NRS 338.1383, which is Section 6 on page 6 of Exhibit J read, “If a local government does not adopt criteria for the qualification of bidders on public works, the governing body may only accept a bid on . . .”  The fact that we merged them and we left very subjective criteria, it was changed to say, “If a local government does not elect to implement the criteria . . .” because there is no more formal process to adopt.  There seems to be some confusion there.  Our interpretation of the existing statute is that the state must prequalify contractors.  The other portion of that was that the public bodies may adopt prequalification criteria, or if they choose not to, they have to follow the guidelines in NRS 338.1383.  I believe there is some industry misunderstanding or misinterpretation of that.

 

[Ms. Ashton continued.]  The other mergers included the deletion of NRS 338.143, NRS 338.145, NRS 338.148, and NRS 338.147, because that language is duplicated in NRS 338.1385, NRS 338.1387, NRS 338.139, and NRS 338.1389.  There seems to be confusion within the industry at this point, that they haven’t actually reviewed it word by word.  We thought this dealt with and addressed everybody’s concerns.  At this point, there seems to be some industry concerns with that.  We would strongly support this in its existing form.

 

It appears that a work session may be necessary to review A.B. 295, which encompasses some of this language, plus some of the amendments that eliminates others that we think are very critical.  Perhaps through a work session, we can reach consensus on what to put in and what to take out.  We were comfortable with the existing criteria, allowing the most latitude for public bodies to adopt what they felt was necessary to address the issue.  It was the industries and some of the public bodies that had difficulty interpreting what could be included under those criteria, and that is why they’re coming out with subjectively listing the criteria.  If you list it subjectively, you need to include any and all pieces of that for review.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Does this put any additional burden of proof on the local board?  Typically, a general contractor would accept a bid and look through the subcontractors list.  As I look through all the criteria here, it almost looks like we’re putting additional requirements or duties on the local government.  If something goes wrong, typically it’s the general contractor that should be held responsible, not the local government.  Is there any way you can respond to that?

 

Lori Ashton:

I can try.  The state has already mandated that they adopt prequalifications, so this bill deals with whether or not a public body chooses to adopt the prequalification criteria.  I believe that there needs to be some additional changes made to NRS 338.1383, because that seems like its limiting it to an unlimited general contractor.  I guess our thought would be, review it on the front end or do it on the back end.

 

If a public body adopts the ability to look at how solid this contractor is before they start the work or are allowed to bid, technically they have no vested bidders’ rights.  If you determine, whether it be a subcontractor or a general contractor, that they do not have the financial or the principal personnel wherewithal to even bid on a public works project, you limit their ability to sue or challenge the public body’s denial.  That’s already been taken at the subcontractor level by jet stream through the district courts.

 

[Ms. Ashton continued.]  When the Clark County School District chose to disqualify one based on wage and hour violations, they challenged the ability to be disqualified through the district courts, they appealed it in district court, and it was upheld.  They did not take it to the Supreme Court.  The limited amount of burden on a public body to review a contractor on the front end is well worth the time.  I don’t think this is as extensive as some of the public bodies thought it might have been.  The reality is, once you have set these criteria in place, those that can’t meet it, don’t come.  So, instead of addressing the problems after the fact of a bid, you’re eliminating them on the front end before they bid.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

You review the bid and the general contractor meets the criteria, then if you start approving the sub[contractors] line by line, technically, if one of those subcontractors doesn’t perform, it seems to me that you’ve waived the general [contractor] then, because you approved that sub[contractor].

 

Lori Ashton:

This bill addresses everything that’s done on the front end.  This bill is not addressing the process after a bid.  This is addressing the prequalification of contractors, which means before a contractor can even make a bid, it’s reviewed.  Prequalification is before the fact.  The same thing with the subcontractors.  If you choose to disqualify them, that is done on the front end before they’re even listed as a one or five percent bid, because, under the statutes that still exist, an awarding body can remove a subcontractor for the public’s best interest, because they don’t have the bonding capability, and, I think, because they don’t have the correct license.  Those things are already in statute.  What this bill is doing is front-end work, not after they’re listed on that award.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

What you’re telling me is that if I’m going to bid a $10 million project, I prequalify every subcontractor in the state to determine if he is—if I haven’t bid the project, I don’t know who the contractor’s going to use and who the subcontractors are.  How do I qualify them?

 

Lori Ashton:

You have to do A or B.  A is, if you want to, you could prequalify every potential subcontractor on every bid.  We think that magnitude is ridiculous.  The State Public Works Board has a bill in saying that they want to do everything that’s 5 percent.  That is a burdensome process, but we felt there was a need to say everybody is qualified on the subcontractor level, unless we’ve got problems or we’ve had problems.  Then we wanted to allow the governing body to be able to disqualify them or put them on a nonutilization list, the same way the labor commissioner does.  The Nevada Labor Commission says, “You cheated on wage and hour.  You are no longer able to bid prevailing wage work for two years.”  There’s a list and every general contractor is aware.

 

[Ms. Ashton continued.]  Through this section, we wanted to say, if you want to prequalify, we’re not going to stop you, but that’s a lot of work.  The second part of that, though, is if you have knowledge, and you know that there’s a potential person that keeps coming back, even if they know that they’re not going to perform well, they’ll take that low bid just to be given the project.  This would allow the governing body to look at that on the front end, and put them on their list.  The labor commissioner has list A, the governing body has list B and says we have reviewed it, we’ve used this criteria, they’ve had bankruptcies, they’ve had failed projects, and based on all of this, you can’t use them, which means every general contractor knows on the front end who they can and cannot list.  Does that answer the question?

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

A blacklist for subcontractors that’s available.

 

Lori Ashton:

Every potential bidder.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Technically, if you bid a project and you’ve got your subcontractors list, you could refer to the blacklist whether it was prequalify or post bid.  Typically, that’s what we do now.  We don’t have the blacklist, but there are subcontractors that don’t qualify.

 

Lori Ashton:

Right, and in that respect, that’s what we said.  There are currently a lot of agencies that have had repetitive problems with specialty contractors.  This just codifies into law that you can put them on a list for two years versus having to deal with them after they show up. 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Going clear back to waste water treatment plant that was built over 20 years ago in southern Nevada, we have had problems with contractors.  There are two ways to address them.  One is the State Public Works Board, and the other one is the Nevada State Contractors Board.  New applications come in to the state of Nevada every month, and they kick off about 10 a month, plus they fine and discipline another 10 to 20.  It’s a growing issue with contractors and subcontractors.  As a subcontractor, I deal with a lot of this in a different way, but the way I would try to simplify it, is some stronger language to get things done better.  We’ve got two projects in southern Nevada right now that are costing millions of dollars extra.  We need to find ways to address that better. 

 

[Assemblyman Collins continued.]  It’s like going out to the ranch and you’ve got to hire a bunch of cowboys. They’ve got to ride a horse first.  Prequalifying just means that they can ride that horse well enough to do the job.  It’s that simple.  If they can ride the horse, then they’re prequalified, and then we know they’re going to do the job right so we can be productive in a timely manner and profitable.  It’s just a matter of qualified cowboys on the ranch, qualified nurses in the doctor’s office, or qualified mechanics at the shop.  It makes it easier to get qualified people to do things in a timely way, so it’s necessary.  We need to find language that will work for this.

 

Lori Ashton:

To explain that a little bit further, you’ve prequalified all of these cowboys that can ride a horse, but you find the one that sort of lied, so you want to be able to put him on that list that says, “You tried to be the cowboy, and you couldn’t ride, so you’re not going to come back here.”

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

By having this list and prequalifying your subcontractors, do you feel that gives the general contractor a little escape for variance?  [Assemblyman Collins answered yes, it’s beneficial for the general contractor because it eliminates a lot of heartburn and distress for him.]  But it seems like the local government entity is assuming that in lieu of the general contractor.  I’d just as soon hire you as the general contractor, put you on the hook, review your subcontractors list, and if one of your subcontractors fails, you fail.  That’s typically how most of this bid process works.

 

Lori Ashton:

If we were in that perfect world, none of this would be necessary.  What would happen is, if the general contractor failed to reform, he would be put on the list of not being able to do any more public work projects.  But in the real world, that isn’t what happens.  The second part to that is, in a lot of projects such as HVAC [Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning] remodels and plumbing rehabs, where there may not be a Class B general license, a potential subcontractor could be the prime, and you would have the ability to prequalify him.  If he was being prequalified to do that specialty work and, based on this criteria, you determine that he was not qualified, that same specialty contractor could end up as a subcontractor for the general, and the public body knows that he isn’t qualified to do the work. 

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

A contractor does have to have licensing, correct?  [Ms. Ashton said this was correct.]  Could we put these criteria into the licensing?  For instance, if someone has a failed project in the last two years, maybe they won’t qualify for a public works project, but maybe it wouldn’t exclude them from doing business in the private sector.  Could we put something on their license that says, yes, they meet the criteria to do public works projects?  Am I out of line with that?

 

Lori Ashton:

I don’t know that you’re out of line.  I just don’t think that’s within the regulatory process of NRS Chapter 624.  Currently, the Nevada State Contractors Board does award the 5 percent bidders thing, and that’s based on residency, taxes, et cetera, for public works projects.  I don’t know if the magnitude of that would be beneficial for the Nevada State Contractors Board to address it, because that’s a whole other subject.  We could go into that there needs to be a lot more teeth in the Nevada State Contractors Board, so that when a guy does cheat, or when he has multiple failed projects, or when he violates wage and hours, he needs to not be a contractor.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I was looking for a way of not having to have the local entities go through this process separately.  If we had a centralized system—and maybe this isn’t the way to do it—to see if they meet the criteria when they get their licensing, or renew their licensing annually.

 

Lori Ashton:

[Chairman Manendo asked if there was anything else Ms. Ashton wanted to add.]  I think that covers it.  I think that a potential work session to address all the pieces of both A.B. 540 and A.B. 295 might be in the best interests of the industry as a whole. 

 

Kimberly J. McDonald, MPA, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas:

[Introduced herself.]  We have just been made aware of these amendments, Exhibit J, to A.B. 540.  When we listed we were in support, we went with our amendments that we would like to propose.  We are not in support of these that have been proposed by the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters.  We certainly would be open to any discussions, perhaps a subcommittee or work session, to work through some of the language.  We have our Director of Public Works, Jim Bell, who will provide some brief technical comments.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Do we have the amendments that you’re referring to?  [Ms. McDonald indicated they did not have it.]  I was assuming that since you said you’re not supporting the amendments we have [Exhibit J], but you’re supporting your amendments—I’m saying where are your amendments?  [Ms. McDonald indicated she did not have the amendments.]  So, you’re supporting your amendments that we don’t have.

 

James A. Bell, P.E. Director of Public Works, City of North Las Vegas:

[Introduced himself.]  Our concern is the bill [A.B. 540] as written, and the amendments [Exhibit J] as proposed previously, will complicate the award of a project.  We feel it will increase litigation in the awarding of projects, it will be detrimental to agencies attempting to award projects, and it will be detrimental to the contracting community that would like to receive those projects.

 

We feel a more straightforward plan needs to be adhered to.  Making a determination needs to be based on the contractor providing adequate disclosure of information.  We think we should make a consideration of those disclosed events and, should there be information that becomes available that has been misstated, then a penalty provision needs to be established.  As currently written, all we’re going to do is delay the award.  We’ve seen some projects where that has occurred due to just technical, poor submission of certain documents.

 

We feel if you make certain determinations, it’s possible there could be judgments against the city.  We would not want to make determinations that somehow presuppose that a company has an adequate safety plan.  I think we should make an acknowledgement that they’ve turned in a safety plan, but adequacy—these are the kinds of things we feel uncomfortable with in the law.

 

This goes along with items 7, 8, 9, and 10 on page 6 of A.B. 540.  We feel that, unless they’re properly conditioned, these are not proper for us.  They are important points we should consider.  There are things we could stipulate to, but I’m uncomfortable with the determination.  I’m also uncomfortable with these all-inclusive inquiries where we could end up with “chase our tail” awards.  We may not find all information in every part of the United States.  There may be a variety of offices, or regions, where these companies have ongoing work, and that’s what we’re uncomfortable with.

 

Karyn Wright, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District:

[Introduced herself.]  The Clark County School District was prepared to speak in support of the measure in its original form [A.B. 540].  However, we have also just been given a copy of the amendment [Exhibit J] this morning, and our construction management division has not had an opportunity to review the amendment [Exhibit J].  After review, we would appreciate the opportunity to work with the proponents of the bill.

 

Chairman Manendo:

If you could let them know that we’re going to be moving along very rapidly, and, if they could take a look at it as soon as possible, we’d appreciate it.

 

Jack Jeffrey, representing the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council and the Southern Nevada Water Authority:

[Introduced himself.]  If you recall, you had a hearing last week on A.B. 295.  It was a consensus bill that was clean.  I’d like to suggest that that bill be used as a vehicle, and any amendments that may be done be amended into A.B. 295.  A.B. 540, as it’s currently drafted, would take a lot more work to bring to a consensus than A.B. 295 will.  That would be my recommendation.  I can’t support A.B. 540 the way it is.

 

Steve Holloway, Executive Vice President, Associated General Contractors, Las Vegas Chapter:

[Introduced himself.]  We, too, are opposed to A.B. 540 for the same reasons that Jack Jeffrey has briefly outlined.  The authors of A.B. 540 are very well‑intentioned.  Unfortunately, the best of intentions sometimes lead to some very adverse affects, particularly when you’re dealing with legislation and statutes.  The bill was not satisfactory, even to the author.  This amendment is not satisfactory to labor, the construction industry, or the Public Works [Board] of the state, because it has a lot of unintentional impacts, and I don’t think they can be fixed in the next two weeks. 

 

If you look at Section 6 of Exhibit J, there is a very minor change in paragraph 1, but as a result of that change, this statute could be interpreted to say that, if you do not prequalify your general contractors, then the only other recourse you have is to select or have bid contractors with unlimited contractors’ licenses.  There are very few contractors in this state with an unlimited contractor’s license.  Most A and B contractors, which are general engineering and general building contractors, do not have unlimited contractors licenses.

 

There are entire sections of NRS Chapter 338 that allow specialty contractors to bid on specialty projects who do not have unlimited general contractors licenses.  This amendment [Exhibit J] is replete with those kinds of problems.  Consequently, the AGC [Associated General Contractors] is opposed to this bill [A.B. 540].  On the other hand, A.B. 295, which addresses the same problems that this bill is trying to get at, has the consensus of labor, the construction industry, and the public works industry that have to administer it.  I would recommend that if there are parts of this bill you would like to incorporate into A.B. 295, that you have a work session, because I don’t think you can fix this in one in two weeks.

 

James E. Keenan, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission:

[Introduced himself.]  Our group had a lengthy list of serious concerns, legal, practical, and theoretical, with A.B. 540 as originally drafted.  The amendment [Exhibit J] presented to you this morning cuts that list in half, but there are still a number of major concerns remaining that our group is concerned about.  At this time, we go on record opposing the bill [A.B. 540] and the amendment [Exhibit J] that was presented to you.

 

Justine Chambers, Contract Coordinator, City of Carson City:

[Introduced herself.]  We’re opposed to this bill [A.B. 540] on the general premise of we do not want to prequalify our subcontractors.  We want to have a relationship with our general [contractors].  That’s why we hire general contractors. We agree with Assemblyman Goicoechea’s comments on that.  We’d like to work on amending the bill, if possible, but at this point, we’re opposed.

 

Santana Garcia, Southern Nevada Water Authority:

For the record, the City of Henderson is also opposed to A.B. 540 in its current form, and is willing to work with the proponents on better language.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I am going to close the hearing on Assembly Bill 540.

 

Just to refresh everyone on Assembly Bill 427.  We have a subcommittee of Mr. Collins as Chair, Mr. Grady, Mr. Knecht, and Ms. Pierce.  On Assembly Bill 428, we have a subcommittee of Mr. Atkinson as Chair, Mr. McCleary, and Mr. Christensen.

 

The intention of the Chair on Assembly Bill 540 is to place this in a subcommittee, along with Assembly Bill 295, with the permission of the sponsor of the bill.  Mr. Collins, I’d like you to chair this one as well.  [Chairman Manendo also appointed Mr. Goicoechea and Mr. Atkinson to this subcommittee.]

 

Assemblyman Collins:

We definitely need to address this and find a better way to deal with it.  This Subcommittee on A.B. 540 and A.B. 295 will meet this Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 6:30 a.m.

 

Assembly Bill 245:  Makes various changes regarding conversion of manufactured home park into individual manufactured home lots.  (BDR 22-1080)

 

Chairman Manendo:

Committee, please turn to Assembly Bill 245.

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst:

[See Exhibit K.]  Assembly Bill 245 was sponsored by Assemblyman Collins.  It facilitates the conversion of a manufactured home park into individual home lots by restricting the conditions that can be placed on such a conversion by a local government.  The bill also extends from 75 days to 90 days the period of time in which a tenant has to accept an offer for the sale of a lot, and also the period of time during which the landlord cannot offer the lot for more favorable terms.  The bill also clarifies that notice of application for a land use change or an offer to sell does not constitute a notice of termination of the tenancy. 

 

Amendments were proposed at the hearing by Dan Musgrove, representing Clark County.  He proposed an amendment that would allow local governments to restrict subdivisions of such manufactured home parks in areas affected by airport accident zones, and where there would be a violation of applicable building or fire codes.

 

A mock-up of the proposed amendment [Exhibit K] as approved by the sponsor—as you turn the page, in the text box, you’ll see that the text box indicates the amendment was proposed by Clark County to restrict subdivisions that violate certain codes.  The sponsor did not accept the amendment that would restrict the subdivision in airport accident zones.  No fiscal impact at either the state or local level.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Ms. Scholley, that was very good, with one exception from later, and I apologize for not responding to you sooner.  Not only not supporting the broad nature of the airport amendment that was proposed by Clark County, but the green lines on page 1—those lines would kill the bill because of all the building codes.  They would immediately level the place and turn it into—by meeting their building codes for a single residential lot, no manufactured mobile home park lot—nearly all of them would be disqualified as meeting that single residential lot.  After research, the recommendation would be to pass the bill as it was drafted originally without any amendments.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I’m assuming we’re talking about a rental mobile home park, and at the point you offer any portion of those for sale, then you are creating a de facto subdivision, because that means they all would ultimately have to be sold, correct?  How does zoning address that?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

It could be.  Say a person owns a mobile home park now, and they’re renting or leasing all those lots, and they decide they want to sell—the law allows an opportunity for those current tenants to buy their specific lot.  That’s the intention.  They could buy their lot and stay there, because those utilities that come into there are, with a couple of exceptions, single and metered at each lot.  Part of addressing that would be if they’re master metered, then there would be some other requirements that they would have to set up amongst themselves.

 

As far as giving them the first right to buy that lot before it was sold, another situation could be that, due to redevelopment, road widening, or whatever, the park would no longer be efficient.  If there are only a few lots left, the opportunity is that they could see those five or ten lots left out of the park when the rest of it turned into something else.  It’s a first right by the tenant to get the opportunity versus it being sold to someone else.  Does that help you?

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Yes.  The way I read it, the decision has been made by the park owner to go ahead and divide it.  They’ve technically met all the zoning requirements and all the subdivision requirements to divide those parcels into however many parcels there were, right?  [Assemblyman Collins answered that originally the lots were divided with the intent of a mobile home park.]  Now we would be creating new lot lines along those lines, and they would become independent parcels.  Again, all the zoning, the planning commission, everybody, has bought into creating these little lots so that we can sell them to these people, correct?  [Assemblyman Collins replied that these are existing lots with manufactured homes on them.]

 

Again, it looks like the owner of the mobile home park has to jump through all those hoops that are required by your planning commission or your zoning, and they have to have all of that in place when these parcels are created, and all you’re doing is giving this person that lives there the first opportunity to buy it.  [Assemblyman Collins answered that was the intent.]  What happens if they get a 50 percent sellout?  Does that pose a hardship to the guy that owns the park?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

If there was one lot here and one lot there that was sold off, the two parties, in their escrow or in their sales contract, would have to agree that the survey costs of those lots—the owner would probably would have to, in advance, designate those parcels for the tax assessor.  That would all have to go through escrow at the time of a sale if one were to take place.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Do you see what I’m saying?  Maybe there are 50 lots in this mobile home park, and what happens if only 20 people—or it might be only one person—exercise the option?  [Assemblyman Collins said you own your land until you lose it or sell it.]  Does that cause a hardship on the owner of the park if he only had a percentage of his lots sold?  [Assemblyman Collins answered that it is the owner of the park that is offering to sell.]

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I’m assuming he’s offering to sell so he can either vacate or move out.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

He can put in conditions that if they don’t all sell, no sale takes place.  That would be up to the owner.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

That’s what I’m looking for.  I could see 10 people exercise their option and the other 40 don’t.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

That’s not infringement.  There might be some older parks that are pretty crummy throughout the state that might be a little more concerned than the newer parks that meet a higher standard, but I can’t think of how that could offset the benefit that this would create.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I clearly see the intent and what you’re doing with this, which is to make sure the guy—they want to build a K-mart, so he goes in there and vacates the park and doesn’t give those people that are living there the opportunity to purchase their property.

 

Assemblyman Grady:

I also agree in theory with the bill [A.B. 245].  What would happen if they are on a master meter for water or power?  Are we creating a number of individual little water companies that may fall back on the local government?  If the individual that had the park moves and sold half of them, who controls the water?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

The case would be compared to where you’ve got cul-de-sacs and groups of homes on a well or a master water system.  I was thinking more of the electric because I know of a couple of cases in parks in Clark County that are on a master electric where they have high voltage meters out at the front of the park.  This could be done the same way, which it probably already is.  They share the cost as a homeowners’ association or a park association might, and those things could all be defined before a legitimate sale could be made, as far as I’m concerned.  That would have to be arranged between the buyer and seller before something like this could take place.  Those are problems within the location that would be addressed.  I wouldn’t sell you a piece of land that wasn’t suitable that you could get water and power from—buyer beware on the other side of it.  Don’t buy the lot unless you know that those things are going to be taken care of.

 

Assemblyman Grady:

That is my exact concern.  What if someone such as an elderly person were to buy this, and was not advised of what was going to happen?  I could see some real problems, and I’m not sure I can support this.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Don’t you feel, Mr. Grady, under Section 2, item 1, that it’s already in existing statute that the landlord may convert an existing manufactured home park, if the change is approved by the appropriate local zoning board or planning commission?  Don’t you think that enters into it, that they have the right to approve it?  The way I read it, unless I’m misreading something, clearly this can’t happen.

 

Assemblyman Grady:

I would hope so, but I’m nervous the way it is written.  I’m a little leery of it.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

It looks like it would go through a public process based on what Assemblyman Goicoechea is saying, and that’s why I didn’t see anybody having a concern with it.  That would be a negotiated deal up front.  If the local body didn’t approve it, it’s not going to happen.  That’s why I didn’t feel any of the amendments needed to be in there with the existing language, and I should have been more clear about that.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

I see no reason to have the green language that was proposed by Las Vegas if they have the ability under Section 3 to already turn it down under their planning commission or their zoning changes.  [Assemblyman Grady stated that if local governments weren’t here to complain about it, let it go.]

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Perhaps the sponsor of the bill could allay some of my heartburn on line 6, Section 1, “or other restrictions as a condition of approval.”  Is that where we had local governments having heartburn about other restrictions that aren’t named, whether that be electrical, water, common landscaping or, if we don’t have some other restrictions that we’ve created on a subdivision?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

The intention there is so that local government can’t kill it by saying you have to enlarge the lot or you have to move your setback to current zoning.  It doesn’t make them come up to new standards.  The intention is to stay with the existing standards as when the park was set up, or the latest standards they had to meet with an enlargement or a modification of that park.  The intent there is that they wouldn’t make them have to meet a 6,100 square foot zoning, or a 6,500 square foot residential zoning, or make the meter be mounted on the house instead of on a pedestal—those kind of nitpicky things.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

The way I read that is the “existing” is the lot sizes and setbacks, and then it says “or other restrictions” and so I don’t track the word “existing” over to “other restrictions.”  It almost sounds like there could be other restrictions.  Your legislative intent I agree with.  I feel comfortable with that, and I like the phraseology you used, with existing restrictions.  If you have that word, it could link to restrictions and existing restrictions, not more restrictions.  I think there’s going to be electrical, or water, or landscaping, or something that’s going to be in there that is problematic, depending upon what their source of that utility may be.  That’s just a concern I would have.

 

If I could repeat what Mr. Goicoechea said, there may be a comma or some other punctuation, that links those better instead of separates them.  Does that make sense, Mr. Collins?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

That would link “lot sizes,” “setback,” or “other restrictions?”

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

And make them all “existing.”

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Or to read, “any change to existing lot sizes, comma, setbacks, comma, or restrictions not otherwise existing.” 

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

What I think Assemblyman Hardy is trying to get at is to say, “any change to existing lot sizes, existing setbacks, or other existing restrictions,” to make sure that “existing” covers everything.  Is that correct?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Do you not think it does that, if it’s our intent for it to do that?

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

I think your intent is correct, and I like the intent.  I see a separation of “existing” when you insert the words “or other restrictions,” so “other restrictions” implies more restrictions that aren’t already existing.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

“Or other existing restrictions”—is that what you’re looking for?

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Right.  That kind of concept would clarify for others to come in the next millennium.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

If you go back to the line before, it says “may not require.”  It doesn’t say “shall not require.”  This is very enabling.  “Other restrictions” could be such as when the lots were first approved in that park, they had to have one tree and an 8 x 10 area of grass.  Those are the kinds of things that the local government might use to not allow the action.  It’s very enabling.  This is for willing participants.

 

Assemblyman Pierce:

I’m okay with this. 

 

Chairman Manendo:

Mr. Collins, if we could take a day or two; staff has some suggestions that could put a few things to make folks more comfortable with exactly what an owner can pass along to the park.  Maybe that’s something we could all hold hands on.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

That would be fine, so that we address that, if everyone is willing, this can transpire versus it being just plowed over, and that folks are able to stay there, like the senior folks Mr. Grady was talking about.  They have an opportunity to stay there on the property, even though most of the park may be going away.

 

Chairman Manendo:

This was some dialogue we needed to do, so we have some feelings about where we’re going.  Thank you, Mr. Collins.  I appreciate that.

 

Assembly Bill 388:  Authorizes creation of health and welfare benefit trust for employees of local government employers. (BDR 23-762)

 

Chairman Manendo:

Let’s turn to Assembly Bill 388, Mrs. Koivisto’s bill.

 

Susan Scholley:

[See Exhibit L.]  Assembly Bill 388 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Koivisto.  It allows the local government and an employee organization recognized under [NRS] Chapter 288 to create a trust fund for the purpose of providing health and welfare benefits for the active and retired employees and their dependents of the participating governments.  Representatives of the Nevada Education Association proposed several amendments, which are included in the mock-up.  [Exhibit L]  There was a very minor change on page 2 to change “employee organization” as used in that line to “entity” to broaden the applicability.  Sections 9 and 10 are proposed for deletion, so that the trust would determine to what extent reinstatement would be offered to a former participant.  Section 10 is being deleted because there was universal agreement that justices and judges are state employees and wouldn’t be affected by the bill.

 

There was opposition.  Woody Thorne was neutral on the bill, but he indicated that he opposed the deletion of Section 9.  No fiscal impact to local or state government.  I did not include it in the mock-up [Exhibit L], but there was some testimony about the need to add some additional language on page 2, lines 20 through about 24, and whether it needed to be more clear that it could be some combination of those benefits.  Although that amendment is not indicated, it would also be part of the proposal, to clarify that it’s not in the disjunctive and that there could be a combination of these benefits.  I think the “or” probably does that, but to be abundantly clear and cautious, we would go ahead and propose that be added.  [Assemblywoman Koivisto stated she thought the amendments clarified what the intent of the legislation was.]  [Chairman Manendo asked Debbie Cahill if she was comfortable with the amendments.]

 

Debbie Cahill, Director of Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association:

This represents the amendments as we proposed them.  I know Mr. Penrose testified that “or” in the language about which benefits could be offered, and it’s not intended that all of those be mandated, so anything else that could be done to clarify that would be fine.  As it is, this amendment represents our intent.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 388.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PIERCE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  [Assemblyman Williams was absent for the vote.

 

********

Assembly Bill 483:  Requires governing bodies of local governments to grant preference to local bidders bidding on certain local governmental contracts for goods or services. (BDR 27-575)

 

Chairman Manendo:

If the Committee would turn to Assembly Bill 483.  This bill was withdrawn.  The intention is to have a motion to “IP” this bill.  It was on behalf of Elko County.  It did not have a hearing.  They withdrew their bill.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 483.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  [Assemblyman Williams was absent for the vote.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I appreciate your hard work.  If you could look at the amendments for A.B. 332  [Exhibit M] so we can do that soon.  Anything else to come before the Committee?  We are adjourned.  [12:20 p.m.]

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Pat Hughey

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman

 

 

DATE: