Bill to let cities align planning‑commission terms with appointing authority draws support and objections

Senate Bill 48, heard April 30 by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, would permit cities to pass ordinances making planning commissioners’ terms coterminous with their appointing authority and to allow commissioners to serve at the appointing authority’s pleasure. City of Reno representatives described the measure as enabling language that mirrors existing practice in Clark County and said the bill does not mandate changes; it only allows local governments to adopt ordinances if they choose.

Nick Ciccone, government affairs manager for the city of Reno, told the committee the amendment set would remove a number of deleted sections and add two provisions affecting planning‑commission terms, allowing a municipality to adopt an ordinance to make commissioners coextensive with the appointing authority and to serve at the appointing authority’s pleasure. Ciccone emphasized that “the bill does not actually change the existing process in the city of Reno. It allows the city of Reno to change our process through an ordinance process,” adding that such local changes would be subject to standard public‑meeting notice and multiple readings.

Local governments and industry groups largely testified in support. The Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency, the Nevada League of Cities, North Las Vegas, builders’ associations, construction trade organizations and local labor representatives said the bill would improve alignment between elected governing bodies and their planning commissions and provide local flexibility.

A cluster of planning commissioners and licensed planners testified in opposition, citing concerns about procedural safeguards and potential politicization of quasi‑judicial bodies. Manny Becerra, a planning commissioner who said he was speaking in an individual capacity, said the amended bill “represents a notable departure from its original aim to strengthen the role of master plans as binding frameworks for land use decisions” and warned the change risks creating “ambiguities” in a process that should be “grounded in clarity, consistency and public trust.”

Several planning commissioners urged the committee to preserve public‑hearing protections for removal decisions. Sylvia Villanueva, an attorney and planning commissioner who testified in a personal capacity, told the committee the bill’s Section 14 “makes changes to subsection 5 of NRS 278.04” and that the amended language “authorizes the Planning Commissioner to be removed for any reason even without just cause,” adding that it would “undercut the public hearing process” and weaken transparency and accountability.

Dr. Carrie Rohrermeyer, chair of the Reno Planning Commission speaking in an individual capacity, said removal for “good cause” without a public hearing would risk chilling independent, evidence‑based decision making by commissioners who sit on quasi‑judicial boards and evaluate projects based on findings and legal standards. Multiple witnesses requested the sponsors consult planning commissioners before advancing changes and asked that any removal authority include clear criteria and a required public hearing.

Proponents reiterated that the bill is enabling and that any local ordinance would be adopted through the usual public process with notice and multiple readings. The City of Reno’s spokesman said a local ordinance would typically require two public readings and opportunities for public feedback.

The committee took testimony and did not record a final vote on SB 48 during the April 30 hearing.