MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Sixty-seventh Session
March 31, 1993
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman R. Hal Smith, at 8:36 a.m., on Wednesday, March 22, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Vice Chairman
Senator Ernest E. Adler
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Mark A. James
Senator Dina Titus
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman James W. McGaughey
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Rayanne Francis, Senate Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ray E. Blehm, Jr., State Fire Marshall, Nevada Department of
Commerce
Virginia Valentine, Chief Engineer and General Manager, Clark
County Regional Flood Control District
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Clark County
Marvin Leavitt, Special Assistant to the City Manager, City of
Las Vegas
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 126.
ASSEMBLY BILL 126: Directs state fire marshall to develop reference for use by personnel responding to emergencies involving hazardous materials.
Ray E. Blehm, Jr., State Fire Marshall, Nevada Department of Commerce, introduced himself to members of the committee. He explained this bill had been drafted as a result of an interim study which recommended that first responders have some clear level of guidance on hazardous materials incidents.
Mr. Blehm testified the State Fire Marshall Division would perform the functions set forth in A.B. 126 and supported passage of the bill.
Senator Rhoads inquired if Mr. Blehm had an estimate of A.B. 126's fiscal impact. Mr. Blehm admitted there would be associated costs with publishing a reference guide. He commented that section 3, subsection 2 stated the cost of developing the guide will be funded by the hazardous materials contingency account.
Mr. Blehm envisioned the publication would be similar to a small pamphlet, and estimated a total cost of 10 to 20 cents per pamphlet. Senator Rhoads asked if the contingency account had enough money to absorb the associated costs of publishing this pamphlet. Mr. Blehm explained a major portion of the contin-gency account monies were derived from the hazardous materials permit fee collected by the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), totalling approximately $180,000/annually.
Chairman Smith explained he had some reservations about A.B. 126 in its current form. He did not object to publishing the pamphlet, but stressed it was important to emphasize the utilization of the pamphlet. He asked Mr. Blehm for his cooperation in exploring this issue further and to assist in the development of an appropriate amendment to A.B. 126. Mr. Blehm offered his cooperation to Chairman Smith.
Chairman Smith closed the hearing A.B. 126 and referred it to a subcommittee which he would chair.
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on A.B. 158.
ASSEMBLY BILL 158: Limits use of money by district for control of floods for certain off-site improvements.
Assemblyman James W. McGaughey introduced himself to members of the committee. He explained this bill had been drafted as a result of an interim study on transportation.
Assemblyman McGaughey testified the Clark County Regional Flood Control District had been legislatively created in 1985 and, subsequently, voted on by the public in 1986. He commented the public agreed to increase the sales tax by one quarter of a cent with the understanding that flood control funding would only be spent on flood control projects.
Assemblyman McGaughey said problems have arisen, in the City of Las Vegas, dealing with disagreements over using flood control monies for unrelated projects (i.e., the Oakey Detention Basin). He explained there was an effort to have a portion of this $7 million project paid for with flood control monies. It was finally decided that the streets, curb & gutter, sidewalk and lighting would be paid for by the public works department.
Assemblyman McGaughey testified that, recently, another problem has arisen regarding the Las Vegas Wash project. He pointed out this project followed Washington Avenue from North Las Vegas Boulevard to Eastern Avenue. He continued by saying, within the last 2 months, the City of Las Vegas had an agenda item on the Clark County Regional Flood Control District board agenda requiring the flood control district to install left-turn lanes and signals on Washington Avenue.
Assemblyman McGaughey drew attention to amended language contained in section 3, subsection 2 of A.B. 158 which read:
2. The board shall not provide for the construction, operation, maintenance, extension or repair of a sidewalk, street lights, curb, gutter, street or highway unless it is an essential part of a project.
Assemblyman McGaughey explained the flood control district should only be responsible for the replacement of flood control facilities if existing structures were determined to be inadequate.
Assemblyman McGaughey then drew attention to amended language contained in the last sentence of section 4, subsection 3 of A.B. 158 which read:
... The master plan must minimize or avoid the need for the construction, operation, maintenance, extension or repair of sidewalks, street lights, curbs, gutters, streets and highways.
Assemblyman McGaughey explained this amended language had been included to minimize the need for public works improvements adjacent to new detention basins. He said the premise for this amendment was based upon the preservation of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District's commitment to the citizens who have paid into the flood control account.
Assemblyman McGaughey said the original master plan for the flood control district had a 40 year projected cost of $800 million. He continued by explaining the area's one quarter cent increase in sales tax was generating approximately $23 million annually. He objected to the expenditure of flood control funds toward public works projects.
Assemblyman McGaughey pointed out the Clark County Regional Flood Control District did not approve the Oakey Detention Basin public works request by the City of Las Vegas. He stressed the district also did not approve the city's request to utilize flood control monies for the installation of left-turn lanes and lights on Washington Avenue. He recognized the fact that when board memberships change, it not unusual for board policy to also change. Assemblyman McGaughey testified the purpose of A.B. 158 was to incorporate present Clark County Regional Flood Control District policy into the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).
Senator Hickey asked at what point would the Regional Transpor-tation Commission (RTC) become involved when the flood control district was in the midst of developing a plan. Assemblyman McGaughey explained when public works improvements are antici-pated, the RTC included these needs in their master plan and paid for the improvements.
Chairman Smith asked Assemblyman McGaughey if he could recall the actual wording of the ballot question which required a public vote to accept the one quarter of a cent increase in the area's sales tax. Assemblyman McGaughey replied by saying the ballot question presented to the public, in 1986 during the primary election, was very simply phrased. Essentially, it stated, "Do you agree to increase the sales tax by one quarter of a cent to fund the flood control district?" He commented that over 62 percent of the public voted in favor of funding the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.
Virginia Valentine, Chief Engineer and General Manager, Clark County Regional Flood Control District, introduced herself to members of the committee. In spite of the fact A.B. 158's intent was good, she opposed its passage.
On behalf of the board members (representing the Clark County Regional Flood Control District), Ms. Valentine's testimony was based upon the flood control district's flexibility in determining which projects will be financed with flood control funds. She explained, as a rule, the flood control district has not spent its funding on unrelated projects. She admitted she did recall one exception to this rule where the flood control district funded the installation of curb & gutter, pavement and sidewalk due to the fact the roadway itself was an integral part of a flood control spillway.
Senator Hickey asked Ms. Valentine what were the locations of the left-turn lanes along Washington Avenue that the City of Las Vegas was interested in having the Clark County Regional Flood Control District fund. Ms. Valentine said the city was requesting that every intersection with a traffic signal along the Washington Avenue flood channel have a left-turn lane and signal installed. Senator Hickey asked if the flood control district intended to install these turn lanes. As part of a flood control project, Ms. Valentine explained a predesign report had been submitted to the Clark County Regional Flood Control District requesting that these turn lanes be funded with monies from the flood control account. She explained the flood control board had denied this request based upon the fact this was an RTC road project, not a flood control project.
After considerable discussion, Chairman Smith interrupted by explaining he understood the difficult situation in which Ms. Valentine had been placed. He commented Ms. Valentine was in the unenviable position of working for board members who were elected. He assumed this was the reason for Ms. Valentine's hesitancy in answering some of the questions being posed to her by members of the committee.
Senator Hickey stated if Ms. Valentine was unable to answer questions on behalf of the flood control board, he suggested that members of the committee would be unable to make a judgement based upon her testimony. He continued by stating it was his understanding that the basis of her testimony centered on "who is going to pay for what." However, Senator Hickey explained he was still puzzled about exactly why Ms. Valentine was opposed to A.B. 158. Chairman Smith clarified this was exactly the point he was trying to make. He continued by saying he suspected Ms. Valentine was answering for herself and not necessarily for the flood control board.
Ms. Valentine thanked Chairman Smith for his observation and continued by explaining members of the flood control board had differing opinions on what kind of presentation she should make before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. She emphasized the board's final recommendation had not been a unanimous decision. Ms. Valentine stressed a majority of the members of the board have been strongly opposed to using flood control monies to pay for road improvements adjacent to flood control projects. However, other members of the board viewed the Clark County Regional Flood Control District to be a developer and to be responsible for funding full off-site improvements adjacent to flood control projects.
Senator Rhoads asked if he were correct in assuming that Ms. Valentine objected to passage of A.B. 158, because this would enable the state to dictate to the board which projects should be funded with monies from the flood control account. Ms. Valentine explained this was the exact sentiment expressed by the flood control board. Senator Rhoads inquired if Ms. Valentine had provided earlier testimony on this bill to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. Ms. Valentine replied she had provided testimony before that committee.
Senator James asked Ms. Valentine to provide the project location for which the flood control district had paid for the installation of curb & gutter, pavement and sidewalk. Ms. Valentine replied these improvements had been made adjacent to the Gowan Detention Basin. Senator James asked if the Clark County Regional Flood Control District intended to pay for improvements near the Oakey Detention Basin. Ms. Valentine explained the RTC has set aside funding for the express purpose of completing the sidewalk, curb & gutter, etc. in the general area of the Oakey Detention Basin. She explained this decision had been based on the contention that if the streets were that important, the RTC should place this project on its own priority list.
Ms. Valentine remarked it cost approximately $2 million to install two miles of roadway. Senator James admitted it would be unsightly to construct a detention basin and not improve the immediate area. However, he understood why the board would want to retain its flexibility in deciding whether or not flood control funds should be used to make road improvements. He remarked A.B. 158 could limit the board's ability to make decisions on a project-by-project basis. Ms. Valentine replied current statute allows the board to mitigate its impact to any community in which a detention basin is constructed. She pointed out, normally, a flood control detention basin does not generate a lot of traffic. However, she stressed it was extremely important to retain the board's flexibility in making a final decision based upon the circumstances of each particular project.
Senator Hickey asked what was the makeup of the board representing the Clark County Regional Flood Control District. Ms. Valentine replied by saying the board was made up of eight elected officials; two county commissioners, two City of Las Vegas councilmen, and one councilman each from Henderson, Boulder City, Mesquite and North Las Vegas.
Senator Adler inquired if the Clark County Regional Flood Control District had obtained a opinion from bond counsel as to whether or not the board's current practice conformed to the original bond issue. Ms. Valentine admitted a bond counsel's determination had not been requested. She continued by saying the flood control district had two methods of financing projects: 1) sales tax revenues; and 2) bond revenues. She said a specific list of projects had been associated with the sale of the bonds, but did not have a bond counsel opinion. Ms. Valentine explained the ballot question had specifically stated that revenue generated by the one quarter of a cent sales tax would be used to construct flood control projects included on the master plan. She concluded her statements by pointing out it is a matter of interpretation whether or not projects should include sidewalk, curb & gutter, lighting, etc.
Chairman Smith commended Ms. Valentine on the excellent job she had done to date. He applauded her efforts and recognized she had conducted herself in an exemplary manner by cooperating with local governments.
Assemblyman McGaughey said an opinion had been requested by the district attorney's office concerning the expenditure of flood control monies for unrelated projects. He explained the decision had been made that the Clark County Regional Flood Control District was restricted from spending flood control monies for unrelated projects. Assemblyman McGaughey stressed this was the exact reason why A.B. 158 should be passed into law. He testified this bill would settle the tug-of-war once and for all.
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Clark County, introduced himself to members of the committee. He testified Clark County did not object to passage of A.B. 158, but pointed out the county was already performing the functions set forth in the bill.
Senator Adler inquired if the amended language ("...unless it is an essential part of a project"), contained in section 3, subsection 2, should be the set standard. Mr. Pappageorge said this may be too extreme, but insisted he was not knowledgeable enough to give committee members a good answer to this question. He concluded his remarks by saying A.B. 158 would not change anything Clark County was already doing.
Senator Rhoads asked what purpose would the bill serve if Clark County was already performing in the recommended manner. Mr. Pappageorge pointed out Assemblyman McGaughey had already stated the policy set forth A.B. 158 would codify the change in statute. Senator Rhoads wondered why the state should tell a local board how to set its own policy. Mr. Pappageorge said the senator's question was very broad in nature, but replied Clark County shared the same viewpoint.
Marvin Leavitt, Special Assistant to the City Manager, City of Las Vegas, introduced himself to members of the committee. He apologized on behalf of Richard Geocke, Director, Department of Public Works, City of Las Vegas, and explained Mr. Geocke was ill and unable to attend the hearing.
Mr. Leavitt read a statement Mr. Geocke had prepared:
The City of Las Vegas is opposed to A.B. 158. We believe that the local board should retain the flexibility, discretion and authority to decide whether flood control funds should be used to fund landscaping and off-site improvements around detention basin sites.
In the City of Las Vegas, as per the Regional Flood Control Master Plan, two detention basins were located within residential areas (Gowan Detention Basin and the Oakey Detention Basin). In spite of extreme opposition on the part of the area residents these detention basins were constructed. To mitigate the impact of these detention basins in the residential neighborhoods, and to satisfy the concerns of the area citizens, we had to landscape the perimeter of the basin, construct off-site improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights and half-street pavement), construct a perimeter fence and install an early warning device.
Other detention basins have been constructed in remote locations without landscaping, off-site improvements, fencing, etc. Thus, this demonstrates that the local entity and the Flood Control District can and has been acting in a responsible manner by controlling the appropriate use of flood control district funds. The flood control district has, and should be able to continue to decide on a case-by-case basis, if land-scaping and off-sites should be funded.
Lastly, it is important to note that these detention basins are regional facilities providing regional flood protection. Consequently, the cost of miti-gating the impact of detention basins on a neighbor-hood should be borne by the regional entity (the Flood Control District) and not the local entity (a city).
Senator Hickey asked Mr. Leavitt if the City of Las Vegas had looked into the bond restrictions issue. Mr. Leavitt admitted he did not know if the city had reviewed this issue.
Senator Hickey pointed out this is not the first time the state has dictated restrictions to city and county governments. He continued by saying he knew of areas in Las Vegas which were going to require large amounts of money for the construction of flood control systems. He continued by pointing out Chairman Smith's district (City of Henderson) was one of these areas, and the City of Laughlin was another.
Senator Hickey did not argue the point that flood control funding was limited. However, he voiced his reluctance in allowing the flood control district to continue to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. He stressed he was also very concerned about the bond restriction issue.
Mr. Leavitt explained he had recently discussed this issue with Mr. Geocke, who had indicated the RTC had more than enough funding for off-site improvements. Due to this fact, Mr. Leavitt remarked A.B. 158 would not have a very practical effect on the situation. He stressed Mr. Geocke's concern centered on the principle of who should be empowered to make these kinds of decisions. More specifically, the current situation gives the district some flexibility, but passage of A.B. 158 would amend NRS with fairly rigid language.
Chairman Smith closed the hearing on A.B. 158 and referred it to a future work session of the entire Senate Committee on Natural Resources. He continued by pointing out the function of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District was included in current state law, and A.B. 158 was merely attempting to amend a few sections of existing statute. Chairman Smith explained the intent of the bill was to set forth what could and could not be done in order to be more accountable to the voters.
Chairman Smith drew attention to the fact a joint hearing of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining had been scheduled on Wednesday, April 21, 1993. He explained this hearing would take place in Room 119 of the Legislative Building and would also be teleconferenced in Las Vegas at the Cashman Field Center. Chairman Smith mentioned this hearing would consist of a presentation by guest speakers representing the National Conference of State Legislatures concerning the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) 40-898: Makes changes to bring Nevada into compliance with Federal Clean Air Act.
Chairman Smith called for committee introduction of BDR 40-898.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 40-898.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
There being no further business before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Chairman Smith adjourned the hearing at 9:16 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rayanne J. Francis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Natural Resources
March 31, 1993
Page 1