ASSEMBLY DAILY JOURNAL

NEVADA LEGISLATURE
Sixty-ninth Session, 1997
----------
ASSEMBLY DAILY JOURNAL

------------

THE FIFTEENTH DAY

------------

Carson City (Monday), February 3, 1997

Assembly called to order at 11:00 a.m.
Mr. Speaker presiding.
Roll called.
All present.
Prayer by the Chaplain, The Reverend Elaine Ludlum Morgan.
O God, the fountain of wisdom, whose will is good and gracious, and whose law is truth: we beseech Thee so to guide and bless our Assembly persons gathered in this session of the Legislature of the State of Nevada that they may enact such laws as shall please Thee, to the glory of Thy Name and the welfare of the people through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.

Assemblyman Perkins moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the Speaker and Chief Clerk be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.

MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES

Mr. Speaker appointed Assemblymen Lee and Ohrenschall to invite the Senate to meet in Joint Session with the Assembly to hear an address by United States Senator Richard H. Bryan.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

Mr. Speaker:
Your Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics, to which was referred Assembly Joint Resolution No. 13 of the 68^th Session, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.

Christina R. Giunchigliani,

Chairman

Mr. Speaker:
Your Committee on Labor and Management, to which was referred Assembly Bill No. 1, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.

Saundra Krenzer,

Chairman

MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES

Assemblywoman Krenzer moved that Assembly Bill No. 1 be re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

The Members of the Senate appeared before the bar of the Assembly.

Mr. Speaker invited the Members of the Senate to chairs in the Assembly.

IN JOINT SESSION

At 11:09 a.m.
President pro Tempore of the Senate presiding.

The Secretary of the Senate called the Senate roll.
All present.
The Chief Clerk of the Assembly called the Assembly roll.
All present.

The President pro Tempore of the Senate appointed a Committee on Escort consisting of Senator Schneider and Assemblywoman Koivisto to wait upon Senator Bryan and escort him to the Assembly Chamber.

The Committee on Escort in company with The Honorable Richard H. Bryan, United States Senator for Nevada appeared before the bar of the Assembly.

The Committee on Escort escorted the Senator to the rostrum.

The Speaker of the Assembly welcomed Senator Bryan and invited him to deliver his message.

Senator Bryan delivered his message as follows:

Message to the Legislature of Nevada
Sixty-Ninth Session, 1997

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Mr. President. This morning marks my ninth appearance before you to share my thoughts with you on the circumstances that surround and confront our great nation and our great state. Each legislative session has a personality and character of its own, and if the political pundits accurately record your sentiments, this will be a session in which growth and infrastructure will dominate much of the debate.
Riding in this morning from Reno, getting on into the Truckee Meadows and into Eagle Valley, I reflected about the changes that have occurred both in northern Nevada and in southern Nevada since that time on a snowy January morning I first became a part of the Nevada Legislature nearly three decades ago. The changes are profound. Then the state's population was less than a half a million. Today our state's population has grown by more than three-fold. That first legislative session that I served in, only two of your colleagues are still members of the respective chambers from that time, and by circumstance they both serve as presiding officers today, then Assemblyman Lawrence Jacobsen and Assemblyman Joe Dini.
I thought much about that as we met that first year in the old legislative building, upstairs, as the Nevada Legislature had met from the time of its own statehood, and then moving in 1971 into the then new chamber which you occupy today, and then this morning to come and see the magnificent job that's been done in terms of refurbishing this chamber, which I suppose now was an old chamber before it was refurbished. I must say that I have some uncertainty about this glass encasement that is behind you. I was a little curious about that, and I tried to reflect, Mr. President and Mr. Speaker, as to what your thoughts might have been. Then, as you know, as so many good thoughts occur to all of us, late last night it came to me. I thought of the episode that both your distinguished presiding officers will recall and I will share with you. It is the episode that Brent Armstrong, then of the Las Vegas Sun, immortalized in a column dealing with the Mesquite mosquito. Now, let me tell you whereof I think that this idea may have arisen. Like so many of the very difficult votes you all had to make, we had a few in 1969 as well. A call of the house had gone out, and all of us were duly summoned to the Assembly Chamber. It was a very difficult vote. Not one of us in that chamber looked forward to doing so, but when a colleague of ours who represented Mesquite, Nevada's name was called, a great furor erupted in the chamber. Leaping to his feet, he threw open the window and leaped out on the fire escape and exited the chamber. I thought to myself, could there be any correlation with that historical episode and this glass encasement that would make it so very difficult for all of you to leave during those very difficult moments?
Suffice it to say, that was then, and now is today with all of the difficulties that you face. The winter of 1846-1847 unleashed the full fury of a Sierra Nevada winter upon the hapless Donner party. Before the spring thaw came, 42 were dead. We observed this year the sesquicentennial of that great American tragedy, and we are reminded notwithstanding the changes that have occurred in our country and in our state, that winter still has the power to inflict enormous damage upon those of us who occupy the Truckee Meadows and other parts of our great state. Unlike the Donner party in 1846-1847, the response was immediate. The federal agencies, cooperating with state emergency disaster relief and local disaster relief, responded quickly, and I think a word of commendation ought to be extended to each of them: at the federal level, the response from FEMA--Nevada was the first state to be declared an emergency disaster, the first state to be visited by the director of FEMA, James Lee Witt, he came to Nevada; the response by other agencies at the federal level as well, the Corps of Engineers, who are engaged in some ongoing projects; the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Commerce; the Small Business Administration; and others just to name a few. At the state level, the response has been as responsive, coordinated-the kind of thing that people expect us in government to do when crises occur-the response was immediate and the coordination continues, and I applaud all who were involved at the federal, state, and local levels for helping to ease the tragedy that confronted so many of our fellow Nevadans. Would you join me in giving them a round of applause in absentia.
One of the challenges that you will face is the determination of how that match will be made. Most federal disaster relief provides for a 75-percent federal share, a 25-percent match for state and local governments. One of the responsibilities that you will have, to ease the burden that so many of our fellow Nevadans suffered, is to determine how you all, at the state level, will respond to that challenge. I do not believe that you will let any of us down. That pioneering spirit that was evidenced in the winter of 1846-1847 was very much a part of the response of all of those who were affected by this tragedy-neighbor helping neighbor in the great tradition of helping one another during very, very difficult times.
Let me shift the focus to the federal level, if I may, for a moment. Tomorrow as I return to the Senate Chamber in Washington, the debate will begin on a balanced budget amendment. Democratic administrations and Republican administrations, Democratic congresses and Republican congresses, have all proclaimed their devotion to a balanced budget. Democrats blame Republicans, Republicans blame Democrats, congresses blame presidents, and presidents blame congresses. Much like the road to hell having been paved with good intentions, so too is the path to a balanced budget. In 59 of the last 67 years, the Federal Government has spent more in each of those years than it has taken on in income. It is a situation that cannot long sustain itself. Today we pay $350 billion annually on just the interest payment alone on that national debt. That is the second largest expenditure for the Federal Government, and the rate of growth has been exponential. In 20 years, in terms of a percentage of the federal budget devoted to the interest payment alone, it has grown from 7 percent to 15 percent. This constitutional amendment, which is bipartisan, will require a two-thirds vote to meet the constitutional test of passing in both the Senate and in the House. In the last session we fell one vote short. It will be a close vote again. Some have raised the concern about Social Security, and it is a legitimate concern. Democratic and Republican administrations and congresses have wrongfully used the surplus generated each year by the Social Security contributions to help to finance the ongoing expenditures of government. That is wrong. If a trust fund were similarly invaded at the state level, you know the consequences that would attach to each of you. So my first preference is to exclude Social Security from the balanced budget amendment. Realistically, it is unlikely that we will be able to do so. As a result, the only vote that we are going to have that has an opportunity of becoming law is the vote on a constitutional amendment that does not specifically exclude Social Security. But my friends, presidents of both parties, in the budgets that they have submitted to this Congress, and no differently this year, will continue to use the Social Security surplus, to help to finance the operations of the Federal Government, so defeating a constitutional amendment does nothing to enhance or protect Social Security.
For 15 years Nevada has faced the nuclear stigma, an attempt by unenlightened individuals to put a nuclear brand upon us here in Nevada. I have been part of that struggle, as have each of you, over that intervening period of time. We are at a crossroads in this session of the Congress, much as we were in the last session. The focus for much of that 15 years has been an attempt to locate a permanent high level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. Even the utilities, who are the driving force behind this policy, have given up hope that the permanent repository will ever be enacted into law. For us in Nevada, this issue is all about public health and safety. In a recent poll, 74 percent of Nevadans expressed their strong opposition to this ill-conceived proposal to make Nevada the home for nuclear waste across America. I'm pleased that it has always enjoyed bipartisan support. The late Governor Grant Sawyer headed up our commission on nuclear projects; Brian McKay continues that magnificent effort as our current chairman, and Frankie Sue del Papa, our attorney general, assures us that if they change the deck and shuffle the cards as they are about to do, Nevada will respond with an appropriate legal response. Let me lay it out for you. The proposal now is to place a so-called temporary dump at the Nevada test site. That was the issue that confronted us in the 104^th Congress, and we will begin that process, sad to say, on Wednesday, the fifth of this month, in the energy committee. By so doing, we would do several things in terms of public policy. Every environmental law enacted since the Nixon administration, with bipartisan support-clean air, clean water-and there are at least a hundred, would be superseded and effectively repealed if they were successful with the temporary nuclear waste bill that's currently before the Congress. A standard of radioactive emissions of 100 millirem would be written into the law. Lest you are not familiar with the local millirem count, suffice it to tell you that the safe drinking water standard is four millirems. Twenty-five times the standard for safe drinking water would be imposed upon us in Nevada. Cleverly crafted into this legislative proposal is a financial bailout where the nuclear industry will in effect respond by avoiding its own financial responsibilities and asking the American taxpayers to pay for this program over the decades. We are all opposed, your congressional delegation in both the House and the Senate, but it will be a tough battle. In order to prevail we will need 34 votes in the Senate to sustain a presidential veto. In the last session of the Congress, President Clinton did more for us in Nevada in this fight than any of his predecessors, Democratic or Republican, by vowing that if such a bill reaches his desk, he will exercise a veto, and he has pledged to do that again in this Congress, and we are going to need that. This "mobile Chernobyl bill," as I have characterized it, moves on through the legislative process and will require us to get 34 votes. Senator Reid and I are about that undertaking over the past several weeks, and we believe that we can prevail. But the focus of attention is not Yucca Mountain; it is a temporary nuclear waste dump, which for the nuclear utilities is the holy grail of their existence.
Let me talk about a couple of other issues which also are very much in the news. The "religious far right" was the catalyst for an ill-conceived national gaming commission. The President has not yet made all of the appointments to that commission. My concern, and I suspect it is a legislative bias that draws its origins from having served in this chamber, is that a federal commission so established frequently comes up with more federal regulation and the ever-necessitous approach for more revenue at the federal level. That would not be in the best interests of Nevadans. I do not speak here as an advocate of gaming spread to other states. That is a decision for them and them alone. My own preference, expressed many times, is I liked it better a couple of decades ago when we enjoyed a monopoly. But that is not the world in which we live, and we must recognize that that is the circumstance. I am fearful that the commission, with the approach that has been advocated by some, could impact the revenue structure of gaming. That has a profound impact upon all of you as you struggle to arrange the state's legislative priorities, as you try to make your own determinations as to how to fund each of the programs that you are confronted with. We will be watching this very carefully. I've been encouraged by some of the appointments. I believe that we are likely to get a very distinguished Nevadan appointed very shortly to that commission, at least we are told that is the case, and one other Nevadan has already been chosen for that commission. So hopefully its approach will be balanced, but it is a concern that every Nevadan ought to share because, as you know, 40 percent directly of the revenue sources that you have to deal with, in addition to other revenues that add perhaps as much as another 8 percent to the inflow that comes into the state coffers, is directly attributed to the gaming industry in our state.
Let me talk about a couple of other issues that have been in the news. Banking in Nevada has been consolidated and restructured. I serve as a member of the banking committee as you know. My concern in that consolidation and restructuring is that it is my sense that those of us in Nevada are more removed today than we were a decade ago from the decision making process and the decision making headquarters. I'm going to be monitoring those activities very, very carefully. My concern, as yours, is to make sure that this is in the best interests of Nevada. No longer are some of these decisions being made in Nevada; they are made out of state, and we live next to the 800-pound gorilla, California, with 32 million people. We do not want to be left behind in the decisions which our banking industry makes.
As you know, I recently have joined the finance committee. As such, I will have an opportunity to watch very carefully any proposal that comes out of the gaming commission that would impose additional taxes upon our principal industry. It is that committee that will deal with the complex issues of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I will say something more about that in a moment.
Welfare reform will be an issue that will be debated in this chamber throughout this legislative session. Let me say that I believe that the historic six-decade approach that we've taken to welfare was a system that served neither the American taxpayers nor the recipients of welfare effectively, and for that reason, the bipartisan Congress of the last 104^th session passed a comprehensive welfare reform proposal. That means that the responsibility now rests in this chamber to craft the response, to determine by and large what approaches--innovative and others--that you might want to take. Although I do hear some discussion that the process will be reopened in this session of the Congress, it is my view that any changes in the welfare reform legislation enacted by the 104^th Congress will be at the margins and not terribly significant.
In Governor Miller's State of the State Address to you, he appropriately focused on the importance of education. It is increasingly clear, I think to all of us, that opportunity for our young people, our children and our grandchildren, opportunity for the kinds of jobs that provide the kind of income levels that they can provide for themselves and their own families, are directly linked to the kind of education that they receive. I'm sad to report that Nevada ranks among the bottom of those who continue their education beyond the high school level. Only about 38 percent do so. We need to reverse that. You know better than I, as you have struggled with your new laptops, a technology that would have been as foreign to the 1969 Legislative Session that I first served in as some extraterrestrial concept that may be advanced in the decades ahead. Clearly the linkage between education, good jobs, and the ability to provide for your family is inextricably tied. I hope that you will favorably respond to the governor's proposals, and we at the federal level can be your partners as well. At least three programs will directly impact the ability of Nevada families to provide higher educational opportunities for their own families. One is an increase in the Pell grants. In the last two decades, federal assistance has come in the form of increasing the loan payments that are available, and that is significant. Today many Nevadans graduate from a graduate or professional school and owe $100,000 on their education. That is a tremendous financial burden for young people who are just about to begin their careers. Pell grants can help. Hope scholarships to make it possible for those who are unable to afford to go on to higher education get the financial help to do so, and indeed, tax credits and an ability to deduct some of those expenses will be helpful as well. The President has outlined these proposals, and I believe that they will enjoy bipartisan support as we continue our quest for educational excellence and recognize that our failure as a country, our failure as a state, to respond to that challenge, dooms Americans and Nevadans to not play the kind of role in the twenty-first century economy which will be increasingly highly technical and focused on those who have sophisticated educational backgrounds.
Two aspects of the growth and infrastructure debate that you are all very much a part of will take place at the federal level. One is the public lands bills which I authored and introduced in the last session of Congress that enjoys the support of the entire congressional delegation. It seeks to supplant a system which currently involves a very complicated land exchange process which often times takes local government out of the loop in terms of planning for growth and orderly development and strengthens the hand of local government to do so. Secondly, it provides that the revenues that are derived from the sale of these BLM lands that surround southern Nevada, much like its progenitor, the Santini-Burton bill did in the early 1980s, will be retained for the benefit of Nevadans at the federal level to acquire environmentally sensitive lands, not just in southern Nevada but all over. I must say that I am hopeful that we will be able to pick up one additional jewel at Lake Tahoe, and that is the Dreyfus property, as it is variously referred to, with more than a mile of shoreline, something that future generations of Nevadans would applaud, if we are able to do so, because it is a unique recreational opportunity for all Nevadans to enjoy. This legislation will be making its way through the legislative process, and I am most hopeful that it will be enacted into law.
The other thing that will be before us is a reauthorization of the formula by which we fund public transportation-highways and the infrastructure of mass transit. For decades, Nevada has always been in a position that we have collected more revenue from the Federal Highway Trust Fund than we as Nevadans pay into that trust fund in the form of gas taxes collected at the local level. If change is the hallmark of this session, so too is change a hallmark of this program. Last year, for the first time, Nevada received less money from the Federal Highway Trust Fund than it paid in. This is not an issue that divides us on a philosophical basis; it is not an issue that divides us as Democrats or Republicans; it is a bottom line issue as to how Nevadans will benefit from this formula. It is, as you might see, going to be a very contested issue but an extremely important one for our state. Those two issues will have a direct impact on the infrastructure funding that will be available to Nevada.
There is a project in which I have had a considerable interest for a period of time. Nevada enjoys an abundance of nature's energy, the sun. If we could successfully harness solar power and transform it into a medium by which we generate power, Nevada has an opportunity to be on the cutting edge of a technology that is rapidly advancing. To that end, we have created a nonprofit corporation that is working to bring private sector energy producers in an unsubsidized program to match that with markets to purchase solar power, and the Nevada test site is the location most likely to emerge as the source of that generating facility. It is ever so close to being there. We have had a commitment from some federal agencies to purchase power to make that possible. By the time that you next convene in regular session, it would be my hope that a solar production facility can be operational in Nevada that will do several things: the policy is right, it is nonpolluting, and it is an endless source of energy. From an economic diversification point of view for us in Nevada, it puts us on a cutting edge where we may become the solar capital of the world with all of the ancillary facilities necessary in terms of engineering, design, and construction to support that facility.
You have before you a proposal that will provide some help for 186,000 veterans in Nevada. I refer to the proposed veterans' home. I hope that you will enact that piece of legislation. We are prepared at the federal level. I've had a conversation as recently as last week with the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, Jesse Brown. If you will do your part, we will do ours, and I hope you respond favorably.
I have referred in the past to Lake Tahoe as nature's gift to Nevada. It is a troubled legacy. You are much aware of the fact that the relationship with our sister state has been frayed as a result of unilateral actions which they have taken. You know that the quality of our lake continues to decline year after year. It is a resource too precious for us to lose. It is part of the stewardship of our generation to protect it for future generations to enjoy. My colleague, Senator Reid, urged the establishment of a summit at Lake Tahoe, and I believe such a summit is necessary to bring federal, state, and local governments together and see if we might try some imaginative approaches to protect this most precious resource. If we fail to do so, the judgment of history will be harsh upon us. It is an irreplaceable treasure, and I know that you will do your best to make sure that the contributions to protect Lake Tahoe from the state legislative level continue to receive a top priority from this Chamber.
Finally, let me just say a word about the historic time in which we meet. The state legislative processes in Nevada and America have been rehabilitated as partners in that structure that we call government. It is in the process of being redefined. When there is a bipartisan sense, as you have known better than so many, that not all wisdom either originates or abides on the banks of the Potomac. In the state legislative chamber such as this, the laboratory of the great experiments in Nevada, your views--closer as they are to the American people--often contain the kind of wisdom that ought to be respected in crafting legislative policy. That redefinition is occurring; it is becoming more meaningful every day. With it, it brings challenge; challenge in terms of how you can respond because in some areas, welfare in particular, the Federal Government will be less of a partner than it has been in the past. In general, as we try to contain the federal deficit, which for four successive years has declined, a fact that did not occur since prior to the American Civil War, but in this year, the deficit begins to rise again on an annual basis. We are constricted, and appropriately the responsibilities and much of the policymaking will devolve upon you. I know that you will respond appropriately.
Let me conclude by an observation of the body politic. I am troubled, as each of you are, that Americans are participating less in the political process by which each of us in this chamber have been selected. The participation in the last general election was probably the lowest in American history. For those of us in Nevada, the participation was dreadful. I believe part of the estrangement between us, who are privileged to represent Nevadans, arises from the fact that there is a lack of confidence in the system by which all of us-all of us-are forced to compete. I refer to campaign finance reform. I think it is important for you at the state level. The governor and the secretary of state have crafted a bipartisan proposal that looks good to me--your judgment. We certainly must do our bit at the federal level. There is a rising tide of cynicism that affects all of us--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals, middle-of-the-road, and conservative alike, and we must reverse that erosion or democracy itself as we know it is threatened. That is another one of your challenges and another of our challenges at the federal level as we try to rework campaign finance reform into something that represents a more responsible, a more reasonable process in which we try to take the enormous sums of money that all of us are compelled to raise to survive in the political system as we know it.
I wish you well. Your burden is not an easy one. I commented that our first legislative session that I served in with your distinguished presiding officers concluded in 95 days. The snow had not yet disappeared from the Sierra Nevada. I have heard reports that you might be a bit longer this time. Whatever time it takes you, please be assured that having traced my own roots to the decisions that you all are being asked to make in a much more sophisticated and difficult way than we did three decades ago, I have great respect for your judgments, for the difficulties that you face, and I want to be your partner. If I can be of help, a hand is extended to each of you--Democrat, Republican, north, south, rural Nevadans--we are all Nevadans as we deal with our great state's problems.
Thank you so very much.

Senator Titus moved that the Senate and Assembly in Joint Session extend a vote of thanks to Senator Bryan for his informational and inspiring message.
Motion carried.

The Committee on Escort escorted the Senator to the bar of the Assembly.

Assemblyman Parks moved that the Joint Session be dissolved.
Motion carried.

Joint Session dissolved at 11:50 a.m.

ASSEMBLY IN SESSION

At 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker presiding.
Quorum present.

COMMUNICATIONS
Supreme Court of Nevada
Capitol Complex

Carson City, Nevada, January 30, 1997

The Honorable Joseph E. Dini, Jr., State of Nevada Assembly, Legislative Building, Room 1104A, Carson City, Nevada 89710
Dear Speaker Dini:
I would very much appreciate the opportunity to deliver a State of the Judiciary address in a joint session. In preliminary discussions, Wednesday, March 5^th was mentioned as a good date; however, I would be available when it is convenient for you.
Sincerely,
Miriam Shearing
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nevada

INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE

By the Committee on Labor and Management:
Assembly Bill No. 113--An Act relating to labor; transferring the duty to enforce claims for wages, commissions or other demands of a person financially unable to employ counsel from district attorneys to the attorney general; making the reporting of such claims by the labor commissioner discretionary rather than mandatory; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Assemblywoman Krenzer moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Labor and Management.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Labor and Management:
Assembly Bill No. 114--An Act relating to industrial insurance; eliminating the duty of the division of industrial relations of the department of business and industry to certify or authorize insurers to provide industrial insurance; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Assemblywoman Krenzer moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Labor and Management.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Labor and Management:
Assembly Bill No. 115--An Act relating to the division of industrial relations of the department of business and industry; revising the name required on the seal of the division; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Assemblywoman Krenzer moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Labor and Management.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Transportation:
Assembly Bill No. 116--An Act relating to peace officers; requiring the peace officers' standards and training committee to determine the amount and frequency of certain required training of peace officers; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Assemblywoman Chowning moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics:
Assembly Bill No. 117--An Act relating to elections; authorizing cities and counties to conduct special and recall elections by mail; making various changes relating to petitions, candidacy, election districts and ballots; prohibiting certain acts by an employee of a voter registration agency or a person who assists another in completing an application to register by mail to vote; prohibiting electioneering near a polling place; making various other changes; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Assembly Bill No. 118--An Act relating to facilities for residential care; expanding the limitation on local control over the location of housing for mentally retarded persons to include certain facilities for other persons with disabilities; requiring the governing body of a city or county to ensure that a disproportionate number of such facilities are not located in one neighborhood; requiring a person who provides care for not more than two persons in his home to obtain a license to operate a residential facility for groups under certain circumstances and changing the name of residential facilities for groups to facilities for residential care as a result of this requirement; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.