MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 29, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:06 p.m., on Monday, March 29, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Ricka Benum, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Richardson, Administrator, Division of State Parks
Wayne Perock, Chief of Field Operations, Division of State Parks
Bob Martin, Chief of Planning and Development, Division of
State Parks
Bud Wolf, Carson City, Nevada
Gil Forsyth, representing the Good Sam Club
Tony D'Andrea, Reno, Nevada
Tom Stephens, Manager, Public Works Board
Chairman O'Connell announced Senator Hickey would give a brief outline of the interim study of State Parks.
Senator Hickey informed the committee members the subcommittee appointed by the Legislative Commission consisted of nine legislators. The outcome was a total of 24 recommendations addressing
the overall policies for the State Park System and general parks-related issues. Twelve of the recommendations relate to funding for the Division of State Parks.
Senator Hickey explained the subcommittee findings that the legislature should fund major park maintenance and renovation projects over the next 3 bienniums, with routine operations and maintenance costs being funded at a minimum rate of 5 percent of the cost of acquisition and development. He indicated a slide presentation was forthcoming that would illustrate park deterioration and substantiate the need for maintenance funding.
Continuing, Senator Hickey said, to provide revenue for financing roads and parking areas, it was recommended a fee of $20 per year on the registration of recreational vehicles be imposed. The subcommittee also supported the establishment of a Nevada State Parks Foundation as a nonprofit corporation for public benefit.
Senator Hickey reported the subcommittee recommended appropriating $360,000 for the establishment of a Technical Services Unit within the Department of Museums and History. The unit would provide assistance to state agencies in cultural resource-related activities. These activities would include archeological survey, preparation of initial environmental impact statements, preservation of artifacts, and the design, construction, or installation of exhibits.
Senator Hickey introduced Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, who staffed the interim study, to provide an overview of each measure.
Mr. Welden presented his outline of all the bills scheduled, in order to attend the other subcommittee meetings, which he staffs. He began with Senate Bill (S.B.) 281.
SENATE BILL 281: Authorizes administrator of division of state parks of state department of conservation and natural resources to collect fees from senior citizens for special services. (BDR 35-270)
Mr. Welden stated S.B. 281 would amend Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 407.065, by eliminating the statutory prohibition against charging senior citizens for special services. The Division of State Parks, with advice from the State Park Advisory Commission, would be given the authority to regulate senior citizen charges. Mr. Welden said testimony from the parks division indicated a 1987-1988 survey indicated senior citizens were willing to pay a portion of appropriate costs. The survey also showed 12 percent of park visitors are seniors, with two-thirds being Nevada residents.
The parks division suggested it be given the authority to develop regulations implementing alternative approaches to park fees for senior citizens. The options discussed included a 25 or 50 percent discount, rather than the 100 percent discount, senior fees charged only during high use times, or at certain times of the year.
Mr. Welden moved on to explain the basis for S.B. 282.
SENATE BILL 282: Expands exemption from requirement that state public works board furnish engineering and architectural services for certain buildings. (BDR 28-265)
Mr. Welden informed the committee existing law requires the State Public Works Board to furnish engineering and architectural services for most types of state constructions projects, with the exception of improvements, other than buildings, made in state parks.
According to Mr. Welden testimony indicated that the Division of State Parks is proficient in providing its own engineering type services, either by contract or with in-house expertise. Typically, the division is authorized by the Public Works Board to hire consultants for assistance, due to its own heavy workload. Mr. Welden noted testimony also indicated the process for obtaining authorization or having work handled by the board was time- consuming.
Mr. Welden continued by outlining S.B. 283 and S.B. 284.
SENATE BILL 283: Repeals requirements relating to notice of meetings of state park advisory commission which are supplementary to general requirements relating to notice of all meetings for public bodies. (BDR 35-887)
SENATE BILL 284: Eliminates requirements concerning notice of meetings of state park advisory commission which conflict with requirements of open meeting law. (BDR 35-263)
It was observed by Mr. Welden that S.B. 283 and S.B. 284 were identical bills. Indicating that S.B. 283 was a result of the interim study, he offered that possibly the State Park Advisory Commission requested S.B. 284 prior to the completion of the study, ending in the duplication of bills.
Mr. Welden explained under current law the State Park Advisory Commission must post notification and an agenda 30 days before its regular meetings. The commission's comments on proposed bills are needed within a much shorter time frame, especially during the legislative session. The subcommittee concluded that the 30-day time frame was ineffective and that the park commission should be subject to the same provisions as other agencies, in compliance with Nevada's open meeting law. S.B. 283 amends NRS 407.033 by deleting subsection 2, leaving the State Park Advisory Commission subject to the notification provisions of the open meeting law.
John Richardson, Administrator, Division of State Parks, introduced Wayne Perock, Chief of Field Operations and Bob Martin, Chief of Planning and Development, whom he said would address specifics of the individual bills. (Please refer to Exhibits C through E.)
Mr. Perock agreed with Mr. Welden's explanation of S.B. 281. He stated Nevada is the only state park system that offers a 100 percent discount to seniors, other states offer some degree of financial discount.
Senator Nevin inquired if the fee seniors would be charged had been determined.
Mr. Perock stated that had not yet been determined. Mr. Richardson interjected the process used previously to establish recommended fees, was to hold public hearings in each of the six districts of the state, receive public input and then make fee adjustments as necessary.
Chairman O'Connell questioned Mr. Richardson if the division normally names the state parks, or if it is left up to counties. Mr. Richardson stated he could recall only one time a park name was changed and the usual course seems to be when the legislation is introduced the name is already selected.
Mr. Richardson was asked by Chairman O'Connell to explain the two fee structures referred to in S.B. 281. He explained:
An example would be...a park entrance fee, picnic fee, the camping or boat launch fee will be fairly similar across the state in relation to the services we provide...special situations would be particularly in group use areas...where fees are established by the number of folks using that group use facility...another example would be...if someone wanted to use [a facility] for a special event...to benefit a particular organization...that would be [considered a special fee]...
Chairman O'Connell clarified that the division was not providing any special service to these groups, but rather waiving or adjusting fees.
Mr. Richardson indicated that was correct and that the division considers waiving fee whenever requested, citing as an example boy scout groups. He also indicated it had not been discussed during the interim study how a fee structure would be determined for seniors.
The fees structure for park use was outlined by Mr. Perock, and it was pointed out that Nevada's park service fees are the lowest in 11 western states.
Senator Nevin inquired how much inmate assistance is used for park maintenance. Mr. Richardson was unable to cite the actual figures, but indicated it was a substantial amount. Mr. Richardson stated he would provide a copy of the report done by his division on the inmate service figures to the senator.
Senator Nevin expressed concern over the proposed closure of some honor camps and the effect it would have on the services in which the inmates assist. Mr. Richardson said those figures are included in the report.
Senator Rhoads questioned why the population growth figures do not parallel park use figures.
Mr. Perock explained the park use is affected by drought or high water limiting the number of beaches where services can be provided. He pointed out when storm patterns coincide with holidays or weekends park attendance is drastically reduced. The impact is greatly affected since the weekend user accounts for the peak uses.
Bud Wolf spoke in opposition to S.B. 281 as a concerned senior citizen. Mr. Wolf said he was speaking for the 35 to 40 senior citizens in the audience. He stated the repeal of the senior citizen exemption permits would cause unnecessary burden on seniors the majority of whom must adhere to a fixed income. Mr. Wolf listed the reasons he wished the committee members to consider from prepared text, which is referenced as Exhibit F.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Perock to share with the committee members what would account for the estimated $100,000 shortfall.
Mr. Perock stated the actual shortfall figure was $111,000. He said the figure represents the amount the division is short compared to the amount projected by the budget office for fee collections. According to Mr. Perock, the shortfall was directly impacted by the drought.
Mr. Perock continued that S.B. 281 was not a result of the shortfalls but, rather primarily arose from the 1987 survey of seniors, that indicated the willingness to pay a portion of park fees.
Gil Forsyth, representing the Good Sam Club, stated the membership of the club in Nevada totals 28,000, with an average age of 62. The main concern expressed by Mr. Forsyth was that the recreational vehicle (RV) owners are being singled out to bear the burden of park and park road maintenance. He continued by pointing out that seniors are not reluctant to do their fair share but, S.B. 281 along with other legislation aimed at RV owners will result in the seniors paying quite a bit more than a fair share.
Mr. Forsyth indicated that many times in Nevada's parks there is no one tending the gates to collect the fee. He stated the end result is the only ones paying are the RV people, this would have to account for some loss of revenue.
Senator Raggio clarified that seniors were not charged anything at present and the revenue this would bring is approximately $30,000. He then commented:
...this is an area that strikes a nerve with me...I have had a special concern about this issue...I have been resisting session after session...increasing the fees for seniors for fishing and hunting...this argument...that seniors are the ones who most use our fisheries...and therefore, they should be paying more than they are paying...I feel much the same about this proposal...first of all if we are only talking about $30,000...we ought to quit even talking about this bill...that is peanuts...that is not going to help our budget problem very much...if it is only a $30,000 issue I think we are wasting our time...I am a little tired of hearing about the seniors using these facilities and not paying anything for the use of them...most of those of us who are seniors are beyond the point for example, where we have children in school and yet we are paying all these property taxes, and we are not getting any direct benefit for that...we are subsidizing all the other citizens who have children in school...we have gone through that era...I really have a problem with the argument that seniors therefore, are not paying for these kinds of services, and schools is only one of them...we [seniors] are subsidizing a lot of other services that are provided in this state...services that have no direct application to seniors...for those reasons I do not support a measure of this kind...this is a "perk" if you want to call it that...that people have earned...I do not think it is something that we should take away merely because it is going to result in $30,000 additional revenue...I would be opposed even to some reduced amount, unless it was absolutely necessary...I just do not think that is appropriate at this time...I think that this group of citizens has paid its way, over a period of time, and has earned some privileges, and I do not think it is taking undo advantage...
Senator Lowden asked for clarification from Mr. Forsyth that his organization was not opposed to fees as long as they were equitable.
Mr. Forsyth indicated the Good Sam Club supports the Nevada members request not to repeal the exemption for seniors. However, in referring to another proposed bill that would tack an additional $20 a year on to the licensing of RV's, he indicated he would oppose that type of bill.
Mr. Richardson clarified the budget included across the board increases for motor boat users, daily park users and campers. He pointed out that seniors were not being singled out, that others were making significant contributions.
Tony D'Andrea, Reno, Nevada, voiced agreement with Senator Raggio's comments.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 281 and opened the meeting to comments on S.B. 282.
Mr. Richardson stated the parks division has had the authority to address most of its construction over the years, the only exception being architecture. He reiterated Mr. Welden's remarks and also indicated that under normal circumstances the Public Works Board has not had the time to take care of the entire process when it comes to building and completing park construction, consequently, authorization has been given for outside contracts. Mr. Richardson stated when a the budget is submitted to the legislature, any consultant fees are included.
Tom Stephens, Manager, Public Works Board, apologized to Senator Hickey for not monitoring the interim study on state parks, or offering input from the board.
Mr. Stephens stated the Public Works Board is the agency charged with the responsibility of checking the building plans of all public buildings. According to Mr. Stephens:
...it would be a waste of money to decentralize the building construction throughout the state, any agency could come here with the same request...and some of them would have a lot more
projects...for example the prisons...or one of the universities...we delegate many projects to them to be done "in-house" with us doing the plan checking and checking on the construction...we also withhold some things that we feel are so complex that we should do them ourselves. I think it would be a waste of money...to go ahead and have exceptions like this for any agency, including parks...you have a potential that it might be unsafe...there is a public safety issue with buildings that you do not have with other park facilities. Generally, in construction the hazards are in buildings... ingress and egress..in my mind...and I am talking about more substantial buildings than a little gazebo or an outhouse somewhere...and parks have those more substantial types buildings.
Mr. Stephens summarized by listing his three points:
...I do not think [the system] is broke, it would be a waste of money and the public safety implications...we are willing to work with the parks department...in discussion before coming here I let them know where we are at [stand]...I talked to the Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and indicated to him the staff people in parks... that if they need more lead time in doing some of these things, they can give us their whole program and we can delegate certain things to their...and we do that for agencies... especially if we feel they have the capability of doing certain things...for like smaller rest room buildings and other things...maybe there would not be any plan check...but for any of their larger facilities, there certainly would be a requirement for that...
Senator Hickey brought up that complaints heard during the interim study was the delay time in dealing with the Public Works Board. He asked if Mr. Stephens could assure the committee that those delays could be alleviated.
Mr. Stephens stated:
I can assure you that I have set up this agency, and I had to, by the new budget, as a fee-based agency, and I recognize that if we cannot provide the service, we are not going to get the fees in a timely manner...and there is going to be more than one agency over here complaining about our services...so we have got to operate it like a business. I cannot speak to what has happened...I can only speak to what is going on today and everybody in my department knows that their production is on the line...and that we are eliminating any fat that we can ...I cannot absolutely guarantee you that there will not be some problem with some project...I cannot give that kind of
guarantee...I am...cognizant of the fact that I am in a service agency...and a fee-based agency...and if we do not provide the service...we are not going to survive as an essential part of state government.
Mr. Martin commented the budgets of the Public Works Board and the state parks capital improvement budgets are not compatible. He explained, as an example, when state parks applies for and gets approval in its budget for a campground facility with a rest room, the same is not included in the budget for the public works, therefore, parks must go to the board "after the fact", adding on to their workload. Continuing, Mr. Martin stated the park funds revert in 2 years if they are not used, whereas, the Public Works Board does not work with reverting funds. When emergencies occur (for the Public Works Board) other projects are put on the back burner. Mr. Martin further explained, for instance, when a roof starts leaking, a park bathroom does not have much importance to the Public Works Board, and this can cause a delay of a couple of months. However, the parks division still must regard its projects as a priority, so as not to lose the funds within that 2-year time frame.
Mr. Richardson stated in his tenure with state government he has worked with four different managers of the Public Works Board, and always found them more than helpful and cooperative. However, the situations explained by Mr. Martin have occurred many times. He said the board has always done as best as it could to accommodate the parks people.
Mr. Stephens agreed the 2-year time frame to complete projects, beginning-to-end is very tight and hard to accomplish.
Chairman O'Connell closed the testimony on S.B. 282 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 283.
Mr. Richardson indicated Mr. Welden explained the measure very well. He stated that the State Park Advisory Commission's concern involved their requirement to set their meeting place and time 30 days in advance, all other agencies must adhere to a 3-day time frame. Mr. Richardson continued that the general consensus was that the commission be allowed to be a part of the Nevada Open Meeting Law, as all other agencies, rather than apart from it.
Chairman O'Connell requested a motion to indefinitely postpone
S.B. 284.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 284.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND CALLISTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
There being no further business Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:18 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ricka Benum,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
March 29, 1993
Page 1