The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 1:45 p.m., on Friday, May 7, 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:

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33

Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Carson City Assembly District No. 40

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Amelie Welden, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33, testified A.B. 604 would authorize the creation of road-maintenance districts. He explained the bill is necessary because Elko County contains some rural subdivisions where the county has accepted roads for public access, but has declined to perform maintenance on them due to a lack of sufficient funding, equipment and manpower. Assemblyman Carpenter indicated residents of such rural subdivisions want a mechanism whereby they can "go to the county and ask that they put a tax on themselves" for road maintenance.

Assemblyman Carpenter asserted the method proposed in A.B. 604 would be preferable to improvement districts, because it is simpler. He pointed out the bill would not apply to Washoe County or Clark County.

Assemblyman Carpenter requested an amendment to A.B. 604. He noted subsection 1, section 13, of the bill would provide that the interest in the special road-maintenance account would stay within that account. However, he mentioned subsection 2 of that section indicates the interest would be credited to the county’s General Fund. Assemblyman Carpenter asserted the county commissioners and others would like the interest to stay within the special account. He proposed to amend A.B. 604 by deleting the second sentence of subsection 2, section 13, of the bill. He indicated Legislative Counsel suggested this change as a means to address his aforementioned concerns.

Chairman O’Connell asked if other portions of A.B. 604 address the interest earned in the special account. Assemblyman Carpenter answered he does not think so. Chairman O’Connell asked if Assemblyman Carpenter wants to expressly require that the interest stay in the account. He replied subsection 1 of section 13 accomplishes that intention. He mentioned if other portions of A.B. 604 refer to the account’s interest, he would like to make sure they reflect that the interest would stay in the account.

Senator Neal asked why A.B. 604 is necessary. Assemblyman Carpenter reiterated the bill is necessary because Elko County is not able to maintain some of its rural roads. He explained residents of rural subdivisions want a mechanism by which they can give their money to a "road-maintenance district," which would be operated by the people within the appropriate subdivision. Assemblyman Carpenter stated Milton F. Grisham, Planning Commissioner, Elko County Planning Commission, has been working on this issue and was "the prime leader" in getting A.B. 604 drafted.

Mr. Grisham testified, "Living in one of these subdivisions, it has behooved 1 or 2 people out of maybe 50 or 100 to maintain what part of the road they can, and it isn’t [is not] fairly apportioned among the entire inhabitants of these subdivisions." He expressed local-improvement districts (LIDs) and general-improvement districts (GIDs) address only improvements, not maintenance. Mr. Grisham stated an LID or a GID could be created to improve the rural roads in question, but there would then be no way to maintain them after a few years.

Mr. Grisham indicated the roads were "fine" when he moved into his subdivision in the late 1970s, but unanticipated maintenance problems arose after a few years, especially due to winter weather conditions. He asserted the Elko County Planning Commission makes sure new subdivisions provide for an association that will maintain roads. However, Mr. Grisham commented, older subdivisions have no way to maintain their roads without the maintenance agreements that would be allowed under A.B. 604. He concluded, "This makes it spread out for all of the people in the district."

Senator Neal pointed out 66 2/3 percent of the property owners in a potential district must sign a petition in order for the county commission to consider creating a road-maintenance district there. He further noted the county commission would not create a district if 51 percent of the property owners signed a petition in opposition after the initial hearing. Senator Neal asked why those percentages differ.

Assemblyman Carpenter replied some people might change their minds after signing a petition for the creation of a road-maintenance district. He indicated those people would be able to prevent the creation of such a district if they could get 51 percent of the affected property owners to agree. He explained, "I think that we need that kind of a mechanism in there to enable those people to not have that district if they don’t [do not] want to." Assemblyman Carpenter expressed the initial 66 2/3-percent figure would ensure that a "super-majority" of property owners support consideration of a road-maintenance district.

Mr. Grisham added A.B. 604 originally required that an initial petition for the creation of a road-maintenance district would have to be signed by only 51 percent of property owners. He maintained a small percentage of those property owners might change their minds after the necessary fees are assessed. He emphasized only the landowners within the road-maintenance district would be charged such fees or taxes, which would be collected by the county. Mr. Grisham contended the current 51-percent figure required to oppose the creation of a district would provide for a "majority, but not a super-majority." He asserted this figure would make the process fair for everyone involved.

Senator Neal asked how much time the county commission has to act after it holds the initial hearing on creating a road-maintenance district. He pointed out paragraph (a), subsection 5, section 7, of A.B. 604 would provide that a property owner could submit an application for a hardship determination at least 90 days before the due date of an assessment.

Assemblyman Carpenter responded subsection 4 of section 7 of the bill addresses the time frame in which the county commission must create a road-maintenance district after the initial hearing on the issue. He noted if commissioners decide to create such a district, they must adopt a resolution to that effect at their next regularly scheduled meeting after the initial hearing.

Senator Neal asked how often the Elko County commission meets. Assemblyman Carpenter replied the commission meets twice a month.

Senator Care stated:

Cash A. Minor, Chief Financial Officer, Fiscal Affairs, Elko County, replied, "The way I read this is the owner is the one that gets the vote. The vote does not go to the parcel of the ground." Mr. Minor submitted a letter regarding A.B. 604 (Exhibit C).

Senator Care asked if A.B. 604 would set forth a minimum size for a road-maintenance district. Mr. Minor answered he does not believe so.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 604 and opened the hearing on A.B. 236.

Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Carson City and Douglas counties Assembly District No. 39, asserted the first page and the first paragraph on the second page of A.B. 236 are "basically whereases" which explain the reasons behind the bill. He continued the main purpose of the bill is reflected in subsection 4, section 1, of A.B. 236, which reads, "Douglas County and other public and private entities in the Lake Tahoe Basin desire to own, operate and maintain a coordinated transit system through the creation and operation of a nonprofit organization."

Assemblyman Hettrick pointed out subsection 1, section 2, of A.B. 236 would allow Douglas County to "enter into contracts and agreements with public and private entities for the purposes of creating, operating and dissolving a nonprofit organization to own, operate and maintain a coordinated transit system in the Lake Tahoe Basin." He indicated subsection 2, section 2, of the bill would provide that Douglas County would not be subject to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) chapter 332 for the purposes of the relevant section only. Assemblyman Hettrick emphasized, "It’s [It is] limited to nothing but this specific coordinated transit system."

Senator Titus asked for some background information on A.B. 236.

Dan Holler, County Manager, Douglas County, explained the county has tried over the past few years to put together an integrated transportation system with the City of South Lake Tahoe, Eldorado County, several casinos, and Heavenly Ski Resort. Mr. Holler contended a coordinated system would "move a lot of people a lot more effectively." He added such a system would reduce car traffic on Highway 50 and would impact air and water pollution at Lake Tahoe.

Mr. Holler indicated Douglas County encountered a problem because it does not currently have the statutory authority to enter into a cooperative agreement with other public and private entities. He stated A.B. 236 would enable the county to do so, and he concluded the proposed transit system would be "great" because it would allow public and private entities to work together. He mentioned all participating entities would contribute vehicles and cash to the system.

In response to a question from Senator Titus, Mr. Holler clarified the system would involve minivan-sized buses.

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Douglas County, indicated A.B. 236, in its original form, would have allowed local governments to join and help establish nonprofit organizations statewide. She explained labor representatives had raised concern regarding the issue, so the bill was amended to make A.B. 236 specific to Douglas County and to the proposed transit system. She mentioned Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO, concurred with the amended version of A.B. 236. Ms. Walker commented the challenge from labor representatives was the only opposition to the original bill when it was heard in the Assembly.

Senator Neal asked why labor representatives objected to the original version of A.B. 236. Ms. Walker expressed labor representatives realized the need for a public-private partnership in this instance and did not object to what the bill tried to accomplish. She mentioned 11 public and private organizations would be involved in the transit system, and a public-private partnership offers the only means to implement the system. Ms. Walker asserted labor representatives objected to the original bill because they were concerned that if the bill applied statewide, local governments would use nonprofit organizations to provide services that should be provided by the local governments themselves. She explained the labor representatives believed this practice could eliminate government jobs, and she emphasized that was not the intent of A.B. 236. Ms. Walker reiterated labor representatives and proponents of the bill concurred on the amended version of A.B. 236.

Senator Neal asked if the Lake Tahoe Basin, as referenced in A.B. 236, includes Incline Village. Mr. Holler answered the Lake Tahoe Basin currently does not include Incline Village, but the area could be expanded if Incline Village wanted to participate. He clarified the proposed transit system is currently a south-shore project which ends at the county line between Douglas and Carson City.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 236 and opened the hearing on A.B. 270.

Assemblywoman Bonnie L. Parnell, Carson City Assembly District No. 40, testified in support of A.B. 270. She maintained the bill would increase citizen participation on Carson City’s Regional Transportation Commission (RTC).

Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City, stated A.B. 270 would expand Carson City’s RTC from three to five members. He expressed a community the size of Carson City faces various challenges and issues with a three-member RTC that includes two representatives from the Board of Supervisors and one representative of the general public. Mr. Masayko noted Carson City is a consolidated municipality; thus, other elected local-government officials cannot serve on Carson City’s RTC as they do on the RTCs of other governmental entities.

Mr. Masayko pointed out A.B. 270 would add two citizens-at-large to the Carson City RTC. He indicated citizens of the city have demonstrated their interest in and willingness to become involved with local-government boards, commissions and committees. He asserted over 200 citizens are involved in Carson City’s 37 or 38 advisory and statutory committees.

Mr. Masayko contended the addition of two citizens to Carson City’s RTC would provide that commission and the Board of Supervisors with further citizen perspectives on issues like streets, highways, transit, and other modes of transportation. He maintained the suggested RTC composition would be unique and would "serve Carson City well." He added the 1998 and 1999 members of the Carson City Board of Supervisors held two public hearings on the issue and heard no opposition to the proposed change to the RTC. Mr. Masayko indicated the 1998 and 1999 Boards of Supervisors both unanimously approved the approach outlined in A.B. 270.

Mr. Masayko continued the Board of Supervisors is "keenly aware" of the necessity to assure checks and balances and to ensure the accountability of the RTC. He stated in addition to other items which are provided for in statute, A.B. 270 would provide that all appointments to the RTC be made by the Board of Supervisors for a 2-year term. Mr. Masayko noted A.B. 270 would also require that a Board-of-Supervisors member must serve as chairman of the Carson City RTC. He pointed out the bill also proposes staggered appointments, like those suggested by the RTC of Washoe County.

Mr. Masayko contended Carson City’s RTC will see "significantly expanded issues and duties" when Carson City becomes a metropolitan planning organization, or a formal RTC, after the 2000 census. He concluded, "We believe that this process serves Carson City and its citizens and the regional transportation commission makeup very well."

Jon Plank, Board of Supervisors, Carson City, indicated he currently serves as chairman of the Carson City RTC. Mr. Plank reiterated the city’s RTC currently consists of one citizen and two members of the Board of Supervisors. He asserted Carson City has some unique transportation issues because it is "the transit area between growing surrounding counties." Mr. Plank emphasized the Carson City Board of Supervisors relies heavily on citizen input, and he maintained Carson City would be better served if the Carson City RTC had two additional citizen-at-large members.

Mr. Plank added A.B. 270 addresses the issue of selecting a chairman, an issue which is not addressed in existing statutes. He expressed the lack of provisions for selecting a chairman has "created a … baffling issue" which would be clarified by A.B. 270.

Assemblywoman Parnell noted A.B. 270 was passed unanimously by the Assembly.

Senator Neal asked if selecting a chairman is the main problem facing the Carson City RTC. Mr. Plank answered no and explained the main reason the city’s RTC supports A.B. 270 is because the commission would like more citizen input.

Senator Care pointed out A.B. 270 would make the majority of Carson City RTC members nonelected officials. He asked if there was discussion on that issue, and he stated he does not know of any prohibition against such representation. He contended, "It seems to me, usually when these things come up, at least down south, we like to have a majority of the people elected."

Mr. Masayko responded Senator Care’s concerns were considered, and the bill was carefully drafted to ensure as much Board-of-Supervisor participation and accountability as possible. Mr. Masayko commented the Carson City RTC is not authorized to spend funds without approval from the governing body. He summarized the RTC sets priorities, takes citizen input, and makes decisions regarding the "day-to-day nuts-and-bolts operations" of the commission. Mr. Masayko explained Carson City has only one "layer" or "level" of local government. He continued if Carson City wants to eliminate the inherent problems of a three-member RTC, it has no choice but to add citizen members. He asserted adding a member of the Board of Supervisors to the Carson City RTC would not be possible because three members of the board represent a quorum. Mr. Masayko concluded:

Larry M. Osborne, Lobbyist, Carson City Area Chamber of Commerce, offered the chamber’s support for A.B. 270. He stated the chamber often appears before the Carson City RTC, and he expects those occasions to continue or increase as more traffic and transportation issues arise. Mr. Osborne indicated the chamber has consistently supported broadening citizen participation in and representation on the Carson City RTC. He added the chamber has always encouraged citizens to apply for membership on the RTC, and the chamber will continue to do so in the future so that the commission will include an even greater level of citizen input and technical expertise.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 270 and opened the hearing on A.B. 459.

Mr. Holler stated A.B. 459 contains "cleanup" language. He noted the bill would also expand authority to allow for a transportation district in the Lake Tahoe area. He recalled a 1-percent room tax was previously authorized for transit purposes in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Mr. Holler expressed one of the challenges with a Lake Tahoe transit system involves parking. He asserted, "As ‘transit’ was defined within the previous bill, it does not allow … funding for off-street parking." He indicated A.B. 459 would allow the aforementioned room-tax funds to be used for that purpose. Mr. Holler emphasized off-street parking would provide a place for people to leave their vehicles when they use the public-transit system.

Mr. Holler continued A.B. 459 also addresses ways to make the area more "walkable," including the possibility of an overpass. He maintained enhancing pedestrians’ ability to walk in the "casino-core" area is especially important. He added public parking should be addressed so that people do not park in business parking lots. Mr. Holler contended public-parking areas would lessen negative impacts on businesses.

Mr. Holler pointed out subparagraph (2), paragraph (b), subsection 6, section 1, of A.B. 459 contains the primary emphasis of the bill. He explained the rest of the bill contains mostly cleanup language and clarifications.

Chairman O’Connell asked if A.B. 459 would apply only to Douglas County. Mr. Holler answered:

In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Holler stated the TOT fund currently has no bonded indebtedness and works on a "pay-as-you-go" basis.

Alfredo Alonso, Lobbyist, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, offered the alliance’s support for A.B. 459. He asserted the location of Lake Tahoe makes the area both attractive and difficult to access. Mr. Alonso emphasized helping Douglas County bring people to the Lake Tahoe area is important.

Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Alonso why he did not testify on A.B. 236. Mr. Alonso answered he had just arrived from another hearing when the committee heard that bill. He commented the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance supports A.B. 236, as well.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 459 and adjourned the meeting at 2:20 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Amelie Welden,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: