The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:15 p.m., on Monday, May 3, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Kathy A. Von Tobel, Clark County Assembly District No. 20

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Kathy A. Von Tobel, Clark County Assembly District No. 20, testified A.B. 295 would affect the water district in Virgin Valley while A.B. 425 would concern the Moapa Valley Water District.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel recognized both of the bills passed out of the Assembly unanimously. Chairman O’Connell questioned the reason the water districts desire to be exempt for the advertising requirements. Assemblywoman Von Tobel replied the exemption had been inadvertently left out of the rules concerning the Las Vegas Valley Water District upon its creation.

Warren B. Hardy II, Lobbyist, Moapa Valley Water District, and Virgin Valley Water District, further clarified the Virgin Valley and the Moapa Valley water districts were the only two in the state not exempt from chapter 338 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He pointed out this provision was overlooked when the charters for the water districts were created, noting A.B. 295 would clarify this exemption.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the advertising requirements have caused the water districts problems.

George N. Benesch, Lobbyist, Legal Counsel, Moapa Valley Water District, and Virgin Valley Water District, confirmed problems have been caused by the lack of exemption. He pointed out maintenance and repairs rarely cost the water districts under $25,000, though he noted the importance of keeping up with the needed water service. Recognizing the great expense involved, he commented it is not unusual to spend $600,000 to $800,000 to drill and equip a well. He explained the intent of the water districts was to respond prior to the need for the water during peak periods of time. This, he noted, is the instance in which advertising works against the districts.

Chairman O’Connell requested further explanation of the bill, commenting the boundaries are the focus of A.B. 295. Mr. Hardy concurred, indicating the bill contained "clean-up" language regarding the boundary between the Moapa Valley Water District and Virgin Valley Water District which had been changed in a previous session. He noted the language was a product of agreement by both districts to better serve the communities.

Prompted by the chairman, Mr. Hardy concurred Virgin Valley overlapped the Moapa Valley Water District’s property resulting in the necessity of the change. Mr. Benesch explained the referenced area is 15 miles from Mesquite, at the edge of the district. He stressed the change would make sense due to the proximity of the wells and the interstate interchange location. He restated the Virgin Valley Water District’s concurrence on the change.

Chairman O’Connell asked whether the public was in agreement on the issue and whether there would be an increase in rates. Mr. Hardy indicated there was public agreement and there would be compatible rates. He explained the change made in a previous session included the Bunkerville township in the Virgin Valley Water District which serviced the majority of its population. He noted the area referenced by A.B. 295 is currently uninhabited, though some development is being planned. He stated it would be easier for pending development in this area to deal with the Moapa Valley Water District.

With no further testimony on A.B. 295, the chairman closed the hearing. Next, the committee addressed A.B. 425.

Mr. Hardy explained A.B. 425 contained "clean-up language" to provisions governing the Moapa Valley Water District. He noted it would impact the boundary with the Las Vegas Valley Water District. Pointing out the charter requirement for reviewing the district and the board to ensure equal representation, he explained the difficulty of obtaining parity as there is a seven-member board to represent Logandale, Overton, Moapa Valley, and the township of Moapa. With a seven-member board there is a 200-voter discrepancy in the districts while a five-member board would create a 19-voter discrepancy. He stated the board felt it was better policy to be represented by five members due to the cost associated with additional membership as well.

Mr. Hardy drew attention to language deleted in sections 2 and 3, noting it is no longer necessary as it references the first elected board. The additional language in these sections, he explained, was also requested by the Legislative Counsel Bureau to reflect the current board. Summarizing the provisions, Mr. Hardy pointed out the bill would change the boundary, clarify the language, and modify the board to 5 members at their request.

Mr. Benesch expressed support for the 5-member board, noting it would be able to function adequately.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the date provided in section 7 of the bill would allow time in which to reduce the membership of the board. Mr. Hardy indicated it had not been a consideration and explained because the bill was not requested to go into effect upon passage and approval, the July 1, 1999, date has been added. He drew attention to section 6 which addresses the terms of the transition for reducing the board membership.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 425 and requested testimony be provided on A.B. 439.

Wayne R. Perock, Administrator, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, distributed to the committee a package containing a position statement, a survey of senior permit holders, a financial impact statement regarding free services, a fact sheet containing demographics of senior park use, and a photographic sample of senior vehicle use (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.).

Mr. Perock read from the position statement (Exhibit C), explaining the bill proposes to modify the existing program for the issuance of free senior permits. Currently, he indicated, Nevada seniors, over the age of 60, are eligible to obtain a permit for free access and use of all state parks and their associated services and facilities. He pointed out Nevada is the only state which provides this benefit. He explained a survey conducted to estimate the financial impact of free services to seniors, as set forth in Exhibit C, found the impact, in 1998, to be $809,718. As the user fees in Nevada are low in comparison to other western state park systems, the Division of State Parks proposes to amend the senior permit program to require a recipient to be 65 years of age and at least a 5-year Nevada resident. He recognized these requirements would match those for the Division of Wildlife’s issuance of senior hunting and fishing licenses.

Reading from the position statement (Exhibit C), Mr. Perock noted the increase in permits issued to seniors. He estimated the cost of providing free services to the state over the past 4 years to be $1.2 million. With the growth of the senior population, he stated, the use of the state parks has grown as well. He cited statistics regarding the senior population projections. He stated A.B. 439 will offer immediate relief from the fiscal impact while avoiding a more serious impact in future years.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the permits were issued annually. Mr. Perock indicated the permits are issued in a 3-year cycle, noting a permit obtained in the first year would be good for 3 years while the following year it would be good for 2 years. He indicated the request to issue the permits annually would assist in tracking seniors who sell their cars or who do not qualify for the permits.

Chairman O’Connell asked how the division would "catch" people between the ages of 60 and 65 that currently have permits. Mr. Perock explained these seniors who currently have permits would be allowed to keep them as the current permit is valid through the year 2000.

Continuing his summary of the prepared statement (Exhibit C), Mr. Perock indicated a random sampling of senior permit holders had been conducted, resulting in the photographic sample (Exhibit C). He stated paying park users are displaced because of limited facilities. He contended long-time residents who contributed tax money deserve the benefits the parks offer. At the time senior permits were instituted, he pointed out, Nevada’s population was small and the parks under used. Noting the bill contained an administrative fee to cover the cost of issuing the permits, Mr. Perock mentioned it may not be consistent with the Governor’s position on new taxes and fees. Therefore, he requested the committee amend the bill by deleting the reference to the administrative fee as set forth in the submitted memorandum (Exhibit D).

Senator O’Donnell questioned the amount of money that would be generated with the increased fees. Mr. Perock stated, "When you look at the statistics, it may not look like there is a lot of people between 60 and 65. I estimate that this $800,000 that I referenced; you are looking at between $20,000 and $25,000, on both sides of the ledger; not only the revenue, but what it cost us to provide services which is about $2 per person. It will be about 20 to 25 percent; that is about $160,000 to $200,000 …. It is really hard to say …" Prompted by Senator O’Donnell, Mr. Perock indicated this amount would be per year. He said 3 million people visit the parks per year while $1.4 million to $1.6 million is collected. He expressed concern about the displacement of families from the parks by the seniors because of time availability.

Senator O’Donnell questioned whether the statistical sample reflects what senior citizens want. Mr. Perock referenced question 10 of the survey of senior permit holders (Exhibit C), in which 57 percent of seniors said they would be willing to pay a reduced user fee to help defray operating and maintenance costs. Senator O’Donnell pointed out there were 414 respondents to the survey with 157 of them between the ages of 60 to 64. He questioned whether if out of the 3 million visitors to the parks on a yearly basis, 157 people would represent the senior citizen population. He feared a backlash from senior citizens in the case the committee’s decision happened to be based upon incomplete information. Mr. Perock stated over 1000 surveys were sent out with a 58.4 percent response rate.

Robert T. Francke, Chief of Operations and Maintenance, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, indicated the changes in legislation had the support of the Good Sam RV (recreational vehicle) group; a group typically comprised of retired people. He indicated there were concerns, originally, regarding the administrative fee, though once explained, the group had accepted the fee, as well. He suggested the legislation would assist in alleviating the existing problem without placing a burden on those affected.

Senator O’Donnell stated, "I just get really leery about, and no offense but, bureaucrats coming up here saying that people really don’t [do not] have a problem with raising their fees for recreational purposes. Something seems to be incongruent or an oxymoron here. … If we are raising $200,000, what kind of impact is that going to make on the parks system?" He questioned the effect the money generated would have.

Mr. Perock maintained much effort had gone into the findings, noting fees would not be raised. He stated the intent of the exemption was to benefit the seniors, but he contended the park system was not able to keep up with the population growth in terms of facilities. He expressed concern for young families who have no place to bring their children. A.B. 439, he pointed out, would make the parks’ statute consistent with other agencies. He recognized the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety uses 65 as the senior citizen age requirement, noting those under this age are not the greatest percentage of the current permit holders.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the intent was made to collect an actual price for covering costs. Mr. Perock concurred, noting after the bill had been passed by the Assembly, the Governor took a position on not raising fees and taxes, thus the request to amend out the administrative fee so as not to attract a veto. The biggest concern, he noted, is that the age and length of residency requirement is consistent with those of other state agencies. He stressed the exemption had been intended to reward people who have contributed to the State of Nevada.

Chairman O’Connell suggested adding "actual costs" in lieu of "reasonable fees" would not cause the Governor concern, and she recommended an inquiry be made. Mr. Perock noted the bill had originally required a $10 fee be set through administrative code. The current language, he said, covers the cost of printing the permit, the paperwork, and the staff time.

Senator Care proposed a situation in which a life-long Nevada resident turned 60 years old last year and received a permit which was renewed in May 1999. He pointed out the resident would be able to keep the permit, upon passage of the law, until May 2000. He questioned if the resident would be able to renew the permit again or whether the permit would not be available until he reached the age of 65. Mr. Perock confirmed the permits are good on an annual basis, noting the current permit held by the resident not meeting the 65 age requirement would be applicable through the expiration date though a new permit could not be obtained until the age requirement is met.

Donald Quilici, Representative of Conservation Interests, Advisory Board on Natural Resources, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, indicated he was testifying as a concerned citizen. He stated for the record:

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 439, and asked for testimony on A.B. 441.

Mr. Perock explained A.B. 441 would amend existing statute, noting the Division of State Parks has submitted as many as a dozen maintenance projects at one time for Interim Finance Committee (IFC) approval. He pointed out when the division exceeds their revenue goals, the funds go into a special account and for every project, they are required to obtain approval from the IFC. The bill was presented at the request of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) who had suggested a threshold be set to allow any project over $25,000 would require IFC approval. He stated the argument could be made that the submittal of most projects for informational purposes would give the committee adequate oversight to assure that the division’s fee-overage expenditures fully comply with legislative intent. He pointed out only larger projects would require prior approval under the measure, noting of the 33 projects submitted during 1997, only two exceeded $25,000; the proposed threshold.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the reason A.B. 439 and A.B. 441 had not been combined. Mr. Perock suggested the two issues were separate enough to constitute separate bill drafts. He noted A.B. 441 passed the Assembly without dissenting votes.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Senator Raggio indicated he did not object to the $25,000 ceiling.

With no further testimony, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 441. Next, she opened the hearing on A.B. 603.

Drennan A. Clark, Major General, The Adjutant General, Office of the Military; Chairman, Governor’s Commission on Workplace Safety and Community Protection, indicated he had served as the chairman of the Governor’s Commission on Workplace Safety and Community Protection which investigated events surrounding the explosion of Sierra Chemical Company in Washoe County on January 7, 1998. He noted 4 employees were killed in this incident, and 6 people were severely injured. As a result, he explained, the commission made 29 recommendations; 15 adopted by the Governor’s Executive Order, and 14 to be the subject of legislation.

General Clark testified A.B. 603 would require a facility which manufactures, uses, or stores explosives or highly hazardous materials to obtain a conditional use permit from the local government authority. The bill would require the planning authority to hold a public hearing on the application for the permit with notice provided to all within close proximity to the facility. He pointed out local governments would thereby be mandated to take the safety of surrounding areas into consideration. As mining is already well regulated, he stated, the measure would not apply to these operations. He indicated a public use permit would be necessary when such a facility was applying for a business license, a change order to the business license, or a building permit.

Senator Raggio questioned the nature of the testimony presented in the Assembly. He asked whether the proposal recognizes there may be legitimate businesses which have the necessity of dealing with explosives or hazardous materials. He inquired whether the measure aims to protect safety without prohibiting these businesses. General Clark concurred, noting a concern expressed was that an involved local government might not know what activities are being conducted at a particular site. He pointed out the use permit would give the local governments knowledge of site practices while allowing them to ensure safety of the surrounding community through regulation. He stressed the bill’s intent was not to limit businesses from conducting their activities.

Senator Raggio questioned the placement of the language which would indicate the measure does not apply to a mining operation. General Clark stated the exemption of mining was intended by the commission in recommending the measure. He pointed out the mining operations are currently well regulated by federal and state authorities.

Senator Raggio suggested the bill would apply to the mining industry unless otherwise stated in the bill. He read from section 1, subsection 1 of the bill stating, "No person may commence operation … where an explosive … will be used," unless the lengthy process is followed.

Chairman O’Connell indicated the mining exemption was listed in section 1, subsection 7 of the bill. Upon review, Senator Raggio indicated he was satisfied with the provision.

The chairman expressed concern regarding the current location of applicable plants, noting the counties and the cities have allowed residential development in these areas. She questioned whether this issue had been addressed by the commission on workplace safety. General Clark indicated the issue had been addressed. He noted the concern that plants would be put out of business, but indicated precautions could be taken so as not to allow a new housing development close to the property line of a explosives manufacturing company. At the Sierra Chemical Company plant, he pointed out, a cloud of toxic chemicals was created by the explosion which drifted over a nearby mobile home park; thus causing concern. He indicated most residents did not know the explosives manufacturing plant existed. The measure, he explained, would give property owners notification and, thereby, an opportunity to obtain information about practices in the surrounding area. If there are concerns, he contended, they can be raised at the public hearing prior to the use permit being granted.

Chairman O’Connell clarified only properties within 1,000 feet would be notified of the hearing. General Clark concurred.

Senator Porter questioned the type of information provided to a home buyer regarding explosive manufacturing plants in their area. He suggested the plant may be in the area first, and the subsequent property owners in the area were not notified. He recommended buyers be notified regarding such a plant exists in their neighborhood.

General Clark cited a similar situation in Arizona in which home buyers were not notified of the nearby U.S. Air Force base and its subsequent noise. He expressed the importance of one’s previous knowledge of surrounding nuisances prior to purchasing property.

Senator Porter recognized the Senate Committee on Judiciary heard a bill regarding the notification to home buyers that the property purchased was on water wells without water rights. The residents, he stated, protested this provision being established in law due to fear a new buyer would find out about the well and not purchase the property.

Senator O’Donnell clarified, "I just wanted to make absolutely sure we were not talking about ammunition in this bill for sports people." General Clark stated, "No. … We have tried to clean up the definition of explosives … through all of these bills so that handgun ammunition or hunting ammunition is not included."

Tom Stoneburner, Director, Alliance for Worker’s Rights, Northern Nevada Chapter, expressed support for the bill, stressing the measure is a continuation of the efforts of the Clark commission to protect the communities. He reminded the committee A.B. 603 is only one part of a "shield" for the community against incidences such as the occurrence at Sierra Chemical Company. Each part of the commission’s recommendations must be in place for effectiveness.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the bill would go "far enough" to notify neighborhoods already surrounding explosive manufacturing plants. Mr. Stoneburner pointed out in recent manufacturing plant explosions, the surrounding residents claimed to have no idea such facilities existed and would say they should have been notified of such activity. He noted the residents of Sparks would be surprised to find out there are dangerous chemicals and explosives stored, manufactured, or moved through their neighborhoods. He stated he did not know the answer, but expressed support for further consideration of the issue.

Senator Raggio indicated the provision affects only the commencement of operations. He questioned whether any measures deal with the existing operations, and requested the committee staff research this issue.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 603, and opened the hearing on A.B. 630.

Dan Holler, County Manager, Douglas County, testified A.B. 630 provides a clarification in the use of residential construction tax in parks for capital projects. He drew attention to section 1, subsection 8, paragraph (a) of the bill in which money from residential construction tax can be used towards areas intended for organized amateur sports. He explained the question had been raised regarding the use of the funds for soccer and Little League fields, pointing out the funds have been used across the state for this purpose. However, he noted, the Douglas County District Attorney’s Office advised the clarification be added in statute. He pointed out the county has worked with the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association and the Western Nevada Home Builders who concur with the usage of the funds for this purpose. Mr. Holler indicated A.B. 630 would allow the county to move forward with recreational projects to enhance the usage of the local parks.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the way in which the provision differed from the process of establishing a park with recreational facilities. Mr. Holler said the definition of facilities and neighborhood parks had left some question as to the inclusion of organized sports areas in the allowed capital improvement to parks with the residential construction tax funds.

Chairman O’Connell suggested this should be included in the natural use of a park. Mr. Holler indicated strict reading of the statute did not anticipate these types of facilities.

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Douglas County, explained some smaller builders have threatened Douglas County with lawsuits regarding the usage of the funds, resulting in the request for proper clarification in statute. She suggested legislation was a better avenue than the courts to resolve the issue as the funds are being used for the purpose provided in A.B. 630 throughout the state. She stated there had been no opposing testimony provided in the Assembly.

Chairman O’Connell clarified a facility would not be developed separately from a park. Ms. Walker concurred.

Scott Morgan, Director, Parks and Recreation, Douglas County, expressed his support for the bill.

With no further testimony before the committee, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 630. The chairman opened the work session and directed attention to the work session document (Exhibit E). The committee reviewed A.B. 445.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 445.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Next, the committee addressed A.B. 639.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 639.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Chairman O’Connell requested review of Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R) 12.

Chairman O’Connell directed the committee to consider the bills previously heard in the meeting for voting action. First, the committee addressed A.B. 295.

Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, indicated a technical amendment was needed regarding the effective dates on parallel sections in law.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 295.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Next, the committee reviewed A.B. 425.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 425.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Chairman O’Connell called attention to A.B. 439. The committee was reminded of the proposed amendment to remove the permit fee (Exhibit D). Chairman O’Connell suggested the provision be researched to find whether the words, "actual cost" could be substituted for "reasonable fees" with regard to issuing park permits, as discussed previously in the meeting.

Mr. Perock stated the original intent was to cover the costs incurred by the parks for issuing the permits. He reminded the committee the fee would be approximately $10 per permit.

Ms. Guinasso pointed out comparable language is presently in the bill as set forth in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (d). She noted this would allow the charging of an administrative fee in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of issuing the permits.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the reason for using the language "reasonable fees" in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (d) of the bill. Ms. Guinasso explained the first lines in paragraph (d) relate to entrance fees in general rather than the issuing of permits to seniors specifically.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the general entrance fee would be raised by the language. Senator Neal suggested placing a limit on "reasonable fees." Ms. Guinasso further explained the administrative fee referenced in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (d) of the bill applies to the use permits issued for seniors and would only cover costs. The "reasonable fees" referenced earlier in the same paragraph apply to anyone using the parks.

Mr. Perock explained actual cost is not charged on park fees in general. In a recent audit, he noted, the Nevada parks system was found to recover 17 percent of total costs with the average of the western states being 34 percent. Currently, he pointed out, Nevada recovers 24 percent of costs. He explained the fees are set through administrative code with an estimated value of provided services in relation to the marketplace. If the general fees were changed to actual costs, he contended, the fees for entering parks would be increased by 75 percent, which, he recognized, is not the parks division’s intent.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the location of the language recommended for removal. Mr. Perock stressed the intent would be to charge only the cost of issuing the senior permit. He indicated the provision of concern was found in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (d) of the bill, which reads, "… except that the division shall charge and collect an administrative fee for the issuance of the permit [senior use permit] in the amount sufficient to cover the costs of issuing the permit." He restated the intent would be to cover the staff and printing costs.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether Mr. Perock was concerned with the Governor’s potential action for the language in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (d), which reads, "shall impose and collect reasonable fees for entering, camping and boating in state parks and recreational areas." Mr. Perock stated these fees are currently being collected.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether it would be necessary to retain the aforementioned language. Mr. Perock stated he was uncertain as to the reason this language had been written into the bill. He restated the bill’s intent to amend the language regarding age and residency requirements.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Guinasso suggested the language in question had been added to clarify that fees are charged for the general public with the exemption of the senior-permit waivers.

Chairman O’Connell clarified the request to delete lines 15 through 17 in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (d) of A.B. 439. Mr. Perock drew attention the previously referenced memorandum (Exhibit D) which contained the requested amendment.

Senator Porter expressed displeasure with the intent of the bill.

Senator Titus questioned the reason for the amendment, stating previous testimony suggested the current language would be approved by the Governor as it only covered actual cost. She suggested the money would be necessary for this purpose.

Mr. Perock agreed regarding the necessity of the money. He called attention to the aforementioned survey (Exhibit C) in which over 50 percent of seniors polled had expressed their willingness to pay a fee for the senior use permit. He suggested the fee could be defended if the current language was left alone; though indicated, through the amendment, he had intended to make the committee aware of the potential problem. The bill’s main intent, he pointed out, is to change the age and residency requirements.

Senator Care expressed concern regarding senior citizens under 65 years of age who have taken advantage of the use permits and will be unable to apply again until they reach the newly set age threshold. He questioned whether there would be a way to "phase in" an increase in the age requirement. He requested his suggestion be proposed as an amendment.

Senator Raggio recommended making the provision effective in the year 2005. Senator Titus pointed out this recommendation would bring new people into the system, and she suggested grandfathering in seniors, under the 65 age requirement who currently hold permits, for the purpose of renewal. This language, she noted, would not allow anyone who is between 60 and 64 to receive free permits. Mr. Perock indicated he was uncertain as to whether such a provision could be added through administrative code.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 439.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Titus pointed out the state parks are in need of funding, noting as the senior population in Nevada grows, the money needed will increase as well. She pointed out all other requirements for seniors specify a 65 age threshold and contended the usage permits should be consistent with other state agency’s thresholds. She stressed the proposal would provide a source of revenue which should not be ignored.

Chairman O’Connell and Senator Titus stated they would support the bill in its current form.

Senator Raggio explained his reason for making the motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 439.

Senator Titus question whether the current requirement included a 5-year residency. She suggested the bill did not necessarily affect bona fide taxpayers in the State of Nevada.

Mr. Perock confirmed senior citizens move to Nevada, obtain a driver’s license, and upon finding out the benefit is available, apply for a permit. Currently, a person can qualify for a permit if they establish residency, regardless of the length of time which they have lived in the state.

Ms. Guinasso pointed out the bill becomes effective on January 1, 2000, though the permits are issued on a calendar year. She suggested it would be more appropriate to make the bill effective July 1, so as to "catch" those currently holding annual permits for grandfathering purposes.

Mr. Perock pointed out the existing permits will be effective through the calendar year 2000. He noted the Division of State Parks plan to honor all of these permits, and would issue new permits on January 1, 2000.

Senator Neal proposed a situation in which a senior citizen receives the permit for the first time in October 1999. Mr. Perock pointed out if this person qualifies for the permit, they would qualify for the grandfather clause as well.

Responding to a question asked by Senator O’Donnell, Mr. Perock indicated the permits are issued for 3 years and noted the division is currently in the second year of a 3-year cycle. Prompted by the senator, Mr. Perock noted a non-senior statewide annual permit is not offered.

Senator O’Donnell questioned whether the parks already have permits valid to the year 2000. Mr. Perock noted the division reprints 1 year at a time even if the cycle lasts for 3 years. Senator O’Donnell asked whether the current permit would be valid through the year 2002. Mr. Perock recognized the current permit will be valid until December 31, 2000, stating, "It is printed for 3 years. It reads, ‘1998 through the year 2000’ … but we issue that same permit for 3 years. So if you obtained it in the first year, you have got until 3 years …. The reason we were trying to get some control on those, keep some of our costs, so we could carry some of the permits over into the following year."

Senator O’Donnell indicated he would not support voting on the measure unless individuals received some time to adjust to the change. In accordance with the proposal, Mr. Perock noted the parks would begin issuing the new 1-year permit in January 2000. For this year, he explained, the current stickers will be grandfathered, and under the proposal recommended by Senator Care, current permit holders can obtain new permits regardless of age or residency.

Senator Raggio clarified the permit is distributed only at the park entrances. Mr. Perock concurred. Senator Raggio questioned the price of an annual permit for people not meeting the age and residency requirements set forth in A.B. 439. Mr. Perock stated, "If somebody purchased an annual permit; it depends on the park. The permits are usually for one park. They can be an entrance fee. They could be $30 to $35. If you go to a major park like [Lake] Tahoe, they are $150; well it would be $100 then if you are boating, using more services, it is a higher fee. So we have them graduated by the specific park."

Senator Raggio questioned the price of an annual permit at the most expensive park in Lake Tahoe.

Mr. Francke stated:

Senator Raggio stated:

Senator Porter questioned the reason annual permits are no longer offered at all parks. Mr. Francke stated as a result of their legislative audit, the state parks division had been directed to generate more revenues. The permit process was reviewed and compared to that in other states. He pointed out no other state offered a permit that was valid for all parks and services in that state. He stressed the annual permit was not cost-effective and the parks were losing money.

Senator Porter recognized every park has a different fee structure. Mr. Francke concurred, noting the parks are priced based on the demand of the facilities.

Senator Titus stated if a person buys an annual permit for Lake Tahoe, the cost is $75. The bill in its current form would provide a 5-year resident over the age of 65 to pay a $10 administrative fee for a permit to visit all of the parks at no cost. She pointed out a senior citizen would pay $10 for all parks for a year, while the general population would pay $75 for only one park for a year. She suggested the senior citizens would still receive a substantial savings.

Senator Raggio clarified the bill offers an annual permit for all areas in the state with a $10 administrative fee. Mr. Francke concurred the parks division had recommended a $10 administrative fee.

Senator O’Donnell questioned the amount of money generated in tourist dollars by offering the permits. Chairman O’Connell pointed out the bill would only affect residents.

*****

Ms. Guinasso clarified the amendment on A.B. 439. She indicated the action determined a transitory provision would be added to grandfather in those people who hold annual permits under the current law, regardless of age or residency requirements. Senator Care confirmed this summary to reflect his motion’s intent.

Next, the chairman drew the committee’s attention to A.B. 441 for voting action.

The committee reviewed A.B. 630.

Chairman O’Connell drew attention to A.B. 603, and summarized the testimony provided previously in the meeting. The chairman drew attention to the situation in Henderson in which the city council has allowed homes to be built close to long-standing companies which manufacture explosives. She stated with the two explosions recently in the state, the city council and the counties should be more aware than to allow the encroachment of development upon the existing plants. She pointed out this issue is not addressed in the bill.

Senator Titus agreed development around existing plants is a problem. She suggested a provision be added to require proper disclosure to surrounding residents.

Senator Raggio pointed out the bill would only affect the establishment of a new facility. Referring to the bill, the senator outlined the process which the new businesses and the planning commission would be required to follow. He questioned the intent of Senator Titus’s proposal.

Chairman O’Connell called attention to the question asked previously in the meeting regarding developments presently being built close to existing explosive manufacturing plants. The chairman recognized a suggestion for adding a provision to the bill which would affect new development.

Chairman O’Connell, at the request of Senator Raggio, requested committee counsel to research the bills generated from the commission on workplace safety, for further information. She recommended the committee hold the bill until further review could be conducted.

With no further matters before the committee, Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Angela Culbert,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: