The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, March 22, 1999. Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman

Mrs. Gene Segerblom, Vice Chairman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. John Jay Lee

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After roll was called, the Chairman opened the hearing on A.B. 439.

Wayne Perock, Administrator of Nevada Division of State Parks (NDSP) was the first to testify in support of the proposed legislation. He explained the purpose of the measure was to change age and residency requirements for senior citizens. Presently, NDSP granted free use of Nevada state parks to Nevada residents 60 years of age or older. The intent of A.B. 439 was to align age and residency requirements of NDSP with the division’s sister agency, Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW), which provided Nevada residents of 5-years or more who were 65 years of age or older, reduced rate hunting and fishing licenses. Mr. Perock provided the committee with NDSP handouts "Financial Impact of Free Services" (Exhibit C) and "Survey of 1995 Senior Permit Holders" (Exhibit D).

Mr. Perock pointed out the legislation would allow NDSP to charge an administrative fee in issuing permits to senior citizens on an annual basis in an effort to eliminate financial impacts caused by recent arrivals to the state. Senior citizen permits would be issued annually to seniors for their vehicles and multiple permits for seniors with multiple vehicles could be issued for a slight administrative fee. According to an NDSP survey conducted in 1996 a vast majority of senior citizens believed they should pay a reduced fee for using state parks rather than being granted free use. The survey also showed during peak camping season an average of 80 percent of Nevada’s state park camping facilities were occupied by senior citizen permit holders, which displaced large numbers of young families. Mr. Perock’s testimony was included in its entirety in Exhibit E.

Chairman de Braga asked Mr. Perock if the survey statistics he quoted were current and consistent. Mr. Perock responded in the affirmative.

Ms. Parnell asked if Nevada Beach Campground was under NDSP authority. Mr. Perock said that campground was under the jurisdiction of the United States Forest Service.

Mr. Claborn asked if the two agencies wanted to attain continuity in senior citizen permit requirements why not lower the NDOW age requirement to match NDSP instead of raising NDSP to match NDOW. Mr. Perock said when the Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 407 was enacted in the early 1970’s, the population of Nevada was approximately 500,000. Since that time the state had experienced a dramatic growth in population. The proposed legislation was an effort to treat all residents fairly, young and old as well as long-time residents and new arrivals.

Mr. Mortenson asked how much taxpayer money did the state provide NDSP. Mr. Perock said that amount was approximately $9 million annually, which was a combination of general fund money, motor boat fuel money, and user fees. Mr. Mortenson said he did not object to requiring seniors to pay a reduced fee for using Nevada state parks. However, it was important for the state government to understand services should be provided to the citizens of Nevada for services provided by agencies that received tax money rather than charge additional fees. That was essentially an additional tax for the same service. He said it was his belief state parks should never charge fees for using them. Mr. Perock said there was a current trend in state park administration throughout the county to move away from dependence on general funds toward more of a dependence on user fees. It was more equitable to charge park users than tax all citizens including those who did not utilize state parks.

Mrs. Segerblom said she, as a senior citizen, used state parks regularly. She had no objection to NDSP imposing slight senior citizen user fees.

Mr. Lee said in 1996 baby boomers began to turn 50 years of age. He said fees collected from park users were an important revenue source, which could be used to improve the state’s park system. He asked how additional revenues collected from user fees would be distributed throughout the Nevada park system. Mr. Perock said part of the agency’s budget came from user fees. Once the established budget goal had been exceeded, any overage automatically went into a maintenance account to be used by NDSP to maintain and renovate the state park system. Mr. Lee said he hoped money allocated to the Nevada park system would be evenly dispersed throughout the state and used for parks such as Spring Mountain Ranch and Cave Rock State Park. Mr. Perock assured the assemblyman that would be the case.

Mr. Claborn said he disapproved of raising the age requirement for senior citizen permits. He said he expected age requirements to continue to rise.

Mr. Mortenson said he supported the Nevada state park system. However, he hoped someday soon the system would become self-supporting and would no longer require additional fees be collected from private citizens.

Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification regarding residency requirements for senior permits. Mr. Perock said senior citizens were very honest and forthright. Senior citizens would fill out an affidavit stating the facts regarding residency status. The requirement was 5-years residency in Nevada.

Chairman de Braga asked for clarification regarding the issuing of senior permits. Mr. Perock said the permits would be issued annually and would cost $10 each.

The Chairman welcomed the students and teachers of Winnemucca Junior High School who had entered the committee room.

Don Quilici, private citizen, was the next speaker to address A.B. 439. He said he was one of seven members of the State Advisory Committee on Natural Resources and a senior citizen. He said he was in support of the measure because it was fair that senior citizens pay a small amount for park use. It was also fair to require residency requirements. Non-seniors were paying user fees to provide and maintain park facilities. Mr. Quilici provided the committee with his written testimony (Exhibit F).

Mr. Neighbors asked how Division of State Parks intended to manage money collected from selling senior citizen camping permits. Mr. Perock explained all user fees collected were deposited in the general fund.

Neleesia Means, student from Winnemucca Junior High School, spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation. She objected to the practice of charging user fees for the use of state parks. She said she wanted all parks to be free. Her testimony was included in Exhibit G.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any additional questions or comments and there were none. She closed the hearing on A.B. 439 and opened the hearing on A.B. 440.

Mr. Perock of NDSP was the first to speak on behalf of the proposed legislation. He explained the measure was introduced by his agency and was intended to establish a fund for the maintenance, repair, and renovation of employee housing throughout Nevada state parks. Currently NDSP owned and maintained 43 employee-housing units. The division was responsible for maintenance of all facilities, which included grounds, buildings, rest rooms, and infrastructure, as well as housing facilities. Mr. Perock explained the additional revenues were needed to supplement the agency’s general fund budget. A minimum of $25 would be charged per pay period for each employee living in state park houses and would offset the maintenance cost of the units. Mr. Perock’s testimony was included in its entirety in Exhibit H.

Mr. Marvel said providing housing for state park workers was a good investment because it provided the state with a ready security force. He suggested more money be set aside for maintenance. He asked if it was necessary to charge workers for their housing when the agency considered how much workers contributed to the security of state parks. Mr. Perock said that had been considered; however, the charge to state workers living in state park housing was so minimal that it would not be cost prohibitive to the workers.

Mrs. Segerblom asked if all those who lived and worked in state parks were paid employees or if some were volunteers. Mr. Perock said some were volunteers but most were paid employees.

Mr. Carpenter asked how the agency would charge people who volunteered their services to state parks and if they, too, would have to pay for state park housing. Mr. Perock asked Bob Francke, Chief of Field Operations for NDSP, to respond to the question. Mr. Francke said very few volunteers lived in state parks, but the fee would apply to all residents who had a lease arrangement with NDSP. Mr. Carpenter said it might be difficult for the agency to get volunteers to pay for housing.

The Chairman said if volunteers were required to pay for housing, would paid employees be required to do more work for the agency. Mr. Perock said the incidents of volunteers working and living in state parks were so rare as to not require a realistic discussion of the matter. The housing was for permanent employees on lease arrangements with the park service, the majority of which were occupied year round.

Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, spoke in opposition to the measure. The problem with the measure, he said, was the fact employees had to live in state park housing as a condition of their employment. It was unfair to charge them any amount of money to live there. The employees provided a great number of services to the park by their presence and when they were hired it was with the understanding they did not have to pay rent. It was a violation of the original contract of employment to charge employees for rent, even at so minimal an amount. He said it would be fairer to charge only new employees rent and not make the measure retroactive to include older employees.

Chairman de Braga asked if housing was a great part of the benefits and compensation paid to state park workers. Mr. Gagnier said park housing was not a glamorous arrangement. For one thing, park workers had no privacy, nor did they have the opportunity to own their own homes. Workers were on call at all times and the housing was in need of repair. He agreed with Mr. Marvel that more money needed to be set aside for maintenance.

Bob Romer, Senior Employee Representative with State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), spoke in opposition to A.B. 440. He said he agreed with Mr. Marvel and Mr. Gagnier regarding state park housing facilities. He said it would be a far better idea to grandfather in rental fees in order to exempt employees who had worked for the park system prior to the legislation.

Mr. Bache asked if SNEA had a policy of collective bargaining, the issue could be easily negotiated. Mr. Gagnier responded in the affirmative.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any additional questions or comments and there were none. The hearing on A.B. 440 was closed and the hearing on A.B. 440 was opened.

Mr. Perock of NDSP stated the proposed legislation was introduced by his agency in order to establish a threshold limit for projects, which would not have to receive Interim Finance Committee (IFC) approval. The division consistently offered projects for consideration that reflected legislative intent. The proposed legislation would require only larger projects be submitted for IFC approval with a threshold amount of $25,000 recommended (Exhibit I).

Mr. Marvel asked why the proposed legislation went to Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining instead of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Perock said Legislative Counsel Bureau recommended the measure go to both committees for review.

Chairman de Braga said it was a policy issue and not a request for additional funding. It quantified the provision describing what constituted a need for IFC approval.

Ms. Parnell asked if the three pieces of legislation proposed by NDSP were interrelated so that the passage of one piece of legislation could possibly offset another. Mr. Perock agreed with the assemblywoman. It was possible one piece of legislation could offset the need for another.

The Chairman asked if there were additional questions and comments and there were none. The hearing was closed on A.B. 440 and opened on a work session on A.B. 173.

Linda Eissmann provided the committee with a handout describing the proposed legislation (Exhibit J) and a proposed amendment to the measure (Exhibit K). She explained an initial amendment was proposed by Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) that exempted household waste from the definition of hazardous waste. The revised language of the proposed amendment expanded those definitions.

Scott Craigie, representing CSMA, spoke in support of the proposed legislation and the proposed amendment. He explained the new language as defined in Exhibit K satisfied all concerned entities.

Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, said his organization approved of the proposed new language provided by Scott Craigie. He said the measure would receive no opposition from his organization.

Verne Rosse, Deputy Administrator of Division of Environmental Protection, said his agency reviewed the suggested changes as proposed in the amendment. NDEP approved of A.B. 173 in its new form.

Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification of the suggested new language as compared with the original measure. Mr. Rosse said the original measure was based on Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) standard recommendations, which had recently been lowered by that federal agency. The new legislation reflected those lower OSHA approved standards.

Mr. Hettrick asked if the new definition for pesticides under household waste required all pesticides be used in a restricted manner. Mr. Craigie responded the language of the proposed amendment considered aerosol pesticides used in the home were not restricted use. Pesticides used in large quantities in the agricultural industry were classified as being restricted use only. Mr. Hettrick said that was his point. He did not want to see households restricted from disposing of empty aerosol cans that had contained low amounts of pesticides.

The Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments on the proposed legislation and there were none. She called for a motion.

The Chairman asked Ms. Parnell to handle the measure on the floor of the assembly.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 173 and opened the hearing on a work session on A.B. 179.

Ms. Eissmann reviewed her research with the committee regarding the proposed legislation (Exhibit J). She explained the proposed legislation, sponsored by Mr. Mortenson pertained to the sale of highly flammable hazardous materials. The approval or acceptance of refrigerants by the United States Environmental Protection Agency was deleted from the new language as presented in the proposed amendment (Exhibit L).

Mr. Mortenson said the proposed new language for A.B. 173 had been thoroughly reviewed. He explained gasoline and other flammable substances were only used in systems designed specifically for flammable fluids and placed in the back of vehicles, out of harms way. Air conditioner condensers, in contrast, were placed in the front of vehicles, and could cause dire injury to occupants of a vehicle if punctured in a collision. The intent of the proposed legislation was to make air conditioning systems safer for the consumer. Mr. Mortenson showed members a video presentation to demonstrate his point.

Mr. Lee asked if his son had been injured in a similar situation as described in the video. Mr. Mortenson said his son was injured in a propane explosion, but it was not caused by an air conditioning system in a vehicle. He said his son’s injuries did motivate the legislation.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any further questions or comments and there were none. She called for a motion.

Mr. Marvel and Mr. Hettrick went on record as in opposition to the proposed legislation.

Chairman de Braga asked if there was any additional business before the committee and Mr. Neighbors said A.B. 206 needed to be addressed.

Mr. Neighbors said he was the sponsor of the proposed legislation. He asked that A.B. 206 be indefinitely postponed. Chairman de Braga and the committee agreed to indefinitely postpone A.B. 206 as per Mr. Neighbors’ request.

Chairman de Braga asked if there was any additional business before the committee and there was none. The hearing was adjourned at 3 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: