Good morning.

This is the recommended committee for September 14th, 2026.

We're officially called the order.

I'm assuming we are in compliance with the open meeting law.

Yes, we are.

Moving on to an item number five.

Bill number 226-32 for possible action amends LVMC to make certain changes to LVMC Title 19 to clarify the meaning and interpretation of the term general plan, the term by right, and provisions related to commercial and residential lighting standards.

This is proposed by Seth T.

Floyd, our executive director of community development.

I will turn it over to Peter.

No mic.

There you go.

All right.

All right.

So happy Monday, everyone.

Mr.

Lowenstein, happy Monday.

So good morning, Mr.

Chairman.

The proposed bill addresses the following.

The term general plan will be ascribe the meaning of master plan as used in NRS chapter 278 for consistency between state and local law.

The term by right will be replaced by permitted use, which more accurately describes the use identified in the municipal code Title 19 as allowed within a particular zoning district without requiring additional review by the city.

And this amendment also addresses a conflict between lighting standards for commercial and industrial districts and residential adjacency standards.

And with that, that is the totality of the bill.

Thank you.

That was very sissing.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing for anybody who would like to comment.

We'll close the public comment hearing period.

Are there any questions up here?

Move to approve.

And post.

And that bill 2026-3.2 will be up for adoption on October 7th, 2026.

Moving on to item number six, bill number 2026-3 for possible action.

Amends LVMC chapter 6.02 to clarify the existing language related to how civil fines are assessed.

This is also proposed by Seth T.

Floyd, our executive director of community development.

And I will turn it over to Ms.

Adel by Hurt.

Good morning, Chairman.

Darcy Addle by Heard, the uh business licensing manager.

Um, yes, as you said, this uh bill uh 2633 is making clarifying changes to chapter 6.02 as related to our civil fines um and notice of violation process.

The amendment clarifies how civil pine civil penalties escalate when the business fails to respond and pay.

Um a business has 30 days to respond to the notice of violation.

If no response is received, a penalty is equal to the original fine as assessed, um, basically doubling the original fine, and a notice of delinquency is then issued, providing an additional 15 calendar days to pay.

If the payment is still not received, a second penalty equal to the original fine is assessed, uh, basically a triple uh fine.

So this is not changing what we're doing, it's just clarifying the language so it's very clear as to the progression of fines.

That is very clear to me.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing for anybody who would like to comment.

Hearing and seeing none, we'll close the public comment periods.

Or any questions up here.

Just to have a quick one.

Um so my question is uh the language that we are not now adding.

Is it um had it been lacking in the past and had we been questioned as to whether our practices were sound and was it um a mute or a moot area and by which then attorneys love to hang on to to say, well, it's not clearly stated, it's not clearly articulated, therefore we don't owe you the fines that you are assessing us.

I just kind of want to know the why.

Uh through your chairman.

Um the language was uh interpreted a couple of different ways by even within our own uh division.

So when we were trying to explain it to somebody, we were finding that everybody was understanding it a little bit differently differently.

We did not have any pushback from anybody paying it any time that they had to pay it, it was paid.